Opinion: Wildlife killing contest prize criteria deligitimize PA Game Commission’s conservation tenet
On Feb. 24 the CDT published Mark Nale’s column in support of coyote killing contests titled, “Afield: PA holds over 25 predator hunts each winter. Will they be banned in the future?” This op-ed rebuts support for coyote killing contests, and wildlife killing contests broadly.
The PA Game Commission (PGC) permits hunting unlimited numbers of certain animals all or at specific times of year. This includes coyote, opossum, fox, raccoon, woodchucks and certain birds. The PGC publishes the Conservation Education Tenet for the “Legitimate Purpose for Killing Wildlife,” defined by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, as food, fur and defense. Wildlife killing contests award prizes using criteria divorced from “legitimate killing purposes.” Killing contests monetarily and materially incentivize killing ecological predators, carrion-eaters and omnivores for illegitimate purposes.
PGC is the steward of Pennsylvanians’ wildlife. Evidence below disproves the straw-man fallacy argument perpetuated by killing contest supporters attempting to dismiss their opponents as “anti-hunting” or “animal-huggers.” Pro-hunting advocates and Game Commission directors oppose killing contests. Civic debate centers on killing contests misappropriating “no limit hunting season” as a license to “kill for prizes.” PGC has a duty to all Pennsylvanians to articulate whether it endorses or opposes “prizes” as a legitimate stand-alone wildlife-killing purpose. PGC’s avoidance of this question is contradictory toward its own statements at best, derelict at worst.
Clarifying killing contest criteria
Nale’s article stated: “To the best of my knowledge, no contest in Pennsylvania gives a prize for the most animals killed.” But according to his CDT article published Jan. 14, 2023, “Nearly 30 predator hunts will be held in Pa. this winter,” PA Wildlife Killing Contests issued prizes or prize tickets based on total number of animals killed.
Per Lamar Township Volunteer Fire-Company’s Facebook announcement for the 2024 Annual Predator Hunt, prizes are awarded for most animals killed. The following four contest announcement excerpts pertain to questions posed below:
“Hunter with most animals taken in each class wins”
“Coyotes, Racoons, Foxes and Opossums must be taken inside PA”
“[PGC] regulations must be strictly adhered to”
“All animals must be videoed after harvest with hunter in frame (with time stamp)”
The PGC’s definition of ‘legitimate wildlife killing purposes’:
The LTVFC killing contest does not award prizes in accordance with the “Legitimate Purpose” criteria of PGC’s education materials: Specifically, Tenet No. 4 of “The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation:” “Wildlife is Killed Only for Legitimate Purpose. This tenet is subject to local, state, and regional needs, but its primary intention is to avoid the wasteful and indiscriminate killing of wildlife without purpose. Legitimate purposes typically include food, fur, and defending a person or property.”
Questions about Nale’s column
Of the 25+ Wildlife Killing Contests held in 2024 Nale noted, which contests award prizes based on animal size, sex or quantity versus legitimate criteria of food and fur prepared from each animal killed?
If it is legitimate for killing contests to require contestants submit timestamp photo evidence for each animal killed, isn’t it illegitimate for contests to award prizes for killing baited-animals from anywhere within Pennsylvania without substantiating that each animal was killed in defense?
Nale notes 30,000 coyotes/year are harvested by hunters and trappers with fewer than 3% shot or trapped during a contest. He quantitatively articulates this rebuttal’s primary argument by astutely differentiating legitimate versus illegitimate killing purposes.
Nale notes “non-native coyotes have no natural predator.” Which PA wildlife killing contests judiciously award prizes only for killing non-native wildlife?
If one domestic animal is killed, or one property item damaged, or one fundraiser needs funds, why should Pennsylvanians acquiesce to any and every local sporting club or fire company hosting prize contests for killing of our wildlife anywhere within Pennsylvania?
If prizes are a legitimate killing purpose, should catapulting captive live pigeons into the air for target shooting contests remain legal in Pennsylvania?
The Humane Society compiled statements from seven state wildlife agencies and 10 current and former Wildlife Game Commissioners regarding wildlife killing contests. How many state wildlife agencies in the U.S. affirm the legitimacy of wildlife killing contests for prizes? Should PGC be one of them?
Scott Pflumm lives in Centre County and volunteers with the Humane Society.
