In an attempt to rationalize sport hunting to many
Americans concerned about humane treatment and protection of wild animals,
the hunting contingent has intensively promoted self-serving methodologies
and disingenuous statements pertaining to this cruel form of recreation.
Although these insidious strategies have been effective to some degree,
many people are beginning to question the accuracy of information provided
by press releases and well-paid spokespersons which, understandably, are
not considered the most reliable of sources. This biased information
routinely ignores critical points that need to be considered in order to
provide a thorough analysis of sport hunting in contemporary America.
State wildlife agencies rarely operate in the best
interest of all citizens or the wild animals they supposedly protect.
These state wildlife agencies depend heavily upon revenue from the sale of
hunting licenses. According to the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, deer hunting permits for the year 2003 represented nearly $6
million in revenue. Because of this revenue-based dependency, wildlife
agencies view hunters as their primary constituents even though this
segment of the population comprises less than 6 percent of state
residents. The stewardship of our wild neighbors as a resource for all to
enjoy is overshadowed by the demands of a few when it comes down to
current wildlife management strategies.
Wildlife management strategies have contributed
significantly to the preconceived overpopulation of white-tailed deer.
Wildlife agencies routinely manipulate sex ratios and habitats to provide
increased hunting opportunities to sport hunters as hunter satisfaction is
proportional to the number of animals available to kill. The cycle
continues as hunting reduces resident herd sizes and allows for increases
in available food for the survivors. An increased nutritional supply
translates into breeding by immature does and increases in the number of
twins and triplet fawns born, thereby creating more live targets to shoot.
This biological certainty, commonly referred to as the rebound effect when
referring to preferred game species, is the inspiration behind the phrase
renewable resource.
Historically, wildlife agencies have manipulated deer
populations to their financial advantage while aiming to convince the
public that hunting is required to maintain healthy populations for future
generations to enjoy. However, unlike true predators that play a pivotal
role in the overall health of the delicate ecosystem through the natural
selection process, hunters rarely target those animals that appear to be
spindly or unhealthy. Instead, sport hunters routinely kill the largest,
most magnificent specimens available, thereby removing these animals from
the gene pool. Ironically, too, the only species that hunters profess to
kill because of overpopulation (and supposedly, protection from
starvation) is deer -- a species which represents less than 5% of the
total number of animals killed by hunters in this country. There is no
similar justification for the annual killing of the 130 million other
animals.
In an attempt to garner support for this ruthless
activity, sport hunters routinely donate large contributions of meat to
local food banks. Although many hunters have publicly proclaimed their
concern surrounding the consumption of venison due to chronic wasting
disease, they seem to have no qualms about accepting accolades for
donating this potentially tainted food source to the homeless and most
vulnerable citizens. If this act of charity were truly altruistic, hunters
could find a more cost-effective manner in which to assist people in need
of nourishment. In example, according to statistics gathered through the
University of Maryland’s Extension Service, hunters in 1990 harvested over
46,000 deer. After factoring in all costs involved (i.e., licensing fees,
lodging, clothing, etc.), the total price for each deer killed was
approximately $1,100. Considering each animal provided approximately 45
pounds of meat, the overall cost for this venison amounted to $24 per
pound (The Humane Society of the United States).
In another effort to appear kind-hearted to the
impressionable public, hunters assert that they contribute millions of
dollars through various taxes and licensing fees. Taxation and mandated
licensing fees, however, are hardly indicative of a generous spirit!
Furthermore, over 60 million gun owners -- the majority of whom are
non-hunters -- fund the government mandated Federal Aid in Fish and
Wildlife Restoration (Pittman-Robertson) Act, along with other citizens
who purchase outdoor recreation and camping equipment via imposed taxes.
Hunters have been exaggerating their role in this major conservation
program for years.
It is outlandish to hear sport hunters assert their
sensitive side by proclaiming a “love” for wildlife. Their perverse
definition of “love” allows for the stalking, terrorizing, and destruction
of unsuspecting victims. Based upon this depraved standard, it could be
reasonably argued that serial rapists love women and pedophiles love
children. Would that somehow make these heinous violations any less
repulsive?
The sport hunter’s fascination with death and need to
assert dominance is a blatant denial of any moral obligation to other
forms of sentient life. There should be no place in a civilized culture
for unnecessary killing -- especially when conducted solely for enjoyment
purposes. Understandably, people who were previously receptive to the
false, misleading statements provided by those self-serving individuals
and government agencies intent on maintaining the massive flow of cash and
status quo, are beginning to reshape their positions. The fact that the
United States condones and advocates the killing of trophy animals should
serve as a humbling reminder of the hypocrisy surrounding the ethical
standing of a nation – especially one which revels in any opportunity to
wave its proverbial finger in the face of other cultures.
Laura M. Nirenberg, Executive Director
Wildlife Orphanage, Inc.
LaPorte, IN 46350
219/362-6999
Laura@wildlife-orphanage.org
laura@netnitco.net
www.wildlife-orphanage.org
Go on to Job Opportunity
Return to 1 May 2005 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
