Hunting Morality & Ethics & Such

[Art Eatman]

We had the Varmint Hunting thread, and then a cite in CatsDieNow's thread, "A resident landowner or tenant may take, without a permit, a beaver, mink, muskrat, long-tailed weasel, red fox, gray fox, opossum, skunk, or raccoon that is discovered damaging property; you must report the taking of the animal to a conservation officer within 72 hours. The conservation officer will direct you as how to dispose of the animal." as law in Indiana.

This gets me to wondering if I'm sort of alone in being disgusted with this latter control of people.

I'm against casual blasting of any critter that is not any problem to crops or livestock. I like to hunt coyotes, but they're in competition with me for quail--and I won't work at it until the coyote population is notably lessened. IOW, I limit myself and do so without advice from others.

So, with that in mind, and comparing the above quoted regulation with Texas regs, it seems to me that a lot of our law is not crime against person nor crime against property; it's crime against government. Crime against the "Mommy knows best!" beauracracy, if you will.

Am I all alone in my resentments? Offbase?

, Art

 

[sm]

Am I all alone in my resentments? Offbase?

Art, Sir- you are not alone.

This "gummit gonna take of me" or "gummit is taking care of us" attitude frankly makes me angry. We have city- folk , not just "the other folk" being overrun by anything from deer, squirrel, groundhogs, pdogs, to you name it.The city-folk don't understand it. There is natural order to things, a habitat can only support so much. So no hunting causes poor diseased deer, serious disease like bubonic plague and rabies, not to mention seeing horses and farm structures collaspe due to groundhogs.

I don't see the "gummit" fixing it...well they don't fix the structures, replace the horses, or pay medical expenses. Maybe my definition of natural order and fixing differs from the gummit...I still believe mine is the correct one.

I may live in the city, I may go to the country and involve myself with "critter control" , I may make light of it, have fun and seem insensitive...There is a serious side to me when I participate, I'm sensitive to the realities, and take personal responsiblity to what I'm charged with maintaining while walking this earth.

Yep, I'm a burr under the gummit saddle, I believe in self reliance and being responsible and not being dependent on gummit.

 

[Atticus]

I guess it depends on what they are trying to accomplish. If it is some kind of control over property owners...then yes - if they are trying to manage critter contol and or populations of said critters ...then no.

 

[Keith]

It's sort of a quandary... I mean, on the one hand, if somebody shoots every fox they see on their property, why should anyone else care? It's their property!

On the other hand, maybe the guy with the adjoining property is farming grain and those foxes keep the rodents in check and positively affect his income. He likes foxes and wants them left alone.

On the other (third?) hand, that farmer might view deer as a scourge and be tempted to shoot every one he sees. And maybe his neighbor is a deer hunter who would be outraged at that...

That's just a simplistic example to show that the same animals can be viewed by different people in entirely different ways. And we have to remember that wildlife moves across everyones property, public and private, without regard to "No Trespassing" signs.

I don't know of any landowners who have million dollar fences that keep all critters from passing. So, we have to acknowledge that animals belong in a kind of public trust status and what one individual does can affect his neighbor.

Even though I accept that government has a role in regulating this, I acknowledge that the hand of government is generally heavy and clumsy in how it does that job. Clearly, that hand is too often directed by bureaucratic and political considerations, rather than biological considerations.

Keith

 

[kudu]

Hey Art,
What big brother don't know don't hurt him.

 

[coldshot03/04]

What kudu said.

 

[c_yeager]

Im no fan of big brother. But, if the government agancy in question is trying to keep track of the pest population in an effort to help landowners then it seems they are actually doing what they are supposed to be doing, serving the people.

 

[Art Eatman]

c_yeager, I guess having knowledge is all well and good, but I have a bit of a problem that tax dollars would go to knowledge which will never be acted upon. We're supposed to be happy that tax dollars enable a bureaucrat to say, "Yah, they have a lot of possums in that area...Hey, it's coffee time."

IOW, they may acquire knowledge, but wherein is our service?

Art

 

[Atticus]

Art, I don't disagree that government and waste are often the same thing, and that many of the programs are ridiculous. But then, I can also imagine that some of the "wild" game dealers that were..or are shipping infected animals around North America didn't want the Government to tell them what to do either. Those are the guys that shipped infected Elk all over the place and didn't keep records. Same with Hunters- a lot of folks don't like the government telling them not to use baitng stations,etc. - but I'll guess they won't be happy when the deer herds are decimated - or their venison has to be treated like toxic waste. Then they'll be asking where in the h*ll was the government. I think the issue with varmits is less about killing them, and more about diposing of the body without gaining any data.

 

[Art Eatman]

I'm strongly in favor of wildlife agencies. They perform many necessary functions. I get grumpy at the way they behave as do all government agencies, going (IMO) far beyond the necessary. "Ya done quit preachin' and gone to meddlin'!"

Some of it has to do with the way things are done. Rather than be ordered to report the elimination of a pest, I'm far more cooperative if an agency put it more along the lines of "We'd appreciate it if you'd inform us of pest problems."

Some of it is just old age and knowledge. For instance, I illegally reduced the total number of deer on our old family ranch near Austin to somewhere near the carrying capacity of the place. I did this years before the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department spent hundreds of thousands of tax dollars "discovering" the relationship between the size of deer and carrying capacity of the habitat. I didn't need a degree in wildlife biology; I learned from my grandfather when I was just a little kid--knowledge available to any farmer/rancher.

Art

 

[Legionnaire]

This gets me to wondering if I'm sort of alone in being disgusted with this latter control of people.

Art, I assume you are referring to the reporting and disposition requirements. Although I generally agree that government tends to be overly intrusive and controlling, I'm somewhat more tolerant of most game laws, based on a history of successful game management.

You're probably aware that game laws (at least in this country) were instituted in response to the decimation of game animals by market hunters. This was true of the whitetail as much as the bison. Game laws were started in New York state largely due to pressure from HUNTERS who were finding it more and more difficult to find game as a result of market hunting. I've seen pictures taken in the Adirondacks of game "camps" where five or six "hunters" have thirty or more deer hung. The whitetail population (as an example) took a real beating around the turn of the last century (1900).

Enter the game laws. Wildlife management needs to be based on FACTS to be successful, and I think regulations that help those responsible for game laws (an important dimension of wildlife management) have the necessary facts are worthwhile ... at least in principle. Having game commission officers (or DEC, or whatever they're called where you live) have a full understanding of the number of animals out there ... and whether populations are reaching the point of nuisance ... is important to effective management (length of seasons, bag limits, etc.).

Controlling disposition also makes sense, in that it is a deterrent (not totally effective, to be sure) to poaching. It won't prevent hard-core poachers from doing their thing, but these regs do contribute to keeping the basically "good guys" honest.

If people could be trusted to control their own actions, we wouldn't need such regulation. But given that there are more whitetail in North America today than at any time since the 1700s (according to the NY DEC), the reestablishment of wild turkey throughout their range, and even a huntable elk (wapiti) population in Pennsylvania now, I tend to view governments' game management efforts fairly favorably ... compared to lots of other stuff they are involved in (like education).

 

[Legionnaire]

Art, I seem to have composed my last message while you were workin on yours. I'll concede that the "We know how to do it, so you stay out of it" attitude of some in the agencies is a turnoff. Wish they'd all view hunters as allies. But when they have to deal with slobs and poachers on a regular basis, we all get tainted.

 

[Atticus]

"I didn't need a degree in wildlife biology; I learned from my grandfather when I was just a little kid--knowledge available to any farmer/rancher."

There's your problem. You oughta know by now that common sense and experience don't mean anything to a government scientist.

 

[Art Eatman]

Some of the irony is that the whole concept of wildlife agencies came from hunters, in the first place. Same for the self-imposed taxes on guns, with the money going to wildlife agencies. We're the ones who instituted the whole concept of "game management"!

Seems to me there is a difference in dealing with poachers and slob hunters, compared to nit-picking on land owners. I've worked pretty hard to keep poachers and slobs off my land, as have most ranchers I've ever known. In today's world, few landowners are ignorant of such issues as habitat management and carrying capacity for different species.

Quite a few ranches in Texas split the cost of a wildlife biologist, to work out the best management programs to maximize income from the usual ranching actions and from hunting and/or fishing. It has taken some work, but TP&WD now recognizes they don't have a monopoly on knowledge...

Art

 

[Beaker]

Speaking as a biologist...

We're humans. Some of us are level-tempered, thoughtful, and respectful, and some of us are government drones who seem to exist purely to inconvenience others, and some of us are granola-snorting treehuggers. What we almost never are is well-paid or given sensible policy from Upon High to work with. Most wildlife biologists I know are actually mostly the same kind of humans generally found in places like this- old-school conservationists in favor of sustainable use of resources, including game. Hunters.

Bureaucracies by nature get more faceless and robotic in policy as they get larger. It's tough to distinguish between enlightened landowners and idiots when writing policy, and it's generally best to err on the side of presumed retardation- because although a lot of people are intelligent and cooperative, a lot more people are neither. And while there is much knowledge to be found in communities of people who truly do live close to the land, a significant enough chunk of it is just plain wrong that it doesn't pay to put our trust in it until it's tested and evaluated. (The classic example being coyote control. Killing every coyote you see is, contrary to all common sense, an excellent way to get many more coyotes.)

We're jerks and idiots sometimes, but we don't mean to be, and sometimes we have a good reason.

 

[Art Eatman]

In my experience, the wildlife biologists are not given the respect they deserve, as the regulation-writers seem to pay more attention to public noise levels than science. (Not always, of course, but often enough that it's noticeable.)

As near as I can tell from a bunch of reading, the "Kill all predators!" is more prevalent on public lands than on privately-owned ranches. Sheep & goat folks excepted, of course.

"It's tough to distinguish between enlightened landowners and idiots when writing policy..."

Agreed.

..."and it's generally best to err on the side of presumed retardation- because although a lot of people are intelligent and cooperative, a lot more people are neither."

Here I tend toward disagreement, in this particular arena. The unintelligent and uncooperative are noisier and more noticeable, but that doesn't mean there are more of them.

For me, speaking of others in government and nobody on this thread, I get just totally irate at the elitism inherent in the"presumed retardation" bit. I see this from all levels--city, county, state, federal--and for all subjects. Isn't this what we gripe about, concerning gun control?

I have been known to put a twist in things...

, Art

 

[Byron Quick]

I agree with most of the stuff the fish and wildlife folks do here in Georgia.

They've used our license fees to gain access or outright ownership to hundreds of thousands of acres for hunters to use. Within 30 minutes of where I live there's 40,000 acres of prime hunting land. Within an hour there's 30,000 acres more.

Couple of game wardens online have a saying that grates my craw..."In God we trust, all others are suspect." If that's their true attitude, I personally don't consider them fit to be LEO's or trust them to give honest testimony in a court of law.

They've got some non hunting regulations that pretty much keep me away from their WMA's.

 

[Beaker]

Art- perhaps I shouldn't say that the stupid and obstinate are more or even as common as intelligent and reasonable folk, but by their very nature no matter how many of them there are they take up 90% of an agency's time and energy.

Maybe it differs from area to area, but where I come from I know a lot of trigger-happy ranchers with the "shoot, shovel, shut up" policy applied to every predator they see. Mostly I know them because they're one of the political lobby groups contributing to making policy the dog's breakfast it so often is. (For example, the largest group blocking official recognition of the jaguar as a native species of Arizona were ranchers. They'd shot several, and as long as it didn't officially exist they could continue to do so with impunity.) Maybe they ARE the minority, but they're enough of them to make an interested force.

I wouldn't call it elitism so much as cynicism. Any scientist who works in or with the government for long learns to distrust his own organization nearly as much if not more as he does his fellowman.

 

[Byron Quick]

According to DNR, cougars don't inhabit the state of Georgia. Shoot one and see what happens to you One of the cougars released in south Florida made a beeline for east central Georgia. Some of the good ole boys shot her. They didn't realize just how closely Georgia DNR was trailing her transmitter...

 

[Art Eatman]

Hey, Beaker, start a thread on the jaguar thing, okay?

Byron, it would be interesting for a DNR guy to lay that no-cougar trip on my wife. She's had three sightings between here and Thomasville, during these recent years. And she darned well knows what they look like, given the lion skin on our couch.

Official acknowledgement of the existence of Jaguars in Arizona would bring the ESA into play. I can see where ranchers would be nervous or hostile to that idea.

TP&WD has a good working relationship with most Texas ranchers, but is sure staying as far away from the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction as possible. I suggested to one rancher who's hostile to that idea that he should advertise to the Sierra Club folks for "Wolf Camping". Folks could pay him to come and camp out and listen to wolves. If he didn't have wolves, he could go a half-mile or mile away and set up a tape deck.

Art

 

[Beaker]

Official acknowledgement of the existence of Jaguars in Arizona would bring the ESA into play. I can see where ranchers would be nervous or hostile to that idea.

Precisely the crux of the issue. I understand their position, I'm just using it as an example as to why there is rational mistrust between wildlife agencies and some landowners; conflict of interest.

Folks could pay him to come and camp out and listen to wolves. If he didn't have wolves, he could go a half-mile or mile away and set up a tape deck.

Actually, some years ago something on a much larger scale was suggested to Montana ranchers feeling the bite of debilitated rangelands- restoring the land back to its more-or-less original state and species composition, then charging for hunting and eco-tourism sorts of activities. I believe it was known as the "Big Open" project. I'll confess that now I can't seem to find many resources on it, so I'll plead ignorance to whether there was a very good reason or not- there very well may have been- but it was rejected overwhelmingly as I recall. If anyone else remembers more details about it, perhaps it'd shed some light on the Texas situation.

As for the lion, there's a big legal difference between an animal from one state entering another and an animal from one country entering another... too bad for the shooters and the lion. (Which, although not officially recognized as such yet, is making a huge eastward push similar to the coyote's before it. In twenty years we may be seeing "living with lions" guides published in Tennessee.)

 

[TallPine]

Actually, some years ago something on a much larger scale was suggested to Montana ranchers feeling the bite of debilitated rangelands- restoring the land back to its more-or-less original state and species composition, then charging for hunting and eco-tourism sorts of activities. I believe it was known as the "Big Open" project. I'll confess that now I can't seem to find many resources on it, so I'll plead ignorance to whether there was a very good reason or not- there very well may have been- but it was rejected overwhelmingly as I recall. If anyone else remembers more details about it, perhaps it'd shed some light on the Texas situation.

I don't have the details either, but ...

1) usually these things involve some sort of central authority that tells all the landowners what they can and can't do - wonder why it's not popular?

2) some have tried raising elk for fun and profit, but that got shut down by the legislature

3) ranchers are ranchers, dang-it, and most have been for several generations - not into changing sheets and cleaning toilets for city folks, thank you

4) a lot of ranches already charge for hunting (which keeps them afloat financially) the species that are already eating out of their haystacks


BTW, the "Big Open" was the name the oldtimers had for the country between the Yellowstone and Missouri, back "before the wire"