Hunting and the Environmental Movement

Go to just about any web forum on guns or hunting and you'll likely find a screed by a hunter or gun owner about those "liberal tree-huggers trying to abolish hunting or take our guns." The vitriol directed at groups such as the Sierra Club or the Nature Conservancy is heated in its tone and almost nonstop. In particular, most hunters seem to equate the Sierra Club with PETA (People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals), a group with an avowed anti-hunting bias.

The problem with this perception is that it's not true. The Sierra Club fully supports hunting and counts 20% of its membership, including several high-ranking officials, as hunters and anglers. The Club is a full supporting member of the Outdoor Writers Association of America (a collection of writers for the so-called Cast and Blast magazines such as Field & Stream).

The National Audubon Society, another frequent target of hunters and gun owners, also actively supports hunting, and has frequently published articles in its magazine promoting more cooperation between hunters and environmentalists. One of its most respected conservation writers, Ted Williams, is an avid hunter and angler.

The Nature Conservancy, often pilloried by hunters for "taking hunting lands out of the public domain," actually allows hunting on most of its lands and actively promotes hunting on them as a wildlife management tool. The Izaak Walton League of America was started by hunters and continues to be a strong advocate of hunting. Most environmental groups that don't actively promote hunting, such as Defenders of Wildlife, choose to offer no stance on hunting, either for or against.

The tragedy of this antipathy hunters seem to feel for the mainstream environmental movement is this: a coalition of 35 million hunters and anglers with the 60% of Americans who describe themselves as environmentalists would be an unstoppable political force for change in environmental policy. After all, both groups have the same end goal: protect and preserve wildlife and wildlife habitat -- environmentalists for its intrinsic beauty, and hunters and anglers so they may continue to have game to hunt and fish.

Why do hunters and gun owners in particular distrust the mainstream environmental movement? I believe this distrust is born of fear-mongering by pro-gun groups, in particular the National Rifle Association. The NRA, a champion of the 2nd Amendment, has for years equated the environmental movement with liberalism, and liberalism with gun control. In short, the NRA has managed to convince its constituency that, against all logic, the environmental movement is both anti-gun and anti-hunting.

But hunters need to look at who the NRA supports. In the last two election cycles, here are just a few candidates to whom the NRA has donated money: Senator Mel Martinez (0% rating by the League of Conservation Voters), Senator Jim DeMint (14% rating), Senator John Thune (14% rating) and ex-Senator Rick Santorum (14% rating). According to the Center For Responsive Politics pro-gun lobbies (primarily the NRA) have, since 1990, donated almost 19 million in campaign cash, with 85% of it going to Republicans -- most of whom it can be said have a decided anti-wildlife bias.

In effect, hunters who support the NRA in a misguided belief it is protecting their gun rights are harming the very wildlife on which they depend to ply their pastime. They are filling in wetlands, denuding forests and developing wilderness. They are killing the animals they by logic should be protecting.

To be fair, a lot of the blame can be laid at the feet of the environmental movement. Kudos are due to the Sierra Club for its outreach movement, but more can be done. Mainstream environmentalists need to forcefully reassure gun owners they have no intention of joining the anti-gun movement. Democratic politicians can more intently explain they have no designs on sporting arms or target weapons.

Hunters, too, need to realize the error of their ways. After all, what good is it to have the right to bear arms if there is nothing left to shoot? There is much to be gained and too much to lose by this illogical schism between hunters and environmentalists.

10 Steps to Fix America -- #1: Immigration

This is the first in a series of articles about the steps we need to fix our nation. I'd actually planned to make immigration 7 or 8 on the list, but with the Senate again considering immigration reform this seems to be the hot-button issue right now, so here goes:

With the Senate poised to pass what the president calls "a path to citizenship" but most would call amnesty for illegal immigrants, there seems to be a lot of hand-wringing over the immigration issue. Americans seem to be all over the board on this, from those who would round up all the undocumented workers, deport them and build a huge wall on the southern border, manned by thousands of soldiers, to those who would do nothing and keep the status quo.

First, let's look at what won't work. Current estimates are there are at least 12 million undocumented workers and as many as 20 million. We can't round them up a deport them. For one thing, it's logistically impossible. For another, it would be prohibitively expensive; to find and deport one illegal immigrant costs thousands of dollars. To round up 12 million would cost billions of dollars and take at least a decade. Finally, deporting them all would be morally reprehensible; we almost certainly would end up ripping families apart.

At first glance, better border security would seem to be a good place to start. Yet as long as there are jobs for immigrants they will find a way around any measures we incorporate -- the border is just too long. Even if we were to somehow completely seal the border -- again at prohibitive cost -- coyotes would boat them in.

So what do we do? Here is my two-point illegal immigration solution:

1) Call it a "path to citizenship," call it amnesty, call it whatever you want, but give each undocumented worker a tamper-proof and impossible-to-counterfeit card that allows them to legally get a job. Then get them a Social Security card so they can start paying their fair share of taxes. Finally, give them a long, hard, difficult (but not impossible) path to citizenship that involves learning English and staying out of jail.

2) Hit the employers. Hit them hard. Make hiring a worker who isn't a citizen and doesn't hold a tamper-proof card a misdemeanor offense, liable for fines of $20,000 for each person in management at the company, right on up to the CEO. Make hiring illegal immigrants so unpalatable for corporations they simply choose not to do it anymore. When Mr. Agribusiness-owner knows that not only he but all his foremen will have to pay twenty large for each undocumented worker he will change his hiring practices in a hurry.

Despite the rhetoric on the right, people enter this country illegally for only one reason: to work. Dry up the supply of low-paying jobs available to undocumented workers and you stop the influx of illegal immigrants. This will have the desired effect of forcing employers to increase wages for their workers as the labor pool begins to dry up. We should all expect to pay a bit more for that head of lettuce or a hotel room or for our general contractor when we remodel the house. That is the price we pay to see that the guy who picked that lettuce can feed his family. It's the Henry Ford philosophy: pay the workers enough so they can afford to buy what they produce.

The other rhetoric often heard is "illegals do the work Americans won't do." This is pure hogwash. Americans don't want to pick lettuce because Mr. Agribusiness-owner wants to maximize his profits by paying undocumented workers $5.00 under the table, rather than what should be the prevailing wage.

Moreover, let's look at some statistics about employment of undocumented workers. According to Dr. Steven Camarota of the Center For Immigration Studies (page down a ways; table #8) immigrants (both legal and illegal) make up 43.7% of the workforce in farming, fishing and forestry, 34.0% of cleaning and maintenance workers, 25.9% of construction workers and 22.0% of food preparation workers.

Look at those numbers carefully. This means that 56.3% of farming jobs, 66.0% of cleaning and maintenance jobs, 74.1% of construction jobs and 78.0% of food preparation jobs are held by native born Americans. If illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans don't want, why are so many Americans still doing them anyway?

Unfortunately, as things stand my two-point program has little chance of becoming law. That's because Congress is in the pockets of big business, and immigration has always been about big business: a steady supply of low-wage workers to maximize profits. Point number one they could live with, but they'll fight point two to the death. We, as voters, need to ask our representatives if they will support strong sanctions against employers who hire undocumented workers. If they won't, they shouldn't get our vote.

Next in this series: National Health Care

Random Thoughts on the Day's News

In a new poll conducted by Newsweek, 41% of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein and Iraq were responsible for 9/11. A majority of Americans don't know most of the hijackers came from Saudia Arabia; 20% thought they came from Iraq, and 14% thought they originated from Iran.

In an unrelated poll, 96.7% of Americans know Paris Hilton was released from jail last night.

A survey revealed that only 2.2% of Americans (comprised of the Amish and a few scattered survivalists in Idaho) don't own a television set.

I did the math: that means 1.9% of Americans with televisions didn't know Paris Hilton had been released from jail. I call these people "Media Slackers."

When asked about Paris Hilton, 47% of Swedish citizens said they preferred the Rome Hilton. Another 28% said the hired help at the Paris Hilton were rude, and that they now preferred to vacation in Rio.



Enough. Now back to our regularly scheduled blog . . .

The Politics of Hunting

Gun owners (and, by extension, hunters) have been a reliable Republican voting bloc for decades. Many have surmised this is because most hunters tend to be conservative in nature, that a large majority of hunters reside in so-called "Red States" and merely reflect the characteristics of the general populace in these areas.

I believe most hunters vote Republican for a simple reason: gun owners in this country have been conditioned (I don't think brainwashed is too harsh a word) to believe the Democratic Party is anti-gun. Moreover, these gun owners -- mistakenly I think -- are convinced the Democrats long-term vision is to rid the United States of guns and revoke the 2nd Amendment.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has long been the nation's foremost advocate for gun rights. To its credit, the NRA has traditionally been at the forefront for improved gun training and safety and is a tireless advocate for hunters. Unfortunately, the NRA's incessant drumbeat that "liberal politicians" are out to get our guns has become an accepted mantra among gun owners and hunters.

Yet there is virtually no evidence this is the case. As far as I can tell, not a single elected Democrat in the last two decades has called for making sporting arms illegal. Other than the assault weapons ban of the Clinton era and the recently-passed legislation making it more difficult for persons with a history of mental illness to buy a gun, no significant anti-gun legislation has passed in over twenty years -- and the NRA itself supported the mental illness exception.

Yet hunters continue to believe their right to own their shotgun, rifle or hunting handgun is in jeopardy. And that has caused hunters to, in a "What's the Matter With Kansas" vein, repeatedly vote against their own best interests.

Since the resignation of Richard Nixon, who left an outstanding environmental legacy including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, every Republican administration has not just had a spotty environmental record, they have been downright anti- wildlife. From Reagan's disastrous decision to appoint James Watt as head of Interior to Bush Junior's attempts to eviscerate Nixon's legacy and roll back Bill Clinton's National Forest roadless initiative, the Republican Party's record on wildlife protection has been nothing short of abominable. And the party has been particularly ostrich-like on what will ultimately be the seminal issue of our time, not just for this nation's wildlife but the world's: global warming.

This record begs the obvious question: what good is it for hunters to have the right to bear arms if there's nothing left to hunt? Hunters would do better to shelve their concerns about imaginary attacks on the 2nd Amendment and instead look for candidates who support both sport hunting and strong protections for the environment and wildlife.

Finally: Hunting and the Environmental Movement

Should Roberts and Alito Be Impeached?

During their hearings for confirmation to the Supreme Court, both John Roberts and Samuel Alito were asked repeatedly about the docrine of Stare Decisis, to "stand by things decided." Both answered forcefully, under oath, that they would indeed respect the past precedent of the court.

With a series of 5-4 decisions handed down today, both Roberts and Alito have demonstrated that they in fact were lying under oath. First, they helped overrule a 2003 decision by striking down portions of a campaign finance law restricting so-called "issues ads" in the weeks preceeding federal elections. Then they ignored a 1968 ruling to deny taxpayers the right to sue the federal government over its Faith-Based Initiatives. Finally, they took on the 1st Amendment in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case, restricting a student's right to stage protests on school grounds, ignoring a Vietnam era ruling.

Both Roberts and Alito have no intention of following the Stare Decisis doctrine. They instead have demonstrated they have every intention of rewriting the law to conform to their conservative dogma. They lied to the Senate under oath and should be impeached, tried and removed from their positions.

The Economics of Hunting

There's a reason a group such as the Sierra Club, perceived as a "liberal bunch of tree-huggers" by most, would have a hunting and fishing page on their website. It's because most mainstream environmental organizations -- among them Sierra, The Audubon Society and the Izaak Walton League -- recognize hunters and anglers were the first conservationists, advocating the preservation of wilderness and wildlife long before there was something called the "environmental movement." Moreover, most mainstream environmentalists understand wildlife conservation in this country would collapse without the support of hunters and anglers.

In 1937 a group of concerned sportsmen -- among them former president Theodore Roosevelt, Aldo Leopold, George Bird Grinnel and J.N. Darling -- managed to push through congress a measure called Federal Aid In Wildlife Restoration, also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act. This measure established a set of excise taxes on firearms, ammunition and archery supplies with the moneys to be used exclusively for wildlife conservation. That's right: for one of the few times in this nation's history a special interest group actually advocated a tax against themselves.

Pittman-Robertson has been quite successful: 68 million acres of wildlife habitat has been purchased and over 350 million acres of wildlife habitat is maintained and operated by this tax on hunters. Since 1937 about $5.3 billion has been raised, with another $1.3 billion in state's matching funds. In 1950 congress passed the Dingell-Johnson Act, which established a similar excise tax on fishing products. Thanks to several amendments passed in the ensuing years (including the Wallop-Breaux Amendment of 1985 and an extension signed by George W. Bush in 2005) anglers have donated another $5.4 billion since 1950. Together, hunters and anglers have contributed almost $11 billion for wildlife conservation since the late '30's through these excise taxes.

And that doesn't include the millions of dollars contributed each year through license fees, special use fees and stamps, including the wildly successful duck stamp program. The National Refuge System, partly funded through the duck stamp, now totals some 95 million acres -- 11 million more than in the National Park System. Because of hunters and anglers dozens of species -- both game species and non-game animals -- have recovered or are recovering. Among them are wild turkeys, white-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, wood ducks, desert bighorn sheep and many predatory birds including bald eagles and peregrine falcons. Anti-hunters are fond of pointing out that hunters preserve wildlife habitat so they may have more prey to shoot, yet fail to understand that the pelican and the red-tailed hawk don't know the preserved marsh in which they live was saved by hunters to help ducks.

The original conservationists do quite a good job in the general economy also. According to the Fish and Wildlife's National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation, 13 million hunters and 34 million anglers spend almost $58 billion per year to hunt and fish. Entire industries thrive on the money sportsmen pump into the economy, and many small towns in rural America would simply dry up and blow away without the economic might of the nation's hunters and anglers.

Simply put: hunters and anglers are an economic force both for wildlife conservation and in the general economy. Fringe groups who would advocate the abolition of either hunting or fishing would do great harm to our shared wildlife and our economy were they to be successful.

Next: The Politics of Hunting

Why We Hunt

Cultural man has existed for about two-million years. It was just in the past 40,000 years of our existence as a species, however, that we learned agriculture and animal husbandry. In other words, for 98% of our existence we survived by hunting and gathering. For men, hunting is in effect a biological imperative; the hunting genes are hard-wired into our brains at birth. (For women it is the gathering gene, hence -- and this is not a joke but is in fact a theory advanced by many anthropologists -- a woman's proclivity for shopping.)

The short answer for why we hunt is because we're supposed to. As we evolved, the men who had the best set of hunting skills -- speed, endurance, strength, wisdom and problem solving, among others -- were the men who survived to breed and pass their genes to future generations. Indeed, many anthropologists believe mankind's advances in hunting techniques, which allowed him to kill animals much larger than himself, played a large roll in our continuing evolution as a species. Killing large animals upon which the tribe could feed for longer amounts of time left man with a luxury not enjoyed by other species: leisure time, leading to advances in language, culture and tool making that continue to this day.

Beyond being a biological imperative, hunting provides one with a far different perspective on the commons. The great conservationist Aldo Leopold wrote, in his Sand County Almanac (I'm paraphrasing here because I don't have the book in front of me) that "The deer hunter always watches the horizon; the duck hunter always watches the sky; the bird hunter always watches the dog; the non-hunter does not watch."

Leopold did not mean to denigrate non-hunting lovers of the outdoors. Instead, he was trying to show that hunters (and, to large extent, anglers) enter the commons as active participants rather than casual observers. Successful hunters are more finely attuned to their environment. Their senses are more fully developed, their anticipation keener, their powers of observation at their highest. The hunter is more alive than is someone merely on a stroll through the forest.

Some would impugn the morality of hunters, asserting that killing another living creature is somehow abhorrant. This argument fails on two levels. First, know that hunters understand that the logical end game of any hunt results in death. The hunters does not kill with joy, but with a curious combination of pride and melancholy. Pride in the accomplishment of a task that requires skill and cunning, a task that is certainly not easy. (Most non-hunters are either unwilling or unable to understand that the task of successfully hunting any prey animal, regardless of the tool we choose to use, is an extremely difficult one.) Melancholy at the taking of another life. Hunters are not automotons who kill without feeling.

The morality argument also fails because in the end it stinks of hypocracy. We all kill, every day. Who can argue they hold the moral high ground because they let the butcher do their killing for them? Even the vegetarian and the vegan kill -- we all do; we kill with our automobiles, spewing pollution into the commons; we kill with our conspicuous consumption, a system of manufacturing that pollutes and uses natural resources upon which wildlife depend; we kill with our system of shipping goods; we kill with our giant agribusinesses that occupy what once was wildlife habitat. No, I can argue the hunter is indeed the moral one, because he takes at least a portion of his food consumption by his own hands, taking and eating what is, after all, a renewable resource.

In the end, we hunt because it feels right. We enjoy working with the dog, walking with old friends, telling the same stories over and over. We enjoy the pride of passing our knowledge and skills on to our children. We hunt because it's in our bones. As always, comments are welcome.

Next: The Economic Elements of Hunting

Haiwee -- June 22, 2007

Welcome

This is my first post to a blog of any kind. First, a word about the name of my blog. Haiwee is my moniker in the many forums and chat groups I frequent. The first forum I joined, many years ago, was a backpacking group. Little-known Haiwee Pass has always been my favorite east-side entry into the High Sierra backcountry. In the dozens of backpacking trips over Haiwee Pass to the South Fork Kern River I've yet to meet another hiker. Above all, I value solitude during my sojurns into the wilderness, frequently hiking alone into little-used areas.

I am an avid bird hunter and angler, yet I am also a self-avowed flaming liberal. I don't think these traits are in any way mutually exclusive. Look for me to, in future posts, explain this. Also look for riffs on why we need campaign finance reform (including public financing), national single-payer health insurance, an Apollo-like program for energy independence, a significant tax increase on the wealthiest Americans and on corporations alike, a more progressive environmental policy and a return to a foreign policy that does not include pre-emptive war. Finally, look for many posts regarding my love of outdoor recreation, including one in the near future entitled "Why We Hunt."

Coments and suggestions are not only welcome, but encouraged. Thanks for reading.