December 2009 Ethics Check

[vandangle]

2 things........

1. Where do I sign up for a job like that?     and
2. You're probably sworn to secrecy but I'm dying to know who the "predator" is.  Can we throw out guesses? 

Part 2 was very good.  Well done.  How did you get involved with that operation?  You said something about being invited.  Did you just watch or did they allow you to participate in the culling activities 
I wonder how this guy separates the "hunts" he obviously goes on, you said he's a well known hunting figure, and these culling operations.  Seems like he'd get sick of "hunting" after a while, unless of course it's way to make a living and then it's a job like the rest of us look at our jobs.
Interesting stuff.

[Bob Peck]

1. Where do I sign up for a job like that? 

 

Like anything in this world it's not only who you know but how long you've known them.  You won't see a post on Monster.com or your local newspaper for a job like this but then, you already knew that. 

From what I understand there are a total of nine guys in the company or four teams (a "team" is one spotter & one shooter).  The Predator is the owner (man #9) and finds, quotes and secures the work.  Sometimes they work on the same project and sometimes they work separately from each other.

There is one alternate team to fill in when there are vacations, illnesses, etc. 

An interesting side note is the steady money comes from culling operations around airports, military air bases and other such sensitive facilities.

2. You're probably sworn to secrecy but I'm dying to know who the "predator" is.  Can we throw out guesses? 

You can throw out guesses but I can't respond.

I'm bound by a nondisclosure agreement *and* I gave my word.  Between the two if I spilled my guts I'd get sued and dishonor my promise.

How did you get involved with that operation?  You said something about being invited.  Did you just watch or did they allow you to participate in the culling activities

I've been working in the hunting industry for many years and believe it or not it's a very small community.  After a while everybody knows everybody or at least has some degree of familiarity.

I met the Predator after one of his speaking engagements and continued the dialog for several years afterward.  He has read allot of my stuff and liked what he read.  After an SHOT Show where I ran into him I got the invite and jumped on it.

I didn't get to participate because they do their own thing and I'm not qualified to shoot like they did.  One bullet, one kill and in that 3-4 day period there wasn't a single miss.

As you might imagine the operations they are involved in start with many, many months of preparation that culminates in the actual culling.

I wonder how this guy separates the "hunts" he obviously goes on, you said he's a well known hunting figure, and these culling operations. 

 

I'm not sure he does separate the two.  He talks allot about detaching and depersonalizing in order to kill.  I think his industry persona is what you'd expect (i.e. respect for the animal ,strategy, practice, etc) but the real person behind that persona is rather cold and unemotional.  Truly fascinating dichotomy.

Seems like he'd get sick of "hunting" after a while, unless of course it's way to make a living and then it's a job like the rest of us look at our jobs.

To some degree I believe this to be true.  I'm not sure "sick" of hunting is exactly right though.  I think the lack of challenge in figuring things out is more like it especially when it comes to whitetails.   I see a spark in the Predator when it comes to physically demanding hunts and other species outside of his comfort zone.

To remain in the public eye as a professional hunter you HAVE to hunt and you HAVE to kill big animals otherwise you quickly lapse into being a nobody.  It's my opinion his spotlight in the industry is more about gratifying a pretty large ego than it is money or challenge.  I'm imagining his income from his day job managing the worldwide operations of his team nets significantly more loot.

[WWTRT80]

So, I ask … If you could buy venison tenderloin in your local supermarket meat counter would you give up hunting?

Hell no!!  And I probably would not even buy it in the supermarket.

That 200 deer would make a ton of meals in the soup kitchen   I'm kinda surprised non of the farm hands took any of the deer home.

You have me curious who this predator is but I know you have to keep that information close to your vest.

[Bob Peck]

That 200 deer would make a ton of meals in the soup kitchen

Very, very true and as many know venison donation is a passion of mine.  To see that many deer just plowed into a hole in the ground absolutely broke my heart.  It is an image that will stay burned into my brain forever.

I'm kinda surprised non of the farm hands took any of the deer home.

To put it bluntly they value the respectable money they make managing the property more than they do the venison.  Besides, they are allowed to hunt the place for does pretty much any time the landowner is traveling which is often.

You have me curious who this predator is but I know you have to keep that information close to your vest.

Yep.  Have to.  I debated for over a week whether or not to include that "celebrity status" information in the story.  I could have easily left it out but I decided to because as we all know, "all is not what it seems" in this world and this was one stunning personal example.

Last year I was invited to participate in a culling operation here in VA which was equally impressive but lacked the high level of professionalism I witnessed with the Predators crew.  I'm not saying it was podunk, I'm just saying it was law enforcement conducting the night time operations as they had done for several years and there were misses.  As a result there was a lower yield. 

[snoodman]

It's hard for me to criticize this predator's mindset as "unethical" per say.  It sounds like it's the old "walk in another man's shoes" deal.  I didn't pick up anything in the reading about this guy actually doing the culling so I'm sure it's just business to him.  We all have our "work" vs. "home" persona and for some, work is a little more callous than for others. 
The man's crew is most likely x-military and knows how to dispatch quickly and accurately.  Aside from the 200 deer going into the ground, I don't particularly see anything wrong with this situation.  They're getting paid handsomely for a skill that they have.  No different than paying a plumber in some respects. 

It's my opinion his spotlight in the industry is more about gratifying a pretty large ego than it is money or challenge.

I'm sure this is pretty much true for many of those so called "pro" hunters out there. 

[Bob Peck]

It's hard for me to criticize this predator's mindset as "unethical" per say.  It sounds like it's the old "walk in another man's shoes" deal. 

Pretty much.  My initial discussions and interactions weren't all that positive.  I was coming from my angle (i.e. venison donation) and he was coming from his (i.e. I only eat the backstraps) which I thought was completely wasteful and self centered.  Still think this actually.

I didn't pick up anything in the reading about this guy actually doing the culling so I'm sure it's just business to him.

 

Indeed.  It is just business to him from his company perspective and his filmed hunting adventures (unless it's an exotic species).  He says the only time he can just relax is when he's on his own property and alone.  Even with family he feels the need to take control and provide a successful hunt.

We all have our "work" vs. "home" persona and for some, work is a little more callous than for others. 

This is very true.  I once heard ...

"We are all actually three people in one.  We are who we think we are, who others think we are and who we really are." 

The journey through life or your walk with God, however you'd like to put it, is supposed to be combining all three.

The man's crew is most likely x-military and knows how to dispatch quickly and accurately. 

You've got that right!  Never seen anything like it.  Those guys saved the shell casings and took great pride in the number of empties exactly matching the number of dead deer which coincidentally did NOT contain a single button buck.

I'd also have to point out that we/they endured some incredibly nasty weather on one day and the only one complaining was me. 

Aside from the 200 deer going into the ground, I don't particularly see anything wrong with this situation.  They're getting paid handsomely for a skill that they have.  No different than paying a plumber in some respects.  

Agreed.  I was surprised to learn their bread-n-butter assignments were airports and other secure facilities that had aircraft flying in and out.  Golf courses too from what I remember. 

Made sense but I never really thought about the need for such a service.

It's my opinion his spotlight in the industry is more about gratifying a pretty large ego than it is money or challenge.

I'm sure this is pretty much true for many of those so called "pro" hunters out there. 

I'm gonna have to say this isn't true for everyone.  I have either met with, worked for or hunted with most of them and their reasons for being where they are vary from "it's a job" to "I love what I do" to absolute product whores chasing sponsorship dollars.

[swampthing]

Interesting, in one of my original posts, response to part 1 of this there was some discussion about "celebrity" hunters and the PC attitude.  I wasn't thinking about the predator in the story being one of them.  So basically this guy acts the part on camera for one side of the business and buries 200 deer in the ground for another side of the business.  He tells you how he "really" feels and has you sign a legally binding non-disclosure agreement not to mention his identity.  Yeah, I'd say he's got quite the ego as you mentioned.  He must have a big ego to speak so frankly about his predator philosophy knowing this:

I've been working in the hunting industry for many years and believe it or not it's a very small community.  After a while everybody knows everybody or at least has some degree of familiarity.

I have either met with, worked for or hunted with most of them and their reasons for being where they are vary from "it's a job" to "I love what I do" to absolute product whores chasing sponsorship dollars.

Like you said, no sense in naming names but I bet we all could come up with several people that fit into each of the above categories.  We may not be correct on all of them, but I bet we'd be close to some. 

[Bob Peck]

He must have a big ego to speak so frankly about his predator philosophy knowing this:

I've been working in the hunting industry for many years and believe it or not it's a very small community.  After a while everybody knows everybody or at least has some degree of familiarity.

Let me put it this way. 

I'm a nobody who's made a decent living for my family flying well under the radar. 

I'm perceived by most people in the industry as a friend of a friend because I can drop enough names to be perceived as credible, an outdoor writer, the product researcher dude that does who knows what?! or that guy that knows technology stuff.  I'm a threat to no one and besides, when in a private verbal discussion with no cameras present it's automatic he said/he said situation.

[swampthing]

I'm a nobody who's made a decent living for my family flying well under the radar

I'm perceived by most people in the industry as a friend of a friend because I can drop enough names to be perceived as credible, an outdoor writer, the product researcher dude that does who knows what?! or that guy that knows technology stuff.  I'm a threat to no one and besides, when in a private verbal discussion with no cameras present it's automatic he said/he said situation.

understood, but you can still learn a lot about his personality from this cocky "predator" talk to a percieved nobody.  Even if it is "off camera".  I understand why you would want to experience this culling activity but it sounds like your perception of this person was shaped by more than just his opinion of hunting in part 1.

[Michihunter]

OK here's my take on the story.
1) I absolutely abhor waste. And in my opinion a landowner that contracts a cull that takes the food that 200 deer would supply and buries it in the ground is for lack of a better word a "piece".
2) The culling group has the right to supply this service but once again, they are the ones that could and should promote/demand that the result of their work be donated to soup kitchens. The fact that they don't makes me think they are just as big a "piece" as the land owner that solicited that service.
3)In the end, I do not agree with people killing just for motives that are only done to produce bigger racks so they can also produce more money for themselves. In fact it sickens me that people would even think to hire someone to serve that purpose. However, I do understand there are areas that NEED culling to reduce human risk such as at airports. But once again, not with the wanton waste that was attached to this particular incident.

[hdracer]

A very interesting twist to this story, not one that I had expected.  To me the Predator has killed so many animals in his lifetime that he has lost any respect he had for them.   His crass attitude toward the killing is reflected in his complete indifference to seeing so many does killed then just buried.  I would expect that any emotion he has for his TV kills would be forced and rehearsed for the sake of the show.  Most of us, upon taking an animals life, give a word of thanks for such an opportunity.  We don't take as many animals and value each one that we do take.  There is an emotional connection with nature that the Predator has apparently lost.

The culling operation at the farm doesn't surprise me.  In today's "gotta have it now" society, everyone expects to get what they want when they want it.  However, while it may be their land, IT IS NOT THEIR DEER HERD!   It doesn't belong to one person.  Farmer and land owners can get what I think are called "nuisance" tags to have a few animals removed.  How did this landowner get 200 tags?  Why was he allowed to have so many animals removed?  This large reduction affects not just his land but the surrounding area as well, doesn't it? What gives him the right?  I'm curious--was this done during deer hunting season or outside of it?  If I was a neighboring landowner I would be infuriated that one person was allowed to cull that many deer.

A wealthy landowner may not have the time to contract a few local hunters to reduce their deer herd.  Using a company like this one is effective and very time saving.  The results are immediate.  The landowner doesn't need to wait on the time constraints or tag limits of a few local hunters to fill his need.  Plus there is no liability on the part of the landowner.  It is quick and clean, and it is done with little outside interference.  There is a lot of talk on other forums about this subject.  A recent one concerned a college in my hometown, very near my Mom's house.  As kids we used to ride our bikes through the college.  So even though it has been years since I've walked that area the discussions about culling the deer herd brought up some unexplained emotions.  Why not let local hunters cull the herd instead of spending $10K on a culling company?  Because the company gets all the permits, coordinated with the local officials, comes in and gets the job done.  No wounded animals wandering into neighborhoods, no errant shots, very methodical.  And if done correctly, the whole operation will be done before anyone knows what is going on, especially the anti's.  Local hunters couldn't use rifles in the area, bowhunting would take too long and there is the ever present possibility of getting sued by a hunter or local landowner if something went wrong.  The company is filling a niche created by us as conservationists allowing the herds to become too big to manage effectively on our own, coupled with our society's ever increasing need to build.

On the question about donating the venison from 200 deer--where would you find a proccessor that could handle 200 deer at one time.  Even split between 2 or 3 that is a lot to handle.  Not to mention field dressing that number.  I'm sure the wealthy landowner values his privacy and by donating that many deer would have put him in an unfavorable spotlight and raised some questions he didn't want to answer.  But as hunters and conservationists shouldn't we all be appalled by this ever increasing occurrance?  I'm not saying we should protest like the anti's, but it is all of our resource and we should be concerned when actions like this take place.

[Bob Peck]

1) I absolutely abhor waste. And in my opinion a landowner that contracts a cull that takes the food that 200 deer would supply and buries it in the ground is for lack of a better word a "piece".

I agree.

There is another point of view that contends it's his land, his resource and his decision (right or wrong) to do what he sees fit with his property.

The 200+ deer going in the ground has a back story.  Apparently, the local venison donation programs had already spent their processing budget and couldn't accept even 1 more deer let alone 200+. 

The food banks wouldn't take the venison unless it was processed, frozen and ready for pick up.

The $ to process the deer and put them into the food chain was offered by the land owner but deer season was long gone.  Most of the local processors were unwilling to switch over their operations to process venison as they were in full swing with domesticated animals like cows and hogs.  I'm told that USDA standards prohibits that meat being processed cannot be intermingled with different species.  You do the pork, tear down the machines and sterilize everything, set it back up for beef, process the beef, tear down the machines, etc.

The ones that were willing to help out could only handle a small fraction of the animals that were expected to be killed during the operation.  There was no refrigeration on premises to store the meat except for the landowners walk-in freezer that could only store 6 hanging animals.

So...the attempt was made on multiple levels which sadly and unfortunately failed.  The deer went into the ground.

I believe whatever could have made it into the food chain should have but that decision was not mine and yes, we can say if the landowner hadn't insisted in a near immediate correction in herd ratio the outcome could have been very different.

2) The culling group has the right to supply this service but once again, they are the ones that could and should promote/demand that the result of their work be donated to soup kitchens. The fact that they don't makes me think they are just as big a "piece" as the land owner that solicited that service.

I don't agree.  It's *not* a full service company.  It is a singular purpose company.  The mission is always the same for these guys ... efficiently kill the deer according to a plan provided by a wildlife biologist and move on.  The collection of the deer from where they were killed and the disposition of the carcasses was the sole responsibility of the land owner. 

I'm told that many of the municipalities that employ these guys to do the very same thing on a smaller scale.  These cities, towns and villages either bury them or take them to the local county landfill.  I might also add that I learned in these smaller scale operations there is usually no attention paid to sex ratios.  It's a kill-em-all approach.

Sadly, thiswildlife "management technique" is a dirty little behind-the-scenes bit of wildlife housekeeping (not solely deer I might add) that exists without many of us having a clue.

3)In the end, I do not agree with people killing just for motives that are only done to produce bigger racks so they can also produce more money for themselves. In fact it sickens me that people would even think to hire someone to serve that purpose.

Understood Michi but this is only one example of what wealthy Americans do with their money when they also happen to be hunters. 

I've asked myself (without conclusion) how this particular example is different than for-profit Quail operations that completely eradicate predator species so as to allow their property to yield more Quail to paying hunters or ... municipal deer eradication efforts that are designed to either reduce the impact of the herd on the public lands or reduce deer/car collisions or fish stocking operations that eradicate invasive species and then dump hundreds of preferred species into the water.  It all seems a manipulation of the natural environment for the "betterment" of man or man's perceived vision of how things should be.

However, I do understand there are areas that NEED culling to reduce human risk such as at airports. But once again, not with the wanton waste that was attached to this particular incident.

Trust me on this one ... the image of a bulldozer pushing that many deer into the hole the size of an olympic swimming pool will stay with me forever. 

It felt wrong at the time and it still feels wrong right now.

[Michihunter]

Let me rephrase #2 to give you a bett3er understanding of what I would hope might be a goal of this company. Make it a policy that all culled animals be donated (if possible) to local food banks/soup kitchens as part of the contract. In this particular instance it doesn't appear as though that was possible ( a point I find truly troublesome). If they are as effective as it appears, and knowing that charitable contributions could be a tax write off for the land owner, it would seem to be a no brainer.

In the end I doubt I will ever come to terms with people that turn hunting into the commercial product we see today. I personally don't agree with putting a dollar value on antler points and as such a cull of this magnitude for the sole purpose of making money off of bigger racks just doesn't sit well with me. However, I do agree that it is not for me to decide how someone else chooses to make their legal income regardless of whether or not I agree with their choice.

Thanks for the story Bob. Truly enlightening.

[Bob Peck]

In the end I doubt I will ever come to terms with people that turn hunting into the commercial product we see today.

Not sure who you're referring to here Michi. 

Consumers turns hunting into a commercial product because we consume hunting products. So long as we consume in the millions of dollars per season it is simple supply and demand.  We demand, manufacturers supply. Commercialism enters every open door and every aspect of our hunting experience. 

The hunting shows we watch, the magazines we buy, the guides we pay, the trips we book, the taxidermist preparing a mount, the shop owner selling us that bow or gun, the hunting shows we attend and the dream of a monster buck all feed the beast.

I personally don't agree with putting a dollar value on antler points and as such a cull of this magnitude for the sole purpose of making money off of bigger racks just doesn't sit well with me.

Again, not sure who you're referring to here.  If it's the landowner in this story he wasn't making or intending on making money off the antlers he one day wants to harvest.  As I mentioned, he spent money to adjust the ratios, money to buy/bring in big buck genetics, money to pay his farm hands, etc.  This was all for his personal pleasure.

Unfortunately there is a cold hard cash value in *every* commercial hunt tied directly to bigger racks.  Who would get excited or book the hunt if the ad read "Come hunt monster spikes!" ?

My belief is the dream of a monster buck with monster rack has been sold so hard and for so long it has made shooting a doe somehow less magnificent (it is not) and it has made the less-than-monster buck hunter feel inadequate when he should not.

[Bob Peck]

To me the Predator has killed so many animals in his lifetime that he has lost any respect he had for them.

Yes and no.  Yes he's killed so many whitetails all over the world that they have become a useful and necessary commodity that fuels the outdoor career. 

No he hasn't lost respect for *all* animals he's killed particularly those that he hasn't quite completely figured out   

I would expect that any emotion he has for his TV kills would be forced and rehearsed for the sake of the show. 

It is acting and yes, with whitetails it's usually a very convincing performance. 

I must say (and this is definitely not a defence) that how shows are generally put together is full of "cutaways".  This is a very common video technique wherein certain scenes are shot outside the natural spot, aim, shoot, kill sequence.  Cutaways are shot the same day of the hunt and used to provide continuity to the action when it's finally edited together and yes, this includes the hunter's reaction to the kill.  Ever wonder how it's possible that the camera catches the hunter pretending to track his deer and then captures him walking towards the camera with the deer in the foreground?  "Oh here he is!" is usually the scripted line.

Farmer and land owners can get what I think are called "nuisance" tags to have a few animals removed.  How did this landowner get 200 tags?  Why was he allowed to have so many animals removed? 

I can answer some of this but not all of it.

Most states have what is known as DMAP tags (deer management assistance program), DDP (deer damage permits) and DMP (deer management permits).  New York State has a decent description of the three found here http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7199.html

Since there was legitimate agriculture on the property in the form of a working farm, 10,000 acres in aggregate and damage was easily assessed, it was my understanding that more than 200 permits were available but the wildlife biologist hired to conduct a study of the herd capped the operation @ 200. The reassessment of the impact will now continue for 3-5 years.

I think it's important to point out that I grew up and hunted in almost every county in New York state and have lived in Virginia these past 4 years.  The two states couldn't be more night and day in terms of seasons, bag limits and conservation philosophies.  I legally shot 11 deer last year and could have shot more. This year I shot 6.  I donated all but 2 of the deer in both years.  On my hunting lease (20 members, 2700 acres) we shot 35 does in one day with a WHOLE LOTTA shooting and lots of misses.  We barely put a dent in the goal set by the state's deer biologist of 100 per season. What I'm trying to say is the south is much more liberal and aggressive in controlling deer populations than where I grew up.

This observation is neither good nor bad.  It's just different.

This large reduction affects not just his land but the surrounding area as well, doesn't it? What gives him the right?

All adjoining property owners were contacted.  Their approval was not required for commencement but notification was required.  One of his "neighbors" surrounded him on three sides and is a timber company (120,000 acres).  They didn't give a hoot.  In fact, they were all for it because deer decimate their replanting efforts by nibling tender tree saplings down to nubs.   The only other neighbor owns 80,000 acres and he didn't seem to care one way or the other because he's apparently never around to enjoy his property.   Cumulatively we're talking 210,000 acres!!!!!  That's one large chunk of land.

As I said, my hunt club is 2700 acres in the Blue Ridge Mountains and I've only covered a tiny fraction in 4 years.

I'm curious--was this done during deer hunting season or outside of it? 

Outside of the season and before the spring fawns had dropped. 

I'm sure the wealthy landowner values his privacy and by donating that many deer would have put him in an unfavorable spotlight and raised some questions he didn't want to answer. 

As I said, I didn't get an opportunity to interview the landowner.  I was invited to witness a professional culling operation.  I understand his representatives on the landowner's instruction made a significant effort to arrange the logistics of venison processing including paying the processors.  It was the lack of processors and the reluctance of those that were available to consider processing venison out of season.

But as hunters and conservationists shouldn't we all be appalled by this ever increasing occurrance?  I'm not saying we should protest like the anti's, but it is all of our resource and we should be concerned when actions like this take place.

The one thing I can say about the hunting industry and hunters is everyone is out for their own self interest.  It is absolutely RARE that any form of solidarity exists between groups.  We are constantly in-fighting amongst each other and we spend our money to do so. 

An example is vertical bowhunters outraged that crossbows are in "their" woods and must be stopped at all cost.  Muzzleloaders want their own season.  Shotgun guys don't like having their season chopped to allow muzzleloaders.  And on and on and on it goes and likely always will.

On the other side of the fence (the anti's) is a well oiled, well funded, highly organized machine making significant progress year in and year out eroding your right to hunt.  This is FAR MORE of a threat that the occasional rich guy spending his money foolishly and throwing his weight around.  I am more appalled that 200 deer went in the ground than the fact 200 deer were legally killed.  That's nearly 12,000 lbs of venison.   

Our numbers have been steadily dwindling.  The hunters still in the pipeline are getting older and yet deer herds are exploding in numbers and density as our voracious appetite for land squeezes the habitat smaller and smaller.  This is all a recipe for disaster which sadly began 20 years ago.