GREENSBORO – For as long as there have been humans, there have been weapons. Through our storied history, we have struggled with our violent nature and our disturbing aptitude for inventing new ways to inflict harm on others. Spears, swords, bows, and guns. Bombs, missiles, mines, and drones.
Despite humanity’s inclination towards violence, we also have a long history of regulating this vast arsenal. “Who has access to which weapons for what purposes?” is a question we have pondered for ages. Yes, it is often a conversation rife with controversy, but other times, common sense prevails and weapons are regulated with near unanimity.
When it comes to turning these weapons against unarmed animals, there is still much room for consensus. Issues like public safety, humane treatment of animals and fair chase, are all considered. Vermont law explicitly forbids a wide range of hunting methods and their accompanying weaponry. V.S.A. Title 10 App. § 20 prohibits the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in taking wild animals. V.S.A. Title 10 § 4703 prohibits the use of “set guns,” firearms rigged to fire via tripwire or motion detector. V.S.A. Title 10 § 4715 outlaws all remote control hunting, defined as “the use of a computer, any device that uses the Internet, or any other technology to control remotely the aiming and discharge of any device such as a firearm, bow, or spear…”
There seems to be a common thread connecting these laws and regulations. It is one most reasonable people agree with. The intent to kill or injure a living creature from afar without the ability to definitively focus that violence is irresponsible and reckless. Leaving guns primed to fire at the first thing that walks by is a threat to public safety and shooting at woodland creatures from behind a computer screen whilst lounging on your couch is anything other than humane or fair.
Why then, does our state allow practices that fly in the face of this well-reasoned precedent? Vermonters are legally permitted to set and disguise devices capable of breaking bones, tearing limbs and lethally crushing the first thing to come in contact with them. There is no limit on the number of traps an individual is allowed to set. There is no requirement for signage. Even literal minefields require signs, but Vermont traps do not. Vermonters are also legally permitted to release packs of hounds to run wild with virtually no method of control in place. The individuals running these hounds monitor their dogs’ GPS coordinates on a screen whilst lounging in their truck. Once satellites become involved, I struggle to see how “fair chase” ethics are being employed. Both trapping and hounding pose genuine threats to public safety, and fall short of upholding humane and fair standards.
I know that practitioners of either sport will chafe at the suggestion that their method of violence is unfocused, irresponsible or reckless. I have heard many detailed arguments that attempt to make a case for how hounders and trappers are masters of their craft and entirely capable of directing the intended quarry into the jaws of their traps and hounds.
I have found all of these arguments wanting. Trappers claim that through trap location, jaw size, pan tension and type of lure/bait, they can coax the proper animal towards their trap with incredible accuracy. They can not. Hounders claim that extensive training regimens coupled with specialized collars (GPS, shock, tone-emitters) put them in complete control of their animals. They do not.
Both activities require a great deal of guesswork, luck and faith. There is no location that only houses a single species. Species are not neatly organized by size and weight and, therefore, are capable of triggering traps intended for animals of similar stature. There is no “magic” lure or bait that is capable of attracting one species and repelling all others. Hounds are not infallible and, in the absence of a nearby handler, will make their own decisions. They can not be recalled to indeterminate locations and hounders will drive along unfamiliar roadways in an attempt to follow their dogs. Traps and hounds regularly stray from their intended purpose. They injure and kill domestic pets, they capture incidental game and hounds regularly trespass on posted property.
When you remove the presence of direct human oversight from these tools of violence, the illusion of control fades away. This brings us back to the question of “Who should have which weapons for what purposes?” Vermont does not allow drones, set guns and other forms of remote control hunting, and rightly so. Stripped of all their nuances, technicalities and bad-faith arguments, the issues of trapping and hounding ultimately come down to common sense.
A weapon operating without a human present is dangerous, inhumane and unsportsmanlike. Every time.
Will Marler of Greensboro is the Vermont director of the nonprofits Animal Wellness Action and Center for a Humane Economy.
Will Marler
