Hunting
Hunting in the News: Messing with Evolution
Published January 05, 2009 @ 04:55PM PT
The second hunting story for today comes from Newsweek--"It's Survival of the Weak and Scrawny: Researchers see 'evolution in reverse' as hunters kill off prized animals with the biggest antlers and pelts."
Hunting is often celebrated as playing a grand role in conservation of species--it is argued that if hunters didn't want to (and weren't allowed to) kill certain animals, no one would have any interest in protecting those species or the species' habitat. A species as a whole gets to live only because we let hunters have the fun of killing some of the members of the species, the argument goes. But given that hunters seek out the biggest, best, and strongest of animals (unlike nonhuman predators, who hunt for sustenance rather than bragging rights and so kill the weakest, oldest, and easiest to catch), what researchers are now telling us shouldn't be surprising: humans are messing up nonhuman animals' evolution.
Selective hunting—picking out individuals with the best horns or antlers, or the largest piece of hide—works in reverse: the evolutionary loser is not the small and defenseless, but the biggest and best-equipped to win mates or fend off attackers.
When hunting is severe enough to outstrip other threats to survival, the unsought, middling individuals make out better than the alpha animals, and the species changes. "Survival of the fittest" is still the rule, but the "fit" begin to look unlike what you might expect. And looks aren't the only things changing: behavior adapts too, from how hunted animals act to how they reproduce. There's nothing wrong with a species getting molded over time by new kinds of risk. But some experts believe problems arise when these changes make no evolutionary sense. . . .
"Losers" tend not to be very good breeders, meaning that this demographic shift ultimately threatens the viability of a species. Researchers also worry that the surviving animals are left with a narrower gene pool. In highly controlled environments, a species with frighteningly little genetic diversity can persist—think of the extremes of domesticated animals like thoroughbred horses or commercial chickens—but in real ecosystems changes are unpredictable. Artificially selecting animals in the wild—in effect, breeding them—is "a very risky game," says Columbia's Melnick. "It's highly likely to result in the end of a species."
Thanks to Erik Marcus for the alert.
Hunting in the News: Using Dogs for That Extra Thrill
Published January 05, 2009 @ 12:07PM PT
I have two hunting-in-the-news posts for you today. First up is an NPR story from January 3 titled "Hunting with Hounds Under Fire in Virginia."
The piece, which explores the controversy over a Virginia state law that allows hunters to trespass on private property to retrieve the dogs they've used as tools to chase wild animals, talks about property rights and a bit about animal welfare. But there's no talk of animal rights, not surprisingly; there's talk about the hunters' right to retrieve the dogs they've sent out on chase (some of whom "are worth a lot of money," of course), but no mention of the dogs' interests in not being exploited, used, and placed in danger in the first place or of the fleeing animals' interests in not being killed.
The most interesting--and disturbing--comments in the story come, as they often do, from those being interviewed. "It's just like having your favorite meal or anticipating Christmas," said one hunter about the pre-kill "excited sensation." And then there was this:
The plan is to stand in a huge circle around 200 acres and turn about 20 dogs loose — urging them toward the middle.
If the hounds catch the scent of a deer, they'll track and chase the animal, and eventually it will run to the perimeter, where the nearest hunter will take a shot.
This isn't the only way to hunt deer with hounds, but hunter Cecil Robbins says it's the most exciting.
"It's the thrill of that deer coming down through the woods," he says. "When you're sitting in a stand, the deer has no idea you're there. And he walks by and it's kind of like ambushing him."
Killing an unsuspecting animal from a tree stand--that's kind of exciting. But taking a shot at a desperate animal running for her life from a pack of dogs? Now that's thrilling fun. Here we have a happy admission that these hunters don't hunt because they want or need the animals' flesh for sustenance or because they're altruistically working to solve artificial overpopulation: they are hunting primarily for the thrill of killing a fleeing, terrified animal. Of course, this motivation for hunting is no big secret, despite what hunters' groups like to say in their defense, as they try to portray hunting as some sort of noble, selfless, or (spare me, please) respectful endeavor. But it just warms the heart when every once in a while someone admits why they're really doing it.
Hunting Mishaps and Odd Omnivorous Objections
Published December 03, 2008 @ 12:36PM PT
Feel-good story of the day: "Wounded Deer Attacks Hunter Who Shot Him"
There's no happy ending--the animal still died--but at least the person who killed him didn't walk away without consequence. Don't get me wrong--I don't celebrate hunting accidents in which people die. I don't want any humans to die anymore than I want any nonhumans to die. But I'm not too terribly upset when a hunter sustains minor injuries inflicted by the animal he or she is joyously killing.
That said, it bothers me immensely when politically progressive omnivores criticize hunting and make remarks along the lines of "he got what he deserved" when things like this happen, as if the animals whose flesh and secretions they eat don't needlessly suffer just as much as the ones who are hunted--as if they hold moral superiority because they pay to have animals killed for them rather than shoot the animals themselves. Standing up for the right of wild animals to live out natural lives while accepting and perpetuating the inherent suffering and injustices involved in animal agriculture doesn't make a lot of sense. It's just another form of cognitive dissonance for a lot of people. Dogs are members of the family. Deer, elk, and other wildlife are majestic creatures. Cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, and fish are food. Right.
Please see this related post: Your Dog Versus Your Dinner
The "Management" of Deer
Published November 22, 2008 @ 11:15AM PT
Back to the hunting topic we go. Doris Lin, of the About.com blog on animal rights, has written a detailed, well-researched piece titled "How Are Deer Managed by State Wildlife Agencies?" And we all should read it. Think that hunting is all about reducing deer populations? What if you learned that state wildlife agencies actually work to keep deer populations high--for the benefit of hunters who want to kill the deer and for the financial incentives involved for the state?
Most people think of wildlife management agencies as serving the ecosystem, interfering minimally and mainly to preserve wildlife. These agencies do have programs to protect endangered species and to protect habitat in general. But instead of managing wildlife solely for the optimal health of the ecosystem, state wildlife management agencies also manage wildlife for recreation. The agencies have a financial incentive to do so.
Deer as a Resource
To these agencies, deer are a resource, not sentient beings with their own inherent rights. The resource must be conserved, or used wisely, so that there will be plenty of deer for future generations of hunters. As a result, deer management is usually designed to keep the deer population high. . . .
Financial Incentives
Most people find it incredible that their state wildlife management agencies are trying to keep deer populations high when so many residents complain that there are too many deer, but the agencies have financial incentives for pleasing hunters. The agencies depend on sales of hunting licenses for their funding, and hunters like a high deer population. . . .Also, the federal Pittman-Robertson Act gives money from the excise taxes on sales of guns and ammunition to state wildlife agencies to increase wildlife populations. . . .
How Do The Agencies Increase the Deer Popuation?
To increase the deer population, sections of forest in state wildlife management areas are clear-cut, to create the "edge habitat" that is preferred by deer. . . .State wildlife management lands are also sometimes leased to farmers, and the farmers are required to plant deer-preferred crops and leave a certain amount of their crops standing so that the deer will be fed and reproduce more. Sometimes, the state wildlife management agencies will plant "deer mix" themselves, to increase the deer population.
Living Beings, Not Inanimate Things
Published November 13, 2008 @ 06:08AM PT
Twice in the last few days, I've read remarks in which people have used analogies to compare animals to inanimate objects, and it's driving me mad. Most recently, it was in the comments thread to "Most Disturbing Sight of the Day" (which I didn't expect to generate as much conversation--and snarky spam comments, most of which are now gone--as it did; it was intended to be a letting-off-steam post, with a more in-depth discussion of hunting to come at a later time). In this instance, the commenter compared hunters posing with dead and dying animals to athletes posing with their medals and trophies, as if those pieces of metal and the dead and dying animals are the same thing. Wow.
And then a couple days ago, there was this article, which was infuriating on so very many levels: "Prodding OK'd for rodeo after 20-year ban." For the purposes of this brief discussion, I won't get into all the enormous problems with the cruel rodeo industry or even all the problems with this article itself, and I'll limit myself to just this one absurd remark:
"We need it to protect the rider and animal," said Russ Fields, chairman of the Rowell Ranch Rodeo. "It's just a tool in the livestock industry. It's like a hammer to a carpenter."
My first response to Mr. Fields:
Powder, Hunting, and Turning Points
Published November 09, 2008 @ 11:08AM PT
There's been much conversation on yesterday's post, in which I briefly vented about the existence of a gallery of hunting photos on a newspaper's Web site, showing smiling, self-congratulatory hunters posing with their victims. You can expect more in-depth discussions on hunting in the future, but for now, indulge me while I share with you one of my turning points.
Several years before I stopped eating animals altogether, I stopped eating the deer meat that sat upon my grandfather's table during and following every hunting season. He and others gave me a hard time about my refusal. My grandpa, my uncle, and my cousins--and indeed, a good number of the men, as well as a segment of the women, in my area--just about lived for hunting season; high school students were even allowed to miss school so that they could head out into the woods with guns. But a movie I'd just seen had completely changed my perspective on hunting--that is to say that it had given me a perspective whereas before I'd just never given the practice much thought. I've no doubt that some will find something to mock in this clip from the 1995 movie Powder, but I sobbed in the theater as I watched it that night 13 years ago, as it occurred to me, for what, incredibly, was perhaps the first time, how much unnecessary pain and suffering resulted from my community members' "fun." Never again could I see or smell the flesh of deer without imagining the pain and fear of those final moments. (Clip after the jump.)
Most Disturbing Sight of the Day
Published November 08, 2008 @ 11:58AM PT
When I went to the Web site of my local mainstream newspaper this morning, I noticed a "Been hunting or fishing?" link on the main page. I wish I hadn't clicked on it. Nothing says "happy photo" like posing with an animal whose final moments were filled with terror and agonizing pain while you whooped and hollered and congratulated yourself. Oh, the bravery it must take to hunt down a fleeing, terrified animal while lethally armed. The number of such photos all across the Internet is overwhelming. I particularly like the photos featuring small children posing with the animals they've been encouraged and helped to kill. Warms the heart, doesn't it?
