Contrary to what hunters…

Contrary to what hunters often say in defense of their cruel pastime, hunting has nothing to do with “conservation” or “population control.” In fact, animals are often specially bred and raised for hunters to kill.

If left unaltered by humans, the delicate balance of nature’s ecosystems ensures the survival of most species. Natural predators help maintain this balance by killing only the sickest and weakest individuals.

Hunters, however, strive to kill the animals they would like to hang over the fireplace—usually the largest, most robust animals, who are needed to keep the gene pool strong. Hunting” often weakens the rest of the species’ population: For example, in Canada, hunting has caused the bighorn sheep’s horn size to fall by 25 percent in the last 40 years. Nature magazine reports that “the effect on the populations’ genetics is probably deeper.”

Even when unusual natural occurrences cause overpopulation, natural processes work to stabilize the group. Starvation and disease are tragic, but they are nature’s way of ensuring that healthy, strong animals survive and maintain the strength of their herd or group. After hunters kill the largest members of a population, the offspring of weak adults have difficulty finding food and gaining the strength needed to survive extreme weather; therefore, hunting can actually cause starvation rather than prevent it.

“Sport” hunting also exacerbates other problems. For example, the transfer of captive-bred deer and elk between states so that hunters can kill them is believed to have contributed to the epidemic spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD), a fatal neurological illness in deer and elk that has been compared to mad cow disease. As a result, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has given state wildlife agencies millions of dollars to “manage” deer and elk populations. While the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claim that CWD has no relationship to any similar diseases that affect humans or farmed animals, the slaughter of deer and elk continue

Hunters’ intended targets aren’t the only ones who suffer. Hunting accidents destroy property and injure and kill horses, cows, dogs, cats, hikers, and other hunters. According to the International Hunter Education Association, there are dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries attributed to hunting in the U.S. every year—and that number only includes incidents involving humans.

Even though less than 5 percent of the U.S. population hunts, nonhunters are forced to share many wildlife refuges, national forests, state parks, and other public lands with armed individuals who enjoy killing animals. Almost 40 percent of hunters in the U.S. slaughter and maim millions of animals on public land every year. By some estimates, poachers kill just as many animals illegally. Most federal and state agencies that are charged with managing wildlife refuges, national forests, state parks, and other public lands are funded in part by hunting and fishing activities, so agency personnel often go out of their way to encourage these activities rather than regulate or police them.

For those who were not exposed to hunting at an early age, agencies and special interest groups hold events and support clubs that target people who are less likely to purchase licenses, such as women, racial minorities, and senior citizens. Wildlife agencies also know that hunters are more likely to purchase licenses in subsequent years if a previous hunt resulted in a kill. Therefore, they implement programs—often called “wildlife management” or “conservation” programs—that are designed to boost the number of “game” species. These programs help to ensure that there are plenty of animals for hunters to kill and, consequently, plenty of revenue from the sale of hunting licenses.

Because wildlife agencies are funded by excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment and by revenue from the sale of licenses, hunters—who constitute a tiny percentage of Americans—enjoy a disproportionate say in how wild areas and the animals who inhabit them are managed. Because money talks, Americans who choose to participate in humane, nonlethal activities such as hiking and bird-watching are given little to no role in decisionmaking.