LETTER TO THE EDITOR

This article was originally printed in the February / March 2001 issue of Tracking The Industry. . .

To the Editor,

I am very concerned about the recent comments made publicly by Lorne Scott, Executive Director of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, about game farms and trophy ranches in Saskatchewan. I am quite frankly sick and tired of people like Lorne Scott referring to hunts on trophy ranches as "penned hunts" or "canned hunts". This calculated play on words is obviously designed to sway public opinion in favor of Lorne Scott's position on trophy ranches. This kind of description along with comments made by Scott are all part of a disgraceful misrepresentation of the facts.

People like Scott want the public to believe that a hunt on a trophy ranch constitutes chasing a herd of elk or deer into the corner of a fenced pen while a hunter shoots them as they jump into the wire fence. The other common fallacy is that Americans are willing to come to Saskatchewan and shoot an animal through the fence of a half acre corral. Neither scenario is at all close to the truth.

Trophy ranches are large areas ranging from 500 to 5000 acres and have large areas of trees, lakes, creeks, hills and coulees and have many routes of escape. The fence isn't there to make it easier for the hunter to harvest an animal. The hunter usually never even sees the fence. The fence is there to keep privately owned animals separate from animals belonging to the Crown.

On hunt ranches elk and deer are hunted by stalking or hunting from blinds and tree stands just as they are in the wild. Sure, the success rate is close to 100% but how is that any different than the success rate of guided whitetail hunts in the wild. Every hunter on a guided hunt in the wild has numerous opportunities to harvest an animal and the only reason that a client would not harvest an animal on one of these hunts is either because he doesn't see a buck quite large enough to shoot or he has chosen an extremely inept outfitter.

I know one trophy ranch operator who recently found the sheds of a deer that he has not seen in four years of hunting with his clients on that land. In fact if a non-hunter without the usual hunting skills or a guide were to enter one of these ranches, they most likely would not even see an animal because of the rugged terrain and forested areas.

The important point here to remember is that these animals are privately owned animals. They are not wild elk and deer that are trapped each year in the wild and turned loose on private property for hunters to shoot. If they were, then the SWF would have something to be concerned about. They are private property raised in captivity by owners who care for their animals by providing only the best of feed, who regularly deworm and vaccinate and protect their stock from predators.

Those who wish to ban trophy ranches like to talk about fair chase. In the wild, baiting is allowed. Many think that this practice is unfair. Is it fair to have twenty hunters push a hundred acre parcel of bush while four or five hunters shoot everything that runs out in front of them? Is it fair chase? How much chance for escape is there in that situation? To some like an animal rights activist, "fair chase" would mean trying to run down a deer in bare feet and killing it with your bare hands so when it comes right down to it, what is "fair chase" and whose right is it to determine what "fair chase" is? Should it be non-hunters with no vested interest in hunting whatsoever? Of course not. It should be groups like SWF for wildlife hunting and groups like the Saskatchewan Elk Breeders Association and the Saskatchewan Whitetail and Mule Deer Association for trophy ranch hunting.

The problem is what we have become accustomed to and the perspective with which we view various acceptable and unacceptable practices. Would it be acceptable to place a barbed hook, two feet long in a bait pile, hook a wild elk, drag him around a hay meadow for half an hour with a pickup truck, pull the hook out or if we couldn't get the hook out, just cut the hook off and leave it in, then let him go? Sounds like catch and release to me!

Why not allow the live capture of deer in the wild, fly them across the country to a fancy restaurant in Toronto and drop them alive into a caldron of boiling water? Why not? It's perfectly acceptable to do that to a lobster.

What about the movie "Perfect Storm"? One scene shows the crew winching a cable with hooks every twenty feet on board. Each hook has a three hundred pound fish on it that is gaffed by two or three crew members who drag it on board and gut it while it's still alive. Imagine a half dozen hunters dressed in orange standing in the back of a pickup truck gaffing wild whitetail deer as they winch them into the back of their truck and gut them alive. Isn't it interesting how we look at things in different perspectives when really they are all the same?

Take a look at this perspective. When a beef cow reaches the end of its productive life of producing calves it is culled and shipped to a packing plant where it is turned into hamburger which is enjoyed by all SWF members and their families. Of course no one except extremist animal rights activists opposes this practice. When that beef cow leaves its home farm it can look forward to a trip of five or six hours standing in a crowded cattle liner. That cow is prodded and sorted and put under a considerable amount of stress and eventually ends up inside an unfamiliar packing plant where it's put down with either a bullet to the head or a pneumatic hammer gun. This cow then falls down where its last moments are spent smelling the blood, urine and feces on the floor.

Compare this to the harvest of an elk on a hunt farm. Elk bulls provide antler every year for natural health products but eventually they too become unproductive and must be culled just like the beef cow. The difference is in the way the elk is harvested on a hunt farm. On his last day the elk rises, takes a huge breath and bugles a challenge to all who are within earshot. He is in his natural habitat and in familiar surroundings. He grazes as he wanders the hills he knows so well, but like all elk bulls in rut he is more interested in bugling and jousting with his mates. One well placed shot puts the elk down where his last memories are of the sunlight on his face and the crisp morning air in his lungs. Which way would you prefer to go?

Every farmer in Canada has at one time or another fattened a hog or steer in a small pen in his yard and when it's time to butcher the animal, that same farmer takes his rifle out to the pen, shoots the animal and either butchers it for his own use or for sale to someone else. This is called on-farm slaughter. Although trophy ranches are not operated in this manner, what really would be the difference if an elk or deer were slaughtered in the same manner. Is the way an elk or deer meets its demise any more sacred than that of a steer or hog?

The only difference is that cattle and pigs were domesticated hundreds of years ago while elk and deer domestication is in its infancy. The fact is however that cattle and pigs were once wild animals too. Is there some kind of romanticism about deer and elk that make SWF members think that privately owned domesticated deer and elk are under their jurisdiction?

If you agree that on-farm slaughter of a domestic hog is acceptable then why not on-farm slaughter of a wild boar? If on-farm slaughter is acceptable then why shouldn't this same wild boar be shot for the same meat in a challenging setting on a hunt ranch? Since obviously there is no difference, then why would the on-farm slaughter of an elk or deer on a trophy ranch be any different than that of the wild boar?

The same on-farm slaughter is taking place today on bison ranches all over North America. What greater symbol of our hunting heritage and our rich history than the mighty buffalo herds that roamed our land in days gone by, yet no one has any concerns about on-farm slaughter of buffalo. For some reason elk and deer are relegated to some new level above that of all other species.

What about geese, ducks and chickens raised on farms in Saskatchewan? Is the SWF lobbying to have the production of these birds banned as well. They obviously originated in the wild prior to domestication so does the SWF feel that they have jurisdiction over these birds as well as domesticated deer and elk since geese, ducks and prairie chickens are still hunted in the wild?

Some have concerns about the recent diagnosis of Chronic Wasting Disease in elk in Saskatchewan and would lead us to believe that CWD somehow evolved in domestic elk and deer and is now being spread into the wild. In fact the opposite is true. CWD was first diagnosed in Colorado in wild mule deer that were captured for research purposes in 1967, long before there were any commercial game farms in existence. Of course this disease needs to be eradicated which is exactly what is being done right now by Agriculture Canada's depopulation program. It is not game farmers who are to blame for this outbreak, in fact they are the victims of an inadequate tracking, monitoring and reporting system in both Canada and the United States.

Is it reasonable to suggest that the solution to CWD is to eliminate all game farms and the livelihoods of the families that own them or would it make more sense for industry and the various federal, provincial and state agencies to work together to solve both this problem and eliminate the risk of any future disease issues?

The province of Saskatchewan needs all the economic activity it can muster. The hundreds of game farms and trophy ranches in this province generate millions of dollars of revenue in the form of elk antler products, tourism revenue, income taxes and other economic activity. Hunt ranches alone bring millions of US dollars into the province- dollars spent on airline tickets, hotels, restaurants, sport shops and service stations to name a few. What about the supplies, taxes, vehicles, groceries and other untold needs of the trophy ranch operator and game farmer who live and spend their money in the province year round.

Recently in Montana, residents voted in favor of Initiative 143, a referendum aimed at banning game farms and hunt ranches in that state. This bill was supported by the Montana Wildlife Federation. The day after this vote all hunt farms were banned immediately. No new game farms could be established and those in operation were prohibited from expanding, selling their game farm or willing it to anyone, even their own families. When the owner dies, so does the game farm. The value of their stock, businesses and farms more or less collapsed overnight with no compensation whatsoever. Imagine if this kind of oppression were placed on your business.

Recent rhetoric from the executive director of the SWF suggests that game farmers can expect the SWF to lobby for the same kind of ban in this province.

I have talked to a number of SWF members who are unaware of the SWF official position on game farming and hunt ranches and do not agree with it.

Farmers in this province have struggled for years to try to earn a decent living along side their urban neighbors while falling further and further behind in debt and in their standard of living. All kinds of diversification have been promoted as a cure and many have diversified and become successful in the game farm business.

Like all game farmers in Saskatchewan, I will not sit idly by while an organization that I have supported for years jeopardizes my livelihood and the hundreds of thousands of dollars that I have invested in my operation. I hope SWF members realize that they have a great deal to lose in this conflict.

Game farmers in Saskatchewan are already making a stand. I have 3000 acres of some of the best waterfowl, whitetail and upland game hunting land in the province and until the SWF official position on game farms and trophy ranches changes, this land is off limits to all SWF members. The Saskatchewan Elk Breeders Association is providing field signs to their members which prohibit SWF members from hunting on their land as well and I have enclosed a copy of this sign.

Remember that most game farmers started as farmers and ranchers and own significant tracts of land besides the land operated as game farms. Add to that the land of relatives and supportive neighbors and the amount of land that SWF members will be banned from will be enormous.

You can also expect a mass exodus of SWF memberships as members who disagree with SWF game farm policy give up their memberships in order to distance themselves from SWF and maintain good relationships with landowners. Believe me, we don't want to take this position but one lesson learned from the Montana experience is that complacency is not an option.

Regrettably my son and I will not be renewing our SWF memberships or supporting SWF projects or auctions until its position on game farming changes.

SWF members and their directors have the opportunity to change their policy direction at the upcoming annual meeting and avoid a certain conflict that could for years,divide groups like SWF, SEBA and SWAMDPA who should be uniting together against anti- hunting groups- not fighting amongst themselves.

Sincerely,
Robert W. Nelson

Ph 306-825-4000
Fax 306-825-4009

- Back to Library -

Please report any technical problems with this site to the webmaster