Post by Woody Williams on Mar 21, 2006 8:35:53 GMT -5
www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/outdoors/14116040.htm
Posted on Sun, Mar. 19, 2006
Canned hunts - Fair chase? Good business? Dangerous loophole?
In Minnesota, the questions are growing.Last year, Tony Beckel, owner of Tony's Trophy Elk Hunts in Baudette, Minn., sold about 15 so-called "canned hunts" to people wanting to shoot elk. His hunts range in price from $7,500 for a trophy bull to $500 for a cow elk, and all his hunts are held in a 1,200-acre fenced enclosure.
The enclosure is mostly wooded, and Beckel said killing an elk in the fenced area isn't easy.
"I've had guys out there for four days,'' said Beckel, a fishing guide and taxidermist. "Once you turn an elk in there, well, he's in there. They get a little wild once they get in the trees."
On Monday, a Minnesota Senate committee will consider a bill banning Beckel's operation and all other big-game hunting preserves that have cropped up in the past few years. The same bill has been introduced in the House.
Some lawmakers and the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association say such hunts behind fences are unethical because they don't adhere to the principle of "fair chase." They say they also pose a threat to the health of wild deer in the state, as evidenced by a case of chronic wasting disease announced last week found in a farmed whitetail in Lac qui Parle County.
Canned big-game hunts have been hotly debated in Minnesota since 1998, and I've visited several penned elk and deer operations for interviews.
I've found Minnesota elk and deer farmers are, for the most part, serious about raising healthy animals and serious about making money. Canned hunts, for which there is a growing market, represent just another market for them.
I called Beckel last week to get his read on the legislation. Since I oppose canned hunts, what ensued was a robust discussion of the ethics of hunting and canned hunts specifically.
WHAT'S FAIR?
Beckel has lived in the Baudette area since 1959 and says he has hunted wild animals across North America. But he doesn't see any problem with allowing people to shoot elk or deer behind fences.
"A lot of people say this is about fair chase,'' he said. "But what is fair chase? To me, is fair chase owning a 40-acre chunk of woods that is surrounded by fields, and then deer season comes, and you get in a deer stand and shoot the deer? I think that deer has a death warrant.
"People call that fair chase,'' Beckel continues. "But is it? I don't (think so). What if you have alfalfa fields where deer have been feeding all summer, and they all of a sudden open deer season, then you stand in a heated deer stand and blow that deer away? Is that fair chase?
"I think this is really about choices. It's like buying a Ford or a Chevy."
When I challenged Beckel on the notion fair chase involves giving a wild animal the freedom to roam, without fences, and that such a hunt involves more skill, woodsmanship and physical energy, he blasted me.
"I'll feel sorry for you when you get old and you can't sit in a deer stand,'' he said, suggesting that my opposition to canned hunts was essentially discrimination against older hunters who don't have the physical abilities to hunt wild elk in Colorado or Montana.
Finally, Beckel chastised me and others who want to ban canned hunts for interfering with his business and the rights of others. "It's a free country. I own my land. They're trying to tell me what to do. If you don't want to hunt behind a fence, don't do it. But I don't think you have the right to condemn the person who does, as long as it's done in a legal manner."
ETHICAL ARGUMENT
Mark Johnson, executive director of the MDHA, which has spearheaded the canned hunt ban, said hunting ethics are very important to his members, who largely oppose canned hunts.
"You put a tame animal into five acres or 150 acres and go out with a bow or muzzleloader or rifle and shoot it - it's not hunting. It's an affront to hunting. That's how our members take it," Johnson said.
House member Joe Hoppe, R-Chaska, is the chief author of the legislation to ban canned big-game hunts.
"The proponents will say, 'Well, it's not hunting, it's shooting,' '' Hoppe said. "But they advertise it as hunting. And they are selling it as hunting. This is the kind of thing that ultimately could kill regular hunting in Minnesota."
In the Legislature, Hoppe's bill has bipartisan support. It also has the support of hunters and nonhunters, he said, though he hasn't taken a poll of other lawmakers' opinions.
For a number of reasons, I disagree with Beckel and believe elk and deer breeders face an uphill fight to keep canned hunts legal in Minnesota. And deer hunters should be outraged by their efforts to keep it legal.
Chronic wasting disease, which could prove disastrous for wild deer, has been found in only two elk and one deer in Minnesota; all three were farmed animals. Yet, deer hunters, through our license fees, have shelled out $2.5 million to the DNR to kill, test and monitor wild deer for chronic wasting disease.
As deer hunters, we're paying to monitor a disease that, by all indications, was brought to Minnesota by deer and elk farmers.
No matter how deer and elk farmers slice it, shooting a big-game animal behind a fence and calling it "hunting" sullies the image of true hunting. The operators swear it's not hunting, it's just another form of "slaughter," but they advertise and market it as "hunting."
Their arguments are an artful but perverse way of dodging the truth.
But through a loophole in state law, a few operators already have gained a foothold. I'm sure they're good people with good intentions who are running these businesses, but theirs is a business that threatens a bigger industry in Minnesota - a healthy wild deer herd and those who pursue them.
Chris Niskanen can be reached at cniskanen@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5524.
Posted on Sun, Mar. 19, 2006
Canned hunts - Fair chase? Good business? Dangerous loophole?
In Minnesota, the questions are growing.Last year, Tony Beckel, owner of Tony's Trophy Elk Hunts in Baudette, Minn., sold about 15 so-called "canned hunts" to people wanting to shoot elk. His hunts range in price from $7,500 for a trophy bull to $500 for a cow elk, and all his hunts are held in a 1,200-acre fenced enclosure.
The enclosure is mostly wooded, and Beckel said killing an elk in the fenced area isn't easy.
"I've had guys out there for four days,'' said Beckel, a fishing guide and taxidermist. "Once you turn an elk in there, well, he's in there. They get a little wild once they get in the trees."
On Monday, a Minnesota Senate committee will consider a bill banning Beckel's operation and all other big-game hunting preserves that have cropped up in the past few years. The same bill has been introduced in the House.
Some lawmakers and the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association say such hunts behind fences are unethical because they don't adhere to the principle of "fair chase." They say they also pose a threat to the health of wild deer in the state, as evidenced by a case of chronic wasting disease announced last week found in a farmed whitetail in Lac qui Parle County.
Canned big-game hunts have been hotly debated in Minnesota since 1998, and I've visited several penned elk and deer operations for interviews.
I've found Minnesota elk and deer farmers are, for the most part, serious about raising healthy animals and serious about making money. Canned hunts, for which there is a growing market, represent just another market for them.
I called Beckel last week to get his read on the legislation. Since I oppose canned hunts, what ensued was a robust discussion of the ethics of hunting and canned hunts specifically.
WHAT'S FAIR?
Beckel has lived in the Baudette area since 1959 and says he has hunted wild animals across North America. But he doesn't see any problem with allowing people to shoot elk or deer behind fences.
"A lot of people say this is about fair chase,'' he said. "But what is fair chase? To me, is fair chase owning a 40-acre chunk of woods that is surrounded by fields, and then deer season comes, and you get in a deer stand and shoot the deer? I think that deer has a death warrant.
"People call that fair chase,'' Beckel continues. "But is it? I don't (think so). What if you have alfalfa fields where deer have been feeding all summer, and they all of a sudden open deer season, then you stand in a heated deer stand and blow that deer away? Is that fair chase?
"I think this is really about choices. It's like buying a Ford or a Chevy."
When I challenged Beckel on the notion fair chase involves giving a wild animal the freedom to roam, without fences, and that such a hunt involves more skill, woodsmanship and physical energy, he blasted me.
"I'll feel sorry for you when you get old and you can't sit in a deer stand,'' he said, suggesting that my opposition to canned hunts was essentially discrimination against older hunters who don't have the physical abilities to hunt wild elk in Colorado or Montana.
Finally, Beckel chastised me and others who want to ban canned hunts for interfering with his business and the rights of others. "It's a free country. I own my land. They're trying to tell me what to do. If you don't want to hunt behind a fence, don't do it. But I don't think you have the right to condemn the person who does, as long as it's done in a legal manner."
ETHICAL ARGUMENT
Mark Johnson, executive director of the MDHA, which has spearheaded the canned hunt ban, said hunting ethics are very important to his members, who largely oppose canned hunts.
"You put a tame animal into five acres or 150 acres and go out with a bow or muzzleloader or rifle and shoot it - it's not hunting. It's an affront to hunting. That's how our members take it," Johnson said.
House member Joe Hoppe, R-Chaska, is the chief author of the legislation to ban canned big-game hunts.
"The proponents will say, 'Well, it's not hunting, it's shooting,' '' Hoppe said. "But they advertise it as hunting. And they are selling it as hunting. This is the kind of thing that ultimately could kill regular hunting in Minnesota."
In the Legislature, Hoppe's bill has bipartisan support. It also has the support of hunters and nonhunters, he said, though he hasn't taken a poll of other lawmakers' opinions.
For a number of reasons, I disagree with Beckel and believe elk and deer breeders face an uphill fight to keep canned hunts legal in Minnesota. And deer hunters should be outraged by their efforts to keep it legal.
Chronic wasting disease, which could prove disastrous for wild deer, has been found in only two elk and one deer in Minnesota; all three were farmed animals. Yet, deer hunters, through our license fees, have shelled out $2.5 million to the DNR to kill, test and monitor wild deer for chronic wasting disease.
As deer hunters, we're paying to monitor a disease that, by all indications, was brought to Minnesota by deer and elk farmers.
No matter how deer and elk farmers slice it, shooting a big-game animal behind a fence and calling it "hunting" sullies the image of true hunting. The operators swear it's not hunting, it's just another form of "slaughter," but they advertise and market it as "hunting."
Their arguments are an artful but perverse way of dodging the truth.
But through a loophole in state law, a few operators already have gained a foothold. I'm sure they're good people with good intentions who are running these businesses, but theirs is a business that threatens a bigger industry in Minnesota - a healthy wild deer herd and those who pursue them.
Chris Niskanen can be reached at cniskanen@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5524.
