Has anyone ever told you that it’s ethical to shoot someone because otherwise, that person might suffer? Hunters are always telling us that they’re actually helping deer by murdering them, because there’s just so many deer, some of them might starve. It’s not very convincing logic. It certainly wouldn’t fly if we proposed solving human “overpopulation” through murder. But let’s set aside the blatant speciesism for a moment and see whether it’s even true that deer are overpopulated and if murder is the best solution if they are.
Hunters materially profit off the bodies of deer. Whether or not it’s in the deers’ best interest to get murdered, it’s definitely in the hunter’s best interest to be able to exploit and murder deer year after year.
To that end, deer populations are artificially inflated by deer breeding programs which are paid for by hunting licenses. They breed the deer and “manage” the land (like clearcutting forests, planting deer-preferred plants and requiring tenant farmers to leave a certain amount of their crops unharvested in order to feed the deer, creating the edge habitat that is preferred by deer and also outright feeding the deer) so that the populations increase so that there’s always enough stock to hunt.
The reality is that there are thousands of “state game farms” across the country artificially breeding animals like deer and pheasants, quail and partridges in the hundreds of thousands and releasing them into hunting ranges. In Wisconsin alone, the state currently registers 372 “deer farms,” according to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. And when a disease outbreak occurs on these farms, entire herds are “depopulated.”
Some even claim that a substantial chunk of their funding comes directly from hunting licenses:
https://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/funding/charts.html
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/budget/bottom_line/budget.pdf
And the amount of federal funding they get is based off of license sales, too:
The Secretary determines how much to give to each state based on a formula that takes into account both the area of the state and its number of licensed hunters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman–Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act
Matt Hogan, executive vice president of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, pointed out, “Public support for hunting and fishing is crucial for conservation efforts. State fish and wildlife agencies have been and continue to be funded in large part by the contributions of sportsmen and women through license sales and excise tax payments on hunting and fishing equipment. To put it simply, without hunters and anglers, state fish and wildlife agencies would not be able to do their job conserving and managing wildlife for all Americans to enjoy.”
The whole point of our agencies is to conserve enough deer to hunt. They don’t hide that they maintain a high population on purpose so that there can always be hunting seasons in perpetuity. They’re conserving hunting stock. They’re “managing” non-human populations so we don’t run out of stock. We’re certainly not doing this for the benefit of the deer as sentient individuals who deserve not to suffer; we’re doing this because they are completely objectified as resources for our consumption.
An optimum population of deer balances positive demands (e.g., recreational hunting and viewing) with negative demands (e.g., agricultural and ornamental plant damage, vehicle collisions, ecosystem impacts). Despite damage caused by deer, Virginia’s white-tailed deer represent a beneficial economic and social resource.
https://dwr.virginia.gov/wildlife/deer/deer-management-program
In fact, “conservation” in North American is centered entirely on exploitation of resources, not consideration for sentient individuals nor even preservation of species, which is why game animals are bred and bolstered yet predators and other non-useful animals are murdered and driven out.
https://www.fws.gov/hunting/north-american-model-of-wildlife-conservation.html
"Professor Thomas Serfass, Frostburg State University, Maryland, chairman of their department of natural resources and biology, told Thuermer: “I would describe the North American Model as incomplete.”
Hunter control depends on it being incomplete. One of the huge elements missing is contributions of federal land management agencies. “Setting land aside in the public domain in perpetuity is probably the most substantive thing we do for wildlife conservation," says the professor.
Thuermer quotes study co-author Molde as saying, “What about this public lands argument. Holy Toledo, that’s a huge subsidy to hunters.”
We, the 94 percent non-hunter public, pay for the lands and services, but are told that hunters have all the rights to destroy our wildlife. We pay — they have the only say. Seems fair to them.
The study’s authors begin: “With increased awareness and interest of the general (non-consumptive) public in controversial wildlife management issues such as fur trapping, predator control, trophy hunting, coyote killing contests and wolf reintroduction, a debate is before us as to whether the general public is or should be afforded a proper voice in wildlife management decisions.
“Sportsmen favor the current system, which places a heavy emphasis on their interests through favorable composition of wildlife commissions and a continued emphasis on ungulate management. Non-human predators (wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, ravens and others) are disfavored by wildlife managers at all levels as competition for sportsmen and are treated as second-class citizens of the animal kingdom. Sportsmen suggest this bias is justified because ‘sportsmen pay for wildlife,’ a refrain heard repeatedly when these matters are discussed. Agency personnel and policy foster this belief as well.”
Gill (1996) concluded that the narrowly based funding of state wildlife agencies has ‘‘blurred the essential distinction between public interest and special interest and inevitably eroded both scientific credibility and public trust.’’ We would argue that it is the perception not the reality that has blurred the distinction. For example, then director of the Nevada Department of Wildlife Ken Mayer wrote to the legislative sunset subcommittee “…the contribution to NDOW’s operating budgets from sportsmen is 79 percent of total funding” (Mayer, 2012). He was assuming that all of the federal excise tax transfers were hunter-sourced. This is a misrepresentation often used to manipulate public opinion and influence policy. This narrative “…logically encourages those who pay via licenses and permits for the privilege of using wildlife to expect greater benefits…Because [it’s believed that] hunters pay the bills, it is not surprising that they are given much attention and wield a great deal of influence…” (Jacobson et al, 2010).
https://www.wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SMITH-1.pdf
Even if overpopulation was a real problem (it’s not), there are far better solutions than murder and profit. For instance, we can stop breeding them in the first place. We can introduce birth control. We can reintroduce natural predators. We can even make sanctuaries where we care for deer to the end of their natural lifespans. There are lots of non-lethal options.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_animal_suffering
“Wildlife science per se can rarely demonstrate that any decision leading to a management objective, such as decreasing a deer population, or to a management action, such as hunting animals, is a biological or ecological necessity. … Similarly, the decision to harvest a portion of a wildlife population is a reflection of a value position, a conclusion based partly on scientific evidence and efficacy of known alternatives and partly on particular beliefs about the appropriateness of certain human uses of wild animals (Kennedy 1985).”
“If a professional wildlife manager suggests that a decision is based solely on scientifically-derived biological considerations, the manager either misunderstands the nature of science (by confusing scientific judgements with ethical judgements) (Underwood and Porter 1991) or is deliberately trying to disguise or complement a value judgement under the veil of the legitimacy of science.”
–Ethical and Scientific Judgements in Management: Beware of Blurred Distinctions
Capitalism requires endless growth and exploitation of the natural world. But humans designed this system, and we can change it. The answer isn’t liberalism (ecofascism). The answer isn’t Malthusian. The answer isn’t breeding animals to murder by the billions.
When our system is unjust, we fight for a new system. Don’t throw up your hands and go, well, “it’s more humane to murder sentient individuals than it is to let them suffer in the system we designed.” A Modest Proposal is no more convincing for deer than it is for people.
Related articles:
https://www.greenwichtime.com/local/article/Hunting-has-increased-deer-population-not-643259.php
https://www.thoughtco.com/hunting-myths-and-facts-127898
Why we should consider individuals rather than species https://www.animal-ethics.org/sentience-section/relevance-of-sentience/why-we-should-consider-individuals-rather-than-species
Why we should consider sentient beings rather than ecosystems https://web.archive.org/web/20200518143331/https://www.animal-ethics.org/sentience-section/relevance-of-sentience/why-we-should-consider-sentient-beings-rather-than-ecosystems
This is a great effort post. 7 years vegan and I still get surprised at the levels of cruelty built into unthinking carnist society. The fact that deer farms exist is shocking really.
Thank you! Yeah, it’s really awful. If anything, learning all this reinforced the idea that I really can’t trust ppl who kill animals to tell the truth about what’s best for their victims
