By Peter Muller, Chair, C.A.S.H.
Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting
Board Member Wildlife Watch, Inc.
Is hunting part of nature? Don't animals living in a natural environment
hunt? If we lead lives consistent with our own nature and in harmony
with our environment, isn't it natural to hunt to obtain food? So
what's wrong with hunting?
In nature, predation is a healthy and normal relationship that some
species of living organisms have with others. And there is absolutely
nothing wrong with it. In fact, it would be a very aberrant ecosystem
that didn't provide for some sort of predatory-prey relationship
among some of its species. It is as essential part of nature.
Species that are in a predator-prey relationship have adapted by
evolving together in the same ecosystem so that both species benefit
from that relationship. The ecosystem, as well as the predator species
and the prey species would be adversely affected if predation were
to cease. Nobody would benefit from an artificially limited or disrupted
predation in a healthy ecosystem.
Over time, evolving in the same ecosystem, predator and prey species
have developed structural and behavioral adaptations that allow them
to be healthy predators or prey animals. Just a few examples: Prey
species usually are very fecund, they tend to have large litter and
short gestation periods. Rodents, rats, mice, guinea pigs are typical
prey species and are, as is well known, among the most rapidly reproducing
species among mammals. For example, lemmings can have litters of
about six offspring every three weeks. This is nature's way of assuring
that the species will survive even though many succumb to predation.
Mammals that have no natural predators reproduce much slower by having
small litter (often one birth per pregnancy) and long gestation periods.
Elephants, who have no natural predators, typically give birth to
one calf after a 22-month gestation period.
The structure of the eye among prey species tend to be well-suited
for peripheral vision; their eyes are on the side of the head and
can be rotated to be alert to a predator approaching from any direction.
Among predators the eyes are in the front of the head; the eyes can
focus stereoscopically to allow the predator to assess the right
distance to overtake its prey. If we look at birds for example, we
see these different eye structures between the raptors such as owls,
hawks, and eagles as contrasted with the passerines, examples of
which are sparrows, starlings, and orioles.
The ability to move and survive on their own shortly after birth
(precocial) is again markedly more developed among the prey species
than among species that have no predators. The various species have
evolved these adaptations so they can all live and thrive in their
A natural predator will take some of the prey species but not get
close to totally eradicating its prey base. Among species that have
co-evolved. It is estimated that no predator species ever takes more
than about 10 percent of its prey base. The kill rate for a predator
attempting to take a prey animal is also low: Sometimes it is less
than 10 percent, typically it is around 20 percent.
Predation, in nature, benefits both the predator and the prey species.
The predator species, and incidentally scavenging species, benefit
by having their food needs met by predation. The prey species, however,
also benefits. Predation will 1) remove infected and diseased individuals,
and so reduce risk of further contagion and spread of parasites and
2) remove congenitally weak animals, preventing them from breeding,
and thereby improving the gene pools of the prey species.
The prey species is healthier and genetically improved by having
predators. The entire ecosystem benefits from this kind of continuing
interspecies interaction. This is natural predation and it promotes
biodiversity it encourages the evolution of variations of species
and subspecies through adaptations of both the predator and the prey
Hunting by humans operates perversely. The kill ratio at a couple
hundred feet with a semi-automatic weapon and scope is virtually
100 percent. The animal, no matter how well-adapted to escape natural
predation (healthy, alert, smart, quick, etc.) has virtually no way
to escape death once it is in the cross hairs of a scope mounted
on a rifle. Nature's adaptive structures and behaviors that have
evolved during millions of years simply count for naught when man
is the hunter.
Most deer, for example, would not perceive anything that is within
the effective range of a big game rifle (up to 400 yards) as a predator
or a source of danger. A wolf at that distance, even though detected,
would be totally ignored. Even the much smaller range of bow-hunter
(about 50-75 feet) is barely of concern to deer. Deer may start to
keep an eye on a hunter at that distance, but the evasion instinct
doesn't kick in until it's too late.
Hunters go after healthy big animals for meat and trophies. This
leaves the diseased and congenitally weak animals to breed - thereby
degrading the gene pool and spreading disease. The hunted species
becomes a degenerate and runty imitation of the real species that
evolved in the habitat before human hunting. Hunting by humans has
never under any circumstances been akin to natural predation. Using
modern technology makes matters worse, but even hunting by indigenous
people, before the blessings of Western civilization were bestowed
on them, was just as destructive only at a slower rate. The North
American mammoth and the Patagonian giant sloth are just two examples
of animals that were hunted into extinction by indigenous hunters.
To see exactly how hunting is destructive to an ecosystem, let's
look at a specific game animal. Probably the most widely hunted animal
in North America is one of the common species of deer (white-tailed,
mule deer, or black-tailed with an aggregate of about 50 subspecies).
A territory has a carrying capacity for each species that has naturally
evolved in that habitat. Nature has mechanisms in place to ensure
that the carrying capacity that is appropriate for that species is
Let's assume a naturally segmented area has sufficient browse to
feed a deer population of 400 animals. What would happen if one year
the herd had many more births than losses due to the winter die-off
and the herd's population was brought to 500?
At the start of the next rut, several mechanisms would kick in to
ensure a smaller amount of fawns the following year. If deer are
hungry (not starving, but not well fed either), the sexual drive
of the male deer declines and the female deer stops ovulating. Since
the browse is now insufficient to feed all 500 animals, a portion
of the deer population would not reproduce during that season. With
the normal die-off during the winter and the smaller than normal
birth during the spring, the total population would be reduced to
less that 500.
Within a few seasons the populations would again stabilize around
the capacity of the territory. If the population dropped substantially
below the carrying capacity (say to 300), similar natural mechanisms
would kick in to bring the population back up to the normal carrying
capacity of 400. Other mechanisms (such as immigration and emigration)
are used by nature to maintain the population at the carrying capacity.
These mechanisms with which the species have evolved have, intrinsic
within them, assumptions that have been true for millions of years.
Human hunting totally destroys some of these mechanisms. Normally,
left to their own devices, the sex ratio of male to female animals
is about 50-50. Deer are born about evenly male and female. Most "sport" or "trophy" hunters
prefer to take bucks rather than does. This distorts the gender ratio
of the population. Let's say it changes from 50-50 ratio to 80-20
leaving four times as many does as bucks.
Nature's mechanisms that adjust the population to the browse will
now miscalculate and cause an overpopulation. Based on 50-50 ratio,
a herd of 400 will produce a maximum 50-animal net gain assuming
a 100 animal winter die-off and 150-fawn increase from the remaining
Based on an 80-20 ratio, a 400 animal herd will produce a 140 animal
increase, assuming again a 100 animal winter die-off, but this time
240 does will give birth to 240 fawns instead of 150 does giving
birth to 150 fawns. With the ratio distorted at 80-20, the population
will increase to 540 instead of 450.
Nature now miscalculates in assuming the increase based on a 50-50
sex ratio. Now indeed catastrophic starvation and die-offs can occur.
Hunting is not the cure but the cause of overpopulation and starvation.
Luke Dommer, the founder of the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting,
has proposed to several state wildlife agencies that if they are
serious about using hunting as a population control tool in areas
where the sex ratio is already badly distorted, they should institute
a doe season. (Taking no bucks but only does until the ratio is again
stabilized at 50:50). All agencies have rejected that proposal thereby
giving up any pretense of ecologically motivated sound wildlife management.
They quite consciously and openly state that they are in business
to provide the maximum number of live targets to hunters each year.
The state agencies encourage the destruction of the naturally evolved
ecosystem by encouraging human hunting that balloons the population
of the game species at the expense of the other species. Their management
techniques, in addition to sex-ratio distortion, include removal
of natural predators (e.g. wolves, coyotes, panthers, bears) altering
the natural habitat to provide additional browse for game species
and destroying the habitat of non-game species . (E.g. clear-cutting
and/or burning areas and sowing them with oats for deer at the expense
of rabbits, voles, various reptiles and amphibians and many other
Things sometimes go totally haywire if a species is introduced into
an ecosystem where it didn't evolve. Biologists call such an organism
an "exotic" animal or plant. If the exotic animal is a
prey species, it may have no defenses against a local predator and
be totally wiped out in the first few weeks. On the other hand, it
may not have any local predators and consequently proliferate beyond
the carrying capacity of the territory, causing catastrophic die-off
If an exotic predator is introduced, the predator species itself
may die out if there is no suitable local prey. Or, it may cause
the extinction of local prey species who have no defenses against
the exotic predator. Or, it may cause the extinction of local predators
if it is more successful and out-competes the local predator species
in taking the prey.
Numerous examples of the consequence of introduction of exotic organisms
within environments where they have not evolved can be cited: The
introduction of snakes into Guam during World War II to control the
rat population nearly wiped out several indigenous bird species;
introducing trout for sport fishing into Lake Titicaca in Peru in
the 1930s wiped out about 25 species of local fish. Those fish species
were not found anywhere else in the world. There are hundreds of
examples where the introduction of an exotic species had a deleterious
effect on an ecosystem.
The wildlife management agencies defy sound procedure by such practices
as introducing exotic game species into areas and then distorting
the habitat to favor their survival at the expense of native species
that have evolved in the area. e.g. stocking an area with pheasants,
an Asian bird, and cutting tall timber trees needed by native raptors
The activity of human hunting is not and never has been a sustainable,
mutually beneficial, predator, prey relationship. Human hunting techniques,
even the most primitive ones, are far too efficient to meet the conditions
required of a natural predator-prey relationship. In modern times,
with new technology, the efficiency becomes totally lopsided so as
to cause instant habitat degeneration. Add to this the conscious
mismanagement of habitat to further degrade and obviate all natural
Using techniques such as sex-ratio distortion, habitat manipulation,
the removal of natural predators and the introduction of exotic game
species destroy Biodiversity. The goal is to maximize the number
of targets for human hunting, thereby destroying the naturally evolved
ecosystems and putting them at the brink of total collapse.
The number of animals of game species (native and exotic) is maximized
at the expense of all others. The naturally evolved mechanisms that
insure biodiversity are short-circuited.
The only way that these ecosystems will survive is to prohibit human
hunting and other forms of nonsustainable consumptive uses of these
animals. Permit the unfettered reintroduction and re-immigration
of predators (which is occurring naturally). Stop "managing" the
environment of those areas. When it comes to managing the environment,
our knowledge is inadequate to do an even passable job. Even given
an ethically sound motivation, which the state agencies now lack,
we simply don't know enough to do a better job than nature.
Rather than playing god, we are acting more like stooges, when it
comes to managing ecosystems. For the sake of life on Earth, we must
not allow the hunting and gun-manufacturing lobbies to continue to
dictate wildlife management policies.