THE RECORD OF WILDLIFE CONTROL BY HUNTERS

Forest and Bird, Issue 45, 1 August 1937, Page 4

THE RECORD OF WILDLIFE CONTROL BY HUNTERS

SOME SPECIES EXTINCT, OTHERS DWINDLING.

(Excerpted from Article in Nature Magazine, By Ellsworth D. Lumley.)

FROM the time the first man swung a stone axe against the skull of an animal the management of our wildlife has been in the hands of the men who killed—killed either for sport or for gain. Because there was an abundance of wildlife, those who were not hunters were generally indifferent as to the activities of the killers. Through the ages it has become almost an instinct among men who hunt to feel that they alone should manage and control all policies pertaining to wild animals. They too often feel that one who is not a hunter and yet shows an interest in conserving animal life is a meddler and a “sentimentalist”! One reason that much of our wildife has now reached a crisis is the fact that we have ever accepted as truth the conclusions drawn by untrained outdoorsmen from their casual observations. We have been most reluctant to accept the word of the trained research man if it conflicted with general opinion or with general observations. Two examples will illustrate how much in error casual observers may be and yet how persistently men will believe the false conclusions drawn from them. Hunters have on many occasions witnessed large hawks capturing game birds or eating those found dead. The conclusion naturally drawn has been that hawks kill the game birds and were therefore detrimental to man’s interests. Trained field men have carefully studied the habits of hawks and found by laboratory examination of the game birds supposedly killed by large hawks, that in most cases the game birds were diseased, parasitised, or injured so that they could not escape the hawk, or that they had died from injury, gunshot, disease, or some other cause. Large hawks seldom are capable of capturing healthy game birds. Another fallacy that has arisen from casual observation is the idea that shooting up coveys of game birds will strengthen and aid the birds by keeping them from inbreeding. Careful work on the part of scientists has shown that shooting up and scattering a rapidly diminishing species, such as grouse or quail, does absolutely no good. There is a natural tendency

for flocks of birds to split up and reunite without the aid of man. Yet seasons on grouse and quail have been opened by game commissions on just such flimsy excuses as alleged inbreeding. These two examples are given to illustrate the fact that men may spend a lifetime living with and observing Nature and yet draw erroneous conclusions from their observations. When non-killers or scientists attempt to regulate shooting, “the game’s best friend,” the hunter, quickly proclaims that the “sincere Nature lovers” are attempting to legislate out all hunting. Reforms in shooting are held up to ridicule as ill advised, unworkable, and petty nuisance regulations that do not save the game. Shortening the season, lowering the bag limit and possession limit, shortening the shooting day, outlawing baiting, live decoys, and pump guns have all been used by certain sportsmen to bolster up the old contention that added restrictions only make law breakers of the sportsmen. Another common statement made by sportsmen in an attempt to prove that “maudlin sentimentalists” should have nothing to say regarding hunting regulations and conservation is: “The sportsmen buy hunting licenses, part of the proceeds of which pays for game protection while Nature lovers and non-shooters contribute nothing toward maintaining warden service.” “Just why,” one might ask, “is warden service necessary?” Certainly not to protect the wildlife from Nature lovers. Wardens are needed principally because there are hunters who must be watched. That sportsmen find it necessary to hire men to act as referees to see that all killers play the game of shooting according to given rules, called game laws, certainly is no legitimate reason why a non-shooter should have no voice regarding the rules of the game. When hunting reaches a point where certain forms of wildlife are so greatly reduced that both hunters and non-hunters become alarmed, it is high time that those that have not taken part in the killing boldly demand

that they be given a voice in the policies of game management. Sportsmen seem to fear that the “swivelchair sentimentalists” will deprive them of the joy of the hunt if given a voice in forming policies to govern the taking of game animals. If naturalists made the hunting laws undoubtedly some forms of hunting would disappear. Nature lovers, however, are not as much opposed to hunting as to the bad ethics of the sport. Hunters seem unwilling to recognise the fact that they alone are responsible for the many restrictions on shooting. The killers themselves have been the cause of the restricted shooting. They have robbed not only themselves of the joy of the hunt but they have taken from thousands of Nature lovers the joy of watching and studying these beautiful forms of life. The record left by hunters in their management of game and non-game animals is not one of which they can boast. They have used every killing device the genius of man has been able to invent, and when warned by a few farsighted individuals that their killing methods

would bring extermination and ruin they have turned a deaf ear and cried“ Sentimentalist.” Now that a crisis has been reached and the nation is faced with the grave problem of saving some breeding stock, innumerable reasons for the shortage are offered by the killers, and we read and hear about drought, drainage, predators, disease and poachers. Only the more liberal sportsmen admit that overshooting has been the chief cause of the depletion. Hunters as a whole are unwilling to admit the ruin they have wrought. If our wildlife is to survive from the terrific punishment we have inflicted upon it, it must be placed in the hands of trained field men who are willing to study and accept the findings of scientific research. Occasionally such men are appointed to State fish and game commissions, but too often they are shortly removed because hunters object to progressive game management if it means fewer shooting privileges. Hunters’ methods of game management have brought only ruin. If conservation is to be achieved, the lovers of wildlife, as well as the destroyers, must share in its management.