Addressing the Rantings of the Uninformed Anti-Hunting Media

You know what? I am tired of the uninformed spouting off about things that they know nothing about. As a case in point, take a look at this article from the Independent, a New Jersey newspaper. In this article, the author rants against the prospect of a portion of her beloved park being closed to her skiing for the purpose of allowing an archery hunt. The ignorance of the author is expressed simply by the subtitle given to the article: Hunting closes parkland to recreational use. This indicates that hunting is not a justifiable recreational use of the land. My guess is that the state of New Jersey infringes on the rights of the hunters to use this land for their recreational purposes a whole lot more than this disenfranchised cross country skier. This mentality does reflect the agenda of most of the anti-hunting activists of our day: ban hunting as a "recreational activity". Think about it. What happens if these anti-hunters are able to designate that hunting is not a justifiable recreational activity on other state and federal lands? No more hunting in State Forests? No more hunting in National Forests? No more hunting on State Managed Game Lands? Folks, this is a real challenge to our hunting freedoms and rights. We cannot simply give up one kind of land, thinking that these people will stop here! We have the obligation to defend our rights to hunt on public lands. Our recreational activity is just as protected as someone else's! In fact, most of the land designated as state and national parks were done so to preserve the sporting life of hunting and fishing!

Continuing through the article reveals the absurdity of this author. First, the author makes this statement: When pressed for actual damage done by deer that justifies allowing hunting in the parks, Walsh could only cite damage to vegetation. This indicates that the damage done to the vegetation is insignificant, and should not even be under consideration. How irresponsible is that? Obviously this person does not understand the "food chain" at all. If the native vegetation is irreparably harmed, and replaced by foreign vegetation, that will not only destroy the deer population, but the populations of many other animals that rely upon the native vegetation. The Park Ecologists cited stated that the browse line was at about 4 feet. That in and of itself indicates that the deer population is way too high...the land simply cannot bear it. If the deer were not hunted to thin the herd down a bit, many more deer would die of lack of food (that is, starvation, a slow, very painful death) by the end of the winter. Which do you think is more humane? Kill a few deer now, or allow 2-3 times more deer die of starvation over the winter?

Next, this author complains about the number of "hunting violations" that that occurred during the season, and caused her to be disturbed. There were 742 permits issued for the hunting season last year, and 56 hunting offenses. That is a 7.5% offense rate (if I have done my math correctly). That certainly seems too high...until you begin to look at the offenses that are cited. There were 3 hunting permits revoked. The first was for repeated failure to show a hunting permit. The second was for possession of alcohol. The third was for having a loaded gun in a safety zone and hunting from the ground. The first offense should have never happened, but doesn't seem to have produced any danger. The second and third were far more serious, and did produce a dangerous situation. That is 2 out of 742. Again, if my math is correct, that means a .2% offense rate. Don't get me wrong, that is still too much, but not an exorbitant amount! I wonder what the offense rate is for all the people who possess driver's license in the state of New Jersey? Probably higher than 7.5%, and cesartainly higher than .2%. Maybe we should start protesting the right of people to drive? After all, they are limiting my ability to go for a hike on the interstate! By the way, most of the other offenses were very minor indeed. For example, one was for not putting a tag on a treestand properly, and another was for not carrying a treestand out soon enough after the season had ended. There are some real potential hazards to the general populace!

Finally, this author suggests that there are other options besides hunting to stop the 40% herd increase of the deer. As so many of these type of people do, she suggests some sort of deer contraceptive. Anyone who has looked at these options understands that they are completely infeasible. As one quote from this article suggests, the mortality rate of trial runs of this plan have resulted in 50%. That means that one out of every two deer caught died from the stress, or some other related aspect of the procedure. Do you think the hunters are killing 50% of the deer in this park? I don't think so, since last year only 303 deer were taken!

When will common sense return to our society? This type of article shows just how far some people will go to stop hunting. But, hunting will not be stopped, because it is too valuable of a tool to the conservation of game animals. I find it ironic that just last year, I wrote an article about the New Jersey Audubon Society wanting hunting to reduce the number of animals because of the damage they were doing. Perhaps, we will eventually have that common sense after all. But, don't hold your breath for it!