|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
Comments on preservation
Posted by Michael Strahan on Dec 08 2005
You made some good points, Kelly. I want to home in on the one about preservation. I hadn't thought of that before. To take it a little further, I'd say that many organizations that currently exist and that have really ponied up the cash (through members, naturally) would not exist if it were not for hunters. I believe in that sense not only are hunters "paying their way", I think it's safe to say that we've gone beyond many of the effects of our activities that might be seen as negative. The idea intrigues me though that any material damage done in one ecosystem could somehow be offset by restoration elsewhere. It's an interesting point.
It would be extremely difficult from both a practical and monetary perspectives for Alaska hunters to return anything to the local ecosystem even remotely equal to what they remove. So in a way, we're still back at square one. I'm writing this from Lewiston, Idaho today (just a quick trip down, then back to Alaska), and as our airplane was on final to the airport I looked out over the rolling hills here and couldn't help but wonder what it looked like before the white folks arrived. Probably not a lot different from what it looks like now; just mile after mile of rolling prairie, with the game isolated in seams and pockets along the waterways. Is there a need for restoration here, in compensation for earlier sins? I'm not sure, but if there was such a need, it would be so much easier here because control is possible. Not so in a place like Alaska. So in that sense, I think we must be really careful what we do in our lovely state, and mindful of the cost.
I used to think that human hunters couldn't really have a lasting negative effect on the wildlife of Alaska, but now I'm not so sure. Our means of killing are just so efficient. One of the things that causes experienced hunters to finally hang up the guns is the surety of bagging game. It's just not the challenge it once was. Contrast that with the success rates of predators (as Mark so ably said), and you have a situation that could pose a threat.
SHIFTING GEARS
Now I want to comment on what another poster said concerning the "hypocricy" of claiming to be in this for the meat, yet failing to retain the meat of predators. I think the term "hypocrisy" is a bit too strong; perhaps "inconsistency" or "conflict" come closer to what I see in this. But the fact is that no matter how we approach this, we all have inconsistencies in our practices in the field. Let's do the math. Say I'm an urban "meat hunter" who manages to bag a moose. If I have a spouse and two elementary-school-aged kids, and we have 500 lbs. of moose meat in the freezer out there in the garage, we're going to have to eat about a pound of moose meat each, every three days, just to consume that entire animal by next hunting season. I know there are folks that do exactly that, but I'll stick my neck out and say that the majority of us end up giving a bunch of it away, and on occasion, some of it ends up freezer-burned and gets tossed out. Is this kind of use an inconsistency? I think so. My point is that those among us who truly use everything we shoot are rare individuals indeed. Now, I'm not saying that I think we have to salvage everything, I'm simply pointing out that most of us are not consistent in our views. I totally understand that, by the way. There are lots of reasons why we are inconsistent. But we shouldn't tear each other up too badly if one person's inconsistencies seem greater than our own.
I see several lines of reasoning concerning the salvage of bear meat.
1. Keep it all and eat it (I know there are folks who do this, but I don't personally know any of them).
2. Keep some of it and leave the rest "to return to the earth". As I alluded in another post, this perspective may have some pretty solid environmental underpinnings. For the record, I've done this for some of my grizzly hunters, and was later told that it tasted terrible. I don't believe I'd eat it myself.
3. Shoot the bear and take only the hide and skull. This is pretty much the norm with brown / grizzly bears. There are all sorts of perspectives even among the folks who hunt bears with this intention. Some desire to shoot one in their lifetime and draw the line there. Others keep coming back, looking for a bigger one. Some of these guys seem to sense something wrong with not taking the meat, but justify it in their own way. Others just don't care at all.
See how much of a mudhole this is? Everyone is operating by their own definitions, and in some cases they just re-define things if it doesn't wash.
I'm not sure how many answers I have to these things, but I think it's a good thing to talk about it. I know other hunters think about this stuff, and I guess I'm hoping someone out there has worked at least some of this out in a way that makes sense to me.
I guess I'm rambling a bit now, so I'll shut up for now. Some of this seems to end up in an intellectual cul de sac.
-Mike
Previous: Hunting, Meat Salvage, Ethics Kelly Smith Dec 07 2005
Next: My views too? martentrapper Dec 07 2005
 Message Thread:
|
