WSJ: "Suburbanites must learn to kill again"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Preacherman

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Messages
13,306
Location
Louisiana, USA
Although this article concerns animals and hunting (and firearms! :D ), I think the underlying principle is very applicable to the problem of self-defence.

From the Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110004386):

The Return of the Wild

Suburbanites must learn to kill again.

BY GEOFFREY NORMAN
Friday, December 5, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

After decades of assuming that civilization is bad for wild animals and nature--as seen on PBS--humans are learning that things can go the other way. It's not a pretty sight.

Consider New Jersey, where, if things go according to plan, some 7,000 hunters will take to the woods next week and kill up to 500 bears. The rationale for the state's first bear hunt in more than 30 years is simple enough--too many bears. In 1995, there were 285 complaints about bears plundering birdfeeders, getting into the garbage, menacing pets and generally behaving like bears in territory claimed by humans. Last year, there were some 1,175 such complaints.

Fifty-seven bears entered homes. Two attacked people, including a two-year-old. In some parts of Jersey, kids are told not to put school lunches in their backpacks but to carry them in their hands instead. That way, if they encounter a bear, they can throw a sandwich on the ground to distract the animal and make a getaway.

That New Jersey has any bears at all probably comes as a surprise to many people who don't live there and think of the place as one large suburb where the most dangerous animal around is Tony Soprano. There are, in fact, rural sections of New Jersey, but the bears don't need deep wilderness to survive. They are happy to share space with people who are looking for a little weekend place in the country or a suburban home with a pretty setting. They have adapted and become, in the minds of many, at least a nuisance and perhaps a menace.

Predictably, there is opposition to the hunt. Lawsuits have been filed. Letters--along with stuffed teddy bears--have been mailed to the governor. At least one man has gone on a fast as a way of protesting the hunt. Some opponents argue that there simply is no bear problem and that humans need to learn to take bear encounters in stride. Others want to try contraception to keep bear populations down. The arguments can become intricate and confusing, but one thing is clear--killing animals bothers some people.

The animals, however, are increasingly making a case against themselves, and not just in New Jersey. Call it the return of the wild. People who once thrilled at the mere sighting of a white-tail deer now put up fences against them and think of them as "rats with hooves." Deer are involved in almost two million collisions with automobiles annually, with damages averaging about $2,000 and about 100 of them killing the driver. Deer also help spread Lyme disease.

There are thriving moose populations in Maine and Vermont where the animals are hunted but not vigorously enough to keep them off the roads. Cougars are making a robust comeback, which is understandable, since their primary prey is deer. Cougar attacks on humans--some fatal--are on the rise. There are suburbs in Colorado where it is considered risky to jog. Alligators, once endangered, are now a nuisance in Florida, where they routinely attack and kill pets. They also go after the occasional human. Coyotes survived a sustained campaign by the federal government to wipe them out and are now everywhere, and they have a distinct fondness for house cats. And, then, there are the bears. More grizzlies in Yellowstone and spreading out of the park. More black bears all over the place, it seems. One killed a five-month-old child, a little over a year ago, less than 70 miles from New York.

The animals have made a remarkable comeback, and they are not likely to quit breeding. There is no way to negotiate with them, and they cannot be regulated. Deer will devour the expensive landscaping and bears will get into birdfeeders, kill pets, and pull off the occasional breaking and entering. It's their nature. There may be technological fixes out there in the future, but for now the solution to the problem of too many animals seems simply to be--killing them.

Ah, there is the rub, if not the rub-out. People seem to love nature and want to get close to it. But they don't want to share it, and when it comes to control, they don't want to get their hands dirty. They are unwilling to look nature in its brutal and uncompromising face. Some communities have hired "sharpshooters" to thin deer herds. The idea seems to be that it isn't the killing that is the problem. It is that it is being done by amateurs. One recalls Dr. Johnson's crack about the people who opposed bear baiting not because it gave pain to the animal but because it gave pleasure to the people. A deer that is assassinated by a "sharpshooter" is just as dead as one shot by a hunter. Who, by the way, paid a license fee and tax on his gun and ammunition.

The thrill of the hunt is, of course, not for everyone. And attitudes about hunting can be complex. I wondered for a long time if I could kill a bear. This was back when I had never seen one and didn't expect to. I have seen many in recent years. The first was no more than 30 steps away, looking at me with curious and intelligent eyes. Its pelt was deep and rich, and its movements were graceful and fluid. I could have raised my bow and easily put an arrow through its heart. But I merely watched while the animal took a few steps and then seemed to vanish, like smoke, in the woods.

I couldn't kill that bear, but I don't have a problem with the New Jersey hunt. The many people who do may well possess an ethical refinement that simply escapes me, but I fear that some may possess instead a de-natured sense of nature. They build into nature, they live nearby it, they thrill at its beauty and diversity and consider themselves sensitive environmentalists who want to shield nature from the harm that humans do. But they do not know it. They have only a distanced, sentimentalized sense of nature, very much the product of city-centered, suburban modern life, so far from rural realities that earlier generations knew so well. There was a time that you'd be considered a complete fool not to kill the bears that are invading your backyard. Maybe you still are.

The arguments over hunting begin to seem tiresome in an age when it is literally impossible to kill enough deer to keep some roads safe. There was, undeniably, a time when Americans hunted and killed animals too feverishly. They learned, through hard experience, to preserve animal populations. The comeback of the alligator, deer, moose, bear, cougar and other species is a result of human learning, effort and discipline. Now humans are going to have to learn how to kill again. New Jersey, evidently, is the place to start.

Mr. Norman is a contributing editor of National Geographic Adventure.
 
Interesting, and well written piece.

Balance is and always will be the keyword ...... and despite the ''best'' (sic) efforts of the conservationists, it has to be realized that man does indeed have a responsibility to assist in the control of that balance.

Man is here - like it or not ... and so are the animals ... OK some say ''they were here first'' ... well, now man is here, and we still need balance ... and that is balance not just for man but the critters themselves.
 
They have only a distanced, sentimentalized sense of nature, very much the product of city-centered, suburban modern life, so far from rural realities that earlier generations knew so well.
Substitute "crime" for "nature" and you have the perfect description of the modern-day anti.
 
Good article. Basic problem as I see it is that the city folks have no appreciation of non-urban environments, e.g. wilderness (or even semi-wilderness or simply rural), and hence no notion of the 'wild' in wild animals, let alone the balance of nature. or how adaptable Naturecan be (heck, I had a 4 point buck in my back yard last Chrismas eve in the middle of the afternoon, and I live inside the DC beltway, go figure) To them, it's killing Bambi, Yogi, and Boo-boo, and since they's been anthropomorphized, they've got 'rights', too.

But what I really want for Xmas is to watch one of them 'conservaioniss' who think contraception is the answer try to put a condom on a bear:evil:
 
Instead of killing the bears, wolves, bobcats, mountain lions and other such animals, they should be trapped, and delivered live to as many of the antis that can be located.:evil:
Can you imagine the looks on the antis faces if they got one of those cute little fellows dropped off in their garage?:evil:
The deer should be used as venison.
 
I jumped 5 deer walking my dogs the other evening, and I'm in Fairfax County, Virginia, less than 10 miles from Washington, DC! We have tons of parklands in Fairfax which are just perfect day habitat for deer, with all the ornamental plantings being perfect food.

Some years ago I read a VERY interesting article on deer and habitat. It indicated that today there are more whitetailed deer in Pennsylvania than there were east of the Mississippi in 1607 when Jamestown was settled.

A good friend of mine and I used to battle like hell about deer hunting when we were kids. I hunted, he did. He thought it was wrong on so many levels.

Then he entered the forest products management field, and is now a researcher and university professor. His tune on deer has changed dramatically, to the point where he now hunts.
 
I'm with Desertdog.

PRNJ's real problem is too many liberals and too few hungry bears.:evil:
 
Great article...I remember the city of Tacoma was debating what to do about the overpopulation of deer in Point Defiance Park...they wanted to hire "exterminators" and of course the hue and cry went up from predictable people. And like the article said, nobody even considered simply selling bow-hunt tags (PDP is completely surrounded by the city and Puget Sound.

The article never even mentioned feral pigs, which not only multiply like crazy and can be extremely destructive, but are non-native to boot. Even in WA, you can hunt them without a license.
 
Decades ago the Everglades had a problem with rising water levels. Management folks planned a deer hunt to thin the herd before levels got too high to hunt. Welllll, bambi's protectors did the court thingy and succeeded in stopping the hunt. Water levels continued to rise to the point deer were stood constantly in water. A horrible way to die.

Long story short. The deer hunt was conducted. . . .. by helicopter. Animals were killed to put them out of their misery. No chance for harvesting deer for food.

Thank you bambi lovers. Man in not a threat to nature. Man is part of nature.
 
I continue to be amazed at how little the "nature lovers" actually know about nature, especially the "balance of . . .". and how much we've boogered it up (i.e. all the over-population), and now as if non-intervention/inaction will allow the problem to fix itself.

I heard on FoxNews today that the tree huggers are so upset over the bear hunt and are encouraging bands in NJ to go play in the woods on opening day to 'entertain the hunters and scare the bears away" to safety. Should be 'interesting'.

It'd be real interesting to talk to some of 'those people' after Yogi picked off one of their kids at the bus stop early one morning, or maybe when Bobby was taking the garbage out after dinner :uhoh:
 
Y'know, Mike, if they do that often enough, the bears will learn to associate the sound of trumpets with the presence of free, defenceless food... :D
 
The villain of Waitone's Everglades story was Cleveland Amory, a devout anti-hunter and fortunately now deceased. Another of his other stunts involved proving the "niceness" of wolves, which led to severe head wounds on a child whose parents believed the BS.

Of the deer rescued by helicopter, some 85% died from stress. The cost per deer ran some $30,000 EACH!

Art
 
Town and Country, MO, attempted to deal with a deer infestation by trapping animals and transporting them to the wild. On paper, it looked good, but the actual attempt didn't go as planned.

1. The trappers used bait or salt licks to bring the deer. That part of the plan worked well.

2. The trappers used a rocket-powered net. There was a small problem - all of the deer had to have their head down, otherwise, the net would have more than enough oomph to decapitate poor Bambi (personally, I would've paid good money to see video of it). Deer don't decide to all feed at the same time, so that caused much consternation.

3. Once the animals were secured, they were driven out to a local farm. Half of them died from adrenalin shock upon release.

I forget what the final cost for the city was. Personally, the city could've made money by selling tags to bow hunters. Eventually, somebody is going to die from a car-deer collision - then, the nature-worshipping suburbanites might finally understand why a broadhead is the ideal problem solver.
 
I'm reminded of a quote from Robert Heinlein (speaking as Lazarus Long):

There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.'" The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" -- but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the "naturist" reveals his hatred for his own race -- i.e., his own self hatred.
In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women -- it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly "natural."
Believe it or not, there were "Naturists" who opposed the first flight to old Earth's Moon as being "unnatural" and a "despoiling of Nature."
 
Town and Country, MO, attempted to deal with a deer infestation by trapping animals and transporting them to the wild. On paper, it looked good, but the actual attempt didn't go as planned.

I had a friend that lived in Chesterfield, another yuppie burb in W. St. Louis County, for those not familiar with the area. Right around Chesterfield mall, on the Parkway, I saw over 50+ deer just outside one of subdivisions right before getting to Airport rd. around midnight several years ago driving him home.

Seems there are far too many deer in close proximity to have any success relocating them, even for the dumbest politician. Sometimes I wonder if the pols aren't quite as gooney as we think and these preposterous plans that are doomed to failure really the prelude to effective means, like professional hunters, once they can show tree-hugger soccer mommies how dumb it is.
 
Not trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs here. Where bears are entering homes the case for culls is evident, as it is with deer in some of the cases cited above. There are a few cases I don't get and could someone explain the reasons for killing bobcats, lynxes, cougars (in some areas where they are already scarce) wolverines etc. This is ignorance on my part, I am aware that coyotes are expanding their range and are viewed fairly enough as vermin, also that in some areas cougars are a threat to livestock and in some instances man.

Thanks to any that can explain this, hope I don't appear to be trying to teach you to suck eggs.
 
Good article

Come on guys! I know that sentimental people and animal rights' activists have gone too far, but don't act like things were wonderfully well maintained before their efforts took hold.


We just have to find a balance that works.
 
The rocket net story brings back memories of using one to capture Canada Geese for tagging. Inevitably, you kill a few. Ah well, everyone on the project had goose for Xmas dinner that year.
 
That's an interresting article. Maybe it'll help my girlfriend understand hunting. She doesn't like it, but understands the benefits of it so she doesn't make a big deal out of me going hunting. I've tried to explain it to her, but since I have hardly any experience (I've only been once), I haven't been very successful :(
Since people got onto the topic of "environmentalists'" views of hunting, i figured it'd be appropriate to post this site:

http://pub6.ezboard.com/bthenonhuntersrightscoalition53805

You have to register to see it (too many trolls i guess), but the assinine ideas that are spewed throughout that board will have you rolling with laughter. Here's a nice one from the person who operates the board:

Meat is the worst matter a human can place into their digestive system. I have found after meeting many people over the years that consume any kind of meat, that these same people are the most arrogant, abusive, and/or questionable personalities. Vegetarians on the other hand, are the most relaxed, appreciative, caring, considerate, and/or personable people I have ever associated with in my lifetime. Keep up the excellent progress vegetarians, the world needs you to save it from extinction of itself.
lol and if the stuff on there starts to bother you, just remember, these people have no power.:neener:
 
Vegetarians on the other hand, are the most relaxed, appreciative, caring, considerate, and/or personable people I have ever associated with in my lifetime.
:rolleyes:

Most vegetarians I've met are uptight and obnoxious, and they tend to extremely unappreciative of anything but themselves and other vegetarians, but YMMV. Did you ever notice that vegetarians always have to let everyone know that they are a vegetarian?*

And how do they know those poor beanstalks don't feel pain?

Maybe it'll help my girlfriend understand hunting.

Cows & Pigs -- fenced in all their life, usually covered with mud, herded this way and that, breeding is controlled (including castraton), every movement is controlled your entire life until you are lined up for the process of slaughter.

Deer -- run free in the woods. Habitat has been maintained and improved upon BY HUNTERS (not "conservationists") to the point where there are more deer in the US today than there ever was. A deer might be shot by a hunter - usually cleanly and relatively painlessly w/ enough gun - but there is a very good sporting chance that most hunters won't even see a deer in deep brush when they walk within 50 feet of one. The biggest danger to your life is that hunters and wolves won't kill enough deer and the entire herd dies of starvation -- unlikely except in very severe winters.

Ask your girlfriend which life is better.

If the answer is "it's better to be a vegetarian" (point out that this means no leather shoes, handbags, etc.), ask how much animal habitat would need to be converted to farmland if all 6 Billion + of us on this earth required enough vegetable-based protein to survive.

The answer then is that there are too many people. So anti-hunters and anti-meat-eaters are really anti-human and self-haters. I'm not talking about those who choose to avoid meat, I'm talking about those who want to tell all of the rest of us we should be forced to stop eating meat.

*-ROTR obnoxiously points out that he loves a good fresh backstrap fried up rare w/garlic and butter-:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top