Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:15:37 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

>>I never claimed that hunters were a magic cure.  (I "hunt" in
>>supermarkets.)  I claimed that they "do the right thing" for the
>>environment when there's game involved and that the rest of us
>>basically drop the ball.  We can get hunters to do more by giving them
>>more species to care about; we know what happens when it's up to us.
>
>Oh, OK.  I disagree somewhat that the rest of us drop the ball, but I'll go
>along with the rest with few reservations.  Now, how do we get hunters to
>"care" about (i.e., want to hunt) things other than those they already are?

"Give them more species to care about" suggests an obvious strategy.

>For example, how can we get more hunters to take advantage of doe season
>instead of focusing on trophy bucks?

After talking to dozens of hunters, I don't see the trophy emphasis
that non-hunters assume dominates hunting.  Sure, they wanted one
trophy buck, but figured it would happen one year and they didn't do
anything to skew the odds.  They wanted a couple of youthful plump
deer each year.  (Many had "colorful" terms describing the old buck
meat and they ALL ate what they killed.)  They happily hunt does when
there's a doe season.

If you want more does killed, have more doe seasons.  If you want more
red squirrels, have a red squirrel season.  (In the case of mountain
sheep/goats, hunters were promised a season when suitable habitats
were restored and the population was adequate; that program took
decades, many of the people who did the work did so even though they
knew they'd die before the job was done, and now it's reasonable to
have said seasons in some places.  However, if the promise is
broken....)

>>My definition of "not scarce" includes "pets become lion-food in
>>significant numbers and kids are attacked".  Maybe things are
>>different elsewhere, but that's how things are getting in CA.  We'll
>>develop "the problem" away....
>
>And my definition of "not scarce" means population sizes sufficient to
>allow long-term survival.  In some times and some places, that means
>keeping people out and letting pets take their chances.

If there are enough to eat lots of pets in an area, there's enough
to allow long-term survival IF they aren't pushed out.

Keeping people out won't happen unless there's a paying use
that excludes them.

>>I don't really have a preservation goal, I have a conservation goal.
>>Death doesn't bother me either.
>
>What do you perceive as the difference between preservation and
>conservation?  Honest question.

Preservation excludes/discourages human use, conservation includes/
embraces it.  To first order, a preservationist prefers that deer die
from non-man causes while a conservationist either doesn't care or
prefers that people get something out of that death.  A
preservationist thinks that the deer on Angel Island should be given
vasectomies while a conservationist would just have a hunting season.

>>I do like pointing out that there are healthy and thriving herds of
>>elephants in every country that had legalized elephant hunting, that
>>the only places where they're endangered are those where elephants had
>>no legal commercial value.  (You'll notice that domestic farm animals
>>aren't endangered either.)  Preservationists value their values more
>>than they value elephants....
>
>Where populations are large and growing (and causing major problems!),
>allowing folks to hunt/sell legally is not something I have a problem with.

What if they're not causing problems?  Why are there factors other
than "can the harvest be sustained?"

>But I think the situation is a bit more complicated, perhaps, than you
>portray.  "The only places where they're endangered are those where
>elephants had no legal commercial value" suggests that, if legal hunting
>replaced poaching, the populations would be in good shape.  That only works
>if legalizing hunting resulted in fewer elephants being killed, right?

Nope; legalized hunting will often result in LARGER sustainable
"harvests".  As a conservationist, that doesn't bother me.  People who
benefit from having elephants in their "backyards" will be more
elephant friendly than people who don't care either way, and both are
significantly more elephant friendly than people who are harmed by
having elephants in their backyards.  (Elephants are very expensive
neighbors.)  Friendly neighbors create better habitats which helps
population.

Legalized hunting pushes poachers out if the money from hunting goes
to those neighbors.  Said neighbors then have a "no poacher"
incentive.  (Of course, the poachers can also pay, but then they don't
have a competitive advantage and enforcement can then tip the
balance.)

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU