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.

The Rebranding of Fur Trapping

Fur trapping, similar to other forms of state sanctioned violence against wildlife, is legal today because the time, place and manner of the brutality is conveniently shielded from public view. Broader scrutiny is deflected through clever messaging tactics employed by wildlife agency public relations experts who cloak this commercial activity as a necessary evil.

Addressing all of the communication schemes employed for manipulating public opinion, silencing opposition, and whitewashing violence against animals could require one to author an entire book (or perhaps teach a graduate course at Cornell University, where so-called “human dimensions” studies includes such instruction).

While this blog could not accommodate such a detailed analysis, it may be useful to focus this discussion on the art of conflation, or more specifically, when two or more concepts that share some characteristics are merged as a single identity to the point that the differences are blurred or become lost.

The conflation of recreational (“fur”) trapping and “nuisance” wild animal control is a perfect example of how language is contrived to support and promote an agenda.

Other than terrorizing wild animals though, these two activities have little else in common.

Fur trapping and “nuisance” control are two distinct activities serving different purposes. Each activity is governed by separate licenses, applications and laws. Each depends on unique objectives, skill sets and measurements of success. A “nuisance” control permit is customarily free, yet a licensing fee is always imposed on fur trappers.

“Nuisance” control consists of the selected removal of individual animals whose behavior or condition, such as illness, can be controlled. "Nuisance animal" is a vague label used, accurately or not, to denote an animal who is causing or threatening to cause property damage, or perceived to pose a health or safety threat to domestic animals or people.

In Indiana, the hide of a “nuisance” animal cannot be sold, traded, bartered or gifted. And, in some states, anyone wishing to control “nuisance” animals for a fee, must satisfy testing, continuing education and/or annual reporting requirements.

“Nuisance” problems can be remedied non-lethally. And, the mere presence of an animal does not qualify him/her as a “nuisance”.  

Conversely, fur trapping is indiscriminate and targets healthy populations of a chosen species, not individual problem animals. Fur trapping is regulated by particular seasons that correspond with the ripeness (plushness) of a specific species’ fur. Furbearing animals are either discovered dead in traps or killed by trappers, skinned for their pelts and the fur is sold for profit generating purposes.  

Fur trapping is always lethal. Wildlife agencies overseeing this activity also mandate the use of “game harvest reports”.

Fur trapping does not control the spread of disease, including rabies, as sick animals are not attracted to bait. In fact, fur trapping may actually serve to exacerbate the spread of disease because only healthy, mature and potentially immune animals are the ones being killed, and therefore removed from the local population.

Despite the numerous distinctions between fur trapping and “nuisance” control, these activities are routinely conflated by trapping proponents to promote and justify more killing. Wildlife agency personnel capitalize on an uninformed public and the nuance between fur trapping and “nuisance” control to disguise the gratuitous nature of the violence, while promoting still more consumptive use of wildlife. And, as evidenced by the Liddle v. Clark, et al., litigation, this tactic has also proven successful for opening up public lands, unbeknownst to the public, for private commercial gain.

The twisted linguistics also establish a contrived need for trapping animals and enable state wildlife communication experts to package fur trapping as a necessary evil. By conflating these two activities, trapping proponents disguise recreational/fur trapping – an increasingly unpopular, commercial exploitation of wild animals – as a more acceptable, publicly palatable endeavor.

As evidenced by the Liddle litigation, the communications and messages are all calculated for the purpose of creating an appearance of responsible stewardship over public lands and the public’s well-being while mischaracterizing an otherwise secretive, dangerous, and morally reprehensible activity. It also allows connected insiders from the private sector to access public lands for commercial gain.

Center for Wildlife Ethics is working to expose trapping industry cruelty and the purposeful conflation of fur trapping with so-called "nuisance" trapping. If you have information on an animal trapping incident and would like to assist CWE's efforts to stop trapping cruelty, please complete our online survey.

CWE Appeals to protect public safety and ensure transparency in New York deer Kills

As the nation embarks upon a period of turbulent political, historical and legal transition, some experts warn that Freedom of Information and government transparency may be largely eviscerated under the Trump regime. A pending lawsuit in New York could have critical implications for government transparency and its role in safeguarding the public.

Youtube

LaVeck v. Lansing

City-Data.com

In October, the Center for Wildlife Ethics (CWE), in collaboration with the advocacy group CayugaDeer.org, argued an appeal in the Third Department Appellate Division (LaVeck v. Village Board of Trustees of the Village of Lansing) asserting the public’s right to know when and where government-authorized, life-threatening activities are being carried out in neighborhood backyards.

Like many communities in New York, the Village of Lansing (a suburb of Ithaca, NY) has claimed an overpopulation of white-tail deer and opted to kill large numbers of these animals. Working with interested staff members and hunting enthusiasts at Cornell University, the Village has secured the permission of some Lansing property owners to allow hand-picked bow hunters to kill deer on their property.

Lansing’s “Deer Management Program” has worried some residents and members of nearby communities who fear that their families or animals may be injured or killed by amateur hunters. This concern is further compounded by the Village’s failure to provide any cautionary warning about the time or place weapons are being discharged.

Alleged safety and privacy concerns with no factual basis

Under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), records are presumed to be public and subject to mandatory disclosure except in a handful of narrow and well-defined exemptions. In January 2015, documentary filmmaker James LaVeck, submitted a FOIL request for records dealing with Lansing’s deer management activities.

Nearly a month later, the Village informed LaVeck that several hundred pages of responsive records were available, but had been redacted (i.e., partially “blacked-out”) to protect against an alleged “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” and that if disclosed, would supposedly “endanger the life or safety of persons.”

LaVeck submitted a Village-level appeal, but Lansing’s Mayor offered no further explanation for the denial or clarification as to whose safety and privacy the Village was trying to protect. Left with no remedy at the Village level, LaVeck opted to litigate Lansing’s decision to cloak its deer killing program in secrecy.

In litigation, it became evident that the Village had no factual basis for withholding the records and no actual safety risk existed. Rather, to support the invasion of privacy and endangerment exemptions, Lansing produced an affidavit from the Village Clerk, claiming she was generally “informed” of some controversy over deer management policies and alleged threats made years ago in a different village.

To clarify, there was absolutely no basis for Lansing to redact responsive records. FOIL’s express language places the burden of proof squarely on the governmental body issuing the denial. Ultimately, the Village, in a desperate attempt to justify nondisclosure of public records simply borrowed an alleged controversy from years earlier in a nearby municipality consisting of vague and unsubstantiated allegations of threats.

Village of Lansing

Perhaps even more troubling was the Village’s position that mere controversy or disagreement surrounding a governmental activity legally shields those records from public scrutiny.

Open government discarded for political convenience

Freedom of Information exists precisely to ensure that the people can observe and evaluate what their public servants are up to, whether it is mundane, sensational or anything in between. To conceal its deer killing records, the Village put forth a defense that was tantamount to arguing that its activities were “too controversial” to disclose where, when, and how they would take place.

The consequences of this cynical stance on open government, if applied broadly, are staggering.           

Defying all commonsense and flouting abundant legal precedent that is clearly contrary to Lansing’s policy of opaqueness, the Village prevailed in the lower court. This not only set the stage for a fascinating appeal, but also transformed the case from one of primarily local concern to a matter with critical statewide consequences.

What about the safety of unknowing bystanders?

Leaving aside, momentarily, the Village’s flimsy and unsupported arguments, the lower court utterly ignored the possibility of endangerment resulting from the Village’s failure to disclose the records. Due to the administration’s secrecy, Village residents, visitors and their families could regularly find themselves in close proximity to individuals discharging weapons with no warning.

Rutgers NJAES

In arguing this matter at the Appellate Division in Albany, CWE wildlife attorney Trevor DeSane stressed to the panel of judges that this case “could represent a landmark in establishing the public’s right to know the details of when and where municipal deer shooting is taking place in neighborhood backyards.” DeSane further argued “the very critical public interest in disclosure that exists in Lansing will exist in any community statewide that is the site of a similar program.”

The simple and compelling reasons that full disclosure of nearby shooting is good public policy are numerous and easily understood. Like other inherently dangerous activities, discharging weapons is unquestionably safer when individuals in the vicinity are aware of when and where it is taking place so they can take all possible precautions to protect their families and pets.

Some residents might choose to stay out of their backyards or keep their children inside when amateur hunters are traipsing around on adjacent property shooting at deer. Others might think twice about jogging on a specific road when shooting is scheduled. Still others might close their curtains to avoid the trauma of their child witnessing a mortally wounded and suffering animal fleeing a shooter.

Failure to disclose details of shooting activities can result in tragedy

While Lansing stubbornly guards against disclosure of public information, LaVeck’s attorney argues that Village officials are flirting with an inexcusable tragedy: “In the real world, where bowhunters are discharging deadly weapons in close proximity to people, homes, schools, and roadways, this obsession with secrecy could literally kill or maim someone.”

LaVeck’s appeal has broad safety implications for all New Yorkers as well as obvious legal interest for advocates of open government. As DeSane stressed, “The court’s decision should uphold FOIL and acknowledge the very real public safety concerns that result from declaring entire areas of government activity off limits to the public. The only alternative would be a decision that legitimizes Lansing’s dangerous position and gives local governments a blank check to shroud their activities in secrecy, with no consideration of the consequences, whenever those activities are contentious or unpopular.”