Animal Rights FAQ : Section EightHUNTING AND FISHINGQuestion 63: Humans are natural hunter/gatherers;aren't you trying to repress natural human behavior?  Yes. Failing to repress certain "natural behaviors" wouldcreate anuncivilized society. Consider this: It would be an expression of naturalbehavior to hunt anything that moves (e.g., my neighbor's dogs or horses)and to gather anything I desire (e.g., my employer's money or furniture).It would even be natural behavior to indulge in unrestrained sexualappetites or to injure a person in a fit of rage or jealousy.In a civilized society, we restrain our natural impulses by two codes:the written law of the land, and the unwritten law of morality. And thisalso applies to hunting. It is unlawful in many places and at many times,and the majority of Americans regard sport hunting as immoral.DVHMany would question the supposition that humans are natural hunters.In many societies, the people live quite happily without hunting. Inour own society, the majority do not hunt, not because they are repressingtheir nature--they simply have no desire to do so. Those that do hunt oftenshow internal conflicts about it, as evidenced by the myths and ritualsthat serve to legitimize hunting, cleanse the hunter, etc. This suggeststhat hunting is not natural, but actually goes against a deeper part ofour nature, a desire not to do harm.BLThe squirrel that you kill in jest, dies in earnest.Henry David Thoreau (essayist and poet)see also question 37, 64-67Question 64: The world is made up of predatorsand prey; aren't we just another predator?No. Our behavior is far worse than that of "just another predator".Wekill others not just for nourishment but also for sport (recreation!),forthe satisfaction of our curiosity, for fashion, for entertainment, forcomfort, and for convenience. We also kill each other by the millions forterritory, wealth, and power. We often torture and torment others beforekilling them. We conduct wholesale slaughter of vast proportions, on landand in the oceans. No other species behaves in a comparable manner, andonly humans are destroying the balance of nature.At the same time, our killing of nonhuman animals is unnecessary, whereasnonhuman predators kill and consume only what is necessary for theirsurvival. They have no choice: kill or starve.The one thing that really separates us from the other animals is ourmoral capacity, and that has the potential to elevate us above the statusof "just another predator". Nonhumans lack this capacity, sowe shouldn'tlook to them for moral inspiration and guidance.DVHsee also question 37, 63, 67Question 65: Doesn't hunting control wildlifepopulations that would otherwise get out of hand?Hunters often assert that their practices benefit their victims.Avariation on the theme is their common assertion that their actions keeppopulations in check so that animals do not die of starvation ("acleanbullet in the brain is preferable to a slow death by starvation").Followingare some facts and questions about hunting and "wildlife management"thatreveal what is really happening.Game animals, such as deer, are physiologically adapted to cope withseasonal food shortages. It is the young that bear the brunt of starvation.Among adults, elderly and sick animals also starve. But the hunters donotseek out and kill only these animals at risk of starvation; rather, theyseekthe strongest and most beautiful animals (for maximum meat or trophypotential). The hunters thus recruit the forces of natural selection againstthe species that they claim to be defending.The hunters restrict their activities to only those species that areattractive for their meat or trophy potential. If the hunters were trulyconcerned with protecting species from starvation, why do they not performtheir "service" for the skunk, or the field mouse? And why ishunting notlimited to times when starvation occurs, if hunting has as a goal theprevention of starvation? (The reason that deer aren't hunted in earlyspringor late winter--when starvation occurs--is that the carcasses would containless fat, and hence, be far less desirable to meat consumers. Also, huntingthen would be unpopular to hunters due to the snow, mud, and insects.)So-called "game management" policies are actually programsdesignedto eliminate predators of the game species and to artificially provideadditional habitat and resources for the game species. Why are these predatorspecies eliminated when they would provide a natural and ecologically soundmechanism for controlling the population of game species? Why are suchactivities as burning, clear-cutting, chemical defoliation, flooding, andbulldozing employed to increase the populations of game animals, if huntinghas as its goal the reduction of populations to prevent starvation? Thetruthis that the management agencies actually try to attain a maximum sustainableyield, or harvest, of game animals.The wildlife managers and hunters preferentially kill male animals,apolicy designed to keep populations high. If overpopulation were reallyaconcern, they would preferentially kill females.Another common practice that belies the claim that wildlife managementhasas a goal the reduction of populations to prevent starvation is the practiceof game stocking. For example, in the state of New York the DepartmentofEnvironmental Conservation obtains pheasants raised in captivity and thenreleases them in areas frequented by hunters.For every animal killed by a hunter, two are seriously injured and leftto die a slow death. Given these statistics, it is clear that hunting failseven in its proclaimed goal--the reduction of suffering.The species targeted by hunters, both the game animals and their predators,have survived in balance for millions of years, yet now wildlife managersand hunters insist they need to be "managed". The legitimatetask of wildlifemanagement should be to preserve viable, natural wildlife populations andecosystems. In addition to the animal toll, hunters kill hundreds of humanbeings every year.Finally, there is an ethical argument to consider. Thousands of humanbeings die from starvation each and every day. Should we assume that thereader will one day be one of them, and dispatch him straight away?Definitely not. AR ethics asserts that this same consideration should beaccorded to the deer.DGUnless hunting is part of a controlled culling process, it is unlikelytobe of benefit in any population maintenance. The number and distributionofanimals slaughtered is unrelated to any perceived maldistribution of species,but is more closely related to the predilections of the hunters. Indeed, hunting, whether for "pleasure" or profit, has a historymoreclosely associated with bringing animals close to, or into, extinction,ratherthan protecting from overpopulation. Examples include the buffalo and thepassenger pigeon. With the advent of modern "wildlife management",we seea transition to systems designed to artificially increase the populationsof certain species to sustain a yield or harvest for hunters. The need for population control of animals generally arises either fromtheintroduction of species that have become pests or from indigenous animalsthat are competing for resources (such as the kangaroo, which competeswithsheep and cattle). These imbalances usually have a human base. It is moreappropriate to examine our resource uses and requirements, and to act moreresponsibly in our relationship with the environment, than to seek a"solution" to self-created problems through the morally dubiouspractice ofhunting.JK...the American public is footing the bill for predator-controlprogramsthat cause the systematic slaughter of refuge animals. Raccoons and redfox, squirrel and skunks are but a few of the many egg-eating predatorstrapped and destroyed in the name of "wildlife management programs".Sea gulls are shot, fox pups poisoned, and coyotes killed by aerial gunnersin low-flying aircraft. This wholesale destruction is taking place on theonly Federal lands set aside to protect America's wildlife!Humane Society of the United StatesThe creed of maximum sustainable yield unmasks the rhetoric about"humane service" to animals. It must be a perverse distortionof the ideal of humane service to accept or engage in practices the explicitgoal of which is to insure that there will be a larger, rather than a smaller,number of animals to kill! With "humane friends" like that, wildanimals certainly do not need any enemies.Tom Regan (philosopher and AR activist)The real cure for our environmental problems is to understand thatour job is to salvage Mother Nature...We are facing a formidable enemyin this field. It is the hunters...and to convince them to leave theirguns on the wall is going to be very difficult.Jacques Cousteau (oceanographer) see also question 66Question 66: Aren't hunting fees the major sourceof revenue for wildlife management and habitat restoration?We have seen in question #65 that practices described as "wildlifemanagement" are actually designed to increase the populations of gamespecies desirable to hunters. Viewed in this light, the connection betweenhunting fees and the wildlife agencies looks more like an incestuous relationshipthan a constructive one designed to protect the general public's interests.Following are some more facts of interest in this regard.Only 7 percent of the population hunt, yet all pay via taxation forhuntingprograms and services. Licenses account for only a fraction of the costofhunting programs at the national level. For example, the US Fish and WildlifeService programs get up to 90 percent of their revenues from general taxrevenues. At the state level, hunting fees make up the largest part, andasignificant part is obtained from Federal funds obtained from excise taxesonguns and ammunition. These funds are distributed to the states based onthenumber of hunters in the state! It is easy to see, then, how the programsaredesigned to appease and satisfy hunters.It is important to remember that state game officials are appointed,notelected, and their salaries are paid through the purchase of hunting fees.This ensures that these officials regard the hunters as their constituents.David Favre, Professor of Wildlife Law at the Detroit College of Law,describes the situation as follows:The primary question asked by many within these special [state] agencieswould be something like, "How do we provide the best hunting experiencefor the hunters of our state?" The literature is replete with surveysof hunter desires and preferences in an attempt to serve these constituents.*Three factors support the status quo within the agency. First, as withmost bureaucracies, individuals are hesitant to question their ownon-going programs...Second, besides the normal bureaucratics, most stategame agencies have a substantial group of individuals who are strong advocatesfor the hunters of the state. They are not neutral but very supportiveof the hunting ethic and would not be expected to raise broader questions.Finally, and in many ways most importantly, is the funding mechanism.*Since a large proportion of the funds which run the departmentand pay the salaries are from hunters and fishermen, there is a strongtendency for the agency to consider itself not as representing and workingfor the general public but that they need only serve their financial sponsors,the hunters and fishermen of the state. If your financial support is dependenton the activity of hunting, obviously very few are going to question theecological or ethical problems therewith.Many would argue that these funding arrangements constitute a prostitutionof the public lands for the benefit of the few. We can envision possiblealternatives to these arrangements. Other users of parks and naturalresources, such as hikers, bird watchers, wildlife enthusiasts, eco-tourists,etc., can provide access to funds necessary for real habitat restorationandwildlife management, not the perverted brand that caters to the desiresofhunters. As far as acquisition and protection of land is concerned,organizations such as the Nature Conservancy play an important role. Theycan do much more with even a fraction of the funding currently earmarkedtosubsidize hunting ($500 million per year).DG/JKsee also question 65Question 67: Isn't hunting OK as long aswe eat what we kill?Some vegetarians accept that where farmers or small landholdersbreed,maintain, and then kill their own livestock there is an argument for theireating that meat. There would need, at all stages, to be a humane lifeanddeath involved. Hunting seems not to fit within this argument because thekill is often not "clean", and the hunter has not had any involvementin thebirth and growth of the animal.As the arguments in the FAQ demonstrate, however, there is a wider contextin which these actions have to be considered. Animals are sentient creatureswho share many of our characteristics. The question is not only whetherit isacceptable to eat an animal (which we perhaps hunted and killed), but ifitis an appropriate action to take--stalking and murdering another animal,or eating the product of someone else's killing. Is it a proper actionfora supposedly rational and ethical man or woman?JKThis question reminds one of question #12, where it is suggested thatkilling and eating an animal is justified because the animal is raisedforthat purpose. The process leading up to the eating is used to justify theeating. In this question, the eating is used to justify the process leadingup to it. Both attempts are totally illogical. Imagine telling the policenotto worry that you have just stalked and killed a person because you atetheperson!DGsee also question 12, 21, 63-64Question 68: Fish are dumb like insects;what's wrong with fishing?Fish are not "dumb" except in the sense that they areunable to speak.They have a complex nervous system based around a brain and spinal cordsimilar to other vertebrates. They are not as intelligent as humans interms of functioning in our social and physical environment, but they arevery successful and effective in their own environment. Behavioral studiesindicate that they exhibit complex forms of learning, such as operantconditioning, serial reversal learning, probability learning, and avoidancelearning. Many authorities doubt that there is a significant qualitativedifference between learning in fishes and that in rats.Many people who fish talk about the challenge of fishing, and the contestbetween themselves and the fish (on a one-to-one basis, not in relationtotrawling or other net fishing). This implies an awareness and intelligencein the hunted of a level at least sufficient to challenge the hunter. The death inflicted by fishing--a slow asphyxiation either in a net orafter an extended period fighting against a barbed hook wedged somewherein their head--is painful and distressing to a sentient animal. Those thatdoubt that fish feel pain must explain why it is that their brains containendogenous opiates and receptors for them; these are accepted as mechanismsfor the attenuation of pain in other vertebrates.JKSome people believe that it is OK to catch fish as long as they arereturned to the water. But, when you think about it, it's as if one isplaying with the fish. Also, handling the fish wipes off an importantdisease-fighting coating on their scales. The hook can be swallowed, leadingto serious complications, and even if it isn't, pulling it out of theirmouthleaves a lesion that is open to infection.JSDsee also question 22, 39 HedWebHerbWebBLTC ResearchDavid Pearce's Home Page |
|
