Who the Hell Hunts With a Machine Gun Anyway?

While America is reeling in shock over the senseless shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School and mourning those lost in a volley of peacetime machine gun fire, the papers are rehashing the same questions posed whenever a mass killing makes the news: “Why did this happen?” and “How can we prevent this kind of thing in the future?”

Predictably, politicians from both sides of the fence are weighing in on gun control or the culpability shared by violent Hollywood movies (and even cartoons like Family Guy and American Dad—both of which were preempted by Fox this week because of the tragedy). What we’re not hearing in the mainstream media is any mention of the leading role that sport hunting plays in promoting guns and perpetuating violence.

The latest school shooter, Adam Lanza, and the D.C. Beltway snipers, John Mohammad and John Malvo, all used a Bushmaster .223 hunting/assault rifle to carry out their killings. It was also the weapon used in the Colorado theater shooting, and in a host of other homicidal meltdowns.

The .223 semi-automatic can fire 6 rounds per second (okay, if you want to split hairs, it’s not technically considered a machine gun because you have to hit the hair-trigger with each shot), but what makes it so deadly is the way the bullet reacts on impact: It’s designed to bounce around inside the body once it makes contact with bone.

90641_Varminter

Why is such a lethal assault rifle legal for non-military civilians to own? According to the manufacturer, they are intended to be used for hunting animals. As the NRA well knows, hunting has been used to justify the private ownership of some of the most destructive weapons ever invented.

But who the Hell really hunts with a machine gun anyway? Unfortunately, some folks do. One thrill-killer describes his sport this way: “Prairie dog hunting is a blast, on both private and public lands. I like to start by clearing everything within 50 yards with an AR-15, then switch to my .223 Remington for anything out to about 150 and finally trade up to the bull barrel .22-250 for the longer shots.”

And those who mass murder coyotes seem to feel entitled to the deadliest of armaments as well. A recent “contest hunt” offered up a free shotgun or a pair of semi-automatic rifles to whoever murdered the most canines. The terms of the competition were simple: hunters in New Mexico had two days to shoot and kill as many coyotes as they could; the winner got their choice of a Browning Maxus 12-gauge shotgun or two AR-15 semi-automatic rifles. (The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military’s M16 that has been in production since Vietnam.) “Nothing’s gonna stop me,” said Mark Chavez, the hunt’s sponsor, and the owner of Gunhawk Firearms “This is my right to hunt and we’re not breaking any laws.”

Bushmaster describes their .223 as a “Varmint Rifle.” Oh really? That shines new light on what some of these politicians really mean when they say they only hunt “varmints.” I’ve never been an invited guest at George W. Bush’s ranch in Crawford Texas; therefore I can only guess that this is the type of weapon the self-proclaimed “varmint” hunter uses when he goes up against a family of scary ground squirrels, marmots or a town of talkative prairie dogs.

Larger caliber Bushmaster models are categorized as “Predator Rifles.”

90823_Pred_ATACS

Ironically, it was Lanza’s mother, Nancy, who taught young Adam how to shoot. She was an avid gun enthusiast who legally owned a Sig Sauer and a Glock (both handguns commonly used by police) and a military-style Bushmaster .223 M4 carbine, according to law enforcement officials. As it turns out, it was one of her guns that her son turned on her before using them in his attack on the students and teachers of Sandy Hook Elementary…

See also, “Honor Thy Father and Mother, Except When They Misbehave.”

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2012. All Rights Reserved

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2012. All Rights Reserved

Killing Wolves Provides “a Level of Tolerance”?

Yep, you read it right, according to Randy Newberg, who hunts wolves and makes hunting television programs, many people who live in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho don’t like wolves and hate that the federal government forced their recovery on them, “Having these hunting seasons has provided a level of tolerance again.” Newberg told NPR News that wolf hunts are easing the animosity many local people feel toward the predator. And Yellowstone biologist, Doug Smith, adds, “To get support for wolves, you can’t have people angry about them all the time, and so hunting is going to be part of the future of wolves in the West. We’ve got to have it if we’re going to have wolves.”

So, let me get this straight, in order to placate and appease good ol’ boys and get them to put up with the presence of one of North America’s most historically embattled endangered species, we have to let them kill some of them once in a while? Wolf hunting and trapping are just a salve—a bit of revenge-killing for them–why not let them have their fun? By this logic, they should also be entitled to shoot an Indian every so often (like their forefathers who tried to wipe them out), to help promote tolerance and cultural acceptance.

Excuse me, but why should we care what wolf hunters think they need to get them to go along with the program—those people are sick, end of story. Just look at their evil, gloating grins and smug, satanic smirks plastered on their faces whenever they pose with their “trophy” wolf carcasses. But don’t bother telling them that they’re vacuous, malicious little goblins, apparently they enjoy being hated by wolf-lovers—otherwise they wouldn’t pose for the camera and spread their gruesome images around the internet whenever they make a kill.

In the spirit of promoting tolerance, it only seems fair that wolf advocates be allowed a season on them in return for all the losses they’ve endured. I don’t know if it would really engender a feeling tolerance, but it can always be justified as a way of “managing” or “controlling” them, and thinning their numbers.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2012. All Rights Reserved

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2012. All Rights Reserved

Commercial Whalers, Slave Traders…and Wolf Hunters

Now that I broke the ice, tested the waters and hopefully cleared the air by answering a reader’s question on a touchy subject in my last post, It’s Hard to Be Ethically Consistent While You’re Tap-Dancing on Eggshells, It’s my turn to ask a question:

Text and Wildlife Photos Copyright Jim Robertson

Text and Wildlife Photos Copyright Jim Robertson

Why is it that when members of the Wedge wolf pack were being killed in Washington State, people throughout the environmental community were up in arms, but now that the Colville Tribe has announced plans to initiate the first hunting season on wolves in the state on their northeastern Washington Reservation, folks are staying mostly silent about it?

People are fond of saying that the Native Americans believed this…, or did that…, as though all tribes were of one mind and every individual felt the same way as each other about everything, regardless of which tribe they were with or what part of the continent they lived in. For example, I’ll never forget this line that made me scoff out loud during a lecture: “Native Americans never ate anything that died in fear.” What? How does an animal pursued and shot with arrows not experience fear?

European Americans have gone from thinking of the Native Americans as barbaric savages to egalitarian angels. Neither impression is based on a scientific understanding of human nature. And neither is the revisionist notion that all tribes were like-minded on every issue (case in point are the different attitudes on wolves expressed by the Colvilles, who plan to hunt the few wolves who have returned to their reservation, and the Ojibwe of the Great Lakes region who respect wolves.   .

On a related issue, the following is an article I wrote while the Makah tribe were shoring up plans to kill whales off the Washington coast…

Commercial Whalers and Slave Traders

In a May, 1995 letter to the U.S. Commerce Department, Dave Sones, the Makah nation’s “fisheries” manager revealed the tribe’s intent “to harvest whales not only for ceremonials and subsistence, but also for commercial purposes.” This sentiment was recently echoed by Canada’s Nuu-Chah-Nulth tribe, who also hope to get into the commercial sale of whale products.

Despite continued public support for whales, our IWC delegates struck a five year deal with the Russians to get the Makah a back-door quota of whales. In 1997, defying an international treaty on trade in endangered species, they traded 20 of the Alaskan Inuit’s bowhead whales (down to only 13 percent of their original population) for 20 gray whales from the Russian Chukotkas.

The Chukotkas were happy to trade up for the more palatable bowhead. Very few of them will even eat gray whales, which are said to have the texture of gum erasers and are known in their language as “the one that makes you poop fast.” (The real source of the gray whale’s nickname “Devilfish”?)

Seeing as how the Clinton administration is assisting the Makah in their effort to return to whaling, wouldn’t it be a nice, symbolic gesture for the President to join them in their ceremonial whaling preparations? These included prayer and self-flagellation, as well as fasting and sexual abstinence.

Other rites that were part of their whaling ceremonies are kept secret from “outsiders;” they are “nobody’s business.” Are there skeletons in the closet they don’t want exhumed? The media have depicts a Disneyized version of the historic Makah: a simple, sharing people, unique in their reverence for the Earth’s creatures. Summon the image of the Plains Indians, substitute whale for bison. But the coastal Makah were different, killing more prey then they could ever eat themselves.

Whales were rendered into oil to be traded along the Pacific. They were a source of great wealth for the tribal elite, who thought themselves superior to other Indians, including buffalo hunters. Although the primitive Makah’s ability to conquer massive sea mammals without motor boats or heavy artillery was impressive, it was also excessively cruel. And, according to European witnesses, so were some of the related rituals: “Since it was the first whale of the season, special ceremonies we involved…When it was brought ashore, a slave was sacrificed, and the corpse was laid beside the whale’s head, which was adorned with eagle feathers…” observed Haswell and Boit, eighteenth century writers. Boit understood that cannibalism was also occasionally practiced.

Slave trading was an integral part of the Makah socioeconomic structure. Slaves were considered chattel, a thing of less than human status, one step below “worthless people” in their caste system. Possession of slaves was prestigious; to sacrifice a slave on a formal occasion demonstrated an arrogant disregard of wealth. Unfortunately for their lower castes, this was before the United Nations Decade of Education in Human Rights.

In order to capture new slaves and acquire new territories, the Makah frequently undertook military expeditions to distant villages. Relying on the element of surprise, they would attack and kill all of the adult males in the unsuspecting tribe. Women and children were taken as slaves; infants and elderly were left for dead. Slain members of the conquered tribe were decapitated, their heads brought back to be displayed as trophies. Clearly, the killing of whales is not the only bygone tradition that modern society would condemn or reject if given a voice. The Makah continued to capture and trade slaves well after the 1855 treaty prohibited it.

Meanwhile, Japan, in their ongoing effort to promote the backslide into commercial whaling, discovered a crisis situation in 1995. They learned the number of their young people who had never tasted whale was on the rise! In answer to that shocking trend, their “fisheries” agency began a slick marketing campaign that included a home delivery service for whale meat. A quarter-pounder there now goes for $55.00 U.S. That’s without cheese. Or a bun. But a word of warning to those planning to stop by the Moby Dick’s franchise (coming soon to your neighborhood) for a juicy double-devilfish burger: Don’t forget the Kaopectate!

Ban Wolverine Trapping—as a Matter of Principle

In an uncharacteristically uplifting post last week (semi-satirically entitled “Be of Good Cheer”), I shared the news that wolverines—critically endangered from decades of falling prey to the “tradition” of fur trapping—are for now off the hit list of species allowable to trap in Montana, thanks to an injunction filed by animal advocacy groups that resulted in a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). While about every other “furbearer” in that state remains at risk, to the wolverine now spared the prospect of being caught by the leg in a steel-jawed trap for days and nights on end until some trapper arrives and clubs them to death this is nothing short of a Christmas miracle!

But that miracle may be short-lived if trappers and the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks department—who are trying desperately to reverse the TRO against wolverine trapping—have their way.

In addition to being inherently cruel and demented, trapping is a lazy-man’s blood sport. Even some hunters resent the ease at which trappers can score a kill. A trapper can be likened to a fisherman who casts several baited hooks out into a lake and leaves them there, not bothering to come back for a week or so to see what he’s caught. All the while, the animal struggles and suffers—out of sight, out of mind…

Throughout recorded history, trapping has been the greatest threat to the existence of wolverine and their kin. Entire populations have been wiped out across the country, from the Sierra Nevada to the southern Rockies and from Washington’s Cascade mountains to the Minnesota woodlands.

In their 1927 book entitled Mammals and Birds of Mount Rainier National Park, authors Walter Taylor and William Shaw give accounts of Washington wolverines trapped and poisoned around the turn of the Twentieth Century. They write, “The wolverine, if ever common, has undergone a marked decrease throughout the Cascade Range, probably due to the increasing price put on his pelt by the fur trade.” Even a hundred years ago these two had the foresight to observe, “Where possible, the balance of nature should be left to establish itself.”

Text and Wildlife Photography© Jim Robertson

Text and Wildlife Photography© Jim Robertson

I couldn’t agree more.

The shadowy wolverine is one savage scavenger who is very dear to my heart. Despite their scarcity, I’ve been extremely fortunate to see them on four separate occasions, each one a high point in my memory. If my life were to flash in front of me, it would appear as a wildlife slide-show set to music—a Bolero, building in intensity—featuring images of black bears and cougars; bison, bighorns and bugling elk; snowshoe hare and ermine in a frosty meadow; pine marten in the boreal forest; mink and otters in the wetlands and badgers in the sagebrush. Moose, wolves, lynx and grizzlies in the wilds of Alaska would appear as the music reaches a crescendo, followed by a wolverine effortlessly scaling an alpine slope as the grand finale.

The first timeI saw a wolverine was in 1978, on a steep, snowy mountainside in Washington’s rugged North Cascades range. I was on a solo climb, my ice ax at the ready to avoid an uncontrolled, high-speed slide to the valley bottom. Suddenly, a fast-moving, dark-colored animal raced across an even steeper pitch about 50 yards above. Judging by the size and shape, my initial impression was coyote or wolf; then as I watched it move and got a better view of its stature, I recognized it for what it was—a wolverine! After he streaked out of sight, I continued my slow ascent, kicking steps into the snow and sinking my ice ax in for safety’s sake, up to where his trail—the only remaining sign of the incredible spectacle I’d just witnessed—crossed the steepest pitch of the slope. When I reached the wolverine’s distinctive, five-toed tracks, I could see that though his rapid traverse appeared effortless, he had dug his sharp claws deep into the snow with each step—confirming that a wolverine is as well adapted to its mountain habitat as an otter is to water, or a raven to air.

Since I considered it my back yard, I was thrilled to know that the North Cascades National Park and adjoining wilderness areas comprised a habitat extensive and secluded enough for such a secretive animal—and we’re talking sasquatch secretive—to feel at home.

I knew it had probably been a once in a lifetime sighting, but when some of the snow melted, I decided to return and planned to stay a while this time. I crossed the slope where I’d last seen the wolverine and headed over a pass into a trail-less, glacier-carved valley in search of a likely den site. Thinking like a wolverine, I chose a spot that had rarely, if ever, been visited by human beings, setting up camp by a small alpine tarn. As luck would have it, I came across a set of the familiar five-toed tracks that led up toward a small cave under a rocky cliff. Not wanting to disturb the cave’s occupants, I watched the opening from a respectful distance. Within minutes, I heard the sound of falling rocks and looked up to see a wolverine, probably a mother, eying me suspiciously from the ledge above her den.

Appreciating how unwelcome I was, I quickly determined that I had accomplished all I could hope to achieve without annoying the animal to the point that she might leave the area for good. Though I was tempted to stay around in hopes of a photo op, I instead did the right thing and moved on, leaving that wild place to the wildlife who depend on it.

Not being a fan of intrusive hardware, like the ear tags or radio collars used in the study of wild animals, I never reported the sighting or the location of the den to wildlife “authorities.” I object, on behalf of animals everywhere, to the ham-fisted treatment of wildlife for “research” purposes, and I knew that rather than taking my word for it, some overeager biologists, wildlife “managers” or other self-appointed “experts” would march out there and trap, collar or otherwise traumatize the animal.

My misgivings proved justified. Years later, I learned that at least two young wolverines were trapped, jabbed with needles, immobilized and manhandled; their ears were tagged and they were fitted with awkward, bulky radio-collars. It seems the biologists at the scene badgered their captives in every way imaginable, short of sending them to Abu Ghraib or on a hunting trip with Dick Cheney.

Worse yet, by meddling with such rare and reclusive animals—keeping one of them confined for days until “game experts” from Missoula, Montana could make the trip across two states to get some hands-on of their own—they may have separated one yearling from her mother. (Judging by the tracks around the box-trap, mama wolverine must have stayed around until people roared into the area on snowmobiles, forcing her to reluctantly abandon her trapped youngster and retreat further into the wilderness.)

After an Interminable imprisonment in a claustrophobic box trap, and then awaking from an unsettling tranquilization surrounded by gawking people—now with tags in her ears and a burdensome collar around her neck—another young female wolverine trapped by biologists in Washington fled through the Pasayten Wilderness and across the border into Canada.

When a Forest Service biologist told the Seattle Times, “…the best way to ensure wolverines continue in Washington is to learn as much about this population as we can,” I had to wonder if tormenting an animal so much that she hurriedly left the relative safety of Washington State (where a voter-approved initiative has banned recreational fur trapping) was really the best way to ensure the species continues. Canada and Alaska persist in allowing that archaic tradition. Putting animals through unnecessary suffering is just part of doing business up there—not a safe place for a “fur-bearer” of any kind.

Further knowledge is always helpful, but surely new information can be acquired through the use of remote cameras and other less disruptive methods. And really, how much more do we need to know before we reach information overkill?

We already know a lot about wolverines, such as the fact that they are the largest terrestrial mustelid—the brontosaurus of the weasel family. Among their relatives, the only species any larger are the sea otter and the Amazonian of all otters, the giant otter of the Amazon River basin. A wolverine looks like an oversized, striped mink or a small, elongated, agile bear. (Sorry I don’t have a photo of one to include here; all the sightings I’ve had have been brief, and all of the wolverine moved too quickly to get a clear photograph—just a couple of the challenges of using only ethically-acquired images.)

Putting their trademark pungent anal scent glands to good use, they seem to take special pleasure in fouling trapper’s cabins (whether for recreation or revenge, only the wolverine really knows…and they’re not telling). Possibly their best known attribute is their ferocity—wolverines could easily be considered the Tasmanian devils of the Northern Hemisphere. But a real-world Bugs Bunny would no doubt meet his match with these part-time predators.

The main thing we need to know about wolverines, we already well know: as a species, their numbers are perilously low.

I had my third wolverine sighting in the mid-1980s, on the volcanic flanks of Alaska’s remote Mount Katmai. I was backpacking with a couple of friends when we surprised a wolverine who crossed barely 20 yards in front of our path. He reacted not by baring his teeth and snarling, but by getting the hell out of there to the relative safety of a rocky cliff formed by a geologically recent lava flow. The naturally acrobatic animal leapt up from ledge to ledge with the fluid grace of a furry brown waterfall flowing in reverse. Within a few seconds the wolverine scaled a pitch that would have taken an hour and a half of effort for a skilled rock climber.

The encounter made me realize that, contrary to their notorious reputation for fierceness, wolverines will go to great lengths to avoid people. Clearly, in order to thrive, sensitive species like wolverine require vast expanses of wild land—and a minimum of human activity.

The most recent sighting I had was just a few years back, during one of my many trips into Yellowstone while living near the park in southwest Montana. That sighting was bittersweet as the wolverine was barely within the park boundary, and I knew all too well that trapping was legal at the time anywhere outside the protection of Yellowstone National Park. I couldn’t help but think just how easy it would be for a trapper to snag this far-ranging park animal in one of their horrible torture devices. All they’d need is a state permit, a few steel-jawed leg-hold traps, a snowmobile and a complete and utter lack of conscience, remorse or compassion.

There are only around 250 to 300 wolverines in the continental United States, but for reasons that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with “higher priorities” and political pressure from trappers, they are still currently considered only a “candidate” for federal Endangered Species Act protection.

Even the Montana state game department must understand that a population as pitifully low as the wolverine’s suffers immensely when a trapper kills even one individual. Prior to the TRO, “game managers” were set to allow five wolverines to be sacrificed to the gluttonous trappers. What’s the point of having a season on five wolverines? Clearly it’s symbolic—just a matter of principle for them. But a principle is supposed to be a moral or ethical standard based on something upright and upstanding, not an immoral standard based on something lowly and loathsome like trapping.

It’s high time to ban wolverine trapping entirely—as a matter of principle!

Text and Photography© Jim Robertson

Text and Photography© Jim Robertson

Hello Mass Extinction

In yesterday’s post, “Bye Bye Biodiversity,” I mentioned the hundreds of miles of Iowa cornfields where nothing else grows or lives. Humans have seen to it that nothing else lives in that region, at first by physically killing off the birds and mammals through hunting and trapping, and next with poisons to eradicate those species they deemed “pests:” the insects and burrowing mammals, along with any competing plants, collectively known as “weeds.”

To see to it that only the resultant monoculture thrives, their chosen plants are genetically modified to repel any other life that might find its way into the wasteland 524958_3325028303604_654533903_n(also so they won’t reproduce on their own without the parent corporation’s seed stock). Much of the corn is grown to serve as feed for those other monoculture “crops:” cows, pigs and chickens stuck on factory farms.

It requires huge tracts of open, flat land to allow for this kind of whole-Earth manipulation to go on, and the Midwest, once known as The Great Plains—the former home to vast herds of migratory bison and elk, pronghorn and prairie dogs, wolves, grizzly bears and more—was just the ticket.

As long as there are still miles of farm roads to speed their pickup trucks along and an occasional deer, coyote or “planted” pheasant to hunt, folks growing up there consider it to be the “country,” blissful in their ignorance of the biological diversity that thrived across the once wild land they call home.

It’s a similar story out west, where so much of the ancient forests have been removed and replanted with single-species tree plantations. Though the slopes are still mostly green, much of the wondrous diversity of life has been lost, along with the memory of whom and what once lived there.

By the same token, anyone arriving by transatlantic schooner would have no way of knowing that mass extinction in North America had already begun with the arrival of the first human hunters to cross the Bering land bridge a dozen centuries before. The megafauna which evolved on the Western Hemisphere—in glorious isolation from predacious human primates, whose greatest achievement may well be the complete undoing of all that evolution has created during this, the tail end of the age of mammals—would have brought to mind the African savanna; an American Serengeti.

Futuristic films, such as Soylent Green and Silent Running, suggest that when humans inevitably destroy the planet, there will be absolutely nothing left. But mass extinction does not necessarily equate to a totally denuded planet. The otherwise lifeless Midwest monoculture cropland, where one or two dominant species have displaced all others, is closer to what a mass extinction looks like.

In other words, we aren’t on the “verge of causing” a mass extinction, as the mainstream media (loath to report on anything that might affect the stock market) would tell you; we are among the living-dead in the midst of a human-caused mass extinction. It may not be the “Zombie Apocalypse,” but as far as life on Earth is concerned, it’s pretty damned scary.

Text and Wildlife Photography© Jim Robertson

Text and Wildlife Photography© Jim Robertson

Correction: Contest Hunts on WOLVES Are a New Moral Low Point

In addendum to my earlier post, “Contest Hunts Are a New Moral Low Point”: the truth is, contest hunts on wolves—like the one scheduled to take place in northeastern British Columbia, Canada—are the lowest of low points.

Not because coyotes (the species typically targeting by modern day contest hunts) are any more deserving of being killed en masse for the sake of some sick sporting event reminiscent of Buffalo Bill’s reckless era or something out of the bloody Roman Games. And granted, coyotes are no less sentient than wolves—or the family dog for that matter. All canines are highly evolved and capable of suffering intense stress and fear when pursued, and pain when hit by bullets or arrows. These physical and emotional capacities are even shared by such “lowly” creatures as fish, snakes or salamanders. But in addition, birds and mammals—notably canines—experience profound sadness (perhaps more than most human beings) when their mates or another of their kind are killed.

No, the reason a contest hunt on wolves is one step lower of a low point is because wolves, as a species, have been completely annihilated from so much of their former range. It’s like those calling for a wolf contest hunt are thumbing their noses at the extinction of wolves across so much of North America (not to mention Eurasia), while giving the thumbs up to those who massacred them. Many Canadians practically put on airs about not being as backwards and barbaric as we “Yanks” here in the States, but obviously some of their countrymen are every bit as philistine and morally vacant as any American redneck.

As with the coyote contests held in the U.S., the B.C. wolf contest hunt does not violate any wildlife regulations, according to an article in the Vancouver Sun—a point that does not address the morality of the action, but speaks volumes about the psychopathic behaviors that are still perfectly legal, even in presumably progressive Canada. There is no closed hunting season on wolves below 1,100 meters elevation in that region of the province, which is also considering a no “bag-limit” on wolves in the area.

The contest event claims to support “fair hunt” methods, which include, in addition to high-powered weapons, pickup trucks and snowmobiles to access wolves. It is set to run through March 31 and allows each hunter to submit three wolves. It costs $50 to enter, with winners receiving prizes (for the largest animal killed) of $150 to $1,000. Sponsors of the wolf-kill contest include Raven Oilfield Rentals; “Backcountry” (a fishing and hunting store) and T & C Taxidermy.

“It’s just kind of a social thing…” said Rich Petersen, a hunter and realtor in Fort St. John who is co-sponsoring the event. Well, you won’t find a more social species than wolves. Wolves may not spend their leisure time drinking excessively, listening to Celine Dion or watching hockey on the boob tube, but as far as showing concern for their extended family, I’ll lay down odds they’ve got the hunters beat.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2012. All Rights Reserved

Trapping: the Indiscriminate Evil

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2012. All Rights Reserved

Footloose Montana reports that the 2012/13 Trapping season has begun, and with it, the first incident of someone’s beloved dog being caught in a trap: “Monte,” a yellow lab cross was injured today in a leg-hold trap set submerged at the Bitterroot River Florence Fishing Access in Florence, Montana.  She survived his ordeal, but suffered an injury on her leg and a broken tooth.  This is sure to be the first of many pet incidents this trapping season.  Particularly with many new trappers pursuing wolves on our public lands this year, please be cognizant of the danger…

I have had more than my share of heart-wrenching experiences with the gruesome evils of trapping. On a walk near our cabin, my dog stepped into a trap that clamped down onto his front paw, prying his middle toes apart. He yelped in horror and frantically tried to shake it off, biting at the trap, at his paw and at me as I fought to open the mindless metal jaws that continued to cut deeper into his tender flesh.

My efforts to release him only caused more excruciating pain. After battling with the unrelenting spring for many interminable minutes, I was finally able to loosen the degenerate device enough to pull his foot free.

Another dog I rescued was caught in two steel-jawed leg-hold traps. One was latched onto her front leg while the second gripped a hind leg, forcing her to remain standing for untold, agonizing hours. Judging by how fatigued and dehydrated she was, she’d been held immobile for several days. The sinister traps caused so much damage that a vet had to amputate one of her injured legs.

Traps are an indiscriminate evil. No animal, wild or domestic, should suffer such torture for the sake of sport, recreation or the mindless pursuit of pelts.

Folks in Montana can Call Footloose at (406) 274-7878 if…

1.      You need advice on releasing your pets from traps

2.      You would like us to do a pet release workshop in your community

3.      You have an incident to report

4.      You have information about trap sightings or locations

______________________________________________________

Portions of this post were excerpted from the book, Exposing the Big Game: Living Targets of a Dying Sport    

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2012. All Rights Reserved

Mercenaries Paid $55,000 to kill Just One Washington Wolf

For those who were not quite fuming mad enough to be considered wrathful when the wolves of Washington’s Wedge pack were senselessly murdered, perhaps news that the state Fish and Wildlife Department spent nearly $77,000 to kill the seven pack members should push you over the edge.

According to a newly released report, it cost taxpayers nearly $55,000 to kill just one wolf in a 39-day ground hunt. It seems to me the state is overpaying their anti-wolf mercenaries when there are hunters in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Wisconsin and Michagin who would have gladly done the job for free just for the bragging rights. Tens of thousands of hunters in those states are paying good money for the chance to kill a wolf.

The other six wolves were killed in a four-day period in September using a helicopter and a marksman that cost $22,000. Surely these kind of costs can’t be justified, even by those who view cows only as commodities and wolves as mere pests.

Washington State Senator Kevin Ranker has criticized the decision to kill the Wedge pack and is planning a legislative hearing next year. It might be a good time to ask the state how much they’re willing to spend to keep welfare ranchers in business. And how many wolves will have to die before the grazing of cattle on our National Forests is finally a thing of the past?

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2012. All Rights Reserved

Are Hunters Psychopaths?

Hey hunters, here’s a question for you: On a scale of 0-3, how strongly do you agree with this statement “Seeing an animal injured or in pain doesn’t bother me in the slightest.” If your answer was 3, do society a favor and get yourself fitted for a straightjacket and a Hannibal Lector hockey mask, because that was one of the top questions from the “How-to-tell-if-you-are-a-psychopath” quiz.

On a similar note, I just came across a September 3rd 2009 article by George Wuerthner with the no-brainer question for a title: “Are Hunters Stupid?” The article’s subheading, “The Unintended Consequences of Wolf Hunting,” was more in keeping with his point, since Wuerthner is a hunter and former hunting guide who probably doesn’t really consider himself stupid.

He starts his article out by telling about Daryl, a co-worker of his at the Bureau of Land Management in Boise, Idaho. At a party, Daryl was trying to put the moves on a couple of women, asking them if they wanted to go gopher shooting with him…  “’Gopher shooting?’ they asked incredulously. ‘Yeah,’ he said, ‘gopher hunting—you know blowing away gophers.’ They looked stunned and remained silent. So Daryl tried to recover and said, ‘The fun part is seeing the red mist rise in the air when you hit one. It’s an incredible rush,’ he said with obvious enthusiasm. Those women just looked at each other like they couldn’t believe what they were hearing.  He might as well ask them if they wanted to go to the park and molest children. The women fled. Daryl was left baffled and standing alone. He just couldn’t understand why anyone wouldn’t want to go blow away gophers, especially when he offered to bring a spare rifle so they could join in the fun…”

Since I don’t personally know this guy Daryl, I can’t say for sure if he’d qualify as stupid, by today’s standards, but I can tell you one thing—he’s definitely a psychopath. A lack of empathy is a sign of psychopathy and Daryl clearly had no empathy for either the gophers he enjoys “blowing away,” or for the women he thought would be impressed by his offer. Other symptoms of psychopathy, according to the “Psychopathy Checklist” spelled out by Robert Hare, PhD, include a lack of remorse or guilt—neither of which hunters seem to be capable of when it comes to their animal victims.

Anyone who thinks, “The fun part [of gopher hunting] is seeing the red mist rise in the air when you hit one. It’s an incredible rush,” would surely score high on any psychopathy quiz. But the point of Wuerthner’s article (which, to be fair, does include some good lines in defense of wolves) is that wolf hunters who cluelessly boast about their exploits in public are a lot like his friend Daryl in terms of hunter PR. If he might hesitate to admit that all hunters are psychopaths, Wuerthner would have to agree the diagnosis when it comes to trophy wolf hunters.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2012. All Rights Reserved

On to Other Important Issues

It’s Election Day and you’re probably on pins and needles waiting to find out which lucky candidate will be the next President of the United States. But I want to talk about something more important.

I don’t have anything in particular in mind. It could be the weather (or more specifically, how the weather is changing because of global warming). Or, it could be the rhino poaching problem in Africa, the dolphin slaughter going on right now in Japan or the perilously low numbers of big cats left on the planet. Or how, for some people, attitudes towards wolves haven’t changed since the barbarically backwards days of dark ages past.

The point is, no matter how this hyped-up human election turns out, there are other important issues going on at the same time that aren’t getting the media attention they deserve.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson