Mt. St. Helens Elk Hunt “Usual Bogus BS” From The U.S. Forestry Service
July 13, 2007
My good friend “Moose” at Moose Droppings, whom I respect for his opinion and hard work as a fellow blogger, disagrees with me on an issue that involves the state of Washington requiring anyone wishing to apply for a handful of elk permits to hunt in the remote part of the “blast zone” around the mountain, must complete a Master Hunter education course. (Moose has left comments on a previous blog.)
I’ve posted a couple of articles on this already. The first article was an announcement of the proposed hunt. The second article, I did today, is about the Master Hunter education course sponsored by the state of Washington.
In that article I stated that I was in opposition to the part of the program that entitled graduates of the Master Hunter program to specialized hunting opportunities.
I was reading a different article I found this afternoon in the Daily News out of Longview, Washington and after having more time to learn more and gather further information about this program, I read something that an official of the U.S. Forest Service said that really turned my stomach. John Wisner coordinates with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
“These master hunters are used as a game management tool. We’re looking for people above the cut to hunt in more sensitive areas like the Loowit — in the public’s eye, to conduct themselves in a very ethical manner.”
If this is the case, then WDFW needs to rethink the management tool they are using. This statement also suggests that regular licensed hunters are somehow unethical and not aware of conservation matters. This statement is what is wrong with this program.
I have said before that the Master Hunter program is good and does a lot of wonderful things for those wishing to spend $20 and a few months of spare time but it should not include the opportunity to participate in special hunts. To imply that a graduate of the Master Hunter program is able to “conduct themselves in a very ethical manner” is elitist and simply not true.
At the end of the article, I found a couple of comments that seemed to agree with my take on the issue. “Devil detail” thinks the effort is an intentional one by the U.S. Forest Service to make the elk hunt itself too complicated and difficult enough so no one will apply.
That’s the Forest Service philosophy: layer on enough regulation and nobody will show up. Probably what they want anyway. “We tried a hunt and nobody was interested–sorry, now lets hire sharpshooters like the Park Service.”….
The Forest Service is required BY LAW to cooperate with what the STATE wants, not decide for themselves where/when/why hunting or fishing is to occur.
Another reader, “Ethical Hunter”, believes that all hunters who buy a hunting license in Washington should be able to have the same hunting opportunities.
” This is the usual bogus(sic) b.s. that the fish and game come up with and I am sure it will be challenged(sic) in court if it hasn’t(sic) been already. If you buy a hunting license in the state of Washington you should be entitled to every thing anyone else is. This advanced hunters program is good but should not carry any weight in draws or hunting privileges(sic). These people can benefit(sic) from the knowledge(sic) and be better for taking(sic) the coarse. This does not make them any better than anyone else nor does it make them a better hunter then others. Hopefully(sic) they will reconsider this unfair and unethical program. “
I believe “Ethical Hunter” has it right went he/she says buying a hunting license should entitle you to the same opportunities as everyone else and that simply by taking a course doesn’t make you a better and more ethical hunter.
The Master Hunter program should eliminate the special hunting opportunities and promote the program for what it is not as a chance to hunt more.
Tom Remington
Most Commented Posts
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
I too respect Mosse very much for all his hard work and knowledge. However needing a Master Hunter education to hunt elk is one of silliest things I ever heard. I only can hope that this does not find copycats in other states, or God forbid here in Canada.
-Othmar Vohringer-
[...] over at Black Bear Blog has been running a series of stories on Washington State’s plan to allow a limited elk hunt in the Mount St Helen’s National Monument with the use of hunters who [...]
Tom & Moose,
For over 80 plus years the management and conservation of our North American game has been paid for and supported by taxes on the sale of outdoor equipment, rifles, ammunition, etc through the Roberts, Pittman Act. We as hunters have always paid this tax. In todays world it is just not enough to support all of the great programs that need to be done to support the wildlife or that hunters want in their states. I strongly support the Master Hunter Certification and I applaud Washington State for starting such a tremendous program. What I also support is that they allow anyone in society to participate for such a nominal cost. $20.00 probably only covers the printing of the materials and the use of the facilities in order to hold the program and the reality is that the state is probably still losing money. I want more people to learn about better shooting, better conservation and making better ethical decisions. I support giving people a reason to participate in this program by allowing the state to hold special hunts that reward participation and I would gladly go through this program for an opportunity to participate in a hunt like this.
I said before that I support the Master Hunter program just NOT the special hunting opportunities and I completely stand behind my reasoning to do so.
For those who can and want to spend $20 to become “a better and more ethical hunter” then by all means participate. Bribing participants with a chance to get a permit for an elitist hunting opportunity does nothing for the hunting heritage and the future of our sport.
Tom,
I frequently hunt on a military base here in Virginia. The base is loaded with deer and the opportunity to hunt there is open to the entire public. All you have to do is take a class and pay 20.00 for your yearly license. The military gets first opportunity for any hunting slots as they should, then there is a group of people who if they volunteer for 40 hours of conservation work on the base get the next opportunity and then civilians like myself who do not volunteer on base get the last opportunity to hunt. (I would love to volunteer on the base but with my other conservation work, I never seem to find time.)
The state of Washington is basically running a plan that says if these people go out and volunteer and improve the environment for all hunters in our state by volunteering for conservation programs then lets reward them by running a couple of great hunts for them. We all know that the states do not have enough money or manpower to do the little things that improve habitat for our wildlife. We don’t always have to agree but I am all for hearing about more people out there doing great conservation work and creating great stories about what hunters are doing to for habitat conservation and wildlife.
Kevin, the military thing you describe sounds like a fun idea and probably nothing wrong with it. I really don’t know much about.
The problem I see in the above article is not necessarily the opportunity to hunt, and not necessarily the program in and of itself. I see the motive behind the organization as something that needs to be double checked. Whether or not somebody mis-spoke is always a possibility but looking at what is quoted by Mr Wisner as good intentions but, if true, is not something I would support.
Read the quote a couple times again. I missed it the first time but reread it a few more since this blog article come some attention. If you read that quote for a minute it really begins to stand out.
The Masters program is cool and something I would support. I think having people “above the cut” is an interesting concept and probably worth rewarding them for hard work and dedication. But Mr Wisner clarifies and tries to make sure we understand that they are “to conduct themselves in a very ethical manner.”
I guess I am not sure who he is trying to convince.
I agree that the comment is a poor one! I believe that all hunters should be ethical in their pursuit of game and no course is going to change whether someone is going to make the right choice. Whether I was willing to take or pass the course, I would not apply for this hunt as there are so many other areas where I could get an elk tag easier then in this area. I will definitely check into this particular story a bit more. Either way I have appreciated the conversation!
Tom, I find it interesting that you state that the Master Hunter has “a chance to get a permit for an elitist hunting opportunity”. Actually, the majority of the tags are not quality hunts. Most of the hunts are antlerless animals in rural areas with high visability to the public and non-hunters. Great care has to be taken when harvesting an animal in these areas. One way of qualifying a hunter for these hunts is to pick from the pool of certified Master Hunters. These hunters have gone above and beyond the general hunting population to get certified. Persons who have completed the requirements of the program are more likely to represent hunters in a positive manner than those who have not. In addition to reading materials, taking a test and volunteering many hours of service in outdoors related activities the Master Hunters must also pass a criminal background check and have no game/hunting related convictions. I would be willing to bet that master hunters are not the hunters who throw beer cans out of thier trucks, leave other garbage in the woods and violate trespassing and game laws. I do recognize that there are a lot of non-Master Hunters who are just as or more ethical than some Master Hunters. How would you propose to give the same tags to only ethical hunters and not let them in the hands of the few bad seeds who give all hunters a bad reputation?
David, I think the Master Hunter program is great and does a lot for hunters. What I dislike is having to meet someone’s standards in order to be eligible for hunting opportunities.
Without sounding like a total jerk, which I’m sure I will come across as, what you have described above is an elitist program that not all people can or would necessarily want to be a part of.
Once again, I support all programs that educate hunters and especially those that help in improving the image of the hunter but I can’t support the fact that you HAVE to be a “Master Hunter” in order to get one of these permits.
I appreciate your input and I think that overall we are on the same page just the part about being able to get the permits.
Master Hunter certification is one step closer to the European system of hunting. In Europe only the social and financial “privileged: can hunt. It takes years of education and course to advance form an apprentice hunter to a master hunter.
If I would not have been lucky to be born into a “privileged†family I likely wound never hunt. When I came to North America I was very impressed with the hunting tradition that made it possible for everybody, regardless of income and social status, to pick up a gun or bow and go hunting.
In my opinion inventing more ludicrous and mandatory money grab programs and obligations will make hunting unaffordable for the average income person.
In a time where we struggle to maintain hunter numbers and to gain young hunters into our ranks the access to hunting should be made easier and more affordable not more expensive and complicated.
A note to David. More education and does not put hunters in a better light. Animal rights do not care one way or another they want us all gone. Regardless of what we do the antis never will approve of hunting, they always will portray us as trigger-happy-beer-swigging-morons in public. Changing how the antis and non-hunters preserve us is one of the great delusions of hunter education. Ethics, another delusion, cannot be taught to a kid at age 12 in a 48-hour hunting course. Ethics are taught at home from the day of birth.
What you describe in your comment is exactly how it works in Europe where a hunter apprentice is assigned a master hunter. As I said at the beginning of my comment, it’s the first step of creating an elite. I agree with Tom in that I support basic hunter education but not all the other nonsense that comes down the pipe and will do nothing but damage our great hunting heritage by driving hunters away.
-ov-
That’s great! You don’t want to live up to the standards of a Master Hunter. I think that is exactly what I was trying to point out. To be a Master Hunter you must represent and maintain a certain standard. When there are hunts that are in the public view extra care must be taken to maintain a positive viewpoint of hunters in general. Especially when dealing with private land owners. A Master Hunter would never display his kill on the hood of his vehicle after a successful hunt, have you ever seen this in general hunts?
Elitist group? I am a hard working person with a wife and three kids who barely makes the bills each month. Yet I am willing to put back into the sport that I love so much. In return for that I get the chance to apply for additional tags that aren’t available to everyone. Shouldn’t those who put more back into the sport get something more in return than those who do nothing more than apply for a tag?
The majority of hunters, including me, are exactly how you describe them in your comment, they are ethical, polite and very active in the hunting community and conservation, and yet none of them has taken a special course to become a master hunter.
-ov-
If everything was on the fair and square, oppentunities would be open to everyone, and a draw would be made to pick the few chosen….then you can instruct, lay down the laws and let everyone know what you expect…if you want to keep your privileges..otherwise, you are creating a “privileged” class, contrary to democratic principle..
You might sat it’s all about “equal oppertunity” except that phrase has been kicked around too much for me to like it anymore…