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 and Going Above and Beyond Beyond Fair Chase: Part Two

I have decided to move this response to comments made in the original thread out to the main page (a) my response grew to a more substantial length than I intended and (b) because I'm likely to stir up some more trouble. ☺

In his thoughtful comments on the original thread, Tovar wrote:

“While I can sympathize with you pro-freedom arguments, Jim, I’m concerned by where they seem to lead.

“Are you arguing that humans should be legally permitted to shoot animals simply because they want to, without any other purpose being required and without any obligation to track a wounded animal or make use of its body? If so, would you have this legal permissiveness extend to the treatment of all game animals, including big game? Going back to your point about lights and rifles and coyotes above, would you argue for the legalization of all forms of hunting for which there is a cultural precedent?

“Personally, I don’t think we can leave everything to the dubious normative power of the so-called 'hunting community' any more than we can leave all choices regarding the treatment of companion animals to pet owners.

“At some point, when the behavior is sufficiently egregious, the law has to step in.”

Let me preface this by saying that I too find the example previously given of the hunters' not even bothering to pick up the hares morally abhorrent. I would not choose to hunt with those individuals, and if he/they were in my social circle of hunters I would engage in every method of subtle and not-so-subtle psychological persuasion to affect a change in that behavior—ridicule and social ostracism have worked well for me in the past. ☺

With that said, let me reiterate that the specific (and more narrow) point I am making is about “legal moralism”—the idea that we should legislate morality. I am very, very uncomfortable with legislating morality, and I fear that the legislation of morality is potentially more immoral than the behavior such legislation seeks to regulate.

An example may illustrate:

Years ago in Maine one of the owners of the camp where we were staying told us about a group of (non-resident) hunters who come to her camp every year from out of state specifically to hunt trophy deer.

When these hunters are successful and bag their big-racked bucks, they remove the head and cape and leave the rest of the carcass in the woods. In other words, they leave every ounce of edible meat to rot in the woods, but take their trophies home.

Should such behavior be made a criminal violation? While I find the leaving of the carcasses in the woods to be equally morally abhorrent as the example of leaving the hares in the woods, I do not think that necessarily we should make these hunters’ actions illegal. They have paid for their hunting licenses; they have obeyed the season laws, tagging regulations, etc. etc., and they are entitled to take what they have paid for after going through the mechanism of buying their hunting license.

You may disagree. I myself am uncomfortable with this conclusion. But now let’s alter the scenario:

These out-of-state hunters come to Maine. They kill big-racked bucks. But this time, they take all the meat but leave the heads and 14 point racks in the woods to rot. Now what do we think?

My guess is that many if not most hunters would now applaud them for their ethically enlightened “use of the resource” and for eating what they kill, even though they chose to leave the trophy heads in the woods to rot.

Why the inconsistency? Again, in both scenarios the hunters have paid for their hunting licenses; they have obeyed the season laws, tagging regulations, etc. etc., and they are entitled to take what they have paid for after going through the mechanism of buying their hunting license.

I am uncomfortable with using the LAW to enforce what is fundamentally a private ethical issue of conscience. One wag says that using the law to legislate morality is like using fireplace tongs to remove an eyelash. I agree that it is a waste to leave EITHER meat or trophy head in the woods, but neither hunter’s choice harms me in the end when all is said and done.

Eric avers, “I agree this type of dis-honoring the hunted animal should be illegal.” Well, when I go to the deer butcher and see 55 gallon drum after drum filled with spikehorns and scrawny 4- and 6-point deer heads, is this not also a type of dis-honoring the animal? Should not this disrespectful waste of deer heads be made illegal as well?

Well okay, then. I think we should have a law MANDATING the honoring of every deer killed in America by having the head mounted by a qualified taxidermist. That would be the One, True, Correct Way to Honor Deer.

In a very interesting article, philosopher Julia Driver discusses what she calls hyperactive ethics. “Those who do go about trying to impose their moral will on others too much are what I call morally hyperactive,” she writes.

The problem with hyperactive ethics as she sees it is a form of moral zealotry, a self-righteous type of moralism that sees the world in black and white terms and where the moral zealot is always right.

"The problem of moral zealotry is not even restricted to ethics. It can crop up in any evaluative context. Tolerance is expected of others' aesthetic views; or views about their research; or how they bake cakes. For example, even if you feel very strongly about lasagna and the proper way to cook it, you will probably restrain yourself from criticizing your neighbor's favorite lasagna recipe. However, the problem is more acute for ethics, because moral reasons are thought to have a special over-riding quality. Thus, whenever one believes something immoral is going on, the commitment to speak out, to be aggressive, to do something dramatic about it is much more urgent than if one is simply convinced that mixing scallions in with ricotta cheese is a culinary abomination."

Driver says we must resist the temptation to be aggressive and that we must do our best to cultivate tolerance even for beliefs or behaviors that we find morally abhorrent. Why should we do this? Because the harm done by legislating morality is potentially greater than the original immoral act itself.

Driver writes:

"How then can the liberal tolerate and protect immoral and illiberal behavior? The answer, I think, will have to do with the costs imposed by the interference itself. Racism, for example, is immoral and should be discouraged. However, the state arguably should not coercively restrict racist speech, because this represses free speech. So the liberal believes that the state should be restrained in coercively condemning racist speech, in a limited way--though it is perfectly permissible for the state to discourage hate speech (by paying for anti-racist programs in state schools, for example). This limited form of toleration does not undermine liberal values, because restrictions on speech would make things worse."

So I want everyone to be very clear here about what my argument actually is: I am emphatically NOT arguing that sluicing bunnies or deer in the woods and leaving them to rot is morally, ethically, or aesthetically okay. It is definitely not okay, just like racist speech is not okay. But that's different than saying there ought to be a law against racist speech.

I simply don’t think that we should always expect the law to do the work of persuasion that we ourselves should be engaged in. The law is a very blunt tool where something more like surgical precision is required.

Because otherwise we should all also be arguing for the mandatory taxidermy of deer heads and all other animals that are hunted as the One True Correct Sure-Fire Means of guaranteeing that hunters will always honor the animals they kill.

***
Driver, Julia. 1994. "Hyperactive Ethics." The Philosophical Quarterly 44 (174):9-25.

For Discussion: Wanton Waste and Going Above and Beyond Beyond Fair Chase

Wanton Waste and Going Above and Beyond Beyond Fair Chase

I admit I have been feeling uncomfortable, even troubled by the recent attention being paid to the issue of wanton waste as it pertains to hunting. States such as Vermont are considering legislation to make it a crime to “waste” animals. I take it that the intent of such legislation is to motivate hunters to search longer and harder for downed animals before giving up the search.

But I believe that the idea of creating a “law” against wanton waste may open up more problems than such laws might solve. Part of the difficulty as I see it is the nearly-impossible task of defining such basic concepts as “waste” and “use” as these terms typically are employed in discussions of hunter ethics.

For example, consider the website for the Oregon hunting advocacy organization, Back Country Hunters and Anglers. The group credits Jim Posewitz of the Orion Institute with advising them on organizational matters, and their site includes the following excerpt from one of Posewitz’s books on hunting:

Field Dressing an Animal, (from Beyond Fair Chase):

In the beginning, humans hunted to live. Today some still live to hunt. Originally it was a matter of survival to utilize what was killed. Today, using what is killed is essential to ethical hunting.

After you have taken possession of the animal you have killed and taken time to appreciate it, it is then time to care for your gift. The task at hand will vary. For some animals it is simply a matter of putting it into your game pouch and continuing. For big game there is field dressing and properly caring for all the useable parts.

Under all circumstances, the ethical hunter cares for harvested game in a respectful manner, leaving no waste. Field dressing has several advantages. It reduces the risk of spoiling edible parts, and it returns parts of the animal to the earth where it found life.

Field dressing begins the natural recycling process that involves scavenging birds, insects, and decay as the unused parts return energy and nutrient cycles to the ecosystem. This is a marvelous process of renewal, and surplus parts of what you harvest should be thoughtfully returned to the earth (http://www.backcountryhunters.org ).

Now, in what follows, I don't mean to pick on Posewitz or to appear as overly-critical of his book, which I greatly admire. But what caught my eye was the apparent contradiction in the first paragraph:

“Under all circumstances, the ethical hunter cares for harvested game in a respectful manner, leaving no waste.”

This absolutist admonition to “leave no waste under all circumstances” is then followed by a paean about recycling the dead animal’s body parts to the earth. “Field dressing has several advantages,” Posewitz intones. “It reduces the risk of spoiling edible parts, and it returns parts of the animal to the earth where it found life.”

Here is where I believe hunters such as Posewitz are inconsistent in their views about “full utilization” of the resource. Notice how Posewitz defines an ethical hunter as one who conscientiously uses the animal he/she kills. But there is an unaddressed threshold question here for Posewitz: where should we draw the line between conscientious use and wanton waste?

Consider the fact that for many bird hunters, “breasting out” the bird is the norm. I myself consider the practice to be fairly abhorrent. But I am also aware that for serious waterfowlers who may shoot and consume upwards of 100 ducks in a season, the idea of laboriously plucking each and every duck in preparation for oven roasting seems to be an unrealistic expectation. Would Posewitz insist that as a moral rule, “under all circumstances, the ethical hunter cares for harvested game . . . leaving no waste” should apply to the dedicated waterfowler who only breasts out his ducks ? What about the drumsticks? What about the feet? (my wife showed me a recipe for Casserole of Braised Duck Feet in the cookbook, Working a Duck –perhaps I’ll post it here).

Or take big game hunting. Is Posewitz really insisting that under all circumstances, the moose or elk hunter must leave no waste? What about the tongue? Heart? Other organ meat?

Or what of the bone and sinew? One could always save every bone to make soup stock. Why not clean the intestines and save them for use in making elk sausage? “Under all circumstances . . . leave no waste.”

That’s a pretty all-encompassing moral injunction. But a fairly hopeless one it seems to me.

The plain fact of the matter is that industrial factory farming practices do a far better job of “full utilization of the resource” than recreational (or subsistence) hunters will ever do. As William Cronon’s history of the Chicago meat-packing industry shows, meat companies like Armour and Swift have always excelled at using 100% of the animals they killed: “The meat packers used every part of the pig except the squeal.”

And aboriginal peoples don’t necessarily do any better than today’s recreational hunter. “In the beginning, humans hunted to live,” Posewitz tells us. “Originally it was a matter of survival to utilize what was killed.” Well, as anthropologists have shown, survival doesn’t necessarily guarantee utilization. Shepard Krech’s book, The Ecological Indian: Myth and History, provides numerous examples of buffalo being killed by American Indians just for their tongues and other select body parts, with the rest of the animals’ bodies left to rot. Thousands of buffalo stampeded over the Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump were likewise left to rot—although this was likely more an indicator of Indian butchers having run out of time than of any conscious intention on their part to waste meat. The point being, however, the fact that nineteenth century market hunters were not the only ones who could waste buffalo meat. American Indian hunting done for survival (not sport) was no guarantee that hunted animals would be fully utilized.

Yet Posewitz concludes that leaving an animal to rot—or at least, leaving the parts of an animal that you don’t want—is a natural part of the cycle of life:

Field dressing begins the natural recycling process that involves scavenging birds, insects, and decay as the unused parts return energy and nutrient cycles to the ecosystem. This is a marvelous process of renewal, and surplus parts of what you harvest should be thoughtfully returned to the earth.

Why is leaving any animal parts to rot, even if “thoughtfully returned to the earth,” morally okay? By that logic, why wouldn’t leaving MORE animal parts to rot be even better? After all, wouldn’t scavenging birds and insects benefit even more from a bigger amount of unused parts being returned to the ecosystem as energy and nutrients?

In short, there seems to be nowhere within Posewitz’s ethical framework to draw a line between “leaving no waste under all circumstances” and “leaving an appropriate amount of waste in all circumstances.”

So where does this leave us with wanton waste laws? Clearly, as hunters we all want hunters to eat or otherwise utilize whatever they kill. But I don't think we necessarily want to make it a crime for hunters to leave a gut pile in the woods. Or to leave duck legs in the swamp. Or make it illegal for a hunter to leave the heart, liver, or other organ meat of a dead animal if he simply does not care to eat the organ meat of the animal he has killed.

The problem is that one man’s edible drumstick is another man’s wanton waste. Where one hunter sees pickled moose tongue and stuffed elk heart, another hunter sees food for carrion beetles and “the marvelous process of renewal.”

Here is another example where by all means we should try to persuade hunters to “use what they kill.” But by the same token, we should stay out of the business of making it a criminal law to force hunters to “use what they kill.”

I believe that in general we should stay away from wanton waste laws and from preachy sermons about leaving no waste under all circumstances.

Moreover, I also believe that the question of what constitutes “full” or “appropriate” utilization of the resource is best seen as something that ethicists call supererogation. Supererogation is the ethical idea of performing morally commendable acts that are not morally obligatory—rather, such acts are voluntary. The idea of supererogation is well captured by the phrase, “going above and beyond the call of duty.”

An act of charity, for example, is clearly a morally commendable behavior. And yet we as a society do not morally require people to give ten percent, or twenty percent, or ninety percent of their income to charity each year. Instead, we leave it to each individual to decide for herself how morally virtuous she will be each year when it comes to her being charitable. A voluntary act of charity is thus a supererogatory action, in that it is (a) voluntary, and it is (b) good, but it is (c) not morally required.

I believe that the full utilization of a downed game animal similarly belongs in the category of supererogatory actions. A hunter's full use of the hunted game animal is a morally commendable and morally admirable action. But I would argue that the full use of a hunted game animal does not belong in the category of a morally required behavior.

Now, with that said, using as much of the hunted animal as you possibly can is undeniably a morally virtuous act. But we need to remember that the question of how much use constitutes “full use” will vary with each individual hunter. Whereas one hunter might utilize 95% of the animal, another hunter may only use 25% of the animal.

(And, as an aside, how we would measure such a thing anyway? By weight? by biomass? Viewed this way, anyway you slice it, a conscientious and ethical elk hunter would still end up wasting more than a slob quail hunter. And surely, that can’t be right.)

In any event I would argue that the question of wanton waste and of the full utilization of animals that are killed is largely (but not always) a question of supererogatory behavior— behavior that is morally commendable, behavior that should be encouraged, and behavior that we admire—but not behavior that we need or want to force or compel others to follow.

An amazon.com book review of Beyond Fair Chase makes the point succinctly:

Posewitz, though well meaning, sets back our understanding of ethical hunting by confusing "difficulty of taking" an animal with ethics. He further does not seem to know that "fair chase" is a term created by the Boone & Crockett Club to describe their tournament rules for entering animals into their record books, much like golfing's rule that mechanized golf carts cannot be used by contestants. In spite of this, no one seriously suggests that it is unethical for recreational golfers to use golf carts, however. Ethical hunting is hunting that is: (1) Safe, (2) Conserves game populations for future generations, and (3) Respects the choices and rights of other hunters within the same boundaries. Whether I hunt with my bare hands, walking miles to get to the game, or select some easier way has nothing to do with ethics. Posewitz is entitled to hunt as he wishes, but he should not try to impose his views on others (John London (USA) - February 3, 2001).

I believe that Mr. London has it roughly correct in this evaluation of Beyond Fair Chase. Posewitz is indeed entitled to hunt as he wishes. It is another thing entirely to try to impose his ethical views on others through legislation, ballot referendum, or other politically coercive means.

This holds for other hunters and their views. Nuisance hunters of woodchucks, prairie dogs, coyotes, or foxes rarely eat what they kill. Must we therefore conclude that the hunting of nuisance species is unethical?

Some but not all hunters utilize the pelts of some but not all of these animals. Must we therefore attempt to draw a line between ethical pelt users who go above and beyond the call of duty and unethical wasters of animal carcasses who simply leave dead "varmints" to rot in the sun?

I for one don't think we should go there, at least not if we don't have to. Again, I think hunters tend to be their own worst enemy: I don't like the way you hunt, so let's pass a law against the way you hunt.

I simply believe we need to come up with better arguments than that.

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

Coyote Hunting Contests - Ethical?

A point of contention in the proposed Vermont rule on retrieval and utilization is whether coyotes should be included or not.

Organized coyote hunts provide public service but some hunters ...
Pittsburgh Post Gazette - Pittsburgh,PA,USA
Jim Posewitz, executive director of Orion: The Hunters Institute, a hunting ethics group located in Montana, said that while the number of organized coyote ...

HEARING DATES SET FOR RETRIEVAL AND UTILIZATION RULE

Attn all hunters/trappers/fishers and wildlife lovers:

Three hearing dates have been set for the proposed Fish and Wildlife Board Rule on Retrieval and Utilization of Wildlife. This is a rule that addresses the worst behavior by a few slobs that don't respect wildlife and make us all look bad. Some have argued that we don't need the rule because the vast majority of hunters, anglers and trappers do make a strong attempt to retrieve all wildlife the attempt to take and they do use all eatable meat and hides of the critters they kill. I fully agree. But, and this is a big but, we do have some so called sportsmen who don't bother to walk over and look for blood sign when the deer they just blasted from the road side doesn't go right down, and through out small perch in the access areas because they got some bigger ones and do dump deer over the guard rails because they waited too long to skin it out. And these few hurt us all. They become the public face of us all to folks that don't know a hunter personally. Yes, we have the road hunters, sign shooters and deer jackers. But at least the Wardens can arrest them for law violations. The wildlife wasters in most cases are not violating the way our laws read now. This needs to be changed.

We have this opportunity to be the agents of positive change by supporting the spirit of this rule. Or we can abdicated our responsibilities and let others impose their version of this rule on us. According to my contacts in Legislature and in the Department, that is exactly what will happen if the board does not adopt this rule.

So its up to us. Lead or be led. Is the rule perfect? No. But it is a very good start. The proposed rule is supported almost in entirety by the Vt Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs (who I represented on the working group), Vt Trappers Assn and the Traditions Coalition. HAT did not support it as they appeared to be opposed to any new regulations, arguing both that the rule did not go far enough and that no rule is needed.

Here are the meeting dates - I hope to see you there!

March 10^th in Essex Jct at the Dept’s District office at 111 West Street from 6PM to 8PM

March 11^th in Montpelier at the Pavilion Building auditorium from 6PM to 8 PM

March 12^th in Castleton at the Dept’s Kehoe Conservation Camp from 6PM to 8 PM

For the draft wording go to my previous post

Retrieval and Utilization Proposed Rule

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...

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?