A More Sensible Way To Hunt

Because of the profound differences in the historical development of the two continents, the hunting problem has been approached from almost diametrically opposite positions. In Europe, where hunting was once the exclusive privilege of the aristocracy—and conservation their exclusive responsibility—a solution was sought through restricting the number of hunters. In America, where hunting was originally a universal right, a solution has been sought by restricting each individual's share of available game. Neither solution has been entirely satisfactory. To many who are impatient with the lingering remnants of feudalism, the European restrictions on who may hunt seem anachronistic. It would be impractical to suggest that we take over the European system. But it seems to me and to many of my American hunting friends that the present state of hunting in the United States is precarious—because everybody can hunt, nobody can. With the increased hunting pressure, share-reducing through season and bag limitations is rapidly approaching the absurd. Consider the frequent closed seasons, one-day seasons and two-bird bag limits, not to mention the ludicrous buck laws. Yet the difficulty is not basically lack of game. Deer, for instance, have become a serious pest in many areas and more die for lack of food in winter than are shot in season.

Ecologically, the United States is far better off than central Europe. Pennsylvania, for example, has a population only 20% greater than Bavaria's but it is half again as large and has considerably more and better natural habitat for deer. Yet in Bavaria three times as many deer are harvested each season as in Pennsylvania (210,000 to 70,000) and game experts argue that the Pennsylvania hunting harvest could be doubled if not tripled without damaging the herds.

As regards upland birds, the problem again is not lack of game but lack of habitat. Given suitable conditions, nature would soon fill the present vacuum with quail, pheasant and other small nonmigratory game.

The basic difficulty—one that could be readily remedied—is the shortage of land open to hunters. According to the Secretary of Agriculture, 85% of the land suitable for habitat improvement is in private hands. Faced with the burgeoning hordes of shooters, however, many owners have understandably prohibited hunting if only to protect their crops, their properties and even their lives. Each year between 600 and 800 people are killed by hunters and another 3,500 are wounded. One small Virginia landowner recently complained that his family observed the deer season by keeping the children indoors during daylight hours lest they be mistaken for game by irresponsible hunters.

It seems to me that the European practice suggests means of alleviating this pressure. Because it is so restrictive, the German system taken as a whole would undoubtedly be unacceptable to most American hunters who now have access to public and unposted lands. But if it were adapted to lands now closed to hunting, it might prove useful.

In northern New Jersey, for example, many large farms are overrun with deer yet are closed to hunters. If the owners could be induced to pool or divide their holdings in 2,000- or 3,000-acre tracts and auction the shooting rights on a long-term basis to responsible individuals or sports clubs of their own choosing, the deer pest and the hunting pressure problems could both be eased. The inducement to the landowner to lease would be the small but fixed annual cash income and reimbursement for all damages caused by the hunter or the game. The inducement to the hunter would be reasonably long seasons, as in central Europe, and an annual shooting quota commensurate with his conservation efforts and designed to maintain a healthy stand of game.

Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman recently predicted that some 50 million acres of land would soon have to be retired from agriculture. Are these lands to remain idle, outside the national economy, or can they be put to some other worthwhile use for the benefit of their owners and the public? I suggest that here again are lands to which the European practice could be simply and profitably applied, providing large areas for public recreation in the form of hunting.

In two other respects, I think European methods could be profitably adapted. If the landowners and the lessees are to be guaranteed the fruits of their conservation efforts they must be adequately protected against poachers. To treat poachers as mere trespassers, as at present, is not enough. Without supporting the draconic punishments meted out in Europe in the past, I would suggest that at the very least poachers should forfeit their licenses and their weapons and be made to pay reasonable fines for attempting to steal the fruits of others' labor.

Lastly, the right to roam over the countryside with a loaded gun, it seems to me, is no more inalienable than the right to drive a car over the public highway. To obtain a hunting license the hunter should be required to demonstrate that he knows the rules of the forest, just as the driver must know the rules of the road. Furthermore, the hunter should be able to demonstrate his ability to practice conservation. The test for a hunting license should not be confined to the mere ability to handle a gun—wars have taught most of us that—it should require a knowledge of conservation practices. Such requirements, I believe, would quickly relieve today's acute hunting pressures by eliminating those who consider a shooting permit a license to rove where they please, shooting at anything that moves.

As every genuine hunter knows, the pleasure of hunting is measured not so much by the kill as by the opportunity to go out into the forests and fields, observe the wildlife and pit one's skill against that of the quarry. By the same token, hunting practices and regulations should be judged primarily by the amount of public recreation that they provide for the genuine hunter.