Friday – California Or Bust

I’m heading back to the damned city this weekend, and I’m not real thrilled about the prospect.  After a few days out here, even a drive into the Texas town of Uvalde gets my blood pressure up… getting back to Oakland is going to be a sore trial indeed.

Nevertheless, I wanted to make sure and get in one last note for the week.  So here it is.

A couple of people have forwarded some stories to me from recent news, and asked why I didn’t cover them here on the blog.  Let me respond…

The first story is the sad tale of the guy in Florida who mistakenly shot his girlfriend while after a “wounded” hog.  It’s all over the news, but it came into my feeds the day it hit the presses.  After a quick read, I decided there was no constructive point in writing about it.  Why?

Because it gets a little old to hear all the armchair safety experts and paragons of hunting safety chiming in about what an idiot this guy was and how this should never have happened and it was completely unavoidable and he needs to have his guns taken away… etc. To all of those things, I say, “duh.  Big frickin’ duh.”

Look, I imagine there’s not a hunter reading this blog or others like it who doesn’t know better than to shoot at a sound in the bushes.  My money says this guy knew better too.  And he still did it.  Dumb?  Yeah.  Is he remorseful?  Absolutely.  Does that remorse make it better, or call the bullet back?  No.  I don’t put high odds on the future of his relationship either… but that’s a whole different topic.

And that’s the end of the story as far as I’m concerned.

The second story makes me even queasier.  Ted Nugent, the Mouth from Motor City, made news twice in rapid succession.  First, he said some pretty harsh things about President Obama that resulted in an interview with Secret Service agents.  Stupid.  But he’s known for that.  No news there, just folks focusing on Ted Nugent because it makes for great sound bytes.  That’s politics though, and I don’t cover that beat.

But then he pleads guilty to a poaching charge in Alaska.  When he got busted in CA a couple years back for shooting a spike buck, I really wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But this time makes it pretty clear he has no concept of or respect for wildlife laws.  Maybe he thinks his fame and fortune can buy him out of real trouble?  Maybe he figures it’s so minor that it isn’t worth worry.  Or maybe it doesn’t matter if he loses his hunting license, because on his high fence ranch in Texas, he doesn’t need a license.  Or maybe he’s really just too dense to understand the regulations.  Whatever the case, I just didn’t feel the need to provide more publicity to someone who, at this point, doesn’t deserve it.  I’m only writing about it now in answer to folks who wondered why I didn’t before.

Enough.  Yes, I’m grumpy because I’m leaving Texas again.  Does it show?

 

 

Another Great Conversation… But It’s Not Here

Sorry not to have a great update from Hillside Manor, or a hot story about the lead ammo ban.  I’ve been sort of involved in a discussion over at Tovar Cerulli’s Mindful Carnivore blog.

As usual, the conversation is exploring the more philosophical side of the hunt, or more precisely, about the kill.  In general, Tovar addresses the argument that it seems wrong for hunters (human) to “prematurely” end the life of their prey.  There’s an inherent assumption that, if not for the human intervention, the animal would have lived a long, full life.  The assumption, of course, completely overlooks the fact that there are many predators besides humans, and that prey animals live in a state of constant danger.  In wild nature, in fact, few prey animals enjoy a long, peaceful life… even if they are never hunted by humans.

At any rate, the conversations get pretty interesting and sometimes involved.  It’s worth checking out…

A Little Ethics Lesson – Or Something Like That

Here’s a little piece about ethics and fair chase… more or less.

If  you’ve never been coon hunting, you’ll just have to go with it on this story.  Jerry Clower was a master storyteller and an all-around funny, funny man.  We need more of his ilk these days, I think.  But since he’s gone, I’m thankful we’ve got YouTube.  When I need to hear a tale told, the Internet delivers!

Enjoy!

Wet Sows And Sport Hunting Vs. Depredation

I’m always tickled when one of my friends tells me about a successful hunting trip, even if it  makes me a little jealous right now because I haven’t had time to do any hunting on my own.  So when I saw that my friend, Hank (blogger at The HunterAnglerGardenerCook… and author of Hunt Gather Cook, Finding The Forgotten Feast) had made the trip down near Paso Robles and brought home the bacon, I had to beat back the green-eyed monster and be happy for his success.  Of course, for Hank that success was way overdue… it’s been something like three years since he last shot a hog.  I’d be a basket case if I went that long without a good hog hunt!

Hank’s hunt sounds like a good one, as he was out on about 12,000 acres with RJ Waldron of Northwind Outfitters, a little north of Paso Robles, CA.  Success has reportedly been good there, and they did spot multiple hogs before Hank took the one he dubbed, “Matilda.”  You can read his story yourself, but in short, Matilda was a perfect meat pig…  a sow about 100 lbs and probably unbred (a gilt… which also makes her an ideal candidate for culling if you’re trying to manage the populations).

But in the hunt leading up to the kill, he was faced with an interesting and fairly common quandary.  Fairly early in the day, he had his crosshairs dead-on a big sow as she fed completely oblivious to the impending doom.  His guide held him up a second, and sure enough, the sow was “wet” (still nursing piglets).  Killing a wet sow isn’t the end of the world, but it usually means the death of the dependent piglets as well.  That’s a pretty hard thing to do on purpose, especially when the reason for the hunt is to fill the table, not to eradicate a pest animal.  I’ve witnessed it more than once, and there’s simply no way to maintain a detachment from the resulting, heart-rending scene.  We’re all human, despite what some folks would have you believe.

It reminds me of the significant divide between sport hunting and eradication/extermination.  I’ve often maintained the argument that sport hunters will never be effective at serious population reduction or elimination because they’re generally not willing to take the harsh measures it requires.  Most of them won’t (and some can’t) shoot the little, striped piglets.  Most of them won’t orphan a littler of piglets by shooting the wet sow… especially if they actually see the babies suckling.  Many of them won’t even kill more than they can process and eat.

But when it comes to an invasive, non-native species like the wild pig, those extreme measures are sometimes very necessary.  Hence, it justifies things like aerial shooting and corral traps… even when the meat is sometimes buried, left to rot, or sent to the tallow factory.  It’s hard to think of something as large, warm-blooded, and intelligent as a pig in the same way you’d think of ants or cockroaches, but to the depredation hunter that’s what they are.  It requires pragmatism and a somewhat, hardened heart.

This isn’t to imply a shortcoming on the part of the sport hunter, or vice versa.  Some of us are both, so the dichotomy isn’t even exclusive.  When I’m hunting for myself, I won’t shoot a wet sow.  It tears me up to think of the implications.   I’ve heard those little ones calling, and watched them climb over the carcass of a recently deceased mother, and even now I can feel the pangs of sorrow and regret… even though I’m not the one who killed her.  To inflict that for the sake of recreation and a freezer full of meat is simply beyond me.

But there’s another side.  When I’ve been asked to help with depredation, I’ve had to put those misgivings aside.  There are bigger considerations… the health of the habitat, or the success of a crop.  The idea is to eradicate, and in this light the animals are simply destructive vermin.  The reason for being there is different, so the justifications are different as well.  It isn’t always easy, or at least not for me (and I don’t think for anyone with a conscience).  You do it because it has to be done.

Anyway… just something I’ve been thinking about.

“Do I contradict myself?

Very well, then I contradict myself.

I am large.

I contain multitudes.”

Walt Whitman

 

Final Chapter In Dan Richards Saga?

Just received an email a little while ago in regards to the Dan Richards controversy.  For the sublithic residents out there, Richards is the President of the CA Fish and Game Commission.  He was recently at the center of a great brouha over legally hunting and killing a mountain lion in Idaho… despite the fact that such a hunt and kill are illegal in his home state of CA.

“What’s wrong with that,” you ask?

Well, nothing.  That’s sort of the point.  He did nothing illegal or even unethical.  But, of course, the Humane Society of the US took issue, and tried to say that it was a negative reflection on CA and showed a disdain for CA law.  Yeah, right?  WTF?  How does participating in a legal hunt in one state constitute “spitting in the face” of his CA constituents?

Despite the ridiculousness of the charges, it turned into a pretty ugly situation with several CA politicians jumping on the bandwagon and calling for Richards to resign.  When he told them to pound sand, they started machinations to have him removed.  It was looking pretty ugly.

Well, good news.  Apparently the outpouring of support from CA sportsmen was actually loud enough to make the General Assembly belay their efforts to oust Richards from his post.  Here’s the announcement from the Keep America Fishing website:

The Support of California’s Anglers Helps Retain Dan Richards as California Fish and Game Commission President

Thanks to overwhelming response from anglers and hunters, the state legislature backed off a resolution to remove Dan Richards from the commission.

Your Voice Was Heard!

The California state legislature is no longer considering a resolution to remove California Fish and Game Commission President Dan Richards from the commission.

For the past two weeks, California’s sportsmen and women have let their voices be heard speaking out in support of Richards. An avid angler and hunter, Richards had been unfairly attacked by extreme environmental and animal rights organizations for taking part in a legal hunt in Idaho.

Angler response was overwhelming! Thousands of California sportsmen and women sent messages through KeepAmericaFishing™ to the state legislature and the commission in support of Richards. Many anglers also attended the March 7, commission meeting to provide comment and show support for Richards.

Commissioner Richards recently contacted KeepAmericaFishing to express his gratitude to the thousands of KeepAmericaFishing advocates for their support.

Why is Retaining Commissioner Richards So Important?

The organizations leading the charge against Richards have a much broader agenda. As a commissioner, Richards has consistently voted on the side of sound science and proven fish and wildlife management. Richards has been a voice of reason throughout the flawed Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) initiative, a controversial program that threatens sportfishing in California, and the businesses and 20,000 jobs that depend on it, by unnecessarily closing large areas of the ocean to recreational fishing.

If they had been successful in their efforts to remove Richards from the commission, these anti-fishing groups would have been one step closer to shutting anglers out of more of California’s best fishing spots.

KeepAmericaFishing does not believe the attacks are over and expects that the next tactic will be an attempt to unseat Richards as President of the commission. Please be ready to voice your support for keeping angler friendly members on the commission.

As they mentioned above, this may not be over.  It’s important not to become complacent, so keep an eye on the news to see what develops.  It is important for us (sportsmen and women) to continue to show that we won’t sit idly by and allow organizations like HSUS to dictate fish and game policy.

 

How To Sell Hunting And Shoot It Down In One Simple Article

My friend, Dave, sent me a link yesterday to an article in Mother Earth News.  At first glance, it looked like a good piece, in which one hunter explains why he eats wild meat and finds it preferable to eating the factory-farmed stuff that makes the diet of most Americans.  As I skimmed through, I found myself nodding in agreement to some of the passages.

But then I read it closely.

First of all, I should have known what to expect from the author, David Petersen.  Petersen is a self-acclaimed “mountain man” who lives in the Rockies in a cabin he built himself, primarily eating foods from his own garden or meat he has hunted.  I’ve read some of his stuff before, and to be honest, I find him to be a pompous and self-righteous ass.  This article did not change that opinion.

Petersen’s article is an extended apologia, justifying his choice to hunt (and to enjoy hunting) based on most of the standard arguments.  Hunting is essential for game management.  Wild meat is healthier for us and the environment than factory-farmed meat.  Hunting is natural, and allows game animals to live and die “naturally”.  And so on…

Not a lot to grab hold of there.  I’ve made many of the same arguments myself, and they’re sound enough for what they are… an effort to explain the inexplicable.  Sure, they fall short in many cases, especially when challenged by the bigger, moral question… how can you continue to hunt when that behavior is no longer required for your survival?  But they do provide a quantifiable basis for debate.

But Petersen isn’t content to stop there.  He feels the need to set himself apart from the general mass of hunters, and to place himself and his ethics on some unassailable pedestal.  It’s not enough for him to argue that hunting is OK because it provides healthy meat and good excercise… he goes on to say that some hunting isn’t OK at all.

The doctrine of fair chase from the Boone and Crockett Club, founded by Teddy  Roosevelt, is a widely embraced sportsman’s rule of personal conduct afield that  mandates “the ethical, sportsman-like and lawful pursuit and taking of any  free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does  not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.” Clearly unethical  activities that nonetheless are legal in some states include baiting, driving  deer, and shooting bears or mountain lions from trees after they’ve been chased  there by hounds.

Specifically, he’s talking about hunting that doesn’t meld with his personal ethic.  And while he first seems to espouse the Boone and Crockett fair chase doctrine (which is a set of rules for acceptance into their record book… NOT for all hunters to live by), he goes even further.

Even so, many of the criticisms of contemporary hunting are valid. “Outdoor gear” catalogs clog our mail. Television is crowded with “outdoor” (I call them “outhouse”) channels and their plethora of heroes hungrily hawking flashy killing toys, skills-crutches and other cheater technologies accurately targeted at contemporary wannabe hunters who don’t wannabe real hunters badly enough to invest the time, energy, learning, sweat and heart required to do it right. To quote Abbey yet again: “Hunting is one of the hardest things even to think about.” Why learn to read a map and compass when I can buy a GPS? Why walk when I can buy an ATV? Why incorporate “the Zen of archery” into my life through regular practice so that I can kill humanely and consistently with a simple bow and arrows when I can buy an arrow-launching device complete with sights and pulleys to make drawing the “bow” easier; or when I could go all the way and buy a 21st-century crossbow that shoots steel bolts and has more in common with a rifle than with a real bow and arrow? Why bother to scout and learn how to follow tracks and to “read” wildlife signs when I can buy a digital “game cam” that will show me who is doing what out there and when, 24/7? Why and why and why?

I’m sorry, but those criticisms are decidely IN-valid and perpetuate dangerously inaccurate stereotypes.  The elitist attitude here oozes all over like pus from under the scab of a festering wound.

True, there are some hunters out there who rely on technological crutches more than they should… and for many, various reasons.  And true again, the hunting industry is doing its level best to sell us even more stuff guaranteed to “kill bigger bucks” or “fool the wiliest (creature of choice) in the woods.”

But for every one of the indolent, unskilled Nimrods out there, there’s a highly skilled counterpart who knows the game and the outdoors as intimately as his own bedroom (in fact, Petersen would like us to believe he is in this camp).  And in between the extremes fall the majority of hunters who use varying combinations of skill and technology as part of their hunting experience.

Due to circumstances of available time, location, mentoring, and finances, etc., every hunter cannot live off the land in the Rocky Mountains, or hunt solely for subsistence.  Sometimes “shortcuts” are simply pragmatic.  While the hunt is about more than just the kill, the truth is that most hunters do want to take the occasional animal.  Likewise, wildlife management depends on a level of success, so the laws and regulations must be designed to facilitate that success… hence, you have legal baiting, hound hunting, and even night shooting for destructive species.

There are also valid arguments that some technology improves the ability to consistently make clean, humane kills. Bow sights, laser rangefinders, and good rifle optics all have a place in the gear bag of the ethical hunter.  While Petersen may be living his dream in the Rocky Mountain backcountry, a great number of American hunters find themselves living in urban and suburban environments where you can’t always take for granted things like the opportunity to constantly hone your shooting and woodscraft skills.  And even the most experienced archers misjudge distance in the field… resulting not only in missing, but in wounded animals.

Coming back to the article, what Petersen has accomplished here is to sell HIS idea of hunting as good, all the while tearing down the reality that ethics and motivations run the gamut of variation.  While there’s certainly nothing wrong with living by his ethical standard (as long as he actually practices what he preaches), that level of ethical and moral commitment simply doesn’t apply universally… and more importantly, they shouldn’t!  It’s an unreasonable expectation to hold, and a crippling standard by which to hobble the hunting community (and the industry).  If much of Petersen’s audience buys what he’s selling, and believes that the only “good” hunting is hunting that aligns with his standard, then what happens to their support of hunting when the reality shows that very few hunters actually live up to that standard… or worse, that few actually want to?

The article, by the way, stands in particular contrast to my recent reading of Tovar Cerulli’s book, The Mindful Carnivore.  Cerulli also takes a deeply philosophical look at his personal hunting ethics, and makes some discoveries that guided his growth as a hunter.  In many ways, I think that he is pretty closely aligned with Petersen.  However, the big difference is that Cerulli doesn’t preach his own gospel or judge other hunters who don’t share his belief or approach.  Instead he teaches by example.  Even as he fully acknowledges that his motivations and values aren’t universal.  What’s more, they are constantly evolving.

Obviously, the article set me to thinking, even as it infuriated me.  Give it a read here, and if you’re really motivated, have a look at Tovar’s book as well.

It Just Gets Weirder… or… Sometimes It May Be Best To Keep Your Mouth Shut

It’s no secret that I totally support Dan Richards in the hullaballoo over his mountain lion hunt.  The stupidity and irrelevance of the “charges” against him leave me, in a word, flabbergasted.  This is what our state legislators have to bicker about?

Anyway, earlier this week, Dan Richards fired off an angry and defensive letter to the General Assembly (specifically assemblyman Ben Hueso).  It made his case, more or less, but it also didn’t come off as a very mature response.  He obviously allowed his emotions to overrule his logic there, and you can bet some folks are going to use this against him.

Personally, I think it would be a great time for Richards to hush for a second, and maybe work with the hunting and fishing community to campaign in his behalf.  But he isn’t.  Instead he went on radio, making some strong accusations (which may be accurate), and came across sounding bitter and a little juvenile.  Again, at this point it probably doesn’t matter so much whether he’s right (for the most part, he is).  It’s more about winning over the undecided, and he may not be helping his case much at all.

He did raise a couple of salient points… namely that the Humane Society of the US is at the root of this donnybrook, and that Gavin Newsom’s motivation for being involved may have more to do with placing his father (William Newsom, former President of the Mountain Lion Foundation) on the Fish and Game Commission.  He also verified the important fact, that even though he refuses to resign his position voluntarily, the General Assembly can remove him by a simple majority vote… an action that is very likely at this point.

If you’ve got a couple of minutes, listen to the radio interview (embedded at the bottom of this linked article), and see what you think.

Regardless, I strongly urge all CA hunters and fishermen to get involved in this discussion, and to contact Governor Brown and your state representatives to show support for Richards and oppose his removal from the Commission.  His loss would be a serious blow to hunting and fishing in this state.

Hat tip to Jesse at Jesse’s Hunting and Outdoors for bringing this radio interview to my attention.

Richards Rejects Resignation Requests Resulting From Mountain Lion Hunt

Because I took up this banner, I feel like I ought to follow it through.  The furor over Fish and Game Commissioner, Dan Richards, hunting and killing an Idaho mountain lion seems to be settling a little bit.  Folks are moving on to other things, although I can assure you that the forces aligned against Mr. Richards (and against hunting) are not dropping the issue just yet.  I’ll ask any concerned California sportsmen to keep an eye on this, and keep voicing your support for Richards in this issue. 

Meanwhile, Mr. Richards has issued his official response to the critics.  In a letter penned on Tuesday, Richards addressed the CA General Assembly… specifically Assemblyman Ben Hueso (D – San Diego) who has taken the lead in the calls for his resignation.  Along with Lt. Governor Gavin Newsome, 40 of the 80 members of the assembly called for Richards to resign, under the really whacked-out argument that his legal hunt in Idaho showed a lack of respect for California law.  Huh?  Is it any wonder that California has such a screwed up public image with folks from other states? 

In short, Richards tells the Assembly and his other critics to go pound sand.   Here’s the last part of his letter. 

I would suggest the Legislature stop cutting the Fish and Game Departments budget every year while increasing the demands upon it.  This lack of concern for the resources we manage, the Wardens who are put in harm’s way daily, and Department and Commission employees who are over-burdened and under-funded is shameful.

In the meantime, I will continue to hunt and fish wherever I please, as I have always done, ethically, licensed and proudly associating with the true conservationists who daily fund, protect, enjoy and enhance our bountiful resources while not trying to limit others enjoyment of same.

There is ZERO chance I would consider resigning my position as President of the California Fish and Game Commission and it is my sincere hope that you and your colleagues reassess your request and instead work positively with our Commission and Department for the betterment of the resources we’re entrusted to manage.

I’ll lift a glass to that! 

Here’s a link to the entirety of Mr. Richards’s letter.  It’s worth a read:  Richards-Letter

 

From the Just Because You Can… Files

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post about Jim Shockey hunting hogs with the new Rogue air rifle.  It got some good discussion, and a lot of you folks were sort of down on the idea.  Personally, I can see a place for it, but there are an awful lot of qualifiers that go into that.  The common thread, though, was that, “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”

There’s a lot of wisdom in that aphorism.

Well, I just got a note from the PR company that represents Barnett crossbows.  Crossbow hunting is something that’s interested me for quite some time, and something I intend to try (sooner or later).  Mostly, I just think they’re pretty cool weapons with a really interesting history.  The ones I’ve shot were accurate and powerful… impressively so.   As a hunting tool under the right conditions, they’re deadly as can be.  I’ve seen, up close and personal, what they’ll do to hogs and whitetail deer.

I know there’s a ton of politics behind their use as “archery tackle”, and don’t really want to go down that road right now.  I’m more interested in their application as hunting tools, and whether you want to classify them as archery or gun or something else doesn’t much concern me.

But like all hunting weapons, they have their limitations.  The question we often ask is, how far should those limitations be pushed.  For example, the following clip:

 

Please share your thoughts.  Mine will follow.

Hunting Takes Another PR Hit – Mountain Lion Killed By CA F&G President

This isn’t news.  It’s all over the Internet, and making the pages of newspapers and editorial columns as well.

I first saw the photo show up on my Facebook page on Friday night or Saturday.  It was attached to a message from the Humane Society of the US, condemning the hunter and “trophy hunting” as well.  I started to reply, but simply couldn’t get motivated enough to respond.

So the story, as I’ve got it from Tom Stienstra’s column (San Francisco Chronicle) is like this.  Dan Richards, recently named President of the CA Fish and Game Commission went to Idaho to hunt mountain lions.  In itself, this shouldn’t be a big deal.  Many states recognize the value in allowing hunters to shoot large predators under controlled conditions (seasons, limits, etc.).  That’s no different than the way any other game species is managed.

Of course, there’s a lot of discussion about hunting predators, particularly by people who feel that hunters should only kill what they’re going to eat (well, more particularly by people who think all hunting is an atrocity… but I’m not really interested in them right now).  Since “everyone knows” that you can’t eat mountain lion, then this hunt falls right in there with the coyote and ground squirrel hunters.  Right?

Except, in point of fact, many people do eat mountain lion and proclaim the quality of the meat.  “Similar to pork,” is the most common description.  I’ve been looking forward to an opportunity to try it myself, although in CA, that opportunity will never legally present itself.  Mountain lion hunting is banned in CA, based on a heavy propaganda campaign and misinformation that led people to believe the lion population was endangered.  I don’t want to go down that road here, because it’s a discussion in itself… and a futile one at that.  The only way mountain lion hunting will ever happen in CA is if the voters approve it.  That’s not likely in this state.  Instead, the state and federal trappers, as well as landowners and ranchers, are killing lions to protect livestock, pets, and humans on a pace that has far outstripped the number killed by hunters prior to the ban.  Most of these lions are killed and discarded, of no use to anyone but a couple of biologists.  But hey, as long as those “trophy hunters” aren’t killing them for their hides and heads!

So back to Mr. Richards and the crap-storm of reaction to his photo… and his hunt.

Everything he did was legal (although under CA law, I don’t believe he’s permitted to bring any parts of that cat back into the state… what’s his plan there?).  I’m not sure if he planned to eat the lion or not, and honestly, I’m not sure it’s wholly relevant.  Oh, of course the HSUS would like people to believe that nobody eats lions, and that hunting things we’re not going to eat is immoral and inhumane.  And truthfully, they’ll probably get a handful of self-righteous (and short-sighted) hunters to jump on the bandwagon to condemn the practice.  I can practically hear their voices now.  “That’s not hunting!” they’ll shout.  “I only kill what I’m going to eat!”

And then they’ll go on about how this is the reason hunting has such a bad reputation, and stuff like this is going to be the end of hunting as we know it… how this is a black eye for the sport, and fuel for the antis, and all the other trite and cliched arguments.  The thing is, there’s some truth there.  When people who are ignorant about hunting see this sort of thing and hear this uproar, they definitely form opinions.  If the uproar is negative, the opinions are negative.  And why not?

Let’s think about it.

It’s a given that most people recognize that we have to kill in order to eat meat.  Eating a steak while the cow is still alive is a bit more challenge than the average guy can stomach, and could you imagine the noise a pig would make if you started grinding sausage while he’s still alive?    You’ve got to kill them first.  With this in mind, it’s really not a huge leap for the average person to grok the idea of killing a deer or an elk for meat.  Even the folks who can’t imagine doing the deed themselves accept the meat hunter.

It’s also not a big stretch for people to accept the need to kill certain pests.   Almost anyone who’s ever had an attic destroyed by racoons, or had their wiring gnawed by squirrels can relate to the concept of judicious extermination.  Even though these animals may not be eaten (although squirrel and ‘coon are both quite tasty, properly prepared), they’ve got to go.  Simply waving your arms and yelling at them isn’t going to do the trick.

But when it comes to pest control and extermination, the common perception is that this is the realm of the professional.  You pay someone to come and do an unpleasant job.  Some faceless guy in coveralls shows up, sprays some stuff or drops some pellets in out-of-the-way nooks and crannies, and the bad critters just disappear.

It’s difficult for non-hunters to fathom the idea of going out and killing pest species “for fun”.  Yet there’s a huge segment of the hunting community that basically does just that, whether they’re out to shoot ground squirrels, prairie dogs, coyotes, or ground hogs (or even feral hogs for that matter).  I remember as a kid, growing up in rural North Carolina, the summer evening “rat shoots” along the irrigation ditches to keep them out of the grain bins.  A bunch of the neighbors would park at “Buck” Seymour’s barn and line the ditch banks with .22s, .410s, and anything else that was handy.  I was always there with my Red Ryder.  At the same time, many of my friends and I learned to shoot by popping rats with .22s at the local dump (a pastime so pervasive in parts of the rural culture that it became part of Luke Skywalker’s backstory in Star Wars!).

And I’ll say it right here and right now.  It was a lot of fun!

Was this wrong?  Perverse?  Did all of these people go on to become sociopathic killers, animal abusers, or rapists?  I’m pretty sure they didn’t.  Research, by the way, actually suggests that hunters are no more likely to exhibit sociopathic or violent behavior than any other segment of the population.  We’re just guided by a slightly different moral compass, and every individual takes his or her own heading.

How many people have swatted a relatively harmless insect while outside?  I’m not talking about a mosquito or biting fly… just an annoying bug that happened to pass too close and too slow.  Does this make you a stone-cold killer?  Did you suffer a moral quandary after taking that tiny, buzzing life?  Do you shed a tear or mouth a silent prayer everytime a bug splatters on your windshield, or a frog splatters under your tires?  Probably not.

Point is, there’s a lot of indiscriminate killing out there and most people don’t give it a second thought.  But when the killing is discriminate, such as the hunting of a mountain lion or coyote, it’s suddenly of utmost importance to the future of the human collective psyche?  Why is this, and does it really matter if the intent is to provide food or to collect a “trophy”?

I can no more explain the thrill of a lion hunt than I can explain the thrill of reading a good autobiography.  Some people get it, and some don’t.  Personally, I’m not really excited by either prospect, but I can’t see a good reason to condemn the people who are.

It’s an interesting coincidence, by the way, that even as this discussion is circling the Web, the folks over at the Orion Institute are announcing their second “Hunting Think Tank”.  The stated objective of the sessions is to take a look at the body of literature that attempts to define “hunting”, and then to try to come up with their own definition that will make hunting (or the idea of hunting) more appealing to the general public.  How they will deal with issues like this one (predator hunting) remains to be seen.  I’m interested and curious, but a little skeptical too.  Defining such a personal and experiential concept in any meaningful way is sure to be a challenge.