While the concept of "sport hunting" turns some folks off, let us define the term.
A "sport hunter" is someone who hunts as a form of recreation or tradition, not because they need the meat. That means pretty much all hunters in the industrialized world. This doesn't mean that the meat and hide are wasted, just that something other than hunger is the driving force behind hunting.
"Sport Hunters" are everyday people, around 12 percent of the US population actively hunts each year (around 34 million people). Conversely around 12 percent of the US population is "anti hunting", and the rest really don't care one way or another what other people do.
"Sport Hunters" are by definition, conservationalists.
A conservationalist is someone who believes in the "wise use" of land. A preservationalist is someone who believes in the "non-use" of land. This means that hikers, kayakers, fishers, equestrians, mountain bikers, mountain climbers, are all conservationalists.
Therefore it is easy to see that you can be a liberal or conservative conservationalist who cares about the environment. We want our public land kept in good stewardship so that it can be enjoyed by our descendants in perpetuity. Preservationists want the land to not be used at all.
This is not to say that conservationists don't believe in non-hunting zones, believe me we do, they are a great asset in maintaining a healthy ecosystem.
Now that we have covered the basic philosophy of conservation we can examine how it ties into "sport hunting".
Hunting is important to maintaining healthy animal populations. Some areas have tried contraception, and it was a dismal failure every time.
Laws restricting hunting because it is "cruel" usually have a negative effect. An example from my home state of WA, the state legislature passed a law making it illegal to use tracking dogs to tree cougar, because it was "cruel". This law caused the cougar population to expand to the point where the Department of Fish and Wildlife asked for an increase in their annual budget to hire professional hunters to take care of the "problem" cougars. Since they were working for the DFW, these professional hunters were allowed to use tracking dogs.
All in all nothing changed except the State went from making money having cougars treed by dogs, to paying someone to tree cougars with dogs. Because someone thought it was "cruel" and worked hard to get legislation passed.
Which brings up another word, "anthropomorphic", whi#h means to apply human thoughts and emotions to things that aren't human.
As a complete side note, the bullets I use in the Army aren't allowed by most states because they don't kill game in a humane manner, and the bullets I use hunting are outlawed for military use by the Hague convention because they cause are considered inhumane....
Anyways, back on track, a given habitat can support X number of animals, and each year a healthy game population expands with "excess population" to beyond what the habitat can sustain over the winter. This is why most hunting seasons are in the Fall and Winter. Clearly if hunting were outlawed there would be massive dieoffs to to disease and starvation.
For us hunters to have a good supply of game we MUST care about keeping animal habitat healthy and in balance. The number one threat to all animals is not hunting, it is habitat change.
And so by now I hope that the image of the "bloodthirsty hunter who doesn't care about nature" image is slightly dispelled. The only part left is the "bloodthirsty" part. I hunt for many reasons, but I am not "bloodthirsty" by any means. My hunting partner and I passed up three bucks this last season simply because it wasn't legal hours yet, there was no one around and no one would have been the wiser. We passed up countless does. But "sport hunters" are legal and ethical hunters, not poachers.
And I daresay that MOST hunters are like me and my buddy, just out to get some freezer meat if we can, and enjoy a day in the hills if we don't spot anything.
Jimro
I'll be sure to stick to this topic and add some more insightful posts later on, as I'm pressed for time, being in the office at the moment.
My take on Fox Hunting was pretty strong and clear because I was more informed about it, the fact that it could be recreated without the need for a defenseless and antagonised animal to be ripped open, the fact that the fox population wasn't endangering anything and the months of Foot & Mouth when hunting was banned proved that foxes had no negative effect on the country or it's live stock and various other factors.
I also admit, I find the fox to be one of the most beautiful animals in our world and one that shouldn't be hunted to extinction.
When it comes to hunting on the grand scale, I'm totally unsure what to say or think. I'd need some knowledge on the ways and laws of population control, I realise that to keep a community of wolves alive, they need to have their numbers thinned to the point where there'll be enough food for them. Whereas, too few and their species starts to die out.
It's a risky business, and really, hunters are probably doing about the same as those who rescue animals via preservations and the like.
The risky business comes at the fact that hunters are the tool and not the enforcement themselves. That would be those who make the hunting laws. Thusly, a hunter is just someone participating in a "sport" which has been adjusted to benefit the ecosystem, they don't neccassarily care of it themselves, with that number of hunters, it'd be impossible to generalise, some may be gun nuts out for a kill, some may be British noble bastards who just want to see the "beauty" of something being torn open, some may generally care to keep balance, some want the fur for money, some need something to eat.
Far too many reasons to generalise, thusly making this shaky and edgy business.
Personally, I'm opposed to it as someone who just doesn't like the idea of killing, but I'd be a total arse of a hypocrite, as I approve of animal testing to some degree. All I ask is that the laws be kept fair and that no species is hunted to extinction anymore. I think we've evolved as a species beyond having to kill out entire species for our own needs. Really we should be doing as best as we can to help nature thrive, as we've spent so long bulldozing over it. Alas, morality and progress butt heads and it's impossible to draw a line.
Thusly, I'm a no good, rotten, dirty fence sitter. But I'll be sure to pounce in with more convinction later 
Hunting within reason is OK - if there is need to keep populations in check, and/or the animals killed are then used for some benefit to those still living (food, clothing, etc.)
I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of foxes - at least, not the urban variety, since there's a group of them fairly close to where I live when not at uni, and they make a HUGE racket at night - but I can see the point about not hunting them too heavily. Also, the cruel nature of fox-hunts which end with the hounds ripping apart the fox is not something I'd condone. However, in other parts of the world (Australia and rabbits is a good example, if I remember correctly), farmyard pests which are more or less unchecked otherwise being hunted with guns, so that the death is relatively quick and humane (not totally, I'll grant, but that's tough to manage without some measure of co-operation from the animal) is more or less a necessity if farms want to survive.
Creatures have been hunted to extinction in the past, though - Dodos and Great Auks are 2 which spring to mind - so controls need to be placed on hunting if any claims of conservationalism are to be made. Granted, this is done in many places which allow hunting, but it is still an important thing to remember.
That's pretty much all I'd say for now
Trim,
Yes, things have been hunted to extinction, but NEVER by "Sport Hunters". Right now there are more deer, elk, and bison in the continental US than there were 100 years ago because of good management.
Funny story, but the Peregrine falcon was hunted extensively because it preyed upon carrier pigeons (there was a bounty, it was NOT sport hunting)...and during the era of huge DDT use (1940's to 1970's) it's population sprung back because smart management. Conversely there is no real evidence that DDT causes eggshell thinning, and the wild bird populations during those three decades bore that fact out.
And "Sport Hunters" are by large very humane when it comes to taking an animal. Bullets properly placed kill very swiftly, and the razor tipped broadheads bowhunters use kill much quicker than other traditional methods.
Anyways, there are other methods of population control, but they are not nearly as effective as hunting, and they are invariably much more expensive to the public coffers.
Craig,
Most folks sit on the fence while they ponder the complexities of an issue. If everything were simple life would be pretty boring. Maybe somebody will step forward with an "anti-hunting" agenda that makes scientific sense to balance out my pro-hunter viewpoint.
Jimro
Seriously? I don't give a crap as long as its being monitored. Give the hunters a season and a limit to kills based on the extent of overpopulation and I'm fine. But don't think I condone it, I just don't think there's a real reason to fly up in arms.
I don't like hunting, think its barbaric yadda yadda. But granted humans screwed up the ecosystem I'm glad some people have the killer instinct to step up and try to balance it out.
Rico,
When you say "humans screwed up the ecosystem" I don't know if you are referring to pollution, habitat change, or whatnot, would you elaborate further?
Jimro
To a large extent, the hunting of the Dodo and Great Auk was more for sport than for profit. But those were cases of unchecked hunting, which led to extinction. As you say, when hunting is kept in check, it can to an extent help the animal population. However, that's nit-picking at details.
I would guess Rico would be aiming at habitat change and other consequences of urbanisation, and the general nature of man to control the environment he lives in. Work from that premise for future points, unless Rico corrects my interpretation
Was out walking the dog and spotted two deer today, it seemed to be two does or a doe and a buck. Bucks lose their horns in late winter and look like does until the horns grow back in at the end of summer.
Last week driving into town I spotted what looked like a pair of horses on a hill overlooking the (very small rural) town. On second glance they were elk, and likely the rest of the herd was back in the treeline.
Sure is nice to live out in the country where I can see things like this if I keep my eyes peeled.
Wish I was carrying my camera both times.
Jimro
Jimro,
Some observations.
Quote:
A "sport hunter" is someone who hunts as a form of recreation or tradition, not because they need the meat.
Good thing you eat it, Jimro. I don't like people killing animals for fun. I was born on a farm. We killed animals for meat. Nothing goes to waste.
I used a Winchester. I first tasted deer meat in 1970. The deer are gone now in that area of Mexico.
Quote:
"Sport Hunters" are everyday people, around 12 percent of the US population actively hunts each year (around 34 million people). Conversely around 12 percent of the US population is "anti hunting", and the rest really don't care one way or another what other people do.
I am both. I don't like the hunting of some species. Rabbits, some pigeons, doves, are OK. Deer, only for a certain time of the year.
Quote:
"Sport Hunters" are by definition, conservationalists.
...This is not to say that conservationists don't believe in non-hunting zones, believe me we do, they are a great asset in maintaining a healthy ecosystem.
At least you care. Many don't. They just want a trophy.
Quote:
Hunting is important to maintaining healthy animal populations. Some areas have tried contraception, and it was a dismal failure every time.
It's OK when there are no predators other than humans. But I rather prefer natural born predators to keep some populations stable. Unfortunately, civilation has introded into many habitats. Bears, coyotes, mountain lions ...are now killed because they mauled or killed humans.
On a side note: Many people will eat a hamburger, a turkey sandwich,...but never killed an animal in their life.
I do not support sport hunting. I mean, how would you like it if a bear just came up to your family and killed one of you for fun? I do however support hunting for food, because thats just how things are. you have to kill to live, but not for pleasure or something to do that makes you feel special. humans... we really have no controll.
Quote:
I do not support sport hunting. I mean, how would you like it if a bear just came up to your family and killed one of you for fun? I do however support hunting for food, because thats just how things are. you have to kill to live, but not for pleasure or something to do that makes you feel special. humans... we really have no controll.
I enjoy hunting. I eat what I kill. I don't need to hunt, they have these things called "stores" where I live, but I hunt anyways.
I think that you should look at the bigger issues of wildlife and land management instead of questioning the motives of sport hunters. Sure some guys want trophies, but the vast majority of us just want freezer meat.
Jimro
I understand where your comming from Jimro. My step-father used to hunt for meat, and deer meat is actually quite good when cooked right. =3 but its the same to me about fishing, like how ide much rather keep the fish and eat it if i have to sit in a boat on a lake and wait to catch it. But as far as hunting goes, if i want to shoot something for sport, i just go play paintball and take out all my hunting needs on people who sometimes deserve to be shot but not killed. XD
