Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Death of Hunting

By Christina Larson, Washington Monthly. Posted January 9, 2006.


As landowners close off their private property, many hunters have hung up their shotguns. It's up to progressives to preserve hunting -- if we even want to.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Christina Larson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Colo, Iowa (population 900), a town about an hour northeast of Des Moines, is little more than a rail crossing, a grain elevator, and a dwindling main street. But at 7 a.m. on the opening morning of Iowa's celebrated pheasant season, the lights were on in a one-story building on Main Street where the Colo Lions Club was sponsoring a pancake breakfast for hunters. I arrived with two pheasant hunters, the three of us clad in the ubiquitous orange vests and caps of the sport, with dogs waiting in kennels in the back of a pickup. We were looking for a place to hunt.

Inside, the scene resembled the cantina from "Star Wars" in one way: It was a strategic place to gather information and try to seal a deal. Men sat around folding tables swapping stories about the birds they bagged last year, but also grousing about the difficulty of finding land where they could hunt. Iowa is 97 percent private land, so to have much shot at a pheasant, you pretty much need a landowner's permission to roam his fields. That's getting harder to come by these days, with old farms being sold and fence posts hung with new signs that warn, "No Trespassing."

As my companions and I filled up on pancakes, a friend of theirs walked over and pulled up a chair next to us. After helping himself to a plate, he glanced around slyly, leaned forward, and passed us an enticing tip: He had a friend who had a friend who was a local landowner and might give us permission to hunt on his land. We should drive down past Colo Bogs and look out for Joe Quaker in a grey van. Soon we were on the road, rumbling over gravel roads to the appointed meeting place. When no grey van appeared, we drove on, forced to look elsewhere for hunting ground. Occasionally, we passed hunters tromping through roadside drainage ditches, among the only public turf still available to those pheasant seekers without access to someone else's land.

This hunt for a spot to hunt is increasingly a part of the sportsmen's pursuit today. In the terminology of those who follow the problem, "access" is the buzzword phrase. "When you ask hunters directly what their biggest concern is, out of 20-odd possible choices, land access is most often number one," says Mark Duda of Responsive Management, a firm that conducts surveys for state wildlife departments. The scramble to find land can cause friction between hunters and landowners--in at least one instance, with tragic results. In November, a Hmong immigrant was sentenced to life in prison for killing six hunters in Wisconsin after a trespassing dispute erupted when he wandered onto their land.

The increasing difficulty of finding land to hunt on is, not surprisingly, nudging ever more hunters to hang up their shotguns. In Iowa, the number of hunters in state has dropped 26 percent in a decade, according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and other states have experienced similar declines. One in three former hunters told the agency that not having a place to hunt motivated their decision to abandon their hobby. Around the country, more sportsmen each year are parking their deer stands and duck decoys in the garage.

Even so, hunting is unlikely to disappear entirely. The ranks of hunters may dwindle, but hunting itself retains a cultural resonance, calling to mind a time when pioneers depended on ingenuity and perseverance to settle the frontier and evoking a pastoral nostalgia for farm life. Americans like to think of hunting as a national tradition, even as they tool around suburban parkways in their Subaru Outbacks. Hunting and fishing are touchstones for a world that many suburban and exurban dwellers value, even if their daily lives no longer reflect it.

In American politics, few causes are more potent than those defending threatened heritage symbols. Real or perceived attacks on school prayer, the pledge of allegiance, and the etiquette of saying "Merry Christmas" have all been whipped into political maelstroms. That's largely because conservatives recognized, and then exploited, a latent but largely unorganized anger.

A comparable frustration exists among hunters over land access. But conservatives haven't tapped into it because the source of this anxiety isn't a liberal bogeyman, like elitism or big government. Instead, it's the closing-off of private property and sale of public land, something many on the right defend. That means progressives could find themselves in the unexpected position of being the champions of hunters. Those states that have effectively slowed or reversed the hunting decline have done so with programs that use government to open up private lands voluntarily to public recreation. This time, it may be progressive government that holds out the best hope for preserving an American tradition.

A wink from Uncle Fred

If Americans don't hunt in the numbers that they used to, hunting goods stores aren't in danger of going out of business just yet. Hunting and fishing remain major national pastimes: In 2001, 13 million Americans headed out to hunt and 34 million to fish. The total number of "sportsmen" -- men and women who hunt or fish -- is 38 million today, nearly one in eight Americans. But while that's a crowd, it's a shrinking one. Over the past two decades, the percentage of Americans who hunt or fish has tumbled from 26 to 18 percent; the absolute number of sportsmen has fallen from 50 million to 38 million.


Digg!

Christina Larson is managing editor of The Washington Monthly.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
marta
Posted by: cuja1 on Jan 9, 2006 2:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can one call Hunting a Sport, when you track down an animal with a weapon, and they have none,---it's the same as Murder. Concerning the over population of animals, we are on what was their land, so we are the ones over-populated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: marta Posted by: John Rice
» Unthinking human elitism Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Unthinking human elitism Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Unthinking human elitism Posted by: mejsmith
» RE: Unthinking human elitism Posted by: Longhorn
» RE: Unthinking human elitism Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Unthinking human elitism Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Unthinking human elitism Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Unthinking human elitism Posted by: eringhorm
» RE: Unthinking human elitism Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Unthinking human elitism Posted by: kelly.nickell
» Likewise... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Likewise... Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Unthinking human elitism Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: marta Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: marta Posted by: crusty
» RE: marta Posted by: Jimbo
» RE: marta Posted by: Lizka
» As I was saying... Posted by: Lizka
Do Not Call it "Sport"
Posted by: DCH on Jan 9, 2006 3:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Twenty five or thirty years ago I stood in a marsh and asked myself why a 200lb. man was killing ducks that I gave away rather than eat. I was a decendant of Indians and New England hunters. Even back then as a result of Colonial Law in Massachusettes, access to the marsh was getting difficult without a boat. Democrats are always behind the political curve when it comes to supporting populist causes and this cause is tailor made for "progressive" support. The hunters among us are real and they vote a lot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chuck
Posted by: hilltech on Jan 9, 2006 5:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am an Iowa Farmer, and do hunt myself. I do allow hunting on my property by others, and greatly respect the tradition of hunting. It certainly beats watching professional athletes do something with a ball on the TV.
A problem exists for landowners due to Iowa's laws, in that I am held liable for accidents on my property, whether I have any culpability or not. In fact, trespassers can sue me for accidents resulting from their own negligence. As an example, consider a snowmobiler losing control of his machine at 75 MPH and being killed. So the NO TRESPASSING signs are there to try to protect me from this kind of injustice.
This time of year on many evenings at dusk, you can see more than 100 deer in one my fields, about 200 acres, near my home. They live here, and eat my crops during the growing season, about 2000 pounds per deer per year. This represents about $5000/ year that I contribute to feeding them. That's the biggest reason we hunt them--self defense. I feed them, but the public owns them, and too few people hunt to control their numbers.
Hunting is good recreation, and fosters respect for nature. There are reasons why it should be encouraged, and some problems that should be dealt with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Chuck Posted by: sausage
» RE: Chuck Posted by: christina
Preserve Hunting? Why not bring back torture, too
Posted by: robchapman on Jan 9, 2006 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Preserve hunting, are you crazy?
I have woken up every morning for the past six weeks to the sounds of men gunning in the woods, terrorizing defenseless animals.
On Cayuga Lake, less than sixty feet from where I am sitting now, there are decoys and blinds designed to lure ducks into range so that grown men armed with firearms can shoot them from hiding.
This is sport? To hide from a defenseless animal that you have deceitfully lured into a place where you can use a gun to shoot it?
The animal's only resource is to flee in mortal terror.
What if it is wounded? What if its mate or sibling is killed?
Waterfowl mate for life, is it anything but cruel to kill a duck's spouse?
Oh but I forget, this is America where buthchering people by gunfire is a rite of passage. Why should I be worried about mere ducks.
Progressives should not defend hunting, someone in this country has to have a conscience.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, New York

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deer can be pests
Posted by: robchapman on Jan 9, 2006 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Iowa farmer;
yes deer can be pests and there is no good reason for allowing them to be so.
In NYS and NJ to take two states as an example land owners are allowed to kill nuisance deer on their property at any time of year. There are certain regulations they must follow to assure safety and to assure that they are not poaching, but all in all the destruction of nuisance deer proceeds.
Still the destrcution of nuisance deer to protect property and "sport" hunting are not comparable.
I vehemently disagree with you in regard to the" traditions" of hunting. How can it be honorable to terrorize another sentient creature in a contest as unfair as hunting?
Although we disagree on this matter, I still have a great interest in and respect for your views and hope that you will able to respond. We may be unable to convert each other, but hopefully we will be able to communicate with each other.
My email adress is pach12@twcny.rr.com

Robert Chapman
Lansing, New York

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Deer can be pests Posted by: YogiBear
Real Lefties Hunt
Posted by: Longhorn on Jan 9, 2006 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a committed Progressive and I hunt deer. Why?

Partially for the reasons that this article describes: my family has been hunting for all of the 250 years that we've been in this country, and I was introduced to it as a boy.

But I also hunt because I like to eat meat that is lower in fat and cholesterol than beef or turkey, and I refuse to support an industry that treats animals like a car parts. Venison is healthy food that I am absolutely sure has been raised and slaughtered more sustainably, humanely, and cleanly than ANY commercially produced beef or poultry. Are you troubled by the vision of a deer in the back of a pickup truck? Try visiting the plant where your hamburger, chicken patty, or smoked trout was raised.

I also hunt because it's almost the only way (other than car accidents) that deer herds are managed: the predators were all slaughtered a century ago and the deer have big fat corn fields or big fat suburban McMansion gardens on which to dine. Google "Wisconsin" and "chronic wasting disease" to see what happens when deer herds grow unnaturally large. If you get upset at the idea of Bambi turned into sausage, try reintroducing coyotes into their natural habitat and see how you feel about your cat, dog, or toddler being dragged off into the woods by hungry carnivores.

We've screwed up the ecosystem, probably beyong repair: hunting is a humane way to keep it somewhat in balance. The fact that most hunters vote Republican is yet another example of the way that people will vote directly against their own interests if they continue to focus on misguided goals (in the case of too many hunters, protecting the Second Amendment while public lands and the rest of the Constitution disappear).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eal Lefties Hunt Posted by: christina
» RE: eal Lefties Hunt Posted by: Longhorn
» letters to the editor Posted by: Lizard
» RE: eal Lefties Hunt Posted by: Lizka
To Be Clear
Posted by: Longhorn on Jan 9, 2006 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I actually do support reintroducing predators into their former habitats, even -- or especially -- if it means that suburban developments are depopulated and returned to sustainable ecosystems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: To Be Clear Posted by: decembrist
» RE: To Be Clear Posted by: Longhorn
» RE: To Be Clear Posted by: decembrist
Hunting is an experience
Posted by: lamar on Jan 9, 2006 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish more people would hunt at least once in their lives. It is quite an experience. When you kill an animal yourself you can understand what it means to eat meat. When beef or chicken magically shows up in the grocery store, there is little connection with nature or our place in the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hunting is an experience Posted by: owleyes
Why the decrease in Hunters?
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 9, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would bet that the older a population gets the less members of that older population hunt.

They just get tired.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The things you lose
Posted by: gonzoskismet on Jan 9, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grew up as a peacenik teenager in the Sixties, vehemently opposed to killing animals in any way. Yet I scarfed burgers, fish sandwiches and meatloaf with the rest of my fellow Americans.
I came from a family of hunters yet I never fit in to that family. Oh, I would go with my father if he asked. Usually I sit on a deer stand once on the opening day of the season with a hang over and total apathy for a few hours. That was my annual committment to family and hunting.
Several years later, married with kids, living in a depressed part of America where ever penny counted, I learned to hunt with my father and found out that, although I did not enjoy the act of killing, I did enjoy the challenge of hunting an animal as wily and intelligent as deer are. You don't just go out in the woods and gun them down. Deer hunting, done properly, takes an enormous amount of time and patience. You have to learn to read the signs, know the territory, and plan a hunt. Later, I got into blackpowder because it provided a more even playing field between the deer and me. I got one shot, he got one chance to get away.
I got into hunting to feed my family. What I got out of it wasn't the joy of killing a defenseless animal, which deer are not. A buck in heat can kill a full grown man. What I really got out of it, though, was more precious than anything else. I got the know my father and enjoy being with him for a few short years. We didn't get along that well in the Sixties what with my rebellion and Anti-war stance. I treasure those years I spent hunting with him because he's gone now.
In the end, we had a hard time finding places to hunt. The rich hunters were leasing up all the land and you had to be in with the 'good ol'boys' to get in on the deal. My dad and I never were. So it all came to an end. He died and I haven't hunted since. But I raised a family on venison and I've got a lot of fond memories. Too bad it all came to this in the Land of the Free.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The things you lose Posted by: Lizard
» RE: The things you lose Posted by: christina
You won't find Ted Nugent or the NRA when it comes to issues like these
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 9, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ever notice that those folks will shy away from issues such as the ones discussed in the article when you try to talk to them about it? Folks, it's no different than the way these same "pro-lifers" talk about "life" before birth but cheer pro-death once born. The gun lobbyists will only toot the horn when it comes to simply getting their "bottom-line" but when it comes to fighting for a decent environment and land rights for hunting, fighting against land privatization isn't their priority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hunting is natural
Posted by: Northman on Jan 9, 2006 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in the far north where hunting is still more livelihood than sport. The Inuit and a fair number of us Qallunaaq hunt caribou and seal for food (and clothing). It makes better sense than flying up processed crap from thousands of miles away.

I've never had much use for trophy hunting, because it just seems wasteful, but I also have little patience with the whole, "hunting is bad, don't hurt the poor little animals" crowd as well. Few people these days think about or have any concept of where their food comes from, meat or otherwise. As a result, they tend to be either hypocritical or just ignorant when it comes to the effects of their choices.

As mentioned above, hunting gets you right back into the natural world, at least what's left of it. For that reason alone, hunting is something to be experienced and understood rather than condemned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hunting is natural Posted by: YogiBear
Hunting and Gathering are human traits.
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jan 9, 2006 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've been hunter gathers for thousands of years. In today's world you need to be just to survive. The cost of food is going up faster than wages. Hunting as a matter of survibval isn't a bad thing if you use all the animal taken. Just a wall mount is disrespectful to the animal taken. When folks hunted private land in the old days the hunters shared with the land owner there was 'relationship'. Today there's not much. Some folks,if they gey permission, blast anything that moves. These peopel are'nt hunters. They have no respect for the land,they prey,or the landowners. Done correctly a 'hunt' is a contract with the hunter and the prey.
The prey willingly gives up it's life,in return for a humane kill,the hunter and their family gets too eat. Not everyone who hunts is successful. That's how it should be.
The real trouble comes from the game. PCB's have infected most of the water fowl. Mad Cow Disease's cousin is infecting the deer heards. The fish are deformed by mecury. What's going on with the animals is also happening to us. Hunting could survive,but are the game animals worth taking? People should always have the right to hunt and fish and gather foods to survive. Trophy Hunting is far from 'sport'. Sport Ranches have their animals captive. That's definately not sport. The animals know when the hunter's are in the woods.
We make alot of noise and our scent carries on the wind. Plus some drunken stumble bum that can't hit a bucket two feet away, will get sick of freezing in a tree stand,throwing up on his gun, and leave hunting to the People that respect their Prey and the Landowners and the sacrifice their quary makes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some hunting is necessary.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 9, 2006 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't speak about other species, but there is one in the California foothills that hunters definately need access to hunt: deer. We've wiped out the deer's natural preditor, wolves, and so the deer population has skyrocketed. This has resulted in destruction to property, automobile accidents and deaths on backroads, and for many of the deer, an agonizing slow death from starvation and freezing in the harsh Sierra winter.

Properly-regulated deer hunting culls the herd to maintainable levels, in the long run benefitting both the hunter and the hunted. I know that it may be hard for some environmentalists (I consider myself one; I don't hunt but my dad did, for the reasons mentioned above, and for meat, not for trophy) to understand this, but by destroying nature's ability to limit the deer population, we now have to take over nature's stewardship. I'm sure that this applies to other species as well.

What is important is to teach people the environmantal reasons for hunting, to move away from killing only for trophy, and to teach hunters proper marksmanship – how to kill with as little suffering to the animal as possible, and only when necessary. This is what my dad taught me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Some hunting is necessary. Posted by: christina
Death in Hunting
Posted by: biff777 on Jan 9, 2006 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the Northwest hunting in many places is still nothing but a male-bonding session, like 'bare-back mountain'. Waking up with your friends, getting extremely drunk, going out in the woods, & shooting unarmed animals.
In the Northwest you can tresspass, shoot an half an hour after hunting hours, get yelled at by the people there to stop, shoot blindly through the trees, shoot the land leaser through the heart, killing them, and not get arrested until a week later, with maybe no alcohol-drug testing the whole time.
In memory of Casey Lawson.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Death in Hunting Posted by: SDres11
» RE: Death in Hunting Posted by: YogiBear
CAN'T PLEASE EVERYONE
Posted by: symcokid on Jan 9, 2006 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We better enjoy hunting as we know it while we can because once "Big Brother" determines that they are'nt realizing all of the revenues possible, BEWARE. They will invoke more new rules and regulations to govern just as they do in every other facet of our existence. Better yet, let the insurance companies set the guidelines, car/deer accident claims will be minimized and then they will be able to lower their rates. Either way we hunters come out ahead of the game, the DNR appeases all parties involved and the insurance companies will have more monies for Palatial Headquarter compounds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well said but you should have written this article a long time ago when
Posted by: SDres11 on Jan 9, 2006 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the same thing happened here in South Dakota where I've been living for 20 years. For praire farmers, it's always a lose lose situation every time they lose their land but in a fit of anger we have to find someone or something to target and these days it's the praire dogs. Never mind that we're losing both our property rights or for that matter the land needed to enjoy hunting as a result of blindly electing rightwing shitbrains election after election. And no, I did not vote for Thune in 2004.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lots of issues
Posted by: evermind on Jan 9, 2006 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a great article that hits a lot of issues and makes me think a lot. A few thoughts, after having deleted my long argument against hunting as a sport.

My friend, similarly to an earlier post, notes that she doesn't allow people to hunt on her land (except a few known-responsible individuals) for liability reasons; in New York, as in many states, the landowner is liable for anything that happens (including to trespassers, regardless of posted "no trespassing" signs).

That said, it seems that this, and many other issues I've discussed with people of all political stripes, comes down to, "if everyone was reasonable and responsible like they used to be, this wouldn't be an issue." The differences arise in how to deal with it, splitting on emotionally-driven lines of other issues like gun control, hunting vs. animal rights, and private land rights.

I think the problems are really human overpopulation and an old (new?), ignorant way of thinking about nature. People in this culture believe they own land and animals. It is an arrogant viewpoint that they can do what they will with their environment (of which people are a part) and engineer away any problems. We are a species that, unlike most, pass traits not just by genetics but by technology, and not just by generation but laterally within generations. We have responsibilities to uphold with these traits if we want our environment, of which we are a part, to be close to what it used to be only fifty years ago. There has to be some accountability beyond "I paid for it with my money so I have the right to do what I want" in land use management, animal management, environmental regulations, pollution, garbage production, grocery bags....

There has to be a fundamental shift in the culture for the culture to survive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rural areas not the only herds in need of thinning
Posted by: owleyes on Jan 9, 2006 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course we understand that the populations of various species have exceeded their natural limits, and now something must be done. The solution to this problem naturally would be to slaughter a certain percentage of offending populations every year. This logic also holds with our urban poor. It's nothing personal. Poor people take up resources that could be used to enhance the well-being of middle class kids who were born for a purpose. My dad used to hunt deer. Even if he didn't get a deer, he would always shoot a hawk or a coyote or something. If it crossed his path while he was packing, he would usually kill it. He had an itchy trigger finger, you see. He liked to make full use of his God-given privilege to dominate nature. He wasn't really much of a man, he was more of a salesman actually, but killing creatures, mutilating their corpses and so forth, helped him feel like a man, which is what he wanted to be. Think how therapeutic it could be for emasculated white boys like my dad to go to one of these long-neglected housing projects (or even shanty towns, I hear we're getting some of those, now) and become involved with quality of life efforts there. Of course, everything would be highly regulated, each loss of life treated with dignity and faithfully recorded. Each tag would be issued for a certain number of kills, and anything beyond that would be subject to heavy penalties. It would all be very humane. Their skins would be used to make lampshades, their bling melted down to make bullets. It sounds distasteful, and if conservatives were put in charge of it, it probably would be. That's why progressives should put themselves in charge of these operations, to make sure the program stays within its prescribed boundaries and is administered with maximal professionalism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hello, Mr. Swift. Posted by: ABetterFuture
I like elk, not steak...
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Jan 9, 2006 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I spent my time hunting in Oregon with one thing in mind: one shot, one long yearling cow. Had no need for a trophy or the hunt, just needed the meat for the freezer for another year.

I am a Democrat and will always be one. This article speaks volumes about what is a very good solution to pleasing the vast well of interests that this problem encompasses. I have many other friends of the same mind set that do not hunt at all, but share another common mind set: We are all here together; pissing off the people with guns is always a bad idea.

While a few hunters may pay little attention to how their actions affect the image of hunting, a great many more do. The discipline and respect I see from most of the hunters I have been around in a day moves far beyond what some PETA members show in a year.

I see the people that complain so verbally about this issue in the same light as I see pro-life, anti-abortion advocates: They want to throw a law and a line at something that has far deeper ramifications and complexities than can be solved in a single swipe. This requires individual effort from everyone one of us to be beneficial to those that are to be protected.

If we want to truly shoulder the burden of freedom; it is up to each one of us to demand more from those around us. The wanton destruction of all living things and our planet dictate that we actively shun those that behave recklessly. An example of behaving recklessly is allowing four to five hundred thousand deer to starve to death every year from over population of the herds. Is it humane to allow an animal to propagate unchecked to the point of extinction via starvation and death on our highways? We all live here together. I am the smarter one in the food chain right now. My reckless behavior might be pretending that hunting down a defenseless animal is inhumane; it takes a little more thought than that.

We should not accept the illicit behavior, period. I tend to ignore the voices of those that do not respect basic human or animal tendencies, or offer themselves up as a better example of human, or even take the human out of the picture.

I am thankful for the beauty of the animal that will provide an entire winters’ worth of food for my family, just like I would for an ear of corn. Speak for it all to us or leave us alone.

That’s my soapbox; respect mine, and I’ll respect yours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I like elk, not steak... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: I like elk, not steak... Posted by: owleyes
» RE: I like elk, not steak... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: I like elk, not steak... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: I like elk, not steak... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: I like elk, not steak... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: I like elk, not steak... Posted by: YogiBear
Deer Hunting in Rural NY
Posted by: saramarie on Jan 9, 2006 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Around where I live, deer season is huge. There's still a lot of land where people can hunt, I guess. There are a lot of woods. It's interesting to see someone mention how hunting affects rural economies... in my small, rural city, all of the businesses serving breakfast boomed, I know that. I work at a Dunkin, and we probably sold more donuts to hunters and their families around opening day than we sold on any major holiday. I'd say twice as many as Christmas. The local diners were hopping, too.

Oh, by the way, I don't see why people get their panties in a twist over hunting. It's not just a sport, it's for food, too. I have met many families who are very poor and use the deer they bag to provide themselves with venison throughout the winter, which is important considering how much less money is kicking around in this season (especially this year!). Plus, instead of eating meat that was slaughtered in a factory and probably suffered there while still living, deer roam free until they get shot by a hunter or end up on someone's windshield. There's more respect for the animal that becomes your meal in hunting, too. What's so wrong with it, then?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Deer Hunting in Rural NY Posted by: YogiBear
No Recognition of Native Americans
Posted by: ccnygal13 on Jan 9, 2006 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Cherokee, I urge the public to recognize that the land, the animals, have been apart of our community only to be taken from us by those who live today. These animals were never yours to "hunt". The hunters of today lack any spiritual understanding and relationship to the animals they kill, place on walls, make money off of, and eat. I think it is good that they can no longer hunt. The progressives should not take up their issue but the real issue of how our animals--and land--are being used. However, what has been done, has been done. There is still one animal left that is truly ours, the buffalo. There are still many genetically pure buffaloes (meaning their DNA is not mixed with cattle) that exist in Yellowstone National Park. They have been refused to the indigenous people for us to utilize once again as a major facet of our culture, history, and teaching. Perhaps there is a thread of something that moves you to hunt, a primordial pull, a reconnection back to Earth. However, you must recognize that you do not own anything as anything can be taken from you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hate the idea of hunting, but---
Posted by: bambic on Jan 9, 2006 11:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grew up in L.A. with the nickname of Bambi and the whole concept of hunting was totally unacceptable to me, until I moved to Arkansas.
The hunters I have met are living, like myself, way below the poverty level, and what they kill they eat. The meat is pure, no growth hormones, no anti-biotics or other chemicals have been fed to these animals.
I could never kill a deer myself, but when a neighbor brings me a venison roast, I am in no position to turn it down, though because of my name, I do feel somewhat like a cannibal...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IF YOU WANT TO HUNT ANOTHER CREATURE...
Posted by: Newtopia on Jan 9, 2006 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...YOU SHOULD FIRST BE HUNTED YOURSELF, TO SEE WHAT IT FEELS LIKE.

SICK BASTARDS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The signs say NO HUNTING!
Posted by: Againstthewindwalking on Jan 9, 2006 11:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I spent a week painting and hanging them last year! Here's why! I have an old Ford truck. Some might think it doesn't looks like much but but it's mine, and it ran like a top untill some trigger-happy yokel put three 30-06 rounds into the engine block! He was real easy to see! He was wearing a bright orange vest! I chased him through the woods untill I got ahead of him, stepped out in front of him and let him stare down the barrel of my .44 magnum for a minute before I asked him the relavent question. "Why?"

"Hell it's just an old truck!" the 'sportsman' declared! "I didn't see no harm in it!"

I took him back to my old truck and showed him the five coats of hand-rubbed laquer, completely redone interior, and freshly rebuilt flathead Ford V8 with three bullet hole through the block. I showed him the 1952 Ford F1 front fender that I spent three days restoring. It was destroyed in less than 2 seconds! Still this clown stood and argued to the fact that because he was a hunter that he should have the right to blast away at anything he damned well pleased because he had a hunting lisence. I finally had to sue to get my truck repaired and some people seem top think I overstepped my rights for, "Raising so much hell about an old Ford truck". Most of the people who have this opinion are hunters.

The sign says NO HUNTING! Come on my property with a gun, leave on a stretcher! Hunters don't seem to have an once of respect for anything or anyone if there's a deer to be shot! Don't even get me started about my uncle who lost six dairy cows, or the poor motorist that hit two of them at thirty miles an hour in a Honda civic! Why? A trespassing hunter left the gate open! THAT'S WHY!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The signs say NO HUNTING! Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: The signs say NO HUNTING! Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
» RE: The signs say NO HUNTING! Posted by: YogiBear
It's the Developers! Not the Hunters!
Posted by: PP on Jan 9, 2006 11:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have to be very careful here when criticizing hunters. I don't like killing either, but many of us eat fish, chicken and cows, which are farmed and killed so we all can eat. The fact is that hunters through their lobbying efforts have helped preserve many wild and natural areas that would have gone to "development". Developers and corporate industries are the real enemy - not the hunters. Hunters are much more educated today, and we now have laws, too. A hundred years ago Americans pretty much shot anything that moved, and there were no laws to protect wild creatures. The real issue here is preserving habitat from development, and in that, the hunters are on our side. Hunters don't destroy wetlands, and hunters don't indiscrimately cut down forests for profit. And they don't necessarily shoot wolves, coyotes and bears that wander onto their private property. And hunters are restricted to hunting fowl and game that are deemed healthy populations. If there are endangered birds and wildlife, it is due to development. It is the arctic birds who are losing food sources due to global warming, shorebirds that have lost off-shore nesting and migrating songbirds who have lost their forested protection. The solution is to join together to restrict private development, making it clear to the citizens of this nation that we can no longer afford to do whatever we want with land, even if we own it. Take away the incentives for development! Of course, there are hunters who shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun, but there are people who shouldn't be allowed behind a car either. Once the habitat is gone, it's nearly impossible to regain it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» OK THEN... Posted by: Newtopia
While we're at it, let's save date rape too!
Posted by: rentstrike on Jan 9, 2006 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The exploitation of animals is the model upon which all forms of oppression among humans have been based. Speciesism and sexism are so closely linked -- in history, ideology, and practice -- that some people consider them two sides of the same coin. It's truly astonishing that AlterNet would publish something suggesting that progressives ought to save hunting. To me, this is like a plea for progressives to save the sport of date rape. Those frat boys have always done it. It's a tradition in their culture. Plus, they get so much out of it. Never mind that, like hunters, they are doing something to somebody else's body without permission. Let them have their fun!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]