Hunting Needs to be Part of the Gun Debate

The following OP-ED is by Anne Muller of Wildwatch, a division of the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting

Hunting Needs to be Part of the Gun Debate:
Taking a Hard Look at the Pittman-Robertson Act

Hunting as a part of the gun debate appears to be inconsistent with the current goal of the White House, which is to fracture the monolithic power of the NRA. The common sense connection between hunting and violence has not merely been side-stepped, but the use of firearms to hunt has the explicit imprimatur of this administration. Although there is clearly a concerted effort to protect hunting from proposed gun control laws, the subject needs to be examined for its connection to the government’s role as both beneficiary and motivator of the use of firearms.

In a New York Times op-ed, Selling a New Generation on Guns, the author, Mike McIntire, stated that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) financed a study to explore attitudes toward guns in order to counteract the trend of declining hunter recruitment. Strategies were suggested for generating a greater acceptance of guns among children. As the question of why a government entity would have a strong interest in promoting firearms use among children was left unanswered, we would like to fill that gap. Not surprisingly, the reason is financial.

Mandated by the Pittman-Robertson (P-R) Act of 1937, an excise tax was placed on firearms and ammunition. The firearms and ammunition excise tax (FAET) is collected by the Alcohol and Tobacco Trade Bureau (TTB) within the US Department of Treasury. The tax is then turned over to the FWS. Eleven percent is retained by the FWS to cover administrative expenses. The rest is apportioned to all 50 states using a formula based on each state’s hunting license sales and state size. The P-R Act prohibited the taxes from being used for any purpose other than to generate more hunting and shooting opportunities, i.e., more use of firearms and ammunition. A galling aspect of this Act is that, in order to receive their federal share, states must match those funds with 25% from state coffers. Those who celebrate the P-R Act claim that matching funds can come from hunting license sales, but left unsaid is that they can also come from the general fund of the state.

To illustrate how aberrant the P-R excise tax is, let’s compare excise taxes collected on two other well-known products: alcohol and tobacco. Excise taxes on those products may be used for a variety of societal needs: education, health, housing, etc.

If the same government structure and financial mechanism that applies to firearms applied as well to alcohol and tobacco, the following would exist:

There would be two government agencies solely dedicated to the respective sale and use of alcohol and tobacco. They would collect excise taxes for the purpose of creating drinking and smoking opportunities, and pay their employees based on the number of people they motivate to drink and smoke.

They would not share their funds with the public, even with the direct or indirect victims of alcohol or tobacco.

Would we tolerate such government agencies? Not likely. Yet, that is precisely how the FWS and state bureaus of wildlife operate. The use to which the weapons and ammunition are put is irrelevant to the destination of the FAET. That means that firearms and ammunition used in drug-related or other crimes aid hunting and wildlife manipulation for hunting. The massacres at Jonesboro, Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, and thousands of individual murders in the urban areas of our country have, in fact, benefited wildlife management agencies. How can murder with a firearm and ammunition whose excise taxes pay only for wildlife management be justified? Are the victims merely “collateral damage”?

The FWS and the firearms industry are focused on youth hunting. Their studies have concluded that placing firearms in the hands of children will hook them on using weapons, thus ensuring sales well into the future. Mr. McIntire’s op-ed brought to light a suggested strategy for motivating disinclined children to hunt: “peer ambassadors.” In the 1990s, when the drop in recruitment of young people into the “shooting sports” became worrisome to the firearms industry and wildlife managers, hunters used another recruitment tactic that they called the “buddy program.” The industry had determined that the decline of hunting (use of firearms) was partially attributable to a rise in the number of families headed by single moms. Through hunting publications, hunters were encouraged to befriend these women in order to take their kids hunting.

While hunting is touted as a clean-cut pastime that allows rural traditions to be passed from generation to generation, it is actually quite an intimidating experience for those who encounter hunters on their property, have had property damaged, pets and livestock killed, and their children frightened. Rural citizens who wish to keep hunters off their property, or keep them from shooting near their property, are often harassed, abused, and ignored by hunters, while law enforcement officers and local judges too often back up the hunters. In particular, women living alone have been forced to pay fines, and spend time in jail and courts, having been charged with “Hunter Harassment.” Hunter Harassment laws, instigated by the NRA and others, now exist in every state, although they arguably violate the First Amendment.

Those who depend on the sale of firearms and their use are desperate to recruit children into the “shooting sports” to ensure profits and excise taxes well into the future. That is being done although studies have shown that for some there is but a fine line between killing animals and killing people, a line that can and has been crossed.

Recently, it was reported that a SEAL sniper attributed his indifference to killing people to having hunted in his youth. That came to light when he himself was killed by someone with a hunting background. Such news reports indicate and dictate that hunting has to become a part of the debate.

There are many responsible citizens, gun owners and voters among them, who are disgusted with the arrogant perspective that the recreational killing of animals is considered to be a justification for the purchase of firearms and ammunition.

One need not play video games to learn violence. Lessons in violence can be learned as readily from killing animals in the woods. Recently, a live squirrel shooting contest was sponsored by the fire department of Holley, NY. Their flier showed an adorable squirrel with cross-hairs covering his little face. The flier announced that the children who killed the fattest squirrels would win firearms, including a semi-automatic weapon. Who benefits? The firearms industry and wildlife management agencies. Who loses? The children who are taught that killing other living creatures can be fun. In the end, the society loses.

It is simply prudent to keep firearms out of the hands of some adults and certainly out of the hands of all children.

Anne Muller, President

Wildlife Watch Inc.

Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting is a division of Wildlife Watch.

http://www.wildwatch.org

http://www.abolishsporthunting.org

http://www.lohv.org

For Safety’s Sake, Some Gun Collectors Should Switch to Stamps

According the Associate Press,five people were wounded in accidental shootings at gun shows in North Carolina, Indiana and Ohio on Saturday. That’s five shooting victims—all in one day!

At the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, a 12-gauge shotgun discharged as its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check at a security entrance, injuring three people, a state Agriculture Department spokesman said. Two bystanders and a retired deputy sheriff were hit by shotgun pellets and taken to a hospital.

Sheriff Donnie Harrison said that it was too early to know whether the shotgun’s owner might be charged, but that it appeared to be an accident. (But don’t be surprised if the victims are the ones who end of being charged—with failure to wear a bullet proof vest at a public gun show.)

The North Carolina show, which is held at the state fairgrounds (not annually, but four times a year), usually draws thousands of people (some of whom actually survive the event unscathed).

In Indianapolis, police said a 54-year-old man was injured when he accidentally shot himself while leaving a gun show. (He could have saved himself the entry fee if he would have just shot himself before leaving home.)

Emory L. Cozee, of Indianapolis, was loading his .45 caliber semi-automatic when he shot himself in the hand as he was leaving the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife show at the state fairgrounds. Police said that loaded personal weapons aren’t allowed inside the show, but (presumably since the shooting occurred outside the building in the fairgrounds parking lot) no charges will be filed. (After a trip to the emergency room, Cozee is comfy once again.)

And in Ohio, a gun dealer was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he’d just bought when he accidentally pulled the trigger. The gun’s magazine had been removed, but one round remained in the chamber, police said. The afore-mentioned (magic) bullet appears to have ricocheted off the floor and struck the gun owner’s friend in the arm and leg. The (erstwhile) friend was taken by helicopter to a hospital 30 miles north in Cleveland; his condition was not immediately known.

…

Now I’m not trying to trounce on anyone’s God-given American rights (except the self-allocated “right” to hunt and kill animals recreationally), but for safety’s sake, maybe some of these folks should take up crocheting, knitting or collecting stamps, rather than gun collecting. Once they’ve mastered benign hobbies such as these, if they still feel the puerile need to prove their machismo, they could work back into it slowly, starting with craft shows or canasta tournaments.

Hell, it sounds like playing Russian roulette is probably a safer pastime than attending some of those gun shows.

Time to control gun violence—against animals

As predictable as the fact that there will be another mass shooting in this country again sometime is the inevitability that when it happens talk of controlling gun violence will crop up again. The two seem to go hand in hand. The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School is a case in point; the media has been rife with talk of controlling gun violence—against people.

But when I saw a recent article about a handgun buyback it hit me: most mass murderers use high-powered rifles—hunting rifles—but the buyback is only for handguns. Why isn’t there a buyback on hunting rifles? Oh, that’s right, hunting is a sacred institution—perpetuated by the likes of Dick Cheney, Ted Nugent and the NRA—no one can touch it. Forget all the violence done to animals, or even to crowds of people, if it means going up against hunting.

Never do you hear a peep about stopping gun violence against non-human animals. It’s as if they are inanimate objects, living targets to practice on. But if we really want to prevent the next school shooting or mass murder of mall shoppers, isn’t it time we address the violence inspired and nurtured by hunting?

Since when is Murder Considered Vegan?

On Monday, Salon.com was the first out of the gates with the rumor that Adam Lanza was “an organic vegan” who “didn’t want to hurt animals.” By now, with the help of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, that news has probably made it clear around the ever-widening Bible belt, up through the armpit of Idaho to the outback outhouses of Alaska’s North Slope.

But whether or not Lanza eschewed animal flesh, he really couldn’t be considered an ethical vegan since vegans make every effort to avoid harming animals and—although some people are loathe to admit it—humans are animals. Ultimately, Adam Lanza’a  food choices have no more bearing on his decision to go on a killing spree at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary than the fascinating anecdote that he was left-handed (if he was) or that he had Asperger’s syndrome, a mild form of autism (which he did). (But, the point that his mother was a paranoid, survivalist gun-hoarder might actually have some bearing on the case).

The fact is, Lanza simply snapped. For whatever reason, the troubled twenty-year-old went completely off the deep end and acted out for no other explainable reason than insanity itself. None of his victims had anything to do with hurting animals; they were just innocent first graders minding their own business.

What concerns me is that some otherwise normal, caring vegan will snap in the name of the animals and set the entire animal rights movement back for years to come. Just today I received the following comment to one of my blog posts:

“When the subject of Wolf-murder was first mentioned, last year, I said people should put an ultimatum into the public domain to this effect: Kill ONE Wolf and TEN vermin will be randomly executed as retribution. Kill a SECOND Wolf and TWENTY MORE people will die. Kill a THIRD Wolf and FORTY more people will be slotted. For each Wolf murdered, the number of vermin ‘offed’ as retribution will be doubled, and absolutely ANYONE will become an X-Ray, with no concessions to age or gender or anything else. THAT is the way to do business…”

Although this commenter may sound like they’ve already gone postal, I think their point was to inspire others to take aggressive action. She doesn’t even live on this continent and couldn’t possibly act on her vindictive recommendations.

I’m certainly not going to argue that some of the wolf-killers out there don’t deserve a taste of their own medicine; but what if one of the hunters “randomly executed” turned out to be a good person in-the-making, such as the former hunter who recently wrote this?:

“I stopped hunting and trapping long ago. For years, I was ambivalent about speaking out because I accepted the cultural and psychological influences motivating those who grew up considering unnecessary killing a sport.  I’ve come to recognize how superficial, shallow, fleeting and self-destructive is this violent indulgence. I’ve come 180 degrees. For me, it is the senseless open seasons on wolves, bears, and in Wisconsin, even mourning doves.”

Nothing sways public opinion against someone’s cause more than when they decide to go on a shooting spree—especially if their victims are human.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

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