Re: Sunday hunting - a different perspective
Ellen Paul (epaul@dclink.com)
Mon, 01 Mar 1999 16:08:56 -0500
Bob -
This (your message below) is a well-reasoned, but makes certain
assumptions of fact that are not warranted. I would therefore like to
respond to several of your points.
Mdosprey@ARI.Net (Bob) wrote:
>
> I have a different perspective on birders opposing the Sunday hunting
> proposal. I recognize full well that many, if not most, birders have a
> visceral distaste for hunters and hunting. I have not hunted in fifteen
> years, although there was a time when I was as fanatic in that hobby as I am
> now into birding. So I think I can see the other side perhaps better than
> many birders.
>
I think you are assuming an aspect to the objection to Sunday hunting
that, at least in my case, does not exist. I agree that conservation
owes much to hunting. Ducks Unlimited, Izaak Walton League, and other
such organizations are all valuable players in the conservation arena.
So, from my perspective, the issue has nothing at all to do with the
propriety of hunting. I just think there should be one day per week
when we can run around outdoors - anywhere outdoors - without worrying
about hunting.
> It seems to me that birders and hunters have far more in common than either
> group likes to acknowledge, and far more than they have differences. Both
> groups enjoy the outdoors, most people in both groups participate mainly on
> weekends and most now pursue their interests on public land. Certainly on
> issues of land use and conservation our interests are mainly mutual. Would we
> rather have a wildlife management area open to hunting or a housing
> development or a golf course?
Wildlife management areas are by law not open to development.
> Before we birders pick an ill-conceived fight with hunters, perhaps we might
> want to consider the following:
>
> 1. Far sighted hunters led the fight for conservation in the thirties, not
> birders.
Not entirely true. Yes, hunters led a fight for conservation but NAS
was leading a separate battle, starting several decades earlier, that
ultimately led to major legislation to protect birds. Hunters fought to
protect land (leading to the creation of the National Wildlife Refuges)
while birders were working to protect birds. Complementary but
different efforts, and it is wrong to say that birders had nothing to do
with bird conservation back then.
Were it not for the incredible efforts of Ding Darling, among
> others, there would not be hundreds of thousands of acres of public land
> available for birder's use. Most of the National Wildlife Refuges are open to
> birders 365 days of the year and protect the entire ecosystem, not just
> waterfowl. We birders ought to be thanking our maker daily for the likes of
> Ding Darling and his hunting compatriots.
As far as I know (based on major publications like Audubon) most birders
do acknowledge the role of hunters.
I would like to say that I have nothing against hunting (even though I
don't understand the pleasure in it), I wish the hunters WOULD take more
deer (lots more), and I'm not trying to pick a fight with hunters. I
just want one day a week when I don't have to worry about hunters.
> 2. Where is the conflict? Most, of the places where we Marylanders bird are
> in other jurisdictions or will never be open to hunting. State, local and
> national parks have never been hunting areas. These include, of course, the
> towpath of the C&O canal, Point Lookout and Sandy Point. The CBBT islands are
> not huntable and are in Virginia anyway. There are many essentially private
> spots, like where our famous Kelp Gull resides, that will never permit
> hunting. While Bombay Hook is open now for hunting, it is in Delaware. I
> don't think there has ever been hunting at Blackwater. Nobody is proposing to
> hunt on the breakwaters at Ocean City or the 4th Street flats. Has anyone
> ever seen a hunter at Conowingo Dam?
I actually bird in a lot of places where hunting is permitted (I try to
avoid places where there are lots of birders). You should also be aware
that there are places where state or federal parks, refuges, and other
protected areas are adjacent to or near places where hunting is
permitted (including McKee Beshears), and it is entirely possible that a
hunter or a bullet will inadvertently stray over the line.
>
> 3. Where there is a potential conflict are in state wildlife management areas
> like McKee Beshers, which we birders like to call Hughes Hollow. Hunters and
> hunter's political clout caused this area to be set aside and managed by the
> DNR. Who are we to say that it can't be used seven days a week by the folks
> who caused it's protection? Where are the spots that birders have purchased,
> protect and manage in Maryland?
I can send you a copy of the TNC list of protected sites in Maryland, if
you like. Obviously, not all of them are limited to bird protection,
but many are. And then there's the old Fort George Meade property, now
part of Patuxent. I think pressure from birders had quite alot to do
with that transfer. We have Gene Scarpulla to thank for protection of
Hart-Miller Island and I'm sure there are many other sites in Maryland
that are protected because of the efforts of birders. By the way,
hunters don't own or manage state wildlife management areas.
We birders ought to be very thankful that
> this area is available to watch the spring migration and the summer breeders
> without the "interference" of people with different interests.
This birder is.
> 4. Which brings me to the next point: How would we birders feel if another
> interest group (like hunters or golfers) was trying to stop us from exercising
> our passion one day each weekend? Wouldn't we be outraged? I don't think we
> would feel much like supporting them when a political issue arose where they
> had a major interest.
Well, my activity doesn't threaten their safety. Actually, the erratic
driving of those birders who choose to drive and bird probably does, but
that just means we should ban vehicular birding.
> 5. One of the main objects of hunting in Maryland is deer. Anything that
> substantially reduces the deer herd in suburban and exurban areas, like around
> DC, should be welcomed by birders. Deer have substantially degraded the
> habitat in many areas, adversely affecting such ground nesting birds as
> Kentucky Warblers and Ovenbirds. Deer are out of control in many areas and
> there is no feasible way of reducing their numbers except by hunting, despite
> emotional appeals from certain groups.
Your point about the deer is, I think, also making assumptions that are
not supported by the facts. Hunting doesn't seem to be doing much to
control deer populations. I wish it was, but it isn't. So I don't see
that there is much to the notion that increasing hunting by one day per
week will make much of a difference. Your statement that the few
additional Sundays during hunting season will make a substantial
difference is simply not supportable. You don't have to convince me of
the damage done by deer to ground-nesters - I study the Kentucky
Warbler. And, if that was a valid argument, then the extra day should
be allowed only during deer-hunting season, not all year. Are hunters
taking as many deer as allowed? I don't think they are, but I'm not
entirely certain. So there doesn't seem to be enough hunting demand to
take the allowable number of deer as it is. And you would have to
assume that all hunters hunt deer - is that really the case?
> 6. As far as safety is concerned, well, one is safer being in the woods with
> hunters than one is driving the Rockville Pike, not to mention Route 95 and
> the Beltway.
So what? There's a real flaw in your logic. Just because one activity
is safer than another doesn't mean that we should sacrifice some level
of safety in the first activity. In fact, we should try to make both
activities safer.
> 7. Well regulated hunting does not adversely affect the environment or
> wildlife numbers. Many studies have concluded that with or without hunting,
> wildlife numbers are about the same at the end of each summer. Other factors
> DO affect bird numbers, the most common causes have been historically
> pesticides and land use. Both hunters and birders have an interest in
> determining the cause of the severe downward trend in Bobwhite Quail numbers
> in Maryland.
Again, you are assuming arguments that no one has made. No one has said
that they are opposed to hunting at all, let alone because they think it
will affect bird populations.
> 8. There are outlaw hunters who damage the environment, just like there are
> outlaw birders. We ought to vigorously oppose both lawless groups wherever
> and whenever possible.
>
> In summary, we probably ought to think twice before publicly opposing a
> natural (albeit unacknowledged) ally.
Actually, the hunting groups have long been acknowledged as valuable
conservation allies.
We ought to be building alliances and
> friendships with outdoor oriented interest groups, not making enemies.
This has been going on for years.
> Successful politics revolves around stressing mutuality and minimizing
> differences. There are plenty of fights to be fought in the environmental
> area, and we ought to pick those where our interests are substantially
> threatened. Sunday hunting, it does not seem to me, is one of the latter.
>
> Bob Mumford
> Darnestown
I had planned to make it clear, in my testimony, that I have no
opposition to hunting and that I am only concerned about the safety
issue. I will be extra careful to make that point.
--
Ellen Paul
Executive Director
The Ornithological Council
Mailto:epaul@dclink.com
Ornithological Council Website: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET
"Providing Scientific Information about Birds"