For Mother’s Day Mr. A and I decided to do something we’ve been wanting to do for awhile but haven’t had the time. And no, I’m not talking about sex. We went on a birding trip with the Audubon Society at a conservation area south of Spokane called Slavin Ranch. It was bitterly cold for a May morning but the area is fantastically beautiful with coniferous forest and sprawling wetland rushes and ponds. And the wildflowers are beginning to bloom (which makes it very hard for me to keep my attention on the birds) 
While we were walking we got in an interesting conversation with a couple of people in the group about hunting and conservation. One man posed the question, “What gives someone else the right to hunt my animals? If they are on public land they are, by right, part mine. So what gives other people the right to hunt them?” With Mr. A working as a game and non-game biologist, this is a relevant issue for him and a question he not only wants, but needs to have an answer to.
Mr. A’s first and probably most obvious response was “Yes, but as public land it belongs to all of us.” Public lands are held in trust for the American people by the federal government and were set aside with multiple use mandates. There is no one public opinion and therefore no single public use of these pieces of land. Many public lands are set aside as wilderness areas, and the values and uses of these areas are outlined in the Wilderness Act passed in 1964 (I could digress and examine the language in this one document alone. It makes for an interesting analysis, but maybe another day).
Management agencies like the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park’s Service, and federal and state fish and wildlife departments have a responsibility to maintain the health of these lands, particularly wilderness areas, and hunting selected species is often one tool used to keep populations under control. So, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the man mentioned earlier (I’ll call him Bob) is right. The public does not have a right to hunt animals that have been trusted to the rest of the general public. How then do federal and state managers control populations? Bob was speaking specifically of deer hunting so I’ll use that as my primary example. Mr. A and I figured there are a couple options.
Option 1: Reintroduce native predators like wolves. Problem: Deer specifically tend to wander through populated areas. There are enough problems with wolf reintroduction in uninhabited areas. Wolves wandering through the suburbs creates a whole new set of problems.
Option 2: Managing agencies could thin the populations based on need themselves. Problem: Transparency. If a state agency, or any agency for that matter, were to harvest animals there is too much potential for abuse by the members of that agency. There would be public outcry over the whole process. Best solution to this problem? Let the public harvest the animals whose populations need to be controlled. You see the circularity of the problem.
Option 3: Don’t hunt. Problem: Starvation, disease, habitat degredation, general unsanitary conditions from dead deer carcarases littering the countryside.
These arguments seem pretty obvious to me and I’ve heard them numerous times before (though it does help in thinking through the problem.) The best explanation that Mr. A and I settled on boils down to a question of biology.
We are mammals and omnivores. For better or worse, we eat meat. There are several ways we can obtain the meat we consume. One is through commercial farms and dairies (and these range from the local organic farm to the mega-corporation that have crowded and sometimes inhumane conditions). Another is through hunting.
With more and more people becoming conscious of what they eat, both for health and environmental reasons, there has been a growing interest in organic and locally-grown food. While preganant and since the birth of Crazy Towhead, Mr. A and I have begun to learn more about our food and where it comes from. A large source of our learning has come from our involvement with a CSA (community-supported agriculture) while we were living in the Great Basin. This program delivers a weekly basket of organic and locally-grown vegetables and fruits to people who live in town. The subscribers are connected to the farmers via a newsletter and an end-of-the-season “day at the farm.” The “think global, eat local” concept, also popularized as the Slow Food movement, has been explained eloquently and persuasively by Gary Paul Nabhan in his book Coming Home to Eatand in Barbara Kingsolver’s Animal, Vegetable, MIracle. The underlying idea in all of this is to know where your food comes from, how it was grown/processed, and to lessen the distance it travels to get to your table. In this way consumers can eat healthier food, support local economies and small-scale agriculture, reduce their carbon footprint, and it encourages people to be more concerned about the health of their own ecosystem since that directly affects what they eat.
Whether people approve of hunting or not, there is no better way to know your own food and where it comes from than to go out and harvest it yourself. When fruit comes from Chile or Mexico we don’t think twice about it but what do we know about the water supply in that area? The vast majority of people eat meat but a small fraction of those know where that meat came from, what that animal was fed, and thus know very little about what they’re eating. Most don’t want to know. And that’s OK. There are parts of biology and anatomy that are not all that appetizing. But as Mr. A said, “The only person who I think has a right to object to me, or anyone, hunting is a vegetarian.” And we do have a number of vegetarian friends. Ironically a large number of them will eat game meat. We’ve jokingly dubbed them “gametarians.” Perhaps this is because most of the vegetarians we know don’t eat meat because they object to the way meat is raised and processed in this country. But most of them don’t object when they know the animal lived a life in the wild, who shot it and how it was processed.
Given the consumption rate of first world countries, the US in particular, it seems to me that we have an ethical responsibility to choose (when possible) what we eat and how that food is produced. Whether they exist on public or private land, isn’t hunting selectively better than eating meat from a corporate farm that potentially abuses the animal, or kills it an inhumane way, and pollutes the surrounding environment by the concentration of animals it packs into a smaller space (ie feces concentration in the local water supply)?
So Bob, the answer Mr. A and I came up with is this: It is more than anything else a question of biology - we eat other organisms to survive. If we are concerned about our environment and the species that co-exist with us then we should be more concerned about where our food comes from and how we harvest it. And if that’s the case the main ethical question should not be whose land it’s on or whether we should kill other organisms in the first place, but how do we better connect with what we eat. How do we change our habits so that our bodies, our deer, and our ecosytem beneft from a necessary biological exchange?
