The hunt for an end to an unfair sport

As phylogenetic omnivores, humans have a long tradition of eating and using animals. Many early cultures revolved around hunting as a way of life. These cultures had traditions that revered their prey, and many taboos to limit killing prey animals; many prime game animals were taboo altogether.

Partly as a result of successful competition, human groups expanded and came to enter and dominate virtually every ecosystem, such that scale, greed, and ignorance resulted in extermination, overgrazing, and wanton destruction.

Recently, hunting in Bulgaria was necessary for people to supplement their gardens. But, the hunting was regulated by the national hunting society, which controlled or limited the number of animals taken. Now, since the transition to a market economy, and with the dissolution of the national hunting society, hunting has become more chaotic. An increased number of game animals, from red deer to wild swine, and trophy animals, such a wolves and bears, have been killed.

Many magazine articles have come to glorify hunting. Understandably, these articles do not address all of the issues associated with hunting or with animals as "natural resources." These articles address a limited perspective of hunting, one associated with the individual pleasure at stalking animals and using technological advantages to kill them. There are other dimensions and many larger questions unasked.

One is the shear number of hunters, including sport hunters, hunting tourists and poachers. Another is the social and ecological myths based on early human traditions. These can be dispelled as follows.

1. "Hunting is necessary to keep game species in check and healthy, even if original predators are reintroduced." No, the population rarely increases beyond the carrying capacity before it stabilizes. Food is always the final check. Predators stabilize a herd at a lower number and keep it on the move (which improves its health).
   
   
2. "Hunting is necessary to protect human economic interests, especially crops, cows, sheep and chickens." Not so. Usually, preventive measures are enough; good fences, good dogs, and enough attention by shepherds and farmers.
   
   
3. "Hunters take the place of natural predators to maintain the balance of nature." Natural predators are more efficient and cost-effective. Why create an imbalance by killing predators and then try to take their place, mostly unsuccessfully? Hunting as a system is very unnatural, in its timing, its targets, and its scale.
   
   
4. "Hunting has a minimal impact on game species and almost none on non-game ones." Many habitats have been artificially skewed towards game species. Hunters often shoot prime specimens, which is the opposite tact taken by predators, who take the sick and old from herds. Also, many animals, especially rare species - wolf, lynx, marten, panther - cannot survive in the presence of hunting.
   
   
5. "Sport hunters are concerned about their image, and only a small percentage are slobs." Hunting takes less agility and conditioning than other "sports." This is made up for by motorized transport (snowmobiles, trucks, dirt-bikes) and by powerful, sighted weapons.
   
   
6. "Hunters are just following nature's law of kill or be killed." It's an old law, never properly understood and repealed by new knowledge. The new law is cooperation, with limited competition.
   
   
7. "Hunting is okay because animals have few feelings and emotions and feel little pain." New evidence shows differently; even fish have well-developed feelings.

In practice, sport hunting demonstrates an ignorance of human nature, of animal nature (more than just a series of tracks leading to a target), of wildlife management, and of interactions in ecosystems. It demonstrates an insensitivity to the feelings and goals of animals, and it demonstrates an abuse of power. Animals are threatened with loss of habitat and deteriorating ecosystems, from takeover, development, human overpopulation, and pollution, as well as from hunting.

Hunting puts pressure on animal populations without noticeable benefit. Hunting is a minor part of the range of human outdoor activities, numerically or economically. Far more people walk outside, take pictures, ski, or camp.

Perhaps we should just eliminate hunting altogether. After all, humans with brains and spears were more than a match for mammoths. And humans with super technological informational systems, weapons, and vehicles have shown that they are over matched for virtaually any species, even without bringing those brains into action.

Sounding Board is a weekly guest column for members of Bulgaria's expatriate community to voice their opinions or recount stories from their life in Bulgaria. Submissions should be 700 words, accompanied by a photo, and emailed to editor@sofiaecho.com.