The killing of large carnivores in North America by means of trophy hunting, whether for "sport" or "management," has been and continues to be a source of noteworthy and unrelenting controversy.
Interestingly, most of the furor appears to have little to do with the conventional battlefield of left or right ideology as the intensity of emotion attached to top predators like bears, wolves, cougars and coyotes often transcends the simplistic bifurcated politics that can mark such disputes.
Both sides appear to be stuck in a continual expert-driven argument in which each camp claims that science supports their respective positions. Perhaps it is time that the debate over the trophy hunting of large carnivores in North America was also conducted within the context of ethical considerations, as the present conflict will likely never transcend the inflexible stances that are so deeply entrenched.
In his paper, Environmental ethics and trophy hunting, Dr. Alastair Gunn states that "Nowhere in the (scientific) literature, so far as I am aware, is hunting for fun, for the enjoyment of killing, or for the acquisition of trophies defended."
For instance, many who are outspoken advocates of grizzly hunting in British Columbia do not recognize, or self-servingly choose not to recognize, that it is a moral matter. As such, they feign that hunting grizzlies is amoral when, in fact, it is not; perhaps, they are incapable of doing the moral calculus, pretending that the trivial value of trophy hunting grizzlies somehow outweighs the much greater harm done to the bears.
In Ethics and the Environment, Dr. Dale Jamieson writes of the problematic nature of deciding to "choose amoralism and opt out of morality. The very ties that bind us to a society entangle us in a morality. Morality is ubiquitous; amoralists are rare."
The compulsion to kill these intelligent, powerful and beautiful animals in order to "bag a trophy," as opposed to simply observing and fully experiencing an archetypal encounter of two inextricably linked species, is something poll after poll on the grizzly hunt suggests the average British Columbian cannot fathom.
As Doug and Andrea Peacock have written in The Essential Grizzly: "The concurrent colonization of North America by brown bears and humans is a remarkable story. Both men and grizzlies...lived together for thousands of years, and perhaps traveled the same route south to the continental United States. Genetic evidence indicates a single invasion for both grizzlies and humans..."
Grizzly bears and other large carnivores are primarily shot and killed for strictly gratuitous reasons; they are targeted by trophy hunters and guide outfitters for entertainment, sport or profit, not for food or subsistence, with approval by government authorities who sanction this activity as a legitimate "management tool."
After spending millions of dollars recovering gray wolves in the Northern Rockies of the lower 48 states, Idaho and Montana opened a trophy hunting season almost immediately after wolves were de-listed from protections under the Endangered Species Act in the fall of 2009. After Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter publicly stated he wants to kill more than 80 percent of the state's wolves, the state set an initial quota of approximately 250 wolves to be legally trophy hunted out of an estimated population of 1,000. The ensuing intense controversy and suite of lawsuits aimed at stopping the trophy hunts and restoring federal protections for the species highlight the ethical and moral divide that lies at the center of large carnivore recovery and conservation in North America.
In addition to trophy hunts, wolves and coyotes are among the species targeted in predator "derbies," "tournaments," and "contests" where prizes are awarded for the most and largest carnivores killed. Liberal hunting laws allow such carnage to occur and few agencies or politicians are willing to speak to the ethics- or lack thereof- in such wanton abuse of wildlife. After mounting pressure from wildlife advocates against coyote "tournaments" in Maine, Governor John Baldacci recently declared the killing contests "inhumane" and "unacceptable" yet contest hunts continue because the laws allow them.
Drs. Michael Nelson and Kelly Millenbah have stated in their recent paper, The Ethics of Hunting, that "To the degree the wildlife community begins to take philosophy and ethics more seriously, both as a realm of expertise that can be acquired and as a critical dimension of wildlife conservation, many elements of wildlife conservation and management would look different."
Imagine a scenario in which wildlife managers, and the elected politicians they must answer to, were required to incorporate ethical considerations into the decision making process for wildlife management. The debate over hunting carnivores would no longer be limited to metrics such as population estimates, kill quotas, harvestable surpluses and other strictly mechanistic arguments which lend themselves to endless stalemates.
According to Raincoast Conservation Foundation senior scientist, Project Coyote science advisor, and former member of the BC government's grizzly bear scientific panel Dr. Paul Paquet, the fact that we can hunt large carnivores does not mean that we ought to hunt them. Further, while science provides information, it does not give us permission to do things. In other words, the aforementioned statistics that have been generated ostensibly to inform, but in actual practice to justify, the trophy hunting of large carnivores do not contain an intrinsic approval to do so.
Echoing Garrett Hardin, Paquet points out that wildlife managers and conservation scientists can offer no technical solutions that will change human values or ideas of morality. Paquet also contends, like Aldo Leopold, that we can advocate for a "land ethic" that embraces biodiversity and the ecological functions and processes that link species with their environment. In Leopold's own words, which have tangible links to the welfare of individuals and populations:
"The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land- and it affirms the right of all to continued existence. The extension of ethics to land and to the animals and plants which is an evolutionary possibility and an ecological necessity. In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such."
Unfortunately, jurisdictions in both Canada and the United States are saddled with a policy framework for wildlife conservation that is carried out within an artificial construct in which ethical considerations simply do not exist and management is driven largely by values, attitudes and deeply held beliefs that are ensconced in the anachronistic North American Wildlife Management Model that dates back to the early 1900's. This narrow approach is primarily rooted in an agricultural mindset, as opposed to an ecological one.
Large carnivores pose a threat not so much to human "life and property," but rather to human self-conceptualization. They challenge our imagined "rightful place" in the world, primarily our hegemony over nature and its non-human inhabitants. It is this hegemonic mindset that blocks us from extending ethical considerations to large carnivores and other wildlife, for instance, both in the way we govern our society's interactions with such animals and in how we wield power over them given our technologically-based supremacy (e.g., high-powered hunting rifles, jet boats, helicopters, etc.).
To evolve our relationship with large carnivores and other wild animals in North America we could start by placing greater emphasis on examining the ethics and morality of the very concept of hunting for sport and entertainment, as opposed to elevating trivial values like trophy hunting summit or apex predators above the welfare of the animals themselves.
Follow Camilla Fox and Project Coyote on Facebook and on Twitter.
Follow Chris Genovali on Twitter: www.twitter.com/raincoast
I hunt, but for meat, not for trophies. I can respect true dedicated trophy hunters though. Their real understanding of nature and their desire to nurture, preserve, and protect it is nearly unsurpassed.
The degradation of environments and overpopulation of humans has killed far more animals than hunters have.
Industrial progress is the reason polar bears will go extinct, not trophy hunting.
We have needed industry to support the mushrooming human population for our energy needs, food production, and job growth.
The ethics of procreation can be stated, "It just what we humans do". It is in the remaining wild and rural areas that hunting is "just what some humans do." Which is the greater threat to wildlife?
Carnivore hunting is unnecessary to any sense of "country living" and should be banned.
And once a ban is instituted, what do we do about the real threat to wildlife- economic and population growth?
You must have never experienced true "country living" then. If you livelihood depended on livestock for example, you'd have a different opinion of carnivore hunting when you see coyotes maiming and killing your newborn livestock.
Additionally, it has been well proven that without carnivore control via hunting and other means, certain other non-carnivore species will find themselves to be in great risk of extinction.
Animal nuisance and Pest control is another matter don't you think?
I agree that there is necessity for killing, trapping, even poisoning critters that pose a danger to livelihoods or even more valuable game, e.g. wolves that have wiped out entire Elk herds in Idaho.
That does not excuse what is essentially a rich mans sport that has nothing to do with anything "essential".
He had its' carcuss stuffed and mounted with it standing on a piece of drift wood he had found at the beach and had placed it over his fireplace.
He invited me in one day to view his new trophy and proclaimed "Is'nt that Beautiful".?
I told him no and what he had there was a collection of feathers and bones. And I told him "The beauty of a bird, is in it's flight".
Needless to say, he threw me out of the house and I was never invited to return.
hardly a trophy animal in the first place
When a specie comes from a far distant star system and culls you out and mounts you in their local museum on their home planet, you will know what is missing.
Norge
Rattlesnakes can also be a problem. If I see them off my property more power to them as far as I'm concerned. If I find them on the property, i will try to catch and relocate them. That's my idea of trophy hunting. I relocate 2 or 3 a year but have to kill 1 or 2 because they cannot be captured but can't be left alone where they are. I am pretty hard on the local rodent population. I try to make their lives as exciting and brief as possible but that's hardly trophy hunting now is it. I rather like the large preditors and for the most part they are not a problem for me so why hunt them?
The idea that somehow there is room for more wildlife than ever, and people too is unrealistic. I had a nice reply to one of my comments damning me for farming in wildlife habitat, well guess what folks, all of us live in former wildlife habitat. The reality is people take room too, that doesn't mean there can't be wildlife, but you can't go back to the days before this nation was settled, it just won't work. Intelligent people "get" that.
I am an Ecosystem Management Technician and would consider my self an environmentalist. I would argue that from my experience working in the environmental field that regular hunters and fisherman are some of the greatest conservationists that we could possibly have. They don't want to shoot everything or they would not be able to continue hunting. They are also great stewards for habitats - many hunters I know have large, well managed properties.
There are occasions, sadly, where certain animals have to be managed. Although I would much rather see the ecosystems manage themselves this is not always a viable option. Where I currently live we have issues with coyotes. They have no predators but lots of prey. The population is out of control and they are causing damage to people and thier property. Farmers are loosing animals, peoples pets are being eaten and they are breeding with dogs which result in pups that are much less fearful of humans. Due to these issues a management plan had to be put in place to try to cull some of the population. Although this saddens me I do recognize the need for this. And unfortunatley unless we want to loose some species, especially those living near urban areas, some populations have to be managed and many times that involves
Hahaha..funny how that never seems to apply to the human animal eh? Yup, it's always about us isn't it. *shaking my head*
Miles "Over Compensation" Long
I hunt, mostly large game animal (deer, elk, antelope), but I have also hunted large predators (bear mostly). The main reason I hunt has never been for trophy though, but rather for meat. I have no trophy deer/elk heads in my house. A doe/cow actually tastes better. Yet people still frown on my decision to hunt (which doesn't bother me on bit I might add). I find this funny since everyone loves to complain about the cruelty and filth of factory animal farms where beef, pork, and poultry are raised for public consumption. I say, what a better way to get away from this then doing the hunting/killing yourself. My wild game meat is all natural and free of all the unnatural stuff that people complain about in the meat you buy in the store. I have a clean concience about where the animal came from (i.e. not some factory), and I get only what I need. It's a win win.
My 80 year old sister hit one at night and she is lucky to be alive. It went through the windshield and she was driving 45.
I would rather see both states thin their herds of deer than to know that the deer are starving to death. In Oklahoma the people that I know only kill deer for their tables. Carcasses are not left in the woods.
In 2000 I had Rocky Mountain Spotted Tick Fever. My neurologist said I had to have organic meat to help me recover. (I had to learn to walk again) Two of my cousins came to the ranch and went hunting. Both men supplied me with venison for 18 months. The physician credits the organic meat, partly, for my recovery.
The vegan/no hunting camp is not rooted in the realities of the world.
The thing is that the pattern that the authors are reporting on doesn't seem to be directly about population management. My understanding is that the tired refrain of "population management" is used as a defense of other practices, like trophy hunting. But it's lacks scientific merit. And more importantly, it lacks ethical merit. But the status quo wins out too often because of a disagreement about numbers. I have a problem with this, because the numbers are often wrong. There's uncertainty and lots of it. There's a trophy hunt lobby and they have their own numbers. Just like BP has their own numbers.
So I'm glad to see ethical considerations being properly introduced into this discussion around wildlife management.
Trophy hunting is ugly. If we called it trophy killing, maybe more people would get it.
Human hunters do not replace predators. Human hunters, (with their high powered rifles, dogs, and high tech tracking decvices), kill the strong young trophy animals and thus, genetically weaken the herds. Predators kill the animals easiest to kill; the young, old, sick and weak animals. Thus, predators genetically strengthen the herds. There should be a immediate ban on the hunting of all predators, i.e., bears, wolves, mountain lions, bobcats, coyotes, snakes, etc. LET THE ECOSYSTEMS RECOVER.
I don't know if gun happy individuals kill the coyotes here but something is happening with them. I want the predators here to take care of the weak animals in a herd.
I agree with your theory of LETTING THE ECOSYSTEMS RECOVER but it isn't going to happen as we would like here in my area.
Human's belief that animals and nature are ours to exploit, manipulate, hold captive and kill is a serious moral flaw in our personalities.
Whether it is puppy mills, factory farms, hunters, circuses, aquariums or rodeos, our perceived right to dominate, torture and kill animals is quite simply wrong.
I have considered working for an ASPCA or organization responding to animal abuse cases. I realize though, that I would not have the self-control to hold back from making these monsters feel some of the pain they inflict on these animals and would fail in the documentation area.
Your contribution to protecting animals that NEVER deserve abuse, is vital to the dogs and to all of us who NEED you and others to do the hard work.
I know it must be a gut-wrenching job, but I hope you know that you are deeply respected by the rest of us who care about animals and certainly, appreciated by the dogs whose lives you save.
Advances ARE being made in so many areas in the protection of animals and you should feel very proud that you have made a difference.
I have volunteered at animal shelters and adopted a few myself. I cannot recommend enough to people that they rescue instead of buy animals, and to contribute if and what you can to shelters and animal rights organizations that work tirelessly to protect those without a voice.