The Hog Blog

It’s been a tough fire season here in the West so far, and the historic peak of the season is just arriving.  With these things in mind, I thought I’d take a sort of sidetrack from hog hunting and urge all hunters throughout the state, and the country, to be mindful of the risks of fire as you’re participating in outdoor activities.

Some things are obvious, of course.  Campfires, especially uncontained campfires, are a huge risk in the dry environment.  It takes only a spark to send the hills up in smoke.  Even in “developed” campgrounds with fire rings and circles, this is just a bad time to have a fire.  If you do insist on burning a fire in camp, don’t put paper, or loose leaves, grass, or pinestraw on the fire.  These cause big sparks that will ride the thermals quickly out of your reach, and can set down hundreds of feet away with disastrous results.  Burn clean, dry wood.  You should also consider using a grate over the fire, to help contain sparks and drifting embers.

Make sure your vehicle is in good condition, particularly the electrical and emissions systems.  A sparking wire can send, not only the woods but your whole car, up in flames.  And faulty emissions systems can spew sparks, or a catalytic converter that is in poor repair can heat up enough to set dry grass on fire.  Stay on the roads, and don’t go driving through the high grass or scrub. 

Another aspect to consider about vehicles is dragging metal parts.  A trailer chain, for example, kicks up sparks like a fireworks display when it’s dragging on pavement.  A dragging tailpipe, loose tie-bars, anything… make sure it’s all secured clear of the road. 

Keep a fire extinguisher handy when you’re driving in the back country, whether in a truck, car, or ATV.  It’s also a good idea to keep a shovel and five gallons or so of water on hand.  Quick reaction with the right tools can stop a fire before it gets going, although if the fire has a head start on you, don’t risk injury trying to stop it.  Odds are against you once the flames start to run over the ground, and a jug of water or a shovel are not going to do much good.  Get out of danger and contact the authorities. 

One thing a lot of folks don’t think about when it comes to forest-fire safety is target shooting.  Most of us probably understand that lead bullets won’t spark, but keep in mind that lead is only one component of bullets.  I saw this Letter to the Editor in the Grass Valley Union online edition:

Fire dangers and Steel Core Ammunition

About the time of the Y2K scare many sport shooters bought an abundance of inexpensive Russian Wolf, China Sports and Norinco ammunition. What was not known is that much of this ammo is soft, steel core with a copper jacket. Steel being less expensive than lead, foreign ammo manufacturers opted for steel. The substitution had nothing to do with armor piercing capability. The hollow point and metal jacketed steel core ammo can be identified using a magnet on the tip of the bullet.

When a shooter fires a steel core bullet and it hits a rock, another piece of steel, or a spent steel core bullet, it will cause a spark. The spark easily starts a fire in dry fuels such as grass: Same as a steel-bladed lawn mower when the blade strikes a rock. If you have any rifle ammo, .223 through .30 caliber, by Norinco, Wolf or China Sports, please check each lot for steel cores with a magnet and don’t shoot the steel core ammo when our fuels are dry or if you do not have an adequate dirt back drop with no combustibles near by.

Reference: The recent Telegraph fire near Mariposa.

VR Joe Satrapa,
Air Tanker 89
Nevada City

Not mentioned in the letter is the risk posed by muzzleloaders. If you’re hunting with a smokepole during the dry seasons, minimize the flame and spark by using proper powder, and flame-resistant wadding. Cloth, cork, and paper wadding almost always carries embers and sparks as it exits the muzzle. Properly lubing your bullets and using lubed wads can help. Wads made of synthetic materials are also preferable.

It really just requires a simple, visual test to see if your muzzleloader is a forest-fire risk. When you fire it, do you see flame or extensive sparking from the muzzle? Of course there will be some sparking, but if you’re seeing excessive flames or bursts of spark and ember, this is probably because your powder isn’t burning efficiently. Refer to your manufacturer’s user guides to determine if you can use a faster-burning powder, or if you can reduce the charge so that you burn more in the gun (where it will do the most good anyway). In my relatively limited experience with muzzleloaders, I find that the flame-throwing and sparking tends to come more from the traditional styled guns. The modern front-stuffers seem to burn powder more efficiently and completely. I certainly won’t suggest that anyone trade in your Hawken or Kentucky Long Rifle for an inline, but at least be aware and considerate of the fire risk with whatever you choose to shoot.

Remember that it really only takes a spark to get some of the tinder-dry western grasses burning, so it’s wise to consider if any of your actions, or your equipment, poses a risk of sparking.  Even archers should be aware… broadheads and field points can even spark off of rocks. 

This may all sound like panic-mongering, or hyperbolic hysteria, or whatever else you may want to call it… but the fact is, every year major forest fires throughout the western states, especially in CA, NV, and AZ, are caused by innocuous activities that people do “all the time”.  Target shooting, mowing the lawn, driving through the countryside…  all of these have been linked to devastating western fires over the last two years. 

Keep in mind, as well, that if you’re identified as the person who started the fire, you may very well be held responsible for the costs of fighting the fire, losses, and in the tragic event that someone is injured or dies, you may even be held accountable for that as well.  You’ll face fines, lawsuits, and potential criminal prosecution… not to mention the impact on your conscience if you cause loss of people’s homes, pets, or even their lives!   

Think ahead, be smart, and be responsible… Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires. 

Wow. 

I just spent the last half-hour listening to KQED Forum, an hour-long NPR program here locally in which the host, Michael Krasny interviews a handful of “experts” and invites listeners to call or email their comments.  I wasn’t able to tune in for the first half of the show, but I heard enough in 30 minutes to get a pretty good feel for what I missed. 

The topic today was, “The Future of Hunting.”  On the panel were Doug Updike, a senior biologist from CA DFG, Jim Posowitz, Executive Director at Orion, The Hunters’ Institute, and Nicole Paquette, senior vice president and general counsel for Born Free USA (an animal rights/welfare organization).

In a nutshell, there wasn’t a lot of new stuff here.  Updike and Posowitz kept coming back to the conservation ethic and the fact that there’s more to hunting than wholesale slaughter of wildlife.  They addressed the facts that hunters are a necessary part of the ecological whole.   While most of the pro-hunting callers offered little earthshattering insight, there were several self-identified “liberals” who called in to announce that they, too, are hunters.  I suppose that’s a challenge to some stereotypes, and for that I’m grateful.  I was also grateful that while some pro-hunting callers fell back on standard rhetoric, all of them came across as even and logical.  Unless I missed something in the early part of the program, there was no mudslinging or name-calling. 

Meanwhile Paquette was somewhere off in a Utopian vision in which humans are somehow supposed to be spectators to nature, but not direct participants.  Her ideal is that wildlife should live in its “natural setting”, and hunters shouldn’t intrude on that.  Of course, it’s OK for predators to kill animals, or for them to die of old age and disease, but apparently in her world view, hunters are not predators… or even part of “nature”.  She even thinks it fine, or even preferable, that humans get our meat from supermarkets rather than going into the wild to kill our own. 

I mean, really, I wanted to keep an open mind and hear the arguments out, but she spoke from so far outside of reality that I simply couldn’t take anything she said seriously.  I mean, if this is what she truly believes, then her entire position totally ignores every other impact of human existance… not only hunting, but our very status as cohabitants in the ecosystem. 

Most of the anti-hunting callers were, like the pro-hunters, quite respectful on a personal level, but awfully reliant on generalizations and over-used rhetorical themes such as,  “Why can’t hunters enjoy nature without ‘assassinating it?”  or, “How can you call hunting a ’sport’?  It’s totally unfair!”

Only one caller, a hunter named, “Josh”, was willing to get down to the true sticking point that gives anti-hunters so much grief, and trips up the hunters as well… the fact of death.  Death is a part of hunting, but it is a part of life.  As he explained, the hunter does not generally enjoy causing death, but understands very clearly that it’s required… just as the hunter will be required to die at some point as well. 

Everyone else, particulary Posowitz, avoided the question that entangles hunters every time… “How can you enjoy killing things?” 

Posowitz glossed it over by rote, noting that “hunting isn’t just about killing…etc.,” and then quickly going back to the conservation ethic. 

Of course Paquette immediately pounced on the opening, saying something along the lines of, “you see how uncomfortable he is about it?  He changed the subject!”

I’ve mentioned this before, but why avoid answering that question?  Is it just too hard to put into words that enjoying hunting isn’t quite the same as enjoying killing, even though killing is a necessary part of hunting?  Is it a subconscious anthropomorphosis that we can’t get past equating killing an animal with killing a person?  Or is it the fear of our own deaths that makes it so difficult to explain giving death to something else? 

First of all, of course hunters are uncomfortable with the idea of killing.  It’s a complex mixture of emotions, and anyone who feels only  joy, or worse, who feels nothing when he kills is certainly an anomaly.  But there’s nothing wrong with expressing the conflicting feelings of the kill.. the joy, the excitement, the dread and the sorrow.

Do I enjoy killing things?  Yes, when I am hunting and I am successful, I enjoy it a great deal.  Do I enjoy it because I’ve caused death to a living thing?  No.  Of course not.  I enjoy it because, as a predator, this time I have prevailed.  I will eat fresh, healthy meat.  I enjoy it not because I don’t respect the sanctity of life, but because the life I have taken will now give me life.  Symbolically, I have ensured my own survival, and that of my family… and the fact that I could go to the store and buy meat that someone else has raised and killed for me is irrelevant.   

Anyway, I may have digressed a little… back to the show.  

I tried calling in once, but after a busy-signal, I realized that I have never been very good at that kind of extemporaneous speaking, and usually end up sounding quite foolish.  I decided instead to send an email to the program, expressing some of my thoughts.  Unfortunately, it probably arrived too late to be read on the air. 

At the end of the show, while I wasn’t especially impressed by the quality of the discussion (nothing particularly enlightening or opinion altering on either side), I was impressed that Krasny appeared actually benign… or even positive… toward the pro-hunting side of the discussion.  Of course, that couldn’t have been hard faced with Paquette’s fantasy-land vision of the human-nature relationship. 

As always, the show ended without anyone challenging the anti-hunters on what I think is the key question.  How is legal, sport-hunting harmful to the resource, the environment, or the participants?   Quantify your answer.

You can download an MP3 of the show now, at the KQED website.  It’s worth a listen, if you’ve got an hour to kill.

 

This particular Adam Henry Award has been a little delayed, as I’ve been waiting for things to sort themselves out.  But now most of the doo-doo has hit the fan, and I’m happy to present the latest Hog Blog Adam Henry Award to… drum roll please… 

Kirt Darner, 69, of Crawford, CO! 

Some of you may recognize Mr. Darner’s name from some of his wonderful books, including those published using photos of the trophy deer he “killed”, even though it turns out that the deer was taken four decades earlier! 

Not content to stop there, allegedly Darner has falsely submitted other trophies to the record books, although the whole truth may never be known.  But then again, as my mama always told me, “burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me.” 

Darner recently plead guilty to charges of illegally receiving stolen bighorn sheep heads (trophies) and illegally importing elk to a private preserve.  Why would someone do these things?  Ego.  Nothing more and nothing less. 

Sure, having all these trophy “kills” to his name enhanced his reputation as a big game guide and hunter, and probably drew him a little extra business.  Cabelas sponsored him, and he wrote books which he then marketed on the strength of his hunting prowess and success. 

I could write it all up, but nothing I could write would touch the loving lambasting Darner is receiving from folks like Ed Dentry of the Rocky Mountain News. 

While Darner is now paying the piper in the judicial system, and has pretty much lost any shred of positive reputation he may have once held, one other culprit in all this is getting away scott-free! 

As Dentry put it so eloquently:

No penalties have been suggested for a sleazy system that lionizes antlers and horns and allows their sale and resale, to the detriment of wildlife and corruption of America’s hunting heritage.

That’s right.  As long as there are those who build their idols on bone and antler, there will be those who will do whatever it takes to mount the dais themselves.  In the process, the spirit and the reputation of hunting will suffer. 

There’s nothing wrong with setting a high standard and hunting for a prime specimen… for a trophy.  The problem arises when that challenge becomes an entire industry, and the bar of “quality” is set based on dimensions of width, height, and mass rather than on the hunting experience itself. 

So here’s to Kirt Darner, the latest recipient of the Hog Blog’s Adam Henry Award! 

Due to the extent of this response, I felt it better to include as a new post rather than an extended comment.  Note the original post for reference.

---

Why the resistance to calling a spade a spade, and facing up to the fact that what we do is sport hunting… hunting for sport?  To borrow from Arthur’s original “Why I Hunt” challenge post (which is where this is all started, of course), he quoted a really eloquent statement from a Mr. Shane Mahoney.

“The task at hand is to articulate the relevance of hunting; not its correctness, nor its practical service to human kind. Rationalizing the mythology is both a tactical error and a diminishment of pride. Lies and excuses usually are.”

Why the squeamishness with being honest about what we’re doing out there? 

Read the rest of this entry »

In discussions about pro-hunting versus anti-hunting, I put a lot of emphasis on the terms “sport hunting” and “sport hunters”, instead of just saying, “hunting” or “hunters”.  I think it’s an important distinction to make, and here’s why.

First of all, as some folks may have seen in the discussion with Bob a few days ago, there’s a standing anti-hunters’ argument that “hunters” are responsible for the wholesale slaughter of species that dates all the way back to the earliest history of this continent.  It’s a hard argument to refute, because an awful lot of killing went on back in the days before we knew about extinction, eco-systems, or even the simple fact that “God’s bounty” wasn’t unlimited.  We all know about it… the passenger pigeon, Carolina parakeet, bison, eastern elk, whitetail deer, waterfowl… the list is frighteningly long.

“Well, those weren’t hunters,” someone might argue. 

I have to disagree.  Many of those people were hunters in the most real sense.  They hunted to feed their families, whether directly or by commerce.   Hunting was for market or for subsistence.  Sure, there must have been plenty of folks who enjoyed it.  There’s always been more to the hunt than simply filling the smoke pole or the wallet.  But a “sport” who hunted solely for recreation was relatively unheard of,  and when one did appear, he was generally perceived as an eccentric or a member of the privileged class (usually a correct assumption).  

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s a tie!  Unfortunately, since they’re both minors I can’t publish their names (I would publish them anyway if I had them). 

Our two award winners get the prize for a two month rampage in the Sutter Buttes area of northern California, during which time they killed at least 13 deer, including does and fawns, along with a string of other wildlife including at least one turkey vulture, coyotes, racoons, and lord knows what else.  The two were convicted and sentenced last week, according to the latest article from the Sacramento Bee.  Read the article, and let me know… did the punishment fit the crime?

At the very least, I think you’ll agree that these two fellas definitely deserve the full honor of becoming the second (and third) recipients of the Hog Blog Adam Henry Award! 

Adam Henry (A.H.) - Commonly used police radio code for “asshole”.

The anti-hunting post has been occupying a bit of my mind the last day or so, so I haven’t been able to come up with new topics right now.  Hog hunting promises to pick up over the next couple of months, so there’s something to look forward to.

However, I can’t let the day go by without expressing my sadness and my frustration at the tragic news stories coming out of the turkey woods recently. 

First, a Minnesota father shot his eight year-old son.  What happened?  Well, the story doesn’t help the cause of hunters… the man followed some turkeys, the boy followed his father, the father turned and shot at “some movement”… discharging a full, 12ga turkey load into the boy’s chest at approximately 20 yards. 

Then a 19 year-old West Virginian shot a 16 year-old after apparently spotting movement and mistaking it for a turkey… and then he ran away and left him, according to the reports.  I wasn’t there, and I can imagine the panic in that teenager’s mind could have made him react thoughtlessly… not to let him off the hook, but to keep it in perspective.  The worst thing was that he shot the young man in the first place… by mistake. 

Now I hesitate to highlight these stories, because… well there’s just no good way to see it.  As hunters, we go on about our dedication to safety and ethics and all that, but just a couple of these stories take the wind out of those claims pretty handily.  Sure, statistics still tell you that hunting is much safer than almost any other sport you can take up.  But statistics probably don’t mean squat to the family of the dead youngsters right now, and they sure wouldn’t mean anything to me either. 

I could use this to launch another diatribe about the importance of maintaining our image as hunters and how these incidents really give us a black eye… but I really don’t have the energy, and honestly, I can’t see how that would be constructive.  All I can do when I think about it right now is imagine that father’s agony.  I doubt any of us needs to point out his errors to him… or to anyone else. 

Instead, I just want to say to all of you, “be careful out there, folks.” 

I know we all think we’re safe hunters, and I’m sure most of you are.  But it only takes a second…less than a second… and a lifetime of practicing safety is erased. 

I don’t know any hog hunter who doesn’t remember the “Monster Pig”, formerly known as “Fred”… the huge domestic hog taken by 12 year-old Jamison Stone with the Smith and Wesson 500.  My last write-up on the topic that won’t go away referenced Rhonda Shearer’s reports on her Stinky Journalism website. 

Anyway, the whole thing hasn’t died down yet, and I received an email from Ms Shearer this morning (apologies for the posting issues… we were undergoing technical difficulties this morning).  I decided to post her comment here as a blog post, rather than relegating it to an old thread.  Here’s what she had to say:

Read the rest of this entry »

Just received this from the CA Department of Fish and Game, and thought it was worth sharing with everyone here. 

I know it seems harmless, and who doesn’t like to look at deer, squirrels, and other beautiful creatures from the comfort of our living rooms?  But it’s a bad idea.  Among other things, spring seems to bring rabies outbreaks… and feeding animals brings them into more contact with your own family, as well as the families of your neighbors.  Concentrating prey animals also tends to bring in predators… and I don’t think many of us want lions and coyotes wandering in our backyards or neighborhoods. 

So anyway, it’s worth a read, and is applicable in other states besides California. 

Department of Fish and Game

NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 08:026 March 28, 2008

Contact: Eric Loft, Chief, DFG Wildlife Branch, (916) 445-3555

Terry Palmisano, DFG Senior Wildlife Biologist, (831) 649-2890

DFG Warns: Leave Wild Animals Alone

The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) reminds everyone that feeding wildlife, whether directly or indirectly, is never a good idea.

Wildlife encounters often increase with the availability of food, and feeding can result in an attack, injury, damaged property and often the death of the animal.

“When there are conflicts between humans and wild animals, the animals lose,” said Eric Loft, Chief, DFG Wildlife Branch. “Don’t feed wild animals. They don’t need our handouts, they need our respect. We should all take responsibility for the wild animals whose habitat we share. When humans are careless, wild animals usually pay the price.”

Wild animals have natural instincts about what, when and where they should eat. Those that become accustomed to being fed may become dependent on human generosity and expand their activities to get more food from people. These animals can damage fences and structures, become pests and threaten human safety in the process. People who feed wildlife mean well, but doing so upsets an animal’s natural diet, puts the animal at unnecessary risk and often disrupts the natural survival instincts of the animal.

“It’s never a good idea to feed wildlife; it’s as simple as that,” said DFG Senior Biologist Terry Palmisano. “When people feed wildlife, animals become habituated to that source of food, which can lead to unnaturally bold or aggressive behavior. That type of behavior results in conflicts between wildlife and humans and most often leads to the death of the animal.”

Preventing human and wildlife conflicts is the goal of DFG’s “Keep Me Wild” campaign, which encourages people to respect all wildlife by leaving them alone and allowing them to live as wild animals.

The most common problems begin with people who leave pet food outside at night, intentionally put food out for wildlife or allow animals access to crops.

DFG urges pet owners to feed pets early in the day and to retrieve dishes at night, or feed pets indoors. If a pet door is used, owners should be aware that some animals - particularly raccoons and skunks - may use that door to enter the house in search of an easy meal. Lockable pet doors with manual locks are available as are doors that will open only when pets wearing magnetic collars attempt to enter.

Palmisano also warns that people who feed wildlife are at greater risk of being attacked when animals grow accustomed to being fed and then have that feeding disturbed in some way. People who feed animals are also at a greater risk from the spread of disease and parasites. Urban areas often have an array of turkeys, skunks, opossums and raccoons looking for food, with predators such as coyotes, bobcats and mountain lions following that prey down into residential neighborhoods. These animals can cause problems for pets and unsuspecting neighbors who may not want the visitors in their yard. For these reasons, it is illegal to feed big game, such as deer and bears.

Appropriate, strong fencing is the best way to protect both your property, wildlife and public resources. While DFG can issue depredation permits to remove certain animals that have already caused damage, wildlife biologists always recommend taking measures to prevent problems before they start.

To learn more about the “Keep Me Wild” campaign visit http://www.dfg.ca.gov/keepmewild.###

Michael Riddle, owner of Native Hunt Enterprises and no stranger to some of the issues faced by hunting preserves/ranches, tipped me off to a really good article on Deerfarmer.com  In the article, the author lays out some arguments for allowing these preserves to operate, but he also puts out some general guidelines and ethical rules for their operation.  I suppose this is the part that caught my attention. 

In the past, I have come out more than once on the side of hunting preserves.  While I sometimes have ambivalent feelings about hunting on them myself (although I have and probably will again); I also feel like they serve a purpose for some people, and it should be a personal decision to hunt there or not.  I think that, if the operation is properly run and certain guidelines are followed, preserve hunting is perfectly ethical. 

So while I could go on to make my own case, the article itself makes it best.  Keep in mind that the piece is written specifically based on discussion in Alberta, Canada, but it is relevant to hunting preserves across the US as well.  So take a few minutes and go give it a read.  You can find it right here.

Really, I think the biggest threat to hunting preserves is misinformation and general ignorance about what they’re really like.  A low key, public-relations campaign to educate hunters and non-hunters alike could go a long ways, I believe.  Add to that a clearly defined set of ethical standards and guidelines that address the stronger arguments against preserves, and the industry could go a long way to easing the pressures against it. 

As the article mentions in the conclusion:

The opposition to harvest preserves is mostly based on beliefs that CHPS are ethically wrong. The opposition comes from people that are least likely to be affected by CHPs.

I urge anyone who has a negative opinion regarding hunting preserves to educate yourselves on the efforts the industry is making to ensure that hunts are ethical and humane, and that the risk of disease is closely monitored and controlled.  While hunting behind a high fence still may not appeal to your personal interests, consider that preserves still offer an opportunity to many people who may not hunt otherwise. 

Instead of fighting to shut these preserves down, I think it might be in hunters’ best interests to join the efforts to keep them legal, but to address concerns of ethics and safety.