The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the end of freedom in
America
By Scott Carpenter
web posted March 4, 2002
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 - 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 noncoercive
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-143
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
fiber.
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 and 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
neighboring 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, rumor 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 rules 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 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 - 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.
In Liberty, Scott Carpenter
Former RMEF Committee member
Dawson Creek, BC
Scott Carpenter is a freelance writer and firearms dealer living in
Dawson Creek, British Columbia. His articles and columns have
appeared in BC Outdoors, Western Sportsman, Big Buck
Magazine, Laissez Faire City Times, Le Quebecois Libre, Ether
Zone, Enter Stage Right and the Sierra Times. He can be
reached for comment at nanook@pris.bc.ca.
Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com