There has been a surge of discussion recently about hunter and conservation groups getting along better with environmentalists, especially in Western states where they have traditionally been on less-than friendly terms. That's all well and good, but the rash of poaching big animals to satisfy big egos is about as much the antithesis of environmentalism as you can get. Environmentalists need to step up and condemn this behavior and call for much stricter penalties.
The test for whether the honeymoon between hunters and environmentalists is real is whether hunting groups will also condemn this behavior and support tougher punishment. Reasonable people can disagree about whether it is right or wrong to kill many of these animals at all (even among environmentalists), but killing them simply to satisfy bloodlust and one-upsmanship is wrong and should be stopped.
Comments
View as Flat
willa Posted 11:32 am
09 Dec 2006
But yeah, totally, what you said, if hunting advocacy groups can't advocate cracking down on these sorts of things, it's not going to help relations.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:06 am
10 Dec 2006
Also, he should have done more thorough investigation into the poaching ring centered in Gardiner, MT. Are the fines, and the one-year prison term for the leader, as relatively insignificant as they sound? How much were these people counting on getting from their clients with the big egos? Also, it should be remembered that Gardiner is the town right at the northern entrance to Yellowstone; and so, it remains unclear, if the poaching actually took place within the national park. If so, I would have thought that penalties for killing wildlife there, or for profiteering from the killing of wildlife there, were very severe.
Also: I am mystified by that lottery system in Nevada, by which only very few applicants for hunters' licenses are given one. I was under the impression that anyone in the Western states who wanted to hunt could do so legally, so long as he or she put up the money and did the paperwork right. In connexion with Dick Cheney's ill-fated hunting expedition in Southeast Texas last year, on private property, after quail, it was discovered that he was delinquent for not having the right kind of license; but apparently it would not have been hard for him to get that license.
Also: It would be interesting to know how many people in Western states who hunt, actually belong to hunters' organizations. My suspicion is, there are a number of these "guides" to poachers, and not impossibly some of the poachers themselves, who belong to those organizations. And the administrations sort of know that, but also know that they are not able to do much about it. Similarly, it is to be hoped that the administraters exhort all the members to cease using lead shot; but even if they do, how could they force anyone to make the switch?
Also: It is unclear what the "crime scene" language actually amounts to. Will "investigations" actually be carried out, with some hope of success?
Also: Jason is correct to comment, in passing, that it is irrelevant that the poached species -- elk, deer, chukar -- are not endangered. The killing of large males, in fact, would probably not damage the stability of any population. (On the other hand, in the controlled killing of overly populous deer, it is females who should be targeted.) In light of that, the comment by that Fish and Wildlife person, that if these poachers are allowed to poach with impunity, the "little old lady in LA" will not have any more nature shows about wildlife to watch, because there will not be any wildlife left, sounds a bit crazy.
I did not know anything about chukar, and am glad to have had this occasion to look them up. Their name is of South Asian origin, apparently ("Hindustani," to use an obsolete linguistic term dating back to the Raj); latinly, they are Alectoris chukar. ("Alector" is Greek for "cock"; "alectoris" is a made-up female patronymic form, hence meaning something like "the daughter of a cock.") They are Eurasian partridges, who were introduced into the Western states (a while ago, apparently, but when exactly?), and have apparently thrived in "rocky, arid and mountainous areas" (Sibley). Two closely related partridges were also introduced into North America: the red-legged partridge (A. rufa) of Europe, which has not yet become established, and the gray partridge (Perdix perdix), also of Europe, which has become established from Oregon, Washington and BC almost continually across the continent at those latitudes to southern Quebec and northern New England.
It is perhaps a stunning bit of illogic on my part, but my guess is that because I have never had my attention drawn to these birds till now, they have not become an environmental problem, unlike so many introduced or invasive species.
Anyway, though, to return to the negative example of Dick Cheney, it should be clear that for a rural hunter to kill a small number of these birds at once, in order to put meat on his family's table, is justifiable, perhaps; for a sportsman to kill lots of them in a day's hunt, just to reckon a high score, is unethical.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:37 am
10 Dec 2006
Hunting and fishing is a sacred occupation to gather food or restore the natural balance upset by human meddling.
Selling trophies, like the newly resurgent wolves, can raise thousands of dollars for poachers or it can legally raise thousands in fees for conservation.
It's like gambling, when it's illegal the mob collects the money that ought to feed families, when it's a state lottery it's the public coffers that feed off of starving children.
Either way it's wrong, but selling live animals as trophies wil go on anyway. Alaska is the best kept illegal trophy hunting secret in america. The vast area and wide use of small aircraft makes it so easy. State officials are definitely getting a cut of the action to let this illegal industry operate.
As far as a government issued 10k tag to kill a wolf? Does the end, of raising money for conservation, justify the means? In this deranged neo-culture it does when it comes to justifying the killing of 655,000 Iraqis, all over lies... and oil.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:12 am
10 Dec 2006
In connexion also with the "Blood Diamond" thread, we should be vigilant everywhere on how putting a high monetary and/or high prestige value on anything automatically makes that thing a target for thievery. When the "thing" is a blood gem, a member of an endangered species, or an ancient Mediterranean or Mesoamerican artefact, for example, all humanity suffers.
As for wolves in Alaska, they are apparently not endangered there. Perhaps it is only we hypersensitive metaphysical types who have a problem with hunting wolves from small aircraft. Still, we cannot help testifying that it is an evil, and no amount of money going to the families of struggling pilots will justify it in the long run.
By the way, what does "10k tag" mean?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
willa Posted 11:58 am
10 Dec 2006
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 4:00 pm
10 Dec 2006
Permalink
willa Posted 11:34 pm
10 Dec 2006
Without the subsidy of public land, most of these operations would go away eventually. We'd need to do something to mitigate the impact as people figured it out--one of the worst abuse cases I've ever seen involved a guy who claimed to have lost his Forest Service grazing permit, so his entire herd of cows and calves was in his front yard starving to death, while the horses were in the backyard also starving to death, and one of the horses had a broken leg, presumably from being hit by a car when she had been let loose to graze on the grass on the road side of one of those right-of-way fences. But over time, people would hopefully figure out that there's no money in ranching anymore. All those people grazing cows in the mountains are doing is raising calves for feedlots anyway, so even the picturesqueness of it is a total lie. By bringing down the public-lands-grazing-permit system, I think we could not only start to restore the incredibly fragile mountain ecosystems (many of which are also basically desert ecosystems), but also make a small dent in the supply of calves to feedlots, the evils of which are of course well known.
Permalink
mbradc2002 Posted 11:45 pm
10 Dec 2006
Permalink
playsinstreams Posted 11:58 pm
10 Dec 2006
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 12:09 am
11 Dec 2006
Victual Reality
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:29 am
11 Dec 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:59 am
11 Dec 2006
Our own beloved good ol' Tom Philpott is just joshing.
Willa, you must write a book, a memoir. (So now you are the second regular Gristmill correspondent that I have given that command to, the first being Patrick.) That story -- or rather, situation for a magnificent story -- deserves a full presentation. Pull out the stops! Tell the ladies to kick their heels high! Streisand is killing to play you!
Well, OK, come to NYC, and you can work out a more sensitive choreography ... : )
Really, though, your reference to the poor horse who got knocked by a car on the road and so ended up with a broken leg, reminded me of Barbaro.
What do you know about Barbaro, now? I am frankly too afraid to search. He is a heroic horse, no? The video of his injury, when it happened, is horribly painful, just to watch, imagining the pain of the horse.
Really, there is no more painful image, anywhere, than the video of that run, and the record of the injury of Barbaro.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
ashleighd Posted 4:02 am
11 Dec 2006
So my ultimate point here is that this environmentalist will never be on the same page as a hunter. It's my view that hunters, no matter what their moral claims, are not killing animals for the sake of a balanced ecosystem. They enjoy the camraderie of it and that they can drive their pickup trucks home with two deer heads neatly propped on top of the back gate for all on the highway to see. The noble idea that they are helping conserve local forests just adds to their post-kill pride.
I would love to see some coverage from the local news stations about WHY the deer population is so disproportionate to their habitat.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:19 am
11 Dec 2006
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
mihan Posted 4:01 am
12 Dec 2006
But seriously, here in the upper midwest, a lot of people do hunt for food. The permit and the processing cost are small compared to the amount of meat you get, and it's an important protein source for some people.
However, this is all about ego and masculinity. As well as being just bizarre.
As for "overpopulation", my understanding is that it is mostly because the birthrate is geared towards higher levels of predation (i.e., by predators that we've killed off or driven away). So to maintain a healthy population we have to step in for the predators. Should we bring back the wolves instead (or also)? Sure, fine with me.
Permalink
willa Posted 12:32 pm
12 Dec 2006
I have a few books in mind to write, but none of them is going to be about me. If I did write a book about the horse rescue stuff, that wouldn't be about me either; it's crossed my mind to write about my mother, without whom I wouldn't have gotten involved in rescue professionally, and I suppose it would also not be a bad idea to write about the other women (because it's almost all women) who found and run rescues. The livestock inspectors are a pretty interesting subject too, perhaps even more than the rescuers, because they walk such a fine line, responsible both to us and to the industry and the irresponsible owners we fight. I'll think about it, in my spare time. No, I know, you should write it, since you might be a tad more impartial. :)
Barbaro, btw, is doing fine, although he might prefer not to be. They only put him through all that because he's worth $$$$$$ every time he produces semen. If they had loved him, they would have had him euthanized immediately. Racehorses break down all the time--not usually that spectacularly, and almost never when anyone is paying attention--and if they're not valuable breeding stock, no one considers for a moment going to great lengths to heal their injuries.
The horse I "rescued" actually managed well despite her injury. It was healed, although at a grotesque angle, by the time I first saw her, and she had learned to deal with it, which shocked the hell out of me, and the livestock inspector, and all the vets who saw her. (I put "rescued" in quotes because, after a drawn out and repeatedly rescheduled trial, a jury of the defendant's buddies decided no abuse had taken place, meaning the horses had to go back to him, so who knows if they're even still alive.) It isn't that uncommon for horses to get hit by cars in places where extreme poverty prevents people from feeding their animals, or in areas where it's still open range without right-of-way fencing. The only mystery is, why do people continue to want to have animals when they can't pay to feed them and keep them safe?
Oh, and on a lighter note, the idea of Barbara Streisand playing me in the musical is another of those things that has my mother spinning in her cardboard box of ashes...for some reason best known to herself, my mother absolutely couldn't stand the sight of her. So, on the off chance that there's an afterlife after all, and that I'll see her there and have to explain myself, any collaboration between me and Ms Streisand is Right Out. :)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:18 am
13 Dec 2006
Colbert actually has a dictionary page that you can print out on his website so you can paste it into a dictionary to insert his word, "truthiness". Hehehey.
Yep that is one proposal, for the government to issue licenses (tags) to kill a wolf or other rare, protected species that will sell for 10,000 dollars.
On the topic of sadness again, a wolf with a radio collar from one of the local packs,that was featured in a rare photo by a nature columnist here, was shot soon after. That is why the survivors are so very wary of humans.
Even humans who have the best intentions can destroy the wildlife they love by exposing their location to "sportsmen". This particular writer/photographer owns a sporting goods store also. Bad karma all around. I doubt he will be seeing many rare animals from now on.
On the other hand that wolf is now a martyr that might just help revive enforcement. We can only hope that when/if this probably drunken "sportsmen" brags in a local bar, some employee (who is regularly harrassed by this alchoholic scum) will drop a dime on him.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink