Who are the REAL Conservationists?

Duck

For the past century we have heard from hunting groups, their lobbyists, and individual hunters, trappers, and hounders, that they are “conservationists” because it is the money from their licenses, fees, and taxes that pay for the “fish and game departments under their control. While there is little dispute that these agencies are indeed funded through these mechanisms I rarely hear anyone ask why this is generally the only funding tool for these agencies. That can be summed up in one word: control. After market hunting and predator eradication programs nearly eradicated many species during the 19th and early 20th centuries several influential hunters, such as Theodore Roosevelt (when he wasn’t shooting an ostrich sitting on her nest in Africa) and Aldo Leopold, helped spearhead programs to place controls on what was until that time unlimited killing for various purposes. Influence from non-hunter preservationists like John Muir were instrumental as well. These programs included protected national parks and the eventual creation of a wildlife “refuge” system. Noble goals that did indeed bring back many species from the brink of extinction and attempted to correct the greed and destruction wrought by market hunters and trappers. This is where the double-edged sword rears its head. Market and trophy hunters and trappers were responsible for nearly wiping out countless species, yet they also are the first to claim credit for certain species being allowed to rebound into the numbers we see today. Did they do this out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not. With these people there always has to be a motive and that motive is making sure that money flowed in to pay for the various “fish and game” departments that sprung up through the 20th century. By selling hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses these agencies can continue to fund their agency and protect their employment. To keep the money flowing in there need to be animals that people want to kill and exploit and be willing to pay to do so. This structure has led to many state “fish and game” departments turning their states into what are essentially giant game farms where the numbers of deer, elk, and other “valuable” species are kept at artificially high number to keep the license money flowing while providing almost unlimited targets for hunters, trappers, and hounders.

Hunters, trappers, hounders, and their lobbying groups never miss an opportunity to fly the false flag that states they are the real “conservationists” because they fund the vast majority of “fish and game” departments across the nation. They somehow have deluded the public into believing that killing is conservation and without them no wild animals or wild lands would exist. They like to pretend that “non-consumptive” users refuse to help fund these agencies and lands and they bear the burden of “protecting” wild lands. What they fail to mention is that the last thing they want is to allow non-consumptive users to have a seat at the table that would inevitably come with their increased funding of “fish and game” agencies. Not once have I ever heard non-consumptive user groups or individuals refuse to step up and help fund true conservation. Does anyone for a second think that the hunters, trappers, hounders, and their affiliated groups would give up any piece of their complete and total domination of “conservation” issues? States agencies like the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources constantly complain about a lack of funding due to a decrease of hunters. Instead of reaching out to non-consumptive users and asking them to be partners they instead pushed for legislative action that would create programs to “recruit” more hunters, trappers, hounders, and fishers. Instead of reaching out to real conservation groups and forming partnerships to help reform the funding structures of agencies like the DNR, they instead turned to programs that have the intent of luring more people into the bloodsports that fund their agency. Recent studies have shown that Wisconsin is a major destination for wildlife watching and that brings in billions of dollars in tourism revenue. Instead of making an attempt to tap into those opportunities Wisconsin doubled down on their “recruitment” efforts for hunters, trappers, and hounders. A law passed in 2012 established a program that MANDATED hunting and trapping classes be offered in state public high schools FOR CREDIT. That same law also opened up state parks to hunting, hounding, and trapping. Instead of courting wildlife watchers and other “non-consumptive” users the state of Wisconsin doubled down on their attempt to attract more and more people to the bloodsports. Hikers, birders, and wildlife watchers be damned. Try not to step in a trap while enjoying nature in our state parks. Hope that a stray bullet doesn’t find you when taking a hike in those parks. Also make sure that marauding packs of hound dogs don’t scare away all of the birds and other wildlife that you are attempting to watch.

Who are the real conservationists? Myself and most wildlife advocates that I know would gladly pay taxes and fees on the “non-consumptive” equipment that we use for hiking and wildlife watching. But we want a seat at the table and that is exactly why agencies like the Wisconsin DNR will never push for that type of funding. It is all about control and don’t for a second think that the DNR and their “partners” from the hunting groups and their lobbyists want to relinquish one bit of that control. I know that I am willing to pay whatever is necessary to make sure our wild lands and our wildlife is protected. That means ALL wildlife and not just what hunting groups deem to have “value.” I am perfectly content paying my fair share and just knowing that those lands and species will be protected. I don’t need to TAKE anything away from that other than a piece of mind. Can the same be said for hunters, trappers, hounders, and other fake “conservationists?” It seems to me that they are only willing to pay so that they have a total monopoly on power and to assure there are targets for them to kill when the urge strikes them. They have to TAKE something in order to feel as though their funding is justified. Does anyone think for a second that the vast majority of hunters, trappers, and hounders would give one dime if they couldn’t TAKE something for their effort? Does anyone think that they would give one cent if it didn’t enable them to have complete and total control over wildlife and wild lands? Of course not. It is obvious who the REAL conservationists are and we need to work to change those fake perceptions that hunting groups have perpetrated for the past century plus. The media even buys into this fallacy when they refer to hunting groups as “conservation groups” and call wildlife advocates “animal rights groups.” Hunting groups and “fish and game” departments  use fluffy words like “harvest” to describe killing and “production” and “recruitment” to describe animals being born and growing up to become targets. The media also latches on to these begin words and uses them in stories describing the killing of wildlife because they know words like “suffocation,” “crushing,” “shooting,” and “killing” are far more blunt and descriptive than nice little words like “harvest.”

This takes us back to the original question: Who are the REAL conservationists? Non-consumptive users want wildlife and wild lands preserved so that they are there for viewing and peaceful use. For the most part we take nothing from those lands except for memories and maybe photographs. On the opposite end hunters, trappers, and hounders do nothing but take, take, take. They kill millions of wildlife each year for pleasure, profit, and some for food. Trappers litter the landscape with thousands and thousands of traps that indiscriminately kill millions of animals nationwide each year mostly for profit. In Wisconsin and several other states hounders unleash packs of vicious dogs that are allowed to run rampant through woods and fields targeting bears, coyotes, raccoons, bobcats, and in Wisconsin, wolves. These dogs often illegally engage the wildlife leading to injury and death for both the wildlife and dogs. In Wisconsin hounders, under the guise of “training,” are allowed to let their dogs to run rampant through most of the year. If those dogs happen to come across a wolf or wolves defending their territory bloody fights often ensue leading to the death of the dog. Following the dog being killed by the wolf the Wisconsin DNR then makes sure the hounder receives a nice fat $2500 check for their “beloved” dog. Does it sound like hunters, trappers, and hounders are doing any “conserving” in these descriptions? To me it sure seems like a whole lot of taking, taking, taking and very little if any conserving.

Again, who are the REAL conservationists here? From my perspective it is pretty obvious who the REAL conservationists are and it sure isn’t the takers pretending to hold that role today.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Who are the REAL Conservationists?

  1. The Pittman-Robertson Act, often cited by sportsmen claiming themselves as “conservationists” creates a distortion in wildlife management because it does involve federal fees and taxes on guns and ammunition which is distributed back to the states. So, hunters have this entitlement idea of killing wildlife since they think they are mostly paying for it. The bed tax in Montana also pays for it, with a portion sent to FWP. Tourism and wildlife viewing are much bigger revenue builders than hunting, according to one source I read, it is 12 times more. Just wolf viewing alone in Yellowstone brings in $35 million to the surrounding states, with about 4% of 28 million Yellowstone visitors per year coming just to see wolves. Wolves and grizzlies are the most sought after sightings. The Pittman-Robertson results in an emphasis on elk and other sport killing target animals and wildlife agencies essentially farming those animals and marginalizing the predators. Wildlife would be better served if more tourism dollars were funneled into wildlife protection and wildlife habitat acquisition and protection. We need the recognition of the impact of wildlife and wilderness viewing dollars that provide employment and lodging and retail purchases and dining and gas, and from employment income and taxes. Americans and Montanans also pay federal and state taxes with an understanding that significant money goes to Parks and National Forests and wilderness protection. So, the entitled sense that hunters and fishermen have about their contribution is inflated. But we should find ways to more clearly “show me the money”, to get more wildlife viewing dollars going back directly to wildlife protection and habitat protection and balanced ecology(s) instead of just the sportsmen emphasis on elk and other hunter targeted wildlife.

  2. Hunter War on Wildlife and I would add ranchers and wildlife agencies: Hunters and trappers have been calling themselves conservationists lately a lot it seems. They cite early conservationists and early efforts to save game species (birds and ungulate herds) and fishes and on-going efforts to save game animals. Some early “hunter-trapper conservationists” of considerable note were early pioneers in conservation: Teddy Roosevelt was one but he also founded numerous national parks and wildlife refuges to protect wildlife from hunter-trapper sportsmen. Aldo Leopold was one, hunter and naturalist, who became more enlightened about protecting the wolf and other predators and their place in the ecology. George Grinnell was one and also founded national parks including Glacier. I have met and know some hunters that like a balanced ecology of predators and prey, a true wilderness in which to hunt, and who disagree with trophy hunting and even disgusted by– and one who compares killing wolves to shooting his neighbor’s German Shepherd. But such hunter-sportsmen are far from often on the landscape; most have a very irrational, uniformed, visceral hate of wolves in particular and predators in general and want to minimize, marginalize, or exterminate them and essentially farm ungulates and game birds. Some even hate raptors who take their birds and their fish, as they view ungulates as their elk or deer. Most sportsmen and state wildlife agencies, it seems, want to marginalize the main predators (wolf, lion, grizzly). Nebraska only has about 70 cougars yet is embarking on a vigorous “management” campaign, as is SD with only 170 cougars. Alaska is killing wolves just outside national parks. Since wolves have been turned over to state “management” 2700 wolves have been killed plus another 3435 by the rogue USDA Wildlife Services which kills a million animals a year in the name of control. Organizations of sportsmen such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has offered bounties and cooperative agreements with agencies for wolf killing and the Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife recently donated $15,000 o Wildlife Services, a renegade killing wildlife agency. Sportsmen organizations are silent on predators if not unashamedly hostile but loud on protecting and farming game species. States like ID-MT-WY-WI-MI have vigorous unscientific, political drive-down-the-wolf-population policies, trapping, extended seasons, and liberal kill policies year around. Much of this wildlife killing is done by trapping, a barbaric, horrendous way to kill and mostly unjustified. Trapping on public land is mostly done for “recreational” sports killing, the fur trade, trophies, with little regard for ecology and the interests of the general public, wildlife viewing, safety of the general public, and it takes a large toll in collateral damage to non-targeted animals, and is overly touted as need to control. There is some need for handling “nuisance animals” but the notion is abused by too little hesitation to evaluate the need, too little scientific management, too little nonlethal means used; basically trapping is a quick draw response and such a barbaric, inherently cruel means should under tight scrutiny and used only by wildlife agencies sparingly. There are around 7000 trappers in Montana alone doing it mostly for the fur trade and recreationally.

    http://thoughtsfromthewildside.blogspot.com/2014/03/killing-wolves-hunter-led-war-against.html?m=1

    http://exposingthebiggame.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/whither-the-hunterconservationist/

    http://exposingthebiggame.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/sportsmen-donate-15000-to-wildlife-services

  3. I guess the great mystery of our society is: Why do the wrong people have so much money?
    The quick answer us that most of them chase a dollar and don’t care what they do to get there. There are some good monied people, but there are so many dead-heads.

  4. I am so glad I read through this information! I now feel more informed as an individual (Canadian) who plans to continue to FIGHT to END the indiscriminate killing of our planet’s wildlife by killers who pose as conservationists. I GET IT, and I’ll FIGHT IT. In my lifetime, I predict, the tide will turn, and future generations of humanity will regret the killing spree of wild animals that has gone on for more than a century under this lie of so-called ‘conservation’. They will look back and despise the nature of these humans that have had license to prey on wildlife for so long. Their time is just about up.

  5. Pingback: Who are the REAL Conservationists? | Bears Matter

  6. Excellent blog and replies so far. The worst of the unethical hunters seem to be getting bolder and bolder. Hunting in the wrong way, just because it is legal, is still unacceptable to decent society. The only reason the majority of hunters don’t work to get laws tightened on the yoho’s is because they are so afraid of their own hunting being curbed. They just encourage the anti-hunters with their lack of action and quiet acceptance. Sooner or later that anti-hunters will recruit the neutral folks who don’t give the issue much thought, and they will become the majority. The ethical hunters who say nothing, and do nothing, about the “hunters” who are thrill killers and merely trophy hunters, will be to blame because of their silent acceptance. Frankly I look forward to that day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s