|
Outrageously illegal hunting practices
Gene Plihal
for Smoky River Express
The recent arrest and conviction of the mid-summer duck shooters in Saskatchewan last month underscores a number of violations that bother, not only wildlife officers, but people who still consider hunting a worthwhile and rewarding experience.
First off, there was the matter of shooting out of the vehicle. While it was bad enough that these culprits shot ducks out of season, they did it in part out of the window of a vehicle and video taped the whole episode. This practice of running down game with a motorized vehicle, while not only dangerous, should infuriate any person who considers hunting to be sport involving “fair chase” pursuits. Before you shoot off of a right-of-way and/or out of a vehicle, remember there is a whole array of enforcement devices now in place including video cameras, DNA testing, wildlife decoys, computer chip implants, Report-a-Poacher and a multitude of other ways to stop this illegal practice.
Secondly, these “hunters” evidently also were unaware of the cardinal sin and illegal practice of hunting without a license. While hunting without a license may seem like a straightforward violation of not buying the necessary license, it can be much more than that. For example, purchasing a license to hunt a specie in WMU 544, for let’s say mule deer, and then hunting the animal in WMU 523 is, technically, HUNTING WITHOUT A LICENSE. Similarly, shooting a moose because a friend has a license is also illegal. And, technically, leaving the license at home home is also HUNTING WITHOUT A LICENSE. And, technically, leaving the license at home is also HUNTING WITHOUT A LICENSE.
Thirdly, these violators allowed the game to waste. They shot ducks and allowed them to fester in the sun and laughed about the whole thing on camera. While I haven’t heard what punishment they received, a lifetime ban from hunting would seem appropriate. The bottom line on this violation is that if a person harvests an animal, normally it is required that the hunter immediately skin and save the meat.
Fourthly, these violators “hunted a migratory game bird using a single bullet”. That is, they used a rifle to hunt birds that may only be hunted, during a legal season, with a shotgun. Anyone who saw the video on national news must have cringed at the idea of anyone shooting a rifle bullet at a flat surface such as a water body, in this case. Anyone who has thrown a flat rock, or any rock for that matter, on a pond knows what this rock does. It skips and glances as a bullet does when it hits water. And, one can only guess where the bullet goes after glancing off of the water surface.
These guys suffered the acrimony of hunters everywhere as well as the embarrassment of national coverage on television of their offenses. Thousands of people, apparently, sent in tips to authorities as to who these offenders were. This is most encouraging that a combination of technology and righteous indignation from the public put these guys exactly where they belong, behind the eight ball.
While a lot of guys still get away with these offenses, the diminishing habitat for wildlife and limited number of places to hunt has had an unexpected spin-off benefit for enforcement. There isn’t the deep, unending bush where offenses may be hidden any more! There are many eyes, ears, and cameras now on the side of enforcement. And, as more and more sympathy becomes evident from the public for the plight of wildlife, there is less reluctance to “squeal” on the offender. At least in this instance, MORE POWER TO BIG BROTHER though I am far embracing Orwellian methods of monitoring people.
As a closing comment on enforcement and changing public sentiment toward wildlife and nature, two interesting facts appeared in national media worth mentioning. Canadians now feel, according to a recent poll, that saving the environment is as important as improving the economy. Wildlife is obviously a part of the environment. People are increasingly sensitive to environmental concerns and this was evidenced in their indignation over the Fort McMurray fiasco with tailing ponds and the death of ducks. Similarly, their indignation over the summer duck slaughter in Saskatchewan is heartening.
The second instance in change of public sentiment involved the cougar that mauled a human in California. The “kittens” of the mother cougar that had to be put down because she mauled a human, received more public financial support than the human victim did. While some may view this as perverse, it certainly indicates a public attitude that can’t be denied. While I firmly believe that hunters are some of the most vocal defenders of wildlife habitat, the bush, and nature in general, the question arises, “How many more instances such as the duck massacre in Saskatchewan can occur before the public bans hunting?” Before any hunter breaks any of the laws mentioned in previous paragraphs and other laws that are on the books, he needs to ask himself that question. But then again, those capable of the violations mentioned above can’t or won’t read this article. Enough of this diatribe.
< Previous
Home
|
