Director's Page, Spring 2006

Buzz Williams
My first bear encounter at Cherokee, NC, in 1959. I remember feeling sorry for a captive bear.

In the conservation business we are often faced with moral and ethical challenges. Take, for example, the current debate about bear hunting with dogs. The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the South Carolina Bear Hunters Association have proposed a bill known as H4448 in the South Carolina Legislature to extend the season for hunting bear with dogs. We know this is the same crowd that continues to release wild hogs onto game management lands, which causes great harm to the environment. The Chattooga Conservancy has taken a strong stand against these activities for a number of reasons. For example, the bill before the state legislature that would increase bear hunting is based on the questionable justification that the bear population has tripled in the upstate. We also question the tactics used by bear hunters as related to the rules of fair chase. Our opposition is based on factual information, but primarily, our opposition hinges on the moral side of the issue. For me, the resolution comes in a flash back to the teachings of my elders.

When I was a kid, I knew that if I ever got caught ponding a duck or shooting a dove off the roost, I would be drummed out of the Williams clan. It was simply not an option, based on the oft-repeated teachings of my parents and grandparents that these things were unethical. There were other unwritten rules so ingrained in my fiber that they were always there, it seemed: if you aren’t going to eat it, don’t shoot it; never shoot an animal out of season; and, be respectful of the game and give it a chance. These rules taught to me by my elders originated not with them, but went far back to ancient times when our ancestors depended on sustainable populations of game for survival. On a more visceral level, it also had to do with the evolution of my respect for nature, the giver of life itself.

Native Americans practiced sustainable hunting and gathering as well. When hunting, Indians followed the same basic rules I was taught about leaving enough of the breeding populations for sustainability, and respect for nature. When harvesting plants for food or medicine, Indians would replant seeds from the harvested plants on site. Cherokee respect for game animals is legendary. To them, the black bear was their brother; ginseng was little man. I am certain that the ethic passed on to me came through ancestors who traded with the Cherokee, and who were influenced by their land ethic. That deep-rooted ethic cannot easily be ignored. It influences every decision I make as leader of our organization.

Increasingly, as our natural resources dwindle through current exploitation by selfish special interests, adherence to a land ethic must involve sacrifice. Many writers have articulated their idea of conservation. Aldo Leopold believed it was man living in harmony with nature, thus attaining sustainability. To me, in an era of astounding exploitation of natural resources, the idea of conservation is what one is willing to sacrifice to achieve that harmony.

I once asked a Native American what he thought the greatest obstacles were in practicing conservation. Without hesitation his reply was, “greed, arrogance, avarice, and ignorance.” That about sums it up. Take, for example, the issue at hand with the proposal to extend the bear hunting season. We are ignorant of adequate bear population data. Bear hunters supporting the bill before the South Carolina Legislature are so passionate about their sport that they simply want more and more until it borders on greed. This is a reflection of our society that places far too much emphasis on greater and greater wealth at all cost. The attitude of a group that infringes on the rights of others in terms of a blatant unwillingness for dialogue can only be termed as arrogant.

There is a time to compromise, and a time to draw the line. We have tried to compromise, given the lack of data to support an extension of the party dog hunt for bear, with the caveat that certain fail safe provisions are written into regulations in the event that bear populations dwindle to an unsustainable level. We have petitioned the DNR for dialogue. We have asked hunters to sacrifice for the greater good—all to no avail. Now we must take a firm stand. That decision is based on ethical and moral principles that I can no longer ignore.

I will be going to the South Carolina State House in Columbia to argue for a an amendment to H4448 that will ensure that our bear populations will be adequately monitored for sustainability; that law enforcement be funded to ensure adherence to rules of fairness; and, to argue that the current proposed bill be scaled back. If not, we will do everything possible to stop this bill.

This issue surrounding bear hunting with dogs has caused me to think long and hard about a course of action. In the final analysis, our decision to craft a compromise bill that, if not accepted, will cause us to fight to kill H448 was based on factual information, but in the end it hinged on deep rooted ethics. Perhaps these are the same ethics that caused you, our members, to join in promoting a healthy Chattooga River watershed. Stay tuned.