Hunting: Big-game, Internet, and ex-Safari lobbyist appointed head of federal agency

Hunting stories abound in the Tuesday, April 5 papers. The Washington Post has a front page story on tax breaks for Big-game hunters, a Christian Science Monitor front page looks at Internet hunting (of real animals) and the Los Angeles Times tells us that an ex Safari hunting lobbyist has been appointed head of the federal agency charged with protecting the nation's wildlife.


The front page Washington Post story, by Marc Kaufman, is headed: "Big-Game Hunting Brings Big Tax Breaks: Trophy Donations Raise Questions in Congress."

It tells of exotic animal mounts and skins being donated to non profit organizations, such as museums:

"Often appraised for many times their market value, the trophies can yield hefty income tax deductions if nonprofit organizations agree to accept them as charitable gifts. And the Wyobraska museum and others have been more than willing.

"According to critics in Congress, top officials at natural history museums and animal rights advocates, this form of charitable giving allows wealthy hunters to go on big-game expeditions essentially at taxpayers' expense -- an arrangement so blatant that one animal trophy appraiser advertises his services under the headline: 'Hunt for Free.' The taxpayer subsidies also encourage hunters to track down and shoot the largest, fittest and rarest of the world's animals, the critics say....

Of the Wyobraska museum we learn:
"Records show that in 2000, Wyobraska took in mounts worth $1.4 million. In 2004, the museum's curator said, the value of donations grew to more than $5 million, even though display rooms and storage containers were already overflowing..."

Kaufman explains:
"What makes charitable giving so popular with big-game hunters is that their trophies are being appraised at top dollar, often using a donor-friendly 'cost of replacement' method that estimates how much a hunter would have to pay to track down the same quarry again."

And we learn that when non profit groups, such as the Wyobraska museum, auction off the mounts, "winning bids are generally 10 to 20 percent of the appraised values." In 2003 the Wyobraska museum "sold mounts with an appraised value of $4.2 million for about $67,000, according to its yearly tax report."

The story is long and detailed. You'll find it on line at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26324-2005Apr4.html

It provides a good opportunity for letters not only supporting a crack-down on this particular activity, but looking at other areas where tax breaks support animal abuse (such as factory farming), or letters condemning sport hunting, or about the purported educational value of seeing mounted dead animals. The Washington Post takes letters at: letters [at] washpost.com and advises, "Letters must be exclusive to The Washington Post, and must include the writer's home address and home and business telephone numbers."

To learn more, from HSUS, about the issue explored in the Washington Post story and how you can get involved, go to: http://tinyurl.com/5dlau



The Tuesday April 5 Los Angeles Times article, headed "Ex-hunting lobbyist to head agency" (Pg F3) is ironically related. It opens:

The Bush administration has selected a former lobbyist of a controversial trophy-hunting group as the interim head of the federal agency charged with protecting the nation's wildlife. Matthew J. Hogan, who once lobbied Congress on behalf of the Safari Club International, was promoted to director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, replacing Steve Williams. Hogan was the agency's deputy director...The Safari Club promotes international trophy hunting of exotic animals, advocates for hunters' rights around the world and sponsors conservation work."

There is nice quote from HSUS's Mike Markarian:
"Fish and Wildlife is supposed to promote conservation. Safari Club International fosters hunting madness around the world and encourages its members to target rare and endangered species."

You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.latimes.com/features/outdoors/la-os-briefs5.1apr05,1,345186.story . And you can politely let readers of the Los Angeles Times editorial page know what you think of appointment by sending a letter to: letters [at] latimes.com. The Times advises, "Send well-written individual letters only; Do not send attachments. Letters should be brief, and may be edited. Please include your full name, mailing address and daytime phone number."



The Christian Science Monitor front page story on hunting is headed: "Hunting by remote control draws fire from all quarters." It tells us "the concept of live-action hunting - done over the Internet - is raising the hackles of everyone from animal-rights activists to hunting groups to gun advocates. As a result, lawmakers in 14 states are now trying to ban the practice, including Texas, where the only such online hunting facility exists. The first paid hunt is scheduled to occur on April 9 on a ranch outside San Antonio, and many are racing to stop the practice before it gets started. The dispute is raising new ethical questions over what is an appropriate form of hunting, and represents another example of the unlimited possibilities of the Internet and the sometimes public pressure to limit it."

We read, "In a rare alliance, the Humane Society of the United States and Safari Club International, the world's leading trophy-hunting organization, are both supporting legislation banning the practice....Even groups that help the disabled hunt are upset. The powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), for instance, has a program designed for disabled hunters, but the idea is to get them into the wilderness or participate in shooting events....The biggest opponents may be hunters themselves."

Given the strength of those lobbies, I hope animal advocates, rather than pursuing this easy target, will use the publicity it generates to remind readers about the cruelty of any type of hunting -- it makes no difference to the animal if he is shot by somebody in the great doors or sitting at a computer -- though the chances of his being maimed and left to die a long agonizing death are greater in the former. You can send a letter on the issue to the Christian Science Monitor (please don't use any of my exact wording) at: http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=CFF0C5E4 or to your local paper when it covers this issue.

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published. I am always happy to help you find an email address for a letter to the editor, or to edit letters.


(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. If you forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts, please do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)