Ground Hog Day: More Evidence for the Non/Anti Hunter?
I watched the brown, chunky furball scurry across the road in front of me, and proceed to make his way from one farmer’s field to another. A part of me wanted to punch the gas, and take the fat little chunker off the map. But my family’s safety was far more important than doing my small part to help a local farmer out. Plus, he had already made the grass near the side of the road, and the chances of me hitting him were slim to none. I wouldn’t go through this much trouble to hit a squirrel – I hit the brakes for them – so going out of my way to end this varmints life wasn’t on my agenda for today.
And, if the truth be told, there was a much bigger reason I didn’t hit the gas: I normally don’t kill anything I don’t eat.
But in this case, and because I know the headaches these pesky varmints can cause for farmers, I fantasized about aligning a .17 with his head, and pulling the trigger. I don’t know a farmer in my neck of the woods that wouldn’t be happy to see a woodchuck dead; their dens cause damage to farm machinery, and they tend to eat up the farmers profits. Plus, there are so many of them that the amount of damage they cause can make a farmer’s head spin, while draining his bank account at the same time.
Still, though, I couldn’t help but think about the many conversations I’ve had with non and anti-hunters alike about the fact that I only kill what I eat. And, while that is true for the most part, I have no problem participating in a little pest control from time to time. Chipmunks, birds, woodchucks, raccoons, possums, and many other pests can all cause a lot of damage, and I don’t have any problem with eliminating a few of them, especially if it means protecting my household investment.
But I wonder how such activity looks to those who don’t hunt. And, I especially wonder how it looks to those who already believe the misconception that hunters only kill to kill.
I know that killing woodchucks and such helps the local environment, helps the local farmers’ crops, and helps to prevent unwanted damage to my own home. I just have never thought about how pest control looks to those on the other side of the fence. Does it give them more evidence to solidify their misguided belief that we are just heartless killers?
Truthfully, I’ve always told people that I only kill what I eat, and I never had any reservations about that statement. I considered it to be true, because I didn’t really consider pest control as part of the “only killing what I eat” equation.
But do you think pest control – killing woodchucks, raccoons, possums, and such – only helps feed the myth that hunters only kill to kill, considering we have no intention of eating these particular animals? Or do you think most people understand the difference between killing critters/pests, and hunting turkey, deer, elk, etc. for food?
Let me know what you think in the comments.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Subscribe
ShareStay Informed
Choose the way you would like to be notified for latest posts.
Bookmark & Share
Share this with your friends.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumbleupon
Technorati
Twitter
Arthur, great post and a really good question.
To be honest, I do believe that predator/varmint hunting tends to feed the notion of hunters as “bloodthirsty killers”. This isn’t really helped by the preponderance of “red mist” videos and magazines, in which the shooters take great and vocal glee in disintegrating small animals with centerfire rifles. It’s pretty hard to balance this against the carefully cultivated image of the “noble” hunter that some folks would like to perpetuate.
The arguments for predator/varmint hunting are generally flimsy as well. In general, recreational hunters aren’t very efficient at controlling pest populations, such as ground squirrels or woodchucks. This is a task that requires extended and sustained pressure. Most hunters come in and shoot for a day, and then move on to other things.
Likewise, the arguments for predator hunting are difficult to defend. With the exception of targeting specific, habituated livestock killers, it’s hard to say that sport hunting coyotes or wolves really offers much benefit to the other wildlife. Professional hunters and aerial shooting are really the most effective way to manage these populations… if that’s a necessary goal.
Does this mean I disagree with it? Of course not. I shoot ground squirrels, and when requested by a landowner, I’ll kill coyotes too (even if I don’t think it makes much difference). The squirrels are great practice for improving my shooting skills, and killing them makes the landowner happy.
And here’s the thing… I can understand why the “red mist” guys get the way they do. There’s a definite blood-lust that comes out in a lot of people (including myself) when the shooting is hot. I’d even go so far as to call it a “high”. It’s a heady rush and a feeling of power (for lack of a better word). While it may not be universal, I’d defy anyone who’s participated in a serious squirrel shoot to deny that they’ve felt it. (On the other hand, I’ve never felt good about killing a coyote. I realize that’s mostly a personal thing, though.)
So, is varmint hunting a good or bad thing? For the image of the sport, there’s no doubt that it’s a weak spot. But from a moral or ethical position, I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with it.
I think I agree with everything you said, Phillip.
I can completely understand how it could be viewed negatively by the general public, and I can understand now, in the big picture, that one lone hunter really doesn’t do much to control the varmint population.
But I still will do my part to help the local farmer. And, just recently, we were asked by a land owner to take out some of local coyote population, and we will definitely do what we can to oblige him.
Thanks for stopping by and chiming in.
Good questions, Arthur.
Woodchucks played a role in my recognition that even my vegetarian diet took a toll on animals. The farmer down the road uses smoke bombs to keep the population down. When a woodchuck managed to burrow into my well-fenced garden, I borrowed a .22 from a friend. It was the first mammal I had intentionally killed in many years.
In a sense, I was still killing to eat: killing the woodchuck so I could have some greens left in the garden. But I did feel bad about not eating the woodchuck itself. I still had no idea how to dress and butcher an animal. The next year, I killed another in the garden. That one I ate. (When my wife was a girl, her grandfather cooked up all the many woodchucks killed in the family vegetable garden.)
I also kill beetles and other insects in the garden. Again, killing to eat. (No, I do not eat the bugs.)
Where there is a clear purpose to the killing—-like protecting food—-and that purpose is effectively served, I think people can understand that. Where there is no clear purpose or there is one that is NOT effectively served—-as in shooting ground squirrels, as Phillip mentioned—-I think most people cannot understand it.
Frankly, though I hunt and though I respect Phillip’s honesty on the subject, I am deeply uncomfortable with people blasting creatures for the thrill of killing, for the feeling of power. I can find no respect for animals or nature in that kind of killing. Here, I find myself in the same camp as hunter and gardener Bob Kimber who, in his book *Living Wild and Domestic*, asks, “If shooting droves of prairie dogs qualifies as hunting and sport, then who would ever want to be called either a hunter or a sportsman?”
Shooting animals just for s***s and giggles definitely alienates the non-hunting public and feeds the stereotype that hunters get off on killing. Do we really need that? No, plain and simple. I wish people wouldn’t do it.
I do think it’s important to retain the right to kill animals for purposes other than meat, because there are legitimate reasons to do so: protecting people, protecting farm animals, protecting homes etc. But I think we need to use that right thoughtfully.
Holly,
I completely agree with you.
I think we need to remember exactly what the purpose for killing any particular animal is, and use that power wisely. I hunt, and I have killed certain animals in order to prevent further damage to my home, but I will not even purposely kill a frog while I’m mowing the yard. It just doesn’t fill right to kill them just to kill them.
Thanks for stopping by.
Talk about a subject that could go on forever. All who have commented have good points and I agree with a lot of them but not all. I still feel a lot of our actions concerning animals comes down to how we see an animals life compared to a humans life. Personally I see Humans life as a kingdom above, and animals are to be controlled by humans. The closer we see our lives with their lives the tougher its going to be to rationalize taking animals lives.
Those that are ‘elitists (?) animal rights’ are going to have a terrible time living if they have a conscience equal to their stated beliefs. Think about it, they couldn’t even drive a car – how many bugs are they going to hit, how many snakes, frogs and mice are they going to run over. They can’t go out in the outdoors as they can’t kill mosquitos, or chiggers or whatever, nor can they defend them selves against aggressive animals. And animals will get evermore aggressive the more they are allowed to have their way.
I have no problem taking out any preditor including coyotes. We live around sheep growers and they wouldn’t talk to us if they found we were enabling the coyote population. True one person isn’t going to make much of a dent but thats why the more that are out doing their part, the better.
Concerning your woodchucks – you’ll never run out of them so blast away. They are terribly distructive. I’ve eaten them, not bad, but as long as I have elk, moose, deer, goat and bear to eat I’m not going out of my way to eat another.
Sensitivity to others is needed, but we can’t become in bondaged to their sensitivity either as long as we are within the law. AND ITS THOSE LAWS WE NEED TO PROTECT!
Gary,
Very well said.
I agree that humans are definitely the highest being, and that our lives are much more precious than an animals. And, though I will not unnecessarily kill, I have no problems with killing varmints, coyotes, or the like. I wont kill needlessly, but I definitely see the need to eliminate a few of these nuisance animals – especially those killing livestock, etc.
I was basically trying to get a conversation going, and I have definitely accomplished that goal.
And will swat mosquitoes at will; I hate those stupid things.
Hey Guys,
First of all, I agree that at times, animals need to be taken out of the population when causing a horrific amount of damage. But I will say one thing to the guys who shoot wood chucks and dont eat them.. TRY IT THEY ARE DELICIOUS!
There are basically two animals that I will kill and don’t care to eat or try for that matter.. coyote and opossum.. Coyotes I hear aren’t all that tasty, and opossum are some NASTY CREATURES! But its crazy what I will eat that I kill.. Coon, crow, ground hog, rabbit, squirrel, carp… the list goes on!
I have the whole list of varmints – ground hog, ground squirrels, coon, crows,coyotes,rabbit,skunks, squirrels,and moles. They live without interference here unless they start invading my personal space. I have had several that were perceived to be getting too close for comfort – repeat offenders.
The creatures creating the most irritation are the ones that chew off my garden plants in the middle of the night. When I do see them in the daylight, getting close enough to remove them can be difficult. I don’t keep a weapon close and they are off and running when they see, or hear me.
My thought is that the animals existed here in my timber before I moved in…why should they leave because I came?