Great piece, Jesse. I think a lot of the misguided efforts to “reform” hunting come from a disconnect with nature. And I think this is true with what’s going on in Vermont, with the battles over predator reintroduction and management out West and in California, and even with invasive species management of all types. Many people — most people — simply do not spend enough time thinking about how the biota functions when they are not part of it — and that shows in how they want to manage it.
This goes on both sides, too. It’s equally as “non-scientific” to want to ban hunting deer because fawns are cute as it is to want to kill every wolf because they’re ruthless murderers. Yes, fawns are cute — but in many Eastern states, deer are overpopulated and are the number one cause of wildlife injuries. Yes, wolves kill prey animals; but in many Western states prey numbers are at historic highs and causing landscape and ecosystem degradation. When your only context for nature is through the lens in which you spend your time — whether that be only as a hunter, only as a hiker, only as a bird watcher, only as a animal rights activist — you can only have a warped perspective of the overall system. We need to, as Aldo Leopold writes, “think like a mountain” and think broadly and over the longer terms.
(I realize the issue out west is more complicated than that; I’m overly simplifying. There’s a dynamic between ranchers and wolves, hunters and wolves, non-residents and wolves that is shaped by hundreds of years of interactions. And we also have to keep in mind that it’s human-driven change which is driving the changing landscape and population changes. Way too much for one comment, typed on my phone!)
I appreciate you advocating for a balanced approach. No one user group is absolutely right and no one user group has absolute dominion over what happens to our fish and game — a shared and public resource, something which is distinctly unique to our American psyche (and something which we’ve used and abused wantonly throughout our collective history).
There’s so much nuance to this, it’s absolutely imperative to look at it with a holistic view. I’d never profess to be an expert on this, but a few things I’ve read recently which I think have helped me appreciate the wider picture:
- Most of Dan Flores’s work, but specifically American Serengeti and Wild New World
- The works of Aldo Leopold (A Sand County Almanac) and Walter Stegner (The Sound of Mountain Water)
- The Fair Chase by Philip Dray
- and, tangentially, much of Wendell Berry’s writing on the need to connect with the land.
Good thoughts. This is a tactic being used elsewhere around the country in places like Washington State- groups opposed to hunting and fishing wanting a say in how wildlife is managed with the ultimate goal of curtailing hunting and fishing rights. These misguided efforts do not have the best interests of wildlife at heart, nor do they bring any mechanism to accomplish their goals other than piggybacking off the funds provided by sportsmen through license sales and excise taxes on sporting goods. Thanks for banging your gong about this. These groups succeeding will be a disaster for wildlife management in the US.
I couldn't agree more. Its disturbing to realize the manipulation of these groups and their ability in some places to actually change laws that harm science-based wildlife conservation. I think the more the word gets out and discussions occur, the better.
Great piece, Jesse. I think a lot of the misguided efforts to “reform” hunting come from a disconnect with nature. And I think this is true with what’s going on in Vermont, with the battles over predator reintroduction and management out West and in California, and even with invasive species management of all types. Many people — most people — simply do not spend enough time thinking about how the biota functions when they are not part of it — and that shows in how they want to manage it.
This goes on both sides, too. It’s equally as “non-scientific” to want to ban hunting deer because fawns are cute as it is to want to kill every wolf because they’re ruthless murderers. Yes, fawns are cute — but in many Eastern states, deer are overpopulated and are the number one cause of wildlife injuries. Yes, wolves kill prey animals; but in many Western states prey numbers are at historic highs and causing landscape and ecosystem degradation. When your only context for nature is through the lens in which you spend your time — whether that be only as a hunter, only as a hiker, only as a bird watcher, only as a animal rights activist — you can only have a warped perspective of the overall system. We need to, as Aldo Leopold writes, “think like a mountain” and think broadly and over the longer terms.
(I realize the issue out west is more complicated than that; I’m overly simplifying. There’s a dynamic between ranchers and wolves, hunters and wolves, non-residents and wolves that is shaped by hundreds of years of interactions. And we also have to keep in mind that it’s human-driven change which is driving the changing landscape and population changes. Way too much for one comment, typed on my phone!)
I appreciate you advocating for a balanced approach. No one user group is absolutely right and no one user group has absolute dominion over what happens to our fish and game — a shared and public resource, something which is distinctly unique to our American psyche (and something which we’ve used and abused wantonly throughout our collective history).
There’s so much nuance to this, it’s absolutely imperative to look at it with a holistic view. I’d never profess to be an expert on this, but a few things I’ve read recently which I think have helped me appreciate the wider picture:
- Most of Dan Flores’s work, but specifically American Serengeti and Wild New World
- The works of Aldo Leopold (A Sand County Almanac) and Walter Stegner (The Sound of Mountain Water)
- The Fair Chase by Philip Dray
- and, tangentially, much of Wendell Berry’s writing on the need to connect with the land.
Thank you for this thoughtful response, Lou. Great commentary and reading recommendations.
"think like a mountain" is one of my favorites and is always swirling around in my head when I consider these debates.
The connection with nature is integral if we want to get all sides of the debate on the same page.
Appreciate you giving me a reason to write down some of the discrete thoughts I've been bouncing around!
Good thoughts. This is a tactic being used elsewhere around the country in places like Washington State- groups opposed to hunting and fishing wanting a say in how wildlife is managed with the ultimate goal of curtailing hunting and fishing rights. These misguided efforts do not have the best interests of wildlife at heart, nor do they bring any mechanism to accomplish their goals other than piggybacking off the funds provided by sportsmen through license sales and excise taxes on sporting goods. Thanks for banging your gong about this. These groups succeeding will be a disaster for wildlife management in the US.
I couldn't agree more. Its disturbing to realize the manipulation of these groups and their ability in some places to actually change laws that harm science-based wildlife conservation. I think the more the word gets out and discussions occur, the better.