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.
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Not surprising that this would be a biased commentary. While urban sprawl certainly does account for much of the problems that wildlife face today, the author fails to address is the fact that deer live for tens of thousands on the North American continent before humans settled here and survived just fine all WITHOUT human intervention. Care about wildlife? Then preserve their habitat as a solution and work toward that goal. The millions spend on hunting gear alone would be more than enough to purchase and maintain “forever wild” habitats, so the question is why is it that the very people who claim to “love” nature will eagerly spend their hard earned cash on devices to destroy those very members of nature, but would never donate money to purchase a “forever wild” habitat?
September 21st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Bo Otis spouts the usual line but how is harvesting a deer from nature “destroying” nature any more than picking some berries??
November 18th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Why can’t one go to the market, and purchase the desired slab of meat, rather than seek out an innocent, unknowing creature, and murder it? Whether you eat it or not, I apologize, but I respectfully conclude that it is murder in the same. The world will never stop eating meat, and it’s unhealthy for humans not to consume it, however there are ways that it can occur without being a sport.
If I murdered a human being, could I not argue that it is simply my instinct as a human being? I am a natural hunter, yes? So I may hunt a human being, as long as it isn’t a mother, as long as I then eat the person, I’m safe from prosecution?
I don’t see how a hunter can argue against human-human murder, when they themselves murder other creatures as often as it takes to fill their freezer to their hearts’ content with the meat of their victims.
I am a born-and-raised Texan, and you better bet that I am often surrounded by the echoes of gun shot, followed by the image of my family gathered around a slaughtered dear, hung at the hooves; skinned and dripping with blood. I am not the spawn of a hippie, but rather the child, sister, cousin, and friend of avid hunters. Yet I stand alone and away from them when it comes to hunting.
Hunters say that it is the right of every human to hunt, however we are given rights not because we are born with them, but because we as a democratic society have written and compromised on certain laws. There are plenty of rights that, although often desired, we have agreed upon banning for the greater good of our world. We have agreed not to kill each other, and one will be punished if this is disobeyed. We have agreed not to allow a sixty year old man have sex with an eight year old girl, even though we as human beings are sexual and are ascribed the right to feel and act on our sexual arousals.
Aren’t most people content and in agreement on these rules and laws we have built, even though they are essentially rights taken away?
Some say that other animals kill each other, and we as an animalistic species relate and should receive that right. However, if I were a hunter, and a lion and myself were no longer permitted to hunt,the difference would be that I could drive myself to a grocery store, and get meat there, or even other foods that would suffice. A lion, however, would die- period. If the animal tried to survive on grass or other vegetation alone, he would die.
If humans stopped eating meat, it would not be ideal, but we would live and evolve; survive.
However, I am not suggesting that we stop eating meat. But hunting? It’s totally unnecessary. It promotes violence, irresponsible gun usage, superiority complexes, etc.
It’s wrong. PERIOD.
Again, for those of you who view it as a right,
something that nature has created and allows (wants, even), then don’t be upset when while relaxing with your family, at work, or eating, a giant creature comes up to you and shoots you in the head. Don’t be upset, you can’t be.
Plus, no worries- take comfort!….for it’s in the head, so you CAN’T FEEL…anything.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:43 pm
To the Casey Marie,
So you are not suggesting we should not evolve to non-meat eating MAMMALS, but how would we be able to drive to the grocery store and pick up meat if it were not for the killing of animal. Do you feel we should not kill and strictly eat greens? You, you are not any better than that sixty year old man and the girl you discussed because YOU are a murderer by speaking about the killing of another human which has no effect in your life concerning your health. You state killing of animals is wrong and by taking someones life, makes you any better. There are SCIENTIFIC facts and surveys done. if you can prove them wrong and you do good for the animals by donating money and making a difference and do not kill insects such as a fly or flea and do not wear anything made of animal then MAYBE your point and views will be heared of by people that have actual knowledge.
-Never hunted. 22yrs old
In school to be a veterinarian.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Casey Marie is right everybody…we should go to the grocery store and buy meat, that way no animals WHAT SO EVER have been hurt or killed for our food…what I think she was trying to say is that she wants other people to do her KILLING and the hard work of processing the meat so she has a “guilt free” meal.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:41 am
Most if not all sport hunters kill for personal pleasure aka fun/recreation. That is their prime motive, not sustenance or hunger. Tens of thousands of animals such as squirrels, coyotes, crows, bobcats, morning doves, etc, not to mention trophy animals, are NOT killed for food. Hunters simply enjoy killing (though won’t admit it) and the only legal way to kill is to kill animals. How noble or ethical is it to sneak up on an innocent and unsuspecting animal then bushwhack it with a long range weapon? How different is that than sniping? If the other side can’t shoot back it’s not a sport. To put your momentary pleasure above the life of another being is a thoroughly cruel and selfish act. If you respect nature you don’t kill the best it has to offer — for FUN. Anyone who kills for amusement has something missing in them, but they don’t know it. Sport hunting is evil, and one does not have KNOW they’re evil to BE evil. Sport hunters have been getting away with their murderous slaughtering for a long time.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I could not have said it better myself Steve. I feel exactly the same way except that I do believe there are some and I mean very few, responsible/respectful hunters out there, unfortunately the tons of drunk and trigger happy idiots out there ruin it for the true hunters. I don’t believe in traps, they are cruel and I feel that any trappers must be people that were abused as children and feel that they must have a need to make a creature suffer as they did or some other psychological issue, especially since we don’t need animals for clothing anymore since there is this new thing called cotton (wonder if they got the memo). Pets also get caught in them as well as people themselves. I also don’t believe in bow hunting because it also makes animals suffer much longer than they should. For those true hunters I believe they should take a stand and instead of getting all upset about all the anti hunting talk out there they should listen and realize that many of the anti’s are against animal suffering, thats a very big part of it. People don’t like the violence of it. If hunters took hunting more seriously, were better trained at killing an animal instantly (being a better shot) and eating all of what they kill, frankly I would see hunting as much better than the slaughter houses out there. If the animals lived their lives in their natural habitat and didn’t suffer long before dying hunting would not look so terrible. The president of the Humane Society said it best on Oprah one day. “These animals are giving us the ulitimate sacrifice - their lives. The least we can do is minimize their suffering.” In other words have a heart. These are God’s creatures too. If you respect God you should respect everything he created.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:26 am
“In other words have a heart.” Yes, Angela, that is the issue. But you’re wasting your words on hunters. Anyone who finds joy in killing animals is already heartless, and all the reasoning in the world or pleas for mercy will not make them feel compassion. These people are hardcore and obsessed with killing. They love shooting animals and will never let go of it. They care only about their pleasure. As long as hunting exists wildlife will suffer and die needlessly. All you will get from a hunter are excuses and lies about hunting. But it should be no surprise that killers would also be liars.
January 15th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Casey Marie,
Where does the meat come from? those companies that produce meat use pesticides that cause cancer… that meat is worse than fresh hunted. Yes it helps nature.
Thanks,
Ben
April 30th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
So, Ben, you think hunters kill wild animals because they’re concerned about getting cancer from pesticides? Ha. If store bought meat had NO pesticides how many hunters would stop hunting? None. And in case you didn’t know you can buy meat without pesticides. It’s called “organic.” What excuse will you use now? And what about the millions of animals hunters kill and DON’T eat…like squirrels, coyotes, doves, to name only a few. Sport hunting is destructive to nature and has upset its balance. It’s done for pleasure by people who love to kill. It’s the sport of murder.