Published in The News Eagle (Wayne/Pike Counties, PA)
The woods are once again filled with the color orange, and I’m not talking leaves. Hunting. Is it a community service? It’s certainly not for the benefit of wildlife. And it’s certainly not fair play. So let’s call hunting what it is: A sport where people kill for fun!
When talking to non-hunters, hunters seldom talk about how much they enjoy what they’re doing but rather about how much the population needs to be controlled. This argument is most often used with regard to deer hunting, though deer represent a small fraction of the animals hunted in this country (the most hunted are the 40 million mourning doves killed every year). In recent years, the hunting community itself has provided one of the best refutations against this argument than any so-called "Bambi lover" could have come up with. It’s the weapons.
The increasing popularity of using muzzleloading guns and bows and arrows in hunting does not compute with the common defensive argument that the main purpose of deer hunting is to efficiently control the population. If that were indeed true, why use inefficient weapons in often-inefficient hands? Wouldn’t one stick to an accurate rifle in the hands of an accurate marksman? With muzzleloading, one has a single shot; there’s often difficulty reloading, so if the animal is not immediately killed, there’s time for it to run off, wounded. Likewise with bowhunting, which has a 50% crippling loss (a percentage hunters admit to, which means it’s likely higher). A series of recent articles in local papers by hunting-community proponents advise hunters how long to wait before "following the blood trail" of a wounded animal, sometimes leaving the animal overnight! How can this intended cruelty possibly be justified as an efficient means to control a population? These articles also criticize those not properly trained in the use of these weapons.
And, of course, if you’re really controlling a population you might want to remove the sick or weak animals, not the beautiful, healthy "keepers" with those wonderful eight-point antlers that may win you the local "Big Buck" contest. Hunting interferes with the natural process of selection by targeting healthy animals.
"Sport" usually suggests competition. Not only is the playing field not anywhere near equal for the hunted animal, but hunters routinely get rid of THEIR competitors. This again is not consistent with the population-control argument. It is no secret either that the same tax-funded government agencies that are supposed to protect wildlife claim justification in "reducing the numbers" (killing) of a predator species in order to increase a prey species’ numbers, all for the benefit of hunters.
Each year in the U.S. an estimated 200 people are killed and 29,000 injured in deer-vehicle collisions. Here’s another argument hunters use to justify themselves. Over 500,000 deer lose their lives in these accidents for which they are not to blame. Increased development with more roads cutting through deer habitat, the resultant roadside vegetation, and people driving at faster speeds are mostly what contribute to the frequency of these collisions. According to a study by a national car insurance company, these accidents can escalate up to 500% on the first day of hunting.
Then there’s the argument that people who complain about hunting don’t mind that someone else is doing the killing for their dinner. Well, I happen to agree that humane people should be consistent, which is the main reason I do not eat or use any animal products (and why I will give thanks this holiday season WITHOUT a dead bird disgracing the dinner table). But there is also a difference between killing for food and killing for fun.
And let’s get to the language used by the hunting community. The words "harvest" or "cull" especially anger me. Deer are not a crop; they are living, sentient beings. If you kill them, it’s killing, it’s murder, however you justify it. Hang onto your camouflage, though, as I will say something in hunters’ favor. They at least have some skewed appreciation for the natural world, unlike people who move into the "woods," cut down every tree in sight to put up a big house with a manicured lawn, and then whine about the deer eating their shrubs and plants. Often, rather than investigating the many non-lethal alternative deterrents (fencing, landscape changes, scare devices, chemical repellents, etc.), they ask someone else to come in to take care of the "problem" animals.
Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." With all the campaign rhetoric about the moral values being taught to our children, you don’t hear anyone (with the possible exception of the Green Party) questioning the fact that we live in a nation where the murder of innocent animals is okay. It’s even celebrated in many areas with the closing of schools on the opening day of deer-hunting season.
In their words and actions, hunters apparently exclude wildlife from any consideration of compassion. Every life is of consequence. Let’s at least stop killing for the fun of it.
Return to Vegetarian: For Your Health, for the
Animals, for the Planet
by Teresa D'Amico