The missing hunter’s pick-up truck (Courtesy Skamania Co. Sheriff’s Office)
STEVENSON, Wash. (AP) — Authorities have suspended the search for a 37-year-old elk hunter reported overdue for a week in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
Skamania County Sheriff Dave Brown said Saturday night that four days of search efforts haven’t turned up clues to help them locate Joel Presler, of Vancouver. He last had contact with his family on Nov. 11.
Authorities found his pickup truck Wednesday on a Forest Service road in the Forlorn Lakes area.
Nearly three feet of snow has piled up near the truck.
Presler was reported to have been in good health when he went missing and to have hunted in the area for years. Authorities don’t believe he would have hiked in and camped away from his truck.
The sheriff urged caution for family and friends who planned to search for him Sunday.
This week, a Canadian hunter was attacked by a moose and had to be airlifted to a hospital. Photo by UPI/Shutterstock/Tom Reichner
Oct. 10 (UPI) — A Canadian hunter was attacked by the moose he shot and had to be airlifted out of the woods for medical treatment.
“I’ve got hoof prints in my forehead,” hunter Rodney Buffett told the St. John‘s Morning Show after leaving the hospital Monday.
Buffett was with his fiancee on Newfoundland’s south coast when he saw the moose and fired a shot, reported the CBC. The shot hit and the moose went down.
Buffett, who’s an avid hunter and has several photos of his hunting endeavors on his Facebook page, went up to the animal to begin carving it. But the moose got up.
“I thought he was dead,” Buffett said.
The moose lunged at Buffett, knocking him down and proceeded to stomp on him.
“I held onto his antlers and tried to steer him away, but it seemed like forever,” he said.
Buffett was able to kick the moose a few times and the animal took off — but he was so injured, he couldn’t move and a medical helicopter was called in to take him to the hospital, where he was treated and released.
*Turkeys – Who Are They?
<https://www.facebook.com/events/185118602045200/>, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, VA. *
*A presentation by Karen Davis in Brooks Hall Nov. 15 at 6pm. Sponsored by
*Justice Advocates. All are welcome!*
Sanctuary workers such as myself know that turkeys are intelligent,
keenly alert birds with highly developed senses and sensibilities. Turkey
mothers are superb parents who will fight to the death to protect their
The idea that wild turkeys are “smart” and domesticated turkeys are “dumb”
facilitates a view that turkey hunting is a benign collaboration between a
stalker and a “savvy” partner, and that turkeys bred for food are
“adapted” to factory farms.
In my talk, I draw attention to the moral miasma surrounding the
turkey, the ritual taunting by the media each year and ask – what if this
mean-spirited foreplay and blood sacrifice were taken away? What elements of
Thanksgiving remain? Karen Davis, PhD, is president of United Poultry
and the author of *More Than a Meal: The Turkey in History, Myth, Ritual,
*Reality* published by Lantern Books and available from UPC
Victim was in her garden when she was hit by a bullet fired through a hedge
An Aveyron woman, aged 69, has died after being hit a bullet from a hunter’s rifle while she was in her garden.
The hunter reportedly fired into a thick boxwood hedge that had attracted the interest of two hunting dogs – but the bullet passed through the vegetation and hit the retiree in the garden of her home in the village of Taussac, regional newspaper the Centre Presse Aveyron reports.
The 47-year-old hunter has been placed under police investigation for manslaughter. If convicted, he could face up to three years in prison and a fine of up to €45,000.
Every year 21 people on average are killed in hunting accidents, but the death of someone who is not hunting or accompanying hunters, is rare.
Rules on hunting may vary around the country, depending on laws passed by mairies and prefectures, however in the Aveyron department hunters are banned from shooting towards dwellings if they are within 150m of them. It is unclear if that was respected in this case or not.
Animal lovers have been left distraught today after National Trust members failed to pass a motion to ban ‘trail hunting’ on Trust land.
A group of National Trust members, supported by the League Against Cruel Sports, put forward a motion calling on the charity to stop fox, hare and stag hunts from illegally killing animals on Trust land under the cover of ‘trail hunting’, exempt hunting or just exercising their hounds.
In the result out this afternoon, the number of people voting against the motion to ban Trail hunting was 30,985. Those for the motion was 30,686. This means that the motion failed by 299 votes. It is worth noting that the National Trust was given discretionary votes by some members, meaning that those votes were used by the National Trust to vote against the motion. Without those discretionary votes, the number of people who voted for the motion was actually greater than those who voted against. So the decision was swung against the motion by the National Trust board.
The result means that 67 hunts which have previously been issued with licences to hunt on Trust land will be able to continue doing so in the future.
Philippa King, Acting CEO of the League Against Cruel Sports, said:
“The Trust claims to protect our countryside but they have singularly failed to do that. This is a massive backward step for justice and a shot in the arm for cruelty. The fact that more people actually voted to ban trail hunting than voted not to is very telling and we are extremely proud of that. But the vote was lost because the National Trust decided to ignore the popular vote and side with the pro-hunt lobby. This is both sad and very worrying and we hope that the Trust will have taken on board and listened very carefully to the points made by members. We want to see them bring in the new licensing rules they have introduced and do everything in their power to ensure the hunts are properly monitored.
“The National Trust could have played a major role in curtailing illegal hunting in this country, but they chose to ignore 400 pages of evidence and instead mislead their members into voting against this motion. Their justification is that there have been no prosecutions of hunts on National Trust land – but if you let a burglar wander round your house without supervision, then he’s unlikely to be arrested.
“Hunts will now claim that people believe they are hunting legally. If so, they shouldn’t mind if the National Trust now invites independent monitors onto their land to ensure that the hunts follow their rules, as the Trust officials don’t normally monitor hunting on their land as they should. We’ll then see how many accidents, how many chases and how many deaths occur in the name of ‘trail’ hunting.”
Helen Beynon, National Trust member who was one of those proposing the motion, said:
“I started this with some other National Trust members because I witnessed the deceit of hunts which are claiming to follow trails but are actually chasing animals, and I couldn’t abide the thought of them getting away with it on National Trust land. I believe the only reason our motion has failed is because most National Trust members haven’t seen it with their own eyes. If they’d have seen what I’ve seen, then I have no doubt they would have voted with us.
“I was surprised, that despite all the evidence available to the National Trust Trustees, and the fact that we were given no opportunity to respond to the terms of any new licence, they advised members to vote against our proposal. By doing this, they have led people to believe that there is no problem. But there is a problem, hunts will now be able to continue their barbaric hobby on land which is meant to be protected for people and animals. It’s disgraceful, and the National Trust should be ashamed.”
TRAIL HUNTING, NOT DRAG HUNTING
The motion did not attempt to ban ‘drag’ hunting which has existed as a legitimate sport for 200 years and uses non-animal based artificial trails in areas without foxes or hares. ‘Drag’ hunting offers a genuine alternative to illegal hunting, as the huntsmen have full knowledge of where the trail is being laid, so ‘accidental kills’ are practically unheard of. However, no fox or hare hunt converted to drag hunting after the Hunting Act passed in 2004, and they invented ‘trail’ hunting instead.
“This was not an attempt to kill off ‘tradition’, it was an attempt to stop the killing of animals for fun,” said Philippa King. “Drag hunts follow an artificial trail and rarely catch an animal ‘by accident’, and will not be affected by this ban. Trail hunting was invented after the Hunting Act came in, but there was no genuine reason to invent a new version of drag hunting unless there was an ulterior motive – to carry on killing foxes, deer and hares, and get away with it.
“This deception has been recognised by many National Trust members, but not by the Trust themselves. Today the hunts will be laughing at the National Trust – or at least those in the National Trust who are opposed to hunting.”
Last year the National Trust issued 79 annual licences granting hunts access to their land in England and Wales to trail hunt.
The League believes there is no such a thing as the ‘sport of trail hunting’ and it is simply a temporary, false alibi to cover for illegal hunting while the hunting fraternity hopes for the hunting ban to be repealed or weakened.
Invented following the enactment of the Hunting Act 2004, trail hunting was created to mimic traditional hunting. Hunts are said to follow a pre-laid trail in areas where the ‘once’ hunted animals would naturally occur. However those controlling the hounds are not told where the scent has been laid, so if the hounds catch the scent of a live animal instead – resulting in a chase and often a kill – this is then classed as an ‘accident’.
Reports from more than 30 hunt monitors across ten years from different organisations covering the majority of hunts in England and Wales (157), have reported witnessing someone laying a possible trail only in an average of around 3% of the occasions they monitored hunts. Worse, they believed that they may have witnessed a genuine trail hunting event, rather than a fake one, on an average of around 0.04% of occasions.
The e-mail on July 18 from the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources said that I would be getting my deer tags in the mail soon. I was a little bit surprised, and somewhat confused. Wouldn’t I need to apply for the tags online or pick them up at one of the regional offices? I had not bought my new hunting license yet, but the tags arrived in the mail a few days later.
I had been to the meetings and read all the articles that I saw in magazines and local newspapers. I had talked to people at SCDNR and other hunters. I thought that I understood the new tag program completely, but I was wrong. Apparently the DNR intended all along to mail tags to current license holders and anyone purchasing a new license beginning July 1.
OK, I know that any new program can have some confusion and a few snafus. It’s to be expected, so I’ve gone back to the DNR website and reviewed all the information that I could find. I think I’m up to speed with the info now.
The Deer Tag Program in South Carolina has been a long time coming. Passage of the “Deer Management Bill” was the culmination of years of effort on the part of the DNR, deer hunters and the Legislature. It’s not a perfect law but probably the best we could get under the circumstances.
The lack of a reasonable limit and enforcement effort on buck deer in the past have been a function of history, tradition and politics — not science.
Under the new law, all deer will be required to be tagged at the point of the kill. The deer only has to be tagged from the point of kill, during transport and until it is processed or cut up. Once the deer is quartered, or boned out, the tagging requirement goes away.
Some hunters have asked how a tagging system can be enforced. If someone chooses to take the risk of not tagging a deer, and he or she is caught, fines can reach more than $1,000. Also, processors will not take untagged deer because taking possession of an illegal deer is a violation. Most hunters are good and honest people. Good people police themselves, and no law can persuade bad people to do the right thing.
Under the new law, South Carolina residents will automatically receive a set of deer tags at no cost when they purchase a hunting license, or if their license will be valid when the hunting season begins. Tags will not be available at over-the-counter vendors, such as sporting goods stores. They became available after Aug. 1 at DNR regional offices. The base set of tags consists of three unrestricted buck tags and eight date-specific antlerless deer tags. Residents can purchase two additional restrictive buck tags for $5 each.
The restriction is that the buck must have at least four points on one side or have a 12-inch inside antler spread. There is no specific order in which buck tags can be used. Residents may also purchase up to four additional antlerless deer tags for $5 each. These tags are valid on any day beginning Sept. 15.
Youth hunters under the license age of 16 must request the free base set of tags annually. Tags will be available over the counter at DNR regional offices in Charleston, Clemson, Columbia, and Florence. Tags can also be ordered by phone at 1-866-714-3611 or via the internet. Contact information will be required to include date of birth and SSN. The youth will be given a customer ID number for future use. The additional tags may also be purchased.
Lifetime/ Senior/ Gratis/ Disability hunters must also request the free base set of tags annually. Not all of these 200,000 license holders are deer hunters and it would wasteful to send tags to all. Additional deer tag purchases are the same as resident and youth hunters.
Many hunt clubs, especially in the Lowcountry, may be enrolled in the Deer Quota Program. The new Deer Quota Program is similar to the old Antlerless Deer Quota Program. The only difference is that all deer must be tagged to include bucks, and the number of deer, to include bucks, that can be harvested will be determined by the DNR.
On dog drives, the person killing a deer must tag it with a personal tag, or if the property is enrolled in the quota program, one of the tags issued to the property should be used to tag the deer.
I haven’t even touched on the nonresident requirements, and some of you may still have questions. If so, you can email the DNR at Deer Tags@dnr.sc.gov or go online to www.dnr.sc.gov. Select “deer” under the hunting tab and click onto the New Deer Tag Information.
Dan Geddings is a native of Clarendon County currently residing in Sumter. He is founder and president of Rut and Strut Hunting Club in Clarendon County and a member of Buckhead Hunting Club in Colleton County.
Trophy hunting is the selective hunting of wild game for human recreation. In “Trophy Hunting” the entire animal or part of the animal is kept as the “trophy.” It is frequently kept as a remembrance of the hunt. The game sought is usually the oldest with the largest body size, largest antlers or other distinguishing attributes.
Trophy hunting has both supporters as well as opponents – both from within the hunting fraternity and from outside of it. Discussions concerning trophy hunting are not only about the question of the morality of recreational hunting and the supposed conservation efforts of hunting, but also the observed decline in the animal species that are targets for trophy hunting.
Trophy hunting occurs internationally at many levels. We all remember the worldwide press coverage and outcry that Cecil received with many negative comments regarding that taking.
Was it legal?
Was Cecil “set up” for the kill by a wealthy American?
What was the benefit of the money paid by the hunter to the local community?
and so on..
However, let’s restrict this discussion to the US only and look at the arguments in favor and opposed to trophy hunting in the US.
In the US, trophy hunters select their targets according to whether the animal has the largest horns, antlers, or other visible attributes that would be of importance to pass on to future generations – in other words, they are genetically laden with attributes that need to be passed on to future generations for the benefit of the species as a whole.
To selectively kill off these genetically laden members of the species will gradually diminish these positive attributes from appearing in future versions of the species as a whole. In other words, the species, as a whole would slowly but surely decline.
Trophy hunting causes what has been referred to as “unnatural selection.” It has been shown to reduce antler size and body size in roe deer and horn size and body size in mountain sheep.
This unnatural selection which is common to all groups that are trophy hunted likely compromises the long-term viability of all terrestrial and aquatic species.
NACHES, Wash. — A 28-year-old Olympia man is at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle after accidentally shooting himself in the elbow while hunting near Rimrock Lake Thursday.
But it took more than two hours to get him there after a helicopter had to turn around due to of inclement weather.
The man was hunting with a primitive, muzzle-loading rifle, said sheriff’s Sgt. Judd Towell. Just after 10:30 a.m., he slipped and dropped his rifle, which fell behind his arm and discharged — shooting him in the back of the elbow, said Chief Criminal Deputy Ed Levesque. Deputies would not release the man’s name Thursday.
Towell said when the older, more primitive weapons hit the ground it sometimes causes them to release the lock and fire.
The man was able to apply his own tourniquet, tell dispatchers where he was and walk to the nearest road so deputies could find him, Towell said.
“He’s a pretty responsible guy,” he said. “He really saved his own life.”
An ambulance picked him up around 1 p.m., and took him to a local hospital, before he was flown to Harborview. Information on his condition was not available Thursday evening.
Towell said the gunshot wound was not life-threatening, however the man could lose his arm.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting grizzly-bear country, inside the traditional Bute Inlet territory of the Homalco Nation.
Deep in the dense forest, with impossibly massive bears fishing the shores of a salmon-packed river, it was a page out of National Geographic. We saw nine grizzlies, including a female with her spring cubs, and a newly independent juvenile gamely trying to catch his lunch.
I come to see family and friends in your province often. I also come, as do so many from around the world, to see iconic wildlife in their natural settings.
Many of us deeply concerned for threatened wildlife were impressed when the people of B.C. made trophy hunting of grizzlies an election issue. When the new NDP government promised to end it, we looked forward to seeing that promise delivered quickly. The ban would be precedent-setting, with far-reaching implications. In a post-Cecil-the-lion world, people everywhere are agreeing that we will no longer tolerate the relentless killing of animals for what some people call sport.
Instead, the promised B.C. ban was both inexplicably delayed until after a full fall hunt season, then when delivered was incomplete. It was and is critically compromised by allowing the killing of grizzlies for meat. Safari Club International has actively interfered in this matter since the campaign for the ban began, even calling on rank-and-file members to crash and load media opinion polls and comments. But the reality is that while U.S. trophy hunters and local outfitters are angered by this ban, it is all too clear they see it as interference, and not as an end to the killing.
Your government has both dismissed science and insulted public intelligence by stating the hunt is sustainable and the ban was only in response to a shift in public attitudes. In a classic example of ethical doubling, Premier John Horgan once agreed grizzlies are struggling to survive habitat disruption and loss, and need our full protection.
Once elected, he then promptly announced a trophy hunt ban with a meat-hunt loophole big enough to drag a grizzly through. But the fact is that few Canadians hunt grizzly at all, and fewer still — if any — hunt grizzly for meat. Now, of course, many seem to have developed an appetite, or so they claim.
A public consultation period was announced, through Nov. 2. But the consultation is about how to manage the meat hunt, not if there should be a meat hunt. Now our media are headlining the results of a second poll. It shows what people asked for before the election and what they still want, is a complete ban. No hunting for trophy, for meat, no killing of any grizzly for any reason.
It shows something else. The public has been consulted and the answer is loud and clear. British Columbians and all Canadians are the key stakeholders on this issue. The people who elected your government want a complete ban. Polls have found that 91 per cent of British Columbians and 84 per cent of Albertans, including those living in rural areas, oppose trophy hunting.
There is no question these numbers would play out across Canada and elsewhere. It would certainly be tough to come up with another issue on which 80 to 90 per cent of people polled would agree.
A new report has told us that more than half of Canada’s wildlife species are dying off at an alarming rate. Trophy hunting is unethical, insupportable and an easily eliminated threat. Canadians and tourists stand with the citizens of B.C. We demand and expect the NDP government to oppose the killing of any grizzly for any reason.
Judy Malone of Toronto is a frequent flyer to British Columbia, and founder of Tourists Against Trophy Hunting, an international coalition of conservationists, ecologists, travellers, travel agents, writers and bloggers.
Last month, a hunter shot and killed a female grizzly bear after she wandered from Alberta into neighbouring B.C., where grizzly trophy hunting is still legal. Bear 148 was moved in July from the Bow Valley just outside Banff National Park to Kakwa Wildland Park, closer to the B.C.-Alberta border. According to the B.C. Conservation Service, the hunter who shot Bear 148 was well aware that the bear was wearing a research tracking collar but killed it anyway, which isn’t illegal.
Bear 148 wasn’t the first grizzly from a neighbouring jurisdiction to be killed by hunters after entering B.C. In 2014, a hunter near Golden legally killed Bear 125, which was part of a monitoring program in Banff National Park, after it travelled from the Upper Bow Valley in Alberta across the continental divide to B.C.’s Upper Blaeberry Valley. As with Bear 148, killing Bear 125 in B.C. was legal, even though both bears came from a highly threatened population in and around Banff National Park. Alberta banned grizzly-bear hunting in 2006, but in B.C., resident and foreign hunters legally kill about 300 grizzlies every year.
That hunters in B.C. can kill bears from Alberta, or other neighbouring jurisdictions like Montana, after they step to the other side of the border reveals how ineffectual our wildlife policies are for species that roam across vast areas of territory. Grizzlies don’t recognize political borders. They have huge ranges that extend well outside parks and protected areas. This puts them at great risk of encountering not just hunters but other threats, such as confrontations with people at townsites or workers’ camps in remote areas.
Polls show that most B.C. residents oppose trophy hunting of grizzlies. And many First Nations have banned the practice in their territories. The trophy hunt was even a major issue in the recent B.C. election. Now in government, the NDP has announced a plan to end all grizzly hunting in B.C.’s Great Bear Rainforest, but to allow a regulated “food hunt” of grizzly bears in place of the trophy hunt elsewhere.
A food hunt wouldn’t prevent the killing of “protected” transboundary grizzlies. Although no one legitimately hunts grizzlies for meat, such a policy has a built-in loophole that would allow recreational hunters to kill grizzlies as long as they surrender the animal’s head, pelt, claws, teeth and other “trophy” items to a government official and/or remove the meat from the carcass and pack it out. These proposed changes to hunting regulations are semantics. Grizzly bears will continue to suffer pain and deaths at the hands of hunters, regardless of whether hunters hand the head, pelt, paws, teeth and claws to a government bureaucrat after killing the animal, or keep them to be stuffed and mounted on a wall or made into a rug. We remain concerned that recreational hunters could continue to kill grizzlies under the guise of food hunting.
Grizzlies have already lost over half of their historical range in North America because of habitat loss and earlier periods of over-hunting. South of the border, the Trump administration has removed protection under the Endangered Species Act for a threatened grizzly population in the Greater Yellowstone Region, and several U.S. states have begun the process to allow grizzly-bear hunting again.
We commend the B.C. government’s commitment to stop grizzly hunting throughout the Great Bear Rainforest, as it will finally ensure that the iconic namesake of this vast coastal region will be fully protected. And while we appreciate the B.C. government’s desire to end grizzly-bear trophy hunting throughout the province, the proposed food-hunt policy fails to address significant conservation and ethical problems with the grizzly hunt. Only a ban on all grizzly hunting will ensure that the slaughter ends.
David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Faisal Moola is the foundation’s director general for Ontario and northern Canada. Chris Genovali is executive director of the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.