Killing is killing, whether is it a Partridge flushing from an old overgrown apple orchard or its a lion on the charge. Humans tend to rationalize their behavior as morally superior to something similar that they don’t agree with.
Fair chase is fair chase. I don’t hear any protests about the driven game shooting that we talk about. Where beaters drive game into the guns. What sport is that one might ask. Is it fair chase? What chance does a pheasant have under those conditions? What about the use of dogs to find you more game? Is that fair? What about decoys or calls?
Do we consider the hunter who uses a gun other than a double less a sportsman? The fly fishing community has gotten to this point. I work with a guy who is a devout fly fisher. Ask him if he eats fish? He shudders and lectures you that you shouldn’t eat them, catch and release. Bait fisherman are rated just above lawyers and used car salesmen.
We could debate preserve bird hunts all day long. There are those that see no issue with this but once an animal has 4 legs, fur and or wet dark eyes, we collectively abhor preserve hunting.
Lest we forget, it is the hunter who is more of a conservationist that the armchair conservationists and environmentalists. Our tax dollars through the 11% excise tax, hunting license fees etc. support far more initiatives and activities that the antis. And not just for game birds and animals.
If it weren’t for hunters in the field, there would be a whole lot less lions to look at for the non hunters. I know those who don’t believe in shooting lions will agree but I only ask you to look at the elephant population in Kenya prior to their hunting ban and 5 years after the ban. Look at the Rhino situation. It has been proven time and again, when hunters are not present, poaching and human depredation skyrockets. No one other than a criminal element benefits and surely it is extremely counterproductive to the survivability of any species.
While hunters may shoot some animals, their presence deters poachers who kill far more, for purely monetary reasons, usually snaring or poisoning. Besides wanton slaughter for ivory, horn, hide , spleens, etc. or stealing resources, there is no economic benefit going to the locals as is when they are employed by the PH's.
You are either for legal sport hunting or against it. What means you use and what game you hunt is your choice. Again, another slippery slope. Whether you big game hunt, bird hunt or shoot, bow hunt, whatever, your intent is the same ,; kill an animal or bird.
I bird hunt and I big game hunt. I will tell you that I have no compelling desire to kill al lion or an elephant. Not because I somehow conjure up images of Dumbo and The Lion King. Just don’t have the desire. Now a Cape Buffalo at close range, that’s a different story. But I don’t condemn those who choose this. Is money a big deal in this? You bet. Look at the Whitetail craze that has been sweeping the country for the last 15 years. If you have the cash you can afford to go to those places and under fair chase rules, kill a 160-180 B&C Whitetail. Can I ? No. Do I condemn those who do? No. I may laugh at them a little when I hear their stories. But I can tell you the Spike buck I killed at 430 in the afternoon on the backside of a ridge and took the next 6 hours dragging him, freezing my butt off, soaked to the bone, sore and tired, to get him to my truck meant more to me than just about any other animal I ever killed.
The bottom line is that game animals are a renewable resource. Hunters pay for conservation and are the true stewards of the land. Hunters licensing fees, hunt expenses , presence in the field is far more beneficial to the animal kingdom and to humans than not allowing hunters in the field. Choose carefully who you condemn when they are engaged in lawful fair chase hunting .
