THE NORTH AMERICAN HUNTING DILEMMA
How did hunting
start? The journalist, Eric Nicol, remarked that “A number of years ago,
history tells us, Englishmen used to go to Scotland to shoot deer, while
Scotsmen went into England to shoot Englishmen. Later, the Scots cleverly
improved on this method of exchange by inventing golf, a game designed to
make Englishmen go out and shoot themselves, at a considerable saving in
Scottish deer and ammunition.” However it started, we know that mankind
evolved as a hunter and gatherer for thousands of years. Thus the axiom
“By having hunted, we are. Had we not, we would not
be.”
With such a long
history as hunters, why is there such a controversy about hunting? Why do
anti-hunters see hunters as bloodthirsty, knuckle-dragging rednecks who
display bumper stickers that read “Happiness is a Warm Gut Pile?” Perhaps
they see something in us that we have overlooked. Apparently so and they
are having a definite influence on hunting and the future of the sport.
Hunting is on the decline and is expected to decline further in the near
future. The U. S. hunter population declined 23% in the 15 years between
1975 and 1990. In Alberta, there was a 31% decrease between 1980 and 1991
(Figure 1). In the 1980’s in B. C., hunter numbers declined because of the
increased cost of hunting, over-regulation, poor hunting and other
reasons. Only about 10% of the U. S. and Canadian population hunts, while
3 times that number enjoy wildlife at their birdfeeders (Figure
2).
This brochure
briefly examines the hunting dilemma by looking historically at trends in
game and hunter populations, harvests, hunting and ecological conservation
systems since 1900 as well as the positives and negatives of hunting and
hunter actions, possible consequences of reduced hunting, options for
correcting the hunting dilemma, and finally a look at ethical and moral
considerations.
Many excellent
references provided much of the framework for this compilation of
knowledge and are listed at the end. The author’s input is based on
knowledge and insight from four decades of academic and practical
experience as a wildlife ecologist and integrated resource specialist.
Admittedly, I am not free of bias but hope that I have provided a reliable
source of information that will be useful to persons on both sides of this
controversial issue.
A.
Trends in Hunting, Big Game Populations and Harvests in North
America
a)
Yearlong indiscriminate hunting, during the 1800’s and early
1900’s, decimated game populations and annihilated them in some areas.
Deer,~ pronghorn, moose, wapiti and bear had been eradicated from large
areas of the U. S. while the total North American population levels were
very low as illustrated by estimates for white-tailed deer = 0.5 million,
wapiti (elk)
41,000 and
pronghorn (antelope) = 13,000 at the turn of the
century
(Figure
3).
b)
The Preservation Era began when major U. S. political leaders such
as Theodore Roosevelt, implemented a new system of protecting
remnant
game populations by
closing hunting in some states and limiting it to male-only, short-season
fall hunting in others. Natural predation was reduced through extensive
predator control programs (Figure 3).
C)
Game Preserves were established to protect game populations from
hunting and other predators. By 1970, wildlife refuges in the U. S.
encompassed 29 million acres.
d)
Game populations increased rapidly during this Preservation Era of
1900-1930 and as early as 1914 evidence of over-population, starvation,
native range degradation and damage to agricultural crops occurred e.g.
Pennsylvania, Indiana, Arizona.
e)
Liberalized fall hunting seasons and some either-sex seasons,
initiated as early as 1928 in Pennsylvania, gradually brought game
populations down towards the carrying capacity of their
ranges.
f)
The Pittman-Robertson Act of 1938 introduced a tax on sporting
goods and provided large financial sums for wildlife management. Massive
capture and transplant programs, during 1920-1970, rebuilt game
populations on many former ranges and even on some new ranges where a
missing habitat component, such as water, was provided. This was the
Transition Era.
g)
Game populations responded to the new system of protecting and
enhancing critical habitats, to minimizing competition from livestock,
from improved habitat diversity, and to more liberal fall hunting seasons
that harvested game surpluses before winter diminished the animal’s food
supply. By 1992, wapiti populations in North America exceeded 740,000;
pronghorn exceeded 1 million; and white-tailed deer exceeded 22 million
(Figure 3).
Even the number and
quality of big game trophies were not diminished
by this increased
harvest. The Boone and Crockett Club had a 175%
corn petitions between 1980 and 1990.
In almost every
respect, hunting did not decrease big game
populations
anywhere, except
where yearlong indiscriminate hunting occurred by
poachers and
aboriginal hunters. In 16 western states from 1960 to
1988,
pronghorn
populations increased 112%, bighorn sheep 435%, deer
30%,
wapiti 782%, and
moose 476%.
B.
Reasons For Above Trends
Major causes of the
recent decline in numbers of hunters appear to be:
urbanization and
loss of the hunting tradition; the anti-hunting movement and society’s
increased concern for all wildlife species; a change in the age-sex
structure of hunters; increased cost and complication of hunting; the
public perception that hunting threatens game populations; and
dissatisfaction with government’s ability to properly manage the game
resource and all hunters (native and non-native).
As urbanization
increases and fewer parents introduce their children to the tradition of
hunting, a growing and more vocal anti-hunting community and the media
pressure society to refrain from hunting. More children are raised in
single-parent families in densely populated urban settings, with less
chance to learn about hunting and nature. The average age of hunters has
increased
while the
proportion of hunters 15-24 years of age declined significantly between
1974 and 1984. On a per capita basis, more hunters live in rural than in
urban areas (Figures 4 and 5).
There is growing
disfavor with hunters by the general public or the 90% who don’t hunt.
This disfavor is fueled by the disclosure of illegal and unethical hunting
by some hunters, plus a media more interested in exposing the shortcomings
of a few hunters and conservation groups than in giving equal coverage to
the positive actions of the majority. The 7,000 animal-rights groups in
North America have a combined annual budget (1992) of $300 million and
exert a powerful influence on both the public and
politicians.
C.
Positives And Negatives Of Hunting And Hunter
Actions
1.
Positives - Sportsmen in North America, not the non-hunting public,
were largely responsible for abolishing yearlong, indiscriminate hunting
and replacing it with the fall hunting of specific sex and age groups to
harvest only the harvestable surplus.
Sportsmen have
provided millions of dollars annually for wildlife/ habitat restoration
through programs such as the Pittman-Robertson program and the Alberta
Buck-for-Wildlife program. Thousands of wild ungulates have been
transplanted to restock suitable habitats, thus assisting the increase and
range extension of ungulate populations. This restoration of large mammals
was accomplished almost entirely with funds from sportsmen, derived from
hunting-license fees and special taxes on sporting goods, at practically
no expense to the general taxpayer.
In the U. S.,
thanks to sportsmen, the 1907 herd of 41,000 wapiti rebounded to 740,000
by 1992; the 13,000 pronghorns of 1910 increased to more than 1 million;
and 0.5 million whitetails of 1900 increased to 22
million.
Huge funding and
wildlife/habitat restoration have also been provided by credible
conservation groups throughout North America.
Economic and
employment spin-offs from hunting are impressive.
U. S. hunters
contributed $14 billion to the economy in 1991 and $400 million through
duck stamps for wetland acquisition. In Alberta, 165,000 hunters spent
some $38.4 million while hunting in 1986. Much of the 200 million pounds
(91 million kg) of wild meat harvested annually in North America is
processed through commercial meat-processing shops that employ thousands
of workers. Thousands of taxidermists, tanners, guides and outfitters, and
sporting goods salesmen owe their livelihood to
hunters.
One tannery in
British Columbia processes 10,000 wild ungulate and carnivore hides for a
gross economic return of $500,000, while employing a staff of seven. The
revenue and employment generated by the 10 large and hundreds of small
tanneries in Canada are considerable. Similarly, the taxidermy industry
employs hundreds of Canadians and generates millions of dollars annually.
One British Columbia taxidermist prepares 50-75 wild ungulates and 40-50
carnivores annually plus other mammals and birds. This generates $50-75
thousand annually to him or $50-75 million for all taxidermists in
Canada.
Ecologically, it is
in the long-term interests of game species and their habitats to have
their annual surpluses removed through hunting and/or natural limiting
factors. Otherwise, their natural life-supporting habitat deteriorates
from excessive use, while the ravages of starvation and disease/parasitism
become pronounced as populations exceed the carrying-capacity of their
critical habitats. Numerous examples throughout Canada and the U. S. have
demonstrated this fact.
The World
Conservation Strategy of the IUCN supports legalized, controlled hunting
and states “It is legitimate to take a crop from wild species provided
that this does not endanger the survival of the species and their
component populations, or cause the disruption of ecosystems to which they
belong.”
2.
Negatives - Hunter actions that have fueled the anti-hunting
movement and diminished the image of hunters
include:
a)
a lack of good hunting ethics and adequate policing of hunter
behavior by sportsmen clubs;
b)
a general failure to effectively tackle important conservation
problems (environmental pollution, ecosystem management, anti-poaching,
habitat retention and enhancement, etc.).
c)
a failure at times to work cooperatively with other conservation
groups, government, industry/business and educational institutions on
important conservation/environmental issues.
d)
Animal welfare proponents and the general public are mainly
concerned about pain and suffering and loss of life inflicted on hunted
animals and about the motives and attitudes of hunters. They are angered
about what they consider as sterile attitudes of those who speak of
culling, controlling and managing animals for maximum sustained yield,
while disregarding the interests of the sentient beings who through their
deaths, serve to satisfy human interests. They want to know why game
animals must be sacrificed so that sometimes frivolous benefits may accrue
to others. Is it just or right that animals die to feed and clothe humans,
to decorate their walls and bodies, to provide entertainment and
sport?
e)
It is how the hunter positions himself in the minds of the
non-hunting public that will decide whether hunting will be tolerated, or
considered an ecological and social menace that must be diminished or
removed.
D.
Possible Consequences Of Reduced Hunting
Major negative
consequences arising from the curtailment of hunting
are increases in
the following:
a)
winter starvation and die offs, disease-parasitism and range
deterioration;
b)
conflicts with agriculture and timber
interests:
c)
ungulate/vehicle collisions;
d)
conflicts with urban-dwellers;
e)
artificial feeding programs;
f)
lost revenue and employment.
These consequences
are diverse but most stem from increased ungulate densities as populations
respond to the removal of an important autumn mortality factor, the sport
hunter. Since healthy populations of
predators are no
longer common, the importance of hunting to remove the harvestable surplus
and to maintain a desirable balance between herd size and environmental
quality cannot be overstated. Years of live-trapping and transplant
programs have failed to correct the negative effects of excessive wildlife
populations.
E.
Some options For Improving The Hunting
Dilemma
Options for
preventing the loss of sport hunting, for winning
public
support, and for
providing a valuable service in the fields of conservation and
environmental management include the following:
a)
Cooperation among government wildlife agencies, sportsmen clubs and
conservation societies in planning and implementing beneficial natural
resource conservation programs. Similarly, a more cooperative effort in
developing and implementing educational programs on natural resource
management and on the merits of consumptive and no consumptive
alternatives. Anti-hunting groups have ha~ their biggest successes when
wildlife managers and conservationists have been unable to solve real
management issues e. g. caribou and grizzly bear management and aboriginal
arid poacher harvests.
b)
Requiring hunters to provide a positive service to society and the
wildlife resource in return for the privilege of using the public wildlife
resource. We should make membership to a sportsmen/conservation
organization mandatory and make such organizations meet new
government/public standards of conservation performance, ethics and
community service.
c)
Developing cooperative monitoring and policing of hunter behavior
between sportsmen/conservation clubs and wildlife enforcement agencies.
Improve policing of hunter activities and relationships with landowners
and other users of public lands.
d)
Improving public relations between sportsmen and other public
natural resource interests, government and industry.
e)
Developing an expanded philosophy among hunters showing that the
hunting tradition entails more than merely hunting and harvesting game
species. More attention must be given to an understanding and appreciation
of all wildlife species in relation to the management of all natural
resources and the dictates of society’s majority. The philosophy must also
embody the desire to assist in sustaining the health of all natural
ecosystems and in deterring human activities, such as poaching, that
threaten wildlife populations and discredit responsible sportsmen
organizations.
Hunters must accept
their share of blame for the decline in hunting and their low esteem in
the eyes of the general public. Sportsmen should police their ranks, weed
out the slobs and educate both the youth and adults. They must condemn
those practices and attitudes which trivialize, undignify and desecrate
all hunting. They need to reduce hunter/landowner conflict, improve their
public image by engaging in worthwhile conservation programs and educate
the public about the biological value of sustained-yield recreational
harvest. Above all, hunters must set a good example with others in the
community, especially among young people.
F.
Ethical and Moral Considerations
The moral/ethical
hunting controversy cannot be solved by examination of data or by appeal
to scientific studies. That is why they are moral and not empirical
questions in the first place. We tend to cite data that enumerate hectares
(acres) of habitat protected by hunting-generated funds; how many game
species have experienced increases due to modern game management; how much
the economy is stimulated by hunting-generated funds; how modern game laws
satisfy both the consumptive and recreational interests; and how deeply we
care about our ecosystem integrity and the global environment. While these
statements may be true, they are almost irrelevant to the questions asked
by anti-hunters: ‘Is it moral to kill animals for sport? Are any forms of
hunting morally right?’ Perhaps the real threat to hunting comes not from
outside questions and criticisms but from our own complacent and
uncritical acceptance of the status quo of hunting and our mistaken belief
that to protect any form of. hunting, we must defend all forms. We need to
examine several ethical issues such as:
a)
Does killing an animal primarily to obtain a trophy demonstrate
reverence for the animal?
b)
Which forms of hunting can honestly be defended as non-trivial,
meaningful, ecologically sound and morally
enriching?
The hunter toes a
fine line between profundity and profanity and must accept the
responsibility of condemning those practices and attitudes which
trivialize, undignify and desecrate all hunting. He must act and think
ethically. Only then can we remedy our five most serious ethical problems,
namely:
a)
trespassing;
b)
improper vehicle use/road hunting;
c)
lack of respect towards game/resource;
d)
hunter/landowner relations; and
e)
exceeding the bag limit.
Hunters must abide
by certain moral caveats, such as: killing must never be wanton or cruel;
hunting must never detract from the welfare of the species and the
biodiversity of an ecosystem; hunting must not contribute to cultural,
political, and moral misunderstandings concerning the value of hunting for
the environment, It must not scandalize the public through brazen and
offensive activity that portrays a sadistic or wanton disregard for the
welfare of individual animals, species and habitat.
And finally, let’s
examine why people hunt. Common reasons given include: sustenance, meat
preference, recreation, tradition, escape, exercise, challenge,
fellowship, achievement, fulfillment, economic, solitude, enjoying the
outdoors, game population management, character building and opportunity
for self-assessment.
Sitting Bull, the
legendary Sioux Indian leader said, “When there are no buffalo we will
hunt mice
for we are hunters and want our freedom.” Perhaps this also applies
today and the motives for hunting are deeply embedded reasons that neither
hunter nor psychologist is equipped to fathom. Hunting may be too deeply
rooted in the metaphysical to allow clinical
examination.
Many aboriginal and
non-native hunters, even now, live to hunt, more than they hunt to live;
for hunting is a social activity, an expression of skill and knowledge,
prestige to successful hunters, and a passionate
activity.
•1
Hunting can also be
an indicator of quality natural freedom. The
genuine hunter is
“free” because he can project himself out and beyond himself and the
ordinary, to be wholly absorbed in a quieter, deeper and older world. Or
as Homer said during much earlier times ...... The hunter goes his way
‘neath frigid skies unmindful of his tender spouse.” Much later, Theodore
Roosevelt wrote, “Sweetest little wife, I think all the time of my little
laughing beauty.. . . and I could almost cry, I love you so. But I think
the hunting will do me good.”
And so here we are
in 1993 with our origins of hunting buried with the bones of ancient man.
Still, many North Americans want to hunt and there are strong ecological,
economic and employment reasons for the continuance of hunting. However,
sport hunting throughout North America will invariably decline unless the
ethical/moral issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the non-hunting
majority. This will require a change of mind-set and a deepening of
values, awareness and sensitivity by hunters to wildlife in general and to
society as a whole.
Acknowledgements
Funding for the
printing of this brochure was provided by the B. C. Wildlife Federation,
the Central Okanagan Wildlife Federation, and the Vernon Fish and Game
Club.
The Canadian
Wildlife Federation provided the funding and manpower for distributing the
brochure throughout Canada,
Figures 1, 2, 4 and
5 are from Chapter 8, Hunting and Harvest by Brad Stelfox and Shawn Wasel,
in the 1993 publication Alberta’s Hoofed Mammals:
Their Ecology,
Status and Management, J. Brad Stelfox, Editor, Lone Pine Press, Edmonton,
Alberta.
The author is
grateful to Betty Stelfox for typing and proof reading the
manuscript
References
Adamowicz, W. L and
P. C. Boxall. 1993. Economic aspects. pp. 195-204.
In:
Hoofed Mammals of
Alberta. Stelf ox, J. B. (ed). Lone Pine Press, Edmonton,
Alberta.
Boone and Crockett.
1992. Boone and Crockett Newsletter. 9(1):9. Missoula,
Montana.
BoxaIl, P. C. and L
C. Smith. 1986. Characteristics of Alberta’s hunters 1974-1984. AIta. Fish
and WiIdI. Div., Edmonton, Alberta. Occasional Paper No.
1.
Brandt, J. 1992.
The importance of hunting to the individual. pp. 67-79. In: Proc.
Governor’s Symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage. Montana State
University, Bozeman, July 16-18, 1992.
Causey, A. S. 1992.
Is hunting moral? pp. 50-57. In: Proc. Governor’s Symposium on North
America’s Hunting Heritage. Montana State University, Bozeman, July 16-18,
1992.
Charles, H. R. H.,
Prince of Wales. 1992. Conservation through wise use. pp.
6-8.
In:
Canadian Fishing Annual. January/February
1992.
Commission of
Conservation Canada. 1916. Conservation of Fish, Birds and Game. The
Methodist Book and Publishing House, Toronto,
Ontario.
Connolly, M. B.,
Jr. and M. E. Heitmeyer 1992. Habitat conservation and the hunter. pp.
172-186. In: Proc. Governor’s Symposium on North America’s Hunting
Heritage. Montana State University, Bozeman, July 16-18,
1992.
Delfay, R. T. 1992.
The economic value of hunting. pp. 153-171. In: Proc. Governor’s Symposium
on North America’s Hunting Heritage. Montana State University, Bozeman,
July 16-18, 1992.
Elliott, D. S.
1992. Hunters, we have a problem. pp. 116-123. In: Proc. Governor’s
Symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage. Montana State University,
Bozeman, July 16-18, 1992.
Filion, F. L, A.
Jacquemot, P. BoxalI, R. Reid, P. Bouchard, E. Duwors and P. A. Gray.
1990. The Importance of Wildlife to Canadians in 1987; the economic
significance of wildlife-related recreational activities. Can. Wildl.
Serv., Environment Canada, Publication No. CW66-10312 -
1990E.
Hair, J. D. 1992.
The role of hunters in the conservation community. pp. 11-20.
In:
Proc. Governor’s
Symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage. Montana State University,
Bozeman, July 16-18. 1992.
Halleran, M. 1987.
The Hunting Tradition. pp. 73-84. In: Our Wildlife Heritage: 100 Years of
Wildlife Management. The Centennial Wildlife Society of British Columbia.
Morris Printing Co. Ltd. Victoria, B. C.
Leopold, A. 1933.
Game Management. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.
Madson. J. 1992.
Why men hunt. pp. 58-62. In: Proc. Governor’s Symposium on North America’s
Hunting Heritage. Montana State University, Bozeman, July 16-18,
1992.
Mitchell, J. G.
1992. Going after the hunt. pp. 100-107. In: Proc. Governor’s Symposium on
North America’s Hunting Heritage. Montana State University, Bozeman, July
16-18, 1992.
Ondrak, J. 1985.
Reflections on hunting. pp. 313-336. ]~: Big Game Hunting in Alberta.
Wildlife Publishing Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta.
Petersen, J. 1992.
A landowner’s view of hunters. pp. 124-129. In: Proc. Governor’s Symposium
on North America’s Hunting Heritage. Montana State University, Bozeman,
July 16-18, 1992.
Purdy, C. C. 1992.
Bighorn die-off - the dilemma. pp. 87-92. In: Ram of the Rockies. Dean, D.
(ed). Wayside Press, Ltd. VernonIKelowna, B. C.
Sitton, G. and J.
Reneau. 1992. Boone and Crockett Club’s 21st Big Game Awards. Boone and
Crockett Club, Missoula, Montana.
Stelfox, J. B. and
S. Wasel. 1993. Hunting and Harvest. pp. 133-180. In: Hoofed Mammals of
Alberta: Their Ecology, Status, and Management. Stelfox, J. B. (ed). Lone
Pine Press, Edmonton, Alberta.
Stelfox, J. G.
1992. Population trends, and factors responsible, in Rocky Mountain
bighorn sheep of western Canada: 1800-1990. In: Ram of the Rockies. Dalton
Dean (ed). Wayside press Vernon/Kelowna, B. C.
The Centennial
Wildlife Society of British Columbia. 1987. Our Wildlife
Heritage:
100 Years of
Wildlife Management. Morriss Printing. Co. Ltd. Victoria, B.
C.
Trefethen, J. B.
1975. An American Crusade for Wildlife. Winchester Press. New
York.
Turner, J. F. 1992.
On hunters and antihunters. pp. 96-99. In: Proc. Governor’s Symposium on
North America’s Hunting Heritage. Montana State University, Bozeman, July
16-18, 1992.
Vitali, T. R. 1992.
The dialectical foundation of the land ethic. pp. 203-214. In: Proc.
Governor’s Symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage. Montana State
University, Bozeman, July 16-18, 1992.
Williamson, F. H.
H. 1916. Conservation of Fish, Birds and Game. Proc. of Commission of
Conservation of Canada meeting, Nov. 1 and 2, 1915. The Methodist Book and
Publishing House, Toronto. 218 pp.
Williamson. L L.
1992. The history of the American hunter since 1844. pp. 33-39.
In:
Proc. Governor’s
Symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage. Montana State University,
Bozeman, July 16-18, 1992.