Vermont Sportsmen - your calls, emails and letters urgently needed to legislators. The Governor has proposed cutting 6 positions at the Fish and Wildlife Dept. on top of positions (like my old HE training coordinator slot) that are already gone. Legislators need to hear from you - if we don't stand up for wildlife - who will?
Don't wait - they will be voting very soon.
Following is what I wrote to my Lamoille Co reps:
Dear Representative (Senator),
I'm writing to urge you to oppose the Governor's proposed cuts in positions at The Fish and Wildlife Department. I understand the need to save general fund money during these tough times. However, there is no savings to be had with the proposed cuts in fish and wildlife. I know you are well aware that fish and wildlife is serious business in Vermont. Sportsmen and conservationists need a strong partner with the state. Even without these possible cuts nearly 3 million federal dollars have been left unclaimed in the last few years due to under staffing.
Of these 6 targeted positions, only one relies on general fund money for 25% ($17,500) of the total cost of the position. The remaining five positions have been 100% funded through federal monies and hunting/fishing license sales. The Department currently has adequate federal/license dollars to support all of these positions, including retirement and future health care costs. In fact, it will actually cost the general fund $18,000.00 more dollars to cut these positions than it would to keep them. (see attachment for more details)
I know you need to find ways to save state money or find new money. It does not mean going along with a Governor who appears to be playing politics with employee numbers, which in this case do not save money, but will cost money. I suggest temporarily cutting the general fund allotment to Fish and Wildlife rather than cutting positions. Better
yet would be a slight increase in the sales tax of 1/8th of 1-cent dedicated to the Fish and Wildlife Department as advocated by the VT Wildlife Partnership. This additional money could be then leveraged for millions of federal wildlife dollars.
Thanks for listening,
Eric
Monday, March 30, 2009
Support teaming with wildlife funding
TAKE ACTION: Support a Critical Bill for Fish and Wildlife Funding
 |
The Teaming with Wildlife Act will provide a dedicated source of funding to the state's management of fish and wildlife. Ask your Senators to support this important legislation today.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Turkey Hunting Safety Tips from VT F&W
WATERBURY, VT For many Vermont hunters, May first is almost as important as the opening of firearms deer season, and while turkey hunting-related shootings are rare, extra precautions are needed.
Wild turkeys are not the dummies popular myth makes them out to be. Their keen eyes can easily detect movement and out-of-place colors, making camouflage or drab colored clothing almost mandatory, at least when you are set-up. Unfortunately, camouflage has the same affect on other hunters as it has on the turkeys. Consequently, hunter safety experts warn that you never hunt turkeys by attempting to stalk them.
“Stalking is the common denominator in twenty-one out of the twenty-four turkey hunting-related shootings we have had in Vermont,” said Vermont Hunter Education Coordinator Chris Saunders. “Sometimes it’s the stalker who is mistaken for game. Sometimes it’s the other hunter.”
With the opening of spring turkey hunting season near, the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department urges hunter to review the following safety tips:
Ø Never try to stalk a gobbling turkey. Your chances of getting close are poor, and you may be sneaking up on another hunter
Ø Stick with hen calls. A gobbler call is intended for special situations and might attract other hunters.
Ø Don’t be patriotic. Avoid red, white or blue. A tom turkey’s head has similar colors.
Ø Avoid unnecessary movement. This could alert turkeys and attract hunters.
Ø Don’t hide so well that you impair your field of vision.
Ø Wear hunter orange to and from your hunting location, and wrap your turkey in some hunter orange cloth for the hike back to the car.
Ø Always sit with your back against a tree trunk, big log or a boulder that is wider than your body. This protects you from being accidentally struck by pellets fired from behind you.
Ø If you use a decoy, place it on the far side of a tree trunk or a rock so you can see the birds approaching from all directions, but cannot actually see the decoy. This prevents you from being directly in the line of fire should another hunter mistakenly shoot at your decoy.
Ø Never shoot unless you’re absolutely sure of your target. Since only turkeys with beards are legal during the spring season, lack of positive identification could result in shooting an illegal bird, or worse, another hunter.
Ø Consider wearing hunter orange while moving from set-up to set-up. Take it off when you are in position.
Remember, only turkeys stalk turkeys! Keep hunting safe in Vermont and make it even safer.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
NY times article on NY Enviromental Police in the city
Polluters, Beware: These Eco-Police Officers Are for Real
By MIREYA NAVARRO
Officers with the State Department of Environmental Conservation have become more prominent as awareness of pollution’s role in global warming has grown.
Venture outside with ‘Becoming an Outdoor Family’
Camping weekend has something for everyone to love
WATERBURY – Make a date with your family and book now for the 12th annual “Becoming an Outdoor Family” weekend, May 29-31, at Stillwater State Park, hosted by
the Departments of Forests, Parks and Recreation, Fish and Wildlife and the University of Vermont Extension.
At $165 for the weekend and chock full of everything you ever wanted to do outside, the event is the perfect kickoff for a summer of affordable outdoor fun at any of the 52 state parks around Vermont.
Whether you’re new to camping or experienced in outdoor adventures, Becoming an Outdoor Family offers a myriad of workshops to expand your nature-loving repertoire and introduce your family to new outdoor adventures.
There’s mountain biking, photography, canoeing, shooting, basketry, nature writing, archery, fishing, hiking, a Dutch oven cooking class and much more—all taught and supervised by outdoor professionals. Expert instructors begin each class with the basics, providing hands-on experience and encouraging participants to ask questions.
“Becoming an Outdoor Family is a popular event that brings families together to learn outdoor skills, share common interests and have fun outside – away from the busy-ness of every day life,” said Jason Gibbs, commissioner of Forests, Parks and Recreation. “Becoming an outdoor family is a great way to make the most of family time together.”
Stillwater State Park is located on Groton Lake in 28,000-acre Groton State Forest. It has 17 lean-to sites, and 62 tent/trailer sites. There are some excellent sites and lean-tos on the shores of the lake where you can boat right up to your campsite. Stillwater also has a boat launch and a beach, and just down the road is the Forest Nature Center. Close to the campground is the beginning of many of the 22 miles of hiking trails that meander through Groton State Forest.
For more information, contact Gail Makuch (gail.makuch@uvm.edu) or Lisa Muzzey (lisa.muzzey@uvm.edu), 802-257-7967 or 1-800-278-5480 (toll-free within Vermont). Or, online at: http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmext/
TR the conservationist president
I just finished reading Edmund Morris's The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. I highly recommend it if you haven't read it yet. I didn't realize that Roosevelt was in Vermont attending a luncheon of the Vermont Fish and Game League on Isle La Motte when president McKinley was shot on Sept 6, 1901. Better known is Roosevelt was on Mt Marcy in the Adirondacks when McKinley died and he became president.
I found the following write up on the Sagamore Hill National Historic site web page that contains an interesting view on Roosevelt's role as a conservationist and how hunting and trophy hunting was compatable with his leadership in this role. Click on the Handbook for Leaders button for more interesting information
More at http://www.nps.gov/sahi
Conservation, Preservation, Taxidermy, Hunting Trophies,
(Dead Animal Parts on display in Sagamore Hill)
TR is often held up as the first conservation president, and indeed his record of conservation and preservation is
almost unmatched. But, how does one explain all the taxidermy on display in his house? It is one of the paradoxes
about this complicated man that needs examination and explanation in order to come to an understanding.
First of all, it is a general rule of examining history, that we cannot use the standards of today to judge the stan-
dards of another time. Today we think of preservation and conservation in very rigid terms. The only thought of
going on a safari in Africa today would be to collect photographs and film footage, but TR was hired by the Smith-
sonian and the American Museum of Natural History to collect samples for display in these museums. In TR's
youth and even during his presidency there was a general feeling that the natural resources were almost inexhausti-
ble.
During TR's youth, there was a huge wave of exploration and investigation of uncharted lands and the emphasis
was on identification and documentation (maps, charts, etc.) and, by extension, the species of flora and fauna that
lived there. The motivation of documentation required the collection of the life forms, so samples were taken for
later classification. Plant samples were collected, pressed and dried, and animal species were killed and preserved
in various ways for later cataloging and documentation.
TR had come from a well-to-do family who lived in bustling Manhattan. The earliest mention of his fascination
of wildlife forms was after he visited a market where a dead seal (yes, seals used to live in the waters surrounding
New York City) was displayed. The sight of this dead seal prompted a life-long curiosity, fascination with and
study of natural history fauna life forms. Indeed he began collecting specimens as a youth which he displayed in a
closet in his boyhood home and called the "Roosevelt Museum." We are not sure if this coincided with his father's
founding of the American Museum of Natural History.
But TR, a sickly child troubled by asthma, who often suffered greatly as a result of its effects, was granted two
rather unusual wishes as a youth: Boxing lessons (as a form of exercise suggested by his father to help build up his
strength); and taxidermy lessons. TR began his collection, classification and display of taxidermy samples early in
his life, and this collection continued throughout his life. Many of these (75 objects) are displayed at Sagamore
Hill in various forms: Rugs, trophy mounts, three are fashioned into decorative or "useful" objects (elephant tusks,
an elephant foot as waste receptacle and rhino foot as an ink well).
In addition it was very much the fashion to display and decorate with animal trophies. The curiosity that drove the
exploration of strange lands was tangibly shown by using these trophies as decorative objects, and they were very
much status symbols. In the same way we join certain organization or clubs, drive particular makes and models of
cars, and wear certain shoes or garments, these items were a way of stating to all a certain status level.
For further thought:
What are the status symbols of today, --what watches, shoes, jackets, cars or trips to far-off lands do we regard as
marks of status?
How about collections?
Does anyone collect sea shells? Do people realize that a shell is actually a dead animal part, that the shell was the
outer protective covering of an animal.?
Note: Shells are a good way to bring collecting animal trophies into discussion. There are few people that have
the same reaction to a shell collection as to animal trophies, yet for all of them the animal had to die to permit dis-
play of the item, whether head, skin antlers or shell. While shells may be collected at the shore where the animals
presumably have died of natural causes, most serious collections result from collecting the live animal, so that the
shell or shells are pristine and not buffed by the waves.
But how about leather shoes? How about fur coats? Animals die for these common items in our life today.
Conservation and preservation and TR
TR is often regarded as the first "conservation president" because he saw and began actions to conserve natural
resources and preserve sites of archaeological significance, particularly in the Southwest.
Conservation is the term usually used for the act of preserving and saving natural resources, (forests, wildlife-
preserves, lands, etc.). America had gone through a period of growth and development during which the use of
these natural reserves, originally seen as inexhaustible, began to become depleted. The move to limit this usage
and development was not at all popular because merchant developers saw this activity as a limitation of their in-
come-producing ability. Forestry and logging for example, especially in the Northwest, threatened the destruction
of the vast reserves of trees that had taken centuries to develop. The naturalists John Muir and Gifford Pinchot,
though their individual goals differed considerably, were among those who encouraged Roosevelt to develop his
conservation ethic as they saw these reserves being depleted. In addition to the conservation efforts of TR¸ the
development of the science of forestry by Pinchot (who endowed a Chair at Yale), and the establishment the Sierra
Club, (Muir) and the Boone and Crockett Club were direct outgrowths of this conservation effort.
Further investigation:
Those wishing to investigate this area further may wish to look up the following items: Gifford Pinchot; US For-
estry Service; John Muir; Sierra Club; Boone and Crockett Club
I found the following write up on the Sagamore Hill National Historic site web page that contains an interesting view on Roosevelt's role as a conservationist and how hunting and trophy hunting was compatable with his leadership in this role. Click on the Handbook for Leaders button for more interesting information
More at http://www.nps.gov/sahi
Conservation, Preservation, Taxidermy, Hunting Trophies,
(Dead Animal Parts on display in Sagamore Hill)
TR is often held up as the first conservation president, and indeed his record of conservation and preservation is
almost unmatched. But, how does one explain all the taxidermy on display in his house? It is one of the paradoxes
about this complicated man that needs examination and explanation in order to come to an understanding.
First of all, it is a general rule of examining history, that we cannot use the standards of today to judge the stan-
dards of another time. Today we think of preservation and conservation in very rigid terms. The only thought of
going on a safari in Africa today would be to collect photographs and film footage, but TR was hired by the Smith-
sonian and the American Museum of Natural History to collect samples for display in these museums. In TR's
youth and even during his presidency there was a general feeling that the natural resources were almost inexhausti-
ble.
During TR's youth, there was a huge wave of exploration and investigation of uncharted lands and the emphasis
was on identification and documentation (maps, charts, etc.) and, by extension, the species of flora and fauna that
lived there. The motivation of documentation required the collection of the life forms, so samples were taken for
later classification. Plant samples were collected, pressed and dried, and animal species were killed and preserved
in various ways for later cataloging and documentation.
TR had come from a well-to-do family who lived in bustling Manhattan. The earliest mention of his fascination
of wildlife forms was after he visited a market where a dead seal (yes, seals used to live in the waters surrounding
New York City) was displayed. The sight of this dead seal prompted a life-long curiosity, fascination with and
study of natural history fauna life forms. Indeed he began collecting specimens as a youth which he displayed in a
closet in his boyhood home and called the "Roosevelt Museum." We are not sure if this coincided with his father's
founding of the American Museum of Natural History.
But TR, a sickly child troubled by asthma, who often suffered greatly as a result of its effects, was granted two
rather unusual wishes as a youth: Boxing lessons (as a form of exercise suggested by his father to help build up his
strength); and taxidermy lessons. TR began his collection, classification and display of taxidermy samples early in
his life, and this collection continued throughout his life. Many of these (75 objects) are displayed at Sagamore
Hill in various forms: Rugs, trophy mounts, three are fashioned into decorative or "useful" objects (elephant tusks,
an elephant foot as waste receptacle and rhino foot as an ink well).
In addition it was very much the fashion to display and decorate with animal trophies. The curiosity that drove the
exploration of strange lands was tangibly shown by using these trophies as decorative objects, and they were very
much status symbols. In the same way we join certain organization or clubs, drive particular makes and models of
cars, and wear certain shoes or garments, these items were a way of stating to all a certain status level.
For further thought:
What are the status symbols of today, --what watches, shoes, jackets, cars or trips to far-off lands do we regard as
marks of status?
How about collections?
Does anyone collect sea shells? Do people realize that a shell is actually a dead animal part, that the shell was the
outer protective covering of an animal.?
Note: Shells are a good way to bring collecting animal trophies into discussion. There are few people that have
the same reaction to a shell collection as to animal trophies, yet for all of them the animal had to die to permit dis-
play of the item, whether head, skin antlers or shell. While shells may be collected at the shore where the animals
presumably have died of natural causes, most serious collections result from collecting the live animal, so that the
shell or shells are pristine and not buffed by the waves.
But how about leather shoes? How about fur coats? Animals die for these common items in our life today.
Conservation and preservation and TR
TR is often regarded as the first "conservation president" because he saw and began actions to conserve natural
resources and preserve sites of archaeological significance, particularly in the Southwest.
Conservation is the term usually used for the act of preserving and saving natural resources, (forests, wildlife-
preserves, lands, etc.). America had gone through a period of growth and development during which the use of
these natural reserves, originally seen as inexhaustible, began to become depleted. The move to limit this usage
and development was not at all popular because merchant developers saw this activity as a limitation of their in-
come-producing ability. Forestry and logging for example, especially in the Northwest, threatened the destruction
of the vast reserves of trees that had taken centuries to develop. The naturalists John Muir and Gifford Pinchot,
though their individual goals differed considerably, were among those who encouraged Roosevelt to develop his
conservation ethic as they saw these reserves being depleted. In addition to the conservation efforts of TR¸ the
development of the science of forestry by Pinchot (who endowed a Chair at Yale), and the establishment the Sierra
Club, (Muir) and the Boone and Crockett Club were direct outgrowths of this conservation effort.
Further investigation:
Those wishing to investigate this area further may wish to look up the following items: Gifford Pinchot; US For-
estry Service; John Muir; Sierra Club; Boone and Crockett Club
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
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.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
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
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.
The head and horns of the ram also were confiscated.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Vermont’s Nongame Wildlife Fund Seeks Taxpayer Support
If we all give a little, wildlife will benefit a lot!
Vermont’s Nongame Wildlife Fund Seeks Taxpayer Support
WATERBURY, VT –After years of absence, common loons, peregrine falcons and ospreys are now nesting again in Vermont, and their numbers are increasing. In fact, they have done so well, they are no longer listed as endangered or threatened in Vermont. Their successful comeback can be credited to Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department’s Nongame and Natural Heritage Program – a program now seeking individual taxpayer support to help support work on other aquatic and terrestrial species.
Many Vermont taxpayers have been contributing to the Nongame Wildlife Fund since 1986, when the fund was created to help pay for work done by biologists with the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department and its partners to manage and enhance wildlife species that are not hunted or fished.
“Contributions at tax time by Vermonters who care about protecting nongame species and their habitats are just as important today as when the program started,” said Steve Parren, Coordinator of the Nongame and Natural Heritage Program. “Contributions have totaled more than $100,000 each year, which helps keep this program successful.”
Wildlife is fortunate to have lots of support in Vermont where a survey shows 62 percent of residents actively enjoy wildlife one way or another. Vermonters were third only to Montana and Maine as participants in wildlife recreation. Activities include hunting, fishing, feeding birds, and observing or photographing wildlife.
“Thanks to Vermont’s Nongame contribution line 29-a. on our state tax form, we also can be wildlife conservationists by giving to our Nongame and Natural Heritage Program at tax time. Look for the loon logo on your Vermont tax form, and do your part to help Vermont’s nongame wildlife,” said Parren.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
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:
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.
Driver writes:
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.
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.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. ☺
“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.”
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.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
$740 Million Goes to States for Fish and Wildlife Projects
$740 Million Goes to States for Fish and Wildlife Projects
Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced today more than $740.9 million will be distributed to the fish and wildlife agencies of the 50 states, commonwealths, the District of Columbia, and territories to fund fish and wildlife conservation, boater access to public waters, and hunter and aquatic education. These Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program funds come from excise taxes and import duties on sporting firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, sportfishing equipment, electric outboard motors, and fuel taxes attributable to motorboats and small engines.
"The funds raised under the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs have helped conserve our fish and wildlife resources and provide opportunities for outdoor recreation for more than half a century. These investments, which help create jobs while protecting our nation's natural treasures, are particularly important in these tough economic times,” Salazar said. “All those who pay into this program – the hunting and fishing industries, boaters, hunters, anglers, and recreational shooters – should take pride in helping to conserve our land and its fish and wildlife and provide benefits to all Americans who cherish the natural world and outdoor recreation.”
The Wildlife Restoration apportionment for 2009 totals nearly $336 million, with more than $64.7 million marked for hunter education and firearm and archery range programs. The Sport Fish Restoration apportionment for 2009 totals more than $404 million.
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act funding is available to states, commonwealths, and territories through a formula based on land area, including inland waters and the number of paid hunting license holders in each state, commonwealth, and territory. State, commonwealth, and territorial fish and wildlife agencies use the money to manage wildlife populations, conduct habitat research, acquire wildlife lands and public access, carry out surveys and inventories, administer hunter education, and construct and maintain shooting ranges.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
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:
“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:
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:
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.
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):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:
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 ).
“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 - EricVERMONT 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
H.243 Mentored hunting program
H. 243 | AN ACT RELATING TO THE CREATION OF AN APPRENTICE HUNTING LICENSE |
| As Introduced |
Introduced by Representatives Adams of Hartland, Consejo of Sheldon, Fagan
of Rutland City, McCullough of Williston, Peltz of Woodbury
and Rodgers of Glover
Subject: Fish and wildlife; licenses; mentored hunting program
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to create a mentored hunting license.
The license will allow an individual of any age to hunt for two seasons without
taking a hunter education course or having a hunting license. This bill would
allow mentored-hunter license holders to hunt under the direct control and
supervision of any fully licensed individual over the age of 21 subject to the
fully licensed hunter’s bag limit.
This bill addresses two important issues for the future of hunting in Vermont; 1) recruitment of new hunters, 2)deepening the support for hunters and the hunting culture. It does this by allowing interested people of all ages to try hunting in a meaningful way before forcing them to commit a lot of time or money. The normal steps for a person to take up a sport or recreation is 1) become aware of it, 2) find out more about it, 3) try it, 4) commit time and money to it, 5) continue with support, 6) continue with out assistance, 7) become avid and an advocate for the sport. Hunting because of well documented safety reasons reversed steps 3 and 4 when hunter safety became mandatory starting in NY in 1947 and in Vermont in 1974. 40 years of hunter education, plus the invention and use of hunter orange has changed things dramatically. Hunting related shootings with injury are rare, our hunters are safe and getting safer.
Here is some preliminary data from Ohio. They like Vermont have no minimum age for people to take hunter education and if they pass can buy a hunting license. four years ago they passed a similar law to H243 allowing people to try hunting with a mentor prior to taking hunter education. Here is what Steve Gray, former Director of the Ohio Fish and Wildlife Department told me about the program:
Eric-The before and after data [before the mentored hunting law passed and after it passed] is being put together at this time and should be available in 2 or 3 weeks. This will be an in-depth review of recruitment.Upon initial review it looks like the results after 3 seasons are very good. I will get it to you as soon as it is available. The safety figures are available now. Not in Ohio or in any of the other states with a mentored hunting program has anyone in this program been involved in a fatality. In Ohio,after 3 full seasons, no mentored hunter has been involved in any incident fatal or non-fatal. The report is being finished and I should get it to you in a timely manner.This will be a very fresh report.
This type legislation is being supported by the National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sport Foundation, US Sportsman's Alliance, the National Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, and the International Hunter Education Association. Mentored hunting program was also endorsed in the Future of Hunting in Vermont report as a result of 2 1/2 days work by 60 leaders in the hunting and conservation field here in Vermont in 2006 in Castleton. The VT Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs have also endorsed the concept of this bill.
I urge all of you to read the bill, and contact your local representative and ask them to support this bill and vote it into law.
I will keep everyone posted on progress thru this blog - stay tuned...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
