Posted on 04/08/2002 4:23:46 PM PDT by Sungirl
Fall is the time when forest greens begin to blaze orange, as hunting seasons open around the country. Each year, hunters kill more than 100 million animals, and while individual reasons for hunting vary, the industry that promotes and sustains hunting has just one motive: profit. According to the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, America's 14 million hunters spend $22.1 billion each year for guns, ammunition, clothing, travel, and other related expenses.
To justify hunting to a society ever more concerned about wildlife—including its conservation and humane treatment—the industry intensively promotes a set of tired myths. Learn the facts behind these myths.
Isn't hunting a worthy tradition because it teaches people about nature?
There are many ways to learn about nature and the "great outdoors." At its best, hunting teaches people that it is acceptable to kill wildlife while learning about some aspects of nature. However, the very essence of sport hunting is the implicit message that it's acceptable recreation to kill and to tolerate the maiming of wildlife. Even those who claim that wounding and maiming is not the intent of hunting cannot deny that it happens.
It is folly to suggest that we can teach love, respect, and appreciation for nature and the environment through such needless destruction of wildlife. One can learn about nature by venturing into the woods with binoculars, a camera, a walking stick, or simply with our eyes and ears open to the world around us.
Does hunting help create a bond between father and son? We do not know, but there are countless recreational and other activities that can strengthen the parent/child bond. Generally speaking, bonding has less to do with the activity and more to do with whether the parent and child spend significant, concentrated, and loving time together. Yet the particular recreational activity is also important, because it can send a moral message to the child about what constitutes acceptable recreation.
Hunting as a form of family entertainment is destructive not only to the animals involved, but also to the morals and ethics of children who are shown or taught that needless killing is acceptable recreation. The HSUS rejects the notion that a relationship of love and companionship should be based on the needless killing of innocent creatures. Killing for fun teaches callousness, disrespect for life, and the notion that "might makes right."
Isn't hunting a popular and growing form of recreation?
No. The number of hunters has been steadily declining for decades. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there were 15 million licensed hunters in the U.S. in 2000, compared with 15.6 million in 1993, 15.8 million in 1990, and 16.3 million in 1980. This drop has occurred even while the general population has been growing. Currently only 5.4% of Americans hold hunting licenses. Hunters claim their numbers are growing to give the impression that recreational killing is acceptable. The facts are that more and more hunters are giving up hunting because it is no longer a socially acceptable activity.
Isn't it more humane to kill wildlife by hunting than to allow animals to starve?
This question is based on a false premise. Hunters kill opossums, squirrels, ravens, and numerous other plentiful species without any notion of shooting them so that they do not starve or freeze to death. Many species are killed year round in unlimited numbers. In addition, many animals that are not hunted die of natural starvation, but hunters do not suggest killing them. While it is true that any animal killed by a hunter cannot die of starvation, hunters do not kill animals based on which ones are weak and likely to succumb to starvation. Hunters who claim they prevent animals from suffering starvation are simply trying to divert attention from an analysis of the propriety of killing wildlife for fun.
Aren't most hunts to limit overpopulation and not truly for recreation?
No. Most hunted species are not considered to be overpopulated even by the wildlife agencies that set seasons and bag limits. Black ducks, for instance, face continued legal hunting—even on National Wildlife Refuges—despite the fact that their populations are at or near all-time lows. If hunters claim that they hunt to prevent overpopulation, then they should be prepared to forgo hunting except when it really is necessary to manage overpopulated species. This would mean no hunting of doves, ducks, geese, raccoons, bears, cougars, turkeys, quail, chuckar, pheasants, rabbits, squirrels, and many other species.
What's more, hunters are usually the first to protest when wolves, coyotes, and other predators move into an area and begin to take over the job of controlling game populations. The State of Alaska, for example, has instituted wolf-control (trapping and shooting) on the grounds that wolf predation may bring caribou populations down to a level that would limit the sport-hunting of caribou. Finally, hunters kill opossums, foxes, ravens, and numerous other plentiful species without the pretension of shooting them so that they do not starve or freeze to death.
Is hunting to prevent wildlife overpopulation usually effective?
No. Wildlife, to a large degree, will naturally regulate its own populations if permitted, eliminating any need for hunting as a means of population control. Discussions about supposed wildlife overpopulation problems apply primarily to deer. Hunters often claim that hunting is necessary to control deer populations. As practiced, however, hunting often contributes to the growth of deer herds. Heavily hunted states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, for instance, are among those experiencing higher deer densities than perhaps ever before. When an area's deer population is reduced by hunting, the remaining animals respond by having more young, which survive because the competition for food and habitat is reduced. Since one buck can impregnate many does, policies which permit the killing of bucks contribute to high deer populations. If population control were the primary purpose for conducting deer hunts, hunters would only be permitted to kill does. This is not the case, however, because hunters demand that they be allowed to kill bucks for their antlers.
Does hunting ensure stable, healthy wildlife populations?
No. The hunting community's idea of a "healthy" wildlife population is a population managed like domestic livestock, for maximum productivity. In heavily hunted and "managed" populations, young animals feed on artificially enhanced food sources, grow and reproduce rapidly, then fall quickly to the guns and arrows of hunters. Few animals achieve full adulthood. After 20 years of heavy deer hunting at the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey, for example, only one percent of the deer population lived longer than four years, and fewer than ten percent lived longer than three years. In a naturally regulated population, deer often live twelve years or longer.
What are state wildlife agencies doing to maintain interest in hunting?
Most states actively recruit children into hunting, through special youth hunts. Sometimes these youth hunts are held on National Wildlife Refuges. Some states have carried this concept even further, and hold special hunter education classes to recruit parents and their children. In addition to encouraging children to buy licenses and kill animals, the states are reaching out to women as well. If enough women and children can be converted into hunters, the state agencies can continue business as usual.
Isn't hunting a well-regulated activity?
No. While there are many rules which regulate hunting activities, enforcing the regulations is difficult, and many hunters do not abide by the rules. It has been estimated that twice as many deer are killed illegally as are killed legally. Hunters will sometimes kill a second deer because it has bigger antlers or "rack" than the first. In addition, duck hunters often exceed their bag limits or kill protected species because most hunters cannot identify the species of ducks that they shoot—especially not at a half hour before sunrise, when shooting begins. Secret observations revealed by ex-duck hunters demonstrate that illegal practices and killing permeate this activity at all levels.
Aren't animals protected through "bag limits" imposed by each state?
Those species favored by hunters are given certain protection from over-killing—killing so many as to severely limit the population—through what are known as "bag limits." However, hunting of some species is completely unregulated, and in fact, wanton killing is encouraged. Animals such as skunks, coyotes, porcupines, crows and prairie dogs are considered "varmints," and unlimited hunting of these species is permitted year-round in many states. At the base of this is the notion that these animals are simply "vermin" and do not deserve to live. Hunters frequently write and speak of the pleasure in "misting" prairie dogs—by which they mean shooting the animals with hollow-point bullets that cause them to literally explode in a mist of blood.
Moreover, hunters' influence on state and federal wildlife agencies is so strong that even bag limits on "game" species are influenced as much by politics as by biology. Many states, with the sanction of the federal government, allow hunters to kill large numbers (20–40 per day) of coots and waterfowl such as sea ducks and mergansers, for example, despite the fact that little is known about their populations and their ability to withstand hunting pressure, and the fact that these ducks are certainly not killed for food. This killing is encouraged to maintain hunter interest, thereby sustaining license sales, because the decline in other duck species has resulted in some limitations on numbers that can be killed.
Though hunting clearly kills individual animals, can hunting actually hurt wildlife populations?
Yes. Hunters continue to kill many species of birds and mammals (e.g., cougars, wolves, black ducks, swans) that are at dangerously low population levels. While hunting may not be the prime cause of the decline of these species, it must contribute to their decline and, at a minimum, frustrate efforts to restore them.
Even deer populations may be damaged by hunting pressure. Unlike natural predators and the forces of natural selection, hunters do not target the weaker individuals in populations of deer or other animals.
Rather, deer hunters seek out the bucks that have the largest rack. This desire for "trophy sized" bucks can and has had detrimental effects on the health of deer herds. First, hunting can impact the social structure of a herd because hunters kill the mature males of a herd and create a disproportionate ratio of females to males. It is not uncommon to find a herd that has no bucks over the age of three. Second, genetically inferior bucks may be left to propagate the species, thereby weakening the overall health of the herd.
Because hunters largely want to shoot only bucks, hunting may cause artificial inflation of deer populations. When these populations reach levels that available habitat cannot support, increased disease and starvation may be the result.
We don't understand the full effect of hunting on wildlife behavior or health because wildlife agencies will not conduct the studies necessary to find the answers (e.g., "spy-blind" observations of duck hunting, in which undercover authorities secretly observe hunters).
Is hunting for food a good way to save money on grocery bills?
Almost never. When all costs are considered (i.e., license fees, equipment, food, lodging and transportation), hunting is not an economical way to provide food. Statistics gathered by the University of Maryland's Extension Service revealed that hunters spent more than $51 million to kill 46,317 deer in Maryland in 1990, approximately $1,100 for each deer killed. Assuming that the meat of each deer killed was preserved and eaten, and that each deer provided 45 lbs. of meat, the cost of venison in 1990 in Maryland was $24.44 per pound. For most hunted animals, such as ducks, doves, rabbits, squirrels, and crows, among others, use for food is now minimal, and the expense of equipment far outweighs the value of any food that is obtained. For the vast majority of hunters, hunting is recreation, not a means of gathering food.
You seem to be implying that "hunters" are people that go around killing anything and everything they get a chance to.... and if that's your position, I suppose they're probably shooting up some farmer's livestock too.
You also seem to be trying to set the rules for what is acceptable and what isn't. Lets see, killing for food is okay, but for any other purpose is bad. So... in order to fit with your standards, if I go duckhunting, I don't dare enjoy myself.... otherwise I'm doing it for the sport. If it was just for the meat, I'd be down buying meat at the grocery store like you.
Plus they are a real b!tch to skin.
Don't forget the catholic church.......?
I doubt I'll get any honest answers...lol. DId you know that many of the catholic churches were giving some of the donantion monies to victims of priests who molested them? Payoffs I guess.
Learn the laws where you harvest and abide by them.Happy hunting.
Isn't it more humane to kill wildlife by hunting than to allow animals to starve?
As a matter of fact yes. The presumtion by the anti hunters is that the hunters do not selectively hunt the weak/starving ones. In reality, that point is moot, for the reason of hunting them is to thin the herd, not necessarily to shoot the infirm. As te herd is thinner, there is more forage to go around, and therefore the population as a whole lives on.
Pound for pound, and person for person, the hunters are (with few exceptions, the case in any statistical group) moch more conservation oriented, and it is/was through their efforts that many of the "hunted" animals are in fact doing so well in the wild.
If you do not like hunting, so be it. Hunters who shoot wildly and do not practice conservation turn me off. However, those who take their activity seriously, those who shoot to eat, and even those who shoot for trophies, as deemed so by the powers that be in order to thin out herds (because their natural predator has been removed) are well respected by myself.
I happen to love pheasent, and there are many, many around my home. We often place food out for them in the winter, and plant berries and grapes for them to hide in and nest, and, yes, to reproduce. I have no problem bagging one occasionally for a good family dinner. It tastes so much better than that butterball at safeway, stacked four deep and 20 long.
I also prefer the taste of wild turkey to store-bought. All the innacurate and misleading propaganda you spew won't stop me or my fellow hunters from providing for our families.
BTW, my rule for hunting has always been, "Don't kill it unless you're gonna eat it!"
Ate Rattlesnake during E&E , tasted kinda like frogs legs too.
Funny, a lot of stuff tastes like frog , even chicken.
Bet Sg never had to catch and kill a chicken.
And you forgot, they only take one or two a year if they are successful at all. The percentage of tags filled that are bought each season are actually quite low.
Rather, deer hunters seek out the bucks that have the largest rack.
I agree there is a lot of emphasis put on trophy hunting. But trophy sized racks are VERY hard to come by and I sure wouldn't pass it up just because it's big, if it came my way. Usually by the time a deer has gotten to trophy size it has had a few years to spread its genes around. Also, many guides charge a lot more money to put you onto a trophy rack vs a management rack. I could never afford either, and the vast majority of hunters can't. Maybe once in their lives they will go on a guided hunt where the emphasis is on trophy racks. Many people that set up deer cameras on trails shoot pictures of bucks at night walking by with giant racks that otherwise are never seen by ANYONE anywhere in the area. So they *are* out there even if you don't see them. They are not stupid. I had a huge deer under me in the dark that has been glimpsed a very few times by the landowner as having 20 plus points and is nicknamed "the hereford." But every deer I know of that has been taken out of there in the last three years has been a doe.
First, hunting can impact the social structure of a herd because hunters kill the mature males of a herd and create a disproportionate ratio of females to males.
Yes this is called buck/doe ratio and the higher it is the more large bucks will be in the given area.
It is not uncommon to find a herd that has no bucks over the age of three.
This is true. But of what importance is that to non hunters?
Second, genetically inferior bucks may be left to propagate the species, thereby weakening the overall health of the herd.
I can't think of anyone that would pass up a goofy or weak-racked buck if it offered a shot. One thing we do like to do (at least until season is winding down) is to wait until a mature animal presents a shot, letting the younger ones go so they *will* have a chance to reproduce and contribute their genes to the pool. In addition, you get more meat off a mature buck than a mature doe. Substantially more. Bucks in the north can weigh close to 300 lbs where you won't find a doe weighing more than 180-200 tops. (I may even be overestimating the doe weight).
Because hunters largely want to shoot only bucks, hunting may cause artificial inflation of deer populations. When these populations reach levels that available habitat cannot support, increased disease and starvation may be the result.
Do you realize that in some places when the winters have been extremely bad, the DNR will severely limit the number and type of tags to compensate? People who live in that area are out of luck unless they want to travel to hunt.
Will the HSUS come over to your house when you are a$$ deep in those lovely little possums, shunks and prickle packs - catch them and care for them in a manner that you approve of?
I think maybe instead of attacking hunters who are actually playing a role in the ecosystem a better might be corporations that inject unhealthy hormones into meat and vegetable products.
Part of the problem with some environmentalists is that they are the product of the very society they question. They see themselves as being seperated from nature, not as a part of it. This reflects in their worldview that people should not hunt.
Maybe they would prefer that people go to the mall, buy some products from those nice environmentalists at Union Carbide and eat some arbys burgers instead? Because thats exactly what will happen. People wont stop eating meat, they will simply move from obtaining it themselves to having a producer package it up and sell it to them - usually with 50% more fat and loaded with unhealthy steroids and growth hormones.
If our forest acreage is protected by concerned citizens who want to hunt isnt that a better alternative than urban sprawl? I can see far more positives from having a society that values its natural resources and wildlife, even if for hunting purposes than a society that sees all natural resources as being nothing but disposable acreage for a future sludge plant.
I haven't read all the replies, I will later, but I'd also be happy to discuss anything you have to say which isn't a cut/paste, that too I guess, though it really isn't you.
PS, pasta with venison sausage tonight, lots of tomatos and onions, though I often harvest them too.
Well without one you can't have the other (minus the boredom... I am rarely bored)
The point is, they are still raised in very large quantities, solely for the purpose of then being killed, to supply your dinner table with food for that ever present profit motive.
So, a question to you, which animal is more "natural" and able to enjoy it's life. The deer, who gets to do all the neat stuff that deer do, then gets dropped with one shot, to be used as food for the table, or that calf, placed in a feed lot the day it drops, fed as much as it can consume in the shortest amount of time, shot with growth hormone (that dastardly profit motive again) only to spend it's entire short life staring through the wire until it gets stunned, throat slit, and processed in 90 seconds? Which is more natural, which is totaly man made, so that YOU can eat with a clear conscience while you rant about other's 'druthers.
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.