Uncle Ted on Fair Chase

Orion The Hunter's Institute put this up on their Facebook feed yesterday. A short interview with Ted Nugent.

http://outdoorchannel.com/article.aspx?id=22835&articletype=article&key=nugent-takes-py-to-task&p=wc

Uncle Ted has a problem with P & Y, the "demonization" of high-fence operations, and the consensus definition of fair-chase. This isn't news and Nugent is low hanging fruit. But considering he has such a large audience and his word is the highest commandment for many, it's worth seeing what his latest rants entail, because surely you'll be hearing them from someone else later.

"The fact is that all scientific studies show that the deer breeders are the victims of failed state game agencies mishandling of bovine TB, CWD, EHD and other real world cervid diseases, not the perpetrators."-Nugent

I wonder what his idol, Fred Bear, would think.
"I see the animal not only as a target but as a living creature with more freedom than I will ever have." -Fred Bear

Freedom in a fence?

I think Steven Rinella has it right. From his book MeatEater

"Certain activities are definitely not fair-chase,such as the pathetic practice of hunting animals inside high-wire fences".

It's a shame that this guy represents hunters to the non-hunting community. He is as much a danger to the future of public lands hunting as any politician out there.

I'm getting off work early today to go look for bear. I don't know if there will be a bear in the gulch I'm gonna hunt. In fact I don't know if a bear will be within ten miles of me. If I'm lucky enough to encounter one, it might run. It might run a couple hundred yards or it might run over the Boulder Batholith and into the sunset. I don't get to control that, and I don't get to know. And there-in lies just one difference between what we typically mean when we talk about fair-chase and what we mean when we don't. I would argue it is an important distinction.

Ted Nugent is a stain on the good name of hunting & hunters.

To me, if someone wants to shoot a penned, semi-domesticated or fully domesticated animal, I really don't care. Knock yourself out. Just don't try to pawn it off as something similar to free-range animals.

The part Nugent seems to be upside down on is the disease issue. The time is long since passed to require these breeder facilities and shooting pens to get bonded for the disease risk they are imposing on the public.

Nugent says the risk is low and then goes on to blame it on state agencies. He ought to stick to guitars and music, rather than try to rationalize that one.

Ask any scientist, wildlife disease specialist, biologist, etc. to interpret the data related to diseases and penned shooting/breeding facilities. Other than a few paid mouths from the penned animal industry, you will get unanimous interpretation that these facilities are huge diseases risks.

If the disease risk is so low, it should be a minimal expense to go out and get bonded to protect the public wildlife resource from the financial and other impacts that could come from a disease outbreak that originates in a penned shooting facility. We force mining companies, logging companies, and others who could impact public resources to get bonding. Hell, even a little three man TV production group has to provide proof of a $3 million insurance bond in the event they burn down a forest when they are out filming.

Yet, when you ask the penned shooting industry to provide bonding for disease risks, they say it will bankrupt them. Really? That is not what Mr. Nugent is saying.

If the disease risk is so low, the cost to bond will not be anymore than what I pay to cover the risks of me filming on public lands. That hasn't bankrupted me and I'm not selling anything that is priced "by the inch."

If the cost of bonding is so prohibitive, then it seems the experts on risk management would disagree with Nugent as to the true risk of disease. Since the bonding and surety markets has some extremely intelligent people who make a living assessing and insuring risks, I am going with their assessment of risk, not the biased protectionism conclusions of a guitar player.

Even if these places were bonded and insured to public as to the risk they impose, that does not change the fact that some people want to use the honorable activity of hunting as a facade for their actions that have very little resemblance to the type of hunting that will be tolerated as part of our society.

I laugh when these groups want to be considered fair chase hunting. They always bring out the examples of people who might not be able to physically hunt elsewhere. If that is the only defense they have, it is prima facie evidence of just how weak their justificaations are and how desparate they are to not be left alone, identified as an activity separate from fair chase hunting.

Call it what they want. It is not hunting in any manner, if you follow what is provided under the North American Model. It is not hunting in any manner if you find value in the standards issued by Boone and Crockett or Pope and Young Clubs.

Mr. Nugent must feel the P&Y Club is flying over a valuable and vulnerable target. He is sending up a lot of flak for what most of us in the hunting world would find to be a pretty reasonable position from a group such as P&Y.

Big Fin said:

Mr. Nugent must feel the P&Y Club is flying over a valuable and vulnerable target. He is sending up a lot of flak for what most of us in the hunting world would find to be a pretty reasonable position from a group such as P&Y.

Click to expand...

Good analogy, Randy. This seems to be the hallmark of many, who know their arguement is weak, and are still despirate to protect it. If the general hunting public were to sour to his way of hunting, he stands alot to lose.

It's a shame a microphone keeps finding that man.

To me, if someone wants to shoot a penned, semi-domesticated or fully domesticated animal, I really don't care. Knock yourself out. Just don't try to pawn it off as something similar to free-range animals.

Click to expand...

The majority of voters in Montana decided we didn't want to allow that type of activity. It's too big a threat to our wildlife, and our heritage. I'm not sure I cared so much about what they did, but knew the threats those farms were. So I voted to ban that activity, to decrease game farms in Montana.

The P&Y and B&C clubs might have came out a little harder on this sort of thing 20 or 30 years ago. I don't know what the thinking was back then, maybe more entries and money?

Game farmed animals show up years after someone taking them, with some cocking bull story how granddad shot this big buck or bull, on public lands and it's been in the shed ever sense. Then Jr. takes and enters the animal in one of the clubs. It waters down the books.

These are always interesting threads. Seems like science would tend to disagree with his statements but in the end there are high fence breeding facilities in most states that put the wild animals at risk. Even in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado. Can't just blame TX.

There are hunts for so called wild animals that are not much different than high fence hunts and in some cases less sporting. Some of the Yellowstone bison hunts come to mind as hunts where the animals have little to no fear of humans and basically appear to be similar to "hunting" a cow. Calling that hunting is a stretch IMO.

There are also a lot of hunts that are considered fair chase that, in actuality, seem to me to really push the definition of the word as we know it. Somehow, I can't get into going over to Africa and sitting in a "hide" all day picking off animals that have to come into a water hole for daily sustenence, but it's the common way of hunting them over there. Most of the concessions over there are also high fence operations at least to some extent, but animals taken over there are allowed in the "Book". IMHO "the books" are the bigger problem we face where many people want their name in them and could care less how they get it there. Take the name off and just put the animal in there like it should be and watch the number of applicants shrink to the point where the book would probably not even be discussed.
Now back to Uncle Ted and his big mouth on things. IMHO he should at least stay with the gun issue and not make an ass of himself on things like this disease statement of his. Even at that I really think he probably does more against us that good as the folks that really like him are already on our side of the gun issue and right to keep and bear arms!

Greenhorn said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTVDHnwlz5k&feature=kp

Click to expand...

Anyone read the first comment?

Youtube is always good for a laugh. When I first watched the clip, the initial ad was from Mike (GLendive politician)- shooting the government spy drone down. Awesome. Then straight into Wang Dang..

Matt Rosendale. He wants to sell off public lands.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/u-...cle_1bffe6cc-c761-11e3-a0de-001a4bcf887a.html

He's from Maryland and he's here to tell us how it should be.

Topgun 30-06 said:

There are also a lot of hunts that are considered fair chase that, in actuality, seem to me to really push the definition of the word as we know it. Somehow, I can't get into going over to Africa and sitting in a "hide" all day picking off animals that have to come into a water hole for daily sustenence, but it's the common way of hunting them over there. !

Click to expand...

Do you view hunting antelope in Arizona out of a blind over a water hole where animals have to come in for daily sustenance any differently?

roadhunter said:

There are hunts for so called wild animals that are not much different than high fence hunts and in some cases less sporting. Some of the Yellowstone bison hunts come to mind as hunts where the animals have little to no fear of humans and basically appear to be similar to "hunting" a cow. Calling that hunting is a stretch IMO.

Click to expand...

It's only couch hunting if you shoot it closer than 1/4 mile to the road. Anything other than that is severe manual labor. No critter exemplifies "the fun's over after the animal is down" more than a North American Bison.

As for Africa - I don't think it's fair to compare the African model to the North American Model simply because of the much different societal issues each country faces.

As for pronghorn & blinds - if you use a rifle, then yes, I would consider that to be not fair chase. If you use a bow - then it is. Just my opinion.

One mans fair chase is another mans "guided" hunt....

Ben Lamb said:

It's only couch hunting if you shoot it closer than 1/4 mile to the road. Anything other than that is severe manual labor. No critter exemplifies "the fun's over after the animal is down" more than a North American Bison.

As for Africa - I don't think it's fair to compare the African model to the North American Model simply because of the much different societal issues each country faces.

As for pronghorn & blinds - if you use a rifle, then yes, I would consider that to be not fair chase. If you use a bow - then it is. Just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Interesting reply.

I guess I take into account the animals demeanor toward humans. If I can walk in plain site of an animal closer than 100 yards and it does not seem spooked I dont' see how you can consider that a fair chase hunt for a wild animal. Clearly those bison are not afraid of humans and with no fear of humans it might as well be a cow/donkey/horse/mule hunt IMO. I choose not to "hunt" animals that are generally not afraid of humans no matter how far they are from a road which does not change things IMO but I have no problem with those that do. It's just not for me.

On the differences in hunting in various countries I really don't care what country you are in. If you are sitting over a water hole waiting for wild free range animals to come in for a drink so you can shoot them, it's the same no matter where you are. The animals have to have water to survive, that gives the hunter in that scenario a huge advantage. Doing it in Africa is no different than in Arizona IMO. The strategy of the hunt is more important than what state or country it is taking place IMO.

As for pronghorn hunting over water. I dont' see much difference in the weapon used as the hunt is still basically the same, only the range at which you can shoot has changed. Shooting an antelope at a water hole at 50 yards with a bow is not much different than shooting an antelope at a water hole at 100 yards with a gun. Calling one fair chase and the other not fair chase is simply not realistic IMO. The strategy of the hunt determines if it is fair chase, not the weapon used.

Just my opinion.

roadhunter said:

Do you view hunting antelope in Arizona out of a blind over a water hole where animals have to come in for daily sustenance any differently?

Click to expand...

Not my cup of tea either, although as Ben stated it would be a lot more in the fair chase realm with a bow than a rifle. I much prefer spot/stalk of all western game, especially pronghorn. and that's about the only way I also hunt deer and elk out in Wyoming every year. However, what someone else wants to do is up them if it's legal and the only thing I'm totally against is what is commonly referred to as a "canned" hunt where there is no doubt a person is going home with the animal they paid for. That is a "shoot" and no way should be called hunting of any sort. I grew up stand hunting for deer here in MI and I have a very hard time even doing it any more after spending 20 years hunting out in Wyoming because it's boring just sitting and waiting. I'd probably not do it at all if I didn't have money invested in my place up north. There will come a time in the future when I'll come full circle though and have to go back to only that when I can no longer hunt the mountains out west. In the meantime, I'm trying to spend as much time as I can out west and at 66 I still have a decent number of years left out there if my health stays as good as it has always been.

"Fair Chase" is not a platonistic value that exists independent of human opinion. We as hunters get to define it.

In the same way we define what an adult is(age 18), there can be a significant variance in the "adultness" of 18 year olds. Some never get there. Some get there early.

We do it with speed limits, taxes, and all sorts of other arbitrary thresholds we must define. It doesn't mean there aren't exceptions, or that our definitions are coming from some absolute objective moral code. We have to declare our own thresholds and define things to achieve standards and make our language useful when we say Fair Chase.

Pope and Young has. If they are fenced in, it doesn't fall under the consensus definition of Fair Chase. And it should stay as such.

The direction of where this thread is going, is exactly why I don't get hung up on the "Fair chase" aspects and would rather stick to the disease issue. I have my definition of what is Fair Chase to me, but that might not fit well with someone else.

The one topic very relevant to this issue is the disease issue. There is not ambiguity or subjectiveness to that issue. It is a function of science. The strongest case against these type of facilities is the diseases issue, and the weakest case to try and defend.

Once you start getting in the issues of "fair chase," it starts down the path of weapons or tactics applied. Most often, that becomes and issue of personal preferences, not ethics. That does not mean I have no preferences that guide my actions, rather I just accept that some will have different preferences.

I think someone might have mentioned this out on the Orion FB thread. The bigger concern about preferences/ethics is not how it affects our individual situation, rather how it affects the larger perception of what the rest of societ has of our actions. Society at large will determine what is acceptable or not acceptable, in any activity, not just hunting. Our relevance to society is going to decide what value society places on our activities. If society sees us as nothing but penned shooters, no amount of conservation work is going to convince society that we are worth the liability they see in the other activities they find distasteful.

Some may say, "Screw society, I'm gonna do what I want." Well, that is you right to do what you want, just as it is the right of voters to decide what they accept and don't accept. There seems to be a level of selfishness when one says they can do as they damned well please, even when it is a known detriment to the future of the collective group that person wants to be a part of.

In this instance, penned shooters want to be considered a part of the bigger hunting community. Yet, the bigger hunting community is astute enough recognize what a negative impact penned shooting has on society's collective impression of hunting. As a result, most of the hunting community rejects the penned shooting idea. From the perspective of the future of hunting and its role in our society, penned shooting is all liabilities and no assets.

Everyone has their own version or idea of what is fair chase. P&Y and B&C are both solid fair chase foundations, but the way WE as a hunting community desire these records really drives me insane anymore. We have turned them into some GLORIFIED bible of hunting and it measures nothing but the inches.

What about the hunt? What about the damn hunt? Is it just the inches...

Don't get me wrong, I love big animals. I love everything about them! I consider myself a trophy hunter, but being real honest, I could give two craps about my name being in a book as #1. I want to HUNT. I want to be challenged. I want to work my ass off because that is what makes the success so sweet!

We as a hunting culture have become very obsessed with who's hunts are the hardest. DIY public land hunting on a general or OTC hunt is probably the hardest hunt to consistently be successful at. Going out of state or out of the country on your own is probably even harder. This is something we should be proud of, as the success is not predictable, in fact it's not likely. I think those of who hunt by ourselves or just with a friend understand how hard this type of hunting and MOST of us choose to hunt this way.

Personally, I don't like the term hunting with anything high fenced.

Do I think anything is wrong with it? No, but it's not hunting, it's killing. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with killing, if you are going to eat the meat and celebrate the life of the animal.

The issue of diseases if factual based, is no brainer issue.

Do I like Ted Nugent? I guess at the core I do.
Do I agree with Ted Nugent on this topic? Nope

Do I wish P&Y and B&C would take names off the record books? No, because someone else will just start another book. The records are not the problem any way, all we have to do is look in the mirror to see the problem.