|
|
Post by greghopper on Apr 5, 2014 19:05:42 GMT -5
Editorial: Pursuit of big antlers isn’t worth the risks In one appalling case in Indiana, according to prosecutors, hunters paid a preserve owner thousands of dollars to stalk and kill deer inside a 1-acre pen. Some deer, according to witnesses, were drugged to make them easier to shoot. One deer, suffering from pneumonia, was so sick that it apparently was propped up so that a hunter crouching nearby could kill it with a rifle. The hunter paid $15,000 for the privilege. All for the antlers. And, on the part of breeders and preserve owners, all for the money. The high-fenced hunting industry in Indiana has long raised alarming questions about sportsmanship, humane treatment of the animals and the disease risk posed to wild deer when out-of-state animals are introduced here. Animal protection groups and many hunters have pushed for stronger regulation of preserves, and for an outright ban, on high-fenced hunting, with little success. Now, an investigation by Indianapolis Star reporter Ryan Sabalow and photographer Robert Scheer has revealed the dangers posed by the practice of captively breeding, transporting and then shooting deer inside fenced hunting grounds. The market, loosely regulated, has developed because the deer have been bred to grow abnormally large racks of antlers. The deer are kept inside fences to ensure that wealthy clients have much better odds of finding and killing a prized buck. In some cases, hunters even select specific animals from online catalogs. All of that makes a mockery of traditional hunting. Worse, it poses a health hazard for other deer, livestock and potentially even humans when diseased deer are transported across state lines. In the case described above, the hunting preserve’s owner, Russ Bellar, served nine months in federal prison because of his operation’s excesses. But lobbyists representing deer farmers have pushed for the federal government to eliminate some of the rules that got Bellar in trouble. State regulations, meanwhile, are all over the map. In Indiana, there’s legal confusion about whether farm-bred and -raised deer are classified as livestock or wildlife. Courts have issued conflicting rulings on the matter, and as a result the Department of Natural Resources has stopped regulating the four hunting preserves that operate in the state. It’s incumbent on the Indiana General Assembly to clear up the confusion. Lawmakers also should finally put a permanent end to high-fenced hunting in the state in light of the serious abuses revealed by The Star’s investigation. Congress also needs to set tougher standards for the interstate transport of deer, elk and other animals bound for hunting preserves. The pursuit of big antlers simply isn’t worth the health hazards and ethical challenges the industry creates. www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2014/04/04/editorial-pursuit-big-antlers-worth-risks/7324021/
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter7x on Apr 5, 2014 19:43:52 GMT -5
how old is this article? opening paragraph is about the infamous jimmy houston case. old old OLD news.
I still have jimmy's voice mail to me after I called his camo company and told them what I thought of him and his "hunting" practices.
He was dismayed someone would complain after all it was a couple of years ago (at the time of his call back to me)
still very old news like 10 years? Indy star cant find anything recent to publicize?
interesting......
|
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Apr 6, 2014 8:38:31 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with trophy hunting and if that's the standard people want to set for themselves and manage their land to increase their opportunities towards that...great!
What's wrong in regards to trophy hunting is the way it's taken over deer hunting. Just about every company in the industry, most magazines, and nearly every tv show push the trophy hunting mentality. Even QDMA's message is lost to many because they feel it's a trophy hunting organization. Here in Indiana, many deer hunters felt that the few were trying to push a trophy bow hunting agenda @ the expense of those who choose to gun hunt. It didn't pass a couple of years ago, but with crossbows legal now, and bowhunting harvest numbers rising in Indiana, I agree with many that gun seasons will eventually be moved and shortened in this state.
Regardless, this push for trophy hunting has led to people willing to spend huge sums of money to kill a trophy buck. And I agree it's their money and if they want to spend it in a legal manner so be it.
The problems start when it prices the average deer hunter out. Many will say..."tough, can't afford it, go bowling". And that's all fine and good until the sport of hunting loses enough participants that their power in the state house and Washington is diminished to the point that no one listens. Throw in the touchy subjects of preserves and game farms and many non-hunters who supported hunting in the past are liable to look @ hunting in a whole new light and are much less likely to support "trophy hunting". And with fewer hunters in the game and non-hunter support going down, plus the loss of license revenue and taxes from sporting good sales dwindling, I doubt hunting will have much of a future in this country.
As far as high fence preserves and deer farms go, they are gaining a larger foot hold in deer hunting every year.
And while many trophy hunters say they wouldn't step into these places for free, it sure isn't the "brown and down crowd" or "joe average deer hunter" keeping these places going.
|
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Apr 6, 2014 10:17:19 GMT -5
As long as the state is managing the herd by Gun hunting and it is since gun hunting kills almost 100,000 of the annual 135,000 to 120,000 or so give take of annual deer killed Gun seaon is ging no where .And they need those deer killed according to them and the rut is the best time to kill buck and doe in this state .Gun season will never be moved until they have all but obliterated the deer herd even in the big numbers deer counties .Sorry I agree with the rest you posted but gun season will remain where it is until the deer herd numbers are on the bottom everywhere .
Gun hunting and Gun hunters still rule the woods and are the big hammer of deer management .Bow and xbow are still just a passing fancy in the deer world and you add a few more weeks of early gun season and you no longer need those deer wounding deer missing bow hunters any longer .Bow and xbow despite what we ant to think is a hobby hunting niche sport and totally unnecessary in the grand scheme of deer management .
BTW I am a bow and xbow hunter both and still have eyes open enough to know we are just allowed to hunt as long as gun hunters will allow it .We are the ones still asking to be in the woods and no where near the majority voice in the woods just like trophy hunters are no where near the majority of hunters in the woods .We are are just louder and as are trophy hunters .But when 1.0 was shot down and now 2.0 is on the block that is because the average gun hunters are starting to have a sour taste in their mouth over the small elitists groups out here .
One day we little loud groups woill push the DNR and average Gun hunters into the corner one too many times and they will reach out with thier great big sharp teeth and take our heads off at the neck and end all our complaining .I can not wait for that day and its hurrdling down the road at break neck speed .So keep ticking them off and slapping the big old bear guys.They are getting tired of all the change and bickering at their expense .
|
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Apr 6, 2014 11:01:35 GMT -5
I am VERY aware of how touchy this subject matter is to a great many. Inadvertently I have "stepped on toes" with my observations of where deer hunting is going, starting about 20 years back.
Just about EVERY deer hunter would like a really nice buck. Even what IS a really nice buck has changed and of course, is subject to each hunter's opinion. A lot of the time, it seems anyway, WHAT is a "shooter buck" to some is dependent upon those previously taken and that makes a lot of sense but it's easy to realize that SOMEWHERE along the line reality will step in and each hunter must come to grips with the fact that they have taken about as good a buck as their area's genetics produces, amongst other factors.
When this occurs there are only two choices.
A. Accept this fact and be happy hunting that size of bucks or...
B. Change the hunting area in one or more of several ways so bigger bucks can be found.
These include:
A. Limiting the number of hunters aka controlling the area allowing for bucks to get older
B. Increasing the nutrition value of the area for healthier bucks or to draw more in, but this is open for debate on how much this helps (IMO)
C. Change the genetics of the herd hunted or simply hunt a genetically superior area.
The "A" part of the above started happening some estimated 20 years back and once the leasing started it was a snowball rolling downhill, growing in frequency and magnitude (in my area).
The "B" part followed suit with those putting money in a lease, improving upon the ground in food plots etc.
Both of these are pretty "common" now and one can input as much money into such as they wish or can afford but neither is especially inexpensive and they DO remove what was previously open to the average Joe hunter from available hunting ground.
Part "C" is not something reachable for most. While we can cull "inferior" bucks the improvement of genetics in the area is a long uphill road, with each year requiring funds to keep and maintain the area for a particular person or group without CERTAINTY of what improvement will follow, as far as buck "size".
When the amount of MONEY is not of much concern for a hunter desiring a "trophy buck" therein is a "demand" for such where there will be those willing to turn a buck producing (for lack of a better word) the "supply" part.
When one really wished to take a trophy anything, from fish to fowl to monster elk and beyond, one has a mandatory hurdle to jump. "Hunt OR fish where the trophies are" and a large number of "weekend hunters" or even life long hunters WILL pay for the opportunity to hunt "where the big ones are". This is nothing new at all.
From booking a day on lake Erie for trophy walleye to booking a hunt for lion in Africa, there exists a demand for larger, unusual, or once in a lifetime trophy and it has been part of hunting for a long, long time.
What we are seeing now, IMHO, is the same sort of thing.....just moved closer to home where travel is less required. One willing to spend the money either attempts to create their OWN preserve or ......hunts an existing one.. Take no offense of the word but honestly "preserving" the area for their own use exclusively IS the intention. No fence is required to keep trophy bucks habitually using the same area if left unbothered 99 percent of the time. While they CAN leave the area, the frequency that they would do so depends much upon the size of the area and provisions and cover within it.
For many decades hunters have paid for the opportunity to hunt an area known for trophies, often accompanied with a "guide" pointing the way or helping in as many ways as possible. As the demand for such increased with the "trophy bucks or bust" crowd there is, of course, those looking to make a living providing such. Again, not new in any way shape or form.
Fenced hunting has been a HUGE money maker in a lot of states. Just about any species of African plains game can be hunted in Tx ......for a fee. A BIG fee. They are not going broke by any stretch of the imagination. I am 99 percent positive no one not owning land in TX can hunt ANYTHING there without paying one or more type of fee to do so. The huge area of South Africa made famous by hunters before us for true trophy hunting has been reduced to the same thing. You pay for hunting any of the "game farms" (huge in size and I do not believe they are "fenced"), and also include "trophy fees" for anything taken. While the funds were needed to preserve sport hunting there, it remains a fact that paying to hunt a particular land mass is the ONLY way one can hunt there.
This is a sign of the times. People WILL PAY and HAVE THE FUNDS to hunt trophy animals within their 2-3 weeks they have available free from duties at work. Some will invest the funds into their own area leased or purchased but there exists many "big city" hunters whom do not have the time or wish to invest the energy for their own areas, with arguably "unguaranteed" results when they have other options that only cost them a flat fee and then only when they go.
Forgive this old deer hunter if any of this seems pointed at anyone here or besmirches your own beliefs.
Once I could go and hunt whichever game was in season, at will, without battling huge numbers of other hunters. Few land owners cared if you hunted their lands and often when asking permission they found it funny I felt the need to ask.
As the numbers of deer grew, and numbers of small game available to hunt grew less and less and less and as the habitat continually disappeared into cornfields the ever growing number of deer hunters have become congested into areas they can still hunt. All the above in this paragraph increases the demand for land to hunt AT ALL, increases the number of leases annually be it for trophy bucks .......or the opportunity to hunt unbothered at all.
Supply and Demand. The "laws" of such are pretty much carved in stone, my friends. "Pay to Hunt" has become the standard operating procedure for a huge part of the land.
In so many aspects one can only point a finger at one undeniable truth.
"We are making more people......we cannot make more land".
While the yen for a trophy buck is indeed escalating the sport into Pay to Hunt status and the "old ways" will soon be long lost, it is not the "main culprit", even if I personally do not agree with such simply BECAUSE of the loss of available land for the average hunter.
This past year I listened to a 14 year old standing next to his father. He exclaimed (and was taught) that "it's about a waste of time hunting here. There are no trophy bucks".
Tell me if something was not lost within this youngster's teachings concerning the love of the hunt.
My heart aches when I hear such statements coming from any age of hunter and cries out in rebellion against what hunting is becoming.......all happening within my short lifetime.
Go and hunt. Set your own desires by whatever "yardstick" you wish to measure a successful hunting season. We will never agree in majority numbers "why" we hunt but this old hunter yearns for yesteryear when the challenge and the hunt itself......was "trophy" enough.
"Canned" hunting will come. The profit available and those willing to spend such funds are unstoppable and it has been "here" for decades in other areas. Sadly, it will come here locally as well. IMHO it is the last step that spells doom to what I learned from my father as a child.
God Bless, all of you and yours.
Steve
|
|
