Realistically, the title could also be “What I Just Don’t Get About the Anti’s”. What that really is in reference to is the manner in which they think. In James Fenimore Cooper’s classic “The Last of the Mohicans” Hawkeye argues with Cora saying “There is no reason in her words, Chingachgook, Uncas hear you the words of the dark eyed woman”. Of course the movie simplifies this a bit more and with the same two characters speaking Hawkeye utters the words “they are a breed apart and make no sense” referring to the ignorance of life on the North American continent.
Indeed, I feel that many anti-hunters are “a breed apart and make no sense”. Their manner of thinking is very much two dimensional and it seems they often either ignore impeaching evidence or simply don’t think a wildlife situation all the way through to fruition making very little if any attempt to understand ALL of the effects of their proposals. Stephen Vantassel in his book “Dominion over Wildlife” remarks that “CAR activists take a theory, then read scripture through that theory and thereby ignore all contrary evidence.” (http://www.stephenvantassel.com/DominionOverWildlife.html)
If you were to ask an anti-hunter what would happen if we didn’t hunt they would probably say that fewer animals would suffer. This prima fascia thought sounds logical but simply put ignores wildlife population dynamics such as carrying capacity and the fact that hunting is compensatory and not additive. In fact if you didn’t hunt/trap then more individuals “suffer” because each individual gets less of a share of the total resources in an ecosystem. A given population that is consistent with its resources actually “suffers” the least and hunting and trapping do more to achieve that goal than emotionally filled campaigns aimed at condemning any lifestyle that doesn’t emphasize a vegetarian diet.
Last year a bowhunter in Connecticut shot a killed a deer that then ran to the neighboring property which happened to be owned by a very active animal rights member and rabid anti-hunter. http://www.ussportsmen.org/Page.aspx?pid=2208#bow
The hunter asked for permission to retrieve his deer and was denied. In accordance with CT law if a hunter cannot retrieve his deer to place a tag on it then they are free to continue to use that tag. In other words, he can hunt and kill another deer with the same tag. The first deer is already dead and any “suffering” is already over with but this anti-hunter didn’t think the whole thing through. By not allowing the retrieval of the first deer she opened the door for the “suffering” of a second deer. Bravo!
The license fee increase works the same way. If by increasing the fees fewer hunters buy licenses then fewer federal dollars, which are based on license sales, will be available for proper wildlife management including habitat enhancement and creation, environmental law enforcement, endangered species, introduction or reintroduction of new species such as this moose on Tom Brophy’s place etc.. not to mention the effects on the economy from fewer hunters taking trips and putting money into the local businesses. The bottom line is we have a anti-hunting DEC commissioner trying to prevent animal suffering at the hands of the big, bad hunters but the long term effects have a much more far reaching and devastating effect because anti-hunters are more consumed with their personal agendas and just don’t get how to think entirely through their “solutions”!