One argument against naming wild animals advocates that it is demeaning to a noble big game animal to give it a human name. That may sound reasonable, but in many if not most cases, the same person who objects to naming, will have no problem with seeing the same animal fitted with a bright yellow numbered radio collar and metal ear tags and referring to them as Bull 36, 8A, etc. True they are not assigning human attributes to the animal, but is this not destroying the wild, natural appearance of the animal and detracting from the experience of interacting with it, whether it be by observation, photography, or hunting?
We will concentrate on Pennsylvania Elk in this discussion as certain individual animals are seen repeatedly by large numbers of humans, which quite naturally leads to naming the animal. There really isn't a lot of alternatives. Describing a sighting of an animal with a numbered collar is simple, but in other cases it can get quite complicated in a hurry. Some animals are also easily described by certain physical characteristics such as the bull that was known as "Long Royal", because he had exceptionally long royal points, which made him instantly recognizable to the experienced elk watcher, or "Clubhorn" because of a deformed antler, which was caused by a damaged pedicel in his younger years.
|"Long Royal": Named because of his unusually long royal points|
|Club Horn In 2005: Instantly identifiable by his deformed left antler|
What could be objectionable about this, other than prejudice against giving wild animals human names ? The biggest problem for the hunting community is that a large number of people have identified this animal and in many cases feel a strong bond with it. It is no longer just "another elk", but it is "Fred", etc, and as such there is the potential for a lot of strong feelings if the animal is killed or otherwise meets with misfortune. It is no secret that the PGC prefers that wildlife are not named or singled out for attention, and that every elk or deer is just another animal in the woods that no one is particularly concerned about, except when considering the welfare of the species as a whole.
This may be a logical position, but is it realistic? I recall reading several years ago, about a research project that involved close contact with whitetail deer by the researchers. They were specifically forbidden to name any of the animals, but ended up doing so in spite of the written policy. The researchers felt a great sense of loss when the project ended, and some agonized over how the animals would survive in the future. In the case of Pennsylvania elk, some advocate eliminating close contact between humans and elk as much as possible, so that naming and bonding does not occur. This may all be good and well, but do we want our elk watching experience to be limited to sitting at areas like the Dent's Run Viewing Area, and viewing elk so far away in most cases that one needs binoculars or spotting scopes to see significant detail and even the most powerful camera lenses are not adequate.
Which is more beneficial to society as a whole, a limited hunt where only a few persons can participate each year, or a viable elk tourism industry, which has the potential to provide a significant boost to the area economy and could provide a world class experience to thousands upon thousands of people? Fortunately the powers that be need not choose between one or the other, but can improve the situation to a great extent by increasing the size of the No Hunt Zone.
As the situation now stands, it doesn't seem likely that another bull will replace ""Freddy" as the town icon anytime soon. Some like to think that he was so cunning that he remained in the No Kill Zone to purposefully evade hunters, but it seems more likely that his physical condition contributed more to his survival than any awareness that he was in danger if he entered certain areas. He still ventured into the back country in the Saddle area in 2001, and according to reports he spent a lot of time in Blue Sky Campground. This was at the time of the first hunt, and there were rumors of plots to drive him from the No Hunt Zone into areas open to hunting, but this never happened. Either no one attempted this strategy, or if they did they may have found it to be impossible to drive an animal that was totally trusting of humans. I never saw him in the Saddle area again after 2001 and in fact did not seem him during the rut of 2002 or 2003, if I remember correctly. This seems to be the period in which he started to spend much of his time in Benezette. I had only a limited amount of time to spend in elk country during the rut, and he had already returned to the lawns in town by the time I arrived. At that point I never drove through the part of Benezette that lies to the left of Winslow Hill Road as one is going up the hill. I did find him on the Hill, during the rut, from 2004 on, and while he still seemed to be healthy, he was likely feeling the early tinges of the arthritis that was to plague him in his later years and was not traveling as far, and as I never saw him outside the No Hunt Zone after 2001. It is entirely possible that the arthritis actually enabled him to live a longer life by confining his travels to the No Hunt Zone.
|"Kisser" a.k.a. "Odie"-Freddy's Heir Apparent, Killed In 2010 Elk Season|
|"Kisser" -Devil's Elbow March 2010-A Fatal Attraction To Hunt Zone 2 Led To His Death|
Originally posted at Pennsylvania Wildlife Photographer by Willard C. Hill