An Anti-Hunting Argument
Friday, while skimming through stations on the car radio, my wife happened to come across a radio talk-show where they were discussing Alberta’s Provincial Hunting Day. Even though the kids were less than thrilled by the prospect of having to listen to it, my wife left it there so we could listen. I have to say I’m more than a little glad that she did, but I believe she is planning on making a post that may explain why. What I want to discuss is something the anti-hunter they spoke with said.
It is widely agreed that hunting is one of the best management tools wildlife departments have at their disposal. Except to anti-hunters, who will find any reason, no matter how skewered, to debunk the fact. And that is exactly what the anti-hunter on the radio talk-show did, so I wasn’t disappointed. What surprised me though is the way she presented her argument against it.
Her stance is that nature has an established set of checks and balances that will take care of wildlife populations without the intervention of hunters. I don’t agree with her on that point, but I am amazed that she thinks that those checks and balances still actually work with the impact the human race has had on them. Things like the sprawl of our species, the impact we have had on our environment, and the general interference we have had on the entire cycle of nature.
Another issue to take into account is that we, the human race, before we reached our current level of development, played a part in that natural cycle of checks and balances she spoke of. Predation, by us, was a natural part of that cycle until we began moving away from the heritage and necessary activity of hunting.
How can Mother Nature take into account those things? She can’t, plain and simple. That is the reason we see the effects of starvation, overpopulation, in-breeding, and numerous other issues. And since we are to blame for the problems of the wildlife, we need to at least right some of those wrongs. Granted, hunting may seem cruel and barbaric to some, but it has always been a factor. And now it is even more important than ever because of the issues I stated above that we are to blame for.
I don’t know what others actually believe, think, or view this, but I would bet dollar to dollar that many of you feel the same way. I’d like to hear your thoughts.
[tags]hunting, hunting sense, Alberta, Provincial Hunting Day, wildlife management, anti-hunting[tags]

September 30th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Good post Cliff. I am looking forward to the one your wife is going to post on the subject. Maybe you don’t know but almost every Canadian province has a Provincial Hunting Day in the calendar. Ours (BC) is at the same day like Alberta. The provincial hunting day is a newer invention and is catching on fast. Alberta and British Columbia started with that and now more provinces pull along too. In addition, after BC’s new hunter recruitment proposal is made into a law more provinces consider similar pro hunting regulations too. In addition in Ottawa the government works on a bill that will declare hunting as a Canadian heritage.
With all these happening in favor of hunting I really get for the first time the impression that the antis are on the loosing end and will have a lot of steam taken out of their hypocritical agenda.
-Othmar Vohringer-
September 30th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Cliff, the antis will never quit and they’ll always be around! As hunters, we all need to stand up to them and I know we are on the correct side of this issue!
October 6th, 2007 at 6:06 am
[...] had mentioned a little while back that while on a road trip, we were listening to a radio show about hunting, and that I’d be making a post about it at some [...]
October 13th, 2007 at 8:35 am
[...] tools utilized when working with specific areas, like food, habitat, and population numbers. And hunting is one of the best, and usually one of the primary, tools used in controlling population, which, in turn, has a direct relationship with all the other [...]
October 20th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Right on. I think the anti-hunter should be anti-urban sprawl instead. That has actual negative impact. Thanks for posting.