Public Trust Doctrine

Please check out this short video we have been putting together on the Public Trust Doctrine.  Any constructive criticism is welcome.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6Iof7S--XI-bng3djJLakFhaVU/edit?pli=1

Thanks,

Glenn Hockett

Volunteer President, Gallatin Wildlife Association

P.O. Box 5317

Bozeman, MT 59717

(406) 586-1729

www.gallatinwildlifeassociation.org

Working to Protect Habitat and Conserve Fish & Wildlife

Orion Joins Conservation Partners on Gun Control Letter

In conjunction with 30 other members of the American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP), Orion has signed the following letter to the U.S. Senate leadership in response to proposed federal gun control legislation:

The Honorable Harry Reid                                           

Majority Leader                                                            

United States Senate                                                     

522 Hart Senate Office Building                                  

Washington, DC 20510                                                

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Minority Leader
United States Senate
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

April 4, 2013

Dear Senators:

Our organizations, which represent millions of Americans who actively support professional wildlife management and the advancement of our nation’s hunting and recreational shooting heritage, are writing to express our sincere hope that your upcoming gun control debate will be constructive. 

Like you, we were devastated by the recent tragedy in Connecticut, and we share your goal of ensuring that appropriate actions are taken to prevent similar acts of senseless violence in the future.  We believe an opportunity exists to enact legislation that addresses the causative agents of this and similar tragic events. Specifically we support:

·      National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) improvement measures that will effectively prevent access to firearms by those not legally qualified to possess them, without criminalizing private transfers;

·      Vigorous enforcement of existing federal firearms laws;

·      Efforts to improve security in our nation’s schools;

·      A comprehensive process to review, evaluate and recommend changes to our nation’s treatment of the mentally ill before their actions result in these devastating consequences; and

·      The development and implementation of a community based “family watch” program that helps families with concerns that an immediate family member who they believe has the potential to become a societal danger is afforded the assistance that they need to intervene before a tragedy occurs.

As much as we support this five point plan that responds to the causative agents that could have potentially avoided this tragedy, we oppose unnecessary restrictions of our ability to attain and possess legal firearms and that have no foundation in addressing the factors that led to this tragedy or like tragedies.

In addition, the signatories to this letter are proud of our hunting and recreational shooting heritage and the support that our activities contribute to our nation’s conservation, economic and societal interests.

Specifically, shooting sports participants are the largest financial supporters of wildlife conservation throughout the United States, having contributed over $5.4 billion to the management of our nation’s wildlife, recreational shooting and hunter education through Pittman-Robertson excise tax payments since 1991. This uniquely American System of Conservation Funding – a “user pays-public benefits” system - is heralded internationally as the most successful wildlife management program in the world.

Economically, the companies in the United States that manufacture, distribute and sell firearms, ammunition and hunting equipment employ as many as 98,752 people in the country and generate an additional 110,998 jobs in supplier and ancillary industries.  In 2012 alone the firearms and ammunition industry was responsible for as much as $31.84 billion in total economic activity in the United States. The significant contributions these companies are making to our nation’s economic recovery should not be sacrificed to unnecessary and ineffective restrictions and bans, no matter how well-intended their proponents may be. 

Societally, these lawful recreational activities provide untold hours of benefits to our nation’s families and their friend and neighbors that should not be unnecessarily impinged upon.

For these reasons, the undersigned organizations respectfully request that you continue to work collectively, as the voice of sportsmen and recreational shooters in Congress, toward pragmatic bipartisan solutions in a manner that enhances wildlife conservation, benefits the economy and protects America’s rich hunting and shooting heritage, while not impeding the Second Amendment rights of our members.  Thank you for your ongoing service to our nation and future generations of sportsmen and women conservationists.

Sincerely,

Archery Trade Association

Boone and Crockett Club

Camp Fire Club of America

Catch-A-Dream Foundation

Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation

Conservation Force

Dallas Safari Club

Delta Waterfowl

Masters of Foxhounds

Mule Deer Foundation

National Rifle Association

National Shooting Sports Foundation

National Trappers Association

National Wild Turkey Federation

North American Bear Foundation

North American Grouse Partnership

Orion, The Hunter’s Institute

Pheasants Forever

Pope and Young Club

Quail Forever

Quality Deer Management Association

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Ruffed Grouse Society

Safari Club International

Texas Wildlife Association

U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance 

Whitetails Unlimited

Wild Sheep Foundation

Wildlife Forever

Wildlife Management Institute

Wildlife Mississippi

CC: The Honorable Patrick Leahy

The Honorable Chuck Grassley

Depredation Hunting As A Commercial Concern

In which I once again open a door that I might wish had stayed closed...

It's an interesting conundrum.

Feral (wild) hogs are devastating farm crops from North Carolina to California and most points south of that line.  It won't be long before they're causing similar issues in the upper midwest as well.  That's pretty irrefutable.  A relatively small sounder can wreak havoc on a freshly planted corn field.  They'll mow down a barley field, and whatever they don't eat they'll trample into the mud. They can till up a crop of peanuts or sweet potatoes to the point where it's barely cost effective to replant.

There are a few methods to manage these animals.  Poison is one consideration, but most poisons are indiscriminate. They tend to kill animals that you didn't really intend to kill, from coyotes and racoons to cats and dogs.  For this reason, their use is regulated and even prohibited in some locations. Recent research into sodium nitrate (the food preservative) has shown promise, but at this point it is still in the research phase. 

Trapping is an efficient option.  By capturing the animals alive, the trapper is able to ensure that non-target animals are not harmed.  A properly operated trapping system, such as the M.I.N.E. (Manually Initiated Nuisance Elimination) program recommended by the guys at Jager-Pro can be particularly effective in removing entire sounders.  This is, arguably, one of the best options currently available, but it requires time and patience.  It is also very localized.  Large-scale trapping would require significant outlay for equipment, and a lot of time to manage multiple traps across a wide geographic area. 

And there's depredation hunting/shooting. 

On the small scale, this method has a certain level of success.  Serious hunting pressure will drive hogs out of an area.  However, the problem here is that the hogs will re-settle on another property.  They'll also come back eventually, once the pressure has eased.  For the farmer who just needs time for his crops to take root, or time to ripen and harvest, that may be enough.  But in big farm country, like Georgia, it's not good enough to push the hogs onto your neighbor's farm.  It's not real neighborly either.

To address this, small companies have cropped up and have been offering their services to multiple farmers in an area.  This way, the depredation hunters can move with the hogs and keep the pressure up until their numbers have been reduced to a manageable level.  It's pretty much a given that the hunters won't be able to completely wipe out the population, but keeping the population in check is the goal.  They accomplish this with varying levels of success through the use of dogs, high-tech night vision, and helicopters.

But here's where it starts to get into a grey area.

Maintaining a staff, running hounds, buying night vision, and flying a chopper all cost money.  Some farmers are willing to pay a bit to the depredation teams, but others are unwilling or unable to foot the costs of this service.  Enter, the paying customer.

For many sport hunters, an outing with a depredation team offers something they don't get in an average outing.  There's generally a high level of success, and the opportunity to use the professionals' methods is alluring.  It presents a sort of no-holds-barred environment.  The hunter can shoot without limits on size or number, and he can utilize tools like high-end thermal imaging scopes, or shoot from the door of a flying helicopter. 

For the depredation company, the sport hunters are a source of additional income to help pay the expenses of the operation.  For the more successful companies, "guiding" hunters may even provide a profit.  Well-managed with a solid clientele, the arrangement can even become pretty lucrative... as long as the hogs hold out.

It raises a couple of valid ethical questions.

First of all, some people question the ethics of sport hunters participating in an activity simply for the thrill of killing more animals, especially when they're using means that would typically not suit accepted, sport hunting practices.  Shooting from the helicopters, for example, pretty much eliminates any pretense of Fair Chase.  Likewise, hunting at night with thermal-imaging scopes and semi-automatic rifles stuffed with high-capacity magazines wouldn't seem like much of a challenge. 

There's also the reality that neither method is known for quick, clean kills... nor is there much opportunity (or effort) for tracking and finishing wounded animals.  Firing rapidly at a scattering herd and trying to knock down as many animals as possible before they clear the field is guaranteed to result in a significant amount of wounding. 

Of course, logically, most of us recognize that this is eradication.  One must necessarily adopt the mindset of the exterminator, and treat the target animals as nothing more than cockroaches or mice.  To the pest control expert, killing is killing, whether death occurs rapidly or slowly.  The end game is to remove as many pests as possible from the customer's property. He doesn't necessarily think of the creatures as sentient beings, and he seldom takes the time to take a close look at the outcomes of his actions.   

So is it wrong to sell this experience to customers who are paying for the excitement... for the thrill of killing indiscriminately?  Is it wrong for the customers to find the experience thrilling in the first place?  What kind of person would pay for the opportunity to do this?  How can someone actually do this and find it fun? 

It is, at the very least, a challenge to the narrative presented by most hunting apologists who would create the myth of the thoughtful hunter... of the connected sportsman who feels deeply about the animals he pursues and the sanctity of the chase.  It blurs the image of the ethical paragon (if such a person ever existed in the first place), overlaying it with the grinning, bloodthirsty killer of Cleveland Amory's nightmare. Which is real? How do we reconcile?  Is it necessary to try?
 

Celebrating Aldo Leopolds Birthday

posted by Eric Nuse

To celebrate Aldo's birthday, Jan 11, 1887, I used his and Estelle's recipe to cook up two black ducks that were recently taken near Ithaca, NY during the late season.

Called THE Duck recipe, it was passed on first to Peggy and Joe Hickey, who were close friends of the Leopolds and then to their daughter Susi Hinckey Nehis. I got the recipe from a December, 2007 article published in the Capital Times and posted on www.madison.com .

From what I can gather Aldo's grad student, Bob McCabe (Dick McCabe's father) supplied most of the ducks used by the Leopold and Hinckey.

Nehis said that she used the recipe many times. "There is no other meat I can think of that is brown and dark like wild duck. The wild, game taste is so important, and cooking it by basting it regularly with butter makes the taste indescribable, like no other purchasable meat in the world."

This time-consuming method, carefully plucking and cleaning the bird is very important," Nehis said. "The whole process is an art, more than just a meal, because of all the work and time involved."

THE Duck Recipe
   from the kitchen of Aldo and Estelle Leopold

First gut and pluck the birds, using poultry shears to remove the head and neck, cut the wings at the first joint, and cut through the backbone just above the oil gland and remove the tail.

Cut a green pepper into chunks (about 1/2 of a medium-size one for a mallard), peel a small onion and cut into wedges and then stuff the them into the body cavity. Sew up the vent opening and the neck opening with cotton thread. This is important as it keeps the moisture in the bird.

Put the bird in an open roasting pan. Sprinkle with salt and then generously cover the entire surface with slices of butter (about 1/2 cup per mallard) Stick the duck in a 450 degree oven.

Baste the bird every 5 minutes or so. The cooking process is hot and fast.

I cooked my two black ducks for 35 minutes and then let them rest for 10. They turned out rare, but warm, juicy but not too bloody, tender and excellent flavor. A large mallard would need another 10 minutes or so, Teal less time.

When done, rmove the string, cut the birds into halves using poultry shears and place the halves on a platter. Remove the pepper and onion stuffing and set a side.

Pour the juice over the bird and serve.

Nehis said, "I enourage everone eating the duck to use their finger to pick up the bones (especially the little legs) to chew the meat off. Too much is wasted if you only have to politely use only a knife and fork."

My 20-something daughter loved the duck. She didn't think she would like it, especially cooked rare. Her question was, "When are you going to get some more!"

After the meal I took all the bones, set a side vegetables and chewed over skin, covered it with water and made a great stock on the wood stove.

Happy birthday Aldo and thanks to you and all the folks that have followed in your footsteps for the abundant wildlife we enjoy today.

You never know - the role of luck in hunting

There is a good thread going on over at The Mindful Carnivore that I think Fair Chase Hunting readers would enjoy.
Eric

Why the Public Trust Doctrine is Important

Here is an excellent video from the Boone & Crockett Club on the Public Trust Doctrine. Historically the doctrine has been an important aspect of Orion's programmatic efforts: "Orion provides a forum to facilitate innovation and ideas and takes action to promote fair chase ethical hunting and address other hunting related issues; and through vigilance and advocacy to ensure the people's wildlife remain in the public trust."

I recommend that you take a few minutes to watch this important video and recommend it to your friends.

Boone and Crockett Country - The Public Trust Doctrine from Boone and Crockett Club on Vimeo.

When Silence Isn't Golden

In the still-developing national conversation about the complex issues raised by last Friday's mass murder in Newtown, CT, one constituency is oddly--I don't want to say ominously--silent: the National Rifle Association. As a long-time participant-observer in America's gun culture, I'm at a loss to account for this. Are they in some sort of denial? It's business as usual on their (very busy) web site, but their news feed carries nary a word about the school shootings. Why not? Why no acknowledgment of the story that has rightly captured the attention not simply of this nation but of the world? Why not even a note of sympathy or condolence? Inquiring minds, as they used to say, want to know. This one does, anyway.

I should make it clear where I stand re the NRA. I am not a member. I was, for a couple of years when I first started hunting and writing about it, but I dropped my membership for two reasons: One was Wayne LaPierre's notorious "jack-booted thugs" comment about Federal officers; I didn't want to belong to any organization that espoused that sort of inflammatory rhetoric. (I noted with some irony that former president George H.W. Bush cancelled his life-membership at the same time, for the same reason.) But my other reason was, actually, pro-NRA: Because on numerous occasions in various contexts I was called upon to write or speak about gun issues in which the NRA figured prominently, I reckoned I was on more solid ground on the occasions when I defended the NRA (and there were many) if I was not myself a member. I actually have a lot of friends who are NRA members. I am married to an NRA life member. I know these people are not the stereotypical gun nuts so often demonized by the Brady Bunch. I also know a lot of NRA members are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the organization.

The national Shooting Sports Foundation--headquartered in Newtown, a few miles from Sandy Hook school--immediately issued a simple statement:
“Our hearts go out to the families of the victims of this horrible tragedy in our community. Out of respect for the families, the community and the ongoing police investigation, it would be inappropriate to comment or participate in media requests at this time."

Would it have been too much to ask for the NRA to do likewise?

Or does America's most powerful gun lobby figure it is above all that? Perhaps they figure it was enough to unleash board member Ted Nugent to tell the right-wing internet news site Newsmax on Sunday, in an "exclusive interview," that the real problem was that schools like Sandy Hook Elementary are gun-free zones. That the twenty 6- and 7- year- olds were killed because they were "forced into unarmed helplessness." Surely the NRA can come up with a better line than this.

Or maybe they cannot, at least not under their current leadership. Maybe this is the end of an era. And maybe that is a good thing.

Mary Zeiss Stange is the author of Woman the Hunter (Beacon Press, 1997), Gun Women (New York University Press, 2000), and most recently Hard Grass: Life on the Crazy Woman Bison Ranch (University of New Mexico Press, 2010). She also edited Heart Shots: Women Write about Hunting (Stackpole, 2003) and Stackpole Books' "Sisters of the Hunt" series of classic works about hunting by women, and has published widely on women's and environmental issues in both the commercial and academic press. A professor of Women's Studies and Religion at Skidmore College, she teaches in the gender studies, environmental studies and international affairs programs. She divides her time between her "town job" in Saratoga Springs, NY, and the bison ranch in southeastern Montana that she and her husband Doug share with six Peruvian horses, two Springer Spaniels, a tuxedo cat and various wildlife.

Killing treed bears: Rejecting hype to find out for myself

Hounds work to pick up the scent of a bear that had crossed a Forest
Service road in Tehama County, California.

© Holly A. Heyser 2012

By Holly A. Heyser

Three years ago, I had a pretty low opinion of hunting bears with hounds. Being a relatively new hunter, I wasn't yet aware that even in the hunting community, there was disdain for houndsmen. I just didn't like the idea of a hound hunt. I preferred - then and now - ambush over chase.

It wasn't just that aesthetic, though; the big stopper for me was the idea of shooting a helpless and frightened treed bear. I always put myself in the heads of the animals I am about to shoot, or have just shot, and the treed bear's perspective made me cringe.

So, how was it that I found myself shooting a 225-pound black bear out of a tree this Sunday? It started with the Humane Society of the United States' campaign against bear hunting in California.

A bear track on a Forest Service
road.

© Holly A. Heyser 2012

In 2010, California's black bear population was continuing to grow, and there was an effort to increase the "quota" - the total number of bears that can be killed by hunters each year. That, of course, caught HSUS' attention, and it launched one of its emotionally laden, fact-deficient campaigns.

One word in particular set me off: "trophy." The HSUS California lobbyist was being quoted in newspapers all over the state referring to "the trophy hunting of bears."

Hmm. Most hunters I know would love to get a "trophy" animal of any species, but most are also just happy to be successful on a hunt - smaller animals are fine.

This was nothing less than the organization's usual strategy for picking low-hanging fruit: Public support for meat hunting is very high - 85 percent - while public support for trophy hunting is very low - 28 percent (source: Responsive Management, 2006). Most non-hunters I've met interpret "trophy hunting" as "not eating the meat." Say the word "trophy" and you can count on fanning hostile sentiment among non-hunters. (Here's what I wrote on the topic in my blog that year.)

There was another component to the Department of Fish & Game's proposal: allowing houndsmen to use GPS collars on their dogs, making them easier to track down. I ignored this, because I knew nothing about it and really didn't much care for the whole hound thing.

Neither proposal passed that year. One year later, DFG tried again to raise the quota, but dropped the GPS tracking collar issue. This effort, which I blogged about here, also failed.

Then this year, there was a big public relations disaster: The president of our Fish and Game Commission, Dan Richards, hunted a lion with hounds in Idaho and sent a photo to a weekly hook-and-bullet newspaper, Western Outdoor News. What he did was legal in Idaho, but Californians had banned all lion hunting here. HSUS fomented outrage, and tried to get Richards booted from the commission. (Here was my take on that.)

Closed-door politics defeated that effort, but the HSUS still wanted to demonstrate its power, so it decided to go after hunting with hounds, partnering with Southern California state Sen. Ted Lieu to introduce a bill that would ban hunting bears and bobcats (but not pigs) with hounds.

Two Plott hounds ride atop the box on the back of a pickup,
chained to the box for safety. The driver cruises Forest Service
roads slowly in hopes that the dogs will detect the scent of a
recent bear crossing - called a "strike," which the dogs will
signal with their signature bark.

© Holly A. Heyser 2012

By this time, I had already begun trying to learn more about hound hunting from friends - people I liked and respected - who were familiar with it. Before I started hunting, my view of hunters was that they had to be sick to get off on killing. But watching my boyfriend learn to hunt, then deciding to take it up myself, showed me how wrong I was. Could I also be wrong about hunting bears with hounds?

After remaining silent on hunting with hounds in the previous debates, I now leapt to the defense of houndsmen, because it was becoming clear they were being caricatured - another typical HSUS tactic - as lazy rednecks who kick back while dogs do all the work.

HSUS also really hyped the "terrified, treed bear" image, and I'd heard so many houndsmen reject that depiction, which had been the core of my concern, that I began to doubt my assumptions. More on that later.

I took a long hard look at how I hunted, or to be more exact, the nature of the deaths I caused. I came up with three kinds:

* Some were my own Holy Grail: instant deaths that they didn't see coming. One pig I have shot died instantly, and probably half of the birds I've shot did as well (some of which didn't see it coming, some of which did moments before the shot).

* Some were close to my ideal: quick deaths. They didn't die instantly, but because I had hit lungs, they had bled out and died within a minute. Three big-game animals I had shot went this way (none of them saw it coming), and maybe a third of the birds I've shot did as well (again, some saw it coming, but others didn't).

* Some were cringe-worthy deaths: poor shots that merely crippled, leading to suffering that would last until I finished the job. One pig I shot went this way (found him and finished him off within five minutes) and all the remaining birds did as well (most finished off quickly, but undoubtedly some got away - it's inevitable). I have chased lots of birds that were trying like hell to get away from me.

I despise the third category, yet I accept that it is an unavoidable facet of hunting: We cannot shoot perfectly all the time, which means invariably I will have to chase an animal before killing it. If I could accept that, why could I not accept shooting a treed bear? I decided I would go on such a hunt to gain some firsthand knowledge.

A houndsman waits with me on the road

while the rest of our hunting party follows
dogs working a cold bear trail in steep
terrain.

© Holly A. Heyser 2012

The hunt could be an entire story itself, but I'll just hit the key facts here: We hunted 10 hours the first day, slowly cruising Forest Service roads with hounds riding atop the vehicles in hopes that they would catch the scent of a bear that had crossed the road, or that we would see tracks of bears crossing the road. No fresh tracks, no "strikes" - which is what they call the hounds' reaction to a fresh scent.

We had hunted that way for maybe five hours on the second day when we stopped to check out some tracks that seemed  reasonably fresh. The scent was so cold that no one was sure the dogs would be able to follow it, but they did, and within about an hour we heard the barking that indicated they had treed the bear.

As we set out toward the cacophony, my empathy reaction kicked in: I imagined what that bear was experiencing at that moment. I wondered if I could go through with it. Then I remembered why I was there: I had already decided to kill a bear on a hunt with houndsmen. I wanted and needed meat from a big-game animal in my freezer. And I needed to know - really know - what it meant to kill a treed bear.

When we got there, it went down fast. From one position, I couldn't get a shot. I shifted to a better position, and the bear started coming down the tree. Here's the thing: Bears will stay in trees over barking dogs for hours, unconcerned about creatures that can't climb up to get them. Humans, on the other hand, are a real threat, and bears are willing to risk contact with the dogs to get away from us.

As she started making her way down fast, I put the crosshairs behind her shoulder and pulled the trigger. She fell dead.

Did I hate myself for killing her that way? No. I had the same reaction I always do: I was grateful I had made a good shot, in this case doubly so because a wounded bear is dangerous, whereas wounded ducks, pheasants and doves aren't. I was grateful that I would be bringing home a LOT of meat. And I was mindful that I had ended her life, which is always - ALWAYS - a serious event, regardless of whether the animal sees it coming.

This is me with the bear I killed Sunday.

Would I do this again? Yes. While the road-cruising was tedious, I admired the dogs' skill and the houndsmen's fitness, watching them clamber up and down hills that had me out of breath in 10 seconds. When I last saw them on Monday, they were preparing to head out to an area that would require brutal hiking - no road cruising - something they'd tried to spare me on my first bear hunt.

Also, I like bear meat, and this is an effective way to get it.

Sadly, though, I will not be doing this again, because the California Legislature passed that bill. Hunting bears with hounds will be illegal next year, and I have tagged out for this year's season.

We've lost something here in California, and I wonder how many hunters - laboring under the same knee-jerk reaction I'd had - don't even realize it. I'm just glad I took the time to get to know something I didn't understand before it was too late.

© Holly A. Heyser 2012

Artemis Abroad

There is an old Slovak proverb: “A goat, a birch and woman do not belong in the forest.”

Well. That proverb was tested—and trashed—by a conference I recently had the privilege of attending, in Bratislava, Slovakia on the theme “Women and Sustainable Hunting: Experience, Nowadays and Future.” The conference was organized by the Club of Slovak Ladies Hunters, under the auspices of the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC—for Conseil International de la Chasse). An international gathering of female hunters on this scale was a first. Its goal was twofold: to bring together female hunters from a variety of national and cultural contexts, to compare their experiences and perspectives on sustainable hunting; and to celebrate the inauguration of “Artemis,” an international organization of women hunters established as a free-standing CIC working group. I was thrilled to be invited to bring a US perspective to what turned out to be a fascinating three days of presentations and conversation. And I was beyond thrilled when Sonja Sukepova, the  president of the Slovak Ladies Hunters Club and conference organizer, invited me to stay on for a couple of extra days, to hunt red deer, mouflon and wild boar with her and her family.

About sixty women attended the conference, fourteen of us presenters. All of the presenters aside from myself were from Scandinavia, central and eastern Europe, regions where hunting traditions and rituals run deep and where—as Tamas Marghescu, the CIC Director General put it in his introductory remarks—lady hunters have long, and unfortunately, been “looked at with a little bit of suspicion.” Sounds kind of familiar to American ears, that. However, when—after remarking that women are the “biggest growth sector” in hunting worldwide and that we may quite literally be the future of hunting—Tamas went on to say he was eagerly “looking forward to crispy innovations, to open the window wide for new, strong crisp wind and energy” in the hunting world . . .well, mild jet-lag be damned, I started feeling pretty downright crispy myself. And the ensuing days of formal and informal presentations and interactions with a surprisingly diverse group of outdoorswomen ranging in age from their twenties to their seventies, and in profession from academics and attorneys to museum curators and wildlife professionals, turned out to be a breath of fresh air indeed.

This was my first on-the-ground exposure to European hunting culture. And what is immediately striking is the depth to which hunting is a culture in and of itself there. As Marghescu put it, “Hunting is not a hobby, it is a lifestyle.” While many hunters on this side of the Atlantic might readily agree with that assertion, I think most Americans (the ones I’ve spoken with over the years, anyway) fail to grasp the essential role played by European customs that we often tend to write off as quaint “remnants” of an earlier time: the ritual of the hunting horn, the bit of grass or forage placed in the mouth of the freshly slain animal, the extensive artistic and crafts traditions relating to the hunt, the sartorial tradition of hunting clothing not simply for the field but for business and dressy occasions. Indeed, in the latter regard, this was the most fashionably turned-out hunting conference I’ve ever attended. Here is a group photo from the evening of the gala dinner, showing several women in traditional hunting formal wear (that’s yours truly in a standard American little black dress kneeling farthest to the left):

And by evening’s end, what were all these stylish women talking about? Guns and shooting. Calibers and loads, preferred rifle makes and models, favorite prey animals and the best methods and places to hunt them and ways to cook them, and other such ladylike topics!

There was another theme of conversation that grabbed me, that evening and throughout the three days we shared as a group: the idea that good hunting has a religious dimension. Now, this is a familiar idea to anyone who knows Yale sociologist Stephen Kellert’s groundbreaking work on hunter “types,” not to mention the work of writers like Richard Nelson, Gary Snyder, Ted Kerasote, Barry Lopez and others who have homed in on the idea that some kind of spirituality lies at the heart of hunting.  But, and not surprisingly given our own cultural history, there is invariably something deeply—dare I say ruggedly?—individualistic about American approaches to what Kellert developed in his “nature hunter” model.  By contrast, virtually every statement I heard about hunting from the women in Europe had a distinctly communitarian ring to it: hunting is not only a lifestyle, it is a communal way of life that people share intimately with one another, and that must be passed from one generation to the next. And it was generally agreed among the conference participants that more than ever before this matter of cultural transmission is women’s work. It is time, as Tibor Lebocky, head of the Slovak Hunter’s Chamber phrased it, to “build a new history for hunting in the future.” And this is what Artemis, the international women’s hunting club, hopes to be all about.

I was especially impressed by the way this communal emphasis played out in the various presentations on what women’s hunting clubs—and such clubs are far more common on the national and local levels in Europe than in the US—embrace as their primary activities and goals. Again and again, women from Norway and Denmark , Latvia and Russia, Italy and the Czech Republic and Hungary and Slovakia and Austria sounded common goals and described projects dedicated to achieving them. The goals had to do primarily with educating the non-hunting public about nature, wildlife conservation and sustainability: objectives that certainly rang true to my American ears.

But it was the array, and consistency across national boundaries, of methods for achieving these goals that struck me as refreshingly constructive and broadly forward-thinking.  While there were regional variations, every presenter stressed the following:

·         First and foremost, working with children. Several clubs already operate summer camps, for children ranging from kindergarten to their teens. There was consensus that these camps should be international in their make-up, to ensure cross-cultural communication as well as to instill awareness of and active participation in nature through numerous hands-on activities ranging from dog handling and photography to fishing, sport shooting and falconry.

·         Developing a media strategy to improve public perceptions of hunting. Interestingly, while the goal is to educate the public about the connection(s) between hunting and sustainability, the methods cited were largely—and I believe brilliantly—aesthetic rather than scientific: photography and documentary filmmaking competitions, art and jewelry exhibits, museum displays, concerts, game feasts.

·         Improving public opinion of hunting and hunters through philanthropic activities. Several speakers stressed the importance of charitable work—with the poor, the sick, the disenfranchised—as an essential piece of a broader consciousness about the hunter’s role in society.

Of course, these national and regional women’s hunting clubs also focused on hunter education and skills training in ways not dissimilar from the US’s “Becoming an Outdoors-Woman” (BOW) program. And they are in some cases facing the same barriers to women’s participation in outdoor sports as we do here: access to hunting areas, networking among women hunters and retention of hunters beyond the “novice” phase, overcoming cultural stereotypes about hunting as an “unfeminine” activity, and just plain finding the time as well as the places to hunt.  Additionally, in nearly every European context women form a smaller percentage of the hunting population than we do here in the States. But there, as here, female hunter numbers appear to be growing steadily.

And it struck me that these European women’s hunting clubs see their real work as beginning where BOW’s leaves off. Let me be clear here: This is in no way intended as a criticism of BOW, which I think is a terrific program, and which in fact I talked up in my own presentation on “American Dianas: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow.” But BOW cannot do everything that needs to be done for women’s hunting in America. And, frankly, I don’t see too much else going on out there on this side of the Pond. Such women’s hunting clubs as we do have here and there tend to be very localized, and to focus on individualistic—at times “extreme”—hunting. Programs for women operated by the likes of SCI and the NRA are often costly and appeal to a relatively small niche of the female hunting population.  I really think we need to do more, and do better. And I think our European sisters have a lot of wisdom to share, in this regard. I’m looking forward to continuing, and sharing, those conversations . . . So, to be continued.

As to those two days of hunting in Slovakia—More on that to follow!

 Mary Zeiss Stange is the author of Woman the Hunter (Beacon Press, 1997), Gun Women (New York University Press, 2000), and most recently Hard Grass: Life on the Crazy Woman Bison Ranch (University of New Mexico Press, 2010). She also edited Heart Shots: Women Write about Hunting (Stackpole, 2003) and Stackpole Books' "Sisters of the Hunt" series of classic works about hunting by women, and has published widely on women's and environmental issues in both the commercial and academic press. A professor of Women's Studies and Religion at Skidmore College, she teaches in the gender studies, environmental studies and international affairs programs. She divides her time between her "town job" in Saratoga Springs, NY, and the bison ranch in southeastern Montana that she and her husband Doug share with six Peruvian horses, two Springer Spaniels, a tuxedo cat and various wildlife.

Hunt writeup: In which the executive director of Orion gets overheated but finds himself in the right place at the right time

Had a good deer opener today.  Got out into the crow's nest at oh-dark-thirty this morning, and I was treated to a fawn parade for the first couple of hours.  First a single, then a pair, then another single, all going in different directions.  Finally at 9:30 I caught another glimpse of movement in the undergrowth, and before I knew it a good-sized buck was skipping through my window of opportunity . . .  but alas, he was moving too quickly and I didn't have the gun ready (I was glassing him with binoculars).  Sat there for a while and was kind of bummed out--I didn't see a buck all last season, so he was the first in two years.  Anyway.  One more fawn rounded out the action at 10 or so, and by 11am I was in the kitchen eating breakfast.

Because it's opening day, and because I saw that decent buck in the a.m., I figured I'd better go out into the swamp in the hopes of seeing Mr. Buck again.  I'd poked around the back forty a couple of days ago, and there was plenty of buck sign, so I'm guessing he's the local boy.

I put on my gear, turkey vest, blaze orange, and safari sling for the gun, and at noon it's down hill I go.

One minute later: I get to the mowed area below our sheds and barn, and . . .  DAMN, there he is.  Bedded down against the brush on the far side of the pond!

I duck into a crouch, and fortunately I'm screened behind some goldenrod I hadn't gotten around to mowing. Good thing I'm lazy. I am as out-in-the-great-wide-open as it is humanly possible to be--I'm in a mowed field, so there's no belly crawling off to a more covered spot, if I move, he's going to see me.  I then proceed to crouch there for the next twenty minutes, alternately eyeing him in the scope, figuring out whether I can take an offhand neck shot, and then getting the shakes and having to put the gun down.  I'm kneeling, shifting position, eyeing him through the scope again.  I'd not brought my shooting sticks, and he's so low and the goldenrod so high I can't shoot at him from a sitting position.  It's kneeling offhand or nothing.  I can't quite make his neck out enough for a really clear neck shot, either.

Time passes.  I start to get hot, so slowly I strip out of my orange vest, my turkey vest, and my coat.  Might as well be comfortable if and when I shoot.  He never moves, his head is facing east into the wind and I'm basically south of him.

I had just gotten my jacket off when suddenly a squirrel busts me and starts squawking. Mr. Buck takes notice, I see his antlers starting to swivel, and all of a sudden he gets up and stretches.

That's my cue.  From a kneeling position I aim at him broadside and shoot at him, offhand.  He goes down, struggles a bit, gets up, and then just seems to stand there looking around. I stand up and take a second shot, and he staggers off into the brush.

I reload and start following him.  I'm prepared to have him get up again and try to take off.  As I get to the edge of the pond and look into the woods, I make out his antlers--and he's down for good. He'd only gone about 20 yards. With a sigh of relief, I make my way over to him, give him a nudge, and it's over.

Go up to the house to get some help for the drag, and my daughter Julia does the honors.  She also sticks around and watches me field dress the deer--that's a first.  Not squeamish at all. Showed her the heart--the first shot clipped the top of it, while the second shot hit the hind leg, so maybe he started moving when I stood up to take the second shot, apparently I'm not much on shooting at moving targets I guess. Although once that squirrel started barking, things happened real fast, so it was all a bit of a blur. At any rate, we then pull it uphill and hoist it into the truck for the trip to the butcher.

Anyway.  Haven't written a true writeup in a while, and this one just felt like it needed it.  I was pretty damn nervous about having to take that offhand shot, but it worked out well. 

Julia photo credit

Ends And Means - Ethics Vs Wildlife Management Goals

There's a thought that's been running around in my mind for a while now, but I can't seem to get it into coherent, written form.  The following opens the door for a conversation.  It is not meant to be my "final answer."

Let’s turn a cliché on its head.  Instead of proposing the question, “why do you hunt,” let’s ask, “why can you hunt?” 

The latter should be a shorter discussion, filled with some arguments that are a bit more quantifiable than the emotionally loaded responses typical of the former question.  Sure, there are some relatively intangible explanations, such as preserving the “heritage” or the “traditional use” of natural resources.  And there are some that cross-over both discussions, such as the argument that the money generated through hunting is largely ploughed back into wildlife conservation. 

But I also believe the conversation could shine an interesting light on some contradictory attitudes, particularly in regards to the ethics discussion.  For example, if population control is one of the key considerations for liberal hunting regulations, then doesn’t a strict, ethical high-road that effectively reduces the likelihood of the kill (the "sporting chance") run counter to that purpose? 

I have a hard time getting past this feeling that a lot of hunters have bought into a package of ideals.  When I read comments from these folks, or talk to them in person, there’s a recurrent thread of uber-ethics and an insistence on doing things the hard way (at least theoretically).  There’s a disdain for taking the “shortcuts” such as baiting, food plots, or using hounds.   There’s a lot of talk about this concept of “Fair Chase.” 

And I get that perspective.  Lord knows there’s nothing wrong with having a high level of respect for the animals as individuals, the animals as a resource, and for the aesthetic sensibilities of the hunter.  That’s an awesome stance, and kudos to the hunter who strives to abide fully within the tenets of fair chase and the honorable hunt.  

Still, I believe you have to temper those high standards with pragmatism.  Just as most of us have personal goals in the hunt, there are other goals that are sometimes equally important.  In fact, I’d argue that in some cases, wildlife management goals should supersede the individual aesthetic. 

I could hear the mental flags popping up at that last statement.  Good.

I’m not suggesting that the hunter who is strongly opposed to baiting should go out and buy a feeder.  And if you honestly feel wrong killing an animal you’re not going to eat, then you don’t have to go out and start hunting varmints and predators, or trapping for furs.  If you live in a place overpopulated with deer, but instead of filling all of your tags you really only need one deer for your larder, you don’t have to go shoot more just to donate to the food bank. 

Here’s the thing, though.  Other hunters will do these things.  Many want to.  Don’t condemn them or their methods simply because their moral compass points a few degrees askew of your own.  It is legal for a reason.  If one of the valid justifications of the hunt is our role in wildlife management and population control, then someone has to do the things you may not want to do.  Or, to fall back on cliché, sometimes the ends do justify the means.