Bill Stokes` holier-than-thou criticism of hunting in a recent Tribune column would be appropriate only for a vegetarian. It reeks of elitism.
The hunters I know spend far more time in the woods and are more attuned to its beauty and rhythms than are most non-hunters. Life and death are a part of that natural rhythm. Nature, properly understood, is no more saddened by death than by birth. The woods are filled with literally thousands of predators from creatures smaller than ants to bears. Every hunter I know eats the game he or she kills, and in some cases that food represents a substantial portion of the winter larder in families which are not, I suspect, as affluent as is Mr. Stokes.
Hunters contribute more money through voluntary taxes, licenses, etc., to the support of conservation departments in the lower 48 states than any other private group. The Department of Natural Resources in Wisconsin for example, is substantially dependent on hunting licenses to meet its budget. Ducks Unlimited leases enormous tracts in Canada to preserve waterfowl habitat.
Hunting is an important element of wildlife management required to maintain animal herds–deer and elk for example–at levels compatible with available forage. The animals do not practice birth control and, absent hunting, large numbers starve over the winter and many others are seriously weakened to no one`s benefit.
Did Mr. Stokes enjoy his turkey, ham, fish or whatever at Thanksgiving? I enjoyed venison. Affectation aside, the only difference between a hunter and a person who eats meat but doesn`t hunt is that the latter pays someone else to do his killing. If Mr. Stokes doesn`t understand the subject he should write about other matters.
