Below is an editorial that ran on Sunday in the Idaho Falls Post Register. It was written by Erik A. Simpson. He gave me permission to rerun it here.
Simpson, an Idaho Falls hunter who worked with Don Clower to defeat the 1996 bear-hunting initiative, is also a strong private property rights supporter.
Ethics and fair chase.
These were terms the animal-rights’ organization Humane Society of the United States used in 1996 to attempt to end most black bear-hunting methods in Idaho. Sportsmen, however, were united, successfully convincing the public to defeat Idaho’s first animal-rights’ initiative.
Those opposed to the initiative, like Don Clower, saw it as a “divide and conquer†attempt by activists to “peck away at us, one little group at a time.”
Isn’t it ironic that some hunters are using the same terms and tactics to attempt to end elk ranching and domestic bull-hunting operations?
The Idaho Sportsman’s Caucus Advisory Council, a critic of elk ranching and domestic bull hunting marched at the Idaho State Capitol Jan. 16 with members of HSUS to celebrate “Camo Day.†The Council is promising to sponsor an initiative in 2008, also supported by HSUS.
Does anyone else see something wrong with a hunting-advisory organization being on the same side of an issue with an animal-rights’ group that seeks to ban all sport hunting?
When Rex Rammell’s elk escaped last year, critics claimed his and other domestic elk could spread disease to wild herds. When elk ranchers debunked this theory with solid data, critics then said they were against elk ranching and domestic bull-hunting operations because of its “image.â€
When you remove emotions, the elk debate isn’t about disease or hunting methods. It is about private property rights. Domestic elk do not belong to Idaho’s sportsmen any more than your neighbor’s cattle belong to you. Like cattle, domestic elk are born, fed and harvested behind a fence. Unlike cattle, when domestic elk escape it makes national news.
Who determines what is “ethical†or what constitutes “fair chase?†What is considered ethical to some people, such as trapping or hunting, may be unacceptable to others. While hunting with hounds may be acceptable to some, others may view it as not being “fair chase.â€
Once someone opens up a public debate on the “ethics†or “fair chase†of a hunting method, all other hunting activities are open to the same debate. While some hunters are content “sacrificing†elk ranching and domestic bull hunting in an attempt to save their particular hunting method, to whom will these same hunters turn to for help when the animal-rights’ groups come after their sport?
When looking at the big picture, hunters who are willing to sacrifice someone else’s activity to try to save their own will be sealing the fate of hunting as we know it today in Idaho. Activists will have confirmation that “divide and conquer†works, and hunters will see a wave of further attempts to eliminate additional hunting methods through both legislation and through the citizens’ initiative process.
Erik A. Simpson
Tom Remington
