Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Op:Ed Hunters: To protect our social licence, we have to stop killing animals we don’t eat

An opinion piece suggesting we hunters cave to public pressure.
Fugg him ... I'm sick and tired of caving and compromising.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...ing-animals-we-dont-eat/article37701186/

Chris Darimont is an associate professor in the department of geography at the University of Victoria and science director for the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

Television personality and hunter Steve Ecklund recently became a target. He posted images of his smiling face lording over a cougar he had legally killed in northern Alberta. Mr. Ecklund and a team of hunting guides had released dogs to pursue fresh cat tracks. After a chase, the exhausted cougar took short-lived refuge up a tree as frenzied dogs barked below. Some time later, Mr. Ecklund arrived at the tree with his weapon.

The imagery of a delighted hunter holding up his trophy – the bloodied, lifeless cougar – was grotesque to many. Thousands commented online, including Laureen Harper, the wife of former prime minister Stephen Harper, who suggested on Twitter that Mr. Ecklund "must be compensating for something, small penis probably."

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

Broader outrage also erupted, many lamenting the senseless killing of a large carnivore or questioning the ethics – indeed, legitimacy – of a wildlife-management system that normalizes the killing of animals that are not eaten. Many hunters, myself included, were among those disgusted. Though far fewer in number, other hunters fired back with fervent support.

Such fiery debate, increasingly common, suggests that change is coming. But it will not come easy for either side.

Understanding this conflict requires acknowledging that wildlife can mean not only populations but also individuals that comprise them. Wildlife managers in Alberta and elsewhere focus their concern for wildlife exclusively at the population level. In general, they estimate whether the population contains a so-called "harvestable surplus." If so – fair game! Those opposed, however, consider the suffering endured by the individual animals caught up in this system. They understand that hunting involves suffering, and that wildlife can suffer in the same way humans can. The logic was expressed elegantly by an early ethicist: Jeremy Bentham famously asked, "The question is not, 'Can they reason?' Nor, 'Can they talk?' But, 'Can they suffer?'"

And here's the important part: most people can accept the idea of suffering and death if the hunter kills to fulfill a basic life requisite, such as feeding one's family; in contrast, most people oppose killing inedible animals for trivial reasons, such as feeding one's ego.

Proponents of predator hunting understand the nature of the opposition, and are desperately trying to adapt. That is why, no doubt, Mr. Ecklund made the point to show off a photo of his cougar stir-fry. Most people were repulsed, understanding intuitively that the meat of large carnivores should be avoided. Evolutionarily and culturally, this ability evolved because of the risk of acquiring diseases we share with predators. Recognizing this, hunting regulations in Alberta and elsewhere have never required hunters to take any potentially edible portions from the carcasses of large carnivores. The explicit understanding is that these hunters are only interested in trophy items: skins, heads and claws and, more recently, photos to post online.

Together, this means that deceptive claims of food hunting will not fool those opposed to the killing that large carnivores and the trivial benefits the hunter receives. In the case of Mr. Ecklund, he called it "an unreal ending to a fun filled season."

Opposition to the killing of carnivores will intensify in North America. This values-based opposition will mirror other campaigns for just treatment of those human and non-human groups commonly mistreated. Many managers and hunters will vigorously defend the status quo, often using questionable science as justification. Their population-level logic, however, which draws on our reverence for science, is seductive. That is, until one confronts its central assumption: that science alone (i.e. the presence of a "harvestable surplus") can dictate policy. In theory and practice, this is not the case.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

Sound wildlife policy needs to draw from many domains. Clearly, it should reflect not only the values of hunters (often less than 10 per cent of the population) but also the values generally expressed by society. Conflicting economic interests, such asecotourism, must also be considered. For example, economic analyses have shown that grizzly bear viewing brings in over 10 times the annual revenue of grizzly hunting in coastal B.C.. Policies and laws asserted by Indigenous governments also need recognition. All these factors led to the ban of grizzly bear hunting in British Columbia. Similarly, a referendum in the 1990s led to a ban on cougar hunting in California, not because there were too few cats, but rather because society thought that the time of hunting mountain lions was up.

Hunters argue, reasonably, that if non-hunters want to influence wildlife policy then they, too, need to contribute to the system, doing more than solely expressing passionate emotion in their online advocacy. As individual recreationists or ecotourism clients, they could, for example, pay for access to wildlife-rich areas. They could consider contributing to the purchase of guided hunting territories, a conservation economic strategy pioneered in B.C. At the very least, they must minimize the impacts of their recreational, consumer and investment behaviour that ultimately causes suffering and death of wildlife. Finally, non-hunters must understand that in North America, habitat loss is typically a much larger threat to wildlife than hunting.

Hunters and their lobby groups have a choice. One option is digging in their heels and ignoring the changing times. The BC Wildlife Federation (the organization that represents B.C. hunters) has done precisely that in response to the grizzly hunt ban. Such a stand endangers the social licence afforded to all hunters. A minority of hunters – those that kill large carnivores – sully the reputation of the whole group. Anachronistic policies also cause conflict with environmental groups, foreclosing opportunities for collaboration over shared interests.

The other, more promising optionwould require hunters and their organizations to rid themselves of the fringe trophy-hunting element. That way, the privilege to feed our families is not jeopardized by a minority who hunt carnivores to feed their egos.

I can’t stop shooting pigs!!

Sooo , we should stop hunting all predators and then when ohhh let say the coyotes get out of control and start killing cats , dogs and attacking kids playing in yards it’s all fine and dandy because you know we don’t eat them..

How about I identify as First Peoples/Native American? As an Indigineous cismale, I will allowed to hunt anything, anywhere, anytime, as long as I wear a dreamcatcher and have a spirit blessing asfter the successful hunt.

This is squarely aimed at Liberals propensity for nonsense.

Gays need to stop having gay sex, because Christians are against it. If gays want to "protect their social license" to be gay, they will quit having gay sex, and quit throwing their gayness in everyone else's face. Checkmate.

Does this mean I have to junk my 270’s ????

Naw, .270's come from the factory pre-junked.😀

It's not like we can reason with the enemy.

This guy is under the misguided impression that people who are raising hell about some guy killing a cat are also okay with him killing a deer for meat.

Its the same mindset some people have about "assault weapons"....the same people who want to ban them will be wanting to ban the "sniper rifles" that people use to hunt deer with.....but that ain't obvious to some.

Geography professor? Hmm, must be an expert!

I don't have a social license. I don't need one.

The bigger picture is to let the bears, wolves and cats kill all deer and elk, you now have nothing to hunt and threrfore dont need guns, we'll be by next week to pick em up for ya.

Figuring a liberal is easier than pissing off the back porch!

The general, non hunting public has many misconceptions of hunting. First they make little distinction between sport hunting, subsistence hunting, and in the rare case where critters are killed and the carcass left behind except for antlers, horn or hide--I'm not aware of the latter being legal anywhere in the USA. In Colorado one has to ostensibly consume the carcass of anything they kill with a hunting license--including, say, a coyote or cougar.

But the term "trophy hunting" to the general public is interpreted to mean we don't make use of the carcass. I have to constantly explain this is not the case.

In Africa, although the hunter rarely takes the meat home, my understanding is the carcass is donated to the locals regardless of the species.

One of the most difficult arguments to defend is hunting for a particular species and making no attempt to put the carcass to use. It's an argument we will lose almost every time.

I did kill a porcupine last year that was starting to gnaw on some plywood at our high country place. I buried him instead of eating him so the cows wouldn't stick their nose in the carcass. I've never ate porcupine........

And the only cougar I've ever tried wasn't very palatable.

But I do have bear meat in the freezer. I have a buddy who makes smoked bear meat sandwiches to die for....

We are not reasoning with anti-hunters, but it is absolutely necessary to reason with the general non-hunting public. They tolerate hunting as long as they believe we hunt in an ethical manner and do not waste wildlife.

Without the general non-hunters support--who make up the large majority of Americans--we won't have hunting. Sport hunting does not exist without their tacit support.

[/i]The other, more promising optionwould require hunters and their organizations to rid themselves of the fringe trophy-hunting element. That way, the privilege to feed our families is not jeopardized by a minority who hunt carnivores to feed their egos.[i]

Apparently this is suggested as the best option to save our hunting heritage. To start cutting out and devouring our own.
I'm sure that would lay the whole issue to rest for the anti's.

So killing an animal at two years of age is acceptable but if that same animal reaches maturity then it's a travesty.
There is no logic with these dipschitts.

Crazy

I'm anti-social

The protection of large carnivores is almost undoubtedly an assault on humans being allowed to hunt or raise livestock. We rural people in flyover country are not liked or understood at all by a large segment of the population. They don't have any inkling of the necessarily cruel process by which a wolf pack kills a large ungulate. It is ok with them if once they are through killing the wild game these predators move on to Cliven Bundy's cows. People likes us have to be marginalized and then stamped out. I suspect a lot of the angst being expressed about the last election comes from liberals not realizing how many Neanderthals there were still out there to vote against their coastal power centers.

No, what we need to preserve our Constitutional right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is for these people to stop trying to dictate how other people live.

But Rocky, you know very well sport hunting is a privilege the same as a driver's license. An argument that sport hunting is a right has no legal/Constitutional standing that I'm aware of.

I like that!!!