To Kill or Not to Kill?

I was reading an article on the website of a Canadian newspaper, which talked about wide protests that were taking place throughout the country to ban seal hunting. But that was not the interesting part. The interesting part was that the Fur Institute of Canada sent a counter report that showed just what an indispensable part of the economy hunting was and how it was actually better for the environment in the long run.

Most of us today are completely unaware of the complexities that sorround the world of hunting, to us it usually just means slaughtering innocent animals. We see it on the most basic premise - taking the life of another creature - and based on this premise alone, brand it as an evil act and call for a complete halt. We fail to take the other side of the coin into account and we refuse to consider the possibility that it might, just might, benefit society in certain ways. "What benefits can killing an animal possibly bring to us?" was a question posed to me by a friend when I told her that I planned to write about this. Here is my answer.

Firstly, there are several communities that have thrived on the profession of hunting since the dawn of mankind. It is what their community does for a living, it is the only thing they know. Take the Inuit for example. For thousands of years, they have lived by hunting seals for their flesh and fur, it is the backbone of their culture. Looking at where they live, they have no other options. A community can thrive only on what it can produce, it can live only on what it sells. And this scenario is not restriced just to them. There are tribes throughout South America, Australia, Africa, Asia and even the Antarctic that thrive on the profession of hunting. By snatching the one gift they have away from them is to condemn their culture to certain death. Living in the urban world with phones, televisions, computers and blogs, we will never understand the utter dependence on a trade that these communities face.

Last year's seal hunt for example, garnered about 55 million Canadian dollars, which is vital for the survival of the Inuit. It is also essential for the sustainance of rural communities in the country, for whom this 55 million could represent up to a third of their income. Cut this off and they starve. If the ban on seal hunting is finally placed in Canada, environmentalists who have warm homes in the city, steady jobs to go to, who have never had to fight against nature for their survival have cause to celebrate, but thousands of families that have had to struggle against all odds to live their lives will perish in poverty. Environmentalists sympathise with animals, sympathise with plants, I just wish they sympathised a bit more with their fellow man. They see hunting as more of a voluntary sport than a means by which many feed their family, which reflects their often naive views on the subject.

How many for example, are aware that without elephant hunting in Africa, the African elephant would have dissapeared decades ago? Nature no longer has the natural resources that it once had to sustain large populations of wildlife (these resources have been depleted by the activities of mankind, but NOT by hunting). The only way the authorities can ever ensure that a significant elephant population exists is to make sure that the population is controlled. Ban hunting here and the resources would deplete at an alarming rate, destroying the entire population of elephants with a single swoop. Would you kill 500 elephants to ensure the survival of 5,000 ones or would you rather tell yourself that killing is 'evil' and watch all 5,000 die?

Where do you think all the money that goes into protecting these animals comes from? Environmentalists? Of course not. The money comes from hunting associations, hunting licenses and fishing licenses. The deer population thrives today in most regions of the world and a key factor to this has been deer hunting. Wildlife management (of which hunting and fishing are essential parts) makes sure that populations do not grow unabated and thus do not damage the already depleted natural resources (once again I stress that the human activites that caused this depletion was not hunting). If their populations are left to increase without hunting, the imbalance would lead to a much higher number dying of starvation.

Simple minded people will not understand this. The truth is too realistic and harsh for their naive outlook on life to comprehend. The notion of taking a life to sustain many others will not make sense to them, since their perception of life bears a stronger resemblance to a fairy tale than the real world. They will continue to go on protests to stop the 'murder' of animals and will continue to brand anyone who is pro hunting as a barbarian.

Fortunately for the pro-hunting folks, the facts are on our side. Loss of habitat and our addiction to automobiles are much greater threats to animals than hunting. There are estimates that 300 million animals are killed each year while crossing streets and roads. Hunting accounts for barely more than 1 million animal deaths in even the biggest hunting industries. And the vast majority of animals killed by hunters are eaten, instead of being left to rot beside the road. But give environmentalists the chance to ban either hunting or enroaching roads and they will pick the former without batting an eyelid.

Killing another animal may not seem like a nice thing to do. But in todays world, it is more than just essential, it is utterly mandatory. When you have to make a choice, you do after all, pick the lesser of the two evils.