Leopold the Hunter - A Counterargument

A post on my friend Eric's blog (Green Fire Lost) got me riled up last week. And now I'm filled with PJ fueled adrenelin, I think that I'm going to give it my best shot.

The article that Eric references in his post makes several arguments to prove that Aldo Leopold supported hunting. I'm not familiar with Leopold so I won't agree or disagree with the author's assessment but I would like to tackle his core points. As I read them they are:

1. Hunting is critical to land conservation.
2. Hunting is a good way to connect with and understand the natural world.
3. Hunting is necessary to cull game populations (which would otherwise be subject to widespread starvation).

I'll start off slow with #1. I agree that hunters, indirectly and directly, have contributed greatly to the conservation of open land in the United States. Without the nation's hunters we would probably not have a Fish and Wildlife Service or the refuge system. Money from hunting licences allows the government to patrol and maintain these lands.

Also, private organizations such as Ducks Unlimited have conserved thousands of acres of critical wetlands. This should be a great thing but I can't help to think about the "net good". You're conserving habitat for animals and then removing a portion of their population. Certainly it would be better to protect the land and not kill the animals you're attempting to conserve. On top of this you're poisoning the land and water with lead sinkers and shot.

Now on to #2. In theory, hunting should be an good way to connect with the natural world. But, in practice, I just don't believe that to be true. What does sitting with gun ready at a bear baiting site teach you (other than bears like donuts)? How hard is it to find and shoot pheasants that are purposely released at specific sites on specific date? There is no preparation or investment of knowledge involved with these practices. There's no understanding or appreciation of the natural world. Its just barbaric, plain and simple.

Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be good adherence to basic safety in the general hunting community. If you can't tell a California Condor from a game bird, you're not ready to hunt. If you can't tell a lawyer from a pheasant you're officially a menace to society. If you're not 100% sure of what you have you shouldn't be attempting to kill it. People and pets should not have to wear orange vests during hunting season. It should be up to the responsible hunter to take the time to be sure of what he sees. Anyone with half a brain can tell a human from a deer.

Finally on to #3. There's no doubt that the predator/prey balance has been completely disturbed by over 200 years of human influence. Certainly deer populations all over the country have exploded to a level where they overwelm their foodsource. But there is evidence that if predators are allowed to reestablish viable populations, they can restore the balance. This is evident in the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone. The population of elk has dramatically dropped and this has benefitted the ecosystem as a whole. Native trees are free of overgrazing and the land begins to heal itself.

The problem is that there's too much money in hunting. The state organizations receiving the funds from hunting licences and tourism don't want to see the reintroduction of predators because they will affect the deer/elk populations. Audubon Magazine published an article on Maine's program of snaring coyotes in 2002. If you only have time to read one article that I've referenced, please read this one. And if it doesn't make you embarrassed to the point of physical sickness then I'll never reach you.

The simple fact is that hunting is big business. And those in power want to protect the industry. If this means actively throwing off the balance of predator and prey, then so be it. Just don't come to me expecting a parade for the "charity" work you're doing. You're not culling only the weak and starving. And you're not doing it for the sake of the animals. Its just a self-serving PR opportunity.