Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Joe Socrates Dialogues with DNR Dave about Feeding the Animals

As usual, Joe has a lot of questions for DNR Dave about some DNR regulations, or the manner in which they are communicated. Joe has been feeding the deer, and discovers that bears are omniverous. They like the deer feed just fine, and even go after bird seed. Trying to keep the beasts and the regulations clear of one another is becoming difficult!

Joe:
Dave, I need to talk to you about feeding the wildlife. I've been looking at the bear baiting regulations in particular, and I don't think I understand them.

Dave:
What seems to be the problem?

Joe:
Well, let's look at the way the baiting regulation is communicated in the winner's notification booklet.

The explicit definition of a "bait station" is that it is a place where hunting is going to take place. This kind of station is not supposed to be less than 300 feet from where bait, simpliciter, has been placed prior to the official start date of baiting season.

By explicitly defining a bait station as a place where hunting is going to take place, this report of the regulation very clearly implies the other logical possibility -- a feeding station where hunting is not going to take place. In fact, the regulation seems to be regulating the proximity of the former to the latter.

Obviously, food could be put in places where there is no intention to hunt over it. It happens all the time. People feed the deer. They feed the birds. And bears will eat both deer food and bird seed. Apparently there's no regulations specifying the ingredients of bear food, bird food, and deer food.

De facto, there's a lot of wild life feeding going on that the DNR allows for. I think there's an organization that feeds the bears here in Minnesota any time it wants. I don't think they've been fined. There is a de facto recognition, and a common sense recognition, of the distinction between feeding stations and hunting stations.

But I am told that in the formal regulations there is no distinction made between places where one just intends to feed animals and places where one intends to hunt. This, of course, would not resolve any confusion. It's a further cause of confusion.

In logic, we call this an inconsistent triad:

1. De facto and de jure we recognize that some feeding is for hunting.
2. De facto and de jure we recognize that some feeding is not for hunting.

Deer hunting regulations explicitly speak to cleaning up deer feeding stations before hunting over the place where the feeding station existed, clearly exercising the concept of a feeding station versus a hunting station for wild life.

3. We recognize no distinction between feeding for hunting and just feeding.

You can't have it all three ways and call the law "coherent", "complete", and "rational".

Either the DNR needs to make the distinction explicit in the law or shut down all feeding of the wildlife to make things simple and clear, or allow carte blanche feeding of the wild life to make things simple and clear.

Dave:
Wow! Look Joe, we can't just allow anyone to feed the bears and the deer anytime they want. That's obviously too permissive!

Joe:
How is it too permissive? You might allow feeding at any time and not allow hunting at any time over bait for either deer or bear. This would constitute at least a small advance in clarity and simplicity.

Dave:
But that would be too restrictive! We certainly want to let people hunt bears over bait.

Joe:
Well then! Why not just let them?

Dave:
You mean without any restrictions on bait stations?

Joe:
Define "bait stations".

Dave:
It's already defined -- a pile of food where you intend to hunt.

Joe:
Well that's already unrestricted except for timing right? I can hunt bears over bear food in season. Why not just let me feed them even if it's not hunting season as long as I don't hunt over the food? What's the reason for this restriction if there is in fact such a restriction -- which is not clear from the statement of the regulation in the winner's handbook.

Dave:
Well, there might be a couple of reasons. First, we don't want people feeding bears regularly and turning them into problem bears. Secondly, some people will be able to feed the bears more than others -- especially people who live in bear country. This gives them an unfair advantage during bear hunting season.

Joe:
Dave, I believe it will be easy to convince you that both those reasons are pure nonsense -- at least in the sense that they completely contradict the de facto behavior and policies of the DNR. If you don't want the bears fed regularly you should shut down any organization that does that in support of bear research, viewing and appreciation. And you should shut down all deer feeding because the bears will eat the deer food. They even eat bird food. They'll eat just about anything. And as far as the "unfair advantage" is concerned, we've been over that nonsense before. You can't level the playing field even in principle if that means equalizing the opportunity and effectiveness of each hunter. It's a hopeless, left wing, egalitarian vision. And it's not the mission of the DNR to worry about that kind of mythical equality. It's the mission of the DNR to scientifically manage the population.

Dave:
Well maybe you're right. Maybe all the feeding should be shut down, at least out of season because it can create problem bears. Maybe the only thing that should be allowed is bear baiting during the hunting season. And no other wild life feeding at all.

Joe:
So you don't think that baiting during hunting season creates problem bears? Many of the bears that feed at these stations are not shot and killed. And they've been taught that humans may mean food. They know very well where it's coming from. So it seems rather hypocritical or inconsistent to worry over the feeding in general. If you think that feeding bears can create problem bears then maybe they should not be fed at all.

Dave:
We have to control the bear population. In Minnesota you'll never see a bear on a spot and stock hunt. We have to have bear baiting to control the population.

Joe:
Well, you could allow hunting over dogs, but that's another dialogue. In the mean time, if you really thought that feeding bears was a serious source of problem bears then we should not be feeding them at all. Apparently you understand that feeding them during hunting season is a compromise that must be exercised in order to prevent the REAL problem bear issue: WAY TOO MANY OF THEM. The real problem is not that feeding creates problem bears. The real problem is that more and more bears creates problem bears. In fact feeding bears, in order to hunt them, may be a way of identifying and killing the bears with the most potential for becoming problem bears.

Dave:
Wait a second. I just thought of the real problem with unrestricted feeding: It may happen in residential areas. It's probably okay to be feeding bears in the wild, but we don't want this attracting bears to residential areas.

Joe:
Dave, if we have so many bears in residential areas that they are available to feed there, then the management policy has already failed. In that case you'd better allow more and more feeding and more and more hunting in the hunting areas -- that's all. If not, then once again, you'd better shut down all the deer feeding in residential areas. If they're there, and if they are really a problem, they'll eat all the stuff people are trying to feed deer and birds. In any event, what's a residential area? Would you say there are now a lot of homes on the North Shore?

Dave:
Certainly. More than ever.

Joe:
And are these homes in hunting areas, full of bears?

Dave:
Yes, many of them if not most of them.

Joe:
And are the bears not there whether or not they get fed?

Dave:
Yes they are.

Joe:
And are you going to shut down all the deer feeding, or even bird feeding, which could turn bears into problem bears in those areas?

Dave:
I don't think so.

Joe:
So basically in those areas, people have to understand the country they're living in, or they shouldn't be there. There's always the possibility of a problem bear, whether or not the bears are fed, and the bears are going to be attracted to most anything, including the wafting of fumes from my summer kitchen on the porch when I fry bacon every morning. Do you want to shut down my outdoor cooking?

Dave:
No. I wouldn't want to outlaw all the cooking and barbecues in these areas that certainly smell delicious to the bears. And there's no question the bears are right there. If they get hungry enough, whether or not they have been fed in the past, they could get aggressive.

Joe:
So what I'm saying Dave is that you seem to be sweating over the wrong things here. The real issue is not feeding bears in or out of hunting season -- it's just how many bears there are and how many bears there should be in a given area. People who live in bear country have assumed risks that people in the city don't. If bear hunters feed bears outside of the season, and increase the number of bears they take as a result, then that just becomes part of the planning input for season length, season frequency, and the number of animals that can be taken each season.

Dave:
But it's unethical.

Joe:
Unethical?! Dave, this is the height of hypocrisy. How could the DNR sponsor hunting bears over bait at any time, and then take the position that it's unethical to train the bear to the bait? What are you saying? That it's ethical to train the bear to bait for six weeks out of the year, but not any additional weeks? This is pure nonsense. And why would the DNR want to get into the ethics business? Phony ethics is going to get this even more complicated. The state of Minnesota obviously thinks its okay to hunt bears over bait AND EVEN NECESSARY AS A MANAGEMENT METHOD. So the DNR should not be regulating the process for ethical outcomes, just legal, management outcomes. There is only one scientific, not ethical question that the DNR needs to manage to: How many bears do we need to harvest in a given area? There's no ethical question. We have to harvest them to keep everything in balance. We're probably harvesting the potential problem bears in many cases -- eliminating them before they reach the "residential areas". The ethical question exists for the individual hunter, not the DNR. In most cases bear hunters simply don't have a strictly ethical question about bear hunting over bait. Instead, it's more just a question about the quality of the hunting experience: Is it sporting enough for me? This isn't a question that the DNR should wax unctuous about. It's just a question for sportsman about their options for hunting bear. If there is no other option, like hunting over hounds, or spot and stock, we're happy to get what we can from the experience of hunting over bait. By the way, this leads to hunting deer over bait. Ethical objections to that is nonsense as well. The DNR can fold the effects of deer hunting over bait into its management plan. It should be strictly up to the hunter whether he finds this method challenging enough. After all, farmers and other land owners hunt over corn and hay and sunflower seeds -- it's an unfair advantage to those of us in the big woods! Ethically speaking what is superior about hunting a buck that's trained to the corn the farmer left in the field on purpose and me baiting deer in the big woods? This ethics talk when it comes to the hunting method is all just unnecessary, complicating nonsense.

Dave:
I confess I always have thought that the regulations about hunting over agricultural plantings or otherwise baiting deer are a bit dainty. I mean I just can't figure out how to make it all fair and equitable without becoming too restrictive. What are we supposed to do? Make farmers and other land owners clean out all of the natural and agriculture products that make it so easy for them? I can see that we sort of allow some priveleged deer hunters to feed out of season, right where they may hunt, but we don't allow the bear hunters to do the same.

Joe:
That's right Dave. Our current approach is just hypocrisy and exacerbates the lack of a level playing field if that's what you're really aiming for. We cannot level the playing field without taking away freedom. So we shouldn't try to do that. But that doesn't mean we have to exacerbate the lack of levelness by design. Instead we should just increase the overall freedom to hunt.

Dave:
There's still something that irritates me about your arguments which, I otherwise confess, seem to be very rational and compelling. Why is it that we don't hear this kind of stuff from more people? Maybe you're the only one that's unhappy Joe.

Joe:
I'm glad you asked Dave. Let me explain something to you. People aren't stupid. My fellow hunter's aren't stupid and neither are the people in your legal department. Both of these groups of people know that the modern, bureaucratic regulatory regime is geared toward maximizing discretionary power. A regulating agency has no clear vested interest in regulations that are clear, simple, or even rational. It's not that I'm the only one frustrated by complexity, unreason, or vagueness, in the regulations. We all know implicitly what your legal department knows. Only court tests can force the bureaucracy to do what it will not otherwise do voluntarily -- resolve the questions. Why would you expect people in general to bear the expense and the emotional baggage of going to court? Everyone just hunkers down and hopes that the discretionary power of government will not grow.

Dave:
Sounds pretty depressing. But I have to admit, I have nearly as many questions about the regs as you do. And I think I understand our lack of an incentive to clarify things if people don't defend themselves in court.

Joe:
That's right Dave. But there may be a solution yet if you agree that it's immoral and anti-democratic for bureaucrats to maximize their discretion by design -- that it's just plain wrong because it serves the bureau and not the people.

Dave:
What's that?

Joe:
The people don't have to take the DNR to court to get relief. We can use the alternative media to expose this stuff and put pressure on the legislature to recognize the relief needed. I believe that the legislature -- people we actually elect -- would take an interest in this problem if we the people start using the alternative media to expose it daily.

Dave:
Sounds democratic enough. I guess I'm comfortable with that.

Joe:
Excellent. A sure sign that you are not interested in power, but in serving the people. We'll have to make sure that we keep you moving up the ranks! But here's one more idea about how to turn things around which is an extension of the people coming together over these regs right on the internet. We should have a law that requires the DNR to submit to arbitration when an accused voluntarily pays a fine. If the accused is convinced the regulation that got him is vague, irrational, too complicated, or otherwise gives the DNR too much discretionary power, the accused can demand, after paying the fine, that a neutral, objective arbitrator review his concerns with the regulations. The arbitrator, if convinced that the accused has identified a problem, can then order the DNR to revise the regulations to be reviewed by an administrative committee appointed by the governor. By law, the committee would be charged with advancing the simplicity, clarity and coherence of the regulations and reducing the agency's discretionary power. The committee would have the power to put the new regulations into force.

Dave:
Hm. Sounds like the committee would be relatively left or right winged depending upon the adminstration.

Joe:
That's true. But remember its a new degree of oversight by the people most affected and elected officials like the governor. So it's a step in the right direction. And remember the law would commission the committee with reducing discretionary power as a goal that both democrats and republicans should agree on. In any event, it would smoke out legislators and others who want to keep increasing the discretionary power of government.

Dave:
I wouldn't mind these regulatory reviews at all if it will make my life simpler. As you know Joe, I don't want any arbitrary power over anyone. I just want to enforce clear, coherent, and just laws.

Joe:
I know my friend. This would make it easier for you in many ways. But we'll have to detail this another day. I have to put some deer feed out so the bears stay away from the blueberries right in my back yard. I don't want them to become a problem. So I have to feed them. Or, do you think I should just destroy the blueberries in my back yard?

Dave:
Not at all Joe. I've tasted your blueberry pie!

No comments: