‘Gangbangers are conservationists’
By Charlie • July 17, 2009 • 11 commentsOur recent mini-debate on hunting and conservation (eg Mike’s post on Duck Stamps at Time to buy a Duck Stamp…or not, mine on Dove Hunts in Argentina at Fur and Feather Shoot, and a general post about Birdwatchers and the American Economy) has naturally enough stirred up the emotions and brought forth some interesting comments.
It’s been a useful discussion to have and I’d like to continue it. In the light of a few things that have happened recently I would, however, like to make clear before I get onto the next article in the debate that we here at 10,000 Birds don’t make ‘corporate statements’ as such: there are three of us writing the blog and our views don’t always accord (though they usually overlap of course or we wouldn’t write together). Suffice to say that I (Charlie) am personally strongly anti “hunting as a conservation tool” and that doesn’t necessarily mean that Mike or Corey is: if you don’t like what’s being said please address your comments to the individual who wrote the post or who sanctioned the guest post. We don’t censor each other (even when the temptation might be great) because we a) respect that each other have the right to hold the views that we do, and b) that’s not how a co-authored blog works anyway. Hope that clears that up…
Right, back to the matter in hand. As I just said, I do not subscribe to the “hunters are conservationists just like birders” argument. I was going to write a post about it but then was pointed to a post from last year on the Born Free USA blog. Written by Monica Engebretson, the organisation’s Senior Program Associate, the article covered the same ground I was thinking over - but it obviously has the authority that comes with being written by a well-known staffer at a global conservation organisation (and, yes, I do long for the day when someone can write the same thing about me!).
I emailed Monica and asked her if I could publish the post on 10,000 Birds, and permission was given. It’s worth pointing out that it was written a year ago when Bush was in the White House (it’s fair to say that one area Mike, Corey, and I agree on 100% is that the Bush presidency was a horrible period for the US environment) but otherwise the points Monica raises are in my opinion as fresh and relevant today as they were in September 08.
Gangbangers are conservationists
Monica Engebretson, Senior Program Associate
Published 09/19/08If I hear the words “hunters” and “conservationists” used in the same sentence one more time I’m going to scream.
AAAAAH! Guess I shouldn’t have read the article about the upcoming White House Conference on North American Wildlife Policy to be held October 1–3 in Reno, Nevada.
This hearing is “a result of the Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation executive order signed by President Bush in August 2007.” (There those two words are again.)
The article notes that,
“The goal of the conference is to establish a 10-year plan to improve wildlife conservation and boost hunting opportunities on public lands. President Bush will address the conference, which is expected to include a wide range of sportsmen conservationists.” … O.K., so technically the last one used the word “sportsmen” instead of “hunter” … same difference.
Why am I so annoyed?
I’m sick of the hunters getting all the credit for conservation of wildlife. Shoot! (no pun intended) I just used those two words together.
The argument goes, that hunters conserve wildlife because by virtue of hunting they keep populations healthy, control disease, and prevent “overpopulation,” and that they fund wildlife conservation. In fact it’s oft said that “hunters were the first conservationist.”
Let me just use this forum to vent and refute each of these points.
- Control of populations and disease:
I studied wildlife management in college and earned a degree in Wildlife and I can tell you firsthand that one of the primary goals of wildlife managers is to increase populations of “game” species to provide targets for hunters — not to control their populations in order to keep them in “balance with nature” as is so often claimed.
State wildlife agencies often argue that our cities and rural lands would be overrun with wild animals if hunting were disallowed. However, the biological truth is that animals regulate their own populations, based upon available food and habitat. In nature, unaltered by humans, there is no such thing as a “surplus” animal.
This is not to say that natural predators do not play an important role in the ecosystem, they do. What I am saying is that human hunters do not replace natural predators. Natural predators are opportunistic hunters and usually take the youngest, weakest and/or sickest animals. By contrast human hunters typically take the biggest and healthiest animals thereby weakening the gene pool over the long term.
Contrary to popular belief artificial human-induced population reductions can actually result in higher populations and increased disease. This happens due to the ecological principle called compensation. This phenomenon was summed up nicely in a recent study from the University of Georgia.
“When a portion of the animal population is reduced, those that survive are left with more resources such as food and shelter. As a result of the newly plentiful resources, the death rate decreases and the birth rate increases, compensating — and sometimes overcompensating — for the loss.
“Killing wild animals can also increase the proportion of the population that’s susceptible to disease by removing those individuals who have contracted a virus but have developed lifelong immunity as a result of their infection.”
And don’t even get me started on the impact the lead ammunition and fishing gear used by sportsmen are having on wildlife and the environment.
- Now on to the next point, Funding:
In 1937, Congress passed the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (formally called the Pittman-Robertson Act) to help finance state wildlife agencies by establishing an excise tax on guns, ammunition, and fishing gear. These funds are then distributed to state wildlife agencies based upon the state’s land area and the numbers of hunters in the state. The more hunting licenses sold, the more funds a state receives from this act.
But because the funds are generated from the sale of guns and ammo, every gun user, whether a hunter or not — contributes to conservation. (Of the 60 million gun owners in the U.S., only a quarter of these are hunters.)
Put this way, every gangbanger is a conservationist.
- First conservationists.
Lastly, where do hunters get off thinking that they were the “first conservationists”? Certainly the passenger pigeon, heath hen, and Carolina parakeet, were they not extinct, would beg to differ.
Seriously, it’s probably because Theodore Roosevelt was a hunter and did great things to conserve wildlife and protect the wilderness. But he was far from the only one. John Muir was one of this country’s greatest conservation pioneers and was an inspiration to Theodore Roosevelt. Muir not only was not a hunter, he told Theodore Roosevelt that hunting was “childish” and that he should give it up.
And let’s hear it for the great female conservationist Rachel Carlson, best known for her book Silent Spring, which inspired the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. Did I mention Rachel was not a hunter?
The moral of my ranting is this, if you don’t think killing animals is fun, you can still be a conservationist.
Blogging off,
Monica
[Originally posted at http://www.bornfreeusa.org/weblog.php?p=1782&more=1.
Each year millions of exotic animals are captured from the wild or produced in captivity for commercial profit or human amusement, only to languish in conditions that fail to meet the instinctive, behavioral, and physical needs of these wild animals. Born Free USA aims to reduce animal suffering by raising public awareness of the cruel and destructive exotic animal trade, by increasing legal protections for captive exotic animals, and by supporting efforts aimed at preserving wildlife’s rightful place in the wild. Learn more at www.bornfreeusa.org
Born Free USA united with API is an NGO participant at the Meetings of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which regulates commercial international trade of threatened and endangered species.
Have you seen the cool 10,000 Birds t-shirts? Get yours today!
Charlie: I too was putting together a post that covers this apparently well-trod ground. I’m also frustrated that hunters are seen as conservationists when they’re completely invisible on issues involving species for which they do not have a shooting interest, and with the taxes levied for guns and ammo sales, they can really only be considered inadvertent conservationists at best.
I realize that many birders would like to find the common ground with hunters, but like Jochen pointed out in a comment on a previous post (one that particularly resonated with me), birders are constantly making overtures to hunters in the interest of general conservation, but see nothing in return from hunting organizations with regard to advocating for the conservation and management of habitat for non-game species. And in fact, from my personal experience, all I hear is a bunch of complaining from the hook and bullet club when such action is taken with “their” money. In NC, this is the sort of thing you run into when you close popular fishing beaches to off-road vehicles for nesting shorebirds. Most hunting orgs are actively fighting against this sort of thing. And they want to be considered conservations?
It’s been all very interesting to me this last month because it’s made me codify my hesitantly taken stance on hunters v birders. While I still come down as fairly indifferent on hunting generally, I would strongly make the argument that to be a hunter, in and of itself, does not imply in the least that you are a conservationist. And their interests should be considered as such.
I’ve always considered the argument about hunters being conservationists to be about habitat conservation, not the conservation of the game itself. Hunters need places to hunt, and those places need to be healthy enough and large enough to be filled with whatever animals they’re trying to hunt.
For example, Duck Unlimited protected 4,202 acres of wetland and 19,409 acres of grassland under “perpetual easement” between September 2008 and April 2009. DU is a pro-hunting organization, but isn’t there a clear benefit to these lands being protected? If not to the game species, what about to all the non-game species living there? I can’t help feel that land conservation with hunting allowed is better than no land protection at all.
I just don’t see any benefit to making enemies of hunters. I may be blinded by the fact that hunting in the US is pretty well regulated and enforced. Overhunting and wasteful hunting aren’t nearly the problems here that they appear to be in Argentina or other places…but the solution should be better regulations and enforcement, not a moral argument.
@Nick - But what about habitats that aren’t wetlands and grasslands? Sure hunters help conserve habitat that contains animals that can shoot at, but as I said before, there’s absolutely no movement on the part of hunters as a whole to protect deserts or appalachian highland streams or boreal forests or any other area that does not contain game species. There’s more out there than grasslands and wetlands, and in many cases, those are the habitats in most dire need.
I don’t see any benefit to continuing to voluntarily fund hunter interests when our interests and theirs only line up part of the time.
Nate- Whether we like it or not, hunters are hunting in American deserts (antelope, mule deer, black bear etc), boreal forests (bear, grouse, caribou, moose) and mountain streams (trout, mostly). And where there are hunters there are indeed hunter-led movements to conserve those habitats, even in deserts, boreal forests and mountain streams.
I’m not a member of any of those organizations, and I don’t necessarily agree with their directions, but I’m not going to pretend that their contributions to conservation aren’t significant or welcomed, or that they don’t care about a healthy, clean environment as much as I do.
I just think that of all the threats facing birds and birders (including: pollution, irresponsible forestry, irresponsible agriculture, urban sprawl, poorly planned developments, etc.), hunters are the least of our problem, and in fact are usually our allies.
Nick: “Whether we like it or not, hunting occurs in US deserts (antelope, mule deer, black bear, etc), the boreal forest (moose, bear, grouse) and many mountain streams, which are fished for trout and other fish.”
The point is, no, I don’t like it. I don’t think conserving habitat is about conserving species so I can go out and kill them. I pay organisations to conserve habitat I will never see simply because I like to know that it’s there and the species within it are being protected. Hunters wish to conserve habitat so it gives them more animals to shoot. Is that analogous to what I do? I don’t think so. Do I hope there will be more ducks around so that the bag limit will be increased? No, I do not. I would conserve the habitat so there are more ducks - whether I can get to see them or not is irrelevant.
My personal belief is that hunters and birders like me are not the same in spirit, motivation, or desire and I refuse any longer to give them my personal approval by calling them conservationists. That won’t cause any fear in the hunting community of course, but it makes my position clear and may even possibly encourage other people who feel the same way to speak out too.
I understand that you disagree and by posting my thoughts on a blog I am giving you free licence to respond with your feelings and thoughts - but there is no way that I will ever again conceal my anger at animals being killed and it being called ‘conservation’ or will I ever consider hunters ‘allies’. We (hunters and I) may indeed occasionally find ourselves fighting the same fight, but it will always be for entirely different reasons: I will want to conserve all life for life’s sake, they will want to conserve some of it for their own sake and I really don’t feel obliged anymore to pretend otherwise.
Which is actually quite a liberating experience now I come to think of it…
If I may interject a slightly different perspective. Not all hunters
are created equal, not all fishermen are created equal,and following
that same direction, not all birders are created equal either.
A hunter of deer may be very dedicated to conservation in endeavors
totally not related to deer herd management. I have grown up in a hunting environment and some of my best friends are still avid hunters,
yet they are committed to reducing their carbon footprints, and actively try to preserve our planet by contributing as little as possible to climate warming.(maybe that is a poor example to illustrate my point)
Guess all I am trying to say is don’t judge hunters/fishermen/birders by the actions of some. Kind of reminds me of the 50’s/60’s when people were judged by their nationalities/skin color or religion.
Now we are endeavoring to label people and what they stand for by what their hobbies are. I strongly believe a large majority of the hunter/fishermen also classify themselves as birders.
Hope I haven’t rambled off into oblivion.
I recently wrote a piece for The Nature Conservancy’s blog on a new coalition of hunters and anglers working to address the climate change issue. Check it out and comment.
http://blog.nature.org/2009/07/hunters-anglers-climate-change-matt-miller/
I still think that the hunting community has one of the best track records of getting things done for the environment (and many not just for game species).
Matt
Those groups may exist, but they’re regional and narrowly focused and that’s the problem (with the exception of Trout Unlimited, but I think fishing is a slightly different subject and you’re right, they do good work). The others, though, exist solely because the national organizations aren’t willing to advocate for conservation of diverse ecosystems. And because they’re regional, they simply don’t have the means to make their voice heard any more than our national organizations do.
While I agree with Wes that not all hunters should be tarred with the same brush, the point remains that by and large hunt organizations do not have an interest in anything they can’t shoot. I know that there are hunters out there who are as passionate about non-game wildlife as game species, I’ve met them, but they’re hunters and conservationists. Just being a hunter means doesn’t mean you’re a conservationist any more than our being birders means we’re little old ladies in tennis shoes. I think, if nothing else, that meme needs to be put to bed, and the burden of proof lies on hunters to prove otherwise.
I don’t have strong feelings about the hunters-as-conservationists argument. There is a lot of variation among hunters – some are more conservation-oriented and others less so. Hunting is pretty much the only check on the white-tailed deer population in much of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and in that case hunting one species helps to conserve other species whose habitats are being eaten away. I also think it’s great that duck stamp funds go directly to land preservation and that hunting organizations work on preserving habitats also. I would like to see better collaboration between hunting and conservation organizations, and I agree with Nate that there should be more reciprocity. At the same time, those hunting organizations have to serve their constituency, so how much nongame habitat they can preserve is probably going to be limited. Thus I think it’s up to birders and wildlife lovers to save the other habitats.
Overall, hunting bothers me a lot less than, say, the ATV crowd, which serves no purpose and routinely degrades sensitive habitats.
Amen to the ATV comment. Not only do they destroy where they ride
they destroy the tranquility of wherever they are.
I agree with some of what has been said so far.
But I also offer this thought: what would our forests look like - and how many Wood Thrushes, Kentucky Warblers, and Black-throated Blue Warblers would we have - if there were no deer hunters?
The flip side of this concerns HOG HUNTERS. They are the scourge of southern conservation, because they keep restocking / re-releasing hogs into the wild (to replace ones that are eradicated by state and federal agencies and conservation-minded landowners). Around here, “Bubbas” even introduce feral hogs to certain islands by boat, so they can poach them later.
Some of these islands have many hogs, yet few sources of protein. So the hogs dig up Ghost Crabs, Sea Turtle nests, and even Sand Fleas on the beaches. To the great detriment of the ecosystem…
At any rate: I go to LOTS of public input meetings on development, road-building, rezoning and conservation issues. I rarely see hunters there, even when their woods are under the gun from rezoning for shopping malls, sale to real estate magnates by the owning timber company, etc.
If they’re working to conserve their hunting lands, I don’t see much public sign of it. Maybe they’re embarrassed about being seen as “tree huggers”.