Lawmakers take aim at 'canned hunts'

DENVER - Hunters and animal-rights advocates may not agree on many things, but they both say a hunted animal at least deserves a fair chase.

But exactly what that means, and what the state should do about it, is a source of dispute as the state Legislature considers a bill that would regulate the hunting industry.

HB1096 would ban “canned hunts,” which take place in small, fenced areas. Animals may be flushed out of hiding and directed toward hunters or lured by food.

Rep. Debbie Stafford’s bill would make it illegal to operate a facility where hunters can shoot an animal that is intentionally confined, tied, staked, caged or otherwise restrained from normal movement. That would ban canned hunts while preserving the values of a fair chase, Stafford said.

The Democrat from Aurora said her bill is necessary because private ranches are offering “guaranteed kills” to hunters who are willing to pay a steep price. It will be debated Wednesday by the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee.

Stafford’s disapproval of canned hunts and guaranteed kills is shared by many hunters.

“We really strongly advocate for fair chase, first and foremost, in all hunting situations,” John Smeltzer said. He is on the board of directors for the Colorado Wildlife Federation, a pro-conservation group that consists of hunters, anglers and wildlife viewers.

Despite its philosophical leanings, the federation is neutral on the bill.

That’s because, in part, it is unclear how the bill would affect hunting on large private land that is bounded by fences low enough to allow animals to escape.

Such land is used by the High Plains Sportsmans Club. The Colorado Springs-based group sponsors hunts along the Front Range on private ranches that are up to 40,000 acres.

Though it helps arrange hunting trips, member Don Harvey said, it never guarantees a kill.

“Part of hunting is the pursuit and the taking, which means the animal has a chance to evade,” Harvey said.

“I think I know what her (Stafford’s) intent is, but if we’re going to pass legislation we should not be guessing the intent of it. It’s too vague.”

Stafford admitted the bill’s language is unclear on the issue.

The bill has twice been removed from the House calendar, and Stafford said she is willing to amend it to make it clearer.

The Humane Society of the United States has been involved in crafting the current bill. The involvement of the animal-rights group, which is against hunting for sport, has made some wary.

“Some may be personally opposed to canned hunting, but because our client is the face of this, they will not trust us,” lobbyist Solomon Malick said.

That is one of the factors keeping his group on the sideline, Smeltzer said. Instead of being an animal-rights issue, the federation believes canned hunts violate the respect sportsmen should show for wildlife.

The bill’s supporters are realistic about the hurdles it faces.

“We would like to see this be a sportsmen’s issue and have it taken over by the sportsmen. As long as it gets done by someone, we don’t care,” Malick said.