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.1
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.4
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.5 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."6
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."10 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 expose
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.17 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."21
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.22 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."23
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."29
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)."30
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."33
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."35
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...39
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."41 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."42 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.44
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."45
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."46 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.47
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.
Footnotes
1 "Shame on You." CBS Morning News. Arnold Diaz Investigations. 8 March 1995.
2 "Cumberland Mountain Hunting Lodge." Cumberland Mountain Hunting Lodge.
June 2000 www.cmhl.com.
3 "Whitetail Trophy and Exotics, Inc." Accessed 27 June 2000 www.outdoorshow.net/Trips/Trips/Whitetail.
4 This description is of an actual canned hunt that took place in 1994 and
was captured on video by undercover investigators for the Humane Society of the
United States.
5 Unsigned. "Hunting Exotics Where It All Started." Safari Club International
Texas Hunting Special Section. Tucson, AZ. (2000): 1.
6 "Your Legend Begins Today." Y. O. Ranch. November 2000
www.yoranch.com/RANCH. According to the website, rare and endangered species are
available to be photographed, but not hunted.
7 Unsigned. "Hunting Exotics Where It All Started" Safari Club International
Texas Hunting Special Section. Tucson, AZ. (2000): 1.
8 Phelps, Norm. Killing Their Childhood. New York: The Fund for Animals,
1997. 7-8.
9 Balzer, John. "Creatures Great and - Equal?" Los Angeles Times 25 December
1993.
10 "Cedar Ridge Elk Ranch." Cedar Ridge Elk Ranch. August 2000
www.recworld.com/state/nd/cedarridge/cedar.Capitalization and boldface in
original.
11 Phelps, Norm. Money, Motherhood, and the Nineteenth Amendment: The Hunting
Industry's Open Season on Women. New York: The Fund for Animals, 1999. 1-3.
12 "Forest of Antlers Outfitters Specializing in Trophy Whitetail Bucks."
Brochure. Minoqua, WI: Forest of Antlers Outfitters, undated.
13 "Hunt Wyoming: Antelope, Deer, Elk." Brochure. Buffalo, Wyoming: Triple
Three Outfitters, undated.
14 Smith, Craig. Letter to a fund for Animals investigator. 18 November 2000.
15 For a description of the commercial trade in exotic animals and the role
played by zoos and canned hunts, see Green, Alan and The Center for Public
Integrity. Animal Underworld: Inside America's Black Market for Rare and Exotic
Species. New York: Public Affairs, 1999.
16 Green. 45.
17 Green. 253.
18 Green. 254.
19 "777 Ranch." 777 Ranch. June 2000 www.777ranch.com.
20 "Big Game Trophy Hunting Close to Home." Brochure. Fairhope, PA: Glen
Savage Ranch, Inc., undated.
21 "Broken Arrow Ranch." Broken Arrow Ranch. June 2000 www.brokenarrowhunting.com.
22 Staff member of the Exotic Wildlife Association. Telephone Interview by a
Fund for Animals investigator. 16 November 2000.
23 Green. 163.
24 Benke, Adrian. The Bowhunting Alternative. San Antonio, TX: B. Todd Press,
1989. 34, 86-90. Benke, a bowhunter and bowhunting advocate, says, "Archery
wounding is the most denied problem in bowhunting and the most ignored problem
in wildlife science." pg. 34.
25 "SCI Ethics Process." Safari Club International D.C. Office, Department of
Wildlife Conservation and Governmental Affairs. November 2000 www.sci-dc.org/public/general/ethics.
26 "Hunter and Conservation Ethics." The Boone and Crockett Club. June 2000
www.boone-crockett.org.
27 Posewitz, Jim. Beyond Fair Chase: The Ethic and Tradition of Hunting.
Helena and Billings MT: Faclon Press, 1994. 57.
28 Posewitz. Beyond Fair Chase. 58.
29 Masterson, Robert. "The Trophy Hunters' Loophole." The Westchester County
Weekly 29 July 1999: 4.
30 Masterson. "Loophole".
31 "Oak Creek Whitetail Ranch." Oak Creek Whitetail Ranch. August 2000
www.fordinfo.com/oakcreek. Italics and capitalization in original.
32 "Tioga Boar Hunting Preserve." Tioga Boar Hunting Preserve. July 2000 http://members.tripod.com.petegee/Information.
33 "Welcome to: The European Wild Boar Hunt." The European Wild Boar Hunting
Preserve. July 2000 www.europeanwildboarhunt.com.
34 "Canned Hunts." Dateline NBC. Arnold Diaz Investigations. March 2000.
35 Masterson. "Loophole." Emphasis added.
36 "Cedar's Edge Game Ranch." Cedar's Edge Game Ranch. July 2000 www.outdoorshow.net/Trips/CedarsEdge.
37 "Davenport Game Preserve: The Finest Deer Hunting in the East." Brochure.
Fair Lawn, NJ: Davenport Game Preserve, undated.
38 "WilMar Ranch." WilMar Ranch. July 2000 www.wilmarranch.com.
39 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Captive Wildlife Issues Impacting the
Wildlife Resources of Arkansas. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Report. 16
August 2000: 1.
40 "Welcome to Blackhawk Farms, Home of the Super Bucks!" Blackhawk Farms.
June 2000 www.huntguide.com/bhf.
41 "RockBridge Lodge." Rock Bridge Lodge. June 2000 www.rockbridgelodge.com.
42 "Harry's Lodge." Harry's Lodge. June 2000 www.uswebx.com/harryslodge.
43 There are an abundance of diseases that can afflict wildlife, including
animals in the wild and animals in captivity. For more information about
wildlife disease, whether or not specific diseases are known to afflict wildlife
in your area, and to determine if disease has been diagnosed in captive wildlife
in your area, please consult wildlife disease journals and books at your local
library, consult with wildlife or zoological park veterinarians in your area, or
contact your state wildlife agency.
44 Associated Press. "Elk Have TB: Tests at Corwin Springs Game Farm Show
Positive Results." The Montana Standard 15 April 1991.
45 Michigan Farm Bureau. "Farm Bureau Calling for Immediate, Statewide Deer
Baiting and Feeding Ban." Press Release. 23 December 1999.
46 Geist, V. "Legal Trafficking and Paid Hunting Threaten Conservation."
Transactions of the 54th North American Wildlife & Natural Resources
Conference. Washington D.C. 17-22 March 1989.
47 Prescott, Heidi. "How Hunters Make My Job Easy." 4th Annual Governor's
Symposium in North America's hunting Heritage. Green Bay, WI. August 1995. |
