The
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
and the End of Freedom in America
by Scott Carpenter
Free association can create powerful private
interests but it shouldn't, at least not in a just
society, create powerful public interests. Indeed,
an organization that moves from voluntary
cooperation and education to reliance on the
legislature to achieve its ends has overstepped its
boundaries and become an enemy of what little
liberty we have left on this continent.
I can name a dozen or more organizations of this
nature right off the top of my head. Some of them
are religious in nature, some political and some --
like PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals -- are just simply over the edge. But I
never, not in a million years, thought any
organization I belonged to would walk this path. At
least not until I got my latest copy of
Bugle magazine in the mail.
Bugle is, for those of you who are not
familiar with it, the masthead of the Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation. The RMEF is an
organization whose primary goal is to secure
critical habitat for wild free ranging elk and
other animals. They do this -- as such things
should be accomplished -- through the purchase of
critical lands via voluntary contributions and
through selling memberships to the organization
itself. In short, it is a charitable association of
people who see value in the existence of wild
places and wild critters. It is -- or at least was
-- a non-coercive entity that purchased private
lands and made them (at least in a sense) public
and accessible to all creatures, both two legged
and four.
But when I opened my latest issue of
Bugle to the back page -- to take in as I
always do Dan Crockett's eloquent "Good hunting"
column -- I was left to face the fact that, as an
individual concerned with freedom first, I may be
forced to cancel my membership with the RMEF.
Montana, Canned Hunts and I
For those of you "not in the know" there has
been a lot of debate amongst the hunting community
in past years -- particularly in Bugle
magazine and other mainstream hunting and fishing
rags -- over the issue of canned hunts. Canned
hunts are a simple concept for simple people. They
amount to little more than shooting fish in a
barrel and, in my opinion, are strictly for those
"hunters" lacking a degree of moral fibre.
Indeed, sportsman who are concerned with public
perception see the practice of hunting animals in
enclosures -- regardless of size -- as a black eye
to the honest pursuit of wild game. In fact, the
issue has been so hot that in some states and
provinces various special interests have risen to
"put an end" to the practice of shooting penned in
animals.
A recent news release from the Montana Wildlife
Federation tells the tale of how an issue of ethics
has quickly been blown into an issue of law:
- On November 7, sportsmen and sportswomen won
a key victory when Montanans voted to control
the reckless game farm industry and put an end
to unethical "canned hunts" on game farms. The
initiative passed by a 52-48 margin.
-
- I-143 was a simple and straightforward
effort to reform an industry which has, for too
long, abused its relationships with traditional
ranching and ethical hunting and in the process
has put our wild free-ranging elk at risk. I-143
will amend state law to: 1) prohibit all new
game farms in the state of Montana. 2) Existing
game farms in Montana will continue to operate,
but will be prohibited from charging fees for
captive big game shooting operations. 3)
Existing game farms will be prohibited from
transferring their licenses to any other party.
4) I-143 also repeals provisions of the law
concerning expansion of existing game
farms.
The news release from the MWF continues by
stating that:
- Contrary to assertions made by game farmers
in the weeks before the election, I-143 will not
constitute a violation, or takings, of private
property rights. Historical precedent and recent
case law is clear: "No one has an absolute right
to use his land in a way that may harm the
public health or welfare, or that damages the
quality of life of neighboring landowners, or of
the community as a whole."
Indeed, this is true. In a society of laws based
on the right of individuals to hold and enjoy
property no one has the right to use that property
to violate the equal rights of others. But the
assertion that this law does not violate property
rights -- at least as a matter of reason -- does
not hold water.
While penned hunts are certainly unethical from
a "fair chase" point of view the fact remains that
not everyone adheres to the same set of ethics, nor
should they. And since owning, farming and killing
elk in pens for pleasure does not directly infringe
on the equal rights of others, banning its practice
is indeed a violation of the property rights of
those ranchers it serves precedence over. Only in
rare cases where penned elk spread disease to
neighbouring livestock or wildlife is there room
for grievance. But this in and of itself is not
sufficient reason to outlaw -- regardless of how
unethical it may seem -- the practice of catering
canned hunts.
The Elk Foundation and Crockett's
Confusion
I-143 passed into law almost undetected by my
"bad law" radar and would have remained so if it
weren't for Dan Crockett's most recent column in
Bugle magazine. In it Crockett writes of the
dying breaths of one of Montana's last elk hunting
farms:
- The buy/sell on the biggest elk farm in
Montana is down to the last niggling details.
Len Wallace, owner of the 6,000 acre Big Velvet
Ranch, has had enough of Big Sky Country.
"I want to move back to America," says Wallace.
"America," snipes Crockett, "presumably, is some
place where the people have not decreed -- by
statewide ballot initiative -- that they don't want
elk farms or any hunts that target domestically
raised native big game animals held in
captivity."
Hmm. Actually Dan, rumour has it that America
used to be a place where there was room enough for
everyone. From Christians and atheists, hunters and
vegetarians to potato farmers and even those
despicable game ranchers. We used to tolerate one
another out of respect for each individual's right
to choose his or her own path in this world --
regardless of how unethical we deemed that path to
be.
Yet somehow, either through sheer stupidity or
downright sloth we have arrived at the conclusion
that since we can reach a 50.1 to 49.9 victory via
the vote we may have the moral authority to do
whatever to whomever we please. In short, America
has gone from a democracy tempered by the rule of
law and the rights of men to a majority rule
dictatorship. But as history teaches us, having the
majority on your side does not automatically make
you right no matter how noble your cause may
seem.
So, in adopting this position Bugle and
the RMEF have moved from what once made America
great to what rots her from the inside out. Indeed,
the idea that men should be ruled by the tyranny of
the majority flies in the face of the very concept
of freedom itself. And if the RMEF and their
friends at the Montana Wildlife Federation had
simply let the debate roar or ponied up the cash to
buy those hunt farms out without getting the state
involved then they'd still have my time and my
cash. But instead they took the lazy way out and
sought reconciliation through the use of the blunt
and all too often wielded sword of government. In
the end they've lowered themselves to the same
level as PETA and their ilk. How unfortunate. How
terribly tragic.
Crockett and the Red Horde
"The good news is," continues Crockett, "that
the future owner of the Big Velvet Ranch (who
already owns 11,000 adjoining acres) plans to tear
down the game proof fences and restore the area to
its natural state.... Who knows, maybe the new
owner will let a "horde" of happy volunteers help
lay those fences low... we could heap up a fine
pyre of fence poles, light a raucous bonfire. Some
of us might even use our unfilled elk tags as
tinder. We might raise a toast to America -- the
land of the free."
It's ironic or perhaps appropriate that Mr.
Crockett uses the term "horde" to describe his gang
of "defencers." Perhaps he doesn't realize that as
long as in America the "horde" rules, America the
"land of the free" will always be a distant
republican myth. At any rate, I won't be renewing
my membership to the RMEF this year. Indeed, I'd
rather be an unethical "canned hunter" than a
member of Crockett's red defencing "horde" any
day.
And I suspect this will be a hard pill for the
hunting community and my local RMEF chapter to
swallow. We've been so concerned with public
perception and fuzzy wuzzy metaphors for so long
that we've ultimately forgotten our roots. The
truth is, public perception is far less important
than remembering those few simple but profound
words: that We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I'm curious,
I wonder what ever lead Mr. Crockett and crew to
believe their vision of happiness was the right
one?
Ultimately, it is this simple recipe for living
that should not only protect people like Mr.
Wallace but our treasured hunting heritage as well.
Respecting our differences and agreeing to disagree
is the American way &endash; beating our ethical
opponents into submission with the battered blade
of the state is not.
In the end if we cannot understand this, if we
cannot embrace the simple principle of liberty,
then our beloved heritage is already lost.
As for Mr. Wallace, may you and your comrades
forgive me and the others who did not know and I
hope some day, for your sake and for mine, that you
do find your America.
Scott Carpenter is a freelance writer who lives,
works and plays in Dawson Creek, BC. Canada.
Enrich
Your Life With A Book About Politics & Current
Events
Enrich
Your Life With A Politics & Current Events
Magazine
|
Academy
Showcase Specials
|
|
|
|
|
|
|