Hunting For Sport – An Indulgent Tradition?

Subscribe in a Reader

DON'T FORGET TO COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE

by Art Activist

There is a fundamental difference between killing for sustenance and hunting for sport. The legal definition of cruelty to animals is: 'the unnecessary infliction of physical pain, suffering or death'. Based on that definition, hunting for sport is a cruel and barbaric pastime.

My grandmother had chickens. We ate the eggs and occasionally the chicken. She would ring its neck, and then pluck it before my eyes. It was not hunting and it was not sport. My grandmother took no pleasure in the act of killing the bird but she took great pleasure in feeding her extended family.

Hunters on the other hand derive pleasure from the hunt. They celebrate the killing. Often this is achieved by mounting a piece of the animal that has suffered on a wall or by posting a video or photograph of the hunt online.

Within the sport of hunting, the playing field is in favour of the hunter. Only the hunter knows they are in the game. Hunting often occurs in closed, prescribed zones where animals have little or no chance of escape. Discussions from hunters regarding the ethics of hunting generally pertain to the fairness between hunters themselves and not between the hunter and the animal. For example, it is "unethical" to shoot a duck resting on water and "ethical" to shoot at the bird in flight. This ethic establishes nothing more than fair play amongst hunters. The increased accuracy of shooting a duck resting on water minimises unnecessary injury and a slow painful death.

Equipment has become increasingly high tech including long range hunting rifles that are deadly to 600 yards. Given the likelihood of human error from this distance the chance of injuring an animal is high. Cameras are used to assess the size, species and sex of the animals passing the spot they plan to hunt and advanced optics to locate animals more easily. Often a GPS will be utilised to spot terrain features suitable for prey and sensors to alert the hunter of a nearby animal.

Other popular practices are baiting, which is the use of decoys, lures, scent or food to attract animals, the use of camouflage either for visual concealment or scent, to blend with the environment and using artificial light to find, light or blind animals, a charming practice known as spotlighting.

Dogs may be used to help flush, herd, drive, track, point at, pursue or retrieve prey. Hunting with dogs is particularly cruel because hunting dogs are bred for endurance not speed to ensure an extended chase, which makes for a more 'entertaining' sport. This of course causes the animal being pursued to suffer for longer.

Some of the most heinous hunting methods involve trapping which is the use of devices such as snares, body grippers, Conibears and legholds to capture or kill an animal. It is safer for the hunter to trap an animal and requires less time and energy. Animals caught in leghold traps suffer enormous pain as their foot or leg breaks or is dislocated. As the animal struggles to get free the trapped limb is mutilated. Often in desperation an animal will chew off a leg in order to get free from a trap. Otherwise they succumb to exhaustion, dehydration, shock and death. While leghold traps have been banned by more than 85 nations, the top 3 fur-producing countries; the U.S., Canada, and Russia, continue to use them. In addition to the cruelty inflicted on a trapped animal, the traps are often indiscriminate. Other animals including endangered species are mutilated or killed by traps. Reportedly anywhere from 10-40% of animals caught will be non-target animals.

Hunting advocates like to claim that hunting is necessary as a means of population control and that they are in fact conservationists doing everybody including the animal a huge favour. This rhetoric is deceptive and irresponsible. In the absence of predators, an environments ecological carrying capacity can be exceeded and animals will surely die a slow painful death from starvation, or so the justification goes. However, hunters do not seek out and kill only those animals within the population most likely to die of starvation; in fact the opposite is true. Whether hunting for trophy or meat it is the largest and strongest males that are targeted. This also disrupts the natural 1:1 male to female birth ratio of animals, leaving a disproportionate number of females, which will inevitably produce more in the subsequent years to the point of overpopulation.

Both of these practices disrupt natural selection. Left alone, animal populations can and do regulate their own numbers. Whilst human intervention and irregular natural occurrences can cause an animals population to rise and fall temporarily, the group soon stabilises through natural processes.

The absence of predators is almost entirely due to human intervention through excessive hunting and habitat destruction. Predators have been systematically eliminated to provide habitat for game species. When natural predators are reintroduced there is absolutely no need for hunters to do any favours. The reintroduction of predators is the most effective and natural wildlife management tool. Natural predators help keep a prey species healthy and optimum by killing only the weak or sick not the large, strong trophy animals that hunters kill.

The other regular catchcry of hunters is that they fund conservation efforts. This is misleading. It is not a donation nor charitable act, it occurs indirectly through licences and excise taxes. Hunters would hunt, purchase licences and pay taxes if none of the money was redistributed to conservation. The funding in fact is mostly used for habitat manipulation and 'management' for hunters, to protect their game species. True conservationists would push for all the revenue to be used for habitat protection, not manipulation to overpopulate target animals. Game officials are appointed and their salaries are paid through hunting fees. This creates a conflict of interest, as game officials are therefore not neutral and represent the hunters. Dependent on the activity of hunting itself very few are going to question conservation ethics.

Contrary to the 'who's going to fund conservation if we don't' analogy, conservation funding need not rely on hunting activities. There is a multitude of revenue raising pursuits such as eco-tourism, hiking, wildlife photography etc that can provide the necessary funds for habitat protection and wildlife preservation.

Animals die needlessly, directly and indirectly every day through habitat destruction, pollution, and other human impact environmental degradation, it is not necessary and grossly indulgent to add to this with recreational hunting.

To suggest that recreational hunting is a tradition that should be preserved is to suggest that cultural values are immutable. This is erroneous to say the least. Traditions can and have changed with changing values. Consider slavery and marital rape, both were accepted, widespread and legal but abolished and outlawed because of their inherent cruelty. Traditions are capable of change and are not sufficient to justify inhumane practices. The hunting community need to acknowledge the false and misleading arguments used to justify hunting for sport and address the validity of the counter arguments for animal welfare.

Art Activist is the owner of an ethical t-shirt design and printing business. brand resistant is a business model for the future. Evolving from social, environmental and political passion, we hope to use the power of words and images to effect change. http://www.brandresistant.com

Article Source: Hunting For Sport – An Indulgent Tradition?

Don't forget to download Indocquent's free social bookmark utility at http://www.indocquent.com/social_bookmark/social_bookmark_landingpage.html.