Obama to Nominate Sam D. Hamilton, a Hunter, as Head of USFWS
Caribou in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, where caribou hunting is allowed.
US Fish and Wildlife Service / Getty Images
President Obama intends to nominate Sam D. Hamilton, "an avid hunter," as Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The USFWS is a Bureau of the Department of the Interior, which is headed by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who is also a hunter.
Why does it matter? The USFWS controls our National Wildlife Refuge System, which one would think would be, well, a refuge for wildlife. Sadly, no. Hunting is listed as one of the System's six wildlife-dependent recreational uses, and the USFWS states on their website, "Hunters get a warm welcome at more than 300 hunting programs on refuges and on about 36,000 Waterfowl Production Areas." State wildlife mangement agencies sell the hunting permits and also have a say.
How do the hunters feel about it? The US Sportsmen's Alliance is pleased, and cites their past working relationship with Hamilton, who has been the Southeast Regional Director of the USFWS since 1997. It scares me to think what they've been working on.
I'm sure that putting hunters in charge of our National Wildlife Refuges is nothing new. The founder of the first National Wildlife Refuge was President Teddy Roosevelt, an avid hunter himself. But then why are so many people surprised to learn that hunting is allowed in these refuges?
Perhaps they should change the name to "National Wildlife Hunting Grounds" so that more people will be aware of what really goes on.
Add to Technorati FavoritesShare on Facebook
Follow Me on Twitter
Comments
I just wanted to leave a comment saying. Most hunting animals is wrong! people abuse this and go along the wrong ways of doing it and have no respect for the animal they are killing. most of these people use it as a sport just to kill an animal and show off there prize.
But on the other hand. i am behind hunting. Im native american and hunting is apart of our tradition. In some cases yes it should be stopped. but hunting isn’t always a bad thing.
There is absolutly no reason to hunt,none,we are not back in the neanderthal days,there is plenty of food “Meat” in grocery stores,and to use the excuse of (Overpopulation) is just plain poppy c**k.
Good to see that Obama has made a sensible choice. A man that is knowledgeable about wildlife and game management. A man that participates in the tradition of hunting. Good to see our Wildlife Refuges will continue to be managed at healthy levels by people who enjoy the pursuit, taking, preparation and eating of wild game.
First, a thank you for bringing this to my attention. However, it’s disappointing information.
To your first commentor who thinks there is a right way of doing a wrong thing in the name of “tradition”. I would like to ask him if he is hunts as his culture previously did? Does he follow tradition by not using a vehicle to get to his hunting ground? Does he use manufactured chemical bait? Does he refrain from using a high powered rifle? With a scope… Does he use a GPS system or other electronic devices? Does he bring along a cell phone? Was his clothing and gear bought at a sporting goods store? And the lunch he brings for sustainance – did it come from a modern facility… perhaps even a fast food joint? If so, – the excuse of “tradition” is only used as a convience. He only wishes to be “traditional” to the extent that he can justify the killing. That’s selective rationalizing.
The second commentor is correct – There is no “over population”. In fact, there are over 10,000 deer and elk breeding farms here in the US that operate similar to “factory farms”. The females are artificially inseminated; their young are removed and bottle fed a milk “replacement”… Afterwards they are either shipped and released to be hunted or are kept to continue the cycle. Many are just sent to slaughter directly when there is a demand for venison or deer hide.
The North American Deer Farmers Association is a great place to begin investigating this secret yet lucrative business:
http://www.nadefa.org/
And there is plenty to eat without the hunting… and without the meat. Any grocercy store is filled with thousands of alternatives to flesh. All by the way, much healthier for the human body.
And lastly Mark – who is pleased with Mr. Obama’s decision so that he may continue to “enjoy the pursuit, taking, preparation and eating of wild game”. Hunters represent less than 5% of the population. Most of society find it reprehensible to take pleasure in killing innocent animals. They do so because inevitably it reflects into the community by desensitizing compassion and encouraging violence. If one may enjoy killing non-human animals, we’re but a step away from them enjoying taking the life of another human. And on the eating of “wild game”… As I mentioned before most deer/elk/cervids are raised in farms anyway… so the “wild” is sort of a myth. And these animals are not “game” – they are animals, like you & me. Capable of feeling fear, terror, pain and suffering. That one would wish without necessity, and for pleasure, to cause this makes them an enemy to the progress of civilization.
Thank you for letting me have my say. And for all you do for the animals.
Terribly disappointing and really sad news for wildlife…
It should not surprise the masses that a person who is an “avid” (meaning–”loves to kill!) hunter would be nominated (and most likely confirmed!) as the head of US Fish and Wildlife Service.
We’ve been brainwashed to believe that only hunters understand nature and can skillfully manage it. Nature does splendidly without mankind’s tyranical oppression.
Subsistence hunting is one thing; hunting for “sport” is unacceptable in a truly civilized society.
Using the word “avid” in connection with killing is certainly cause for concern, is it not?
I find this article and comments very disturbing. Why not make statements with statistics. Hunters are the country’s best conservationists. Even vegetation needs to be managed with hunting. Our ex president formed this committee to ensure our country’s resources are not depleted. There is no more a natural way than to hunt and eat what you harvest or kill. Most funding to keep the forests and wildlife as a resource comes from hunters and license fees. We treat our pets and animals with respect, ask any hunting person with a dog. How many pounds does the HSUS or PETA actually run or own?
Hi, N,
Thanks for your comment.
Our ecosystems do not need hunting. In general, hunters do not stop hunting a species until it is endangered or nearly endangered. The criteria is not whether a population needs to be hunted, but whether the population can sustain a hunt. And even after a species becomes endangered, extreme hunting organizations like Safari Club International advocate hunting endangered and threatened species.
If hunters treated animals with respect, they wouldn’t kill them or eat them.
If you’re looking for statistics:
Stellar’s Sea Cow population: 0
Dodo bird population: 0
Tasmanian wolf population: 0
All wiped out due to hunting.
Hunting also has a detrimental effect on non-hunted species. California condors were dying from eating carcasses of animals who had been killed with lead shot. Hunting is now banned in the condors’ habitats, and the species is slowly recovering.
There are plenty of animal advocacy organizations that run animal shelters, if that’s the kind of animal advocacy you support. I hope you seek them out, because they all need donations and volunteers.
As a wildlife biologist, I must state that hunting animals is not hurting wildlife populations. I believe some of confuse hunting with poching. Without avid hunters buying licences our national refuge system would not be as successful as it is today. Hunters generally respect wildlife and are willing to pay to conserve it. Unlike humans, wildlife does not die from natural causes. With federal and state guidelines, hunting can be compensatory and does not lead to additional population mortality. Hunters do not exploit populations, commercial fisheres and poachers do.
Hi, Greg,
Thanks for your comment.
Is there a typo, or a word accidentally omitted from this sentence: “Unlike humans, wildlife does not die from natural causes.” Surely you’re not saying that wildlife does not die of natural causes? If that were true, we’d have 65 million year old dinosaurs roaming the earth.
Even if hunting had no impact on the population as a whole, hunting kills sentient beings.
Unfortunately, it does have an impact on the population. That’s why “game” species are “managed” to keep their populations high so that there will be plenty of animals for hunters are killed. Some lands are even stocked with animals raised in captivity, in order to provide hunting opportunities to hunters.
Doris
As a student of environmental science, I would have to say that I agree with what Greg has said.
Take whitetail deer populations as an example. It has been my experience from interning with different refuges that whitetail deer tend to overpopulate habitat areas as their populations are generally very viable. Basic ecology will dictate that as populations are allowed to continuously increase within the same area, food becomes scarce as that ecosystem is no longer sustainable to the wildlife there. Faced with budget restrictions (as the National Wildlife Refuge system gets a fraction of what the ever-popular National Park System gets), many refuge managers choose the cheap and effective method of allowing hunters onto the refuges within the right season.
“Perhaps they should change the name to “National Wildlife Hunting Grounds” so that more people will be aware of what really goes on.”
You make it sound like all the NWR system is is a free for all hunting-frenzy. In the refuges I’ve worked at, one allowed a one-day (out of ALL 365 days) hunt in order to control whitetail populations. The other refuge held a 3-day hunt (once again, 3 out of the entire 365 days) to control waterfowl populations. And you never, ever have to worry about hunting applying to threatened or endangered species- only those whose populations are more than what is environmentally sustainable.