Dear HCN,
The letter from Scott
McIntyre Feb. 19 in response to my essay “Hunting: Get Used to It”
(HCN, 1/22/96) displays all the prejudice that makes a rational
dialogue between hunters and antihunters so difficult. Although
McIntyre claims that he is “not for … or against” hunting, his
implication that he’s too mature to understand the “adolescent”
nature of the sport is precisely the superior attitude that I was
referring to in my essay.
I, too, am concerned
with the abuse of high-tech devices in the field sports, especially
when, as in the case of four-wheelers, this crosses the line of
fair chase. However, hunters are not trying to emulate our
ancestors as McIntyre maintains; in a very real sense we are acting
out a primal genetic code in which human beings are still
fundamentally large predators at the top – or in grizzly country,
near the top – of the food chain. McIntyre suggests that he would
be more impressed if we went back to hunting with clubs and spears.
It is useful to remember that as soon as the repeating rifle became
widely available to the plains Indians, they largely gave up the
bow and arrow.
Randy Bangert’s letter in the same
issue makes the blanket condemnation of game and fish agencies and
modern wildlife biology as tools of the hunting minority at the
expense of nongame species and the general public. This is a tired
argument of antihunters that has no sound basis in fact and in
support of which Bangert offers not a single example or one shred
of biological evidence.
I would be interested to
learn, for instance, where all these nefarious introductions of
exotic species by wildlife agencies are taking place – and to what
detriment to native species and habitat? At the same time, where is
the statistical information to back up Bangert’s claim that
“non-game species have seen a concomitant decline’? Which non-game
species? Where?
It has long been understood by
professional wildlife biologists that hunting, properly controlled
and ethically pursued, is a valuable land-management tool that in
no way threatens the well-being of the environment. In nearly all
cases, game animals – particularly game birds – serve as excellent
“indicator” species. By providing nesting and cover habitat, food
and water sources, many other species – both game and nongame –
benefit. This has been made clear by the resounding success of the
Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program. A
healthy wetlands is not only good for ducks, but for all other
denizens of that ecosystem – from shorebirds to songbirds to
raptors to foxes to frogs to water bugs, et al.
I
offer another example: The hunting community, in cooperation with
various state fish and game agencies and private conservation
organizations, has been largely responsible for protecting a few
remnant populations of prairie chickens in several Great Plains
states. These birds, whose once prolific numbers have been
decimated by loss of habitat due to modern agricultural practices,
depend for their existence on large blocks of relatively
undisturbed prairie. Once again, by protecting critical habitat for
prairie chickens, all the other species specific to the prairie
ecosystem benefit.
What is perhaps most tragic
about this debate is that we are all on the same side here – or, at
least, we have common interests and we should be on the same side.
As a bird hunter and, I might add, a bird watcher, I am interested
in far more than just “targets’ as Bangert charges. I’m interested
in maintaining healthy, viable habitat for all wildlife
species.
As to Bangert’s claim that hunting is a
sport for “insecure egos,” tell it to Crazy Horse, Chief Joseph,
Geronimo and Little Wolf; tell it to Sitting Bull, who once said:
“When the buffalo are gone we will hunt mice, for we are hunters.”
Jim
Fergus
Rand,
Colorado
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Fergus fires back.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
