Jake's Outdoors

Archive for the ‘Hunting Controversy’ Category

Minnesota is now trying to increase their hunting license fee by $1.  Most of us have gone through rate increases.  Here in West Virginia, the rates went up pretty significantly just last year.  We often complain about the increases, but end up putting up with it becasue we can see the benefits to us as hunters.  Hunting fees pay for many of the benefits that we get as outdoorsmen.  However, in Minnesota, that isn’t going to be the case.  Why the $1 increase?  To pay for processing deer that have been donated to the less fortunate of the state, through a program such as “Hunters Helping the Hungry”.

This sounds like a great thing…and most of us as hunters and outdoorsmen would not think of this being an extravagent fee.  So, then what is the problem?  The problem is that the state is already going to be relying heavily on hunters for supplying “free meat” to the food pantries as it is!   The current policy of the state of Minnesota is to make the hunter who wishes to donate venison pay for the processing himself.  That  costs anywhere from $60 to $80 per deer.  Not surprisingly, there are not a lot of deer being donated.  It seems that the state believes that if they raise the price of hunting license by $1 and then use that money to pay for the processing of the deer, then hunters will be more likely to dontate more deer.  They also believe that this will be a valuable management tool, because if it is easier for hunters to donate kills that they do not want to consume themselves, they will be more likely to hunt for a few extra deer.

So, what is the problem?  This sounds like a win-win-win situation.  Hunters get to hunt more.  The state gets more deer killed, thus controlling the population better.  Less fortunate people receive free, high quality, venison. 

In my opinion, this is the problem.  Hunters are required to foot the bill for something that is a general social program.  Why should hunters be asked to pay for something that benefits society as a whole?  I am certainly not opposed to donating venison for the benefit of families that could use it.  But, this is a significant amount of money, raised by essentially taxing hunters, to pay for something that should be taken care of by a more general fund.  After all, hunters are already paying a significant fee to be able to donate that deer.  They had to pay for the tags for those deer.  I don’t know how much that fee is in Minnesota, but if it is similar to West Virginia, that would be at least $10.  That in and of itself is a significant sacrifice. 

I am sure that many will wonder why this is such a big deal.  It is only a dollar, they will say.  But, that is not the point.  Hunters and outdoorsmen willingly make sacrifices such as paying for that extra tag for the purpose of donating the deer, or helping a family that they know could use the meat.  We do it because we enjoy being able to hunt, and we like having the opportunity to help others.  What we don’t like is being taken advantage of.  In this case, all Minnesota hunters would be forced to pay for a community service that no one else in the community is willing to pay for. 

There are certainly other alternatives.  One possibility is to sell discounted tags, specifically as “donation” tags.  Any deer taken on such a tag would be designated for donation to the food pantries.  The money collected from those tags could pay for the processing of the deer.  That would keep the burden from being paid for by those who don’t want to participate in the program.  Hunters would still be paying for the fee, but they would actually be paying less, not more over all!  I believe that hunters would gladly buy a discounted tag (50% off perhaps?), so that they could hunt for a little longer.  The state would have the opportunity to have the herd brought under control by having more deer killed in season.  And, the food pantries would benefit by having more venison donated, since the hunters would not be hit with the high cost of processing the game.  Best of all, we as hunters would not feel like we were being taken advantage of!  I am sure, however, that there is some bureaucratic reason why this couldn’t work.

See the Star Tribune for original article.

Ok, now I have heard everything!  In New Jersey, the Audubon Society, often cited as opposing all hunting, has begun to support deer hunting in certain areas.  And, in New York City, land is being opened up for deer hunting.  Not only that, but they are offering incentives to hunters for hunting on their land, and lowering the hunting age to 14, with a parent present.  Why would this be happening?  Simple:  overpopulation!  That’s right, the very reason that pro-hunters have argued for the need of hunting for years.  We have heard that there is no reason for hunting in this country–we can buy meat at the grocery store.  And, you can find other forms of entertainment that are not so violent.  Now, the truth comes out! 

But, some may say, this problem is only happening in suberbia.  We don’t need hunting in more rural areas where the “balance of nature” is more natural.  News flash:  stop hunting deer in rural America, and the exact same problem will occur.  In most of America, there are no natural predators left for deer.  Human hunters are the only recourse for controlling populations.  The grim reality is, if we do not hunt deer to control populations, then they will become overpopulated, and end up dying slow, painful deaths from starvation.  Yeah, that’s humane.

What it comes down to is that these suburbanites have decided that their $10,000+ landscaping jobs are really more important than their “moral objections” to hunting.  They are against hunting until their hydrangeas are nibbled down to stubs by the resident destructive deer population.  Let’s face it:  either deer hunting is immoral or it’s not.  It can’t be immoral most of the time, but ok if my little oak trees are getting mowed down by the not so selective browsing whitetail.  I for one am tired of being blasted by these anti-hunting organizations because I enjoy hunting, only to turn around and see them being “in favor” of a hunt just to protect their own personal overpriced maple sapling!

New York is moving in the right direction.  Bring in the hunters to save the day.  Harvest the deer until the population is back down to where the land can support them, and then maintain that level with yearly hunts.  Get ready for the animal rights nuts to decend on you!  Maybe their apple orchard in the ‘burbs hasn’t been destroyed yet.

Source:  The Journal News

They have finally given in to the pressure.  The World Hunting Association has finally given into the pressure of the hunting community, and has relented from using darts in their competition.  Instead, the competitors will actually kill the animals.  Imagine that, a hunting tournament where the competitors actually kill the animals.  David Farbman, commissioner of the WHA made this statement on on their official website:  “Over the past two months, we have met one-on-one with fellow hunters, major hunters’ rights organizations, industry leaders and top outdoor journalists from all over the country to gain their perspectives. Consistently, their major concerns centered on the proposed use of non-fatal darting,” said Farbman. The WHA is committed to growing the sport of hunting and increasing participation among youth, women and minority groups. We regret that the darting format upset other individuals with those same goals,” said Farbman.  “The WHA is made up of longtime hunters who are incredibly passionate about the sport.  Everyone associated with WHA wants what is best for hunting. We feel confident we are now on the right path.”

I think this is definitely think this is a step in the right direction, but there are still at least a couple of issues that need to be addressed.  The first is that the first leg of the competition is to be held at the Lost Arrow Ranch in Gladwin, Michigan.  The problem with this is that the Lost Arrow ranch is a mere 1000 acres, and it is high fenced.  That may sound like a lot of room, but with so many competitors hunting the region, the deer certainly do not have a “sporting chance”.  I for one will never be willing to accept the idea of killing deer on such small parcels of fenced land as real hunting.  Pen the deer up in a small pen, and anyone should be able to kill the deer!

Another problem is the paying out of cash prizes to the winners.  I know that the prize money structure has worked well for the BASS tournaments, but there is a far different perception of fishing than there is of hunting.  I am not sure that I will ever be able to accept such a cash prize structure for a hunting situation.  Such a prize seems to cheapen the animal that was slain, and discourage good management practices.  Of course, there have been many other things that have happened that have discouraged good management practices as well.  There are still those in the area that I hunt that do not believe in shooting does.  They will, however shoot as many bucks as they can lay their scobe on.  Others have been led to believe, often by modern hunting publications, that anyting short of a monster buck is unacceptable.  But, then, that is a sidetrack…maybe I can post more on that later.

I don’t know if the WHA will ever get their plan in order with what hunters will accept.  I believe they have a long way to go.  They are showing promise.  They at least came around to understanding that their Association was doomed if they did not make some changes.  Perhaps they will wake up, and bring this project into lines that will be at least tolerable to true sportsmen.  The sad part of the whole thing is that they have been so slow in responding to the obvious outrage of those who should be their primary audience.  It may be that they have alienated us to the point they will never get us back!

Ok, here is an issue that is causing quite the uproar in the hunting community.  David Farbman has developed a plan to have a World Hunting Association, which is mimicking professional Bass tours.  The idea is to have competitions between two teams, who are trying to “kill” the biggest deer.  Why the quotations around “kill”?  Because they want to only dart the deer, tranquelizing them instead of killing them.  Thus, they are able to “catch and release” these deer.  The idea is that they will not cause any harm to the deer.  Unfortunately, that which is good in theory, is not always good in reality. 

At first glance, this may sound like a good idea.  Some may believe that this will bring some good press to the sport of hunting.  After all, if the greatest complaint against hunting is that you kill an animal, then if you take that out, there is no further complaint.  However, that is not really a rational argument.  Do you really think that animal rights proponents will accept this farce as an acceptable compromise for hunting?  In truth, this is only one step away from abolishing all hunting.  Think about it…if you can just dart a deer, and then let it go, you don’t really need to hunt at all!  And, they will certainly argue that you are humiliating this poor deer.  And, after all, this is just not natural!  If this is an effort to bring “anti-hunters” into the fold, don’t hold your breath.  There is no acceptable compromise out there.  These people will only be satisfied with an abolishment of hunting!

So, if this is not going to help the hunter’s image among non-hunters or anti-hunters. then what is the purpose?  It seems to me that the only purpose of this organization is to make money off of hunters.  After all, there is a lot of money on the Bass Fishing Tours.  Surely, if we can turn this into a comparable organization, there will be a lot of money.  Farbman, on his website, states this as the purpose of the association:  “The World Hunting Association is committed to promoting and growing hunting around the world.  This will be achieved by showcasing the skills, techniques and determination of hunters and by launching education, recruiting and charitable programs to increas understanding and participation.”  Now, I may be naieve, but don’t you have to be hunting to promote hunting, or recruit people into hunting? In fact, could this idea not be done in such a way that animals are harvested?  Wait a minute, that has already been done.  A couple of times in fact.  Mark and Terry Drury have put together a good show that I have enjoyed, showing a competition between two teams who try to provide the best habitat, and thus the best hunting spot…they see who can kill the nicest buck over the best food plot and off of the best stand.  There was another good show on, that had various teams of hunters who competed to film the best hunts.  Unfortunately, my memory fails me and I can’t think of what that show was called.  I enjoyed both of these shows.  But, to take the kill out of the show simply makes it a game of hide and seek!

There are some other problems that I see with this idea.  First, all “hunting” must be done in a high fence enclosure.  The darting of deer in the wild is illegal (I believe) in every state.  This is a practice that has been used only for research, and in some cases for purposes such as transplanting deer to help boost the herd in a particular place.  Such practices are always supervised by wildlife biologists and veterinarians to ensure the health of these deer.  If my understanding is correct, there will be both biologists and veterinarians present during these hunts to ensure the deer are not harmed.  If that is not making a mockery of the tradition and sport of hunting as we know it, I certainly don’t know what is!

It is interesting to me that so many companies have rejected sponsoring this fiasco.  Names such as Bass Pro Shops, Cabela’s and Easton have rejected sponsorship.  Early on, the WHA announced that Easton would be sponsoring them, but this was inaccurate.  According to Outdoor Life Magazine, when it was released that Easton would sponsor this, their phones were flooded by their customers, complaining about such a partnership. They immediately cut off discussions with the WHA to form this partnership.  I for one, applaud their choice!

I am sure there are many other problems with this proposal.  I hope that this is something that will not continue very long!  We as hunters have a proud tradition, and this sullies that tradition.  We need to bring more people into the sport, but this is not the way to do it.  We need to teach our children, and teach those that have not had an opportunity to learn the great benefits that come from hunting.  There is a camaraderie that is formed between companions that will last a life time!  There is a respect for the animal that is just not there in this new farce.  Let’s be proud of our heritage!

EDIT:  You might be interested in this–Mike Hanback has posted about this same subject on his blog!