Few things in life are more nauseating than to see a grown man, dressed in full camouflage, sneaking up to get a shot on an unsuspecting, defenseless, animal.  Every year with the arrival of autumn, thousands of hunters take to our fields and forests, and with an infinite assortment of lethal weapons, blast millions of inoffensive, sentient animals, out of their existence.  This horrific combination of killing, wounding, and maiming, is all done under the guise of “sport” and “conservation.”

In the midst of all this madness and killing, I have yet to find a hunter or wildlife official, who can sensibly explain to me, how the wholesale slaughter of animals on a grand scale every year, possibly be of benefit to them.  Their usual response is, “that hunting is a tool of wildlife management and a form of conservation.”  How do we conserve something by killing it?  And how can man’s violent interference in the natural order of things, be construed as wildlife management?  Its more like wildlife mismanagement!

Unfortunately, hunting in America is big business.  Money, not management or conservation, plays a huge part in the killing of wildlife for sport.  State wildlife agencies take in millions of dollars in revenue from the sale of hunting licenses every year.   This revenue also pays the salaries of wildlife managers and officials.

The forms of revenue available to wildlife agencies are seemingly endless.  There are small game licenses, deer licenses, duck stamps, fur bearers licenses, trappers licenses, bear licenses, turkey licenses etc.  These are all individual licenses, extended to hunters depending on their preference, and each one is purchased separately in most states.   If you add to this income the revenue generated by fines for hunters poaching, illegally trespassing and violating game laws, you have an enormous amount of revenue available.

This revenue in return, helps pays for wildlife agencies to purchase large parcels of land and transform them into state owned game lands, to further manage wildlife and increase hunting opportunities.  To quote one famous Native American; “American Wildlife Agencies are in the business of buying and selling death.”

With the killing season already upon us here in the state of Pennsylvania (where we have more than a million fanatical hunters) I took the time to look at the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s website.  Almost everything imaginable with fur or feathers was included in their hunting guide.  Squirrels, rabbits, pheasant, quail, crows, groundhogs, deer, bear, coyote, bobcats, turkey, elk, starlings and sparrows…yes, starlings and sparrows!

How utterly ridiculous is it to assume that wildlife management also includes killing sparrows and starlings to manage their numbers!  The insanity of it all is mind boggling.  There is no closed season on killing sparrows, starlings, groundhogs, or coyotes, as long as they are taken outside of the deer and bear season.    The killing of raccoon and foxes are unlimited, as long as it is done between Oct. 25 and Feb. 21 each year.   There is no closed season for opossum, skunks, or weasels, for trappers.  Bobcats can also be trapped and taken certain times of the year.  Here in Pennsylvania its pretty much open season on every living variety of wildlife.  Its an absolute disgrace!

The hunting of animals serves no purpose or benefit to the species being killed.  In nature, over a gradual period of time, the old, sick, injured and diseased slowly die off, leaving the fittest or genetically superior animals to pass on their genes and create a healthy population of animals.  Without man’s interference this also contributes to biological diversity, which is paramount to healthy populations of wildlife.

On the contrary, during hunting seasons, hunters pursue the largest, healthiest, animals or “trophies,” and by killing them, leave the more inferior stock to reproduce, thus creating weaker populations void of any biological diversity.  This is nothing more than “evolution in reverse.”  It violates every sound biological principle of the natural world!

Unlike the slow, natural process of animals being removed by nature, hunting removes an incredible amount of animals over a shorter period of time.   Hunters also kill off thousands of predators like wolves and coyotes, that would naturally keep animal populations in check.  This only serves to create voids and an imbalance to the species and can be devastating to animal populations.   If we add to this mayhem the death of millions of animals that mate for life, or animals orphaned by the killing of their mother, and those wounded and left to die a lingering death, we have pain and suffering that is totally incomprehensible.

Hunting animals does not prevent starvation, it promotes it.  When deer and other animals are wounded and are unable to forage for food as a result of their wounds, the secondary cause of death is starvation.  Furthermore, a deer herd can only grow as large as its available food supply.  If the herd outgrows its food supply, the competition for food creates stress, which eventually leads to natural factors that contribute to a decline in numbers, until the herd is once again in balance with its habitat and food supply.

Hunting actually increases deer overpopulation because when a huge number of deer are killed, it leaves a surplus of food for the remaining herd members, which will maximize the birth rate of the deer, to once again bring their numbers in balance with the available food supply.  It is a terribly vicious cycle promoted by wildlife managers, to assure hunters an infinite supply of live targets each and every year.

It is also a known fact that when pregnant deer are faced with a limited food supply, the animal will reabsorb its fetus and abort the birth.  This is a natural, built in, form of birth control, that helps keep deer numbers in check during hard times.

Undoubtedly, the current method of wildlife management and hunting for sport, should be relegated to the dust bins of history.  In a civilized society, the pain and suffering inflicted on sentient beings for recreational purposes should be abolished.  If wildlife populations require any management at all, it should be done using non-lethal methods employed by responsible ecologists, not wildlife agencies with ulterior motives, and devastating effects on our wildlife heritage.

(2 votes, average: 5 out of 5)

 Loading ...

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 30th, 2008 at 5:52 am.