Globe & Mail - Opinion piece on hunting

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle37701186/


I'm interested in what you guys (and gals) think about this article. I have my own perspective on this as a new hunter from an unusual demographic, and I'm going to share it with you all in case it's useful/interesting.

What hunters face now is actually a question of legitimacy. The thought that it is OK to hunt because it feeds us and our families isn't really legitimate anymore -- 90%+ of the population doesn't hunt and still puts food on their plates. We also can't really claim it's our heritage -- that message is really only valid for the few among us that can trace our roots back to colonial times. Lots of Canadians are immigrants or children of immigrants -- myself included -- whose parents or grandparents never hunted. We need a new lease on legitimacy because ours is expiring. Sacrificing the most targeted section of our community (pure trophy hunters, in the mind of the globe and mail guy) is only a temporary solution, if it solves anything. Restoring legitimacy is a much more permanent and robust solution.

I think it's still definitely possible to convince the general public that hunting is a legitimate activity, but we need to go out there and tell them it is. Waiting for them to come around to us is a losing game. It's like that old adage about planting a tree -- the best time to do it was 20 years ago, the second best time is now. What kind of message should we send to convince people that hunting is legitimate? Well, I can think of a few:

1) Hunting is HARD. Most people I talk to think that hunting is easy -- after all, aren't humans the world's apex predators? I've been told by a friend that he would only be OK with hunting if the odds were more even, if the hunter was heli-dropped blindfolded into the unknown wilderness with only a knife. Guns are unsportsmanlike. The general public doesn't know that, actually, hunter success rates are quite low -- I've heard they're as low as 5% - 12.5% for big game, even for gun hunters. It really is a test of knowledge, skill, and preparation. For some reason, the average person thinks it's easy...

2) Hunters GIVE more than they take. The average person has no idea that permits and tags contribute millions of dollars to the MNR that fund all sorts of stuff that everyone enjoys from academic studies to land rehabilitation programs to conservation officers. In return, we take only the number of animals that biologists think are surplus, animals on top of a sustainable population. We are part of an active management system, and we help to keep populations in check while harvesting a renewable resource. All of that and we happily pay for the privilege to do something the government would need to pay someone else to do if we didn't.

3) Hunting is ETHICAL. Jumping back to my friend who wanted to heli-drop me in a forest, I was able to convince him his idea was stupid because stabbing a healthy deer to death is only slightly less horrific or objectionable than getting eaten alive by wolves. Animals die in the wild, and their deaths aren't easy -- they either starve, freeze, or get eaten alive. The general public isn't thinking about that though -- I bet many people are so removed from this reality that they believe that animals have graceful, peaceful lives in the wild until they die of old age. The legitimacy of offering a clean, swift death is very different when viewed from one extreme or the other. Predation, for them, is something they see on TV, not something that's happening every moment of every day.

One more thing while I'm on the subject of ethics: I think that hunters have a few bits of unexpected common ground with the general public. For instance, there is no freer-range animal than a wild one, and they might be pretty organic too (depending). I think there's a good argument that no person has as much of a right to eat meat as the person who is ready to come face-to-face with the image of death and do the work necessary to bring away food from that scene. There's also something to be said about the authenticity of the connection with the food -- not only knowing where it came from, but having been there when it mattered.


There are probably a lot of other good messages, but I want to stop here and just repeat that we need to be the ones that do the outreach. For sure, some solutions are out of our reach (canning hunting shows that are basically cults of personality, where the host is such a pro that all of his hunts are not only successful but easy -- see point 1) but some are definitely within reach (what about an ad on the TTC that connects tag/permit revenue to conservation?). We just need to be creative and make sure we don't make any problem worse.

I think we also need to be ready to deal with the influx of new hunters that will happen if we are lucky enough to be successful. I'm not sure if everyone agrees with me that more hunters would be a good thing if the general public was friendlier towards hunting itself -- after all, if those new friends of hunting stayed home there would be more spots for the rest of us -- but I think a couple of good experiences early will make some of these new hunters allies for life. I was lucky enough to find a mentor on this forum (shout out to JMatthews who is the most amazing and generous dude) but I think even he's got his limits... =) Maybe if we spend some energy and effort trying to change the public's mindset, we can spend a little to change ours a bit too.

Hunters must take every opportunity to express their views - the future of hunting depends on it.

Submitted this to the Globe and Mail this morning. If you wish to express your own opinion, send it to:

[email protected]

[email protected] (Opinion editor)

Good morning. After reading Mr. Darimont’s anti-hunting opinion piece in yesterday’s Globe and Mail, I hope the Globe and Mail allows differing viewpoints to be published in the Opinion section. There are many wildlife management professionals and conservationists who would be keen to present an alternative perspective.

Typical of an anti-hunting position, Mr. Darimont’s opinion piece is characterized by charged emotional language – the “frenzied dogs”, the hunter “lording over” the fallen cougar, etc.


Mr. Darimont alludes to diseases that can be acquired by humans as a result of consuming the meat of predators, but fails to provide any examples or evidence to substantiate his position.


Mr. Darimont uses the economic example of ecotourism revenue generated by grizzly bear viewing in certain regions of coastal British Columbia. He does not provide any evidence this economic activity can be “scaled up” to a provincial level.

Mr. Darimont’s position is nothing more than an attempt to demonstrate the self-declared superiority of his personal ethics and impose them on society at large. Science should dictate wildlife population management, distinct from Mr. Darimont and the vagaries of his “social license”.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thanks Manyo. Your's is among the most honest and thoughtful writings I've read on this topic.

Acknowledging that I don't need to hunt to survive, I've found that sometimes (pleasantly and meaningfully) informing someone that there's no moral high ground in paying some one to do your killing for you (i.e. packaged meat on a store shelf) versus killing it yourself. Neither is wrong and should not have to be justified based on "need". I've also explained to people that its only when you've hunted your own meat you will value it in a totally different and amazing way. You won't scrape a left-over portion into the compost or garbage and you will have to restrain yourself from freaking out if someone else at your table does. If there's a piece of fat of gristle left over, its the only time my dogs get to have table scraps. Nothing gets wasted.

I think you need to read the opinion piece a little closer guys...for the most part he's not wrong.

He's primarily talking about hunting carnivores (bears) that are, due to diseases like Trichinellosis, deemed not edible by the DNR (so allowed to be left for spoilage) . So the sole purpose of the majority of the Bear hunt is for the 'Trophy'. Which a great many hunters themselves find objectionable.

Keep in mind, as hunters, we provide a service to the MNRF to culling what is deemed surplus population numbers as part of the provinces resource engagement plan, be it Moose, Bear, deer, etc. It's required to keep the herd sizes at sustainable levels and decrease the human/animal conflicts in populated areas.

There are many facets as to why we hunt; some for the sport , some for the meat and some for trophy. I hunt in a gang that has a mix, some guys don't take meat home with them, they don't like it and some will only shoot mature bucks so that can hang a rack/mount on the wall. However we are, as conservationist, still doing our part in culling the deer, but each for their own reasons.

So it's not difficult to see why the author of the article, also a hunter, has the views he has about hunting. I accept them and see where he's coming from, don't necessarily agree but also don't take an affront to them. AND more importantly don't see that they are anti-hunting in general.

.

Well thought out comments. Thanks for the recognition but I know I get just as much out of mentoring new hunters such as yourself as they do. If we all make a point of passing on our knowledge to new hunters, this will go a long way to improve overall knowledge.
In reviewing the article, the reporter is only finding an issue with the hunting of carnivores such as Grizzly Bears and Mountain Lions. They do mention the value of other types of hunting but question the hunting of a couple of specific predators.
I guess we could all do a better job of letting everyone know our own personal reasons for hunting and the many non hunting activities that we do to improve habitat for all wildlife. On my property I have planted over 6,000 trees over the past 30 years and they provide all wildlife with food, shelter and nesting sites. I introduced Bluebird and Wood Duck nesting boxes throughout my property and they are regularly used by a number of different kinds of birds.
Most hunters that I know could also be classified as bird watchers, photographers and naturalists. I think one reason for this is the amount of time we spend outdoors and our awareness of what is happening in our environment.
This is another important part of my own life as a hunter.

Philosophical articles like this and comments by posters like Manyo's do an admirable service to all of us as hunters and should be required reading in all new hunter training courses. The columnists observations that we're rapidly approaching a time of self-analyses is right on the money. Western society is experiencing a subtle change and we will need to adapt to find our place lest our cultural way of life will be gradually swept away.

We all need to remember that in Canada we do not have a right to hunt. We have the privilege to hunt granted to us by the majority of the population (who do not hunt).

This article made me think of a thread on here asking whether we can shoot coyotes with no intention of even looking at them to determine whether the pelt is good.

https://www.oodmag.com/community/sho...?92878-Coyotes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manyo

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle37701186/

What hunters face now is actually a question of legitimacy. The thought that it is OK to hunt because it feeds us and our families isn't really legitimate anymore -- 90%+ of the population doesn't hunt and still puts food on their plates. We also can't really claim it's our heritage -- that message is really only valid for the few among us that can trace our roots back to colonial times. Lots of Canadians are immigrants or children of immigrants -- myself included -- whose parents or grandparents never hunted. We need a new lease on legitimacy because ours is expiring. Sacrificing the most targeted section of our community (pure trophy hunters, in the mind of the globe and mail guy) is only a temporary solution, if it solves anything. Restoring legitimacy is a much more permanent and robust solution.

---

You pose an interesting point about the legitimacy of claiming hunting is apart of our heritage. In my opinion, it is clear that hunting is apart of Canadian Heritage, as much as it is to an individual. I liken it to the game of hockey, it is apart of Canadian Heritage, whether to a first generation immigrant or someone of loyalist descent, the game of hockey and hunting both make make up our identity as Canadians and are traditional, historical parts of our identity. People look at me funny when I say hunting and fishing are apart of my culture, but how can anybody argue otherwise? I am Canadian, many other Canadians before me enjoyed hunting and have for hundreds of years, therefore it is apart of our heritage. Easy!

So while the author states that hunters make-up less than 10% of the population, he goes on to say we need to segregate ourselves into two groups, those that advocate on behalf of prey animals and conservation, and the heathens that hunt predators.

It is my opinion that one goes with the other. Almost every aspect of wildlife is managed from large game to invasive plant species. The requirement of this management is in large part due to societies interference with the landscape. I don't think something like a cougar or grizzly deserves a pass on management based on the emotion of those who have never spent a day in the field, and don't contribute any of their time or money to habitat restoration/management. The result of un-managed predators is likely going to yield a plummet in prey species the non-hunters and hunters both love.

Whether it's popular opinion or not, managing predators is a component of balancing an eco-system. Better educating the population when it comes to hunting quotas, the infrastructure that supports our privilege to hunt, ESA protection, and the money trail of conservation efforts will hopefully open eyes and promote some kind of level of understanding. That should be our goal.

Further segregating the community of hunters is akin to us losing ground in the battle of protecting our past time. Our small community has to stick together to maintain our privileges, or risk losing it by way of death from a thousand cuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ride.lift.shoot

Whether it's popular opinion or not, managing predators is a component of balancing an eco-system.

---

With the threads we've had on the Algonquin Wolf, it's hard to imagine that you could get a consensus from the Hunting community when the management plan conflicts with the trappers/hunters activities....LOL...

edit add: ...oh and he was being generous, it was at 5% in 2012;

Quote:

---

Although the number of hunters has been declining, hunting remains a significant traditional activity. Indeed, the survey revealed that about 5 percent of Canadians were active hunters, while twice as many were interested in participating.

---

In Ont..that drops to 3.3%...

Quote:

---

Here in Ontario the OFAH website claims that we have 450,000 hunters in the province (3.3%).

---