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%).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ride.lift.shoot

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.

---

This is absolutely the truth,IMHO.. Either we stand together against all comers or we shall surely contribute to our own demise,collectively.

Manyo, your post is very well written. I believe though that there are still a lot of us that have a heritage that goes back many generations, and I hope my son will keep it going for many more.

I really can't see cougar hunting, having a bunch of dogs tree the cat than walk up and shoot it. To me this is not hunting, this is just shooting. A lot of our problems come from the TV pro people. They do make it look easy. My oldest boy got his first deer his second time out in the bush and said "what's so hard about this". I had to teach him that it was so easy if you look at all the time I spent in the bush making it look easy for him. I also made him say a small pray of thanks to the deer as I do every time I have shot one. AS hunters we do put a lot more back into the hunt than we take out. Just by being a member here OOD is one step. I'm also a member of several other organizations that help waterfowl and other game animals. I have had run ins with tree huggers and they have all been so holly, but none have ever done anything to put back other than to try and stop me from what I have the right to be doing by my Canadian Heritage.

Well a pretty deep topic but well written never the less.

How about we just reverse this whole situation and imagine that ALL THE HUNTERS AND TRAPPERS in Canada suddenly disappear.How does the landscape look in a year,two,five,ten..........years.

How does the millions of acres of Crown Land and tens of thousands acres of Private land look in the same time period without hunters and trappers caring for it and paying for its upkeep......

Lol that right there is the funny that happens. Then they got to pay someone to do the management and the animals are not used as much.
Call the cops a bear is in my Newmarket back yard. Do you want to hunt them deer or kill them with your car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glen

Lol that right there is the funny that happens. Then they got to pay someone to do the management and the animals are not used as much.
Call the cops a bear is in my Newmarket back yard. Do you want to hunt them deer or kill them with your car.

---

Or how about the Trappers Associations all across Canada issue a press release that they are no longer going to trap nuisance beaver and the millions of dollars it would cost to repair washed out roads, fully justified as they could say the members cannot make any money on furs because of the anti movement.

“ I really can't see cougar hunting, having a bunch of dogs tree the cat than walk up and shoot it. To me this is not hunting, this is just shooting.”....Quote

Be careful there,.....not any different than baiting.....except there’s a lot more work involved chasing hounds for miles to get a possible shot....IMHO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

“ I really can't see cougar hunting, having a bunch of dogs tree the cat than walk up and shoot it. To me this is not hunting, this is just shooting.”....Quote

Be careful there,.....not any different than baiting.....except there’s a lot more work involved chasing hounds for miles to get a possible shot....IMHO

---

An excellent reply and post!
There are many out there that sit over a bait pile and call it deer hunting .

Quote:

---

Be careful there,.....not any different than baiting.....except there’s a lot more work involved chasing hounds for miles to get a possible shot....IMHO

---

Agree. Also raccoon hunting at night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

There are many out there that sit over a bait pile and call it deer hunting .

---

No kidding, let's also include all those hunters who sit on food plots. They've been fattening up deer all year so they can snag a Trophy Buck come fall..

Or hunters who sit on the edge of farmers field and wait for deer to come and eat the soya beans or corn the farmer left behind..

Not to mention all the bear hunters who proudly sit over elaborate, custom designed bait piles to hunt...

Anyone one else you want to call out Jaycee...??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

No kidding, let's also include all those hunters who sit on food plots. They've been fattening up deer all year so they can snag a Trophy Buck come fall..

Or hunters who sit on the edge of farmers field and wait for deer to come and eat the soya beans or corn the farmer left behind..

Not to mention all the bear hunters who proudly sit over elaborate, custom designed bait piles to hunt...

Anyone one else you want to call out Jaycee...??

---

I see you got up on the wrong side of the bed today !:) , or are you " trolling again to try and get an argument going ?? "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

An excellent reply and post!
There are many out there that sit over a bait pile and call it deer hunting .

---

I really don,t think its a good idea to judge how a hunter might hunt a deer.If your hunting over a corn field in Southern Ontario are you any better a hunter than a guy who hunts over a bait pile in the big woods of Eastern Ontario.Every area takes different tactics to be successful. Is a group using hounds on deer
better than a group hunting over food plots.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

I see you got up on the wrong side of the bed today !:) , or are you " trolling again to try and get an argument going ?? "

---

Insulting forum members and calling them what you are is in very poor taste.IMHO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Insulting forum members and calling them what you are is in very poor taste.IMHO

---

I agree. We face enough opposition from the antis that we better try to stay united or none of us will be hunting regardless of the methods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Insulting forum members and calling them what you are is in very poor taste.IMHO

---

A subject , that you know very well! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Be careful there,.....not any different than baiting.....except there’s a lot more work involved chasing hounds for miles to get a possible shot....IMHO

---

I have never had to worry about my bait pile being killed, or getting it's chest and belly ripped open.

I must admit that I too am disappointed that, for some, bow hunting has become a contest of who can put out the most apples. Often by the same fellas who like to see how high the ducks can be stacked on the tailgate for the Facebook photo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

I must admit that I too am disappointed that, for some, bow hunting has become a contest of who can put out the most apples. Often by the same fellas who like to see how high the ducks can be stacked on the tailgate for the Facebook photo.

---

Would you also be disappointed with me shooting 40+ pigions in 30 minutes with nothing more then a Spring Air Rifle? Ok I had help from another sharpshooter, but we both were making it rain pigeons in the barn.

I hate the fact the author of the article says that hunters need a "social license" to hunt. That is complete bull caca. I don't have to justify my pastimes to social justice warriors and if they are going to judge me on that they can take a long walk off a cliff.

I'm happy to see the thoughtful discussion going on right now in this thread and in a related one; https://www.oodmag.com/community/for...-Sporting-Dogs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Insulting forum members and calling them what you are is in very poor taste.IMHO

---

Agree ,some just can't behave civilly.