The Art of Killing–for Kids

Spencer Lo

In our culture, the moral divide between humans and animals is sharp in numerous areas, but perhaps most consciously so in one: the sport of hunting. Since the activity involves consciously deciding to kill another sentient, sensitive being, the issue of inflicting suffering and death cannot be avoided, at least for the hunter. At some point every hunter will inevitably confront unsettling questions: Is my having a good time an adequate moral reason to deliberately end an animal’s life? Should I be concerned about my prey’s suffering, as well as the resulting loss for his or her family? These reflective questions, and many others, will now be asked by New York youths (ages 14-15) this Columbus Day weekend during a special deer hunt planned just for them. Armed with either a firearm or crossbow, junior hunters will be permitted to “take 1 deer…during the youth deer hunt”—no doubt in the hope that the experience will enrich their lives. A hunting enthusiast once observed after a youth hunt, “I’ve never seen a [9-year old] kid happier…We were all the better for it.”  

Hog Wild: Where Florida Hogs Can’t Catch a Break

Seth Victor

Population control is a powerful justification. If a species has outgrown its habitat, the population needs to be managed, lest the over-abundance of animals wreak havoc on the natural environment. And if that habitat wasn’t destroyed by the animals, but instead was converted into pools and condominiums, limiting the range of the animal, it seems that the solution remains the same.

I don’t intend to discuss the hypocrisy of population control as a whole just now. I bring it up, however, because the way in which it is done is of great concern. The problems with wolf hunts have been covered extensively in this blawg. Recently, their ranks of the persecuted have been joined by a perhaps unlikely bedfellow – hogs.

When the Wild Things Aren’t

Seth Victor

Here’s the situation. You have several domestic cats in a neighborhood from different houses. For one reason or another, a couple of these cats leave their homes and wander the neighborhood and breed, becoming more or less feral. This goes on for several generations. Does there come a point when these cats are no longer domestic animals, but should be considered wild?

I pose the question concerning cats because feral felines occupy a middle ground in our society’s ever complicated definitions when it comes to animals. Cats are cute and cuddly and are one of the primary “pet” animals; though probably just a juicy and tender, it’s faux pas to eat them, and even the dumbest cat is more lauded than the smartest pig. Cats are also noted for their more independent behavior. Ask a “dog person” why he likes his dog better, and you will inevitably hear some mention of loyalty and companionship that he doesn’t see in cats (though the “cat people” will vociferously disagree). But can that make cats more wild, and if so, what does that mean? When are animals wild, and can they cross or re-cross that line?

The New Jersey Bear Hunt

Brittney Holmgren

New Jersey has begun its second annual six-day bear hunt in an effort to control the state’s growing bear population. This year’s hunt will allow about 6,200 hunters to track down the animals.

As expected, anti-hunt protestors were ready early Monday morning at the beginning of the hunt, winning a ruling from the sate Appellate Court allowing the protestors to demonstrate outside the check –in station on Route 23.

Hunters feel differently, with one stating “It’s not just walking and shooting. I think bears are a natural renewable resource and hunters are doing their job by hunting and keeping the bear population in check.”

No Hope: Killing and Privacy

John Humbach

People around the world saw the birth of Hope, a baby black bear whose entry into life was broadcast on the Internet. Now, however, Hope is dead. Her short life was cut off by a hunter’s bullet on September 16. According a senior researcher at the North American Bear Center and its affiliated Wildlife Research Institute (reported by AP), Hope was baited and shot by a man who is not to be named. His identity is shrouded under a veil of secrecy.

Why all the mystery and concealment? If there is no shame in baiting and killing this young “worldwide star,” described as “the most famous bear in the world,” why the effort to hide? After all, the hunter reportedly did not express remorse. He says he didn’t know he was killing Hope.

Elephant Poaching Increasing in Kenya

Usra Hussain

The Samburu National Reserve located in Kenya has experienced a high rate of elephant poaching this year in comparison to the past 11 years.  Although, elephants do not have any natural predators other than lions, elephants are threatened by human beings.  African and Asian elephants are hunted for their ivory tusks and illegally traded for money. The conservationists of the Samburu National Reserve have been actively fighting poachers in order to protect the elephants in their reserve. However, even with their efforts, the elephants in this reserve are continually being killed for their tusks.

One elephant in particular has been attacked twice for her tusks.  Khadija, an elderly elephant from the Samburu National Reserve has been one of many elephants this year that have been killed by poachers.  She suffered bullet wounds which were treated by an elephant organization, but again Khadija was targeted by poachers again. Unfortunately, she did not survive the second attack, leaving behind 8 orphan children. 

Which Animals Matter (yet again)?

Seth Victor

To paraphrase the oft quoted excerpt from Animal Farm, all cute and fuzzy animals are equal, but domesticated cute and fuzzy animals are more equal than others. This sentiment was yet again demonstrated over the last week. In one corner, we have human pets, who are mercilessly being tortured for the pleasure of a rather repugnant fetish in crush videos. After U.S. v. Stevens struck down a law aimed a regulating depictions of cruelty, Congress quickly passed a narrower bill that was signed into law by President Obama on Friday. As reported by ALDF, “the more narrowly written law that emerged makes it a crime to sell or distribute videos showing animals being intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or otherwise subjected to serious bodily injury. It exempts depictions of veterinary and husbandry practices, the slaughter of animals for food, as well as depictions of hunting, trapping or fishing.” Hopefully the narrower scope will survive the inevitable legal challenges.

Dowd on Palin

David Cassuto

Maureen Dowd on Palin’s Reality (Show):

The doomed caribou gazed calmly across the Alaska tundra at Caribou Barbie.

The female caribou could easily have escaped, since it took the Wasilla huntress six shots, two rifles and some help from her dad to bag her prey. (Giving credence to Levi Johnston’s contention that she isn’t all that proficient with guns.)

But, inexplicably, the caribou just waited to get gunned down by Sarah Palin, who came across less like a pioneer woman than Private Benjamin with her camo, her French manicured nails, her cap that says (in pink) Girls And Guns, her 72-year-old father and her TLC reality show crew.

Sarah checked her freezer at home before she flew 600 miles to the Arctic, trying to justify her contention that she needs to hunt to eat. Wasn’t it already stocked with those halibuts she clubbed and gutted in an earlier show?

“My dad has taught me that if you want to have wild, organic, healthy food,” she pontificated, “you’re gonna go out there and hunt yourself and fish yourself and you’re gonna fill up your freezer.”

Does Palin really think the average housewife in Ohio who can’t pay her bills is going to load up on ammo, board two different planes, camp out for two nights with a film crew and shoot a caribou so she can feed her family organic food?

It’s amazing that Palin patronized Neiman Marcus during the campaign. Couldn’t she have spun cloth to sew her own clothes?

Hunting seems more sporting with birds — at least they have a better chance to get away. Unless the hunter is Dick Cheney, who would shoot pheasants that were pen-raised and released from a net to make slaughtering them easier.           

White-tailed Deer and Valley Forge National Park

Gillian Lyons

Earlier this year, the National Park Service announced their plan to reduce the white-tailed deer population of Valley Forge National Park.  On October 4, the Service announced that the “lethal reduction phase” was set to begin this November and would take place over the next 4 years.  Overall, by 2014, the Service plans to eliminate 80% of the Park’s deer population, reducing the herd from over a 1000 to less than 200.  After 2014 the Park Service plans to maintain the herd’s shrunken population with the use of birth control.  The reason for this cull?  According to the Park Service, the deer population, overgrown as it is, is detrimental to the park’s flora and fauna- consuming more plant life than can be re-grown, and destroying habitat for the park’s other wildlife.                                    

Animal Law Voter Initiatives: The Results

Gillian Lyons

Early this week, Professor Cassuto linked us to a website which ran through all of the animal welfare based initiatives included on ballots across the country. Well, the results are in, and here they are:

The Losses:

Arkansas:  Capturing 83 % of the vote, Issue 1, which proposed a constitutional amendment that would secure the right for residents to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest wildlife in the state, was adopted by Arkansas residents.   As a result, Arkansas’s constitution will include this (slightly disturbing) article:

Animal Law Voter Initiatives

David Cassuto

Informative post here regarding various animal law-related ballot initiatives on ballots around the country,  Sadly, with the exception of Missouri’s Prop B (which deals with puppy mills), they’re pretty much all hunting related.

North Dakota Measure 2 — Canned Hunting Contextualized

David Cassuto

There’s an odd debate going on within the North Dakota agriculture industry over Measure 2, which would ban canned hunting in the state.  On the one hand are those who support the measure because they believe canned hunts  reflect badly on the animal industry and also bring the threat of disease to livestock.  On the other side are those who say canned hunting is no different than other types of animal agriculture in that both businesses raise the animals for meat.   According to one measure opponent, “It would seem to me that the animal there is private property.  This (ban) is one step away from banning the slaughter of cattle, hogs and sheep, what have you.”     

The Nuge is a Poacher

David Cassuto

Ted Nugent gets a real charge out of senseless violence against animals.  This is not news.  One need only tune in to his TV show to learn about his love of killing.  What is news is that Nugent broke the law while filming said show.  He killed underage deer using bait, both of which are illegal in California, where the show is filmed.  He was brought up on 11 charges and pled no contest to 2 in a plea deal.   

Research Hunts & Conservation Hunts: New Ways to Fetishize Wolf Slaughter

David Cassuto

Not too long ago, I blogged about the duplicity of Japan’s “research” hunting of whales.  The practice is little more than a disingenuous attempt to circumvent the global ban on whale killing by pretending the slaughter has some scientific purpose.  I called on the rest of the world to repudiate such tactics and to hold them up to public scrutiny and scorn.

Then, a few weeks ago, a federal judge in the U.S.  ruled that gray wolf hunts in the Northern Rockies violated the Endangered Species Act.  Guess what then happened:  U.S. wildlife officials proposed a “research hunt” to kill the wolves. Apparently, their idea was that it was okay to kill listed species as long as you claimed a scientific reason for doing so.  You know, just like they do in Japan with the whales.

A New & Welcome Chapter in the Wolf Saga

David Cassuto

I’ve blogged a fair bit about the ill-advised delisting of gray wolves as endangered species in the northern Rockies, as well as about the lawsuit that followed.  When last we left the story, the district court had denied a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the wolf hunts that subsequently took place in Montana and Idaho.  The judge did indicate, though, that the plaintiffs had a strong chance of prevailing on the merits (the standard for a preliminary injunction is formidably high, as discussed here).              

New Jersey Bear Hunt Approved

Seth Victor

New Jersey has been talking about reinstating a bear hunt for some time, and it received final approval on Wednesday. The effort to curb the bear population is not dissimilar to other attempts to kill large mammals. The difference is that while ranchers have been a major supporter of wolf hunts under the questionable guise of livestock protection, the New Jersey bear hunt is backed both by recreational hunters and suburbanites. Questioning hunting is a whole separate debate. It’s the suburbanites that are really troubling. People saunter in, knock down a forest or field, and put up energy demanding houses. Somewhere between trying to get the sewer system to handle the sudden over-population of toilets and naming the neighborhood after what used to be there, a bear gets into a trash can, and suddenly the whole thing is the bear’s problem.

Now there will be six days of reckoning in December for the local bruins in northwest New Jersey (originally reports stated that the area would be north of I-78 and west of I-287. Now it seems the hunt will be north of I-80.). The hunt has been approved and supported by Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin, even while state biologists predict that the hunt would not actual curb the bear population. The expected birth rate for New Jersey black bears is around 400 cubs, while the last two hunts in 2003 and 2005 yielded 328 kills and 298 kills, respectively.

Greed

Seth Victor

            Thank goodness we live in a world of endless and unlimited resources. If it weren’t for that, I might be worried about the way we are treating the earth.  Man, if I were to suddenly find out that the populations humans recklessly destroy were unable to immediately regenerate, I think that would be a very inconvenient truth.

            Assuming for a horrid second that this hypothetical world is grossly similar our own, hunting and fishing in this world represent the sin of greed. Let me begin by clarifying that I am aware of the arguments for sustainable hunting, both for the survival of the hunter, and the population stability of the prey. I am ignoring these arguments for now. My brief response is that starvation is not a reality faced by most hunters I know, as they still supplement their diets with CAFO-produced meat, and the overpopulation of deer and black bears, at least here in New Jersey, could be easily solved by the reintroduction of natural predators (wolves) and stronger regulations against sprawling subdivisions (like the one I guiltily live in), respectively.   

Injustice, Texas Style

Bridget Crawford 

 NPR reports here on the shooting of 51 buffaloes who wandered from one Texas ranch onto another.  NPR reporter Wade Goodwyn missed the irony in a statement by the owner of the ranch whence the buffaloes roamed: “Slaughtering animals, to me, and I think the state feels the same way — in fact I know the governor’s office does — is a terrible injustice,” according to the ranch owner Wayne Kirk.  But in NPR’s own words, Kirk’s ranch “is primarily a hunting property, and even when they’re on the right side of their fence, buffaloes are there to be killed.” 

 Ummmm…so slaughtering animals is okay as long as someone pays Mr. Kirk for the privilege of doing so?

Volunteer Opportunity:Protecting Bison from Those Who Want Them Dead

David Cassuto

The bison herd in Yellowstone Park is protected from hunters.  Until the animals leave the park — which they are sometimes wont to do (bison have no pockets in which to carry a map).  As soon as the animals step over the park boundary they become prey for hunters abetted by the livestock industry who disguise their bloodlust behind disingenuous talk of brucellosis.

I just learned of an organization called the Buffalo Field Campaign, which works to protect the bison from those who think it the height of sport to shoot large, slow-moving herbivores.  And, if you have some time you wouldn’t mind spending in one of the world’s most spectacular places, the animals could use your help as well.  A little info on one of the coolest volunteer opportunities in the history of ever:

Exotic Animal Atrocities

Jonathan Vandina

Earlier this year an undercover investigator worked for a Texas wildlife importer. During the months of his employment he witnessed and documented some of the most horrifying and indiscriminate acts of wildlife animal cruelty in captivity that have ever been recorded.  The conditions these animals were kept in were unaccommodating, unsanitary and downright repulsive. This is not a new problem within the exotic animal trade.

Many of the animals were deprived of food, water and the veterinary care needed to merely survive. Additionally, the investigator is on tape requesting food (the feeder fish) as well as veterinary care from the owners of the establishment. The owners reply with “oh that’s right I forgot” or explain that they just can’t afford to do it or sometimes just laugh it off.  This behavior seems to continue for over a month.

Throwing the Wolves Out With the Bathwater

David Cassuto

Odd editorial in today’s NYT.  On the one hand, it lays bare the hypocrisy and bloodlust behind the wolf hunt in the Northern Rockies.  For example, after several wolves were killed just outside of Yellowstone (outside the park boundary, you can kill them), Montana’s wolf program director said, ““We didn’t think wolves would be that vulnerable to firearms harvest.”  Yeah, right.   Then, in Idaho, when hunters just couldn’t kill enough wolves in time, Idaho extended the season to March 31st.

On the other hand, the editorial claims that environmental groups have lost the argument that endangered grey wolves had not yet reached a sustainable population in the region.  It says that the groups are regrouping around the idea of a hunting moratorium until stronger state management plans can be formulated.  This characterization seems both premature and overstated.  

The Utopian Suggestion of Natural Predator Reintroduction

Jonathan Vandina

The deer population in the Northeast has exploded. Some maintain that one of the reasons is due to the previous housing boom. During the boom, thousands of acres of land were cleared with the intentions of building homes that were never built.  This cleared land permitted sunlight to hit the ground, which facilitated grass growth leading to the population explosion.

There are more deer in the Northeast today than there were when the settlers first arrived. Although development and land clearing may be partially to blame, we cannot forget the fact that humans also extirpated the main predator, mountain lions (Puma concolor). Due to the over-explosion of deer, the lack of natural predators and the inability of the land to sustain them, many of these animals will die slow deaths of starvation. Sick deer may also spread disease which can adversely affect the rest of the population.  Although hunting may eliminate a small portion of this manmade suffering, some people claim there is a better way; that is to reintroduce their natural predators.

Deer Hunting, the First Amendment and Connecticut

Jessica Kordas

The first amendment issues in the news sparked my interest, I headed for the internet to see how U.S. v. Stevens was impacting Connecticut.  Big Game Hunting, a website with a Connecticut news page, has posted an article about US v. Stevens. The article shows particular concern that educational hunting videos will be banded:

“The National Shooting Sports Foundation and its over 4,500 member companies oppose animal cruelty, which is illegal in every state, and stress that hunting scenes are not representative of criminal behavior. Hunting is a legitimate, licensed activity, and responsible hunters respect the animals they pursue and utilize,” said Steve Sanetti, president of NSSF. “Such images assist novices with basic hunting and field dressing techniques and provide education about wildlife conservation and safe and ethical hunting.”  Article available in it’s entirety here .

Trophy Hunting: It’s Not Just Plastic Gold Statues Anymore

Simona Fucili

Hundreds of hunters travel to Africa every year for something they refer to as a sport, trophy hunting.  They essentially look to shoot animals to hang on their walls as trophies.  This sport not only is unethical and another form of animal cruelty, but it also creates problems that affect the ecosystem.  Although hunting was a crucial part of humans’ survival 100,000 years ago, in this writer’s opinion, more recent hunting is rarely done for the need of subsistence.  Moreover, where people once hunted to feed their family, it would seem that currently, hunting is now performed as a violent form of recreation where hunters seek out the best heads of animals they can find for their walls at home.  According to Change.org, hunting has now contributed to the extinction of many animal species all around the world including the Tasmanian tiger and the great auk.  Although there are other factors that may lead to an animal’s extinction such as climate change, habitat loss and national and international wildlife trade, hunting is the biggest threat for the extinction of mammals according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).  IUCN helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and devolvement challenges.

Wolf Hunt Update

The wolf hunt in Idaho and Montana has begun (I first blogged about it here).  A number of environmental groups sued, asking for an injunction but, since Idaho released the details of its plan of the hunt only 2 weeks ago, the court was left with very little time to consider the case.  Consequently, while the court ponders whether an injunction is appropriate, the hunt goes on. Unless and until the court intervenes, Idaho hunters can kill up to 220 wolves,  Montanans 75 wolves, and Nez Perce tribe members 35.

With all respect to the court (and the judge hearing the case has been sympathetic to this issue in the past), I do not understand why an injunction cannot issue immediately.  There is ample evidence to support the fact that a viable  Rocky Mountain wolf population should number at least 2000 (there are currently approximately 1640).  I remain appalled as well with the Obama Administration’s ham-handed, ignorant and insensitive management of this issue.  If you agree with me (and the NYT), I urge you to let President Obama and your congressional delegation know of your dismay.

–David Cassuto

IUCN Study of Elephant Meat Trade — Consulting Opportunity

From the email — an opportunity to lead a study for the IUCN Species Survival Commission on the elephant bushmeat issue in Central Africa.   Note the looming application deadline.

The Impact of the Elephant Meat Trade in Central Africa
Call for Applications – Deadline 4 September 2009
1. Background
The IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group aims to undertake a study to improve
understanding of the elephant meat trade on elephant populations in Central Africa. The
study will elaborate on bushmeat research already undertaken throughout the region by a
number of institutions, but will focus on the African elephant. The study will examine the
dynamics, scale and impact of the elephant meat trade throughout the Central African subregion.
The study will examine the trade in elephant meat as a factor in illegal killing of
elephants, relative to the ivory trade. It will also study the linkages between multiple
resource extraction (timber, minerals) and the levels of elephant meat trade and consumption
at the site, city, and regional level. This will include a number of case studies for which new
data will be collected. Finally, the study will explore the policy implications for elephant
conservation of the elephant meat trade throughout the region and make recommendations for
further research and policy implementation.
2. Overall Objective
The objective of the study is to enhance knowledge of contemporary meat market dynamics,
patterns and trends in Central African countries by undertaking an elephant meat trade impact
study.
3. Core Study Components
The study seeks to expose the linkages between the elephant meat trade and larger social and
economic dynamics at play, including, but not limited to: ivory trade; logging (legal and
illegal); mining; infrastructure development; global economic trends; law enforcement at the
national and international level; and community forest governance.
The study will consist of a summary study plus additional case studies identified as necessary
to contribute new data.
4. Geographical Coverage
African elephant range States of the Central African sub-region: Cameroon, Central African
Republic, Chad, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea and
Gabon.
5. Key Responsibilities of the Lead Consultant

Take responsibility for the quality and timely delivery of the entire study as per the
above Terms of Reference.

To supervise sub-contracted consultancies as regards their technical contribution to
the study and ensure high quality and timely contributions.

Submit draft and final reports by agreed deadlines and according to the agreed
reporting format, with full bibliographic references, accreditation of all contributors,
and including appropriate validation of all the data and cases presented.

Elicit analytical input from AfESG and other technical advisors throughout the
consultancy, and particularly prior to finalisation of the recommendations and
conclusions and ensure all the comments are incorporated in the final report
6. Deliverables

A summary study on the impact and features of the elephant meat trade across the
Central African sub-region, integrating information from new case studies.

A number of detailed case studies – fully edited and referenced – to be published
along with the summary study.

An executive summary summarizing the main findings and recommendations in a
simple and communicative language.
7. Timeframe
The final study will be published in March 2011.
8. Qualifications
The lead consultant will have advanced university degrees and complementary skills in
biology, conservation or related fields and will also have considerable experience in the
Central African sub-region and with research on bushmeat. He/She will have a strong track
record of peer reviewed publication on relevant topics, and fluency in written and spoken
English and French.
9. Expressions of Interest
IUCN is asking interested persons or consultants to submit a short Letter of Interest for this
consultancy, identifying their experience in undertaking such research and his/her Curriculum
Vitae together with an indication of the daily fees. In addition, interested persons or
consultants are expected to include in the application a 2 page summary of how they will
conduct the study.
Expression of Interest should be addressed in English language to diane.skinner@iucn.org.
Deadline: 4 September 2009.
The detailed Terms of Reference for this study are available on request

Deer Culling in Westchester — Rhetoric vs. Reality

I recently received the email below from my colleague (and occasional guest-blogger), Vanessa Merton.  I found the topic so interesting (and topical — see the panther post below) and the email such a good read that I asked her if I could post it on the blawg.  She agreed and so…

David, I didn’t see this subject referenced on the blawg under “deer” or “hunting”, but I’m imagining that you’re well aware of the major deer “culling” (killing) movement developing all around our immediate area: in my little, recently highly gentrified, home town 12 miles from Times Square, we may have a major deer kill by this winter, probably executed (J) by sharpshooters or maybe bow hunters – see http://hastingsgov.org/W/EMAIL/2009/DEERUPDATE.html .  And of course, similar government-sponsored (not merely permitted, but sponsored) kills have been proposed for Westchester County parks — http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/lohud/access/1719154751.html?FMT=ABS&date=May+17,+2009 – and across the Hudson in Rockland County — http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/lohud/access/1723951371.html?FMT=ABS&date=May+21,+2009 .   (These “solutions”, billed as interim if not final, may soon embrace moose as well – see news story below.)

I recently sat through the first Hastings-on-Hudson legislative hearing on a deer hunt proposal and was struck by the intensity of the many advocates for mass killing and the frequency of their use of the term “rats with hooves.”  The “cull” (I wish I had time to look up the etymology of that word – it’s so exquisitely clinical) proponents proclaimed themselves “animal lovers” and said that those who opposed systematic killing of deer were NOT animal lovers but rather (with an acid tone of contempt) “deer lovers,” because deer so ravage the natural habitat, other wildlife are driven out or starved.  (I’m a little hazy on the mechanics of this phenomenon – the deer eat what skunks and possums and raccoons eat? — but apparently it’s all documented in the legislative report.)  That rhetoric adroitly raises the issue: what is the right position for an animal advocate when confronted with government proposals to exterminate or at least vastly reduce a given animal population such as rats, lice, bedbugs, mosquitoes, etc.?  (I have to tell you, if I could wave a wand or even fire a .22 and kill all the mosquitoes on earth, I’m pretty sure I’d do it.  The bats can learn to eat something else.)

Bill to Ban Canned Hunting in NY in the Pipeline

Once upon a time, the NY State Legislature passed a bill outlawing canned hunting only to have then Governor Pataki veto it.  The current law permits canned hunts except that the animals can’t be tied to a stationary object of confined in a pen or box.  The current bill, which is pending in the Assembly Codes Committee, would ban hunting in fenced areas, essentially ending the practice in NY.

Hat tip for the skinny to the Animal Law Coalition blog, which has an informative and excellent post here.

–David Cassuto

A Bill to Ban Aerial Wolf Hunting

I’m fresh off the Long Trail.  Every year, my son and I head into the Vermont woods to be together and to be alone.  These are the best of times.

During my absence some good things happened.  For example, Judge Sotomayor got confirmed.  Plus, a few tentative steps were taken to halt the shooting of wolves from airplanes in Alaska.

Senator Feinstein and Congressman Miller (both CA Democrats) have introduced legislation to ban the shooting of wolves from the air by anyone other than state or federal wildlife employees during declared biological emergencies.

Aerial wolf killing–which Alaskans twice voted to ban only to have their wishes rejected by the State Legislature — is about as far from hunting as CAFOs are from farming.  Furthermore, despite Sarah Palin’s garblings, this issue does not implicate the 2nd Amendment and has nothing to do with Ashley Judd.  It is about using fixed wing aircraft to terrify and then butcher defenseless animals.

Proponents call this practice “predator control.”   Actually, that would make a good title for this bill.  Never have there been predators more in need of control.  Let us wish this bill godspeed as it runs the legislative gauntlet.

More here and here.

–David Cassuto

Canned Hunting of Endangered Species is Illegal

From the Stuff You Probably Thought Was Too Obvious to Have to Sue About Desk:

A district court in Washington D.C. has struck down a Bush Era U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service rule that allowed canned hunting of endangered species.  Canned hunting is the shooting of semi-tame animals on fenced  “ranches” (see here for some previous posts).  During canned excursions, the animals have nowhere to run — even if they knew they were in danger — and thus can be slaughtered with ease.  Such “hunts” require no skill (indeed, many “ranches” offer a guaranteed kill).  Reviled by most hunters, they are primarily the province of folks like Dick Cheney and his fellow “sportsmen.”

The Endangered Species Act, Section 9 makes it illegal to “take” any animal on the endangered species list.  Yet, among the animals FWS allowed to be canned and killed were the scimitar-horned oryx, addax and dama gazelle, all endangered African species.  Thus the lawsuit.

To the chagrin of the Safari Club and their ilk, the court found that charging  “sportsmen” big bucks to shoot endangered animals violates the Endangered Species Act.  Kudos to the Humane Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Born Free USA, Kimya Institute and several others for forcing the courts to state the obvious and thus stop at least this part of the slaughter.  Read the HSUS press release here and the Safari Club’s Orwellian spin on how killing these animals actually protects them here.

–David Cassuto

Dorgan’s Proposed Folly — Elk Hunting in Theodore Roosevelt National Park

Today’s NYT has an editorial on a proposed elk hunt in Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota.  The herd has grown to over 900 animals since 1985, when elk were reintroduced to the region.  Apparently, a herd of that size stresses the ecosystem so Senator Dorgan has proposed a “common sense” solution of allowing elk hunting in the park.

This is a remarkably bad idea for all sorts of reasons, not least because hunting is prohibited in national parks (with the sole statutory exception of Grand Teton).  It also reflects the tired (and wrong) notion that hunting represents an ecologically sound management practice.  It does not.  Hunters want trophies and consequently kill the strongest animals — precisely those whose genes should be transmitted to future generations.  Predators, on the other hand, cull herds in a way that is ecosystemically beneficial.  They prey on the weakest in the herd, reducing its numbers while strengthening its gene pool.

The Times editorial rightly condemns Senator Dorgan’s proposal but unfortunately endorses using professional sharpshooters instead.  That the predator option (can you say “wolves?”) remains off the table is an unfortunate commentary on our ongoing national myopia.

–David Cassuto

The Otter Hunt Reborn

En route to Montreal for the GRIDA Animal Law Conference (see post here), I picked up some Canadian newspapers.  From the NationalPost, I learn that aboriginals on Vancouver Island hope to kill 1% of the region’s sea otters per year for “ceremonial reasons.”

Sea otters, like so many other fur-bearing animals, were hunted to near extinction in Canada during the heyday of the European fur trade in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  They were reintroduced into British Columbia from Alaska in the early 1970s and have made progress, repopulating approximately 30% of their original range.  In 2007, the Canadian government downlisted otters from “threatened” to “special concern.”  Now, the Nuu-chah-nulth tribe and federal fisheries officials have crafted a sea otter “management plan” that will permit tribe members to shoot them.  Related story here.

This has strong parallels to the wolf scenario in the United States (some irony: the wolf-bloodthirsty governor of Idaho is named Otter…).  I appreciate the need for sensitivity to native people and traditions — an issue that does not pertain to the U.S. wolf situation.  And the discussion over when and how concern for animals should defer to native traditions must be ongoing and vigorous (it will likely surprise no one that I believe human rituals, whatever their provenance, are less important than animal lives).  But here the issue should not yet be ripe.  The otter has not even fully recovered its numbers and remains at risk.  Why the hurry to kill them?

–David Cassuto

The Politicization of Animal Use

 Conservative political radio talk show political host Rush Limbaugh has joined forces with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to support a U.S. crackdown on “organized dog fighting and other animal cruelty crimes” according to the Washington Times.

To this end, Limbaugh has lent his voice to some public service radio announcements. Limbaugh’s large and strong following of politically conservative Americans (his official website claims his talk show to be the most listened-to radio talk show in the country), though, are not happy. According to the Washington Times:

“Twenty-eight groups representing millions of hunters and sportsmen are demanding that the conservative radio commentator end his collaboration with the HSUS and stop “helping them to mainstream their image in the minds of reasonable people.”

“Despite a few programs designed to attract support from the general public, HSUS is in fact an organization that opposes hunting, fishing, and trapping,” the groups, including Ducks Unlimited and the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, wrote in a letter last week to Mr. Limbaugh.

“Its leadership has a long and established history of promoting legislation, litigation, and referenda to restrict the rights of American sportsmen and women.”

 

I think that the response of Wayne Pacelle, Executive Director of the HSUS, is right on point:

“I’m embarrassed for them that they would criticize Rush for amplifying our message that dogfighting and other malicious forms of animal cruelty are unacceptable in society… I think the folks that are criticizing it are unbelievably knee-jerk – I guess they want to provide comfort to dogfighters? It just doesn’t make any sense… there are certain things that civil society should agree on.”

Well put!

-Suzanne McMillan

Torture Hunting

Today on the ski lift, my seat mate told me about a hunting club that adjoins his property.  The club is comprised of people — all to the manner born — who get together to hunt animals and then not kill them.  For example, they “beagle,” which for them involves letting loose hunting beagles to flush and chase rabbits.  The humans, though, are just along for the chase.  They do not kill the rabbits that get flushed although sometimes “the beagles do get the rabbit.”  The club also stages other kinds of hunts none of which have as their aim the death of the animal pursued (despite the occasional casualty).

Both I and my seat mate found these practices very dismaying.  Yet, I’ve been thinking all day about why I find this practice at least as troubling as the type of hunting which involves killing.  Part of me bristles at the idea of toying with the animal (“if you’re going to hunt it, at least, kill it!”) but I recognize the irrationality of such feelings.  Certainly, from the animal’s perspective, it’s better to survive such encounters than the alternative.  So, why is this type of hunting so disturbing?

Perhaps it’s because it lacks any telos other than casual torment.  With the more typical kind of sport hunting (I here intentionally exclude hunting for food, which in my view requires an entirely different analysis), the purpose is to kill rather than torture.  The desire to torture is to my mind more disturbing and anti-social than the desire to kill.  So, I am just that much more unsettled by the fact that there are clubs devoted to its practice.

At least that’s my working hypothesis.

—David Cassuto

Wolf-delisting: The Politics of Blood

George Bush and his peeps thought gray wolves should be delisted as endangered species in Montana and Idaho.  So does Ken Salazar and, we must assume, Barack Obama.  Bush and peeps also thought it okay to ignore allies.  So, apparently, do Ken Salazar and Barack Obama.  But never mind politics.

Wolves were hunted to near extinction in this country due in large part to their (undeserved) reputation as dangerous predators and to the caterwauling of ranchers who like to poison, shoot or trap anything that might eat their animals before people do.  Thanks to the Endangered Species Act and a well-executed reintroduction program in the Northwest (carried out over the vociferous protests of ranchers and others), there are now approximately 1600 wolves in the Northern Rockies.

That, apparently, is too many.  Since Montana and Idaho have pledged to maintain populations of 400 and 500 animals, respectively, wolf-hunting may soon commence.  Supposedly, states can be trusted to create sound management plans for the animals.  Idaho Governor Butch Otter has a plan: kill as many as possible without the wolves being relisted.  You see, wolves eat elk and that means less elk for people to shoot.  It’s a crime perpetrated on the American sportsman.  Upon hearing the news of the imminent delisting, Governor Otter howled with glee and declared, “I’m prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself.”

One wonders if Idaho and Montana will be like Alaska — where “hunters” can shoot wolves from the air.  Or maybe it will just be another classic confrontation of a heavily armed man against an unarmed animal who, when it dies, will almost certainly be attempting to flee.  You see, in the history of the United States, there has never been a fatal attack on a human by a wolf.  Never.

My son is doing a report on wolves for his class.  He has become fascinated by their language, their pack life, and their intelligence.  He is incredulous that they were extirpated from most of the United States and indignant about their undeserved reputation.  Last night, I told him of the Obama Administration’s decision.  He was heartbroken.

dnc

Green Ammo — So to Speak

There’s a piece on CNN online today about so-called “green ammo” for hunters.   It would appear that the lead in bullets poses a hazard — not just to those animals who get shot but also to scavenging animals, including California Condors, who eat the leavings of hunters.  The lead also is present in the meat of animals who get killed and eaten.  In one sampling, half of the deer meat donated to a food bank tested positive for lead.

The answer to this problem, at least for some, lies with non-lead bullets, with copper the metal of choice.  Sidestepping for the moment the ethical issues embedded in hunting, I have to hop on my rhetorical hobby horse again and decry the term “green ammo.”  It perpetuates the idea that hunting in its present form is either environmentally friendly or environmentally neutral.  In my view, it is neither, regardless of one’s choice of bullet.  Others, including the Hog Blog (whose author is a vocal proponent of non-lead bullets), disagree.  More on the issue here.

Perhaps most remarkable, though, is the opposition to non-lead bullets led by — you guessed it — the NRA (as well as the National Shooting Sports Foundation).  Apparently, advocating that hunters use bullets not made of lead is a thinly veiled attempt to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.  Who knew?

dnc

The Super Slam: Ethics and the Trophy Hunt

It has been a busy news cycle.  Our economy continues to tank, the conflict in Gaza continues to rage, an unarmed man lying face down in police custody in Oakland is shot dead.  The list goes on.  Much other news, both good and bad, permeates the airwaves, print, and ether.

Faced with all this, I turn to the sports pages of the NY Times for a little distraction and find this story about a group of bow hunters whose goal is to kill 29 North American species.  It used to be 28 but just last summer the Pope and Young Club (the keeper of records relating to this quest) announced the inclusion of the Tule Elk, bringing the grand total to 29.  Killing all 29 is known as the North American Super Slam.

The Times story breathlessly relates the way the men (they seem always to be men) stalk the animals.  One of the hunters profiled described it as “a personal goal” of his to “harvest all 28 species… now 29.”  Those pursuing the Super Slam must adhere to a rigid code of conduct.  Among other things, they cannot kill an animal helpless in a trap, in deep water or snow and they cannot shoot from powered vehicles or boats, use night lights, tranquilizers, poisons.  They seek intimacy: “That’s the advantage of bow hunting,” according to a surgeon from Anchorage.  “You’re forced by the equipment you’ve chosen to spend more time with the animal.”

The code seems to contain a normative component – one cannot kill an animal in a non-sporting way.  Yet nowhere in this code, which encourages people to kill 29 different animals, is there any discussion about whether the killing itself has any moral relevance.  I find this curious.  A code mandating that one not kill animals in certain ways would seem to require antecedent consideration about whether it is right to kill the animals at all.  Certainly, no necessity exists here (one of the hunters interviewed estimated that he had spent over $400,000 pursuing the Slam).  The term “harvest” seems misplaced since the animals do not get eaten.  The entire point of the endeavor (other than fueling the taxidermy industry) appears to revolve around killing for no other reason than fun.  This raises some pressing moral questions.

I believe it safe to assume that Slam seekers would agree that the animals they hunt are sentient (otherwise, why the code of conduct?).  They would probably also agree that the animals can experience fear and suffer.  Why then would it be ethically neutral to kill them for no other reason than fun?  Does the infliction of unnecessary pain and/or ending the existence of these animals rate no consideration at all?   If so, why does the Pope and Young Club call itself a “conservation” organization?  What does it hope to conserve and why?

The club’s mission statement declares that it is dedicated to “protect[ing] the future of our bowhunting heritage” (parsing that little syntactical chestnut must wait for another day…) as well as the “conservation and welfare of habitat and wildlife.”  Should we infer then that the club views bowhunting as the sole reason for conserving nature?  And does sponsoring a quest to kill dozens of animals dovetail with a conservation ethic even thus described?

The ethics page of the P&Y website offers no answers to these questions.  It quotes Aldo Leopold’s adage that “A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscience, rather than a mob of onlookers.”  The P&Y page does not mention that Leopold also said: “[T]o acquire a reputation for killing limits is a doubtful compliment, at best.”

Leopold believed that “think[ing] like a mountain” involves understanding that animals exist for purposes other than hunting fodder.  Most memorably, he declared that: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”  In the aggregate, I read Leopold to be saying that hunting has a place in the scheme of things but that killing for its own sake or purely for fun seems per se wrong no matter the species of the victim.

For my part, I would add that writing a puff piece about the people who do it seems little better.  And that leads me to a related issue currently awaiting cert before the Supreme Court and about which I will post in the near future: Are depictions of animal cruelty protected speech?  Stay tuned.

— David Cassuto

The Semiotics of a Deer Beheading in Houston

I read today that a tame deer was beheaded at the Bear Creek Pioneer Park “wildlife sanctuary” in Houston.  Having spent some time in Houston, it surprised me to learn of the existence of a wildlife sanctuary there.  So I looked it up.  Wikipedia describes Bear Creek Pioneers Park thus (the park itself has no working url):

Bear Creek Pioneers Park . . . has paved roads and parking spaces that visitors can use. The park also has walking trails, an equestrian trail, a small zoo (including buffalos, an ostrich, and emus) and aviary, playgrounds, soccer fields, little league and softball fields, four lighted tennis courts, eight picnic pavilions, horseshoe courts, and hundreds of picnic tables and grills. Near the aviary ducks can been seen walking freely around a pond. The park also has restrooms all around the park and drinking water fountains. The park is open all week from 7:00 am until 10:00 pm (local time).

Though I have never been to this place, I have visited quite a few wildlife sanctuaries.  None had little league fields, playgrounds, or lighted tennis courts.  And most importantly, none had zoos.  Indeed, wildlife sanctuaries are in many (most? all?) respects the antithesis of zoos.  They are supposed to be places where wildlife can live in their natural habitat, free of human encroachment and predation.  As a result, one rarely encounters wildlife sanctuaries in major cities.  Indeed, Houston would have topped my list of the least likely places to find one.  Furthermore, animals in wildlife sanctuaries are not “tame.”  “Tame wildlife” is an oxymoron.  I could say more about this but, of necessity, I move on.

At this alleged wildlife sanctuary, someone cut through the fence penning in the animals and beheaded a “tame deer” that dwelt within.  The perpetrator then made off with the head and antlers.  This act outraged the Harris County Commissioner who declared that anyone who kills an animal in captivity “is just the lowest of the low.”   The article informs us that taxidermy shops throughout Houston were alerted to the crime.

One has to wonder what the taxidermy shops were told to look for.  Is it unusual for someone to stride into such places clutching a bloody head and antlers?  While such patrons would stand out in most places, taxidermists cater to people who kill animals and then seek to turn parts of the corpses into wall hangings.

I wonder too if the Harris County Commissioner feels equally outraged by the many “ranches” in Texas offering “high fenced” hunting safaris for those discerning sportsmen who crave a guaranteed kill.  Does he revile our soon-to-be former vice president, who regularly patronizes such places (and only occasionally shoots his host)?  This type of “canned hunting” is quite common in Texas as well as in many other states.

Perhaps the Commissioner (who I have never met and know nothing about) does revile activities of this sort.  Still, I remain bemused.  Of course, the slaughter of the deer was an atrocity.  But does no one else find it ironic that killing a captive deer in a “wildlife sanctuary” in a state where canned hunts are a popular pastime would generate such outrage and opprobrium?

I am beginning to truly grasp the meaning of “tragicomic.”

—David Cassuto