By: Josh Tatman
An air of unease prevails as election day bears down on our nation. The last decade has divided America into political war camps. It’s increasingly difficult to stay objective. While divisiveness is most familiar and dreaded in politics, it permeates every facet of our society.
The hunting community isn’t immune. Two stories have dominated the hunting headlines over the last few weeks. Colorado’s ballot initiative to ban wild cat hunting has hunting groups up in arms. “We’re all in this together! If they take your predator hunting rights, they’ll be after your bird dogs next!”, is the common refrain. Meanwhile, our niche of the hunting world is appalled by the slaying of a bird dog by a coyote hunter in Idaho.
Are hunters really “all in it together”? At first glance, we have shared values. Hunters are interested in procuring our own food, matching our wits and strength against the pursued, and experiencing a deeper connection with the land. We also are passionate about maintaining hunting opportunities for ourselves and future generations.
Beyond that, maybe not. Hunters often have opposing interests, both in the field and in wildlife management. For a mountain grouse junkie like me, it is beneficial that seasons start in early September. For archery elk hunters, it’s less than ideal that wingshooters are traipsing around the woods popping off shotguns in the middle of the rut.
Trappers want the freedom to place their sets wherever they are most likely to catch furbearers. They definitely don’t want to advertise their trap locations to other hunters who might steal their catch or their gear. For bird dog lovers, traps are hazardous and impossible to mitigate without a clear knowledge of what areas to avoid.
Objectivity prompts the acknowledgement that other hunters' motivations and interests might diverge from our own, but that they ultimately seek positive hunting experiences just like us. However, does that entitle all hunters to a ‘bro code’ of unconditional support?
All hunting should be governed by scientifically sound wildlife management. Colorado hunters are quick to point out that the proposed cat hunting ban completely ignores what we know about compensatory harvest of apex predators. Unfortunately, hunters often have little to no understanding of wildlife management dynamics as well. We are often driven by the same marginally informed biases that lead the ‘tree huggers’ to vote against us.
Hunters are understandably concerned that some states now have wildlife commissions composed in part by those opposed to hunting. It’s hard to foresee much of a future for the pursuits we love under such a regime. Nevertheless, we are sleeping in a bed of our own making. Many decades of ‘my way or the highway’ bluster from hunters has fueled resentment.
We are certainly not the only interest group vested in conservation, but I regularly hear hunters voice opposition to other folks having a seat at the table. Pittman-Roberston taxes are a major funding source for state wildlife management, and we like it that way. It’s easy to lean on managing agencies and state governments when we pay the bills.
The problem is, we are a fraction of the overall population, and increasingly ill-equipped to deal with the challenges of increasing human land modification and wildlife impacts. It’s true that hunters have been essential to conservation work over the last century, but it doesn’t take a crystal ball to see that our influence is waning in the face of the shifting priorities held by the rest of Americans.
Some hunters seem content to double down in response to this cultural change, but that’s an impotent attempt to clasp our perceived ‘rights’. It doesn’t much matter if a few loudmouth hunters get our way for now. Eventually enough people will be disgusted by trespassers, poachers who leave meat to rot, and the other dregs of the hunting community. If we dig deeper into our foxholes, we’re just digging our own graves.
Hunters aren’t compelled to ‘get along’ with other sportspeople, especially when their behavior is detrimental. Every hunter group is plagued by those that ignore the precepts of fair chase- from predator hunters who infamously run wolves down on snowmobiles to dove hunters that pot-shot flocks off of power lines. It’s not our job to pretend such dereliction is acceptable.
It IS our job to raise our collective voice in support of scientifically sound wildlife and habitat management. In some cases, that might mean we get to shoot more critters, in some cases fewer. Regardless, if we choose to align our actions with our values, it gives hunters far more credence.
When hunters can kill dogs in traps or even shoot them out the window of a truck without penalty, we better darned well be calling for more regulation. If hunters don’t have the guts to call out and address wanton behavior amongst us, the rest of society will. We just won’t have a seat at the table.
While our priorities and our interests might diverge, hunters desperately need to be “all in it together” when it comes to upholding the ethical pursuit of game and the conservation of the landscapes that wildlife call home. We all must live in the future, regardless of whether we are bird watchers, bird hunters, or none of the above. In that sense we are ALL in it together, whether we want to be or not.
