COMMON GROUND: The hunting debate will probably never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, but green leaders are increasingly advocating for cooperation between hunters and environmental groups. After all, despite differences about the ethics of hunting, both groups lament urban sprawl and habitat destruction.
Image: David De Lossy, courtesy Getty Images
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
Dear EarthTalk: Hunting seems to be a real controversy among environmental advocates. Can you set the record straight: Is hunting good or bad for the environment?
—Bill Davis, New York, NY
Like so many hot button issues, the answer to this question depends upon who you ask. On the one hand, some say, nothing could be more natural than hunting, and indeed just about every animal species—including humans—has been either predator or prey at some point in its evolution. And, ironic as it sounds, since humans have wiped out many animal predators, some see hunting as a natural way to cull the herds of prey animals that, as a result, now reproduce beyond the environment’s carrying capacity.
On the other hand, many environmental and animal advocates see hunting as barbaric, arguing that it is morally wrong to kill animals, regardless of practical considerations. According to Glenn Kirk of the California-based The Animals Voice, hunting “causes immense suffering to individual wild animals…” and is “gratuitously cruel because unlike natural predation hunters kill for pleasure…” He adds that, despite hunters’ claims that hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance, hunters’ license fees are used to “manipulate a few game [target] species into overpopulation at the expense of a much larger number of non-game species, resulting in the loss of biological diversity, genetic integrity and ecological balance.”
Beyond moral issues, others contend that hunting is not practical. According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the vast majority of hunted species—such as waterfowl, upland birds, mourning doves, squirrels and raccoons—“provide minimal sustenance and do not require population control.”
Author Gary E. Varner suggests in his book, In Nature’s Interests, that some types of hunting may be morally justifiable while others may not be. Hunting “designed to secure the aggregate welfare of the target species, the integrity of its ecosystem, or both”—what Varner terms ‘therapeutic hunting’—is defensible, while subsistence and sport hunting—both of which only benefit human beings—is not.
Regardless of one’s individual stance, fewer Americans hunt today than in recent history. Data gathered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for its most recent (2006) National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, show that only five percent of Americans—some 12.5 million individuals—consider themselves hunters today, down from nine percent in 2001 and 15 percent in 1996.
Public support for hunting, however, is on the rise. A 2007 survey by Responsive Management Inc., a social research firm specializing in natural resource issues, found that 78 percent of Americans support hunting today versus 73 percent in 1995. Eighty percent of respondents agreed that “hunting has a legitimate place in modern society,” and the percent of Americans indicating disapproval of hunting declined from 22 percent in 1995 to 16 percent in 2007.
Perhaps matching the trend among the public, green leaders are increasingly advocating for cooperation between hunters and environmental groups: After all, both lament urban sprawl and habitat destruction.
CONTACTS: The Animals Voice, www.animalsvoice.com; HSUS, www.hsus.org; National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html; Responsive Management Inc., www.responsivemanagement.com.
See what we're tweeting about
26 Comments
Add Commenti didn't even read your article because i know the left hate hunting, fishing, or even eating plants, why because you all feel like humans are a cancer on the earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Does Hunting Help or Hurt the Environment?" It depends. If you happen to be an elk, it makes for a nasty neighbourhood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biggest wildlife preserves on the US east coast were donated by hunters, who understood that if they don't conserve species, they'll have nothing to hunt. Some of the most fervent conservationists are hunters. That animal cruelty bit is a load of smeg. As if an animal cares more that its death is for entertainment or for nutrition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou really stuck it to The Man and The Left. Way to show you won't take this oppression any more!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...
Why would you even read a publication concerning science, if you already know everything?
omegaclass - why wouldn't you assume that most of the right doesn't hunt, instead of the left? After all isn't the right supposedly "pro-life"? Oh wait, that only applies to the unborn, the right could care less about anyone once their born - then it's okay to kill them. After all, compassion should only apply to unborn humans. Right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether hunting helps or hurts the environment doesn't depend on who you talk to, but the circumstances in which it occurs.
Just the day before yesterday I found two bucks that had been poached on our ranch. These "hunters" clearly did not have permission from us or any the neighboring ranches to hunt, otherwise they would have done the decent thing and come up to the house to ask permission to track and kill the animals so that they would not suffer. No, these cowardly "hunters" failed to make kill shots and those two beautiful bucks in their prime will breed no more, but instead fed the coyotes and other scavengers in the area. Was that a waste? Yes and no. It was a waste for the deer population because those animals cannot contribute to the next generations of genes. It wasn't a waste for the other wildlife species that depend on meat to survive. Too bad most "hunters" are just looking for the biggest buck to hang on the wall instead of looking for meat to put on the table, because then maybe they'd actually contribute to the health of the population. Instead they remove the healthiest animals from populations.
And lets not forget the trash and beer cans that these hunters always leave behind. That's always good for the environment too. Maybe if "hunters" as a whole behaved more decently and ethically, and were less lazy they wouldn't find such a backlash against them. There are very few hunters that I find worthy of respect. I think the hunting industry needs to take a good hard look at itself and clean up its act, otherwise I say "good-riddance", because Mother Nature will do just fine without you.
This article was good, but I don't think it delved into a discussion about comparing the stress on the environment compared to that of livestock production. Personally I think that hunting is a bit more environmentally friendly even though it is also not completely sustainable with the human population as huge as it is now. But, at least we don't have to grow crops of corn and soy to feed wild game or pump them full of antibiotics and steroids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article was good, but I don't think it delved into a discussion about comparing the stress on the environment compared to that of livestock production. Personally I think that hunting is a bit more environmentally friendly even though it is also not completely sustainable with the human population as huge as it is now. But, at least we don't have to grow crops of corn and soy to feed wild game or pump them full of antibiotics and steroids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdiskan:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the only reason you're conserving a species is so that you can hunt it, that's kind of sick. But you're right with your last sentence, I'm sure an animal dying in gut-wrenching pain, frightened out of it's mind and utterly powerless to help itself cares about why it's being hunted.
During WWII, there was little deer hunting in Wisconsin: the armed forces were getting all the available ammunition and so many potential hunters were off at war. By 1946, the overpopulated deer were starving to death and the woods were a mess as deer ate the bark off the trees; the National Guard was dropping bales of hay from airplanes. Is that better than hunting?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm confused. When a predator jumps on the back its prey and clamps its jaws around its windpipe, does the prey feel relieved it wasn't some human hunter with a gun? I understand that there are hunters that are irresponsible but I would argue that the vast majority have more empathy and understanding of the animals they hunt than the average citizen who buys beef from the grocery store with little thought to the conditions that animal lived in prior to becoming a steak. Ethical hunting is the law and modern guns and ammunition are intended to minimize suffering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is also a gross generalization to think that hunters are only looking for something to hang on the wall. Again, I would say that the vast majority of animals hunted are also consumed.
Finally, I would also object to the stereotype that all hunters are beer swilling hillbillies. Hunting is not an inexpensive pastime. Licenses can range from from tens of dollars to thousands of dollars for nonresidents. There are not packs of inbred yokels roaming the back woods shooting everything in sight... at least not where I live.
Is hunting for everybody? Probably not. Is it necessary? Probably not absolutely necessary. Is it any different than raising an animal on a farm and then killing and eating it? Not at all. If you want meat on the plate then something has to die. While we can subsist on a vegetarian diet, animal protein is also an important part of most human diets. In fact, it can be argued that the addition of small amounts of animal protein has given modern humans an evolutionary advantage.
Does it matter to an animal who kills it (a predator or a hunter)? Probably not - they're both the same thing really. Would it matter to you, if someone shot you, whether they did it for fun or for survival. Probably.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes it matter whether an animal suffers? I would say, yes. Personally I would rather die with a quick bullet to the head (especially if I didn't see it coming) then to die in any slow, agonizing manner or to die in fear.
You assume that dying at the hands of a hunter means a quick, painless death. Not true. Ideally that is the situation, but just last week I witnessed it take about 20 minutes for a buck to die after it was initially shot. I spotted the wounded buck before the hunters did and watched as he struggled to stand again, but he was too hurt and fell back down. The hunters finally spotted him and shot him twice more before they actually killed him. The two poached bucks that I found also likely suffered for awhile before they died.
Unfortunately too many hunters don't bother to practice target shooting until they're aiming at an animal. Just because you can afford a fancy gun and all the fancy gear doesn't mean you have any business out there hunting. Or maybe they actually do practice, but they've had too many beers while hunting to shoot straight. Ever notice all the "welcome hunters" beer banners? The alcohol industry targets hunters for a reason.
If it is a gross exaggeration that most hunters are looking for something to hang on their wall, then why do all of the hunters that have buck tags always target the largest bucks? Is it that they feel sorry for smaller ones? And why do poachers always seem to shoot big bucks too?
I see hunters almost every day spend most of the day standing beside their pickup, looking through their spotting scope mounted on the door, trying to find the biggest buck. These deer are so used to people and farm machinery and even dogs, that to try to shoot one of them is about as challenging as shooting a cow in a pasture. Once these mighty hunters have picked out their big buck, they walk out into the field and shoot it. Hopefully they make a kill shot.
Yes, I agree it is more humane to die with a quick bullet to the head than to die in a slaughter house. But I disagree about hunters having more empathy for animals than the average person. Most hunters kill for pleasure. Your average person is disturbed enough by the thought of killing that they try not to think about it, let alone pursue it for a hobby.
Ideally, ethical hunting is law, but not always and your idea of ethical hunting and mine may differ. I think that an animal should have a sporting chance and that it is unethical to:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) use dogs w/ gps collars to pursue animals,
2) bait animals,
3) use high powered rifles to shoot great distances,
4) hunt from roads or vehicles,
5) hunt remotely from a computer keyboard,
6) hunt domesticated animals at exotic game farms,
7) hunt if you are not a practiced and experienced marksman.
In my state, Colorado, it is illegal to leave game meat in the field, but that doesn't mean all hunters actually use or keep the meat. There is always lots of meat left behind from hunters at the local game processor's because of hunters interested only in the head and maybe the hide. I assume that somebody gets to eat the meat, so no it probably doesn't go to waste.
I disagree that modern guns and ammunition are intended to minimize suffering. They're intended to maybe be more powerful, accurate, or whatever, but it has nothing to do with minimizing suffering. The intention is to improve hunting success for people that need all the help they can get.
And in my neighborhood, unfortunately you're wrong - there are packs of inbred yokels running around, but not in the woods, mostly in pickup trucks. I wish you were right and I was wrong, but...
Even hunters who had paid to hunt on our neighbor's ranch complained about other hunters that either were honking their horns or shooting in the air trying to scare animals off the property so they could shoot them or climbing over fences, trespassing, in order to hunt or just cruising around, clearly looking for animals to shoot in areas of private property where they didn't have permission. These hunters could just drive up into the public lands to hunt, but that would mean having to get out of their truck and actually hike and look in the woods for deer - not just pick them off from beside the road while they graze in pasture.
So if you're the sort of hunter that
1) target practices with inanimate objects until you can hit a bullseye repeatedly,
2) actually gets out of your vehicle and hikes a respectable distance into the woods to hunt,
3) picks out a stag, instead of the buck with the biggest rack to shoot,
4) doesn't poach,
5) eat the meat,
6) appreciates enough the animal you're about to shoot to maybe say a little prayer that it doesn't suffer, and
7) doesn't take pleasure in having to end the life of a beautiful animal -
then I'd probably consider you to be an ethical hunter.
As far as the pollution statement made by cudgel : This past summer I took my daughters to a place I hunt in the fall. The trash left behind by summer vacationers in the camp circles was horrendous! I didn't know a woman could use that much toilet paper and not pee in the same spot twice! Cans, plastic, still smoldering fires.... Freakin' city dwellers I reckon. Cause it wasn't hunting season!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHunting is a tremendous human investment of time and energy. I'm glad the author didn't bring up the 'Holy War' of hunting-using dogs!
Cudgel
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds like you need to call the game warden because what you're describing is almost unbelievable.
LOL its amazing how we are scared that we are so worried about the animals and reproducing at high rate but how we entirely try to avoid how humans are reproducing and using more resources then the earth can recycle and/or have. So do we start killing other humans or start hunting each other or go into the wild where the true survival will live and the weaker will die off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHunting can be good, bad or neutral depending on the circumstances. In Eastern North America, for example, there are too many deer. It is good to hunt them. In some places it would be beneficial just to shoot the deer and leave the carcass because they are pests in the numbers now running around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe unit of analysis has to be the whole species, not individual animals. It is usually acceptable and often useful to take out individual animals to improve the general health of the populations.
I don't hunt myself, but I am grateful for those who do. They volunteer to do what we would have to pay someone to do otherwise.
BTW - the rise in acceptance of hunting shows a growing environmental sophistication as we are growing out of the "bambi paradigm" into a better understand that in order to have a healthy environment we have to cut some trees and kill some animals.
I also grew up hunting and trapping in the northwoods of Wisconsin and Ontario. The argument that we need to hunt a species because otherwise they'll die, is not an argument. In hunting, we're imposing artificial selection, with no regard to the individuals that should be dying off for the good of the species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am, as you say 'left'. I also served two tours in Iraq, and hunted humans on your behalf. If you ever see even some of the things I've seen, you might give thought to your 'cancer of the earth' assessment. Take your rose-colored blinders off, you comfortable, myopic American.
The game wardens do know about the situation. There is just not enough of them to cover such a large, rugged, and remote area. It's not their fault. They don't like the situation any better than I do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishotblack
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit is more subtle than hunting because otherwise they will die. Animal species must be managed. The fact is that humans live on the earth and are not leaving any time soon. ALL environments are managed by humans. We can manage well or hide our neglect by pretending that we are leaving nature alone.
We have already imposed artificial selection if by that you mean man-induced. There is no going back and no particular reason why we should.
hotblack
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit is more subtle than hunting because otherwise they will die. Animal species must be managed. The fact is that humans live on the earth and are not leaving any time soon. ALL environments are managed by humans. We can manage well or hide our neglect by pretending that we are leaving nature alone.
We have already imposed artificial selection if by that you mean man-induced. There is no going back and no particular reason why we should.
This reminds me of a demonstration done in the Great Swamp Wildlife Refuge about 40 years ago. A pro-hunting organization planted a number of saplings, some inside a deer-proof fence, some outside. The idea was to show that the trees inside the enclosure were protected from deer browsing and that therefore hunting deer was good. Unfortunately, after two or three years it was obvious to all that the trees that the deer had been browsing were far healthier than the "protected" ones. So the fence was taken down and the whole thing quietly forgotten.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe moral of the story being that the benefits and harm caused by hunting are not that hard to see, unless you are one of those with an emotional or financial interest in one side or the other who does not want to see anything contradictory.
I'm disappointed that this article didn't mention anything about the lead left in the environment from hunting. Regardless of your stance on hunting, the lead certainly has an effect on the environment. I know in California they have outlawed most lead ammo and fishing sinkers. Other states should follow suit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeese don't need to be controlled unless you live where they gather. Don't send the children out to play in the back yard unless you have a hose by the door.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCall off deer hunting and move the speed limit down to 30 miles per hour.
It is always another s morals that we can easily solve.
first off, afte you get done drueling over your chicken, consider this fact, every animal species can re-populate just like humans can. As for the your comment on the east coast hunting, why in the heck do you think they have hunting seasons?! If we never hunted, for ex. deer, they would over populate themselves and kill themselves off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a hunter (whom is a politically left-winged, Canadian, atheist, in favor of gun control by the way)… I'm deeply offended by those who make generalist claims about the "type of people" hunters are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo say we only hunt because we like to kill is absurd and horribly incorrect. I do not enjoy killing. I hunt because for one, I have accepted that as an omnivore, I (and my family) require some amount of animal protein in order to remain in good health. Secondly, because I dislike the unsustainable, and unhealthy, mass market meat processing systems that often lead to the inhuman and disrespectful treatment of our food animals.
As a hunter, not only do I have access to the best free-range, grass-fed, organic, locally produced, locally harvested, sustainable, native, low-stress, low-impact meat but I am able to control how humanly and respectfully treated my game is, while spending some much needed quiet time reconnecting with nature.
Hunting is a great sport and is always beneficial when done safely and responsibly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sportgamesarena.com/hunting-games