Hunting?

I have been debating whether I should open this can of worms, but here goes. In the 2011 world where wildlife is under stress from so many different sources, is recreational hunting justifiable? I am not a hunter personally, I prefer to photograph what I see. I can't help getting a bit emotional when hunting season starts in a few weeks and I see truckloads of hunters heading for the hills loaded for elk, moose, deer,sheep, etc. I would like to hear your views. Hopefully this is an appropriate place to discuss this subject which in my opinion has a bearing on wildlife photography.

I see your road signs in Alberta take the same beating ours in Alaska do. I had thought that particular form of idiocy was limited to the U.S.

Hunting is a big,complicated subject. Do the same rules apply to an Alaska Native, living in a remote village whose family has lived a subsistence lifestyle for millennia as a multi-millionaire with a $300,000 airplane, who flies out to get his moose? The same answers? Is trapping ever justified? Are there circumstances where it is permissible to shoot and waste undesirable prey - wolves, for example - to increase the amount of desirable prey - moose?

I don't hunt, either, Gary, but I have any number of friends who do. Some have to do so; others simply enjoy it. I am highly ambivalent about the activity, particularly where it is a sport and not a lifestyle.

I do object very strongly to the enormous amounts of lead - a highly toxic poison, especially to birds - that hunting pumps into the environment. I object strongly to the immense amounts of damage that hunters on airboats and 4-wheelers do to Alaska's fragile environment. And I object to the immense amount of collateral damage that some hunters do, as shown by your stop sign.

And I make a point of avoiding significant hunting areas during hunting season.

In my state, hunters pay for most of the land set aside for wildlife. Few kinds of critters out here are really under "stress." The deer population is at historical levels. Ducks are made a comeback largely because of Duck's Unilmited. At one time Giant Canada geese were nearly extinct but are now so common farmers shoot them as a nuisance to crops. Elk have been reintroduced to the open prairie here, largely thanks to money provided by the sale of hunting licenses. Many of America's prime bird photo spots such as Ding Darling are funded largely by the fedral tax on waterfowl hunters. The farm I recently bought out had little wildlife habitat on it and was a virtual wildlife desert. I planted about 15% of it in cover for wildlife, largely to hold deer and turkeys that I can hunt. And speaking of turkeys, they have made a spectacular come back thanks to National Turkey Federation. Here's the deal. Wildlife has little economic value on the whole. It is mostly hunting that has given it value, and thus saved it. I can get about $12 to $14 per bushel now for beans, and my land yields about 50 bushels per acre. If there was no deer or turkey season, you can bet I'd plow up those acres I have set aside for wildlife and grow more soybeans fast as I can. There are THOUSANDS of landowners out here like me.

Gary--
Lead shot has been banned for most kinds of hunting for many years now, maybe even a couple of decades.


Kent in SD

"Recreational hunting." Recreational killing. I'm not a vegetarian. But recreational killing? Of anything?

Oh no, not again...try doing a search to see this discussed in the past ad nauseum.

Moved to hot topics where this one will have a very short life.

Personally I do not hunt and as long as we have grocery stores I would never consider it (unless of course with a camera) but I agree with the comments made by Kent. Hunters do contribute a lot to the preservation of habitat for wildlife and as a lover of wildlife I appreciate that. If our ancestors couldn't have hunted we wouldn't be here. What I really object to is that SOME hunters seem to feel they have a very proprietary entitlement to all the wildlife over any competition for it from predators like grizzly bears, wolves and lions. I will also say that as a non-killing photographic hunter I would be perfectly willing to pay for a photo/hunting license to contribute my fair share to preserving all wildlife.

We would all be better off eating wild game than the hormone and drug laced genetically mutated meat we get from the grocery store. Unfortunately, if we did everything we should, the economic basis of our society would crumble.

Waste is the real crime of sport hunting. How much of the meat of the wildlife killed is eaten. When it is used for food who can say this is wrong. I would not.

Yes this is a subject that has been hashed about often. Perhaps it has some positive effect each time it comes up.

A friend of mine was a duck hunter whose family would not eat the ducks he killed. His wife complained about their freezer being stuffed with dead ducks so he bought a small freezer and kept them at his office. After a year or so when they were frosted and freezer burned he would throw them away. I said to him one time, "wouldn't you rather those birds were still flying and procreating?" Not many years later he gave up his duck club and hunting. I hope I had something to do with his thinking of the waste.

Thoughtless insect spraying and bug zappers are something else quite harmful to nature and wildlife that depends on them for food.

Think about why wildlife is killed for sport. Is it necessary?

Charlie

As a lifelong hunter, I generally always jump into these threads. IMO, there is a HUGE difference between hunting (putting food in the freezer) and recreational, sport, or trophy hunting. I feel strongly that putting lean, healthly venison or birds in my freezer is not only ok, but the taxes & fees I pay in order to legally hunt do much for the protection of wildlife in general. However, I feel just as strongly that "recreational" or trophy killing is somewhat obscene, unless all meat is donated to a worthy cause. Even then, I have a strong aversion to killing a beautiful animal just to hang a trophy on the wall. Just my opinion, of course. In either case, please do NOT confuse any type of hunting with drunken morons who choose to take target practice on STOP signs. That's no more "hunting" than DUI is driving.

Gotta watch for well-meant but unintended consequences.

I'd love to see an accurate forecast of state, local and national park and wildlife refuge fees without the current system of hunting license fees and excise taxes on guns and ammunition. I'd happily pay that amount for access and management of the public lands, but I'm betting it would be in the 100's of $'s per person rather than the current pocket change.

We already saw what happened in Arizona and other states a couple of years back when park fees were increased and a large number of parks were closed due to lack of funds. I'm betting with such high fees there would be a general public revolt against parks and public land management, and fee generation would drop to the point that most management would cease.

Many years ago California tried a voluntary system for non-hunters to buy "stamps" to generate funds for management of non-game species. The program quickly went broke and died from lack of interest. I'm out of touch with CA now, but perhaps something successful has replaced it. Seems as though it would be very popular among non-hunters to pay $35 a year for their non-game stamp, about what waterfowl hunters pay each year for state and federal waterfowl stamps. I'm certain Alaska would gratefully accept $585 from each bear photographer, the same that is payed by visiting bear hunters. How about paying the same excise taxes on camera gear and computers that is paid by hunters... on top of a photography license? IIRC it's only 10 or 15%.

We're not talking small change generated by hunting. The bare truth is that the funds would have to come from other sources if hunting was stopped. Oh, I have a better idea. Call your favorite politician and propose use fees and excise taxes on the public at large to generate the funds. Ain't gonna happen. And public use as we know it will die on the vine as a result. Next topic?

Hank P. hit it right on the head. Without hunters there would be basically no wetlands and no ducks. That is just one example. My view, we all use natural resources. Every human being bar none. Whether you live in a city and never see a green blade of grass, or in the county and are surrounded by nature. We all need clean water, air, and food to survive. If the ecosystems of this planet collapse, we go with them. Given we all need at least partially functioning ecosystems we all should pay our fair share to support them. For those against hunting, look in the mirror, how much have you paid toward the preservation of this planets natural environments? Now ask a hunter, most could tell you and it is far more than most other people. As for the shot up sign. Well, there a bad apples in every barrel and that goes for the nature photography barrel as well. I done!

Sorry Jim, I should have done a search to ensure this had not been discussed ad nauseam. Thanks to those who took the time to participate in the discussion. I meant no disrespect to hunters, it is a legal activity sanctioned by our governments. I admire the good work done by hunting organizations like Ducks Unlimited. However, I'm still not convinced that in the 21st century protection of our valuable natural resources should be based on a tax on ammo and hunting licenses. Fundamentally though, I'm a softy at heart and I just can't understand why good folks enjoy killing wildlife (especially when you can get a camera and practice the proverbial catch and release thing). That was really my reason for initiating the thread. Now I'll leave the subject and get back to enjoying nature photography.

I'm a softy too, and absolutely despise turning wildlands into subdivisions.

I can't see that "the 21st century protection of our valuable natural resources" should be based upon the financial and political power of the land developers and their bought politicians' work to remove or bypass land use laws and zoning. If we really want do do something about the animals, we'd better take care of their habitat too. So far I see only the hunters fighting for and paying for the habitat and management.

It neither here nor there. Hunters will continue to pay the bills to fight for what's left, while the land developers and politicians do all they can to turn it into asphalt and bank accounts.

I spent all day Saturday watching and photographing moose with a couple of gents that I'd just met. While watching the moose and waiting for something interesting to happen we had plenty of time to introduce ourselves a little better. The subject turned to hunting. One thing we all three shared was a past as avid hunters and a present life as avid photographers. We all agreed that photography has all the good aspects of hunting, is more challenging, has a longer season, has no bag limits, you can capture either sex of any species, and the list goes on. Another thing we shared is the apparent softening of the heart that comes about along about the half century mark. We observed a huge bull moose with a really bum leg and we all had to man up to keep from shedding a tear at the prospect it's facing with winter coming on.

I don't regret having hunted, don't hold it against those who do, and yes, like any other aspect in life, the few idiots give everyone involved a bad name.