S Governor's 799*2 Synposiun on North N26phh America’s Hunting 1992? Heritage list - 1992 - Montana State University) SYMPOSIUM ON NORTH AMERICA’S Hosted by the State of Montana July 16-18, 1992 Montana State University Bozeman, Montana “...to promote a renewed understanding of hunting and wildlife management” HUNTING HERITAGE Proceedings srA“ C0CI"WNTS collection JUl 1 2 1S93 IW0N15^A ~tate library u ri dPJ'5 E. 6th AVE Helena' Montana 59620 Produced courtesy of North American Hunting Club and Wildlife Forever 12301 Whitewater Drive P.O. Box 3401 Minnetonka, MN 55343 (612) 936-9333 Dear Friend, The North American Hunting Club is proud to join with our non-profit affiliate Wildlife Forever to produce and distribute the proceedings of the first Governor’s Symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage. National leaders in hunting, conservation and wildlife management set a historic precedent July 16-18, 1992 at the beautiful Montana State University campus in Bozeman, Montana. As a leader in the hunting and outdoor community, we felt a strong sense of obligation and desire to share these proceedings with you and to use a minute of your valuable time to say “THANK YOU!” for your role in supporting hunting. Industry leaders, government leaders and all media benefit from a clear up-to-date understanding of the issues. It constantly amazes us that North America’s conservation and wildlife management movement-which has a brilliant record of success restoring wildlife populations and enhancing habitat-continues to face criticism, especially for using hunting as a management tool. It amazes me that hunting is constantly placed on the defensive. It’s time to change that. It’s time for hunters and wildlife managers to go on the offensive to publicize our collective successes. There should be recognition for all of the accomplishments and contributions hunting makes each year. This complimentary copy of the proceedings should help illustrate the vital role hunting plays in wildlife manage- ment, in the lives of tens of millions of Americans and in the economies of large and small communities that depend on the billions of dollars hunting represents. And by exploring the human motivation to hunt from professional, cultural, economical and historical points of view, people can learn how hunting was and remains an inseparable part of wildlife conservation. Please join us in applauding the leadership of Montana Governor Stan Stephens and the skilled professionals who helped the symposium achieve the following objectives: • Promote history of hunters as conservationists; • Broaden public understanding of hunting; • Examine the concerns of people opposed to hunting; • Discuss contemporary issues that can influence hunting’s future; and • Rebuild positive and cooperative hunting and conservation coalitions. Our challenge now is to develop the specific strategies and tactics for taking the offensive to the masses. Please let us know what you think needs to be accomplished first, and please let us know how we can work more closely together for the future of hunting and the mutual benefit of our organizations. Thank you. Best afield, Steven F. Burke President North American Hunting Club Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Montana State Library https://archive.org/details/proceedings1992gove THE GOVERNOR’S SYMPOSIUM ON NORTH AMERICA’S HUNTING HERITAGE Proceedings THE GOVERNOR’S SYMPOSIUM ON NORTH AMERICA’S HUNTING HERITAGE Montana State University Bozeman, Montana July 16-18, 1992 THE GOVERNOR’S SYMPOSIUM ON NORTH AMERICA’S HUNTING HERITAGE JULY 16-18, 1992 Proceedings Table of Contents Purpose and Objectives/ 5 Sponsors and Contributors/ 6 Steering Committee/ 7 Acknowledgements/ 8 Introduction/ 9 The Future of Hunting... By Governor Stan Stephens/ 9 Guest Speaker/ 11 The Hunter’s Role in the Conservation Movement... By Jay D. Hair/ 11 Series I: The Human Hunting Motivation/ 21 Stalking the Sacred Game... By Richard Nelson/ 22 The History of the American Hunter Since 1844... By Lonnie L. Williamson/ 33 The Evolution of Wildlife Law in the United States... By Paul A. Lenzini/ 40 Is Hunting Moral?... By Ann S. Causey/ 50 Why Men Hunt... By John Madson/ 58 A Montana Hunter Explores Why She Hunts... By Kathleen Hadley/ 63 The Importance of Hunting to the Individual... By Jeff Brandt/ 67 Keynote Session: North America’s Hunting Heritage/ 80 Opening Remarks... By Governor Stan Stephens/ 81 Keynote Address... By Assistant Secretary Mike Hayden/ 87 Series II: Hunting Under Fire/ 95 On Hunters and Antihunters... By John F. Turner/ 96 Going After the Hunt... By John G. Mitchell/ 100 Challenges to Sport Hunting & Wildlife Management... By William P. Horn/ 108 Hunters, We Have A Problem. ..By Denis S. Elliott/ 116 A Landowner’s View of Hunters... By Jim Peterson/ 124 Series III: The Media Looks at the Hunt/ 130 A network television journalist’s perspective... By Roger O’Neil/ 131 A print journalist’s perspective... By Rae Tyson/ 135 A media consultant’s perspective... By Carl Benscheidt/ 139 Series IV: Rally the Hunter/ 146 Re-educating for the Future... By Mary Zeiss Stange, Ph.D./ 147 The Economic Value of Hunting... By Robert T. Delfay/ 153 Hunting & the Science of Wildlife Management. . .By Rollin D. Sparrowe/ 161 Habitat Conservation & the Hunter... By M.B. Connolly & M.E. Heitmeyer/ 172 Series V: Call to Action/ 187 Symposium Review... By Laurance R. Jahn/ 188 A Prescription for Success... By Jim Posewitz/ 195 The Dialectical Foundation of the Land Ethic... By Theodore R. Vitali, CP/ 203 Group Sessions— Tracking Solutions/ 215 Consensus Issues/ 215 Professional Managers/ 219 Recreational Hunters/ 222 Private Landowners/ 226 Commercial Interests/ 229 Audio and Video Tapes of Proceedings/ 232 Register for 2nd Annual Symposium/ 232 THE GOVERNOR’S SYMPOSIUM ON NORTH AMERICA’S HUNTING HERITAGE Montana State University Bozeman, Montana July 16-18, 1992 Purpose North America’s Conservation Movement emerged to preserve and restore wildlife. Yet in spite of its accomplishments, persistent criticism challenges the basic idea of hunting and wildlife management. This symposium advocated a renewed understanding of hunting and wildlife management. By examining the human motivation to hunt from professional, cultural, and historical points of view, participants were able to judge how hunting was and remains an inseparable part of wildlife conservation. Objectives ■ Promote the history of hunters as conservationists ■ Broaden public understanding of hunting ■ Examine the concerns of people opposed to hunting ■ Discuss contemporary issues that can influence the future of hunting ■ Rebuild positive and cooperative conservation coalitions ■ Work together for the future survival of North America’s hunting heritage 5 THE GOVERNOR’S SYMPOSIUM ON NORTH AMERICA’S HUNTING HERITAGE Offical Sponsors THE STATE OF MONTANA MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR USDA FOREST SERVICE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE UNITED CONSERVATION ALLIANCE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH & WILDLIFE AGENCIES Contributors Contributing Sponsors ($10,000 or more) U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service North American Hunting Club/Wildlife Forever Benefactors ($5,000 to $9,999) Colorado Division of Wildlife USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Safari Club International Patrons ($2,500 to $4,999) Boone and Crockett Club Bob Kiesling National Rifle Association National Shooting Sports Foundation Contributors ($1,000 to $2,499) Browning California Waterfowl Association Foundation for North American Wild Sheep Montana Bowhunters Association National Wildlife Federation Safari Club International-Montana Chapter Ruffed Grouse Society United Conservation Alliance Western Asso. Fish & Wildlife Agencies Friends ($100 to $999) Action Products Co. Arizona Game & Fish Department Butler Creek Corporation Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Flathead Valley Archers Flathead Wildlife, Inc. Haas Outdoors, Inc. Great Falls (Mont.) Archery Club, Inc. Idaho Department of Fish & Game Laurence R. Jahn Missouri River Flyfishers Montana Falconers Association Montana Outfitters & Guides Association Safari Club International-Northern California Bowhunters’ Chapter Pennsylvania Game Commission Pope & Young Club Prickly Pear Sportsmen Association Safari Club International-Northbrook, 111. Wildlife Legislative Fund of America Wildlife Management Institute Woolrich, Inc. 6 THE GOVERNOR’S SYMPOSIUM ON NORTH AMERICA’S HUNTING HERITAGE Steering Committee Ron Aasheim Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Helena, Montana Dale A. Burk Hunter’s Alliance Stevensville, Montana K.L. Cool Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Helena, Montana Errol Galt Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission Martinsdale, Montana Kathleen Hadley Montana Wildlife Federation Deer Lodge, Montana Jan Hamer Montana Bowhunter’s Association Helena, Montana Chase T. Hibbard Sieben Livestock Company Helena, Montana Bob Kiesling American Conservaton Real Estate Helena, Montana Bill McRae Outdoor Writer & Photographer Fairfield, Montana Tom Palmer Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Helena, Montana Jim Posewitz Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Helena, Montana Art Wittich Governor’s Office Helena, Montana Gary Wolfe Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Missoula, Montana 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The first Governor’s Symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage was a monumental effort for the State of Montana. Its ultimate success is a reflection of the commitment of scores of people whose hard work and heartfelt belief that hunting is a heritage worth preserving combined to build one of the most impressive wildlife conservation conferences ever held. Governor Stan Stephens must be thanked for his vision and his gumption to host the symposium; Jim Posewitz for developing the idea; and Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Director K.L. Cool for allowing Tom Palmer and Ron Aasheim the time and freedom to bring the idea to fruition. Special thanks goes to the Symposium Steering Committee and the Symposium Sponsors and Contributors, whose names are listed elsewhere in this publication. Thanks, too, to Mike Gumett, who put other pressing deadlines on hold to produce Home is the Hunter , a special video production screened on the final day of the symposium. We are indebted to Montana State University President Michael Malone for sponsoring the Coffee House Readings where writers John Madson, John G. Mitchell, and Richard Nelson read from their works. We are similarly beholden to the professional staff of MSU’s Conference Services-especially Melanie Stocks, Carol Carpenter, Darci Van Beek, Lori Treweek and Amy McCubbin— for flawlessly carrying out the conference’s on-site logistics and making us all look so good. We are also grateful for the help and advice received from MSU’s Boo Hurley, Steve DeBates, Tom Ryan, and Ed Cousins. Dozens of volunteers drove vans from motels and the airport, worked the information booth and press room, and staffed the symposium proceedings. We especially thank: Mark Anderson, Serena Andrew, Bruce Auchly, Bobbi Balaz, Tom Bivins, Rob Brooks, Joan Buhl, Gary Burke, Kurt Cunningham, Sue Daly, Doug Denier, Dana Dolsen, Kay Ellerhoff, A1 Elser, John Fraley, Pat Graham, Dwight Guynn, Robin Hein, Jim Herman, Craig Jourdonnais, Jim Kropp, Bemie Kuntz, Jim Liebelt, Bob Martinka, Connie Mills, Dave Mott, Fred Nelson, Hal Peck, Bill Phippen, Tim Pool, Bill Pryor, Deborah Richie, Coreen Robson, Betsy Spettique, Bill Thomas, Ken Walcheck, Tom Warren, Bob Winfield, and Vince Yannone. We reserve our deepest thanks and gratitude for our speakers and moderators who took their topics so seriously and thoughtfully they managed to take the entire hunting issue to a higher plane of intellectual thought. Their words and ideas are now in your hands thanks to the North American Hunting Club/Wildlife Forever, which generously agreed to publish and distribute these historic proceedings. 8 STAN STEPHENS GOVERNOR §tate of {Montana Office of the Ooucrnor Helena, {Montana 59620 406-444-3 111 INTRODUCTION The Future of Hunting is in the Hands of the Hunter By Governor Stan Stephens I am confident that everyone who came to Montana State University in Bozeman last July to participate in the first Governor’s Symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage came away as impressed as I was at the scope of the discussions and the insights that were provided. If the symposium accomplished only one set objective, it thoroughly lived up to its primary goal— to present a stage on which hunters could look into their own psyches, discuss the modem role of the hunt and seek answers to questions about why hunters continue to pursue this historical tenet of human existence. We discovered that seeking answers is a lot easier than finding them, especially in a contemporary society more familiar with cement and glass than wildlife and wild places. I quote anthropologist and nature writer Richard Nelson, one of two-dozen excellent speakers and panelists featured at the symposium, who spent over 25 years studying the history and culture of Alaskan Native peoples. "Evidence that we are becoming farther and farther apart from the environment," he explained, "is the thought that hunting is unnatural." Mr. Nelson went on to explain that for 15,000 to 30,000 years before the arrival of the first Europeans to North America, an abundant and diverse community of animals thrived in the constant presence of human hunting. In light of this history, he said, it takes a reach of the imagination to regard hunting as "unnatural," or as alien to our continent. Most people in North America know little about the historical importance of hunting to our social structure and evolution as a people. On July 16, the day our 9 symposium convened, USA Today published the results of its poll that showed that 80 percent of the American public believes that hunting should remain legal. Surprisingly, 17 percent of those surveyed said hunting should be illegal! Keep in mind that only about 10 percent of our nation’s population hunts~and the total number of hunters is dwindling. With these figures in mind, our speakers and panelists sounded several common themes. We heard that hunters need to: build new partnerships and coalitions; denounce unethical hunting practices and embark on an expanded hunter education program that includes hunter-ethics training for youngsters and adults; protect wildlife habitat and reach into our public school systems with conservation education programs; adhere to wildlife management based on sound scientific principles; recruit new members into the hunting community; and become better at telling the hunter’s story to the nation. With the publication and distribution of these proceedings-thanks to a generous contribution from The North American Hunting Club/Wildlife Forever-I hope you take the time to reexamine the ideas explored during the symposium. You have an extraordinary opportunity to take these ideas and apply them to your own hunts, how you choose to teach the sport to youngsters, and to your personal commitment to preserve North America’s hunting heritage. These proceedings-and the suggested plans for action outlined during the group sessions— are but road maps that can be followed to take hunting into the next century. One thing is certain, if hunting is under siege, you, the hunters of this continent, will ultimately decide if our hunting heritage will survive. In closing, I’m proud to say that I passed the gavel for the second annual Governor’s Symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage to my friend Governor George S. Mickelson of South Dakota. Governor Mickelson has informed me that his symposium will take place August 24-26, 1993, in Pierre. For information on the next symposium, write to: The Governor’s Symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage, South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department, 523 East Capitol, Pierre, SD 57501-3182; or call 605-773-3387. I hope to see you all in South Dakota in August. Helena, Montana September 22, 1992 10 Guest Speaker THE ROLE OF HUNTERS IN THE CONSERVATION COMMUNITY Becoming Positive Agents of Change By Jay D. Hair As I look out at this gathering, I’m reminded of another meeting of hunters — a meeting that occurred fifty-six years ago in Washington, D.C. At that meeting in 1936, hunters and other sportsmen from across the nation came together and the creation of the National Wildlife Federation was one result of their meeting. But to create such an organization was not the purpose of the gathering. Nor was the intent to talk about hunting — although I’m sure there were plenty of hunting and fishing stories exchanged in the conference hallways. Rather, the point of that meeting was the fate of America’s wildlife. This first-ever North American Wildlife Conference brought hunters together with a host of other conservation-minded individuals to work toward a common goal. It was the middle of the Great Depression. A century of the Industrial Revolution was beginning to leave severe scars on the land. Then there was a decade of drought. Our nation was in a crisis. The winds of war were starting to blow in Europe. Amidst the crisis, sportsmen saw the urgency for protecting wildlife habitat. They saw wetlands being drained and forests being clearcut. They saw the dust bowl’s brown blizzards and the resulting habitat loss wipe out huge numbers of waterfowl. America’s wildlife were suffering the severest brunt of a nation in crisis. The wildlife were in desperate need of a cohesive and effective champion. Conservation-minded hunters answered the challenge. I believe our nation, and our world, are confronting a crisis of even 11 greater magnitude today. We may not be faced with a Great Depression or a dust bowl, but our natural resources are just as vulnerable and subject to an even a greater host of abuses: ■ Wetlands have diminished by 50 percent since colonial times. Some states have lost 80 to 90 percent of their wetlands. In Montana, the loss is 25 to 30 percent. In my home state of Indiana, the loss of wetlands is an incredible 87 percent. ■ Unchecked development threatens wildlife habitat to such an extent that we are experiencing the global extinction of species at a rate unsurpassed since the Age of the Dinosaurs. Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson estimates that, at a minimum, nearly 140 species each day are condemned to extinction by the destruction of tropical rain forest habitat. For larger species of plants, birds and mammals, at least one species somewhere in the world becomes extinct each and every day. ■ Our nation and the world, through unwise energy choices and excessive consumption, are accelerating a global climate change that poses unimaginable risks to human and wildlife habitat. If the droughts of the thirties were bad — just imagine what global warming can do. Deserts could consume entire regions. Coastal areas could flood to become part of the ocean floor. These are not hollow threats coming from an environmental group to invoke fear. These are predictions coming from the world’s leading scientists — even from our own federal government agencies. For example, a 1991 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service paper entitled "The Effects of Global Climate Change on Fish and Wildlife Resources" focused on the North American Great Plains and presented some sobering findings: ■ Aquatic systems will be severely affected, with river and stream flows decreasing. ■ Wetlands and waterfowl will be severely affected, with populations and breeding decreasing significantly. ■ There will be a net decline in populations and distribution of fish and amphibians. 12 ■ Biodiversity will decline, and with rapid global change, there will be a higher extinction rate. A 1988 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study on global warming, the consequent sea-level rise and coastal wetlands estimates that a majority of U.S. coastal wetlands would be destroyed. Case studies of South Carolina and New Jersey marshes indicated an 80 to 90 percent loss. I’d say "crisis" is an appropriate word to describe our current era of global environmental threats. The complexity of these threats has also increased dramatically since the first half of this century. But the Chinese ideogram for "crisis" is die combination of two symbols: "danger" and "opportunity." Let’s focus on the positive -- the opportunities before us are far more important than the obstacles. Having the privilege of serving as president of an organization that hunters were instrumental in creating 50 years ago, it’s my opinion that hunters can again be relied upon to meet the challenge of a crisis. I’ve been a hunter since I was six year old. I know the kind of conservationists that many hunters are. They are conservationists who care because of personal experience with the natural world. The hunter’s decision to be a conservationist is more than an intellectual choice. Part of a hunter’s very being is defined by his or her love and respect for the outdoors, for wild places and wild things. This is the kind of commitment that has made the National Wildlife Federation the successful organization it has become today. When hunters helped lay the cornerstone for the National Wildlife Federation in 1936 they were doing so primarily because of the tremendous need for wildlife conservation. I understand that, today, there is concern among some of those in the hunting community that the Federation has moved away from this premise. That we are tackling issues disconnected with the traditional goals. That we have lost touch with our roots. My response to this accusation: Look closer. These concerns are unfounded. We are on the cutting edge of issues of paramount importance to sportsmen and women. The very constitution of the National Wildlife Federation vests election of the majority of our Board of Directors and conservation policy making with state affiliates, which to a large extent are led by sportsmen and women. We ensure the participation of our grassroots organizations by paying the expenses of affiliate representatives to attend our annual meetings, where our conservation 13 policy resolutions are adopted and volunteer leaders elected. I’m proud of the steps we’ve taken to ensure NWF remains one of the most truly grassroots representative organizations anywhere. And I’m also proud of the progressive conservation stands our grassroots leaders have taken with regard to the increasingly complex threats to wildlife — threats that are subtle and deadly in ways unthought of 20 years ago. It is abundantly clear that the movement of NWF toward vastly complicated environmental challenges that range from ozone depletion to toxic pollution to human population stabilization is supported by the conservation- minded sportsmen and women who understand how these issues pose a very real and imminent risk to wildlife and to our own health. Hunters are a vital part of the National Wildlife Federation. But it is not always readily clear to some in the hunting community that conservation groups such as the Federation are working in hunters’ best interest. That is truly unfortunate and we need to change that misrepresentation. I think there can be no better example to cite than the current battle raging over reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. Because of growing threats to species and habitat due to development and pollution, Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act in 1973. Since that time, the Act has worked to keep some 700 species from becoming extinct in the United States. Even in a state like Montana -- with its Big Sky and abundant game populations -- wildlife resources face serious problems. Lowland habitats for grizzly and elk are increasingly under pressure as valleys throughout the western part of the state are subdivided for housing developments. These changes in land use threaten not only listed species like the grizzly bear, but important winter ranges for deer and elk. Streams and rivers are choked with sediment from poorly managed timber harvests. Miles of Montana streams are chronically dewatered to irrigate crops. Species such as the lynx, the grayling, and the bull trout become threatened with extinction even here -- even in a place like Montana. Wherever you go in the world, wildlife resources have never been under more pressure than they are today. It doesn’t take much of a leap of faith to see how having a law in place to protect endangered species should gain the full support of the hunting community. The Endangered Species Act protects habitat that all wildlife depend upon for survival, because it is through identification of a threatened or endangered species that signals to hunters that the other wildlife dependent on that habitat are at risk too. 14 But there is an extremely vocal segment of our society attempting to persuade people such as yourselves to oppose laws that protect habitat and thus protect species. It is a grasping, greedy group — backed primarily by large industries like Exxon, Pegasus Gold, and Homestake Mining Company, who stand to benefit most from the gutting of laws such as the Endangered Species Act. This greed group represents a grave threat to the American way of life that promises a safe environment to raise our children — an American way of life that respects our rights and our children’s rights to a secure natural heritage. This group goes by the name "wise use’ -- but that is an attempt to confuse and mislead the public. A more accurate name is the "multiple abuse movement." They are not concerned with the best interests of you as individuals, or as hunters, or for the American way of life. They are right-wing idealogues pursuing an anti-environmental agenda designed to have unlimited access to America’s public lands for massive exploitation and short-term personal profits. They want to open up national parks and national wildlife refuges to oil and gas drilling and mining. They want to log the last trees from public lands. They want to graze every blade of grass from riparian areas across the West. No doubt about it, they are the enemy of every conservation-minded sportsman and sportswoman in this nation. One of the lies they have spread about the Endangered Species Act is that it holds up development. The facts tell otherwise: Of more than 120,000 federal activities reviewed between 1979 and 1991 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for impacts on listed species, more than 99 percent were found to pose no jeopardy to threatened and endangered species. Less than one percent of the projects reviewed were actually canceled due to conflicts with endangered species. It is true that many projects have been modified to protect listed species or their habitat, but this is exactly the kind of integration between economic development and wildlife conservation that sportsmen have been demanding for decades. Another lie is that the Endangered Species Act interferes with private property rights. Here is the truth: No court has ever found a taking of property due to the Endangered Species Act. The vast availability of permits under the act minimizes the likelihood of the "taking" of private property. 15 The various groups within the conservation community, which includes hunters, must stand together to protect the integrity of the Endangered Species Act. It’s up for reauthorization this year, and you can count on a tremendous battle over its fate. The Federation is putting its support behind a bill offered by Representatives Gerry Studds and John Dingell, who happens to be an ardent sportsman himself. The Studds-Dingell bill would create the kind of emphasis on habitat protection that is necessary. You can be sure NWF and the entire conservation community is counting on you, as hunters and committed conservationists, to join us in this battle to protect the world’s single most important wildlife conservation law. As our nation’s first conservationists, hunters have an obligation to become familiar with what the Endangered Species Act really stands for, and a duty to protect it. But it’s easy for me to stand here and challenge a group of conservation- minded individuals to support a law that is in your best interest. There is another challenge I must present to you today that is not so easy. That is to candidly address how hunters and the very groups they helped get started in this country are too often at odds today. I think the steel shot issue is an example of how some in the hunting community and the environmental community ended up on opposite sides of the fence, when there should never have been such a rift. The United States has just completed a national phase-in of nontoxic steel shot for waterfowl hunting. This implementation has been smooth and hunters have become part of this effort to minimize risks to our nation’s precious migratory bird resource. An assumption on the part of some in the hunting community that the steel shot issue was one championed by anti-hunting groups was simply off the mark. It was a conservation issue — and one that ultimately benefits hunters as much as any others within the conservation community. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state fish and wildlife agencies deserve much of the credit for this successful process. I am also very proud of the active role the National Wildlife Federation played in helping make this a reality. We face similar issues today. For example, NWF is presently considering filing a petition to list the lynx as a threatened species in the Northern Rockies. Is this because we are against all trapping of lynx? No, of course not. But it’s easy to make that claim, as some have, if you ignore the facts. The facts are that lynx harvest and sightings have dropped dramatically. Virtually no research exists to explain this steep decline, and many biologists believe the species is in serious trouble. 16 Hunters, trappers, and agencies responsible for managing lynx must address the real problems surrounding this species. Otherwise, anti-hunting groups will seize the high ground to further their own agenda. The anti-hunting groups have had their biggest successes when wildlife managers and conservationists have been unable to solve a real management issue. If hunters need to recognize that modifying hunting, fishing, or trapping practices can be in their own long-term best interests, they also need to recognize that their greatest source of strength lies in the breadth of the conservation movement. Groups like the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society recognize a place for sport hunting. At the same time, they don’t see the hunting issue as one of much importance when contrasted against the enormous environmental challenges of our time. Hunters need to be active in these groups, and many hunters are, because their fights and their programs all reflect our common goal of abundant wildlife populations and secure and healthy wildlife habitats. Your knowledge about natural resources, your commitment toward conservation, your roles as active citizens in your community -- all these strengths of the hunting community need to be dedicated to important issues. In many ways, the wide spectrum of groups working on wildlife issues reflect other changes that hunters must address. Our society is changing rapidly, and hunters are finding themselves at a crossroads. An increasingly urbanized public may not be necessarily sympathetic to hunters. Half of the nation’s people now live in cities with populations of one million or more. Hunters traditionally come from towns with populations of less than 50,000. All of us in this room are well aware of the traditional way that young people have been recruited to hunting: the father in a traditional family unit has taken responsibility for teaching the family’s children the skills, lore, and traditions of hunting and, in doing so, instilled basic conservation responsibilities in their behavior. But that way is becoming less and less predominant as family structures and population demographics change. As more and more children are being raised in single parent families in densely populated urban settings, they are faced with less opportunity to learn about hunting and nature the way most of us did. As our society continues to evolve, our biggest challenge to the future of hunting is to find ways for the young people of the future to have those experiences and know first-hand the conservation values we all share. You’ll also find changes in federal and state agencies that manage wildlife and habitat. Traditionally, the emphasis has been on game programs. 17 But new recruits moving into positions at federal and state natural resource agencies are likely to begin shifting the emphasis. Many graduate students moving into decision making and policy formulation positions at these agencies will have a different view of wildlife management. Concepts such as "biological diversity" and "ecosystem management" will compete with more traditional axioms of wildlife management. The old guard will be replaced with new recruits who will increasingly emphasize nonconsumption programs. These new recruits are not closet anti-hunters or hippie vegetarians. They simply will be reflecting in their work the way they were trained, as well as how they were brought up -- in sum, their value systems. These are simply realities of today’s society. The crossroads that hunters face is a choice between two scenarios: We can circle our wagons and defend the status quo, while being stampeded into the ground. Or we can become part of those on the cutting edge, and be viewed as positive agents of change. As I see it, the choice is clear -- we either lead or become irrelevant. Hunters have a history of providing the energy and grassroots power to effect change on a multitude of issues, such as wetlands, forests, and clean water. We have the tradition of leadership. The surest path to ensure a secure and positive future for hunters in the American way of life is to continue that tradition. There are several steps we can all take: ■ First: Be informed. Don’t let anyone misguide your decision on natural resource issues. Being informed means you can tell the difference between lies and the facts when it comes to important laws such as the Endangered Species Act. ■ Second: Get the word out. Let your friends and business associates know that you’re aware of the important conservation issues. Be involved on all levels: grassroots, regional and national. Stay in communication with outdoor writers and let them know that you, as hunters, are committed to conservation of natural resources and protection of the environment. Let them know these are the issues you want to read about in your magazines. ■ Third: Set an example — among other hunters, among those in 18 your community, and particularly among young people. The National Wildlife Federation considers this so important that we have established a new program entirely devoted to this idea. The Federation’s Outdoor Ethics Division really stresses stewardship — not only while you are outdoors using the resources, but when you leave the forest, field, or stream. Outdoor ethics must be the values that inspire all we do each and every day. To reach those who may not currently participate in outdoor recreation, our Outdoor Ethics Division also has a Nature Link program that builds families’ commitment to conservation through outdoor activities, such as hunting or fishing. And perhaps most important of all, our Outdoor Ethics Program stresses our responsibility to be mentors to our youth. They are approximately 50 percent of our present population, but they are 100 percent of our future. Our young people must be given the opportunity to experience nature. Watching nature shows on television, going to the zoo or taking drives through the country will not create the kind of committed conservationist needed to tackle the challenges our youth will face. Think about how you personally became involved in hunting. For me, it was a family Thanksgiving Day hunt when I was six years old. Think about how you feel about the outdoors and what an important role it plays in your life. These are values engendered in childhood. They are lasting values that affect our opinions throughout our lives. A perfect way to set an example is to introduce a child to the outdoor experience. Combine hunting lessons with a thorough lesson in conservation and appreciation of nature. If our children are taught how to participate in nature, then we will be able to count on the ethical and responsible use of our natural resources - including hunting. Respect them too, if they don’t embrace the concepts of hunting. Far better it is if they make a choice based on knowledge rather than the misinformation of anti-hunters. In closing, I’d like to make a final point. While some hunters see hunting as a "right," I’ve always regarded my opportunities to hunt as a wonderful "privilege. " A privilege founded on the principles of conservation and the true concepts of wise use and sustained yields. Where we manage well and where we protect important ecosystems, there will always be a place to enjoy the privilege of hunting. Where we fail to do these things, we threaten our hunting heritage more effectively than any anti- 19 hunter, and we betray our trust to the wildlife we all cherish so much. I try to work every day to uphold my trust with wildlife, other natural resources, and the protection of the environment. I ask each of you, as a volunteer, as a professional, as a concerned conservationist and as an American, to remember this trust as you enjoy the privilege of hunting this fall. And also remember this, as the 20th century philosopher Tryon Edwards told us: "Hell is truth seen too late, duty neglected in its season. " As conservation-minded sportsmen and sportswomen it is our season. We dare not fail to do our duty. Thank you. Jay Hair has led the National Wildlife Federation as president and chief executive officer since 1981. 20 SERIES I: THE HUMAN HUNTING MOTIVATION Moderator: Peter Duncan President, International Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Executive Director, Pennsylvania Game Commission 21 STALKING THE SACRED GAME Perspectives from Native American Hunting Traditions By Richard Nelson Copyright ®1992 by Richard Nelson. Reprinted by permission of Susan Bergholz Literary Services, New York. Introduction When the first Europeans arrived in North America, they encountered a great diversity of tribal peoples, each with their own intricate cultural traditions and their own highly evolved adaptations to the landscape. Across the entire continent, and from the arctic to the subtropics, virtually all of these communities drew a significant part of their livelihood from hunting. Despite the recent growth of interest in hunting, little attention has been paid to this indigenous heritage and what we might learn from it. My purpose in this essay is to suggest that information about Native American hunting traditions could broaden our discussions and provide useful perspectives from outside our own cultural context. In 1964, as a beginning graduate student in anthropology, I spent a year with the Inupiaq Eskimo people, who live on the arctic coast of Alaska. My purpose was to study traditional methods of hunting, travel, and survival on the sea ice— a study funded by the U.S. Air Force to obtain information for pilot survival manuals. The basic premise of this work should seem unremarkable: after all, who would know better than the Eskimos how to stay alive on the polar ice pack? Yet rarely, in the 500 years since Columbus, have we recognized that Native Americans might have as much to teach us as we have to teach them. To carry out my research I acquired a dog team, joined people in their daily activities and adopted the hunters’ way to the best of my ability. It was a profound experience, one that changed the course of my life and opened an 22 entirely different way of seeing the world. Before I went to live with Eskimo people, I had never experienced hunting and knew very little about it. In fact, I believed hunting was morally wrong and felt it was impossible for someone who killed animals to also love and respect them. After finishing this project, I did similar studies in other northern communities, including two years with Koyukon Indian people, who live along the Yukon and Koyukuk Rivers in the forested interior of Alaska. Here again, I spent much time on the land— hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering—but my work focused mainly on the religious, ethical, and ecological dimensions of Koyukon subsistence life. Although Koyukon people have adopted Christianity, they also follow their own religious traditions, which are deeply interwoven with hunting and with all of nature. I would like to discuss four aspects of the native heritage that can broaden our perspective on hunting: (1) native peoples’ knowledge of the natural world, which comprises the practical basis for all hunting activities; (2) religious beliefs that provide a spiritual and ethical foundation for hunting; (3) indigenous concepts of ecology and conservation, which evolved as a result of the hunting lifeway; and (4) a deep, pervasive awareness of being physically connected to the natural environment through direct use of its resources. The Traditional Hunter’s Knowledge: Inupiaq Eskimo Examples When I lived with Inupiaq people, I was struck by how much they knew about animals and their environment. An elaborate, sophisticated body of knowledge is the key to their long success in one of the earth’s most extreme environments, where daily existence requires the fullest use of the human genius. My Eskimo instructors often characterized themselves as "scientists," and as time went by I realized how true this was. The Eskimos study animals as intensely as any biologist, covering the whole range of behavior and ecology, but emphasizing practical information related to subsistence and survival. In the village where I lived, the greatest hunter was a man in his seventies, who had an extraordinary understanding of animals, as if he could project his mind into theirs, blurring the separation between hunter and prey. Every spring he joined the other men pursuing bowhead whales that migrate north along open leads in the sea ice. He had studied whales all his life and knew them far better than anyone else, yet he never stopped trying to learn more. For example, each time he spotted a whale he counted the number of blows, clocked how long the animal stayed underwater, and noted exactly the distance it traveled before reappearing. Not surprisingly, the others relied on him to predict when 23 and where a bowhead would surface, and everyone had great respect for his guidance. This man carried high prestige in the community because people respected his knowledge and understood its importance. He was a model for the other hunters, who were not his equal but shared a similar interest in learning about animals and the environment. Without exception, skilled Inupiaq hunters recognize the importance of making their own careful observations, exchanging stories and information, and listening closely to what the elders teach. The depth of their knowledge is illustrated in many facets of Eskimo hunting. For example, during the spring waterfowl migration, the Inupiaq used to hunt ducks without using weapons. In dense fog, they knew the birds’ feathers became saturated and their bodies heavy with moisture. Hidden among ridges of piled sea ice, hunters listened for the calls of approaching birds. At precisely the right instant they would jump up, waving their arms and shouting. The startled ducks would bank so hard their drenched wings could not keep them aloft, and when they plummeted onto the ice the hunters simply chased them down. A man once told me about being charged by a polar bear out on the winter pack ice. Instead of holding his ground or heading for cover, he stood up and ran straight toward the oncoming animal, certain it would become confused and stop. When the bear halted, he aimed a shot along its flank to hit the bulging hindquarter. This would not be fatal, of course, but he knew the animal would turn to bite the wound, exposing its neck for a clear, killing shot. These stories are a few among many that illustrate the Eskimo hunters’ depth of knowledge and experience. Similar bodies of information exist, or existed, among native people everywhere on the North American continent. This knowledge was accumulated over generations of living in close daily contact with the whole range of wild animal species and their surrounding environment. Taken as a whole, it comprises one of the earth’s great intellectual traditions-yet it is little known and seldom acknowledged. A vast, vanishing legacy, bom of the hunter’s way. Spiritual Dimensions of Hunting: A Koyukon Example The religious or spiritual dimension of Native American hunting comprises another kind of knowledge, just as elaborate and important as the empirical and scientific. A few native religious traditions have been recorded in voluminous detail—for example, those of the Navajo and Pueblo Indians— giving a sense for the nature and complexity of beliefs among tribal peoples throughout the continent. In traditional Native American communities, hunting and religious 24 practice are inseparable. People’s relationships to animals are imbued with sacredness, immersed in moral principles, and surrounded by ethical obligations. For the Koyukon Indians, each hunted animal (and all else in the natural world) has spirit, power, and awareness. A code of morality guides people’s behavior not just toward each other but toward animals and all of nature. In this sense humans and the environment comprise a single community of life. Animals can be offended, and the hunter who does not treat them respectfully may lose his luck, suffer illness, or even die. Many Koyukon men and women told me of being shunned by a particular animal species after they thoughtlessly or inadvertently violated a rule of proper behavior. They said animals would often become hard to see or would quickly slip away when a disfavored hunter was approaching. Koyukon elders know hundreds, perhaps thousands, of rules for proper treatment of animals. For example, people are reluctant to speak aloud the name of the black bear, so they usually refer to it as "Black Thing." This is a matter of respect, as we might say "Your Honor" or "Reverend." In deference to this power, certain parts of the bear are eaten away from the village, at a ceremonial gathering attended only by men and boys. Before a man starts butchering a killed bear, he usually slits the eyes to make sure its spirit won’t see if he forgets one of the many rules for treating it respectfully. Grizzly bears have an especially potent, demanding spirit, combined with great physical strength and a vitriolic temper. A Koyukon elder once told me, "Every hair on a brown bear’s hide has a life of its own... so it can’t stand still; it can’t keep its temper. It takes a few years for all that life to be gone from a brown bear’s hide. That’s the kind of power it has." For Koyukon hunters, one of the most important rules is that you must never brag or say demeaning things about any creature. A man or woman who kills an animal should avoid taking credit or acting proud. Of course, they recognize the value of being skilled and having a good sense for the woods. But ultimately, hunting success comes from what Koyukon people call "luck," which means keeping yourself in a state of grace by showing respect toward every animal species. One expert Koyukon hunter said that after inadvertently mistreating a black bear’s remains, he got no bears for more than ten years; then his luck gradually returned. People will say of a successful hunter, "Something took care of him." To imagine a parallel in our own culture, a person who receives many presents from family and friends would never think of saying, "I’m really good at Christmas." Like the Koyukon, Inupiaq Eskimos also believe that hunters should acknowledge the spirit and sensitivity of animals. For example, a man leaving 25 to hunt for seals might say obliquely, "I think I’ll go look around on the ice." Because the animals can hear what people say, regardless of distance, hunters should talk carefully about their plans. After we took several walrus on an ice floe, one of my companions warned me: "When you hunt walrus, you should never act like a man." He meant that a hunter must never be proud or domineering, because the walrus might teach you a lesson, and it could be fatal. In this cultural world, people recognize that nature always has the greater power, and that humans who believe otherwise will eventually pay a price. At a deeper level, these rules of etiquette and morality are constant reminders that humans depend completely on the environment for their existence. Similar beliefs are found in every Native American culture, and indeed, among hunting peoples throughout the world. I believe there is a universal wisdom in the principles that underlay these traditions, emphasizing the importance of respect, humility, and gratitude toward the creatures whose lives we take to sustain our own. Traditional Ecology and Conservation Practices Over many generations, Koyukon people have observed natural processes and witnessed the effects of harvesting activities on animal populations. Not surprisingly, these experiences have led to an ecological perspective similar to that developed over the past century in western science. This indigenous tradition of ecology underlies a clearly formulated conservation ethic. Not only is social pressure brought against people who overharvest animals or waste meat, but the spirits of the animals themselves may take vengeance. Of course, people recognize that conservation brings its own rewards. When we talked about his trapline, a Koyukon elder told me with great pride, "Fve trapped that country for fifty years, and it’s as rich today as it was when I first went there. " The man explained how he closely watched animal populations and regulated his own harvests. Although he used different words, he was describing what wildlife managers call sustained yield principles, passed down from earlier generations and reinforced by his own experiences on the land. Koyukon people believe that every species has a place in the natural community, regardless of human interests. For example, they assert that non- human predators like wolves have a right to exist and to take a share of the game. It would be improper, perhaps inviting spiritual retribution, if people tried to eliminate the competition by killing or trapping too many wolves. In my opinion, the land ethic set forth so eloquently by Aldo Leopold was an independent, parallel formulation of the same principles taught and practiced by 26 Native Americans like the Koyukon. It may be inevitable that people who hunt and gather for thousands of years within a limited home terrain will evolve an ethic for responsible and sustainable relationships to the environment. In an immediate and local sense, their survival depends on it. This suggests a strong convergence of thought from two very different directions— meticulous scientific research and the protracted intimacy between hunter-gatherers and landscape- each reinforcing the truth of the other. It is important to note that some academics have questioned the existence of Native American conservation ethics. My own experiences with Koyukon people affirm both an explicit conservation ideology and the practice of sustained yield management. The ethnographic literature contains information about similar traditions, often blended with and supported by religious beliefs, among many Native American peoples. Of course, there are always cases when individuals or even whole societies do not follow the letter of their laws, ideals, or moral edicts. For example, almost any Koyukon person could tell you of a time when he or she disobeyed the code of respect toward an animal and suffered for it. We know that violations of all sorts abound within our own society; and the same is true for every human culture. It would be a mistake to deny the existence of conservation ethics simply because we discover isolated cases where these ethics have been breached. Awareness of Physical Dependence on the Environment I believe these traditional world views are founded on a deep and pervasive awareness that human existence derives from and depends entirely upon the environment. It seems that hunters are most acutely aware of this connectedness, this unalterable and incontrovertible fact of our being: that every life is sustained by taking other lives. There is nothing mystical about this realization-it emerges through the daily procedure of searching for animals, stalking and killing them, butchering their remains, preparing the meat, and eating it as food. I remember how powerfully this recognition came to me when I first experienced hunting with the Eskimo people: a sense of being fully engaged in the process that sustained my own life. And of truly understanding, for the first time, where my life comes from. In the years since then, I have always hunted for staple foods, especially blacktail deer on the northwest Pacific coast where I make my home. Like many people, I am passionate in my love for deer; but I also kill them. And I appreciate the fact that I am made in part from the animal I love— that I am given body and sight and voice by the deer who feed me. In turn, I know my body will 27 eventually nourish plants that provide food for deer, so the cycle will come around. We do not own life; we only take its shape for a time and then pass it along. Claus Chee Sonny, a Navajo elder and follower of the Deer Huntingway, expressed this relationship simply and profoundly: "Animals are our food. They are our thoughts. ” Hunting and the Western World View In the Euro-American tradition, hunting is of major cultural, social, and economic importance, with many parallels to its role in Native American communities. But our own hunting today is rooted in a world view strikingly different from that of indigenous cultures (those existing prior to western influences or not pervasively affected by it). As a rule, our hunters do not possess the same intricate and detailed knowledge of their environment; they do not regard nature as filled with spiritual power; and they do not feel themselves bound to the natural community by a similar moral and ethical code. Many observers and researchers have pointed out that the western world view is changing in important ways, as our population concentrates in cities, as chances for contact with the natural world become rare, and as we have little direct experience with the plants and animals whose lives sustain our own. A clear demonstration of our growing distance from the environment— our diminished sense of ecological connection— is the burgeoning, largely urban-rooted sentiment that hunting is inherently wrong. Perhaps we have forgotten that for 15,000 to 30,000 years, since the first Native Americans arrived on this continent, an abundant and diverse community of animals thrived in the constant presence of human hunting. This co-existence of indigenous hunters and wildlife has continued up to the present in the Koyukon homeland and throughout most of the far north. When we consider the prodigious time span of intensive human hunting in North America, it takes a reach of the imagination to regard hunting as "unnatural" or as alien to our continent. In modem America, many who support the hunting rights of indigenous peoples are opposed to hunting by anyone else. As I understand it, this position acknowledges the historical and cultural differences between native and non-native Americans. Apparently the most important of these differences, in our common perception, is motivation: native people hunt for food, it is said, while others hunt for pleasure. Or as an Eskimo man once told me, "For us, this land is a food store; and for them it’s a playground." 28 But there is abundant evidence that regardless of cultural background, hunters are motivated for a multitude of reasons. It is true that subsistence- providing food— is the immediate and compelling reason for hunting by native people like the Inupiaq and Koyukon. But living among them, I was struck by how much they loved the outdoors, by the importance of hunting as a social activity, by the value placed on hunting as an expression of skill and knowledge, by the rewards of prestige accorded to successful hunters, by the importance of freedom and self-sufficiency inherent in a hunting lifeway, and above all, by the passion with which these people hunted. Years ago, I wrote that the Inupiaq Eskimos live to hunt, more than they hunt to live. Objection to "sport hunting"— as opposed to that carried out by indigenous peoples— often centers around judgments about motivation. A close friend once told me: "I have no problem with people who hunt for food, but I’m totally against anyone hunting for pleasure. " During a study of relationships between people and deer in America, I’ve heard innumerable versions of this statement. But for the Inupiaq and Koyukon, as much as for ourselves, pleasure is among the deepest and most vital rewards of hunting. And in our own culture, as among Native American people, motivations for hunting are multifarious and complex- including a range of economic, social, and personal dimensions. In addition, based on explorations of the literature and conversations with hunters, I wonder if there is anyone who hunts purely for pleasure. This underscores the tenuousness of making ethical judgments about hunting based on motivation. To risk a comparison, I am reminded that some Christian theologians and denominations have judged as immoral sexual activity motivated for pleasure, and as moral that which is motivated for procreation. Even for those who are entirely devoted to a reproductive goal, one suspects there is at least a twinge of enjoyment, not to mention emotional and psychological gratifications. Here is another biological function, like the quest for food, involving numerous motivations that cannot reasonably be separated one from the other. Animal Rights and the Ethics of Use I believe we have much to learn from Native American traditions about the rights of nature and our moral obligations toward the environment. As modem Americans become increasingly aware of ecological principles, they also grow more concerned about ethical issues such as animal rights. Whatever else might be said of it, this concern is sorely needed and long overdue. But our view is limited, because we grant moral standing to only a few creatures. Most of those 29 favored with rights are birds and mammals, stressing qualities of beauty, intelligence, charisma, "awareness," or traits that seem human-like. If I understand correctly, according rights to these selected animals means we should not use them for our own purposes. The remaining plants and animaJs~the majority of earth’s living entities— are considered appropriate for use and are given few rights or no rights at all. For Native American people like the Koyukon, the moral universe includes all animals and plants. Every living thing has basic rights and should be treated with respect, regardless of appearance, personality, or perceived relationship to humans. But within indigenous traditions there is also a deep and lucid awareness that taking plant and animal life is how we survive each day. What matters is that we conduct ourselves respectfully toward every organism, consciously recognizing and honoring this dependence. Perhaps the most fundamental lesson we could learn from Native American hunting traditions is to fully and consciously recognize our connections to other life— to gain a deeper sense of our own personal ecology. For most of us today, food comes packaged and apparently lifeless, far removed from the croplands and pastures where it was tangibly alive and engaged with the surrounding environment. When we sit down to eat, we seldom consider that the table is arrayed with organisms, and that every moment of our existence is a gift to us from other lives. In addition, few of us recognize that each meal brings us into ecological relationship with the lives and deaths of wild animals. At the outset, clearing the land for agriculture eliminates the natural community of plants and animals who lived there. And in much of North America, as long as the land is cultivated, wildlife populations must be managed to protect the crops or limit competition with livestock. For example, in many states damage to agriculture is a principle factor in establishing annual harvests of deer, either by hunters or by landowners under special permits. Deer are hunted to protect almost every food we eat: com, wheat, oats, melons, carrots, potatoes, lettuce, peanuts, apples, and a long list of other grain, vegetable, and fruit crops. This includes alfalfa used to feed cows who provide milk, cheese, and other dairy products; grains to feed chickens who produce eggs; grapes for making wine; soybeans to produce tofu and meat- substitutes; even Christmas trees and a wide variety of forest products. In Wisconsin, according to a biologist in charge of the state’s deer management program, the agricultural economy would be essentially destroyed in three to five years if deer hunting were prohibited. Similar situations exist in many other agricultural states where deer populations have reached critical levels 30 and wildlife managers are hard-pressed to keep them from increasing further. The agricultural system that supplies our food is sustained, in part, by hunting. It is virtually impossible to buy groceries in America without engaging in the relationship between hunting, wildlife, and cultivated foods. There is no practical alternative to this, but we have lost awareness of these connections as we have grown distant from the environment that supplies our nourishment, and as we have delegated responsibility for growing and processing our food. The supermarket has become an agent of forgetfulness. Conclusion The debate over hunting reflects a deep paradox in contemporary American thought. It indicates the difficulties we face in understanding our connectedness to the environment and our interactions with wildlife. As a society, we strive toward greater closeness to the natural world and toward a fuller recognition of our ecological relationships. Yet the strengthening anti-hunting movement reflects an opposite trend— increased distance from the environment, diminished awareness of how we interact with it, and denial of basic biological processes. The discussion between hunters, anti-hunters, and the non-hunting majority is vitally important to us all. It offers a way to understand the need for balance between ourselves and the environment that nourishes and sustains us. And it helps us to recognize— as the Native Americans did long ago— that hunting can have a rightful place in achieving this balance. Richard Nelson is an anthropologist who spent many years studying relationships to the natural world among Eskimo and Athabaskan Indian people in Alaska. He has written four books. His latest book. The Island Within, received the John Burroughs Award for outstanding nature writing. References Beaglehole, Ernest. "Hopi hunting and hunting ritual." Yale University Publications in Anthropology, Number 4. 1936. Halls, Lowell K. (ed). White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management. Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books. 1984. Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press. 1949. Reichard, Gladys. Navaho Religion: A Study of Symbolism. New York: The Bollingen Foundation. 1950. 31 Thomas, Keith. Man and the Natural World: A History of the Modern Sensibility. New York: Pantheon. 1983. Vecsey, Christopher and Robert W. Venables (eds). American Indian Environments: Ecological Issues in Native American History. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. 1980. Author’s Note: I am grateful to the people of Wainwright, Ambler, Chalkyitsik, Huslia, and Hughes, Alaska for sharing their lives and traditions with me over the years. An anthropologist writes with the air of authority but is seldom more than a raw apprentice, so I can only ask my instructors’ understanding for any errors and shortcomings in my work. Source of the quote from Claus Chee Sonny is from The Navajo Hunter Tradition , by Karl Luckert (University of Arizona Press, 1975). 32 THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN HUNTER SINCE 1844 By Lonnie L. Williamson By having hunted, we are. Had we not, we would not be. I don’t really know why that semi-lofty thought came to mind upon beginning the preparation of this presentation. Perhaps such a highfalutin’ view in human ecology is based upon the likelihood that Homo sapiens evolved from and into species which survived by hunting. This homespun homily seems of little relevance justifying or explaining sport hunting. But it can be useful to interpret the persistent yearning in some of us to hunt. Thus, it also may lead to answers of why we hunt... why it is enjoyable, fulfilling and natural. And it may offer insight into why the history of sport hunting is as much about conservation as it is recreation. The origins of hunting mostly are buried with the bones of ancient man. However, evidence that it existed and was vital to early cultures is convincing. Yet any similarity of early hunting to the activity that brought us here today, though conceivable, is imperceptible. Even sport hunting is undatable, making one wonder what young David practiced on with his slingshot before exhibiting expertise in the Goliath incident. All I can tell you is that the earliest English sport hunting account to my knowledge is the "Master of Game," written by Edward, Second Duke of York, between 1406 and 1413. And it describes traditions that then had been going on a long, long time. The really telling segments of sporting history in the U.S., however, began in the 1800s and still are developing. They involve not so much the sportsman contribution to hunting, but their well-documented support for wildlife conservation that benefits nearly all wildlife, including those that aren’t hunted. It was in 1844, the best that I can determine, when U.S. sportsmen began their organized move to conserve wild animals. That year, the New York 33 Sporting Association was formed. Later called the New York Association for the Protection of Game, the organization grew and began to accomplish things for wildlife. Similar groups sprang up in other states. Between 1844 and 1900, at least 374 of these self-styled game protective societies appeared. These groups, and those that followed, were bom from overwhelming concern among sportsmen about the unthinking and uncontrolled killing of wildlife during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Boone and Crockett Club was among the first national sportsmen’s groups to form. That was in 1887, and it was a response to market hunting and subsistence hunting by entrepreneurs and settlers that decimated big game in the Dakotas. Returning east from a two-year ranching stint in North Dakota, Theodore Roosevelt eased the pain of carnage that he witnessed by forming the B&C Club from sportsmen who doubled as the nation’s leading explorers, writers, military worthies, scientists and political leaders. Among the club’s first accomplishments was getting a full troop of the Sixth U.S. Cavalry assigned to help Superintendent George S. Anderson control poaching and vandalism in Yellowstone National Park. The League of American Sportsmen was organized in 1898 by George Oliver Shields, editor of "Recreation" magazine. This growing organization, along with state Audubon societies, the B&C Club and state game protective associations, helped enact the Lacey Act of 1900, which was the first major federal law affecting fish and wildlife. In essence, the act prohibits interstate shipment of illegally taken wildlife. That law eventually helped eliminate much of market hunting for plume birds and big game. In these tum-of-the-century times there developed a hunter vs. hunter paradox about which most modem environmentalists do not know. But the differences between regulated sport hunting and unregulated market hunting were quite apparent in 1900. Sportsmen viewed wildlife as an aesthetic resource which should be perpetuated and enhanced for public benefit. They sought to regulate taking that would not exceed the natural surpluses which many wild animal populations produce. Commercial hunters saw wildlife as an economic resource that could be exploited for short-term, private benefit. Consequently, it is understandable that sportsmen were most prominent in establishing the major national conservation organizations, including the National Audubon Society. George Bird Grinnell, sportsman editor of a weekly publication called "Forest and Stream," formed the first Audubon Society in 1886. It was named after the husband of his boyhood mentor, Mrs. John James Audubon. That program was abandoned in 1889, but it sparked the formation of several state Audubon groups, a movement that bloomed nationally in 1905. 34 T. Gilbert Pearson, a sportsman and biology instructor in North Carolina, organized the North Carolina Audubon Society in 1902. That same year, a National Committee of Audubon Societies was formed in New York City. Pearson automatically became a member of that committee as president of NC Audubon. In 1904, the committee received the offer of considerable money from a wealthy New Yorker, if the organization would go national and hire Pearson. On January 30, 1905, it happened, and the National Association of Audubon Societies (later renamed the National Audubon Society) was created. In the winter of 1911, a sporting arms and ammunition industry representative, Harry S. Leonard, vice president of Winchester Repeating Arms Company, met with William T. Homaday, the irascible head of the New York Zoological Society. Leonard offered to give the Society $25,000 a year for five years if it would launch a program to protect game populations. Homaday refused. He was a vocal opponent of recreational hunting and especially of the semiautomatic shotgun. He was not about to associate with firearms manufac- turers for any purpose. Leonard then approached the National Audubon Society with the same offer made to Homaday. Pearson was at Audubon’s helm and accepted, agreeing to expand the organization’s program to "check the relentless slaughter of gamebirds and mammals." The $25,000 would have about doubled Audubon’s annual income at that time, and the bird group’s Board voted to accept the money. However, charges surfaced in news media that "Audubon had sold out to the gun people who wanted to kill all the birds of the country. " Consequently, the Board reversed itself and refused the industry’s grant. With that, members of the sporting arms and ammunition business met in New York City and incorporated what, with several name changes, is now the Wildlife Management Institute. At that time, it was called the American Game Protective and Propagation Association. With the Institute’s birth in 1911, the sportsmen-led American conservation movement was reaching a critical mass. Progress grew apace with each new organization coming on line. Legislation was a primary goal, and achievements accumulated. The Weeks-McLean Act was signed in 1913, giving protection to all migratory birds. That statute was weak and largely unenforceable due to the lack of funds. However, it stimulated the campaign which concluded in the Migratory Bird Treaty with Great Britain in 1916. The first draft of that treaty was written by what is now the Wildlife Management Institute, which passed the draft into government circles through Dr. T. S. Palmer in the Bureau of Biological Survey. The Institute’s President, John B. Burnham, traveled throughout Canada and convinced skeptical provincial officials to drop 35 their opposition to the proposed treaty. Alone, the treaty was worthless. A mechanism was needed to enforce it. The aforementioned groups and state wildlife agencies conspired to bring that about in 1918. Then came the move toward a wildlife refuge system to complement individual refuges already withdrawn from public land. The idea, as expressed by the American Game Protective Association (Wildlife Management Institute), was a system of "public shooting grounds and refuges" that protected habitat and provided hunting for those unable to afford exclusive hunting clubs. For eight years, the many groups organized and backed by sportsmen, including the newly formed (1922) Izaak Walton League, worked on the issue, which finally was enacted in 1929 as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The idea for a federal waterfowl-hunting stamp to finance the MBC Act came from chief U.S. game warden George A. Lawyer. He discussed the option with Ray P. Holland, a subordinate warden, who later left federal service to write for sporting magazines and pursue conservation interests. Holland sold the idea to national conservation groups, which finally pushed the proposal through Congress. Duck stamp sales now generate around $17 million annually for wetland acquisition. Since enactment in 1934, the program has provided about $400 million for that purpose. That same year, J.N. "Ding" Darling, a noted political cartoonist, was named chief of the Bureau of Biological Survey. He immediately went to the sporting arms and ammunition industry for help to establish a program of wildlife research units at colleges and universities across the nation. The objective was to fill the desperate need for trained wildlife technicians. His plea was rewarded when the du Pont Company, Hercules Powder Company and Remington Arms Company agreed to underwrite the program through the Wildlife Management Institute. Thus, the Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Program was bom from the minds and money of sportsmen. Today, there are 42 Units at 40 universities in 38 states. Next on the sportsmen’s agenda was a federation of all the local and state hunter groups that had formed since the original in 1844. The American Wildlife Institute, which in 1935 was the moniker of today’s Wildlife Management Institute, was given by its Board "the task of bringing about a federation of wildlife organizations. This is the work of coordination.... The Institute will in no way attempt to dictate the policies or activities of the federation. It will merely supply the temporary machinery to help bring about such an organization, which will be built from the ground up, starting with the smaller units and not 36 from the top down. Once organized and operating, the federation will be free and independent of the Institute. " Hence, the National Wildlife Federation appeared. During the early days of that struggling organization, the Institute provided several grants totaling about $100,000, all of which came from the sporting arms industry. It was one of the better investments ever made in wildlife futures. The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program, or Pittman-Robertson Program as most people call it, is perhaps the most renown, and deservingly so, wildlife conservation effort of all time. It too is the idea and result of recreational hunters. The original suggestion for what was to become the PR Program came in 1925 from a committee appointed by the International Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners (now the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). The committee included John Burnham (Wildlife Management Institute), T. Gilbert Pearson (National Audubon Society), George Selover (Izaak Walton League), David H. Madsen (Utah Fish and Game Depart- ment), and William C. Adams (Massachusetts Division of Fish and Game). It was nearly a dozen years later, however, before Carl Shoemaker pushed the PR idea through Congress and into the statue books. Shoemaker, also a sportsmen with a penchant for double-barreled shotguns, was head of the Oregon Fish and Game Commission before coming to Washington, D.C. as staffer on the newly formed Senate Wildlife Committee. Shoemaker wrote the PR bill, gained industry support, and got the measure introduced and approved by Congress in less than five months. Since its inception in 1937, the PR Program has apportioned nearly $2.5 billion to state wildlife agencies for habitat restoration work. The tracks of hunting interests are on all the major programs now benefitting wildlife in North America. The list is too long to describe even briefly. It includes the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, Wilderness Act, Endangered Species Act, Federal Lands Policy and Management Act, National Forest Management Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, National Environmental Policy Act, numerous national park acts, and the list goes on. One very revealing program initiated and supported by sportsmen is the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980. That statute, known generally as the Nongame Act, was researched and drafted by sportsmen, who were its major supporters throughout the legislative process. Today, a coalition made-up primar- ily of groups that support recreational hunting and led by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, is developing recommendations that would provide adequate, sustained funding for the Nongame Act. These efforts, 37 I believe, show the deep interest in all wildlife that is a historic and vital component of the sporting life. The International Association, by the way, was no late comer to the conservation movement. It was formed in 1902 at a meeting in Yellowstone National Park. It heralded the appearance of state and provincial wildlife agencies to the scene. With a feeble beginning in the late 1800s, state wildlife agencies were organized primarily because of sportsman urging. By 1910, nearly every state had some form of agency. Early directors of those departments were mainly political appointees of the party in power. The qualifications of most were that they liked to hunt and fish. But there were eminents that emerged from the pack. Among them were John Titcomb of Vermont, I. T. Quinn of Alabama and Virginia, Dr. Joseph Kalbfus (Pennsylvania) and Montana’s commissioner William F. Scott, who in 1902 helped found and hosted at Yellowstone the first meeting of the National Association of Game Wardens and Commissioners (now the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). Today, member agencies of the International are North America’s main protectors and managers of the continent’s fish and wildlife. And these vital agencies still are staffed primarily with and funded by recreational hunters. State agency budgets in FY 1990 totaled more than $1.4 billion, $1.1 billion of which came solely from sportsmen. Given its very positive past, the sporting community might wisely pause to consider its present and future. Has the sport changed or might it change for better or worse? As a gauge to measure now and later, I like the life of George Bird Grinnell, who, in my opinion, was the definition of a sportsman. This was apparent to me during a recent rereading of his book titled "American Duck Shooting." Grinnell observed and hunted wildlife for knowledge as well as fun. He turned his fun into a passion and fashioned a weapon of his knowledge to help wild animals and the "natural" world on which they depend. Grinnell’ s breadth and scope could be defined by his associations. He enjoyed roles in the Boone and Crockett Club and the National Audubon Society. In his "Forest and Stream" magazine, he exhorted the thrill of waterfowl hunting and simultaneously pressed the need to shoot fewer birds as habitat deteriorated. He was quite perceptive enough to realize that waterfowl depend basically on wetland protection. Through all this, Grinnell never recognized a contradiction between his love for and study of wildlife and his joy of hunting. He was a sportsman, a person who is a part and not apart of nature, someone who serves as natural 38 predator, differing from other killer species mainly through intelligence and compassion. We must guard against a dearth of sportsmen such as Grinnell. If there is such a lacking, or if one occurs, it probably will be a product of polarization. There is a possibility that the critical mass which Grinnell helped construct and was a part is splitting into camps of preservationists, academicians, and gun- slingers, with people fleeing for one group or the other so that they may have cohorts among whom blinders are fashionable. This is not good. The real contributions of sport hunting to society in the past are, in my view, identical grist that will run the sporting mill tomorrow and beyond. Those conservation contributions are vital to wildlife’s future. Consequently, in this case, the past must be more than prologue. Lonnie Williamson is the vice president of the Wildlife Management Institute, editor-at-large for OUTDOOR LIFE magazine, and the current president of the Outdoor Writers Association of America. 39 THE EVOLUTION OF WILDLIFE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES By Paul A. Lenzini To trace the evolution of wildlife law in the United States, it is necessary to begin at a place about twenty miles southwest of London, at Runnymede. By the beginning of the thirteenth century, the feudal system was firmly established in England. William the Conqueror had brought order to this island off the continent of Europe, and he also brought power, laying the foundation for a strong, central government. William confiscated the lands of those who opposed him, and large segments of these confiscated lands were kept by the Norman kings for their personal use. William and his immediate successors maintained some seventy forests, estimated at nearly a third of the entire area of England. These royal forests were districts set aside by the king for sport and hunting. Villages situated within these forest districts were subject to a repressive code of forest regulations, the English common law being supplemented by the stricter "forest law” enforced by special courts. Under William, a subject who killed a deer in the royal forest was blinded; under his successors the penalty was death. Special courts balanced the rights of men against the rights of wildlife. Even though the royal forests were privileged places only for species which provided the king good hunting, the game species, some commentators later asserted that good hunting was not the sole object of the royal forests for the king, it was said, found delight and pleasure in simply knowing that all wild beasts and fowl could rest and abide there in his safe protection. John became king in 1199. He was by all accounts a tyrant, and though he would follow a policy for a time with great energy, yet he seemed incapable of prolonged and sustained effort. He was, as lawyers say, capricious. According to Blackstone, the great eighteenth English jurist who summarized the common law in his Commentaries on the Law of England, King John declared a closed season on all taking of wildlife. The waterfowl regulations of the day 40 were not complex and could be understood by all who read Latin: Capturam avium per totam Angliam interdixit. John’s high negative ratings led to Magna Carta in the year 1215, the barons concluding that restraints laid on the king by unwritten custom were unreliable and that the king must be made to abide by the restraints of written law. Chapters 44, 47 and 48 of Magna Carta are the so-called forest clauses, providing that the royal forests shall be "disafforested," and providing also for commissions of twelve knights in each county to inquire into "all evil customs" concerning forests, such as were discovered to be abolished. Magna Carta was reissued in 1217, and the forest clauses were severed and placed in the separate "Charters of the Forest." Magna Carta and the Charters of the Forest have been called the first major check on the growth of royal absolutism. Although it appeared that the rights which the barons had claimed for themselves in Magna Carta they claimed also for the English nation at large, when Parliament gained ascendancy it permitted the landowning gentry to appropriate the right to hunt, and class discrimination was embraced well into the nineteenth century. The English laws reserved game for "gentlemen," and, in their extreme form, insured that the poor could neither consume game nor interfere with the beasts that ravaged their crops. With the reservation of game to the landed classes, in time it became unclear whether the right to take game resulted by reason of ownership of the soil or by reason of a grant from the king. Blackstone asserted that the right to take game in England was founded solely on royal grant and, in arguing against the claims of the landed class, he asserted that wild animals are owned by no one, and having no owner, belong to the king by his prerogative. Blackstone’ s view suited frontier America at the time of the Revolution. Game was scattered throughout rural areas and inaccessible wilderness. As Professor Lund observes, any policy that restricted hunting to an elite group of landowners would have impeded the harvest and allowed a substantial natural resource to remain unused in the wilderness. The practical policy for America, therefore, and one which was harmonious with the Revolution’s democratic ideals, was that the owner of the soil had no special right in wildlife, that wildlife was owned by no one and was therefore common to all, and that since no one owned wildlife it was up to the state to regulate fish and wildlife as a public resource for the common good. To defeat the property claims of the landed class, therefore, the use of wildlife was deemed to be common to all. Following the American revolution, the powers and prerogatives of the king which had been vested in the colonial governments passed with the separation from Great Britain to the original thirteen states and remain in the fifty 41 states today insofar as their exercise does not cut across federally protected rights or enactments by Congress. From the beginning of the nation, therefore, special privileges in fish and wildlife resources were deemed to be inconsistent with the concept of common use, not to mention democratic values in general, and the power of the state relating to fish and wildlife was deemed to be a trust to be exercised for the bene- fit of all the people. In consequence, the values of equal access have been enshrined in state constitutions and statutes. Modem statutes typically direct fish and wildlife agencies to manage and protect wildlife for the benefit of present and future generations of the citizens of the state. Indeed, the Vermont Constitution (Art. n, 63) provides that the people of the state have liberty at seasonable times to hunt or fowl on unenclosed lands. The California Code declares it the policy of the state to maintain sufficient populations to provide for beneficial use and enjoyment by all citizens of California, perpetuating species for aesthetic and non- appropriative uses as well as diversified recreational uses including sport hunting. The Colorado statute is unique in its reference to non-residents, declaring that wildlife and its environment are to be protected and managed for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the people of Colorado "and its visitors." Having taken over the king’s prerogative in fish and wildlife, the newly created states declared that certain seasons of the year were closed to the taking of deer, but early nineteenth century game law was generally a confused assortment of state, county and local laws with no central enforcement agency. Market hunting was an accepted part of the nineteenth century economy, and the railroads profited from shipping meat and hides to the east. Some states restricted or prohibited the sale of locally killed wildlife during the closed season, but enforcement was difficult. As game populations declined, sportsmen’s organi- zations, notably the Boone & Crockett Club, began to press for more comprehensive protection of the game resource. In the last decade of the nineteenth century fish and game commissions were established in numerous states, and in 1895 North Dakota passed a law requiring all hunters to purchase a state license. The model that had evolved by the beginning of this century was that of a central fish and game commission, replacing county and local game ordinances, with flexible authority to protect the resource. Because demand exceeded supply, state commissions began to allocate access to the resource. Allocation meant allowing a reasonable opportunity to participate in a hunt or a fishery, with property obtained in the fish or game only if lawfully reduced to possession. The decline in game populations which brought about the establishment of state fish and game commissions in the latter part of the nineteenth century 42 also brought about the conservation movement which, in turn, produced far- reaching legislation at the federal level to supplement and assist state programs. The Lacey Act of 1900 made it a federal offense to ship in interstate commerce game killed in violation of state law, a measure that crippled market hunting as big business. The 1916 Migratory Bird Convention with Great Britain for Canada recognized the federal role in protecting an international resource which neither the states nor the provinces could manage effectively. Finally the 1937 Pittman- Robertson Act, which levied an 11 percent excise tax on firearms and shells, provided federal aid to state agencies for wildlife restoration. In a single stroke, Pittman-Robertson not only safeguarded state license revenues but also provided a reliable source of funding to upgrade the full range of state wildlife restoration efforts. If fish and wildlife were to be conserved, Aldo Leopold believed that it must be positively produced, not just negatively protected. Since this concept was uttered in 1925, wildlife management has come to include habitat protection and restoration, wetland protection, attempts to mitigate the impacts of development, "sodbuster" and "swampbuster” provisions of the farm bill which relate crop subsidies to forbearance by farmers in developing acreage and draining wetlands, regulation of instream flows, and numerous other techniques designed to produce a suitable environment for the fish and wildlife resource to renew itself. More recently, state agencies have begun to mount programs for nongame species and to allocate game species for non-consumptive use such as wildlife viewing. The fulfillment of the wildlife trust which resides in the state has two main pillars: first, all citizens are to benefit and, second, the benefit is to continue in perpetuity, i.e. , the yield must be one that can be sustained. The trick lies in the fulfillment of both mandates because when the resource is diminished the two mandates are inevitably in tension. The problem, as stated succinctly by the late Judge Russell Smith for the U.S. district court in Baldwin v. Montana , is that there are too many people and too few elk. 410 F. Supp. 1005, 1009 (D. Mont. 1976). In Baldwin v. Montana , 436 U.S. 371 (1978), Judge Smith and subsequently the Supreme Court confirmed state power to allocate access to recreational hunting in a manner that prefers residents over nonresidents. Given our history as a nation, harvest restrictions which apply to all participants, such as restrictions as to when, where, how and how many, are accepted more readily than restrictions which establish a preference for certain groups. The allocation issue of who may participate subdivides along resident/non- resident lines and also subdivides along lines of beneficial use: recreational, 43 commercial and, in Alaska, subsistence. Beneficial uses are simply categories of uses which provide benefits to citizens, as opposed to wasteful taking, and the law permits preferences among types of uses. For example, commercial fishing may be treated differently by the state than recreational fishing. One of the most difficult current allocation issues involves subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska. Last month Governor Hickel called the Alaska legislature into special session to establish legislative guidelines for allocation of fish and wildlife for subsistence use. Subsistence is the noncommercial, customary and traditional use of fish and wildlife for direct personal or family consumption as food or clothing. In territorial days under federal supervision, Alaska’s resources, particularly its fishery resources, were exploited by commercial fishing companies from the lower 48, and over-fishing by outside interests became a rallying point in the fight for statehood. Indeed, the delegates to the Alaska constitutional convention in 1956 inserted a constitutional provision explicitly prohibiting exclusive privileges in connection with fish and wildlife (Art. VIII), and mandating that laws concerning use of natural resources shall apply equally to all persons similarly situated. The Alaska constitution also contains an explicit mandate that no use of Alaska’s wild fish or game may violate the principle of sustained yield. The current Alaska subsistence issue involves a preference in law for subsistence use of fish and wildlife over other uses. The issue is complicated not only because of the narrow channel that results from the explicit mandates and prohibitions of the state constitution, but also because Congress became involved in 1980, identifying a national interest which it believed should be protected. Invoking constitutional authority over native affairs as well as authority under the Property Clause and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) declared that the subsistence way of life be protected in Alaska by establishing in federal law a preference for subsistence uses by rural residents of fish and wildlife on federally owned lands in Alaska. The Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture are directed by Congress to manage fish and wildlife on federal lands in Alaska to provide the subsistence preference unless the state of Alaska does so by enacting laws of general applicability which mirror the subsistence preference established by Congress. In other words, the state must implement its own subsistence preference for rural residents throughout the state or suffer preemption of fish and wildlife management on federal lands, how much preemption remains to be seen. Soon after ANILCA was enacted, the state set out to provide a subsistence preference, but in 1989 the Alaska Supreme Court declared that some things are more important than state fish and game control on federal lands, viz., the equal 44 access values enshrined in Article VUI of the state constitution which, the Alaska Supreme Court declared, are violated by a state law which allocates a preference in the use of fish and wildlife to persons based not on their individual characteristics as subsistence users, but solely on whether they are rural residents of Alaska. McDowell v. State, 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1989). How to allocate access to fish and wildlife resources in Alaska so as to maintain the subsistence life style touches an array of issues, each one sensitive and, in combination, daunting in their complexity: increasing pressure on a finite resource; erosion of the values of equal access and sustained yield enshrined in the state constitution; the specter of racial preference; perceptions of commercial fishermen that their livelihoods are threatened; perceptions of sport hunters that big game seasons will be curtailed or closed outright to accommodate a beneficial use deemed superior by law; perceptions by non-resident sport hunters that they will not be considered at all; fear of a federal takeover of the state’s right to manage the harvest; and, as part of the federal scheme, supervision of state fish and wildlife management by a federal appeals court located a thousand miles away in San Francisco, one of whose members was of the view that what is a rural area in Alaska could be easily resolved by consulting Webster’s dictionary under the letter "r. " Judge Kozinski notwithstanding, the subsistence issue in Alaska is an allocation issue of great complexity because, as an astute witness testified, in Alaska one culture’s defining activity, containing elements almost religious in nature, is another culture’s avocation. The image of a middle class Caucasian residing in an urban center and challenging a subsistence preference for less advantaged native citizens on grounds of equal access is unattractive, yet it is equally true that special privileges based on racial groupings encourage resent- ment toward the favored group, and sometimes alienation within it. The lower forty-eight states are characterized almost universally by a cash economy, not by a subsistence life style, and thus are spared the subsistence allocation problems facing Alaska. What is not unique to Alaska, however, is the national interest allocation of fish and wildlife which is implicit in the subsistence issue. The authority to manage fish and wildlife on federal lands has traditionally been left to the states, not only because of history but also because states are better positioned to handle local resource matters. But it is not explicit in the U.S. Constitution that this be so, and, in fact, it is changing as Congress has identified national interests in endangered species, in marine mammals, and in healthy populations on national forests. National interests have also been identified in prohibiting consumptive uses of wildlife on certain categories of 45 federal land. Indeed, in recent years Congress has become more responsive to groups opposed to hunting and to fish and wildlife management. Congress has a tendency to assume that the national government should address every important problem, and in this area its tendency is increasingly to identify national interests in fish and wildlife, wherever found within the Nation. Moreover, those who define the national interest are not convinced that regulated taking of wildlife is appropriate. The fact that a sustained yield can be provided is not deemed a decisive consideration, perhaps not even relevant. The protectionist provisions of the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act, for example, preempted state authority over marine mammals and effectively established a presumption against consumptive use, except by Alaskan natives. Although the MMPA was enacted twenty years ago, agreement is still lacking today as to the meaning and application of the fundamental concepts of the statute. Moreover, in today’s climate, federal administrators at the National Marine Fisheries Service have no stomach for management of marine mammals. The result is that, by default, federal policy is one of protection, and burgeoning populations of California sea lions and west coast harbor seals are treated as if they were depleted populations. The people who are most affected by federal marine mammal policy did not consent to this regime, it was thrust upon them. Interestingly, the principal advocate in the Senate for the MMPA in 1972 represented Oklahoma, a state where few marine mammals occur, while the champion in the House represented a district in Arkansas. In effect, the MMPA declares "interdixit" as to the taking by U.S. citizens of marine mammals not, of course, for the use of the king, but in order that marine mammals may once again become, in the words of the statute, "significant functioning elements of the ecosystem of which they form a part. " Twenty years in, federal administrators still cannot agree on what this means. Similarly, many environmental organizations seek to prohibit hunting on national wildlife refuges, not because the viability of wildlife populations is impaired by regulated hunting, but because refuges should be places where wild beasts and fowl may abide in the safe protection of the federal government. Protection of marine mammals constitutes, in effect, a national interest allocation for non-consumptive use, and if hunting is prohibited on national wildlife refuges, and subsequently in wilderness areas, in national forests, and on BLM lands, those too will represent national interest allocations. And beyond such national interest allocations, there is also the prospect of international interest allocations of which the Convention on Biological Diversity is an example. 46 The Biodiversity Convention, which the President declined to sign last month in Rio de Janiero, called on each signatory nation to develop national programs for the conservation and sustainable use of components of biological diversity. That feature, which certainly sounds compelling, would have brought about intense political pressure on Congress to fulfill the solemn international obligation by implementing the convention through a system of federal land use control. Not control of federal land, but federal control of land. The Bush administration declined the invitation to sign; perhaps another administration will yield to pressure. The discharge of international obligations is in the hands of the federal government, not in the states, and therefore if fish and wildlife are to become the subject of international obligations, such as the Biodiversity Convention, the only role for states would likely be on the ANILCA model where a state agency is permitted, if it chooses, to carry out a federal mandate subject to close supervision. A witness before the legislature last month in Juneau related that a question occasionally asked of National Park Service personnel by visitors to Denali National Park is "What do you do with the animals in the winter time?" A startling number of citizens have lost all real connection to the land, and the notion that Denali is some sort of zoo is frightening. More frightening, such thinking could begin to drive federal wildlife policy. If so, sport hunting is at risk on all federal land, estimated at nearly one third of the Nation’s land, and if interdicted there, such a prohibition is not likely to stop at the federal boundary. The future of hunting, indeed, the well being of the wildlife resource, is contingent on the future of wildlife management, and it is regrettable that wildlife management is being politicized. Leopold set out in the 1920’s to establish wildlife management as a professional discipline, some say a science, possessing a structure of its own. Today the principles of that discipline are succumbing to the belief that nothing matters beyond politically desirable results. Politics invariably tries to dominate other disciplines with which it interacts; so also does the market which imposes an almost irresistible pressure on every activity to justify itself in the only terms the market recognizes, viz., to pay its own way and show black print on the bottom line. In the western states the privatization of wildlife ranges from trespass fees to package hunts on up to shooting preserves. Privatization of wildlife certainly has a role, but it must be handled very gingerly. Like politics, full-scale privatization of wildlife can strike at common use, smack of special privilege, and eventually put a public resource beyond the reach of the public. 47 Undermining wildlife management is the notion, widely held, that while many of its goals are desirable, its willingness to accommodate consumptive use renders wildlife management imprudent, wrongheaded or evil. Because state agencies are dedicated by statutory mandate to management of fish and wildlife, it is evident that the anti-consumptive use campaign must also be anti- management, and if states are wedded to management, then they must be preempted by the federal government which today is more susceptible to the anti- consumptive use message. And if Congress refuses to take control, then political pressure must be brought to bear on Congress and the executive branch at the international level. In summary, wildlife is a valuable product of the land. The king allocated it to himself and then the gentry followed in the footsteps of the king. In this country, special privilege was abolished and the resource was subject to common use, but overharvest brought about increased regulation by the states including allocation of access when demand exceeded supply. We are learning to manage the resource, but now a principal goal of state wildlife management, consumptive use on a sustained yield basis, has become unacceptable to many individuals, and, as they speak more loudly, consumptive use is becoming politically unacceptable as well. Not because consumptive use cannot be sustained, but simply because our culture is beginning to find it intolerable. Someone once said it is important who writes the Nation’s laws, but more important is who writes its ballads. As the implicit goals of the anti movement become explicit, the writers of ballads, novels, screenplays and editorials will come to realize that the movement is contemptuous of traditional, human-centered values of our society. If they do not, we may well find that we have evolved from no use save by the king, to use by the gentry, to free use, to wise use, perhaps to gentle use, and again to no use. The policy of no beneficial consump- tive use of a public resource would be justified on grounds that resemble the king’s prerogative. Paul Lenzini is a partner in a Washington D. C. firm and legal counsel to the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. References Agar, Herbert. The Price of Union. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1950. Sharswood’s Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law of England; Vol. I. J.B. Lippincott Company, 1890. Bork, Robert A. The Tempting of America. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1990. Churchill, Winston S. A History of the English Speaking Peoples; Vol. II. New York: Dodd 48 Mead & Company, 1956. Testimony of Eric Forrer, Regent, University of Alaska, Before the House Committees on Natural Resources and the Judiciary, Special Session on Subsistence Legislation, Alaska Legislature, June 16, 1992. Green, John Richard. A Short History of the English People; Vol. 1. New York: A.L. Burt Co. Harward, A.E. Dick. Magna Carta, Text and Commentaries. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1964. Lasch, Christopher. "Communitarianism or Populism?" New Oxford Review. May 1992. Lund, Thomas A. American Wildlife Law. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980. Morison, S. E. The Oxford History of the American People. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. Goldwin Smith. A History of England. Chicago: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1949. Trefethen, James B. Crusade for Wildlife. Harrisburg: The Stackpole Company, 1961. Wilson, David Hains. A History of England, (2d ed.). Hinsdale: Dryden Press Inc., 1972. 49 A REFERENCE FOR LIFE Is Hunting Moral? By Ann S. Causey An article I wrote titled "On the Morality of Hunting" was published in 1989 in the journal Environmental Ethics. Many who have read my article consider me a champion of hunting, because in that article I defended the plausibility of an evolutionary explanation for the urge to kill game and the pleasure taken in the satisfaction of that urge. If this argument is valid, then the motivation of the recreational hunter is properly considered amoral, not immoral, as the antihunters have charged. None who know me or my lifestyle would label me "antihunting". Unwilling to either become a vegetarian or to support factory farming by purchasing its products, the meat in my diet is game, courtesy of my husband, a professional wildlife biologist, game manager, and willing victim of congenital hunting fever. To those who do not hunt or who (as most of my students) are opposed to hunting, I extol the virtues of the ethical hunter and defend the hunt. I wax eloquent on the hunter’s minimum environmental impact compared to other human carnivores, his intimate knowledge of natural systems and of nature’s rhythms, and his rightful claim to having understood and practiced bioregionalism long before it became a buzzword of the environmental movement. In short, many’s the time I’ve defended hunting from the attacks of those who see all hunters as bloodthirsty, knuckle-dragging rednecks. Oddly, though, I have on occasion recently found myself with a new set of allies: the antihunters. I admit, I’ve always had some closet antihunting sentiments. Until recently, though, they could only be piqued into disclosure by such blatant behavior as "Big Buck" contests and bumper stickers proclaiming that "Happiness is a Warm Gut Pile." Such crude displays, however, like blatant racism and sexism, lately have been somewhat out of fashion. Today, my uneasy 50 occasional alliance with the antis has subtler and deeper roots. It stems, I believe, from my disappointment with the responses of many hunters and wildlife managers to the moral issues concerning hunting that they increasingly are being asked to address. In the interest of enlivening and, I hope, elevating the growing debate, it is to these moral questions and answers I wish to turn our attention today. Before addressing specific moral questions in hunting, I’d like to point out some errors, common to ethical reasoning and to the current debate, which we should do our best to avoid committing. The first is that of confusing prudence with morality. Prudence consists of acting with one’s overall best interests in mind, whereas morality sometimes requires that we sacrifice self-interest in the service of a greater good. While thorough knowledge is all that is required to make prudent decisions, the making of a moral decision involves something more: conscience. Obligations have no moral meaning without conscience. Moral hunters do not mindlessly follow rules and lobby for regulations which serve their interests; rather, they follow their consciences, sometimes setting their own interests aside. In short, ethics is guided by conscience and gives us something to aim for beyond self-gratification. Another very important distinction is that of legality and morality. While many immoral activities are prohibited by law, not all behavior which is within the law can be considered moral. The politician caught in a conflict of interest who claims moral innocence because he has broken no laws often does not convince us. Nor should hunters assume that whatever the game laws allow is morally acceptable. The ethical hunter is obligated to evaluate the laws in light of his own moral sense. Conscience is not created by decree; morality is not determined by legality. One other procedural point concerning the current debate deserves mention. It is all too common and easy to dismiss the concerns of our opponents by questioning their motives and credentials instead of giving serious consideration to the questions they raise. Ethical hunters do themselves and their peers no favor by hurling ad hominems at their opponents. The questions raised about hunting deserve a fair hearing on their own merits. Our consideration of antihunting messages must not be biased by our opinions of the messengers, nor should our efforts remain focused on discrediting our accusers. Just as the problems of racial and sexual discrimination raise legitimate moral questions regardless of the occupations, habits of dress, or political persuasion of those who initially voice concern, so it is with the questions concerning the morality of hunting. We must stop our displacement behavior and begin to undertake the uncomfortable and sometimes painful processes of moral deliberation and personal 51 and collective soul-searching which these questions call for. The first difficulty anyone encounters in addressing the matter of the morality of hunting is that of identifying and understanding the relevant questions and answers. The most striking feature to me of the current debate is the debaters’ vastly different understanding of the meaning of the question, "Is hunting a morally acceptable activity?" Those who support hunting usually respond to this question by citing data. They enumerate the acres of habitat protected by hunting-generated funds; how many game species have experienced population increases due to modem game management; how much the economy is stimulated by hunting-generated revenues; how effectively modem game laws satisfy the consumptive and recreational interests of the hunting community today while assuring continued surpluses of harvestable animals for future sportsmen; and, they assure the public that hunters, more than most, care deeply about ecosystem integrity and balance and the global environment. The above statements may be perfectly true. They also are almost totally irrelevant to the question at hand, for the antihunters are not asking whether hunting is an effective management tool, whether it is economically advisable, or whether hunters love and appreciate nature. Instead, they are asking, "Is it moral to kill animals for sport? Are any forms of hunting morally right?" The hunter says yes; his opponent says no, yet they really are answering entirely different questions. The hunter answers what he perceives as a question about utility and prudence; his opponent, though, has intended to ask a question about morality. It is as if one asked what day it is and the other responded by giving the time. While the answer may be correct, it is meaningless in the context of the question asked. The point I’m making here is that moral debates, including this one, are not debates about facts; they are debates about values. And, while factual reality certainly helps to shape our values, it remains the case that even if we had perfect factual knowledge and agreement, ethicists would not be out of work. People would continue to hold and defend different values. Moral controversy cannot be resolved by examination of data or by appeal to scientific studies. That is why they are moral and not empirical questions in the first place. Our obsession with "sound, objective science" has led many hunting proponents to not only avoid the crucial issues, but to actually fuel the fires of the antihunting movement. Animal welfare proponents and the general public are primarily concerned about the pain and suffering and loss of life inflicted on hunted animals and about the motives and attitudes of those who hunt them. They are offended by references to game animals as "resources. " They are angered by the sterile language and, by implication, the emotionally sterile attitudes of those 52 who speak of "culling", "controlling" and "managing" animals for "maximum sustained yield." They are outraged by those who cite habitat protection and human satisfaction data while totally disregarding the interests of the sentient beings who occupy that habitat and who, primarily through their deaths, serve to satisfy human interests. To them, these are not mere resources. They are living, feeling beings, individuals subject to fear and pain, with lives and interests independent of those of humans. Antihunters insist that non-trivial reasons be given for intentional human-inflicted injury or deaths, or that these injuries and deaths be stopped. Even when defenders of hunting acknowledge the significance of the pain and suffering inflicted through hunting, they offer in defense that hunters feel an obligation to give back more than they take, and that hunters and wildlife professionals successfully have met this obligation. Granted, it may be that the overall benefits to humans and other species which accrue from hunting outweigh the costs to the hunted. Nevertheless, this utilitarian calculation fails to provide adequate moral justification for hunting. Just as to kill a person but compensate the family does not constitute genuine reciprocation, the hunter and wildlife manager cannot give back anything to an animal once it is dead. At issue here is the distribution of costs and benefits. Our antagonists want to know why certain sentient creatures should be sacrificed so that sometimes frivolous benefits may accrue to others. This is a question of justice: Is it just that animals should die to feed humans? To clothe them? To decorate their bodies and den walls? To provide entertainment and "sport"? These are the questions we are being asked. These are the questions we must carefully consider and thoughtfully address. It will not suffice to charge our opponents with scientific ignorance or biological naivete, as these largely are not questions of science. Nor will charges of emotionalism quiet our accusers, since the emotions play an integral and valid part in value judgments and moral development. Anyway, both groups have members who are guided by their hearts, their minds, or both. Neither side has cornered the market on hypocrisy, zealotry, narrow-mindedness or irrationalism. Opposition to hunting is based in large part on legitimate philosophical differences, some of which I would like now to examine more closely. Hunting arguably is the most uncivilized and primitive activity in which a modem person can legally engage. Therein lies ammunition for the biggest guns in the antis’ arsenal; paradoxically, therein also lies its appeal to the hunter and the source of approval by many sympathetic nonhunters. Hunting is one of very few activities which allows an individual to participate directly in the life and death cycles on which all natural systems depend. The skilled hunter’s 53 ecological knowledge is holistic and realistic; his awareness involves all the senses. Whereas ecologists study systems from without, examining and analyzing from a perspective necessarily distanced from their subjects, the dedicated hunter lives and learns from within, knowing parts of nature as only a parent or child really can know its own family. One thing necessary for a truly ethical relationship with wildlife is an appreciation of ecosystems, of natural processes. Such an appreciation may best be gained through familiarity, through investment of time and effort, through curiosity, and through an attitude of respect. These are the lessons that hunting teaches its better students. Ethical hunters have not only refused the creeping alienation between humans and the natural out-of-doors, they have fought to resist the growing alienation between humans and the "nature” each of us carries within. Hunters celebrate their evolutionary heritage and stubbornly refuse to be stripped of their atavistic urges -- they refuse to be sterilized by culture and thus finally separated from nature. The hunter transcends the mundane, the ordinary, the predictable and the cultural. As Aldo Leopold, in his seminal work A Sand County Almanac, argues, hunting in most forms maintains a valuable element in the cultural heritage of all peoples. Notice, though, that Leopold did not give a blanket stamp of moral approval to hunting, nor should we; he did not approve of hunting in all forms, but of hunting in most forms. If we offer an ecological/evolutionary defense for hunting, as Aldo Leopold did, we must still ask ourselves, "For what forms of hunting is our defense valid?" To the open-minded hunter, I pose the following questions. To what extent is shooting an animal over bait or out of a tree at close range after it was chased up there by a dog a morally enriching act? Can shooting an actually or functionally captive animal enhance one’s understanding of natural processes? Does a safari to foreign lands to step out of a Land Rover and shoot exotic animals located for you by a guide honor your cultural heritage? Does killing an animal, which you profess to honor and respect, primarily in order to obtain a trophy, demonstrate reverence for the animal as a sentient creature? Is it morally enriching to use animals as mere objects, as game pieces in macho contests where the only goal is to outcompete other hunters? Is an animal properly honored in death by being reduced to points, inches, and pounds or to a decoration on a wall? Which forms of hunting can honestly be defended as non-trivial, meaningful, ecologically sound and morally enriching? Of all who hunt and support hunting through management and regulation, I ask the following. Does ignoring, downplaying, or in some cases even denying the wounding and loss rate in hunting, rather than taking all available effective measures to lower it, demonstrate reverence for life? Does lobbying for 54 continued hunting of species whose populations are threatened or of uncertain status exemplify ecological awareness and concern? What about the hunting community’s continued opposition to listing or upgrading any species in CITES appendices if that species holds any value as a game animal? Is the continued hunting of declining waterfowl populations, the aerial killing of wolves in Alaska, or the setting of hunting seasons in some areas, which may sentence to slow death the orphaned offspring of their legally killed lactating mothers, consistent with management by hunters, or does it instead verify the antihunters’ charges of management primarily for hunters? These are only some of the questions around which the battle over hunting is taking shape. These questions and others have aroused our fears, our indignation, our defensive responses and our collective denial. However, no proponent of ethical hunting has anything to fear from the questions the antis are asking. These are questions we should have been asking and answering ourselves all along. The real threat comes not from outside questions and criticism but from our own complacence and uncritical acceptance of the status quo of hunting as it is, and from our mistaken belief that to protect any form of hunting, we must defend and protect all forms. Hunting is a privilege, not a right. To protect the privilege of morally responsible hunting, we must attack and abolish the unacceptable acts, policies, and attitudes within our ranks which threaten all of hunting, as a gangrenous limb threatens the whole body. The battle cry "Reverence for Life" has been used by both sides, at times with disturbing irony. Cleveland Amory, founder of The Fund For Animals, described in the June 1992 issue of Sierra the ideal world he would create if he were appointed its ruler. I quote: "All animals will not only be not shot, they will be protected--not only from people but as much as possible from each other. Prey will be separated from predator, and there will be no overpopulation or starvation because all will be controlled by sterilization or implant. " A reverence for life? Only if you accept the atomistic and utterly unecological concept of life as a characteristic of individuals rather than systems. On the other hand, not all who hunt can legitimately claim to hold a reverence for life. In a hunting video titled "Down to Earth," a contemporary rock star and self-proclaimed "whack master” and "gut pile addict" exhorts his proteges to "whack ‘em, stack ‘em and pack ‘em." After showing a rapid sequence of various animals being hit by his arrows, the "master whacker" kneels and sarcastically asks for "a moment of silence" while the viewer is treated to close-up slow-motion replays of the hits, including sickening footage of some animals that clearly are gut shot or otherwise sloppily wounded. A reverence for life? No. Such behavior demonstrates the ultimate irreverence, bom of arrogance and hubris. We who hold a genuine 55 reverence for life understand that the hunter toes a fine line between profundity and profanity, and we must accept the responsibility of condemning those practices and attitudes which trivialize, undignify, and desecrate all hunting. We know that to inflict death without meaningful and significant purpose, to kill carelessly or casually, or to take a life unsanctified by die solemn gratitude of its taker is to renounce reverence for life. To be ethical, we must do two things: We must act ethically, and we must think ethically. We’ve responded to our critics by trying to clean up our act. We don’t hear many public proclamations of gut pile addictions anymore; we less frequently see dead animals used as hood ornaments while the meat, not to be utilized anyway, rapidly spoils; those who wound and lose more animals than they recover are more reluctant to reveal it; and, since studies show that the public opposes sport hunting (but not hunting for meat) as trivial, hunters are coached to avoid the term "sport" when they address the public or their critics. What’s needed, though, for truly moral hunting to flourish is not a change of appearance or vocabulary, but a change of mind-set, a deepening of values. We might be able to "beat" the antis by changing our tactics, but to win the wrong war is no victory at all. There are morally repugnant forms of hunting which are rightfully under attack. We can victoriously defend them only by sacrificing our intellectual and moral integrity. We should do all we can to avoid such a "victory. " It may be that hunters must give up some of what they now hold dear — not just because doing so may be expedient, but because it is right. As T. S. Eliot, quoted by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his "Letter From Birmingham Jail," reminds us: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason." Have I answered the question, "Is hunting moral?" No. Not only do I not have final conviction myself, but no one can answer moral questions for others. The value of ethics lies not so much in the product, the answers, as in the process of deep and serious deliberation of moral issues. Like education of any sort, moral learning cannot be passively acquired. But, to ponder the value of an animal’s life versus a hunter’s material and spiritual needs and to consider its pain, suffering, and dignity in death is to acknowledge deeper values and to occupy a higher moral step than that of one who casually, defensively dismisses such ideas. No matter the result, the process of moral deliberation is necessarily enriching. Today’s ethical hunter must abandon the concept of hunting as fact, and replace it with the eager acceptance of hunting as challenge, the challenge of identifying and promoting those attitudes toward wildlife which exemplify the values on which morally responsible hunting behavior is based. Heel-digging and 56 saber-rattling must give way to increased awareness and sensitivity, to critical thinking, and to honest evaluation and assessment. The Chinese have a wonderful way of juxtaposing seemingly unrelated or opposing concepts in a single term. One such term is wei chi, a term meaning crisis.... and opportunity. The Chinese believe that every crisis presents a unique opportunity. I submit that hunting today faces its greatest crisis ever, and its greatest opportunity—the opportunity for change, for moral growth, for true progress. Ann Causey teaches in the Humanities and Environmental Studies programs at Prescott College, in Prescott, Ariz. 57 WHY MEN HUNT By John Madson Fifteen years ago, when my friend John Mitchell was writing "Bitter Harvest," he solicited my views on hunting. We spent most of a day in a johnboat on a Mississippi River backwater while he asked penetrating questions and I provided fuzzy answers. He finally observed that my perceptions of hunting were metaphysical— and he was right, supporting Voltaire’s contention that "When the speaker and he to whom he speaks do not understand, that is metaphysics." I once spoke at a seminar of biologists and offered some general, rather superficial reasons for why men hunt deer. They do so for many reasons, any one of which may be enough. A common one, of course, is the meat reason. The woods are full of people who claim to be hunting for prime meat, although I’ve a hunch that this is a standard alibi for busting the first deer that comes along. Yet, there are some real meat hunters-men who are pretty good at judging wild meat on the hoof, and who have the patience and experience to carefully pick and choose, and who take pride in the quality of their venison. There are still a few old hands who will pass up a trophy buck for a plump little forkhom— although they are often experienced hunters who have already taken their share of trophy bucks. Then, of course, there’s the trophy reason. In its shallowest context, it is simply an exhibitionist effort to display prowess and status. In a deeper context, it goes beyond that. Aldo Leopold once observed that "Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason-the thrill to beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game for one and the same reason— to reduce that beauty to possession. " Those trophy antlers on the wall may not be only a hunter’s effort to possess 58 beauty, but also to keep something important to him from slipping away and being forgotten. And if the trophy tesitifies that here is a strong and skillful hunter— well, what’s the use of denying it? And so the great stag has been stalked and taken. Ten thousand years ago the hunter might have stood by a fire and recounted the great deed to his clan brothers, while the old men nodded their approval and stripling boys back in the shadows listened in wonder. It hasn’t changed much. The trophy hunter, the ethical killer of the great stag, or bear, or ram, still commands attention by the fire as he recites his deeds. His peers still salute him, the old men still nod and remember, and boys still dream of tomorrow’s hunts. Most of us will never kill the great stag. Yet, we have all taken deer that held special trophy value for us, and such value is not always a measure of tine and beam. It may be just a measure of hard, solid hunting in which both man and deer conducted themselves well, so that neither was shamed. Trophy hunting has been bitterly condemned for an alleged deterioration of a game stock by killing off the best males. Yet, neither the mathematics of genetics nor the observed facts of breeding within wildlife populations add support to that contention. A five-by-five mule deer buck is nearing the end of his days and has already done his share of genetical work. Still, that is empty sophistry if the taking of that trophy is unethical— in which case it is not a trophy at all. Companionship can be a strong element in hunting. For as long as men have hunted, they have banded into special hunting packs with their own taboos, traditions and rituals. And sometimes the companionship and the rituals become more important than the hunt itself, and sometimes the greatest pleasure is in anticipation and recollection, with the hunt only serving to bond the two. A considerable part of our modem sport hunting (as with much of our daily living) is the exercise of technology. That is, the employment of gadgetry for its own sake. I plead guilty to that in part, for a fine rifle or shotgun plays a significant part in my enjoyment of hunting. I admire the skill and artistry that go into the making of such guns— but I am uninterested in any gun, however beautifully wrought, if I cannot shot it well. I count myself as a good shot. When the day comes that my eyes and reflexes impair that ability, I will not hunt again. Our critics are fond of pointing out that wildlife has scarcely a chance against our highly efficient technology. But the fact is, wildlife has an edge of its own— and it is likely to be enhanced by our increasing dependence on gadgets and less reliance on our legs, eyes, ears, patience, and the savvy that accrues from years of experience. A good working definition of a game species is one that is fitted 59 with survival equipment enabling it to take advantage, while a genuine sport hunter is one constrained by ethics and respect to give advantage. But as much as anything else, one of the greatest urges impelling such a hunter is his search for freedom , and for the genuine personal adventure inherent in such freedom. Just as game species may be the truest indicators of quality natural environments, so hunting can be an indicator of quality natural freedom. Dr. Murdock Head told of a noted physician who was visiting an Adirondack deer camp for the first time. He was not a hunter; it was all new to him. As he stood by the cabin door one evening, watching hunters dress deer while their companions offered unsolicited advice, listening to the good laughter and easy talk, the doctor turned to his host with a look of sudden comprehension, and said: "Why, these men are free! " Pascal once observed that the virtue of hunting is not in possessing game, but in the pursuit of it. By being absorbed in looking outward for game, "the hunter is absolved of the really insupportable task of looking inward upon himself. " And so the hunter’s eyes are directed outward instead of inward, and myriad nagging, worrisome concerns are overlain with the illusion of being part of an older, freer world. I once asked an old river rat of long acquaintance why he was such a deeply committed hunter. He thought for a moment and replied: "Why— to git away from the house and git out amongst ’em, mainly..." Homer once said much the same thing: Manet sub iove frigido Venator/ Tenerae coniugis immemor. Which renders out as "The hunter goes his way ’neath frigid skies unmindful of his tender spouse. " Theodore Roosevelt was far more diplomatic about it: "Sweetest little wife, I think all the time of my little laughing, teasing beauty... and I could almost cry I love you so. But I think the hunting will do me good." (I know wives that would agree; hunting gets their husbands out from underfoot during a time of year when they’re not much good around the house, anyway...) The genuine hunter is probably as free as it’s possible to be in this technocracy of ours. Free not because he sheds civilized codes and restraints when he goes into the woods, but because he can project himself out of and beyond himself, out of and beyond the ordinary, to be wholly absorbed in a quieter, deeper and older world. You know how it is. When you go into the woods your presence makes a splash, and the ripples of your arrival spread like circles in water. Long after you have stopped moving, your presence widens in rings through the woods. But after 60 a while this fades, and the pool of silence is tranquil again, and you are either forgotten or accepted— you are never sure which. Your presence has been absorbed into the pattern of things, you have begun to be part of it, and this is when the hunting really begins. You can always feel it when those circles stop widening; you can feel it on the back of your neck and in your gut, and in the awareness of other presences. This is the real start of the hunt, and you’ll always know when it happens and when you are beginning to hunt well. There were those times when I was a kid, hunting and trapping and sometimes spending several days and nights alone in the woods, when I’d have a flash of insight that was often gone as swiftly as it came-a vague sense of what aboriginal hunters must feel, and what real hunting, the pure-quill honest-to-God real hunting is all about. One strong flash of this to a boy— one swift, heady taste of an utter wild freedom and perception—is enough to keep him hunting all his days. Not just for meat, or horns, but for that flash of insight again, trying to close the magic circle of man, wildness and animal. Is blood lust a prime motivation of hunting, as some of our critics contend? The late Dr. C. H. D. Clarke pointed out that perverted and inadequate people may indeed hunt, but contended that this is not the story of hunting. The human investment of hunting with magic, he felt, was a logical development of being able to think about nature, and wonder where the next feast was coming from. When the magic is truly imbedded, it is part of our inheritance. Hunting still has (for some of us) its pre-human excitement and prestige, and its human magic, and when we hunt there is a deep satisfaction that comes from a contact with nature that is healthy and traditional. Blood lust it is not. The deepest fear of the primitive hunter is of offending the spirit of the game. Clarke once saw an old Eskimo who, when young, had been deliberately blinded by his fellow hunters. They were afraid because the man had been disrespectful to a caribou he had killed. For such a sin there had to be a terrible expiation. We do not do that anymore, nor do Eskimos, but the unethical hunter is at least uneasy— and if he is an Eskimo he may be afraid. Sport hunting, Clarke went on, can surely put us inside the world of nature. The real hunter does not go into that world of nature as a casual onlooker, but as an active participant. Speaking personally, there are many uses of outdoor October, and I savor them all. I could drink that ale-golden month to its dregs and never touch a gun. But without hunting, some of the savor would be missing. Lovely and rich as autumn would still be, a certain condiment would be gone and I think I know 61 what that is. It is seeing grouse and pheasants and quail and mallards at close- hand as any predator might, and seeing how fine-tuned, ingenious and intricate their responses to predation can be. I might watch game birds and animals at all seasons under a full range of conditions, and yet never know them as I do when I am hunting them well and they are doing their usual fine job of parrying my thrusts. Hunters may try to reduce their motives to such tangibles as trophies, meat, good dogwork, companionship, exercise, freedom in quality environments, or simply "adventure." Underlying all that, however, are deeply embedded reasons that neither hunter nor psychologist is really equipped to fathom. Our severest critics are much surer of themselves. The kindest thing they say about us is that we are cruel and dangerous children; at our worst, we are barbarians that revel in the joy of inflicting pain and death. And there is some truth in all of that. We cannot deny that such hunters do exist; to do so is to delude ourselves. On the other hand, the shrill anti-hunting critics seem unable to understand the motives that impel what I choose to call the "genuine hunter." That is, the person with a deep personal bond to the game he hunts and the habitats in which he hunts it. Such emotion can result only from the respect which grows from experience and reflection. Our critics deplore hunting on an emotional basis, just as we hunters defend it. Each extreme would do well to share a more objective position. Both hunter and anti-hunter should be governed by sound biological principle. Hunting cannot be condoned if it is not based on biological management and does not demonstrate respect for game and the habitats in which it is hunted. On the other hand, hunting is best defended by adherence to sound biological principles and demonstration of a genuine respect for nature. Why do men hunt? It goes far beyond anything I’ve said here. How can one explain the inexplicable? But after more than fifty years of hunting, I’m pretty sure of two things: that hunting is too deeply rooted in the metaphysical to allow clinical examination— and that it’s a happy man who keeps his youthful appetite for that sort of metaphysics. For 40 years John Madson ’s writing has been in the broad field of natural history and resource conservation. 62 OF TIME AND THE WOODS A Hunter Explores the Reasons Why She Hunts By Kathleen Hadley Today I’ve been asked to share my personal thoughts about hunting. In developing this paper, I found I had to spend a great deal of time thinking about how I started hunting and why I continue to do so. So I will begin today... at my beginning. I grew up on a small island, about three miles upstream of Niagara Falls in upstate New York. The island was seven miles long by five miles wide, flat as a pancake and shaped more or less like a porkchop. It was a rural community with no amenities like public transportation, movie theaters, bowling alleys, shopping centers or malls, and although it was flat, it was covered with trees, oaks and maples, ashes and willows. As kids, much of our time was spend outside in the woods or creeks or on the river. We swam and fished, built tree houses and collected turtles, frogs and snakes, and played baseball in our yards. My Dad was a blue collar worker and in the summertime, after work and dinner, he would load us all... all eight of us that is... in a station wagon and take us to the tip of the island where a creek flowed between the east and west rivers. He would hand out worms and bobbers and some line and send all of us kids after willow sticks to make our fishing pole. We’d all line up on the banks and sit and watch our bobbers and we’d wait to see who would catch the first bluegill or perch or bullhead or— once in awhile, a northern pike. We’d sit on the banks and listen to the red-winged blackbirds, swat hundreds of mosquitoes, and watch the sun go down. It was a good time for our family. Later on, as I grew older my Dad taught me how to reload shotgun shells ...for he was an avid trap shooter. Once I learned how to reload shells he took 63 me tQ the local gun club and shooting range and taught me how to handle a shotgun. And finally, when I was about 12 years old, he started to take me pheasant hunting with him. He would load the old cur dog and me in the car, and drive to some farmer’s field. I don’t remember where exactly, but I can remember walking beside him, the trees around the cornfields in beautiful fall colors of red, orange, yellow and brown, and the leaves crackling under your feet as we would walk. Our old dog would be working the field, smelling for birds and her tail would be wagging slowly back and forth... until she hit the scent of a bird and then her tail would wag faster and faster until all of a sudden she froze. Just like a statue. Sometimes the birds would fly up and make such a noise I would jump back... all the while my Dad had already gotten off a shot. This was a magical time for me. My dad was my outdoor teacher and he helped me form a bond and a love for the out-of-doors. That will never be broken. He taught me about basic sportsmanship, hunting rules, and about taking care of and respecting all game that you hunted and were lucky enough to kill. Finally, he taught me to kill only what you will eat. The world is quite different now than when I was a child. And as I grow older, the world seems to continue to get even more complex. For me hunting provides a haven for my spirit and a form of renewal for my soul. So each year, I hunt as much as I can, for as long as I can. Hunting to me is a special time of peace, freedom and challenge, a break away from phones, faxes, papers and pencils, people and meetings. Mostly, I hunt alone and from the moment I slip out of my car and walk into the mountain... and smell the fir and pine tree forests, and watch the morning sky turn from black to gray to pale pink... as I walk along and see the early morning frost glisten on the leaves of the plants as the first rays of sun break over the tip of the mountains... I become immersed physically, mentally and spiritually in the outdoor experience surrounding me. I become, not an observer of nature (photographer, birdwatcher) but rather a participant. I become part of the age old predator/prey cycle that has evolved through eons of time. I become the predator and I try to match my skills, my thoughts, my senses... against those of the animals which I seek. I do not hunt to kill but rather I kill only to allow me the experience of the hunt. And because I hunt and because of the experiences I have had hunting I have become a conservationist... as have millions and millions of others like myself. Today, hunting as a sport is being threatened by many who have become removed from nature, who no longer understand the basic ecological processes 64 that govern our Earth and all of its inhabitants. Going to the local grocery store to purchase plastic wrapped hamburger and ribs is a far different process than hunting for days on end for an elk. Supermarket shopping certainly is a far more passive mode of obtaining needed protein and it lacks the physical, mental and spiritual process of a hunting trip. Hunting is a tradition of our country. It is a tradition of small towns and rural communities and it is part of the fabric which weaves the community together. Hunting will continue in the future for it is hunters and no one else, who are responsible for the present status of our wildlife resources. Let me illustrate this point with a short story: "At the turn of the century, a Montana ranger hunted for two solid months in a remote area of Montana. In all that time, he saw one large mammal... a solitary mountain goat. Today, this same area is home to 11,000 elk, the largest native bighorn herd in the United States, healthy grizzly and black bear populations, substantial numbers of deer, mountain goats and an abundance of other wildlife. We know this area as the Bob Marshall Wilderness." The transformation of the "Bob" from one devoid of wildlife to one virtually teaming with diverse and prospering populations did not occur through benign neglect. These populations were restored and their prosperity is currently insured by the unique and remarkable work of hunters who formed the basic foundation of the American Conservation Movement. The needs of the Conservation Movement of today are as pressing as they were in the early 1 900 ’s... and the hunters place is no less critical. I see no group standing in the wings ready to replace hunters with the same commitment, financial strength and political clout that the hunting community has shown for the last 100 years. As to our future, we, as individuals must take on the responsibility of educating our children... tomorrow’s generation. . .by sharing with them the outdoor experiences of hiking and hunting, fishing and camping. We must become teachers to our children and to other people’s children (as my Dad was to me), for this more than anything else will protect the TRADITION of hunting in America. We, as individuals must continue to stand up and let our voices be heard on matters of wildlife and wild places. We must be vigilant in our protection of these wild places for more than anything else, this is the key to the future of our game populations. And finally, each one of us must stand up to our adversaries and not allow 65 them to force their moralistic judgments on us and our society. Our adversaries, who have lost their linkages to the natural world, who are removed from the spiritualness of the wild places and wild things, and who wish to take away our freedom of choice... to hunt or not... from Americans from Montanans, must be stopped. To close, I’ll use a quote I heard Bob Delfay recite at the 1991 NWF annual meeting. Sitting Bull, the legendary Sioux leader is said to have said "When there are no buffalo we will hunt mice. . .for we are hunters and want our freedom. ” As hunters, perhaps we understand all to well what Sitting Bull meant and maybe, what he felt. Our responsibility today is to pass on that understanding to others so that our children and grand children will have the opportunity to hunt... as we have had, and have the wild places to go to... as we have had. Kathy Hadley is vice president of the National Center for Appropriate Technology and president of the Montana Wildlife Federation. 66 THE IMPORTANCE OF HUNTING TO THE INDIVIDUAL by Jeff Brandt Introduction I am the typical hunter. So I am not one of you. I come to this symposium feeling out of place. Like the only other conference of this type in which I was asked to participate I find myself included in a group that is composed primarily of professional wildlife managers, educators, conservationists, and others with some kind of status in a profession that touches the hunting community. I accuse the people who ask me to participate in these kinds of gatherings of selecting me as their token hunter— to have conveniently at hand a representative exhibit typical of those who hunt. I suspect that hunters like me are asked to participate so we can be studied to determine, hopefully once and for all, what motivates us to hunt. I can understand the need to learn more about the constituency that all of you serve but I would offer the caution that it is not a simple matter to reduce the hunter into neatly defined types through analysis and classification. Granted, some careful study of the reason "why” is beneficial. But hopefully I can counter with some thoughts about the "why" of hunting that will put analysis and classification in its proper perspective. I maintain it is much more important to shift the emphasis towards personal analysis rather than inspection by others. We must encourage each individual who hunts to better understand the reasons why they hunt. Why We Hunt Why do we hunt? Have you ever asked yourself why you hunt? Most of us have probably never stopped to seriously think about why we hunt. So I’ll try to document some of the reasons. You just might conclude, as I have, that the 67 answer is far more complex than you might first have imagined and how important it is that each person search for the answer for themselves. The reasons why we hunt have evolved throughout history. Our earliest societies needed to hunt. But almost without exception we no longer need to hunt. Those who would criticize hunting as an unnecessary vestige of our past miss the point. Hardly anyone who hunts in the twentieth century needs to hunt. We hunt for other reasons, reasons that may not be as basic as the survival motivation of our ancestors, but reasons that are just as important to much of modem society. There are two basic approaches I’ve seen used in trying to determine why people hunt. One I call the Inventory Approach and the other the Evolutionary Approach. It’s worthwhile to review both approaches because they shed some light on the basic motivators of the hunter. But, as I’ll explain later, there is a problem with taking too analytical a view of the reasons why we hunt. If nothing else, a review of some of the reasons that are offered as to why people hunt is helpful as they establish a base against which to contrast what I feel is a better way of probing into why we hunt. The Inventory Approach is the first basic approach to review. This approach takes some form of an inventory of all the reasons why we hunt. There are a number of variations to this approach. The first variation of the Inventory Approach is what I call the Exhaustive List. The approach used here is to try to think of every possible reason why someone would be motivated to hunt. Here’s one list: Subsistence. Some people hunt to live off the land in an effort to become as self sufficient as possible. Meat. Some people hunt because they prefer to eat wild game. Recreation. Some people hunt simply because they enjoy it. It’s fun. Tradition. Some people hunt because it links them with their forefathers or to an age gone by. Escape. Some people hunt to get away from the pressures of their daily existence. It could also be called "diversion”. Exercise. Some people hunt because it is an enjoyable way to get some badly needed exercise. 68 Challenge. Some people hunt because they find it very challenging, requiring great dedication and skill in order to be successful. Fellowship. Some people hunt because it provides an excellent means to enjoy the company of other people. Achievement. Some people hunt because it gives them a sense of achievement. They feel like they have accomplished something. Fulfillment. Some people hunt because they feel better about conducting themselves according to their own standards. They feel that their lives have been enriched. Economic. Some people hunt for money, including those who make a living hunting or make a living helping others hunt. Solitude. Some people hunt because they simply want to be alone. Enjoying the Outdoors. Some people hunt because they enjoy being in the outdoors. Game Population Management. Some people hunt because they feel they are part of a necessary program to maintain animal populations at levels sufficient to protect the species and the environment in which they live. Character Building. Some people hunt because they feel it builds their character, enabling them to rise above their shortcomings as a result of being subjected to the challenges and rigors of hunting. Opportunity for Self Assessment. Some people hunt because it places them in an environment that inspires them to reflect on themselves. Few if any people hunt solely for one reason. A select group of the above reasons in some unique combination and in varying percentages would probably closely approximate each of us who hunt. And all of us who hunt would be completely described. Right? The second variation of the Inventory Approach is what I call the Classified List. This technique attempts to classify the many individual reasons into categories of related reasons. For example, Jim Cole, in a paper entitled 69 "Quality Hunting - A Definition” prefers to organize the reasons into two basic types: Individual Centered. Individual centered motivators such as solitude and exercise that describes one person’s reasons for hunting. Group Centered. Group centered motivators such as fellowship that describes the interrelationships within a group.1 I don’t know but I suspect that these techniques come in handy for those among us who study people. With the task of classification complete it’s probably a simple matter to associate these new classifications with other studies and other ways of classifying the human race. In the process, hunters, once classified, would then be neatly tucked into some descriptive niche that would conveniently and conclusively describe any hunter you would care to profile. It might be very analytical and very descriptive but it makes me very nervous. I have trouble thinking of myself as being motivated to hunt by some predictable combination of motivators that can be plotted on a chart or simulated with a computer model. The second basic approach is what I call the Evolutionary Approach. The commonality of these views is that a person’s perspective towards hunting evolves over time. They take a person’s decision to hunt as a given and describe the hunter’s attitude towards the sport evolving in a predictable fashion. Dr. Robert Jackson, who has conducted many hunter attitude and behavioral studies, took the psychologist’s view in an article written for North Dakota Outdoors a number of years ago. Dr. Jackson described five stages of hunter development he feels almost all hunters proceed through over time: Shooter Stage. During this stage the new hunter needs to pull the trigger. The quarry is secondary. Almost everything represents a potential target (and a test of the budding hunter’s hunting ethics). Limiting Out Stage. During this stage the hunter measures success in numbers. The quarry may be a recognized game species but there are few self-imposed restrictions. Killing is important. 'Jim Cole, "Quality Hunting - A Definition," Proceedings, Western States Elk Workshop, Bozeman, Montana, February 20-21, 1973. 70 Trophy Stage. The trophy stage marks the transition to the first level of self-imposed selection. Typically, bigger is better for most big game hunters. Killing is still important but the restrictions may be so severe as to prevent it from ever happening. Method Stage. Hunting now takes on an intensity and importance that makes it one of the most important dimensions of the person’s life. Often this stage is accompanied by the amassing of a lot of equipment. Although Dr. Jackson made no mention of it, I feel it is the stage where a variety of self-imposed restrictions and hunting preferences become important. In this stage killing becomes less important but still is a major element of the hunt. Sportsman Stage. Dr. Jackson says this is the stage where the hunter no longer hunts to kill but kills to hunt. His research indicates that many hunters do not reach this stage until later in life or after many years of hunting. Bagging game becomes symbolic.2 Similar to the concerns I expressed about the Inventory Approach I find that I am no satisfied that we’re approaching the problem correctly. I’m more encouraged because this approach is consistent with my belief that there are no simple answers to why people hunt and it recognizes that the reasons evolve and become more complex over time. But something is missing. Is there enough here to explain why hunting is so popular, why people go to such lengths to enjoy the sport of hunting, or why those that hunt feel so strongly about preserving their privilege to hunt? Do these analytical methods get at the importance of hunting to the individual? And, what is lost, if anything, when individual hunters are handed their motivations for review rather than searching for the reasons themselves? Why I hunt I find a certain irony in approaching this subject as I have been asked to do. The reasons why I hunt are important only to myself— and some are very personal. I still don’t feel after all these years that I am ready to speak— that the 2Dr. Robert Jackson. "A Letter from Wisconsin: The Making of a Hunter," North Dakota Outdoors, September/October, 1985, pp. 31-33. 71 picture is complete and understood. I don’t mind sharing them with you (much) yet my reasons should be of little value to anyone else. And I would never try to explain your motivations based on an understanding of my own. An attempt by me to explain why you hunt would violate one of my fundamental beliefs— that only you can determine why you hunt and how important it is that you go through the process of determining why you hunt. By example, maybe it is possible for me to assist you in determining why you hunt. But the rest is up to you. I hope I can convince you that it really doesn’t make any difference why I hunt. Your concern is to determine why you hunt, so consequently, you are left to search for your own reasons. Nothing said so far touches the individual. It washes across all of us, grouping all of us into categories or catches us somewhere along a continuum. That’s not enough. The reasons why all people hunt are not important. Reasons to hunt are only important when they are associated with the individual. If we as individuals seriously question the reasons why we hunt and in the process come to understand how important it is to each of us that we still are provided with the opportunity to hunt, then individually we will realize how important it is to work to maintain the privilege of hunting. As a result of this increased understanding at the individual level we have the basis for describing its importance to the rest of society. Hopefully then, through demonstration and education, society will continue to accept hunting as a legitimate activity and those who hunt as a legitimate segment of the larger society. Picking from lists of reasons should make it simple. The basis for my hunting seems more fuzzy to me, harder to explain if only because I can’t neatly separate the motivations into reasons why. Those who hunt often are confused by the anger they see directed at them by the more militant members of the anti- hunting community. How could anyone react so angrily to their beliefs about hunting? I think it’s because hunters see hunting as much more than the most narrow definition that limits the meaning of hunting to the act of killing an animal. Rather, it’s a state of mind, a unique way of seeing and being in the world. It’s a very complex combination of motivators that makes it very difficult to describe and even more difficult to understand. An example I have from my own personal experiences is one that I related to the participants in the Montana Hunting Congress held on August 13, 1991 in Helena, Montana. I told those who were in attendance at the Hunting Congress that I had just returned from a week along the North Fork of the Sun River in Montana’s Bob Marshall Wilderness. The Bob Marshall Wilderness, or "The Bob" to those of us who are familiar with the area, is a large wilderness area in west central Montana that is actually comprised of three separate but contiguous 72 wilderness areas of more than 1.5 million acres. To me, "The Bob" symbolizes the hunt. But on this one trip it meant many different things to the individuals in our party. I described it this way: When my 11 year old son fished a deep green hole above Glenn Creek on his first wilderness pack trip my mind was on the grassy slopes of Elk Hill across the river. As my brother-in-law from Boston and his son from New Jersey lived out a summer adventure that justified a $195.00 order from Dan Bailey’s fly shop, I silently considered the logistics required to bring me back for a week long October hunt and enough empty pack saddles to get me back out with an elk. As my newly-wed friends shared daily trail rides together I made mental notes of distances to be ridden in the dark, and unmarked trails that probably led to open ridges, out of the way basins, or other "elky" places important to someone who intends to return to an area rather than just ride through it. While my cowboy friend rode with me to the pass at the head of Cabin Creek on a young horse that still needed "lots of miles" my eyes were scanning the rocky, open slopes at the head of the drainage for a mule deer or a bighorn sheep. On that same trip my son went fishing, my brother-in-law and nephew went on an adventure, my newly-wed friends shared some time together, my cowboy friend went on a pack trip, but I went hunting. I don’t know about my son, my brother-in-law, my nephew, or my friends, but I had a successful hunt. And it was all because of my state of mind. I’ve decided that my drive to get twenty miles into the back country and high up on that distant ridge in search of an elk doesn’t have the obvious purpose it would appear to have. I’ve concluded I’m not really looking for that elk. Oh, maybe at first I was but now there seems to be something more important somewhere out in front of me that I hope to find. But what? Have you ever asked yourself why you hunt? Most of us have probably never stopped to seriously think about why we hunt. If you do, you just might conclude as I have that the answer is far more complex than you might first have imagined. You have probably casually traced the history of your connection with the sport of hunting from your first days with your father or a friend but this really only touches on the "how" of your beginnings with the sport of hunting-not what hunting means to you today and what it is that motivates you to continue. There are probably a number of reasons why you hunt and many of those you may have never consciously thought about. The best way I know how to explain to you about why people hunt is to take you through the same thought processes I used when I asked myself that same question. You may find your own reasons are similar to mine but I doubt it. I may provide you only with the nudge to think about your own reasons. 73 If your hunting experiences are like mine, they are filled with long periods of inaction followed (hopefully) by occasional periods of fast action. My hunting style tends to the "loner" side of the sport. It was during some of these inactive periods, alone with myself on a Montana back country mountain ridge, where I began questioning what it is that motivates me to hunt. Surely, it is not because it is "easy". You’d have to be crazy to say getting on top of those ridges was easy. It couldn’t be because it’s a cheap way of filling the freezer. Not unless you’re one of those lucky few that can step out their back door and fill their tag. So why do I hunt? I wanted to answer that question for myself, not only to satisfy my own curiosity, but to respond to those who might pose the question to me, probably in a critical light. And I was becoming more troubled by my lack of understanding. It just seemed I wasn’t totally aware of something that I needed to understand. The time I spent on those ridges thinking about the answer to the "why" question may not have been very productive as far as hunting goes but I’m glad I took the time to think about the answer. And I’m convinced the setting I was in, looking out over those high mountain basins, helped me to better understand what caused me to end up on that ridge in the first place. I don’t know how many times I’ve laughed at myself for bothering to climb to the very highest or the very farthest point. I have many times admonished myself with a silent, "there are no elk up here" lecture. It was only when I realized I was doing it often enough to detect a pattern that I began to speculate there must be something that was drawing me to those out of the way places that were as important as finding my elk. And I noticed that those unplanned destinations were always great places to think. I was uncomfortable with individual reasons. No individual reason I came up with was ever enough for me to conclude I had found the reason. So I would move on to the next, looking for a reason that was even better than the last one. But most of the earlier reasons still lingered. What I slowly began to realize was there is no single reason why I hunt. I also realized that the relative importance of the various reasons why I hunt were changing over time. What I began to describe to myself was a sort of balance-reasons that were looking for an equilibrium but whose relative importance were changing over time. And the reasons kept getting more complicated. At any particular point in time the reasons why I hunted must be in balance for hunting to make sense, to be enjoyable. The reasons and their relative importance at any particular time might change over time but the balance must always be there. I had to be in balance. Thinking back, I could remember my motivations early in my hunting life. They have changed substantially since that spring day when my father took me on my first gopher hunt. Then it was a very simple balancing act. Now the 74 reasons are much different and more difficult to keep in balance. I still get very excited like that first hunt and still feel very positive about the experience of hunting but the reasons are vastly different than those of many years ago. I feel I have matured, that my reasons are deeper and more important. And, I assume that the process will never be complete. These are my reasons, the reasons I found in my search for an understanding of why I hunt. The first reason that came to mind, and probably the most common reason of all is game. When I first started hunting, and even now when I try my hand at something new, my goal is to be successfiil at getting game. We humans seem to put a lot into being successful. The time spent with myself on those ridges resulted in the conclusion that game was important to me, but getting game I was sure, was not my total motivation. I wasn’t going to get off that easy. The game in question on most of those hunts was the elk. Somehow, getting an elk seemed less important to me than it had in the past. In fact, I realized that the longer I hunted, that the taking of game had become less important. For me, the elk is the ultimate game animal but the quarry was not the central issue— only the reasons why. Would I be satisfied with no game? No. Was this my total motivation? No. As far as it went, my conclusion was valid. But I knew I wasn’t satisfied with just game. The explanation was lacking and I didn’t have balance. The second reason that came to mind was opportunity. The types of opportunity that hunting provides for me are many and varied and I hope they can always include the opportunity to kill an elk. This point is difficult for many people to understand. When I go hunting, I have to know there is a chance, however small, to take an elk. Again, as far as it went, the conclusion was valid. But still there wasn’t a complete explanation. And there was no balance. The next reason I think, and probably a very popular reason, is meat. I enjoy the taste of wild game, especially elk. How many people do you know who "hunt for meat"? I confess to being one of them although I am the first to criticize the notion that you make economic sense out of hunting for meat. I am a meat hunter at heart, I tell myself, and as proof I offer myself evidence in the form of indignation when I hear another speak with indifference of poorly placed shots. It generates only disgust in me. I compare that to my disgust with myself when I make a poor shot, my embarrassment, the secret I wish I could keep. I offer myself more proof when I think of my concern about leaving an elk on the mountain overnight. In our hunting camps the shooter calls the retrieve and more often than not we go the same day, especially during early fall in bear country. I hunt elk for meat, I tell myself, not for some opportunistic bear. Yes, I think I am a meat hunter-but is that all I am? No, there must be more. So I still did 75 not have balance. The search for a trophy provides some motivation for my hunting. Not very much I tell myself, because I’ve just never paid much attention to what is considered a trophy compared to other hunters I know. It’s hard to be a trophy hunter and a meat hunter at the same time. The trophies will come in due time, I tell myself, and in the meantime I will have my meat. Are these all of the reasons? Is it all in balance? No. Building character also comes to mind. A variation is "needing to get to know yourself or "proving it to yourself. I’ve concluded I need to prove some things to myself. I’m proving I can be self sufficient and I can conquer adversity (on an admittedly smaller scale) be it cold, disappointment, or other situations faced while hunting. Then there’s fear. Fear must be faced. Hunting helps you face fear-fear of the unknown-fear of being lost. People in athletics like to say that sports build character. That may be true but I doubt that it can build character like the sport of hunting. Hunting alone makes it possible to get to know myself and to prove I can go it alone. Again, more balance but I was still not done. Hunting provides me many opportunities for contemplation. I do some of my best thinking when hunting alone. Many times I’ve noticed, as I walked along with rifle in hand, that I’m not really hunting anymore because I’m not paying enough attention to what I’m doing. But that’s ok. Another is tradition. Some people use a bow, some carry a muzzle loader. They must want a bit of tradition to go with their experience. My preference is the enjoyment that comes from working with horses, mules, leather and all the other trappings of a hunting camp packed into the back country. Tradition ties us to our past. Some of us need that. It’s like an anchor, comforting in a mysterious way, to know that you are doing something someone before you did, the same way it was done when it was a necessity. Tradition is important to me and it provides another form of balance. Contemporary life, threatening to make neurotics of us all, can be balanced with tradition to give us an anchor. In the process, it gives me more balance. There are still more reasons. I had to think awhile for a word that would adequately describe the next reason but I finally settled on fellowship. Fellowship can take different forms but the two that immediately come to mind are with family and friends. We all have examples of family hunting partnerships. Some of the best mental pictures of good hunting experiences are based on this theme. The sporting magazines are full of sentimental accounts of good times had with the family while hunting. Hunting with friends is also an important part of why we hunt. Many of the strongest friendships result from the bonds created in a 76 hunting camp. For me, fellowship is an important part of my hunting experiences. First, my father, as teacher and partner. Now, separated by 600 miles the fellowship is more limited— arguing about calibers and talking about which gun from his cabinet would be best for his grandson coming of age. Fellowship still, but it has taken on a different form. My hunting friends now provide the fellowship. For some people a hunting camp without fellowship would be an empty experience. For others, including myself, fellowship is not an absolute requirement. And at times it can be a nuisance. Why? Why would I and others put limits on the amount of fellowship we derive from our hunting? I’m not a loner but I’m not looking for a party either. So I must be looking for more than just fellowship. By the time I had gotten this far I was feeling much better. I had identified more than a half-dozen reasons why I hunted and I felt better for the thought process I had put myself through. I feel the reasons I’ve listed above at least partially describe why I hunt, but more importantly, the balance I feel. Yet, there are a few left I can think of and they might be the most important of all. Experience is another word to describe why I hunt, and it may be as far as I can go in identifying reasons without beginning to feel a little uncomfortable. Anything more and I run the risk of peeling off too many layers, or describing it in terms that will be unacceptable to others, or too foreign to understand. This term is commonly used in the popular print. We hunters are "looking for a good experience", the saying goes, and I guess that’s true. I’m not just looking to kill, so I must be looking for more— an experience. I’ve often heard some variation of this in conjunction with the outfitted hunt, usually as a result of an inquiry into the success rate of a particular outfitter. The outfitters I’ve talked to seem uncomfortable with reducing their profession down to a single statistic like "success ratio”, and I would like to think it’s mainly due to the same mental balancing act that I went through on those ridges. No, they would rather talk about the chance to "have a good hunt". I think that is the same as a good experience. A good hunt or a good experience is much more than game, or meat, or a trophy. The opportunity for either is important but is definitely not required. I’ll bet that’s what concerns the outfitter. He is afraid he will be dealing with someone who might miss the chance to get something even more important than the "kill". Think of the difficulty of making that point in the space of a few paragraphs in a response to an inquiry, or in a quick conversation in a crowded convention center at a major sports show. What I really think the outfitter hopes his clients will achieve in their short stay is their own balance. The kill is important but the outfitter wants to give his client even more— if the client will let him. I don’t envy the outfitter. I doubt that you can teach balance 77 under any circumstance but is it possible to help someone find their own balance in 7 or 10 days? I hope I can at least demonstrate balance to my 12 year old son in the few years I will get to hunt with him. There’s still something else and I have trouble attaching a label to it. That something else for me is, for a lack of a better word, spiritual. At first I wasn’t sure I had picked the correct word because the use of the word spiritual may well border on sacrilege. This was a tough one, but I had to think it through because I suspect this one is becoming more and more the impetus for my hunting. This is the one that is hardest to pin down yet I sense it may be the most important motivation. I suspect I’m not alone. One of the things I’ve noticed about the people I meet in the back country is that they aren’t the type who are inclined to tell you their life’s story immediately after introductions are made. Yet, many times I’ve watched with great interest these same people speaking in very personal terms that reveal the person’s strong feelings about their outdoor lifestyle. So often hunting is an integral part of the lifestyle they describe. I surmise they feel so strongly about their outdoor lifestyle that they can set aside any discomfort they might feel about talking to relative strangers regarding this topic. What I think they are addressing is the spiritual aspect of their devotion to the outdoors and hunting. It’s so important to them that they must express themselves. It just has to be said. As I sat on those ridges, having finally found the word "spiritual" to label something I had yet to think through and describe to myself, I didn’t realize that I would later find that one of Montana’s more famous outdoorsmen would make me feel comfortable with the "spiritual" label. James M. Glover, the author of A Wilderness Original, The Life of Bob Marshall , documented a contemplative day in the wilderness for Bob Marshall on his religion’s Yom Kippur, a time for quiet reflection for the Jewish faith. Glover quotes Marshall as saying that the outdoor meditation "though unorthodox, was very profitable" and then Glover sums it up by saying, "The woods, in other words, were Marshall’s temple. A pristine mountain wilderness or a virgin pine forest did more for him spiritually than any work of human architecture. This explains much about his motivation to preserve wilderness. He simply hated to see something debased which to him held so much spiritual value".3 I don’t know if Bob Marshall hunted but I can understand how he felt. For Marshall, the focus was wilderness, not hunting. For me, wilderness and hunting are difficult to separate. I have always searched 3James M. Glover. A Wilderness Original : The Life of Bob Marshall, Seattle: The Mountaineers, 1986, pp. 79-81. 78 for the wilderness to do my hunting. This is as far as I’ve been able to get. I can’t imagine that I’m done because I refuse to believe that I won’t hunt my way to the top of another ridge. I know when I get there I will think about it some more. It has taken me years to develop these bits and pieces, not connecting them at first but mostly thinking of them in separate chunks. I never realized that they were all part of something that should come together in a whole, as a foundation, a justification of my motivation for hunting. I’m glad I didn’t think this thing through in just one sitting. This topic is important to me and it deserves more time than that. I suspect I will spend a lot more time thinking about it, which is as it should be because I need to know I have found and can maintain a balance. If I should decide I can no longer maintain a balance, I will put away my boots, my rifle, and my saddle, and leave it to those that have it or still have hope they can find it. My guess is that it is a search for balance that motivates most people to hunt. Mankind isn’t content to just exist. Until we know who we are, our intelligence will torment us with an emptiness that will drive us to seek balance. That hunting is such a popular choice for so many people to hopefully find their balance is testimony to the legitimacy of hunting. My faith in mankind tells me that we naturally gravitate to those methods that are just. That death is involved only acknowledges that hunters are willing to face all the realities of life and that mankind is inescapably connected to the rest of the kingdom. My hope for all hunters is that they find balance. Give yourself the time to assess what will result in your personal balance. If you do that you will never want to hang up your rifle and you will have the confidence to answer those who might criticize your choices. Know yourself, know you have balance, and you will enjoy the hunt. I hope you find balance. Jeff Brandt is from Helena, Mont. He is the former volunteer Montana State Chairman of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. References Cole, Jim. "Quality Hunting— A Definition," Proceedings, Western States Elk Workshop, Bozeman, Montana, February 20-21, 1973. Glover, James M. A Wilderness Original: The Life of Bob Marshall , Seattle: The Mountaineers, 1986. Jackson, Dr. Robert. "A Letter from Wisconsin: The Making of a Hunter," North Dakota Outdoors, September/October, 1985. 79 KEYNOTE SESSION NORTH AMERICA’S HUNTING HERITAGE 80 Keynote Session OPENING REMARKS By Governor Stan Stephens Keeping the Promise Last year, in Denver, Colorado, I was privileged to address the national convention of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. In that address I expressed our support for wildlife conservation and I announced our intent to convene a national conference to address the "hunting and anti-hunting issue." The months since that convention have been busy. With the help of the Elk Foundation, and many other groups and individuals, this first Governor’s Symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage is the proud fulfillment of that promise. Welcoming remarks The Montana people welcome you: ■ with open and warm hearts, ■ with clean rivers and streams, ■ with wild mountain grandeur, and ■ with rolling plains stretching to distant horizons. We invite you to experience our: 81 ■ natural fisheries that include primitive paddlefish and fragile cutthroat trout, and ■ abundant wildlife like mountain goats scaling wind tom peaks and antelope dancing across the sun bleached plain. We also welcome you because we are pleased that you have journeyed from all over North America to discuss our past action and necessary future action in protecting wildlife, so we can sustain the gains conservationists of this country worked diligently to achieve. Some conservation history Montana is an ideal place to address this issue. There was a time when the prairies were without the excitement of the racing antelope. The mountains were without the elk’s chilling call and the high peaks silent without the crash of battling bighorns. Let me share with you the words of Granville Stuart, Montana pioneer and statesman, who described conditions in our state in 1880 through 1883: "It would be impossible to make persons not present... realize the rapid change that took place on those ranges. . .In 1880. . .one could travel for miles without seeing so much as a trappers’ bivouac. Thousands of buffalo darkened the rolling plains. There were deer, antelope, elk, wolves, and coyotes on every hill and in every ravine and thicket. . . " But later Stuart observed: "In the fall of 1883 there was not one buffalo remaining on the range, and the antelope, elk and deer were indeed scarce. This historical vignette is just one of innumerable examples of what happened in Montana and elsewhere. Commercial interests changed, and often worked to the temporary detriment of, natural systems. Granville Stuart, who was not one to stand idly by, began working for the protection of fish and wildlife in the Montana territorial legislature as early as 1864. That was 12 years before Custer died at the Little Bighorn. In 1872 Granville and his brother, James Stuart, passed legislation that tried to halt the wasteful killing of wildlife. The point of this example is that Montanans have been concerned about 82 fish and wildlife for as long as there has been a political system in which to express that concern. Balancing economic and environmental interests has a long and contentious history. But by working together to address competing demands, recreationists and commercial interests have succeeded in striking a balance that benefits us all. The resource we point to today with pride is truly a resource restored. And who expended the personal, political and financial energy to achieve a necessary balance and restore our fish and wildlife populations? The hunters and anglers of Montana. They are the ones who saw to it that the work was done and the results achieved. The Value of Hunting in Montana Today, 125,000 people take to Montana wildlands to pursue elk each fall. Of this number, about 15 percent are our guests from other states and nations. It has been estimated that these elk hunters spend $58 million each year in pursuit of their recreation, and to some extent, their subsistence. When considering all game species in addition to elk, 55 percent of Montana’s male residents and 18 percent of our female residents hunt each year. When you add the economic impact of the deer and antelope hunters to that of the elk hunters, it produces $126 million of economic activity. When anglers are added to the equation the total swells to over $226 million. While we are impressed with the economic activity generated by hunting and fishing, we never lose sight of the real value of the fish and the wildlife that support and sustain this activity. They are the co-inhabitants of a land we share, the land we now proudly claim as the "Last Best Place. " Our people saw this resource wither due to man’s actions, but we now see it restored by the unique and remarkable democracy of American conservation. A conservation movement conceived by sportsmen and -women. The Bob Marshall Story There is another Montana story that needs to be told. That story is about Bob Marshall country. It is a country where the majestic elk is written in its history. "The Bob" is in all respects--the land of the hunter. "The Bob" is a land in northern Montana the elk inhabit as a three million acre expanse of wildness. It is geography adorned with names like Scapegoat Mountain, the Great Bear, the Chinese Wall, and the South Fork of the Flathead. Today it is almost impossible to believe that it was for a time a land nearly 83 devoid of big game. Shortly after the turn of the century, a Montana ranger hunted through this country for 60 days, and in all that time, he saw only one single big game animal— a mountain goat. Today that land is home to 11,000 elk, the largest native bighorn sheep herd in the country, healthy grizzly bear and black bear populations along with a substantial complement of deer, mountain goats and other wildlife. Today, around its perimeter there are four state wildlife management areas, a Nature Conservancy grizzly preserve and the Boone and Crockett Club’s Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Game Range. The Bob Marshall country, and the Rocky Mountain Front that defines its eastern boundary, is probably the most significant example of wildlife conservation and recovery anywhere in the world. This land is significant in its ecological dimension and in the fact that this achievement is substantially, if not exclusively, the work of the hunter. It was the hunters that worked for the creation of the Sun River Game Preserve in 1913 to give elk recovery a foothold during a tenuous time. It was the hunters and ranchers who formed the Sun River Conservation Council in the decade of the 1940s that launched the game range acquisition program to accommodate expanding elk populations. Over the years hunting license revenues made the payments and managed the holdings. When Scapegoat Mountain, Ring-eye, and Red Mountain in the Lincoln backcountry were threatened, it was the elk hunters who perceived the threat and preserved the land. In time these, and a thousand other actions, in effect molded a wildlife masterpiece. A place where man and animal coexist for the benefit of both. In all ways this has been an achievement of people who knew the land, respected the wildlife living there, and understood how all the pieces fit together. Those people were hunters, and we in montana are eternally indebted to them. The Hunting Challenge Today sportsmen and -women are being challenged more than ever before. We must unite to meet this challenge. Today in America there are discordant voices that malign and distort the role of the hunter in this nation’s conservation achievements. There are people who suggest that hunting and the hunter are somehow inconsistent with, or alien to, a more profound environmental or wildlife ethic. In Montana we know that this is wrong. There is an abundant history that portrays truthfully the integrity of the hunter. America needs to hear that story. Similar to our history of concern and action to protect wildlife, we have 84 asked you here to review the reality of times past, and to seek a path to tomorrow that will be as true— and as successful. But in order to win we must make the journey together. All of us interested in wildlife management; the sportsmen, the sportswomen, the landowners, managers and outfitters, must join for the common good. I hesitate repeating an over-used axiom, but its relevance and correctness merit our consideration again. It is: "United we stand, divided we fall.” The extremists touting so-called "animal rights" have a strategy to eliminate all hunting, one hunter and one species at a time. Make no mistake, the threat is real! We can sit idly by until all hunting opportunities are gone, or we can pursue the trails blazed by our conservation heroes: Teddy Roosevelt, Aldo Leopold and Jay "Ding" Darling. These great men’s words and actions proved that we can (and should) establish, maintain and protect ecosystems for the benefit of both man and wildlife. Beyond hunting opportunities during game seasons, their actions have enriched our lives in numerous ways. Our children excitedly point out and identify deer and antelope while driving along a highway; we marvel at the occasional glimpse of a bear in our national parks; we find peace simply knowing that wild animals inhabit natural areas. Healthy wildlife populations, for both hunters and non-hunters alike, link us to our environment and our heritage. We must now come together and work to protect that heritage. We are committed to a noble task. This symposium will be an important step in overcoming the challenges that face us. Closing Comments I would like to close with remarks I addressed to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation convention in March of last year. I reiterate this closing because in many ways it captures why we are all assembled again at this symposium: There was a time in the history of our mountains when September mornings passed in silence. It was the natural season of the elk, yet no bugle rose from still thickets or tranquil meadows. There was a great emptiness in a massive country. Your ancestors in this fraternity of the hunt stared long hours into the coals of their fires, empty meat poles waited in the darkness of scattered camps. They talked, perhaps, of a track they saw or of one last hidden place to look tomorrow. They also talked of what had to be done to make the mountains whole again, and it was in 85 the hearts of these hunters that the American Conservation Movement was conceived and bom. Today our mountains are alive with excitement and this convention hall, this room full of people, this very organization is a reflection of the reality that elk are back throughout the western states and provinces. There is more out there than just the elk. Bighorn sheep, mountain goats, grizzly bear, mule deer, white- tailed deer, mountain lions and a host of other creatures too numerous to recite. They all prosper— in some cases like never before. For the most part the wildlife resource we enjoy today was passed on to our generation by the hunters of a century rapidly coming to a close. It is a resource that is in our temporary custody. You are here in testimony to the fact that you intend to treat the fish and wildlife resources of north america well. Your presence here is more than that, it is a commitment to make things still better for the next generation. I am here to tell you that the State of Montana intends to remain your partner in this proud venture, the State of Montana intends to be a leader in fish and wildlife conservation— it is our tradition, and our destiny. Thank you for your attendance, and attention. With the noteworthy expertise and wisdom of our assembled speakers, I am confident we will all leave this symposium with a better understanding of our hunting heritage, and a strategy to protect both our wildlife populations and our hunting opportunities, for years to come. Thanks again, and enjoy Montana during your stay in the Big Sky State. Stan Stephens was elected as Montana’s 19th governor in 1988. 86 Keynote Address THE THREE R’s OF HUNTING Rights, Risk, and Responsibility By Mike Hayden It is wonderful to be back in the great state of Montana to discuss one of my favorite topics — hunting. Everyone who is my age or older, remembers that when we were back in school, the teachers used to talk about the three R’s — Readin’, Writin’ and ’Rithmatic. Everybody’s gotten so smart and sophisticated in recent years I suspect the three R’s have now become Shakespearean Drama, prosaic correspondence, and fundamental supercomputing. If all of us were going to continue in the world of education, we had to master the three R’s. Well, I’m here today to talk about what I would call the three R’s of hunting. I believe all of us must master these three R’s if we are to continue as hunters in a rapidly changing political environment. They are Rights, Risk, and Responsibility. In short, we hunters must be aware of and defend our historic right to enjoy the land and its resources. At the same time, we must be aware of the risk of losing the right to hunt if we fail to police our own ranks against unethical and dangerous behavior, and if we fail to get the word out to the public about hunters’ historic role as conservationists and the economic benefits of hunting in terms of growth and jobs. And to ease this risk, we must live up to our responsibilities as hunters - responsibilities to be ethical, safe, and conserving of resources, and to promote our sport in the public eye. Those are the three R’s: Rights, Risk, and Responsibility. 87 Let me start by talking about rights. Historically, a right is something the government cannot prevent its citizens from doing. Hence, there are constitutional prohibitions against barring free speech, worship, peaceable assembly, firearms ownership, and so forth. These are the rights of the people. It is ironic — and indeed would be humorous if the threat weren’t so serious — that the very people who oppose hunting have seized this concept of rights and applied it to animals. Certainly, when Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence about "inalienable rights" and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," there was no question he was referring to human beings. And by any historic standard, the freedom to enjoy the land in a responsible manner is a fundamental right of being an American. Look back over our nation’s history. Who are the folk heros? They are frontiersmen like Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett and hardy explorers like Lewis and Clark, John Wesley Powell, and Jim Bridger. Our most popular presidents have been men like Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt — men who knew and loved the wilderness and wildlife, and whose values were shaped by them. Today, we no longer have to hunt to survive, as our forefathers did. But hunting nevertheless is a valuable link with our heritage and with the land — it is a reaffirmation of the American spirit of independence and love for the great outdoors. And besides, those of us who are hunters know it is a heck of a lot of fun. That is the reason the Interior Department wholeheartedly supports and will continue to encourage hunting on public lands. Secretary Lujan, in fact, highlighted hunting as a recreational activity in his "Enjoy Outdoors America" initiative to get Americans off their couches and back into life. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also recognizes hunting as a legitimate tool of wildlife management and a valid form of recreation and will continue to permit hunting on many of its lands. Right now, hunting is permitted on 267 National Wildlife Refuges nationwide. But, like many people, I am seriously concerned about the current state of hunting in the United States. A recent newspaper article caught my attention. It said, quite simply, that based on current trends, there would be no more hunters left in the United States by the middle of the next century. Now, at first thought, that would seem to be an incredible turn of events. But I believe it may not be as far-fetched as some might think. This is the risk the hunting community now faces. Let me digress for a moment. As many of you know, there is a great 88 difference between hunting in the West and hunting in the East. Generally speaking, hunters in the West do not face many of the obstacles those in the East face. This is largely due to the way the land was settled. In the East, there are not vast tracts of public land open to hunting. After all, the Interior Department itself wasn’t founded until 1849, more than 60 years after Delaware became the first state. It is no coincidence, for example, that there are no National Park Service lands in the state of Delaware. By contrast, the majority of the land in most western states is public. As the East has been developed and come to be dominated more and more by large urban areas, the places open to hunting have become fewer and farther between. In addition, there are prohibitions in 17 eastern and southern states against hunting on Sunday. These prohibitions are similar to the old blue laws that barred many kinds of activity on Sunday. In my opinion, it’s about time we saw them repealed. After all, a working man or woman has only two days a week to hunt, and archaic laws are taking away one of them. What person is going to drive a long way to go hunting, only to have to turn around and come back on Saturday night because you can’t hunt on Sunday? But that’s the way it is right now in 17 states. My point is that in many respects, you have to be a pretty determined person to go hunting in many eastern states. Now I know those of you who live to the West of the 100th Meridian are asking yourself why you should be concerned that it is difficult to hunt in the East? Well, let me give you a couple of good reasons: First, as the number of hunters decline, the fees from licenses and permits also drop, reducing the amount of money available for conservation. For example, the Federal Duck Stamp has been one of the most successful conservation programs ever, conserving more than 400 million acres of wetland habitat since the 1930s. But the number of Duck Stamps sold has dropped by nearly half since 1970, from 2.4 million stamps to 1.3 million stamps. We also have seen slight drop-off in revenue from the Pittman-Robertson excise taxes on guns, ammunition, and other hunting equipment after you adjust for inflation. These declines hurt hunting everywhere, because conservation is a national, and not a regional, concern. Second, as the numbers of hunters decline, there are fewer people to 89 combat the attacks of the anti-hunting movement. We live in a democracy, and if the majority of people determine that hunting is no longer a right and should not be allowed, then it won’t be allowed. And I can guarantee you that if hunting dies out as a sport in the eastern half of the country because people find too many obstacles in their path, it will not help our cause as we seek to counter the emotionalism and misinformation disseminated by the animal rights and anti-hunting groups. So I encourage you to view hunting as a national sport. If anyone, anywhere, is prevented from going hunting, it hurts you. And it makes more likely the day when there will be no more hunters in America. That is the risk we face. The final "R" in my three R’s of hunting is responsibility. There are three areas of responsibility that all hunters have -- conservation, safety and ethics, and promotion. We have met these responsibilities with varying degrees of success. There is no question hunters have fulfilled their conservation responsibilities. Any history of conservation in America would have to have more than one chapter on the contributions hunters have made through government programs such as the Duck Stamp and the Fish and Wildlife Restoration Funds and through non-profit organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, the Safari Club, the National Wild Turkey Federation, The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and dozens of other worthy organizations. I believe, for example, it is the model of enlightened self-interest that hunters were willing to support taxes and fees on themselves in the 1930s to promote conservation and have continued to support those taxes and fees through the years. After all, sometimes it seems as though one of the goals of politics in this country is to get someone else to pay the freight. Hunters didn’t go that route. They paid the bill for everyone, hunters and non-hunters alike. Hunters also formed many non-profit organizations to undertake conservation projects. One project that came to my attention recently is just one example of how hunters are being more than responsible conservationists. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation acquired a 4,700-acre ranch in the Jarbidge Mountain region of northeastern Nevada. The ranch controls permits to graze some 100,000 acres of the adjacent Humboldt National Forest, where overgrazing is forcing the Forest Service to cut back on permits. As I understand it, the Foundation is planning to return half of its permits to the Forest Service for redistribution to local ranchers. The other half will be used for the reintroduction of elk. 90 Furthermore, the state of Nevada used money from the Federal Aid in Sport Fish fund, which is supported by taxes on fishing equipment, to help purchase 3,000 acres of the ranch. The reason? There are significant opportunities for fisheries restoration on the Bruneau River. The Newmont Gold Company proposes to buy the rest of the ranch and turn it over to the Bureau of Land Management in exchange for another parcel of land elsewhere in the state. As I see it, the ranchers benefit because their grazing permits are not going to be cut back as much as they would have been had the Foundation not bought the ranch. Wildlife is better off because elk will be reintroduced and the land will be managed to the advantage not just of the elk but to a whole range of species, preserving the area’s biodiversity. And recreational users will benefit because the land will be open to hunting and other recreational activities, and the state will be restoring fisheries on the Bruneau River. It’s a win-win proposition all around, just the kind of project hunters have been supporting for years, not just with their voices but with their wallets as well. Turning to the second area of responsibility — safety and ethics — I believe we are doing better but we still have a lot more work to do. We have made great progress in hunter safety. Forty-eight of the 50 states now require hunting safety certificates to hunt and I don’t think it will be long before those last two join the bandwagon. As a result, the number of accidents and deaths resulting from accidents have dropped dramatically in recent years. In fact, the number of deaths in hunting accidents has declined more than 40 percent in the past two decades. Of course, one death is too many, and we must continue to press on, but I would give the hunting community an excellent grade in hunter safety as a whole. Personally I am proud that I was a sponsor of the Kansas Hunter- Education Act in 1973. I have already taken one of my daughters through the course, and I was pleased with the way she handled a gun when we went dove hunting later. Incidently, she took four doves that day with some nice wing shots. The boys in her 7th grade class were jealous that a girl could shoot and accused her of taking them off the rail. But she told them she knew better than that — and she did. She had taken the Kansas hunter education class. Which, of course, leads me to the question of ethics — which is quite another matter indeed. Everyone in this room knows we have a real problem with irresponsible hunters out there who give us all a bad name. 91 Frankly it befuddles me how if my young daughter knows enough not to shoot doves off a rail, we can’t get it through so many peoples’ heads that it’s wrong to shoot deer from a pick-up truck. Let me ask you: what does it say to non-hunters when they read in the paper or see on the news that a dummy deer put on the side of the road by game wardens was shot 30 times in one day? Aren’t they more likely to support anti- hunting legislation? Let me ask you: what do you think a farmer is going to do if hunters continually leave gates open, litter his land, and shoot up his bam? You can be sure the next year he is going to be out nailing up "No trespassing" signs. And let me ask: what do you think the average non-hunter thinks when he reads in the paper about a drunk hunter who accidently shot and killed someone? It happens every year. And every year, responsible hunters get a bad name because of it. Frankly I’m tired of it, and I think it’s time we hunters started to police our own ranks. If you see someone shooting deer from the side of the road or drinking in the field, get the license plate number and call the game warden. Let’s make life uncomfortable for those who mock our laws. I’ve hunted several times with Bud Grant, the former coach of the Minnesota Vikings, and I’ve been very impressed by what he’s doing to crack down on unethical hunters. For starters, he helped the Izaak Walton League raise more than $700,000 from hunters in Minnesota to buy a helicopter for game wardens to chase down poachers in the Louisiana wetlands. The helicopter has been in the air since 1988 and helped in scores of arrests for poaching, baiting and other illegal activities. Bud also helped start a "Turn in Poachers," or TIP, program in Minnesota in which hunters put up reward money that goes to people who inform on hunters and fishermen who break wildlife laws. The program has a hotline, and the number is posted in telephone books, on bumper stickers, and other prominent places. Thousands of people have been arrested because of this program. And the interesting part is that about half the informants don’t even want the reward money. They simply want to stop the poachers. I know this sort of program exists in many other states but if there’s not one in your state, it would be a good idea to start one. We simply cannot allow a distinct minority of hunters to ruin the sport for everyone else. My third point about responsibility deals with promotion of hunting as a sport — and here’s where I think we’ve done a poor job. And I believe this is as 92 much a matter of attitude as anything else. I had a wildlife official tell me once that hunters in his state didn’t care about anything he did. All they wanted to know was "When does the season start and how many can we kill?" That’s the kind of self-centered attitude that is hurting hunting. The truth is we all have a responsibility to get involved in promoting the sport. Promotion means taking your children hunting and teaching them a love and respect for the outdoors. It means joining organizations like the Izaak Walton League, or the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, or Ducks Unlimited and supporting the conservation and education work they do. It means volunteering to be a hunter education instructor. It means writing letters to congressmen and senators to keep legislation that would limit our hunting rights from ever being passed. It means reminding business leaders of the economic value of hunting, that hunters spend billions of dollars each year on their sport, and that means economic growth and jobs. It means getting the word out about hunters’ long history as conservationists and the millions of acres of habitat that has been purchased, enhanced and restored with hunters’ dollars. And it means working to knock down the obstacles that keep people from hunting. I can think of one area, for example, which is a pet peeve of mine — that is, the difficulty in many states of getting a hunting license. You know, I can sit at my desk in Washington and buy tickets to the next day’s Baltimore Orioles game over the phone, but if I want to get the licenses and stamps I need to go hunting, chances are I’m going to have to drive all over the place looking for them. It’s absurd. And it makes me wonder how many people out there who would otherwise hunt just throw up their hands and say "Why bother?" I don’t see why we can’t all get together and have an 800-number that you can call and buy all the licenses and stamps you need to hunt anywhere, anytime. Another obstacle that bothers me is the differences from state to state in the grandfather dates for requiring hunting safety certificates. It’s quite possible that in one state a hunter may not need to take the course because he was bom before the grandfather date but in another state he can’t get a license because its grandfather date is earlier. More likely than not, if that person had planned a hunting trip to the state with the earlier date, he won’t go. And that hurts the sport. Furthermore, it’s unnecessary. We could use the Commission on Uniform State Laws, which was created by the states to help make their laws more 93 consistent, to push for a universal grandfather date. I suggest, for example, that we take the latest grandfather date on the books right now, and ask all the states to agree to it — I think they would. Making the dates uniform would inconvenience no one and it would remove a big barrier to people wanting to hunt in other states. Frankly, I think this is an area where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could take the lead. And as Assistant Secretary, I am going to suggest that the Service do just that. In closing, I would like to cite one other thing my friend, Bud Grant, is doing in Minnesota that I believe summarizes the three R’s of hunting and is worthy of emulating in other states. Bud has led efforts to develop a program for Minnesota schools that combines environmental education on subjects such as clean water, clean air, and wildlife habitat with lessons about hunting. The program informs students that hunting is a legal activity engaged in by dedicated sportsmen and is a useful wildlife management tool as well. For example, students learn what happens to the ecosystem when there are too many animals, such as deer, in a particular area and the value and humanity of harvesting some of these animals rather than letting them starve to death in the winter. I believe Bud sets a good example for hunters everywhere. He values the right to hunt and understands the risk that is out there in the current political environment, so he is taking the responsibility to defend and promote the sport. It is this kind of dedication to hunting that I believe will reverse the decline in the number of hunters and preserve our sport for the future. Ultimately, it is my hope that every hunter in America will master the three R’s of hunting so our children and grandchildren will only have to deal with two R’s, rights and responsibility, because the risk to hunting’s future will be gone. And I am asking each of you in this room to lead the way. Thank you. Mike Hayden is Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish & Wildlife & Parks. Prior to assuming his current position, Mr. Hayden was the 41st Governor of the State of Kansas for the term of 1987-1991. 94 SERIES II: HUNTING UNDER FIRE Moderator: John F. Turner Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 95 ON HUNTERS & ANITIIUNTERS By John F. Turner Thank you all for your warm welcome. It’s wonderful to be back in the great state of Montana. After three years handling totally non-controversial issues such as wetlands and spotted owls, it is good to be dealing with a benign, non-emotional issue like hunting. Let me say that right off the bat that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s policy is and will continue to be that hunting is an important and legitimate use of wildlife resources and a vital management tool. Hunters have been a driving force behind this nation’s long history of wildlife conservation. We at the Fish and Wildlife Service literally depend upon the support of hunters to accomplish our mission. President Bush, as many of you know, is an avid outdoorsman and he and I are both committed to be strong defenders of hunting both as a recreational activity and as a wildlife management tool. The simple truth is that unlike many critics within the anti-hunting community, hunters have put their money where their mouth is by supporting the II percent Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration excise tax on guns, ammunition and other hunting equipment. Since 1939, hunters have paid out $2.3 billion that have gone to the states for conservation projects. Last year, for instance, the Service passed $150 million in Federal Aid money on to states for projects ranging from wetlands restoration to hunter education. I am pleased that just recently the 20 millionth person graduated from hunter safety and education courses. We’ve seen a sharp drop in the number of hunting accidents because of these courses. In fact, the number of deaths in hunting accidents has dropped by more than 40 percent since 1970. There also have been literally thousands of conservation projects that have 96 been supported by Federal Aid. Right here in Montana, for example, hunters’ tax dollars began to fund the purchase of the Sun River Wildlife Management Area in 1948. I would hazard to guess that was before many of the leaders of the anti-hunting movement were bom. Over the past 50 years, more than 20,000 acres of habitat have been purchased at Sun River, ensuring the largest elk migratory route and wintering ground outside of Yellowstone is protected and managed properly. Similarly, it was Federal Aid dollars put up by hunters that helped the state of Montana to turn Freezeout Lake Wildlife Management Area from a series of frequently dried up lakes into an important stopover location for swans, snow geese, and Canada geese. Hunters also support the federal and state Duck Stamp programs which are vital to protecting and restoring wetland habitat. Since 1934, more than 4 million acres of wetland have been protected, enhanced or restored using money from federal Duck Stamp sales alone. That’s why we call the Duck Stamp, the conservation stamp of success. Without waterfowl hunters who have bought Duck Stamps down through the years, for example, our National Wildlife Refuge System would have about 100 fewer refuges and be 4 million acres smaller. And this does not even include the millions of dollars hunters contribute to conservation of both game and non-game species through state license and permit fees and through organizations like Ducks Unlimited, which spend millions of dollars each year to purchase wetland habitat and are vital partners with the Service in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. In essence, hunters have answered the challenge of "Put up or shut up" by putting up billions of dollars for conservation. Let me ask: would the critics of hunting be so vocal if they had to put up that kind of money? I think not. Nevertheless, it is no secret that hunting and hunters are under pressure- attack might be a better word-on a number of fronts. We are under pressure because the shifting population trends in the country see people moving from rural areas, where hunting is an accessible and acceptable pastime, to urban areas, where it takes quite a bit more time, money, and effort for the average person to get involved in the sport. The population on average is also getting older and will continue to get older, and data seems to suggest older people tend to hunt less than younger people. Furthermore, there is a lot more competition now for the recreation dollar than there used to be. For the growing population of urban dwellers, there is a temptation to take the children to Disneyland rather than afield behind a pair of 97 pointers. These demographic changes have coincided with loss of accessible lands and loss of habitat. Quite simply, there just isn’t as many places to hunt as there used to be. Since 1970, for example, we have lost well over 1 million acres of forest lands annually. The Forest Service estimates that we will continue to lose 700,000 acres a year of forest lands for the next 20 years. And the picture for wetland loss is only slightly better— although the number of acres lost declined from 450,000 acres in 1970 to 290,000 in 1980. There are also clear signs that some landowners are getting frustrated with hunting on their property and denying access to hunters. It becomes too difficult or too much of a hassle to find a place to hunt, people will go to Disneyland instead. On top of all this, there are the anti-hunting groups who are doing their best to ensure that no one gets to hunt— period. By widely distributing misinformation and by planing on crass emotionalism, professional anti-hunters offer a public that is unfamiliar with hunting a chance to feel virtuous and righteous without every really having to do anything. They give people the notion that judgmental condemnation of other people’s behavior places them on a higher plane of virtue. Their position makes no sense, either practically or morally. These people would see exploding white-tailed deer populations wreak havoc on an ecosystem and would prefer to have them starve in the winter rather than allow hunters to cull the herd. It simply makes no sense. But this is what the hunting community is up against. And the battleground is the vast numbers of Americans who don’t hunt and don’t know much about hunting but do vote. At stake is nothing less than the future of hunting as a sport and our long-term ability to manage wildlife populations. But the risk goes even further than that. Don’t believe for a moment the animal rights people will be content just to see hunting banned? Their real agenda is anti-utilization, anti-management, anti-use, anti-agriculture, and anti- medical research. I believe the hunting community overall has done a lousy job of getting its message across in this battle. All of us know that hunters have a long history of leading conservation efforts but the average American does not know that. I would guess that many hunters don’t know that. Does the average hunter who buys a shotgun or rifle know the extra 1 1 percent added to the price tag might be paying to restore a wetland or other conservation project? And how many people out there do you suppose would attribute to hunters 98 and hunting the amazing recovery of the wild turkey or the Rocky Mountain Elk? On the other hand, how many Americans have an image in their mind of hunters as drunken slobs with rifles picking off Bambi from the side of the road? The opponents of hunting are fueling that misconception through emotionalism and misinformation. It is up to the hunting community to organize itself and get the truth out. As part of this effort, hunters need to recognize that the number of people participating in non-consumptive activities involving wildlife has increased dramatically in recent years. Consider, for example, that 65 million people in this country enjoy backyard bird feeding; that compares to 18 million hunters. Hunters should look at these millions of people as allies in wildlife conservation rather than competitors for precious wildlife resources. Hunters need to build bridges with these people and educate them about hunters’ long history of conservation and the value of hunting as a wildlife management tool. We need to support watchable wildlife and other non-consumptive uses for wildlife because by doing so, we are helping ourselves. It would be a tragedy if a sport that has been part of the fabric of our nation for hundreds of years and is a valuable wildlife management tool is banned because of misinformation and ignorance. I exhort you not to let it happen. Ultimately, I am saddened by the tremendous energy being wasted by anti- and pro-hunting groups in their jousts with each other. Think of how much could be accomplished if only we could combine and harness this energy on behalf of wildlife. John Turner, a lifelong resident of Wyoming, spent 19 years as a Wyoming State legislator. In 1989, Mr. Turner was appointed director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 99 GOING AFTER THE HUNT An inventory and credo synopsis of the Animal Protection Movement By John G. Mitchell About 14 or 15 years ago -- in those good old days when Cleveland Amory was going around the country recruiting folks into his "Hunt the Hunters Hunt Club".... "If you can’t play a sport," said Amory, "shoot one" — the editor of Audubon Magazine handed me a daunting assignment. The editor was Les Line, a hunter himself, and what he wanted me to do was to take a hard look into the whole question of hunting in America, and why people on both sides of the issue got stirred up to such heights -- or depths — of outrage and anger. So I took that hard look, and did a lot of listening to hunters and antihunters and nonhunters from Rowayton, Connecticut, to Ruby, Alaska; did it for the better part of a year and a half. The result was a five-part series in Audubon entitled "Bitter Harvest," later published by Alfred Knopf as a book called "The Hunt." The Audubon articles stirred some interesting responses. Hunters complained I was anti-hunting. Humaniacs called me a tool of the hook’ n’ bullet press. Needless to say, neither hunter nor humaniac was terribly interested in buying the book, and it is long out-of-print. One obligatory phase of my reporting on The Hunt was a parsing of the animal protection movement, then largely dominated — at least in terms of media exposure — by Amory’s Fund for Animals, Alice Herrington’s Friends of Animals, Christine Stevens’ Animal Welfare Institute, and the Humane Society of the United States. Maggie Nichols had written a splendid piece for Field & Stream called "The Kingdom of the Kind," which I probably plagiarized a little to arrive at my own conclusions about the movement. The way Nichols saw it, the animal welfare kingdom boiled down to "a crazy battle for supremacy," mainly between Cleveland Amory and Alice Herrington. Herrington once told me that she couldn’t understand why Cleveland Amory always looked like an unmade 100 bed. Amory might have said something similar about Alice Herrington — but, being a proper Bostonian, didn’t. Yet when Herrington ran a newspaper advertisement suggesting that men hunt in order to compensate for their sexual dysfunctions, Amory called that "hitting the hunter below the belt." Those days, trading jibes and insults in the hunting wars was about as far as it went. (I recall that our friend John Madson here once remarked that absorbing an insult from Cleveland Amory was not unlike being run over by a baby buggy.) Those days, the typical member of an animal welfare organization was likely a person principally concerned with the issue of cruelty. Animals are sentient creatures, it was argued. Therefore, since hunted animals react to the chase in terror, and wounded animals suffer excruciating pain, and dead animals leave the equivalent of sorrowful widows and orphans in their passing, the process of hunting must necessarily be cruel. But even then a shift in perceptions and attitudes was beginning to rearrange the configuration of the animal protection movement. Some people in the movement were suddenly talking not so much about protecting animals from pain and suffering as about protecting their rights from unethical human infringements. The Australian Peter Singer had just written a book called "Animal Liberation. " It soon became the movement’s bible. And eight years later (in 1983), Tom Regan brought forth another best-selling manifesto entitled "The Case for Animal Rights." By and by, as "liberation" and "rights" became the buzz-words, the names of unfamiliar organizations began to appear in the media. Insults soon gave way to threats and confrontations. And while hunting continued to take a good bit of the movement’s collective heat, the thermostat settings seemed hotter at times on other issues, such as the use of animals in research laboratories and even on farms. The best contemporary analysis of the movement that I’ve ever seen — and I recommend it to anyone seeking a better understanding of what makes the animal-libber tick — rolled off the press this year under the title, "The Animal Rights Crusade." It is a fair and dispassionate study of a hugely passionate subject, written by the New York University sociologists James M. Jasper and Dorothy Nelkin. The way Jasper and Nelkin parse the field, protectionist groups nowadays run the gamut from reformist to radical, but generally tend to fall into one of three categories the authors call welfarist, pragmatist, and fundamentalist. The welfarists, according to the authors, for the most part tolerate many uses of animals but try to minimize their suffering by seeking reform through education and legislation. Welfarist groups would include such long-established and relatively well-funded organizations as the ASPCA and the Humane Society of the United States. 101 The pragmatists are described as believing that, while all animals deserve our moral consideration, some species deserve more than others. Through legal action and political protest, though sometimes by negotiated compromise, the pragmatists would seek to eliminate unnecessary uses of animals in cases where the animals’ suffering is perceived to outweigh the human benefits. I don’t believe Jasper and Nelkin identified any particular pragmatist organizations, but if I read them correctly, my own picks would be the Fund for Animals and Friends of Animals. And finally we have the fundamentalists, demanding an immediate end to the exploitation of all animals, on the grounds that animals have certain inaliable rights. To some fundamentalists, even the ownership of pets is viewed with disdain. Theirs is an uncompromising moral crusade in the "strident style of Old Testament prophets," according to Jasper and Nelkin. "Extreme and even illegal strategies and tactics," they write, "are seen as justified in order to stop widespread immoral practices. " Among the most visible of the newer fundamentalist groups is PETA— People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals — which grew from a mere 8,000 members in 1984 to more than 300,000 in 1990. A couple of years ago, PETA had a budget of $6.5 million and a staff of 65. In spite of the recession, I expect it’s growing still. The new-wave Animal Rights Movement reminds me of that old Ringling Brothers-Bamum & Bailey showstopper under the bigtop. It’s that little Volkswagen Bug sputtering to a stop, doors fly open, out come two clowns, then two more, and three, and four, and five until there are two dozen or more of them hamming it up for the crowd. Here’s Pete Singer’s bible and out of it tumble PETA, and ALF (for Animal Liberation Front) and ARM (for Animal Rights Mobilization) and CASH (for Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting) and DELTA (for Dedication and Everlasting Love to Animals) and HARE (Humans Against Rabbit Exploitation) until there are probably more than a hundred national, regional, local, and special-interest fundamentalist groups out there at the barricades and down in the trenches. Counting the memberships of these groups gets even trickier than tallying the organizations. The numbers tend to get inflated. Jasper and Nelkin don’t offer any absolute number in their book, only the estimate that some ten to fifteen million Americans are financial contributors to animal protection groups of all kinds, including the comparatively benign and apolitical SPCAs that shy away from such issues as hunting and trapping. But you can count on one thing: the fundamentalists are the fastest-growing wing of the movement. As their population curve goes up, yours — the hunter’s —goes down. The statistical 102 profile of hunting in America, which comes out of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service every five years, showed a hunter population of 20.6 million when I was researching "Bitter Harvest. " That was the head count for licensed hunters in 1975. Now, the latest count, for 1990, is down to 15.8 million licenses— a 23 percent decline in just 15 years. Before you know it, those two curves— the animal-lib fundamentalist’s upper and the hunter’s downer— are going to cross. It is probably inevitable, and there’s not a whole lot that you can do about it. Fifteen years ago, before the animal rights crusade began to gather momentum, the Amorys and Herringtons of the movement’s pragmatist wing seemed to spend a good part of their furious energy going after the hunt. The hunter, to a degree exceeded only by that of the trapper, served as the libber’s favorite target. Invariably, in the libber’s literature, the hunter would appear as a bumbling lout, a conniving killer, evil incarnate, the greatest threat to the world’s wildlife since asteroids deep-sixed the dinosaurs. At a time when most responsible commentators could understand that the primary cause of the demise of wildlife in the 20th century wasn’t bullet or birdshot but rather the loss of habitat to human occupation and agricultural development, no less a writer than Roger Caras would proclaim that hunting was the "only major factor" in bringing dozens of species to the brink of extinction. No doubt there are some knee-jerk types who buy that brand of hype even today. But I suspect that the libber’s targets have been shifting around. Sure, the hunter still takes a lot of fire. It’s just that some other animal users appear to be taking more of it. So who do the libbers most like to hate? I’m not a social scientist or a pollster; just a journalist who has dipped now and then into the literature of animal- lib and talked with a few folks on the fringes of some of the movement’s organizations. And here is how I rate the issues and "enemies" that most engage the efforts of the animal protection movement — setting aside as a non-issue the welfare of pets, or "companion animals," which is the politically correct way to address dogs and cats nowadays, in case you didn’t know it already. Number One on the libber’s hit list: The use of animals for medical and consumer product research. Enemy: The lab technician and the product manufacturer. Through the 1980s this issue has clearly eclipsed all others on the libber’s agenda. To a large extent, it has pushed die hunt off the front page. Number Two: The use of fur-bearing animals in the fashion and clothing industries. Enemies: the trapper, the furrier, and the conspicuous consumer. The leghold trap is a subplot of this number, and it drives the libber right up the wall. Drives me right up the wall, too, when that trap is used in sets other than those 103 designed to drown the animal. Number Three: The use of farm animals in the food industry. Enemies: the farmer, the processor, and the ravenous meat-eating consumer. This one has been moving up the hit list at a rapid clip, possibly because it draws its appeal from so many ancillary issues such as vegetarianism practiced for health as well as ethical reasons, and a growing distrust in America toward agricultural technocrats and genetic engineers. Number Four: The hunt. Enemy, the hunter. See how you’ve slipped? Number Five: The use of animals as performers, as in rodeos, racing, circuses, film-making, and some zoos. Enemies, a motley crew starring, for lack of competition, the cowboy. The curious thing about this issue being at the bottom of the list is that it used to be at the top. The humane movement got launched from it in the 19th century, when Britons began to protest the ancient "sport" of bull and bear baiting. Note that the top three issues in this lineup involve commercial uses of animals — the pursuit of profit, if you will — while the bottom two relate to recreation and the pursuit of play. Note it because the placements reflect how, since the 1970s, the prevailing mindset of the animal protection movement has changed. Hunting has fallen from high disfavor not only because there are fewer hunters to excoriate but because your "damnable pleasure," as Joseph Wood Krutch called it, now seems less damnable than the perceived greed of those who use animals as marketplace commodities. The libbers’ main complaint nowadays isn’t so much that someone is having fun at an animal’s expense, but that someone is using the animal to make money. It is a shift, in the words of Jasper and Nelkin, to a "moral critique of the materialism of a consumer society and a political critique of an economic system that encourages profits at the expense of animals." It is not my mission here to catalogue the tactics of animal rights activists insofar as their efforts -- at whatever level of priority --make life miserable for the American hunter. The incidents and encounters have been duly noted in the hook’ n ’bullet press -- the hunt saboteurs, the spooking of game, the confrontations afield, the legislative appeals in one state or another to shut down a season, the poisoning — how’s this for animal liberation? — the poisoning of hunting dogs. For all the attention being paid to other animal-lib issues, the de-facto Hunt the Hunters Hunt Club is still out there, still at it, and, from their point of view, getting better at it. Nor is it my assigned mission here to advise the hunter how he should respond to the Hunt the Hunters Hunt Club. But I’m going to. I am going to 104 suggest that the best response is no response. You and the best of your rhetoric are not going to change the minds of fundamentalists and extremists in the animal rights movement any more than they are going to get you to lay down your arms and eat yogurt. You are not going to impress the nonhunting American -- the vast majority that has no objection to hunting so long as the animal taken winds up on somebody’s dinner table instead of the compost heap- by trading insults with the antihunter. Let the extremists on the other side publicly hang themselves by their own aggressive and sometimes illegal antics while you, the hunters, get on with what you’ve been promising to do for a generation, but haven’t, and what you must do if there is to be hunting by anyone the generation-after-next. I refer to the process of cleaning up your act. The act that concerns me isn’t ethics. It is image. It is how the hunter positions himself in the minds of the nonhunting American public that will ultimately decide whether this heritage of yours is an anachronism to be tolerated or a cancer to be excised. Unfortunately, as there are three philosophical branches of the animal protection movement, so are there three overlapping hunter idealogies that consistently manage to distort the hunter’s image, offend the nonhunter’s sensibilities, and fuel the antihunter’s fire. Excuse my lack of formal sociological training, but I call these idealogues: (1) The Paleo-Macho Chauvinist Pig, (2) the Neoconservative Right-Wing Political Polarizer, and (3) the Wildlife Management Holy- Roller Fundamentalist. The rate of occurrence of any of these per hundred-thousand of licensed hunters is unknown, though probably high. Present company — it goes without saying — excepted. The Paleo-Macho Chauvinist Pig. You read all about him — and by him — in some of the hunting and fishing magazines. You know the type. The Me-and-Joe guys. The gun nuts. The sporting technology freaks. The gotta-get-the-bag-limit people. The folks who will cancel their magazine subscriptions if the editor doesn’t give them a killer grizzly on the cover at least once a year. The editor who does give them a killer grizzly on the cover once a year. In fairness, I must say that a couple of the leading hook’n’bullet books have cleaned up their acts considerably in the past decade. Let’s have no backsliding. Next, the Neoconservative Right-Wing Political Polarizer. This is the hunting idealogue who confuses his politics with his sport. Behind every antihunter he sees an ultra-leftie, card-carrying, effete-Eastem environmentalist. 105 Like me. He believes that the way to win the hunting war is to join forces with some of the most unpopular and discredited elements in America today, such as the fur industry and the pro-handgun-and-assault-rifle lobby. Since he doesn’t much care for designated Wilderness, the next thing you know he’ll be signing up with the Wise Use folks. And that will be the kiss of death as the American public wakes up to the fact that the Wise Use Movement is little more than a stalking horse for extractive industries seeking freer access to the public lands. And finally we have the Wildlife Management Holy-Roller Fundamentalist. The finest one I ever met was a game commissioner in Michigan who told me with a straight face: "Now the Bible tells us that man should have dominion over the fowls of the air and the game and the wild animals. And I believe that, because man is superior. He should manage the wild animals just as he does a herd of cattle." And from that mindset flows a good deal of the philosophy guiding wildlife management in America today. The Holy-Roller is the one who really drives a thoughtful American right up the wall, often with one or another of the following preachments: ■ Item. Man must hunt because there are not enough natural predators to cull the game herds. Yet man must also cull the remnant predators, lest they compete successfully for the game. Catch-22. ■ Item. Nature is cruel. Hunter is kind. Isn’t it kinder to shoot the deer now than to let it die a slow death from winter starvation? ■ Item. Hunters are the real conservationists and everyone else is a freeloader. If it wasn’t for the hunter and his pocketbook, there wouldn’t be any habitat, much less any wildlife. Tell that to The Nature Conservancy. Tell that to the nonhunting lobbyists and taxpayers, who, over the years, have been largely responsible for expanding the national parks, forest, and wilderness preservation systems. You want to clean up the act? Take these characters, these three idealogues, these extremists, and send them to the showers. Then make them stand in the comer while the rest of you go about the business of recasting the hunter’s image in a better light. It’s possible. You can do it. You deserve to do it. But until you do it, the best kept secret of America’s hunting heritage will remain (with 106 apologies to Pogo) what it was fifteen years ago: That you have met the enemy and it isn’t the animal libber. It is you. John G. Mitchell is the author of five books. His essays, articles, and historical sketches have appeared in AUDUBON, FIELD & STREAM, SMITHSONIAN, SPORTS AFIELD and numerous other publications. References Jasper, J.M. and Nelkin, D. The Animal Rights Crusade. New York: The Free Press, 1992. Mitchell, J.G. "Bitter Harvest." Audubon. May, July, Sept., Nov. 1979 and Jan. 1980. . The Hunt. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1980. Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. U.S. News & World Report. "The American Hunter Under Fire." Feb. 5, 1990. Wright, Robert. "Are Animals People Too?" The New Republic. March 12, 1990. 107 SLINGS AND ARROWS Challenges to Sport Hunting and Wildlife Management By William P. Horn On behalf of the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America (WLFA) it is a pleasure and an honor to appear before the Governor’s Symposium of North America’s Hunting Heritage. Our hunting heritage predates the founding of our nation and has been a common thread of our culture from the Pilgrims’ gathering of game for the first Thanksgiving to frontier America epitomized by legends like Daniel Boone to the father of American conservation -- Teddy Roosevelt. The tradition has manifested itself in the creation of a sporting ethic of fair chase and respect for the game and in the birth and sustenance of the conservation movement. WLFA’s sole purpose is to protect the heritage of Americans to hunt, fish and trap. The Wildlife Legislative Fund of America is the nation’s principal sportsmen’s rights organization and through our associated organizations represents over 1.5 million sportsmen. We are staunch supporters of scientific wildlife management including regulated hunting, fishing and trapping. Our hunting heritage has begun to suffer the slings and arrows — and broadsides -- of an increasingly extremist and vicious animal rights movement. Prohibition of hunting is merely part of a wholesale effort to end all use of animals. Hunting is seen as the weakest link but agriculture, the clothing industry, medical research, pets and zoos are being targeted as well. That means anyone who likes a cheeseburger and a milkshake, wears leather shoes, benefits from modem medicine, and enjoys the company of a dog is a target, too. That’s the message we must drive home to the public. The public must understand the full agenda of the animal rights movement if hunting is to survive. What is frightening is the size of this movement and the speed with which 108 it has grown. In 1978, WLFA identified six major organizations with a clear objective of banning hunting. The total annual income of these groups was about $7 million. Today these same six groups have a combined yearly income of $39 million. Moreover, there has been explosive growth of other organizations dedicated to the animal rights agenda. Newsweek magazine estimates there are 7,000 animal rights groups with a combined annual budget of $300 million. All of these organizations and all of their resources are dedicated to terminating our age old tradition. Hunting is not subject to limited attacks: we are under a full scale onslaught being waged at all levels and branches of government. Wherever the animal rights extremists can find a weak spot, we can expect an attack. These attacks take a variety of forms. Many are direct and blatant; others are insidious and devious and are cloaked within otherwise reasonable proposals. The antis approach is often a "salami tactic" — take away our right to hunt one thin slice at a time! Favorite tactics have included Federal and State legislation, local ordinances, ballot measures, regulatory initiatives and lawsuits. There is only one way to stop this onslaught against sportsmen and wildlife management: fight back. Of course, forewarned is forearmed so we will discuss some of the specific tactics previously employed by the animal rightists. Understanding these tactics will enable the sporting community to respond effectively to preserve our sporting heritage. Most challenges to hunting occur at the State level since states have primary jurisdiction for wildlife matters. On the average, 250 bills are introduced each year that would, if enacted, negatively impact sportsmen. These bills take a myriad of forms, but six general types have been popular in the past few years. Anti-trapping bills are among the most common. Hunting is seen as the weak link by animal rightists and trapping is viewed as the weakest link within the hunting tradition. Efforts to restrict the use of hunting dogs are growing. These bills are usually very insidious since they are ostensibly designed to stop dog fighting or ensure dog welfare. However, they are often cleverly written to prohibit bird dog field trials, bar the use of retrievers for waterfowl hunting, and flatly ban the use of dogs for hunting raccoon or bear. These bills are a classic "salami tactic" -- take away the use of dogs in field sports and many hunting traditions will be abandoned overnight. Bowhunting is subject to a new wave of especially virulent attacks by the antis. WLFA has helped form the national "Bowhunters Defense Coalition" to 109 counter these efforts and fight back. Anti-bowhunting measures are pushed on humaneness grounds and human safety! One devious approach, employed most often at local levels, is to include the release of an arrow within the definition of firearms discharge. This means that bowhunting is then banned within suburban areas that have restrictions on firearms use. Most of these areas have burgeoning deer populations. Ostensible safety limitations are another back-door maneuver being used against hunters. Most states prohibit the use of guns within 300 feet of a home for safety purposes. That involves an area of six acres. We helped defeat a New Hampshire bill which would have limited shooting within 1,000 feet of a dwelling — an area of 72 acres! That would halt hunting in wide areas of states like New Hampshire. Of course, a standard approach entails bills that would outlaw hunting for specific species. Efforts have been made to stop hunting for moose, deer, cougars and rabbits to name a few. Presently black bear hunting has become the anti’s target. Animal rights radicals have recently pursued anti-bear hunting campaigns in California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan and Montana. WLFA maintains a vigilant watch in all 50 state legislatures to thwart the animal rightists and preserve our hunting opportunities and heritage. The ballot measure has also been used by antis to stop hunting. WLFA was formed in 1977 to fight an anti-trapping initiative put before Ohio’s voters. Sportsmen rallied to stage a come-from-behind victory and defeated the ill- conceived initiative. Other anti-hunting ballot issues were fought in 1980 on dove hunting in South Dakota, in 1980 on trapping in Oregon, and in 1983 on moose hunting in Maine. In all these cases, WLFA organized the campaign that sent the antis packing. This string of successes dissuaded the antis for a number of years but a new more dangerous battle has been joined in Arizona. Animal rights activists put on the ballot what appears to be a simple anti-trapping measure called Proposition 200. However, if adopted by Arizona’s voters on November 3rd, it would dictate a policy that fish and wildlife management must be by non-lethal means. Attorneys for Arizona Fish and Game, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and WLFA have determined that this devious initiative would effectively ban hunting and fishing in Arizona. Arizona sportsmen and all who oppose the animal rights radicals have banded together to form Arizonans for Wildlife Conservation. This coalition, with assistance and direction from WLFA, is on the front line of the fight to defeat this measure. If a conservative Western state votes to destroy its hunting 110 heritage, the extremists will be in full cry throughout the nation. The enormous adverse consequences of an animal rights victory are such that the nation’s sportsmen must rally to help their colleagues in Arizona. The mention of attorneys is a reminder that the antis have also used lawsuits to attack and destroy our hunting heritage. Early lawsuits were often unsophisticated and relatively easy to turn back. Nonetheless, antis scored legal victories by closing deer hunting in Florida in 1982, tule elk hunting in California in 1988, an elk depredation hunt in Arizona in 1988, and grizzly bear hunting in Montana in 1992. Recently, however, animal rights lawyers have begun to exploit environmental procedure laws with telling effect. In California, wildlife law makes an oblique reference to the welfare of individual animals rather than the species as a whole. Anti-hunting lawyers seized on that and persuaded a judge to shut down bowhunting for bears. Elsewhere, fish and game departments are being challenged to support hunting season decisions with the same level of environmental impact analysis used for dams or highway projects. Many state agencies are finding that they aren’t up to the challenge -- yet -- and many hunting opportunities are at risk. Animal rights radicals have also pursued their extremist agenda at the Federal level. The approaches have been similar: attack through the Congress, the agencies and the courts. Fortunately, the antis have won only a few battles at the Federal level. This is due to vigilant efforts by many hunting oriented groups including WLFA, the Wildlife Management Institute, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the National Rifle Association. However, major battles have been lost. And, the stakes at the Federal level are enormous: if sportsmen lose the right on National Wildlife Refuge lands -- as pushed by animal rightists and their friends in Congress — over 90 million acres would be off-limits to hunters. That’s an area nearly the size of California! The major Congressional battle concerns hunting on Refuge lands. Every year bills are introduced to prohibit hunting on Refuges even though many Refuge units were purchased with sportsmen’s dollars. So far all of these bills have died a well-deserved death. More insidious are Refuge "reform" bills that will make it procedurally difficult to maintain hunting opportunities on Refuge units. Hidden in these bills are legal timebombs that will make it easier for animal rights lawyers to persuade big city judges to shut down hunting within these Federal units. Again, none of these bills have moved far but the emerging leadership in Congress has demonstrated its support for these dangerous measures. Continued vigilance is a vital necessity if our hunting heritage is to be protected. Ill Hunting opportunities within the Wildlife Refuge system can also be lost via agency action. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) — administrator of the Refuge system -- is preparing its Refuges 2003 program. It is a comprehensive review of how the system is to be administered, including the issue of continued hunting. The antis have mounted a full scale effort to have FWS administratively close all refuge units to sport hunting. They have turned on their letter writing machines, begun milking their friends in the media and threatening lawsuits via their lawyers. WLFA is concerned that FWS may seek to compromise with the extremists by diminishing hunting opportunities on Refuge units. The Federal courts provide another avenue of assault on our hunting heritage. Animal rights lawyers sued to stop black duck hunting in 1982 — they failed. In 1984, unsuccessful lawsuits were filed to shut down hunting and trapping within the 90 million acre Wildlife Refuge system. One year later, suits were filed to stop the annual elk hunt in Wyoming’s Grand Teton National Park. Recently, the antis failed again with a lawsuit to stop a deer hunt at the Mason Neck Refuge near Washington, D.C. They succeeded, however, in Montana by winning an injunction that terminated the 1992 spring grizzly hunt. As at the State level, the animal rightists seek to exploit every legal weakness - substantive or procedural — in their unrelenting effort to curtail our hunting opportunities. Animal rights extremists do not limit themselves to legitimate avenues. Harassment, intimidation, vandalism and terrorism are a regular part of their arsenal. Hunting protests achieved notoriety in the 1980s and have been fine- tuned by the antis to become major media events. Several animal rights groups have issued "Tips for Hunt Saboteurs" to help fledgling extremists to interfere with our hunting traditions. Unfortunately, the extremists have gone beyond harassment and engaged in vandalism and worse. Hunters have had their vehicle tires slashed, windshields shattered and blinds destroyed. Antis have baited fields in an effort to lure hunters into violations of Federal migratory bird regulations. We have fought back with legislation to make it a crime to harass hunters. WLFA drafted a model hunter protection bill 11 years ago. It is carefully designed to specifically protect hunters’ rights without compromising Constitutionally secured free speech. Today 45 states have enacted such legislation and we foresee enactment in the remaining states by 1995. These hunter protection laws drive the animal rightists up the wall because it puts great risk in their harassment activities. A Maryland judge recently handed down a $500 fine to each of nine people found guilty of hunter 112 harassment. The judge also ruled that the organization behind the harassment could not pick up the tab ~ each had to pay their own fine. Federal hunter protection bills have also been introduced in the Congress: S. 1294 by Senators Conrad Bums (R-MT) and Wyche Fowler (D-GA), and H.R. 371 by Rep. Ron Marlenee (R-MT). The Senate has been willing to act on its version. In the House, proponents have been unable to get the leadership to schedule hearings. WLFA believes a Federal measure is needed to complement the State measures. This would ensure that no animal rights radical who harasses a hunter can escape through some crack in the law. Terrorism is another feature of the animal rights agenda. Within the United States university medical research facilities have been destroyed by "Animal Liberation Front" arsonists. Agricultural operations using animals have been vandalized. Game bird raise and release operations have been destroyed. These types of heinous activities — becoming more widespread every day — led the California Attorney General’s office to list ALF and it sympathizers as domestic terrorists. The animal rights extremists in England have targeted people engaged in animal husbandry and medical research with pipebombs and explosives. WLFA remains concerned that PLO-IRA tactics will eventually be employed by animal rightists in America against hunting and hunters. Exposure of these terrorist tactics must continue to ensure that our citizens know the true face of the animal rights radicals. The assault on our hunting heritage continues on a wide front via legitimate and illegitimate means. As noted, many of the efforts are devious and insidious and designed to lure an unsuspecting public into support for elements of the animal rights agenda. A new Trojan horse is biodiversity. Biodiversity, at first blush, is an appealing concept. No one has specifically defined it, but it seems to mean managing any given piece of real estate for maximum diversity of flora and fauna. Half a dozen bills have been introduced in Congress to make biodiversity the operative concept for management of Federal lands. Therein lies the problem: what does biodiversity management mean and how will the courts define it when the inevitable lawsuits are argued? National Forest management plans have already been challenged in court on the basis that they did not adequately address biodiversity. On the international scene, it is interesting to note the clamor in Rio de Janeiro over the biodiversity treaty of the Earth Summit. The media reported on the clamor but not on the substance of the agreement. Is it possible that no one knows what the treaty really means? Sportsmen would like to know. 113 Wildlife conservationists are concerned that biodiversity will be used to thwart traditional wildlife management programs. Most management programs are designed to benefit particular species or classes of species. For example, many managed areas are operated to maximize waterfowl habitat. Areas are logged to optimize ruffed grouse and woodcock populations. Controlled burning is used to produce more productive moose habitat. In each case, optimization of these species is inconsistent with natural "biological diversity." WLFA is persuaded that animal rights radicals will seize on biodiversity laws (and treaties) as a means to defeat traditional wildlife management programs. Fish and game programs designed to help the sporting community will be attacked and stopped on the grounds that these programs seek to help specific species rather than foster biodiversity. We are not alone in expressing serious concern regarding the potential impact of biodiversity. WLFA rallied wildlife conservationists to express major reservations about biodiversity legislation. The result was statements by WLFA, Ducks Unlimited, the Wildlife Management Institute, the Sport Fishing Institute, the National Fishing Institute, the United Conservation Alliance and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies that biodiversity bills must be amended to ensure that traditional wildlife management programs and practices shall continue. Congress has not acted on either the pending bills or the proposed amendment. Regardless, biodiversity could become another animal rights vehicle to insidiously attack our hunting heritage. To summarize, hunting is subject to more than slings and arrows. It is the focus of an unrelenting assault by extremists seeking to impose their radical animal rights agenda on an unsuspecting public. The American public must be aware that hunters and hunting are merely the first target. Once our hunting heritage has been destroyed, other ordinary citizens who enjoy a hamburger and milkshake and the company of their dog will be subject to stepped up harassment. The animal rights assault is not only unrelenting, it is pursued through all avenues — legitimate and illegitimate. From the Congress to the courts, from the White House to the city council, the anti-hunting forces are leaving no stone unturned. Today the animal rights movement is grassroots -- they are in every state and major city in the U.S. Unfortunately, their radical involvement has an uglier dangerous side manifested by tactics of harassment, vandalism and terrorism. A decade ago WLFA sounded the alarm about the animal rights movement. It was a hard sell. The most common response was, "it won’t happen here." We hardly hear that anymore and expect to hear it even less 114 thanks to symposia like this. The sporting community must fight back if it is to preserve its hunting heritage. If our sons and daughters are to ever enjoy dawn in a duck blind, a misty morning stalking deer, a trek to the high country for elk, or a golden fall day behind a bird dog, we must act to protect our rights, and a way of life, from dangerous extremists. The WLFA will continue to be in the front line against the radicals. We hope to see you there, too. Bill Horn, formerly assistant secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, specializes in natural resources law from Washington, D. C. and is diretor of national affairs and Washington counsel for WLFA. 115 HUNTERS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM The State of Contemporary Hunter Ethics & Hunter Education By Denis S. Elliott In the report Hunter Ethics; A Look at Hunter Behavior and Hunter Education in the U.S. and Canada X made several recommendations. I have been asked today to talk specifically about two of them. The first was that we should devote as much attention to hunter ethics as we do to safety issues in our hunter education classes, and the second was to target older hunters (defined as hunters over 25 years of age) for hunter ethics outreach since they appear to be the group most in need of such a program. However, before X get into these subjects, it is necessary to lay a little groundwork. While X was working at the Izaak Walton league, Jack Lxirenz (IWLA Executive Director) asked me to assist in re-writing the league’s hunting ethics brochure. At the time X was involved in gathering the information for the report on hunter behavior which resulted in my being here today. Part of my contribution to the brochure goes to the heart of my message to this meeting, so I want to begin with three statements from it: 1) Hunting is a vital wildlife management tool. Hunters understand and appreciate that fact. The general public and the media often do not. With that in mind, we hunters must never forget that the way we hunt and the way we present ourselves to others— hunters and non-hunters alike— has a tremendous impact on the future of hunting. Before we hunt, each of us needs to ask this question: ’Am X part of the solution or part of the problem?’ 116 2) Although ’slob hunters’ are a minority, numerous sportsmen and women who consider themselves responsible are guilty of occasional lapses of proper ethics. Often, they are not violations of the law, just of decent behavior. The list of questionable or unethical practices is long, but these days it takes only one or two to raise yet another NO HUNTING sign. 3) The simple fact is that we have failed to adequately police our ranks. We have a choice— we can clean up our act, or it will be cleaned up for us. Increasing closure of private lands and the sometimes successful effort of the anti-hunting movement to close or restrict seasons suggest a cleanup may already be under way. At this point, I would like to add to the last statement an opinion, which I truly believe to be a cold, hard fact. If instead of we hunters, outsiders lead the effort to modify hunter behavior I guarantee that virtually no one here today (nor any other hunter) is going to be happy with the result. I also feel safe in saying that one way or the other there are going to have to be some changes. Like it or not, we have to accept the fact that hunting has an image problem— a big image problem. When looking at the image problem we are confronted with strictly in the context of the anti-hunting movement, there is an immediate, specific cause for concern. The anti-hunters have focused the majority of their efforts to influence the non- hunting public on organized protests of deer hunting— often creating carefully stage-managed media events. The reason this is so troubling is that when asked what single species is most likely to be the target of an illegal or unethical hunter behavior, almost three-fourths of respondents said deer, and most of the rest said deer and listed another species. In the time allotted here I can’t adequately go into the reasons this situation exists, what I will say is that if we don’t correct it, the image of hunting will continue to decline. We do have the means to deal with this and other problems, but we must display a long-term willingness to take action against the slobs and poachers— anyone who violates either the law, or the principles of sportsmanship. 117 During my research, Hunter Education Coordinators were asked what they would choose to focus on (and why) if they could promote only one topic relating to hunter ethics. As you would expect there were a variety of answers: landowner relations, respect, responsibility, etc. but almost two-thirds gave the same response -- Image. In explaining, few HECs cited anti-hunting pressure directly, but their comments suggest overcoming the negative stereotype of hunters would have generally positive results, one of which would be countering the efforts of the anti-hunters. All of us have to face up to the fact that the image of hunting has been taking a beating. Is it because the anti-hunting crowd is extraordinarily good at exploiting a few isolated incidents of outrageous hunter behavior? Or are there in fact widespread abuses of laws, and principles of sportsmanship and fair chase? As in so many heated debates where participants have strongly held views, my work leads me to believe the truth is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. To those hunters who blame everything on the "slobs" or "outlaws" I cannot help but think they are avoiding at least one unpleasant reality. We can talk all we want about the fact that poachers and slobs aren’t "hunters" but the fact remains that to the general public those folks and hunters like us are one and the same. In other words, to the non-hunting public the difference between honest, ethical hunters and the slobs is merely one of degree. There are some of us who insist that our declining image is due to skillful exploitation of limited incidents of slob behavior. To that I say that if such behavior is limited, why is the closure or other restricting of private land to hunters steadily increasing in virtually every jurisdiction in the United States? Why did half of the HECs who participated in the hunter ethics study report that hunter/landowner relations in their jurisdictions were "somewhat worse" or "much worse" (only 25 percent said "somewhat" or "much better")? I submit that the problems are larger than a limited number of slobs or commercial poachers. These are problems we must deal with of course, but we must also take a hard look at the general hunting population. Going back to one of the questions I raised at the beginning of my talk, how many hunters normally act responsibly and in the true spirit of sportsmanship, but lapse (if only briefly) into slobhood? I think the answer is more than we care to admit. Consider for a moment that upwards of sixteen million hunters will take to the field this fell. The overwhelming majority will, for the most part go out with every intention of obeying the law and the spirit of fair chase. However, I doubt any hunter can go through a season without being given a chance to stretch the rules a bit. We all find ourselves in situations where, to paraphrase Aldo Leopold, "our conscience is our only guide." For the 118 sake of argument lets assume that 90 percent (and this appears to be a generous percentage) of us resist the temptation to cheat or compromise our principles in any way. Even in that other ten percent lets give the benefit of the doubt and say not all of the illegal/unethical acts were deliberate. We are still talking about over a million "slob" incidents, and as I said earlier, these days it only takes one for yet another owner to put up yet another NO HUNTING sign. Due to the limited number of state and federal wildlife law enforcement agents, violation data alone is an insufficient measure of hunter behavior problems. However, in recent years land access has been a growing area of research. In my own work, respondents who stated that the closure of private land was increasing (virtually every participant) were asked to list the three most commonly cited reasons why land was being closed to hunters. Although trespassing was first on 37.5 percent of the lists, the answers listed most frequently were poor hunter attitude/behavior (48.6 percent), vandalism/destruction/theft (43 percent), and trespassing (43 percent). Safety concerns were fourth, well behind the top three items listed. The fact that there are some problems which must be dealt with comes as no surprise to many of us. With this in mind, each state was asked to list (in order) the five most serious hunter ethics problems in their jurisdictions. The five most frequently listed problems were: 1) Trespassing/no permission 2) Improper vehicle use/road hunting 3) Lack of respect towards game/resource 4) Hunter/landowner relations 5) Overbagging I have often said that road hunting is in itself a form of trespassing, so the number one ethics problem could be even more significant. In an attempt to establish whether any behavioral trends existed, I asked each respondent to compare their answers against what they would have been five years earlier. There were remarkably few changes, which suggests that our problems (and therefore priorities) are fairly well established. Put more harshly, we have been dealing with the same problems for at least five years, but without any effect. Why this is so is a subject I will take up in a moment. When looking at the list of most serious hunter ethics problems, they all seem to be related to lack of respect of some sort; to landowners, to wildlife, to laws, etc. In fact, lack of respect for authority, institutions, rules, or customs 119 seems to have become a national epidemic. The philosophy of "cheat and rationalize" or "if you don’t get caught it doesn’t matter" have become a part of our national fabric. Unfortunately, too many individuals who take to the field in search of game are not immune to such attitudes. I will concede there is some room for argument about just how serious the problems we must deal with are, but I will stand by my belief that very serious hunter behavior problems do exist, and that ignoring them or discounting their impact on resources or the image of hunting is the surest way to bring about the end of sport hunting— and therefore the billions of dollars we put into natural resource conservation. Hunters and anglers have traditionally been leaders. Natural resource management was conceived, lobbied for, and implemented by hunters and anglers. The costs for all this management has also been largely bom by us, and while there are environmental problems, they would be far worse if it were not for our defense of the woods and waters on which humans, as well as wildlife depend. While at the IWLA, I was fond of pointing out to newer, "mainstream" environmentalists that groups like mine were happy to have had them join our cause. I would often get strange looks, before being regaled with the successes they had achieved during the growth of environmental awareness which has grown during the twenty years or so since the first Earth Day. I would then return the favor and regale them with five or six decades of accomplishments of sportsman conservation groups that occurred before that first Earth Day. The point I am trying to make is this: Like our hunting predecessors, we are leaders whether we realize it or not. They have left us a rich heritage of "getting the job done" so I don’t take kindly to folks who tell me that hunters’ ethics is something we just can’t do much about. I am convinced the hunting community has dealt with more difficult problems, and that if we truly commit to solving this one, it will be yet another stunning accomplishment which benefits wildlife and natural resource conservation. Some within our ranks have advocated downplaying the problem for fear of giving more ammunition to the anti-hunters, or even worse, doing nothing and letting things take their course. Talk like this always reminds me of the words of Edmund Burke, who said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I say the average hunter, for all his or her flaws is a basically good individual, and that together we can, and must do something to alter the pattern of behavior which is destroying the future of hunting. Given the problems we face, we are fortunate to have a widespread hunter 120 education system in place which will touch the life of most young, beginning hunters. Although this system has had remarkable success over the years in promoting hunter safety, it has been considerably less successful in promoting sportsmanship, or responsibility, or whatever term you choose to use when you are talking about hunter ethics. Some instructors say you can’t teach hunter ethics, especially in the limited time available. Given the way customs can vary between states—and even within states— I agree that an all-inclusive list of what is ethical and what is not is a practical impossibility. Ethics are personal, and each person should be allowed to develop their own. However, this is no excuse for not giving the subject the time it deserves in basic hunter education. Instructors can in fact do a great deal, even during the average hunter education course. It all boils down to the amount of time spent on the subject, and how that time is used. In 1981 the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies released a landmark study on hunter education which noted that the average hunter education course devoted about 26 percent of class time to the subject of hunter responsibility. The IAFWA felt this subject should get more attention, and recommended that hunter responsibility be given as much emphasis as safety. What happened is exactly the opposite. In 1991 the percentage of time spent on hunter responsibility was about 12 percent, a decrease of more than half. When discussing the draft of my report with Max Peterson of the IAFWA he pointed out that courses had lengthened and more time was being spent for responsibility than in 1981. However, I chose to use the same measurement the IAFWA used, which was percentage of total course time, and Max agreed that things had indeed gone the opposite direction of the recommendation made in 1981. When asked whether ethics should get more time, Most HECs agreed. However, the majority were opposed to either increasing the length of the course or to altering the contents of the course to bring about the change. Obviously, this conflict must be resolved if we are to make any progress. It has been suggested that it is time for the IAFWA to conduct another assessment of hunter education similar to the 1981 study, to determine whether the basic course should modified. Even if more time is allotted for hunter ethics, the attitude that it can’t be taught persists, and must be overcome. I will concede that we "can’t teach ethics" but we can teach students how to weigh alternatives and make value judgements. The Value Clarification process described by Louis Raths is simple, and can easily be used in the hunter education classroom. Simply put, we won’t teach 121 the students proper ethics, we will merely teach them how to make such judgements for themselves. The process is actually quite simple, and most of us go through it all the time. However, even after we overcome the notion that time spent on ethics is wasted, we still have to make instructors comfortable with the interactive environment needed for value clarification based training. In other words, we can preach safety (and have been fairly successful doing so) but the approach which works for safety won’t work for ethics. While on the subject of instructors, I would also like to suggest that we take a close, scientific look at what they can tell us about the hunter education process, and their training needs. The best designed and best intentioned hunter education program will be worthless if the individuals who present it to the target audience are unable or unwilling to implement it. In 1991 the Hunter Education Association endorsed the idea of surveying instructors, and if funding becomes available such a study could not only yield valuable information on how to modify basic hunter education, it can allow us to set up a means for monitoring our the effects of hunter education and other forms of outreach. Even though we have a large, well organized (if under utilized for promoting hunter ethics) hunter education program we must recognize that even though it now reaches virtually every first-time hunter, the audience is mostly youth. Unfortunately, the hunter ethics study suggests (based on violation and complaint data) that the age group most in need of an outreach effort promoting hunter ethics is the 25-35 age group. Even more significant is the fact that most beginning hunters have a mentor who will usually be, if not a member of this age group, then at least older than 25. Chances are that many of these "mentors" have never been through any hunter education training at all. Although there are exceptions, most adults don’t attend hunter education courses, even though some refresher training never hurts. Involving adults in hunter education, at least during the ethics/responsibility portion must become a priority. In various state hunter education workshops instructors have shown a willingness to make the attempt, and come up with several ideas for encouraging parent participation in their classes. And for the adults who can’t or won’t attend, there is no reason why students can’t be given a homework assignment which will confront the adult with the fact that their young hunter is starting to think about right and wrong— and maybe the adult will give some thought to setting a good example. Mentors (who are usually adults) setting a good example is the key here. Even if we do a terrific job in the classroom, much of our impact can be undone in the field, and evidence suggests that far too often the example being set for 122 beginning hunters leaves a lot to be desired. Unless we break the pattern, change may come about too slowly to do any good. Another area in which we can reach adults is in species specific clinics. Those of us who have been hunting a long time tend to feel we are well versed in the basics (including how to act), but if my recent experience at the NRA is any example, experienced hunters are more than willing to attend clinics which offer species specific training for experienced hunters. Participants should get what they sign up for of course, but there is no reason why the theme of hunter ethics/responsibility cannot be reinforced during such clinics. Most of the individuals involved in this growing field of advanced hunter education agree it is an excellent way to promote responsible hunter behavior. In closing, I would like to say that due to pressure from the anti-hunters, individuals who would ordinarily turn away at the first suggestion that their behavior while hunting should be reviewed are willing (if grudgingly) to listen. Even though they may be listening for the wrong reasons, we shouldn’t miss this chance. If we are to make a lasting change in attitudes that will eliminate the chronic hunter behavior problems I spoke of earlier, we must work with both adult outreach and the hunter education system at the same time. Only in this way can we break the cycle of behaviors that is causing more land to be closed to hunting, and giving anti-hunters the means with which to further blacken our image. It is time for us to show the leadership of our ancestors who began the conservation movement. We have a problem. There is a solution. If we don’t get the job done, someone else will regulate our behavior for us. Before you dismiss that possibility, take a look back at California, then look forward to this fall in Arizona and Colorado. If that doesn’t make the hunting fraternity realize that things have changed then there is little hope for the future. However, I believe in my heart that we are equal to the challenge of taking care of our problems without the "help" of those individuals who will never understand our love of hunting, until our decency, obvious love for wildlife, and leadership cause them to join our ranks rather than restrict our privileges. Denis Elliott, formerly the coordinator of the Izaak Walton League of America’s Outdoor Ethics Program, is the acting executive director of the National Anti- Poaching Foundation. **** For a nominal fee, copies of Hunter Ethics: A Look at Hunter Behavior and Hunter Education in the U. S. and Canada can be obtained by contacting the national office of the Izaak Walton League at (703)528-1818 or the Fish and Wildlife Reference Service at (800)582-3412. 123 DO I KNOW YOU? How Landowners View Hunters, Hunting, and Wildlife Conservation by Jim Peterson Do I Know You? Landowners are asking that question a lot these days. Landowner views of hunters, hunting and wildlife conservation have changed from the days when I was growing up on my father’s ranch in Central Montana. Twenty years ago, I knew very few ranchers who didn’t allow hunting and fishing on their lands. In fact, they looked forward to the hunting and fishing seasons. It was a time when their townspeople friends would come to the country, visit, hunt and fish and just enjoy the bond that existed between them. Landowners were proud to share the bounty of the land with their city cousins. Over the years, however, that privilege has evolved into a perceived birthright to hunt and fish, and the pattern of public use of private land has been woven into the social fabric of our region here in Montana. This evolution and change in perspective is very relevant in this discussion today and particularly in a state like Montana, which is about 2/3 private land. The "hunting heritage" in our state is so strongly held that many residents rationalize their staying here in Montana, at what some consider to be diminished salaries and opportunities, solely because of our free sporting tradition. But as you know, time marches on. What I remember as a "win-win" relationship between landowners and sportsmen while I was growing up on the ranch, has now been replaced with a more confrontational relationship which, if not addressed carefully, could turn into a "lose-lose" relationship. Let me provide you with some background some of which my friend Chase Hibbard shared with me. In the early 1980s four things happened that may have contributed to the change I just described: (1) Commodity markets and land values took a nose-dive; (2) the hunting public in the United States became aware of the quality of our fish and game resource here in Montana and the West; (3) 124 big game populations in Montana and the West increased significantly; and (4) sportsmen outside of Montana and the West became affluent and very mobile to an extent we never experienced in the past. For example, in 16 western states from 1960 to 1988, according to a 1990 Bureau of Land Management Report, antelope populations increased 112 percent, bighorn sheep populations increased 435 percent, deer populations increased 30 percent, elk populations increased 782 percent, and moose populations increased 476 percent. And in Montana, for the same period of time— 1960 to 1988 — both the bull and the cow elk annual harvest has more than doubled (according to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks data). With such dramatic increases in big game populations, and the costs associated with supporting these increased numbers, ranchers learned they could replace lost commodity income quickly and painlessly by catering to "rich out-of- staters" who would pay large sums of money to hunt and fish. And the people were grateful for the opportunity. More and more ranchers got on the band wagon and, as they did, less and less private land was available for the public to use for recreation on free of charge. The social fabric I described earlier as a kid on my father’s ranch began to unravel. And the regular Montana sportsman found his options for a quality hunting experience more and more limited. This evolution of change lead to more strain on landowner/sportsmen relations. Sportsmen groups and organizations like the Montana Wildlife Federation became more politically active. Conferences were held, committees formed and large sums of money given to political candidates. More importantly, the landowner/sportsmen issues, particularly issues such as access, were settled through litigation and legislation. Let me give you several of examples. First there was litigation regarding stream access on private property and finally legislation passed making streams on private property part of the public domain. License fees, particularly fees on out-of-state hunters were raised significantly through legislative action to create a fund to purchase additional public game habitat, commonly called critical wildlife habitat. And finally, a lawsuit was filed by a sportsmen coalition to open all state school trust lands to the public, even isolated tracts landlocked within private property. This too was resolved with legislation that recently passed and provided for a new set of rules governing public access to state land leased by farmers and ranchers across the state. This activity has resulted in a perception that landowners becoming more and more "the bad guy" in the eyes of the sporting public. And in my judgement, some sportsmen have contributed to strained landowner/sportsmen relations by capitalizing on the access legislation I described— by selling maps 125 showing access points, printing brochures offering guide services and gloating over their victory for access to state school trust land. And prior to experiencing even one hunting season under the new state land access rules here in Montana, there appears to be organized state-wide objections filed for sight specific closures by ranchers and farmers on state school trust land. And finally, some sportsmen are currently challenging block management agreements between ranchers and the state Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department which make available large blocks of private land to hunters free of charge. Problem solving has become more and more confrontational and more and more oriented toward single issues. As we use up our energy fighting these single issue battles, we are also finding a more and more unsympathetic public putting forward simplistic solutions and slogans such as "No Moo in ’92" and "Cattle Free by ’93”. Just recently, the National Wildlife Federation kicked off a national campaign to achieve grazing reform in the West and end the days of what they are calling "welfare cowboys". Landowners become concerned when they hear threats from leaders of sportsmen organizations. Statements like, "There is going to be less livestock, cows and sheep". And unfounded accusations of overgrazing and environmental destruction on federal land do not contribute to meaningful discussion or solutions. In reality, grazing conditions on federal land in the West are better than they have been since the turn of the century. In fact, the 1990 Public Rangelands Report issued by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, reports that since 1936, the land area managed in 16 western states by the BLM classified in "good to excellent" condition has doubled from 15.8 percent to 33 percent, while the land area classified as "poor" has been cut in half, from 36.3 percent to 16 percent. The current trend on land managed by the BLM is "stable” to "improving" on over 87 percent of the public rangeland they manage. While I will admit that anyone here can probably search out and find an area that may be overgrazed, the big picture appears to go unnoticed and there’s little recognition of landowners ongoing efforts to improve the rangeland and to ultimately improve wildlife habitat. Landowners have played a major role in improving range conditions and wildlife habitat since the turn of the century. And these improved range conditions have contributed to record increases of wildlife populations. According to the Soil Conservation Service, 60 percent of all wildlife are found on private land. Private landowners support "public" wildlife populations to their own personal loss. The sportsman’s strongest ally can be the traditional landowner. 126 If a traditional landowner sells-out— who will replace that landowner? It may not be the traditional rancher that looks forward to seeing his city cousin during fishing and hunting season. Hopefully you will agree that the landowner already has made a significant contribution to Montana’s hunting heritage and to wildlife management programs in the West. Wildlife restoration in Montana and the West is a remarkable success story. Some success is due to state wildlife management efforts, however, a significant reason is the land has been maintained in a state of compatible use— i.e. ranching and farming. Aldo Leopold, a forester with the U.S. Forest Service and a professor of Forestry at the University of Wisconsin, is considered by many to be the father of wildlife management. In his book, Game Management, published in 1933 (a book that many considered the cornerstone of wildlife literature) Leopold talks about land ethics and the importance of protecting the environment, but he also recognizes the importance of the landowner— and society’s responsibility to landowners— as essential to successful conservation of all natural resources. Leopold points out in his book: "Only the landowner can practice game management cheaply. Game being a low-cost low-yield crop, which can be produced cheaply only by the landholder in conjunction with his other cropping operations. It follows that many landholders— if possible, all holders of suitable lands— should be induced to practice management. Some will find sufficient inducement in the personal pleasure, or the opportunities for hospitality, to be derived from the crop of game. "Governments, in so far as they can own land, will find sufficient inducement in the fact that game crop promotes the public welfare. No conceivable system of private preserves and public shooting grounds, however, could adequately accommodate the growing army of urban citizens who like to hunt. "The non-shooting landholder must also be induced to manage his game. The only conceivable motive which might activate a sufficient number of non-shooting landholders is the financial motive. " Let me share a philosophical thought about the land ethic with you. The 127 Josephson Institute in California is currently trying to meet a need and hunger in this country for a higher sense of ethics. They point out that each generation passes its values on to the next. But over the last 25-30 years, three avenues for passing this along~the family, the church and the schools—have broken down. The land ethic that exists within the agricultural landowner community could be one of sportsman’s most powerful tools to work with in the future. Good land stewardship ethics-passed from one generation to the next-have been the cornerstone of wildlife restoration in Montana. License and federal-aid dollars could not have produced one head of big game if Montana had not been maintained in a compatible land use by people in agriculture. Agricultures land ethic is one that says, "If you’re good to the land it will be good to you!” The Josephson Institute says: "The ethics movement will be in the 1990s what the environmental movement was in the 1980s". My message to you today, and to the hunting public, is sportsman/landowner discussions must find a higher moral ground to be meaningfully productive. Landowners are feeling threatened by current threats and false accusations. I don’t believe litigation and legislation will provide meaningful long-term solutions to the deteriorating landowner/ sportsman relationship. Efforts like the establishment of a landowner/sportsmen committee by Governor Stan Stephens to deal with these issues is a step in the right direction. The Montana Stockgrowers Association recently created a landowner/recreation and wildlife relations committee which I hope can help also make headway in this troubled area. However, maybe there is more we can do. Chase Hibbard’s concept of "coordination before conflict," as a group called the Devil’s Kitchen Management Team is doing in the Big Belt Mountains, is another good approach to consider. Conferences like this are good. A landowner/ sportsman relations conference to begin laying a foundation for improved relations in the future may be productive. I participate in a group discussing big game/livestock conflicts and that has provided some positive direction. Range monitoring and riparian management groups, similar to what we are doing in the livestock industry, might be beneficial. I am not so presumptuous to think I have all the answers. But one thing I am confident of-we can show that livestock, farm, and wildlife products can be grown together to the mutual advantage of each other, of the landowner, and of the public. For our efforts to contribute toward improved landowner/sportsman 128 relations, however, we must find that higher moral ground in order for constructive solutions to evolve. As Leopold said: "There are conflicting theories on how to bring the land, the means of payment, and the love of sport into productive relationship with each other. No one can confidently predict which theory is ’best’. The way to resolve differences is to bring all theories susceptible to local trial to the test of actual experience. The ’best’ plan is the one most nearly mutually satisfactory to three parties at interest, namely the landowner, the sportsman, and the general public. No other plan is likely to be actually used." Thank you. Jim Peterson, executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association, currently owns and operates a ranching and farming operation near Buffalo, Mont. 129 SERIES HI: THE MEDIA LOOKS AT THE HUNT Moderator: Perry D. Olson Director, Colorado Division of Wildlife 130 OBJECTIVITY OR ZIETGEISTi How the Media View and Interpret Hunting A network television journalist’s perspective By Roger O’Neil I am not and never have been a hunter. I also have nothing against hunters, so I am one of the 80 percent. I’m one of those people that are undecided, which is one of the reasons why I like to think that when I deal with a story that involves hunting--be it good, bad or indifferent— I can present it in a neutral way because I don’t have strong feelings for hunters or against hunters. The closest I have ever come to hunting happened about two years ago when I was doing a story about the great hunt prairie dog that had been organized in western Colorado. I was among the throngs that went down there and supported this town for the week or so beforehand and I was trying to get a feel for why farmers were so upset with these prairie dogs. I happened to meet up with a farmer and he invited me out to his farm. He had his .22 rifle and he said, "Wanna take a couple shots?" "No, not really," I said. "Well," he said, "I don’t know whether I should trust you or not." And I said, "Give me the damn rifle." So I shot a couple of prairie dogs and we got along fine. I got what I wanted, he apparently thought that I was on his side and we presented the story. So you do what you have to do to get the job done and if it means shooting an animal, I’ll shoot an animal. But I really don’t have strong feelings for it one way or the other. But may I suggest to you that the image problem hunters have— think they have— is (1) real and (2) it is caused by you. You are your own worst enemies. If you look at the mirror and you see an image problem, you’re looking at yourself. I make that statement not to get you angry, I make that statement 131 because I don’t think you can shoot buffalo coming outside of Yellowstone National Park and win die war of image in front of the American public. I don’t think you can shoot deer on the U.S. Air Force Academy grounds and win the war of the image in front of the American public. Walt Disney has prevented you from doing that with Bambi and, I suppose, the buffalo on the back of the nickel has prevented you from winning the other war with the buffalo. It’s those kinds of isolated incidents, those kinds of things that get a fellow like me doing a story in front of a national audience that does the hunting community more harm than it can ever do in the next ten years of trying to correct that harm. I would propose to you that whenever the hunt was— two or three or four years ago— when hunters were allowed to shoot buffalo or bison coming out of Yellowstone National Park, that that did more to harm the image of hunters in the eyes of the 80 percent undecided than you could imagine. When I report a fact that 3,000 hunters from around the country applied for this lottery or this license to have the privilege of shooting a buffalo as he walked outside of Yellowstone National Park, that does not sit well with the great majority of people who are undecided who don’t have strong feelings one way or the other. And maybe none of you here today actually applied for a license to hunt bison. But that doesn’t make a damned bit of difference, because for those among the 80 percent who maybe have leanings against hunting, said, "All hunters are like that, all hunters want to shoot buffalo and call it a sport. " Then, when I have a camera out there and I see a hunter with a 30.6 rifle, and the viewer sees that same hunter because we’ve got him captured on the tape, and he’s got a scope and he shoots the damn buffalo at a 100 yards and he stands there and he looks at you. And the hunter shoots him again and he still stands there and looks at you. I’m presenting that image to 11 million people. You can’t win the war of the image problem that hunters have in this country. I don’t know how you can fix that; I don’t have any suggestions how you can fix that, but I will guarantee you that unless you can solve those kinds of problems, you will never win that war of image in this country and you will always have a battle on your hands. While listening to the comments of a couple of speakers this morning, I got the impression that there’s almost a siege mentality going on within the hunting community. It appears you hunters believe that the environmentalists and that the radical 10 percent on the other side are really ganging up on you and unless you’re real careful, they’re going to win the war and there’s going to be no hunting left in this country. I’m not so sure that’s the case, but I certainly don’t want to argue the point because you know more than I do about all the 132 various kinds of pressures to reduce or restrict hunting that happen around this country. But I would suggest to you that if you are trying to fight the battle with the radicals, the 10 percent on the other side, and you’re the 10 percent on this side, that at the moment you are a bunch of first-graders fighting a battle with Harvard Law graduates. They are better than you, they are much, much, much better than you at getting my attention. They know how to do it, they’ve studied how to do it and they do it day in and day out. Now you might say they’ve got the time to do that--those organizations appoint some guy to do that all the time, to keep knocking on the door, keep getting the press release out, keep calling the Roger O’Neil’s of the world to try and get them interested in doing those kinds of stories that are good for them, bad for you. And that’s true, they do. But that doesn’t change the fact that they’re doing a much, much better job of it than you are and you, if you are under this siege, you will have to figure out a way to get into college real fast if you are going to compete on the same level they are competing on. They are beating the pants off you. They know how to get my attention and then, for me, it becomes a question of morality and ethics. I know who’s contacting me, I also know the agenda of those people. And if I’ve got any ethics left in my reporting, I will at least try to seek out the other side— with the prairie dogs I will at least go and try to find the farmer who’s got the problem with the prairie dogs. But the environmentalists are very good at what they do and you don’t have to be told that to know it. You should be reminded, however, that they are contacting me almost every day. I brought a couple of examples of— I’m sure you all watch NBC Nightly News every night of the week, right? I’m sure you all knew who I was, but just in case anybody didn’t and because I don’t like to write speeches, I figured I’d fill up my 30 minutes by showing you a couple of things that I’ve done in the past, that you can label either pro or anti. And if it brings up some discussion later, then fine. (Film) I threw in the story about the idiot with the ski pole just to prove to all of you that sometimes we do do stories that show that side as well— that they can be crazies. And I think, if I’m not mistaken, that video was used in the court case. I know we were subpoenaed to give it up and so maybe we kind of helped convince somebody that that wasn’t right either to do. 133 I always like to pick on the state that invites me to come-- maybe they won’t invite me back. You know, the buffalo is a beautiful example, it seems to me, of how you all can get caught up in something that works to your disadvantage. The buffalo problem in Yellowstone National Park is because the United States Government, Department of Interior, United States Park Service, refuses to deal with the political explosiveness of controlling that herd, which is clearly out of control. So they do nothing about it. Then they force the state of Montana to have to deal with it because the buffalo just haven’t gotten enough of our great educational system to learn where the park boundary and Montana State lines are. They don’t know that. So the state of Montana decides to do something about it and you can argue the merits of whether or not brucellosis is a real or perceived threat, but the state has decided it is going to shoot the buffalo that come across into Montana. And then the hunter kind of falls into the trap of saying, "Well, if we’re going to shoot them, then we want to have the right or the privilege or whatever word you want to use, to be involved." And you end up getting egg on your face. You end up getting the bad name— not so much the state of Montana, although it certainly felt that it got some egg on its face and certainly not the Department of Interior of the United States Government, who still think they’re doing the right thing. But you hunters are the ones who had to suffer when I put stories on the air like that or the follow-up stories where we actually showed the buffalo being shot. I don’t know if there is a way to solve the problem that you think you have— the image problem. But I think there are ways that you can counter it and that is by getting involved with people like me or, more appropriately, on the local level with your local newspapers and your local reporters. There’s another speaker here who does that sort of thing, his line of work is to try and tell you all how to deal with people like me and I’ll try not to step on his turf, but there are ways to get to us~you just have to be smart enough to figure out how. The other side has. Roger O'Neil is chief environmental reporter for NBC News. 134 OBJECTIVITY OR ZIETGEISTt How the Media View and Interpret Hunting A print journalist’s perspective By Rae Tyson In the invitation letter I got from Gov. Stan Stephens, he asked if I could talk about how we in the media "view and interpret hunting." In theory, the answer should be a short: we don’t. As objective purveyors of news, we’re supposed to present information that is free of any interpretation and uncolored by our own personal views. But you may have noticed that I said, "In theory." In actual fact, that is not always the case. Sometimes we cross the line of objectivity. A New York Times reporter was reprimanded recently for attending a pro-choice rally in Washington D.C. A Philadelphia Inquirer police reporter was fired after his editors discovered he had routinely borrowed money from the same officers he was supposed to be covering on his beat. Many would legitimately wonder if it is possible for either of those reporters to be impartial and objective. Despite those occasional ethical lapses, my view is that most journalists try hard to be objective-and generally succeed. But that doesn’t mean we are immune to outside pressure-a subject I’ll address a little later on. I also don’t want to leave you with the impression that journalists live in some sterile environment that is void of any personal bias. In reality, we sometimes carry personal baggage that could influence our news judgment. Though you may have your doubts on occasion, let me assure you that most of us in the news business are human. At least those of us working in print media. Sometimes I’m not quite so sure about television. But seriously, we’re vulnerable to the same sorts of social and cultural 135 pressures as anyone else. Indeed, we have lives outside the newsroom. Most of us have formed opinions on a wide range of issues. Many of us have families. Most of us pay taxes and a lot of us vote. Some of us are liberal Democrats, some are conservative Republicans. Some are gay and some aren’t. Some are young; some are near retirement. And though we are trained--and expected--to filter out personal biases, it doesn’t always happen. So how does this relate to hunting? Very directly. For one thing, hunting to many of us in the news business is an alien activity— a sport that few of us can relate to. Why? Because few of us are hunters. Consider the numbers. To illustrate my point, let’s look at the demographics that appeared in USA Today this week: ■ Active hunters are less than 10 percent of the population; under two percent are women. ■ Of all active hunters, 96 percent are white; 53 percent live in rural areas. Contrast those statistics with the population as a whole, which is, according to the latest census: ■ 51 percent female; 25 percent minority. Overall, 75 percent of the population lives in an urban area. Let me add some more numbers. At my paper, USA Today , one in five of us is a minority; more than half are women— including many in key management positions. So what does this mean? As the demographics suggest, there aren’t many hunters in the news business. In fact, aside from Dan Rather’s admission the other day that he quail hunted with Eric Sevareid, I’d be hard pressed to name a hunter among us. That has several implications. First, hunting is not a topic that comes up in casual talk around the newsroom. Second, since it is not on the collective newsroom consciousness, editors seldom think about assigning stories related to hunting. There are exceptions, of course. But many of the hunting stories are the result of an approach by a special interest group. More often than not, though, those groups are the animal rights organizations and the message they deliver is not particularly kind to hunters. I’ll get back to those special interest groups in 136 a minute. However, the mere absence of hunters in the newsroom shouldn’t mean an absence of coverage. Good editors have terrific instincts about the needs and interests of their readers or viewers. And many newspaper editors acknowledge that constituency by running a regular column devoted to hunting, fishing and related activities. But those columns are often tucked in the back of the sports section— a spot that is easy for non-hunters to ignore. Moreover, outdoor writers aren’t always viewed as professional journalists. They have a reputation for not always being objective, a rap resulting mostly from the appearance that many have overly cozy relationships with the people and the business they write about. That reputation, justified or not, damages credibility among readers and other journalists alike. So let’s step back for a moment. We have a sport with a shrinking, aging, mostly rural constituency. The demographics of hunting are looking less and less like the demographics of the U.S. as a whole. And the demographics of the newsroom or television studio don’t suggest much sympathy for the cause. Demographics aside, the basic question is: How is hunting covered by the press? To find out, I did a decidedly unscientific survey of hunting coverage over the past five years or so. I focused on major daily newspapers and news magazines. ■ Stories about hunting accidents. ■ Stories about the decline in hunting popularity. (The American Hunter Under Fire" said a typical headline on a U.S. News and World Report cover story. ■ Stories about high-profile hunting incidents, notably bison killing that took place not far from here along the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park. ■ Stories about animal rights groups protesting against hunting. What I’ve just summarized does not present an encouraging picture. And I’m not quite finished either. We all know that special interest groups often work hard to attract positive publicity for their various causes. Editors and reporters face a constant barrage: phone calls, mailings, even personal appearance by the most aggressive organizations. Unfortunately, from the hunters’ standpoint, that is--the most aggressive 137 groups are the animal rights organizations opposed to hunting. In many cases, that aggressiveness has translated into positive coverage for their cause. Why are they getting so much attention? Perhaps it is because they are closer to the mainstream of American thought than hunters are. Quoted in a 1991 Chicago Tribune article, University of Wisconsin sociologist Thomas Heberlein said: "Hunters must realize that the general philosophies espoused by animal rightists are not simply those from the fringes of society but philosophies that are gaining currency as an extension of Western liberalism and ecological thinking." Pro-hunting groups have not been particularly effective in their defense of the sport either. The National Rifle Association has lost much of its credibility because of a no-holds-barred defense of the right to bear arms, an argument that doesn’t always ring true in an era of excessive urban violence. Another major group, Ducks Unlimited, is currently mired in a controversy over its plan to construct an office building in a wetland— a favorite waterfowl habitat. Even though the group claims the building won’t disrupt wildlife, the symbolic message is damaging in view of declining waterfowl populations. Perhaps the most effective group, overall, is the National Wildlife Federation, though its pro-hunting message is somewhat muted. Nevertheless, the federation does have a reputation as an aggressive defender of the conservation movement and has been reasonably effective on both the lobbying and public relations fronts. From a hunter’s perspective, this appraisal I’ve just given you is not particularly favorable. Though hunters may feel that coverage has ignored positive aspects of the sport--notably the spinoff conservation benefits from licensing fees--I’d offer another conclusion. I’m convinced we have accurately and fairly presented the current societal debate over the merits of the sport. It has been and continues to be a complex, emotional issue-one that will attract media attention for years to come. Thank you. Rae Tyson is an environmental writer and editor at USA Today, based in Arlington, Va. 138 OBJECTIVITY OR ZIETGEISTt How the Media View and Interpret Hunting A media consultant’s perspective By Carl Benscheidt Tell me, sir, how does it feel to shoot Bambi? Tell me, sir, how does it feel to slaughter God’s little creatures? One more... Tell me, sir, how does it feel to destroy a national symbol like the bison? We’ll have that important story on feelings right after this message. (Film) In the business we call that "flash over substance". Quite simply it means its the sizzle that sells it. The more sensational, the more negative, the better the media likes it. Now, the media gets a lot of criticism sometimes because it’s all so negative. Well, they don’t call it commercial television for nothing. They’re giving you what you want to see. Let me tell you a little story. I gave a presentation a few years ago, this was just after we’d come up to Idaho from Los Angeles. We didn’t know too much about that cold white stuff that fell from the sky, but I did know enough after talking to people, to put the studded tires on your cars and all that, but that was about all we knew about that white stuff. I was going to give a presentation. I pulled in— this was right in the middle of winter and about three feet of snow was on the ground. I parked the van about 100 yards or so from the place where I was to enter and I realized, after I’d gotten all situated there in the parking spot that they had not plowed a path from where I had parked to the door of the place where I was going in. And I’d have to say that I had my typical southern California shoes on-you know, the loafers-and I thought, "Now alright, how am I going to get from the 139 van to the front door?" Well, I rummaged through the van and found some of these cellophane baggies— you get them at the grocery store to wrap vegetables in- -and I thought, "Well, it’s either that or destroy myself going in." So I found a couple of them— I put one baggie on one foot, and I put another baggie on the other foot, but I had nothing to attach them, so I then proceeded to walk across the field and into where I was giving the presentation. I had to hold the baggies up. Well, it was not a very auspicious entrance. Fortunately, not a lot of people saw it, but I did learn something from that. What I learned was you must always be prepared for anything that comes your way. You must also always be prepared to communicate in today’s negative media environment. There is a fact which greatly affects how we all do that today. And that fact scares the hell out of corporate America. That fact is this: How you present your message has more impact than the message itself. Now, I’d like to repeat that because it’s important. How you present your message has more impact than the message itself. Research indicates that your audience— whether it’s in front of a group of people or on the screen— receives your message three ways: (1) by the actual words that you use, (2) by how you say it-or how you say it, (3) by how you look— the visual. But what scares corporate America are the percentages attached to those three categories. What percentage of what’s comprehended by the audience do you think comes from your actual words? What percentage do you think comes from how you say it? What percentage do you think comes from the visual? The actual percentages are 7 percent from the actual words that you use, 30 percent from how you say it, and a whopping 60 percent from the visual. It’s because of those percentages, ladies and gentlemen, that it is no longer good enough to just go out there and say the right words. You remember when President Reagan was shot, when A1 Haig got up in front of the nation on all the networks? Remember about what he said? "I’m in charge." Unfortunately, he had a little quiver in his voice, he was a little disheveled, he was standing a little sideways. The message that was communicated to the millions of people was not, "I am in charge", but "A1 Haig certainly ain’t in charge." Let’s look at another example which will help illustrate this. 140 (Film) Have a nice day, Mr. Jones— 30 million people. What were some of the things detracted from Thomas Jones’ message or his credibility? Anybody? Licking his lips, very nervous - you bet, not only was it a loss of eye contact but it looked like he was looking for the exit every few minutes. When you think about some of the things that you brought up, very rarely does anyone say, "He said something wrong.” When you think about what Thomas Jones said, he did say some good things. He said, "Hey, listen, we’re human, we got behind schedule, we shouldn’t have done it, etc." But that was only 7 percent of what got to the folks at home. The other 90 percent killed him. We could spend two days giving you tips on dealing with the media but in the interest of time, let’s just talk about what we call the five musts which can help you in the future. First and very important is— don’t swallow the media’s poison pill. What is the poison pill? It’s negativity. That’s all they want to talk about. Now I’m exaggerating a little bit. But most of the time it’s negative. Watch a news broadcast, any network, any night of the week, make yourself a log— positive stories, negative stories. What percentage at the end of the broadcast do you think will be negative stories? I can tell you this, it will be extremely high. Their questions by their very nature are going to be negative. If you fall into that negativity trap, if you swallow that poison pill, they’ve got you. We don’t want you to play by the media’s rules, ladies and gentlemen. We want you to play by your rules. The media operates from their agenda. If you walk in, like most people do when they talk to the media— with no agenda— it’s going to be an extremely negative situation. It’s going to be very defensive; it’s going to be answer the question, answer the question, answer the question. It’s all for the media, nothing for you. As Perry Olson stated, we spent some time working with Nordstrum’s before, this was right after a full-page Wall Street Journal investigative report that was extremely damaging to Nordstrum, and this was prior to their 60 Minutes appearance. The first day, my first encounter with Bruce, Jim and John Nordstrum, was in their board room. I walked in and they were all sitting at the board table with their heads down, and I said, "Oh, excuse me, I thought I walked into the Nordstrum board room. I’ve obviously walked into a funeral parlor. " Bruce Nordstrum looked up and he said, "Carl, it’s okay for you to joke, but this is serious business we’ve got going here. We’ve got the Wall Street 141 Journal on us, we’ve got all the networks calling us, local television is pummeling us-how can you joke about this?" "Don’t get me wrong," I said. "I’m not joking. This is serious business but you’ve made a strategic error here. You have swallowed the media’s poison pill of negativity. You are concentrating on only 5 percent of the picture instead of the other 95 percent. Nordstrum has got 30,000 employ ees-29, 700 of them are very happy, 300 are not. " They had some union problems, they had some legitimate problems, but I told them they had to face the problems, they had to answer the questions, but they didn’t have to concentrate on the 5 percent. "Go ahead." I said, "address the 5 percent, but then get off the negative and onto the positive. The media is not going to do that for you. You must educate the media.” Now as Roger said, your opposition is much better at that than you are. They’ve had a lot of practice and let me tell you something-not only have they had a lot of practice, it’s easier for them. Why? If you look at the clips Roger brought to you, look at any nightly newscast, it’s the sensational that sells. What did you mostly see. You saw the environmentalists, the conservationist with the bullhorns; you saw the demonstrations- you saw all the negative stuff. How many sound bites did you see of what was really going on there? What were they really trying to do? It is difficult to balance a piece. It’s commercial television. The public is more interested in the sensational and the negative. That’s why your opposition is so good at that. All right, so how do you get into the positive? You need to get your positive- and I don’t care what the situation is, whether it’s shooting bison coming out of Yellowstone or anything else— there’s always a positive you can talk about. You need to get your positive points into that interview, even if the reporter doesn’t ask you for them. Sometimes reporters are running from one of these things to the next, they don’t have time to know all the issues, so it’s your responsibility to educate them. You must go into any media interview from now on with your agenda. If you don’t go in with your agenda, you’re going to be diced up. The media never arrives without their agenda. What’s an agenda? We want you to go in with your message points. What’s a message point? In PR lingo in Washington, they call them "talking points," "speaking points." It’s nothing more than a short positive statement about what you want to talk about, not necessarily what the media wants to talk about. This stuff is so important that the White House faxed every day during Desert Storm their talking points out to their key communicators. You need to do the same thing. When you go into a media interview, you need to go in with 142 your message points. You need to go in with some information to educate them, but it’s going to be in the positive. Now we have people say, "That’s fine, we can come up with our message points, but what if they don’t ask for them?" We don’t want you to play by their rules. We want you to play by your rules. There is a technique called bridging which allows you to get in your message points. Politicians are wonderful at this. Corporate CEO’s that have been trained are wonderful at this. What do they do? They answer the question in 15 seconds and then they bridge to what they want to talk about— their favorite program— for the next ten minutes. You need to do the same thing. This is not a cop-out. We tell folks that you need to be responsive to the media, you need to answer their questions. So the technique is simply to answer the question and then bridge. A bridge is nothing more than a transition simply to say, "However", "But what I’d like to talk about" or "What we should be focusing on here"— and then go into you message points. Here’s a trap-a lot of people fall into it — it is repeating the negative part of a question when giving your answer. Example: "Is it true that you are slaughtering those poor defenseless bison as they come out of Yellowstone Park?" And you say, "No, it’s not true that we’re slaughtering these poor innocent bison as they come out of the park. " What’s happened? It’s a set-up. Now why do we fall into it? Because somewhere along the line in our training, we’ve learned to try and repeat it, to help clarify it, give us a little time. Don’t do it in talking to the media. What’s happened? The reporter has successfully put negative words in your mouth. And you’ve repeated then, adding emphasis to them, even though you’ve denied it. You know what else you’ve done? You’ve given them a sound bite for the six o’clock news or a tease or a pull quote— you know the quotes that they pull out, they make it in bold and then put quotes around it. Don’t repeat the negative part of a question. Better to say— and I want you to remember these three words because they’re three of the most important words in an adversarial situation-the words are, "That’s not true." Many people fall into the trap of arguing an erroneous promise, when all they have to do is say, "That’s not true." And then in keeping with what you need to do which is get off the negative and onto the positive. Then start talking about what is true. Never give the media a negative quote. Here’s a short story— we’ve done a lot of work with the Department of the Navy. This occurred shortly after the Iowa explosion, there were helicopter crashes, jet crashes. You remember that time-it was so serious that for the first time in history, they had a military stand down to study what was going on. Newsweek did an article and interview with Admiral Brent Baker. Admiral Baker 143 is currently the Chief of Information at the Pentagon, he’s the Navy’s number one PR guy. He’s no slouch, he knows what he’s doing. He knew to give them positive after positive. Yes, be responsive to their questions, but get off the negative and onto the positive. So that’s what he was doing. At one point, he let his guard down— leaned back and said, "Well, you know, I guess we just had a bad week. " The article came out in Newsweek-- two full pages-one quote from Admiral Baker and you know what it was— "I guess we just had a bad week." The point is, if you give them ten positive quotes and one negative quote, we’ll put money on which one they’re going to use. Also, this goes without saying, you all know this-always tell the truth. Aside from the moral aspects of it, it’s going to come back to bite you if you don’t. Washington is littered with bodies that have lied and haven’t gotten away with it. Remember Thomas Jones said he had no way to verify the allegations about the parts being tossed out? Thomas Jones had no way of knowing Ed Bradley already had this information and was going to use it against him as Jones was in the process of denying it by actually showing video of the parts being tossed out. You have no way of knowing how many of your current employees or former employees they’ve already interviewed. You have no way of knowing how many of your own personal confidential memos they will confront you with on camera. It happens all the time on "60 Minutes," "20/20," whatever. So tell the truth for all the right reasons. All right, here’s a story. The story is-you are protecting the beef industry by preventing the spread of brucellosis outside Yellowstone Park. Okay, that’s the story you’d like to tell. What’s the story the media wants to tell? (Film) Let me just give you a couple other quick points and then we’ll get into the discussion part of it. Couple of other tips— don’t speculate. Speculation is a way to have them lead you down the primrose path. The reason they ask you to speculate is because they can’t get you into an area that is factual. Anytime you get asked a "what-if ' question— what if this or what if that, we want a little beeper to go off in the back of your head that says, "speculative area— danger". Now, sometimes you should talk or answer speculative questions. If they’re within the realm of possibility and it’s in your best interest, go ahead. But if they come up to you and say, "Well, what if a bus load of girl scouts gets cornered by a herd of grizzly bears and they all get eaten?" All right, that’s pretty wildly speculative. We would say— don’t get into that. Better to say something like, 144 "Look, I’d be happy to answer any of your questions dealing with the facts. Let’s not get into areas of wild speculation." If you don’t want to answer the question— don’t answer it. Most people, because the media’s there— they’ve got their cameras, their pens and pencils, all their recording equipment, the lights — it’s very intimidating. You feel obligated to answer the questions even if you don’t want to. If you don’t want to answer a question— don’t do it. If you don’t want to answer a question, do like Ollie North does and I don’t care what you think about Ollie North— he’s a master at answering questions— if you don’t want to answer, say, "Listen, I can’t answer that” or "I don’t want to answer that". But don’t stop there. If you stop there, it’s like saying "no comment" and everybody knows better than that. Go one step further and tell them why you can’t answer it or don’t want to answer it. Maybe it’s still under investigation, all the facts are not in yet and it would be speculation to try and talk about it. Maybe it’s in the courts, it’s a matter of litigation, would not be appropriate for you to comment. And maybe, and here’s one that gets a lot of people in trouble— maybe it’s not within your area of responsibility. Then you shouldn’t be discussing it. Don’t speak for someone else. The last sound bite in the clip you just saw was, "What do you think about such and such and how could they do that?" And he said, "Wait a minute, I don’t really care to judge that. That’s somebody else. You want to ask them a question, go ask them, but I’m not going to speak for them." We put together what we call our ten commandments for a successful interview. If any of you would like a copy of that, let me know later. Give me a card or something, we’ll see that you get one. I’d like to leave you with this final thought in dealing with the media: It’s very important that you always are prepared. Thank you very much. Carl Benscheidt is a television and media consultant with Benscheidt Productions Inc., which specializes in media training, crisis media management, and presentation training. 145 SERIES IV: RALLY THE HUNTER Moderator: Jerry M. Conley Director, Idaho Department of Fish & Game 146 RE-EDUCATING FOR THE FUTURE Humane and Environmental Education in the Schools and the Changing Face of American Hunting By Mary Zeiss Stange, Ph.D. "Your family is your worst enemy." So, reportedly, Ingrid Newkirk, national director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PET A) recently told a group of Toronto school children. She went on to repeat the sentence slowly, for emphasis: your family is your worst enemy. While it is tempting (and in Newkirk’s own case, perhaps not inappropriate) to see a parallel here to Nazi or Stalinist indoctrination, a mere case of extremism at work, this would be to miss a point of far broader relevance regarding animal-rights activism in our educational system. Animal activist groups like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) regard the altering of children’s attitudes as fundamental to the success of their long-term goals of abolishing all forms of animal use. A vigorous and concerted effort to work through the schools is thus a key element in their game plan for reprogramming American society. Hence, children these days are liable to come home from school saying the darnedest things. Like the twelve-year-old stepson of a friend of mine, who after asking her how many animals died to make her mink coat, bluntly refused to eat meat at dinner. Or the fourteen-year-old girl, recently turned vegetarian, who confronted her mother (an unregenerate meat-eater) with the announcement that a speaker who had addressed her class in school told her all about how a very bad woman, who hunts and wears fur, is a professor at the college where her mother is a secretary. (I am the professor in question; the girl’s mother is a student in women’s studies classes of mine. The speaker who had visited her daughter’s school is the leader of the local "Animal Rights Action League.") Stories such as these are becoming more familiar all the time, and are one result of the introduction of animal-rights materials into primary and secondary 147 school curricula. Such materials, produced by PETA, HSUS, and several other animal-activist organizations, and distributed at minimal or no cost to teachers and school libraries, generally go by the name of "humane education." And they are most often rife with distortions, misstatements of fact, and even downright lies, about hunting and other forms of animal use. Like other animal-activist propaganda, they tend to make a blatant appeal to emotion, and they focus on the supposed plight of small, cute, cuddly domestic and wild animals: tactics calculated to work particularly well with children and adolescents. What are these "educational" materials doing in schools? Many times, it has to do with the commitment of teachers to animal-activist causes. But often, too, it results from state regulations mandating humane education as part of the standard curriculum. The Michigan School Code provides a typical example of such regulations; it states, in part, that "In every public school within this State, a portion of the time shall be devoted to teaching pupils thereof kindness and justice to, and the humane treatment and protection of, animals and birds." In principle, this is surely a laudable educational objective. In practice, however, teachers without sufficient background, let alone specialized training, must come up with educational resources for classroom use. Animal activists, claiming for themselves educational expertise they almost universally lack, are of course happy to oblige. It is worth noting that in the last generation, in pace with the acceleration of animal rights activism, the resources available for humane education have undergone a decided change. Ten to fifteen years ago, publications like the Humane Society’s KIND: Kindness in Nature’s Defense and Mainstream, produced by the Animal Protection Institute, focused on issues generally relating to animal welfare. While they devoted space to then-controversial issues relating to baby harp seals, humpback whales, American wild horses and African elephants, the main thrust was on themes like proper pet care, spaying and neutering, not interfering with backyard wildlife, and the like. To see how times have changed, one need only note that whereas a 1978 issue of KIND gave instructions to pass on to mom and dad about ways to prepare lobster and crab for cooking without causing pain to the animals, the summer 1989 issue of PETA Kids tells children: "If you want to help animals like Chloe, Billy, Tom and Tommy (sheep and turkeys residing at PETA’s sanctuary," Aspin Hill), you can stop eating them. Write to PETA for vegetarian recipes. Ask your parents to try them so that everyone lives longer!" Coincidentally, the issue of PETA News published at the same time (July/ August, 1989) featured a cover story on, of all things, lobster liberation. Today, the tone of "humane education" has shifted dramatically in the 148 direction of animal rights, broadly defined, as in a program produced for classroom use by the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (one of the most prolific groups in this field), called "Introduction to Animal Rights: Why All the Fuss?" The program description reads: This presentation is designed to encourage students to examine some of our culture’s unspoken assumptions about the worth and fundamental identify of animals. Should we assume that animals primarily exist on this planet for our benefit? Or, should we entertain the idea that they have intrinsic worth, independent of any utilitarian value to humans, and a right to a life free from human interference and exploitation? The latter choice is a simple definition of "animal rights. " The hot issues for contemporary humane education are animal experimentation (both product testing and medical research— and the literature makes no meaningful distinction between the two), fur, meat-eating in all forms, and of course trapping and hunting: all of which are to be abolished in the future. And today’s children are to lead the way in this enterprise. To the consternation of many environmentalists (including radicals who sense poaching on their ideological territory), animal activists have largely succeeded in cashing in on the greening of American mass consciousness. In this they have been aided and abetted by the popular media’s pronounced inability to distinguish between genuinely complex ecological issues and animal protectionist hyperbole. It is therefore crucial for teachers and school officials to know— and it is up to concerned parents, sportsmen’s clubs and conservation groups to inform them— that for every piece of bogus humane education out there, there is also available from organizations like the National Wildlife Federation, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Project WILD, and the National Geographic Society, a high-quality alternative, presenting not only a balanced view of humane and environmental issues, but one generated by bona fide experts in fields like wildlife biology, ecology, and education. Similarly, a project like HSUS’s Adopt- A-Teacher program, in which animal activists can earmark instructors for "friendly" propagandization, is offset by Safari Club International’s more ambitious (though to date less well publicized) American Wilderness Leadership School workshops for educators and students. Several states also offer optional classes in hunting, fishing, and shooting as part of their public schools’ "lifetime leisure pursuits" or "skills for living" 149 curricula. Youth agencies like 4-H and the Boy Scouts have similar offerings. Naturally, these are increasingly under fire from animal rights groups, and deserve viragos support from individual hunters and sportsmen’s clubs. Yet, important as it is to take whatever steps possible to ensure that hunting and wildlife conservation are fairly and responsibly represented in grades K through 12, it remains true that the primary locus of education is the home environment. Ingrid Newkirk is right about this: if the family is the "worst enemy” of animal rights activism, then it surely can be hunting’s best friend. After all, it is in the family that children have impressed upon them those values and ideals which tend to shape their attitudes throughout life. Unfortunately, the task of attracting children to hunting— indeed, is getting tougher all the time. As a recent article in Fortune magazine put it, "Who needs hunting when you’ve got Nintendo?" (This may not just be a problem for the K-12 crowd: I have seen grown men transfixed by Nintendo’s "Duck Hunt” game). Of course, the American family itself is undergoing changes with immediate bearing upon hunter-education in the home. Approximately 70 percent of families today are single-parent households, and about 80 percent of these are female-headed. Since most men who hunt report that their fathers played the decisive role in introducing them to hunting, the surface implications of this demographic shift are obvious. A widely reported survey funded by the National Shooting Sports Foundation in 1991 finds today’s typical hunter is older, better educated, and more affluent than in the past. We may also extrapolate that, alas, he is less likely to be passing on hunting skills to his sons, in accord with the traditional model. But as the face of the American family is changing, so too is that of the American hunter, in ways which decisively challenge that traditional model. The 1991 NSSF survey reported, among its most significant findings, that in the five years from 1986 to 1991, the number of women who hunt (conventionally put at less than 2 percent of the total female population) had nearly doubled, from 4 percent to 7 percent of all hunters. Government figures cited elsewhere place the female contingent of the hunting population between 9 percent and 11 percent. That is roughly one in ten. And all sources seem to agree this number will continue to grow. The National Rifle Association reckons women to be the single fastest growing segment of the gun-buying population, their reasons ranging from hunting and recreational shooting to protection, both their own and that of their children. Viewed in this light, the fact of so many female-headed single-parent households may be a golden opportunity for re-educating for America’s hunting future. Women typically come to hunting differently than do men. Studies 150 conducted by the University of Wisconsin— LaCrosse over the past fifteen years have shown that women are far more likely to begin hunting as adults than as children, and most report a husband or boyfriend as their most important teacher. Similar studies also suggest that women are more likely to take firearms education very seriously. A study conducted by the New Jersey hunter education program, for example, found women "typically more teachable" than young males, and reported that they "may be more open and willing to accept the behaviors, morales, and values of hunting and hunters as described by the instructor." Such studies have led some hunter-educators and wildlife experts to suggest that we might see an overall improvement in hunter ethics with the advent of increased participation by women. On a perhaps more practical note, Dave Gjestson of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has remarked that "It’s very clear to me that the tradition formerly passed from father to son will be lost if women don’t join in the hunting and fishing ranks." On a still more pragmatic level, Tammy Peterson, also of the Wisconsin DNR, has commented that "In light of changing family structures and demographics, we are going to have to change the way we do business, or we won’t have a business." So, if it is no longer "business as usual," how are women and children going to be most effectively introduced to the rewards— physical, emotional and economic— of hunting? Several states have tried, with some success, a variety of approaches, including special hunts for women (in Washington, Minnesota, and Idaho; the NR A is also piloting such classes nationwide). For the children of female single parents (who may or may not themselves want to hunt), as well as from non-hunting dual-parent families, mentoring projects inspired by Big Brothers/Big Sister programs present an exciting approach. One model of such a program is New York’s trial "Hunter Apprentice Program", which pairs experienced hunters, who have undergone training, with young people twelve to eighteen years old, who have completed hunter education courses, but lack an adult hunting companion or teacher. "Master/apprentice" pairs are matched according to gender, as well as geographic location and general hunting interests; and other family members are encouraged to take part in some of their hunting activities. Such a program is not only worthwhile for the children of non-hunting adults, it is also a boon for those parents (like 41 percent of the men and 64 percent of the women in the NSSF survey) who simply have more trouble than they used to finding time to go hunting, most frequently because of work schedules. And what about those 30 percent of families that conform to the "traditional" dual-parent model? They also tend to be dual-income these days (and not surprisingly, most women who hunt report that they also work outside 151 the home). In an age of gender equity, hunting stands to become much more of a family affair. Numerous outdoor magazine articles and letters to the editor have attested to the enjoyment couples experience hunting together, the pleasant discovery that one’s spouse or lover can also be an ideal hunting companion. We can only hope that no daughter of the twenty-first century will lament (as have far too many grown women of our generation) that her father never took her hunting; nor any son complain that this mother kept him from pursuing his passion for the field. In terms of public education, the hunting community can also take advantage of the current heightened environmental awareness so crassly exploited by anti-hunting forces. We know, after all, that as hunter-conservationists it is we do are really in touch with the complexities of the natural environment. Not only is it vital that we pass on realistic, hands-on knowledge about these complexities to the next generation, it is increasingly important to enlighten the non-hunting public about hunting as a truly environmentally friendly way to interact with our surroundings, and to bring food to the table. Women, again, will play a key role in this re-education of the public. A study of hunters in Wisconsin, Washington and Iowa found that women consistently cited "appreciation of wildlife and nature" as paramount motivating factors in their determination to hunt. (Men in the same study, while not discounting nature appreciation, tended to rank the development and demonstration of skills as their primary motivations for hunting.) This is an especially significant point to highlight, given the fact that the animal rights movement on the grassroots level is approximately 78 percent female, and likes to claim that it is thereby more "feminist," more "nurturing" and more "compassionate" than the male-dominated hunting community. Of course, like so much other animal-activist propaganda, nothing could be farther from the truth than this simplistic stereotype. It is up to all of us-as men and as women, as role models and de facto public educators-to regain the argumentative advantage in this debate: to teach our children, and our neighbors, what ethical hunting is all about, in whole-life terms. The times are changing, and so necessarily is the face of American hunting. With a genuine commitment to broaden the base of hunting’s appeal, in the light of new social and cultural realities, we can be confident that these changes are, and will continue to be, only for the better. Mary Zeiss Stange is associate professor of religion and director of the Women’s Studies Program at Skidmore College. 152 THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF HUNTING A Heritage That Fuels Local and National Economies By Robert T. Delfay I am extremely pleased to be a part of this important symposium on North America’s hunting heritage and to announce that in the few seconds it took me to say that, America’s hunters have contributed nearly $5, (XX) to our economy. In the 20 minutes that I will spend behind this podium this afternoon, hunters will spend more than $500,000 on their sport. And, in the three days that we will each invest in this symposium, hunters will invest more than $100 million in the national economy. In just three days, providing enough economic activity to generate jobs for more than 3,000 people. Before I go any further with this economic analysis it would probably make sense to first provide a brief description of who and what the National Shooting Sports Foundation is and where we fit in the overall hunting and shooting promotion picture. NSSF is the trade association for the overall shooting sports industry. Our membership comprises over 1,100 manufacturers, distributors, manufacturer’s representatives and sporting goods retailers— all of whom are involved with the manufacture and marketing of sporting firearms, ammunition and related accessories. And all of whom contribute to the economic impact of America’s hunting heritage. The chartered purpose of the National Shooting Sports Foundation is to provide the American public "with a better understanding of and a more active participation in the shooting sports." We do this in a wide variety of ways, the details of which I will not bore you with today-except to let it slip out that we’ve been lucky enough to win a half dozen awards for our efforts over the past few years and were recently cited, "... for creating sports promotions that should serve as an example to the entire sporting goods industry." 153 I feel that it is important to emphasize early on in this presentation that the National Shooting Sports Foundation does not maintain that hunting is an acceptable activity in our modem society merely because it makes a significant contribution to our national and local economies. And I doubt that any of you base your support for hunting primarily on economic terms. Hunting is an acceptable and desirable ingredient of our nation’s heritage because wildlife management professionals and our conservation experience over the past century— tells us it is acceptable. The economic value of hunting is only a bonus to its tremendous spiritual, social and environmental worth. If a penny did not change hands, hunting would be no less acceptable or vital to our nation’s fabric. But pennies and dollars do change hands. Lots of them. Estimates of exactly how many varies, somewhat, with the expert doing the estimating. This should come as no surprise since estimates of the number of hunters also varies— from 16 million to 20 million— depending on who you ask. But here are some numbers we can take to the bank. No reliable source places hunting’s contribution to the national economy at less than $10 billion, annually. And some value it as high as $34 billion. At some point in this presentation I need to offer a few statistical qualifiers and this is probably as good a time as any. The various studies and surveys I have referenced for this report were done from the mid 1980s to early 1990s. For consistency, all dollar amounts have been adjusted for inflation to 1991 levels. No adjustments have been made for increases or decreases in hunting activity, however, because in no year was that increase or decrease more than 1%— and the overall change over the past 5 years has also been less than 1%. One of the great aspects of hunting, particularly if your livelihood depends on it, is its stability. In the past few years there have been at least three comprehensive examinations of the economic impact of hunting. ■ The most recent was a thorough, if not snide, feature story in Fortune magazine which estimated the economic impact of hunting at $10 billion annually. ■ The last National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Outdoor-Related Recreation conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, when adjusted for today’s inflation, indicates a 1991 expenditure by hunters of $13 billion. 154 ■ And, South wick Associates, in a major study for the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in 1987, arrived at an inflation adjusted figure of $13.2 billion. Everything I’ve read and analyzed in the course of preparing this talk makes me very comfortable in stating and defending that hunting will contribute nearly $14 billion to our nation’s economy in 1992. And I think we all know that this year our nation’s economy needs it. Any economist, which I am not, will tell you early on in any economic analysis that there are three types of economic impacts: direct, indirect and induced. A direct impact is the economic impact of the initial purchase made by the hunter. For example, when a person buys a shotgun for $425.00, there is a direct impact for the retailer, and the economy, of $425.00. Indirect impacts are the secondary effects of that purchase. Indirect impacts explain how sales in one industry affect other businesses that provide goods or services to the industry in question. For example, the hunting store owner will use that $425 to replace the shotgun in his inventory and pay other costs such as labor, electricity, rent, advertising, etc.. The gun manufacturer will use his share to purchase additional wood, steel, and finishes for production. The finish manufacturers, in turn, must buy resins and petroleum products, and I’m sure you get the picture. All this money changing hands and the shotgun hasn’t even been fired yet. And, in addition, there’s the induced impact. Induced impact results from the wages and salaries paid by the directly and indirectly impacted industries. The employees of these industries, in turn, spend their income on various goods and services that would not be purchased if it weren’t for the original hunting- based purchase. In other words, the guy who assembled the shotgun might buy his wife a new chain saw or the guy who manufactured the steel for the barrel might invest in a weekend fishing trip. Southwick Associates calculates this total "Multiplied Effect" at $34 billion, annually. The reverse is unfortunately also true. If a particular item or activity, like hunting, is removed from the economy, the economic loss is far greater than the simple loss of that activity. To dwell on this negative for just a moment, those who are so eager to bring an end to hunting in this nation might, should they be inclined to be intelligent for even a moment-consider what substitutes they might offer for this $34 billion loss in overall economic value. All of the figures and comparisons I will refer to in this presentation will not include the multiplier effect. I’ll be talking only about the direct impact of 155 $14 billion. Not the total multiplied effect of $34 billion. Hunting contributes to the economy in many ways. Among the more obvious are: ■ Hunters will spend $7 billion on guns, ammunition, scopes, binoculars, clothing, reloading equipment and countless accessories. ■ Hunters will spend approximately $3 billion on food and lodging in association with their hunting "expeditions." ■ Hunters will acquire or lease more than $1 billion in real estate for their outdoor pursuits. ■ Hunters will spend $520 million on permits, licenses, duck stamps and other government fees directly associated with their sport. Hunting also contributes to the economy in some not so obvious ways, including: ■ The NSSF’s annual Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show (SHOT SHOW) contributes about $25 million to the economy of the host town each year, according to Reed Exhibition, Inc. -one of the world’s largest producers of trade shows. ■ This very symposium on America’s hunting heritage will contribute thousands to the economy of Bozeman, Montana this week. Southwick Associates’ national survey on the economic impacts of hunting produced specific data which underscores the hunter’s role as an economic force. For example (and adjusted for inflation): ■ Salaries and wages of those involved in supporting all areas of hunter interest exceeds $7.9 billion. ■ Hunters paid more than $700 million annually in state sales and income taxes. ■ Hunters paid $1.1 billion in federal income tax dollars. 156 Clearly, one of the more impressive statistics to come out of this analysis is Southwick Associates’ projection that more than 380,000 jobs are directly and indirectly supported by hunting. Let’s look at that figure for a moment. ■ Hunting employs as many people as all Sears Roebuck stores— and then some. ■ The people employed by hunting could fully staff the Turner Broadcasting Company— and 1,000 more just like it. ■ Put in one place, the people employed by hunting would create a city the size of Minneapolis, or Colorado Springs or Sacramento. These national statistics, while impressive, don’t adequately express the economic significance of hunting because, so often, hunting’s economic benefit is concentrated in rural, economically sensitive areas where even modest incremental expenditure by hunters can have a pivotal effect on the success, or failure, of a local merchant. As discussed in the Fortune article, for example, many local businesses— from diners to gas-station convenience stores— will see their businesses increase by a factor of 3-4 during the hunting season. Let’s take a look at some state and local examples of hunting’s impact on our economy. ■ A 1987 Arizona Economic Impact Study reflects hunting as annually bringing over $150 million in additional business activity, over $120 million in hunting-associated retail sales, creating over 2,800 jobs and generating over $49 million in salaries and wages. Clearly most of that is not in downtown Phoenix. ■ The state of Vermont now considers hunting to be an important activity in the state’s economy, along with more traditional activities such as skiing, water-based recreation, and fall-foliage sightseeing. Deer hunters alone contribute more than $64 million to Vermont’s economy every year, while all hunters combined spend $101,444,995. Perhaps most important to the state’s businesses, hunting makes its contribution to the state’s economy during the business lull between fall-foliage sightseeing and the ski season. 157 ■ A 1988 study on the economic value of hunting here in Montana indicates that the annual expenditure (excluding license fees) for hunters of elk, deer and antelope is over $126 million. Montana is the "Treasure State,” and the state’s hunting tradition is obviously a treasure-especially to the 4,000 Montana residents whose jobs come directly or indirectly from hunting. We’ve looked at western statewide hunting/economy figures. Let’s travel eastward and examine, for a moment, the economic impact of hunting on just a few square miles of land. ■ The Lac Qui Parle Management Area is located on the upper Minnesota River in western Minnesota. A small but major feeding and resting region for Canada geese during fall migration, the area is a popular spot for state residents who drive an average of 124 miles to get there. Total seasonal hunting expenditures for the estimated 30,000 people who goose hunt on LQP average $2.3 million. Probably the only other area of the country that returns as much income per acre is the parking garage I have to use when I leave my car at the airport. ■ The economic impact of hunting in Texas may be as large as the state itself. In 1987, hunting activity triggered $2.3 billion in statewide business activity. Hunting in the "Lone Star State" supports over 33,000 jobs with salaries and wages approaching $630 million - not to mention the $146 million generated in state and federal tax monies. ■ Missouri is the "Show Me" state and their surveys show that (in 1985) hunting expenditures generated $252 million. Hunters also paid $8.4 million in sales taxes, $6.9 million in state income tax and supported 9,630 jobs. ■ West Virginia is the sixth largest attractor of non-resident hunters in the nation. Hunting in West Virginia is a large and vigorous recreational industry especially important to the smaller rural businesses which rely on opening days for a significant portion of their annual income. In 1985, non-resident hunters spent a total exceeding $140 million in rural West Virginia— that is roughly 1-1/2 times as much as the highly publicized high rollers spend when they visit Tampa, New Orleans, or Los Angeles for the Super Bowl. 158 ■ In my home state of Connecticut, hunting creates over 800 jobs with salaries exceeding $17 million. Connecticut hunters generate $50 million in annual business, $30 million in retail hunting sales and over $2 million in state sales taxes. ■ A three year study by the University of Maine confirms what every outdoorsman’s spouse already knew— hunters spend a great deal of money on their sport. Each Maine resident hunter spent an average of $946 to hunt in his home state in 1988. Overall, hunters contributed $185 million to the Maine economy in 1988, and few state economies need this economic boost more. Through example, we have moved from west to east with a few detours in between. It is glaringly obvious that the economic benefits derived from the sport of hunting are indispensable to local, state and national economies. Who is the typical hunter? How does he spend his money? And, where does it go? A demographic profile of the roughly 20 million Americans who hunt may surprise you! They certainly surprised the people at Fortune magazine. They said, "Urbanites may think of hunters as Yahoos, but the truth, demographically, is that they get less Yahoolike all the time. Compared with the hunter of five years ago, today’s is better educated, more likely to be a professional or manager, and earns more. " The average hunter has an income of $43,120 per year compared to the national average of around $29,000 and 80% of all hunters own their own homes. I’ve stood before you this Friday afternoon and I have spent a considerable amount of time discussing dollars and economic impact. While meaningful, laundry lists of figures, demographics and dogma can be very impersonal. I would briefly touch upon two real "flesh-and-blood" people and share their feelings about hunting. ■ There’s Ted Giddings, whose father has written about hunting and the outdoors for 48 years. Ted manages the Fenway Sporting Goods Store in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. "Thank God there’s more and more beginning hunters every year," he says. "It’s not unusual for a father to come in and completely outfit his son or daughter for that first hunt. For my business that can mean a sale of as much as $450." ■ There’s eleven year old Andy who lives in my home state of Connecticut. Still too young to hunt legally, his allowance was withheld 159 from the state’s economy for months until on a Saturday morning, in a major expenditure that he would remember for the rest of his life, he converted his financial reserves into an air rifle and an investment in an American tradition. Lest anyone think that hunting is not big business in America, they need only be reminded that the $14 billion generated exceeds the annual sales of companies like Hewlett Packard, RJR-Nabisco, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Caterpillar Tractor, Johnson & Johnson, Anheuser Busch and Coca Cola. "Batman II" made headlines when it grossed $43 million during its first weekend. Hunting grossed nearly $80 million that same weekend— and the weekend before, and the weekend after. And every weekend since. The entire motion picture industry’s gross revenue from theater admissions is about $5 billion annually compared to the $14 billion for hunting. Maybe what they need to do is make movies about hunting. Thank you! Bob Delfay is president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation and secretary of the United Conservation Alliance. 160 BECAUSE SCIENCE TELLS US SO Hunting and the Science of Wildlife Management By Rollin D. Sparrowe Modem wildlife management is based on a foundation of scientific information that includes animal life histories, measurements of population parameters such as density, age and sex ratios, natality and mortality estimates. This information base delves into reproductive and other behavior of the animal, needs and utilization of habitats, and effects of changes in those habitats on individual animals and populations. Data on hunting and wildlife exist on Mil per unit of hunter effort, success on a daily and seasonal basis, timing of most hunter activity, and long-term trends in hunter activity and harvest. These sorts of topics have been explored and literature exists in various forms for about 145 legally hunted bird and mammal species in North America. All of this scientific information is contained in outlets like Pittman- Robertson study reports, Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conferences , the Journal of Wildlife Management, The Wildlife Society Bulletin, the Wildlife Techniques Manual, a large number of published books, and an array of booklets and other literature from state and federal agencies and organizations. I examined several recent text books on wildlife management, and atten- tion to this topic is revealing. It is clear that we, the wildlife managers, badly want wildlife management to be a science rather than the art that we know it is. An important premise to start with in any discussion of science and its relationship to wildlife management is that the two are intertwined in many ways and dependent upon one another, but are very different. The success of wildlife management since the turn of the century— with restoration of species such as white-tailed and mule deer, elk, pronghorn, and wild turkey— is empirical evidence that maintenance of appropriate habitat and 161 restraint in harvesting populations within a sound framework of scientific knowledge about wildlife have produced substantial benefits to society. Most state fish and wildlife agency programs and a major part of federal agency wildlife programs started with management of wildlife in response to their exploitation by people. Over exploitation of habitats and populations depleted wildlife visibly, and provoked concerted protective actions to restore it. A major driving force was a desire to restore wildlife to perpetuate huntable populations. The Migratory Bird Convention with Canada was as much a written and binding agreement to provide for traditional hunting of migratory birds as it was to protect nongame birds. In this context, it has provided a landmark authority for the protection of all migratory birds and is one of the world’s strongest laws contributing to preservation of biological diversity. The recent widespread interest in neotropical migratory birds is an example of people seeking appropriate attention to conservation of songbirds. The very laws protecting those songbirds, and the science that provides the basis for their management, derive from the scientific procedures developed from banding studies and population work with hunted species. The science developed to restore and then manage hunted wildlife is proving beneficial to renewed actions on behalf of other wildlife. Unfortunately, many of those pursuing what they think are "new" conservation actions have little appreciation for the roots of the science or for those who contributed to the conservation of wildlife resources we have to work with today. Let me clearly state the main premise of my presentation. We have a solid, often extensive base of science to use in managing wildlife that are harvest- ed. There are new needs emerging as management changes, and especially as laws governing public programs are tightened. Objectives in addition to hunting and recreation are becoming higher priority. Hunting most wildlife populations is a choice we can exercise when we possess appropriate scientific information. In the end, as always, what is most important to the outcome is how we interpret and then apply science to management. Our wildlife management actions will not be judged on the strength of their scientific base as much as on how science is employed in the art of wildlife management. Scientific Foundations of Traditional Wildlife Management Some of the most extensive scientific literature and knowledge exists on white- tailed and mule deer, pheasant, elk, ducks, and various small game such as quail and rabbits. The information deals with habitat, natural history, behavior, 162 physiology, population dynamics and specific responses to mortality influences, including recreational hunting. Considerable work also has been done on hunter behavior as it relates to wildlife harvest. A simplistic example may serve to illustrate what is presumed to be the scientific basis of modem hunting programs. The summer 1992 issue of Pheasants Forever discusses management of the introduced ring-necked pheasant in North Dakota. It tells us that pheasants live out their lives in highly manipulated habitats, yet are harvested in relatively large numbers and maintain relatively constant population levels over the long term. The key to pheasant abundance is good habitat. Pheasant populations tend to turn over annually at a high rate whether they are hunted or not. Predators, starvation, disease, exposure and hunting lead to a yearly mortality rate exceeding 70 percent. Studies in Iowa and Minnesota demonstrate that population trends are similar for both hunted and adjacent nonhunted areas. Pheasants are polygamous and, in most areas, can reproduce and sustain themselves despite overwinter removal of up to 90 percent of the males. Harvest levels in North Dakota never approach 90 percent. Usually more than 75 percent of the seasonal bag is shot during the first nine days of the season, with most on opening weekend. For this reason, managers talk about diminishing returns for the hunter limiting the effect of harvest even through lengthened seasons. The Pheasant Forever article entitled "Managing the Ringneck” goes on to discuss the fact that songbirds are not hunted, yet their numbers do not build annually. This comparison frequently is cited in reference to hunting to indicate that hunting may play only a minor role in influencing annual population numbers. These statements embody the basic premises of management of North American wildlife with hunting as a prominent feature. The game animals we know to have relatively high reproductive rates are thought to fit this mold. Similar accounts are available for many species, such as mourning dove populations in the Central Management Unit in the United States, bobwhite quail in Missouri and white-tailed deer in many parts of their range. While they are more complex than the example, there are strong data sets that support harvest management. But there is more to the story. Our pursuit of answers to scientific questions and our inability to explain complex concepts in simple language can lead us astray. None of the concepts of hunting impact on game populations has engendered more discussion and contro- versy than compensatory mortality. The fundamental question is whether hunting kill displaces natural mortality or adds to overall mortality. The concept implies density-dependent responses by the population, through which the population regulates itself and thereby maintains its relative size. This is the basis for the 163 belief in a harvestable surplus-which is the biological cornerstone of recreational hunting. The problem with the concept of compensatory mortality is that it is difficult to study definitively, and a lot of other things influence animal numbers. Those other influences may or may not work in density-dependent fashion. The waterfowl literature is extensive and has had a significant impact on harvest management philosophy. After landmark studies of the mallard were published in 1976 in a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service publication, waterfowl biologists and hunters not only accepted the concept, but some erroneously translated the fine work and careful analysis into the notion that "hunting has no impact." Furthermore, the extensive and expensive studies of stabilized duck hunting regulations, jointly conducted by the U.S. and Canada, were expected by many to be the final test of the impact of hunting on ducks. While many things were learned about the impact of hunting on ducks, the pervasive impact of habitat loss, drought, and resultant high predation were documented as vital issues. Sessions at the 52nd, 54th, and 55th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conferences dealt with the stabilized regulations results, duck harvests, and "Compensatory Responses in Wildlife Populations," respectively. Furbearers, waterfowl, deer and the problems with experiments on the difficult concept were reviewed in depth. An extensive literature is cited in the papers from those sessions, and various opinions were expressed about the importance of compensa- tory mortality to harvest management. Yet, these authors and many others are far from unanimous about what occurs in wildlife populations that are harvested. There is considerable evidence that the habitat base, annual fluctuations in weather and other variables can individually and collectively modify compensation affects. Should anyone be surprised that annual populations may not always behave the same from year to year? Are concepts which underlie science always clearcut and without different interpretations? How can any internal population regulatory mechanism be the same for species that occupy a wide range of envi- ronmental conditions? The systems and populations being studied and managed are too variable for any of that to be a surprise. Theories and concepts are building blocks for management decisions, not inflexible rules to be followed in management. Of interest is the following excerpt by Wayne Pacelle, national director of Fund for Animals, from a letter he addressed to the California Department of Fish and Game last August. Commenting on the state’s Draft Environmental Document on migratory bird hunting Pacelle wrote: "At the same time, it justifies such outrageous regulations by clinging to a specious and largely unsubstantiated theory of compensatory mortality. Such a theory is perfect for an 164 agency that knows little about wildlife; it’s a theory that can justify any level of ignorance about impacts to wildlife— even the extraordinary level of ignorance exhibited by the Department in formulating its migratory bird regulations." Mr. Pacelle’s allegations are wrong scientifically. The application of science in managing waterfowl harvest has stood up in court, and will again. What his message does reflect is a trend to challenge how we use science in management. Our honest debates about what it all means are being used against us. Unfortunately, pseudoconservation spokesmen tend to get a lot of media and occasional public attention by such statements and without challenge on the substance of what they assert. What is often missed in all the debates on effects of hunting, is the on-the- ground experiences of wildlife managers who have been responsible for the biological outcome of hunting seasons. Regardless of differences in scientific interpretations, populations of hunted wildlife exhibit great resilience. Our harvest programs do work year after year, and new thinking in science continues to allow the choice to be made to open hunting seasons. We need to do a much better job of clearly and simply describing our successes, and the science that supports them. Species Differences The hazard in accepting the aforementioned pheasant example for hunting programs and wildlife management is that it doesn’t apply to many other species. Many of our basic harvest management concepts were built on deer and resident farm game as examples. Migratory birds, for example, are very different for several reasons. The Migratory Bird Convention with Canada recognized in 1916 the need for extraordinary protection for animals that migrate thousands of miles between breeding and wintering areas, often concentrating on localized habitats both during migration and when on the wintering grounds. They can be more vulnerable to overshooting than are resident animals because populations from a vast area may congregate in one location. From implementation of this treaty has come the largest managed hunting program in the world. Extensive scientific studies have been done of reproductive behavior, migration, and survival of various waterfowl, with focus on the mallard. The elaborate annual process of nesting and production surveys, coupled with calcula- tions of potential autumn flights, sometimes gives a false sense of how precise the science is in dealing with these sought-after wildlife. There have been great 165 controversies over the impact of hunting on waterfowl, but a lot of information still points to the fact that current seasons are not the reason for low waterfowl numbers. Recent reward-band studies have shown that midcontinent mallards, subject to the highest hunting pressure, sustain annual mortality from all causes of about 10 percent. As we shall see, data about mortality of nesting hens, linked to lack habitat quality and quantity are more likely at the root of duck population status. Great attention has been given to the potential to apply more sophisticated seasons, zones, bag limits and other mechanisms to optimize harvest opportunity for various waterfowl. While no specific biological problems have surfaced, recent studies and management analyses point to some limits in the ability of agencies to provide the required data to justify such complex mechanisms. Such a conclusion is not popular, but is a realistic assessment of the relationship between the science we can afford and the management we can employ. Related species require much different treatment. Both swans and sandhill cranes reproduce more slowly, and only a small proportion of an autumn flight consists of young birds. For this reason, carefully regulated hunts with established quotas on a regional or local basis, extending even to individual tags for harvesting a single sandhill crane or whistling swan, are used to control harvest tightly. In such cases, management plans provide for shut-off mechanisms, to close the season should the quota be exceeded. The implication is that neither swans nor cranes can withstand overharvest, even in a single year, without reducing populations more than is biologically desirable. The management response of more controls for these species allows a choice to be exercised to provide for responsible hunting of these species. Great attention has been paid to management of deer and elk. These are benchmark species relative to hunting-based wildlife management. Almost all western states have fairly recently revised some or all of their approaches to managing mule deer and elk, based on a combination of scientific data about the sex and age structure of their herds, and input from their hunters about what those hunters desire. Under heavy hunting pressure in many locations, trophy bucks or bulls appear to have declined. The data for many herds seem to provide a clear choice. Also, surveys of hunters in states like Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico, and others indicate that many hunters want a hunting experience with less competition and a good chance to shoot a mature animal. Many are willing to consider hunting only in selected years if the opportunity to bag a trophy occasionally is greater. Agencies have responded to this expression through attempts to manipulate herd structure by revising the timing, duration and degree of hunting pressure essentially to move the season out of the rut, when mature 166 bucks or bulls are relatively vulnerable. Far from the old dogma that hunting has no impact, such management actions reflect recognition of scientific evidence that hunting does have an impact, and that the nature of the resource and the experience associated with it can be changed by shifting that impact. Acknowledging that hunting has an effect is not "negative;" it is merely a fact. Management can swing that impact in a desired direction, based on science. There are a number of wildlife explosions that are attracting continuing attention across the country. From Denver to Boston, locally nesting populations of Canada geese have emerged as too much of a good thing. Higher harvests and earlier or extended seasons have been sought as methods to solve the problem. White-tailed deer populations in the eastern United States have risen to such high levels that significant liberalizations of seasons have occurred just within the past two to three years. Where one or two animals could be taken through a combina- tion of seasons, states such as Virginia, Maryland and West Virginia, offer six or more to hunters who buy extra tags and hunt with different weapons. Recent publicity from Wisconsin indicates, for example, that winter counts of whitetails statewide this past year exceeded objectives by more than 15 percent. In some localities, this is not a problem. In others, however, populations are far higher, the public is demanding reductions, and hunting will be the main tool likely to be employed directly in managing this problem. In the West, a series of mild winters has contributed to high survival in many herds of both deer and elk. The prognosis is that greater numbers of animals in these herds should be taken during the coming season to avoid cata- strophic loss if even a normal winter were to occur. This reflects a potential for lost opportunity, as much as a need for direct management to avoid range damage. In this case, the science that allows the structuring of these sorts of seasons provides a basis for action to avoid extraordinary amplitude in the normal annual fluctuations in numbers. The choice extends to being able to provide a recreational outlet as the tool. Programs To Maintain the Science Base Programs that exist through state and federal agencies to monitor habitat include the National Wetland Inventory, standard vegetation transects, assessments of winter range encroachment by development, measures of range condition and trend, and various formulas for timber harvest. For population monitoring, mourning dove Call-counts, booming ground counts for prairie chickens, big 167 game winter surveys, and the extensive North American waterfowl breeding ground surveys are some examples. Measures of harvest and hunter success are accomplished through mandatory check stations at the state level or on managed areas, and nationally through hunter mail-in questionnaires, such as the federal waterfowl harvest survey. No single process is more important in maintaining and justifying management programs than are harvest surveys. This is why the federal migratory bird harvest survey is being revised, and it must be supported. Harvest surveys are the primary direct evidence that we have a handle on the impact of allowing kill by hunters. They also constitute a prime example of the need to strengthen our science base for hunting. Research is an essential process to investigate new monitoring techniques, analyze data from monitoring programs, test theories and measure results of management programs. It is my clear impression that the investment in wildlife research nationally has not kept pace in the past decade, pressured by increasing costs and decreasing budgets. Competition from the need for work on endangered species, grazing and timber issues, water quality, and the pressing needs for more intensive monitoring data on such things as nonhunted migratory birds have diverted attention from innovative research to provide new ideas on which to base management. These things all deserve support, but so does work to maintain harvest programs. It is important to recognize that almost all the monitoring tools give us indices rather than absolute counts. They are designed to identify trends on a regional or even continental basis, to facilitate broad management decisions. In waterfowl management, for example, the elaborate breeding ground surveys provide an index to the number of wetlands, the number of breeding birds by species and a broad measure of production. Management judgments are based on trends of more than 10 percent in one direction or another. Data sets span three decades. Harvest management programs are long-term actions, not to be mea- sured by single-year outcomes, although single-year events are not ignored. More local, in-depth work is done with deer, elk and other species on a management- unit basis in most states. All of these studies and monitoring programs rely on predictive judgments, rather than science as a mandate to take action. These judgments, however, are grounded in science. The expense of long-term monitoring or new data-gathering programs is a serious problem. We will need to invest more, not less, in the science base for harvest programs in order to maintain those choices. For example, comprehensive biological surveys on national wildlife refuges could satisfy data needs for management of all wildlife, as well as justify seasons we take for granted. Such investments must be made. 168 The Link to Habitat A truism in wildlife management, whether in the texts I recently reviewed or in other literature, is that habitat management is the key to abundance of any species. In the North Dakota pheasant example, 92 percent of the land is privately owned, and that is where most of the pheasants occur. In the case of elk, however, 80 percent may spend the majority of each year on public land. This brings agency management decisions, pressure politics from special interests, and even Congressional interference in management of habitats that support hunted animals on public land. Populations of bobwhite quail, pheasants, cottontail rabbits and Hungarian partridge are linked directly and adversely to modem farming techniques with large fields and little residual cover. And livestock grazing intensity is a concern in many places, whether on private or public land. I think we are in the process of a revolution in the management of forests and rangelands in the United States. Scientific evidence increasingly tells us that heavy grazing of riparian areas, particularly in arid lands, comes at great cost to many wildlife and fish. Even small reductions in grazing can lead to revegetation and high benefits to wildlife. We haven’t listened to what science has been telling us about the problems with the heavy cutting of forests in the Northwest, but public opinion and litigation have caught up with those programs as well. Timber management on public lands will change dramatically, and challenge the basic science in wildlife management to provide useful management prescriptions for the future. We know how to produce deer and elk in forest systems, but the challenge that will come in producing those species along with the broader array of values the public demands, including many nonhunted species, will provide a new test for both the science and its application. Wildlife management for game species in those habitats will join a longer line of other interests. It will not surprise many to find that I and others believe that habitat is the real basis for the problem with North American ducks. During the strong popula- tion decline of the 1980s, Canadian and U.S. biologists documented for the first time the rate of change occurring in traditional breeding grounds on the prairies’ of North America. We had long known what was happening in North and South Dakota, but had not measured impacts on the larger ranges in prairie Canada. The area that used to produce more than 60 percent of the continent’s waterfowl now looks like many areas of North and South Dakota and Minnesota looked by the 1970s. Even where many wetlands persist, there is little nesting habitat surrounding them. The loss of wetlands in Canada is significantly tied to the prolonged drought cycle that began in the late 1970s. 169 Science tells that North American waterfowl evolved with the rigorous system of significant ups and downs in the availability of wetland habitat, and their ability to produce. It is unlikely that high production occurred in very many sequential years. Rather, large regions of the continent were alternately dry or wet in combinations of years that produced periodic bumper production from some locations. Only rarely were conditions favorable across the majority of the breeding grounds. The drought, in combination with intensive farming activities has had the fundamental effect of changing the ability of that habitat base to produce ducks even if water returns. In response to lowered duck populations, we have had to adjust seasons, and start major habitat restoration-an artful compensation to a prolonged vagary of nature. We do so because of the high value society places on waterfowl, including but not limited to their recreational harvest. Science associated with the biology of ducks has documented a number of things beyond the habitat change. A new abundance of a larger aggregation of predators including skunks, foxes, opossums, coyotes, raccoons, ground squirrels, crows and snakes now concentrate in the limited nesting habitats where ducks attempt to reproduce. Studies have documented as low as seven percent nesting success by species like the mallard, with the dominant impact being direct preda- tion on nesting hens. In this case, science presents us with management choices that seem unpalatable to the public— namely predator control. Interestingly, the same dilemma is now being documented for songbirds and forest fragmentation. The mechanism limiting forest bird populations turns out to be predation by cowbirds. Perhaps when the science is fully in hand, we can join forces between hunting and nonhunting interests to solve a mutual predator problem! The only practicable solution is very wide-scale habitat management to provide more secure habitats for nesting females. The choice of how to provide habitat is what the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is about. This is a tall order, and blends scientific knowledge and artful management with social reality. Future Needs Mixed with all the successes of hunting-based wildlife management is the reality of a changing public constituency and more stringent environmental laws. This came home to wildlife managers in California in 1990, when the California Department of Fish and Game was sued over the allegation that it failed to satisfy requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The federal environ- mental impact statement, as mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, 170 has developed as a powerful factor in wildlife management over its 20-year history. It spawned similar laws at the state level. In the California lawsuit, state environmental requirements served as the basis for challenge. Normally, states such as California have depended on the extensive 30-year history of migratory bird assessments by the federal government as a basis for accepting the federal frameworks for seasons. The state legislation had more stringent requirements than did the federal EIS requirement. Although the 1990 lawsuit was dropped, the message there and in other states is clear. Challenges are likely under procedural grounds as well as the substantive nature of the biological information available. This kind of information requirement will drive future wildlife data gathering in support of hunting seasons. Wildlife management achieved many successes through the years in managing populations by hindsight, often by tracking trends in harvest. Harvest data give insights to population biology and the impact of hunting, but they cannot stand alone. More stringent environmental laws require a broader assessment of impacts, and consideration for local populations. States and the federal governments conducting seasons will likely have to invest in more extensive information gathering, even for hunts we have assumed were well- justified, in order to support the kind of hunting that has generally been permissible in the past. In some cases, the costs of maintaining the data necessary to avoid challenges may exceed the return to be gained from continuing these seasons. Society clearly is demanding a broader perspective in the management of habitats and wildlife. The science to support this may not come any easier than have the dollars for broad-based management. Our perspective on what science tells us about hunting is important to the future of our traditional and culturally important activity. As we explain in a new booklet from the Wildlife Management Institute, "Placing Hunting in Perspective, " most of our hunting programs are an exercise in choice, based on good science about the animals, their populations and their habitats. Science doesn’t tell us, in most cases, that we have to hunt for the welfare of the animal. The strongest perspective with our science base, is that we can hunt with the proper controls, being liberal when needed— as with white-tailed deer in the Northeast— or conservative when needed— as with waterfowl continentwide. How refined we attempt to make management is somewhat dependent on how much we can pay for the science to explain and justify it. Rollin Sparrowe, president of the Wildlife Management Institute, spent 22 years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 171 HABITAT CONSERVATION AND THE HUNTER By Matthew B. Connolly, Jr.& Mickey E. Heitmeyer Introduction Wildlife conservation and planned resource management are conducted at various levels of scale including: 1) regional and global processes, 2) ecosystems, 3) communities, and 4) species and their respective populations. For all levels of scale, protection, enhancement, restoration, and creation of habitats represent the cornerstone of past and present conservation programs. While management of species and populations can occasionally rest on factors affecting mortality and recruitment, long-term solutions to sustaining populations, communities, and biological diversity must include the protection and restoration of ecologically functional habitat complexes. History is clear that hunters and other consumptive users were instrumental in initiating wildlife conservation efforts in the U.S. Furthermore, hunters (currently 9% of U.S. citizens hunt, USFWS 1988), have continually provided the leverage (through funds, political support, non-governmental organizations) that has directly or indirectly achieved much of the habitat conservation in North America. In this paper we: ■ briefly discuss the role of hunters in initiating habitat conservation programs in the U.S. ; ■ provide examples of the types of habitats and landscapes protected, enhanced, and restored by hunters; ■ review how hunter supported non-governmental 172 organizations have, and are, implementing habitat conservation; and present a perspective on how hunters must continue their involvement in, and support of, habitat conservation in the future. Hunters and the Origins of Habitat Conservation In the mid 1800’s, sport hunters initiated proactive protection of North American wildlife populations and their habitats (e.g.; Trefethen 1975, Reiger 1986). Earlier efforts by sportsmen to restrict excessive killing and even close seasons on some wildlife species date back to the late 1700 ’s (e.g.; New York passed legislation in 1791 to regulate hunting seasons on heath hens). However, active concern for protection of habitats did not surface until the mid- 1 800 ’s when the Industrial Revolution and advanced agricultural production technologies greatly increased pollution of waters, clearing of lands, damming of waterways, and draining of wetlands. By the 1870’s, sport hunters started the national periodicals American Sportsman (1871), Forest and Field (1873), Field and Stream (1874), and American Angler (1881). These publications served as the "voice" of concerned sportsmen and promoted hunting ethics, curtailment of excessive harvest of wildlife, and the establishment of "game preserves". This era of conservation consciousness gave rise to national policies on wildlife protection (such as the 1900 Lacey Act) and prompted Theodore Roosevelt, an ardent hunter, to pursue conservation agendas that resulted in the protection of more than 148 million acres in national forests and 28 national wildlife refuges during his presidential administration of 1901-1907 (Reiger 1986). In the late 1800’s sport hunters also founded private non-governmental conservation organizations including the Boone and Crockett Club, Camp Fire Club of America, League of American Sportsmen, New York Zoological Society, American Game Protective and Propagation Association, and early Audubon Societies (Redington and Higgins 1930). These groups, and others that followed, championed protection of wildlife populations and their habitats. The motivations of these sportsmen’s groups went beyond perpetuating huntable populations of wildlife and increasing access to more lands for hunting, and extended into efforts to foster general habitat conservation. For example, the Boone and Crockett Club was primarily responsible for the passage of the Yellowstone Park Protection Act 173 which established the first inviolate wildlife refuge in the U.S. (Trefethen 1975:89). Another classic example of sport hunter influence in early habitat conservation was the effort of the American Wild Fowlers (an offshoot of the Boone and Crockett Club) to establish a series of waterfowl/wetland refuges across the U.S. American Wild Fowlers lobbied tirelessly for enactment of the N orbeck- Andresen Migratory Bird Conservation Act, passed in 1928, which authorized a system of national waterfowl refuges and established the Migratory Bird Commission. In 1931, American Wild Fowlers merged with the More Game Birds in America Foundation (the precursor to Ducks Unlimited, Inc.). Since the 1920’s sport hunters have been responsible for initiating and passing many other landmark acts that have funded (often with hunter dollars) large scale habitat protection and enhancement programs, including: ■ The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Acts of 1934. ■ The Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman- Robertson, hereafter P-R) of 1937. ■ Wetlands Loan Act of 1961. ■ North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989. Conservation activities of sport hunters in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s went beyond advocating protection of habitats, political lobbying for habitat- friendly legislation, and financial support for public agency programs. Sportsmen, either as individuals or collective groups, directly began acquiring and protecting habitats. Wealthy city-dwelling sportsmen increasingly purchased private rural lands to escape city life and to have secured access to prime hunting and fishing (e.g.; George W. Vanderbilt’s 120,000-acre Biltmore Estate in North Carolina). These early "hunting estates" were some of the first rural lands protected for wildlife in North America and in many ways were patterned after European traditions of shooting preserves for the aristocracy (Coon 1962, O’Neill 1963). Further back in history, it is noteworthy that ancient Persians gave us the word "paradise", which originally meant simply "hunting preserve" (Coon 1962:112). Other properties owned by families were used for hunting, but were also protected for various wildlife benefits through donations of die land or conservation easements (e.g.; Avery Island, Louisiana owned by the Mclllheny 174 Family which now includes the 26,000-acre Paul J. Rainey Sanctuary administered by the National Audubon Society). Numerous sportsmen groups also formed clubs that directly purchased lands to be managed for wildlife purposes (e.g.; the Winous Point Shooting Club, ca. 5,000 acres of wetland on Sandusky Bay, Ohio). Sport hunters also initiated efforts to increase scientific knowledge about wildlife, their habitats, and management techniques. Early biological investigations sponsored by hunters established a scientific integrity for wildlife management (Leopold 1933), fostered a professional cadre of managers and biologists (e.g., Hawkins et al. 1984), and led to the creation of privately supported research institutions (e.g. the Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Station, Leopold et al. 1944). An especially noteworthy advancement in wildlife conservation was a survey of wildlife populations and their habitats in the north central states sponsored by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (Leopold 1931). In this report Aldo Leopold made 7 recommendations for wildlife conservation including: 1) buying and managing public lands, 2) working with private landowners, 3) providing incentives to private landowners for management of habitats and establishing regulations for protection of resources on private lands, 4) training of wildlife managers and making wildlife management a profession, 5) conducting wildlife research, 6) recognizing that the responsibility for wildlife conservation is shared by non-shooting protectionists, scientists, landowners, and hunters, and 7) providing funds for wildlife conservation from taxes paid by the entire public, not just hunters. These 7 recommendations are just as essential today as in 1931. Protection and Ownership of the Habitat Base All lands, regardless of ownership, provide habitat for wildlife. Publicly-owned lands are visible examples of lands intensively managed for wildlife, but privately-owned lands often provide the bulk of resources used and needed by many fish and wildlife species (Durnke et al. 1981). Maintenance of sustainable levels of most fish and wildlife populations requires protection of habitats over broad geographical areas, especially for migratory species. Below we provide examples of hunter contributions to protection of various categories of lands. Public - Federal 175 Probably the best known publicly-owned wildlife habitats are the National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). As of September, 1991, 503 NWRs comprised 88.5 million acres (USFWS 1991). In addition to NWRs, the USFWS administers 166 Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA) that protect 1.9 million acres of prime waterfowl habitat. Approximately 813,000 acres of NWRs and 1.3 million acres of WPAs are leased or protected with a conservation easement, the remainder is owned in fee title. A small number of NWRs and WPAs have been gifted to the USFWS, but most have been purchased using Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and Duck Stamp Act funds (USFWS 1991). Receipts from Duck Stamp sales alone have totaled over $400 million since the programs inception in 1934. Private funds provided by hunter-based conservation organizations have also contributed to the purchase of many NWRs. For example, the Tallahatchie NWR in Mississippi was partly funded by Ducks Unlimited, Inc. and portions of the Upper Mississippi River NWR were partly funded by the Izaak Walton League. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers own and manage significant landholdings, especially in western states. Many of these lands are managed for fish and wildlife habitat and certain properties were acquired or gifted through the efforts of sport hunting groups. For example, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation assisted in the acquisition of ca, 4,700 acres of lands that have become part of the Gallatin National Forest in Montana. Another example is the Cosumnes Preserve in California cooperatively owned and managed by BLM, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. and The Nature Conservancy. Public - State State-owned lands held for habitat conservation purposes are generally administered and managed by natural resources agencies within state governments. The majority of state wildlife management areas were purchased with funds provided from hunters and fishermen. One of the most successful funding programs has been the P-R program which earmarks excise tax dollars from the sales of firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment for wildlife conservation. P-R has funded the acquisition of many state-owned habitats such as the Cheyenne Bottoms Wildlife Area in Kansas, Horseshoe Lake Conservation Area in Illinois, Conneaut Marsh in Pennsylvania, and Ogden Bay Wildlife Area in Utah (Kail man et al. 1987). While supported by hunter dollars, state lands purchased with P-R funds provide important habitats to migrant passerines, shorebirds, mammals, reptiles, fish, and invertebrates; some of which are 176 threatened and endangered. Private - Wildlife Management as Primary Use Large areas of privately-owned habitats are protected and managed specifically for wildlife conservation purposes. Most of these lands are owned and managed by individuals, clubs, or groups primarily for hunting and fishing (other uses such as forestry and agriculture are often present but exist to provide income for operations or represent desired habitats or management enhancements). Examples of such properties include: 1) waterfowl hunting clubs, 2) southern plantations for quail, turkey, and deer hunting, 3) southwestern ranches for deer, elk, and other big game species, and 4) multiple use sportsmen’s clubs and hunting preserves. The total extent of the above private lands is unknown but it often represents substantial portions of remaining habitats within local and regional areas. For example, over 2/3 of the remaining wetland habitat in the Central Valley of California is owned and managed by private duck hunting clubs (Heitmeyer et al. 1989). Wetland habitats and adjacent agricultural lands in the Central Valley support over 20% of all wintering waterfowl in North America, the bulk of migrant shorebirds in the Pacific Flyway for several months in spring and fall, and numerous rare and endangered plants and animals (Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture 1989). Private - Wildlife Management Not the Primary Use Many private lands are owned and managed to generate income not related to hunting or fishing, yet retention or encouragement of habitats or crop types beneficial to wildlife on these lands is supported in part by hunters. Examples of these properties include timber, agriculture, and aquaculture lands. The economic benefits of providing wildlife habitats on the above lands are many and include leases to hunters, increased property value, and enhanced local economies (Kellert 1981, Wesley 1987). These economic benefits are often substantial and stimulate political support for maintenance of wildlife habitats in local and regional areas. In some cases, owners of lands that provide wildlife habitats and hunting opportunities also own local businesses that benefit directly (e.g. motels, restaurants, sporting goods stores) or indirectly (e.g. banks, farm supply stores) from hunters visiting the area. Management, Enhancement, and Restoration 177 Conservation of natural resources goes beyond protecting existing habitats through ownership, easement, and lease. A major challenge, especially in current times, is restoration of habitats that have been destroyed or functionally altered. Restoration and enhancement of such habitat usually requires intensive management. A classic example of destruction and alteration of ecological structure and function, and thus the need for restoration and intensive management, is the bottomland hardwood forests of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. These forests historically encompassed 25 million acres but today less than 5 million acres remain (MacDonald 1979). Of these remaining 5 million acres, 2/3 have drastically altered water regimes, vegetation that has shifted to more water tolerant types, poor water quality because of contaminants or sedimentation, and severe disruption due to logging, cutting, burning, grazing, and human intrusion (MacDonald et al. 1979, Fredrickson 1979). Furthermore, much of the forest that remains is highly fragmented, within mainstem levees of the Mississippi River and its tributaries (batture lands), and confined to boundaries of NWR’S or state wildlife management areas. Examples of hunter support for restoration, enhancement, and active management of habitats are numerous. While NWRs are mostly managed using general funds appropriated from the U.S. Treasury, state wildlife management areas and privately-owned habitats are managed almost entirely using funds provided by hunters (through license sales receipts, daily use fees, and P-R funds). Also, private lands that are not used primarily for wildlife purposes, but that provide some hunting opportunity, are often managed in part using hunter dollars (e.g., hunter leases on agricultural lands allow farmers to flood harvested fields to control soil erosion, restore soil moisture, control unwanted vegetation, and provide winter water and food for waterfowl). Non-Governmental Conservation Organizations Non-governmental conservation organizations have played a significant role in habitat conservation in North America. With only a few exceptions, early (late 1700’s - late 1800’s) conservation organizations were almost all founded and financially supported by sport hunters and fishermen (Redington and Higgins 1930). Furthermore, these groups represent the ancestors of non-governmental conservation organizations that now number nearly 7,000 (Hodgkinson and Toppe 1991, Jon Roush, pers. comm). The proportion of these organizations that can be categorized as recreation and sporting clubs (Snow 1992a: 16) is unknown but 178 substantial. The mission of conservation organizations whose membership primarily is comprised of sportsmen, has evolved from advocating legislation that protects wildlife to actively implementing national and international habitat protection and restoration programs, many of which would be impossible for public agencies to undertake. To provide a few examples, in 1991 (or corresponding fiscal year of each organization): ■ Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Ducks Unlimited Canada, and Ducks Unlimited de Mexico protected, enhanced, or restored over 600,000 acres of wetlands and associated uplands in Canada, Mexico, and the United States (cumulative of ca. 5.9 million acres affected since inception in 1937, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 1992). ■ Pheasants Forever completed habitat projects encompassing more than 165,000 acres (ca. 545,000 since inception in 1987, Pheasants Forever 1991). ■ Quail Unlimited provided food and habitat plots on 146,900 tractor miles (10 ft. strips) of upland habitat (ca. 661,000 miles since 1981, R. Evans, pers. comm.). ■ Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation enhanced and protected 325,000 acres of elk habitat (conserved more than 367,000 acres since 1984, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 1991). Other prominent national habitat conservation organizations that were initiated, at least in part, by hunters and/or that have substantial numbers of hunters and fishermen among their current members include the Izaak Walton League of America, National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, National Wild Turkey Federation, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). These groups have invested heavily in habitat conservation (e.g. TNC has protected 5.5 million acres since 1951, TNC 1991) and sport hunters and fishermen contribute substantially to organizational funding. Modem, hunter-based conservation organizations also continue to influence habitat conservation through lobbying for legislation, policy, and appropriations that affect public habitat programs. Many organizations also invest in education and research that affect choices about which habitat types and locations receive 179 priorities, how lands are managed, the technologies used for restoration and enhancement, and general public support for conservation efforts. A very few examples include: ■ Lobbying efforts of the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, National Wildlife Federation, and The Wildlife Management Institute. ■ Children’s education programs of The National Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. and the National Shooting Sports Foundation. ■ Sponsorship of research by the National Wild Turkey Federation, Quail Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and Ducks Unlimited’s Institute for Wetlands and Waterfowl Research. ■ Extension of habitat enhancement information and programs to landowners by numerous organizations. The Future Role of Hunters in Habitat Conservation General Wildlife conservation efforts in North America have evolved from programs that were aimed directly at species and populations (e.g., regulations, introductions, nesting structures, stocking) to those that influence habitat complexes and regional landscapes. The science of understanding annual cycle needs of species, factors influencing population dynamics, the structure and function of habitat complexes, and techniques to restore and manage habitats has increased greatly. Nonetheless, the destruction and degradation of habitats continues and much remains to be known about species and habitat ecology and techniques to attain sustainability of populations and resources. The factors that most severely affect wildlife populations and habitats operate at broad landscape levels. These degrading factors include: 1) destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of habitats, 2) overexploitation of resources, 3) introduction of exotics, and 4) environmental contamination (Soule 1992). Solutions to such problems must, therefore, operate at the level of the 180 problem and be fully supported by hunters. For example: 1) Critical remaining habitats must be preserved, and destroyed or degraded habitats must be restored to provide corridors and landscape linkages (Hudson 1991) and to replace lost system functions (e.g. Kushler and Kentula 1990); 2) Overexploitation of resources must be scientifically defined and curbed, and management of all resources must be balanced with economic constraints to achieve sustainability (Morowitz 1992); 3) Exotic species introductions occasionally have been successfully used in wildlife management, but the dangers of disease, commercialization, loss of genetic integrity, and destruction of natural communities that can accompany introduction of exotics are real and must be controlled (Simberloff 1992); and 4) Pollution, whether it is long term general contamination (e.g. Cooper and Brush 1991) or regionally specific problems (e.g. acid rain that disrupts wetland food chains, National Research Council 1983) is of utmost importance and must be curtailed. The terms "community ecology", "sustainability", "biodiversity", and "landscapes" are not commonly used or understood by hunters and some wildlife managers. But these terms are increasingly understood and advocated by the general public, most of which do not understand or care for hunting. The primarily common ground that hunters and non-hunting (but conservation minded) publics share is a sincere interest in habitat conservation. Future conservation efforts must involve cooperation between hunters and conservation-minded non- hunters and not instill adversarial, us-versus-them, relations. Hunters must continue to support scientific inquiry and professional management of resources. Hunters must do a better job of letting the general public know of the significant contributions that hunters have and are making to national, international, and even global conservation efforts. Although it is not widely recognized, hunters through the agencies and organizations they support have: 1) pioneered discoveries in community and ecosystem ecology (e.g. trophic dynamics and nutrient cycling of wetlands; see articles and references in Bookhout 1979 and Van Der Valk 1989); 2) encouraged sustainable forestry and agricultural practices (e.g., Dumke et al. 1981) and implemented sustainable harvest management (e.g. Bartmann et al. 1992), 3) supported biodiversity conservation through the provision of resources needed by plants and animals of all types regardless of whether they are hunted or not (e.g. Fredrickson and Reid 1986); and 4) supported and implemented landscape-level conservation programs such as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Canadian Wildlife Service and USFWS 1986). Public Lands and Agency Programs 181 Public lands are secured for the public trust and must provide a range of societal benefits including the protection of natural resources. We suggest that: 1. Hunters must continue political and financial support for protection, enhancement, and restoration of habitats in public ownership. Management of public lands is a concern for all of society and hunters must participate in the debates in a logical way that bases arguments on: a) annual cycle needs of species; b) the protection of whole ecosystems, landscapes, and corridors; and c) the need to rely on professional managers within resource agencies to make resource decisions. 2. Hunters must continue to advocate that sport hunting is a biologically defensible and legitimate activity to be allowed on public lands. Arguments must recognize, however, that multiple factors affect population dynamics of species and that management of these factors may require establishment of sanctuaries in key locations if such protection is biologically mandated. Furthermore, hunters should support public management programs that provide benefits for all wildlife, not just those that are hunted. 3. Finally, hunters must support efforts to integrate public land ownership and management into regional and biogeographical contexts. This means that public lands are only one part of the greater landscape, that not all species and ecological functions can be maintained on public lands, and that management of specific public lands will necessarily be variable depending on what habitats and managements exist on surrounding private lands. Consequently, hunters must work to provide complexes of habitat types on both public and private lands within regional areas. Private Lands All of society shares the responsibility of conserving habitats on private lands for a diverse and sustainable array of wildlife. Hunters have contributed greatly and we believe they must continue the following efforts: 1. Lands owned specifically for hunting and fishing must be managed to maximize wildlife benefits throughout the year, not just during hunting seasons. For example, many private duck clubs are now: a) maintaining habitat from fall through early spring to provide essential nutrients to 182 spring migrant and breeding waterfowl, b) timing flood ups and draw downs to emulate natural hydrology and support non- waterfowl species, and c) actively promoting "moist-soil" management that optimizes a diverse plant and invertebrate food base (e.g. Heitmeyer et al. 1989). 2. Hunters can often manage private habitats to enhance diverse resource functions and values on local and regional levels. Again using wetlands as an example, wetlands on private duck clubs can be managed to provide biodiversity, flood water storage, ground water recharge, pollution filtration, conjunctive use of water, nutrient cycling, and waterfowl habitat. Hunters need to cite these multiple benefits as evidence of contributions to society at large and to create appreciation for sport hunting. 3. Hunters and their organizations should support additional incentives for perpetuation of habitats on private lands such as tax reductions, cost- sharing of conservation practices, provision of equipment for sustainable technologies, and assistance with management. 4. Hunters should pursue opportunities to forge partnerships between themselves and commercial ventures including forestry, agriculture, industrial, and municipal landowners. Many commercial entities are just as eager to demonstrate their concern and stewardship for natural resources to the general public as are hunters. Hunting groups can assist these landowners with management, labor, and equipment that might increase resource values and simultaneously provide hunting opportunities. Non-Governmental Conservation Organizations Hunters must continue their support of private conservation organizations. These organizations continue to provide the bulk of private funds and political support for habitat conservation in North America. Furthermore, these organizations continue to be the most effective consolidated voice for the perpetuation of sport hunting. Hunter-supported organizations serve in part as a check and balance on public agency programs, but efforts must encourage cooperation and mutualism, not merely policing. We believe: 1. Each organization must carefully and strategically identify their "niche" 183 in the conservation arena. Duplication or conflicts of effort within the private conservation community, and between private and public groups, are non-productive. At a time when needs are many and funds few, many organizations are tempted to invest in a diversity of programs to attract constituents of varying interests. Unfortunately, this approach leads to a "jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none" result. 2. Hunter-based organizations must appreciate and support the efforts of other groups that complement their own mission. Unfortunately, hunters, in this day when their sport is increasingly scrutinized and under attack, often divert criticisms toward their friends in conservation agencies and organizations, rather than rationally working toward solutions that will improve the perception and understanding of the general public and enemies of their sport. 3. Private conservation organizations must introspectively examine themselves to see how truly effective they are. This means that organizations must implement programs that are scientifically-based and that seek net gains, not just maintenance of the status quo. Habitat conservation has been, and continues to be, the strongest card of hunters. Their love of sport and quarry is much deeper and more inherent than the kill, and their commitment and investment in habitat conservation is unmatched in society. This must remain so if conservation of natural resources is to proceed and sport hunting is to survive. Matthew Connolly has served as Executive Vice President of Ducks Unlimited, Inc. since 1987. Acknowledgements We sincerely thank the numerous hunter-supported conservation organizations that supplied us with statistics. Rick Van Etten did extensive research work for the paper, and B. Batt, J. Nelson, K. Rude, L. Salber, J. Smolko, and A. Wentz, D. Wesley, and P. Yoxall provided valuable input into an earlier draft of the paper. References Bartmann, R.M., G.C. White, and L.H. Carpenter. 1992. Compensatory mortality in a Colorado mule deer population. Wildl. Monogr. 121. 39pp. Bookhout, T.A., Ed. 1979. Waterfowl and wetlands - an integrated review. Proc. Symp. 184 N. Cent. Sect., The Wildl. Soc., Madison, WI. LaCrosse Printing Co., LaCros.se, WI. 148pp Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Environment Canada and U.S. Dep. Interior, Washington, D.C. 33pp. Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture. 1989. Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture Implementation Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Reg. 1., Portland, OR. 101pp. Coon, C.S. 1962. The story of man: from the first human to primitive culture and beyond. Revised Ed. from 1954. New York. Cooper, S.R., and G.S. Brush. 1991. Long-term history of Chesapeake Bay anoxia. Science 254:992-996. Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 1992. Annual report 1991. Ducks Unlimited, Long Grove, IL. 23pp. Dumke, R.T., G.V. Burger, and J.R. March, Eds. 1981. Wildlife management of private lands. Proc. Symp. Wildlife Management on Private Lands, Milwaukee, WI. LaCrosse Printing Co., LaCrosse, WI. Fredrickson, L.H. 1979. Lowland hardwood wetlands: current status and habitat values for wildlife. Pages 296-306 in P.C. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds. Wetland functions and values: the state of our understanding. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc. Tech. Bull. 79-2. Minneapolis, MN. , and F.A. Reid. 1986. Wetland and riparian habitats: a nongame management overview. Pages 59-96 in J.B. Hale, L.B. Best, and R.L. Clawson, eds. Management of nongame wildlife in the midwest: a developing art. Proc. Symp. N. Cent. Sect. The Wildl. Soc., Chelsea, MI. Hawkins, A.S., R.C. Hanson, H.K. Nelson, and H.M. Reeves. 1984. Flyways: pioneering waterfowl management in North America. U.S. Dep. Interior, Fish and Wildl. Serv., Washington, D.C. 517pp. Heitmeyer, M.E., D.P. Connelly, and R.L. Pederson. 1989. The Central, Imperial, and Coachella Valleys of California. Pages 475-505 in L.M. Smith, R.L. Pederson, and R.M. Kaminski, eds. Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl. Texas Tech Univ. Press, Lubbock, TX. Hodgkinson, V.A., and C. Toppe. 1991. A new research and planning tool for managers: the national taxonomy of exempt entities. J. Nonprofit Manage, and Leadership 1:403- 414. Hudson, W.E., Ed. 1991. Landscape linkages and biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 196pp. Kallman, H., Ed. 1987. Restoring America’s wildlife 1937-1987: the first 50 years of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration (Pittman - Robertson) Act. U.S. Dep. Interior, Fish and Wildl. Serv., Washington, D.C. 394pp. Kellert, S.R. 1981. Wildlife and the private landowner. Pages 18-34 m R.T. Dumke, G.V. Burger, and J.R. March, eds. Wildlife management on private lands. Proc. Symp. Wildlife Management on Private Lands, Milwaukee, WI. LaCrosse Printing Co., LaCrosse, WI. Kushler, J.A., and M.E. Kentula, Eds. 1990. Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 594pp. 185 Leopold, A. 1931. Report on a game survey of the North Central States. Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute. Madison, WI. . 1933. Game management. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. 481pp. , M.D. Pimie, and W. Rowan. 1944. Introduction, in H. A. Hochbaum. The canvasback on a prairie marsh. Am. Wildl. Inst., Washington, D.C. 201pp. MacDonald, P.O., W.E. Frayer, and J.K. Clauser. 1979. Documentation, chronology, and future projections of bottomland hardwood habitat losses in the lower Mississippi alluvial plain. Vol. I. U.S. Dep. Interior, Fish and Wildl. Serv., Washington, D.C. Morowitz, H.J. 1992. Balancing species preservation and economic considerations. Science 253:752-754. National Research Council (U.S.). 1983. Acid deposition: atmospheric processes in eastern North America: a scientific understanding. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, D.C. O’Neill, E.J. 1963. Parks and forest conservation in New York, 1850-1920. Ed.D. Diss., Columbia Univ. Pheasants Forever. 1991. 1991 annual report. Pheasants Forever, St. Paul, MN. 11pp. Redington, P.G., and E. Higgins. 1930. Wildlife. Pages 393-505 in L. Havemeyer, ed. Conservation of our natural resources. The MacMillan Co., New York. Reiger, J.F. 1986. American sportsmen and the origins of conservation, 2nd Ed. Univ. Okla. Press, Norman, OK. 316pp. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. 1991. 1991 annual report. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Missoula, MT. 31pp. Simberloff, D. 1992. Science and the conservation leader. Pages 151-177 m D. Snow, ed. Voices from the environmental movement: perspectives for a new era. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Snow, D. 1992. Inside the environmental movement. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 295pp. Soule, M.E. 1992. Conservation: tactics for a constant crisis. Science 253:744-750. The Nature Conservancy. 1991. 1991 annual report— achievements in conservation. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VI. 65pp. Trefethen, J.B. 1975. An American crusade for wildlife. Winchester Press, New York. 409pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. 1985 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated recreation. U.S. Dep. Interior, Fish and Wildl. Serv., Washington, D.C. 167pp. . 1991. Annual report of lands under control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as of September 30, 1991. U.S. Dep. Interior, Fish and Wildl. Serv., Washington, D.C. 41pp. Van der Valk, A. 1989. Northern prairie wetlands. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, LA. 400pp. Wesley, D.E. 1987. Socio-duckonomics. Pages 136-142 in D.J. Decker and G.R. Goff, eds. Valuing wildlife: economic and social perspectives. Westview Press, London. 186 SERIES V: CALL TO ACTION Moderator: Laurance R. Jahn Past Chairman, United Conservation Alliance 187 SUMMARY OF SYMPOSIUM TOPICS AND IDEAS By Laurence R. Jahn An impressive array of speakers provided a tidal wave of invaluable information on North America’s Hunting Heritage. They laid a base of facts, questions and views for us to forge plans and actions to strengthen stewardship and management of the resource base, especially for common property resources held in trust by governments for people. My purpose is to provide a few overall perspectives on some of the important topics laid before us. The four working groups will identify needs for essential follow-up plans and actions required to resolve issues and improve management of natural resources, especially fish and wildlife, and the subsistence and outdoor recreational opportunities they provide. A common thread in many presentations was reference to Aldo Leopold and the land ethic: A thing is right only when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community, and the community includes the soil, water, fauna and flora, as well as people. This ethic provides the framework for the conservation/environmental movement and calls for each person to recognize her or his unique role as a member in the biotic community and act accordingly. The initial call was made for conservation policies and practices nearly a century ago. It has been reinforced by additional calls in the 1930s, 1940s, 1960s and at other times. Such calls now are being made by increasing numbers of voices. Within the biotic community, killing is a normal activity in the food webs. Regulated hunting is considered a morally legitimate practice. Similarly, human 188 actions that lead to excessive soil loss, degradation of water quantity and quality, and excessive use and loss of plants and animals are considered abusive and in need of corrective management. Increasing numbers of people are asking that actions avoid degrading biotic communities and threatening their normal processes, health and productivity, as well as the quality of life for people. The moral obligation for us to survive calls for people to perpetuate the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. We gather here in Montana — the last best place -- to take stock of challenges or opportunities to place uses of the resource base on a sustainable, not a degrading basis, and to ensure continuation of outdoor recreational opportunities. In short, to do what is right. Specifically what is needed to do what is right will vary among watersheds and ecosystems, mainly because characteristics of biotic communities and densities of human populations within them vary geographically. This context must be kept in mind. Montana is the last best place because its 1990 density of people is 5.5 individuals per square mile. This is only sightly more than the U.S. density of 4.5 in 1790. Compare these figures with the other states, including New Jersey with the highest density of 1,042 people per square mile in 1990. Pressure on the land, water and wildlife varies accordingly, as do challenges in producing and using wildlife and fish. Likewise, resource management responses and prescrip- tions will vary too. In searching for legal authorities, programs and cooperative partnerships to strengthen restoration and management of renewable natural resources, we must recognize one important recent change. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled one person, one vote, the political power centers in the U.S. shifted to the metropolitan areas where 77 percent of the people reside. Now it is essential to deal with two interlocked needs: 1. Metropolitan residents (77 percent) need to keep contact with the resource base. This can be accomplished through rewarding outdoor experiences, such as hunting and fishing. Those satisfying activities help ensure that residents leave urban/suburban areas and come to understand natural resources and their management needs. 2. Ranchers, farmers and others need to have 189 metropolitan residents (the voting majority) understand natural resources, their management needs, and their dependence on the resource base and its products, services and uses. Rural landowners should have the welcome mat out. Both they and the metropolitan residents need to have close working relationships. When the national agriculture and water programs are being designed is the time for teamwork to build programs and incentives to achieve sustainability of land and water uses, while ensuring thriving fish and wildlife populations and associated recreational opportunities. What is not recognized fully is that hunters and anglers not only take and use animals, but also enjoy them in other appreciative ways. In 1985, 90 percent of the anglers and 89 percent of the hunters observed, photographed and fed wildlife. Their span of values is much greater than accorded them by many animal rights extremists. Obviously, those nonconsumptive activities, combined with consumptive pursuits, are vital parts of the participants quality of life and means for understanding their relationships with the resource base. As emphasized by several speakers, science supports continuing reason- able, responsible uses of wildlife, including hunting. Similarly, results from polls show public support. • A 1990 Gallop poll showed 77 percent of the public approved reasonable uses of wildlife, including hunting. They did not support positions and actions of the animal rightists, with 90 percent opposing hunter harassment in the field. • A 1992 USA Today nationwide poll, reported 16 July 1992, showed an overwhelming majority (80 percent) of adults believe hunting should remain legal. Of individuals considering themselves non- hunters, 58 percent believe hunting should be legal. To have continuing public support, research must be encouraged and supported to provide information required to manage natural resources for multiple benefits. A number of speakers emphasized this need and called for positive actions to upgrade research. 190 More information is required to help build integrated resource management systems solidly based on facts and management units that ensure sustained uses of natural resources. Another challenge is to develop and maintain adequate data bases on fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. The extent and quality of data must withstand rigorous administrative and judicial reviews, as well as being enlightening to the public. Public attitudes are subject to change. The challenge is to carry out informational and educational activities to help ensure that changes are in the direction of enhancing ecological understanding. Those efforts must orient each person to his or her surroundings and relationships with the resource base. Such educational efforts deserve more attention, especially in view of concerted efforts by extremists to infiltrate school systems with their inaccurate, misleading materials. School administrators and teachers must be encouraged to exercise quality control on materials made available in classrooms. Fortunately, attractive, responsible informational materials are available, as described by several speakers. They should be used more widely to build awareness and understand- ing that promotes actions consistent with restoring and perpetuating biotic communities and the services, products and values important to the quality of life. Likewise, materials used and time allotted to topics in hunter education classes should focus on topics to yield responsible, well-behaved hunters. Unique opportunities exist for reaching about 700,000 individuals yearly on the positive, beneficial features of wildlife management, hunting and other outdoor recreational activities. Both first-time hunters, as well as experienced hunters who never have taken such classes, should be reached. Minnesota’s 15 years of educational efforts with experienced hunters provide valuable insights for building such opportunities in other states. The goal must be to have individuals completing the classes be responsible, skillful, respectful and ethical. Here is a key avenue to respond to the call to have hunters "clean up their act. " Although some of these needs identified by various speakers can be absorbed into existing programs, the current funding base for state fish and wildlife agencies is inadequate to build a more comprehensive fish and wildlife program in each state. A new source of funds of at least $100 million annually is needed immediately to implement the innovative Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980. Your energetic support in building that bridge to the future is essential to assist the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and cooperating organizations in convincing the Congress to take appropriate action promptly. Another need at the national level is to develop stronger working relations 191 with the Congress in planning and designing legislation on wildlife and other natural resources to ensure reasonable, responsible uses of fish and wildlife through management programs carried out by the states. The federal government should assist the states, not usurp their authorities or responsibilities. This much- needed partnership relationship is threatened and needs strong, prompt attention. Remember, elected members of the Congress also are contacted by others, including the well-funded extremists. Be on guard for use of attractive terms, such as "wise use" and "biodiversity" to advance misleading efforts to achieve goals that would constrain, not strengthen, resource management required to perpetuate desired relations in one or more biotic communities. With a flood of new members entering the Congress following November’s election, there are opportunities now to obtain pledges and commitments from candidates to support sound management of natural resources, angling, hunting and other outdoor activities. Also, encourage your House and Senate representatives to join the Congressional Sportsmen Caucus. Montana’s Senator Conrad Bums chairs the Senate Caucus and Pennsylvania’s Richard Schulze chairs the House Caucus. These caucuses have been and can continue to be helpful in countering the illogical, unwarranted and damaging legislative proposals offered by the animal rights extremists. In addition to defense, innovative ideas are needed to strengthen fish and wildlife features in major national land and water programs. Several speakers highlighted gains in recent years under the 1985 and 1990 Farm Acts, the Clean Water Act and new 1986 water development authorities. But more imaginative partnership programs, projects and practices are needed. The multibillions of dollars of taxpayers funds funneled through these programs must yield sustainable uses of the resource base and multiple benefits for people. Dividends, for example, flowing from the $62 billion annual outlay in agriculture are being examined and questioned severely. Changes are needed, for example, to correct the drain of two bushels of soil lost for each bushel of com produced and to improve management of degraded riparian areas to restore their productivity. The challenge is to develop more partnerships with farmers and ranchers to curtail excessive soil erosion, improve water quality, restore fish and wildlife populations, and provide more outdoor recreational opportunities, including hunting and fishing. Stronger joint cooperative efforts also are needed in water programs in several federal and state agencies to convert degrading uses of the resource base to a sustainable status. Participate in making sure these changes take place to achieve positive responses to the land ethic’s call for integrity, stability and 192 beauty of the landscape. Changes are required to restore and perpetuate the quality of life. Outfitters and others provide helpful services in meeting needs of outdoor recreationists, especially metropolitan residents who lack the space and facilities to equip themselves to visit outlying areas and keep touch with the resource base. But outfitters must recognize the need for codes of behavior to ensure they provide rewarding, quality experiences for visitors and assist in improving the image of hunters and hunting. I say visitors because hunters often return to attractive areas with their families and friends outside of hunting seasons. As several speakers emphasized, these outdoor activities stimulate the economy substantially and should be continued, not eliminated. More business leaders must come to realize these important relationships and support sound management of natural resources and outdoor recreational opportunities. Communicating these positive results is a challenge, in view of the media’s desire to focus on the negative rather than the positive. The challenge is to get positive information flowing by avoiding the negative "traps" set by media representatives. Do not depend solely on "glitzy" brief messages. Remember, the majority of people receive die written word and use the information. Give positive messages to motivate people to restore and perpetuate the biotic community. Other "traps" also should be avoided. For example, if zoos have excess exotic animals, which they do, they need a process to dispose of them or use measures to avoid producing surpluses. But the disposal operation should not be labeled hunting and not involve hunters. Other animal control operations are just that, not hunting. Such operations lack many of the elements identified by several speakers in exploring motivations and satisfactions in hunting. We must build on the sound conservation fabric woven in the past 100 years and move forward with programs and activities that respond to needs of the 1990s and the 21st century. More than a century ago, sportsmen joined with other appreciative outdoor users to seek and establish policies, programs and practical management actions to restore depleted wildlife populations and habitats. It was the personal dedication and contributions of individuals, through joint efforts to do what is right for common property resources, that led to the outstanding accomplishments cited at this Symposium. Those personal commitments and joint efforts to do what is right for wildlife, their habitats and users continue to be needed. The four Working Groups will define timely issues and identify alternative approaches to respond to those needs within the changing U.S. social context molded by more than 250 193 million people and increasing multiple demands for using the resource base. Our responses must seek to ensure thriving wildlife populations, well-functioning biotic communities and healthful outdoor recreational opportunities, including fishing and hunting. We are fortunate to have the dynamic leadership and strong commitment of Governor Stephens to work through the Western and National Governor’s Councils to initiate recommended constructive actions. When we leave this well-staged Symposium, our test will be to provide persistent efforts to register achievements in doing what is right. Each of us as participants should ensure that those follow-up efforts occur. Larry John, a conservationist and biologist, resides in Vienna, Va. He is past board chairman of the United Conservation Alliance. 194 A PRESCRIPTION FOR SUCCESS From the Conservation History of Hunters By Jim Posewitz We, as hunters and anglers, are descendants of those who began the national conservation reformation when this century was new. Curbing unbridled exploitation was basic to preserving and restoring fish and wildlife. At the time, resource conservation was essential to people with a passion to hunt and fish. The issues that confronted our forefathers were not much different than they are today. Granted, there are differences in the complexity of today’s issues and in the magnitude of our human impact and interest. Near the close of the 19th Century national leaders met with small groups of progressive thinkers. The close of this century saw millions of people focused on the earth summit. While the scale of these events is radically different, the social principles are similar. The issue is still whether or not we humans can live compatibly with the living communities that make this planet function. Looking toward the 21st Century, there is a distinction fundamental to our future. While the conservation reformation that closed the 19th century was of only casual importance to those who were not hunters or anglers, the environmental reformation that is closing this century is of paramount importance to all people. This is a distinction to reckon with if we hunters are to survive and prosper during the inevitable changes on our horizon. The scale of current events is enormous, and they have the capacity to dwarf the magnitude of change realized in any historical paradigm. The scale of it all, however, must not dim our enthusiasm or our obligation to participate. For hunters and anglers there is peril and opportunity in the growing environmental consensus. Today, just as a hundred years ago, we are among the ranks of those calling for preservation and protection of forests, wild lands, and 195 free-flowing rivers. Today, just as a hundred years ago, we find ourselves among the ranks of the accused; hunters as part of the peril wild things must face. Today, just as a hundred years ago, we must form a strategy that includes fending against the perils— and seizing the opportunities. The course our predecessors chose was to be the vanguard for change. One advantage we have is that we have the benefit of history, a history rich in examples of things that worked. They were tactics that produced a century of progress. The outcome was resource exploitation arrested, the public trust advanced, common values preserved and the tradition of the hunt defined as a socially acceptable activity. The deeds of our predecessors took the word "hunter" from the meat lockers of the market place and killing fields of the Great Plains and made it synonymous with conservation. Wildlife abundance and social acceptability of hunters became a gift passed to our generation. What was done during the youth of our nation was not environmentally pretty, our crimes against nature were neither subtle nor missed by people of conscience. In 1836, with the publication of Nature Ralph Waldo Emerson set off a sequence of events that produced nature thinkers and writers who pressed the American conscience. About 50 years later, as the last of the buffalo were falling on the plains, the nation produced leaders who took action. Two of those leaders, Theodore Roosevelt and John Muir, provide us with an excellent model of men with differences who found reason to work for a common purpose. In December of 1887, at a dinner meeting in New York City an ebullient Theodore Roosevelt founded the Boone and Crockett Club as, "... a club of American hunting riflemen." Purpose of the club was to fight for the preservation of the big game of North American.1 Five years later, on the opposite coast, a somewhat shy, John Muir assembled a number of prominent leaders in a San Francisco law office to incorporate the Sierra Club. Purpose of the club was to, "...explore, enjoy and preserve" the country’s resources.2 More separated Roosevelt and Muir than the geography of the Great Plains, Rockies and High Sierras. Yet in 1903, Muir, an intense semi-recluse, and Roosevelt, the exuberant president of the United States, disappeared together into the forests of Yosemite.3 There was no record of the discussions these men 1 Trefethen, James A., An American Crusade for Wildlife , Boone and Crockett Club, 1979, 79-81. 2 Wild, Peter, Pioneer Conservationists of Western America , 1978, 41. 3 Huth, Hans, Bison Book Printing, 1972, 179. 196 had during the days they camped and hiked together through the cathedral of Yosemite. We know that Muir thought little of killing and that Roosevelt lived for the hunt. At one point it was reported that Muir asked Roosevelt: "... when are you going to get beyond the boyishness of killing things..." 4 The President took no offense, in fact, his description of their time together included the following assessment of Muir: "There was a delightful innocence and good-will about the man, and an utter inability to imagine that any one could either take or give offense. " 5 It is almost a century since these titans walked among the giant sequoias to find common ground. Each discovered fertile fields for their ideological seed. Their high and common purpose overshadowed their differences and became the basis for nine decades of achievement. As the ideas and concepts of Roosevelt and Muir were developing within our society and its government, another example of productive collaboration is noteworthy. The ultimate commitment to wildlife, and the preservation of natural process is probably our national Wilderness system. Creation of that system occurred about a half century after Roosevelt and Muir found a way to walk a parallel trail. Two men who picked up the conservation torch, honed a national Wilderness philosophy, and generated the energy to make things happen, were Bob Marshall and Aldo Leopold. Ironically, the personalities of these men were cast in molds the reverse of the Roosevelt/Muir pattern. Marshall, basically a non-hunter who revelled in the wildness and esthetics of remote country, was the exuberant extrovert; while Leopold, the hunter, was the contemplative and articulate component of the team. Like Roosevelt and Muir, Marshall and Leopold focused on the goals they had in common and the necessity for broad conservation coalitions. Thirty-two years after the presidential camp out in Yosemite and 29 years before passage of 4 Nash, Roderick, Wilderness and the American Mind , Yale University Press, 1982, 139. 5 Roosevelt, Theodore, Wilderness Writings , Peregrine Smith Books, 1986, 145. 197 the Wilderness Act, Marshall and Leopold were among the founders of The Wilderness Society. In addition to demonstrating the value of alliances, these people taught an additional lesson. Although both were employed by public agencies, they demonstrated the importance of working with, and in, the private conservation community. In the Marshall and Leopold battle for the wilderness there is an irrefutable linkage to the hunter. The record holds a historical truth of substantial contemporary utility. This historical paradigm suggests a path to be traveled again. In this record, the American hunter is revealed as a consistent, reliable, and effective component of preserving the natural environment. The presence of the hunter is clearly recorded in evolution of the American wilderness philosophy and in the realization of today’s system of land preservation. This is the kind of activity that reveals the true and most positive nature of the sensitive hunter. The hunter’s prescription for preserving the natural world contains another important component. In this country, the rights to utilize wildlife are shared by all the people. The basic human motivation for gaining our own freedom and preserving the hunt were written on the same parchment of human events. In the final analysis, it was the democracy of the American hunting opportunity that produced the political base from which the environmental consensus eventually evolved. This history of ours contains the paradigms for tomorrow. These models hold lessons of: ■ tolerance for a diversity of purpose, ■ working with and in citizen movements, ■ protecting the democracy of the use of common resources, and ■ finally, applying the lessons to the land-the places the hunters know. Tolerance for a diversity of purpose From the beginning it was recognized that conservation of the commons was not a one organization job. The need to preserve waterfowl and terminate plume hunting were comfortable companions. For example, T. Gilbert Pearson who organized the North Carolina Audubon Society in 1902, wrote in his memoirs: "Gentlemen hunters were my main supporters. They loved the out-of-doors and wanted market-shooting and plume-hunting 198 brought to an end; while men who did not hunt seemed to take no interest in laws to protect wildlife. "6 While the hunters of today are consistent with those of Pearson’s day, a major distinction between then and now is the number of people focused on wildlife protection. Today, as yesterday, the conservation cause depends upon the hunter’s conscience and we must give the Gilbert Pearsons of today a reason to respect and honor our purpose. Working with and in the citizen movements One thing Roosevelt, Muir, Leopold and Marshall shared was the realization that public participation was essential. Even while they were institutionalizing conservation within government they were creating citizen organizations to insure the purity of their purpose. Recent events in national forests, national parks and government agencies in general reveal the uncommon perception of our mentors. We must stay in communion with hunters and the conservation groups that share our purpose. A major malady of our times is the distance that has grown between the resource management agencies and the philosophies responsible for their creation. The people at the grassroots level, and perhaps they alone, may be the only capable custodians of a consistent vision. A vision clear enough for the social navigation necessary in a complex world. We, particularly government agencies, must restore a close association with the people. Protecting the democracy of our use of the commons When 19th Century hunters rescued wildlife from the market place they taught us a fundamental lesson. That lesson was that commerce and conservation are not comfortable companions. As the restoration of wildlife reached the impressive proportions this generation enjoys, its commercial potential again darkens the horizon of our commons. Special privilege, privatization, domestication, artificialization and even pharmaceutical quackery are depredating and parasitizing a resource that belongs to itself and is held in trust for all the 6 Trefethen, 134. 199 people. Roosevelt’s admonition from Outdoor Pastimes of an American Hunter was right to the point when he offered: "Above all, we should realize that the effort toward this end is essentially a democratic movement. It is entirely within our power ... to preserve large tracts of wilderness, and to preserve the game.... for the benefit of all lovers of nature, and to give reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the skill of the hunter, whether he is or is not a man of means the people as a whole can preserve the game and can prevent its becoming purely the property of the rich . . . "7 If hunting is to survive, it will only survive if we sustain the basic democracy that must support any use of a common resource. Tolerating a new royalty in the use of this commons will fatally undermine the preservation of hunting. Applying the lessons to the land— the places we the hunters know. As conservationists, we are at our best working for the places we know. This is the singular advantage hunters have, we are close to the earth and know the turf. We know these places like the deer, the duck, the bear and the turkey know them. For the better part of a century, hunters have put the puzzle back together: a wood lot, brush patch, pot hole and now and then, a Wilderness at a time. The people saw what the hunters did and said it was right. These may seem like simple ideas for a complex time with an entire planet in crises. Wendell Berry gave us a useful notion when he said: "Our understandable wish to preserve the planet must somehow be reduced to the scale of our competence-that is, to the wish to preserve all of its humble households and neighborhoods. " 8 We, the American hunters, know how to get that done. It must be our focus and the fulcrum of our leadership. 7 Schullery, Paul, Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness Writings, Peregrine Smith Books, 1986, 149. 8 Berry, Wendell, "Word and Flesh," Journal of American Wildlands, Vol 2, No. 2, Summer 1991. 200 Conclusion Perhaps this fraternity of ours lost something, left something behind. Perhaps we began to take the resource for granted as we capitalized on the rich endowment left by our predecessors. Perhaps it is not the people who watch hunters that have changed— but us. If this is a malady that needs attention the prescription for treating it is clearly written in the human mind and on the land. It is written in: the forests of Roosevelt’s daring; the wilderness of Marshall’s insistence; the beautifully articulated philosophies of Leopold and Muir. Perhaps the original association between the hunter as conservationist and resource management agencies lost something else. Maybe we lost the rapport and common purpose we once held. We, the conservation agencies are the children of the hunter. In some cases the estranged children of die hunter. It is the hunter’s philosophy, political energy, and for some, the financial sustenance that resides in our institutional genes and flows in our bureaucratic veins. In 1936, when the Montana sportsman’s delegation went back to Washington D.C. to help create the National Wildlife Federation the delegation included: Kenneth McDonald, a game warden; Ray G. Lowe, a fish and game commissioner; and Glen A. Smith, Assistant Regional Forester. That kind of rapport and common purpose does not exist today. Fortunately, when we were given this wildlife/hunting legacy the instructions were written on the box. What was written there is the prescription for putting the shine back on ourselves. We, the children of the American hunter’s conservation movement, must find our way back home. We must: ■ study our history to appreciate the source of what is in our custody, ■ contemplate the philosophy of our predecessors and enrich those concepts with contemporary social mores, ■ manage fish and wildlife with more respect for the animals than we show for the statistics of their production. We must do these things to "true" ourselves with our own heritage while we address an ethic that will fit the future. We must begin: ■ managing habitat to provide ethical circumstances 201 for fair chase rather than convenient circumstances for killing, ■ teaching a respect for the animals we pursue, ■ teaching an appreciation for the relationship between the animals and the earth we share, ■ encouraging creation of coalitions built around hunters, anglers and other environmental interests. ■ defending the democracy of hunting and fishing in a world pressing to domesticate, privatize, and commercialize fish and wildlife. We must all recognize that relegating hunters and anglers to the role of hopeful bystanders in the coming debate over the health of the earth, courts almost certain disaster. There are too few hunters left among the human masses to be inactive in the current environmental debate. To remain on the sidelines will be to be invisible— and then lost without notice. Granted, we can not do it all, but we must do what we can. As J.R.R. Tolkien put it: "It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.9 If we can return hunters and anglers to a position of prominence in the preservation of the wonderful wild things of earth— the outcome will be as it was when we were new. The public will look upon the hunt and say: "...there goes the hunter— and it is a good thing." Jim Posewitz is the special assistant to the director for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, executive director of the Cinnabar Foundation, and an adjunct professor of history and philosophy at Montana State University. 9 Tolkien, J.R.R. , The Return of the King. 202 THE DIALECTICAL FOUNDATION OF THE LAND ETHIC By Theodore R. Vitali, CP Nearly a half a century ago Aldo Leopold presented in A Sand County Almanac 1 a new moral paradigm, the "land ethic", which a) extends moral considerability to the entire biotic community, that is, to all living organisms and their non organic essential conditions, and b) establishes die moral principle that the biotic community is the measure of all things, "things that are, that they are, things that are not that they are not" (if I may be allowed to amend Protagoras’ famous expression). Leopold proposed that the welfare of the biotic community is the measure of goods and values with all other goods and values, including the human, subordinate to the "integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community."2 Leopold’s land ethic offered an alternative moral paradigm to the anthropocentric or psychocentric paradigm3 in which "man is the measure of all things, things that are that they are [or should be], things that are not, that they are not [or should not be]." The anthropocentric model has been and continues to remain the basic western, and if one includes specifically 17th century "mechanistic" refinements, the basic classical modem paradigm. More recently, William Blackstone4 has developed a highly respected environmental ethic within an amended version of the anthropocentric paradigm. Blackstone amends the anthropic paradigm by a) acknowledging the intrinsic goodness of at least some subhuman individuals, and b) by extending to the entire biotic community moral considerability (moral entitlement). He is able to make this extension because in his theory the welfare of the biotic community is essentially entailed by every human being’s primary right to life.5 In this paper, I would like to explore the philosophical foundation of the land ethic and to reconcile, if possible, Blackstone’ s and Leopold’s theories. I would also like to propose two moral principles, the principle of conservation and 203 the principle of relativity, that flow from the new paradigm and which, I hope to show, will help us adjudicate moral disputes concerning environmental matters, especially those involved in the moral legitimacy of hunting and its role in conservation. I. The Philosophical Foundation of The Land Ethic Three extreme positions may result, and in fact have resulted at times, from both the anthropocentric and biocentric (the land ethic, especially in some of its more extreme forms) paradigms if taken in isolation from the insights contained in the other. The first extreme is acute anthropocentrism, or anthropic totalitarianism, which accords intrinsic value only to human interests and thus subordinates all subhuman goods to the rank of instrumental or extrinsic goods for human welfare. The second extreme is biotic egalitarianism, an extension of the anthropic theory of entitlement, which accords strict moral entitlements to every member of the biotic community by way of an extension of human rights to all sentient, and in some extreme cases, all living organisms including plant life. Finally, the third extreme is biotic totalitarianism which, in direct contrast to anthropic totalitarianism, accords moral entitlement solely to the biotic community as such and thus degrades ail individual goods, including human, to the rank of extrinsic or instrumental goods for the welfare of the biotic community. The three extremes are to be avoided as the foundation for an environmental ethic because they a) either deny outright, or relegate to virtual unimportance, the intrinsic good of individual living beings (biotic and anthropic totalitarianism), or b) they deny the basic relational continuum of individuals within the food chain, and thus deny the essential role of the community in the biotic process (biotic egalitarianism). Extreme anthropocentrism has the tendency, even if only implicitly, to commodify all subhuman goods into instrumental goods for human consumption. The biotic model also has the tendency to commodify individuals, human and subhuman, but into instrumental goods for the biotic community. This is especially true in the communitarian form espoused by Leopold. J. Baird Callicott tells us that the land ethic preempts all individual goods and thus is holistic "with a vengeance."6 In both paradigms, especially if taken to their extremes, the intrinsic good of the individuals is lost for the sake of either the human or the biotic good7. And with the loss of this "principle of restraint", namely, the intrinsic good of individuals, exploitation of individuals for the sake of either the human or the 204 biotic community has and win continue to occur. In contrast to these extremes, I believe a sound environmental ethic, a genuine and sustainable land ethic, must strike a middle ground between theories that espouse the intrinsic goodness of individuals, and attach to them the same moral considerability found in humans, and communitarian theories which attach moral entitlements only to communities. A sound environmental ethic must be a theory that acknowledges both the intrinsic goodness of individuals and the essential role of community in delimiting and defining these intrinsic goods by including or excluding species according to their extrinsic or instrumental vale to the community. To accomplish this, the land ethic must first distinguish between physical or ontic goods and evils, intrinsic as well as extrinsic, and moral goods and evils. It must be able to distinguish between natural goods and evils, life processes, and specifically normative behavior in which cognitive deliberation and personal responsibility are definitive characteristics. This distinction is crucial if the two generic forms of totalitarianism are to be avoided. Ontic goods and evils in the biotic community are goods having to do with being and staying alive. To be alive is the base or fundamental good for the individual because all other goods and evils relative to it are measured by and for this base good. The death of another is good for it if it, the living individual, depends upon it for food. On the other hand, its own death becomes a good for some other animal who feeds upon it in turn.8 No individual has intrinsic goodness simply by being itself. It depends upon the biotic community for its life, its nurture, its active and passive roles in the biotic community, and the character of its species. The biotic community, therefore, is much more than a mere aggregate of individuals. It is also the "mediating” cause of individual existence in so far as it is the delimiting condition for the existence of individuals as species. Callicott puts it well when he writes: "Ecological relationships determine the nature of organisms rather than the other way around. A species is what it is because it has adapted to a niche in the ecosystem. The whole, the system itself, thus, literally and quite straightforwardly shapes and forms its component species."9 The intrinsic goodness of individuals and the delimiting and definitional role of the community constitute the basis for a dialectical ontology capable of grounding a land ethic. Within this dialectical ontology the human community 205 plays its role as contributor and dependent, competitor and cooperator. As a subcommunity within the larger community, the human community strives to survive in the richness of its internal complexity, that is as a cultural, physical, ethical, religious, scientific, and economical community. It is the theme of this paper that within this modified land ethic, the intrinsic good of individuals, species and habitat, their premoral or ontic good and evil, acquire moral considerability or moral value because and only because they are extrinsically good in a specifically configured biotic community that is essential for human development and survival (Blackstone). II. The Moral Implications of the Dialectic Between Individual and Community10 The biotic community loses individuals as a matter of course. The death of individuals is the essential ingredient in the biotic pyramid. The loss of species over vast periods of time is also a normal part of the evolutionary process. The enrichment and diversification of the biotic community derives at times from the loss of dominant, oligopolistic species and subcommunities of species which are no longer capable of filling a niche in the new, more complex order. Moral normativity, therefore, is not due to the fact that individuals die or even that species are lost. The dialectical continuum of life and death is the very nature of the biotic community. There is no other "game in town." Moral normativity or the moral question concerning rights and obligations towards the environment is due, rather, to the human community’s internal obligation to act consciously and deliberately in ways that enhance rather than detract from the welfare of itself as a subcommunity within the larger biotic community, that is, to act for survival in the fullest sense. To survive biologically, as well as spiritually, psychologically, aesthetically and even culturally the human community must both cooperate and compete within itself as a community, and within the biotic community upon which it depends and contributes. As a result of the base moral concern for survival, more particular moral issues focus on the way humans deal with and at times kill subhuman individuals, the impact of these ways of acting on the welfare of species, and as a result of potential species endangerment, on the possible reduction of biodiversity in the biotic community upon which every individual and species depend.11 The moral character of the land ethic, therefore, flows out of the concern for survival as a cooperative and competitive member of the biotic community. 206 The intrinsic and extrinsic goodness of individuals, species, and habitat are accorded moral value, moral considerability, not because they are alive, not even because they contribute to the biotic community, but solely because they contribute to the biotic community in a way that enhances human survival. m. General Moral Principles and Their Application In the light of these preliminary remarks, I believe two moral sub-principles may be proposed for the adjudication of moral matters concerning the environment. The first I entitle the "principle of conservation. " It reads: The integrity and stability of the biotic community ought to be preserved in the richness of its diversity insofar as its members are both intrinsically good in themselves (they are alive) and instrumentally good for the biodiversity of the biotic community upon which all life, especially human life, depends (Blackstone). This is a basic principle of the land ethic because it recognizes the intrinsic good of individuals and species, and it espouses the view that every individual and species has inherent within its own welfare the capacity to be an instrumental good for the biotic community upon which it depends. Furthermore, this principle indirectly reflects the caution warranted by the limited range of human knowledge when it comes to prudential estimations on the impact of human activity on the welfare of biotic community.12 The second principle I propose is the principle of proportionate reason or the "principle of relativity." It reads: To take life and/or risk the loss of species ought only to occur when there is sufficient or proportionate reason. The good that is lost must be counter-balanced by the good gained, not solely for the individuals or species involved (because they may be expendable), but for the "integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community" (Leopold), in so far as the biotic community is the "radical" condition of and for human survival (Blackstone). This principle recognizes that the relative or instrumental good of each individual and species is also instrumentally valuable because of its role in human survival. It thus justifies the taking of individual life and the placing at risk of 207 species whenever change is demanded in and for the welfare of the biotic community as the conditio sine qua non of human survival. It also acknowledges the general moral principle: do no harm unless there is a proportionate reason to do so. This principle limits access to subhuman animals even though it acknowledges their instrumental value for the human community. With both these principles in mind, we may now ask what would constitute sufficient reason for killing individual animals, endangering species, or risking the destruction of specific habitats. Individuals To deliberately kill an animal requires a reason or a good proportionate to the life taken, that is, a good or reason proportionate to the life taken within the context of the intrinsic and extrinsic goodness of the animal in the biotic community. To take the life of an animal is to do harm to the animal, to destroy something that is good, at least for the animal itself. But, the total goodness (and from the human perspective, the value) of the animal can not be measured solely by the fact that it is alive and its death an evil or harm to it. Its intrinsic goodness, as stated above, must be measured by the role it plays in the biotic community in so far as its contribution is important from the human perspective. To kill for food is a normal process in the biotic community and a sufficient reason to kill most animals that normally serve as food. The human predator should no more be restrained from killing animals for food than any other animal should be restrained. The human predator, however, must take into account the impact of his/her killing on both the species and the biotic community. Humans are morally obliged to assess the impact of the killing on the larger community because they, through their knowledge and actions, have some degree of control over the welfare of that community, and thus have a proportionate degree of control over their own welfare- their primary moral concern. Even the killing of nuisance animals, such as varmints and pests, may be justified. These animals often do harm to the balance of the biotic community because of over population. But more particularly, they often do harm to the human community in terms of economic loss, health hazards and even psychological annoyances. The harm they do is usually commensurate to their number and their impact on the immediate biotic community in which humans live. The correlation, therefore, between their numbers and the level of annoyance is such that killing individuals a) usually has little or no negative impact on the overall healthy population of such species and thus on the biodiversity of the biotic community and b) often contributes in a positive way 208 to managing burgeoning populations of animals and thus enhances rather than degrades the welfare and biodiversity of the biotic community. To kill predators may be justified13 in terms of overall biotic management. Certain predators may be judged to be impacting too greatly on other species, given the specific complexity of the biotic community in a particular region, thus placing these prey species at risk. Nevertheless, because of the lack of density in or the precarious state of the population of such predators as wolves, certain species of bears, big cats, etc., the greatest caution should be exercised and other alternatives should be explored whenever any of these predator species are placed at risk. Predator control must be very carefully, and in some cases, rarely done and its impact checked at every level if it is to be morally justified. [I do not believe controlling predators such as wolves or bears is justified in order to preserve game animals whose numbers have value solely for the purpose of sport hunting. Anthropocentric interests in this case need to be checked by the broader issue of the welfare of the biotic community. Hunting is not a sufficient reason to risk the existence of predators whose numbers are precarious or whose place in the biotic community is not certain.] Finally, killing or hunting for sport may also be justified if done for sufficient and proportionate reasons. To hunt for food or to cull the herd (even if these are by-products of the desire to hunt for pleasure), or to develop specific human virtues and values indigenous to the hunting experience14, may be sufficient and proportionate reasons to kill. The killing, however, must be humane, since each animal is both good in itself and subject to pain, and it must directly or indirectly enhance and not detract from the welfare of the biotic community. Species Human impact on species requires a much greater reason for risk taking than the killing of individual animals. This is obvious because the well being of the species has significantly, virtually exponentially, greater impact on the welfare of other species and on the biodiversity of the biotic community than any particular animal. The moral issue is not whether or not a specific species has the right to survive and thus merit protection at all costs. The moral issue is whether or not, and to what extent, the change brought about will enrich or impoverish the overall biotic community and thus directly or indirectly threaten the human community. Nature will eventually eliminate even the strongest of species. The only issue is whether at this time such species ought to be risked given more or 209 less probable outcomes? Habitat The same logic that applies to the species applies even more so to the preservation of the complex habitat that forms the biotic community’s tangled food web. Any impact upon the biodiversity and range of the habitat affects proportionately the potential for survival of individuals and species. Because the degree of impact on habitat is exponentially greater than that of species, even greater care must be exercised in gathering information and assessing probability outcomes. In general, for each of the orders of impact, individual, species, and habitat, there must be proportionate goods or reasons (principle of relativity) correlative to the extent and quality of the risk taken (principle of conservation). Whenever there is doubt, the latter should take precedence over the former. IV. The Hunting Heritage and the Land Ethic As stated above, hunting may be a morally legitimate practice within the biotic community. This is so for a number of reasons which are proportionate to the taking of animal life understood within the biotic continuum or pyramid (both models have complementary value). First, the taking of life is a normal activity within the biotic pyramid. The direct taking of life in hunting eliminates the artificial and at times harmful separation between killing and eating. Hunting strengthens the connection between the taking of life and the securing of personal survival in the biotic community. This is a genuine value because the separation of killing from eating has led indirectly to a dangerous indifference to the impact of modem agriculture and food processing on the welfare of the biotic community. Second, hunting has become the most efficient method for wildlife and habitat management. Given the enormous size of the human community within the biotic community, no more efficient or economical manner has been discovered that directly and indirectly serves the purposes of culling herds and balancing game populations and their dependent species, as does hunting. Hunting has become virtually an indispensable tool in wildlife management. Third, hunting reclaims atavistic values, values attached to the intimacy of predator to prey in the biotic process. Hunting is a direct participation in nature and has the potential of deepening the spiritual and moral bonds between human and subhuman communities. Nature photography and hiking, while good 210 in themselves, lack the intimacy with nature that hunting achieves because they are non predatory. Rather, they keep the participant at a distance from the biotic pyramidal process. Furthermore, they indirectly seduce the participant into believing that the human presence in the biosphere can remain at a distance, virtually voyeuristic, rather than participative on the strictly biotic level of killing and being killed. Hunting, instead, is a direct form of participating in the process. In my judgment, this may well be the most significant of all the reasons given to justify hunting, and proportionately, the greatest. There are moral caveats as well: First, killing must never be wanton. There must always be a sufficient reason for the taking of individual animal life. Respect for life is essential to the hunting experience and must not be sacrificed for the sake of wanton pleasure. There must be a principle of restraint based upon respect for the animals hunted, namely, their intrinsic good, which governs the hunter in his or her acts of killing. Second, hunting must not be cruel. The use of weapons must be such that the killing is quick and with the least amount of pain. There is a serious moral obligation not to do harm beyond what is required for the killing of the animal. Therefore, there is a commensurate mandate to practice the use of weapons, to prepare carefully, and to select only the best shots. There must be restraint. Third, hunting must never detract from the welfare of the species and thus the biodiversity of the biotic community. Any hunting that endangers a species cannot be morally justified. I can think of no reason of sufficient proportion why a species should be put in danger for the sake of the hunting experience. Fourth, hunting must not contribute to cultural, political, and moral misunderstandings concerning the value of hunting for the environment. It must not scandalize the public through brazen and offensive activity, such as the slaughter of certain animals, or the projection of images in which hunting or killing is portrayed as sadistic or wanton in its disregard for the welfare of individual animals, species, and habitat. This is crucially important because environmentalism has become a political issue today and certain forms of environmentalism, especially those of the egalitarian sort, are both politically correct and popular. Conclusion The land ethic is a contextual ethic founded upon the intrinsic and extrinsic good of individuals mutually dependent upon each other for survival, and thus formed 211 into a integral, balanced, and efficient food web, the biotic community. The moral perspective derives from the human participation in this dialectic. The land ethic combines the theories espoused by Leopold and Blackstone. Leopold is correct that an essential element in the measurement of goodness within the land ethic is the biodiversity or welfare of the biotic community in so far as the community provides the necessary condition for the realization of the intrinsic good of each individual. He is also correct that the welfare of the biotic community depends in part upon the respect for individual animals, species, and habitat. Blackstone is correct that the moral obligation for the human community towards individuals, species, and habitat conditions in the biotic community, while rooted in part in respect for the intrinsic goodness of the members of the community, ultimately derives from the primary human right to the conditions for survival. The moral obligation to survive entails, in short, the obligation to preserve and enhance, and thus to value, the rich biodiversity of the biotic community upon which the human community depends. Hunting is morally justified within the land ethic by its positive contribution to human virtue, the enrichment of the human community, and ultimately its direct and indirect contribution to the "integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community." Ted Vitali is a Catholic priest, ethicist, and chairman of the Department of Philosophy at St. Louis University. References 1. Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968). 2. Leopold, 224-5. 3. J. Baird Callicott, In Defense of the Land Ethic. New York: SUNY, 1989, 85. 4. William Blackstone, "Ethics and Ecology," Philosophy and Environmental Crisis, ed. W. Blackstone, Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1971. 5. Ibid. 30-32. It should be noted, that while Blackstone builds his theory of environmental responsibilities around the need for human survival in the fullest sense of the word, psychological, economic, physical, and cultural, his position broadens the moral pale to include the intrinsic goodness of non human organisms. This point is especially made in a posthumously published article (in part completed by Tom Regan), "The Search for an Environmental Ethic," Matters of 212 Life and Death. New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, ed. Tom Regan, New York: Random House, 299-335, especially 330-332) Tom Regan may also be said to be working within this "extended" paradigm though he, too, rejects outright anthropocentrism. Regan, unlike Blackstone, extends the theory of rights to include some subhuman animals within its fold. Regan begins with a deontological view of moral entitlements (especially just treatment) that are specifically human, and by logical extension, recognizes other sub human animals as having sufficiently satisfied the philosophical criterion required for inclusion within this theory of entitlement (cf. Regan, The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1983, 276-280.) The reason this position is an amended version of die anthropocentric paradigm is that it begins with the human model of rights and extends that understanding outwardly to included others within its purview (cf. Blackstone, "The Search for an Environmental Ethic," 328. What is important to note here is that Blackstone and Regan accept an "expanded concept of value, obligations, and rights...." Regan worked up this article after Blackstone’ s death and so supports the inclusion of his name under the paradigm described on page 320. 6. Callicott, 84. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid, 106. 9. Ibid, 87. 10. Human activity, because it is both cognitive and deliberate, can be held accountable for its impacts on the welfare of the biotic community in general and the human community in particular. Minimally, the human community must hold itself responsible for the way it impacts on the larger biotic community since such impacts enhance or imperil the well being of the human community. On the other hand, all subhuman activity within the biotic community appears to be instinctual at best and, as a result, outside the pale of moral responsibility. The subhuman sub- communities (species) cannot hold themselves responsible for the welfare of the biotic community, even when their activity leads to the destruction of habitat and their own demise. Deer can and often do reproduce themselves to their own peril. Human activity alone, therefore, will be the subject of our moral consideration. 11. Callicott, 113-114. Biodiversity is of moral concern because biodiversity and the complexity of nature (species) are co-terminus in the enormously intricate and co-dependential web that is the biotic community. The welfare of individuals, species, and habitat, the biotic community taken as a whole, directly entails the moral concern for the preservation of biodiversity because decrease in biodiversity endangers all members of the biotic community, especially 213 humans. i 12. Peter Raven, St. Louis Post Dispatch. Sunday, May 31, 1992. 13. Robert Loftin: "The Morality of Hunting, " Environmental Ethics. Fall. 1984. Vol. 6. 244. Utilitarian purposes of culling herd is one thing, killing predators (which are self-regulating generally) is not justifiable. 14. Leopold, "Wilderness in American Culture", 177-187. Leopold mentions there is "the value in any experience that reminds us of our distinctive national origins and evolution, i.e., that stimulates awareness of history... I shall call this... the ’split rail value’" 177. He also claims there is "value in any experience that reminds us of our dependency on the soil-plant-animal-man food chain, and of the fundamental organization of the biota" 178. "Third, there is value in any experience that exercises those ethical restraints collectively called ’sportsmanship. ’...A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscience, rather than by a mob of onlookers. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this fact." 178. 214 THE GOVERNOR’S SYMPOSIUM ON NORTH AMERICA’S HUNTING HERITAGE Group Sessions Tracking Solutions As an important closing exercise at the Governor’s Symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage, speakers and participants divided into four separate but concurrent workshops. During these special sessions, each group worked to reach agreement on the importance of three or four hunting-related issues and explored actions they could take to influence those issues. Group monitors then presented the workshop ideas and positive suggestions to Governor Stan Stephens before the full conference. The categories used to divide the conference into four groups were (1) professional managers, (2) recreational hunters, (3) private landowners, and (4) commercial interests. Working with a facilitator and monitor, each group was given the task to agree on three to four priority issues related to our hunting heritage; identify groups or organizations that can potentially influence those issues; and suggest actions that each of those groups might take related to the issues. The following report documents the results of those group discussions in two segments. The first segment is a compilation of "consensus issues," or issues that each of the four groups addressed independently. Following the consensus issues are the issues and recommendations of each group. CONSENSUS ISSUES Issue I: Hunters must recruit new members into the hunting community. Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions (1) Sportsmen and -women and/or their organizations are urged to: ■ sponsor apprentice and mentoring programs. ■ develop hunting programs and opportunities for young people in cooperation with state wildlife agencies. 215 (2) Public schools should be urged to: ■ include conservation education materials in their curricula. (3) Wildlife management agencies are urged to: ■ develop programs for new hunters— particularly young people— to include special seasons, incentives for first-time hunters, and special license and permit fees. ■ develop programs for women and nontraditional families. ■ increase emphasis and funding for education. (4) Regulatory bodies (Legislatures, Commissions, etc.) should be urged to: ■ create special hunts for young and first-time hunters. Issue II: Hunters must improve the image of hunting. Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions (1) Sportsmen and -women and/or their organizations are urged to: ■ stress the importance of ethical hunting and promote and reward ethical hunters. ■ make improving the hunter’s image a budgetary priority. ■ lobby state legislators to support laws that require hunter ethics training and hunting competency programs. (2) Wildlife management agencies are urged to: ■ merge hunter ethics training into all hunter safety/education programs. ■ upgrade adult hunter ethics and safety training and certification through continuing education. ■ provide funding and training for Information and Education professionals to benefit programs designed to promote the hunting tradition. Issue HI: Hunters must advocate the benefits of wildlife habitat conservation. Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions (1) Sportsmen and -women and/or their organizations are urged to: ■ lobby for and support legislation for the acquisition, conservation, 216 reclamation, and stewardship of wildlife habitats. ■ develop programs with landowners to work on land management/habitat projects. (2) Wildlife management agencies are urged to: ■ improve cooperation between state wildlife agencies and federal land managers. ■ develop education programs with and for private landowners that explain habitat values, and provide financial incentives for conserving wildlife habitat. ■ work for public schools to implement environmental education and wildlife management principles into their curricula (Project WILD). (3) Commercial interests, landowners, and industry are urged to: ■ develop and promote private incentives to protect habitat. ■ develop education programs that explain habitat values and the benefits of good land stewardship. (4) Public schools should be urged to: ■ use educational materials that relate to and explain the function of habitat conservation (Project WILD). ■ seek local wildlife experts and naturalists for hands-on learning about wildlife and wildlife habitats. Issue IV: New partnerships must be formed among agencies, conservation groups, & landowners. Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions (1) National conservation organizations are urged to: ■ Cooperate to develop a single message to include a public relations package, a nationally recognized spokesperson, and a training network. ■ Develop operational and action plans— plans to include legal, legislative, environmental ethics, education, image, etc.— for use by national and state campaigns. ■ Create a network of regional groups with similar interest and train organizers for grassroots campaigns. 217 (2) State wildlife agencies and regional conservation groups are urges to: ■ (a) develop local action plans; (b) get organized; and (c) establish connections among possible constituencies. ■ create state steering committees for partnerships and charge them with issuing annual progress reports. 218 Issue I: PROFESSIONAL MANAGERS Monitor: Duane L. Shroufe President, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Director, Arizona Game and Fish Department Because there are few hunting apprenticeship opportunities— and little social support for hunting— the recruitment of new members into the hunting community has been reduced. Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions (1) Sportsmen and -women Associations ■ Sponsor apprenticeship programs. ■ Develop mentoring programs, particularly aimed at children from non-hunting families. ■ Cooperate with management agencies to provide youth hunting opportunities. (2) Public Schools ■ Include conservation education materials in the curriculum. ■ Offer hunter training within the school curriculum during school hours. ■ Establish shooting-sports programs. (3) Wildlife Management Agencies ■ Develop programs for new hunters, particularly youths, to include special seasons, incentives for first-time hunters, and special license and permit fees. ■ Establish stronger contacts with women and nontraditional families. ■ Develop outreach to first-time hunters through newspapers, radio, television, and school notices. ■ Evaluate the effectiveness of these programs regularly. (4) Regulatory Bodies (Legislatures, Commissions, etc.) ■ Create special hunts for young and first-time hunters. ■ Promote and fund advanced hunter education (hunter ethics) incentives. ■ Limit liability for landowners and mentors. 219 Issue II: There is a need to educate our publics about wildlife and hunting issues. Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions (1) Educational System ■ Influence national testing and funding process to assist school systems in implementing environmental education and wildlife management principles into school curriculums. ■ Identify and create a pool of environmental and wildlife management educational materials. (2) Wildlife Management Agencies ■ Hire and train people to effectively influence the educational process. ■ Develop educational strategies (goals and objectives) within agencies. (3) Hunters and Hunter Organizations ■ Urge more involvement in the education of other publics. ■ Form coalitions with other groups to strengthen organizations’ influence. (4) Political Decision Makers (Governors, Legislators, and Commissioners) ■ Develop local, national, and international task forces of influential decision makers. Issue III: Hunting heritage must be addressed within the context of our changing society. Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions (1) Conservation Interests ■ Encourage land use to meet old and new needs. ■ Promote new legislation to fund programs. (2) Hunters ■ Sportsmen and -women organizations should begin to widely promote and reward ethical hunters. ■ Support new funding approaches and programs that are needed. 220 (3) State and Federal Government ■ Involve the public. ■ Broaden current programs. (4) Commercial Interests ■ Improve ethical behavior. ■ Suggest and promote new programs and funding for them. Issue IV: Viable habitat must be maintained. Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions (1) Private Landowners ■ Provide recognition and economic incentives to maintain habitat. ■ Develop education programs to help other landowners understand habitat values and the effects of land management activities within a sound land ethic. ■ Support land use planning to protect wildlife. (2) Government Land Management Agencies ■ Improve cooperation between state wildlife agencies and federal land management agencies. ■ Educate and implement sound land management activities and ethics for wildlife. (3) Conservation Organizations ■ Identify common purpose and common ground. ■ Improve ethics among conservation groups. ■ Become aware of state agency programs and goals for wildlife. ■ Focus on constructive volunteer projects and programs. ■ Focus legislative actions on habitat. (4) Development/Industry ■ Promote private incentives to protect habitat. ■ Develop effective communication. ■ Remove subsidies that negatively impact habitat (low cost grazing, timber subsidies, etc.) 221 RECREATIONAL HUNTERS Monitor: Dale A. Burk Executive Director, Hunter’s Alliance. Issue I: Conservation of habitat is critical. Influencing Groups (1) Hunters, Sportsmen and -women, and Non-Consumptive Users (2) Private Landowners, Industry and Development (3) Legislatures and Government (4) Private Conservation Groups Suggested Actions ■ Promote and support legislation for the conservation, reclamation, and stewardship of habitat. ■ Support funding for the acquisition of habitat. ■ Support regulations. ■ Coordinate and cooperate with conservation organizations. ■ Encourage education related to wildlife habitat. Issue H: We must be advocates for wildlife, habitat, and our hunting heritage. Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions (1) Key Groups-United Conservation Alliance, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, National Wildlife Association, etc. At a national level... ■ Develop a consistent message that includes a public relations package, a nationally recognized spokesperson, and a training network. ■ Develop operational and action plans for national and state campaigns; refine plans for use by specific groups; plans to include legal, legislative, environmental ethics, education, image, etc. ■ Organize connections to state and regional groups to facilitate 222 networking among groups with similar interests. ■ Create grassroots support based on a funding structure. ■ Train organizers. At a state level. . . ■ Develop (a) state version of the national operation/action plan; (b) make connections with grassroots groups; (c) make plans for coordinating grassroots efforts. At the local level.. ■ Act, talk, and connect. ■ Connect with state efforts. ■ (a) develop local action plans; (b) get organized; and (c) establish connections among all possible constituencies. Issue HI: Ethics must be understood and practiced as a part of our hunting heritage. Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions (1) National Fish and Wildlife Directors’ Association ■ Establish an ethics commission that will research and implement national guidelines. (2) Outdoor Writers Association of America ■ Produce more articles on hunting ethics. (3) Local Hunting Clubs and Organizations ■ Assume responsibility for stressing hunting ethics. ■ Include information about hunting ethics in organizational newsletters. (4) National Conservation Organizations (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, National Rifle Association, etc.) ■ Increase awareness of hunter ethics among members. Issue IV: The number of people hunting is on the decline. Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions 223 (1) Hire or Recruit Celebrities Who Enjoy Hunting ■ Demonstrate positive sides of involvement in the hunting sports. ■ Appeal to everyone, including minorities, women, and youth. (2) Outdoor Press ■ Promote youth and women writers. ■ Encourage newspapers to carry outdoor articles and wildlife/hunting information. (3) NRA ■ Send positive information to schools, youth groups, etc., to promote youth interest. ■ Continue to promote women and youths, as well as the family, in the hunting world. (4) State Wildlife/Game and Fish Agencies ■ Develop programs to get youths involved. ■ Establish Governors’ Task Forces. ■ Provide better hunting and fishing information to the public. ■ Provide statistics on hunting demographics. (5) National, State, and Local Sporting Organizations ■ Interact with youth groups such as the Boys and Girls Scouts of America, YMCA, etc., and single parents, service clubs. ■ Sponsor writing competitions for youths. Issue V: Hunting has an image problem. Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions (1) Local Sportsmen and -women Groups ■ Orient activities toward hands-on teaching about wildlife at schools and community events. ■ Mentor in the same way to increase recruitment of young people into the hunting sports. (2) State Governments and Wildlife Agencies ■ Redistribute resources and dollars toward improving hunters’ 224 image. ■ Provide specialized training for Information and Education staffs so they can best promote a positive image. ■ Provide proactive help/materials. ■ Require expanded competency tests for hunters of all ages. ■ Implement interstate reciprocity for loss of hunting privileges. (3) National Conservation Groups ■ Unify and cooperate with other conservation organizations and start working together. Form inter-organizational standing committees on hunting image with specific products. ■ Give image a budget priority. ■ Promote wildlife conservation and the hunting experience. ■ Print positive stories about hunters/hunting in organizational publications. (4) Outdoor Press/Writers ■ Form a watchdog press group within the outdoor media to keep the general news media/entertainment industry straight on hunting. ■ Branch out to other non-hunting publications with the hunter’s story, particularly publications marketed to women. (5) Individual Hunters ■ Educate and direct legislators to require competency tests. ■ Promote wildlife conservation and the hunting experience. ■ Educate and influence fellow hunters. (6) Everybody ■ Stop using "slob hunter" as a term, "vandals," etc. Refer instead to "slobs,1 225 PRIVATE LANDOWNERS Monitor: Chase T. Hibbard President and Manager, Sieben Livestock Company Issue I: The private landowner and sportsmen and -women may have different perspectives about access, trespass, and ethical behavior related to hunting. Influencing Groups (1) State Game and Fish Agencies (2) Sportsmen and -women Organizations Suggested Actions ■ Make education programs mandatory for violators. A percentage of the license fee and/or a tax return check-off should be utilized for education programs. ■ Establish and continue to use block management programs, easements, and access swaps. ■ Incorporate ethics into hunter safety/education programs and upgrade the certification through continuing education. Issue II: Forming partnerships among agencies, landowners, and sportsmen and - women. Influencing Groups (1) Regional Fish and Wildlife Associations (2) Farm Bureaus (3) Cattlemen Associations (4) Legislatures (5) Sportsmen and -women Organizations (6) Local Governments (7) State and Federal Resource Management Agencies Suggested Actions ■ Identify existing partnership programs nationwide, and 226 communicate with them. Advertise their value. ■ Sponsor facilitated workshops for partnership leaders. ■ Identify needs and opportunities based on geography and issues. ■ Develop and establish new partnerships where needed. ■ Before 1993, create state steering committees for partnerships and issue annual reports. Issue HI: There is a need to promote good land management practices and activities. Influencing Groups (1) Fish and Game Agencies (2) Sportsmen and -women Associations (3) Stock/ Agriculture Associations Suggested Actions ■ On a state and federal level, develop a handbook for landowners, big and small, which gives information and resources pertinent for good land stewardship. And make it available. ■ Provide for means/methods of compensation to landowners for good land stewardship which will benefit habitat and animals and, ultimately, hunting in the future. ■ Identify existing programs. Streamline those programs where needed. Establish new programs from the federal level on down. ■ Develop a program on a local level through which willing sportsmen and -women can be directed to participating landowners to work on land management/habitat projects. This results in reciprocity within an organized program. ■ Develop a framework that ensures the volunteer is compatible for the job intended. Issue IV: These issues need on-going attention: Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions (1) Governor and Ad Hoc Committee ■ Establish an ad hoc committee made up of landowners, sportsmen and -women, and federal and state agency representatives. 227 Establish and manage a Montana data base on issues and solutions and solicit information from other governors and states. Sponsor a symposium at which the agenda is devoted to issues of private landowners. Establish broad, comprehensive compensation alternatives. 228 COMMERCIAL INTERESTS Monitor: Jean D. Johnson Executive Director, Montana Outfitters & Guides Association Issue I: Hunting opportunities are in a state of flux. Some are becoming more restrictive, some expanding and some more diverse. Hunting opportunities grow more restricted as private lands are leased and development increases. Loss of habitat and game farming are a threat to wild populations. With the economic incentive to open up lands, some opportunities are expanding as commercial outfitters access areas where public hunting has not been permitted before. There remains an expanding opportunity to attract young people and hunters with disabilities. With the introduction of exotic species, hunting opportunities become more diverse. Game farms also add to the diversity. Influencing Groups (1) State Fish and Game Agencies (2) Federal Land Management Agencies (3) Outfitter Associations (4) Organizations of Sportsmen and -women, Landowners, and Game Farm Owners Suggested Actions ■ Review and classify the opportunity as a restriction or expansion and stress the positive results that can be obtained for hunting. ■ Access should be available on lands managed and controlled by federal and state agencies. ■ Educate the public and promote hunting to more people, particularly youths and persons with disabilities. Issue II: There is a need to improve the image of hunting, and expand the understanding of our hunting heritage across America— and how commercial interests play their roles. Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions 229 (1) Outdoor Writers ■ Increase exposure through local educational programs. ■ Improve the image of hunters through an emphasis on ethics. (2) Project WILD ■ Expand into all states. ■ Encourage governors to mandate inclusion of Project Wild materials into state educational curricula. (3) Federal and State Agencies ■ Increase emphasis and funding for education. ■ Employ professional media support staff. (4) Private Conservation Groups ■ Speak with a unified voice. ■ Raise funds for education programs. Issue III: There is increasing privatization and commercialization of wildlife through game farming; decreased public access to private and public lands; and "ownership" of wildlife. We have to facilitate a dialogue between private interests and the public. Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions (1) Game Farms ■ Develop and implement a code of ethics. ■ Develop and implement public information strategies. (2) Landowners ■ Establish cooperative councils of landowners, agencies, citizens, and commercial interests to recommend strategies for mutual benefits and education. (3) States ■ Develop an understanding of ownership of wildlife. ■ Develop recommendations to improve the situation where ownership is an issue. ■ Identify opportunities for dialogue. ■ Communicate those opportunities to all concerned parties. 230 Issue IV: We have not yet defined or come to an agreement on ethics in the commercial sense as it relates to wildlife and hunting. There is not a consensus on what is fair, moral, etc., related to commercial interests and wildlife. Influencing Groups and Suggested Actions (1) Wildlife Management Agencies ■ Provide educational programs to help people understand commercial interests related to wildlife. ■ Practice responsive management. (2) Media ■ Create an interest in the issue. ■ Make information accessible— both ways. (3) Business Interests ■ Promote ethics in the business. ■ Develop an understanding of the economic side of wildlife. (4) Political Policy Makers ■ Create an ethical environment through policies, regulations, and legislation. 231 Symposium Proceedings on Audio and Video Tape Audio Tapes of the symposium proceedings are available for $4.50 per cassette- plus postage— from Inter-Mountain Media, P.O. Box 2351, Kalispell, MT 59903. Phone: 406-752-6338 Video Tapes of the symposium proceedings are available for $5 per speaker-topic from Film Center, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620. Phone: 406-444-2426. Home is the Hunter , a special 17-minute video that examines current hunting issues in a futuristic setting, is available for $10 from Film Center, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620. Phone: 406-444-2426. The 2nd Annual Governor’s Symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage will take place August 24-26, 1993, in Pierre, South Dakota. For registration information write to: The Governor’s Symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage, South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department, 523 East Capitol, Pierre, SD 57501-3182; or call 605-773-3387. 232