Why Hunter Associations are Important!

Louisiana Wildlife Federation again shows why it's so important

Posted by Bob Marshall, The Times-Picayune June 07, 2009 5:39AM

OK, what do you think of this idea?

Let's have the legislature set hunting and fishing regulations. That way, instead of heeding the information supplied by the staff of professional biologists we pay to study these resources and having a non-partisan, randomly selected citizen's commission make decisions based on that knowledge, we can let politicians tell us what's best for fish, wildlife and sportsmen!

Continue reading the entry...

Back in the USA

Sorry for the lack of new posts. I was traveling in Europe and my internet connections where spotty - not to mention I didn't have much time.
Europe is great, lots of history, art, good food and drink; but the wildlife and even bird life is not much. In 3 weeks I say a total of 4 deer, 2 squirrels and a bunch of dark brown/black birds. Admittedly I was not up at dawn or in great habitat much of the time, but it was still pretty bleak.
I scouted turkey this morning, great sunrise, lots of bird song, flushed two hens from their roost and saw osprey, mallards, woodies and mergs. Also otter, mink, coyote and beaver sign. It is great to be in Vermont in the spring!

Open letter to the Fish and Wildlife Board re: Retrieval and Utilization Rule

Written testimony of Eric Nuse, representing myself and as president of Orion, The Hunter’s Institute.

Members of the Fish and Wildlife Board:

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to comment in writing on this important rule concerning retrieval and utilization of wildlife. I stand in favor of the intent of the draft rule and specifically in favor of the modified language attached to the end of this testimony.

My organization, Orion-the Hunter’s Institute was formed to raise the bar of hunter behavior, promote fair chase and democratic hunting in North America. Our definition of an ethical hunter is: “A person who knows and respects the animals hunted, follows the law, and behaves in a way that will satisfy what society expects of them as a hunter.”
I’d like to look at this definition as it relates to the proposed rule. A major way hunters show respect for “the animals hunted” is what they do with it after the kill. For the majority of hunters this means field dressing the animal, cooling the carcass, using as much as possible of the meat, hide, and feathers. Preserving the meat, sharing the harvest and preparation of the meat in special ways and serving it on special occasions is also part of the honoring of the animal. Compare this with behaviors that the rule seeks to make illegal: attempting to take game and then failing to make a reasonable attempt to retrieve them; if retrieved, dumping unwanted or mishandled carcasses on the ice, on public lands or private lands without permission. Clearly these are egregious behaviors that no hunter would ever publicly endorse or openly admit to doing. Failure to officially sanction such actions could easily be interpreted as condoning this behavior.

The definition goes on to state “…and behaves in a way that will satisfy what society expects of them as a hunter.” A 2007 national survey of Americans done by Responsive Management, shows that 80% support hunting if done with the intent of eating the meat. This support drops to only 20% if the purpose is for trophy. I can only imagine what the percent would be for killing commonly eaten game animals and birds or furbearing animals and then dumping the carcasses in public view without utilizing the meat or hide. I remember learning in the police academy that a good way to test if something was right or wrong is to imagine seeing yourself on the evening news doing what you are about to do. If you are willing to let the film roll it is probably OK, if not don’t do it!

Clearly the proposed rule is in alignment with the definition of an ethical hunter. The question now is should it be illegal allowing for state sanctions and enforcement or should the actions described remain unenforceable and legal? A useful way to analyze this is to determine whether harm is being done by the behavior or if the behavior is simply offensive. If this wasteful behavior is only offensive it is my position that peer pressure, group hunting codes and education are the proper ways to improve it. However, it is my strong belief that this behavior is doing real harm directly to hunters and indirectly by eroding support for hunting.

Access to private land is critical to the future of hunting in Vermont. Surveys of landowners who post their land point to poor hunter behavior as the prime reason for posting. Yet we know that it is only a small fraction of hunters who behave illegally and unethically. The reality is it only takes a few to spoil it for the many. This problem is bad enough where the few are violating enforceable laws, but when their behavior is not illegal and the landowner cannot get any help from the wardens to curtail it, it starts to look like the hunting community doesn’t care. This is especially problematic with the wanton waste issue. Why have hunters and the Board failed to act? Everyone at the hearing I attended professed to never violating the intent of the rule. Why are we protecting those who do violate this ethic?

I think a strong argument could be made that this rule does not go far enough. However, to do so could start to encroach on privacy rights, landowner rights and hunters’ use of common sense in the field. The cure could be worse than the problem. I feel the intent of the rule that came from the committee addresses the core issue, puts teeth into an ethic that most hunters follow and will minimize the harm done by those who don’t voluntarily follow the code.

Some hunters at the hearings raised the concern that the number of violations of this code is so low that we don’t need the rule. I think that is a good thing. I am proud that the majority of hunters use what they kill and trappers skin their take and anglers eat their catch or return the fish to the water. But that still does not make it OK for the few who do violate the code. I know from my years as a field warden that there are hunters who only understand the force of the law. They only did what the law required and even then only when they thought the warden was watching. They didn’t care about other hunters, the game or the future of our sport. These people need a bottom line of acceptable behavior and it is the job of responsible hunters to define that line for them. The way to do that is in the form of a regulation that is crafted by sportsmen.

Several years ago a group of dedicated hunters and professional wildlife managers looked at the success of wildlife conservation and hunting in the US over the last 100 years. They identified seven principles that took our wildlife from scarcity to abundance. Principle number 4 is “Wildlife can only be killed for legitimate purpose.”
I urge the Board to codify this principle and pass this regulation.

Thanks for your attention and your service to the wildlife and sportsmen and women of Vermont.

Hunter legally takes bighorn, leaves meat, loses trophy in court

Some hunting groups in VT think this behavior should continue to be legal in Vermont. Others like the Federation of Sportsman's Clubs, VT Traditions and the VT Trappers Assn do not.

Hearings are set for the proposed Fish and Wildlife Board rule on Retrieval and Utilization. Let your voice be heard.

The public hearings will be held from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. on the following dates as follows:

March 10 -- VT Fish & Wildlife office, 111 West Street, Essex Junction

March 11 – Pavilion Auditorium, 109 State Street, Montpelier

March 12 – Kehoe Conservation Camp, Castleton

Hunter legally takes bighorn, leaves meat, loses trophy in court

Statesman Journal

February 18, 2009

Statesman Journal • February 18, 2009

• 
  

A Gresham man who legally killed a bighorn ram will lose his hunting privileges for two years for leaving the carcass of the animal to rot near the John Day River.

Ronald Edward Cecil, 49, was sentenced in Gilliam County Circuit Court to $6,800 in restitution ($5,300 of it suspended), a year of judge-supervised probation and loss of the hunting privileges after pleading guilty to waste of wildlife.
The head and horns of the ram also were confiscated.

Wanton Waste rule hearings announced

We need a big turn out of responsible hunters and trappers at these hearings to testify in support of the proposed rule. Failure to make a reasonableattempt to retrieve game and dumping carcasses on other people's land is not acceptable. For the few who behave this way there should be consequences.

Failure to use what we kill is to dishonor the animal and the hunt.

See you at the hearings - Eric

VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release: February 10, 2009
Media Contacts: Kim Royar, 802-885-8831; John Austin, 802-241-3700

Three Hearings to be Held on Proposed F&W Regulation

WATERBURY, VT -- Three hearing dates have been set for discussion of a proposed Fish and

Wildlife Board regulation on retrieval and utilization of wildlife.

The purpose of the proposed regulation is to ensure proper retrieval and utilization of fish and wildlife resources in hunting, fishing and trapping. A copy of the proposed regulation is posted on the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department’s website (vtfishandwildlife.com). Go to “Law Enforcement” and then “Rules and Proposed Rules.”

The public hearings will be held from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. on the following dates as follows:

March 10 -- VT Fish & Wildlife office, 111 West Street, Essex Junction

March 11 – Pavilion Auditorium, 109 State Street, Montpelier

March 12 – Kehoe Conservation Camp, Castleton

Montpelier Happenings

There are some important issues on the table in Montpelier.
Fish and Wildlife Dept funding - all departments are being hit, but the FWD general fund money is being whacked especially hard.
The Fish and Wildlife board will be announcing public hearings for a proposed rule on retrieval and utilization of fish and wildlife. Most of the provisions have been endorsed by the major sporting groups including the Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, but several sections are still to be decided - the voice of hunters is needed.
Lastly, a bill to allow folks of all ages to try hunting in a very controlled manner prior to getting a hunting license is about to be introduced. This is one of the "Families Afield" initiatives that are being adopted nationally to help reverse the decline in hunter numbers. All hunters should look at this and support the concept.
Stay tuned...

Captive Hunt rule passed finally!

Good news for Vermont and our wildlife. The VT Fish and Wildlife Board has passed the rule defining how captive (canned) big game hunting operations can function in Vermont. The really good news is it bans any new facilities. According to Department sources six other groups were considering starting operations in Vermont. This would have meant huge amounts of land fenced off for from democratic hunting and native wildlife; not to mention the disease threat to our whitetail deer herd from things like chronic wasting disease and bovine TB.
Congratulations to the hard working members of the FW Board for sticking it out and doing the right thing!
Now we need to stop the expansion of all domestic deer and elk farming operations and sunset the existing ones. The small economic gain for so few farmers does not off-set the risk to our wildlife and the hunting/wildlife viewing industry. This will have to be done thru legislation and will take strong leadership.

Retrieval and Utilization Proposed Rule

The following rule has passed the first vote of the VT Fish and Wildlife Board. I served on a working group representing the VT Federation of Sportsmen's clubs that helped put the language together. Our wording was reworked by the FWD and then presented to the Board. It will now go out for public hearings. Dates to be announced.
Currently Vermont has only had the Federal rule dealing with migratory waterfowl wanton waste. This new rule is an attempt to set a bottom line (admittedly pretty low) for hunter behavior. It makes enforceable what is a very strong ethic among all responsible hunters to retrieve all animals shot at and fully us what you take. We did not come up with a way to deal with the few families that regularly hang big game and coyotes and let them spoil.
Look over the rule and let me know what you think:

Rule Governing the Retrieval and Utilization of Fish and Wildlife
Version 6, 12-11-08


1.0 Authority

1.1 This rule is promulgated pursuant to 10 V.S.A. §§ 4081 and 4082. In promulgating this rule, the Fish and Wildlife Board is following the policy established by the General Assembly that the protection, propagation, control, management, and conservation of fish, wildlife, and furbearing animals in this state is in the interest of the public welfare and that the safeguarding of these valuable resources for the people of the state requires a constant and continual vigilance.
1.2 In accordance with 10 V.S.A. § 4082, this rule is designed to maintain the best health, population, and utilization levels of Vermont’s wildlife.
1.3 This rule applies to all persons taking or attempting to take game, small game, and fish by hunting, fishing and trapping.

2.0 Purpose

The purpose of this rule is to ensure proper retrieval and utilization of the State’s fish and wildlife resources.

3.0 Definitions

3.1 “Abandon” means to take, but not retrieve, or retain in an individual’s possession, any game, small game or fish..

3.2 “Game” means game birds or game quadrupeds, or both.

3.3 “Small game” means game birds except for turkeys; game quadrupeds except for big game; furbearers and other wild animals.

3.4 “Take and taking” means pursuing, shooting, hunting, killing, capturing, trapping, snaring and all lesser acts, such as disturbing, harrying or worrying or wounding or placing, setting, drawing or using any net or other device commonly used to take animals, whether they result in the taking or not; and shall include every attempt to take and every act of assistance to every other person in taking or attempting to take fish or wild animals, provided that when taking is allowed by law, such a taking must be by lawful means and in a lawful manner.

3.5 Any term not defined herein has the meaning accorded to it in 10 V.S.A. § 4001.



4.0 Activities and Restrictions

4.1 Hunting: No person may take any game or small game species by means of hunting and abandon the carcass. A reasonable effort must be made to retrieve any taken or wounded game or small game animal and the retrieved animal must be immediately made part of the daily or seasonal bag limit. This regulation does not apply to an animal taken in accordance with 10 V.S.A. § 4828.
4.2 Fishing: No person may take any fish species by legal means and abandon it on land or on top of any frozen body of water. Any fish that is not retained as part of a person’s daily creel limit shall be returned to the water body from which it was taken, using reasonable care to keep the fish alive. This regulation does not apply to baitfish as defined in Section 5 of Title 10, Appendix Section 122.
4.3 Trapping: A person who takes a furbearing animal shall not abandon any usable pelt.
4.4 Sick or diseased animals: Sick or diseased animals may be left in place and shall be reported immediately to a representative of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, including state Game Wardens.
4.5 Exemption for Crop and Property Damage: This rule does not apply to any animal taken in accordance with the following provisions
10 V.S.A. § 4826 (Deer)

10 V.S.A. § 4827 (Bear)

10 V.S.A. § 4828 (Rabbits and furbearers)

T.10 App. § 35 (Moose)

T.10 App. § 22a. (Turkeys)

(Eric's note- these last statutes deal with animals taken in defense of property and crops. They have specific provisions on how the carcass may be handled.)

Two questions arise: Do we need this rule and should coyotes be included?
1) Is a rule needed if most hunter, trappers and fishers already do everything included in the rule? I look at this as good news- compliance with written or unwritten rules of behavior is the goal of society. I and the committee felt that yes we needed enforceable rules to be able to force the few poor sportsmen to toe the line. Everything we do is under the microscope and we can't afford actions that endanger the future of our sport.
The other compelling argument is political. The legislature has been considering taking up this issue ever since the coyote hunting contests made headlines a few years ago. The commissioner has been able to hold them off because this rule has been in the works. If it does not pass, it opens the door for them to tackle it. We all know where that could go!
The other good development is the coyote contest organizers are now requiring all animals be skinned and the hides utilized.
2)The working group did not agree with the Department on including coyotes in this rule. The feeling was if Vermont does not have any closed season on them, we should not be forcing people who shoot a coyote when the hide is not prime to remove it from the field, just to through it away.
My personal opinion is we should have a closed season during the spring, summer and early fall on coyotes. Rules could be written to allow damage killing of coyotes that are harming domestic stock and for wildlife in very specific situations. The biology is very clear that killing of coyotes by conventional methods now allowed does not lower the coyote population nor does it help the prey populations to any measurable extent in normal circumstances.
Killing anything just to kill it and for no justifiable purpose is reprehensible to nearly everyone - hunters and non-hunters alike. Our hunter education courses do a good job in teaching this ethic, but a fair number of hunters turn a blind eye on coyotes. Why jeoprodize the future of hunting for no good reason? That said I think the way to go is to fist come up with a season for coyotes, then include them in the retrieval and utilization rule.
OK - let the fur fly - what do you think?