Fenced elk hunt on eBay concerns sportsmen's group

[spectr17]

August 1, 2002

Wildlife advocate raps elk 'slaughter'

By JENNIFER McKEE, Billings Gazette State Bureau

HELENA - Ahhhh, the semantics of controversy.

A fellow calling himself "happyhunter4242" on the online auction house, eBay, considers his opportunity to shoot a 10-year-old bull elk on an enclosed central Michigan game farm a "rifle hunt." The auction house itself has the opportunity cataloged under "Sports: Sporting Goods: Hunting: Taxidermy."

Craig Sharpe, head of the Montana Wildlife Federation, sees things differently. He thinks the auction house ought to put the hunt in its very own category, that of "livestock slaughter," and he told eBay so in a letter sent Wednesday.

"This is a game farm slaughter behind a fence," Sharpe said. "To equate hunting with game farm slaughter smears the reputation of 13 million legitimate American hunters."

Sharpe sent a letter to eBay Chief Executive Officer Meg Whitman Wednesday asking the auction house to create a category for game farm harvests called "livestock slaughter," taking game farm opportunities off the site's regular page that auctions open hunting opportunities and hunting licenses.

A spokesman for eBay Inc., did not return phone calls seeking comment, neither did Len and Pam Wallace, owners of the Big Velvet game farm in the Bitterroot Valley who are suing the state over 2000 voter initiative that bans the shooting of captive game species for money.

The Montana Wildlife Federation is one of two sportsmen groups who have asked to intervene in the suit.

The eBay offering, which so far has just one bid for $5,500, includes pictures of some of the elk available. The animals are shown in close-up photographs - what Sharpe dubbed "point blank range" - bearing enormous, velvety antlers, munching from what appears to be a food trough in a small pasture-like enclosure.

Sharpe said he has not heard back from eBay and didn't expect to as the letter was just sent Wednesday.

His group has opposed game farms and supported the disputed Initiative-143, saying game farm hunts are neither sporting, nor does do they constitute hunting, which he said, includes the notion of fair chase.

A search of the eBay web site for "livestock slaughter" came up with no hits, although other game farm hunts are sold at the auction house and were available for bids Wednesday.

 

[goatman]

I'll answer this one and take the heat. Its none of our business. Both parties have the right to their own. Guess we'll strike beef and pork and littleole chickens off the food chain. The elk is classified as livestock in states that it is not native. No more home butchering it is not sporting. Alot of your deer now are shot over or near bait or food plots. Sounds alot like Peta to me.

 

[Idaelk]

I respectfully disagree, I think that both parties do have the right to this legal transaction, but that this in no way shape or form is to be lumped in with hunting.I'll bet the guy spending 5,500 bucks will tell lies about the hardships of his hunt and embelish to hide the truth when it hangs shoulder mounted on his wall. shooting an Elk on a lead rope is NOT hunting and anyone who thinks it is has something to hide or to gain period!!!!

 

[Hntrjohn]

I think if somebody wants to raise elk behind a fence, that is their own business. Even though I personally do not think it is very sporting to shoot one this way, it is my opinion.

I do not care if the person who shoots this elk on ebay makes up a very tall tale about their hunt. He / she would not be the first person who made up a story about their hunting trip. Even ones who shot their animals on public ground give some unbelievable tales.

 

[FTTPOW]

Even though I don't support "hunting" in enclosures, with the current CWD situation most game farms can't get rid of their animals by transporting them across state lines to areas of natural habitat. What else can they do to recoup some of the expenses of raising these animals to such trophy sizes? I know there is also a market in Asia for antlers in velvet. I don't know how lucritive that market is. Even after the antlers are removed and sold, the elk still has to eat. On a game farm they don't do that for free. So who has the right answer? You either raise them to sell the antlers by the pound, or until they reach trophy size and charge to kill them. Another option is to develope good genetics and breeding stock and release them on private land where they can enhance the local wild herd. The problem with that is CWD and it's associated risks. It seems more profitable to have someone pay to shoot these animals than to wait and take the risk of having state health officals come in and tell you that they'll do it for free! Just don't call it hunting.      

 

[Speckmisser]

I'm avoiding work today, and really bored... so I'm gonna toss my two cents in as well...

Looks like there are two real issues here that ought to be separated.  First of all, there's the question of whether killing fenced game should be allowed or legal.  

From a straightforward perspective, I don't think there's anything especially wrong with it... certainly no more than in killing any other livestock.  In the farming country where I spent a good part of my youth, you slaughtered pigs and cattle with a .22 pistol behind the ear.  Quick and humane.  From a purely logical stance, I can't see why barnyard elk or deer should be any different.  If barnyard "hunters" want to do this, then I believe the only real requirement should be that the kill be as humane as possible.  I certainly can't understand why anyone would want to pay to do this, but I certainly am not the one to judge those individuals.  

The second issue, though, and this is the important one to me...  Is killing animals in an enclosure "hunting"?  I don't think anyone on this board would argue that it is.  Despite the legality, we all (I think) recoil from the idea that it is anything more than slaughter.  

:rant-mode:

With this in mind, I have to side with the folks who'd like to see such activities brought to an end.  Why do I care?  Because I am deeply convinced that the biggest threat to legal, sport hunting is in the public perception of our sport.  It's not the antis who are going to put an end to hunting, but the non-hunting public.  I've held forth on this before, in a couple of different forums, so bear with me if I'm repeating myself.  I feel that it's worth repeating, though.

It's not enough for hunters go "on record" saying that killing animals in an enclosure isn't hunting.  That implies a definition invented within our own ranks, and it holds no sway for those who are not hunters.  It's really just semantics.  It doesn't matter either that "canned hunts", like poaching, are really aberrations... not at all representative of what the majority of hunters do.  But the public still sees this activity as someone killing animals for fun, and do not separate it from any other hunting activities... no matter how far we would distance ourselves.  

How can we, as hunters, prove that we don't consider canned hunts a part of our sport?  Only by working to have the practice eradicated.  Anything less is just lip service, and lip service sure isn't going to convince any non-hunter.  

As hunters who would like to see our sport continue into the future generations, we are responsible for the perceptions of our activities.  We need to take a hard look at what is going on under the title of "hunting", and take steps to ensure that all of these activities reflect only positive images to the non-hunting public.  

Remember, the first hurdle is that we are killing animals for "sport".  The kill is the essence of hunting, and that's the hardest thing for non-hunters to understand or accept.  As hunters we have to realize that this is a big leap for people to accept, regardless of anything else.  In the world of PR, we are starting from a disadvantage...it's an uphill battle.

I'm tempted here to go into a discussion of demographics, but I'll skip over it with only this point... the population of this country is growing quickly, while the relative population of hunters is fluctuating (but generally down).  This does not bode well for the strength of our voices in the political arena.  

The time is coming soon, if not right now, to start looking at cutting our losses.  We need to review activities that reflect on hunting, and see what we can live without.  We need to take action against activities that are truly injurious to our sport, including things like canned hunting.  Maybe there's a way to do this without putting the game farmers out of business, but if not, then they've just got to go.  Believe me or not, but we are coming to a point where it's them or us.

Sportsmen built a very popular image for themselves at the turn of the century when we mobilized to end market hunting and establish seasons and limits on game animals.  We were well represented when Roosevelt worked to establish national parks, showing that hunters care about conservation.  This was all great PR, and it's worked to our advantage.  But we can't rest on those laurels.  

:rant-mode:

 

[sdbowyer]

I'll be very judgemental here:  Those who participate in this are the perverts of the hunting world.  You have the right to be a pervert, but I'm thankful to the Montana Wildlife Federation for shining a light on them and disassociating them from ligitimate hunters.  Sure a man has a right to use his land and livestock etc... but he's promoting it as a hunt.  He's using and endangering our beloved passion's name in vain.  Slaughtering and selling your own livestock is a wonderful thing.  But associating it with hunting?  That makes him a pervert.

 

[goatman]

You fellows in the west have not peeked over the mountain. There is a problem with bragging on a hard hunt behind the barn but there is also a big problem with land to hunt. I haven't run out of places here in Illinois yet but I do know fathers in Texas with no where to start or take their kids. Now I have a problem with that. I don't know which is better. Never taking them hunting or aleast exposing them to wild boar or something wild. There will always be some cheating in hunting. Always has and always will. Thats why I could care less about records. Unless you know personally about the hunt. I've been told we are 47 out of 50 in public land. Its closing fast to money. Just be sure to look at the big picture before looking at it through your eyes only.

 

[sdbowyer]

Goatman,

Please understand that my harshness is being focused on this very specific case here and I still stand by it.  Unless I misunderstood it this is a close-range - as it feeds out of a trough scenario.  Your point about shrinking land has merit but to me this extreme case poses just as big a danger to the kid that wants to hunt someday.

 

[Coues]

What they do on their own property is their business I guess. But why do we have to call it hunting? It is not hunting, it is killing. I don't really have a problem with it as long as the meat is eaten. It is really no different than me going to a neighbors, buying a hog, shooting it, and dragging it home. But I wouldn't call it hunting. It is more like going to McDonalds for a McRib than hunting!
I would also say that if even one of their animals escapes, the "farmer" should be held responsible for all cost associated with recovering the escaped animal. If they are found to have a diseased animal, their entire herd of livestock, including cattle, sheep, etc. should be destoyed.

 

[huntducks]

Boy I guess I will jump into this one, I really don't know how I feel.

When does it become a canned hunt 10 acres or 10,000 with a game fence, would it be a canned hunt if I shot rabbits on a 10 acre farm or does it need to be 10,000 acres.

Who will define canned hunt.

Would a game bird farm be a canned hunt something that could be held on 20-30 acres with planted birds released that morning?

How about a guy hunting 25 acres of woods in the east for natural breeding WT with a game fence would that be a canned hunt?

How about hunting mule deer or blacktails on a 2-10 acre island would that be a canned hunt even bears on same.

When I was living back in MO. a couple of years back, a guy was raising elk for the velvet he had about 100 head on maybe 100 acres with a game fence the only thing that resembled wild about them was there bugle if you closed your eye's you could feel like you were standing on some mountain side in the west, I personaly could not have shot one even if the guy would have said here you go the meat is free.

I see both sides of it, and if I was to lean one way or the other I would lean towars let the guy have his day of what he thinks is ELK hunting.

My reasoning is keep the canned hunts as long as we can they will be a delaying tactic because it is inevitable that all hunting will and is under attack, and if we make them take a inch at a time rather then a foot we will have our sport a lot longer.

We in KA. and the west we percive BG or even hunting on large tracks of land thousand's of acres, that's just not the way it is when you move east, so don't be to quick to judge someone else until you have walked a mile in there shoe's.

Just my .02 worth.

(Edited by huntducks at 10:46 am on Aug. 5, 2002)

 

[Speckmisser]

Coues and Huntducks,

I agree with your points, and with the whole "live and let live" philosophy.  If it all stopped right there, I'd have no issue with canned hunting.  I don't wanna do it, but if someone else does, my thoughts are...well go ahead.  I have no qualms with slaughtering livestock in a humane way...whether its cattle, pigs, or elk.  

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop with our discussion.  Hunting is in a tenuous position right now, and public opinion is NOT in our favor.  It's mostly neutral, according to the majority of surveys, and that's a dangerous thing.  

A lot of controversial practices related to hunting are beyond our control as sportsmen.  Baiting, for example, is a necessary part of management strategy in areas where whitetail deer are overpopulating.  Same with killing does.  The constant technological innovations are also creating a backlash among non-hunters who believe that all hunters want to do is kill.  

It is in our best interests, then, to do something about the practices we CAN do something about... practices which do not promote either sportsmen's ethics or conservation goals.  Killing penned animals is a perfect example.  Again, whether anyone on this list considers this to be hunting is irrelevant.  Non-hunters think it's all the same, and anti-hunters are more than happy to build on that perception.  Only by moving publicly to define and prohibit canned hunts can we make a difference in the way the non-hunters see us.

Huntducks raises a good point in asking, "who defines canned hunting?"  

That's a tricky question, of course, and probably part of the reason that folks have been slow to try to ban it.  The examples listed in Greg's post are valid questions and bear examination.  For example, I bet most of us DO know the difference between a canned hunt and hunting wild blacktails on a 2-10 acre island (or at least we realize there is a difference).  But what about the bird preserves, where you're shooting planted pheasants?  Or a 25 acre fenced area with naturally breeding whitetails?  Where do we draw the line?  

Well, I'm honestly not sure.  But what I am sure about is that WE (hunters) need to decide where that line goes, and draw it clearly.  The sooner the better.

I disagree with huntducks' proposition that we "make them take a inch at a time", because as CA hunters saw with the Mountain Lion initiative, things don't work that way... and once the slide starts, it's really hard to regain traction.  

If we let the antis set the stage, hunters aren't going to have the opportunity to try to define "Canned Hunts".  Huntducks' (and others') worst fears will likely come to light, when the antis place every example he listed on the block... the definition of canned hunting will include everything the antis contrive to add, including hunting on islands, preserve hunts, and lord knows what else.  Then it will be hunters trying to win it back inch by inch...  rather than the other way around.  And we are not strong enough to do this without the support of the non-hunting public.  

Remember that what the antis have capitalized on, in every one of their "victories", is the divisiveness of the issues, and the indecisiveness of hunters.  They know they can get their "foot in the door" by attacking the weak points where hunters are already divided.  They also know that hunters, like most people, are not likely to get overly involved in defending an activity they don't participate in... such as hunting mountain lions, baiting bears, or canned hunting.  

We have to be proactive, rather than reactive.  To go back to the mountain lion example, I keep hearing hunters saying "They'll change their mind about that one when the lions eat their poodles..."  The fact is, that law isn't likely to ever get changed.  The antis who pushed it made sure it would get done "right", and undoing it is likely to be impossible.  It's too late now to say, "See... we told you so."  

I propose that we look at the idea of banning canned hunts and such in the same light as setting backfires to stop a running wildfire.  Burn off the fuel before it gets the chance to feed the flames.