Posted on 11/12/2005 11:44:43 AM PST by Graybeard58
CSU study indicates many cherish game as 'extended family'
More and more Westerners are seeing the fish, fowl and wild animals around them as something to cherish rather than something to eat.
A Colorado State University study of values concerning wildlife in 19 western states indicates a major shift from traditional beliefs that "wildlife is mainly for human use" toward one in which animals should be protected as "part of our extended family."
The 12,673 people who answered the poll shed light on why wildlife issues are so controversial and why wildlife agencies are struggling to accommodate so many different views.
Just how polarized the debate has become is seen in the 641 responses from Colorado.
• 34 percent believe wildlife exists for personal or economic uses, such as hunting or fishing.
• 35 percent are animal lovers, ranging from wildlife watchers to animal rights advocates, who don't condone hunting or fishing.
• 22 percent don't hunt or fish, but they don't object to people who do.
• 9 percent didn't show much interest in wildlife at all.
CSU professor Mike Manfredo, who headed the study, said 50 years ago when there were a higher number of people living in rural areas, the majority probably believed in hunting wild animals.
But as more people moved into the state, often from large U.S. cities, the number holding those beliefs began to change.
Television shows that foster concern and even familiarity with wildlife by those who may never go into the country contribute to the trend, Manfredo said.
The study even found some people who said if there was an accident involving a human and an animal, they would help the animal first.
The reason for the change in attitude, Manfredo said, is the people moving into western states come from highly urbanized areas, usually with higher personal incomes, and have attitudes more opposed to the traditional values of hunting and fishing.
How much traditional values are shrinking, he said, can be seen in a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study on hunting trends in the mountain states between 1960 and 2001 in which the number of hunters in the population dropped from 21 percent to 8 percent.
The shift in attitude is yet to be reflected in the makeup of the Colorado Wildlife Commission, which oversees the state's policy on game animals and non-game wildlife.
"I moved here from California to take advantage of the hunting and fishing opportunities, and I think it's still one of the major reasons people move to Colorado," said Commission Chairman Jeff Crawford. "While I can't look into a crystal ball, I don't envision a member of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) ever sitting on the wildlife commission because the dollars that run this agency come from sportsmen and the money should be spent on their needs."
Seventy-three percent of the Division of Wildlife's $100 million budget comes from game license fees.
No state tax dollars fund the division, although around $10 million a year from the state lottery is pumped into non-game wildlife programs the division administers.
In the past, the Division of Wildlife has made concessions to include non-sportsmen in the decision-making process.
One example is the state's Wolf Management Working Group made up of ranchers, sportsmen, biologists, government officials and environmentalists.
Rob Edward of Sinapu, a Boulder-based group that advocates reintroduction of wolves, is a member of the working group, which eventually advocated allowing wolves to stay if they wandered into the state on their own.
"Colorado is a leader by reflecting an attitude toward all wildlife rather than, like other states, having to be forced screaming and kicking to accept wolves," he said. "But we still have a long ways to go, and the wildlife commission still represents hunting, fishing, outfitting and ranching interests almost exclusively."
He said the commission should have an equal balance of game and nongame enthusiasts as well as a couple of non-division biologists to represent biological management.
"When you have so many of the wildlife commissioners with direct ties to agriculture, you know change is going to be a long time coming," he said.
Still, there are those who believe outsiders have adequate forums to be heard by the commission, including Russ George, executive director of the state Department of Natural Resources, the department that includes the Division of Wildlife.
"The division has an environmental round table and many non-game groups attend it to give input," he said. "My impression is we offer every opportunity for anyone to express himself, although I can't say if any of them have a strong advocate on the commission."
In the CSU study, Manfredo said, the states with the largest percentage of hunters and anglers are Alaska and South Dakota, where half the people hunt or fish or both.
In California and Hawaii the number is about one in four.
With urbanization today, children go to school with students who don't hunt, he said.
Unless someone in their family hunts, most believe meat comes from the supermarket, not the hoof.
"Hunting requires equipment, a place to go and a social support system," Manfredo said. "Many who were hunters in other states don't find friends here, where it's socially acceptable, and so they quit."
To realize how much of a shift Colorado has made, Manfredo says, look at the size and average income here since the 1940s. Colorado has become urbanized and the lifestyle has changed dramatically, he said.
"If you want to see Colorado 50 or 75 years ago, look at the Dakotas today," he said.
There was a picture with this quote but it was so small it was hard to tell what it was.
Have fun with your comments.
Sick.
Earth worhsipping PETA brainless crap.
Ah, for the good old days, when Cockfighting was legal and we killed for food.
If we aren't supposed to eat animals then why are they made of meat?
I just love animals. They're simply delicious!
http://mtd.com/tasty/
34 percent believe wildlife exists for personal or economic uses, such as hunting or fishing.I wouldn't be included in that 34 percent. I don't believe they "exist for" personal or economic uses...but personal or economic uses are quite valid.
"...the majority probably believed in hunting wild animals."
Probably? There goes the crediblity of this post. How do we know that there isn't more of an interest in hunting?
Pure-D BS.
Animals. They're what's for dinner.
That said, if it isn't threatening you (or someone else, or your propery), and you don't want to eat it, it shouldn't be harmed.
At one time we kept a few chickens so we always had fresh eggs.
My brother in law would never accept the few dozen extra eggs we always had, he preferred "factory eggs" from the store.
We never were able to convince him that eggs come from chickens on farms, not a "factory". We could never convince him that what you fed a chicken determined the colestoral content of the egg, the hardness of the eggshell, and color of the yolk, and that infact our all grain fed chickens laid better eggs than those "factory" ones, which were fed by-products made from redenring plants.
As far as wild critters are concerned, I veiw them as something to eat, and always will, because that's what they are. They have no other perpose other than being part of the foodchain. Of course we should always manage their welbeing to ensure we always have plenty to eat...
I'm not, but I havent hunted in cali in 10 years. Its gettin bad.
plants have feeeeelings to yaknow,, and rocks too, or so I hear. well, I don't hear them when I hug them ... but.. ;-)
'Tiz true. I am finding a wider and wider array of them delicious and am discovering new ways to prepare them.
I'm one of those darned ol' Californian Freepers.
I eat and enjoy meat and dairy products. I see no problem with people hunting to feed themselves and their families. In fact, I admire them for doing so.
Here's the bit where you and I apparently disagree: enjoyment of animal suffering for 'entertainment' value, e.g., cockfighting and the like. Most hunters I've known (in several different states) have taken pride in their skill in making a 'clean kill' (i.e., not making the animal suffer unnecessarily, but instead providing a quick and clean death). That's one of the values I admire in hunters, along with self-reliance, etc. Making the animal suffer for the sake of suffering is very much frowned upon by the hunters I've been privileged to know.
Flame me as a 'softie Californicator' if you wish.
I understand that "Vegetarian" is a Cherokee word meaning "very bad hunter." ;)
You've got that right! Give me home-raised eggs over "factory eggs" any day :)
Some people are taking it way, waaaaay beyond that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.