©2017 by Sacramento Safari Club. | Site Designed & Managed by Qlixite

March 28, 2017

March 28, 2017

Please reload

Recent Posts

Sacramento Safari Club 39th Annual Fundraiser

February 13, 2018

1/5
Please reload

Featured Posts

September 2016 Newsletter

September 15, 2016

WELCOME GRANITE BAY & SUTTER BUTTES CHAPTER MEMBERS!

We would like to welcome our new members from Granite Bay and Sutter Buttes chapters! This brings our total membership to 419 with 94 of you being Life Chapter members! Thank you for your support and we look forward to seeing you at our 2017 Fundraiser in March.

 

CAN HUNTERS AND NON-HUNTERS SHARE VALUES?
By Tovar Cerulli

Sometimes the drama plays out on an international stage, as it did last summer with Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe. Sometimes it plays out locally, as it does every year with predator-hunting contests across North America.

 

Whatever the scale of the spectacle, the actors and scripts are familiar. In one scene, critics denounce hunters for taking the lives of fellow mammals merely for entertainment, prize money, or a head on a wall. They launch petitions against sport hunting, trophy hunting, and killing contests. Some even make death threats.

 

In the next scene, defenders respond. They uphold legal, regulated hunting as a wildlife management tool. They credit hunting with providing economic resources and incentives necessary to conserve populations and prevent poaching.

 

Verbal Volleys

In these verbal volleys, critics and defenders hear little of what the other says. They talk past each other. Critics speak a language of morality, while defenders speak a language of practicality. Some defenders hear an attack on one as an attack on all. As they see it, we are locked in a battle: hunters and supporters versus “antis.” With enemies poised to take advantage of breaks in our ranks, we cannot afford to be divided by quibbles over particular practices. Any criticism must be met with a vigorous defense of all legal hunting.

 

This siege mentality is understandable. It is also part of the problem. It polarizes and oversimplifies matters. There are not two sides to hunting debates: pro and anti. People have a wide spectrum of views. Only at the extremes do they approve or disapprove of all hunting, regardless of the purposes involved. This mentality deafens us. Pigeonholing critics as “antis,” we hear only their outrage. We fail to hear their values.

 

Most criticisms of hunting are rooted in two core beliefs. First, respect for life: the idea that life is sacred and should only be taken for good reason. And second, animal welfare: the idea that fellow creatures should not suffer unnecessarily. These are not wacky beliefs disseminated by extremists. These beliefs are shared by millions of people around the globe. What’s more, they are central to hunting traditions across cultures.

 

Perceived Motives

Consider the fact that approval for hunting depends on perceived motive. While 85 percent of American adults approve of hunting for meat, only 28 percent approve of hunting for trophies. This is an expression of what I call an ethic of utilization. According to this ethic, animals should only be killed for serious purposes, especially substantial use. Across hunting traditions—in everything from traditional prayers to wanton waste laws—we hear the same idea: Life must be respected. Frivolous or wasteful killing is unacceptable.

 

Consider, too, that when the Cecil story broke, outrage was sparked in part by the news that he was wounded two days before being killed. Such outrage is rooted in an animal-welfare ethic. Across hunting traditions—especially in the ideal of the swift, humane “clean kill”—we hear the same idea: Animals should not suffer. In light of these shared values, hunters have a choice.

 

One option is to fortify the siege. Faced with moral questions, we can keep rolling out technical arguments and financial figures. Faced with recurrent criticisms of particular kinds of hunting—and particular motives, behaviors, and attitudes—we can keep imagining ourselves in a black-and-white battle in which we must defend all legal hunting.


“Sometimes we avoid talking about the meaning of hunting because we are convinced that non-hunters will not understand. How are they supposed to know what matters to us when hunting media place so much emphasis on massive antlers and depict killing without apparent compassion? How are they supposed to understand our values if legality is the only standard we uphold in public?”

 

If most of us keep playing this role, we may continue to win legal and political battles in the short term. But we will find ourselves entrenched in a cultural silo, increasingly isolated from, and incomprehensible to, the rest of the world. More and more, it will sound as if we want merely to protect and justify our pursuit and have no real ethics concerning animals.

 

Shared Values

The other option is to honor and address shared values. Faced with questions and criticisms, we can listen for the beliefs being voiced. Speaking about hunting, we can—as Shane Mahoney urged at the 2015 North American Deer Summit—“talk about animal welfare” and express “our respect for these wild others more often, and in better ways.” If we take this path, we will find ourselves playing new roles, ones not bound to familiar scripts. We will become more adept at understanding, being understood, and building conservation coalitions. We will discover that hunting is not so isolated from the rest of the world after all. The idea of hunters as respectful participants in nature’s life-and-death cycles has both a deep history and a promising future, particularly in connection with food.

 

As hunters, we must recognize that widespread expressions of outrage over hunting are not random. They erupt when people perceive hunting as a form of vain, thuggish conquest: one that disrespects animals, has no serious purpose, and serves mainly to gratify hunters’ egos. The less concern we demonstrate for animal welfare, the less we are respected. The farther a hunting practice drifts from meaningful utilization of the animal, the more objections are raised and the more difficult it becomes to explain such hunting as demonstrative of respect for life.

 

Consider, for instance, conservationist Jane Goodall’s commentary on the killing of Cecil. In condemning it as an expression of “the dark side of human nature,” she did not condemn all hunting. Rather, she contrasted “trophy” hunting with hunting that yields food for hunters’ families and includes expressions of gratitude and respect. Many people, including plenty of hunters, draw similar distinctions.

 

Better Communication

We must also learn to better communicate what hunting means to us. Those of us who eat wild meat and, in addition, keep and value antlers or taxidermy as evocative symbols must better convey the meaning of the latter. Those of us who enjoy hunting must better convey the meaning of that intensely alive experience. Habitual language is unhelpful here. “Trophy” is widely heard, even by people sympathetic to hunting, as referring to a head taken for self-glorification. “Sport” is widely heard as referring to frivolous enjoyment. Both are widely heard as referring to hunting in which substantial utilization of animals is not intended.


Sometimes we avoid talking about the meaning of hunting because we are convinced that non-hunters will not understand. How are they supposed to know what matters to us when hunting media place so much emphasis on massive antlers and depict killing without apparent compassion? How are they supposed to understand our values if legality is the only standard we uphold in public?

 

In 2007, Bill Heavey of Field & Stream deplored the fact that even the most heinous views and acts are met with “a resounding absence of anger or censure” in online hunting forums. Like him, we should all be sickened by grotesque violations of our values. Where the siege mentality tells us we cannot afford to criticize any legal hunting behavior, Heavey reminds us that we cannot afford to be silent when other hunters portray themselves—and, by association, us—as “Neanderthals who are just after the thrill of the kill.” The relatively few people who are opposed to all hunting, in any form and purpose, may indeed hope to defeat hunters through division and conquest. They may hope to take down easy targets, setting the stage for wider bans. In seeking broad bans, however, they are not likely to gain traction among the public. Unless, that is, we as hunters fail to speak to that public. Unless we become so distracted by a small antagonistic minority that we forget to communicate effectively with everyone else. Unless we become so fixated on siege defense that we lose touch with common values, painting ourselves into a corner where they cannot be discussed.

 

Conclusion

If we want to ensure a future for hunting in this century and beyond, we cannot afford to merely defend everything that’s legal and lucrative. We need to recognize that public support for hunting is conditional and that it hinges on values related to our own. If we respect life, animals, and nature, we need to demonstrate and communicate that.

 

Hunters need not, and will not, articulate a single, unified code of ethics. We will not speak with one voice. But we do need to confront ethical issues. What do you think makes non-hunters more likely to question the value of hunting: moral debates among hunters or our resounding silence on moral matters? In the long run, the risk lies not in discussing values but in failing to do so. The future of hunting does not depend primarily on defeating a handful of committed opponents who loathe all hunting. It depends on demonstrating to everyone else that most hunting is guided by values they share.

 

Tovar Cerulli is a self-proclaimed “vegan-turned-hunter and an environmentalist with a chain saw.” Tovar is author of The Mindful Carnivore and is known for his unconventional logic and fresh insights regarding hunting, nature and wildlife.

 

HUNTER’S CORNER – BOB BROCCHINI
Article by Grant Carson
 

 

Every year, Sacramento Safari Club selects one hunter to receive the honorable “Hunter of the Year” award, and this year, that priceless plaque spells “Robert Brocchini.” A lifelong hunter and conservationist, Bob has plodded hills and braved forests worldwide pursuing a choice variety of species. He started his hunting journey when he was young, going on junior hunts for birds and deer. Eventually, as many can relate, he became occupied with work and family, finding little time for his outdoor passion. Soon enough however, the scope reticles got back on some trophies when his son took over his agricultural business five years ago.


In the past half-decade, Bob has been filling up the trophy checklist: he completed the North American 29, and got a Grand Slam in thirteen months. “Slam” dunk! Not only has he enjoyed tagging out on elk, moose, bear, and other North American classics, he also has taken trophy game in Africa and New Zealand. A notable example of Bob’s variety of game is his Spanish Ibex Slam. When discussing his hunting achievements, I laughed in awe as he told me his Alaskan brown bear is eleven feet long! No wonder he received the “Hunter of the Year” award. The adventure never stops, as he is heading back to Africa in a month for dangerous game. Narrowing on the hunting map, in California, Mr. Brocchini “has taken deer, tule elk, and lots of waterfowl.” He hunts ducks three months every year. Bob’s trophy room continues to fill, and with the confirmation of the award, no species is too tough to conquer. I love to question experienced hunters for their thoughts on firearms and their calibers, and Mr. Brocchini was a perfect hunter to ask. When I asked what caliber he would recommend as a “primary firearm for hunting,” he brought up two classics, the .270 and .30-06. Bob enjoys his special left-handed .300 WSM, and looks forward to passing on his left-hand legacy of firearms to his two grandsons, who are also lefties.
Next comes the predictable deep question, what does he enjoy most about hunting? Bob breathed, then pleasantly responded, “I enjoy spending time outdoors with my buddies, meeting different people, and forming sweet friendships.” Every hunter should have an attitude like this. Hunting itself is a special bonding agent that connects people to those of different ways of life, and I myself marvel that around the world, hunting has blessed locals in poor and remote regions with the gift of food, money, and friendship. Mr. Brocchini gets that, and in his travels, he absolutely loves to be immersed in “unspoiled land, seeing different parts of the world,” like the fresh terrain of Zambia on his recent hunt.


Hunters must not get lost in the wonders of the world’s wildlife and let their ability to hunt back at home slip away. Mr. Brocchini gave me a touching and thoughtful answer for the importance of wildlife conservation back in our home state of California, saying that this state “gives a place for youth to start hunting with an abundance and variety of game.” He also stressed the need not just to educate the young, but also to push back against the intense efforts to stop hunting in California. The whole world is watching SCI in California. This is a battle we must not lose.


“Thank goodness SCI is working worldwide, getting the message out that hunters are conservationists first, and are the reason that many species still exist,” Bob expressed. Indeed, Safari Club is a blessing to wildlife as much as it is to hunters, and the “Hunter of the Year” award embodies Mr. Brocchini’s investment in SCI and his belief in conservation. I’m sure his plaque looks nice on the wall.

SSC BOARD MEMBERS ATTEND SCI NATIONAL QUARTERLY BOARD MEETING
SSC President, Don Giottonini
SSC Treasurer Tony Cline and I attended the SCI National Quarterly Board meeting in San Diego last month. We attended a lot of meetings and have a lot of information to go through and share with our membership. Everything went pretty smooth other than our California meeting. It ran 1-1/2 hours and there were challenges on getting issues settled, but I do have direction on what needs to be done. We need a strategic plan and open communication with the other chapters.
Southern California Coalition had their fundraiser last month and we will do a separate fundraiser for the coalition in the North. I will work on forming a committee. The goal is to select a few Board members from each chapter. National knows the importance of what we are doing in California.
It is official we are absorbing Granite Bay and Sutter Butte. It went thru votes in membership the last two days of the Convention (Friday and Saturday) and it was approved by the entire Board. I assured them that we will honor their membership in the other chapters. The Humane society has requested a list of all people importing or exporting animals for2013-2014 and possibly back to 2001. DC is monitoring this and will advise us when the decision is made.
Our hunting heritage lives on. Some of our hunter safety students this past dove season. They were successful in the classroom and in the field. This is the reason we must fight for our privilege to hunt. If you notice - the girls outnumber the boys. The girls were sharing their dads’ passion for hunting, all good! Madeline Bennett, one of your August graduates, had her first day hunting with her dad. Jeff was picking up to head home at 9:00 am and Madeline asked Dad, “Can we stay until noon?” Yep it gets in your blood.
Don’t forget to Save the Date for our 2017 Chapter Fundraiser – March 18, 2017 at the Double Tree Hotel in Sacramento. Once again, we will be submitting for an Open Zone Deer Tag. The tag allows the hunter to hunt during the authorized season dates of any hunt, using the specific method and meeting any special conditions of the tag for that hunt.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload