USFWS Offers $2500. in AK Eagle Snaring Case

Snaring claims 2 more innocent victims! From the USFWS:

March 26, 2013

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement is
investigating the death of two golden eagles near Chickaloon, Alaska. A
reward of up to $2,500 is being offered for information leading to a
conviction of the person or persons responsible for killing the eagles.

The eagles were discovered in the Anthracite Ridge area northwest of the
Chickaloon-Knik-Nelchina Trail along Purinton Creek. The eagles were found
lying dead on top of a bait pile of meat that was surrounded by snares used
by trappers. Evidence at the scene suggests the eagles were caught and
killed in the snares while trying to get at the meat in the bait pile. One
of the golden eagles was an adult female and the other was an immature male.

Golden eagles are the largest raptor in North America and range from Mexico
to Alaska. Golden eagles may live up to 30 years in the wild and sometimes
mate for life. Golden eagles are mainly found in mountainous regions and
eat small mammals, birds, fish, and carrion.

Golden eagles are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, both federal wildlife statutes. Violations
of these statutes carry maximum criminal penalties of up to $100,000 and/or
one year in federal prison.

Anyone with information concerning these eagles is asked to call the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement in Anchorage at (907)
271-2828.

Back To the Bad Old Days

What’s up with all the anti-wildlife legislation going on around the country these days? Everywhere you look there’s some state senator or representative introducing bills to keep non-human animals down and implement some new form of cruelty to punish them for the crime of not being born of our privileged species.

A few examples: a self-amused eastern Washington representative is calling for east-side wolves to be moved out of his district to the west side of the Cascade Mountains; at the same time Washington State politicians just introduced three bills to make it easier for ranchers to use lethal measures on wolves whenever they see fit; and of course you’ve heard that Montana’s public servants are on a rampage to get rid of their resident wolves. Now one of their legislators wants to lower the minimum hunting age for that state to nine years old.

Meanwhile, in Alaska, a senator just put forth legislation to instate a $100.00 bounty on sea otters! Never mind that these playful, aquatic mammals were nearly completely wiped out during the fur trade era, are critically endangered or extinct from much of their former range and are still listed in Alaska as Threatened or Endangered under the federal ESA, those poor, underpaid (sarcasm intended) commercial crab fishermen see them as competition. (Far from downtrodden, crabbers take pride in being the wealthiest of commercial fishermen; no doubt the senator who proposed the bounty is counting on a kickback into his campaign coffers from the crabbing industry for his otter oppression bill.)

And the list of detrimental anti-wildlife legislation goes on and on.

Is it just me, or have good ol’ boy state politicians stepped up the pace of non-human animal persecution? It’s as though they’re intentionally trying to drag us back to the bad old days of the 1800s, arguably this country’s most reckless period for uncontrolled animal exploitation—besides, perhaps, the present.

Take Action:

Not surprisingly, state legislators only take input from residents of their given state, but since there are bogus bills and measures cropping up across the country, there should be something to speak out against wherever you live. For instance, if you live in Washington State, contact your senator and urge them to oppose anti-wolf bills SB 5187, SB 5188 and SB 5193. Let them know:

• These three bills would undermine the state’s wolf management plan by giving authority to the county legislators and local sheriffs over the state wildlife agency biologists, and would allow the public to override the state and kill wolves perceived to be a threat to livestock on public and private lands.
• There are only 50 wolves in Washington.  Now is not the time to remove their protection.
• Washington’s wolf management plan was created with massive public involvement and adopted unanimously by the Washington Wildlife Commission; powerful ranching advocates should not be allowed to undermine it.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved

 

TIME TO END A TWISTED TRADITION!

Unless a severe blow to the head or some congenital brain disorder has rendered them incapable of feeling empathy, anyone who has witnessed the harrowing ordeal suffered by an animal caught in a leg-hold trap should be appalled and outraged that trapping is legal in a society that considers itself civilized.

The continuation of this hellish violation in a country governed by the people suggests that either most folks have brain damage, or the majority of the voting populace is blissfully unaware of the terrible anguish someone caught in a trap goes through.

They must never have heard the cries of shock and agony when an animal first feels the steel jaws of a trap lock onto his leg. They must never have looked into the weary eyes of a helpless captive who has been stuck for days and nights on end…

Sidestepping the indisputable cruelty issue, pro-trapping factions try to perpetuate the myth that this demonic practice is “sustainable,” but time and again entire populations are completely trapped out of an area, often within a single season. The winter after I found wolf tracks in Alaska’s Katmai National Park, all seven members of a pack who had filled a niche in and around that preserve were killed by trappers. Though wolves are extinct or endangered in most of the US, but 1500 are permissibly “harvested” in Alaska each year.

Leg-hold traps are now banned in 88 countries and a few enlightened US states. Yet in most states, as in Canada, this twisted tradition is not only legal, it’s practically enshrined as a sacred human right. Compassionate people everywhere must add their voice to the rising call to end this gratuitous torture for good.

__________________________________________

Text excerpted from the chapter “Time to End a Twisted Tradition” in the book, Exposing the Big Game: Living Targets of a Dying Sport.

Photo Copyright Jim Robertson

Snaring’s About the Sickest

In Alaska, bears—in addition to wolves—are routinely hunted, trapped and shot from planes under the deathly ill-advised notion that eliminating those animals leaves more moose or caribou for more hunters to slay. What the Alaska state Board of “Game” can’t seem to figure out is, as the number of hunters goes up, the quantity of moose goes down, simple as that. Will we have to see an Alaska devoid of bears and wolves before the game players finally figure out who’s to blame?

But if anything could be sicker than aerial gunning for bears, it’s snaring them. Bear snaring is a recent addition to Alaska’s long history of animal abuse and exploitation; this new act of depravity was allowed “experimentally” for the first time in 2008.

In the following excerpt from an article, posted January 12, 2012 in the Anchorage Press, Bill Sherwonit dared to imagine just what snaring is really like for its victims:

Picture this: An adult female grizzly bear is roaming forested lowlands on the western side of Cook Inlet when she gets a whiff of ripe, decaying flesh. Sensing an easy meal, the bear follows her nose to a large tree. Several feet above the ground, a bucket partly filled with rotting guts and skin has been attached to the tree; placed on its side, the open-lidded container faces outward, inviting inspection. The grizzly stands and sniffs around the cavity, then sticks her right paw into it. When the paw hits the bottom of the pail, it triggers a metal snare that closes around the animal’s foot. Feeling the pinch of the trap, the grizzly pulls back. As she does, the metal loop tightens.

Two cubs have followed her to the bait. Now, sensing their mother’s agitation, they too become upset. One begins to bawl. This only deepens the adult bear’s determination to free herself. With her free paw she swats and tears at the bucket and tree and she pulls even harder against the snare, which begins to cut through the animal’s thick fur and into her flesh. Now the embodiment of rage, the adult grizzly roars and snaps her jaws, thrashes about. The cubs wail louder.

Eventually exhausted by her struggles, the grizzly mom slumps against the tree, while the whimpering cubs huddle together nearby. More time passes and the trapped grizzly resumes her fight for freedom. The cubs again cry in panic.

It goes like this for hours. A day might pass before the trapper-called a “snare permittee” by state wildlife officials-comes to check the snare, even longer if he’s delayed for some reason. When he does show up, the grizzly mom goes berserk. Depending on their age and personalities, the cubs might charge the person, run off, or huddle in fear. These two retreat into nearby bushes.

The trapper could legally shoot the cubs, now in their second year, but he chooses to ignore the small, frightened bears and heads for their mom. He takes aim, fires his gun, and kills her…

The cubs remain in hiding. Without their mother, it’s more likely they will starve than survive the summer.

Even five years ago, the idea was unimaginable: trap and shoot Alaska’s bears so that human hunters might kill more moose.

Okay, that’s not entirely true. Always trying to come up with new ways to rid Alaska’s landscape of competitors for moose and caribou meat, at least a few predator-control proponents, Ted Spraker among them, were looking toward Maine, then the only state to allow the snaring of bears. The retired Department of Fish and Game biologist worked nearly three decades to increase kills of wolves and bears, primarily to benefit sport hunters.…

Stomach churning stuff—those “snare permitees” must be as callous as they come. I’m just glad Sherwinot saved me the heartache of making the imaginary journey myself this time.

The late, Canadian naturalist and author, R D Lawrence, wrote:

“Killing for sport, for fur, or to increase a hunter’s success by slaughtering predators is totally abhorrent to me. I deem such behavior to be barbaric, a symptom of the social sickness that causes our species to make war against itself at regular intervals with weapons whose killing capacities have increased horrendously since man first made use of the club—weapons that today are continuing to be ‘improved’.”

Contact in for the Alaska Board of Game can be found here: http://exposingthebiggame.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/stop-bear-snaring-and-wolf-trapping-adjacent-to-denali/

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved

Stop Bear Snaring and Wolf Trapping Adjacent to Denali

Please Tell the Board of Game to Vote “Yes” to Stop Bear Snaring and “Yes” to Create a No-Trapping Buffer Zone Adjacent to Denali!

Dear Wildlife Supporter,

The Alaska Board of Game will meet in Wasilla from February 8 – 15, 2013 to vote on proposals governing wildlife management regulations for the Central and Southwest regions of Alaska.

The BOG has many, many proposals to consider at this meeting – there are many worthy proposals to support and even more that need to be opposed. However, AWA is focusing on two crucial issues: bear snaring (Proposal 105) and protecting Denali’s wolves (Proposal 86).

You may review all of the proposals online via the link below and make additional comments on as many as you choose.

E-mail comments on the proposals are due to info@akwildlife.org by 5:00 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013, and we will deliver them to the Board of Game prior to the start of the meeting. (The BOG does not accept comments via e-mail.)

Comments should specifically state “support” or “oppose” and the proposal number(s) on which you are commenting.

Comments also may be faxed or mailed so they are received by the Board of Game before February 7.

Comments:

ATTN: Board of Game Comments
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Boards Support Section
P.O. Box 115526
Juneau, AK 99811-5526

Fax comments to:
(907) 465-6094

The current BOG proposal book is available in pdf format online at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=gameboard.meetinginfo. Proposal numbers 45 through 126 (pages 62 – 198) are scheduled to be considered at this meeting.

We are asking you to please comment in support of the following two proposals:

Proposal 105 (page 158), submitted by AWA, would ban grizzly and black bear snaring in the Southwest and Central regions.

* Scientists overwhelmingly agree that bear snaring is indiscriminate, cruel and not biologically sustainable.

* Bear snaring is an extremely controversial method of killing animals. The BOG tarnishes Alaska’s image for residents and non-residents alike by insisting on continuing its war on predators. Bear snaring has never been allowed in Alaska since statehood until the BOG approved an experimental program in 2008.

* Because bear snaring is indiscriminate, females with dependent cubs and cubs themselves are at risk. Bears have one of the lowest reproductive rates and it is for this reason modern scientific management principles discourage the harvest of females.

* Enforcement will be a nightmare for the Alaska State Troopers, who are already stretched thin.

* There are the dangers to other consumptive users, hikers and their pets who may come upon a situation where one bear is caught while its siblings or mother remain free in the area, creating the very real possibility of severe injuries or fatalities.The baited traps also create food-conditioned bears, and animals which learn to associate food with humans are a danger to our communities.

* Bear snaring is archaic, cruel and should be banned.

* Living bears have a very high value as a tourism draw and a source of revenue. They are almost always cited as one of the “big three” species visitors come to Alaska to see.

Proposal 86 (page 126) would re-establish a no-trapping buffer zone adjacent to Denali National Park. This proposal would provide crucial protection for wolves that wander across the Park boundary onto state land in search of prey or mates, where they are targeted by several recreational trappers.

* Wolf populations (and therefore viewing opportunities) have declined significantly in the Park due in part to trapping along the east and south Park boundary. The most recent official survey (Spring 2012) found a total of only 70 wolves in nine packs in the six million acre park – one of the lowest populations in decades.

* Several hundred thousand visitors annually travel to Denali to view wolves and other wildlife. Two or three recreational trappers targeting wolves habituated to the sight and smell of humans should not be allowed to negate visitors’ viewing opportunities (nor the millions of dollars they spend in the state).

* The loss of only one wolf to these trappers can result in a huge impact on viewing opportunities in the Park. Last spring the alpha female of the Grant Creek pack was trapped and killed just outside the Park boundary. The pack produced no pups last year, and subsequently dispersed. For years the Grant Creek pack had offered hundreds of thousands of Park visitors the best, most frequent opportunities to view wild wolves.

[Note: a six year moratorium on submitting proposals to re-establish a Denali buffer zone was enacted by the BOG in 2010. A request to the BOG in January to rescind its moratorium was met with a quick, unanimous refusal to even consider the matter. It is not known how the BOG will deal with Proposal 86 at the February meeting.]

Please take the time to speak out on behalf of Alaska’s wildlife. Our bears and wolves need your support.

As ever, thank you for your support and for your commitment to Alaska’s wildlife.

Best regards,
Tina M. Brown
President
Alaska Wildlife Alliance

PS: We will of course let you know the outcome of these and other proposals after the conclusion of the BOG meeting.

Alaska Wildlife Alliance
P.O. Box 202022
Anchorage, AK 99520
info@akwildlife.org

http://www.akwildlife.org

Crippling Animals Should Weigh on One’s Conscience

Other than a stopover at the Anchorage Airport on my family’s flight home from Japan in 1962 when I was two years old, my first trip to Alaska was in 1977. Back then I was still deceived by society’s prevailing norms and under the influence of its contradicting principles regarding fish (as they were aquatic, enigmatic and incapable of voicing their distress, surely they didn’t have the right to be left alone), so I’d taken a summer job in the salmon fishing industry at a dismal settlement on the windswept side of the breathtaking Alaska Peninsula.

Nak Nek was a gloomy ghost town most of the year and a small but hyperactive boom town during the annual fish-kill frenzy, when the tides twice-daily ushered in barge after barge overflowing with mountains of bloody fish bodies. The only thing the village had going for it, to my mind, was its proximity to the spectacular emptiness of Katmai National Monument, which I vowed to visit once the term of my employment was over. Named after one of its many active volcanoes and supporting a hefty population of grizzly bears who congregate at the spawning streams (to which any salmon lucky enough to escape slow death stuck in a gill net feels a desperate yearn to return), Katmai’s best known feature is Brooks Falls.

At the time, grizzlies (or brown bears, as they’re locally known) outnumbered people, and there wasn’t so much as a footbridge across the clear, deep river that connects Nak Nek Lake to Brooks Lake. This was long before the construction of the now-popular tourist boardwalk and viewing platform, complete with bear-proof railings and gates. The only way through the dense black spruce forest and tall-grass marsh to the falls was on a crooked, narrow bear trail.

On the afternoon of my last day of my stay at Katmai, I decided to cast out a line and try to catch one of the many sockeye salmon converging along the edge of Nak Nek Lake, waiting for their turn to head upstream. Right away I hooked one, but before I could bring it ashore, the line broke and the fish swam off trailing a length of fishing line. I felt terrible, imagining it would end up tangled on something and die unable to get to a spawning bed.

But the next morning, while waiting for the float plane, I tied on a new fly and cast out my line once again. This time I was able to land a fish, which turned out to be sweet relief both for me and for the fish. Incredibly, it was the same fish as the day before—this time the hook was stuck in a branch that had the broken line from the day before tangled around it! I unhooked the fish and released it back into the lake to continue its journey, now unfettered by human garbage…

The experience was part of what led me to eventually turn my back on fishing altogether. The reason I bring all this up is, knowing how bad I felt when the fish got away with a hook stuck in it makes me wonder how some hunters can live with themselves when they wound animals with bullets or arrows and watch them run off to suffer and die a prolonged death because of their thoughtless acts.

Bowhunting is notorious for wounding deer, elk or others who can live for months with arrows stuck in them. A recent article about a town on the Oregon Coast deciding to allow bowhunting and hunting with shotguns loaded with slugs, in a forest reserve right outside city limits, quoted a city council member reporting on an all-too-common tragedy, “There are animals that are harvested during rifle season where broadheads are found” (in them). Though he admitted that there’s a higher chance that an elk or deer will be wounded but not killed if hit by an arrow rather than by a slug or a rifle bullet, the bureaucrat did not want to appear softhearted and callously went on to say, “Elk are amazingly tough animals.”

What I want to know is, given that bowhunting has a 50% crippling rate, why aren’t we hearing about more bowhunters turning their backs on the sport? Could it be they lack remorse, guilt, empathy or a normal human conscience?
_______________________

This post includes an excerpt from the book, Exposing the Big Game: Living Targets of a Dying Sport.

Text and Wildlife Photo ©Jim Robertson

State Agency Game Farming Is Not Compatible with Ecosystem Integrity

The following pro-wildlife/anti-wolf hunting article puts today’s “game” department policies into perspective…

State Agency Game Farming Is Not Compatible with Ecosystem Integrity
by George Wuerthner

With the delisting of wolves from protection under the Endangered Species Act, management of wolves has been turned back to the individual states where wolves occur. In most of these states, we see state agencies adopting policies that treat wolves as persona no grata, rather than a valued member of their wildlife heritage. Nowhere do I see any attempt by these state agencies to educate hunters and the general public about the ecological benefits of predators. Nor is there any attempt to consider the social ecology of wolves and/or other predators in management policies. Wolves, like all predators, are seen as a “problem” rather than as a valuable asset to these states.

In recent years state agencies have increasingly adopted policies that are skewed towards preserving opportunities for recreational killing rather than preserving ecological integrity. State agencies charged with wildlife management are solidifying their perceived role as game farmers. Note the use of “harvest” as a euphemism for killing. Their primary management philosophy and policies are geared towards treating wildlife as a “resource” to kill. They tend to see their roles as facilitators that legalize the destruction of ecological integrity, rather than agencies dedicated to promoting a land ethic and a responsible wildlife ethic.

Want proof? Just look at the abusive and regressive policies states have adopted to “manage” (persecute) wolves and other predators.

Idaho Fish and Game, which already had an aggressive wolf killing program, has just announced that it will transfer money from coyote killing to pay trappers to kill more wolves in the state so it can presumably increase elk and deer numbers.

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) which many had hoped might be a bit more progressive in its predator attitudes, supports new regulations that will expand the wolf killing season, number of tags (killing permits), and reduces the license fee (killing fee) charged to out of state hunters who want to shoot wolves.

Wyoming is even more regressive. Wolves are considered “predators” with no closed season in many parts of the state.

Alaska, perhaps displaying the ultimate in 19th Century attitudes that seem to guide state Game and Fish predator policies, already has extremely malicious policies towards wolves, and is now attempting to expand wolf killing even in national parks and wildlife refuges (it is already legal to hunt and trap in many national parks and refuges). For instance the Alaska Fish and Game is proposing [aerial?]-gunning of wolves in Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and wants to extend the hunting/trapping season on wolves in Lake Clark National Park, Katmai National Park, and Aniakchak National Preserve until June, long after pups have been born. Similar persecution of wolves to one degree or another is occurring in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, which have been given management authority for wolves in those states.

Although some states like Montana changed their name from “game” to wildlife, their attitudes and policies have not changed to reflect any greater enlightenment towards predators.

Montana recently increased the number of mountain lions that can be killed in some parts of the state to reduce predation on elk.

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks is on a vendetta against a newly established mountain lion population in that state, and greatly increased mountain lion kill in a small and recently established population of these animals.

The Wyoming Game and Fish is almost salivating at the prospect of grizzly delisting so hunters can kill “trophy” grizzly bears.

I could give more examples of state game agencies that have declared war on predators in one fashion or another.

The point is that these agencies are still thinking about predators with a 19th Century mindset when the basic attitude was the “only good predator is a dead predator” and the goal of “wildlife management” was to increase hunter opportunities to shoot elk, deer, moose and caribou. These ungulates are seen as desirable “wildlife” and predators are generally viewed as a “problem.”

Many state game farming agencies suggest that they have to kill these carnivores to garner “social acceptance” of predators. Killing wolves, bears, coyotes and mountain lions is suggested as a way to relieve the anger that some members of the ranching/hunting/trapping community have towards predators. Is giving people who need counseling a license to kill so they can relieve their frustrations a good idea? Maybe we should allow frustrated men who are wife beaters to legally pound their spouses as well?

Despite the fact that many of these same agencies like to quote Aldo Leopold, author of Sand County Almanac, and venerate him as the “father” of wildlife management, they fail to adopt Leopold’s concept of a land ethic based upon the ecological health of the land.

Aldo Leopold understood that ALL wildlife have an important role to play in ecosystem integrity. Decades ago back in the 1940s he wrote: “The outstanding scientific discovery of the twentieth century is not television, or radio, but rather the complexity of the land organism. Only those who know the most about it can appreciate how little we know about it. The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: “What good is it?” If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.”

To keep every cog and wheel means keeping not only species from going extinct, but maintaining the ecological processes that maintain ecosystem function. What makes state game farming policies so unacceptable is that there is no excuse for not understanding the ecological role of predators in ecosystem integrity. Recent research has demonstrated the critical importance of predators for shaping ecosystems, influencing the evolution of prey species, and maintaining ecosystem integrity. We also know that predators have intricate social relationships or social ecology that is disrupted or destroyed by indiscriminate hunting.

Yet state game farming agencies continuously ignore these ecological findings. At best the policies of game farming agencies demonstrates a lack professionalism, or worse, maybe they are just as ignorant of recent scientific findings as the hunters/trappers they serve.

Ironically these same state game farming agencies see that the numbers of hunters and anglers are declining, along with their budgets. Agencies depend upon the killing fees (licenses and tags) charged to hunters and anglers for the privilege of killing and privatizing public wildlife to run their operations. Yet instead of broadening their base of support from other wildlife watchers to those interested in maintaining ecological integrity, these agencies are circling the wagons, and adopting policies that reflect the worse behaviors and attitudes of the most ignorant and regressive hunting/trapping constituency. In the process, they are alienating more moderate hunters and anglers, as well as the general public.

The problem is that state game farming agencies have a conflict of interest. Their budgets depend on selling killing permits which depends upon the availability of elk, deer, moose and caribou to kill, not more predators. Any decline in the population of these “game” animals is seen as a potential financial loss to the agency. Therefore, these agencies tend to adopt policies that maintain low predator numbers. Yet these same agencies are never up front about their conflict of interest. They pretend they are using the “best available science” and “managing” predators to achieve a “balance” between game and predators.

Because of this conflict, game farming agencies turn a blind eye to ethical considerations as well. Most of the public supports hunting if one avoids unnecessary suffering of the animals—in other words, makes a clean kill. They also want to know the animal did not die in vain and the animals is captured and/or killed by generally recognized codes of ethical behavior. In other words, the animal is consumed rather than killed merely for “recreation” or worse as a vendetta and the wildlife has a reasonable chance of evading the hunter/trapper. But when the goal is persecution, ideas about ethics and “fair chase” are abandoned.

Personally I would rather see state agencies reform themselves and adopt more inclusive, informed and progressive attitudes towards all wildlife, especially predators. But judging from what I have seen, it appears these state game farming agencies are headed in the opposite direction.

If they continue down this path, it’s clear that they will lose legitimacy with the public at large. Efforts to take away management authority will only strengthen. For instance, voters in a number of states have already banned the recreational trapping of wildlife, always over the objections of state game farming agencies. Efforts are now afoot to ban trapping in Oregon and I suspect other states will soon follow suit.

The next step will be to take away any discretion for hunting of predators and perhaps ultimately hunting of all wildlife. The trend towards greater restrictions is seen as the only way to rein in the abusive policies of state game farming agencies. In California, the state’s voters banned hunting of mountain lions in 1991. Oregon banned hunting of mountain lion with dogs. In other states, there are increasing conflicts between those who love and appreciate the role of predators in healthy ecosystems, and state game farming agencies.

Bans on all hunting has even occurred in some countries. Costa Rica just banned hunting and Chile has so limited hunting that it is effectively banned.

I suggest that the negative and maltreatment of predators displayed by game farming agencies in the US, will ultimately hasten the same fate in the U.S.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
George Wuerthner is an ecologist and former hunting guide with a degree in wildlife biology

Hunting Humans

After my post, Killing Wolves Provides “a Level of Tolerance”?, the director of a Canadian animal rights group, Lifeforce, sent me this press release, which, like my post, is a semi-satirical statement about turning the tables on trophy hunters…

Animal Rights Group To Booth: Let Us Hunt You

An animal rights group is challenging Vancouver Canucks forward David Booth to see what it feels like to be hunted in the wilderness. Peter Hamilton, director of the B.C.-based advocacy group Lifeforce, took umbrage with a picture Booth tweeted last week of the left winger posing next to a freshly-killed mountain goat.

He responded with a dare. “We’re challenging David Booth to put himself in the position of a hunted wildlife,” Hamilton told CTV News. “He would be subjected to the same plight that wildlife are, in hopes that he will reflect upon the suffering and pain of innocent animals.”

A draft version of the “Booth Hunt” plan indicates the Canuck would be sent into the wild unarmed, alone and without rations. A team of hunters with dogs and high-tech equipment would then attempt to track and capture him within an agreed-upon time limit. Naturally, Booth would not be harmed by his chasers.

“He would rely on any of his woodsman skills, as do the wildlife who are forced to rely on their abilities while being ruthlessly pursued,” the draft plan reads. Hamilton described trophy hunting as “barbaric,” and said it’s a practice that must be stopped.

“A trophy is an inanimate object. These are sentient beings,” he said. “One has to question anyone’s motive in getting any kind of pleasure out of killing an animal in this manner.” …

…

I certainly have to agree with Peter Hamilton on that last point—their motive mirrors that of a serial killer—but as I told him, the fact that he’d know he wouldn’t be harmed by his pursuers would make Booth’s experience only a watered-down version of what a hunted animal fearing for its life goes through. Mr. Hamilton concurred; of course his proposition had to sound non-lethal in order to get the barbaric Booth to even consider going along with it.

Ironically, another infamous celebrity who posed with murdered mountain goats is Anchorage, Alaska baker, serial killer and renowned trophy hunter, Robert Hansen (now serving a 461 year prison sentence for the murder of at least 17 women, ranging in age from 16 to 41.) Well-liked by his neighbors and famed as a local hunting champion, Hansen even broke several records for trophy (nonhuman) kills, documented in the Pope & Young’s book of world hunting records.

Another bit of irony: like the Connecticut school shooter, Adam Lanza, and the D.C. Beltway snipers, John Allen Mohammed and John Lee Malvo, he used a .223-caliber semi-automatic hunting rifle to make his kills (both human and non-human).

Whenever Hansen got a victim under his control, he would fly her in his private plane to his remote cabin where they would be subjected to torture and then set free in the woods, naked and sometimes blindfolded. Hansen would give his victims a brief head start and then hunt them down with a hunting knife or a high-powered rifle. In describing his hunts to investigators, Hansen said that it was like “going after a trophy Dall sheep or a grizzly bear.”

As world renowned FBI profilers, John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood correctly surmised, Hansen was compelled to keep trophies of his murders, such as a victim’s jewelry. According to Douglas, the abuse of prostitutes is a way for perpetrators to get back at women. Hansen was probably using his victims as a way to get revenge (much like the motive of good ol’ boys who kill wolves).

Several investigators who were familiar with Hansen said that he was known around the area as a proficient hunter. He earned this reputation after taking down a wild Dall sheep with a crossbow. Douglas concluded that Robert Hansen must have tired of elk, bear and Dall sheep, and instead turned his attention to more interesting prey.

When investigators first heard Hansen’s confession, they couldn’t help but think of the popular fictional story “The Most Dangerous Game” by writer Richard Connell. In the story, a shipwrecked trio find themselves stranded on an uncharted island, where they meet a Russian Count, known only as General Zaroff. The group’s initial delight turns to terror when they realize that the shipwreck was no accident and the good general had lured them there so he could hunt them down.

According to the Huffington Post, Anchorage police and FBI investigators just released information about another Alaskan serial killer, Israel Keyes, who authorities said never showed any remorse but said he got a rush out of hunting for victims and killing them. He also tortured animals as a child, investigators said.

Again, the serial killer’s motive and behavior closely parallels a trophy hunter’s:

“Israel Keyes didn’t kidnap and kill people because he was crazy. He didn’t kidnap and kill people because his deity told him to or because he had a bad childhood,” Anchorage homicide Detective Monique Doll said. “Israel Keyes did this because he got an immense amount of enjoyment out of it; much like an addict gets an immense amount of enjoyment out of drugs. In a way, he was an addict, and he was addicted to the feeling that he got when he was doing this.”

While researching for this blog post, I dug up an article by lion conservationist, Gareth Patterson, entitled “The Killing Fields.” In it, Patterson compares the uncanny similarities between trophy hunters and serial killers.

Here are some excerpts…

Certainly one could state that, like the serial killer, the trophy hunter plans his killing with considerable care and deliberation. Like the serial killer, he decides well in advance the type of victim–that is, which species he intends to target. Also like the serial killer, the trophy hunter plans with great care where and how the killing will take place–in what area, with what weapon. What the serial killer and trophy hunter also share is a compulsion to collect trophies or souvenirs of their killings. The serial killer retains certain body parts and/or other trophies for much the same reason as the big game hunter mounts the head and antlers taken from his prey…as trophies of the chase.

Hunting magazines contain page after page of (a) pictures of hunters, weapon in hand, posing in dominating positions over their lifeless victims, (b) advertisements offering a huge range of trophy hunts, and (c) stories of hunters’ “exciting” experience of “near misses” and danger. These pages no doubt titillate the hunter, fueling his own fantasies and encouraging him to plan more and more trophy hunts.

Trophy hunters often hire a camera person to film their entire hunts in the bush, including the actual moments when animals are shot and when they die. These films are made to be viewed later at will, presumably for self-gratification purposes and to show to other people–again the longing “to be important” factor?…

…

And finally, while on the subject, here’s an excerpt from the chapter, “Inside the Hunter’s Mind,” in my book, Exposing the Big Game: Living Targets of a Dying Sport:

A hunter’s true impetus is to serve the evil master in custody of his soul: his ravening ego. His self-interests are consistently placed far above those of his animal victims, whom he depersonalizes and views as objects rather than individuals. Reducing living entities to lifeless possessions and taking trophies of their body parts—without the slightest hint of guilt, remorse or other higher sentiment—is standard practice for the sport hunter…and the serial killer.

The sportsman keeps his malignant, murderous obsession concealed within the hollow confines of his psyche…until the next hunting season. Beneath a façade of virtuosity he’s driven by an urge to obtain surrogate victims, or stand-ins, representative of some perceived injustice he imagines he underwent at the hands of someone who didn’t let him have his way at some time in his life.

Maybe as a young child he felt he was undeservedly reprimanded, and so he terrorized the family pet, threw rocks at pigeons or turned to some other form of animal abuse to lift his sense of worth and gain a feeling of control. Over the years, he may have found that same kind of ego boost in killing animals for sport, partially satiating his savagery until the next legal opportunity to kill again. Imagining he’s reaping the power of the bear or the stately bull elk temporarily boosts his floundering self-esteem or relieves his sense of inadequacy. But his pride is a shallow pool, constantly in need of refreshing…

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2012. All Rights Reserved

No Market for the Truth?

I was watching a PBS documentary on the Alaska Lands Act and how the concept of protecting the wilderness was met with opposition by local resource extractors who had the patrician perception that the land was theirs and theirs alone and who wanted no part of any new ideas such as land preservation for the sake of the wildlife and nature itself.

The resident’s closed minded stance was reminiscent of that taken by the owner of a bookstore in Lincoln City on the Oregon Coast who refused to carry my book, Exposing the Big Game: Living Targets of a Dying Sport, on the grounds that there’s “no market for an anti-hunting book” around there.

While I do not doubt there are a higher percentage of hunters in that smallish tourist town compared to the national average, I don’t buy that no one living there or travelling through would be interested in expanding their knowledge on the subject of animal protection. There are certainly plenty of new pro-hunting books and magazines out these days, some of which were for sale in that very shop.

Based on what she told me, it’s clear that the bookstore owners’ snubbing of Exposing the Big Game was due to there being hunters among her family and friends and thus she did not want anything in the store that might expose the dark underbelly of sport hunting. It was just another case of someone doing their part to suppress the truth about the myriad of malicious ways that the animals of the Earth are being exploited for the benefit of just one narcissistic, overly-acquisitive species.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

 

 

A Day of Remembrance for Wolves

If I a flag to hang outside my house, it would be flying at half-mast today.

Today should be officially declared a day of mourning for wolves, in honor of Washington’s Wedge pack—brutally killed last week to appease an intolerant cattle rancher—and also a day of remembrance for all of the wolves across the country and throughout our history who were hunted to extinction in order to make room for modern humans and their chosen food species.

This whole thing brings to mind the first time I beheld the sight of wolves. Due to repeated persecution by residents of a nearby, decrepit mining-town-turned-tourist-trap on the Alaska panhandle, wolves hadn’t been seen around there for decades. Their surprise return that year was greeted with generous appreciation by an assembly of bear watchers and photographers who shared in my elation.

But the spectacle lasted only one short season; by late fall a couple of local tyrants—under the patrician delusion that it‘s all here for them—had trapped, shot and otherwise driven off every member of the pack. These days, the only sign of wolves to be found is a hand-painted plywood sign advertising “Wolf Hides for Sale” in front of a detestable trinket shop on a muddy back road of the wretched little town.

Wolves in Alaska can legally be killed by anyone, virtually anytime and by any means imaginable (former Governor Sarah Palin‘s apparent personal favorite: strafing from low-flying aircraft).

I never thought I’d see the day that Washington wolves would suffer that same fate; when wolves here would be relentlessly pursued from the air and gunned down like escaped convicts as they fled for the Canadian border; when a radio tracking device would be used not for furthering scientific understanding, but to aid in the massacre of an entire family; when wolves in one of the most progressive states would be sacrificed on the altar of the T-bone and the cheeseburger.

As in Alaska, a few local tyrants here think they can dictate whether a wild wolf pack should live or die. Clearly, bigotry against wolves is alive and well in Washington State. It’s just tragic that the wolves of the Wedge pack had to be the first to find out.           __________________________________________

A portion of this post was excerpted from the book, Exposing the Big Game: Living Targets of a Dying Sport

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson