by Mike Covey

What is “fair”?

First let’s talk about fair reporting. On March 2, VTDigger wrote an article about a conversation being had in the legislature around the use of bait to hunt furbearing animals (predators).

[Editor’s note: H.132 would “prohibit a person from taking a furbearer by gun, bow and arrow, or crossbow with the use of bait.” It is sponsored by Rep. Lawrence Satcowitz (D-Randolph), and co-sponsored by Reps. Michelle Bos-Lun, Troy Headrick, Kate Logan, Phil Pouech, Amy Sheldon, and Dara Torre. All the co-sponsors are Democrats except Headrick of Burlington, who is an independent. Logan, of Burlington, is also listed as a Progressive.]

They partially quoted me as having said that “the word fair has no place in a meaningful conversation about hunting or conservation.” What they didn’t do was give that quote any of its context, as I had done in my testimony. While they later clarified this, after folks have read an article, most will not return to it. 

What I said was that the word fair has no place in a meaningful conversation about these topics because it is subjective. You could ask 100 people what they believe is “fair”, and you would get 100 different answers. What I think is fair, and what an animal rights activist would consider fair, are so diametrically opposed that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to have a productive conversation around it. 

For instance, very few people would argue that it’s unfair to use a centerfire rifle to hunt deer even though that means we can shoot them quite comfortably at ranges of 200-300 yards. Think of that in terms of three football fields. The deer has no chance of overcoming that advantage.

Ironically, many of the same folks who latch onto the concept of “fair”, later go on criticize activities such as bowhunting, an activity that arguably levels the playing field somewhat, as “unethical” (another subjective term). 

Furthermore, there are some who would argue the use of any projectile is “unfair” and proudly proclaim that the only way we can hunt “fairly” is if we forgo all technological advancements and run the animal down with tooth and claw, a physical impossibility. 

Would the same folks who claim that the use of bait to hunt predators is “unfair” also determine that it is unfair to sit watch over an apple tree waiting for a deer or a cornfield for a bear? This is the most common practice for archery hunters to succeed because it is practical based on the quarry’s behaviors, just as baiting furbearers is practical based on their behavior. 

Even with attractants, a furbearer may not return to the same area for days or weeks. It is still the best option for a hunter to have some opportunity as they don’t pattern themselves like prey animals do, but rather utilize the whole landscape in searching for food.

Bill supporters have consistently stated their opinion that all the tools we use to hunt predators are “unfair”, and we shouldn’t be allowed to hunt them at all. Activism-driven bills like this are a waste of the legislature’s time, a waste of the taxpayers money, and a disservice to the people.

We can’t make good law when subjective terms are the barometer, therefore we must use practical language when discussing these activities. 

Terms like “effective” and “practical” are far more meaningful, and baiting predators is the most accessible, practical, and effective mechanism we have. It is common elsewhere, there is no evidence of a negative, landscape-scale impact to populations, and Vermonters have a right to hunt these species for the values it brings to them. 

I know that at least one group of animal rights activists is a VT Digger “underwriter” (sponsor), and that makes this critical omission even more concerning. The hatred and vitriol directed at both myself and those around me on a daily basis, can only be spurred on by such slanted use of a quote. 

To give folks an idea of the behavior that your neighbors, hunters and others, are subjected to, I’ll share a couple examples:

• This session the legislature has received no less than two emails personally degrading me and misrepresenting my character. One of them included a picture of my son with his first bear. 
• I lost a friend in December, and an animal rights acolyte took humor in it. 
• The followers of these activist groups regularly call for the death or persecution of their fellow citizens because they don’t approve of the fact that we hunt or trap.
• They publicly degrade and criticize our wildlife professionals.

Biased reporting only serves to exacerbate such behavior. Anybody reading that quote out of context would understandably think poorly of me, so I am asking the media at large to do better. 

Our House Committee on the Environment has very real problems to deal with that impact Vermonters in more meaningful ways than upsetting their sensitivities. We must urge the legislature to focus on these real problems, rather than elevating the whims of a group of activists who want to end hunting- over the interests of the 70,000+ hunters in Vermont who are simply trying to live their lives. 

While we are at it, let’s urge all media not to allow their underwriters to lead them astray. Let’s expect balance and a renewed commitment to, “News in pursuit of truth.”

The author is a lifelong outdoorsman and resident of Williamstown, where he raised his son with a love for the outdoors as well. He studied wildlife management for two years at UNH, and has been executive director of the Vermont Traditions Coalition since 2018.