Post
by timmy » Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:57 pm
Regarding hunting on its own merits, I think that as the "caretakers" of the planet, and also as the ones who make the largest impact on it, I believe we human beings are obligated to care for all forms of life here.
Even if one does not take such a position, it seems to me to be plain common sense that we human beings would manage Earth and all of its life and resources in a way that best benefits ourselves and future generations.
While these two statements seem to be different, I believe that at the core, they are the same.
As someone who has studied some biology and genetics, it's plain to me that even those small plants and animals in the darkest recesses of the rain forests -- you know, the ones that people with a hyper-development attitude sneer at -- have great value. The most famous example of the usefulness of all forms of life comes from medical research, where medicines are commonly developed by examining how some organism protects itself by producing some protective protein. Researchers examine this protein and its activities, and then produce it or a modified form for medicine that can result either in a new cure or at least a treatment for some illness.
I would observe here that, whatever one's political or business viewpoint, a person who is beset by a grave illness is all for a cure.
All the forms of life on this planet form a great treasure house of resources, of which we actually know very little. The loss of any one of them may well have impacts we cannot foresee.
Given these facts, I would next point out that there are 6.5 billion people on Earth and within a few years, we are expected to reach 10 billion people. We simply cannot afford to be carrying on as if we lived in the days when there were, say, 500 million people. We make too many demands individually, and as the lifestyles of many become more affluent around the world, the demand per individual also increases. On a per individual basis, we all are demanding more oil and energy, more food, more copper and iron and other raw materials, and more synthetics that come from a variety of sources.
Many of these resources come from taking over, or "developing" land that has previously been "wild," or used by other creatures.
The fact here is that humans are increasingly crowding out animal and plant life from this planet and this is not being accomplished with a gun!
In fact, when I lived in New Jersey for a couple of years, they had a very anti-gun and anti-hunting legal structure. There were no predators, and the deer, to take one species, had so over-populated the state that they were great pests. It was quite common to see many road-killed deer on the side of the road, since their population had grown so great.
Is is moral to kill a deer with a car, but not with a gun? Then if the morality of the deer being killed is the issue, ought not the law give the same protection to the deer from both car and gun?
From my perspective, we simply cannot manage a planet with 6.5 billion, let alone 10 billion, by the principle of preserving all life, regardless. The story of Albert Schweitzer protecting the cockroaches hiding in his piano is laudable, but simply doesn't reflect the way nature works. Tigers, for instance, kill cattle and other animals for food. Birds eat insects. Big fish eat smaller fish. To try to alter this is simply impossible.
At rock bottom, all living things depend on killing and eating autotrophs for life. Only those living things that make their own energy from non-living sources, such as plants that use sunshine and chemicals to live, sustain their lives without depending on the death of something else. This is, besides being a belief, a fact. It is an unpleasant fact to some, but that's the way life works, none the less. We humans have to kill something to live.
The odd thing here is that many plants also rely on their own deaths to live. Many plants propagate by "encouraging" animals to kill and eat them, and in the process their seeds are spread to keep the plant species viable.
Maize (which we Americans call "corn") was genetically developed by Ancient Native Americans from just such a plant. But the result, the maize plant, cannot survive without the aid of mankind.
If we are to maintain life on Earth at these levels for all, humans are simply going to have to be in the business of deciding what lives and what dies. Most of humanity rejects this in the case of other human beings, except maybe when triage in case of disaster or war. But as some have pointed out and the case of New Jersey shows, wild animal populations are increasingly needing human intervention in order to survive the intense competition from human populations.
Simply ignoring this and letting animal species die out due to human "development" and neglect is no more moral than any other form of their demise, despite providing a convenient way of dodging the responsibility of all humans in this sad situation.
In the USA, there are Republicans and Democrats, religious and atheist, pro-development and pro-environmental -- in short, there are people of every stripe of belief. But the fact is that the groups that lay out the BIG MONEY -- as opposed to just talking and serving on committees -- are hunters.
No group I can think of has achieved such spectacular results in the field of wildlife preservation as the waterfowl hunters of the USA and Canada. Funding for the preservation of wildlife habitat, studies to discover the best way to support a healthy, vigorous population of birds -- this has largely come from the pockets of hunters.
Similar situations are found in other areas of wildlife management and hunting.
So, the question is, how is a nation going to manage its resources? Both India and the USA are fortunate in that they are large countries, and in most cases can make effective decisions about wildlife management on their own. However, when populations of wildlife range across national borders, only international cooperation can solve the problems associated with survival for these animals.
The question here is, how is it going to work in a world that is increasingly shrinking? How will agreements be reached between populations, both national and international, that have different values and beliefs? In some cases, the idealistic best can be the worse enemy of the achievable good, and we must all ask ourselves, how can at least some form of conservation be supported in a way that will preserve the variety and diversity of life on this planet?
In a nutshell, personally I don't think it's enough to state what we believe in order for the problem to be solved. We must get something done. And in this vein, proposed solutions have to be practical to be useful: They must RUMBA! They must be:
Reasonable
Understandable
Measurable
Believable
Achievable
And with that, I will pass the floor on to the next person.
“Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”
saying in the British Royal Navy
and snake and alligators do taste like white meat/chicken. 
