A Case for Hunting. . . Continued

Phew! Now that we've gone through all of that, we can continue.  The human race is physiologically what it is today because of hunting.  Pre-human species were prey species that were vegetarians.  Over time, the available food began to change and these Pre-human species started moving around to more favorable areas (the so-called Out-Of-Africa Theory).  This environmental pressure (also known more properly as natural selection) caused Pre-human diets to change from vegetarians to vegetarian/scavengers.  Pre-humans capitalized on the kills made by predators.  When it was safe, they would move in and eat the remaining spoils.  This is the second step in a very important development for human kind.  The first step was when humans started using antelope horns and similar "tools" to dig roots and obtain other vegetable foods.  The second step was when "tools" were used to crack the bones of animal carcasses to obtain the high protein, high fat marrow inside.  Eventually, these Pre-Humans put two and two together and said, "Hey we used these 'tools' to crack the bones of dead animals, why not try it on live animals, this way we don't have to wait around for lions and other predators to provide us with our next meal."  BINGO!  Hunting was born!  When humans adopted this new way of obtaining food - hunting - the population expanded.  Far more humans were living to old age because they had the 'tools' to protect themselves from predators and ultimately became the top predators anywhere they lived.  This had two major physiological effects. First, this put pressure (natural selection) to work on the human brain.  To be successful, early hunters had to think - overcome obstacles with brain power and not muscle power.  We simply didn't have the speed of the cheetah or the strength of the lion to overcome prey animals.  Instead, we had to think such things as "well, I know I can't run down that antelope but he's going to have to eat or drink sometime, hey, I know I'll wait by that water hole over there and sooner or later he'll come by!"  The physical result was that our brains (or more appropriately the frontal lobe, the part responsible for higher thinking) began to increase in size.  Our bodies then depended on meat to sustain it.  This dependency is true to you right now as you sit reading this.  Why?  The reason is because to keep the body running you need a vitamin called B-12, interestingly there are NO plants or vegetables that provide the amounts of B-12 that we need.  Interestingly, there are only two natural sources of vitamin B-12.  These are micro-organisms (like bacteria and yeast) and, you guessed it, MEAT!   In most cases, wild game is more healthy for you than processed meat (lower cholesterol, lower fat, no hormoneinjections, etc.) We are currently NOT designed to be Vegans.  Sure you can eat a vitamin B-12 pill daily but if you were stuck on an island without them you may die of a condition known as pernicious anemia (caused by B-12 deficiency).  So who are Vegans (vegetarians that refuse any animal product like butter, meat, eggs, etc.) trying to fool when they say hunting is wrong and that we don't need meat to stay alive?  Hmmm,  maybe that's because it is another example of ethical fancy and not scientific fact!

The long term consequences of the adoption of hunting are revolutionary.  With hunting, not only did our diets, ability to protect ourselves, brain size and dependency on B-12 change, many behaviors and technology came to exist.  Agriculture, domestication of wild animals, further tool development, etc. all started from our change from a vegetarian-prey species to a vegetarian/meat-eating predator species as a result of increased numbers of people.  I'm always amazed at people who deny that we are all hunters.  Those who don't hunt but still eat meat just pay someone else to do their killing for them. All predators eyes face forward for depth perception, so do ours. All predators are quiet when approaching other animals, so are we.  All of this is instinctive to people.  Why?  The reason is because we are all hunters in some form or another!

Let's move forward a few thousand years.  Many anti-hunting groups say that sport hunting is against nature, though these same people condone that other predators like lions and bears have a right to hunt for their food.  This,I feel, is a statement of lunacy.  The bottom line is that an animal has been killed in either case.  Again, this seems more like an ethical question than a scientific one.  But let's consider the ecological impacts of sport-hunting. Admittedly, poachers and unchecked hunting poses a threat to animal populations around the world, but for authorized, licensed sport hunting, it is a most powerful tool.  Let's examine why.  Ecologists, biologists and other scientists who study animals and their environments often refer to something known as "carrying capacity."  Carrying capacity is the point at which a given area's population can function.  For example, if a tract of forest only has enough food to support X number of deer then X is the carrying capacity.  Once all the food has been eaten, all the cover from the weather occupied and so on, the area has reached its carrying capacity.  Controls start to kick in to control the number of animals occupying the area.  For example, if deer have eaten all available food, starvation or disease from being weakened will start to control the number of deer. This is the point where predators will start to play a key role.  There is supposed to be a balance between predators and prey.  When this balance is upset, other controls (such as starvation and disease) start to take over.  Today, many of our top North American predators have been either eliminated or kept at low numbers - such as wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, and bears. The list of reasons as to why they are at low numbers is long and includes everything from habitat loss, overkill by poaching, hatred by farmers or ranchers and so on.  As such, human beings that hunt play a greater role than they ever did before.  They must assume the role of the lost wolves, coyotes and other predators in order to keep prey species in check.  While some anti-hunters admit that this is true they argue that, "Hunters always take the largest and strongest trophy animals and leave the smallest and weakest animals to do all the breeding.  Predators target the weakest animals and leave the largest and strongest to do all the breeding."  This is not entirely true.  First, some hunters are trophy hunters and some are not.  Therefore, hunters DO NOT ALWAYS take the strongest and largest animals and usually don't since people are the top predators and animals "don't get big by being stupid."  Similarly, predators DO NOT ALWAYS target the weakest prey. Rather, predators tend to be opportunistic.  This means that the weakest, again, are NOT ALWAYS taken.  For example, if the largest, strongest elk were to climb the tallest, steepest mountain in search of food while all the other elk were stranded, weak and dying in the snowy valley down below then that would be the elk to do all the breeding.  Right?  Wrong!  What if the weakest, smallest mountain lion was lying half starved in the trail the elk was taking?  The mountain lion could win, thus, throwing the whole "only the strongest survive" notion down the tubes!  This is a realistic possibility too.  What is not realistic is for anti-hunters to take such heart-felt views to be fact.  The most accurate description on the predator-prey relationship is this;  whoever is most fit at that particular instance in time will win.  "Fit" is inclusive of a lot of ground as is "win" and includes more stuff than I would like to discuss here.  Again, ask me personally if you have questions.

I feel that I should discuss the actions of trophy hunters more thoroughly.  Trophy hunters do hunt for and harvest the largest animals - hence the name "trophies."  In order to do this though, they sometimes go to great lengths.  Some travel and hire outfitters and guides for lots of money.  Others try to "grow their own" trophies on property they own.  Such is the case with the Blaine property.  By offering the right food, genetics and time, animals can, and do, grow to trophy status.  If these conditions are such to create trophy animals, then all other species will usually benefit as well, including songbirds and other non-game species.  The target population will never starve, become diseased or otherwise " be hurting" as long as trophy management practices are involved.