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.
WRONG!
I'm sure you are well meaning, but unbelievably ignorant of deer hunting. Here in Kansas, the deer population is so out of control that for the last two years, we have been able to take six deer in a year. At least five of them have to be anterlerless, depending on if you're lucky to draw one buck tag.
I'm a meat hunter and could care less about antlers. Most of the hunters I know are the same. That doesn't mean we would pass up a nice buck, but we are just as happy with a doe. The farmers are happy to have us taking them too.
I used to be one of those bleeding heart anti-hunters too. That is until I learned a few facts and actually went out and did it. Now I don't miss an opening day of any season. So if you want to have an educated opinion on the matter, I suggest you go along on a hunt.
I didn't come anywhere near crying when I shot my first deer, but anytime I kill an animal, I do have a feeling of respect, and maybe a little guilt. It's a little something you feel in your belly that will make you wait for a good clean shot, or pass up a shot you think won't do the job quick.
I don't know any details, he didn't go into it. I got the sense that the idea was that periodic breakdowns in the social order due to wars and whatnot were inevitable, so evey kid should know how to go into the forest and kill to eat, just in case.
I understand...but unfortunately I feel most hunters will not admit that they have killed other animals~~unnecessarily~~ for the hell of it. Be it birds, squirrels or rabbit...whatever.
Switched up to a 12' piece of galvanized conduit for the handle and things are much nicer. I was able to fit it in the passenger compartment of the impala, which says a lot about that car. When I switched up to the F150, I had to open the slider window because it wouldn't fit in the box. Gotta love a car that big.
No offense intended with the 'what is this thread about' comment... just think it's funny that it's us hijacking SunGirl's thread instead of the other way around. Looks like she has moved on, once again without responding to any of the salient points. So it goes when clinging to the indefensible.
While woodchuck meat isn't bad, it's not good either. Just kinda there.
Got facts?
Do you think somebody might have a guilty conscience?
By the way...I am not embarrassed by my private emails....I was pointing out the true character of people who post them .....I compare it telling your friends a secret and they decide to tell it word for word to the world. Those kind of people you need to stay away from...esp if someone can blow away animals and brag about it.
Ok...so tell me. Ever kill an animal just for the hell of it while hunting? LIke a squirrel....raccoon, rabbit, crow? See.....if I ask every poster in here who hunts that same question....do you think they will tell me the truth to verify how I feel? I don't think so. But for many years of working with and living around hunters..........they not only tell their stories to eachother.....they brag.
How about expanding what you read with "Meditations on Hunting" - a very thoughtful & comprehensive analysis of why people hunt?
How about expanding your experiences by actually accompanying someone on a hunt? Find out what hunting really entails.
What you've read and experienced is quite limited. You're not going to get the big picture by limiting yourself to PETA propaganda and casual on-line arguments.
many of the posts I read in here intensified my beliefs.
Ironically, you're doing the same on a larger scale for your opposition. A number of people here (moi included) will be thinking "this one's for Sungirl" as they take their next prey.
I compare [posting private messages to] telling your friends a secret and they decide to tell it word for word to the world.
But the person in question here isn't your friend, is he?
And the message you privately sent wasn't a secret, was it?
You didn't tell a friend a secret in private, you insulted a stranger in private - and that does not deserve the same protections.
Those kind of people you need to stay away from...esp if someone can blow away animals and brag about it.
You're projecting again, m'am.
Nope. Not at all. Every shot has been deliberate, every animal taken has been eaten. God's honest truth.
do you think they will tell me the truth to verify how I feel?
Tell the truth? Yes.
To verify how you feel? No. The truth, in this case, will not verify how you feel. How you feel on this subject is unjustified. You're fishing for someone to admit to a wasteful thrill kill just so you can point to that isolated fact and shout "see? they all do it! all hunters are EEEEvil!"
I don't think so. But for many years of working with and living around hunters..........they not only tell their stories to eachother.....they brag.
Not our problem if you hang around bad people. Just don't assume & accuse others of being bad.
I imagine people will kill extra things while hunting in my name....but I am positive that my name will be the only thing new to the 'so-called hunt'.
LOL!! You're from ORK aren't you.
Some people have already admitted killing pets..etc...and teach their kids the same things. I'll have to gather the posts together. But...I have to go back to work now for the day...and i think we have wasted enough space here. I am going to send FR $25 bucks today.....you?
Oh geez now you've done it. Don't let Sungirl read that one!
I think our problem with ppl like Sungirl is that she is saying all of us are like that, that hunting is cruel no matter how you slice it. Of course now she has seemed to temper that in at least one post I saw.
I am all for care for our planet, but let me emphasize our. Many things harm the planet and the animal kingdom but man has always progressed in learning to manage the situation. Hunting is not an issue, it is natural and few animals are tortured for the hell of it (more by sickos than actual hunters). In Fact I would be willing to bet that poor environmental policies pushed by the radical left have done more harm than all the hunters in the USA. Just look at the terrible deaths caused by the Environmentalist who thought they knew best and ended up harming all sorts of wildlife in the Kalamath Basin.
It is time for common sense and facts. Common Sense says that hunting is no great harm. In fact I am sure less "wild" animals are hunted now than ever in the US. So many just rely on industry to raise, slaughter and process their food never having affected the wild populations of Squirrels.
I think you need a much more important cause, try Global warming or the plight of the Palestinians.
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.