|
|
QDMA Articles : An Ecological Argument for Hunting
by Dr. R. Larry Marchinton and Dr. Karl V. Miller
QDMA
 There are those of us who prefer to live the life of the hunter/gatherer-taking at least some of our sustenance in the natural way our ancestors did over the 100,000 years prior to the agricultural and industrial revolutions. Is this wrong? Is this something to be discouraged in our modern society? We do not think so.
At current harvest rates, use of the renewable products of natural plant and animal communities is much less damaging to the ecosystem than it would be to change these natural communities into agricultural fields or factories to produce the food we need. In the United States roughly 3 million white-tailed deer are harvested each year from a still-growing population of approximately 19 million. This translates to about 150 million pounds of meat. Add to this the amount of elk, turkey, squirrel, rabbit and other game as well as wild fruits, nuts, and vegetables that is consumed. To produce this amount of beef, chicken, or vegetable crops in addition to that which is already produced would be ecologically devastating. Acres and acres of wild places would have to be destroyed to accommodate this increased agricultural production. More wildlife habitat would have to be plowed under. More pesticides would be applied. More soil erosion would occur. More waterways would become lifeless drainage ditches. Isn't it better that some of us reap a sustained harvest from natural systems, rather than destroy these systems?
Some may argue that producing the gasoline, shells, etc., necessary to hunt is more environmentally damaging than just buying our meat, fruits, and vegetables in the store. To this we would say-maybe, but we all will do some kind of recreation whether it is going to a movie, playing golf, attending football games, or bird watching. These require as much or more gasoline and other environmentally expensive and/or damaging products as hunting. Golf appears to be an environmentally benign sport, but consider the wildlife habitat destroyed for 18 holes. Consider also that golf courses are among the most heavily pesticided lands-fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides. Our recreation uses the natural environment, while other recreational activities replace it, often with a man-made environment that can never be restored to its original condition. We as hunters may use it, but they destroy it. And, since our recreation requires a natural environment, we are, and always have been, one of the primary agents responsible for preserving the natural environment from those who would convert it to a man-made environment.
The world's population has gone far too high to allow all or even most of its people the option of being hunter/gatherers, but those that can and prefer to use renewable, naturally produced resources in a sustainable manner certainly should be encouraged. Is it not better to participate in the natural system, rather than destroy it completely? When we obtain both our recreation and some of our sustenance from natural (i.e., non-agricultural) systems we believe the environment comes out the clear winner in most cases. What do you think?
|
|
 |
 |
