The Hog Blog

Wow. 

I just spent the last half-hour listening to KQED Forum, an hour-long NPR program here locally in which the host, Michael Krasny interviews a handful of “experts” and invites listeners to call or email their comments.  I wasn’t able to tune in for the first half of the show, but I heard enough in 30 minutes to get a pretty good feel for what I missed. 

The topic today was, “The Future of Hunting.”  On the panel were Doug Updike, a senior biologist from CA DFG, Jim Posowitz, Executive Director at Orion, The Hunters’ Institute, and Nicole Paquette, senior vice president and general counsel for Born Free USA (an animal rights/welfare organization).

In a nutshell, there wasn’t a lot of new stuff here.  Updike and Posowitz kept coming back to the conservation ethic and the fact that there’s more to hunting than wholesale slaughter of wildlife.  They addressed the facts that hunters are a necessary part of the ecological whole.   While most of the pro-hunting callers offered little earthshattering insight, there were several self-identified “liberals” who called in to announce that they, too, are hunters.  I suppose that’s a challenge to some stereotypes, and for that I’m grateful.  I was also grateful that while some pro-hunting callers fell back on standard rhetoric, all of them came across as even and logical.  Unless I missed something in the early part of the program, there was no mudslinging or name-calling. 

Meanwhile Paquette was somewhere off in a Utopian vision in which humans are somehow supposed to be spectators to nature, but not direct participants.  Her ideal is that wildlife should live in its “natural setting”, and hunters shouldn’t intrude on that.  Of course, it’s OK for predators to kill animals, or for them to die of old age and disease, but apparently in her world view, hunters are not predators… or even part of “nature”.  She even thinks it fine, or even preferable, that humans get our meat from supermarkets rather than going into the wild to kill our own. 

I mean, really, I wanted to keep an open mind and hear the arguments out, but she spoke from so far outside of reality that I simply couldn’t take anything she said seriously.  I mean, if this is what she truly believes, then her entire position totally ignores every other impact of human existance… not only hunting, but our very status as cohabitants in the ecosystem. 

Most of the anti-hunting callers were, like the pro-hunters, quite respectful on a personal level, but awfully reliant on generalizations and over-used rhetorical themes such as,  “Why can’t hunters enjoy nature without ‘assassinating it?”  or, “How can you call hunting a ’sport’?  It’s totally unfair!”

Only one caller, a hunter named, “Josh”, was willing to get down to the true sticking point that gives anti-hunters so much grief, and trips up the hunters as well… the fact of death.  Death is a part of hunting, but it is a part of life.  As he explained, the hunter does not generally enjoy causing death, but understands very clearly that it’s required… just as the hunter will be required to die at some point as well. 

Everyone else, particulary Posowitz, avoided the question that entangles hunters every time… “How can you enjoy killing things?” 

Posowitz glossed it over by rote, noting that “hunting isn’t just about killing…etc.,” and then quickly going back to the conservation ethic. 

Of course Paquette immediately pounced on the opening, saying something along the lines of, “you see how uncomfortable he is about it?  He changed the subject!”

I’ve mentioned this before, but why avoid answering that question?  Is it just too hard to put into words that enjoying hunting isn’t quite the same as enjoying killing, even though killing is a necessary part of hunting?  Is it a subconscious anthropomorphosis that we can’t get past equating killing an animal with killing a person?  Or is it the fear of our own deaths that makes it so difficult to explain giving death to something else? 

First of all, of course hunters are uncomfortable with the idea of killing.  It’s a complex mixture of emotions, and anyone who feels only  joy, or worse, who feels nothing when he kills is certainly an anomaly.  But there’s nothing wrong with expressing the conflicting feelings of the kill.. the joy, the excitement, the dread and the sorrow.

Do I enjoy killing things?  Yes, when I am hunting and I am successful, I enjoy it a great deal.  Do I enjoy it because I’ve caused death to a living thing?  No.  Of course not.  I enjoy it because, as a predator, this time I have prevailed.  I will eat fresh, healthy meat.  I enjoy it not because I don’t respect the sanctity of life, but because the life I have taken will now give me life.  Symbolically, I have ensured my own survival, and that of my family… and the fact that I could go to the store and buy meat that someone else has raised and killed for me is irrelevant.   

Anyway, I may have digressed a little… back to the show.  

I tried calling in once, but after a busy-signal, I realized that I have never been very good at that kind of extemporaneous speaking, and usually end up sounding quite foolish.  I decided instead to send an email to the program, expressing some of my thoughts.  Unfortunately, it probably arrived too late to be read on the air. 

At the end of the show, while I wasn’t especially impressed by the quality of the discussion (nothing particularly enlightening or opinion altering on either side), I was impressed that Krasny appeared actually benign… or even positive… toward the pro-hunting side of the discussion.  Of course, that couldn’t have been hard faced with Paquette’s fantasy-land vision of the human-nature relationship. 

As always, the show ended without anyone challenging the anti-hunters on what I think is the key question.  How is legal, sport-hunting harmful to the resource, the environment, or the participants?   Quantify your answer.

You can download an MP3 of the show now, at the KQED website.  It’s worth a listen, if you’ve got an hour to kill.

 

Due to the extent of this response, I felt it better to include as a new post rather than an extended comment.  Note the original post for reference.

---

Why the resistance to calling a spade a spade, and facing up to the fact that what we do is sport hunting… hunting for sport?  To borrow from Arthur’s original “Why I Hunt” challenge post (which is where this is all started, of course), he quoted a really eloquent statement from a Mr. Shane Mahoney.

“The task at hand is to articulate the relevance of hunting; not its correctness, nor its practical service to human kind. Rationalizing the mythology is both a tactical error and a diminishment of pride. Lies and excuses usually are.”

Why the squeamishness with being honest about what we’re doing out there? 

Read the rest of this entry »

I received another comment from an anti-hunter yesterday.  It was loaded with filthy language and curses, so I deleted it as I will do with any such comment to this blog.  And all would have been well, and maybe should have been, but it just caught a nerve somewhere and I couldn’t let it go.

In short, amidst the pre-teen cursewords, the writer took me and all hunters to task with the same old cliches… heartless, blood-thirsty, and cruel.  The comment closed with another cliche, the wish that “someone” would hunt, kill, and skin us like we do the poor animals we terrorize.  It was really sort of cartoonish, and at first all I could do was shake my head.

But I sat around thinking today, and with nothing better to do, scribbled down this rejoinder.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been remiss in keeping up with all this stuff that has been going on in Pennsylvania, so if you haven’t already seen this elsewhere, here’s the story in brief.

Johnna Seeton of the Pennsylvania Legislative Animal Network (and an officer of the Humane Society “police”) brought a suit against the State of Pennsylvania in 2004, alleging that the PA Game Commission failed to enforce game code violations at Tioga Boar Hunting Preserve (a high-fence operation).  The State responded that the animals in game preserves are not “game animals” under state law, and as such, the Commission had no authority to regulate the hunting practices or enforce game codes there. 

Well, it looks like the PA Supreme Court has now designated the wild boar as game animals, and placed responsibility for their regulation and management on the PA Game Commission.  You can read more detail about this in the PA Morning Call.

This opens a whole can of worms for the state and hunters.  Previously, since the boar was not considered a game animal, hunters were permitted (and encouraged) to kill them in the wild any time they were encountered.  Under the new designation, the boar will have “Protected” status, since no hunting season or regulations address them.  While escapes are fairly limited, wild boar reproduce rapidly in the wild, and a significant population can grow up in a relatively short time.  They are destructive to habitat, farm crops, and potentially a health threat to domesticated hogs.  With the new designation and no regulations in place to manage them, this is a potentially huge problem for Pennsylvania. 

There’s no secret that Seeton’s intent is to undermine and shut down high fence hunting in Pennsylvania.  She’s said so herself.  But like so many other misguided animal rights battles, the downrange results of her actions pose a big threat to the environment and native species she claims to protect.  Fortunately, the Game Commission is moving quickly to close the gaps and allow hunters to continue to shoot the invasive animals.  The longer term impacts on hunting preserves in PA remains to be seen. 

Now, for my opinion… this whole fiasco need not turn out to be bad thing.  From what I’ve read, the high fence ranches basically operated in a legal black hole… since there didn’t appear to be any real regulation on the practices inside their fences (someone correct me if I’m wrong).   No one seems to know what law enforcement authority has jurisdiction inside their walls.  I don’t know anything about any of the businesses there, and for all I know they were all operating above board and with good ethics.  But I have to agree with the idea that someone needs to have authority and regulatory control in order to avoid the kinds of abuses that foul the nest for high fence operations around the country… whether it’s the Game Commission, State Animal Control, or some other office specially created for the purpose.  High Fence ranches are not for everybody, but they are a legitimate business and should be permitted to operate just like any other legitimate business.  Ms. Seeton’s aims to shut them down should be thwarted, but perhaps she has exposed a problem that does need to be addressed. 

You can read more and comment about this issue at Dave Hurteau’s Field and Stream Field Notes blog. 

In my Internet rambles the other day, I came across this blog site and a post condemning “canned hunting“.  (Edited to add:  I think I actually stumbled onto this from a link on the Hunting Pressure blog, one of the newer additions to my blog roll.)  After adding a couple of my own responses to the comments (I used my own name), I thought that maybe some of you might like to go take a look, and add your own two cents’ worth… pro or con.

Now, if you haven’t jumped out already, I’m only gonna offer a little bit of my own perspective here.  My response in the other blog’s comments repeats much of it. 

Canned hunts as they are so often portrayed in the media and by anti-hunters are a blight on the sport of hunting.  This includes the example described in the aforementioned blog, where a leopard is drugged, then released from a cage for the “hunter” to shoot.  Most states have outlawed this kind of behavior, and rightly so.  Drugging the animal, or shooting it in an enclosure with no chance of escape is pretty ugly stuff… although I must say that it’s no uglier than the commercial slaughterhouse. 

What is unfortunate is the way the term “canned hunt” is so loosely and inaccurately applied to so many hunting practices, from game ranch operations to shoot-em-in-the-cage parties.  

The stereotype is perpetuated by the anti-hunters, because they recognize what a divisive issue it is, even in the hunting community.  Unfortunately, the biggest reason for this division is a lack of knowledge about what game ranches really are, versus what a true “canned hunt” is.  Most hunters, when asked, respond with disdain that they’d never hunt a game ranch, even though they’ve never even seen one… much less tried hunting on one.  The problem is further complicated by this “my ethics are better than your ethics” attitude that seems so rife in our community (crossbow vs vertical bow, inline vs. exposed hammer muzzleloaders, etc.).

Hunters may not all find game ranch hunting to be their cup of tea, but let’s think about this for a moment.  Many of the same folks who decry high fence hunts are still perfectly happy to sit in a tree stand over a food plot or bait pile.  Others will hunt their animals driven by hounds (human or canine) from their beds and hiding places.  Yet others think nothing of sniping from hundreds of yards away as the animal wanders oblivious to their presence. 

So come on, where DO you draw the line? 

Personally, I’ll go on the record that I have no problem with someone who chooses to hunt and kill inside a high-fence operation or game ranch, as long as the animals on the place are treated humanely (not drugged, caged, or artificially stimulated “dangerous game”).  I see ranched game animals as just another form of livestock, and as long as they are humanely despatched, then I don’t see any issue with it. 

At the same time, I don’t put much stock in “trophy” animals taken from enclosures.    Sure, they can be great specimens and worth admiring for that.  I really enjoy the skins and horns from my Texas exotics.  They look cool, and the skins are wonderful coverings on my office chair.  The horns from my blackbuck are a great conversation piece, but I don’t try to fool anyone that taking them was any great feat.

I do take issue with the individuals who artificially inflate their own egos with tales of prowess inside a high fence… well, to me they’re buffoons.  But then, the world is full of buffoons in all fields of endeavour.  What’s one more?

OK, so despite my oft-repeated support for getting lead ammo out of the condor range (and out of the environment altogether), the State Fish and Game Commission has gone over the top by adding rimfire ammunition to the list of banned ammo in the Condor range. 

This article in the Sacramento Bee, written by a reporter who obviously has no clue about hunting or the condor issue, describes the most recent action by the commission.  Unfortunately, the article contains several innacuracies, including the following totally false and misleading comment:

The endangered condor was nearly driven to extinction by hunting and the effects of another man-made toxin, the pesticide DDT. With those risks diminished, a leading threat to its survival today is lead ammunition.

First of all, while a lot of folks did shoot condors out of ignorance, it wasn’t hunting.  Secondly, a big reason for the decline of the condor is that its ecological niche, cleaning up the carcasses of large mammals disappeared with the near extinction of tule elk, and the extirpation of the grizzly in CA.  The demise of the whale population, followed by the death of the whaling industry also removed another critical food source. 

The fact is that only a very few condor deaths are possibly attributable to the ingestion of lead, and there is, as yet, NO proof that the lead that killed them came from hunters’ bullets.  The very research used by the lead-ban advocates admits that there’s no verifiable correlation… although there is, certainly, a reasonable possibility that some of the lead did come from ammunition, it’s hardly a “major cause” of condor mortality. 

The condor researchers have also shown that condors aren’t eating small game or upland bird carcasses.  Lead from rimfires and shotgun shells does not pose a threat to condors. 

Secondly, another reason that the initial plan excepted rimfires from the ban is that there is no non-toxic alternative for rimfire ammunition… so including this ammunition in the ban is essentially a ban on an entire class of firearms in this zone. 

In the long run, I definitely agree that lead needs to phase out of our ammo boxes, but banning it all at once under the false pretense of “saving the condor” is a slap in the face to all hunters.  This is wrong, and stinks of an anti-hunting agenda (despite my early resistance to conspiracy theory). 

It’s critical here for sportsmen to stand up and speak out.  Make our voices heard in Sacramento!  Get on the phone, write letters and emails, and don’t let up.   Outdoor bloggers need to get on this too, both in CA and outside of the state. 

THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION! 

Some of you may recall a couple of posts last month in which several of us responded to an email message from a young lady named, Jessica.  For those who don’t recall, here’s a real quick background.

Jessica had seen my personal hunting website  while doing some research for a school paper.  After scanning the site, she sent me an email expressing her personal distaste for hunting, at the same time; she asked for information to support her thesis that hunting is dangerous to hunters and the environment. 

You can review the threads here, and here, to read the entire exchange.

Anyway, as she promised, Jessica has sent along her essay to be published here.  I want to thank her for sticking to her promise, and for allowing me to share this with you all.  But before I do, there are a couple of things I want to make clear.

First, Jessica is 15 years old.  Any comments or responses you make will be respectful of her age (and respectful of the other readers here for that matter) or they will be removed.  You may or may not agree with what she has to say, and feel free to speak up either way, but keep it clean and keep it pertinent. 

Also, I have chosen not to dissect this paper on grammatical or structural technicalities.  While reading it, I often had to swat down my training as an English teacher and resist the urge to take a red-pen to the document.  That’s not why she’s sharing this with us, and I’d appreciate if you could all exercise the same restraint.   Feel free to debate her logic and conclusions if you will, but let’s not turn this into a grammar excercise.  Her high school teacher can tend to that.

Finally, I promised to let her share this paper with you, the Hog Blog readers.  I will provide my own response to her essay in a moment, but for now be assured that her words represent her own opinion and the results of her own research.  They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the establishment.  She kept her promise by sending the essay, and I’m keeping mine by publishing it.   

OK, enough of that.  Here’s Jessica’s paper in its entirety.  The only changes I’ve made were to format it for the blog.

Dangers of Hunting!

There are many people that say that hunting is not dangerous, and that they are helping the environment. Although there is logical proof that hunting is dangerous, such as a report on Turkey hunting being most dangerous, and deer hunting being most deadly. Turkey hunters have higher rates of shooting - related injuries, than hunters hunting of other species. “ In fact, the study found that hunters’ chances of being shot depend both on what they’re hunting, and the hunters’ ages, with the highest injury rates reported in hunters under the age of 20,” says Gene Lengerich. In the article published by Penn State publishers, it stated that in March of 2005, there were 1, 345 hunting-related shooting incidents, that happened in Pennsylvania from 1987 to 1999. And that the incidents were categorized by the species hunted, which were: white- tailed deer, turkey (fall), pheasant, grouse, rabbit, squirrel, and turkey (spring).

Also stated in this report, is that there were 1,382 injuries, and 77 fatalities, accounting for nearly 92 percent of all hunting- related shooting injuries, and 93 percent of fatalities. Also, fall turkey hunters seem to account for the highest shooting-related injury rate of 7.5 per 100,000 hunters, and grouse hunters at the lowest at 1.9 per 100,000 hunters. And 10.3 percent of fatalities was highest for deer, and the lowest for pheasant at 1.3 percent. Also, written in the New York Times, there was an article about a dog who shot 37 year old James Harris, in Iowa . “ He took between 100 to 120 pellets in about a four-inch circle to his calf.” Mr. Harris was shot after putting his gun down to retrieve a bird that he had shot, and the dog stepped on the gun, and tripped the trigger, shooting Mr. Harris at a close range of about three feet away.
 
Another story retrieved was about Vice President Dick Cheney, who accidentally shot and wounded a prominent Austin, Texas, lawyer on Saturday February 12, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. While they were qual hunting in South Texas, vice president Cheney fired his shotgun at the man, while trying to aim for a bird. Mr. Whittington, 78, was taken by helicopter to Christus Spohn Memorial Hospital, where he was listed in stable condition in the intensive care unit on Sunday, according to Michele Trevino, a hospital spokeswoman. Mrs. Katharine Armstrong says that Mr. Cheney, 65, fired his shotgun without realizing that Mr. Whittington had approached the group, hitting him on his right side, on his cheek, neck and chest. Afterwards Harry Whittington was happy to see that he was doing fine. And after getting out, during the Bush- Cheney re-election campaign, Mr. Whittington contributed two-thousand dollars. In previous information, a Science Daily report stated that, “ Compared to other hunters, turkey hunters had the highest injury rate, were typically older and fewer had a history of hunter education,” said Joseph L. Smith, study team member and former Penn State College of Medicine graduate student in health evaluation sciences.
   
And in 1995, the regulations for hunters to wear fluorescent orange were relaxed, and hunters were able to remove their fluorescent orange if they had 100 square inches of fluorescent orange material, within 15 feet of their calling position. And the number of multiple-party, poor judgement injuries increased.
  
Given those facts, there are several different dangers in hunting, although the most common is being shot accidentally  by a partner whom you are hunting with. In conclusion there are  for sure many dangers in hunting, although it never stops hunters to go out and hunt again, most being very careful and cautious, and many others ending up getting hurt.    
 
Works Cited
 
Penn State. “ Turkey Hunting Most Dangerous, Deer Hunting Most Deadly, According to Report.” Science Daily. 15 March 2005. 10 November 2007
 
The Associated Press. “ Iowa : Dog Shoots Hunter.” The New York Times. 31 October 2007. 15 November 2007
 
Kornbult E., Anne. “ Cheney Shoots Fellow Hunter in Mishap on a Texas Ranch.” The New York Times. 13 Feb.2007. 18 November 2007

 
Penn State (2005, March 15). Turkey Hunting Most Dangerous, Deer Hutning Most Deadly, According to Report.
Science Daily. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from
 
Environment News Service. “ Turkey Hunting Most Dangerous.” Mywire. 10 March 2005. 15 November 2007

There’s a handful there to deal with and think about, and before jumping right in with a response, that’s exactly what I’ve done… thought about it.  I’d encourage you all to do the same.  Read the rest of this entry »

Anybody wonder where folks get the negative stereotypes of hunters?  I don’t.  Sometimes there are things that just really make it hard to defend our sport… like the series of videos I found on Youtube the other day.

This guy has a whole string of clips from the Missouri Department of Conservation “robo-deer” stings.  Idiots spot the decoy from the road, then these “sportsmen” stop and open fire.  Some don’t even bother to get out of the car or truck! 

Anyway, here are a couple of them.  There are about 12 or 14 on YouTube.  Do a search for “Deer Decoy” and “Missouri”, or you can look them up by user name, “MOHunting”.

Warning, the following video may incite judicious fury in the mind of ethical, law-abiding hunters.

Well, I was a bit surprised to find another email from Jessica in my box last night.  Some moxie that girl has, sticking to her guns, but apologizing for her rudeness.  I couldn’t ask for more.  Wish more young folks were like this.

Anyway, I figure I’ll share this one too. 

Phillip,

  I admire the fact that you took the time to write me back, and i am sorry for the harsh email that I sent you. I will admit that I dont know all of the logical information on hunting and I don’t know the numbers of money spent to hunt. Although I do know that hunting is the worst sport that could have ever been tried (at least in my book it is). And I admire the strong facts that you have given me to support your side of the argument. I am writing back in regards to say sorry for being so rude and to ask you one question. I came to your site in order to find the answer to my question which is as follows: ” How is hunting dangerous to people and the environment?” I am doing a school report and was hoping to find a logical answer in your website. Although it did not help me, that is when I read or should I say skimmed through it, and it sort of brought my anger level higher and higher as i skimmed. I ask you if you can possibly help me in being of answering my question above. Please and Thank You.

                                                                                Sincerely,

                                                                                Jessica

P.S. Sorry

And my reply: 

Hi Jessica,

It’s a pleasant surprise to hear from you again. 

No worries on your last email.  You’re a passionate young lady, and it’s obvious you feel strongly about this topic.  I’ve certainly received emails and comments that were much ruder.  At least you had the courtesy to follow up with an apology and explanation.  Hold onto that fiery spirit. 

Now, as to your search… How is hunting dangerous to people and the environment?

That’s gonna be a tough thesis to prove, as the facts and statistics really show that hunting isn’t very dangerous at all.  I mean, sure, anytime you have an endeavor that includes the use of firearms, knives, and archery equipment, you’re going to have an element of physical risk.  These are dangerous tools, and like any dangerous tool, improper use or failure to observe common safety rules can result in some pretty horrendous accidents.  Contrary to most peoples’ assumptions, though, a large percentage of hunting accidents and injuries are not from firearms, but from slipping and/or falling. 

Fortunately, these accidents, or incidents, are statistically very rare.  Comparatively, people are more likely to be injured playing table tennis or swimming than they are while hunting. 

A major reason for the low number of hunting accidents is the fact that all states now require hunters to attend and complete mandatory Hunter Safety Education training before they are allowed to get a license.  While the course varies from state to state, students are taught the proper use and handling of firearms and bows, along with some basic shooting and woodsmanship skills.  Since this requirement has been widely implemented, the number of hunting accidents, particularly firearms related, has dropped significantly.  A little Google research on your part can turn up the specific numbers, if you care to do so. 

As to dangers to the environment, again, there’s not much evidence that supports the argument.  Regulated, sport hunting is generally neutral to positive in regards to environmental impacts.  Now there was a time in the past when there were no laws or regulations, and people didn’t know any better.  Market hunting (hunting game to sell to restaurants and stores, as well as for skins) killed masses of animals and resulted in the near eradication of some species.  It was sport hunters who recognized this, and worked to establish the first hunting seasons and licenses. 

Since then, as I’ve mentioned, many species have recovered and are now thriving.  In fact, as I wrote in my last email, hunters are generally responsible for most of the wildlife restoration and wild lands conservation in this country.  It’s completely arguable that hunting has shown an extremely beneficial impact on the environment, as opposed to being “dangerous”.

I’ll be honest and say that we do occasionally discover negative impacts.  For example, in the mid-70s, biologists discovered a link between lead shotgun pellets and poisoning of waterfowl.  The shot from hunters’ guns was accumulating in the mud of waterways and ponds, and the ducks were ingesting this lead.  As soon as this was identified as a problem, a movement began to remove lead shot from waterfowl habitat, and by the early 1980s, it became illegal in all 50 states and Canada to use lead shot for waterfowl.  Hunters now use non-toxic shot, such as steel or tungsten. 

There’s a similar issue in California and Arizona right now, as scientists have discovered that some condors may be ingesting lead from the carcasses of big game that was shot by hunters.  As a result, new laws are now being passed to require hunters in the condor areas to use non-lead bullets.  This should alleviate that risk, not only to condors, but to other carrion birds as well. 

The only other risk to the environment that might be partially attributed to hunters is damage caused by ATVs to sensitive wildlife habitat.  However, there are many non-hunters riding ATVs in the fields and forests as well, so it would be unfair to separate hunters as the cause of this problem.  Many hunters support stricter regulations on ATV use, both for hunting and recreational purposes. 

I’m afraid I have very little else to offer, Jessica.  Hunting, as it is practiced today, is a very safe sport.  There are accidents, but when you compare the number of accidents with the number of people who are hunting, you’ll find that they are actually not the “norm.”  Newspapers and TV don’t often talk about the safe hunters, since that’s not news.  It’s only news when someone gets hurt or killed, which is why you may hear and read so much about hunting accidents. 

You can learn a lot more about this through a Google search on Hunting Accident Statistics, or on hunting effects on the environment.  Also, take some time to visit the International Hunter Education Association website (http://www.ihea.com).  There’s a lot of good info there, too.  Try those, and read carefully.  I think you’ll come to the same conclusions I’ve presented here.

Good luck on your paper.  I’d love to read it if you care to send it when you’re done.

Be well,

Phillip 

So then, here’s a challenge to you, readers.  I didn’t really have time to do thorough research on statistics and numbers over the years.  I know the trend data is out there, if someone had that info at their fingertips and would be so kind as to reply with links, it would be great for Jessica and anyone else doing this kind of research. 

And here’s another question.  What steps have you taken to be a safe hunter?  Do you do anything special to minimize possible impacts on the environment? 

Got an interesting note in my email this morning.  At first read, I sort of doubted the authenticity of the source, claiming to be 15 year-old “Jessica”, a high-school freshman researching “The Dangers of Hunting”.  Despite the all-caps (implying that she was yelling at me) and the run-ons, it wasn’t a badly written letter.  So after a while I decided that it didn’t really matter if this was bait from someone I knew, or a real email … I’d respond anyway.  What the heck, right? 

Anyway, here’s what Jessica wrote:

HELLO [she used my email address, which I've deleted here to avoid spambots],

 I THINK THAT YOUR WEBSITE IS A DISASTER, I CANT BELIEVE THAT YOU THINK HUNTING IS SO GOOD!!!  I AM WRITING A PAPER ON THE DANGERS OF HUNTING AND WHY IT IS SO BAD, AND I CAME ACROSS YOUR WEBSITE JUST TO SEE WHAT I CAN FIND!!! BUT IF ANYTHING THIS WEBSITE ANGERED ME!!! I WAS WALKING HOME FROM SCHOOL YESTERDAY, AND SAW A TRUCK PULL UP AT THE STOP SIGN WITH A DEAD BUCK LYING ON THE FLAT-BEDED TRUCK. IT MADE ME CRY TO THINK OF ALL THE THINGS YOU PEOPLE DO TO ANIMALS IN OUR SOCIETY!!! I ASK FOR HELP IN CON HUNTING ALTHOUGH ALL I GET IS MORE AND MORE PAGES ABOUT HOW HUNTING IS A SPORT AND WHAT IF THEY TOOK OUR REGULAR AND DAILY SPORTS AWAY HOW WOULD WE FEEL… PERSONALLY I WOULDNT CARE JUST AS LONG AS YOU PEOPLE STOP HUNTING!!! I AM A FRESHMAN IN HIGH SCHOOL AND IT SADDENS ME THAT ALL THE HUNTING YOU GUYS DO… THERE MAY NOT BE THAT MANY ANIMALS LEFT FOR MY CHILDREN TO SEE… THANKS FOR LETTING ME TAKE MY ANGER OUT… AND IF YOU GET OFFENDED I AM SORRY… IT JUST ANGERS ME TO THE FACT THAT YOU HUNTERS LOVE TO RUN OUT AND “SHOOT YOU UP A BUCK…” I MEAN SERIOUSLY IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF IT WAS THE END OF THE WORLD AND YOU NEEDED FOOD… THEN MAYBE GO SHOOT A DEER OR SOMETHING… BUT NOT JUST FOR PLEASURE OR AS A SPORT…. I MEAN COME ON…THANK YOU!!!

                                                                    - JESSICA

                                                                        AGE: 15

The following is my response. 

Hi Jessica,

I can understand how hunting must look to someone who doesn’t participate in the sport.  It seems harsh, I’m sure, and maybe even a little bit scary.  I mean, here are these people with big guns out there killing “innocent” animals.  Right?  It probably looks mean and wasteful.  It makes you angry because you don’t understand.  And, human nature tells us to fear what we do not understand.  So your feelings are understandable. 

But I ask you to step back from your own prejudices for a moment and consider a couple of things. 

First of all, you wrote that you are afraid that there may not be any animals left if we keep hunting.  You should be aware though, that legal sport hunting has never been responsible for the eradication of any game species.  In fact, after hunting seasons and laws were enacted, the populations of most game species actually increased.  An example is the whitetail deer, once nearly extinct in the southeastern United States due to market hunting (not the same as sport hunting) and habitat loss.  Through the efforts of sportsmen and paid for by the money raised from the sale of licenses and hunting equipment, whitetail are now one of the most populous big game species in the country.  Wild turkeys, elk, and waterfowl are all similar conservation success stories.  Sport hunters did this.  While we may strive to kill a few individual animals, our efforts ensure that there are many more there to replace them. 

The fact is, without hunting many of the animals you love to see would very likely not exist any more.  Hunters put billions of dollars into conservation, both through license and tag fees and through voluntary contributions to conservation organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.  These organizations buy and manage wild lands, not only for the specific game animals but for all of the creatures that depend on the habitat to survive.  Without this conservation effort, millions of acres would have been plowed under, paved over, or developed for housing and industry.  In the US , hunters put more money into saving the environment than any other special interest group, including the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, or the Audubon Society.  PETA, the animal rights and anti-hunting organization, has made NO demonstrable donation to habitat restoration or the environment that supports the animals they claim to represent. 

I challenge you to talk to some hunters about what they do.  Speak to them as individuals, as you have written to me.  Abandon your stereotypes for a moment, and see the hunters as people.  Very few of us hunt simply because we like to kill things.  The kill is an integral part of hunting, but it is never the sole motivation. 

Most hunters strive to kill humanely and quickly.  In most cases, the kill is more efficient than the methods employed in the slaughterhouse, and the animals feel little or no pain.  The majority of hunters feel a sense of sadness when we kill an animal, and we accept the responsibility for the results of our actions.  This is much more than can be said for the average person who doesn’t even realize how many animals are killed or displaced simply to ensure the comforts of daily life. 

I cannot rationalize why hunters hunt in a way that could ever make sense to a non-hunter.  I cannot explain why we feel it is ok to kill for sport in terms that would ease your own discomfort with the idea.  It is, quite simply, a difference of opinion.  Nothing more.  You see it one way, and I see it another. 

But at the same time, I challenge you to consider how you would make your case against hunting.  Show me how legal, sport hunting is harmful to the environment or to the game species that we pursue.  Give me data that supports an allegation that hunting creates a psychotic detachment from the value of life.  And provide me with an alternative source of funding to support the wildlife habitat, research, and restoration that is paid for by hunters’ dollars.  But I warn you that other people have tried, and the facts simply don’t bear them out. 

It always comes back to your emotional position.  You, personally, could never directly take the life of an animal, so you cannot understand why someone else thinks it’s OK.  That’s normal… it’s OK.  I don’t mind that you’re exploring your feelings here, nor do I mind that you’ve chosen to voice them to me.  I can appreciate where you’re coming from.

Likewise, although I’ve given you some facts and logic in support of hunting, let me give you my personal and emotional position.

By hunting, I am making myself a part of nature in the most real way there is.  Life and death are part of the world we live in, and hunting grounds me in that reality.  When I choose to kill (and I often choose not to), I am choosing to embrace my role as a predator and to take direct responsibility for the meat I will eat and feed my family…even if this role only lasts a fleeting bit of time.  The blood on my hands reminds me that everything has a cost, and my survival is only ensured by the death of something else… and at some point, my death will likely provide life to something else.  This is where we come from.  We are, after all, animals too.  We are nothing special, and hunting serves as a great reminder of that fact.  Even with technological superiority, the game outwits me more often than I outwit it.  I come away remembering my place, and with a renewed respect for wild nature, and with a sense of self that no other pursuit provides.   

I leave you with this.

Be yourself, Jessica.  Hold to your convictions, but explore them carefully.  Do not be quick to judge things that you do not understand, but continue to challenge them.  Learn all that you can, and dissect the facts until you’re satisfied that there is no hidden truth you haven’t discovered. 

And understand too that some things simply can’t be broken down into quantifiable pieces.  You have to set your values and live by them, but respect the fact that your values are your own…and mine are my own.  They don’t have to be the same.

Respectfully,

Phillip Loughlin

I don’t know if this came off as patronizing, or if I was too soft on her?  How would you, fellow hunting bloggers, have dealt with this?  And if you’re a reader who doesn’t hunt, do you think this response was a positive thing?