Of Lemons and Hunters
I frequently drink lemon water at home, and when I’m out if I don’t order herbal tea I order water with lemon. Or at least I used to . . .
As for hunters, we all know their numbers are on the decline in the US and that’s great, although I don’t think it’s an indication of any kind of surge in moral development. And I agree with hunters who eat the animals they kill that if you eat meat someone else has killed, you really have no business criticizing the people who do the killing.
Today’s issue isn’t about hunters as much as it’s about government. In "To Revive Hunting, States Turn to the Classroom," by Ian Urbina in today’s New York Times, we learn that in West Virginia, state lawmakers have approved a bill to allow hunting education classes in all schools where at least 20 students are interested.
Why?
Money. Hunting permits cost money and when hunting permits decrease, the state’s revenue decreases with them. To the tune of $1.5 million in the last decade (which doesn’t sound all that impressive to me, but maybe that’s a dramatic drop over a decade).
What bothers me most at this moment is:
- Laws are being passed (Montana, Louisiana and Georgia have already amended their constitutions) to protect the right to hunt and fish. Eight states are considering
similar amendments. - Children are being targeted through apprentice hunting licenses or by removing age requirements altogether (as in Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina and Utah).
Unfortunately, the author of this article has bought into the idea that "Hunting is the largest factor in controlling the deer population, and without enough hunters, the deer population can grow and has contributed to accidents." (The quote is from the state’s fish and wildlife planner, but there’s no representative from the other side. Go to Responsible Policies for Animals, Inc. for Factsheets about Deer Kills).
Hunting education, presumably, would spread the myths about the benefits of hunting, and would be more akin to propaganda transmission than legitimate education. State-run schools should be no place for such activities.
I would like to provide some clarification on what hunter education is. I am certified as a hunter education instructor in Colorado and teach several classes a year. I do this on a volunteer basis and am not employed by the state. Though I am not familiar with the specifics of the West Virginia program, the hunter education programs of most states are similar. Passing a hunter education course is required of anyone ( with the exception of many senior citizens who have been "grandfathered" out ) seeking to purchase a hunting license in most, if not all, states. In Colorado, the primary focus of hunter education is safety. Students are taught about all manners of safety in regards to handling of firearms and archery equipment, as well as safety protocols that must be adhered to by law while in the field. We also cover other topics such as animal identification, hunting laws and regulations, and ethics, sportsmanship, and responsibility. Scientifically-based wildlife management is discussed briefly, but not in any great detail as it is a complex scientific subject. The course is a day and half, generally given on weekends. The full day consists of classroom work and concludes with a written test. The half day is spent doing "on-hands" work on firing range where students must demonstrate safe and proper firearms handling to the instructor in order to pass.
I would agree with you, Dr. Martin, that taxpayer-funded public schools are not the place for hunter education programs. American students continue to lag behind other parts of the world in the most critical areas of education, especially math and science. Many cannot use the English language properly or find their home state on a map. If anyone wishes to take hunter education, they should do so on their own time, as far as I am concerned. However, I take issue with the notion that teaching the benefits of managed hunting is "propaganda". Managed hunting is one tool that is used by wildlife biologists to manage the wildlife resource, that is owned by the public, for both the benefit of people, and the benefit of the wildlife resource itself. Wildlife management, sometimes also called wildlife biology, is a recognized natural resource science that is firmly and factually based in sound biology. It is taught as a natural resource science in the natural resource departments of many colleges and universities, such as the University of Florida in your own state, for example. If being educated in wildlife biology is "propaganda", then I spent four years of life being "propagandized" at Colorado State University and I hold a bachelor's degree in being "propagandized", as wildlife biology was my field of study.
I have read before on this blog your calls for "vegan education". Since you seem to object to teaching principles of wildlife management, am I correct to assume that you would also not support the teaching of "vegan education" in taxpayer-funded schools, either? If not, please explain your duplicity. Please explain why teaching veganism ,which is teaching a chosen personal ethic that amounts to little more than proselytizing, is "education" to you, while teaching wildlife management principles, which are based in sound science, is "propaganda". Just as one person's trash is another person's treasure, I guess one person's "education", is another person's "propaganda", huh?
One more thought here. You mentioned that the decline in hunting that is leading to lost revenue for states. This issue should be of concern to anyone who claims to support conservation of wildlife. At both the state and federal level, wildlife conservation efforts, such as habitat preservation and land purchases for example, are funded primarily through licensing fees for hunters and anglers, and excise taxes on equipment. In most states, natural resource departments get very little money from the general budget and are highly dependent on the funds generated from consumptive use of the wildlife resource. In short, if you value wildlife, and wild lands, you have a sportsman to thank. A great example is the federal duck stamp program which has been in place since the 1930's. Funds generated by duck stamp sales go to fund conservation of valuable wetlands, which benefits both game and non-game species, as well as people and the environment, as wetlands have have valuable ground water filtering properties. Though anyone is free to purchase a duck stamp, they are purchased primarily by waterfowl hunters who are bearing the brunt of the cost of wetlands preservation, which ultimately benefits us all.
Grizzlybear,
As you probably know, I am repulsed by the term "the wildlife resource," and do not believe any sentient being's life is a resource for any other's without their consent.
"Natural resource departments" at universities, or anywhere else, are simply an extension of the speciesist notion that everything is here for our pleasure and domination. That is indeed propaganda, as it is information, transmitted through what is purported to be a legitimate field of study, to further the cause of people over animals and the rest of the planet.
The "sound science" you refer to is easily debunked, as demonstrated by the hunting factsheets I refer to.
When I ask for vegan education, what I mean is teaching children they don't have to use animals for trivial reasons. We aren't taught that. I ask for animals to be added to social justice and nonviolence discussions. What I want is for children to not get only the party line. They need to learn how to think critically and they need to have their mind's broadened beyond the frightfully narrow scope of information and perspective they are currently presented with. They need to hear both sides of issues and make decisions for themselves rather than being schooled on how to be a good little American consumer.
Finally, I have nothing to thank hunters for.