Every Hunter and Trapper Will Die Someday


This photo (allegedly taken in late November, 1947, near Roswell, New Mexico) recalls some of the most common feeble rationalizations humans use to justify the killing and consumption of the other beings with whom we share this planet.

Another equally feeble rationalization just cropped up in a letter to the editor of the Las Vegas Sun, using the twisted logic that since all animals are going to die someday, we might as well kill and eat them.

The letter, entitled, “Hunting, trapping to manage wildlife,” by the president of the Southern Nevada Coalition “for Wildlife,” starts out attacking animal rights activists and defending trappers and hunters:

“The litany of attacks on trappers and hunters by animal rights activists lately are usually based on the claim that trapping and hunting are inhumane. One needs to ask the question: compared to what? Compared to the standards of Walt Disney productions where Bambi and his deer family think and talk things over and where Lion Kings rule? Perhaps so, but in the real world of nature and wildlife, it is a different story.

“Every wild animal will die someday. If animal rights activists think wild animals die comfortably in their beds surrounded by loving family members, they are sadly mistaken. Disease, starvation, dehydration and predation are the most probable causes, and in the absence of management tools like hunting and trapping, entire wildlife populations suffer horribly.

“That is the reason the entire wildlife management profession and every conservation association support regulated hunting and trapping.

“Professionals know that regulated hunting and trapping are far more humane than letting nature run its course unimpeded. The animal rights activists beg to differ, but how is it more humane to allow (or mandate) that wild animals must die by disease, starvation or predation, or, much worse, allow (or mandate) entire populations to suffer this way when there is a much better way?”

A better way? That’s assuming a lot, such as that an unaware animal is killed outright with one clean shot (which almost never happens). And how is trapping an animal and letting it struggle until a human returns to finish it off ever humane?!

Yes all animals are going to eventually die someday, but usually when that day happens, nature steps in and prepares the individual for it through a process that includes shock, withdrawal and the gradual shutting down of the senses. Hospice professionals know the process well; it’s outlined in handouts they share with anyone who is caregiving for the dying.

Ending a healthy life (human or otherwise), before he or she have had the chance to fulfill their life’s journey, is murder, no matter how you rationalize it.

The pro-human predation letter ends with the line: “Since 1937, it’s been proved that regulated hunting and trapping programs are the essential tools of modern wildlife management.” Humans can just thank their lucky stars that no bigger brained beings have rationalized away their existence…yet.

Know thy Enemy, Do the Opposite

Part of the reason hunters get their way so often when it comes to “game management” decisions is that they don’t hesitate to make their wishes known to state agencies. Why should they, they’re all one in the same, right? But wildlife lawmakers are required to acknowledge all sides; the more input they get from the animals’ side, the harder it will be for them to act like hunters are the only one’s with a stake in the issues.

Here’s something posted on a hunting chat board promoting contest hunts that begs for an equal and opposite reaction from the coyote’s side…

Re: Important: Will WDFW make Coyote contests illegal?

« Reply #86 on: Today at 10:23:06 AM »
remember, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, keep the messages going…  :tup:
I would like to ask all hunters to take one minute and send a short friendly message to the Washington Wildlife Commission now. You should also ask friends, family members, and members of any sporting groups you belong to do the same
Here is a sample message, add an additional point or two if desired, but keep it short and friendly:.


Send To…. commission@dfw.wa.gov Subject….. I Support Coyote Hunting Contests
Dear WDFW Commissioners, I would like to express my strong support for coyote hunting contests. These contests provide a great deal of recreation for hunters across the state and much needed management of Washington’s undermanaged coyote population.
Thank you for your consideration, (your name & address here)


How are Deer Managed by State Wildlife Agencies?



Most people think of wildlife management agencies as serving the ecosystem, interfering minimally and mainly to preserve wildlife. These agencies do have programs to protect endangered species and to protect habitat in general. But instead of managing wildlife solely for the optimal health of the ecosystem, state wildlife management agencies also manage wildlife for recreation. The agencies have a financial incentive to do so.

Deer as a Resource

To these agencies, deer are a resource, not sentient beings with their own inherent rights. The resource must be conserved, or used wisely, so that there will be plenty of deer for future generations of hunters. As a result, deer management is usually designed to keep the deer population high. For example, the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s mission is:

To conserve, enhance, and restore Arizona’s diverse wildlife resources and habitats through aggressive protection and management programs, and to provide wildlife resources and safe watercraft and off-highway vehicle recreation for the enjoyment, appreciation, and use by present and future generations.

The desire for a high deer population led Pennsylvania and other states to stock deer in the early 20th century.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources states in their annual report: “We rank first in the country for the highest single year deer harvest on record and are number one for deer harvest over the past decade. All of us work hard to keep it that way.”

The New York Department of Environmental Conservation takes the “needs” of hunters into account when determining their goals for deer management:

The goal is to balance deer with their habitat, human land uses and recreational interests. Ecological concerns and the needs of landowners, hunters, and other interest groups must be considered.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission also considers the desires of hunters in their deer management strategy:

Managing Pennsylvania’s deer herd is an enormous undertaking that frequently includes input from everyone from hunters and naturalists to farmers, foresters and suburbanites. Each has his or her own idea about how many deer we should have. As a general rule, hunters want as many as possible. Still others, particularly people made a living from their land, prefer fewer deer. But history has shown that no one group gets its way entirely.

These are just a few examples of state wildlife management agencies stating that they manage the deer population in a way that increases recreational hunting opportunities for hunters.

Financial Incentives

Most people find it incredible that their state wildlife management agencies are trying to keep deer populations high when so many residents complain that there are too many deer, but the agencies have financial incentives for pleasing hunters. The agencies depend on sales of hunting licenses for their funding, and hunters like a high deer population. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources states on their website:

Michigan hunters have supplied millions of dollars for the development of hunting regulations based on scientific data. They have also provided funds to enforce those rules in the field. Millions of dollars have been contributed for the acquisition of land and for the improvement of deer habitat on those lands. In many cases, legislative action to protect deer, acquire land, and improve deer range has been initiated by hunters themselves. This partnership among the Michigan deer hunter, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Michigan Legislature speaks well of our ability as citizens to work together through state government to manage wildlife.

Also, the federal Pittman-Robertson Act gives money from the excise taxes on sales of guns and ammunition to state wildlife agencies to increase wildlife populations. Pittman Robertson funds can also be used for land acquisition, hunter safety education and for the construction and maintenance of target ranges. To be eligible for Pittman-Robertson funds, a state must not divert money from the sales of hunting & fishing licenses outside of the state’s wildlife management agency.

How Do The Agencies Increase the Deer Popuation?

To increase the deer population, sections of forest in state wildlife management areas are clear-cut, to create the “edge habitat” that is preferred by deer. For example, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries recommends for deer management:

Openings in a forested area encourage the production of preferred food plants and may compensate for yearly and seasonal fluctuations in food supplies, like acorns. Natural openings in forests should be maintained. Openings of one to three acres in size should be created, and be strategically located throughout an area to provide diversity and edge.

State wildlife management lands are also sometimes leased to farmers, and the farmers are required to plant deer-preferred crops and leave a certain amount of their crops standing so that the deer will be fed and reproduce more. Sometimes, the state wildlife management agencies will plant “deer mix” themselves, to increase the deer population. For example, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources explains,

Portions of the area are managed under a farm lease program to promote upland wildlife habitat and to demonstrate the potential for producing wildlife on farm lands. Site personnel supplement natural habitats with tree and shrub plantings, native grass seedings, specialty food crop production and succession control.

Of course, animal rights activists oppose hunting and oppose wildlife management that artificially increases the deer population. As long as state wildlife agencies are funded through sales of hunting licenses and Pittman-Robertson funds, they will have an incentive to manage deer as a source of recreation and they will continue to be at odds with animal rights activists.

SHARK calls for firing of Wisconsin state employees in armed raid that killed “Giggles” the baby deer


New video released from the raid showing scared fawn
just minutes before she was captured
Watch SHARK’s new video HERE  
Watch WISN 12’s coverage of the story HERE
This is a frame of the video the DNR took right before they captured and then killed Giggles.
SHARK has received a trove of internal documents from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding their July 15, 2013 armed raid on the Society of St. Francis animal shelter in Kenosha County, WI. This raid was to capture and kill a baby fawn that had been dropped off at the shelter, and who had been named “Giggles” by the shelter staff.
The DNR internal documents reveal the following:
• Though the DNR claimed in a public statement that “None of our staff take joy in these situations,” emails show that personnel were excited and looking forward to the raid. They even expressed that joy with  “smiley faced” emoticons in their email.
• The DNR violated their own plan by killing Giggles before her origin could be discovered. Instead of asking the shelter owner where Giggles came from, the DNR simply killed the fawn outright.
• The DNR charged taxpayers for snacks and potato chips for their wardens who assisted with the raid.
• Giggles was killed by having a metal bolt shot through her head.
Left: The DNR’s own records show how excited and happy they were that they were going to capture and kill a baby deer. Right: The DNR actually charged taxpayers for snacks and potato chips for the wardens, because apparently if you work for the DNR, killing a fawn makes you hungry.
The armed raid by DNR was government at its very worst. These people abused their power, they wasted taxpayer money, and they took pleasure in an outrageous raid on an animal shelter all so they could capture and kill a fawn.
The DNR claimed that Giggles was “euthanized,” but by their own admission they killed her using a bolt gun.
A bolt gun is a slaughterhouse weapon. It is brutal and ugly and the DNR’s own record shows that this defenseless, 20 pound animal died after a state employee drove a steel bolt through her head. For that reason, and everything we’ve expressed, we are calling on Governor Scott Walker to immediately fire all those who are responsible for this disaster. 
Take Action!
Please politely contact Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and ask him to fire all of those who planned and participated in this raid, especially those who took such joy in it.
(608) 266-1212

Reports of bullet-riddled raptors increase as bird season opens

One had bullet holes through its wing feathers, narrowly missing the humerus bone. Another had a body peppered with lead shot. They were the lucky ones.

Red-tailed hawks and other raptors fall as unintended or illegal targets each October as upland game bird season resumes in Montana. Those that survive the blast occasionally wind up in the care of raptor rehabilitators like Rob Domenech of Wild Skies Raptor Center.

“Most of it goes untold because the birds just drop and that’s it – end of story,” Domenech said. “But last week, I got a call from the manager at the Missoula landfill who had a raptor there. He found it right near the scale house. We think it was shot in that area, because it couldn’t have gone too far with those pellets all over its body. It was lead shot, probably for upland game birds.”

The hawk is slowly recovering at a clinic on Missoula’s south side under the care of Brooke Tanner, a licensed raptor rehabilitator.

“This one was the worst I’ve seen in all my years doing rehab,” Tanner said. “Usually it’s one piece of metal. This bird had nine. It must have been far enough away because the injuries were superficial. But the bird had been on the ground several days, and the wounds smelled pretty bad. We’ll let the bones heal and treat for infection before we try to dig out the pellets.”

Tanner has also treated owls, crows and numerous other non-game birds for firearms injuries. The red-tailed hawk with the blasted wing feathers was still able to fly, so she left it in the wild.

Federal law and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibit the killing of migratory raptors such as red-tailed and rough-legged hawks, and all owls. Crows don’t have that kind of protection, but most of the corvids Tanner’s seen were shot inside Missoula’s city limits, where discharging firearms is illegal.

“I get several crows every year when the babies are fledging and they’re pretty vocal,” Tanner said. “People don’t like the noise.”

With raptors, the problem may be a mistaken assumption that the birds of prey compete with two-legged hunters for pheasants and other game birds.

“Rough-legged hawks are not predators of upland birds,” said Ben Deeble, president of the Big Sky Upland Bird Association. “They have a real small foot, and eat nothing but smaller rodents. Red-tailed hawks are more generalist, and they catch the occasional upland bird. But we don’t consider hawks to be a predation problem where there’s good habitat.”

Most hawks seek mice and voles that compete with pheasants for forage in fields and meadows. Golden eagles will kill game birds, but there aren’t many of them in the Missoula or Mission valleys where bird hunters are active.

Pheasant season started Oct. 12, while other upland game birds like grouse and partridge have been legal since Sept. 1.

“Among some, there’s sentiment raptors are big birds that kill things and don’t have much other purpose,” Domenech said. “There’s some anti-predator sentiment out there. It’s disheartening someone would kill these birds. This (birdshot hawk) is a young bird, and they have 60 (percent) or 70 percent mortality in their first year of life anyway. It’s tough out there if you’re a raptor. All it takes is one bad person with a shotgun and they take out a lot of hawks.”

WA Department of Fish & Wildlife supports wolf delisting

[This isn’t all that surprising considering the attitude of the Washington Department of Wildlife Assistant Director quoted in an earlier post entitled, What Really Motivates a Hunter.]

by GARY CHITTIM / KING 5 Newscopyrighted wolf in river
Posted on October 7, 2013

Four Washington State legislators are crafting a letter questioning the State Department of Fish and Wildlife’s decision to support federal delisting of the gray wolf.

One of the four, Senator Kevin Ranker, said he was shocked a state agency would advocate dropping federal protection of wolves when a recent poll shows the vast majority of Washington State residents support it.

Wolves are currently protected under both the state and federal endangered species acts.

State Fish & Wildlife Director Phil Anderson argued the state protection is more than adequate and the federal listing only gets in the way of Washington State’s approved plan for wolf management. He said he has clearly stated on several occasions that WDFW supports federal delisting but is committed to protecting wolves until they fully recover in the state.

Ranker said he can find no evidence WDFW tried to gather public input before sending a manager to a hearing in Washington D.C. to formally support the delisting.

Anderson said the state has developed a comprehensive protection plan scientifically based on the state’s unique wolf population.

What Really Motivates a Hunter?

Whenever an anti asks a hunter why they like to kill animals the answer (unless the hunter is exceptionally evil or unrepentant) is some variation of, “I don’t actually enjoy killing, I do it for the meat”…or, “to control their population”… or some other variation of those validations they think will sound plausible or palatable.

But the truth is not nearly so toothsome—they do it because they get off on taking and possessing another’s life.

You don’t have to lurk in those dark, seedy hunter chat rooms, Facebook pages or message boards to learn how hunters really think or how they view the animals they lust after. One need only pick up a Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife game regulations handout, available at any sporting goods store or rural mini market, and read the following featured article by a WDFW Wildlife Program Assistant Director:

Sportsmanship Evolves through Five Stages of Hunting

by Nate Pamplin

In hunter education, we talk about the five phases that hunters commonly pass through and how our definition of success in the field evolves over time. I think that discussion is valuable, because it provides an important perspective on our approach to the sport.

In the first stage of the five-step progression, most new hunters are primarily focused on bagging their first game animal. My first big game animal was a small ‘forked-horn’ sitka black-tailed buck on Kodiak Island, Alaska–and I couldn’t have been more proud.  

In phase two, the goal shifts to filling bag limits. The definition of a good day for a hunter in this phase would be taking all four forest grouse allowed, not just two.

The third stage is what is called the “trophy phase,” where success is derived by harvesting an animal with a large rack or trophy score. A hunter in this phase may pass immature animals waiting for the opportunity to harvest a trophy for the wall.

A fourth phase is limited-weapon phase, when hunters who have had success with modern firearms put down their rifle to pursue game through traditional implements that present more of a challenge.

Finally, we arrive at the fifth stage–the sportsman phase. Here, hunters find satisfaction in all aspects of hunting, whether sighting-in their rifle with their friends, waiting on a stand for a buck to pass by, or recounting hunting stories with family and friends over a bowl of venison stew.

An important aspect of the sportsman phase—and I’d advocate for every phase—Is sharing the rich tradition of hunting with others.

I ask you to consider your role in promoting the hunting heritage in Washington. Have you introduced hunting to a colleague from work who may have never been hunting before? Have you invited your niece to the shooting range? Do you have time to volunteer with a local hunter-education team? Did you mail a thank-you note to the landowner who afforded you access to their

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

ranch last fall?

Hunters don’t have to move through every stage of the sport before entering the sportsman phase. All of us share a passion for Washington’s hunting heritage, and it’s important we all do our part to keep this tradition alive during the coming season.


It’s uncanny how much the statement above mirrors this quote by another trophy taking expert on the subject—the prolific serial killer, Ted Bundy, who told the authors of The Only Living Witness, from his cell on death row:

“At each stage of the process the individual’s feelings would be different. And when he’s 15 it’d be a much more mystical, exciting, experience…than when he’s 50. And when—even within that given hunting expedition—the feeling of sighting the animal would be different than shooting it or showing it to your buddy. Or putting it in the trunk and taking it home and butchering it and having it for dinner…And that’s the way some guys may approach killing their fellow human beings.”

Beware the The Hunt Unrestricted on National Treasures Act, or “HUNT Act”

HUNT Act for Hunters. Legislation introduced Thursday in the U.S. Senate would increase hunting and angling access on public lands and bolster the nation’s outdoor recreation economy. The Hunt Unrestricted on National Treasures Act, or “HUNT Act,” introduced this afternoon by Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, directs federal agencies to inventory all public lands greater than 640 acres where hunting and fishing are legal but inaccessible with the goal of expanding access for members of the public. The legislation finances land acquisitions from willing sellers through a small percentage of Land and Water Conservation Fund monies. Heinrich introduced similar legislation in 2012, when he was a member of the House of Representatives. Some sportsmen’s organizations hailed the measure as a way of maintaining and expanding sportsmen’s access to public lands that provide important fish and wildlife habitat and offer valuable opportunities for hunting and fishing.

Read more about the HUNT Act: http://marcusschneck.com/2013/09/26/hunt-act-would-seek-hunter-access-to-landlocked-public-lands/


The “Conservationists” are about to go hunting – again

The following blog post is from the Friends of Edie Road (a group of  bird watchers and wildlife watchers who are proposing repurposing the Edie Road area to non-hunting for three primary reasons:

1. Having hunters and other visitors present in quantity at the same time, in the same area, is an accident waiting to happen.

2. The growing base of non-hunting visitors is seriously under-represented in the WDFW land use decision making process. There are many more birders and photographers visiting the site than hunters.

3. This site is unique for birding because it is flat, easily accessible, and most important: a large variety of bird species love it.


August 21st, 2013

I never meant this website to become a sounding board for a debate on the appropriateness of hunting as exemplary human behavior. However, I have received so many emails alleging that hunters are conservationists, I feel compelled to offer a few comments that hopefully some of the email writers may consider.
Conservation, according to my dictionary, is the act of conserving; prevention of injury, decay, waste, or loss; preservation, as conservation of wildlife.
The word conservation has been hijacked by people who take pleasure in doing the exact opposite of the definition. They inflict injury, kill and maim without any emotional regret of compassion, and lay waste to entire flocks of wild creatures every season. Hunting is bloody, emotionless killing for pleasure, and changing the description to “recreational opportunity” does not change the act. Nor does the use of “harvesting” make migrating waterfowl into a crop. Nor does describing a hunter as conservationist make that true. The pheasant season is once again upon us. The state sponsored killing of tame, farm-raised pheasant will frighten most of the shorebirds away from Eide Road until the end of November. This is not the way to demonstrate conservation.
But if you hunters look out along the paved road and parking area, you will see that there is an new and growing group of real conservationists emerging. They have invaded your hunt club by posting their yellow Discover Pass inside their windshield. They don’t carry guns but field guides, spotting scopes, and cameras. They exhibit a combination of awe and respect for the wild creatures they encounter, and shock and dismay at seeing them needlessly killed.
Your email comments talked about hunting’s wonderful heritage, all the land hunters paid for with “duck stamps” and how no species can thrive without scientific management. You have bought into the justification propaganda the NRA fashions to sell more guns and ammo. All the land hunters may have helped set aside does not justify killing the animals that occupy that land — for their own good.
Cruelty by any other name is still cruelty.

Some hunter apparently couldn’t wait for a pheasant so he unloaded his 12 gauge on the Discover Pass sign at Eide Road – mid-August 2013.