We Must Become Proactive To Save Hunting, Fishing
24/01/08 14:24
Editor’s
Note: Today’s guest commentary comes to The
Outdoor Wire from Jeff Harrington of Michigan. Jeff
is an editor and manager for a group of weekly
newspapers in Northern Lower Michigan.
Hunters and anglers aren’t exactly an endangered species yet, but reports and statistics reflecting the continuing decline in our numbers are just what animal rights activists love to add to their arsenals against sport hunting and fishing.
And there should be plenty of concern among us, as another hunting season winds down and another election cycle heats up, especially in view of the anti-hunting establishment’s stunningly successful disinformation campaign at the polls here in Michigan just over a year ago.
Hunters and anglers aren’t exactly an endangered species yet, but reports and statistics reflecting the continuing decline in our numbers are just what animal rights activists love to add to their arsenals against sport hunting and fishing.
And there should be plenty of concern among us, as another hunting season winds down and another election cycle heats up, especially in view of the anti-hunting establishment’s stunningly successful disinformation campaign at the polls here in Michigan just over a year ago.
Like many outdoorsmen,
I grew up in a family of hunters and fishermen.
I’ve been fortunate to extend that passion, to
one degree or another, to my son and four stepsons.
Unfortunately, too few young people today have the same opportunities. And too few of us who are heirs to this tradition and heritage have done enough to pay it forward, perpetuate and defend it … to assure that it continues for current and future generations.
This has to change, of course. Otherwise, we risk losing even more in the face of the absurdity that saw the anti-hunting movement gain a huge foothold across this state in 2006.
I fish and I mostly hunt deer. Evermore infrequently, I hunt small game. I’ve never “hunted” doves (although I once shot one while pheasant hunting as a teen.) If Michigan’s short-lived dove hunting season had survived the legal, social and political blitz that killed it, I’m quite sure that I would not be a “dove hunter” today, any more than I am a bear hunter.
However, I am a hunter, and proud to admit it!
I was among the roughly 30 percent minority who voted “yes” to keep the right for those who wished to hunt mourning doves in Michigan through the season that had been legislatively established on a limited, trial basis in 2004.
Actually, the fact that Michigan Proposal 3 of 2006 ended up on the ballot in the first place remains a mystery to me.
In 1996, voters in Michigan decidedly rejected a proposal initiated by anti-hunters to limit bear hunting opportunities by banning the use of bait and dogs. (Incidentally, the result has not been catastrophic for the state’s bear population, which is said to be at modern-day record.)
While handing the “antis” that defeat nearing twelve years ago, voters also overwhelmingly approved “Proposal G,” resulting in Public Act 377 of 1996. The act granted the state Natural Resources Commission the “exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game…” Among other things, it requires that the NRC utilize “principles of sound scientific management” to regulate hunting and the “taking of game.”
Once the mourning dove had been re-established as a game bird — as it was in early 2004 — it was up to the NRC to establish guidelines for the “taking” of that species by hunters, based upon “principles of sound scientific management.”
Somewhere along the line, however , and I’ve yet to hear a good explanation as to when, why or by whom, it was decided that “social science,” (read: public opinion) is part of the science equation, along with biological and ecological science.
And it was clear from the start that when it came to public opinion, the Michigan dove hunt was doomed at the polls. Not only did it lose, it lost in every single one of the state’s 83 counties.
Backed by hundreds of volunteers and more than $2 million from the misguided Humane Society of the United States, the campaign absolutely ignored biology and ecology while playing to the emotions of non-hunters and backyard bird watchers. Suddenly, doves gained near mythical status as the state’s “official bird of peace” —beautiful, harmless and “monogamous” creatures, too small to eat and nothing more than “target practice” to those who would shoot and not even bother to retrieve them.
Not only did the public buy into it, those and other misrepresentations of fact perpetrated by HSUS and others became lexicon. Amazingly, they were repeated in near unison among editorial endorsements of a “no” vote on the dove season by dozens of newspapers across the state.
Too small? We better watch out, woodcock (or perch) could be next. Certainly, doves are peaceful and beautiful, but who couldn’t make the same arguments on behalf of the wood duck, the mallard, the ringneck pheasant or ruffed grouse … certainly the whitetailed deer, or any number of other wild critters.
The problem is that many, including myself, believe that the resounding defeat of the dove-hunting season was just a start. There has already been a fair amount of speculation as to what might be next on the antis’ hit list … trapping, archery, or perhaps “baiting” in general.
Personally, I do not hunt over bait, but as long as “science” and the law say it’s a permitted means of hunting, who am I to condemn it?
Want to get a picture of what hunters and hunting, fishermen and fishing are up against? Spend some time on the HSUS or PETA Web sites. If you are not angered and disgusted by what you see, check for a pulse.
The organization still lists the Michigan dove referendum as one of its “major victories on behalf of animals.” Under a link entitled “past ballot initiatives,” you’ll learn that, “Between 1990 and 2006, animal advocates squared off against hunters and other animal industries in 38 statewide ballot campaigns, winning in 26 and marking a huge surge in the use of the (voting) process on animal issues.”
Not to be outdone, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals last year launched an anti-fishing campaign targeted at — of all demographics — schoolchildren. “Your Daddy Kills Animals” and “Fishing Hurts” are among the catch phrases.
Did you know that fish are “smart, interesting animals with their own unique personalities, just like the dogs and cats who share our homes;” that they are capable of using tools, recognizing individual “shoal mates,” and have impressive long-term memories and sophisticated social structures? I didn’t think so.
While propaganda that not too long ago called for an “end to all sport hunting and fishing” has curiously disappeared from the HSUS Web site in recent months, HSUS continues to champion itself in a variety of high profile causes aimed at the “most egregious” forms of hunting.
And all the while, the ultimate goal is to draw in more and more cash donations, not to mention recruitment of more young lawyers looking to make their mark.
The organization has even collaborated with Georgetown University in establishing an “animal law” curriculum, offering animal law fellowships, and … here’s the kicker: “…development of a joint animal law conference, to be held in 2008, to bring together a diverse group of experts from around the country, including judges, legislators, prosecutors, and other legal professionals, to engage in dialogue about the development and enforcement of animal law in the United States.”
Animal law, indeed!
So, what can we do about all of this nonsense?
Since it would appear that the future of hunting and fishing may very well come down to a question of which side has the most money and the best if not most lawyers, we must stop being mere passive bystanders, especially in the off-season.
We all need to become more proactive and less reactive. Join a conservation group. There are many out there, and which one is really a matter of individual choice. Attend one of this year’s upcoming outdoor sports shows and buy a few raffle tickets, subscribe to an outdoor publication and stay informed of the issues we face. Ask politicians running for office this year where they stand on hunting and fishing.
Above all, if nothing else, resolve to take a kid, or several kids — or even another adult who has never had the opportunity — hunting or fishing this year.
(on "the outdoor wire" jan. 24, 2008)
Unfortunately, too few young people today have the same opportunities. And too few of us who are heirs to this tradition and heritage have done enough to pay it forward, perpetuate and defend it … to assure that it continues for current and future generations.
This has to change, of course. Otherwise, we risk losing even more in the face of the absurdity that saw the anti-hunting movement gain a huge foothold across this state in 2006.
I fish and I mostly hunt deer. Evermore infrequently, I hunt small game. I’ve never “hunted” doves (although I once shot one while pheasant hunting as a teen.) If Michigan’s short-lived dove hunting season had survived the legal, social and political blitz that killed it, I’m quite sure that I would not be a “dove hunter” today, any more than I am a bear hunter.
However, I am a hunter, and proud to admit it!
I was among the roughly 30 percent minority who voted “yes” to keep the right for those who wished to hunt mourning doves in Michigan through the season that had been legislatively established on a limited, trial basis in 2004.
Actually, the fact that Michigan Proposal 3 of 2006 ended up on the ballot in the first place remains a mystery to me.
In 1996, voters in Michigan decidedly rejected a proposal initiated by anti-hunters to limit bear hunting opportunities by banning the use of bait and dogs. (Incidentally, the result has not been catastrophic for the state’s bear population, which is said to be at modern-day record.)
While handing the “antis” that defeat nearing twelve years ago, voters also overwhelmingly approved “Proposal G,” resulting in Public Act 377 of 1996. The act granted the state Natural Resources Commission the “exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game…” Among other things, it requires that the NRC utilize “principles of sound scientific management” to regulate hunting and the “taking of game.”
Once the mourning dove had been re-established as a game bird — as it was in early 2004 — it was up to the NRC to establish guidelines for the “taking” of that species by hunters, based upon “principles of sound scientific management.”
Somewhere along the line, however , and I’ve yet to hear a good explanation as to when, why or by whom, it was decided that “social science,” (read: public opinion) is part of the science equation, along with biological and ecological science.
And it was clear from the start that when it came to public opinion, the Michigan dove hunt was doomed at the polls. Not only did it lose, it lost in every single one of the state’s 83 counties.
Backed by hundreds of volunteers and more than $2 million from the misguided Humane Society of the United States, the campaign absolutely ignored biology and ecology while playing to the emotions of non-hunters and backyard bird watchers. Suddenly, doves gained near mythical status as the state’s “official bird of peace” —beautiful, harmless and “monogamous” creatures, too small to eat and nothing more than “target practice” to those who would shoot and not even bother to retrieve them.
Not only did the public buy into it, those and other misrepresentations of fact perpetrated by HSUS and others became lexicon. Amazingly, they were repeated in near unison among editorial endorsements of a “no” vote on the dove season by dozens of newspapers across the state.
Too small? We better watch out, woodcock (or perch) could be next. Certainly, doves are peaceful and beautiful, but who couldn’t make the same arguments on behalf of the wood duck, the mallard, the ringneck pheasant or ruffed grouse … certainly the whitetailed deer, or any number of other wild critters.
The problem is that many, including myself, believe that the resounding defeat of the dove-hunting season was just a start. There has already been a fair amount of speculation as to what might be next on the antis’ hit list … trapping, archery, or perhaps “baiting” in general.
Personally, I do not hunt over bait, but as long as “science” and the law say it’s a permitted means of hunting, who am I to condemn it?
Want to get a picture of what hunters and hunting, fishermen and fishing are up against? Spend some time on the HSUS or PETA Web sites. If you are not angered and disgusted by what you see, check for a pulse.
The organization still lists the Michigan dove referendum as one of its “major victories on behalf of animals.” Under a link entitled “past ballot initiatives,” you’ll learn that, “Between 1990 and 2006, animal advocates squared off against hunters and other animal industries in 38 statewide ballot campaigns, winning in 26 and marking a huge surge in the use of the (voting) process on animal issues.”
Not to be outdone, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals last year launched an anti-fishing campaign targeted at — of all demographics — schoolchildren. “Your Daddy Kills Animals” and “Fishing Hurts” are among the catch phrases.
Did you know that fish are “smart, interesting animals with their own unique personalities, just like the dogs and cats who share our homes;” that they are capable of using tools, recognizing individual “shoal mates,” and have impressive long-term memories and sophisticated social structures? I didn’t think so.
While propaganda that not too long ago called for an “end to all sport hunting and fishing” has curiously disappeared from the HSUS Web site in recent months, HSUS continues to champion itself in a variety of high profile causes aimed at the “most egregious” forms of hunting.
And all the while, the ultimate goal is to draw in more and more cash donations, not to mention recruitment of more young lawyers looking to make their mark.
The organization has even collaborated with Georgetown University in establishing an “animal law” curriculum, offering animal law fellowships, and … here’s the kicker: “…development of a joint animal law conference, to be held in 2008, to bring together a diverse group of experts from around the country, including judges, legislators, prosecutors, and other legal professionals, to engage in dialogue about the development and enforcement of animal law in the United States.”
Animal law, indeed!
So, what can we do about all of this nonsense?
Since it would appear that the future of hunting and fishing may very well come down to a question of which side has the most money and the best if not most lawyers, we must stop being mere passive bystanders, especially in the off-season.
We all need to become more proactive and less reactive. Join a conservation group. There are many out there, and which one is really a matter of individual choice. Attend one of this year’s upcoming outdoor sports shows and buy a few raffle tickets, subscribe to an outdoor publication and stay informed of the issues we face. Ask politicians running for office this year where they stand on hunting and fishing.
Above all, if nothing else, resolve to take a kid, or several kids — or even another adult who has never had the opportunity — hunting or fishing this year.
(on "the outdoor wire" jan. 24, 2008)
