AR's Reveal Their Real Agenda

On April 8, 2003, a California legislative committee rejected a bill that would have banned all mammal hunting with dogs. It's no surprise that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was one of the proponents of this bill. Wayne Pacelle, Vice President of HSUS, testified and said, "We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state."

This statement says it all. Over the years animal rights groups have gone on record stating that they are interested only in stopping specific hunts or forms of hunting.

Do not believe them. Their real agenda has always been to stop all hunting, and these people are patient. If necessary, they will to do it one hunt at a time, or one form of hunting at a time. I remember several years ago when this very same Wayne Pacelle led the public to believe that HSUS was interested only in stopping bait hunting for bears in Colorado. Then, with that accomplished, he and his cohorts immediately came back for more.

When the Maryland Black Bear Task Force recommended a recreational hunt, Michael Markarian, a member of the Task Force and President of the Fund For Animals, said, "Maryland's small black bear population, estimated at 266-437 bears, has come back from near extinction and we should not turn back the clock on bear management by allowing trophy hunting of these majestic animals." That statement suggests that the state wildlife agency would run a hunt that would lead to the extinction of black bears in Maryland. That's what it says.

Markarian further said that the Task Force showed no data to prove that reducing bear numbers would reduce bear/human conflicts. From a scientific point of view, he is right. But he is also wrong. It is true that no data prove that lowering bear numbers lowers bear/human encounters. That's because it's impossible to collect such data. Proving that lowering bear numbers leads to fewer bear/human encounters would require controlling all variables that might affect bear/human interactions – all hikers, all dogs, all automobile traffic, all trains.

Obviously, that cannot be done. So, bear managers get the best data they can on both bear numbers and bear/human encounters, and when the public says enough is enough, the managers propose hunting as a feasible way to manage bear populations. After a few years, if bear numbers go down and bear/human encounters decline to a point at which the public is satisfied, then the harvest is reduced. That's a long way from causing the extinction of bears.

The Fund for Animals would have the general public believe that wildlife agencies comprise bumbling idiots who don't know how to manage wildlife and who do not care about animals. Consider this statement from Markarian: "Hunting bears for sport would most likely make those problems (i.e. bear/human conflicts) worse." Huh? He's trying indict the biologists, but as any thinking person would recognize, his statement indicts only himself.

Another spokesman for the Fund for Animals really got to the heart of the issue for animal rights groups when he said, "A bear hunt cannot be justified at this time or in the future." Let me see if I have this right: If bear numbers in Maryland continue to grow, and bear/human encounters become even more intolerable, we still should never hunt bears? Obviously, that's the real agenda.

Animal rightists' participation in a Task Force designed to solve bear problems isn't really about coming up with a proven, economically feasible solution. They simply want impose their value system onto the rest of us. And the health of the bears, and of the people who live with those bears, is of little or no concern. As a wildlife biologist I'm not bothered that folks oppose hunting. I am much more concerned that the animal rights approach doesn't take the welfare of wildlife populations into account.

South Dakota Sets Rules

The game commission in South Dakota has set new restrictions for archery equipment to "maintain archery hunting as a primitive sport in view of the increasing expansion of archery equipment technology." Broadheads must be metal, at least 7/8 inch wide with two cutting edges or more, and the combined cutting edge length must be at least as long as the broadhead is wide. Electronic devices on the bow, and electronic release aids, are illegal. Arrows and broadheads must weigh a combined total of at least 275 grains, and mechanical broadheads are not allowed for elk hunting. The maximum allowable letoff for compound bows is 80 percent, and minimum bow length is 28 inches, axle to axle.

Researcher Studies CWD

A new Journal of Wildlife Disease article concludes that supplemental feeding from 1995-1997 was associated with the prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in deer. This leads some to suspect the same is true for CWD. One last note: Dr. Beth Williams of the University of Wyoming has obtained a $2.4 million grant to study how the disease spreads from one animal to another. She will also be trying to find a technique to detect the disease in the environment, saliva, feces, and urine. This research is critical if we are to stop the spread of CWD, and there is no one better to be doing this research than Dr. Williams.