Hunters Rights -vs- Animal Rights
By: R. Joseph Fargo – 5/1/2003

I confess that this is an issue that has baffled me somewhat. I understand Human rights; after all, they are guaranteed in this Nations Bill of Rights. However, where do these people come up with the notion that Animals have rights? Does the constitution guarantee them the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? After extensive research, I can find no relevant information concerning constitutionally protected animal rights.

I am not advocating the inhumane treatment or the mass slaughter of animals here: quite the opposite. On the other hand, how is it that some people feel that the rights of the animals should be protected over the rights of the Humans that share their habitat? Such an absurd notion as this can only be the brain child of extremist liberals who would have us believe that as stewards of our environment we have the responsibility to protect each and every animal, no matter the cost, including the sacrifice of human life and habitat.

On the other hand, the extremist conservatives would have us believe that anyone should be able to kill as many animals, of any type that they wish, and at any time they desire even to the point of extinction. While both opinions hold some level of truth, they both lack the responsible answers that must be addressed to provide a common sense solution to this issue.

Obviously, we cannot have people out hunting everything in sight, as this would soon deplete our wildlife resources to levels dangerous to our environment. Unbelievably, our environment demands a proper balance of animals in order to keep our ecosystem in check. After all, without plant eating animals the plants would soon over grow the habitat and present a severe fire hazard. Without insects, dead and rotting plants would simply clutter the floors of our forests and take much longer to decay and return to the soil. Without insect eating animals, our insect populations would grow unchecked. Without meat eating animals, plant eating animal populations would grow unchecked and so on.

To better understand the debate at hand we should take a closer look at the viewpoints of these two very polarized groups:

Animal Rights Group Beliefs:

Hunting is a dying sport: Only 5 percent of Americans hunt; this being down from 13 percent in 1988. Anti-hunters instruct that if this trend continues, hunters will become extinct by 2050. (They credit the efforts of various animal rights groups for this downturn in hunting.) I suppose the logic here is that since the numbers of active hunters are declining, this MUST make the anti-hunting groups correct in there views and opposition.

Hunters are demons: Those who oppose all hunting consider hunting to be immoral in any form. Where opinions form facts, they call hunting an inhumane sport that promotes the cruel and sadistic torture and extermination of so called defenseless animals. Few statistical facts are ever given to support these statements, but that does not dim the rhetoric in the least. Where facts do not support their position, they simply ignore them and scream the louder, as though volume will justify their deceit and somehow change the facts to support their views.

Something’s wrong with hunters: According to the anti-hunting group, there must be something dreadfully wrong with an individual that wants to go out and kill something. The common claim here is that they are murderers and sadists. Who else would do something like hunting a poor defenseless animal? They even quote two psychiatrists who agree with their moral convictions. (Dr. Karl Menninger of the Menninger Clinic describes hunting as the product of "erotic sadistic motivation." Dr. Joel R. Saper, a University of Michigan professor believes hunting "may reflect a profound yet subtle psychosexual inadequacy.")

Hunting damages wildlife: More than just the animals hunted, the entire ecosystem surrounding the hunted animal is also damaged. According to the ANTIHUNTER’S INFORMATION PAGE, "the sport of hunting game animals paradoxically causes an increase in the population of these game animals resulting in the reduction of available food in the habitat for the remaining species of non-game animals". In other words, by killing deer (particularly male deer), the result is that the population of deer increases because there are more female deer, which increases the birthrate. As this population of deer increases, available food is depleted by the deer population resulting in the mass extermination of all animals in the area that are dependent on the same food source. This results in a boom population followed by mass starvation and annihilation.

Wildlife agencies create a surplus of game animals: Here the claim is that by only allowing male animals to be hunted, the male to female ratio is skewed from a 1/1 ratio to a 8/1 ratio of female to male deer resulting in natures inability to adjust the sizes of the herds on its own. (Most states restrict hunting to male deer.)

Hunting isn’t needed to control deer populations: As referenced in the previous point, the anti-hunting groups contend that if left to its own, nature would manage the deer herds just fine without our help.

Hunting is Cruel to the animals being hunted: Hunting animals’ causes intense fear in the animals that are hunted resulting in trauma to the animal. That should be considered cruel by any measure.

Hunting is not a sport but long range murder: There is no sport in hunting, as the hunted do not have a chance. With the high-tech equipment available to the hunter, the deer do not have a chance against the hunter. The hunter needs merely sit and wait for a deer to come within range and then fire. The deer does not have a chance, as he never knows that the hunter is there. The bullet strikes the animal with such force that it is killed and never knows it has been shot. (This is somewhat confusing to me; in the previous point didn’t they say that the hunted are traumatized by the experience of being hunted? Now they are killed at such a great distance that they never know what hit them. Are they contradicting themselves here?)

For more information concerning the views of anti-hunting groups your can go to Animal Rights FAQs, Facts about animal rights groups, ANTI-HUNTER'S INFORMATION PAGE or Anti-hunting Resource Site.

What is the hunter’s position?

Human Characteristics: Hunters believe that hunting is not just a cultural characteristic of humans but that it is an inherent trait bread into every human, though many subcultures have been taught to suppress these urges. That as humans, we instinctively feel the need to hunt and only through constant training has this urge been suppressed by those opposed to its existence.

Hunting is Moral: The Hunter feels that the act of killing an animal somehow brings them closer to nature and therefore closer to God. They justify their act of killing animals as one of self-preservation. After all, what is the difference between you killing your own food or you hiring someone to do it for you? The result is the same, an animal is dead and your freezer is full. They contend that it is no more moral to buy your meat from the butcher (a hired animal killer) than for you to go out and kill the animal yourself.

Hunting is not Cruel to Animals: Hunters know that a sloppy shot is a missed opportunity for a kill, as you will not get a chance for a second shot. As a result, hunters are careful to kill the animal with their first shot. The hunter does not want the animal to suffer any more than it must and so tries to make a perfect shot killing the animal instantly. Anything less could result in the possibility of losing the animal.

Hunters further site that the humanity in hunting saves entire herds from prolonged suffering resulting from starvation caused by over population. They contend that it is much more humane to cause 30 seconds of suffering than for entire herds to starve to death, a process that could take several days to weeks.

Hunting is a sport: According to hunters deer have adapted over the years to the pressures placed on them by hunters making them harder to find and kill than in years past. Due to their keen abilities to avoid contact with hunters, technological advancements have been developed to give the hunter an edge over the deer. While the deer is not on an equal footing with the hunter in many respects the deer does have the upper hand against the hunter. The deer is much more familiar with the terrain, and has heightened senses that can warn of a hunter’s presence without the hunter being within visual range of the deer.

Hunters are friendly to the ecosystem: Hunters note that more money is raised each year for the preservation and conservation of animals and animal habitat than by any other group in the nation. By far, more money is raised by hunters than by the bunny kissing anti-hunting groups. Funds are collected through hunting licenses, gun and ammunition taxes, and through direct donations to conservation groups like: Ducks Unlimited, the National Wild Turkey Federation, Pheasants Forever, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. In addition to the money raised and donated by hunters, hunters also donate much of their free time to help maintain animal habitat. Hunters readily admit that they are selfish in their efforts as they wish to maintain their hunting habitat for their posterity.

For more information concerning the views of hunting groups your can go to On the Anti Hunting point of view, THROWING MORE FUEL ON THE HUNTING VERSUS ANTI-HUNTING FIRE, Hunting dollars at work or THE HUNTER AND CONSERVATION.

What is the truth?

As with most issues, the truth is not exclusive to any particular viewpoint. Each side on this issue makes valid points that should be considered by governing law. Lets further examine the facts on each of the talking points in depth from both camps as stated above without the rhetoric and opinion.

Hunting is a dying sport: While it is true that the number of hunters have declined over the past 15 years, the number of female hunters has increased. Many hunters explain the downturn in hunting as an economical issue. It is very costly to hunt big game typically costing up to $20 per pound for the meat harvested. The hunting habitat is continually decreasing due to encroachment of human habitat and government regulations. For these reasons many hunters have given up the sport for now, hoping that things will change so that they can renew their hunting endeavors.

Others blame the decline in the hunters’ ranks because of the anti-hunting terrorist groups becoming increasingly more violent towards hunters. These hunters fear an armed confrontation with one of these terrorists and choose to avoid hunting altogether. Fear of having to use their weapons in the defense of their lives causes them to remain at home instead of facing possible confrontation in the wild.

To say that hunting is not a natural human trait would be like denying that humans once lived in tents and caves. Humans have always been both hunters and gatherers. We hunt because it is in our nature. It is true that in 2003 most Americans have traded in the hunting of wild animals for hunting for a job, but they still hunt. Gangs in LA hunt each other, Wall Street money mongers hunt for the next big run on the market. We all hunt, and we are all born with a killer instinct. It has been trained out of some but it is still lingers there: take the war on Iraq as an example. To turn our back on hunting is to turn our back on who and what we are.

Hunters are demons: Hunters are no more demons than is your local butcher or gardener, for that matter. They each take something that is living and terminate its life so that those who consume it are nourished by its flesh. If hunters are to be demonized for providing meat for their families, will the local butchers be next? Will the anglers be the next target? After them, the ranchers? At the end of the road will the farmers that kill plants be the final target. Soon we will only be able to eat plants that can be harvested without killing the plant, as the Fruitarian Vegetarians would have us do. This level of thinking is madness, accusing a person of being bad simply because he is hungry or enjoys the taste of meat over vegetables. Merely disagreeing with someone’s point of view does not make them bad, just different. How is it that we are taught tolerance of racial differences and sexual preferences but have no tolerance of hunters or gun owners?

Something’s wrong with hunters: During the Truman era, people were labeled traitors if they were too liberal. It appears as though we have come full circle with those looking to conserve their American heritage being labeled sick and demented. We as a nation need to accept the fact that people are different and we must stop trying to force a particular point of view on the remaining masses. Those who feel that hunting is wrong should not hunt; however, they do not have the right to force others to agree with them.

Hunting damages wildlife: This claim is not without truth. Hunting damages wildlife resources. Every animal that is taken is a part of the wildlife as a whole and so it does damage wildlife to hunt. On the other hand, every time humans enter wildlife habitat for any reason, damage occurs. This is true of hunters, campers, hikers, etc. Humans damage almost everything they touch, and governments do a better job of hurting what they touch than anyone else. Besides, human beings are part of nature’s system, meaning that you cannot separate one from the other. Additionally, minute damage to the wildlife habitat caused by hunters is mostly self-repairing with inequities in nature eventually balance out in the end. So, what is the answer? Not to let anyone enjoy our forests? This is not a very realistic approach. Humans love to explore the out-of-doors and commune with nature in a way that makes them feel closer to their God. To deny them this right is unconscionable and goes against their right to freedom of religion. Perhaps we should instead teach children at an early age to respect their environment and those living things in it. Oops, sorry, lost my head for a moment; we can’t teach our children morals in school because this would violate the separation of church and state.

Wildlife agencies create a surplus of game animals: Isn’t this the point of having wildlife conservation agencies? In 1871, Congress established the U.S. Fish Commission to study the decrease of the nation’s food fishes and recommend ways to reverse their decline. In 1939, the Bureaus of Fisheries and Biological Survey were transferred to the Department of the Interior. In 1940, they were combined and named the Fish and Wildlife Service. The primary focus of the department of Fish and Wildlife Service is to maintain animal habitat for all wildlife using scientifically proven methods to govern their efforts. These scientifically proven wildlife management theorems are used to maintain the proper balance of animals in a habitat for the health of the habitat and the animals. Hunting is just one way of managing the numbers of animals in a habitat. Birth-control methods have been employed in several states, however most have abandoned these efforts, as they are too costly and difficult to administer.

Under the watchful eye of the department of Fish and Wildlife, animal populations have been brought from dangerously low levels in the early 1900s to reasonable herd sizes ensuring the longevity of these animals. According to the book "Restoring America's Wildlife" Mississippi's entire white-tailed deer herd in 1932 was estimated at a mere 7,357 animals. In 1993, just the harvest alone was 263,000 deer! In 1937, New Jersey reported a "harvest" of 2,173 deer. Its annual harvest exceeded 49,000 in 1993. Michigan's deer presence increased from 200,000 in 1974 to more than ONE MILLION by 1981. Colorado had 24,000 elk in 1943, in 1975 it had 105,000 elk and in 2003 the herd was over 280,000.

Though the animal rights groups claim that the Fish and Wildlife Service is only interested in promoting game animals the truth is quite different. In March of 2003 thanks to the efforts of the Fish and Wildlife Service the Gray Wolf's status was upgraded from "endangered" to the less serious "threatened" status under the Endangered Species Act. Gray wolves have now been successfully reintroduced into several wilderness areas in the Rockies, the Great Lakes, and the Bad Lands of New Mexico. Areas previously occupied by the gray wolf though previously hunted to extinction by farmers and ranchers.

 

Hunting isn’t needed to control deer populations: While nature does adjust the numbers of animals in a habitat on its own, it does so through starvation and disease; talk about an inhumane way of controlling animal habitat. Left to their own, most animals will continue to proliferate until the saturation level of the habitat is reached. This proliferation is necessary in order to ensure the survival of the species. Once the saturation levels are reached, the population of the species is controlled by predators, disease, and food supply. During the abundant years of a 7-10 year cycle, a small percentage of animals will die from disease, starvation and natural predators. Growing seasons cycle from abundant to lean. When left unchecked, a herd can be brought to near extinction during a year with a short growth cycle, which produces in less food available to support the now overgrown animal populations. As winter claims the land and stops the growing season, the competition for available food continues at normal levels resulting in the food being depleted well before the new growth begins. The complete depletion of food now results in the starvation of all the animals that depended on it.

So why not just provide food so the deer and elk populations don’t starve? While this may sound like a good solution, it too is not without its problems. According to the Idaho Fish and Game some of the problems that are presented by Big Game Winter Feeding include:

• Health Problems
• Depredation on nearby private lands
• Higher death rate in fawns
• Range damage around feeding sites
• Difficulty adapting to Human provided food
• Expense; more than $330,000 just in Idaho in 1989
• Death by Car, More deer in human habitat produce more deer and human fatalities resulting from car-deer collisions.

So, what is the problem with letting nature control this system as it has done for thousands of years? It could result in the extinction of an entire herd of animals rather than the few that are taken by hunters each year. The truth is that human hunters are part of the “natural” eco system. The difference between a pack of wolves and people is that people have a higher functioning brain that allows reason over greed to prevent the extinction of the hunted.

Hunting is Cruel to the animals being hunted: Is hunting any crueler than herding animals into a narrow chute and forcing them to watch and listen as professional butchers kill those animals further up in the line? I think not. As long as we condone the slaughter of animals for food, we should also support those who would slaughter their own food.

Hunting is not a sport but long range murder: Hunting is no more murder than is the wholesale slaughter of cattle. The primary difference is that animals in the wild have the opportunity to evade those who would slaughter them. A cow has no such opportunity. Humans are omnivorous and require protein for proper health. Meat is the best source known for this protein.

Support for Hunters: According to the anti-hunting groups several recent studies indicate that 51 to 73 percent of Americans oppose hunting for sport or recreation. This is in direct contradiction to the “Roper Starch Worldwide” 2002 survey, the results of which indicate that 77% of Americans agree that firearms have a place in society while 87% believe shooting sports are acceptable.

This is yet another example of the Liberals creating their own data to support their position since scientifically gathered data does not support their views.

How is the Department of Fish and Wildlife supported:

Almost all of the government’s conservation efforts are supported from taxes collected on the sales of hunting and fishing paraphernalia and from license and tag fees. The funds are used for fish, wildlife and habitat conservation. Additionally these funds support educational programs that promote wildlife and habitat conservation. The amounts collected by the government for animal and habitat conservation breaks down as follows:

• $150 million annually through federal excise taxes on guns and ammunition.
• $560 million annually through hunting licenses, tags, permits and stamps.
• $420 million annually through an excise tax on fishing equipment and boats.
• $481 million through the purchase of fishing licenses and permits.

Grand total: 1 billion 611 million dollars are available to the Department of Fish and Wildlife to be used for the management of our fish, wildlife and their habitat.

Additionally, from the $67.7 billion dollars spent on hunting and fishing equipment, 2.2 million industry related jobs are supported.

Conservation dollars raised by hunters:

In addition to monies raised through taxes and licensing fees, hunters donate their money to wildlife conservation groups as follows:

• Ducks Unlimited - $1.4 billion
• National Wild Turkey Federation - $130 million
• Pheasants Forever $100 million
• Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation - $150 million

These funds are used by these organizations to promote habitat for the animals that they are chartered to help. Again, these organizations do not attempt to hide their goal; instead they promote the population growth of the animals that they are chartered to protect. This will insure that these animals will be around for future generations of hunters to hunt, and others to enjoy.

Conservation dollars raised by anti-hunters / Animal rights activists:

While millions of dollars are raised by anti-hunter / animal rights groups I was unable to find any figures on how their monies are spent to support a healthy ecosystem and animal habitat. They are proud of the monies that they spend on legal fees to prevent hunters from enjoying their lawful sport but do not advertise how much they spend on conservation. For Instance; of the $2,476,790 that the “Doris Day Animal League” raised in 2001, 100% of their funds went to support their political agenda with nothing to help the animals that they claim are their priority. Looking at the “American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals” of the $24,534,917 that they spent in 2001, $5,148,810 went to support “Domestic Animal hospitals and clinics” the remaining going to overhead, reeducation programs, new animal legislation, and the enforcement of animal cruelty laws. Of the $13,867,001 that PETA spent in 2001, $3,621,076 was spent on investigating cruelty to domestic animals and providing victim domestic animals with safe harbor. Nothing, however, was spent on the conservation of wild animals. The “Defenders of Wildlife” spent $27,639,727 on programs in 2001, but not a single penny on wildlife or habitat conservation. While these animal rights groups all claim to be friends to the animals, none are directly helping the animals. They instead focus their efforts on passing legislation that forces others to do this for them.

Additionally, I have found several references sighting that some animal rights groups have successfully diverted monies raised by hunting and fishing taxes and license fees away from conservation efforts so that they are able to continue their legal battle that promotes their myopic point of view. See FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE'S MANAGEMENT OF THE FEDERAL AID PROGRAM.

Animals rights groups’ further display their contempt for all humans by contributing funds to violent extremist groups that illegally promote their animal rights agenda through intimidation and vandalism.

PETA payouts to violent radicals include:

• $5,000 to Josh Harper, who was convicted of assaulting police and firing on a fishing vessel;
• $2,000 to Dave Wilson, convicted of firebombing a fur cooperative;
• $7,500 to Fran Trutt, convicted of attempted murder of a medical executive;
• $20,000 to Rodney Coronado, convicted of burning a research lab at Michigan State.

In 2002 - PETA's tax-exempt status came under scrutiny by the IRS, due to their history of criminal activity.

Conclusion:

Hunting is more than just a long-standing American tradition. As stewards of the earth, humans have a responsibility to maintain our ecosystem not only for today but for tomorrow as well. While hunting was first introduced to this country as a means of acquiring food, it has been maintained as a viable means of controlling animal populations ever since. This, coupled with the revenues that are generated from hunting promotes an industry that thrives on the maintenance of a healthy ecosystem.

Ask any hunter about wildlife conservation and they will tell you that it is the single most important concern they have regarding wildlife. When asked why, their response will disappoint the animal rights groups and may even sound a little selfish but at least honest. “We wish to maintain healthy animal populations through hunting so that our grandchildren will have animals to hunt 100 years from now.” This sounds very similar to what is said by the animal rights groups, “We must protect our animals from hunters so that our grandchildren will be able to enjoy them.” With only minor differences in these messages, they appear to deliver a very similar point; we must save our wildlife and their habitat for future generations to enjoy.

So what should we do? Leave the wildlife management to professional environmental scientists who keep close track of how many animals a habitat can sustain. Then rely on tried and true methods to control the habitat and its animal population. If the dinosaurs were properly managed, they may not be extinct today.