The future of hunting

Discussion in 'Hunting Africa' started by fhm3006, Oct 17, 2011.

  1. fhm3006

    fhm3006 AH Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    0
    My Photos:
    31
    Hunted:
    Namibia / South-Africa
    I found this an interesting read about the future of hunting...

    I wonder at times if we as selfproclaimed avid / ethical hunters really know what huge responsibility we have in the micro-management of all aspects of our hunts and what type of hunting legacy each of us will leave behind. For one - it really made me think beyond the smell of gunpowder and meat in the fridge / trophy on the wall...


    The Future of Hunting Is In Danger
    by Russell Stevens
    The year is 2015 and after years of debate among conservation organizations, pro-hunting organizations, animal rights activists and antihunting groups, all forms of hunting in the United States have been banned by the federal government. Is this a real possibility? In my opinion, the answer is yes. Regardless of what some people think, hunting is an opportunity that can be taken away and those who will ultimately decide its fate are the non-hunting public. Currently, the public is mostly undecided on whether hunting is moral, a wholesome activity or still involves the sportsmanlike pursuit of animals.

    There are about 12.5 million hunters over the age of 16 in the U.S. It is vital for hunters, both individually and as a group, to demonstrate that hunting is a moral and wholesome activity. This is increasingly difficult because more and more people are further removed from rural lifestyles. Fewer immediate family members are involved in hunting or agriculture where the birth, care and death of animals are parts of daily life. Lessons from the farm are largely lost on today's generation, including hunters.

    The fate of hunting will be influenced by at least three factors. First, hunters need to police their own ranks and not ignore questionable acts of other hunters. Secondly, hunters need to communicate more effectively with non-hunting groups. Lastly, to be sustainable, the sport needs new hunters.

    Policing our ranks should not emphasize internal debates over archery, muzzle loader or rifle seasons or equipment choice. These things are minor compared to hunters holding one another accountable to ethical and high moral conduct. We can't ignore activities such as poaching and trespassing. Additionally, appropriate conduct extends to the concept of "fair chase" or avoiding the use of technology, gadgets or practices that gives unfair advantage to hunters over the animals being pursued.

    Drs. Michael Nelson and Kelly Millenbah published an article in the fall 2009 issue of Wildlife Professional proposing that there may be more common ground between ethical hunters and non-hunters than either group thinks. They point out that, in the debate over the ethics of hunting, dialogue has been replaced by dogmatism, honesty by hostility and progress by platitudes. However, they suggest that a common ground exists: respect for animals. They go on to say that most anti-hunters simply want hunters to demonstrate respect for the animals they hunt and to acknowledge that animals have moral standing. They propose that "wildlife professionals and hunters could recognize the direct moral standing of animals and work to unite this recognition with the possibility of hunting and eating animals."

    With the increasing commercialization of hunting and wildlife, the potential grows for this industry to substitute "entertainment" and a "positive experience" for traditional values and ethical concepts, such as fair chase. Some aspects of commercialization, e.g., canned hunts and gadgetry, will appeal to those who are shortsighted and are not vested in the outcome of hunting. Time in the field is at a premium and, with companies offering gadgets and canned hunts that promise increased odds of harvesting an animal... well, money talks.

    Statistics show that hunter numbers are declining annually. Probable factors are too numerous to look into here. Traditionally, hunting has been a male-dominated activity, but this is changing. More and more women are taking up and enjoying hunting. In regards to youth, hunting seems to be overshadowed by video games, television, computers and organized activities such as sports and music. An increasing number of youth are not being taught that death is a part of life and that game animals are a renewable resource. It is important that youth and women become involved and participate in hunting and that hunting mentors teach them what fair chase and ethical conduct is all about.

    Take a child hunting. Invite your spouse, sister, aunt or a neighbor to spend some time in the field to share your knowledge regarding the importance of respecting animals, hunting ethically, observing sportsmanship and maintaining wildlife habitat. Who is a better mentor than an ethical, knowledgeable and conservationminded sportsman? The future of hunting depends on you.

    Source: The Future of Hunting Is In Danger



    The Future of Hunting in America
    by Dan C. Johnson

    The problems facing hunters are many and complex.
    What can the average sportsman do to preserve the sport he holds dear?

    This story is not specific to Wisconsin but I think it reminds us we need to get involved in protecting our right to hunt.


    We all know the story of the first Thanksgiving. It's told that the Native Americans saved the Pilgrims from starvation that first winter and taught these newcomers to the wilderness how to reap the harvest of nature's bounty. There is likely some truth to the tale -- especially if you consider the country those first settlers left behind. They were mostly poor and left a place where hunting was a sport of kings. So it reasonable to assume they had little skill at taking game. They learned quickly, however, and started a tradition of freedom and self-reliance based on one's abilities to live off the land. For two centuries, many of America's heroes were hunters -- strong, independent men who led a simple life. Most weren't wealthy. They were common people with uncommon skills and courage. Times have changed. Hunting has changed. And now, as we face an uncertain future, we are compelled to give some serious thought as to what that future might bring, and more importantly, what we can do to preserve the sport we hold dear. Hunting is increasingly becoming a sport for the wealthy, or at least the upper class, and if this trend continues, it could well contribute to the end of hunting in America. Think about it. We live in a democracy where public opinion and political votes can be swayed by the slightest shift in sentiment and a narrow edge in polls. We already have in place a leftist media, and those mainstays of popular culture, TV and movies, are decidedly anti-hunting. The only hope we have of negating and maybe even changing these forces is a broad base of hunters. We need a large pool of voters to hold the antis at bay, and we need responsible men and women across the country to pass on a hunting legacy to future generations. But hunting is increasingly becoming too expensive for many low- to middle-income Americans. There is the cost of equipment, but most of this is on a par with inflation and not really a major factor. Firearm manufacturers continue to offer good-quality equipment for the budget conscious. The real problem is in finding a suitable place to hunt, and in many cases, acquiring the license to do so.

    Over-the-counter big-game permits are quickly becoming a thing of the past in much of the West. In order to hunt big game, residents of most Western states have to depend on the luck of the draw and must compete with sportsmen from all over the country for those limited tags. The odds of drawing are increasingly stacking against them. The well-heeled businessman in a distant city can apply in several states and have a good chance of drawing one or more tags. He also has the option of purchasing a landowner permit and enjoying any number of high-quality hunts during the fall season. The local hunter, without the free time to travel long distances to hunt or the financial resources to invest in a landowner tag, has one chance to draw a public-land permit. If he fails to draw for several years in a row, it's easy to understand how he might become discouraged and turn to another pastime. Once this hunter turns from the sport, he is less likely to be involved in the key political battles we face. Another ally is lost. But states like Colorado that have tried to shift the balance more in the resident's favor have been met with widespread criticism by out-of-state hunters, some of whom happen to be outdoor writers. Coverage of Colorado's efforts in the hunting press has been mostly negative, including the state's most recent decision to limit lottery tags to residents in the Ranching for Wildlife program. Most of the remaining 90 percent of the RFW tags will still end up in the pockets of non-resident hunters. We hunters are very quick to protest any move that hampers our hunting opportunities, but we should also consider the hunting opportunities of others. If hunting is to survive, it may be necessary to sacrifice a bit personally for the good of all, and ultimately, the good of the sport. East of the Rockies the problem is not so much obtaining a license, but gaining access to lands on which to hunt. Whitetail deer populations, for example, have escalated to a point they are reaching near varmint status in some areas. In much of the heavily populated East, though, finding a place to hunt can be challenging. Subdivisions and strip malls are eating up open farmlands, and even where hunting lands are not diminishing, gaining permission to hunt is becoming more difficult.

    Most states have game management areas with low-priced access fees, but many of these are so crowded, it's hard to find a vacant tree to climb. The frustrations of hunting overcrowded public lands has turned many a hunter away from the sport. To compound the problem, we are losing much of what little public access land is available. In the Southeast, large timber companies are removing acreage from the public access system in favor of leasing to hunt clubs. Previously, hunters could gain season-long access to these lands for a relatively low fee. Landowners from giant paper companies to mom-and-pop farming operations are finding it good business to lease to hunt clubs. Not only are there profits to be made, more control is maintained over the land as well. Landowners know exactly who's on their property and who to hold responsible for any damages. The only loser in this arrangement is the low-income hunter who cannot afford to lease. If the hard realities of economics facing hunters aren't enough, we also have an increasingly vocal and active anti-hunting movement. At a time when more money is needed from the states to increase hunting opportunities, anti-hunting groups are suing states to stop what efforts are made on behalf of the sport. These groups have high-profile support from Hollywood celebrities and major news outlets. Which brings us back to a question of money. In order to overcome the obstacles facing us, we must stop aiding and abetting the enemy by continuing to put money into the pockets of those who create anti-hunting propaganda. We must take the time to find out who the enemy is and boycott their productions. We can do this by contacting the producers of movies and TV programs with an obvious anti-hunting content and, perhaps more important, by contacting their sponsors. It's easy to become discouraged when these companies answer with either a form letter defending their position or don't respond at all. However, if enough hunters contact them, they will be forced to take heed for financial reasons.

    Many hunters feel that as long as they vote for pro-hunting legislators they have done their share to protect the sport. But the battleground is diverse and it will take much more than a few minutes in a voting booth to win the fight. Also, our political choices are not always clear. Most direct threats to hunting do come from the left side of the political spectrum, but there are those on the far right worthy of our concern. Terry Anderson, public lands advisor to George W. Bush, has advocated some downright scary proposals in the past. The most radical was to sell off the majority of public lands to private concerns. He has also suggested managing wildlife on public lands for profit by charging trophy fees as is common on private land. The problems facing hunters are many and complex, but there are some hopeful signs. Hunting license sales have increased in the past couple of years, largely due to efforts by some states to provide improved hunting opportunities. Some of the increase might also be attributed to Internet talk forums and TV hunting programs, which tend to motivate people to get off the couch and into the woods. But getting into the woods isn't enough. We must get into the fight and into the faces of those who oppose us. A whitetail hunter in Mississippi may not care if Maine bans the spring bear hunt any more than a Maine hunter cares if Washington state bans trapping. But they'd better care, because the anti-hunting groups care about each of these little battles in the war to end hunting. They use national muscle and money to regularly win battles against local and largely unorganized hunters and trappers. Like most inroads on freedom, the losses are gradual.

    Any blanket approach such as a referendum to end hunting in any state would certainly fail now. The antis know this. So they chip away at our perimeters. They divide and conquer and take their victories where resistance is least. And they have powerful allies. Eight years of the Clinton Administration has shown us just how susceptible our rights are to the stroke of a president's pen. Without consent of Congress, Clinton has undermined the solvency of firearms manufacturers, nullified the Constitutional rights of thousands of gun owners, and limited hunter access to tens of millions of acres of public land. The recent election has demonstrated clearly how equally divided this country is between conservative traditional values and more government control of our lives, our land and our time-honored way of life. The future of hunting is teetering on that balance, and any hunter who thinks he can afford to be apathetic is only fooling himself.

    Source: The Future of Hunting
  2. timbear

    timbear AH Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Member of:
    SSAA, NZDA
    Hunted:
    Germany, NZ, Australia
    Interesting links. Similar problems are plaguing hunters in Australia, and the advice is sound. Thanks, FHM3006!

Share This Page