Wildlife Killing Contests – Incentivizing Violence and Lining Pockets

The frequency of headlines boasting large payouts to hunters who participate in predator killing contests is alarming. A recent article from Pennsylvania reports that nearly $50,000 in prize money was awarded to coyote hunters during the 2019 Mosquito Creek Coyote Hunt alone.

According to the Mosquito Creek Sportsmen’s Association’s website, 4,812 hunters registered for this event. The casualties included 227 coyotes who were officially weighed in following three-days of violence.

The coyotes were destroyed by a variety of means: “bait”, “dogs”, “call”, and “driving”. But what do these killing methods actually entail?

·       Baiting: “enticing, tempting or captivating a predatory species to a certain location with food”. 

·       Dogs: as decoys; to track/chase a coyote until exhausted and killed by the hunter; or to pursue and maul the coyote to death (coursing).

·       Call: to exploit the animal’s natural instincts by luring them to their death via hand or electronic “call” devices that mimic the sounds of distressed prey animals and/or other stimulating sounds.

·       Driving: teams of hunters work together by assigning someone to track/locate coyotes in a given area and chase them from their cover as the remaining hunter(s) lie in wait at the other end of the designated area until the coyotes are chased conveniently into their line of fire.

Despite a level of unfairness, deception and entrapment that is anything but “sporting”, there appears to be no ethical concerns in the minds (and hearts) of the wildlife stewards and others who profit from the violence.

And it appears most everyone profits from the suffering of these animals.

The hunt’s posted rules require that all participants possess a valid hunting or fur-taker license. This licensing revenue flows into the wildlife agency’s coffers and is later matched proportionally by federal dollars.

All hunt participants must maintain current membership status at Mosquito Creek Sportsmen’s Association thus generating a revenue stream via membership dues. Another financial benefit is derived from the administration fee that is included in the hunt registration fee – $2.00 per participant, or $9,620.

Other beneficiaries, of course, are the contest winners themselves who profit handsomely.

The government – at both the federal and state level – also gets a cut of the proceeds generated by the killing as the distributed awards are taxable income. According to the contest rules, IRS W-9 Forms will be issued in January 2020.

Folks who are not entrenched in the culture of killing often question the integrity of those who participate in such brutality.

Ironically, it seems the contest organizers do so as well.

According to posted hunt “rules and regulations”, the “Association reserves the right to have an autopsy performed on any animal presented” if it believes the coyote was killed illegally or by unapproved means. 

All registered hunters must agree to undergo a polygraph test. Anyone who fails to cooperate will be disqualified.

Failing a polygraph test results in disqualification from the current competition, all future hunts, and the revocation of club membership.

The rules remind hunters that “the disposal” of all coyotes is their responsibility. A $50 fine will be assessed for any coyote left on the premises.

Astonishingly, it seems the contest organizers anticipate their fellow hunters – presumably friends, colleagues, and family members – to be an unsavory group of folks who are likely to lie, cheat, and treat their victims like trash.

Why wouldn’t everyone else view these people in a similar light, especially given the depravity sanctioned, glorified, and rewarded by these killing competitions?

Conservation Increasingly Funded By Non-Hunters

          The sport hunting[i]  contingent, and specifically the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has asserted for years that conservation and wildlife management is a “user-pay, user benefit” system. This assertion is far from reality. The American taxpayers, including the non-hunting, firearm-owning segment of the public, has been providing enormous and mandatory subsidies to the hunting industry for decades.[ii]

vocativ.com

          In 2016, the Center for Wildlife Ethics published “Killing for Fun(ds)” to highlight the state wildlife agencies’ financial dependency on license sales that perpetuates the recreational killing of wildlife.

          “Although wildlife agencies assure the public that lethal policies are aimed at preserving ecological diversity, it has much more to do with preserving the acceptance of hobby killing, increasing hunting participation, maximizing the carrying capacity of land to increase preferred game species numbers, and ultimately ensuring a reliable funding base for the agency.”

          The article also addressed The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Pittman-Robertson Act) – a constant and indefinite wildlife conservation funding source derived from an excise tax on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment.

          Since Pittman-Robertson was first enacted in 1937, more than $10 billion dollars have been channeled to state wildlife agencies and “stakeholders” who support recreational killing of wildlife or profit from it.

          Wildlife agency budgets rely heavily on recreational killing license sales and matching federal funds sent to the agencies under Pittman-Robertson. Thus consumptive users (a/k/a hunters and trappers), a very small yet vocal lobbying minority, are elevated to the agency’s primary constituency. The consumptive users’ interests and demands routinely dictate wildlife policies due in part to Pittman-Robertson’s matching financial scheme.

          In essence, the economic influence of hunters and trappers is literally doubled along with their political influence. Meanwhile non-consumptive members of the public whose agendas are not amplified by federal government funding are all but ignored. This cozy relationship is one reason compassionate voices seeking nonviolence in wildlife policy are so frequently silenced.

wikipedia.com

          Notably, the steady decline in hunting participation and the wildlife agencies’ reliance on an inequitable and antiquated funding system has created a shift in agency culture. Rather than focusing attention on preserving natural lands and resources for all, the industry is focusing increased efforts on peddling killing opportunities and crafting clever linguistics to convince the public that it has their best interests in mind.

          Although messaging surrounding Pittman-Robertson has consistently applauded hunters as the sole contributors, the non-hunting public increasingly contributes to this fund.

          The conservation community is acknowledging the “downward trend in the national hunting rate” as evidenced by a recent article, “The Growth of Sport Shooting Participation” in The Wildlife Professional (March/April 2017). According to the authors[iii], “sport shooters who do not hunt now make up an increasingly important segment” of the shooting population.

          “Wildlife professionals, agencies and organizations will need to recognize the implications of this shifting demographic and take appropriate steps if the PR Act is to remain a viable user-pay, user-benefit program for wildlife conservation programs.

Michigan DNR

          Unfortunately, what has not yet been acknowledged by the conservation community is the vast number of sport shooters who value wild animals alive and would not support recreational killing if given a choice. Many of whom may also believe that truly conserving wildlife is incompatible with killing animals or growing wildlife populations for the sole purpose of satisfying hunter demands.

          It is also time to recognize the hunting industry’s assertions that hunters pay for everything is an absolute falsehood. The majority of the public and sport shooters are not hunters or more specifically, “users” of wildlife resources and they deserve a voice in how wildlife is managed that is proportionate to their majority status.

[i] The term “sport hunting” refers to killing for fun, hobby or recreation. Neither the activity, nor the use of the word “sport” to describe it, is condoned by CWE.

[ii] Mark E. Smith and Donald A. Molde, “Wildlife Conservation and Management Funding in the U.S., Oct. 2014.

[iii] Mark Damian Duda, Tom Beppler and John Organ.