Hunters across America are wary of the political intentions of groups like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.) In particular, hunters are worried that PETA and other animal rights activists may be able to exert enough influence to get laws or local ordinances passed that make it difficult or impossible to continue hunting.

Although the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, as it has been interpreted, there is no right to hunt. Indeed, hunting itself is licensed almost everywhere in America and hunting seasons define what times of year hunters can harvest particular types of animals.

PETA is pretty straightforward about what it wants, as spokesman Ryan Huling says: “PETA exists to remind people that there is really no difference between abusing cats and dogs and abusing dear and fish. These animals feel pain in exactly the same way.” Wildlife and domestic pets, though, differ in fundamental ways. Deer are natural prey. Indeed, if deer are not culled by a predator, then the deer population will suffer a worse fate — slow starvation, with the youngest dying first. Game birds are also routinely killed in nature by predator birds, and when the predators are not active then the game birds die.

Most state conservation agencies work scrupulously to have hunters operate much like other predators in the wild. The result is that hunters, in the estimation of most experts who study conservation seriously, are an important part of the natural balance in animal systems. Moreover, hunting licenses are dedicated to wildlife game generating revenue and support for their activities.

But there is a more fundamental issue than simply conservation. Hunting is one of the oldest ways for people to feed themselves. At the heart of all political rights is the right to exist and the right to engage in gainful employment. That is one reason why the state of Vermont has had a “right to hunt” recognized since 1777.  Nine states in the last 15 years have also passed “right to hunt” provisions, including Alabama, Minnesota, North Dakota, Virginia, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Montana, Georgia, and Oklahoma. No state has banned hunting.

Fishing is even more fundamental to human existence. Nations like Iceland and Japan derive a significant part of their food supply from commercial fishing, and almost every nation with a coastline has some sort of fishing industries in which substantial numbers of people from fishermen to cannery workers to fish market operators rely. The recreational fishing enjoyed by so many Americans kills a much smaller number of fish than the commercial fishing operations which provide much of the food we eat.

Most Americans — and nearly all Americans who hunt or fish — also see the therapeutic effects of these activities, particular on young men and women. This is particularly true for children in cities who might otherwise turn to drugs or delinquency. Hunting and fishing programs, often run at no cost by organizations of sportsmen, allow these young men to enjoy the outdoors and engage in productive recreational activities. Hunters also run projects like “Hunters Against Hunger,” which provide free meat to homeless shelters, charitable activities without any state action. It seems likely that PETA and related organizations will push wherever they can, including challenging the right to hunt and to fish.  But it is also true that this intrusion into traditional natural rights will run into tough opposition.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (8)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Death for no reason, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Flu-Bird said:

Nature isnt like disney Unlike what many have been lead to from watching a dsney film nature isnt like that many animals die from seases and starvation and predators and we need to hunt and use it as a wildlife conservation and reject this emotional bunk

March 21, 2010

Richard Robinson said:

Rights The right to hunt is just a right to driving, to which there is none. However the 2nd Amendment IS a right and must not be tampered with such as concealed carry and registration.

March 22, 2010

Richard said:

Hunting and fishing have both INCREASED many animal species that were close to extinction. When there is a REASON to keep a species alive, (income from hunting and fishing supplies) those species have a much better chance of survival than if no one cares about their existence except animal wrongs groups and scientists. As proven in Africa, the elephant herds are getting larger where they allow regulated hunting while in the areas where hunting is illegal, poachers are decimating the herds. The deer herds in North America were around 500,000 about 80 years ago, now they number in the millions. Turkeys were almost extinct until hunters took over support for hunting lands and reintroducing birds to areas without them for decades. Many trout would be extinct if fishermen had not reported bad water quality in their favorite fishing streams. It is the hunters and fishermen of the world who REALLY care about wildlife, not the PETA people who want to eliminate ALL animal/human ineraction.

March 22, 2010

Sam Adams said:

PETA Some people have a weird definition of rights. Amendment 9 to the United States Constitution basically says that just because it isn't written here doesn't mean it's not a right. Rights are things that no man or Government can deny another. If hunting is not a right, man and Government can deny others from doing it and thus deny them of life (starvation). I also have a right to drive on my own property without registration, license or insurance. I don't have a right to drive on roads built by others. If the GOP would have done a better job of explaining that health care is a right but rights are not provided for by the Government, we wouldn't be where we find ourselves today.

March 22, 2010

Sam Adams said:

OOps I forgot my last bit. I thought PETA stood for People Eating Tasty Animals.

March 22, 2010

Richard Robinson said:

Rights So glad you 'assumed' Adam. I didn't say not too on your own property. You can do what you want on your property. Glad to know you've gone overboard with what I was trying to say. You can hunt or whatever on your own property. But does that mean you have a right to hunt on others? What a weird concept of rights.

March 22, 2010

Tiredofliberals said:

"thinking" liberals? Richard Robinson- you made some non-sensical remark about "The right to hunt is just a right to driving, to which there is none." The trouble with you liberals is that you think the government MUST grant rights in order for us useless eaters to have them. Well I have news for you Richard, this may be scary for you, but with some effort you too can be free! Let's talk about hunting. The Snow goose is a great example of game management. With limited hunting , the snow goose population has exploded. They now are in danger of a massive die-off because they have had a successful population surge. SO you see Richard we don't need extremists trying to ban everything that has got humanity to this point in time just to satisfy a bunch of great thinkers like you and the other PETA geniuses. Some of us can think for ourselves.

March 29, 2010