How Sportsmen Hurt Themselves

Why did the Sportsmen's Alliance go after the foreclosure pet fund? Just out of spite? A need to deny HSUS any successes?

I remain confused.

TC/Trout Underground

Both. The Alliance is lower than whale scat.
Best,
Ted

Yes, this is quite confusing.

WB

I have it from a couple hunting associates that I should never support or defend HSUS. I like both these guys, but they are, well, intellectually disadvantaged. They can’t maintain two separate ideas in their heads at one time.

Shouldn’t any person or any group be defended, supported and encouraged when they do something right? Otherwise, how are they gonna improve? No one has more issues with the Corps of Engineers than I do. But when the Corps’ New England office abandoned plans for a dam on the Charles River and started buying up wetlands instead, I wrote several articles praising this action because wetlands are the only flood-control that ever worked.

When Bruce Babbitt became Secretary of the Interior he quickly proved to anyone paying attention that he was the best person by far ever to hold that office. Did he make mistakes? Of course. And he couldn’t fix everything in eight years, but he got any amazing amount done, and he inspired millions. I thanked him in person a while back for single-handedly saving the Endangered Species Act. But the environmental community has always had a hard time saying “Thank you.” Nothing a federal bureaucrat ever does is good enough. Instead of encouraging and supporting Babbitt for all the great stuff he did and was trying to do David Brower, for example, savaged him for stuff he didn’t do (or, more accurately, hadn’t yet done). After that I could better understand why the Sierra Club got rid of Brower.

Let’s review the reasons that, according to the Sportsmen’s Alliance, I should hate HSUS and always knock it down, even when it tries to do the things I’ve been telling it to do all along--like promoting humane treatment of cats and dogs.

*HSUS opposes Maine’s program of covering for clearcutters by scapegoating coyotes. Intimidated by the loudest, most backward sportsmen’s groups, Maine has implemented coyote control as a means game management, the only state in the union that deems this necessary. Oh wait, I oppose this, too. It accomplishes nothing except to further degrade the sportsman’s image.

*HSUS opposes wolf control in Alaska. Oh wait, I do, too. It’s no less brainless and ineffective than Maine coyote control and is even more efficient at degrading our image.

*HSUS opposes “garbaging for bears,” a technique by which you wait till prey (including lactating sows with cubs) stick their heads into a bucket of jelly donuts, then open fire. Oh wait, I do, too. Good bear hunters and good bear biologists (like Colorado’s Tom Beck) know it’s not necessary and that it’s pure poison for the hunter’s image.

*HSUS opposes “canned hunts” in which tame, caged animals (often with names) are auctioned off and then shot in their cages. Oh wait, I do, too. Canned hunting is to real hunting what cut-rate prostitution is to holy matrimony. Any hunter that defends it is a moron.

*HSUS wants to keep feral equids on public land. I do NOT agree. But should I hate HSUS for believing something I don’t believe? Should I also hate my relatives and friends who agree with HSUS on this issue?

Best,
Ted

Sometimes help comes from the most unexpected places. Because of the childish whining and complaining of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA), Meijer ended its offer to help families and pets in crisis through the Foreclosure Pet Fund. This was not a hunting issue until the USSA made it one. This was nothing more than a fund set up to help needy families and pets during extremely difficult economic times...until the USSA angered pet lovers everywhere and decent citizens through its bullying tactics and extremely heartless, selfish agenda. As a result, the HSUS put out a call for help to its members and answer that call they did. This call resulted in raising over $53,000 to help, not only families and animals caught in the heartbreak of foreclosure, but a portion will also go to help fight the extremely cruel, abusive "hunting" practices that the USSA encourages and supports. The latter was not the original intent, but once pushed by the USSA, we decided to fight back...and will continue to do so every time the USSA pulls another outrageous stunt like this one. So, to the USSA, I say thank you so much for giving us the idea and the incentive to come up with this plan, as well as helping us raise over ten times the original amount. Well done; we couldn't have done it without you!!

Thanks to the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance for shining a national spotlight on yourselves. If anyone had any doubt that this is an organization of total losers, the USSA has absolutely removed that doubt with this latest ridiculous maneuver. Personally, I would like to see you change your name to something more appropriate...possibly the U.S. Killing Alliance...as there absolutely nothing "sporting" about what your group supports. Thank you, too, for helping us raise much-needed funds to help animals in need. Great job!!

The problem witht he HSUS is that there is no accountability to the money donated to them. They have a $130 million dollar budget and do not support or maintain a single animal shelter. If you want to help pets, donate to your local shelter so that your money doesn't go into the pockets of Wayne Pacelle and the herd of lawyers they maintain.

Who's talkin' about the problem with the HSUS? Yeah, it has some. So what? This thread is about the outragious behavior of the USSA.

Why do you say "there is no accountability to the money donated to HSUS"? There is as much accountability here as with any NGO, as much, say, as with USSA. HSUS files tax returns and annual reports just like everyone else. And what's your point about HSUS not maintaining shelters? In this case the organization is acting as a clearinghouse for funds distributed to shelters through a grant process. HSUS is hardly above reproach (read some of my articles on feral equids, for instance). But if we’re gonna knock this group, let’s do it fairly with evidence. Let’s not get emotional just ‘cause they don’t like hunting.
Best,
Ted

I think that the USSA needs to re-examine their priorities. It is obvious that they are angry that anti's (as they call the HSUS)defeated dove hunting right in their own backyard. Hunting groups had better realize that the more they defend the most egregious hunting practices the more they will lose their right to them. People are sick and tired of seeing Corsican Ram video of an animal that has been shot with five or six poorly aimed arrows and is clearly suffering for an extended period of time. Canned hunting is designed for the lazy, pathetic would be hunter that has neither the intelligence or patience to kill an animal in the wild. Doesn't the hunting lobby realize it is only a matter of time before we have a majority in the house and senate and a President that will stand up for the environment? The days of President Bush trying to appoint as Director of the USFWS a Safari Club International lobbyist are almost over thank the lord. This whole situation between the HSUS and USSA shows how messy things become when they get political. The USSA had better pick their battles alittle better- they might have bitten off more than they can chew.

From Audubon: my take on canned hunts:

Canned Hunts

by Ted Williams

"Don't judge us by today," declares the girl with the straight black hair as I peel out three tens and a five which, along with my $25 deposit check, will entitle me to join the circle around the pheasant tower at Lido's Game Farm in Taghkanic, New York. Usually, she tells me, they throw two hundred birds for forty guns, but with the long weekend and all...well, only thirteen guys signed up.

Already, in my coverts back home, hillside popples are smoky gold, bracken burnt with frost, apples on the ground... Already Wilton, the new Brittany, has left his milk teeth in my sock and pointed his first woodcock wing. Already the 1991 upland bird season is two weeks old, and I haven't been out once.

This is a morning made for hunting -- bright and cool and still, with fog hanging in the river bottoms and flights of geese blowing like black crepe across a cobalt sky. How I wish I could hunt today. But I am here to participate in my first "tower shoot" as part of my research for this column.

Inside the clubhouse, Lido -- undershirt and gut protruding through an unbuttoned camouflage shirt -- leans on the bar. On his right a gray squirrel with wings sprouting from its withers clutches a varnished stick. On his left a crudely mounted whitetail buck chews a tuft of hay the way Lido chews his Italian cigar. Lido lays his cigar on the edge of the bar and lectures us about safety and etiquette: "Don't shoot no cranes," he commands. "And don't shoot no deer. Lotsa guys up here been spraying deer and cranes and beavers. Only shoot what you're supposed to. You know the rules."

George, who has brought a group up from the Bronx, announces that this time he wants a good spot. With that, he snatches a station ticket. "Hold on now," exclaims the girl with the straight hair, only half in jest. Later I hear Lido whisper to a guide: "If he don't rotate, stop the hunt right then. If he pulls that shit again, I'm not letting him back here." Still later, Lido says: "I gotta get down to the tower. We got some crazy guys today."

I follow him outside, past the owl-proof pens where professorial pheasants strut about with plastic, non-transparent glasses wired to their upper mandibles -- pink for the hens, blue for the roosters. (Without their eyewear game-farm pheasants attend to their own plucking.) At the tower, guide Arthur hitches the crates of pheasants to the rope while guide Dave hauls them by pulley to the release platform. On the way up each crate exudes copper and buff breast feathers that hang in the morning air like milkweed silk. Dave, who will be throwing for us, allows that he's been lucky -- he's only been hit twice, and each time he's been able to pick out the lead with his fingers.

Presently, Lido resumes the lecture. "Actions open guys," he says. "Every five birds you will rotate to your right. Everyone will have chances at birds, so don't worry about that. Keep your gun in the air. Don't shoot the tower because some of you guys got deer slugs on you; you don't think you do, but you do. What else?"

"Tell 'em about the cranes," someone hisses.

"Oh yeah. Fellas, don't shoot cranes. Don't shoot nothing you're not supposed to shoot. The guys see a deer, they shoot the deer for no reason. That's a sin. Have a good time guys."

You find the shooting stations at Lido's by looking for the plastic shell casings. There are thousands of them in a rainbow of colors, most from past years. I load up at Station 18 as Dave holds a fat rooster aloft in his right hand and walks around the platform four times. "Awright," he hollers. "Ready guys. Keep those shots up high. Here we go." He hurls the bird skyward "Open up now. Open up now. Open up now." A dozen muzzles bark and the bird somersaults into the birches, trailing feathers. The next bird crumples after just two shots. One rooster orbits the entire perimeter, drawing unspeakable fire, the shots building in volume as he approaches from my left. I never see him go down because I am holding my forearm in front of my eyes, but finally Dave calls: "Good shooting guys."

Four times Dave throws birds that are apparently injured or diseased for they crash to the ground before anyone can touch off a round. Once someone shoots while Dave still is holding the bird. "Hey what you shooting at?" he screams. "Don't *never* play games wid me!"

Spent shot rains around me on at least half the releases. Once I am struck painlessly on the left shoulder. Another pellet hits my gun barrel, but it too is spent. A hen sculls over my head, and I miss on all three shots. The next hen flutters like a woodcock, and my load of number sixes catches her cleanly. In all I burn nine shells, assisting on three kills.

When the last of the 75 birds has been thrown we open our actions and filter through the brush, eyes to the earth. I do not pick up the single kill I find because it is from a previous season and lacks meat. Of the fifty or so birds that clearly took shot, we retrieve twenty-two.

Back in the clubhouse George is very upset about the tower shooter we saw easing foxlike into the woods, gun at port arms. He fears that most of the MIAs will be cleaned up before his party can return to the fire zone for mop-up operations. "We want to hunt *now,*" he informs Lido.

"There's no shooting till we divide up the birds," booms Lido. "You can't shoot till I say."

Just before I leave, Lido says he hopes none of us has hidden any birds.

"This I am worried about," says George.

********

As habitat shrinks and posted land proliferates "canned hunts," as they are being called by their detractors, are catching on everywhere. There are in the United States over 5,000 shooting preserves (predominantly for birds but also for mammals), only a few of which do a decent job of simulating natural hunting conditions. In Florida there now are 43 establishments where, in pens ranging from one to 600 acres, you can run your hounds on coyotes or foxes which are supposed to get away but sometimes don't. That's about twice as many as in the mid-1980's. In Texas where canned hunts for exotic big game -- some of it endangered -- is a major industry there are just under 500 "game ranches" where you can kill the trophy of your choice in the enclosure of your choice. That's up from about 380 five years ago.

"No Kill -- No Pay Guarantee" proclaims the brochure of the Priour Ranch, in Ingram, Texas. Indeed, in any state major effort is required to find a big-game-shooting preserve that doesn't guarantee success. At the "No Game-No Pay" Texoma Hunting Wilderness in Norman, Oklahoma (recently shut down by the state) you could shoot a "Texas elk" -- a cross between a European red stag and a North American wapiti -- for $2,895 and a "male African lion with good mane" for $5,995. The case, said the District Attorney, had nothing to do with illegal hunting, only with "the deplorable state of the animals' housing."

At the 777 Ranch in Hondo, Texas you can check out one of the Iranian red sheep and, if you find it to you liking, kill it for $6,500. If you get an invitation to the annual celebration at the YO Ranch in Mountain Home, Texas, you can dine on "wild boar shish-kabob, roasted Botswana eland, grilled white-wing dove, blackbuck fajitas, venison crepes, young nielgi cabrito on a spit, frog legs, rattlesnake, mountains of shrimp, oysters (both ocean and mountain variety), caviar and tons of ribs," watch "huge fireworks," enjoy an "almost-overkill of dancing, eating, carousing, western fashion watching, schmoozing and so forth," listen to famous country singers, eat breakfast at midnight, drink at the bar till dawn, be kept "corralled and peaceful" by "uniformed constables on horseback," then go out and kill any or all of 20 varieties of big game including three genetic concoctions engineered by YO breeders: white Corsican ram, black Corsican ram and YO ibex. "No Game/No Pay."

A much less fancy game ranch, also in Mountain Home, is Rancho De Dios. "We have an elk we're going to kill this year," proprietor Royce Rodgers told me. "And a couple real nice axis. One might go 34 inches [as measured along the main antler beam]. The brow tines got a real nice curve to 'em, measure about twelve inches. He costs a thousand. If you don't like him, you don't pull the trigger."

I forgot to ask Royce if his 34-inch axis had a name. But I did learn some of the names of the African lions who have been shot in Texas. Even in adulthood, just prior to being "harvested," Rachel, Bathsheba, Paul, John, Matthew and dozens of other pet lions would amble over to you and lick your hand. One operation charged $2,500 for old, toothless specimens, $3,500 for younger cats with better dentition. Canned-lion-hunting outfitter Larry Wilburn of Dayton ran afoul of the law, but only because he left a brace of skinless, headless lions on land managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Ticketed for littering and running a commercial venture on government property, Wilburn paid $125 in fines.

And then there is Dr. Sonny Milstead, an orthopedic surgeon from Shreveport, Louisiana, who made national TV news this past September when the Fund for Animals obtained a video tape of his canned cat hunt at a game ranch near Fredericksburg, Texas. After riding out to the lion pen in a pickup truck, Dr. Sonny approaches the trophy as it reclines trustingly on the ground. Dr. Sonny is protected by backup gunners. When Dr. Sonny shoots, the lion leaps to his feet, clawing dirt. You can see a divot fly from his flank as the heavy bullet slams home. Dr. Sonny fires twice more; the lion dies. Nothing in the least illegal about that.

But the tape also shows Dr. Sonny shooting a penned Bengal tiger as it naps beneath a tree. At the first shot the big cat gets up and runs to the right, dragging its shattered hind quarters. When Dr. Sonny shoots again it somersaults three or four times. Dr. Sonny cautiously approaches, prods the dead trophy with his gun barrel, then flashes the thumbs-up sign. Unfortunately for Dr. Sonny, the Endangered Species act makes it illegal to kill even tame tigers without special permits, and he's now under investigation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Law Enforcement.

Along with Milstead's exploits the networks aired a video, obtained by Fish and Wildlife agents, of a canned cat hunt set up by nationally-known outfitter Dan Moody on a ranch 75 miles west of San Antonio. A little black leopard -- surrounded by eight or nine frenzied dogs, each as big as it is -- cowers in a cage. When it is prodded from the cage it attempts to hide under a pickup truck, then runs into the open where the dogs maul it. Enter Ty Bourgeois of Lake Charles, Louisiana, brandishing a scoped pistol, desperately trying to find a hole in the spinning dog flesh. The cat, a declawed pet, isn't fighting back. Finally, Bourgeois dispatches it. The canned hunt cost him $5,000 -- $3,000 for the outfitter, $2,000 for the federal government as a fine for killing an endangered species without a permit.

California Ram Hunt -- a game ranch in Lockwood, California -- got into illegal cat hunting during the spring and summer of 1990. The tame cats -- tigers, jaguars, leopards and cougars -- were kept in cages inside a livestock trailer and fed chickens. When it came time for them to be shot most were reluctant to leave their cages; several were ventilated while still inside, then dragged out for the obligatory hero photos. One customer paid $10,500 to kill a leopard, cougar and a Bengal tiger. He didn't have any trouble with the first two, but when the tiger left its cage Bwana fainted and had to be taken back to the ranch to be revived, whereupon he returned and killed the tiger, too. At least one tiger had been a pet; his name was Tony. "Well, sure we had a little business going there," proprietor F. Lester Patterson told the *San Jose Mercury News.* "What's the difference if they put the thing to sleep in a zoo or if somebody wants to mount it?"

********

Finding the source of canned-hunt trophies is like finding the source of crack cocaine. The legal market and the black market suck them out of dark, dirty places littered with everything save paper bearing return addresses. The Texas exotics industry is largely self sustaining. In fact, many of the state's 123 alien species have escaped and are breeding in the wild to the detriment of native fauna. Except for acquiring new species of hoofed stock, Texas game ranches wouldn't need zoos and perhaps could get along without private breeders.

Canned-cat-hunting operations are the exception. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agent Jim Stinebaugh says there are at least six legal sources in Texas and scores of breeders who lack permits; and he says that he could pick up the phone and set up a cat hunt in forty minutes. "I don't know anybody I respect in the cat-raising business," he told me. "They'll tell you they love the cats and they only place them in good homes. That's bull. If someone comes up with three thousand dollars, they've got a cat."

A jaguar and a leopard supplied by Mickey Sapp of San Antonio, who claims to have bred cats longer than anyone in Texas, wound up getting shot in their cages by Jimmie Weir of Eunice, New Mexico, apparently for their hides. Sapp shrugs it off, observing that there are no guarantees in life and professing such love for his cats that he serves one of them beer.

Major zoos are not supplying many cats and probably only a small percentage of the hoofed stock. But, then, most zoos are not major. There are some 15,000 animal exhibitors in the United States, about half of which would fit most peoples' image of a zoo. Of these, only 160 are members of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) -- the zoo-industry trade group which claims to proscribe sale of animals either at wildlife auctions (which frequently supply game ranches) or directly to the ranches themselves. "Our association would not tolerate any of our members contributing to this abhorrent slaughter of wildlife," pronounces AAZPA president Steve Taylor. Except that it does, just a little.

Last September Lisa Landres, a former elephant keeper at the San Diego Zoo and now with Friends of Animals, released documents proving that two sika deer from the zoo had been sold, supposedly as breeding stock, to the Priour Ranch in Ingram, Texas and that three mouflon sheep had been purchased by a New York game farm that supplies game ranches.

Both transactions were mistakes, explained the zoo. But less than two years earlier CBS had caught it, along with the Oklahoma City Zoo, in another mistake -- selling animals to dealers who then brought them to the annual wildlife auction at Cape Giradeau, Missouri. One of the dealers, Earl Tatum, still buys animals from the San Diego Zoo.

The CBS report was unfair, avers zoo spokesman Jeff Jouett. "The Thirteenth Cannon of Journalism [is] 'Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.'" Humane types are "low class, no class slimeballs who will tap dance on the graves of your friends if it suits them." Also, they are "vultures."

But Landres told me this: "Most of the big zoos have been dumping animals for years. So what we did in San Diego is expose the tip of the iceberg. The big problem is there is no paper trail." Indeed there is not. This is because the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 requires zoos to share their transaction records only with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the documents aren't normally available under the Freedom of Information Act. Further, no law (other than AAZPA's "code of ethics") prohibits zoos from selling directly to auctions and game ranches.

For a variety of reasons -- not the least of which is that the public loves to see cute babies cuddling with their moms -- zoos produce a flood of surplus animals (1,200 a year from San Diego alone). Of those that can't be placed in other collections, the lucky ones get euthanized or knocked off at game ranches. The rest wind up living hideous lives in cramped cells well insulated from public view.

"Most zoo babies are born in the spring, so the [40] mid-summer births caught zookeepers by surprise," gushes a story in the *Detroit Free Press* entitled "Zoo Enjoys Boom." "But [Detroit Zoo spokesman] Shelby is hoping to capitalize on it to bolster sagging attendance. The zoo is averaging 5,000 visitors a day, 8,000 on weekends -- the fewest people since 1988." Whatever could be the reason for such a serendipitous anomaly? "'We weren't able to get the males and females separated in time,' Shelby said."

********

What astonishes about the "hunting fraternity," as we like to call ourselves, is our eagerness to take on the role of thrown pheasant. There are nearly 14 million hunters in America. And then there are roughly 500,000 tame-animal shooters. You'd think hunters, fretting as they do about their image, would be leading the charge against stop-'n-pop game shopping. Instead, they've left the battle to the ubiquitous and despised "anti's" who are enjoying a tower shoot of their own. "The good news, if any is to be found in shooting tame animals," reports the Animal Rights Network, "is that the growth of canned hunting marks the beginning of the end of all hunting. Canned hunts strip away the pretense that hunting is about anything other than killing."

The hook-and-bullet press/industry, which scarcely can draw breath between rambling harangues on the wickedness of anti-hunters, has turned billboard for canned hunts. "Is A Ranch Elk Hunt For You?" inquires the cover story in the September 1990 *Sports Afield.* Could be; among other "pros": "Success runs 100 percent... The hunting is less competitive... Ranch elk hunting is safer... Less time is required."

Lido's was recommended to me by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a "non-profit, educational, trade-supported association" dedicated to shooting sports and "practical conservation." Such poultry processors are, according to the foundation's *Directory of Hunting Resorts,* "conservation showcases" and "the ultimate in game management." Moreover, "Sportsmen now say: 'The only difference in *open hunting* and hunting on a quality hunting resort is that you practically set your own seasons and bag limits -- and you know the birds are *there*... Aldo Leopold, the 'father of wildlife management' in the early 1900's, recognized the fact that private landowners were the custodians of public wildlife."

Other commentary by Leopold, which the foundation didn't get around to quoting, includes the following. "The recreational value of game is inverse to the artificiality of its origin." And: "The objective of the game management program is to retain for the average citizen an opportunity to hunt... This implies much more than the annual production of shootable surpluses of live birds to serve as targets. It implies a kind of quality of wild game living in such surroundings and available under such conditions to make hunting a stimulus to the esthetic development, physical welfare, and mental balance of the hunter."

On the wall at Lido's Game Farm hangs a framed certificate revealing that it has "fulfilled all the requirements" for accreditation by the National Rifle Association. I couldn't help wondering what you have to do to flunk.

Professing to set the standard for big-game hunters everywhere is Safari Club International. Club rules stipulate that in order for a trophy to make it into the *SCI Record Book* "it must be from a breeding population that is self-sufficient where it lives, except for occasional supplemental feeding; it must not have been taken while closely confined." Yet the *SCI Record Book* contains page after page after page of trophies killed inside game-proof fences, and "occasional" seems to be loosely defined.

For instance, of 17 entries in the category of introduced North American wild boar all 17 are from a game ranch in Nova Scotia called Shangri-La. SCI contends that this is the only place on the continent you can go to shoot a pure-blooded animal, all wild populations having been tainted with feral-pig genes. Maybe so. But at Shangri-La you do your "hunting" in an enclosure that averages 75 acres, and the "wild boars" are fed commercial hog grower all winter. SCI member Baron Carlo Amato has accounted for four of the 17 records and has guided fellow SCI members to five more. He owns Shangri-La.

SCI has an especially big presence in the Gulf states. In Texas the 777 Ranch advertises that it "supports Safari Club International and recommends the *SCI Record Book."* Kevin Christiansen, who with his father owns and operates 777, chairs SCI's Records Subcommittee for North American Exotics -- at which watch he recently relieved Louis Schreiner, general manager of the YO Ranch.

Also representing big-game hunters in the Gulf states is (or was) a canned-cat shooter from Louisiana you may have seen on TV last September. He's the former president of SCI's Ark-La-Tex Chapter -- Dr. Sonny Milstead.

********

After the tower shoot at Lido's I walked up the hill with George's handsome young friend Miguel who hadn't hunted before except once, unproductively, for deer. Sixty dollars had been a lot for him to spend on pheasant shooting. Had the experience been worth it? "Oh yes," he effused. "It's nice, you know. Everyone gets a chance to shoot." He told me how wonderful it had been to get out of New York City and come up here hunting in this beautiful, clean place.

"They do this here every weekend?" he inquired.

"Yes," I said.

As we reached my truck at the brow of the hill Miguel paused before joining his buddies. He looked at my shredded brush pants. "You been out hunting lots this fall?" he asked.

"Not even once," I said.

###

The killing of captive, tame, hand fed animals may not be illegal, but it sure as hell should be. This is a disgrace to civilised society, to exploit animals in this fashion. The Hunting Establishment knows this is a cancer. What ever happened to the concept of fair chase? Do you really think it is right to kill a lion from the back of a pickup truck?

There can be no "thrill of the chase" if there's no chase. What drives canned hunting is ego--who has the biggest horns. I have always wondered why legitimate hunters haven't taken the lead in confronting this abomination, why they've left the high ground to groups like the HSUS who don't like any kind of hunting.
Best,
Ted

I am a proud member of the US Sportsmens alliance. The HSUS refers to this organization as extremists, it is the HSUS that are the extremists, the USSA has never tried to ban any activities that people participate in. The HSUS is aginst activity that they feel harms an animal, they are against using animals for medical research tht saves human lives, they are against rodeos, they are against the circus, they don't want people to wear fur, this is a free country, people have the right to wear what they want. They are against all hunting, fishing and trapping, to them any hunting done on a ranch with a fence is canned hunting. They are against managing wildlife in any way or form, they would like to see the wolves kill off all the elk in Yellowstone park, they don't care about the hunting guides who are losing their livelyhoods, just don't kill the poor wolves. The HSUS is anti people plain and simple, as far as their leader Mr Pacille is concerned i don't really want to say how I feel about him. Bye the way Mr Williams you should not consider yourself a hunter if you agree with the HSUS even on one issue involving hunting.

“First, you should not be “proud” to be a member of USSA. “USSA has never tried to ban any activities that people participate in”? Hello! It just tried to ban grant making to animal shelters sponsored by Midwest retailer Meijer.” “People have a right to wear fur.” True. And HSUS has a right to object. So what? And who’s defending HSUS anyway? “To them any hunting done on a ranch with a fence is canned hunting.” Well, wouldn’t you say that’s a very good reason to oppose canned hunting? Why, then, does your group defend it? No hunting guide is losing his “livelihood” because of wolves. What a brainless, typical USSA comment! Wolves are providing livlihoods to communities surrounding Yellowstone, bringing in millions. Read the newspapers. HSUS is against blasting wolves from the air so a few slobs around Fairbanks won’t have to get out of their trucks to shoot caribou and moose. I and the National Wildlife Federation are against it, too. That means we’re not hunters??? I was up there fighting the wolf slaughter alongside Wayne Pacelle. Where was USSA?
Best,
Ted

To the person who critized the HSUS for not operating one single animal shelter:
that's true....the HSUS does not operate an animal shelter. Rather, the HSUS works with and assists animal shelters all across the U.S. The HSUS also works on animal welfare issues and legislation. The HSUS sends crews to areas, both inside and outside the U.S., to areas devastated by disasters, such as New Orleans after Katrina and now to Chile and Myanmar. I have had the privilege of working with the HSUS on some of these events, and these are some of the most dedicated, hard-working people I have ever had the honor to work with. The HSUS also assists in animal welfare education. So, to address your complaint, that's how the HSUS spends its money, and will continue to do so in the future with the continued assistance of members and volunteers like me. If you're going to criticize an organization, you really should make sure you know what you're talking about.

To the "Proud USSA Member": your ignorant, ridiculous statements, and your total lack of grammar and spelling skills are a very clear indication of the average "proud member" of the USSA. Nothing more needs to be said there.

To the proud USSA member. Your blog is filled with information that isn't true. Furthermore, You and your organization are a disgrace to civilized society. If you think for one minute that decent people are going to allow animal exploitation just because you think you can then think again. It won't be the ordinary non hunter that will stop you it will be the regular decent hunter that respects wildlife,and is embarrassed for you when they see video of declawed black leopards being mauled by dogs and then shot under a truck at point blank range. What do you call that! You and the SCI can defend your practices all you want- the point is you have GONE WAY TO FAR!!!!Remember back in the 1970's when a bunch of redneck ranchers from Wyoming shot thousands of eagles because they thought that the eagles were killing sheep, that type of entitlement is extremely dangerous. One state at a time your rights will be taken away!!! I don't know what offends me more- the videos showing penned, hand fed animals being executed, or the fact that I have to breathe the same air as you morons do.

Way to go, BUDPG!!!!

To the person who does not like my grammer, are you perfect? Mr Budpg, you say that the USSA and myself are a disgrace, you can say what you want about me but you are wrong about the USSA. They have never supported canned hunting, neither does the SCI of which I am also a member. I would never get involved with a canned hunt, I believe in fair chase. The HSUS wants to ban all hunting, Mr Pacille stated a few years ago that if the HSUS could end all hunting in a heartbeat they would do it. In this years election there is going to be at least one ballot iniative that protects hunting, it will pass. The biggest threat to hunting is loss of habitat and thats why I belong to the Rocky Mountain and Mule deer foundation, I belong to some good organizations too.

SCI not only supports but promotes canned hunts. Many of the entries in its Record Book are tame animals shot in cages. Most of the “wild boars,” for example, are caged and fed on commercial hog chow. SCI makes no secret of this.
Best,
Ted

To Ted- I have to say that I enjoy reading your blogs- you are intelligent and usually right on the money. I read AUDUBON magazine as well. I was struck by the article in the Mar April issue which discussed how developers are getting over on the Endangered Species Act and building golf courses in prime Florida panther habitat in the Everglades. I thought that it couldn't get any worse after Asst Deputy Julie Mcdonald, with her Bush appointed status, and bullying of scientists and biologists in the USFWS. The article states that when a permit to build is to be issued in an area where there are Endangered Species a biological opinion done by the USFWS stating the pros and cons of the development, and the impact of the development on the Species needs to be prepared. I was horrified to find out that the Bush people ordered the BiOps to be farmed out- TO THE DEVELOPERS!!! I called the Governors Office and asked them why they did not care about the welfare of the Florida Panther. These are the types of meddling that are destroying the environment.

The two best experiences that I ever had in my life concerned wildlife. When I was a kid my uncle use to take the family out off the Coast of Cape Cod and I had the pleasure to see a Northern Right Whale. Entanglement in fishing gear and ship strikes continue to place the Right Whales future in jeopardy. Special Interests in the Shipping and Fishing industry continue to oppose protection for this animal.
I went to Alaska a few years back and had the pleasure to witness wolves in the wild. Hearing those howls gave me goosebumps. Witnessing nature as it is gives people with blood in their veins pure joy- i don't need to blow an animal away with a gun. What is it with these trophy hunters anyway- some form of perverted sexual pleasure that they get from killing? I don't get it. Sci and USSA members probably can't keep up with the reading in Audubon, but there are nice pictures for them to look at!

Thanks Budpg. I guess what separates ethical hunters from SCI/USSA types is a love of wild nature. They are participants, not just takers. There are plenty of ethical hunters. And hunting not only has it’s place, it is, in some cases, necessary. Gross irruptions of white-tailed deer are wiping out native ecosystems all over North America. At this time the ONLY control is hunting. Contraceptives may work in the future, but there are no practical ones that can be delivered in the field now. The group pushing deer hunting hardest in PA is, if you can imagine, the National Audubon Society. That’s because the deer population is eliminating song birds. The U.S. Forest Service reports that at 20 deer per square mile there is a complete loss of cerulean warblers, yellow-billed cuckoos, indigo buntings, eastern wood pewees and least flycatchers. In many areas of PA there are 100 deer per square mile.
Best,
Ted

To Proud USSM Member: No, I am not perfect. However, your entries indicate a total lack of intelligence and education. Very clearly demonstrates that the USSM is made up of uneducated, ignorant imbeciles who just want to kill things.

I fully agree that wildlife needs to be managed. I am in no way against hunting where the animal has a chance to escape. Ethical hunters know that they win some lose some, but it is more about the experience of being outside among nature that is important. That is the connection that is missing with canned hunts. I bet these pathetic morons would buy their trophy on Ebay if they had the chance to save even more time.

Oops, sorry.....should be "USSA." See, I'm not perfect. Why, too, does it not surprise me that you're a member of SCI?

To proud USSM member: You couldn't even get through the first sentence without trashing the English language. GRAMMER IS SPELLED GRAMMAR. No spell check huh.

Dunno about Ebay. Wouldn't doubt it. I do know that some of my special agent friends in the USRWS have busted "hunters" who have bought or stolen trophy mounts that had been taken illegally.
Best,
Ted

Hi Ted: I, too, very much enjoy reading your blog. While I am not, and never could be, a hunter, I do understand that there are times that hunting is necessary. This is fine as long as it is done responsibly, ethically and as humanely as possible...something that the USSA and SCI do not promote. It's a joy to read your entries and the comments of a level-headed, ethical hunter. I feel very badly that decent hunters that try to do the right thing get lumped together with morons that just like to kill because they can. I know that the two are worlds apart. Thanks for doing this.

Wildlife needs to be managed, but extremist groups like SCI and USSA need to be managed also. They will get away with what we allow them to get away with. Remember a few years back when at our expense we were subsidizing trophy hunter kills with their bogus "museum deduction." That was pretty slick. SCI is extremely dangerous as they have punched several loopholes in the Endangered Species Act to serve their selfish self centered interests. I'll bet not one of those SCI slimeballs did any jail time for the fraud they committed against the American public. Their big thing now is captive breeding of Endangered Species so they have plenty of trophies to satisfy their insatiable thirst for killing.

To proud USSA member- Put down your dictionary and answer this question for me. Have you ever seen how an animal that is caught in a STEEL JAWED LEGHOLD TRAP behaves? They would just as well knaw their leg off the pain is so severe. Congressman Don Young who is a dishonest politician like Senator Ted Stevens is proud of the fact that he is the only licensed trapper in the House of Representatives and who supports the use of this dispicable instrument. I called him on it and I told him that I hoped he came back in the next life as a blind man who had to make his way through a series of LEGHOLD TRAPS placed all over the area he had to walk through.
You see my biggest issue with you types is your total lack of compassion for other species- you feel this sense of entitlement that people can't question your motivations for your cruelty. WRONG!!

Just to make the point more clear. I regularly donate to the Humane Society's funds to help domestic animals in need - dogs, cats, etc. I have never before given to its more political efforts aimed at wildlife protection. But after reading about the intimidation the Sportsman's Alliance used to prevent monies going from a Michigan (ground zero of the foreclosure crisis) based company to help peets suffering due to foreclosres, I made a sizable donation to the wildlife protection fund as well. And I'll do it again next time the Alliance interferes with charitable giving to help domestic pets.

This is really sad, I thought this blog was for sportsmen. All I have seen so far is a bunch of animal rights supporters who like to call people names because they don't agree with them.

Well, you sure ain’t looked very hard at this blog if this is “all you have seen.” In fact, you haven’t read more than one thread, and you haven’t even read that one right. Yeah, some animal-rights folks came on to comment on the outrageous behavior of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. I don’t agree with a lot of their agenda, but I’ve not seen much from them in this thread I don’t agree with. If they’re off base in your opinion, let’s hear a cogent argument in support of the USSA lobbying against pet support, for canned hunts, for wolf slaughter, etc.
Best,
Ted

I have read all the blogs that are related to your story about the USSA, those are the only blogs that I have read. I have been attacked because I am a member of the USSA. To my knowledge the USSA has never supported canned hunting, neither does SCI. I recieved an email alert from USSA regarding the pet support thing, I believe they felt that the funding the HSUS recieved from the pet program would be used against hunting, who knows, maybe it was a legitimate thing, I don't know. As far as the wolves go I believe that they should be managed even if it means hunting them. The Clinton administration crammed the wolves down the throats of the people who live in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, most of the people in those states did not want the wolves. The wolves have reached the desired population goals, it is time to remove them from the endangered list and manage them so that there is a balance between them and the other big game populations. I am curious about you, are you the Ted Williams that writes articles for the Sierra club?

First, if you are going to participate in blogs, I encourage you to learn what they are. There is only one blog on which there are hundreds of posts. What you have read are comments in a thread on a blog following a single post on that blog. You have been attacked not because you are “a member of the USSA” but because you have posted brainless and incredibly ignorant comments. Your statement: “To my knowledge the USSA has never supported canned hunting, neither does SCI” is correct. That’s because you lack knowledge and wish not to acquire it, not because USSA and SCI have not supported canned hunting. I’ll grant that the support of the USSA has not been as overt, but the SCI’s record book is stuffed full of canned-hunt trophies. As I noted before, they make no secret of it. Your first statement about wolves here is very different from your previous statement. I agree that wolves should be managed. And they are being managed. The reason so many of them are now being killed per order of the USFWS is because they have filled potential habitat and are spilling over into areas where they’re getting into trouble and wouldn’t be able to survive anyway. Your second statement about wolves is absurd. No one “crammed” wolves down anyone’s throat; and the vast majority of Americans, including the ones in the states you mention, wanted wolves. If by “the wolves have reached the desired population balance,” you mean they’ve reached their recovery goal, you’re correct. By a factor of over three. No! It is not “time to remove them from the endangered list.” That was done almost two months ago. Don’t you read the newspapers? Finally, I have written a few articles for Sierra magazine. Your point is…?
Best,
Ted

Good morning Ted, this will be my last post, I will read your response but you won't be hearing from me anymore, at least not for awhile. Maybe the way I present myself or what I say is not up to your standards or anybody else standards but that is the way I am. I am tired of seeing my rights and other peoples rights and traditions being attacked. There is a movement in this country to eliminate most traditions that are not considered politicialy correct. You have groups like the ACLU who want to take the word god out of the pledge of allegeance, you have the gun control people who want to take away our right to own a gun, you have the animal rights people who don't want people to hunt,fish, trap, eat meat, wear fur and etc. You have the greenie groups who want to eliminate any activity on public lands that they say harms the planet and it's creatures, if they had their way we would be paying six bucks a gallon for gas because we would not be able to drill anywhere because some poor creature might be displaced. This save the earth attitude at the expense of people has to stop, there is no reason a middle ground can't be found. I am a member of the USSA and SCI because they are trying to protect my right to hunt,I don't care if they support canned hunting, the bottom line is that they are on my side, if you are a member of the sierra club would you drop your membership if they were against you using lead sinkers when you go fishing? Thats all I have say, hope you understand where I am coming from and why I feel the way I do.

To the last USSA Member: I am one of those terrible animal rights people. I do strongly believe that human beings have a right to live on this planet - RESPONSIBLY - in harmony with nature, not superior to it, and I am involved in many animal issues. For example, I am very much concerned with the cruelty animals are subjected to in slaughterhouses, stockyards, auctions, animal transport, factory farms, etc., all to provide people with cheap meat/eggs/dairy, etc. I do not believe that people should wear fur as these animals are subjected to horrific pain and suffering in fur production. And, quite frankly, fur is almost totally unnecessary in today's world...in most cases it's a luxury, not a necessity, and an extremely cruel one at that. I believe puppy mills, canned hunts, trophy hunting, dogfighting, and other forms of animal abuse and cruelty are just plain wrong. I am also absolutely appalled that USSA members threw enough childish temper tantrums that Meijer rescinded its offer of help to the Foreclosure Pet Fund. It's disgusting that any group would put its own selfish desires and demands ahead of families and pets in crisis in extremely difficult economic times.

I guess you could also call me one of those "greenies" as I am very concerned about environmental issues and their effects on both humans and animals. I do worry about the effects of drilling for oil on wildlife...particularly when so many arctic animals are already struggling to survive due to global warming. I do have concerns about wildlife on public lands, and that wildlife management is handled responsibly and humanely. I have great concerns for the earth's bodies of water and water creatures due to over-fishing and pollution.

I guess "that's just the way I am." I will always be concerned about humans, animals, wildlife and the environment, and will always speak out for what I believe to be the right thing. What I find really interesting, though, is that you complain about people who don't agree with you and are "attacking your rights." In reading your entries, however, it's clearly YOU who are intolerant of others, human and non-human; as long as you get what you want, that's all that matters. That's what's really sad.

Dear USSA/SCI member: If your posts were not up to my “standards,” they would not have appeared. The fact that they DID appear is testament to just how liberal those standards are. I do occasionally delete comments that don’t meet this blog’s guidelines. I have only three criteria: 1. a comment must be more or less intelligible; 2. a comment must be somewhat relevant to fish and wildlife conservation; 3. a comment must be at least moderately civil.

“Middle ground” is a goal the environmental community has been striving for from day one. So far we haven’t come even close. So don’t tell me about needing to get back to it.

You contradict yourself when you write: “I don't care if they support canned hunting, the bottom line is that they are on my side.” Canned hunting isn’t hunting; it is shopping. A person or a group that supports it is not and cannot be on the side of any hunter. Nothing tarnishes the already soiled image of the American hunter like canned hunting. Therefore anyone or any group that supports it is the enemy of all hunters and should be recognized as such.

I would certainly not “drop” my membership in the Sierra Club if it came out against lead sinkers. In fact, I would support any group that took this enlightened position. In N.H., where I have a fishing camp, lead sinkers have been banned for about a decade. I use non-toxic sinkers a lot, and I don’t miss lead a bit. There is zero advantage in lead.

Finally, you need to understand that attacking what you call your “rights and traditions” is itself a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. I assume you support that document.

Best,
Ted

Hi Ted. First of all, I want to say that I don't agree with some of the Humane Society of the U.S's agenda. All in all they are a very effective organization. It was the Humane Society that exposed the Westland Meat Packing Co and the abuses of livestock in Chino< Ca that will hopefully lead to reform in the Dept of Agriculture. The Humane Society exposed the gruesome cat and dog fur trade in China in 1999, which lead to a ban the next year and ultimately a EU ban that will take effect I think in Dec of 2008. China has been filtering the Fur through Russia. It is my right to not buy ANYTHING made in China because of their human and animal right issues. In life there are plenty of ETHICAL considerations, and their are people that think that there should be no ETHICS involved in freedoms like HUNTING. I don't agree. I find it interesting that when the topic of Canned Hunting comes up I have never heard anyone say that they participate in it, or defend it- yet the SCI and USSA feels as if this is an attack on "Hunting Rights" as if the two can't be separated. Ted you said it right on the money- that the Hunting Establishment is leaving it to the Humane Society to oppose the issue, when in fact it has to come from within the Hunting Establishment itself that is fully embarrased and ashamed of this "Shopping" as you put it. Even more to blame for this cancer are the exotic animal breeders and dealer middlemen that provide the animals on silver platters for the Sonny Milsteads of the world.
I have had maybe 10 conversations with lawyers from the SCI on their positions on certain issues. More than 40 or 50 percent make over 100,000 a year. When you call you hear the call go to speaker as there are probably 4 or 5 people listening to the conversation. They were quick to distance themselves from Matthew Hogan who was the Bush appointee from Texas I believe that Bush tryed to slip into the director's position at the USFWS a few years back. USFWS- the agency that issues the permits for wildlife. Nice try. The true aim of SCI is to weaken the spirit of the Endangered Species Act and attempt to import Endangered Species Trophies from all over the world. DISPICABLE> And all in the name of CONSERVATION. Ted- Have you heard of kENNETH bEHRING FROM THE SCI? The guy who feels he is a "superior being." He paid 100 million to the Smithsonian Museum to be memorialized with the Behring Family Hall of Mammals. He went to Kazakhstan in 1997 and paid the Government enough to allow him to shoot a critically endangered Kara Tau Argali Sheep with 100 population in the world, and then shipped the Sheep to a Canadian Taxidermist. The Smithsonian requested a permit to import the Animal and withdrew the request after Democratic Congressman questioned the permit request. In 1998 several top Sci members went on a killing spree in Mozambique where they left wounded animals and killed Elephants in violation of law. Other Sonny Milstead types have shot Endangered Species and tried to smuggle them into the country. Placing a dollar value on wildlife has done more to damage their welfare than anything else. CONSERVATION? I don't think so