A HERITAGE LIKE NO OTHER

From Orion founder Jim Posewitz:

A HERITAGE LIKE NO OTHER

In 1885 a cowboy looking for open range grazing opportunity rode from Little Missouri, North Dakota to the base of Rocky Mountains and back. It was a journey of a thousand miles across America’s Northern Plains. Upon his return he told a young Dakota rancher and hunter, Theodore Roosevelt (TR), “I was never out of sight of a dead buffalo and never in sight of a live one.” It was a dramatic moment in a nation without a conservation ethic. A French nobleman, Alexis de Tocquville studying “Democracy in America” earlier observed we were “insensible to the wonders of nature.” To be sure, the pine forests of the lake states and a wildlife resource once described as something that “exceeded anything the eye of man had ever looked upon,” lay in ruins.

There were some who saw the unfolding tragedy. In 1858, the year of TR’s birth, Concorde naturalist Henry David Thoreau wrote: “Why should not we have our national preserves … in which the bear and panther, and …the hunter … may… not be civilized off the face of the earth.” Thoreau’s vision was described as “a mere whisper in the popular conscience.” When TR the hunter/conservationist became our president forty-two years later that whisper became a roar as he and associates endowed America with 230 million acres of national forests, wildlife refuges, game ranges, parks and monuments. It was 9.9 percent of America held for the restoration of wildlife. Perhaps more important, it was done for “the average man and average woman who make up the body of the American people” that we might all enjoy “the sturdy pleasure of the chase.”

It was not an easy road. When the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl drove our continent to its knees Franklin Roosevelt called the First North American Wildlife Conference. He told the assembled sportsmen and that this was their fight to win or loose. The challenge was accepted and today we are blessed with a new wild abundance from sea to shining sea. This endowment, passed to our custody, is a heritage like no other. This history of restoration, conservation and sharing through a little more than a century stands as living testimony to the common man’s power to change what exists.

We are again challenged, the economic times are not easy and the earth itself needs attention. The good news is that as hunters and anglers we have been here before, we have the “model” that works. A century and a half ago, Thoreau worried about saving a place for the hunter in civilization. Today, the conservation ethic those hunters brought to our culture, holds the answer to saving an environment capable of sustaining civilization.

Understanding Issues: It’s Complicated

This post comes from Orion board member Tammy Sapp's Outdoor Scene blog

Understanding Issues: It’s Complicated

If you ever took a moment to watch the reality show drivel known as “Denise Richards: It’s Complicated,” you immediately understood it was anything but that.

What is does suggest, though, are the lengths some Americans will go to avoid topics with any complexity. Thank goodness there are people willing to do the deep thinking for those trapped in a haze of crappertainment.

There does seem to be an uptick in the willingness to tease through the tricky details whether it is understanding the ramifications of the health care bills or how McDonald v. City of Chicago will decide whether or not the 50 states are required to obey the Second Amendment, by testing the 14th amendment.

Hunting is not without its share of difficult issues as well. What constitutes fair chase and the legal intricacies associated with access are just a couple of the matters we have to grapple with. In many ways the privileges we enjoy as hunters depend on our ability to tune in, understand and take a stand.

Being someone who helps shape the future means you should have some understanding of the past. Our wildlife history is a riches to rags to riches story that includes a group of conservation forefathers who pioneered a blueprint known as North American Wildlife Conservation Model.

read more

Call to Reform of Wildlife Conservation

 The following is from The Wildlife Society Blog  Making Tracks  John Organ is a board member of Orion. I am on the steering committee for The Vermont Wildlife Partnership, a coalition of hunting, conservation, environmental and business groups is working for broad based, adequate and sustainable funding for the VT Fish and Wildlife Dept.

 

A Call for Reform

February 24th, 2010

Goto comments Leave a comment

Writing in The Journal of Wildlife Management this month, Cynthia Jacobson, John Organ, Dan Decker, and other leaders in the wildlife field argue that,”The wildlife conservation institution needs to reform to maintain legitimacy and relevancy in the 21st century.”
To be sure, times have changed since the tenets of wildlife conservation were established in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Today, hunters and anglers–upon whom state wildlife agencies depend for financing–aren’t as numerous. Other stakeholder groups have legitimate interests in managing and maintaining wildlife populations. Wildlife habitat is giving way to development. Myriad federal and state laws and policies now regulate how we study, manage, and conserve animals and populations.
Because of these and other changes, the authors suggest four considerations for reform:

1) funding should be broad-based (not relying primarily on proceeds from hunting license and gun sales),

2) agencies should be governed by trustees (rather than depend on a revolving door of directors),
3) science should provide the basis for professional recommendations (politics should not), and
4) a wide range of stakeholders and partners should play a role in the institution (not just those interested in consumptive use of wildlife).
Read the article to learn more about the authors’ views. Do you think wildlife conservation needs to undergo reform? If so, how should we proceed?

Obama Administration Links Hunting and Conservation

From Making Tracks, The Wildlife Society Blog:

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack have announced the creation of a special advisory committee, the Wildife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council. Secretary Salazar stated: “Theodore Roosevelt understood the vital role that hunting plays in American life, as well as the importance of protecting lands and wildlife to sustain that tradition…The early efforts of America’s hunters and anglers to preserve our nation’s wildlife heritage fueled the modern conservation movement and left us the natural bounty we are now entrusted with protecting.”

Having been to two direct meetings with Secretary Salazar in the past few weeks, I believe that he is sincere in his support of wildlife and habitat conservation, and in his dedication to and support of America’s sportsmen and women. It is clear that he believes that conservation should be a non-partisan issue that appeals to politicians on both sides of the aisle. In that, he is very much in line with TWS’ core policies and beliefs. TWS is currently working on technical reports on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and the Public Trust Doctrine and is also planning on developing a supplemental issue of The Wildife Professional focused on the role of hunting in wildlife and habitat conservation.

TWS has also, in the best Leopoldian tradition, challenged some aspects of modern hunting, based on science, including some aspects of baiting and feeding, and the use of lead ammunition. It is currently working on a technical report on predator control to artificially augment ungulate populations.

Strengthening North America’s proud hunting heritage will not only involve promotion of the rich tradition, but also its ethics and conservation role. Modern hunting practices should be compatible with conservation, animal welfare, ecological principles, and ethics of fair chase. However, hunting has become critical in controlling numbers of some over-abundant species, such as deer and snow geese and destructive invasive species, such as nutria and feral pigs. Perhaps most important is its role as a source of essential funding to support conservation of both game and non-game species, especially at the state and provincial level.

North American Model of Wildife Conservation

Dr. John Organ is a board member of Orion-The Hunter's Institute:

North American Model of Wildife Conservation

From The Wildlife Society Journal

GUEST EDITORIAL
Promoting the North American Model
by Jeff Crane

The United States and its neighbors in North America have an abundance of fish and wildlife
for all citizens to enjoy. Our system of conserving that wildlife is the most successful in history,
envied throughout much of the world. Known as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, this system provides conservation funding for wildlife and fisheries to ensure a diversity and abundance of species. Hunters and anglers contribute the majority of funds through their purchase of licenses and equipment related to hunting and fishing. Their contri-
butions lie at the core of the North American Model’s system of conservation funding, and allow state fish and wildlife agencies to hire professional managers who make scientifically sound decisions that benefit wildlife and habitats.
...to promote the Model and develop new strategies to reach the millions of citizens who also have a stake in its survival. We also need to ensure that the American public shares more of the cost of natural resource conservation so that the burden doesn’t continue to rest largely on the traditional hunting and fishing communities. This can perhaps be accomplished by encouraging new funding from broad-ranging energy and climate legislation.
One challenge we face is that most Americans do not claim a direct interest in hunting, fishing, or similar outdoor activities. Urbanization is partly to blame: Approximately 85 percent of our citizens now re- side in metropolitan areas, where there is often little... read more in the summer edition of The Wildlife Society Journal - online for members only


Jeff Crane is
President of the
Congressional
Sportsmen’s
Foundation.
Courtesy of Jeff Crane

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.