Disgusted

[Skipper]

Disgusted

Being involved in this Canned Hunt issue is really getting aggravating for me.

I know 3 things for sure.

1. Under current Kentucky Law, the canned hunts as shown on the Bellar Video ARE LEGAL. So long as Deer and Elk behind fences remain labeled as Livestock, it will be legal. Depending on when the deer farmers are talking, these kinds of “Hunts, Slaughters, Harvests or whatever” may or may not be happening in Kentucky.
2. If sportsmen are at all interested in stopping this from happening in Kentucky, they are going to have to stand up together and be counted. Backing away from the fight is not going to get it done.
3. By the Cervid Farmer’s own admission, they can not make a living with deer selling antlers, hides, meat, deer pee, or any other deer product. They have to either sell “hunts” or sell deer to someone else who does sell “hunts” to be profitable.

The last 2 meetings of the 9th District Federation have turned into a Cervid Farmer Fillabuster, and we aren’t getting anything else done other that letting one another know that we do not agree on the issue. We now have about 20 new members in the 9th who intend to stop the 9th District from being a voice for the sportsmen in the 9th and that is a crying shame. The 9th District meets monthly at the Salem Tool Building between Corbin and London on Hwy 25W on the 2nd Tuesday of the month at 7:00 pm just in case there are any sportsmen who would wish to help us out.

I’m getting a little disgusted at some other folks, and I’m not personally attacking you, but trying to understand why certain people are seemingly turning us out to the wolves instead of trying to help us get the kinds of “hunts” depicted in the Bellar Video made illegal in the state of Kentucky. I understand Mark Rogers (LKS Director 8th District) has always been against our efforts, and that is his right to have his opinion, at least he was upfront about that to start with. The ones I don’t understand are the ones that are turning tail on us and running in the midst of the fight. Tom Conley for one aka Multidigititis. I thought that you were the one responsible for the video being shown at the LKS convention, I know you were responsible for getting it to me. If you are working to stop these kinds of hunts, you must understand that they can not be outlawed by the Commission due to the way the deer and elk are classified in Kentucky by law. What is the use in stirring people up to do something about it and then once you get the fire going, throw water on it? Finally, Ronnie Wells. What in the world is up with your comment “In my opinion, all the discussion on this topic, and energy spent with petitions, etc. would be better spent working to improve the league and bringing other groups closer to the league.”? What should the league do? Quit worrying about this and any other issue we feel like is detrimental to sportsmen in this state and concentrate on getting more members? No, this is not going to be popular with the 90 some odd people involved in the cervid business, but there are a couple hundred thousand sportsmen in this state who, given the understanding of the issue, are against it.

Kalen and Schuyler, I appreciate your support of what we are trying to do.

6 Months ago, I had no idea that we had this kind of thing going on in Kentucky. I truly had no idea that we had 90 Cervid farms in this state or that they had such a tight relationship with the politics that be. That fact is, Lou, with his petition the the LKS board wants to expand these operations, create more of them, and mover further along the road of more cervid operations. He also wants the League to support it. That is in direct opposition to what the delegates at the League Convention Policy Development Meeting voted to be the policy of the league.

Last night, the 9th District was presented with a proposal for us to basically support expanded Cervid Operations by our 20 new cervid farmer members.

I will say this, if the League manages to morph itself into a voice for cervid farmers and the sportsmen of this state find out exactly what they are supporting, the League won’t last long with the membership. The League is supposed to be a voice for the sportsmen, and I heard loud and clear when we voted on Dan Fister’s resolution to regulate high fenced hunting operations, that the sportsmen member of the league want and expect the League to work toward putting a stop to what went on in that video in the State of Kentucky. The League members also voted to continue the governor’s ban on the importation of cervids, something that KALA and the Cervid Farmers are seeking to get overturned. If the League leadership wants to go against what the membership voted to do, I think the leadership has some serious problems.

The League can be a premier voice for sportsmen in this state but it won’t be unless the leadership carries out the will of the membership. When the league starts working against the membership’s wishes and voted on policy, it is an unfortunate situation that could lead to the League becoming pretty irrelevant.

Skip Walden
9th District KWFF Director

[Birdman]

Skip, to answer your first question about the statement I posted. I meant exactly what I said. That petition is doing, and will continue to do, nothing but seperate sportsmen. And yes we the league needs many more members, to address this issue and others that are on the table as well as issues that are coming up. Power is in numbers, and we need all the numbers we can accumlate.

As for the league's leadership changing direction on their members, that will never happen. And I have no ideal where you got that type of ideal. To talk with a group of individuals, is to learn. You and I need all the info we can accumlate to deal with any issue correctly. Yes, the league can be and will be the preimer voice of the sportsmen, as long as we gather the correct info on matters and don't let special interest groups influence our direction.

Disgusted, your dealing with one matter, try dealing with a multitude of matters.

[Skipper]

Ronnie,

I believe you are confusing "Sportsmen" with Deer Farmers. Just because we both want to kill deer, it doesn't mean we are a one in the same group. There are a lot of Fishermen in the world. Some of them are sportfishermen, some are commercial fishermen, and others are Aquaculturists. Sportfishermen and commercial fishermen are "Normally" opposed to one another's activities. Sportfishermen "thought" that Aquaculturists didn't make much difference to sport fishing until some of their fish started getting loose into the rivers and streams, now we have problems with Asian Carp, Talapia, and other undesirable fish. In that area, as long as it was catfish people were farming, we didn't have problems, then someone decided there were greener pastures in non-native fish, and now we have serious problems in many areas of the country, including Kentucky, The Ohio River and Kentucky River.

When 20 people come to a meeting of Sportsmen for the sole purpose of disrupting our plans, it just isn't right. Although several of them said they thought the activities on the Bellar video were deplorable, all of them said when it came down to it, that deer were their source of income and they did not intend to allow "hunting/harvesting/ or whatever" methods to be regulated by Sportsmen or the KDFWR.

Maybe we want to call Deer and Elk Farming and High Fence hunting "Sportsmen". For all I know, someone probably wants to call a boat dragging a half mile long gill net in the Gulf a sportfishermen. I don't.

Skip

[daking]

I've kind of let this issue lie since being removed from the CWD task force, but things have come to a pass where I feel comment is appropriate.

As I told anyone who would listen, I believed then that the real issue was not deer farming but high fence hunting. Deer farming cannot be profitable unless the "farm produce" is "hunted" by folks that are willing to pay big bucks to shoot a big buck (pun intended). If deer were truly ranched as traditional livestock, a farmer would get a greater per-acre yield raising cattle. Venison does bring a high price, but it is more difficult to raise, has a smaller yield and does not enjoy the universal demand of beef. In that light, a businessman (and despite any romantic notion otherwise, farmers are businessmen) would choose the more profitable crop.

The argument over the ethics of high-fence hunting are a subject of debate. Safari Club, International recognizes trophies taken during canned hunts within certain guidelines. The Boone and Crockett Club as well as the Pope and Young Club do not. A close colleague is the professional ethicist for the B&C Club. He is a scholar of great renown and repute. While he makes a very sound argument about the ethics of the fair chase, I don't think the issue here is the imposition of anyone's personal ethics and sense of aesthetics as law. This is the very issue that is being fought in the crossbow v vertical bow issue. The consideration should be the impact of high fence farming on the resource and on the entire sport.

I have stated many times there are some hygene issues associated with the importation of non-native deer. Mr. Ortega has pointed out that the Commonwealth imported plenty of elk and that if they were allowed to do so, why shouldn't he? Well, two wrongs never make a right (although three lefts do). Perhaps the elk restoration program was ill-advised with respects to CWD. Perhaps the body of knowlege about CWD was so small when the elk were imported that the potential damage to the herd was not as clear. That's in the past. Would allow the administration of thalidomide to pregnant mothers, knowing it causes birth defects? Of course not. When thalidomide was first prescribed to pregnant women, its effects on their offspring were unknown. Now, we'd never do it. Mr. Ortega's argument regarding the elk restoration program is about as valid as arguing that we should be allowed to prescribe thalidomide to pregnant women today because at some part in the dark ages of research it was allowed.

Another danger that I see from high fence hunting is the public relations problem it engenders. I know that the deer ranching community rails against being characterized in the now-famous DVD from the Indiana case, the fact is that no one in their industry did anything to keep one of their own from allowing the things on the video to happen. The laissez-faire attitude that they would like see with regards to government regulation is apparently the same attitude they have among themselves. The result of their sense of "what I do with my land and my livestock is my business" is that video. As Paul Harvey so eloquently puts it, "self government requires self control." The high fence hunting industry has done little to make sure that its best foot is put forward.

I sympathize with the plight of the ninth district. Of course, deer ranchers should be free to join the League. Hell, they let lawyers and the likes of myself in, so the bar is kind of low. Still, one has to question the sincerity of these johnny-come-latelies. Where were they when we were wrestling the Lake Cumberland pipeline to the ground? Where were they when we were making sure that Craven Crowell (then head of TVA) didn't turn Land Between the Lakes into a rural Disneyworld? The League has worked for the last sixty seven years to protect our resources, sports and traditions. These guys are but a blink in our history. They are asking a lot from us without having worked side-by-side with us when we had other battles to fight. They've come to us with but one issue. Where will they be when this issue is resolved? Will they be with us for the long pull? I'd be more comfortable if they had some demonstrated history.

After being on the CWD task force, studying the issue, discussing it at exhaustive length with the foremost ethicist on the subject as well as with the leading conservation writer in the country, it is my considered opinion that the deer ranching industry is not deserving of any relaxation of the regulations that govern them. I think that this needs to be a core value of the League. President Wells is right about one thing. The League has a lot of things about which to worry besides this issue. The main thing that the League must consider is the protection of the things that the membership values most. The League has gone from some 14,000 members in 1999 to about 9000 as of the 2005 convention (these are the League's numbers, not my guess). My reason for belonging to the League and working for it (and make no mistake, I've worked long and hard for the League over the last fifteen years) is that it is the protector of resources, our sports and our traditions. If it should ever waffle from this mission, I can find something else on which to spend my time, treasure and talent.