HSUS California Bear Hounding Video

This is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) video about the California hounding bill, California SB 1221.

Thoughts, anyone?  Is this a fair treatment of the issue?

Duck Hunting Ain’t SEAL Hunting

Our friend Michael M. has some interesting thoughts about duck hunting advertisements on his blog, Cold Duck:

. . . I’m not a fan of recent advertising campaigns touting certain hunting products. Pictured in these campaigns are strapping young men badly in need of a shave who appear to be frighteningly earnest about shooting ducks. My buddies and I head out to forests and fields just to enjoy being there with our dogs, and, if we’re lucky, to bring home a bird or two for the weekend’s meal. An old fashioned hunt might plumb tucker our aging asses out, but it’s never confused with a grim and deadly slog. And we certainly don’t pretend we’re SEALs.

In fact, suggesting that hunters are like “special forces” diminishes both groups. The sooner these advertising campaigns are discontinued, the better. I’d rather that advertisers seek to connect a technologically enhanced present with a past that’s rich in tradition.

I have to say, I'm pretty sympathetic to the argument Mike is making here.  And I don't believe I've heard anyone else make the point before.  Are militaristic hunting ads disrespectful in some ways? And if so, to whom?

Does HSUS need hunting to continue?

Do HSUS and other anti-hunting groups need hunting?  From an excellent 5-part series on "The Vanishing Hunter," which appeared in 2008 in Delta Waterfowl's magazine:

"Perhaps Jim Posewitz of Orion—The Hunter's Institute summed it up best when he wrote in Pheasants Forever magazine, 'The animal rights and anti-hunting campaigns occupy more of our time and attention than they deserve. While they raise a lot of money and live well, they have not done much serious damage. They are a parasite and we are their host. They are an irritation, but are not likely to kill us—they and their business model require us.'"

Have anti-hunting organizations done any lasting damage or are they, as Jim Posewitz suggests, merely an irritation?

Canned Hunts, Fair Chase, and the Sorites Paradox

In a recent article, “Canned Hunting: Don’t Call It Hunting!” outdoor writer David Petersen discusses the difference between fair chase and canned hunts, and he quotes Orion founder Jim Posewitz approvingly. 

“A fenced shoot,” Posewitz writes, “is just the sale of a fabricated image to people who have neither the skill nor the inclination to obtain the real thing.”

Petersen agrees, and argues, “There is honorable hunting, and there is cowardly captive killing. The motivations and characters defining each are as distinct as day and night.”

Petersen is wrong.  The motivations and character of hunters are NOT as distinct as day and night.  There is no distinct line between canned hunts on the one hand, and fair chase on the other.

The difference between honorable hunting and cowardly hunting does not depend on the presence or absence of a fence.  Ideals of honor and cowardice, however, as well as ideals of fair chase, depend crucially on the hunter, and upon the hunter’s skills and aptitude. 

Fair chase has traditionally been defined relative to the animal—in particular, to the animal’s ability to escape. 

What’s missing in most debates about fair chase is the awareness that we need also to define fair chase relative to the human hunter—and to be specific, to the individual hunter’s ability to hunt. (And here we also know that hunters come in all shapes, sizes, interests, and abilities.)

Furthermore, we must acknowledge that there is a fundamental ambiguity to the very concept of fair chase. This ambiguity involves the philosophical problem of vagueness, a problem that has long been identified by philosophers as the sorites paradox, from the Greek term meaning “heap” or “pile.” 

The paradox is this:  start with a pile of sand, and begin removing the sand, one grain at a time.  At what point does the pile or heap become a “non-heap”?

The thought experiment can also be run in reverse: start with a grain of sand, and add to it another grain of sand. Do you now have a pile of sand?  Of course not.  Now add a third grain.  Is it a heap yet?  Of course not.  Now, continue adding sand, one grain at a time . . .  at what point do you have a heap of sand? 

The upshot is that there is no clear dividing line between having one or two grains of sand (that might constitute the concept dust) and having a pile, or a heap, or even a mountain of sand.  Thus the very concept of heap or pile or mountain is ambiguous.

Baldness is another inherently ambiguous concept (my own baldness, however, is clearly unambiguous). Begin with a full head of hair and remove it one hair at a time. When do you cross the line from having hair to being bald? (For me, it was around the age of 20!) 

Author Jim Tantillo

 

Trying to define fair chase is exactly like this—like trying to define “baldness” or “pile.”

So what does all this have to do with hunting?

On the one hand, or to be more precise, on one end of the spectrum (and spectrum, a term from physics, is exactly the right term to use) we have hunting practices that are clearly akin to a single grain of sand or to my gloriously bald pate. 

 
-->

To illustrate the point: imagine a deer chained to a post in a 10’x10’ chain-link enclosed pen, being shot at close range. Clearly this is not fair chase:  the deer has no ability to avoid death, and the hunter needs no ability at such close range either to pursue or to shoot the tethered animal.

Remove the tether.  Now the deer is in a 10 x 10 enclosure, but can move around.  Is this fair chase?  Clearly the hunter is at more of a disadvantage than in the first scenario: the deer may jump at precisely the same moment as he/she squeezes the trigger, and the hunter may wound the animal or possibly even miss entirely.  It may take two shots to bring the animal down, particularly for a poor marksman.

Does this second scenario constitute fair chase?  Clearly not, the animal is still enclosed, and little to no skill is needed on the part of the hunter.

Let us now imagine that we expand the enclosure—how about a full acre?  And while we are at it, let’s add an acre’s worth of brushy vegetation.  The deer has the ability to roam about, but the hunter must still stay out of the fence to shoot the animal.

All the hunter need do in this case, is wait patiently for the deer to come along within view inside the fence, and take a killing shot.

Is this fair chase?  Probably not, although now the lines are getting a little more fuzzy.  How does waiting outside the fence differ from an archer sitting and waiting in a tree stand?  But I’ll leave that question for another essay.

Let’s keep going, trying to get closer to fair chase.  Let’s put a gate in the fence, and allow the hunter to enter and pursue the animal within the one-acre confines of the enclosure.  The animal can still move around and has plenty of early-successional shrubland (let’s go ahead and fill the enclosure with thorny multiflora rose and honeysuckle) in which to hide.

Now it takes the hunter the better part of a morning to locate, stalk, and shoot the deer.  But after several hours of patient stalking, the hunter is successful.

Does this “hunt” now constitute “fair chase”?  Observe that we have come a fair way from shooting the animal that was tethered inside what was essentially a dog pen.  

Most hunters still would not be comfortable labeling the one-acre stalk on a deer--multiflora rose or not--as a fair chase hunt.  And yet notice that some hunters might . . . .  We can imagine hunters with disabilities, for example, who might be content with such a one-acre stalk if confined to a wheel chair. Or a young hunter, just starting out, may appreciate and learn from such an experience.

Note that I am not implying that this necessarily would be a good hunt, for young hunters or hunters with disabilities.  I am simply suggesting that the hunt might provide sufficient challenge to each individual hunter, and each hunter might possibly go home satisfied with their hunting experience. 

Now let’s continue the sorites part of our thought experiment.  Let’s rerun the thought experiment a thousand times, adding one additional acre with each repetition.  First the hunter pursues the deer in a two-acre enclosure, and then in a three-acre enclosure . . . and so on, and so on, and so on.  (And let’s, for the sake of argument, assume there is only a single, individual deer to be pursued—not legions of overpopulated deer as occur in many areas of the country.)

At what point does the enclosure become large enough that we cross a line between canned hunting and fair chase?

Perhaps never, for some hunters.  For them, hunting inside a fence is always unethical.  But for others, trying to pursue a single deer in a 1,000-acre enclosure, or a 5,000-acre enclosure, or a 20,000-acre enclosure, would be challenging and fair regardless of the proximity of the fence. 

So now let’s just remove the fence.  And imagine the same, solitary, single deer roaming about unrestricted over a 20,000-acre, or 50,000-acre, fenceless area.  Would this hunt now constitute fair chase?

I’m pretty sure if you plunked down a hard-core deer hunter, and took away his tree stand, and made him stalk a single deer over 50,000 acres (that’s 78.125 square miles!), he or she would most likely call that a fair chase hunt.

While I myself might never hunt a captive animal in a high fence setting, unlike David Petersen I am not about to tell someone else that they should not do so.  As long as a hunter conscientiously strives for a clean, quick, one-shot kill, and does so safely while respecting the law, then that hunter acts ethically and morally.

The difference between canned hunting and fair chase is like the difference between a grain of sand and a pile of sand.  When viewed on each end of the hunting spectrum, fair chase and canned hunting are clearly different.  But there is no distinct line, no clearly unambiguous boundary, to be drawn between fair chase and canned hunts, or between honorable hunters and cowards.

____________________________

Jim Tantillo is the Executive Director of Orion, The Hunters’ Institute. He has M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Cornell University, where he currently also teaches ethics and environmental philosophy in the Department of Natural Resources.

A grouse hunting purist, Jim will generally argue until he is blue in the face that the One, True, Correct Way to Hunt Grouse is with a 16 gauge Parker double gun over the staunch point of a well-trained English setter.  In the spirit of political toleration, however, he also argues until he is equally blue in the face that his retriever- and spaniel-owning friends be permitted to hunt grouse legally as they see fit, despite their aesthetically misguided preferences for flushing dogs or 12 gauge autoloaders!

 

Jim Tantillo Named New Executive Director of Orion

For Immediate Release: July 2, 2012 Orion, The Hunters’ Institute Names New Executive Director JOHNSON, VT – James A. Tantillo of Ithaca, N.Y., has been named executive director of Orion, The Hunters’ Institute, an organization that provides leadership on ethical and philosophical issues related to fair chase and responsible hunting. "Jim's strong management and leadership skills make him the right person to push Orion to a new level," said Mark Hirvonen, chairman of Orion's board. "In addition, the organization will benefit from Jim's expertise in environmental policy and natural resources management as well as his commitment to upholding our hunting traditions." Tantillo said his immediate goals are to increase fund-raising and to work on shared goals with groups such as the American Wildlife Conservation Partners. In addition, his efforts will include maintaining and expanding Orion's publications and speaking services and strengthening its hunter education services. An avid upland bird hunter, Tantillo has served on Orion's board since 2009. During that time, he was chairman of the board’s governance committee, and he also represented Orion nationally at conferences and hunter education training workshops in various states. Tantillo's management experience includes serving from 2006 to 2008 as CEO of Historic Ithaca, a local historic preservation organization in Ithaca, N.Y. Prior to that, he was interim executive director and chairman of the board for the Tompkins County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, also in Ithaca, N.Y. Currently, Tantillo is a lecturer in environmental history and ethics for the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University, where he will continue to teach part-time.  Tantillo holds his Bachelor of Science, Master of Science, and doctorate in natural resources from Cornell. Orion, The Hunters’ Institute is the nation’s leading hunting think tank and provides education and consulting services for hunters and nonhunters throughout the United States and Canada. The organization was founded in 1993 by Jim Posewitz, a Montana big game biologist.  Posewitz put Orion on the map with his book Beyond Fair Chase, which has sold more than a half million copies. To learn more about Orion, The Hunters’ Institute call 906-362-1969 or visit Orion’s website at www.huntright.org. James A. Tantillo of Ithaca, N.Y., has been named executive director of Orion, The Hunters' Institute. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact: Mark Hirvonen, Chairman Orion, The Hunters’ Institute Board of Directors 657 Maple Hill Rd Johnson, VT 05656 906-362-1969 Hirv5@aol.com

Sportsmen Win Latest Round in California

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance 801 Kingsmill Parkway, Columbus, OH  43229 Ph. 614/888-4868 • Fax 614/888-0326 Website: www.ussportsmen.org • E-mail: info@ussportsmen.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                Contact:     Mike Faw (614) 888-4868 x 214 June 26, 2012                                                  Sharon Hayden (614) 888-4868 x 226

Sportsmen Win Latest Round in California Anti-hunting Bill Fails to Clear Key Panel (Columbus) –Backers of Senate Bill 1221, which would ban hunting of black bears and bobcats using hounds, failed to earn enough votes to pass the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee this afternoon. “It all came down to last minute telephone calls from hunters to key Assembly members on the committee,” said Evan Heusinkveld, USSA’s director of state services.  “The folks who made those calls made the difference today.” From the beginning, sportsmen and women have outworked the anti-hunters, packing hearing rooms, and flooding the offices of legislators with calls.  Despite this, the Senate ignored the voice of their constituents and passed SB 1221 by just two votes, which sent the bill to the Assembly.  Today’s committee hearing was no different as hunters from all over the Golden State packed the room.  This time, however, when it was time to vote, the anti’s came up short.  Assemblyman Ricardo Lara was absent, and Assemblymen Mike Gatto and Roger Hernandez abstained.  This development left proponents of the hunting ban short of the seven votes needed to move the bill forward. The battle is not over however, as the committee Chairman is able to bring the bill back up for a re-consideration vote (basically a re-vote) within the next week. “It will all come down to which side is able to generate the most contacts to their Assembly members,” explained Heusinkveld.  “Now more than ever, it is critical for all California hunters to contact their Assembly member today and ask for a no vote on SB 1221.” Take Action!  California sportsmen must call their state assembly member in opposition to Senate Bill 1221.  To find your member’s contact information visit the Legislative Action Center.

What the Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy has to say about Hunting

Hunting and Fishing

Mark Woods, Alastair S Gunn, Gary Varner, J Claude Evans, Christopher Preston. Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. Volume 1. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2009. 
OVERVIEW
Hunting and fishing raise central concerns for environmental philosophy. Many argue that they are quintessential activities that allow people to participate in and be part of nonhuman nature. Many others argue that these activities constitute undue human interference with the natural world. However nature is valued, embracing or rejecting hunting and fishing will help express one’s environmental ethic. Whatever else nature is—species populations, communities, and ecosystems—it consists of individual animals and fish that should or should not be caught, killed, dismembered, and/or eaten. Critical evaluations of hunting and fishing have helped define and shape the field of environmental ethics.
...
Hunting Ethics
Most recreational hunters observe legal requirements designed to maintain both ecological balance and stocks of game. They also follow hunting ethics, known as fair chase or walk and stalk designed to even the odds, to give the animal a fair chance. Fair chase requires the hunter to forgo pursuing game in a vehicle or on horseback, shooting over a bait (such as a tethered goat or carcass) or at waterholes, using spotlights to dazzle nocturnal animals, and the like. Only unconfined animals may be hunted; canned hunting, in which the game is confined to an enclosure or small park, is considered unethical by many people. Many hunters believe that telescopic sights and night vision aids are also unethical.
Green hunting involves fair chase but with a non-lethal climax such as a paintball shot or a dart gun that injects a tranquilizer so that the hunter can pose for a photograph with the animal. This is often part of a research program, allowing the animal to be studied, fitted with a microchip, or translocated.
The founder of Orion the Hunter’s Institute, Jim Posewitz, wrote: “Fundamental to ethical hunting is the idea of fair chase. This concept addresses the balance between the hunter and the hunted. It is a balance that allows hunters to occasionally succeed while animals generally avoid being taken” (Posewitz 1995, p. 57).
Read the whole article

Why ALL hunters should care about California

from the U.S. Sportsman's Alliance.  This is excellent . . . we're all in this together.

Why the Lies Being Told in California Should Worry Sportsmen Nationwide

May31 by Evan Heusinkveld

It’s easy to understand why California houndsmen are up in arms.  But what you might not know is why it should matter to sportsmen in the other 49 states.  This fight is our fight too, and here is why:

I have never hunted with hounds.  But today I am a hound hunter because each of the arguments the anti-hunting lobby is using against the houndsmen could just as easily be used against you and I.

The Top Lies Being Told:

1)     It’s Unsporting to use Hounds to Chase Bears:

This should pique the interest of every pheasant hunter, duck hunter, foxhunter and more.  The anti’s are running around Sacramento telling legislators that it’s inhumane to allow a dog to chase a bear – they say it isn’t fair chase.  In reality, there is NO difference between using a hound to track a bear’s scent and using a bird-dog to follow a pheasant/grouse/quail.  If it’s inhumane for bears – what’s next?  Pheasants?  Fox?  Coyotes?  Raccoons?  The truth is – they think all hunting with dogs is bad.

 2)     Inhumane to Shoot a Bear at Close Distance:

This flies right in the face of everything sportsmen are taught.  Hunter Education teaches us to take responsible, ethical shots.  To work to get the best shot possible.  If it’s inhumane to shoot a bear at close distance – what about a turkey or a deer?  The close distance allows the hunter to age, sex, and determine if the bear has cubs all prior to taking a shot.  Don’t be confused.  They would oppose bear hunting if you shot the bear at 200 yards.  It’s not the distance they oppose, that’s just the crutch (read: LIE) they are using.  They oppose ALL hunting.

 3)     Misleading Facts – The Number of States That Allow Hound Hunting:

The bill’s author likes to point out that 2/3rds of the U.S. doesn’t allow bear hunting with hounds.  That’s a nice sound bite, but the truth of the matter is 18 states don’t even have a huntable population of bears!  Of the 32 states that hunt bear, 18 allow the use of dogs – nearly 60%.   Of the states with more than 2,000 bears – 16 of 23 allow you to use dogs – 70%.  The anti’s argument would be akin to arguing for a ban on elk hunting in California because Ohio doesn’t allow it (Nevermind the fact that Ohio doesn’t have Elk!).

4)     Pictures – GPS collars

This one is another favorite of the animal rights lobby.  In California, they are sending packets of information to each legislators’ office that include things they claim are unsightly deeds such as dogs wearing GPS collars, which they claim prevents bear hunting from being a fair chase.  What they don’t tell you, is that GPS collars are already ILLEGAL in California.  The pictures they are using are from another state all-together.

5)     Houndsmen and Bear Hunters Are Just “Trophy Hunting”

This one should be no surprise to any hunter.  They claim the only reason we hunt is for the trophy.  When in fact, the reasons for hunting are much more complex – see The Grim Hunter.  But in California, they are telling legislators that bear hunters shoot the bear and leave the meat to rot.  Sportsmen know the truth.  There are already wildlife laws in California on the books that require sportsmen to take the bear meat – that truth just doesn’t fit into the anti’s agenda.

6)     Cruel and Inhumane When Hunting.  Sound Science When Used For Research

This one is a favorite of mine.  In California, the anti’s are saying that it’s cruel and inhumane to use hounds– but their bill allows the Department of Fish and Game to do it.  In addition, when these same hunters volunteer their time, dogs, etc. to help capture a mountain lion or a bear for research it’s called sound science.  For more than 40 years, the use of hounds has been used by private foundations, universities and wildlife agencies safely and humanely.  The truth is there is no difference between treeing a bear for hunting or for research.

Each of these lies can, and likely will, be used against sportsmen again in the near future.  It may be in Florida, or Texas, or Pennsylvania… we can’t predict where.  But if they are able to get away with these lies now, they’ll surely be used again.   Sportsmen must stand together to defeat this bill – because after all we know their real agenda is the end of ALL hunting.  If these lies are successful in California, be sure they will find their way to your state soon.

Voters in the state of Maine voted down such a ballot initiative in 2004.  Hard to say whether hunting has enough support in California to defeat this bill in the state Assembly.

Time to Stand Against Wildlife Violators

From The Thinking Hunter:

...I think my reluctance to write has been a response to the sheer idiocy that has been exhibited by so many of the outdoor media’s celebrities, and outdoor professionals (guides and outfitters).   Let’s be honest, a significant number of these people have behaved in ways that are appalling at the very least. If you go online and begin counting up the game violations by these people you quickly realize we’ve got a problem and it is best expressed in the immortalized words of Strather Martin and Paul Newman: “what we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”  The failure is that too many outdoor celebs and professionals are starting to believe their own press releases and from that they are expecting a “bye” when their actions violate the law.

... Case in point is Ted Nugent. Numerous editors and even the National Rifle Association have all remained silent about Nugent’s behavior and when asked why, we discover it is because Nugent’s fans are ready to rip into anyone who speaks out or writes against Nugent and they are afraid that condemning Nugent’s actions will “rock the boat.” They are unwilling to risk losing readers or members. In short, membership fees and subscribers are more important than the future of the outdoors and Second Amendment!
More

One Way to Stop Poaching

From The Wildlife Society Blog:

With animal poaching rampant in India, western state allows forest guards to shoot hunters
The Associated Press via the Washington Post    Share   
A state in western India has declared war on animal poaching by allowing forest guards to shoot hunters on sight in an effort to curb rampant attacks on tigers and other wildlife. The government in Maharashtra says injuring or killing suspected poachers will no longer be considered a crime. More

Val Geist on Game farm "hunting".

This from an interview by David Peterson and published in the Denver Huff Post:

Petersen: Aside from its role in the spread of diseases, what are your views on the game farming industry?
Geist: Game farming is utterly incompatible with the maintenance of free-roaming wildlife on this continent, standing in direct opposition to all four basic tenets of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and democratic hunting: (1) Wildlife "ownership" must be held exclusively in the public domain. The corollary is that wildlife must never become private property. (2) In order to save North American wildlife from extinction, we long ago outlawed market hunting and commercial trafficking in dead wildlife. But game farming depends utterly on developing a huge and growing legal market in dead wildlife, throwing the doors open to illegal marketing of wild animals as well. (3) The allocation of the public wildlife resource among private citizens must be regulated by due process of law. It's the American way. It's a way that works for all. And what does game farming give us? Wildlife allocation by financial privilege. Canned hunts make a mockery of ethical democratic hunting. (4) Fair chase! Neither the U.S. nor Canada allows the frivolous killing of wildlife. But what restraints against frivolous killing exist in the private sector? None. A canned shooter may buy as many animals as he or she wants and kill them for whatever reason, in whatever fashion, no matter how frivolous, immoral and disgusting.

You said it, Dr. Geist. Let's keep the hunt in hunting!

Sportsmen's Bill Stirring Controversy

From the WMI Outdoor News Bulletin:

 

The Sportsmen's Heritage Act (H.R. 4089) passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 274 to 146 on April 17.  Many groups are now pushing for action in the Senate, however, the bill's momentum has created a rift among some conservation organizations.  While many sportsmen's groups are touting the bill's importance to entrench hunting, fishing and shooting on federal public lands, others claim the bill is unnecessary and could undermine wilderness protection, reports the Wildlife Management Institute.

Read More >>

 

Concerns raised in addition to undercutting protection of wilderness areas are: creating loopholes in the National Environmental Policy Act (that could make it easier to close federal lands to hunting) and cutting the President's authority to create new national monuments that was first used by Theodore Roosevelt.

I hope all hunters will work together to fix these issues in the Senate- then we will have a truly landmark bill for the future of hunting.

Eric

We don't have fish and wildlife by accident

Outstanding op/ed from TRCP's Neil Thagard.

 

Wildlife and wild places are big business in Wyoming. More than $2.5 billion is generated here every year by outdoor activities ranging from hunting and fishing to camping and bird watching.
This didn’t happen by accident.

Read more: http://trib.com/opinion/columns/we-don-t-have-fish-and-wildlife-by-accident/article_e98c61f4-8e28-595d-a866-8d7667b6143b.html#ixzz1uwueD1uU
 

Jim Posewitz on Wisdom

Wisdom — Jim Posewitz on Vimeo
► 2:40► 2:40	vimeo.com/18398851Jan 3, 2011 - 3 min Jim Posewitz's determination and grit are inspiring to all of us — no matter what battles we're fighting.