Hunting for Gaia's Benefit

The trend in the ecology movement toward restricting human activities based on their perceived damage to the environment has risen to such heights lately that one wonders if the atmosphere way up there contains too little oxygen to sustain critical thinking. I strongly favor practices which enhance our environment and make wise use of natural resources, but much of what passes for green thinking today is neither green nor thinking.

The recent flap over emails between scientists regarding the veracity of the global warming theory presents a good case study. Ever since the unveiling of the UNFCCC study proclaiming that the earth was being warmed to dangerous levels by human activities, there has been some question as to the truthfulness of the claims. Al Gore aside (please) many reputable contributors withdrew their support of the UN summary almost as soon as it was published. There never was a consensus among climatologists concerning the human factor in global temperature trends. The twenty-five framers of the climate summary did not by any means represent all twenty-five hundred contributors. The data which have accumulated in the decade since the debate began are now beginning to suggest the earth is actually in a period of cooling, not warming. (See Global Cooling.) Regardless of one's view of climate change, it is doubtful that anything we can reasonably do will matter significantly.

It does seem that some of our human efforts fall flat. In the Amazon jungle of Peru, well-intentioned eco-tourists have built camps to import and inform wealthy Americans. In some cases the locals despise the "share nothing, buy nothing" posture of the intruders because it often involves dismantling the local economy. The intruders would have us believe that the age-old practices of harvesting animals or plants for the community's survival will end civilization as we know it. Pay no attention to the fact that the natives have been living off the land for millenia, whereas the infant eco-movement has existed for no time at all by comparison.

Consider also the arguments of the anti-hunters like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or the Humane Society. They insist that hunting is a cruel mistreatment of our fellow planet travelers. They equate shooting game animals with shooting humans. This strikes me as particularly ironic since many PETA members would also be in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion. How it can be ethical to kill an unborn human, but unethical to kill an elk or bear I do not know. Leaving that inconsistency aside, there is still much to question in the logic of the anti-hunters.

The situation with Whitetail deer in Michigan (or any state in which they are hunted) will serve to illustrate the problem. The loss to agriculture caused by browsing deer is phenomenal in some areas. Entire crops can be ruined by deer if their numbers are too high in a given area. The number of car/deer accidents also rises dramatically when the density of deer increases. This not only kills deer, but costs motorists dearly in insurance or repair costs. The deer themselves suffer from malnutrition and often death by starvation when a herd outgrows the region's ability to sustain it. Finally, revenues from deer licenses bought by hunters fund numerous deer management activities by state game departments. These government programs are designed increase the overall health of the deer population. Ask the Michigan DNR how long the deer herd in Michigan would stay healthy without the thousands of hunters who "prey" on deer every fall.

The other side of the hunting equation comes up when humans or the animals they have domesticated become the prey. Wolves, bears, pumas and coyotes kill thousands of domestic animals and attack and often kill hundreds of humans every year. Yet in places where there is a recognized problem with predatory wild animals, PETA and the like still oppose hunting these killers. The bear maulings in New Jersey a few years ago provide a perfect example. Even though black bears had moved into areas densely populated by humans, and even though they had demonstrated a lack of fear of humans, then Governor Whitman had to retract a bear hunting season due to pressure from animal activists. (See Bear Problem.)

I am enough of a Calvinist to agree that Genesis gives Christians a creation mandate. We should be careful to preserve and maintain our environment. We are, after all, only stewards of this planet, not the owners. But I also believe that reasonable use of the resources given by the Creator is part of the mandate to have dominion. PETA and her vegetarian friends notwithstanding, animals were given by God for food. While I can accept the vegan's right to choose his lifestyle, I don't have to agree that it is a Biblical choice; it is amoral.

Likewise, while I can understand why a person may choose to drive a hybrid vehicle, I find neither scientific nor Scriptural evidence that my gas guzzling V-8 pickup truck is morally wrong. The gas I burn on my way up north to hunt deer is government mandated low lead; the exhaust is scrubbed with a government mandated catalytic converter; I shoot only the number of deer I am allotted on my government mandated license. All in all, I render unto Caesar his due. Having done that, I render the rest unto God.