NYT Approves of Killing 3,000 Deer on Long Island
An Animal Rights Article from All-Creatures.org

FROM

Anne Muller, Vice President, Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting (CASH)
January 2014

Action Alert: Urge Long Island to Halt Deer Massacre

There’s something wrong when the killing of 3,000 living, breathing beings is given a thumbs-up by an esteemed newspaper. I prefer to believe that the support shown for this “cull” is not a lack of ethics, but rather a lack of information about how deer populations increase. It’s important to know the truth in order to apprehend the real culprit.

Wildlife Services, which operates almost as a separate fiefdom within the USDA, benefits greatly from killing “excess” wildlife that occurs due to sloppy miscalculations by state game departments, and their indifference to wild animal suffering. It’s a win-win situation for both a state wildlife management agency and the federal Wildlife Services, but it is a huge loss for the general public, the deer, and those who love them.

When The New York Times editorial staff gives its imprimatur to an idea, policy, politician, or event, it carries a lot of weight. I’m an avid online reader of the NYT, sometimes waking at 3:45 a.m. to read the NYT in my inbox. As an anti-hunting advocate, the subject of wildlife management has been a specialty of mine for many years, so I was disappointed to read that the killing of deer was given short shrift by the Times’ editors.

There’s something wrong when the killing of 3,000 living, breathing beings is given a thumbs-up by an esteemed newspaper. I prefer to believe that the support shown for this “cull” is not a lack of ethics, but rather a lack of information about how deer populations increase. It’s important to know the truth in order to apprehend the real culprit.

To allow hunters to remove a considerable percentage of the deer population while ensuring a continuing “crop” for the next hunting season, land manipulation and hunting regulations are designed to increase their birthrate and food supply. The current goal of wildlife management agencies is to sustain hunting from season to season. (There is an exception to this form of management but it would be too lengthy to discuss here.)

Wildlife Services, which operates almost as a separate fiefdom within the USDA, benefits greatly from killing “excess” wildlife that occurs due to sloppy miscalculations by state game departments, and their indifference to wild animal suffering. It’s a win-win situation for both a state wildlife management agency and the federal Wildlife Services, but it is a huge loss for the general public, the deer, and those who love them.

Both state game agencies and Wildlife Services operate as if they were private enterprises functioning within a larger government entity, enjoying all the benefits of public money and the credibility that municipal governments attribute to them. Yet, the very survival of Wildlife Services depends on outside contracts from private or government entities; and the survival of state game departments depends on hunting license sales and excise taxes on handguns, other firearms, and ammunition used legally against wild animals and illegally against people.

While hunting has been given a pass by President Obama and other gun control proponents, there are certain fiscal inequities that need to be exposed, and opposed as vigorously as other wrong laws plaguing our society.

I wonder if those who believe that gun control is needed but hunting is okay understand that every firearm purchased and every bit of ammunition used in the killing and injury of students, theater goers, elected officials, and thousands of individuals shot in urban areas, increases the revenue of the Conservation Fund whose purpose is to fund game agencies so that they can continue to benefit from the excise taxes on weapons and ammunition. Put another way, the goal of wildlife management agencies is to increase the use of firearms and ammunition in order to collect the excise tax.

deer cull slaughter
Photo by Jim Robertson, Exposing the Big Game / Animals in the Wild

Isn’t it time to revisit the Pittman-Robertson Act, which created an insulated and circular business that cares little about how firearms are used just so long as they are used?

Wouldn’t it only be fair that funds derived from the sale of guns and ammunition be allocated to compensate victims, or their care-takers, to mitigate the impact of losses from death, injury, or property damage resulting from the use of such weapons and ammunition?

Does it really seem right that all conservation funds are used to promote hunting and more use of firearms and ammunition?

Wildlife management needs to shift from a weapons-based and hunting-based foundation to a non-consumptive, wildlife watching one. That alone will reduce the artificially increased number of deer, thus obviating the pretense of a “necessary cull” due to natural causes rather than the choreography of wildlife management agencies.

How much longer must we and wildlife suffer with our current form of wildlife management? How much longer should families of victims of gun violence be left without compensation to cover the financial burden of their loss? How much longer should the public be kept in the dark about the funding scheme of firearms use? How much longer should our wild animals suffer as a result of mismanagement and a lack of ethics regarding their welfare?

Killing the Long Island deer is wrong both morally and strategically. The real culprit is wildlife management’s connection to the firearms industry. Slaughter of these precious beings will not solve anything, but it will allow the nightmare to continue. Hunting should not be a sacred cow for gun control proponents. It’s time to take it on and change the game.

Return to Animal Rights Articles