Wrong.

Hunting is a privilege. ALL states recognize hunting as a privilege granted to certain individuals... not a right. Neither the federal nor any state constitution recognize hunting as a right. From the Illinois hunter education manual, page 5:

"Privileges are extra benefits given to a person or group. They may be given only to people who meet certain conditions. Hunting is an example of a privilege." ALL states teach in their hunter education classes that hunting is a privilege.

2. Hunters control animal populations

Hunters manipulate animal populations for their own benefit.

Whitetail deer have been manipulated to the point of overpopulation in some areas. From Mr. DuBrock, Director of Wildlife, Pennsylvania Game Comission:

"The increase in deer in Pennsylvania is a direct result of hunting practices which have routinely killed large number of bucks, thus removing a large number of animals from the herd and causing the compensatory rebound. Furthermore, such hunting practices, by constantly killing males while leaving females alive, have upset the natural 1:1 female to male ratio to at least 5 females to every 1 male." As rural areas have outgrown the ability to support a healthy deer herd, the animals have expanded into more populated areas and are now common in suburbs. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in auto/deer accidents, damage to property, and starvation of animals. Hunters actually cause overpopulation and the degradation of the deer herd in general by seeking to kill antlered bucks with no regard for the herd in general. This results in skewed sex ratios, as high as 25 females to one male in some areas. Since deer are polygamous, the herd multiplies while the hunting kill increases. From the 1998-99 Kentucky Hunting Regulations Manual, page 12:

"In 1976, the first year for mandatory check in, Kentucky recored 3,476 harvested deer. Herd growth accelerated in the 1980's. A two-deer limit was begun in 1987. By 1989 the quality of the deer left much to be desired. Lots of deer were being killed, but they were small with small racks [antlers]. Hunters blamed malnutrition, disease or poor genetics, but the real reason was lack of age. Kentucky had lots of healthy deer with good genetics, but they were young. The number of deer living long enough to reach their rpime was very small. 22% of the bucks were two years or older, less than 6% were three years old. Biologists determined that the quality of the deer herd would improve if more of the herd lived longer. Genetically superior bucks would naturally out-compete their unfit rivals." THAT is what hunting does to deer.

What about other animals? There are 1145 species of mammals and birds in North America. 141 are classified as game animals. Of the remaining, almost 90% of the species, NONE are overpoulated and starving. Left to their own, animal populations will stabilize and meet the carrying capacity of their habitat.

Among game animals, populations are declining. And have been for decades. Hunters stock millions of pheasants, quail, ducks, foxes, raccoons, and turkeys each year on private property expressly for hunting. Not to mention the breeding of exotics for hunting in enclosures. Why is this necessary? The US Fish and Wildlife Service has steadily reduced daily limits of ducks and geese in the past 20 years. Duck limits are 1/3 to 1/10 what they were in the early to mid-1980s. The goose quotas for 1998 are reduced as much as 50% from 1997. This is partially due to reduced populations and partially due to hunter's lack of reporting kills under the federal H.I.P.S. program.

Hunters disdain the competition of natural predators. Most states allow year round killing of fox, coyotes, raccoons and even mountain lions in some cases. Where year round hunting is not allowed, seasons are long and bag limits large or unlimited. In the past, bounties were paid on these animals. As late as 1980, Michigan paid $5 for a male coyote, $20 for a female.

At the same time that hunters say they "control" or "reduce overpopulation" they will piont out that there are more deer than when the Pilgrims came in 1620. True enough. But gone are the bison, the wolves, the fox, the gray goose, the elk (once widespread in the east), the moose, the passenger pigeon, the prairie chicken, the prairie dog, the pronghorn antelope, the grouse and ducks that blackened the skies with their numbers. All have been eliminated by the hunter. To replace them we have an overabundance of deer, at the behest of game departemnts in search of dollars, immature herds and turkeys stocked in areas that are not native driving out native populations of birds.

94% of the population (non-hunters) have surrendered to the 6% of hunters who have manipulated our animals to their benefit. It is time this stops.

3. Hunters contribute to wildlife

Hunters contribute to hunting. Hunters contribute money to hunting in various ways, let's examine them.

Hunting licenses and state stamps. These are sold and the money collected at the state level. The states use 71% of the funds generated by these sources to enforce the hunting regulations of the states (Iowa DNR studies). The remainder are used to improve and maintain state lands for hunting use. Cleaning up after the hunting season, providing parking areas, and even stocking game on state lands for hunters to kill. Illinois stocks pheasants on 8 state parks for hunter's exclusive use as targets. The parks are closed to other uses during the hunting season. Ed Rodniak, manager of the Chain O' Lakes State Park in Lake Co., IL states that carryover (survival) of the birds is "0 %". Those that are not killed by hunters die of exposure to the elements. These are pen raised, hand fed birds.

These fees, then, become reimbursement to the states for regulating and catering to the hunters. It is not "for the wildlife".

Federal stamps. These are issued by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. The money is collected and redistributed to the states, after "an expensive night on the town in Washimgton, DC". After "costs", the states are returned approximately 43% of the funds for "wetland development" and law enforcement. Violation of migratory bird hunting rules is a federal offense, and fines are paid to the federal government, yet the federal government provides no law enforcement. This is done by the states. These funds are used to reimburse the states for the costs of enforcing federal laws with state employees. Wetland projects must be approved in advance, and the project must benefit migratory waterfowl or bird species, these species are, in turn, hunted. No non-game species directly recieve any benefit of these funds.

The Pittman-Robertson Tax. This began in 1937 as a 10% federal excise tax on the sale of rifles, shotguns, and ammunition for them. During WW2, the tax was raised to 11% and has remained at that level. In 1970 the fund was expanded to include handguns, reloading (ammunition) components, boats, outboard motors and fishing equipment. Fisherman and target shooters objected. Only 16% of America's firearms owners are hunters, and less than 10% of fisherman and boaters hunt. They objected to providing funds for hunters. So the act was modified to include lake and river improvement for boat access, public shooting range development, and hunter and boating education classes.

These funds are distributed to states based on a formula of state size (square miles of area) and number of hunting licenses sold. Funds "for wildlife" must be used to benefit huntable species or land open for hunting. When Senator Boxer (D. CA) introduced the "Desert Protection Act", which would have closed hunting on 2 million acres of California desert, the USFWS protested that doing so would make the land ineligible to receive Pitman-Robertson funds. Again the hunters assure the use of the money for their direct benefit.

So, what kind of projects do we get for the generous contributions of hunters? Stocking turkeys where they have never existed before, trading turkeys from Texas to Florida for alligators, to restore the hunter decimated populations of the animals, attempts to introduce elk to the lower penninsula of Michigan for hunting. Attempts to introduce elk to Kentucky. Why? Simple. Hunting has become a tourist industry, and the game departments are the innkeepers of that industry. Kentucky does not want Kentuckians that wish to hunt elk going to Montana or Colorado, not when the federal government will pay to stock the elk in Kentucky. Florida needed turkeys to restore it's decimated population of the native osceola species. Unfortunately Osceola turkeys lived only in Florida. No problem. Trade some alligators to Texas gator hunters for the Rio Grande species of turkey native to Texas. Thus allowing Texans to hunt gators at home and sealing the fate of the few remaining Osceola turkeys. But hey, a turkey is a turkey, and now Florida hunters can kill a turkey right at home.

At the same time states play games to increase their "piece of the pie". Many states used to allow persons under 16 yrs. old, over 65 yrs. old, and landowners to hunt without licenses. Not any more. Now they must have a license, or permit, but they may be charged only a nominal fee for this. Some as low a 50 cents. BUT... it is a license sale, and therefore increases that state's funds... at the expense of another state.

What these funds have done is to make the government game departments, charged with the resources that belong to everyone, the handmaidens of the hunters. We can be assured to have an overabundance of targets for hunters, but no real balance of nature. No balance was ever intended.

4. Alternatives to hunting

"There are no practical alternatives to hunting", we are told. "Hunting reduces animal populations and generates revenue. It does not 'cost' anything." Well, let's look at this myth.

Currently the only wild animals in a condition of "overpopulation" (too many animals for the habitat) are whitetailed deer, and then only in isolated areas. Whitetails are NOT overpopulated in the vast majority of their range. Whitetailed deer represent less than 2% of the animals killed by hunters each year, yet are always used as the excuse for all hunting. Even bird hunters use whitetails as their excuse while they hunt pen raised, stocked birds. Many common game birds are not even native to North America, but were imported for hunting. Ringnecked pheasant (China), Hungarian, or gray partridge (central Europe) and chuckar (central Europe to Asia) are good examples.

There are natural, inexpensive alternatives to hunting. Stopping the war on natural predators is one way. Coyotes, wolves, mountain lions, foxes, eagles, hawks, owls and raccoons have been persecuted for centuries. STOP!!!!!!!! These animals are valuable predators and scavengers. They are natural, and part of nature's plan for balance. The habitat is not complete without them. In addition to providing year 'round population control of prey species, they benefit the herd by naturally selecting weak and inferior animals as food. They are simply easier to prey upon. After all, it is not necessary for a deer to be stronger or smarter than a wolf or coyote.... he need only be stronger, or smarter, than another deer.

In urban and suburban areas where confined population cells of whitetails are a problem, contraception is a viable alternative. Dr. Gary Killian of Penn State University has developed an oral contraceptive for deer and other animals. The drug is "selective" and only affects female deer. Any other animals eating the drug laced food are not affected. It is impossible for the animals to "overdose" on the drug, and as little as one bale of treated hay can effectively protect the female deer in an area as large as one square mile. The drug has an effective action of one year. So populations can be monitored and controlled. Treatments can be delivered by helicopter or by vehicle. At Angel Island in California the deer herd was reduced from 150 animals to 60 animals. At Point Reyes National Seashore the Tule elk herd was reduced from 212 to 70 animals. Natural predators and natural death reduced the herd, and birth control prevented the "rebound" effect so often seen with hunting.

Why aren't more agencies using it? Because hunters, who claim to love wildlife and only hunt for the good of the wildlife, do not believe in population control unless it means they get to kill something. Why wouldn't they support a reduction in deer herds, since that is what they claim to be doing? The game departments, always the handmaidens of hunters, use "studies" paid for by hunters to conclude that contraception is not viable.

Until we break the stranglehold the hunters have on game departments and "wildlife biologists", they will always conclude hunting is the best alternative. Educating the non-hunting public to these facts is the best way to do this.