Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Dennis Anderson has a great piece online about that proposed dove-hunting ban that died in the Minnesota Legislature earlier this week. Click here to see how he ably refutes the Humane Society's propaganda on the matter.
Here's one of my favorite sections - and why I think it's significant:
History has shown that if you want to save something on this planet, make it a huntable or fishable species and allow a constituency to form around it.
This is as true for elephants as it is for ducks; so, too, pheasants and rainbow trout. And many others. Who do you think has led the century-old fight for wetland preservation in this state? Upland restoration? And the preservation of cold-water streams in the southeast?
Hunters and anglers.
That point never seems to carry any weight with the antis. I believe that's because they're so focused on each individual animal that they can't see the overall impact of hunting on the species is undeniably positive.
The irony is that Mother Nature - the very same Mother Nature that so many antis profess to worship - has clearly come down on the side of the species, rather than the individual. Every individual animal must die, but each animal is driven to behave in ways that perpetuate the species. That's why big bucks always get the does - it creates a stronger population.
I don't know that it's possible to persuade antis that survival of the species is more important than survival of the individual. But I'm with Mother Nature on this one.
© Holly A. Heyser 2008
Friday, March 7, 2008
Great column on the dove-hunting issue
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Holly, I just have to say I think you are a great writer and an inspiration for any female looking to take up hunting.
Wow, that was good for a huge smile. Thanks!
Tho it's crucial to remember that it is restricted hunting is what keeps a hunted species' population healthy and alive by protecting mating/breeding seasons. Unrestricted hunting has led to the extinction of entire species time after time. The way that you're talking about it so passionately might just be misconstrued, out of context, as a ringing endorsement for no species protections whatsoever...
Excellent point - I take that as a given. But it is one of the most popular misconceptions - that hunters in North America still hunt animals to extinction.
I dunno,as far as the anti hunters, you are talking about bigotry in my book. It seems any time you have an arguement backed by feelings more than thoughts, that it is not by thoughts that you will change the outlook of the bigot.
Hope I said that right,
Jean
Many anti-hunters, as far as I can tell, hold their position out of ignorance (most prejudiced people do), so giving them facts and reason help them understand that their position is held by fear or by not having all the info. I know that when Holly wrote the opinion piece for the Bee that a lot of prior anti-hunters became less hostile--at least that's what they committed to print.
On the other hand, people who are determined to be "right" no matter what, will always just stay ignorant because they are more invested in believing that they are right and others are wrong.
So, anyway, Holly you keep informing us with your observations, statistics, interviews, facts, and opinions. That multi-pronged approach will make a big contribution to bringing our love of species (both in terms of protection and eating it!) to those who don't know.
Post a Comment