The Hog Blog

Well, the ethics discussion has certainly taken on a life of its own… or rather, regained the life it previously had.  There’s nothing particularly new about this conversation, but there is much to learn, and often the learning isn’t so much in the words folks are writing, but in how we think about them and how they impact our actions. 

I’ve gone a bit astray from the original roundtable idea.  When I suggested the running conversation, the idea was to read one another’s points and ideas, and then post our extended comments to our own blogs.  This would keep the conversation from bogging down in a single comment string on one site, and would enable the conversation to reach a much wider array of readers.  It would also allow the discussion to take different directions, as folks could build off of ideas spurred by someone’s point. 

Recently, with two posts over at the Fair Chase Hunting blog, I got pulled directly into the conversation in the comments, and failed to continue it here on the Hog Blog.  The first was Eric Nuse’s original response to the roundtable idea, What is Hunting – A Philosophical View, and in it he lays out the ideas presented in a paper he wrote following a retreat that must be similar to Galen Geer’s “symposium” (the post that sort of kicked all of this off). 

Eric’s post generated some pretty good discussion, including a few comments that I think made the perfect illustration of how personal the concept of “ethical hunting” can get… and how quickly that personal definition excludes other hunters’ methods and motivations.  But even better, it offered the opportunity to begin to differentiate “ethics” from aesthetics… both in semantic terms and philosophical. 

The second was a follow-up based on that initial discussion, wherein Eric tries to separate the notions of Ethics Versus Preferences, which I consider the keystone of my own position as well.  At some point, preferably early in the discussion, we have to learn to separate the “I” from the picture, before we start trying to apply definitions of “right” and “wrong” to the larger community.  The conversation also illustrated how convoluted the discussion becomes, and pretty much ended up with the idea that we need to simplify the issue… although exactly how to simplify becomes a tricky question in itself. 

Oddly enough, or maybe not so oddly, Galen put up his own post to a similar ends… the discussion gets unwieldy with so many esoteric ideas, so maybe we should start with a simple idea.  His suggestion was to begin with this idea:

If we agree that the key to being an ethical hunter is full use of skills and allowing the game to fully use their natural ability to survive then the outcome is ethical hunting. If we can accept that premise does this become a functional foundation to build on?

 I’m not sure if that idea simplifies anything or not, but it is a starting point.  The complexity becomes a question of definining a “full use of skills”.  What does that mean?  Is it a justification for the new, untrained hunter to hunt over bait inside a high-fence enclosure?  Does that then mean that there is no justification for an experienced hunter to do the same?  While I can sort of see the logic there, I think that it is a vague differentiation that would be lost on non-hunters (not to mention that it’s a logical leap and a value judgement with which I disagree).  But maybe it’s as good a starting point as any. 

But to the idea of simplicity… to the need to simplify… 

As these conversations have dug deeper and deeper, I am brought back to what I consider a critical question.  What is the objective of this discussion?  If there were to be a singular, definitive outcome, what would it be? 

I’m not saying it’s a pointless use of our energies to simply debate on the academic level.  Great ideas are being generated and expanded, and maybe some preconceptions are being challenged.  I think some folks might realize that the ideas of “fair chase”, “ethics”, and “morals”, are bigger than any individual perspective.  These are good things, and if that’s all we get out of this exercise, then I can deal with that. 

But it seems that we’re digging pretty hard for something more substantial… I’m just not clear on what that is. 

One of my reasons for asking this, maybe belatedly, is because we must understand that if we start to really dig for truth, we’re going to have to tip some sacred cows.  Hunting is not a “noble sport”, no matter how we couch our justifications and arguments (and there are some strong ones).   We can wrap it in pretty concepts and grandiose ideals, but it boils down to recreational killing… blood sport.  This is the reality that I think we’re trying to reconcile here. 

And I just keep wondering… to what ends?

Some great stuff seems to be coming out of the running ethics discussions, as well as the spin-offs (intentional or not) from the two posts by Thinking Hunter, Galen Geer, in which he first describes the ethics problem and considers holding a “symposium” for discussion, and then goes into some thoughts about an approach to the hunter’s ethics problem. 

Arthur has put up a couple of good posts on his Simply Outdoors site, including this one.  Chad Love, the Mallard of Discontent, takes a run at it in his surly post about the SHOT Show and the proliferation of high-tech gadgetry.  And finally (in my list, not necessarily in order of appearance or relevance), there’s Eric Nuse’s considered response on his Fair Chase Hunting blog.  (I know this is a lot of links, but if you’re interested in the topic or conversation, it’s worthwhile.  Honest.  Otherwise, Holly, the NorCal Cazadora has mentioned setting up a new blog to collect these threads in a single location… great idea for a way to utilize our spare time.)

It is the comments on Eric’s blog that spurred my return to the topic, particularly those from someone named Shaun.  Shaun’s posts hold tight to what I consider the traditional argument for hunting ethics… that without a certain ethical ideal, what we’re doing is not really “hunting”, but simply killing.  I can understand that perspective, and even agree with it to a point.  But it also smacks of that elitist attitude that fails to take into consideration that every individual has their own set of values, and their own motivations for hunting. 

Is the person who hunts a high fence with a rifle a lesser hunter than the man who hunts the far outback with nothing more than a bow? And if so, isn’t the man who hunts with a rifle a lesser hunter than the one who hunts with a bow… or the man who hunts with a compound bow a lesser hunter than the one who hunts with a traditional bow?

Why, exactly? Because they don’t live up to your standard? 

I don’t know why people can’t see the endless, downward spiral of this desire to define someone else’s experience based on their own values.  Once you start, it doesn’t end… it can’t end once it’s started: 

• A fence isn’t “hunting”. 
• A scoped, high-powered rifle isn’t “hunting”. 
• A compound bow isn’t “hunting”. 
• Any missile weapon isn’t “hunting”. 

It’s a rhetorical trap.  At some point, you have to recognize that there’s no such thing as “fair chase”… and short of running them down by foot and biting their heads off, every tool or weapon we use gives us “unfair advantage”.  That’s the point of inventing tools.

Shaun says hunting really is the “natural outdoor experience in pursuit of a game animal.” 

Help me out here.  What is “natural”?  What is “fair” when it comes to predators killing prey?  Is it somehow supposed to be based on the uncertainty of the kill… The level of effort required? 

I have known hunters to enter a high fence and leave again empty-handed. In one of the posts that started all of this, Galen Geer describes exactly such an experience.

I have a place I hunt where I am surrounded by over 200,000 acres of unfenced, wild lands.  Beyond that is more open land, eventually bounded on one side by the Pacific Ocean, on two sides by urban areas (Bakersfield and Los Angeles), and on the other side by the Mojave desert.  Yet on this place, I have a spot where I know that I can walk less than one mile two hours before sunset, wait an hour or so, and kill a wild hog.  It’s the closest thing to a sure thing that I’ve ever seen.  Even so, I’ll hit this spot at least a couple times per year, because I know that I can count on it.  When it comes down to it, I’m there to kill a hog.  If I simply want a walk in the woods, I can do that much cheaper and closer to home. 

Is that any different than hunting under a feeder where I know the animals will usually appear within five minutes of the whirring motor?  Why?  And if that’s not wrong, then why is it wrong to hunt in a fence with the same expectation of success?  Does hunting that spot lessen my experience or my enjoyment of that experience? 

A bigger question… If, for whatever reason, I can’t hunt according to the standard set by people like Shaun, should I simply forego hunting altogether?  I appreciate the fervor, but it simply doesn’t apply across the board.  Motivations vary.  Abilities vary.  Values vary. 

Hunt and live according to your personal ethic, but it’s a dangerous road to project your own values onto others… especially if your best rationale is some arbitrary concept of what the hunting experience should entail. 

That doesn’t mean, however, that we shouldn’t promote our own ideas of hunting ethics… nor that, should we choose to take the challenge, we don’t strive to elevate our own ethics. 

We should definitely throw our ideas on the table, dissect them, and see where it leads.  That’s why I got involved with this conversation, and why I am encouraging others to take it on as well.  The discussion is good and valuable, even if it’s primarily academic.  I’m just still not convinced that there’s a defined right or wrong answer to the questions.  Let’s keep it civil and keep it going.

I dunno how this is going to work, especially since I haven’t even bounced the idea off of anyone involved… but here goes.  Galen, over at The Thinking Hunter has truly lived up to the spirit of his site and started some conversations that have several hunters thinking.  The topic revolves around two things… first, the question of whether we should re-evaluate the concept and definition of “Free Chase”, and then what that definition might look like.  He’s got some great points, and he’s also elicited some pretty good replies from participants, including Holly (NorCal Cazadora),  Arthur (Simply Outdoors), and T. Michael Riddle (Native Hunts).   Because the topic is so complex, and not really suited to short replies (such as you’d get in the Comments section), I thought it better to devote a post on the blog to it.  Maybe other bloggers can respond the same way, and maybe form this into a sort of roundtable discussion? 

In order for this to work properly, and to maintain context, I’ll provide a link to the originating blog post.  You should read it first, or you won’t necessarily see where I’m coming from.  If we continue this discussion as a roundtable, each blogger who responds can do the same thing… starting the post off with a link to the previous posts.  So here goes:

Galen’s last post discusses a likely evolution of the hunting ethic, and how ethics seem to be applied on a “conditional basis” in modern sport hunting.  Read his post first.

I’ve tried pretty hard to come up with a comprehensive and coherent response to this line of discussion, but it’s not easy to do in this medium.  This is the kind of thing that’s best done across a table, maybe with a crackling fire and a glass of whiskey close at hand… not tapped out on a keyboard on a forum designed for short attention-spans and instant gratification.  Sitting here, surrounded by the demands of work, family, and a beautiful day outside, it’s tough to string together an unbroken train of ideas.  I’ll have a go at it, but no promises that it’ll make my point… or even make sense.  At the very least, I expect there’ll be some logical gaps. 

Galen, I think you’ve presented some pretty intriguing (and insightful) ideas, even if I think they get a little romantic.  That doesn’t mean I completely disagree with the idea that the hunt, at least on an individual level, often holds much deeper meaning than the simple collection of meat or skins.  That much is beyond debate.  But what does that symbolism and the subsequent idea of a hunting “ethic” really have to do with modern sport hunting?   Read the rest of this entry »

It seems like every year around this time, as the big game seasons have pretty much run down around the country, there seems to be a run of discussion on ethics issues.  Maybe it’s because more folks are sitting around the TV and computer this time of year.  I know that some of the hunting TV shows certainly raise some ethics questions for me.

Among other great discussions one is going on over on Galen Greer’s “The Thinking Hunter” blog.  At issue is the question, “should we reconsider our definition of Fair Chase”.  (And a thank you to Holly for bringing this one to my attention, and for her kind words on her own recent post.)

Whatever the reason, shortly after the baiting email came in, I got another note from a reader regarding hunting near water sources in CA.  This one was in regards to a vaguely written (but recently updated) law against hunting over certain water sources. 

Here’s the rule in question.  Read it carefully.

§730. Camping Near or Occupying Wildlife Watering Places.

(a) Camping/Occupying Defined. For purposes of this Section, camping/occupying is defined as establishing or inhabiting a camp; resting; picnicking; sleeping; parking or inhabiting any motor vehicle or trailer; hunting; or engaging in any other recreational activity for a period of more than thirty (30) minutes at a given location.
(b) Wildlife Watering Places Defined. For purposes of this Section, wildlife watering places are defined as waterholes, springs, seeps and man-made watering devices for wildlife such as guzzlers (self-filling, in-the-ground water storage tanks), horizontal wells and small impoundments of less than one surface acre in size.
(c) Prohibitions.
(1) Camping/Occupying is prohibited within 200 yards of the following:
(A) Any guzzler or horizontal well for wildlife on public land within the State of California.
(B) Any of the wildlife watering places on public land within the boundary of the California Desert Conservation Area as depicted on the Bureau of Land Management maps of “Calif. Federal Public Lands Responsibility,” “Calif. Desert Conservation Area” and the new “Desert District, B.L.M.”
(2) Camping/Occupying is prohibited within one-quarter mile of the following wildlife watering places:
(A) Butte Well–T31N, R14E, Section 28, NE1/4, M.D.B.M., Lassen County.
(B) Schaffer Well–T31N R14E, Section 25, Center, M.D.B.M., Lassen County.
(C) Tableland Well–T31N, R14E, Section 17, SE1/4, M.D.B.M., Lassen County.
(D) Table Mountain Well–T31N, R14E, Section 32, SE1/4, M.D.B.M., Lassen County.
(E) Timber Mountain Well–T44N, R6E, Section 33, M.D.B.M., Modoc National Forest, Modoc County.
(F) Belfast Well–T31N, R14E, Section 31, NE1/4, M.D.B.M., Lassen County.

So now, after reading that, consider this scenario.

I’m out in my favorite public land, hog hunting area, in the southwestern corner of Fresno County.  In my scouting I spot a patch of green in the otherwise sere landscape.  Sure enough, there’s a seep oozing water slowly out onto the hillside.   Closer investigation reveals a tiny watercourse, running down the hill into the canyon below.  Hog and deer tracks dot the ground, a wallow is worn into the mud to form a small pool, and there’s mud rubs on the nearby oaks. 

So, with the regulation above in mind, I have two questions.  First, would it be ethical of me to set a stand on this spot in hopes of catching a hog coming back to the water?

And second, would it be legal to do so? 

I’ll wait for your answers, and then offer up my own.

I got an email recently from a newer hog hunter, and he asked a question that I’ve heard a few times now.  I thought I’d share his letter, along with my thoughts.  

Here goes:

I’m a new hunter (at 40 yrs old!) and have had the opportunity to hunt pigs on a friend’s land a few times this winter west of Lake Sonoma. It’s been amazing. No pigs taken yet, but we’ve seen a bunch.

We even got a few shots off a few weeks ago, but they were bad shots– we got surprised by bedded-down pigs as we dropped into a gully.

Just went again this weekend and I think we’ve created a little too much hunting pressure. Wallows are not being used, maybe a couple fresh tracks, but not much activity.

Brings me to my question — baiting for pigs. I ask this bec my buddy’s land is 170 acres, and while we wish we could roam onto the neighboring properties, we can’t. This past trip we discussed digging a bait hole with a post-hole digger, tossing some corn and water and sugar in and seeing if we can’t get the pigs to come to us. Is this legal in California?

All in all, I’m hooked. Even if we never get a pig, I’ll go as many times as my friend (the landowner) wants. I’ve spent a long time hiking, camping and fishing, but hunting is definitely the best way to spent time outdoors in my opinion.

Thanks for your blog. I really enjoy reading it!

First, the short and clear answer… baiting game animals is NOT LEGAL in CA.  Technically, even feeding big game is illegal in this state. 

You can find the regulations and laws on the DFG website for details.  (This prohibition does not apply to fenced preserves, such as those operated by Native Hunt, Big Horn Ranch, Cedar Canyon Ranch, and others.  On fenced preserves, animals are considered hoofstock, and regulated by the Department of Agriculture, not the DFG.)

And a note: In some cases, like this one, the law is quite clearly spelled out.  However, any time you have a question about the details or interpretation of a law, the best place to get your answer is right from the source… the DFG (or applicable law enforcement agency).  I know I do my best to be as accurate and specific as I can when answering questions like this, but I’ve seen some insane interpretations of Fish and Game Law out here on the Internet.  And I wouldn’t blame anyone for validating the information I offer as well.  I’m no lawyer. Going off half-cocked on bad info can land you in a world of trouble.

Now the longer response…  I’m gonna ramble here.   Read the rest of this entry »

OK, so I spend a good bit of time trying to defend hunters and our actions, both on this site and off of it.  I work hard to explain to non-hunters that there’s so much more to hunting than killing stuff, and that most hunters actually live by a pretty strict sense of ethics.  I talk and write about the idea that the negative crap we read in the papers or see on the TV news represents the anomalies in the sport… the poachers and scofflaws are the exceptions, not the norm.

But there are times when I just want to throw up my hands and say, “the hell with it.” 

Today was one of those times. 

Someone sent me an email containing this article from the Seattle Times. 

In summary, the State opened a special archery elk season in order to reduce the population of elk in a relatively small area.  The animals had been wreaking havoc on local farms and residential properties. 

According to the article, word got out about a herd of elk feeding on a private pasture and several hunters (over a dozen by some reports) gathered and tried to surround the herd.  It’s not clear in the article if there was some kind of barrier penning the animals in, but regardless, things apparently turned ugly fast.  When everything was done, seven elk were dead, and non-hunting observers (as well as many hunters) were crying foul.

The details are really fuzzy, and I try real hard to keep my mind open to the possibility that I’m not going to get an objective picture from “eyewitnesses” and news reporters.  But this is the kind of thing I read.

Walter Gillespie, 82, of Sedro-Woolley, agreed. “I think it was an atrocity,” he said. “It’s not a sportsman’s way.”

He said the hunt wasn’t fair, with the elk penned up and hunters coming from both sides of the herd.

Gillespie said the worst part wasn’t the elk that died and were hauled away.

“How many more were shot … ” he said. “That’s what bugs me. If one didn’t fall down, they’d shoot another one. The whole thing was like a comedy — a bad, bad comedy.”

The consistency in some of what I read leads me to think there’s at least signficant truth to the reports of folks shooting indiscriminately and wounding animals without following up, and that bugs me more than the fact that they apparently cornered the animals before the shooting started. 

The article does point out, more than once, that the game wardens were on hand, and while they didn’t approve of the activities, no laws were broken.  But the public spectacle was pretty harsh, handing us one more big, PR black-eye. 

Of course, several folks have been quick to point out that this hunt was meant to reduce the population, as if this explanation justifies the behavior.  I do agree that population reduction justifies certain hunting methods that we might not otherwise care for, but I don’t think there’s any good excuse for the scenario described in this article.

Here’s a peeve I haven’t petted in a little while…

I got my new issue of Outdoor Life the other day, and as usual, I glanced eagerly at the cover in hopes of seeing my smiling face and/or a byline.  I mean, heck, they’ve dropped Patrick McManus and Jim Carmichel.  Certainly their standards are low enough to welcome me aboard by now.

But since I haven’t actually submitted so much as a query to that magazine in over a decade, and I haven’t shot a world-record cervid (or ovid, or hominid, or iPod, or anything else), odds of seeing myself on the cover or even the back pages are pretty danged slim.  So I satisfied myself checking out the articles for the month.  And there it was… glaring at me with a smug and self-satisfied look… another article about long-distance shooting, complete with a tag line that explains that, “sometimes it’s the only shot you’ll get!” 

What is it Charlie Brown says when he’s utterly exasperated by Lucy or Snoopy?  “AUUGGGGHHH!!!”

Once again, here’s the magazine that is arguably one of the most widely read hunting and outdoors publications in the country, if not the world, telling an entire landscape of readers that it’s OK to take shots clear across the county if there’s a “trophy” buck or bull on the receiving end.  God forbid you should miss this opportunity!  What kind of hunter would you be if you didn’t post up that Hail, Mary shot rather than trying to close the distance or, and here’s a thought, writing that one off and looking for a better opportunity?

Am I pushing it?  Maybe, but honestly… what the hell is with this obsession of killing animals from the next zip code? 

This is the thing.  I know that there are some people who are truly good, and practiced long-range marksmen.  They hone their skills constantly, know their equipment intimately, know the wind and how to read it, and have the patience and understanding to choose the perfect shot AND to pass on the imperfect.  (If nothing else, that last is most critical!)  If they enjoy long-range marksmanship and wish to practice it on game, then I can’t fault them because they can do it right and well.

Those individuals, though, are arguably in a single-digit percentage of the general hunting population.  The rest of us simply should not be slinging lead (or copper) at living things from long distances.  It’s irresponsible and, dare I say it, unethical.  Yeah, this is me, making an ethics call.    Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been observing an intriguing trend in the hunting community over the past several years, and while I’ve commented on it a time or two, I’ve never really had the time or incentive to explore it more thoroughly.   (I’m not sure that I have that time or incentive now, for that matter, but what the heck… if I don’t start, I’ll never finish.)

So, then… what I’ve been seeing is an ever-increasing influx of hunters who are coming to the sport late in life.  Some of them may have had early exposure to hunting and shooting, but never got fully involved.  Many others are completely new to it. 

Personally, as someone who literally grew up hunting, I’m curious as to what these folks’ experiences must be like, what motivated them to start hunting, and what challenges they face getting started and becoming successful.  Who do these new hunters turn to for mentoring or inspiration?  How do they learn… and just as importantly… what are they learning?

I’m also intrigued by what this new crop of hunters will bring to the general hunting “ethic”.  What I have seen so far suggests that there’s a very different perspective, and it’s carried to further extremes, by individuals who recently made the decision to take up a blood sport.  I think this fresh point of view holds some pretty big implications for the future of hunting, although for better or worse remains to be seen. 

For now, I’m simply glad to see that there are still more people coming into the community.  We’ve (hunters) been at serious risk of stagnation as the older generations fade away, and the new generations don’t have the interest or the time to take up the sport. 

This train of thought was chugging through my mind back in May, when I saw an article in the SF Chronicle about an organization calling itself the “Bull Moose Hunting Society.”   The gist of the article is that a couple of guys in San Francisco wanted to start hunting, and realized that there were very few resources, especially in the urban environment, for people to learn how to hunt.  They also found that there was a lot of interest in eating wild game meat, even by folks who would probably never hunt for it themselves. 

I followed the article link to the Bull Moose Hunting Society website to learn more about the organization.  These guys had stumbled onto a great idea and a fascinating concept.  That concept has evolved a little from it’s original roots as a sort of “wild game cooperative”, but it’s still an excellent idea.  One of the things that particularly captured my attention, though, was the Mission Statement:

Leave no trace, take a clean shot, respect the animal, be a part of nature; these are qualities we at the Bull Moose Hunting Society express and would like to instill in a new generation of hunters, of human predators. Where the government of this country fails to establish ethical hunting guidelines, we educate and inform. Where the urbanized people of this country are removed from nature, we provide a means to return. Where the private landowners feel repulsed at unruly trophy hunters, we are an alternative. Bull Moose is an organization dedicated to providing a means for those of us who have lost our instincts, our predatory skills and our connection to the wild world to get those parts of ourselves back. We provide guidance through state hunting regulations and equipment purchases. We provide a link between private landowners and responsible, ethical hunters like ourselves. And most importantly, we bring the wild out in you.

That truly is a “statement”.  There’s a lot there, and it speaks volumes about this “nouveau hunting ethic” that I’ve been wondering about… at least as these guys see it. 

After reading and digesting a bit, I shot an email off to Bull Moose Hunting Society founders, Nick Zigelbaum and Nick Chaset to see if they’d be willing to answer a few questions.  It took a while to get our respective crap together, but we did finally get a chance to do a little email interview.   

I don’t really like the Q&A format on a blog, but in the interest of getting everything in context, here’s the entire exchange (excluding a couple of questions that were left unanswered): Read the rest of this entry »

Wow, I can’t believe this hasn’t been all over the place… on NorCal Cazadora’s blog, or on Hank’s.  I had to get it second-hand from the Women’s Outdoor Wire! 

Holly has just (last Thursday night) received the Artemis Award, and getting well-deserved recognition and stuff for:

…inspiring and supporting positive outdoor experiences for women and helping to preserve our outdoor heritage for future generations. Heyser works tirelessly to involve others in the way of life she loves through her blog, articles for various publications, and the food served in her home.

Holly has certainly done her share as both an ambassador for women in the outdoors, as well as setting a great example for all hunters (male and female).  She’s come into the hunting community as a raw novice, and is rapidly earning her “stripes” as she dives into the sport with a great attitude and a desire to learn as well as teach.  It’s been a pretty impressive thing to watch… especially as she chronicles it all through her excellent writing. 

In the press release, Dr. Robert McLandress, President of California Waterfowl Association, had this to say:

“Through all she does, Holly encourages everyone to participate fully in outdoor experiences and think deeply about where we fit in both society and nature”, explained Dr. Robert McLandress, President of California Waterfowl. “She brings a fresh perspective to the world of hunting and helps both hunters and non-hunters see it more clearly.”

I, for one, am proud of my acquaintance with Holly, and totally think this is a well-deserved award.  And the best thing is, she’s just getting started! 

Congratulations, Holly!  Well done!

Now that Hank has told his side of the story, I can release my own without playing spoiler…  His is much better than I could ever tell it anyway, which is cool, because this hunt really was about Hank’s experience.  I was just there to help.

Besides, I’ve been trying to think of a re-telling of the tale I knew Hank would be writing without sounding like two sides of the same story.  So instead of rewriting the whole story, here’s a little video of the last few days, and with Hank telling us how it all went down.  Then I’ve got a few more things to throw in.

It was a rewarding hunt, but with some hard lessons mixed in.  Things didn’t go exactly as we’d like to see them, and we paid the price.  So did the deer. 

Read the rest of this entry »