Mark Zuckerberg's new challenge: Eating only what he kills (and yes, we do mean literally...)

By Patricia Sellers May 26, 2011: 2:29 PM ET

Last year Mark Zuckerberg set out to learn Chinese. Now he's determined to get in touch with his food. If the goats, lobsters and chickens of Silicon Valley aren't trembling, they should be.

The eyes of a hunter.

When he's not too busy connecting people across the universe, Mark Zuckerberg is pursuing a new "personal challenge," as he calls it. "The only meat I'm eating is from animals I've killed myself," says the Facebook founder and CEO.
It's an odd dietary direction for the 27-year-old Internet billionaire, but since he has taken to killing goats, pigs and chickens, "I'm eating a lot healthier foods. And I've learned a lot about sustainable farming and raising of animals," he says. "It's easy to take the food we eat for granted when we can eat good things every day."
....After the lobster, the next animal to fall at his hands was a chicken. What's next on this journey? He's told people that he's interested in going hunting.
read full article 

Maine Lynx and Logging

from Boston Globe

Lynx and logging share interests Natural habitat is at risk as clear-cutting fades By Murray Carpenter, Globe Correspondent | April 27, 2009 The good news is that Canada lynx are thriving in Maine. Hundreds of the leggy, snow-loving cats are breeding in the state's vast north woods, perhaps a historic high. The bad news is that the population is heading for a crash, and logging industry clear-cut practices seem to be the reason. Strangely, it's not an excess of clear-cutting that is the problem; this time, it's a lack of clear-cutting that is creating environmental worries. Environmentalists may hate clear-cutting, but lynx love it - because when trees are cleared away, a dense spruce-fir thicket often crops up in their place, and those thickets attract snowshoe hares, the lynx's primary prey. Biologists say lynx are thriving in Maine because massive industrial clear-cuts following a spruce budworm epidemic 30 years ago have grown into hare-rich thickets. But regulations reducing the size of clear-cuts in the Maine woods - products of state legislation passed in 1989 and amended after a divisive environmental campaign in the late 1990s - are now eliminating those thickets, and eventually, the hares that live in them. Over the next decade, the unintended chain reaction is expected to dramatically reduce the number of Maine lynx - the only lynx in the Eastern states, and listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. "The prognosis for future habitat for lynx is not terribly good," said Mark McCullough, a US Fish and Wildlife Service biologist. William Krohn, a University of Maine professor who has been studying the state's wildlife for decades, said that with recent reductions in clear-cutting, "We've created something that isn't the optimum for lynx habitat." Canada lynx are lankier than bobcats, with tufted ears, dangling lamb-chop sideburns, and big feet that act as snowshoes. Lynx populations tend to be cyclical. McCullough said it is hard to count wild cats, but his "very unofficial" estimate of the peak Maine population two or three years ago was 250 to 500 lynx. Patrick Strauch, executive director of the Maine Forest Products Council, which represents the business interests that own nearly all of Maine's timberland, said extensive clear-cutting has become a thing of the past, as the lumber industry shifts to partial harvesting. "The Forest Practices Act really began to limit the size of clear-cuts, and as a result, there's very little clear-cutting that occurs today," Strauch said. Maine Forest Service statistics show that more than 100,000 acres of Maine timberlands were clearcut in 1988 and 1989. That dropped to 54,000 acres in 1994, 18,500 acres in 2002, and 12,000 acres in 2007. Poorly sited clear-cuts can cause significant environmental harm, including erosion, sedimentation, and warmed and acidified streams. They destroy the habitat of forest-dwelling species and scar the landscape. Outcry over the huge clear-cuts of the 1970s and 1980s led to the logging restrictions in Maine. Environmentalists who fought for changes in logging say it's an oversimplification to credit aggressive logging with creating good lynx habitat. "It's probably a little premature to come to the conclusion that that's the only reason we have a healthy [lynx] population now," said Sally Stockwell, Maine Audubon Conservation's director. But McCullough, the Fish and Wildlife Service biologist, said that like it or not, the massive clear-cuts boosted lynx populations significantly. "The science is very much behind that, and the landscape ecology very much supports that," he said. Lynx can live in mature forests, he said, but at much lower densities than now seen in Maine. The change in logging industry practices is not the only troubling thing for Maine's lynx population. Climate change could reduce snow cover, pushing lynx habitat farther north. Some lynx are caught incidentally by trappers each year; a federal judge recently ordered Maine to revise its trapping program to reduce the catch. And Maine hares have recently declined in a separate trend that might be associated with their cyclical patterns of abundance. The changes in forest management affect more than just lynx. Alec Giffen, director of the Maine Forest Service, said regenerating clear-cuts provide habitat favored by many species, including moose, ruffed grouse, and many migratory warblers. "If people care about certain wildlife species, not just Canada lynx, they ought to care about the creation of early successional habitats," he said. But, he added, plans to use Maine's working forest to help store carbon - so it won't be released into the atmosphere, fueling global warming - will add another factor to forest management. And will not be conducive to more clear-cutting. "This situation is probably going to become only more complex as we go down the road," he said. Erin Simons,, a University of Maine doctoral candidate, used satellite images to analyze forest-management changes in Northwest Maine and ran computer models to project habitat for lynx and pine marten. (Just as managing for lynx benefits most species that use similar habitat, some biologists say managing for marten benefits most forest-dwelling species.) Not surprisingly, as lynx habitat increased in recent decades, the mature forests that marten and other forest-dwellers prefer declined. Simons's analysis shows that lynx habitat will soon decline. Krohn said it's time to start doing more sophisticated planning for wildlife habitat in Maine's working forest, considering which species to manage for, where, when, and in what proportions. "We now have the tools to assess the options. We can look into the future," Krohn said. "It's an issue of balance more than anything else."

© Copyright The New York Times Company

Man's effect on evolution of animals that we hunt and fish

From today's New York Times:

Seeing the Risks of Humanity’s Hand in Species Evolution

By CORNELIA DEAN

Human predation is causing some species to evolve to reproduce at younger ages and smaller sizes, to the long-term harm of the species.

“Humans are frighteningly efficient predators,” said J. Stanley Cobb, a lobster expert who retired recently from the University of Rhode Island. “They impose mortality in specific ways, at particular stages of the life cycle. If we believe that natural selection has shaped the life history characteristics of a species, then we have to believe that a different mortality regime will affect life history.”

Because humans discovered fire, the benefits of hunting in teams and the bounties of agriculture, people have been changing the natural landscape, causing plants and animals to evolve in response.

Apprentice license good for hunting

Pyne Column: Apprentice license good for hunting Sun Feb 8, 2009

We've all had it happen. A friend or neighbor or relative expresses an interest in trying hunting. You're more than happy to take them under your wing, but after pointing out that they must first t... more...

Squirrels the new cuisine

Wake up America - squirrel for supper is the hot trend in England.

• • 

  • Saving a Squirrel by Eating One

    Lately, a new meat is gracing the British table: Squirrel is selling as fast as gamekeepers and hunters can bring it in.January 7, 2009 - By MARLENA SPIELER - Dining & Wine
  For those of us concerned with the decline in hunter numbers and support for hunting this is hopeful news. Research by Responsive Management indicates that youth that start hunting small game, including squirrel, are more likely to continue to hunt than kids that start with big game.
• The first game animal I shot was a gray squirrel with my single barrel shotgun. I've been shooting them ever since. I disagree with the author of the Times article that squirrel are hard to skin and bone. If you skin them right after shooting them the hide comes off very easy. But she is right about how good they are. My co-housing neighbors, who are from Texas and never hunted (yet), think squirrel is the best meat in the world.
  
• Next year, head over to the Champlain valley and take a kid squirrel hunting. Then cook up a big squirrel pot pie and invite over some non-hunting friends for a memorable meal, and a hunting story. As the reporter from Channel 5 news found out last year, when he shadowed my wife and me - squirrels aren't as easy to get as most people think!
  

Is it time for Vermont's Apprentice hunting effort?

From the NSSF Bullet Points:
ARIZONA OFFERS APPRENTICE HUNTING LICENSE AT NO CHARGE . . . Effective Jan. 1, the Arizona Game and Fish Department is offering a new apprentice hunting license at no charge to encourage existing hunters to become mentors and introduce a friend, neighbor, relative At the 2006 Future of Hunting in Vermont conference in Castleton we agreed to move forward with an apprentice hunting license so people of all ages could "try" hunting under the direct supervision of a licensed adult hunter. So far there has been no action.
It seems to me the time is now. We need more support for hunting and we need more new hunters for their political and financial support. What are we waiting for Vermont?

Where have the hunters gone?

I recommend reading "It's the Culture" from Delta Waterfowl. They do an excellent job of pulling together lots of the research on the decline in numbers of hunters and propose a holistic approach to turning it around. Well worth the time.

Profile of a responsible hunter

We've all seen slob hunters - similar to the description of pornography by one of our Supreme Court Justices - "you know it when you see it". That is one extreme, but what criteria needs to be met to be a responsible hunter? We all think we are one, but are we?

Here is my opinion of the criteria that needs to be met:

1) Safe - bottom line is you must follow the safety rules for gun handling and hunting. If you endanger yourself, others or property you are not a responsible hunter.

2) Lawful - Game laws can be complicated and tempting to bend or break. But they have a vital purpose and must be followed to the letter and spirit.

3) Clean Kill - Responsible hunters only shoot at game they know they can kill, not to see if they can hit it. Stuff happens, but we do everything we can to make one-shot kills. Excuses like I didn't have time to sight in, or practice or check my pattern don't make it. Taking shots byond your ability to hit the vital area, moving shots if you are proficient at them and high risk angle shots are other no-no's. Among the worst are the "bowhunters" who brag about sticking deer - ahhhh - a great way to lose hunting.

4) Full Utilization - If you kill it; you (or someone else) eat it. If you don't like mergansers and don't know anyone who does - don't shoot them. For game like moose, it takes planning ahead to be sure you can get it out of the woods and cool it down before it spoils, not as easy as you might think. The exception to this rule is damage shooting. But that is different than hunting and I still think the critter should be used if at all possible, even if it is just cleaning the coyote skull for the local Boy Scout troop.

5) Practice Fair Chase - If it is a 100% guaranteed kill or the animal can't get away, it is not an ethical hunt. The outcome of the hunt must be in doubt up to the instant the trigger is pulled. Anything else is just shooting or slaughtering. Within this definition is lots of room and it will vary between hunters and even for the same hunter at different times of their lives.

There is inherent conflict between fair chase and clean kill. If you erect to high a barrier to harvest, say using a homemade stick bow, you could without a lot of discipline, set your self up for wounding animals because your skill level is not high enough to be successful under reasonable conditions. More on fair chase and hunter preference in future posts!

6) Support Conservation – This applies primarily to more experienced hunters. I don’t think you can call yourself a responsible hunter unless you are actively supporting wildlife conservation beyond buying licenses and paying tax on equipment and ammo. We need to be in the arena supporting scientific management and environmentally sound policies both politically, physically and monetarily.

I also don’t think paying dues to a hunting club or conservation organization is enough. It is a great start but not enough. We need to be actively engaged with that club, doing habitat work on the ground and making those phone calls to legislators. It also means building support for conservation and hunting, like taking a kid hunting and showing the neighbor kids how to read sign.

As you can see, I think there is more to being a responsible hunter than what happens at the instant you touch the trigger. All of this together is what makes hunting such an engaging and ever new and challenging activity.

I’d love to hear your thoughts ….

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?