Jim Beers: The Demise of Hunting

- A LETTER TO THE WASHINGTON POST -

The Washington Post front-page article in the 11 February edition is more a
celebration of New Age mores and wishes than a serious piece about the
future of hunting. It is certainly newsworthy to examine the drop in
numbers of hunters in Virginia in the past decade but your assertions are
flavored with assumptions that cater to hidden agendas and anti-hunting
campaigns.

It is indisputable that there is a drop in numbers of hunters and that
anti-hunter and non-hunter campaigns have intimidated adults and individuals
from sharing their experiences and the reasons they hunt. To jump from this
to the dour predictions of no hunting in Culpeper County "in 25 years" or
that state bureaucrats "don't know where those (sic, 'threatened and
endangered') dollars will come from if we don't have people buying (sic,
hunting) licenses" is poetic license and pandering to say the least.

First, a decrease in hunters of the range noted exceeds the "loss of
habitat" you attribute it to. For the record, "loss of habitat" is not
"language borrowed from endangered species advocates": the term was used to
justify National and State Wildlife Refuges 100 years ago. The fact is that
fewer hunters means more game, longer seasons and more land availability for
the remaining hunters. It means less competition for leases and therefore
possibly lower costs. It means less competition on public lands. As any
fisherman or canoeist or trapper (or many other outdoorsy types will also
attest), more isn't always better when it comes to competition.

To picture this as an absolute line on the chart is arrogance to say the
least. Returning military veterans, economic changes, unpredictable
cultural swings (yes, even the vaunted environmental and animal rights
movement will eventually subside culturally) and simple human nature and
religious practice all change our culture unbidden by human forecasts.
Hunting, like fishing and trapping and animal ownership and grazing and
logging are freedoms we enjoy in this great nation and as long as there are
renewable natural resources and our animals don't impinge on others these
are freedoms to be preserved in a Republic like ours that is the envy of the
world. In other words, if the numbers of hunters halve, that ought not be
any reason for eliminating it. As long as there are animals available to
hunt and people desiring to hunt them, the sport or call it what you will
should be as healthy as Americans want it to be.

However, this requires mention of the four unmentioned groups that love
these speculative and ubiquitous articles about the demise of hunting:

1.) Anti-gun folks smile thinking about how it appears hunting will
disappear. Why? Because once the argument about the "need" for hunting
guns goes away, gun bans like Chicago and Washington, DC should be a snap.

2.) Environmentalists are hopeful that this significant use of animal and
public land will disappear so that their Wilderness Declarations and
specious habitat claims and easement purchases and land purchases and power
over human outdoor activities will have one less opponent, hunters.

3.) Animal Rights advocates jump for joy as they imagine the hunt-free
future for obvious reasons. Hunters and associated hunter support groups
are outspoken opponents of radical proposals from banning animal use to
making animals non-property and even giving them "rights".

4.) Bureaucrats and their contractors (who obviously helped write this
piece) are the biggest secret advocates of this whole "the hunting sky is
falling" myth. Why? Money & Power. Your reference to the "worry" about
future funding for state agencies is a poorly masked Budget Proposal for
urban commuters and Federal politicians to use to start Federal Appropriated
funding for state wildlife programs. Such funding is slated to start in the
Millions and soon move into Billions annually. It will go to Federal
agencies to dole out to State agencies. The "strings" on the funds will be
reminiscent of Gulliver's Travels. The preceding three groups all support
this leap of Federal power and diminishment of state authority. State
agencies will become subcontractors to Federal power and no longer work for
state governments and state residents. Like Highway Departments and
Education Departments, state influence will wane until it is a mere figment
of what "used to be".

So here is a novel suggestion. Let hunter numbers go where they will and
state agencies charge what state politicians will allow (at risk of not
getting reelected) for licenses. If that is not enough to pay for the
current staffs of state bureaucracies then do what we do with armies when
there is little international threats or what we do with teachers when
student numbers decline, reduce the staffs to meet the level of support
necessary to maintain the state responsibility. As to the various
subspecies and races and populations of the "species" we all claim to be so
concerned about: keep them under state authority and let each state decide
if they are in need of or worth any attention and then they can be funded or
not in line with the priorities of available state funds by the politicians
elected by state residents. Keep the Federal nose in Washington where it
belongs and out of the state "tents". That has worked just fine for 200
years. What an idea!

Hunting is fine. I for one appreciate less competition and look forward to
longer seasons and increased bags. Soon enough urban/suburban voters will
once again realize the benefits (cost-wise and budget-wise) of hunting the
geese that make them sick and the deer that kill and maim and infect them.
Hunting is the most effective and least costly means of control and those
facts cannot be kept politically incorrect and secret forever. When that
time comes, new methods and acceptable traditions will once again be spoken
of in schools by young hunters and at parties as folks mention someone they
know who traps or someone that had them over for a game dinner. No trends
are immutable, in spite of what "researchers" and "data" would have us
believe.

Jim Beers

13 February 2007

Rumors About the Demise of Hunting

(Are Greatly Exaggerated)