The Lonely Goatherd Blog And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats - Matthew 25:32
Up to the minute notes on the current state of free thinking and free living: Kentucky moonshine - original analysis and reporting from MoreThings, and all round pop culture museum of sight and sound - photo galleries, mp3 and video downloads.
Al Barger and MoreThings - getting people's goats since 1998.
Live free or die!
----
I wouldn't want to ask people to just give me money cause they like my website, but do please take a quick look at Barger's Boutique. You might find yourself a little something-something for 2 or 3 bucks that you just can't resist! Any of the round images you find around MoreThings will get you to an Amazon page to buy my stuff and help ol' Al keep the lights on.
Links
To explicitly state the obvious, these external links go to interesting and provocative websites, but they speak for themselves. I don't necessarily agree with anything they say - especially that no-goodnik Richard Marcus.
*************
All original content on MoreThings.com copyright 2008 Albert Barger or the respective authors
December 04, 2002
A conservationist's perspective on whacking Bambi I got an extensive response to my somewhat cheeky "Bambi Must Die" post from a correspondent more knowledgeable about natural resource issues than I am. Besides being a hunter, she is a past and perhaps future DNR employee. My point was more a general statement about political attitudes. She has more the perspective of a conservation officer. I might argue with her about the PR or the philosophy issues, but I certainly defer to her factual knowledge about resource issues. All I know is that me and Farm Bureau would like to see less damned deer darting across the road.
Her remarks:
First of all, I don't know that I'd accuse city folk for hating hunting. Fewer people hunt or farm anywhere, and so aren't connected with death. I'd be careful of calling people stupid or fools because they are different in their views. This could be the Alexander Hamilton in me coming out. But I'd never call people stupid for believing differently, even if they are stupid. It makes it less likely that anyone will listen to you -- because they'll doubt your willingness to listen or be somewhat objective. Plus it's kinda a personal attack. But do what you will. That's the public affairs stuff in me coming out.
I'm not sure what Marissa Tomei votes on directly, except her legislators. Legislators may affect many things, and they often are a thorn in the side of resource managers, but rarely would Marissa's vote effect deer management in Indiana. Or anywhere else. Not for a long time, if ever.
Now she could affect a lot of things -- hunting bear with dogs was eliminated in Colorado because it was unfair and inhumane. (If it's inhumane to anyone, it's the dogs, but that wasn't their position.) Mountain lion hunting was eliminated in California -- but now people are getting killed out there (lack of habitat and more lions that aren't afraid), so eventually it will be reinstituted. Black bear hunting in NJ is a big issue, and the director there told me, "They may succeed in eliminating black bear hunting. But it'll come back when a bear kills someone's 3-year-old, and we find it's half-eaten body buried in the underbrush. That's what it will take. Unfortunately."
But eliminate deer hunting? A tough thing to do. There are too many deer. A few are fine, but it eventually becomes a nimby issue. The more devastating they are (on crops, roads, yards), the more they lose their appeal.
It's a complicated issue. PETA et al probably advocate deer sterilization, which is largely ineffective. Because deer already are over-populated; it may stop deer from reproducing but doesn't control the over-population that already exists.. Sterilization is incredibly cost prohibitive and difficult to administer and keep track of. The drug only lasts a year, so must be readministered. Try sterilizing a deer herd. See what I mean? It's been done in urban areas where hunting is opposed, but ... it's largely not feasable for rural areas.
And nobody really wants to eat deer that are full of sterilization drug.
Overpopulation -- That's why you now have controlled hunts on state parks. Previously there was no hunting and the deer destroyed the park vegetation. Deer were getting thin and unhealthy. Now there is hunting, and the parks are returning to some of their natural growth. Deer are more healthy. Some PETA-types advocate replacing hunters with trained marksmen, as if that makes a true difference. PETA not only opposes killing animals, but hunters getting any pleasure from the experience. A marksman isn't going to be emotionally involved, see what I mean?
I don't know that I'd call PETA types stupid. It creates antagonism right away. They make their decisions based on a lot of emotion. Rather than reason. And sometimes, they have been right. Leg hold traps now don't have teeth. That's probably due to humane associations, and was a good idea. So they have their place in the checks and balances. I don't agree with them, but I'm prone to listen. Because sometimes they are right.
Deer hunting is pretty secure in Indiana. And other places. Reason -- deer are incredibly overpopulated in urban states like Indiana. Nonhunters like the idea of deer until their gardens are devastated, they kill them on the roads, their farm crops are depleted, etc. Somebody has to take them out, and in many counties, it's almost impossible to do so in the numbers needed. There just aren't enough hunters in certain regions -- like Switzerland County, for instance.
If PETA types have success at any point, it will be regarding the methods used to kill deer. They'll attack archery as cruel methods, or baiting (not allowed in Indiana, but in some other states) as unethical and unsportsmanlike. An unfair advantage. They'll attack methods, and try to get a foothold that way. But it's still unlikely to do much good regarding eliminating deer hunting. There are too many powerful lobbies that support it: farmers, insurance companies, sportsmen.
Just so you know -- The reason that deer are overpopulated (at least in Indiana) is that wildlife agencies brought them back from the brink of extirpation (zero population in one state, but populated elsewhere. Extinct in that state). It's a constant fight between agencies and sportsmen to agree on the number of deer that should be out there. Efforts constantly are underway in Indiana to increase season limits, sexes taken, and methods to take them. Deer populations have decreased in recent years, but still are too high for insurance agencies, Farm Bureau and the like.
Another reason that deer get overpopulated -- depending on the area -- is increased habitat loss. People like their Walmarts and suburban housing editions. That is FAR more critical reason that wildlife are depleted (and deer overpopulated) than ANYTHING ELSE OUT THERE.
Also, just so you know... PETA types don't buy hunting licenses. Only sportsmen do. And fish and wildlife are managed mainly using money provided through hunting and fishing license sales. Other funds would come from sales of DNR stuff (T-shirts, calendars, etc.), or donations. So PETA or other anti-hunters or the general population contributes NOTHING to wildlife management in Indiana. No taxes go to fish and wildlife mangement. It's set up that way legislatively. So hunters and fisherman keep fish and wildlife management going. It is hunters who contribute, who improve habitats, who volunteer with agencies -- all for their own self-interest as hunters.
That gets into a whole other issue. Fish and wildlife popululations are managed to provide maximum populations and habitat for hunting and fishing purposes. So I tell non-hunters to put their money where their mouths are.
I don't know that deer are likely to starve in many places. They'll find food -- in a farmer's field, in your garden, in urban areas. They'll go where the food is. I'm not sure that disease and starvation is a good argument. What is more likely is that deer will increase their depredation and nuisance factors -- car accidents, farm crops, yard damage, etc. (See above about state parks for the opposite of this. Deer grew smaller and did a lot of damage in state parks where hunting wasn't allowed and their numbers went haywire.)
However, you want to state hunting's spiritual experience is fine. I don't quite get into Ayn Rand on her views of man's dominion. In fact I disagree with her on much of it. I don't know if anyone will buy the "becoming one with the deer thing." For one thing, I don't know that I become one with the squirrel -- but maybe I'm just not deep enough. I become part of the environment. I don't feel like I'm OVER it. Higher than anything else there. In fact, it's more a humbling experience. Ayn Rand obviously never spent much time in the Rockies or Alaska. Know what I mean?
It sounds like emotional new age gobbledygook, so I don't often talk about it, unless its with people who understand. I think maybe you felt it, when you went hunting with me. But I don't know.
Antis will tell you that hunters get their recreation from killing things, which is true. They won't understand the deeper issues or spirituality. How can you get spiritual from killing something. It's hard to make sense of, so I don't even try when making arguments. But you certainly can try.
Nor can you approach it from any American tradition angle. Like "hunting preserves an American tradition." Lynching was a tradition is some parts, but that doesn't make it right. That's what PETA types will say.
I would probably look at hunting as becoming part of the environment, period, minus dominion. But that's just me. Because when you're hunting in the national forest and Virginia, and get hypothermia 3 hours from the truck and no fire possible in a steady 40-degree downpour (as I did), or run face-to-face with a black bear sow with her cub in a tree not 5 feet away at 5:30 a.m. (again as I did), or you could break your freakin' leg and never get out... well your dominion and natural order doesn't seem so dominating or orderly. I don't know of any hunter who feels that Ayn Rand dominion out there. Usually, it's the opposite.
If I would focus on anything, it is the sportsman's emphasis on ethics afield. This has partly been inspired, I think, from animal rightist types. And they had a point.
It doesn't really matter to the deer how it gets dead. It does matter to the sportsman, and especially to non/anti-hunters. It doesn't matter whether you're spiritual when you do it. A lot of people aren't -- the old ego thing. What does matter is that the established (human) rules of fairplay and ethics are understood and put into practice. These rules are incredibly subjective. But it means at least -- 1) Following ALL state and federal laws for hunting and gun handling and safety,
2)making sure that all shots are carefully selected to ensure the animal's quick demise;
3) use the meat, at least,
4) treat landowners/property with respect,
5) treat non-hunters with respect in how you display or treat the carcass when transporting it,
6) represent yourself and other hunters in a way that furthers the sport and image.
