Thursday, October 04, 2007
Old-school bear hunter speaks out
Bill Cochran
Recent mail
>Feeding is prohibited Sept. 1-Jan. 31 in Virginia now, and should be outlawed completely, with the possible exception of birds from elevated feeders because of the disease spread potential it poses as well as the fact it is unethical from a hunting perspective. Feeding bears by bear hunters is a practice solely for keeping the bear where they can be easily found so dogs can be put on the bear -- period.
>The main purpose of wanting to chase at night is that it would be easier to get away with an illegal kill, easier to trespass on private land or to violate closed federal property, like the Blue Ridge Parkway property. Bear dogs can only get to be bear dogs by putting bear fur in their mouths. Dragging them off of treed bears, according to many bear hunters, does more harm than good in dog training.
>Bear hunters currently are so successful that they don’t need an extended chase season, night chasing or the ability to feed bears.
>The only way we are going to clean up our ranks of the scum that continue to violate the game laws is to chastise them, make them outcasts and focus attention on them and their deeds. I want to know who the violators are, so I can recognize them and watch them. They deserve no consideration from law abiding sportsmen, from whom they are stealing. If you protect the poachers, you are no better than them.
>Bear hunters for hundreds of years got along fine without tracking collars on their dogs. What’s different now? Organized bear hunting in my experience has become a race to the road crossing, where another pack of dogs can be turned out on the bear if he beats the trucks to the crossing.
Yes, there are still some bear hunters in Virginia who follow their dogs, do it right, and to them I proudly point as the best example of hunting in it finest form. They deserve every good thing we can provide for them in the pursuit of their sport.
I have hunted lions in Colorado and bear in Maine, both over dogs, and both times followed the dogs on the hunt without the use of tracking collars. We did not sit in a pickup and wait until the “beeper” on the tracking unit showed us a stationery target then hustle to the tree. To say that is not what is happening now in Virginia is an outright falsehood.
WALT HAMPTON
BILL: As a cost saver, maybe the hunter who is donating deer to Hunters for the Hungry could go one step further and cut it up. Most of the guys I know actually like going the distance from the hunt to the freezer. I don’t know the regulations that might govern here, and Hunters for the Hungry might be required to have the meat processed at a licensed plant. But this might be a way to curb the $40 processing fee, which seems to be the main distress of the program.
MARTY DAVIS
MARTY: According to Gary Arrington, of Hunters for the Hungry, most processors who are part of the program want the whole deer. This affords them a more efficient way of processing the animal and gives them quality control.
If a hunter wants to process his own deer, and many do, the meat should go directly to a needy family or food pantry, and not through Hunters for the Hungry.
One of the best ways a hunter can defray the Hunters for the Hungry processing fee is to pay a portion or all of it, which averages $40 per deer. “This is one less deer we would be billed for,” Arrington said.
Another way every hunter can support the program is to take advantage of the voluntary $2 check-off for Hunters for the Hungry when they purchase their hunting licenses.
BILL
