Apologies for the formatting in this document: it's taken from a .pdf file which is attached to this post, and is a shortened and occasionally badly formatted version as a result. I urge those of you who have Adobe Acrobat to download the attached original and read that instead.
An extremely important issue, and an interesting insight into how one of our international adversaries thinks and acts.
Thanks to Dennis La Varenne for the article forwarded to me.
- Erron
CANNED HUNTS: UNFAIR
AT ANY PRICE
The Fund for Animals
200 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019
www.fund.org
February 2000
This report was written by Diana Norris, Norm Phelps, and
D.J. Schubert under the direction of Michael Markarian,
Executive Vice President of The Fund for Animals, and
Heidi Prescott, National Director. The report is based upon
research and analysis by Sonia Baker, Laura Ireland, Jeff
Leitner, Todd McDonald, Michael Markarian, Diana
Norris, Laurie Paul, Peter Petersan, Norm Phelps, Heidi
Prescott, Carrie Reulbach, and D.J. Schubert. Editing and
formatting are by Diana Norris and Catherine Hess. The
Fund for Animals wishes to thank the firm of Schubert and
Associates for its participation in the preparation of this
report. This report was made possible through the generous
support of Park Foundation.
INTRODUCTION
The closing decades of the twentieth century saw the rise of a new kind
of "sport" in North America: the "canned hunt." Although canned hunts
advertise under a variety of names -- most frequently "hunting
preserves," "game ranches," or "shooting preserves" -- they can be
identified by the two traits they all have in common: they charge their
clients a fee to kill an animal; and they violate the generally accepted
standards of the hunting community, which are based on the concept of
"fair chase." In some cases animals may be shot in cages or within
fenced enclosures; in others they may be shot over feeding stations;
some of the animals are tame and have little fear of humans, while
others may be tied to a stake or drugged before they are shot. But
whatever method is used, the defining characteristic of a canned hunt is
that the odds have been artificially manipulated against the animal so
heavily that the notion of fair chase is subverted. Canned hunts are
commercial hunts that take place on private land under circumstances
that virtually assure the hunter of success.
As the establishment of canned hunts increases, they are attracting more
public concern about their ethical, ecological, and biological
implications. After extensive research, The Fund for Animals has
concluded that these concerns are well founded, and we have created
this report as a reference tool for use by members of the public,
nonprofit organizations, legislatures, and government agencies in
addressing the grave public policy issues raised by canned hunts.
Section I provides an introduction and overview; explores the ethical
objections to canned hunts based on standards generally accepted by the
sport hunting community; raises questions about the appropriate legal
analogy that should be applied to canned hunts; and discusses the
serious animal health and public health issues raised by canned hunts.
Section II catalogs the relevant statutes and regulations of each state
with an example of a model ordinance relating to the regulation of
canned hunts. (Note: This report covers canned hunts for both native
and exotic mammals; canned hunts for birds will be covered in a
separate report to be released at a later date.)
Description: The Thrill of the Kill?
A sweltering summer day forces a large lion under the
shade of a drooping tree amidst a bucolic landscape.
She pants from the heat unconcerned at the sight of an
approaching man wearing a pristine white shirt and
clean, khaki pants. He stops about 100 feet from the
tree and animal. As the feline lies in the relaxing shade,
the man raises a rifle pointed toward the drowsy
animal. An unseen voice directs the lone gunman. He
shoots once and the lion, wounded and disoriented,
races from the shade of the tree. Only her cries of pain
can be heard and her flailing limbs seen over the grass.
The voice again directs the man to shoot again after
seconds have elapsed as the creature struggles for life.
The second shot finishes the job. The man nervously
approaches the feline and butts her with his gun. He
then gives thumbs-up to the camera, bends down and
feels her coat.... The camera pans out to show a tall,
chain-link fence.
Although canned hunts are advertised as rugged, outdoor adventures, in
reality they are conducted in an atmosphere of comfort and
convenience. You can fly into a hunting preserve here in the United
States, and after a gourmet dinner, you can spend the night in a
luxurious hunting lodge. The next day, you'll be given a high-powered
rifle with a brief orientation to its use and driven to the "shooting area."
The area is usually a fenced enclosure from which there is no escape,
ranging from a few square yards to several hundred acres, depending on
how strenuous you want your hunt to be.
The outcome is never really in doubt. In many cases, the hunting
preserve will give a guarantee: "No kill, no pay." Whether the area is
large or small, the animals are either fenced in -- so that they cannot
escape and have no hiding place that is secret from the guide -- or they
have been habituated to eating at a feeding station at the same time
every day for food. At many ranches, the same truck that brings dinner
to the feeding stations also brings the hunters. Exotic animals bought
from breeders are often accustomed to people feeding them and
cleaning their cages, so they have no fear of humans. They are often
surplus zoo animals or retired circus performers who are too habituated
to humans or too old and arthritic to run away.
The essentials are always the same regardless of the cost of the trip: an
animal who is either fenced in, lured to feeding stations, or habituated
to humans, and odds so heavily in the hunter's favor that there is little
risk of leaving without a trophy. Most canned hunts have taxidermists
on site or on call to mount your trophy, whose fate was sealed the
moment you made your reservation.
Prohibiting these questionable hunting practices from being captured on
tape is a standard practice of game ranches. "Video cameras [are]
permitted in lodge area only -- not on hunts," according to Cumberland
Mountain Hunting Lodge2. Ohio's Whitetail Trophy & Exotics, Inc.
warns, "Unauthorized video is considered criminal. You must have
permission before using video equipment and must follow a strict set of
guide lines."3 Obviously, they don't want the public to get a true picture
of canned hunts. But, undercover footage occasionally leaks out and the
images haunt the viewers:
The Corsican ram stopped cold in his tracks, raised his
head to sniff the breeze, and tried to peer through the
foliage. The hunter, covered head to toe in camouflage,
slowly raised to shoulder level a modern techno-marvel
of levers, wheels, and pulleys and released his arrow. At
the twang of the string, the ram jerked his head around
-- just as the razor-sharp broadhead sliced into his left
flank. Letting out a bellow of pain and terror, he
lunged forward into the wire fence that held him
captive. The hunter, no more than twenty yards away,
reloaded and shot. Another strike in the flank and
another bellow as once again the ram hurled himself
against the fence. A third arrow struck him in the side,
a fourth high up on the back. The hunter was
deliberately aiming away from the head and shoulders
to avoid any risk of spoiling his trophy. "If you fall," he
yelled at the ram, "fall the right way. I don't want you
bending my arrow." The slowly dying animal huddled
against the bottom of the fence. After six arrows, the
guide put the doomed animal out of his agony with a
bullet.
Game Ranching: A New Way to Separate City
Slickers from Their Money
According to the Safari Club International, an organization dedicated to
big game trophy hunting, the first game ranch in the United States was
the Y.O. Ranch in Mountain Home, Texas, two hours southwest of San
Antonio. Founded in 1880 as a longhorn cattle ranch, the Y.O.
introduced Indian blackbuck antelopes in 1953. When the blackbucks
thrived, the Y.O. went into the business of exotic hunts, and ranch
managers began adding other species of exotic deer including axis, sika,
and fallow.
Today, the Y.O. advertises "North America's largest
collection of exotic wild animals -- zebras, giraffes, ostriches, sika,
oryx, aoudad and eland -- over 50 different species. The Y.O. is a
hunting mecca for photographers, native game hunters and exotic game
hunters from everywhere."
By the 1960s, inspired by the success of the Y.O. Ranch, hunting
preserves and game ranches had begun to appear first in the Texas hill
country and then throughout the nation.7 But their current burst of
popularity dates only from the 1980s as they began filling a new market
niche created by the paradox of fewer and fewer hunters spending more
and more money on their sport.
From the 1950s through 1975, the number of hunters in America had
held steady at around 10% of the population age twelve and above. But
starting in 1975, a decline set in that continues to the present.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 1996, the latest year
for which statistics are available, only 7% of Americans sixteen and
older hunted. 8 Researchers for the hunting industry have identified
several reasons for this decline, including the fact that a majority of
Americans now oppose sport hunting.9 But only two of these factors are
important in understanding the growing popularity of canned hunts.
First, since World War II, America has become an urban and suburban
nation. More and more people live in cities and suburbs, while
development pushes wildlife habitat farther and farther away from
them. Hunting has become more time consuming and less convenient
than other forms of recreation like golf or tennis.
Second, with two-career families now the norm rather than the
exception, and household and child-rearing responsibilities typically
shared by two working parents, hunting forays have to be fitted into a
high-pressure schedule of work, parenting, and household chores. To
further complicate things, in many states -- including some in which
hunting has long been popular, such as Texas and Maine -- most land is
privately owned and finding a place to hunt can be daunting due the
decreased accessibility to land. Hunting trips now have to be planned,
scheduled, organized -- and paid for.
And the operators of game ranches and hunting preserves are well
aware of this. "If you don't have the 10 days to 2 weeks normally
needed to hunt for trophies with someone else," say the operators of
Cedar Ridge Elk Ranch in North Dakota, "and you want ACTION, and
you want to 'bring it home,' then Cedar Ridge Elk Ranch is the place
for you."
The same people whose metropolitan lifestyle is incompatible with
traditional hunting typically have significant disposable income to
spend on recreation. And so we see that while the number of hunters is
declining, the amount of money they spend is going up -- dramatically.
In 1991, hunters spent $14 billion on their sport, but by 1996 that figure
had risen to $20.67 billion, an increase of 33% while the number of
hunters was dropping by 17%.11 The recipients of the $21 billion spent
each year by hunters include the manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers of hunting products ranging from firearms and ammunition to
archery equipment to outdoor clothing, camping gear, and related
accessories. They also include hunting lodges, guides, game ranches
and hunting preserves.
There are three types of game ranches or hunting preserves operating in
the United States. First, there are some that are simply large tracts of
privately owned land, hundreds or even thousands of acres, which are
not fenced and not stocked. No feeding stations are maintained and no
crops are planted in small patches -- known as "feeding plots" or "food
plots" -- for the purpose of attracting game. The only difference
between these "ranches" and hunting on public land is that the hunter
has to pay for the privilege. They are not the subjects of this report.
Second, there are game ranches or hunting preserves that specialize in
native species, usually white-tailed deer or elk. These establishments
"manage" the herd to produce a high-proportion of "trophy" animals by
techniques adapted from the cattle industry, such as keeping the herd
inside a game-proof fence to prevent dilution of the gene pool,
providing high-protein food supplements, prohibiting the hunting of
young bucks until their antlers reach trophy size, and culling "inferior"
animals from the herd. Some game ranches buy and import stock from
breeders, live animal dealers, and other ranches. For example, Forest of
Antlers Outfitters in Minnesota promises "a unique hunting experience,
specializing in trophy bucks . . ."12 while the Triple Three Ranch in
Wyoming advertises that they "control the harvest and manage the herd
for large trophy heads."13 In a letter to a Fund for Animals investigator
posing as a prospective client, Triple Three owner Craig Smith wrote,
"We have good trophies all through the season. Our Mule deer have
averaged 24-inch spread 4x4 and five years old for the last six years. I
really don't think you can do better as far as mule deer go . . . Whitetail
are increasing in numbers with an 18-inch spread average."14 Often, the
game ranches that breed deer and elk are also raising them for their
parts and for the sale of their meat.
Third, there are game ranches and hunting preserves that deal in exotic
animals, ranging all the way from African lions to Indian axis deer.
Exotic species are either bred on-site or bought from breeders or
dealers, and the hunting of exotics takes place in a fenced enclosure that
may range from the size of a large pen to several hundred acres. This
traffic in exotic animals exists because large municipal zoos depend on
baby animals to attract paying customers. When these babies grow up,
they must be disposed of to make room for the new crop of babies who
will draw new crowds of customers. Since the public would not tolerate
the animals simply being killed by the zoo, they are sold to dealers, who
in turn often sell them to research laboratories, roadside petting zoos,
and canned hunts. In this way, the zoos can claim to have no
responsibility for their ultimate fate.15 (Exotic animals bought as "pets"
and later discarded also add to the supply for canned hunts.)
This pivotal role of municipal zoos in the inhumane commerce in
wildlife, including wildlife destined to end up at canned hunts, has been
extensively documented by investigative journalist Alan Green in his
groundbreaking exposé Animal Underworld. Green notes that, "On a
single day," while he was doing his research, "AZA zoos were looking
to rid themselves of six hundred mammals, nearly four hundred reptiles,
thousands of fish, hundreds of birds, and a variety of invertebrates."16
The AZA is the American Zoological Association, the trade association
for the larger, more established zoos, including most municipal zoos.
Green characterizes the fate of the baby animals who outgrow their
public appeal this way:
. . . the expendable two-year olds -- along with the aged,
out-of-vogue, and reproductively spent -- become
sacrificial lambs that are cast off, resold, and laundered
on paper until they become officially 'lost to follow-up.'
Animals that are supposedly part of grand
conservation schemes are recast as just more fodder for
the dealers, brokers, auction houses, and sanctuaries
that exploit them for profit, subject them to abuse,
relegate them to unsuitable environments, or even
worse, use them to breed new generations of product
for their mercenary commerce.
Green concludes by asking, "Are zoo animals nothing but crowd-luring
props, to be blindly disposed of when they're no longer useful? Society
castigates those who treat their mutts in such fashion." 18
Many game ranches and hunting preserves offer both native and exotic
species to their customers. The following is a brief listing of species
available at selected canned hunting facilities. (Many establishments
advertise: "Other animals upon request" or "African animals upon
request"):
Addax Antelope
Aoudad
Axis
Barasingha
Bison
Black Bear
Black Hawaiian Ram
Blackbuck Antelope
Blesbok
Bobcat
Bongo Antelope
Buffalo
Corsican Ram
Cottontail Rabbit
Coyote
Eland
Elk
Fallow Deer
Feral Hogs
4 Horn Ram
Fox
Gazelles
Hog Deer
Impala
Javalina
Kudu
Moose
Mouflon Ram
Muntjac
Musk Ox
Opossum
Oryx
Pere David
Raccoon
Red Stag
Sika Deer
Spanish Goat
Texas Dall
Watusi
White-tailed deer
Wild Boar
Wildebeest
Yak
Zebra
The Cost of the Kill
There are no statistics available on how much money hunters are
spending on canned hunts. But a look at some of their advertisements
suggests that they account for a significant portion of the 33% increase
in hunters' expenditures between 1991 and 1996. For example, The 777
Ranch near San Antonio bills itself as "Africa in Texas." The Jim
Carrey movie "Ace Ventura -- When Nature Calls" was filmed at the
777 Ranch. Prices range from $1,500 to kill a "trophy class" Indian
blackbuck antelope to $12,500 for a "record class" markhor, a Middle
Eastern member of the goat family.19 This ranch's prices are typical of
what the market seems to bear. Glen Savage Ranch in Pennsylvania
charges $5,995 for a white-tailed deer rated between 140 and 154 on the
scoring scale of the Boone and Crockett Club (B&C) -- an organization
that maintains a kind of "Guiness Book of World Records" for big game
-- and $9,995 for a buck rated between 170 and 184. For bucks with
higher B&C scores, Glen Savage discreetly suggests that the
prospective customer "call for pricing."20 As with most ranches and
preserves, prices include lodging, meals, and field dressing the trophy
animal. Hunters are willing to pay these prices for a populous native
species because white-tailed deer are so heavily hunted that few outside
of hunting preserves live long enough to grow trophy racks. Except
when they are "culling" the herd, the operators of canned hunts do not
permit their clients to kill bucks until they have grown a trophy rack.
Concerned that the industry's emphasis on the upscale market might
prove intimidating to less affluent hunters, Broken Arrow Ranch in
Texas invites prospective clients to "Come to where the 'WORKING
MAN' can afford to hunt!" Broken Arrow, which specializes in exotic
deer, offers customers the chance to "kill a TROPHY deer ... and a
Fallow doe, stay in our modest but comfortable bunk house, receive
continental breakfast for the low price of $1350." For the more
moderate, they promise "other affordable hunting packages that will fit
your needs."
Since game ranching is a new and very loosely regulated industry, there
are no dependable statistics on how many game ranches and hunting
preserves are now in operation. In a telephone conversation, a staff
member of the Exotic Wildlife Association, the principal trade group
for game ranches and hunting preserves, told a Fund for Animals
investigator that the association has between 800 and 1,000 active
members, of which more than 500 are in Texas, while several hundred
other game ranches "work with us" on a less formal basis. He declined
to speculate on the amount of money taken in annually by game ranches
and hunting preserves.
There's a Reason They Call Them "Ranches"
To prospective clients, the operators of game ranches and hunting
preserves claim that they are in the hunting business. But when they
talk to each other and to the government agencies that regulate hunting,
they tell a different story. Then they claim that their real business is
ranching, and that they are simply adapting tried and true cattle raising
techniques to an alternative form of livestock. It is no coincidence that
Texas, America's premier cattle ranching state, was home to the first
game ranch -- which was created on a cattle ranch -- and presently hosts
more than 500 game ranches.
Canned hunt operators want to be ranchers when they're raising
animals, but hunters when they're killing them. Their point is that state
game agencies should not be able to regulate game ranches and hunting
preserves because their animals are domestic livestock, and state
agriculture departments should not be able to regulate them because
agriculture agencies have no authority to regulate hunting. Forced to
choose, however, most game ranchers and hunting preserve operators
would rather be regulated by state agriculture departments, which are,
on the whole, more sympathetic to canned hunts than state wildlife
agencies. This strategy was first brought to public attention by Alan
Green, who reports that, "In one state after another, the game farmers
have pressed legislators to reclassify a growing list of animals as
agricultural products, much like apples, alfalfa, and other cash crops --
a change that allows them to raise, sell, and slaughter exotics without
the hassle of fish-and-game department inspections or other
government intrusions."
Many state wildlife agencies oppose canned hunts for three primary
reasons. First, since no hunting license is required to hunt exotic
animals on private land, game ranches and hunting preserves -- or at
least those that specialize in exotics -- potentially threaten a critical
source of revenue for the agencies. Secondly, and more importantly,
most state wildlife agency personnel have been educated in and are
personally committed to the philosophy of "fair chase hunting."
Although dedicated supporters of sport hunting, they generally believe
canned hunts are unethical and should not be allowed. All too often,
however, they are reluctant to voice their views publicly for fear that
opposing any kind of "hunting" will be viewed as giving aid and
support to the opponents of all hunting. Third, the agencies are
concerned about disease transmission (as explained in "The Risk of
Disease" section).
State agriculture departments, on the other hand, tend not to judge
canned hunts in terms of a long tradition and an ethical code. They
often view game ranches and hunting preserves as a way to help
farmers and ranchers increase the profitability of their businesses. From
their point of view, allowing the hunter to "only occasionally succeed,"
while the animals "generally avoid being taken" would be an inefficient
way to try to turn a profit. After all, do the butchers in slaughterhouses
"only occasionally succeed." In chicken processing plants, do broiler
chickens "generally avoid being taken." Canned hunt operators and
many state agriculture departments treat hunting as an alternative form
of animal slaughter, and hunting enclosures as outdoor slaughterhouses.
But thus far, due to their newness and their pretense at being "hunts"
rather than slaughter, game ranches and hunting preserves have
generally avoided the kind of regulation to which traditional livestock
producers and slaughterhouses -- at least in theory -- are subject, such
as health inspections. But most importantly, these outdoor
slaughterhouses should be subject to the federal Humane Slaughter Act,
which requires that an animal be rendered immediately unconscious and
not allowed to suffer in the process of being slaughtered. But hunting,
even under the conditions of a canned hunt, inevitably entails a
significant wounding rate in which the animal suffers for a period of
minutes or hours before being found and -- in the euphemism of the
hunting community -- "dispatched." In bow hunting -- which is popular
on game ranches and hunting preserves because it heightens the illusion
of an authentic hunt by a skilled outdoorsman -- the typical cause of
death is exsanguination. The animal almost never dies immediately, and
up to 50% of animals who are struck by an arrow in free-range hunting
are wounded and never retrieved.24 This is clearly inconsistent with the
federal standards established in the Humane Slaughter Act, and with
similar standards enacted by many states. There is no way that
slaughtering an animal under conditions that simulate hunting could
comply with currently existing statutory requirements for the slaughter
of livestock. And livestock is precisely what these animals have been
turned into.
Ethical Objections from Both Ends of the
Spectrum: Unfair Chase
Hunting is a sport whose object is to kill sentient beings for pleasure,
and that can never be ethical. It is a sport in which only the aggressor
participates willingly; the victim has no choice in the matter. And it is a
sport in which the stakes are dreadfully uneven; if the animal loses, he
dies; if the hunter loses, he goes home empty-handed and life goes on
as before. That being said, we all recognize that among ethically
objectionable acts, some are more heinous than others. Due to their
egregious cruelty and blatant violation of the hunting community's "fair
chase" standard, canned hunts inspire a higher level of outrage than
more traditional forms of hunting, even to the extent that many staunch
defenders of sport hunting are vocal opponents of canned hunts.
Hunting advocates defend the ethics of their sport by invoking the
concept of "fair chase." Even the pro-trophy hunting Safari Club
International has a code of ethics in which the hunter pledges "to
comply with all game laws in the spirit of fair chase, and to influence
my companions accordingly."25 "Fair chase" is left undefined. In an
affidavit for hunters who wish to have a trophy buck recorded in its
record books, the Boone and Crockett Club defines fair chase as "the
ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any
free-ranging, wild, native North American big game animal in a manner
that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such game
animals."26 This statement leaves several key terms, including
"ethical," "sportsmanlike," and "improper advantage" undefined,
although B&C does give examples of practices that violate fair chase,
such as shooting an animal who is helpless when mired in deep snow or
swimming in the water.
Jim Posewitz spent 32 years as a biologist with the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. As founder and president of
Orion: The Hunter's Institute, he is one of sport hunting's most
passionate defenders, much in demand as a speaker by hunting
organizations and wildlife agencies across the country. In his book,
Beyond Fair Chase, which is widely viewed within the hunting
community as the "bible" of hunting, Posewitz discusses fair chase in
these terms: "Fundamental to ethical hunting is the idea of fair chase.
This concept addresses the balance between the hunter and the hunted.
It is a balance that allows hunters to occasionally succeed while animals
generally avoid being taken."27 One page later, he notes that, "The
concept of fair chase is important to hunting. The general public will
not tolerate hunting under any other circumstances."28 Posewitz's
organization, Orion, defines hunting as "the fair chase pursuit of
free-roaming wildlife in a noncompetitive situation in which the animal
is used for food."
Orion's definition of ethical hunting includes four elements: 1) fair
chase; 2) free-roaming wildlife; 3) non-competitive; and 4) used for
food. The first two elements are shared with the definition used by
B&C. Since B&C exists to promote trophy hunting, their definition of
fair chase does not include "a noncompetitive situation" or consuming
the animal.
Fair chase is the fundamental standard put forward by defenders of
hunting. All other defenses of hunting for sport depend on and derive
from the notion of fair chase. But, hunting on game ranches and
preserves is killing for fun and bragging rights under circumstances in
which the traditional defenses of hunting become meaningless. And as
we have already seen, they make a mockery of the alleged ethical codes
of the hunting community. Therefore, is hunting on game ranches and
hunting preserves really hunting at all, or is it something else entirely --
something quite different that is masquerading as hunting?
Outdoor writer Ted Kerasote, whose popular book, Blood Ties: Nature,
Culture and the Hunt, is an impassioned defense of hunting, including
trophy hunting, has no doubt about the answer to this question:
"Wildlife is not livestock. The problem comes when people are
supposedly hunting these animals. That's the problem right there."
According to Kerasote, canned hunts are turning hunting "into this
caged, paid affair and it bears no resemblance to what hunting is, was,
and could be. Like so many things in our world, people want to buy the
product (the trophy) rather than experience the process (meeting the
animal on its own terrain)."
Orion's definition of "ethical" hunting and Kerasote's comments provide
an excellent standard for identifying canned hunts and making
judgments about them by comparison to traditional hunting. And these
judgments will not be made according to the standards of the animal
protection community, but according to the standards of the hunting
community. In fact, concluded from both Orion and B&C's definitions,
any managed situation which is manipulated to significantly reduce the
animal's chance to survive is a canned hunt which fails to meet the
hunting community's own standard for hunting.
No Kill, No Pay
A hunting preserve or game ranch at which the hunter occasionally
succeeds while the animal usually escapes is at a strong competitive
disadvantage in today's market. And the canned hunt operators are
closely attuned to the economics of their business. They also know that
a busy professional or business person or first-time hunter who plunks
down several thousand dollars for a day of hunting does not expect to
go home empty-handed. And their advertisements go out of their way to
reassure prospective clients. "We specialize in 100% Success Rate on
all Whitetail rifle hunts," brags the Oak Creek Whitetail Ranch in
Missouri.31 By Jim Posewitz's standard, a rifle hunt at Whitetail does
not even have a nodding acquaintance with fair chase, regardless of
what other conditions it may be conducted under. In one fashion or
another the operators have manipulated the odds so that the hunter
always succeeds and an animal always dies. Pennsylvania's Tioga Boar
Hunting Preserve tells prospective customers that hunts never require
"more than two days; all hunts are guaranteed." Nor do hunters have to
be accomplished shooters since "kills are usually made from 25 to 100
yards," which is point blank range for a modern hunting rifle.32 And in
case the prospective client is "gun shy" of vaguely worded guarantees,
the European Wild Boar Hunt, a hunting preserve in Idaho, spells it out:
"You are guaranteed a pig, or your money will be refunded."
Don't Fence Me In
Most people assume that the animal's physical inability to escape when
approached by the hunter is what makes hunting inside a fenced
enclosure incompatible with fair chase. From this, they conclude that if
the enclosure is large enough -- say several hundred acres -- the animals
within it are, for all practical purposes, "free roaming," and the fairness
of the chase is preserved. While it is true that shooting an animal within
a corral or a fenced lot is a particularly heinous form of canned hunt,
the animal's physical inability to escape is only one aspect of the
unfairness of hunting within a fenced enclosure. A large fenced
enclosure -- up to hundreds or even thousands of acres -- on a managed
game ranch can tilt the advantage to the hunter so dramatically that the
animals within cannot be considered free-roaming
.
Every hunter knows that in most states most years, nearly half the deer
killed during hunting season are killed on the first day. Partly this is
because there are more hunters out that day, but mostly it is because the
deer are caught by surprise. As soon as the sound of rifles begins to
reverberate through the woods, the deer change their feeding, drinking,
and sleeping habits. If they are able, they leave the area where they are
being hunted. In more built up areas, they go onto private land, and --
when they realize there are no hunters -- stay there. In wilderness areas,
they go into deep woods and bed down under cover during the day,
only coming out at night to eat.
The point is that on a fenced hunting preserve -- no matter how large
the enclosure -- the animals are not able to change their behavior
patterns in any way that will thwart the hunter. Game ranches and
hunting preserves employ "guides" whose full time jobs are: to be
intimately familiar with the entire landscape of the preserves; to know
where the animals are on the preserves at all times; to know where and
when they like to eat, drink, and bed down; and to know all their hiding
places. Unable to escape from the guide's backyard, so to speak, the
animals are as much "sitting ducks" in a 500-acre enclosure as in a
five-acre pasture. A canned hunt will take a little more time and effort
on 500 acres than a five-acre pasture, but the hunter's chances of killing
an animal are about the same either way. All that the larger area
accomplishes is to give hunters the illusion that they are actually
hunting an animal when in reality they are simply slaughtering with a
bow or a rifle. If this were not so, hunting preserves would not be
advertising "no kill, no pay."
In their public statements, operators of game ranches and hunting
preserves often claim that a facility is a canned hunt only if the animal
is shot at point-blank range in a cage or fenced pasture. In an interview
which aired in March 2000, for example, Ike Sugg, who was
then-director of the Exotic Wildlife Association, told Dateline NBC that
any enclosure of more than a few acres can provide a fair chase hunt if
there is dense cover which makes the animal hard to find.34 This may
sound fair to people who are unfamiliar with hunting, but it ignores the
role of the guide and the fact that once flushed a fenced animal has no
escape route.
Kerasote, also a columnist for Sports Afield magazine, makes much the
same point, although he expresses it a bit more obliquely, when he says,
"I would say that for hunting to take place there has to be a simulacrum
for some original condition. Whether that's 20 or 50 or 100 acres is
irrelevant. I think one can have a legitimate hunting experience on 20
unfenced acres in upstate New York as long as there is no enclosure or
barrier to turn the animal back."
Canned hunt operators know that their clients understand that the fence
and the guide are what ensure the kill while the size of the enclosure
determines the realism of the illusion that actual hunting is taking place.
And so they advertise both the presence of the fence and the size of the
enclosure. Cedar's Edge Game Ranch in Michigan offers "white tail and
fallow deer, Russian boar, various types of sheep and upon request elk,
buffalo and red deer" and has "90 acres in our enclosure with plans to
fence the remaining 320 acres."36 Davenport Game Preserve in New
York boasts "an intensely managed 250-acre enclosure which harbors
many record-class trophy Whitetail and Sika deer,"37 while Michigan's
WilMar Ranch has "over 100 acres enclosed for your enjoyment."38
"Game-proof" fencing of the type used by game ranches and hunting
preserves can also have a serious detrimental impact on the entire
ecosystem in which the fenced enclosure exists. According to a draft
report prepared by a working group of the Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission, Specific problems caused by hunting within high-fence
enclosures ... include: (1) substantial increase in risk of
disease to native free-ranging wildlife [See "The Risk of
Disease" section]; (2) disruption and displacement of
wildlife within their natural home range, animal
densities that exceed natural biological carrying
capacities, risk of escape by non-native wildlife
resulting in undesirable wildlife populations established
in the wild, hybridization and even threatened
elimination of some native species; complications that
inhibit effective enforcement of statewide hunting
egulations...
Animals such as deer and bears who are displaced from portions of
their native home range by fenced enclosures typically seek to replace
the lost territory by extending their range or searching for a new home
range altogether. This can lead to unfenced lands being stressed beyond
their carrying capacity and to an increase in human-animal interactions,
as displaced deer, for example, wander into suburbs looking for browse.
The ultimate cause of most unwanted human-animal contact is
residential development encroaching upon natural habitat. Game-proof
fencing constitutes a similar encroachment and can be expected to have
a similar effect, with the sole difference that the unwanted contact will
not occur where the encroachment exists, but in nearby residential areas
and on nearby roads and highways.
The Primrose Path
There are other, more subtle ways than a fence to restrict the
"free-roaming" nature of animals and thus remove the element of "fair
chase" from the hunt, assuring the hunter of a kill. One is the use of
"funnels." A funnel is a narrow area bordered by natural or man-made
barriers along which an animal must move to get to a destination, such
as a food source. A trail leading from deep woods to a cornfield with a
steep embankment along one side and a creek on the other would be a
natural funnel. A creek on one side of the trail and a fence on the other
would be a man-made funnel. By setting up a tree stand overlooking the
trail, a guide who knows the habits of the deer living on the preserve
can give his client a guaranteed shot at close range.
To assure that potential customers have no fears of coming home
empty-handed, deer hunts at Blackhawk Farms in Louisiana "are fully
guided and tree stands, blinds, and rifle stands are the norm. These
stands are strategically located over funnel areas, food plots, and
cut-overs and are chosen based upon deer movement patterns and wind
conditions."40 A cut-over is an area in which the mature trees have been
cut down so that young saplings, whose leaves deer like to browse,
grow up in their place. By manipulating the environment, both natural
and man-made, the hunt operators can then ensure a kill for their
clients
.
The Condemned Animal Ate a Hearty Meal
Often used in conjunction with funnels are food plots and feeding
stations. Food plots, as we noted above, are small patches of land
planted in a crop, such as corn, that the targeted species enjoys. Usually
no bigger than a large garden, they are typically bordered by a grassy
strip that leaves the animals exposed while they eat. Surrounded by
woods or scattered trees that give the hunter cover, food plots turn the
animals they attract into standing targets at close range. Most game
ranches that use food plots plant several at a distance from one another
so they can switch off randomly from one to another. Animals would
soon begin to avoid a food plot that was "overhunted." To further
increase the deadliness of food plots, some operators erect permanent
ground level blinds or elevated shooting stands overlooking them. For
example, RockBridge Lodge in Alabama assures clients that, "You may
hunt over white oak acorns, green fields, persimmon trees, corn food
plots on trails to and from bedding areas, and rest assured you will get
the opportunity to launch an arrow ... RockBridge deer are fed and
managed year round. Specialty crops are planted to attract and hold the
game."
Shot at close range by hunters hidden from view, the animals
have no chance.
Essentially a refinement of food plots, feeding stations are troughs in
which a guide places food at the same time every day for days or weeks
before taking a client to hunt over it. In this way the guide knows
precisely when animals will appear at the station to eat, and the hunter
doesn't have to waste time waiting for a target to show up. In a hi-tech
variation, some feeding stations use automatic dispensers with
electronic timers. As with food plots, feeding stations are often used in
conjunction with blinds or shooting stands. Harry's Lodge in Maine
takes no chances on prospective clients worrying that they may not get
a point blank shot since, "At Harry's Lodge we run our bear hunts from
tree stands over baits. Because of an average of less than 20 yards from
tree to bait, we are set-up especially well for all types of weapons,
whether you use a gun, bow, or pistol."
The significance of "free-roaming" for the standards of hunting is that
the animal has a greater opportunity to elude the hunter and the hunter
has a more difficult time in locating the animal and getting in range. It
is a critical factor in the "balance" that Jim Posewitz of Orion talked
about. Animals lured to food plots, feeding stations and bait piles are as
hard to find and easy to shoot as animals in a pen. Like everything else
in canned hunts, the notion that an animal shot over a food plot, a
feeding station, or a bait pile is free-roaming is an illusion. The
appearance is there, but the truth is just the opposite.
The Risk of Disease
It is well accepted that when animals become concentrated in numbers
the likelihood of disease transmission increases. Whether the
concentration is caused by natural factors, influenced by artificial
elements, or is the product of captivity, diseases and the intra- and
inter-specific transmission of disease can flourish under such
circumstances. Animals, whether wild or captive, have different
susceptibilities to disease. The susceptibility of individual animals to
one or more diseases is a function of, among other things, environment,
stress, genetics, nutrition, and age. If an animal's immune system is
compromised as a result of the stress of captivity, poor or inadequate
nutrition, youthfulness or old age, the animal has a greater chance of
being affected by disease.
Animals concentrated in a captive environment like a shooting preserve
or game farm are more susceptible to a variety of diseases than are
animals who live under more natural, wild conditions. That is not to say
that wild animals are disease-free as there are an abundance of diseases
that afflict many wild and free-roaming species. Furthermore,
admittedly, animals in captivity who are, or can be, handled can be
more easily treated for disease than animals in the wild. It is doubtful,
however, that those involved in the shooting preserve business provide
any level of veterinary care to their captive targets. Since the killing of
these animals is guaranteed, spending money on veterinary care is not
cost-effective and would adversely affect profits. Since most of those
who partake in canned hunts do so for a trophy to mount on a wall, as
long as a disease does not affect the appearance of an animal, there
would be no incentive to address the problem.
As canned hunts have proliferated in many states, concerns about
disease have increased. Diseases such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, and
chronic wasting disease (which is similar to bovine spongiform
encephalopathy or "Mad Cow Disease") have been diagnosed in wild
and captive wildlife.43 While some are concerned about the health of
individual animals held captive, more are concerned about the potential
impact of disease on wild, free-roaming animals. The reality is that
despite legal standards requiring fencing of shooting preserves for big
game and exotic wildlife, captive wildlife can escape (as a result of
human error) and, if diseased, can become a vector for disease
transmission to wild animals.
For example, Montana game ranches were faced with the occurrence of
tuberculosis in 1991 when an elk on a game ranch tested positive for the
disease (27other elk showed signs of exposure). Wildlife officials
worried the disease could infect the neighboring Yellowstone
free-roaming herd of elk. In addition, the interstate transport of
animals for breeding purposes adds to the increased possibility of
spreading such diseases.
Michigan has been battling an outbreak of tuberculosis in deer for the
past few years due to the preponderance of baiting statewide. Scott
Everett, legislative counsel of the Michigan Farm Bureau, claims "deer
baiting and feeding promotes the congregation of animals in a small
location. That allows for the aerosol transmission of bovine TB ... TB is
a disease created by certain conditions: stress, crowding and
overpopulation. Baiting and feeding create these conditions."
As baiting and feeding are common practices on canned hunts, the
possibility of the spread of disease such as tuberculosis increases.
Though disease is a natural element in nature and though some diseases
may have more serious consequences than others, the introduction of a
disease into a wild population as a result of the escape of an animal
from a fenced shooting gallery poses an unacceptable risk to our
free-roaming wildlife. In some cases the disease introduced to a wild
population from an escaped captive exotic animal may be an unknown
organism for which our native wildlife have no natural immunity. The
consequences of such a disease outbreak could be substantial. For
example, V. Geist, speaking at the 54th North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference, stated that, "Asiatic sheep and goats on
western ranches for 'trophy hunting' is a time bomb that will destroy
bighorn sheep."
Furthermore, the escape of captive wildlife -- exotic
or native -- also poses a threat to the genetic health and purity of our
wild, native populations.
CONCLUSION
In August 1995, The Fund for Animals' national director, Heidi
Prescott, was invited to speak at the Fourth Annual Governor's
Symposium on North America's Hunting Heritage in Green Bay,
Wisconsin. It may seem implausible to have an animal protection
advocate speaking to a conference of the hunting community's leaders;
Prescott's speech, however, entitled "How Hunters Make My Job Easy,"
challenged hunters to clean up their own ranks and speak out against
egregious practices such as canned hunts. She asked:
What do people who may not have strong feelings
about hunting either way . . . think of outdoor ethics
when a story runs in their local newspaper about
someone paying thousands of dollars to kill a tame lion
or sheep on a fenced-in ranch? . . . Do you think that
the average person who looks at this practice thinks
that hunting is a spiritual outdoor experience, and that
hunters respect the wild and are the great wildlife
managers and conservationists they claim to be? I can
tell you what they think, because they call The Fund for
Animals' office to express their horror, their sorrow,
and ask what they can do to help.
The Fund for Animals is committed to working with hunters and state
wildlife agency officials -- people with whom we may never agree on
many issues -- to find areas where we have common ground and
common interests. We believe that the issue of canned hunts is one of
those areas. To animal protection advocates, a canned hunt is the cruel
and inhumane killing of an animal simply for a trophy. To hunters, a
canned hunt is a violation of fair chase and a blight on the image of
their sport. To biologists, a canned hunt is a "time bomb" of potential
disease for native wildlife populations.
All in all, it would be difficult to find anyone who would be willing to
defend canned hunts. Except, perhaps, the operators who profit by
breeding or trading in animals who are marked as guaranteed trophies,
and the hunters who lack the skill or the inclination to hunt in the wild.
SUMMARY OF STATE STATUTES AND
REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF
SHOOTING PRESERVES
A review of the relevant statutes in all 50 states reveals a great disparity
in laws pertaining to the establishment and operation of shooting
preserves. Shooting preserves, which also are referred to as regulated
shooting areas, commercial and noncommercial shooting areas, and
various other names, exist in every state. Several states limit the species
that can be killed within shooting preserves such as to game birds while
others permit big game, trophy game, and exotic wildlife species to be
hunted. Some states ban future establishment of new shooting
enclosures. In many cases, the statutes are not clear in regard to the
standards associated with the establishment and operation of shooting
preserves making it difficult to accurately place states in different
categories in terms of what species are permitted to be killed at such
facilities. In addition, in several states there may be a variety of statutes
relating to shooting preserves including laws related to maintaining
wildlife in captivity, wildlife importation standards, and
livestock/agriculture laws which all affect the development and legality
of shooting preserves.
The following summary is focused on the statutes and regulations
deemed to be most relevant to the establishment and operation of
shooting preserves. This is not a complete analysis of all potentially
relevant state laws and regulations. In particular, this analysis does not
address agricultural or livestock laws that may be applicable to the
operation of shooting preserves, management of wild animals in
captivity, importation standards, or disease issues. Furthermore, in
those states where only birds are permitted to be shot at shooting
preserves, the analysis is limited. These laws will be more fully
analyzed in a subsequent report. Recognizing these limitations, the
following information provides a state-by-state summary of the status,
legality, and restrictions associated with shooting preserves in each
state.
Summary of Status of Canned Hunts for
Mammals in Each State
Canned Hunts
Prohibited
Canned Hunts Permitted
(*Restrictions vary by state)
California
Delaware
Montana
Nevada
North Carolina
Oregon
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
*
Browse an extensive chart of Statutes and Regulations of Canned Hunts
in Each State.
*
CANNED HUNTS: UNFAIR? The Fund for Animals Says So...
Moderator: Moderators