In discussions about pro-hunting versus anti-hunting, I put a lot of emphasis on the terms “sport hunting” and “sport hunters”, instead of just saying, “hunting” or “hunters”. I think it’s an important distinction to make, and here’s why.
First of all, as some folks may have seen in the discussion with Bob a few days ago, there’s a standing anti-hunters’ argument that “hunters” are responsible for the wholesale slaughter of species that dates all the way back to the earliest history of this continent. It’s a hard argument to refute, because an awful lot of killing went on back in the days before we knew about extinction, eco-systems, or even the simple fact that “God’s bounty” wasn’t unlimited. We all know about it… the passenger pigeon, Carolina parakeet, bison, eastern elk, whitetail deer, waterfowl… the list is frighteningly long.
“Well, those weren’t hunters,” someone might argue.
I have to disagree. Many of those people were hunters in the most real sense. They hunted to feed their families, whether directly or by commerce. Hunting was for market or for subsistence. Sure, there must have been plenty of folks who enjoyed it. There’s always been more to the hunt than simply filling the smoke pole or the wallet. But a “sport” who hunted solely for recreation was relatively unheard of, and when one did appear, he was generally perceived as an eccentric or a member of the privileged class (usually a correct assumption).
Things, of course, have changed.
The Industrial Revolution came, and right behind it came the 40-hour work week and the eight-hour day. Cash became king and barter became an anachronism practiced in the backwoods. People left the agrarian life and settled into towns and cities, engrossed with the business of industry and of managing money. You could get your meat and produce from the corner market… there was no need to hunt for it any longer. At the same time, a succession of wars improved both the quality and affordability of firearms.
Of course the tradition and spirit of the hunt never left. It just got redirected. There was less need to hunt, but men still did it because they wanted to. With spare time, cash, and the right tools, it was a whole new game now… recreation instead of subsistence.
And this is kind of where this really leads… as sport hunters entered the field, they saw a lot of things, not the least of which was the decimation of game species. Waterfowl that had once clouded the sky and covered the bays were becoming scarce. Deer and turkeys were becoming hard to find (by WWII they were almost completely gone from much of the southeastern US). Theodore Roosevelt urged hunters to get out to the west and hunt the game now, because it wouldn’t be there much longer. Something had to be done, and nobody else was doing it. Sport hunters stepped up.
Most of us know the history from here on. The foundation of the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 1937, Pittman-Robertson Act in 1939, waterfowl regulations, an end to market hunting, state hunting licenses, hunter safety courses… driven by and for sport hunters to conserve the resources, restore habitat, and repair past damages. While it would be naive to say that hunters have supported every change and regulation along the way, it is safe to say that sportsmen have been responsible for a significant amount of positive change.
It’s become something of a mantra for me over time, whenever I’m discussing or debating with non-hunters or antis. Modern, regulated, sport hunting has never been responsible for the loss or destruction of a species. It’s completely arguable, in fact, that sport hunters have had exactly the opposite impact. Sport hunters have driven and or paid for the majority of wildlife success stories in the US, from the restoration of waterfowl, whitetail deer and wild turkeys to the rebuilding and recovery of habitat for many species across the continent.
Even so, I still stress the SPORT aspect of what we’re doing. This is sport. It’s not necessary for us as individuals, no matter how much we may try to justify. We do it for fun, and for recreation. If we don’t kill game, we won’t starve or go broke. I’d say for most modern sport hunters, wild meat makes up less than half of our diets.
Sport hunters are not in the field to manage wildlife. We’re not here because our license fees and excise taxes on our gear pay for the resource, law enforcement, and management programs. Very few hunters hunt primarily because of the safe, chemical-free meat (although many would argue that). These are all benefits of hunting, but we hunt because we want to hunt. We enjoy the sport. There’s no need to justify that.
Related Posts
No related posts.
Blake
With all due respect but isn’t it “sporthunting” that most anti hunters use as argument against us. Of course it is. Antis say no animal should be killed for the “sport” of it. Also in my case I would be a little offended if someone would call me a sporthunter. I am born into hunting and that makes it for me a way of life because I cannot imagine ever being without it. I simply do not know any different and have no other interests in my life other than work, my family and friends.
Personally I prefer simply hunter and if someone like Bob accuses me of something our forefathers did then I will simply tell him that today hunting is very different, explaining what the difference is, and that I cannot be held responsible for what happened 100 years ago.
-ov-