How Anti-Hunting Groups are Making it Harder to Hunt Predators… Even in Texas
Feature Story by PAUL FUZINSKI
LISTEN: (7 minutes, 32 seconds)
AS A HUNTER AND CONSERVATIONIST, the importance of preserving our outdoor heritage for future generations is vital. The recent attacks on predator hunting across the United States serve as a reminder of the incremental, yet dangerous threats posed by anti-hunting groups. They are methodically using predator hunting, arguably the low hanging fruit of the hunting world, as a means to introduce higher restrictions on hunting laws—a strategy often referred to as the “death by a thousand cuts.” Here we dive into how the shortening of the coyote hunting season in Michigan, driven by public perception rather than scientific evidence, parallels the current ban on “canned” mountain lion hunts in Texas.
The issue at hand is far more significant than the mere reduction of hunting seasons. It represents a fundamental challenge to our
rights and hunting traditions. Recently, in Michigan, the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) decided to close the year-round coyote hunting season for three months, from April 15th to July 15th. This decision was based on unsubstantiated social pressures rather than scientific evidence, thereby limiting the opportunities for Michigan hunters to manage coyote populations effectively during this period.
Michigan is representative of a broader nationwide trend of chipping away at hunting rights. The NRC’s decision prioritizes public perception over sound scientific management, a dangerous precedent that threatens the entire conservation community. When decisions are guided by social perceptions instead of science, we as hunters risk losing not only our hunting opportunities but also the effective management of wildlife populations that are responsible for the healthy, huntable numbers of animals.
(Photo: Chester Moore)
In Michigan, the NRC’s actions were not based on any concrete data or scientific studies. Instead, they relied on wildly vague notions of public perception, without providing any evidence to back up their claims. To add insult to injury, these restrictions were put on the table by trapping and hunting groups, likely due to “perceived pressures” from anti-hunting groups (whatever that means?). If we continue down this path, it won’t be long before other hunting opportunities, ones much closer to the species you prefer to hunt, are similarly restricted, leading to an erosion of our hunting rights.
The significance of predator hunting, particularly for species like coyotes, extends beyond the act itself. Predator hunting plays a crucial role in managing wildlife populations and maintaining ecological balance. In conservation, dollars are already stretched thin, and resources limited. Hunting is, as part of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, a vital resource for the control of game species. That is partly why we are required to buy game tags and often report harvest numbers, so state DNR agencies can keep track of how many individual animals are removed from a population every year. This data is then used to steer regulations that control populations of game species to keep the numbers healthy and sustainable.
Anti-hunting groups are well aware of the implications of these incremental restrictions. They view all common methods of predator hunting and trapping as objectionable and aim to use public perception to further their agenda. It’s much easier to show a gruesome image of a dead coyote and cute coyote pups to appeal to people’s emotions than it is to explain the complicated and nuanced reasons as to why hunting and management are necessary to keep animal species healthy across the board. The parallels between Michigan’s coyote hunting restrictions and Texas’s ban on “canned” mountain lion hunts are striking. While overall lion numbers may indeed still need investigation, no one has proven there ever were any “canned lion hunts” or at least they were never presented to the public. That and Ohio’s coyote situation have animal rights fingerprints all over them.
In states like Colorado and California, we see the long-term effects of such terrible policies. These states have experienced a gradual degradation of hunting opportunities, with trapping and other methods of predator control being outlawed. This slippery slope is a real threat, and hunters must remain vigilant to prevent similar outcomes in their states.
As hunters and conservationists, our passion is driven by a desire to ensure that future generations have the same, if not better, opportunities to enjoy the outdoors that we all love so much. The fight to preserve predator hunting is about more than just a three-month coyote season or “canned” mountain lion hunts—it’s about safeguarding our hunting heritage and ensuring that sound science guides wildlife management decisions.
(Photo: Chester Moore)
The Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) is actively challenging the NRC’s decision. They are filing an appeal and requesting the administrative record of the decision to understand the basis for this flawed policy. Their approach is grounded in scientific research, which clearly shows that localized management of coyote populations during the spring period is essential. They presented hundreds of pages of peer-reviewed research to the NRC, demonstrating that the spring period is the optimal time for managing coyote populations. Unless there is any shred of evidence that hunting is directly degrading the overall health of a species population, whether it is coyote, mountain lion, deer or raccoon, hunters should be up in arms any time their right to hunt is challenged, especially since we are footing the bill for the conservation efforts that keep these populations healthy and in balance!
Despite the best efforts of MUCC, the NRC’s decision was influenced by social perceptions, ignoring the scientific evidence. It’s important to remember that this is not a battle against public opinion, but a fight to ensure that wildlife management is guided by the best available science. We must vehemently resist the trend towards social and emotional governance and advocate for policies based on sound biological principles. That is what we, as hunters, are paying for. Every hunting license, tag, gun, bow and box of ammo purchased is funding all the science based research going into maintaining healthy, huntable populations of game species.
The attack on predator hunting is a critical issue that affects all hunters, regardless of their preferred game. The recent decisions in Michigan and Texas highlight the dangers of allowing social perceptions to dictate wildlife management policies. We must stand together and advocate for science-based management to ensure that future generations can enjoy the same hunting opportunities that we cherish. It has been proven time and time again that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is effective, conserves wildlife and is self-sufficient in its funding. No matter if implemented in America, Africa or anywhere in the world, it simply works. When hunters ban together and protect wildlife, while enjoying the fruits of their conservation dollars, everyone wins.
—story by PAUL FUZINSKI
