One more opinion in defense of deer hunting. Many hunters are conservationists at heart who honour and respect their prey in a way that’s sometimes (understandably) hard to fathom for others. They are often people who’ve come to know and love the bush and are intimately familiar with everything therein. Conservation authorities in many areas of Ontario consider their input and information about conditions in the bush to be invaluable.
My ol’ man deer-hunts once a year and he has a regard for these animals that borders on love. He’s spent years studying their behaviour and habitat and I know that he would agree with others in this thread who have asserted that deer are far from defenseless. In Ontario, you require a doe tag to take females. I believe it’s done in a lottery-type fashion by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Does are usually more numerous than bucks in a given area and my husband and his hunting companions have noted buck behaviour bordering on the paranoid, for example: Bucks will trail a herd of does into clearings, seemingly only willing to enter when the coast appears clear, if at all. Whether this type of behaviour is due to the rut, or the activity of hunters, they’re not sure.
Another thing which may not be very well-known: Among hunters there is something like a code of honour when it comes to clean killing. It’s a matter for shame if someone wounds an animal without killing it outright and they may not rest until they find the wounded animal and put it out of it’s misery. This could mean tracking blood stains or other sign for as long as necessary, no wimping out due to cold, fatigue, hunger or whatever. There is enormous, unspoken peer pressure amongst themselves to hold fire unless and until the shot can be positioned properly. This gives the hunter about a split-second to decide, and they are required to err on the side of caution. Hunters who don’t abide by this code are not welcome among those who do.
Obviously not all hunters are equal, but anyone who is perceived as having a “cowboy” mentality or cavalier attitude in the bush, whether towards gun safety or standards of behaviour, would be quickly ostracized from most hunting groups that we are aware of. In our neck of the woods, bear-baiting and the like is universally looked down upon as contemptible.
Hunters in Ontario are of mixed benefit to the environment.
On the good side, the head office of the OFAH put on a magnificient intervention in the Timber Management Class EA, propounding habitat supply analysis, watershed management, and indicator species (e.g. pileated woodpecker and pine martin). They lit a match under the MNR’s butt, when no other group had the resources to do so.
On the down side, local groups affiliated with or part of OFAH frequently come down on the side of opening up access or resisting the closure of roads. This is a bad thing for the re-introduction of cougar in the north-west of the province, and for the caribou herds on the north shore of Superior, both of which have a strong aversion to people.
Far too many anti-hunting folks would cheerfully ban the sport altogether. On the other hand, I have never known a hunter who would impell nonhunters to get out there and kill something. Just out of idle curiosity, how has the extinction of the passenger pigeon affected you or your life?
It’s an example of how a “renewable resource” wasn’t so renewable after all, LouisB. The loss of parts of the biological diversity of the planet do, I believe, affect us all in some way or form. BUT, as I said, it was an extreme example.
Nothing said in this thread against the sport of hunting will actually sway those who take part, or do anything to stop it. This I know. But at least it has given some of us a chance to speak out and say how we feel about the practice.
The extinction of the passenger pigeon is, perhaps, unfortunate. It was mostly brought about by market hunters acting in ignorance. Had there been no market, they wouldn’t (maybe) have become extinct. We continue to lose life forms to extinction today and yet we continue to despoil various life form’s natural habitat. We cut trees, practice slash and burn agriculture, polute waters and plow prairies with wild abandon the world over. I doubt very much that hunting has caused the extinction of nearly so many life forms as the spread of the human race. I have asked this before and have never received an answer: Would you, as an individual, give up your home and your employment if such an action would restore the habitat of an endangered species?
As I’ve said, I’m prepared to simply agree to disagree with you, LouisB and the other ardent enthusiasts in this thread. The opinions expressed here have been – interesting, to say the least.
-Well, yes, actually. If by “leisure time” you mean the five days weeks to two months per year, depending on locale, where hunting certain animals is legal, and by “no matter how many” meaning the one or possibly two, again depending on your area, legally allowed by your tag or permit, then yes.
Ice Wolf, perhaps you would give up your home in order to restore the habitat of an endangered species. If so, I suspect you are a distinct minority. I know that I wouldn’t, unless the government or some ecology group was willing to pay me the fair market value of my home, plus a substantial bonus, plus all moving costs. I suspect that most people wouldn’t willingly relocate for the sake of any endangered species. In any event, I doubt the question will ever arise in real life so it is probably a very moot issue.
" know that I wouldn’t, unless the government or some ecology group was willing to pay me the fair market value of my home, plus a substantial bonus, plus all moving costs. I suspect that most people wouldn’t willingly relocate for the sake of any endangered species. In any event, I doubt the question will ever arise in real life so it is probably a very moot issue.
"
It happens all the time when they decide to build a highway, and homeowners rarely get the kind of concessions you are asking for.
That’s a very good point, CarnalK. Authorities don’t usually go around offering “bonuses” and “moving costs”, much less any other costs such as those involved with pulling up community “tap roots” when a homeowner and his/her family are forced to move due to the needs of urban progress. My own community is facing the hard realities of this right now.
Yes, LouisB, I did say that it was “just me”. My take on this issue, though, remains this: I don’t expect the hunting to stop, such would be expecting too much. You won’t find me, personally, trying to bar you from doing it. But, in turn, I abhor hunting for leisure.
The Passenger Pigeons truly belong in another thread, in another debate right along with the fate of whales and ocean fish stocks etc. One which discusses how mankind sees life, indeed nature itself, as a commodity to be used until it is too late to repair the damage.
Oh, and why the questions of extinct species ethics anyway? I thought hunting for leisure had little impact on the extinction of species, so I was given to understand by some of the contributors here. I’m sorry I didn’t give you the rise you may have expected – th’ spluttering Greenie, the “Well, change the world, but not in my backyard!” type.
Good discussion, everyone.
Oh, and Doc Nickel? I think you’ve explained quite enough, thank you.
Like what, camping? You can do that without killing. I don’t care if you put on a pair of lederhosen and dance the macarena in a frenzy of tribal bonding. You don’t have to kill anything.
Again, I can accept that some killing is neccessary. The thing that sickens me are the people who enjoy doing the killing. I could never look at a healthy animal and kill it. And if I did, I’d be, quite literally, emotionally scarred for life. I am still occasionally haunted by the rabbit I hit with my car when I was 16.
I don’t give a flying shit what your reasons or excuses are. I don’t care at all what our ancestors did. I, personally, am sickened by the idea of enjoying killing.
Take an extreme (yet parallel on a vastly different level) example: a doctor has to abort a baby to save the life of the mother. Most people can accept that as a necessity and not have any qualms about that. Now imagine that the doctor actively enjoys the process of killing the fetus. It becomes creepy, no? Regardless of the necessity of the act?
Different ballpark there, fella. Sex is enjoyable to both parties and doesn’t hurt anyone. Hunting KILLS A LIVING BEING. See the difference?
And before anyone goes out and calls me a big hypocrit: I haven’t eaten meat in 16 years, and I don’t buy leather products either.
I should mention that nothing anyone says is going to change my opinion here… I love animals a lot. I don’t (and never will) dig on people who enjoy killing them. Period. It may float your boat–good for you–but it sinks mine.
PS I’m having a Bad Spelling Day. Please forgive me.
If I want to eat venison, then yes, I do have to kill something or pay someone else to do it for me.
**
You keep saying that. You don’t seem to understand, though, that hunting is different than killing. People do not hunt in order to kill, rather you must kill in order to have hunted. The killing part is not what people enjoy. Stop throwing that around like you know what goes on in hunters’ minds.
**
First of all I’m not a “fella.” I’m female.
Wow, I can hear the surprise.
Sex can spread many terrible diseases and result in unplanned pregnancies and emotionally scar people for life (no, I don’t believe in emotionally scarring for life, but I guess you do.) so it’s not always without harm. We have the technology to do without it. Why shouldn’t we?
Anyway, please tell me what the difference is between my killing of a deer and a mountain lion’s killing of a deer. Does a deer somehow ‘consent’ to a mountain lion before the kill?
I used to be opposed to hunting because I was of the opinion…" I don’t need to hunt because I have a job and I can go to the grocery store and buy meat."
That was such a BS copout. If you don’t want animals to die to feed you, become a vegatarian…but if you think you’re any better because you buy it from the store, then you have no clue about the butchering process. It’s much more humane to hunt your food than buy it at the grocery store. And I haven’t heard of any substantial sport killing since the pioneers wiped out buffalo from the trains. Sure hunting for sport is bad…we can all probably agree to that…but why argue because I can’t recall anyone I’ve ever met to kill for sport only.
There’s plenty to eat without eating venison. I don’t think that my taste buds take priority over something living its life.
So why do the killing part? I know that this goes on in a hunter’s mind: I’m going to do this activity, and it is going to involve ending the life of an animal, and I have no problem with that.
Sorry, but I can’t get behind that. People like that will always cause a feeling of disgust in me.
We have the technology to avoid the diseases and unplanned pregnancies, so it seems more logical to use those. By ‘emotional scarring for life’ I mean that something bothers you for the rest of your life.
No, but the lion doesn’t have any other choices. You do.
I know that you aren’t going to become a vegetarian, but my point here is valid: nobody needs to eat meat. Eating meat is a choice. You CAN be perfectly healthy without it. Thus, the meat aspect of hunting is not a need.
And to add, I’m not saying that people shouldn’t hunt, or telling you not to hunt, etc. I’m just saying that the people who do hunt don’t get on my happy list.
