Discussions between dog breeders about how hunting dogs are being bred increasingly for beauty and home duties have things in common with the arguments about whether otters are usable furbearers or simply pretty and playful animals to be saved and protected. Each of these current phenomena owes its existence to the ongoing campaigns to eliminate guns, hunting, fishing, trapping, dog-training, and even dog ownership.

In the 1950’s it was common to hear older bird hunters lament the way in which Irish setters had been bred into thin and weaker dogs for dog show competition. It was commonly claimed that the setters were great and strong bird dogs at one time but no more. Today that refrain is heard more and more often about retrievers, hounds, pointers, and an assortment of bird dogs. While certainly dog club standards and dog show factors lead folks rightly interested in those things to breed for beauty or coats, there is more afoot here than meets the eye.

As zoning, ballot initiatives, and state and Federal laws restrict numbers of dogs, care of dogs, breeding of dogs, and facilities; fewer people breed dogs. As rescue and humane groups disparage dog breeding and dog care, fewer people keep dogs. As Federal and state laws dictate how you train or discipline your dog, fewer people keep dogs. As anti-hunter groups look for ways to restrict and eliminate hunting, dog restrictions discourage cougar hunting and bear hunting just like wolf introductions result in growing numbers of fatal dog attacks on hunting dogs and dogs near homes. Add to all this the increasingly tight restrictions on gun purchase, gun transportation, gun use by minors, and increasing age limits on hunting alone (by teenagers) and you have much of the reason for lower hunting recruitment. Lower recruitment means fewer trips for youngsters since adults are required. Fewer trips mean fewer guys keeping dogs for pheasants, rabbits, quail, etc. both because fewer guys make their own opportunities and use commercial facilities and because fewer sons or daughters will care for, discipline, train, and use well trained dogs with only limited use. The bottom line is that while deer and turkey hunting are popular based on healthy populations; good dogs from deer dogs to bird dogs and retrievers are harder to find and less in evidence. Is the resulting loss of “hunting qualities” surprising? Without healthy numbers of hunters who use dogs, the standards for hunting dogs evaporate into fine-boned couch setters with pretty coats. Today, hunting dog standards become more and more a topic for the National Archives to consider recording as opposed practical expectations of hunting dog owners and users. Remember this the next time you hear a call for more gun control, or a call for more licensing of guns, or a call to raise the age for kids to hunt by themselves, or a call to increase the entry requirements for a hunting license, or a call to buy or close more public land to uses, or a call to license and inspect dog breeders and owners, or a call for a law to arrest you for mistreating a dog or horse or some other animal property you discipline or train, or any call for the government to impose the will of anti-animal-use factions on those who use animals.

Otters are another example of the hidden consequences of environmental and animal rights beliefs being forced on us by government. Fifteen years ago Missouri embarked on a very successful effort to restore otters throughout the state through reintroductions utilizing Pittman-Robertson (excise taxes on guns and ammunition) funds. They were spectacularly successful. Then it was found that otters were cleaning out many mountain stream pools of highly sought after smallmouth bass. Also, otters were killing large amounts of farmed catfish (they play with them on shore like a cat plays with a mouse) eating a bite or two out of a couple of catfish out of dozens left to die on the bank. So, despite animal rights blitzkriegs out of Saint Louis, a trapping season was established and the harvest has been maintained, otter populations and distributions friendly to residents have been established, license fees and fur fees have gone to the state for management, many trappers are happy, some businesses (fur and others) are happy, and many ladies have prized otter garments in their wardrobes.

Skip across the Mississippi River to Illinois. Their Conservation Department recently funded their Endangered Species Office to reintroduce the rare and endangered otter to Illinois. Protection (as with the recently arrived wolves and other such species) is allowing for a healthy spreading of the otters but getting them “off” the list will be all but impossible and the refrain is already heard that they are endangered and should never be trapped (for sure) or shot or snared or taken in any way. “They weren’t recovered to be killed” goes the refrain.

So what are otters, endangered species or furbearer? Do you manage or “protect” otters? If endangered species funds recover a species, can it ever be hunted or trapped? (When Congress considered funding CARA and Non-Game programs, the supporters were outraged when hunters, fishermen, and trappers asked if the lands would be open to management and use like P-R lands had been for non-game uses for decades.) Is trapping inhumane? If so, what about hunting, fishing, and dog training? If government can dictate dog breeding, dog care, dog training and dog ownership; what, if anything, is exempt from government and radical group meddling? As state fish and game agencies are undermined and state fish and wildlife and plant management is taken over by Federal laws and bureaucrats; is it any wonder that certain game populations are decreasing and anti-hunters and anti-pet factions are encouraged to force yet more restrictions? Gun restrictions for young people should be reexamined as should shotgun and rifle transport laws. Clarifying some of these issues as we talk with others and as we consider the wide-ranging and harmful impacts of many of the “feel-good” restrictions is the first place to start restoring our freedoms and our wildlife traditions. Purported benefits of environmental and animal rights actions need to be examined carefully and their harmful impacts considered as a whole to weigh the costs. We are paying too much for too little and we are losing the Constitutional protection of all our rights under the guise of purposeful misconceptions by power-hungry people.

14 January 2004

This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91