By now, just about every hunter in America has heard this statement before. (Got these from the MaineGuides.org website)
“If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would. – Wayne Pacelle, as quoted by the Associated Press in Impassioned Agitator, December 30, 1991.
And this one to go along with that one.
“Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.” – Wayne Pacelle, as quoted in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, October 8, 1991.
And finally,
“Sport hunting—the killing of wild animals as recreation—is fundamentally at odds with the values of a humane, just and caring society.” – HSUS Website 2003.
A couple of weeks ago I told you about the preliminary results of the survey that is done every five years by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In that survey, the media jumped to the immediate conclusion that in the last decade the number of participants in hunting and fishing had dropped around 14%. How they derived that figure is misleading and probably inaccurate as well.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts this survey every 5 years. What the results of the survey don’t show is the total number of people who hunt and fish. What it does show is how many people hunted and fished in 2006, in 2001 and in 1996. In other words, the survey is used as an indicator and shouldn’t be used to make a claim that there are 1.5 million fewer hunters today than there were in 1996. The survey doesn’t account for the number of hunters who hunt at odd times and off years.
Regardless of surveys and conclusions drawn by the media, groups like the Humane Society of the United States want to end hunting and fishing. This same survey shows that $64 billion is spent by anglers and hunters. The majority of that money is used to manage the wildlife, create habitat and sponsor education programs that millions of people benefit from, including the non-hunters and non-fishermen.
If you add in an additional $45 billion spent by wildlife viewers, $120 billion dollars annually is a sizable amount of money. I hear everyday from non-hunters who attempt to toss in the faces of us hunters how they outnumber us and can and will control what happens to the wildlife we take and they object to. Their statement is false. There are more wildlife viewers than hunters for sure but hunters outspend wildlife viewers considerably. More importantly, the vast majority of wildlife viewers that includes non-hunters, understand, support and approve of hunting. Only a small percentage of the so-called “non-consumptive” users disapprove of hunting and verbally speak out against it.
The funds generated from the sale of hunting, fishing and trapping fees are used to manage the wildlife, including most species that don’t get hunted. It is no secret that without these funds, wildlife viewing would be sparse unless taxpayers began footing the bill that license holders have for decades. Are the taxpayers ready and willing to pick up that tab?
Maine’s moose is a good example of how license fees were used to bring the moose population back to a point where hunting has once again been used to keep the numbers in check. With the added growth and abundance of the large, odd looking creature, millions of people flock to Maine in hopes to get a glimpse of the mammal.
Would these wildlife viewers be able to enjoy this pastime without hunting license fees? Perhaps but someone would have to foot the multi-million dollar bill to manage the wildlife.
This is just one aspect of what would happen should hunting, fishing and trapping be banned like animal rights groups want. The other is the billions of dollars in revenue to state and local economies that get pumped in each season. With the annual loss of $120 billion, how will that slack ever be picked back up? What about the jobs?
We have to ask as well that if the money to manage the wildlife disappeared, wouldn’t also the opportunities for wildlife viewing be greatly reduced? Certainly we can’t assume that the number of viewers would increase to make up for the lost revenue. As I pointed out earlier, hunters far outspend wildlife viewers. Viewers tend to go on short excursions, buy gasoline and maybe a snack or meal. They don’t have gear necessary for viewing, with the exception of maybe a camera or pair of binoculars.
Statements such as the ones I shared above are unrealistic and not in the best interest of our society. Much as these groups want people to believe their rhetoric, it’s simply a bunch of malarkey. Sane citizens understand, appreciate and support hunting, fishing and trapping for everything it contributes to our “humane and caring society”. After all, it is about more than just killing animals.
Tom Remington
