Originally Posted by 700-223
Allow hunting by draw, open and equal access to all, drop hunters off at randomly drawn sites and allow the use of vehicles only to the nearest access point (road) for the retrieval of game if an animal is harvested. No race to find the herd, chasing animals all over etc, tracking up the park. Or park officials to provide packhorses/transportation of game back to vehicles to minimize environmental impact. Jump gates won't lower the population enough and will irritate surrounding farmers though could be done in addition to allowing hunting, and effectiveness and ethics of hunt should be compared to the only reasonable alternative - a cull. In other words, the least environmentally damaging and disruptive manner possible consistent with a park.
IMO, there is nothing incompatible about hunting with national parks - they exist to preserve wilderness for us and future generations. Hunting should be used to enhance and maintain the health of our parks, if closely regulated to minimize the impact on other users. The idea that nature will take care of itself is ludicrous. Extinction events are natural, so are population booms and busts, as are people! We have altered the landscape (as do all organisms), so we need to begin seeing ourselves as part of nature and begin to intentionally minimize and mitigate unsustainable conditions around us.
Seems to me that some hunters are guilty of elitism. If your hunt doesnt fit what they think is right, they look down at you. In my opinion, they are one-percenters of a different kind.
A major reason behind the North American model of wildlife management is to maintain healthy game populations and ecosystems. Given there is overpopulation of elk in this park causing damage to grazing conditions and increased risk of disease amongst the species, this is about reducing elk numbers. This is in fact part of the major purpose behind every hunting season in North America i.e. sustainable harvest. Annual hunting can vary from inadequate to control population to unsustainable from area to area and species to species. The hunting season is limited to minimize stress to the animals and to minimize losses to hunting, but what do we do when annual losses to age, predation, hunting, and other causes are inadequate to control a population to the detriment of the ecosystem? The idea of "fair chase" is part of this as well. There is nothing inherently ethical about hiking further, giving the animal a greater chance of escape, increasing your risk of not harvesting an animal during hunting season, and not hunting year round other than its beneficial effects on wildlife management. Taken to the extreme, this attitude leads to stupid statements like, "give the bear a fair chance and take him on with a knife." Part of the reason for "fair chase" ethics is to limit hunting success rate and annual harvest.
"Fair chase" and using what you take is of course also about respecting the animals and the environment that we all share, but as long as the hunting conditions mandated maintain a sustainable population of game another species it's ethical. Do it legally, safely, and minimize the chance of undue suffering for the animal. Do it in pink multicam with a semiautomatic Garand for all I care. The number of hunters, harvest rate, game numbers and changes to the environment should determine legal hunting methods, not aesthetic concerns. In a case like this, there is nothing wrong with a high success rate hunt. The money from tags can be put to conservation and habitat maintenance, the GMO/Abx/GH free organic game can be eaten, and the health of the herd and the park ecosystem improved. The idea that subsistence hunting is more ethical than big game hunting in the backcountry on foot (and using the consumable meat) than shooting a deer in the back forty is ridiculous and counterproductive. We are all going to share in the health or illness of our environment, so we should keep that in mind!
Ask me if I care if you walk 500 m from your truck to take one rather than 15 km on foot carrying ultralight camping gear with a bow you made with your own hands drinking your own urine and living off the land for days. Some hunters seem to value hunting for the opportunity to look down on others, you decide if this is you or not as I'm not going to name names.
Hunting should be an inclusive activity, part of good stewardship of our environment, an opportunity to connect with cultural and family traditions, and a sustainable way to obtain protein while managing game populations as well as habitat and related prey and predator game. For those of you who think the way you hunt is the only good and right way I say - Good day!
I hunted two half days a couple of years ago and took a small buck in a field a quarter section from the house. Three years ago, I stayed overnight in the backcountry, hunting 4 or 5 days and got a big bodied buck about at the end of my last day. Last year, I covered a lot of ground in the truck from area to area and a lot of time on foot over 3 or 4 days and didn't see much. Chose not to take anything as the freezer wasn't empty and numbers seemed to be down in the areas we covered. IMO, all were great hunts for the time I had available, all were ethical, legal and safe.
I believe hunting is an ethical and environmentally sustainable activity that is essential for our society to truly appreciate and care for our environment. I know I'm dreaming thinking parks will try to utilize hunters and give them credit, but a guy can dream, right? Anyway, I've said more than I should and wandered a bit off topic but hope this is worth the (long) read to someone.
|