MY BALANCING ACT BETWEEN HUNTING AND LOVE OF
WILDLIFE. THE SCALE UNBALANCE
A
sportsman is a person who behaves fairly and honorably when in the wilds,
observing all the rules of ethics and conduct toward all wild things while
respecting the quarry they seek and treating the wildlife with respect during
and after the hunt.
The previous paragraph could be the definition of
what a Sportsman is as pertains to the sport of hunting. Well, it is my definition. Why, you ask, is he bringing this topic up on
his blog? The reason is that the term
Sportsman is a much misused word in these current times. It is a term that is used loosely at best to
describe anyone who carries a gun afield to legally hunt game. When folks gather at the breakfast counter at
the café, the word used to describe those who seek game are called
hunters. “There are a lot of hunters in
here this morning.”
Yet, when matters of political or legal importance
are discussed, the term sportsmen is used.
“There are 75,000 sportsmen across this great state of Tennessee who pay
hard earned dollars for a license giving them the privilege to take game across
the state.”
The word sportsman conjures thoughts of some elite
professional game seeker equipped with all the outdoor knowledge and etiquette
required to assure property owners that a responsible outdoor person is about
to enter onto his land in search of game.
He may not allow a hunter access but, a sportsman is of a different
cut. After all, hunters are a mix of
educated and uneducated, kids of legal age or maybe not, college students or whomever
who might have fired a gun at some time in life or maybe not. Don’t want that lot on my ground. No Sir!
Give me the sportsman every time.
The fact is that a hunter and a sportsman (when
applied to hunting) have the same meaning.
I refer you to my definition of what a sportsman is on the opening
paragraph to this piece.
When I tried to write this piece on the boat at
Beech Creek yesterday I kept writing myself into a corner. I am passionate about wildlife and the wild
places and I found myself writing in a biased fashion in favor of the
wildlife. It’s not a bad thing to take
the part of the things you care about.
The dangerous thing about it is writing about the passions and forsaking
all else that is interlaced with that passion.
So where’s he going with this? I
want the readers of my blog to understand perfectly my position on hunting, my
position on wildlife and my sentiments toward the mission of TWRA, the agency I
have joined that is steward to the wildlife and habitat in this state. So how can I work for a state agency that
administers rules and regulations governing hunting if I am passionate about
the well being of wildlife and the places they inhabit? Common sense enters into this piece right
about here. Keep the definition of
sportsman on the top of your head for awhile.
If I write myself into a corner again I’ll make it sound logical even if
it isn’t. Don’t worry about it. Keep in mind also that this is my take on the
hunting and wildlife topic and no one else’s.
Don’t expect too much because I’m old and the synapse process has slowed
a bit over the past 5 years.
A message came over the state radio when I was on
duty at the lake last week. The dispatch
person was talking to a wildlife officer and she said that a fisherman on the
lake called and said he saw three duck hunters in a boat shoot a great blue
heron. Now, you and I know these guys
weren’t sportsmen. They definitely were
hunters. A sportsman would never, ever
even think about killing a protected species.
An officer was dispatched and the perpetrators of the foul, evil deed
were apprehended. Two hours later
another message came across the radio. A
farmer called in and found between twenty and thirty wild turkeys dead in his
pasture field that morning. They were
simply left lying where they fell.
Again, these had to be hunters.
Poachers would apply if the birds were gathered up and used but, even
the term poacher doesn’t apply.
Sportsmen police their own ranks.
Yep – had to be hunters.
I have “hunted” and taken game animals between the
ages of 14 and 40 years of age. I loved
taking a gun into the woods in search of deer and turkey. Hunting season was savored. It was an escape from the present day reality
of life and a mini trip into yesteryear when many families relied on the men of
the house to bring game home to supplement the field grown food. I grew to love and adore guns. In the early seventies I would buy a new shotgun
or rifle every month. Rifles and
shotguns were soon supplemented with handguns.
Soon the rifles were left home and the pistol went on the hunt with me. Sometime in the eighties a company named
Thompson Center created a gun that would allow interchangeable barrels to be
quickly attached. A bigger or smaller
caliber barrel could be selected depending upon the requirements for the animal
sought after. I killed many deer with
that gun. I was all about hunting and
acquiring pin point accuracy with every rifle or handgun I owned. Then one day something happened that took
away every desire to kill an animal ever again.
I invite you to click on the link below for my story named “The Last
Hunt” on the blog. It will explain
everything. Scroll down the page to the
story.
I’m going to say something here that will make you
gasp. I submit to you that in these
current times it is necessary for wildlife to sacrifice certain numbers of
their population to hunting in order for them to survive in healthy numbers and
allow for species perpetuation. You see,
wildlife habitat has diminished over the past century to a point where it is
today which is a miniscule of what it once was.
In many cases the habitat cannot support certain species of wildlife due
to the prolific fashion in which they propagate. The scientific reasoning is far greater than
I care to get into for this writing.
Human habitation is the primary culprit.
Pesticides, chemicals and the cutting of trees and land clearing have
removed much habitat and have decimated many species. Swamps and wetlands have been drained for all
the Wallmarts across this country. Even
the addition of the quadrabillions of miles of asphalt for roads and parking
lots has added a tremendous detrimental effect on habitat. Where does the water run to as it washes off
the cement and black top? Left unmanaged
and unprotected the wildlife and habitat would have disappeared many years
ago. Three examples of bird species that
would not be here today without sound management are the sand hill and whooping
cranes and the bald eagle. Pesticides
almost drove all three into extinction.
Again, this explanation about wildlife is a very simple example of
events that negatively impacted the above mentioned critters as well as many other
animal species. Remember the ivory
billed woodpecker? Gone. Its habitat was totally destroyed. Enter the game commissions across the
country. I’m from Pennsylvania so I’ll
mention the PA. State Game Commission.
This is Tennessee so we’ll highlight The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. The National Park Service has its own
management program to protect and serve wildlife. The agencies go on and on at the state and
government levels. They have been
developed over many years to oversee and act as stewards for wildlife and
wildlife habitat across this nation. These
agencies have set boundaries between humans and wildlife. They even buy properties for the sole purpose
of habitat creation. Without their
management the wildlife would have been hunted or poisoned into oblivion years
ago, as well as total destruction of wildlife habitat.
Whew! This
is getting lengthy. I haven’t written
myself into a corner yet so, that’s a good thing. What was I saying? Oh, ya – The obvious question you may ask is
how are all these agencies funded? This
is the treacherous part of the story. To
protect the wildlife and the habitat from eradication it is necessary for the
wildlife protectors (managers) to sacrifice a portion of the species population
to hunting. There-in lays the cause for
great animosity between those who enjoy the sport of hunting and those who
enjoy looking at the wildlife without causing harm. In the end it all comes
down to the dollar. It’s no secret that
game commissions are funded by hunter and angler dollars secured in exchange
for a license that extends a privilege to the purchaser to hunt or fish. These hunting and fishing licenses fund the
purchasing of land for habitat restoration, restocking fish species, manage
deer herds, turkey flocks, quail and on and on.
Behind the scenes are trucks, boats, bulldozers and specialized
equipment, biologists and instruments, management teams that keep their fingers
on the pulse of the wildlife health.
Some states collect a tax on sporting goods that is applied to wildlife
preservation. These are the only sources
of income available to fund the agencies that are entrusted to protect our
wildlife resources across this country.
In the end its sacrifice the few so that the many can survive for the
future. I’ve never seen common ground
achieved between the hunting and wildlife watching factions. This is where I have to be careful. Sensitive toes may be stepped upon. In actuality I am a wildlife watcher. I even save grasshoppers and ground moles and
almost wrecked a truck once swerving to miss a wren who was about to hit my
windshield.
Remember about the dollar mentioned earlier. Wildlife and bird watchers contribute
somewhat by purchasing bird stamps. That
is a commendable act. One problem with
that is the money is probably applied to wildlife and bird activities in
another state. There is no method established
for them to contribute to their wildlife commissions other than
contributions. Contributions won’t work
because there is no mechanism in place to collect and distribute the
contributed funds. Accountability is
lacking. One can understand the
frustration of non hunters. In their
minds it’s always the hunters who win.
They get what they want every time.
Common sense tells us that the hunters are supplying the funds that fuel
the agencies that protect our wildlife.
Therefore they have the main say in what happens in the realm of hunting
and fishing. They don’t always get their
way but, they have a loud voice. I’ve
said this before and here I go again. If
the wildlife watchers want to have a loud voice and a strong push in what goes
on with wildlife – they have to find a way to contribute to the cause in at
least equal dollar amounts as the hunter faction. Looking at wildlife is a valid reason for an
annual license just as hunting is. Those binoculars that you watch whooping
cranes with didn’t have a wildlife tax associated with them. Guns do.
That camera lens you just bought has no wildlife tax attached. That rifle scope does. Some have said they wouldn’t give money to an
agency that supports hunting. Common
sense enters again. Sometimes one must
do something that isn’t popular or even distasteful in order to gain success in
the endeavor. There are no other
options. Contribute and have a major say
in what happens to the wildlife you love or continue along current lines and
repeat the same emotional grievances that are expressed year after year. The dollar will win out every time. I wish there was another way. If there is it’s remained elusive to me for
years. I may be heading into a corner at
this point. I better back away. Well, one more thing.
You may or may not remember the unpopular proposed sand
hill crane hunt that caused uproar two years ago. It was postponed. It’s going to be on the table again for
2013. Has anything changed between the
watchers and the hunters since then? I
haven’t heard of anything. I expect the
hunters will have their positions reinforced this time around. I suggested a way for the birder/watchers to
contribute but it fell on deaf ears. I
personally am against the killing of any cranes. This is where a difference lies between
hunters and sportsmen even though they are considered one and the same. Anyone who would go afield to shoot a sand
hill crane is a hunter in my book. It
requires little skill at all to down one of those birds with a shotgun. Anyone who kills one and brags about it is
nothing more than a braggart. And,
anyone who has his smiling picture taken while holding up dead cranes by the
neck for the camera is a hunter and not necessarily a sportsman. A sportsman would vote against the hunting of
cranes and would stay home or go fishing if the hunt is condoned. You might want to read my conversation with a
sand hill crane: Bottom of the page.
I think I may be writing myself into a corner. Careless…
No, I’m not anti hunting. I’m not anti anything. I’m certainly not an activist. I will stand up for and take the part of the
animals on most all occasions but, common sense dictates that I understand the situation.
There are tree huggers and activists who will go as far as to cause
bodily harm to folks doing what’s necessary for the collective good of all,
animal and human alike. Activists are
passionate about their beliefs. So am I
passionate about wildlife and habitat. I
practically live with wildlife and I insert myself into their habitat on a
daily basis. I learn from the critters I
observe and can identify them by sounds they make. I can find them when I want. I sometimes feel I know what a critter is
thinking through observation. But, I
temper my passion with common sense. No,
I’m not a hunter anymore. I don’t agree
with the hunting processes these days. I
don’t believe a deer should be ambushed from a tree and I don’t agree with
shooting bears off a pile of putrid meat set out for bait. Hunting to me is feet on the ground and pitting
skills against those of the quarry. One
will win and one will fail. No. Its not for me. Nor is trapping, a long outlived, cruel
method of capturing animals. I can’t
condone it. I’ve withdrawn myself from
any killing of critters and replaced the gun with the camera. I “capture” life long memories instead of
causing the death of a beautiful animal.
That’s my choice but, the sacrifice of a few is necessary for the better
of the whole in this era. That is where
the “sportsman” does a service to our wildlife.
I hope this made some sense to you.
If nothing else, you know my position as pertains to hunting. Well, sort of.
