‘Tis the season to go hunting. Pheasants, and quail, and maybe a deer. While those may not be the proper lyrics, they are true. Hunting season is in full swing for most of the United States.
I was exposed to hunting at a fairly young age when my father and I would go out turkey hunting. Later, he introduced me to upland bird hunting, along with numerous other animals.
Having been a hunter for about twelve or thirteen years has led me to discover the true benefits of this great pastime. Hunting has taught me about conservation of land and habitat, the biology of different animals and the physical exercise involved with many styles of the sport.
However, one of my favorite pastimes has a bad reputation among many people. In fact, many of my friends here at K-State have never been hunting nor have the desire to even try it. The main excuse of anti-hunter’s for denouncing this legal sport is that people like me are hurting those “poor, defenseless animals.”
Well, while it is true the animals I pursue have never done anything to provoke me to hunt them, that excuse is pointless. If it were the case to where it is substantially unfair to the animals to be hunted in a particular manner, the government would have stepped in and changed the hunting laws.
The hunting laws we do have are clear in what can and cannot be done to harvest an animal. These laws also include an exact time frame for which the harvesting of a species can occur. This time frame takes into account when the particular creature’s typical birthing time is, and allows the newest generation ample time to grow enough to be able to fend for itself.
So, by limiting what equipment I can use to hunt and when I can hunt, there is the principle of “fair chase.” Fair chase allows for the most even of playing fields to be in place. For instance, it is considered fair chase to have steel shot for waterfowl as opposed to lead. This is because the lead can contaminate the water and soil which will lead to the waterfowl being poisoned - which would be most unfair and inhumane.
Fair chase also allows for hunters to participate in conservation. This is achieved by restricting hunting in certain areas and also allowing hunting during certain times of the year. If it were pheasant season year-round, I guarantee you my father would be out there most weekends. That constant trampling of ground would lead to the destruction of prime habitat for animals. By only allowing hunting for a few months a year, the animals are able to rebuild their nests and homes without being disturbed.
Another main reason to hunt is it can be a great way to relieve stress. Waking up early to walk off some frustration from work or school while following your dog to the next covey is the best form of stress relief I know. And as far as stand hunting goes, it too can be a great way to just get some alone time while watching the sun come up and nature come to life.
Hunting promotes conservation and is a great way to experience all that nature has to offer, all without being too far from home. To those of you that have never been hunting, you don’t know what you are missing out on, and to those of you that like to hunt, keep on hunting and keep our privilege alive and well.
- Chuck Fischer is a junior in secondary education. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.
8 comments
You accuse me of being "ignorant". Let's see your evidence. And what's this about wolves overpopulating by "overtaking other animals (sic) territiory, like the elk's". I'm still trying to figure out what that means. I guess, the wolves will just replace the elk and then turn to a diet of grass, eh? I would suggest you educate yourself about predator-prey relationships and what happens when humans don't "control" wolf populations. You might want to start at Yellowstone National Park. No wolves resorting to eating grass there. Or another example: Isle Royale National Park has had unmanaged wolves for sixty years now, with moose as their main prey base, and they're still at it, no wolf overpopulation there, and no extirpated moose. Gee, I wonder how they can do this without "management"....
Did you ever think that maybe the state is trying to protect the elk population? You said it yourself : "the wolves have been moving elk concentrations around and possiby even been responsible for the decreased elk numbers." Hmm, maybe the state is trying to actually do some good.
And wolves, like most animals actually have a way to overpopulate, it's called overtaking other animals territory, like the elk's.
And have you ever been hunting? Just out of curiosity. There's no way a hunter could be so ignorant.
Call me old-fashioned, but there just seems to be something unsportsmanlike about killing pregnant female game animals, especially when they're only weeks away from giving birth. Not very macho to have to admit you shot a female wolf that was carrying 5 nearyly full-term pups.
The state of Idaho are actually helping the wolf population. The state only allows 220 wolves to be harvested each year and as of mid-November, there had only been 110 harvested. By extending the season, the state is allowing hunters to bring the population of wolves down to what is called the maximum carrying capacity. the maximum carrying capacity is the maximum number of animals that can be supported by the environment and habitat. By not extending the season, the state would be putting a major strain on resources such as food and space for the wolves because the same environment would be trying to sustain X+110 wolves whereas it can normally only support X wolves.
Also, it can be argued that with 110 extra wolves, 220 will actually suffer if all 220 have to split resources.
So, the state is helping the entire wolf population by trying to prevent overpopulation which will lead to overcrowding and starvation and possible extinction of other creatures that wolves eat because of the excess number of wolves.