Do We Really Need to Hunt?

Non-hunters, animal lovers and animal rights activists are beginning to rely heavily on the animal humane societies to help defend their belief that hunting, fishing and trapping are inhumane - because they believe that if it is - they can use it as a means of stopping all hunting. But what is humane?

The dictionary describes humane as kind, merciful or considerate. What is considered humane by one person, may not be by another. To an animal rightist (who may know very little about predator/prey relationships or carrying capacity) banning hunting and allowing an animal to overpopulate and destroy the habitat (causing them to suffer malnutrition, stress and starvation) is more humane than removing enough animals through hunting that the remaining animals will have enough forage to survive. To an outdoorsman this scenario is not merciful, kind or considerate, and it is not humane.

Predator/Prey/Carrying Capacity Relationships

If a person understands predator/prey relationships and carrying capacityof the habitat, they know that when animal numbers exceed the carrying capacity of the land - habitat destruction, low reproduction rates, stress, malnutrition and starvation are the results. However, most animal rightists have no knowledge of the way things really are in nature. They relate everything to a Utopian world where they believe all animals should be free to live like humans. And they may believe that there is some unknown welfare system in nature that will take care of the animals so they will never suffer. Or they relate wild animals to their lap dog, which they take care of.

I have watched animals in overpopulated areas search for food. At first they lose weight, then they become emaciated, with every rib showing. In their search for food they begin to move at times and places when they wouldn't normally. They travel in the open during daylight hours, where they may be chased by wolves, coyotes and stray dogs, and possibly humans - which costs them so much energy that they cannot recover, and they eventually die. If they escape the predators or humans they may be wounded, and die later. They may travel greater distances in their search for food and may be hit by vehicles and die a slow death. I have watched a deer hit by a car die. It is not a sight for the weak hearted. If the animal is severely wounded, with one or more broken legs, as is often the case, it may drag itself to the side of the road, where it may take hours to die.

Anyone who has spent enough time in the outdoors has seen a wounded animal. Whether it has been a rabbit or squirrel hit by a car, a duck, pheasant or deer that has been shot, or a fish that has swallowed the hook, most outdoorsman have seen an animal that may or may not recover from it's wounds. How do you decide if the animal will survive or not? Where do you draw the line as to what is an acceptable injury for the animal to live with and what isn't? What injury will eventually lead to the animal's inability to move and cause it to die of exposure, malnutrition or lack of water? The question inevitably rises, "What is the humane thing to do?" When it is a game animal that has been shot, or a fish hooked too deep, the answer for most of us is simple; dispatch it as quickly as possible. To an animal rights person a blow to the head of a fish, breaking the neck of a bird, or a finishing shot to a deer or predator, might be inhumane and cruel, but to an outdoorsman it is an act of kindness, mercy and consideration.

The real world for wild animals is a harsh, cruel one, where an animal must eat to live, and avoid danger to survive. There are both prey species and predators, and they are interdependent on each other and their habitat. If there are too many prey species they will destroy the habitat and eventually some will die. And it may take years for the habitat to recover. If prey species move into habitats where there is not enough forage to sustain them they must either move out or some will die.

In the real world there have always been predators, and man was one of them. The predators evolved with the prey species, and the predators' existence depended on the numbers of the prey. Where there were numerous prey species, numerous predators could exist. After thousands of years of coexistence a balance was met between the prey species, the habitat and the predators. The predators kept the prey species at or below the carrying capacity of the habitat, so that habitat destruction by the prey species did not occur, and malnutrition, stress, disease and starvation where kept to a minimum. But, without the predators this balance of nature could not occur.

Human Interference

Another reality is that man has altered the predator/prey relationship and habitat carrying capacity wherever he goes. In many places man has improved the habitat through agricultural practices so that more prey species can survive. But, man has also eliminated the natural predators by hunting; because they feared the predators, because the predators competed with man for the prey species, or the predators left the area because of their unwillingness or inability to survive in the vicinity of man. The result is that in most areas there are far more prey species than the habitat would normally hold, but fewer predators than should be present. This is not bad as long as man continues to be a predator. But, when human populations stop or ban hunting, the prey species is not kept in check, and with the absence of other predators, the prey species overpopulates and suffers.

Because many predators are dangerous to man, most humans do not tolerate their presence, and the predators are removed through hunting (this hunting seems to be acceptable, especially if human lives are at stake). Thus, the predators can not, and do not, keep the prey species in balance with the carrying capacity of the land, because they are no longer part of the equation. The only alternativethere is, is for man to continue to hunt in order to keep the predators in balance with the prey species and the prey species in balance with the social carrying capacity of the habitat (what humans will put up with), or find other ways to remove the over abundance of predators, and prey species, and treat them in a humane manner, by taking excess animals and using them responsibly as a renewable food resource, so they do not destroy the other renewable resources (prey species) that they rely on to survive.

Hunting

A Personal Note:

As a Christian I didn't have to go very far into the Bible to find out that humans not only have the right to utilize animals and plants (Genesis 1: 29-30), but that we also have the responsibility to manage the animals as well. Genesis 1: 26 states that God gave man dominion, or mastery, over the animals, which means we can do anything we want with them. But, along with the right to do want we want, we also have the responsibility to manage. We have to control the numbers of animals in many areas through hunting, because the natural checks and balances are no longer in place. Man has decreased the natural habitat through destruction of forests and the building of cities and roads; increased the natural food source through farming; and reduced the natural predation by eliminating or displacing many of the larger carnivores like wolves, mountain lions, bears etc.

Man as a Predator

Through fossil records we know that man at some point in the past, mnwas a scavenger of meat. This is clearly evdienced by several physical feaures of humns- which we hve in common with predators. Terrestrial predators generally have widely spaced ears, so hat they can determine which direction and approximately how far a way a sound is coming from; humans hve widely spaced arm, on the sides of their heads. Terrestrial predators generally have eyes on the front of their head, so that they can determine the relative distance of an object from them; namely a prey species. Predators generally have incisor and caninde teeth,for grabbing, ripping and tearing meat; which humans have Humns evolved as predators, eatin meat on the savannahs of Africa.

Man was one of earth's natural predators from his beginning, and he will continue to be a natural predator, in the United States, Canada and many other countries, because hunting is one of the rights of the people. If we wish to keep that right we all need to become involved with the hunting organizations and conservation clubs that are devoted to proper management of animals and habitat, and are devoted to hunting rights.

Evidently the DNR is talking about restricting, or lowering, the number of bears that can be collared by Dr. Lynn Rogers and his research team. This may not seem like anything important, but if you are following the lineage or familial relationship of bears to other bears of there own family, or to their extended family, - you need to collar more cubs, to find out if more familial breeding does or will occur. Or will there be breeding of non-related bears. And what effects will relational breeding have on the physiological makeup of the bears. Will offspring of related bears have birth defects or health problems later in life.

I think this could be important, because traditionally, female cubs either setup home ranges close to their neonatal (mother/daughter) home range, or the mother may give up some of her home range to give the cub a home range that it is familiar with - so it gets a head start on life. Males typically do what is referred to as "pioneering) - they leave the neonatal home range, and seek new home ranges that are not close to their neonatal home range. When they do this, it lessens the chance that they will not breed with their mother, sister or aunts- resulting in in-breeding or line-breeding, which can result in birth defects of cubs and poor health of the bears in the later years. So, we need to know much more about bears - which is why people like Dr. Lynn Rogers and myself do animal research – to lean more about the intricacies of the biology and behavior of the animals.

Why is Dr. Roger's Research Important?

One of the reasons why Dr. Rogers and my own research are important, is the we can do it without funds from the State of Minnesota or Arkansas (in my case on my bear research). We either foot the bill for our research ourselves (as in my case), or we raise funds through the public sector (like Dr. Rogers) so that we can continue long-term studies, which provide more information than short term studies. Due to budgetary restraints, especially during the recession, biologists (that are associated with State run Universities), only receive grants that will allow them to only do three years of research.

Privatly FundedResearch

I,for the life of me, cannot understan why Commissioner Landwehr is not willing to allow Dr. Rogers to continue his research, because he is able to supply answers to wildlife management questions, that the State cannot afford to fund research projects for in order to get the answers to those questions.

In these hard economic times, why not supplement your store bought foods with food from you own garden and wild game, that you harveted yourself?

When you are out there hunting, think about safety first, and take a kid (your own, or the child of an acquaintance) along with you.

If you are out in our great State's woods, waters, CRP or agricultural lands,take a faily membe or friend along, and don't a camer or binoculars,so you can remember and ehance your experience.

Pleas pick up all trash you see, for the sake of wildness.

T.R.