A HUNTER'S APOLOGIA

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

Well, yes, sort of—but not in the crass manner the detractors are suggesting. Were it not for the money contributed by hunters via P-R taxes and license fees, the American public-not just hunters, but photographers, birders, naturalists, backpackers and all outdoor recreationists who enjoy viewing wildlife-wouldn't today be blessed with the large numbers of elk, deer, pronghorn, black bear, wild turkey, wood duck and other grand species that were, at the turn of the century or more recently, near extinction but have since been brought back by intelligent "game farming." The system works, for everyone hunters, the hunted and the general public. Ironically, many "animal rights" groups continue to squander their funds on antihunting campaigns rather than contributing to the recovery and scientific management of wildlife or the all-important acquisition, maintenance and improvement of habitat. And so, no matter what one thinks of hunting, to attack it broadside and indiscriminately is to threaten the lifeblood of modern wildlife management and, thus, to imperil wildlife itself. A second commonly voiced justification for hunting is population control.

Now that scientific management has so enriched America's wildlife resource, managers must have some way to prevent prolific species from overrunning their available habitat, causing problems for their human neighbors and eventually destroying themselves. "Pennsylvania provides a good example. By 1900, white-tailed deer had been extirpated. In 1906, a stocking program was initiated and, in 1907, a buck-only [hunting] law was passed giving deer populations protection from nonselective harvests. A lush food base from logged forests and overprotection caused a deer population irruption. By 1925, deer exceeded the carrying capacity of their habitat.

By 1935, the population was believed to be four times more than carrying capacity allowed. Ranges were over browsed, tree production was reduced, farm crop damage increased, and quality of the deer declined. The public continued to balk at the idea of more liberal hunting harvests. In the winter of 1935, an estimated 100,000 deer died from malnutrition or associated problems.

" — John L. Schmidt
(in Big Game of North America: Ecology and Management)

Early on, some serious mistakes were made in the name of humaneness and compassion. But wildlife managers since have learned the absolute, immutable necessity of limiting wildlife populations to the carrying capacities of their ever-shrinking habitat niches in order to prevent such boom-and-bust disasters as the Pennsylvania fiasco described above. And the primary control tool—a tool that can be monitored—is hunting. "In addition to maintaining the current [hunting] season structure, the [Colorado Wildlife] Commission also passed a regulation to allow a doe deer season at the Air Force Academy, subject to approval by the academy superintendent.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print