bullskin
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,352
AZstickman's spot-on post "Right to Hunt/Animal Rights" reminds us of the hunter's efforts over decades to protect wild lands and wildlife. One might expect these contributions to be obvious and sufficient to secure no small degree of public esteem. Unfortunately, as we have seen in many states (and no state is forever immune), it takes more than just good intentions and the support of rural communities to deflect the political efforts of antis. As we diminish in number relative to the non-hunting population, dollars and political influence alone will prove inadequate to task of protecting our interests from the withering barrage of criticism intended to portray hunters as consumers, rather than conservationists, of the public resource. What hunters lack is a unified voice, a coherent message, and a messenger capable of earning the respect of those uncommitted voters who will decide the issue.
For now, and until some unforeseen Roosevelt falls into our midst, that respected messenger is you and me to our respective communities. And what about the message? The arguments frequently expressed are too easily nitpicked to pieces by those determined to find fault. There are those who will insist (correctly) that there would be no need for humans to fill the role of top predator, if only we allowed wolves, lions, disease and starvation to manage game populations. Some insist that hunting is inherently cruel, and unnecessary in today's modern world where the supermarket shelves sag under the weight of frozen fish, chicken and green beans. Others, ignorant of the value of wild lands to all species, watershed, etc, fault the hunter's interest in habitat preservation as self-serving, for the purpose of growing his preferred game animal.
There is, however, one regard in which the conservation ethic of hunting is unassailable, by any critic, and it is so obvious that many fail to give it due consideration. It lies in the comparison between hunting and agriculture as means of acquiring food. With hunting, the resources (food, water, cover) made available by the removal of one animal ensure the survival of another that would otherwise perish of competitive pressures. Properly regulated hunting has no impact on game populations, non-target plant and animal species, or landscape--it is truly "sustainable." Consider, in comparison, the impact of agriculture; the millions of acres of forest, grassland and wetland converted to beets, barley or beans--vast monocultures completely devoid of wildlife. Consider the millions of tons of pesticide released annually into the air, water and soil to ensure its continued exclusion. Consider the damage to sensitive aquatic ecosystems that results from the diversion of billions of gallons of water for agricultural purpose. With agriculture, every individual, of every species, is destroyed; and fields remain environmental wastelands for the duration of their existence. To criticize hunting as barbaric is to deny the annihilation of entire populations by the crush of the plough and the death by starvation that invariably befalls the individuals "fortunate" enough to have survived the onslaught of cultivation. It doesn't take long before even the most fervent, grass-fed vegan understands that he can construct no ecological or animal rights argument against hunting given agriculture as his only alternative in acquiring food.
Clearly, this argument applies only to hunting for purpose of consumption and, as this is my purpose, I object to the application of the word "sport" as if there is nothing but kicks to be gained of it. In response to skeptical questions regarding the "need" to hunt, the non-hunting public must understand that this need is only as great as the need to preserve wild lands for native species, rather than see them reduced to row crops. Every meal I take from the wild spares another square meter or two of space for wild things and, while some may complain that there isn't enough wild game to feed the entire population, so what? Not all of us can commute to work on a bicycle or hybrid vehicle but, to the extent that we can encourage others to do so, we all benefit.
I would have replied within your thread, Stickman, but together these posts are a pile o' words.
For now, and until some unforeseen Roosevelt falls into our midst, that respected messenger is you and me to our respective communities. And what about the message? The arguments frequently expressed are too easily nitpicked to pieces by those determined to find fault. There are those who will insist (correctly) that there would be no need for humans to fill the role of top predator, if only we allowed wolves, lions, disease and starvation to manage game populations. Some insist that hunting is inherently cruel, and unnecessary in today's modern world where the supermarket shelves sag under the weight of frozen fish, chicken and green beans. Others, ignorant of the value of wild lands to all species, watershed, etc, fault the hunter's interest in habitat preservation as self-serving, for the purpose of growing his preferred game animal.
There is, however, one regard in which the conservation ethic of hunting is unassailable, by any critic, and it is so obvious that many fail to give it due consideration. It lies in the comparison between hunting and agriculture as means of acquiring food. With hunting, the resources (food, water, cover) made available by the removal of one animal ensure the survival of another that would otherwise perish of competitive pressures. Properly regulated hunting has no impact on game populations, non-target plant and animal species, or landscape--it is truly "sustainable." Consider, in comparison, the impact of agriculture; the millions of acres of forest, grassland and wetland converted to beets, barley or beans--vast monocultures completely devoid of wildlife. Consider the millions of tons of pesticide released annually into the air, water and soil to ensure its continued exclusion. Consider the damage to sensitive aquatic ecosystems that results from the diversion of billions of gallons of water for agricultural purpose. With agriculture, every individual, of every species, is destroyed; and fields remain environmental wastelands for the duration of their existence. To criticize hunting as barbaric is to deny the annihilation of entire populations by the crush of the plough and the death by starvation that invariably befalls the individuals "fortunate" enough to have survived the onslaught of cultivation. It doesn't take long before even the most fervent, grass-fed vegan understands that he can construct no ecological or animal rights argument against hunting given agriculture as his only alternative in acquiring food.
Clearly, this argument applies only to hunting for purpose of consumption and, as this is my purpose, I object to the application of the word "sport" as if there is nothing but kicks to be gained of it. In response to skeptical questions regarding the "need" to hunt, the non-hunting public must understand that this need is only as great as the need to preserve wild lands for native species, rather than see them reduced to row crops. Every meal I take from the wild spares another square meter or two of space for wild things and, while some may complain that there isn't enough wild game to feed the entire population, so what? Not all of us can commute to work on a bicycle or hybrid vehicle but, to the extent that we can encourage others to do so, we all benefit.
I would have replied within your thread, Stickman, but together these posts are a pile o' words.
