In Defense of Hunters In Defense of Hunters: Hunting for Reason and Respect
by Jim Amrhein
Whiskey & Gunpowder
Baltimore, MD
November 9, 2005
Jim Amrhein speaks up In Defense of Hunters and hunting, arguing that hunters do more for conservation than animal rights activists ever have.
Greg's note: Here Jim shoots a volley right to the Gunpowder party of
our sweet namesake. Not that he dislikes Whiskey…but below, as is his
wont, he uncovers at least two seeming ironies implicit in the animal
rights crowd. First, he exposes that killing fertilizes life…by
showing that hunting license fees pay for the lion's share of public
land establishment and upkeep. Then he shows that duck hunters help
birdwatchers more than the PETA crowd does…yup, your typical
incendiary Jim. So keep reading and send your replies to your
carnivorous managing editor here: greg@whiskeyandgunpowder.com
"The encouragement of a proper hunting spirit, a proper love of
sport, instead of being incompatible with a love of nature and wild
things, offers the best guaranty for their preservation."
- U.S. President and Nobel Prize winner Theodore Roosevelt SEVEN MONTHS AGO, I wrote an essay in this forum that I'm still
getting feedback about. It dealt with the touchy subject of animal
rights (or rather, the lack thereof). In the closing paragraph of that
piece, I promised to expose the animal rights crowds for the
hypocrites they are at a later date -- and to demonstrate that the
best friend any wild animal ever had is the hunter who exercises his
or her personal freedom to stalk the woods, mountains, meadows, or
marshes with gun or bow in hand…. And now that it's the crisp and colorful fall, and time once again for
those who are so inclined to hang some healthy wild game on the ol'
meat hook, it's time for me to make good on that promise. I'll also
offer a "sacrificial lamb" to some critics who claim some of my
columns have little financial component to them. To those folks, I say
this: What you're about to read should slake your thirst for numbers.
But as you read, I urge you to keep in mind my larger point -- that
there's a negative fiscal impact whenever personal freedoms are
compromised. In Defense of Hunters: "Hunter-Vationists" Are Paying for Everyone's Party Here's a fact the animal rights crowd doesn't like to hear, or to
admit: There wouldn't be nearly as many (if any) vast tracts of publicly
owned land to hike, bike, bird-watch, dog-walk, horseback ride, or
generally gambol around on if regulated hunting did not exist. Funds
generated by license fees and federal excise taxes on outdoor gear pay
for these lands by an overwhelming margin. In fact, these monies dwarf
all other sources combined -- including the nearly nonexistent
contributions of animal rights organizations (more on this in a
minute). That means outdoor sportsmen are overwhelmingly the largest
source of conservation funding in the United States…. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Special~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trader's Diary: Alligators, Orange Juice, my Wife…and 88% Gains We jumped on Ned's airboat in the Everglades when an alligator almost
ate my wife…wow, that was frightening. Even more terrifying was the
extremely high level of the water. Terrifying for the citrus farmers
since orange trees hate soggy roots… Then we went over to a friend of mine's orange grove. You should've
seen the nasty canker that attacked the thousands of already drowning
trees…this was gonna be a really small harvest. Due to this supply
setback, the tiny amount of Florida citrus that did survive would cost
a small fortune! I knew we had to go long oranges on the double…so I sent an alert to
my readers… And 27 days later we cashed out with a sweet 88%. Look here to get a
free year of my astounding service… http://www.agora-inc.com/reports/RTA/ERTAFB30/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here are the numbers, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and other
public sources:
· $746 million -- Annual amount of money spent by hunters in the
United States on licenses and public land access fees alone.
Sportsmen's licensing revenues account for more than half of all
funding for state natural resource agencies · $300 million -- Additional monies contributed to wildlife
conservation every year by the more than 10,000 private
hunting-advocate organizations, like the National Wild Turkey
Federation, Ducks Unlimited, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation · $4.2 billion -- Amount of money sportsmen have contributed to
conservation through a 10% federal excise taxes on firearms,
ammunition, and gear since the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act established
the tax. Millions of acres of public-use land has been purchased,
preserved, and maintained with this money.
From an ecological point of view, here's what all this translates
into: The needs of wild animals -- especially endangered and
threatened species -- are immeasurably better served by the millions
of acres of well-maintained, patrolled habitat that hunters' dollars
are paying for than the lies and propaganda dished out by animal
rights groups. In fact, their efforts are among the most destructive
forces facing wildlife of all types today…. Why? Because if the animal rights crowd got its way and hunting were
outlawed, there'd be no money for the preservation and expansion of
the habitat that houses not only game species, but the endangered,
threatened, and recovering species as well. Like it or not, and
believe it or not, sportsmen's dollars are in large part what has made
possible the wildly successful re-establishment of the wild turkey,
black bear, bison, elk, and the bald eagle. Yes, it was vast tracts of
public, protected land and plenty of dollars for reintroduction
efforts that made these miracles of conservation a reality -- not to
mention the 20-fold increase in the number of wild elk, the 133-fold
increase in the wild turkey flock, and the roughly 70-fold increase in
the national whitetail deer herd over the last century. If sport hunting and/or sport fishing were outlawed (animal rights
groups are gunning for them both), many of these species would dwindle
once again -- because sooner or later, the government would no doubt
pony up a lot of these lands for development. They'd have to; who else
would pay for their upkeep and regulation? The animal rights crowd? Uh, no. In Defense of Hunters: A-Hunting They Will Go -- for Headlines and Hype In case you're wondering how much money animal rights groups devote to
habitat preservation and the welfare of wild species, take a gander at
PETA's 2004 financials. Straight from its Web site, I discovered that
PETA's prodigious revenue of over $29 million bought: - 2,700 media interviews
- 703 organized demonstrations
- Nearly 11,000 mentions in print
- Coverage on at least seven major TV networks
- 150,000 "vegetarian starter kits" disseminated to the public
- Enough "educational materials" for 235,000 teachers and 11,000,000
students…
But not a single acre of land for wildlife preservation -- not even
for endangered species! Hmmm. Seems that PETA and friends just don't realize that what
critters of every stripe need more than billboards, picket lines, ad
campaigns, and celebrity advocates are places to live and thrive.
Without the immense revenue of hunting-related dollars, these lands
simply would not exist. That's a hard pill for them to swallow. And as
if it isn't bad enough that animal rights groups -- for all their
high-profile anti-hunting bluster -- don't seem to pay for ANY true
wildlife conservation efforts, they also spend a good deal of their
time and resources obfuscating the truth about where conservation
money does come from. Case in point: In a 2003 news release aimed at opposing the New York Bureau of
Wildlife's plans to promote hunting and trapping in publicly owned
sections of the Catskill Mountains, the notoriously militant Fund for
Animals (ironic name, since I could find no evidence that they spend
any money on wildlife conservation, either), stated that:
"Although [the Bureau of Wildlife] is financed by millions of dollars
of the public's tax money, the nonhunting public's viewpoint is
consistently ignored…"
Yet according to the New York Bureau of Wildlife's own financials, its
primary source of funding is hunting, fishing, and trapping license
fees, public land usage fees, and fines for violations of fisheries
and wildlife management policies. Less than 12% of its operating
budget comes from state tax revenues. This is a similar ratio to other
states' natural resources agencies' funding. In fact, nationwide,
sportsmen's dollars outpace tax dollars for conservation efforts by a
ratio of 9-to-1! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Special~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
60 Times Your Money or More on a Breakthrough That's Bigger Than
Antibiotics! If even one of the drugs this company's currently developing for a
dozen major ailments becomes a "first-line" treatment, early investors
could easily turn
$5,000 into a quarter million. It's already happening, too -- Forbes.com predicts up to $1 billion in
annual sales from the company's new heart disease drug, currently
awaiting approval...
But that's just a drop in the bucket: Soon, every major pharmaceutical
maker will be forced to adopt this firm's genetic technology to stay
competitive (giants Merck and Roche already have). That's when this company will practically own the drug industry. Gains
of 10,000% or more could be a foregone conclusion -- if you get in
now. http://www.agora-inc.com/reports/VPI/EVPIFB15 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Can you think of ANY other federal government program that divines
only 10% of its budget from the general fund? But what's really mind-boggling about the whole shebang is this: Even
if animal rights groups could match the $3 million a day American
sportsmen contribute directly to wildlife conservation and protection
through license fees, land usage fees, and excise taxes, it still
wouldn't even come close to justifying the outlawing of hunting from a
dollars-and-sense perspective, personal freedom issues
notwithstanding. Keep reading… In Defense of Hunters: Stalk Softly and Carry a Big Stack (of Cash) We've established that sportsmen's dollars are the engine driving
wildlife conservation, habitat protection and expansion, and public
use lands. But this really only scratches the surface of how important
hunting is to the American way of life. A lot of people probably don't
realize exactly how vital sport hunting is to the U.S. economy (animal
rights groups know it, they just don't want YOU to). Here are just a
few examples: - $24.7 billion -- Amount of money hunters spend every year on their
sport at the retail level. This money reaches all retail segments,
including hard goods, travel, gas, trips, food and drink, supplies,
vehicles, leases, lodging, and guide services
$955.4 million -- Annual amount of sales and fuel tax revenue
directly attributable to hunting in the U.S. 575,000 -- Number of American jobs sustained entirely by hunting $16.7 billion -- Total annual salaries and wages paid to those who
hold hunting-related jobs in the U.S. $2.25 billion -- Dollar amount of combined state and federal income
tax revenue generated by hunted-related employment in the United
States every year.
How do these numbers compare with other high-participation outdoor
sports? For some perspective, compare hunting with another popular
gear- and travel-intensive sport, skiing. According to the Census
Bureau's Statistics of U.S. Businesses and other sources, the skiing
industry annually:
- Employs approximately 127,000 people (less than a quarter as many
as hunting)
Pays gross salaries of around $1 billion (about 6% of what hunting
pays) Yields just over $500 million in ski equipment sales (hunters spend
more than this on their DOGS). See what I mean? Hunting is big business in the United States. So big
that animal rights groups could never even come close to matching,
dollar for dollar, the positive impact sportsmen have on America's
bottom line. In Defense of Hunters: Tyranny of the Majority Cuts Both Ways Animal rights organizations are quick to sling the word "majority"
around in making their case against the blood sports. They make the
absurd leap that since the majority of Americans don't hunt, that the
will of the people is that hunting should be outlawed. Let's examine
this kind of logic for a second… More Americans don't ski than do hit the slopes every winter. More of
us don't own cats than do. Fewer Americans ride motorcycles than do,
and more Americans have cell phones than don't. Does this mean that
skiing should be illegal, cat ownership abolished, motorcycles
outlawed, and cell phones made mandatory? Of course not. If the "majority rule" model applied to matters of
personal freedom instead of solely to matters legislative and
elective, NOTHING would be allowed, and no new technologies or
activities would ever flourish or even take hold. Imagine how that
would affect the economy. Beyond that, the whole point of personal
freedoms is to be able to resist the tyranny of the majority if you're
so inclined. And what's really ironic is that if the majority in America really did
wield the power in all things, animal rights organizations themselves
would not be allowed. Far, far more people don't belong to or support
the goals of animal rights activists than do. But despite what PETA
and friends say, the same cannot be said of hunting… An independent polling organization (Roper and Starch) found in 2000
that 85% of American adults feel that hunting has a legitimate place
in modern society. A full 62% agreed that hunters are the world's
leading conservationists. And they're right. Sign Up for Whiskey & Gunpowder
Whiskey & Gunpowder covers the spectrum of the many factors that affect economics, including, but not limited to, politics, technology, nature, history, and anything else our writers could possibly dream up. Sign up FREE today! We will not share your email address with anyone else, period.
-Andrew Palmer, Director E-commerce Marketing
We Value Your Privacy |
In Defense of Hunters: The Talking Heads are out for Blood What's really lamentable to me is the fact that the left-leaning media
have so skewed their portrayal of hunting that I feel compelled to
write an article like this to defend it. Seriously, do the media ever write or broadcast stories about the
economic benefits of hunting or the billions of dollars hunters
contribute to conservation efforts? PETA gets tens of thousands of
mentions and plugs in the mainstream media -- how many does the Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation or Ducks Unlimited get? And how about the hundreds of tons of meat donated every year by
hunters to the homeless and impoverished -- do you hear about that on
the evening news? Last season, in Virginia alone, over a third of a
million pounds of lean, high-quality venison was given by hunters to
those less fortunate. I wonder how many tons of vegetarian food the
animal rights crowd gave to these same folks? I'll bet not one ounce
(if they had, it would have been front-page news)…. The bottom line is this: Like it or not, sport hunting is an
incredible boon to American society on multiple levels. But even if it
weren't, every true American should be in support of it (thankfully,
most are -- not that you'd ever discover this from the meat-hating
media). Why? Because it's perhaps the most vivid example in our
culture of the exercise of multiple personal freedoms: to carry a gun
on public land, to kill within the law, and to consume meat without
interference from the USDA or FDA. That's awhole lot of freedom
bundled up in one activity. Bottom line: Whether you agree with hunting or not, you should support
it on principle. After all, how would you feel if the government
outlawed something YOU love to do because some PR-savvy fringe group
managed to spread enough lies about it through an activist media to
make you a minority in the public's eye? So the next time you see a hunter by the side of the road unloading
his gear or loading up his kill, give him a honk and a wave out of
basic respect for exercising his freedom and paying for the
out-of-doors areas we all enjoy. And if you're an animal rights
activist, pull over, park and give him a great big kiss, because he's
doing more to help animals than you ever will. Better yet, buy a gun, some gear, a truck, and a hunting license and
start really contributing to animal welfare -- and your economy…. Always hunting for the endangered species of reason and fairness, Jim Amrhein
Contributing Editor, Whiskey & Gunpowder Greg's final note: Maybe you saw my note yesterday regarding the
unique "gold savings account." I don't wanna beat a lively horse here,
but if you're interested in jumping into this new risk-free gold
vehicle, you only have 5 days left before the door slams shut for
good. "Risk-free?" you ask. "It is gold, right..?" Yes, it's risk-free. You see, the "gold savings account" is fully backed by the FDIC, just
like your normal bank account. On top of that, there's no way your
principal can go down. And, if the price of gold goes up - which seems
pretty likely to me at least - you'll take some nice gains. No downside…probable, and even unlimited upside…that sounds like a
bottle of whiskey to me. Look here for your in to the "golden savings
account…" but please don't wait until the 14th, because then you'll be
turned away. Look here for more: http://www.everbank.com/main.asp?idpage=pro_mscd&affid=eb&referID=11697
| 
