Hunters Regulate Wildlife
To obtain the population’s consent, hunters try to justify their recreational pastime by passing it off as an activity of public necessity; claiming that they are essential to nature’s balance.
Nevertheless, every year, 20 million animals (pheasants, hares, rabbits, partridges, etc.) are raised and/or imported to be released in nature by hunters and often killed the following morning. And to make this system work, the competition, predators, have to be eliminated, as they primarily target these animals because of their unnaturally odd, domesticated behaviour.
The natural predators that are foxes, martens, weasels, skunks, are systematically destroyed under the pretense of their erroneous and convenient classification as « species likely to cause damages » (in French: Espèce Suceptible d’Occasioner des Dégâts or ESOD). Animals falling under this term can be killed all-year-round, without respite, and despite the ecological nonsense it represents, as in fact these animals, especially foxes, are scientifically known as being « ecological regulators », that very definition hunters claim without it fitting any sort of reality. Hence, when a foxes find a pheasant coming from a hunters’ release, they will take him out first, because following nature’s law of the fittest foxes attack the weakest members of a species – they regulate.
And this situation is even graver, as hunters also kill protected predators. Wolves first and foremost are under great strain from hunters, who every year manage to obtain shooting authorisations, which they could also probably do without and still kill them. Let us not forget that killing wolves is illegal and that the state’s authorising these killings does not strip the species from its protected status.
As is clear by now, hunting is a self-perpetuating activity: hunters kill predators, so that their activity can be considered necessary by some lacking the scientific knowledge, but since they kill most of the wild prey, they need to release individuals who do not belong in a wild environment to have new individuals to kill. Furthermore, they feed these species (and others), whom they claim are too densely populated and admit to doing so. But as time passes, hunters do not need to keep up their lies, they can just do whatever they wish to do, thanks to the strength of their lobby and the political network it has managed to gather.
In the last 45 years, the killing of animals has been multiplied by 14: from about 60 000 in 1976 to 700 000 in 2016, and the numbers keep increasing.
What can we do to prevent damages caused by wildlife?
– We must prevent hunters from feeding boars, as this purposefully leads to increasing their population. Not to mention, hunting in itself pushes boars to reproduce more to maximise their chances of having some of their progeny survive in the face of these massive killings.
– Releases of raised animals should be forbidden to prevent genetic pollution in natural spaces.
– Fields should be fenced off with electric wires to prevent animals from trespassing, which they will evidently keep doing without a proper obstacle.
– We have to use immunicontraceptive vaccines in densely populated areas (75% of damages take place in 10% of municipalities according to France Agricole, which puts things into perspective) and as a temporary measure, as suggested by the Professor Croustillat. This is the one peaceful and effective solution that would in the long-term enable population numbers to sink to a level allowing animals to self-regulate, as well as reduce damages caused to crops. In natural reserves and wild areas, species populations have been self-regulating for thousands of years. Predators for example are naturally self-regulated, because genetically they know that their numbers must correspond to prey availability or they will starve to death. Nevertheless, should populations rise in numbers, there exists a multitude of peaceful options, which do not require the intervention of armed individuals.
We would recommend the management of wildlife be placed in the hands of public servants, who have been trained and obtained diplomas, and would be working within the various departmental and regional entities. Their mission would be to ensure the peaceful and harmonious coexistence of humankind and wildlife, based on the principles of preservation and protection.
Hunting is a source of job creation
Hunting’s economy is made to look very profitable, when in fact the profits it brings are very marginal. In fact, hunting is mainly a non-taxed, underground economy and best left unknown (undeclared rentals of gabions and hunting grounds, illegal sales of « game », etc.)
On the other hand, hiking lodges do not operate during the hunting season, as visitors and tourists do not want to come face to face with armed individuals. Thereby, it would be possible to convert the people working in the hunting sector to the tourism industry, which would generate a much more substantial income. Notwithstanding, even if hunting was a profitable activity, it cannot be condoned due to the fact that it involves the unnecessary killing of individuals.
Furthermore, if hunting was forbidden, or abolished, hunters would partake in other leisure activities, for which they would probably spend just as much, if not more money, so this would not generate any economic loss.
Hunting also prevents the development of ecotourism, green lodges and new nature-friendly activities, for which there is an exponential demand.
Hunting is a tradition
Some types of hunting are coined traditional, even though many of these are actually very recent and hunters use smartphones, advanced rifles, 4x4s and other modern appliances.
Even so, as history has shown us and continues to demonstrate, tradition is not synonymous with something positive. Among traditions, history has seen the official abolishment of slavery, various tortures, the death penalty in a majority of Western states, etc.
Committing acts in the name of tradition has often been used as a pretext to perpetrate horrendous acts.
Evolution entails progress and ethical advancement. Traditions that involve the torture and/or killing of living individuals cannot persist in the long-term and should not have lasted this long.
Hunting is a convivial activity that contributes to social bonding
It may be true for some people taking part in hunting voluntarily, however the majority of citizens, who cannot hike or take a walk in the forest without fearing for their lives and being hit by a stray bullet, do not consider it a convivial activity. Not to mention, the countless accounts of people in rural areas suffering from the war-like atmosphere, who don’t feel safe in their own homes anymore.
Nevertheless, there exists an infinite number of activities, which do not involve the killing of any individual, and in a civilised society social bonding should not be predicated on the setting of traps and shooting of non-human animals.
Hunting is natural
The fact that hunting takes place in nature is not the reason hunters call their activity « natural », but because they consider that since animals kill each other, it is « natural » to do the same. However, the distinction lies in the fact that animals kill out of necessity, without having a real choice to do otherwise and without modern tools, such as firearms. The orchestrated animal releases, as well as the use of vehicles, smartphones, weapons, poisons, etc., has transformed hunting into an artificialised activity.
Hunting has gone from being a means to survive to a recreational activity, thusly it lost its « natural » component since the time humankind went from being hunter-gatherers to a sedentary population cultivating the land.
Moreover, the term « natural » doesn’t always designate positive things, as in nature we find poisons, diseases, rape and murder. These are « natural », since they are found in nature, but we would rather they did not exist.
CoRAC 