WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository

2003

The Science and Sociology of Hunting: Shifting Practices and Perceptions in the United States and Great Britain

John W. Grandy The Humane Society of the United States

Elizabeth Stallman The Humane Society of the United States

David W. Macdonald Oxford University

Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/sota_2003

Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Other Anthropology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons

Recommended Citation Grandy, J.W., Stallman, E., & Macdonald, D. (2003).The science and sociology of hunting: Shifting practices and perceptions in the United States and Great Britain. In D.J. Salem & A.N. Rowan (Eds.), The state of the animals II: 2003 (pp. 107-130). Washington, DC: Humane Society Press.

This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Science and Sociology of Hunting: Shifting 8CHAPTER Practices and Perceptions in the United States and Great Britain

John W. Grandy, Elizabeth Stallman, and David W. Macdonald

Introduction etween the late nineteenth and within rapidly shifting political and toward whole-ecosystem management early twenty-first centuries, cultural areas). (Dasmann 1964; Decker et al. 1992; Bboth the rationale for and per- While hunting was once necessary Woolf and Roseberry 1998; Bolen ception of hunting shifted in the Unit- for the survival of European colonists 2000; Peyton 2000). Despite the shift ed States, coinciding with demograph- and Native Americans, the number of in the focus of wildlife management, ic changes in the U.S. population people reliant upon subsistence hunt- as well as a steady decline in the pop- (Duda 1993). Similar changes in atti- ing in the United States and Western ularity and acceptance of hunting, tude, though largely undocumented, Europe is now small. For the general the generally dwindling stakeholder probably occurred in the United King- public in both the United States and group associated with sport hunting dom. (For example, foxhunting did Europe—including non-hunters and continues to exert a strong influence not emerge as a substantial sport until hunters—the acceptability of hunting on wildlife management (Bissell the second half of the eighteenth cen- today hinges on ethical considera- 1993; Woolf and Roseberry 1998), tury; before that, foxes were widely tions such as “fair chase”; whether often encouraging the production of perceived as pests and killed whenever the hunt is conducted primarily for “harvestable surpluses” of favored the opportunity arose [Marvin 2000]). sport, recreation, trophy, or food; and game species for the sake of providing Our purpose in this chapter is to com- perceived effects on conservation or recreational hunting opportunities pare these two countries in order to animal welfare (e.g., Kellert 1996). (Holsman 2000; Peyton 2000). Con- reveal some of the science and the Paralleling changes in public atti- sumptive users of wildlife (hunters, sociology relevant to hunting (the lat- tudes, the discipline of wildlife man- trappers, and anglers) have a finan- ter just one of many interacting envi- agement in the United States has cial—and perhaps, therefore, influen- ronmental issues about which human shown evidence of a gradual evolution tial—impact on wildlife management society faces complicated judgments away from “game” management and via the purchase of hunting and fish-

107 ing licenses and duck stamps, and often covering a defined area of land payment of federal excise taxes (Gill 1990; Myrberget 1990; Stroud U.S. Wildlife on sporting arms, handguns, ammu- et al. 1999). Of course, management nition, and archery equipment of mammalian wildlife in the United Management (Schmidt 1996; Holsman 2000). This Kingdom is perhaps less complex and Hunting potential influence of hunters on than elsewhere in Europe or in the Early European colonists considered management decisions has three United States because there are no wildlife on the North American conti- potential effects: it may (1) promote remaining populations of large preda- nent to be essentially infinite in abun- the killing of wildlife as a form of pub- tors and only a handful of larger her- dance (e.g., Mighetto 1991; Posewitz lic recreation; (2) reduce the empha- bivores. 1999). There was no need to justify sis by wildlife agencies on non-game In the United Kingdom, most avail- hunting to the public. Hunting for species; and (3) affect the movement able data on public attitudes toward subsistence was a way of life and was toward ecosystem management. wildlife management are collected believed to be justified by the desire In contrast to the United States, through opinion polls for political to conquer the wilderness of the New mammalian wildlife populations in purposes, and these generally are World. Thus, little need was seen for the United Kingdom exist almost scientifically wanting (Macdonald et restraint in hunting and trapping entirely on privately owned land and al. 2000). However, one particular those wildlife species whose meat are managed by individual landowners aspect of hunting that certainly causes could be used or whose hides or fur within the constraints of European great public concern is the use of could be traded within the colonies or and U.K. legislation regarding sea- dogs to chase and kill wild mammals sold to financiers in Europe. Euro- sons, permitted methods of killing or such as foxes, deer, and hares (Min- pean colonists saw many wildlife hunting, use of firearms, and protected istry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and species, as well as the wilderness species (Macdonald et al. 2000). The Food 2000). A number of European itself, as hostile and a deterrent to organization of wildlife management countries, including Germany, Swe- progress. In Connecticut, for exam- is much less institutionalized in the den, and Denmark, have banned or ple, the first restriction on hunting United Kingdom than in the United partially banned hunting with dogs deer, in the form of a closed season, States. For example, provided that (Burns et al. 2000). Although hunting was not in place until 1698, by which permitted methods are used, strict with dogs is an ancient occupation in time deer had been nearly wiped out firearms regulations are followed, and the United Kingdom (Macdonald in that area (Conover and Conover closed seasons recognized, the deci- 1987; Macdonald and Johnson 1996), 1987). Bounties on wolves and sion as to how many deer to cull lies the longstanding and fierce debate as cougars—placed only partly for the almost entirely within the control of to whether it should be allowed to sake of protecting livestock—suc- individual landowners. No hunting li- continue recently culminated in a ceeded in extirpating large predators cense is required (although individual ban in Scotland; it is not yet resolved from the East and later from much of landowners may charge a fee for the in England and Wales. The Scottish what was to become the forty-eight right to hunt on their land) and, legislation abolished mounted fox- contiguous states (Leopold 1933; except for deer in Scotland, there is hunting and hare coursing and pre- Conover and Conover 1987; Mighetto no requirement for hunters to report vents the hunting of deer, boar, and 1991; Paquet and Hackman 1995). the number of animals killed. There is mink with dogs. In 2002 ministers of By the late 1800s, however, some no legally enforced regulation in the Parliament voted overwhelmingly to hunters began to write about the United Kingdom, although landown- ban hunting with dogs in England and need for conservation of declining ership and informal groupings (e.g., Wales, but progress was blocked by populations of game species—most deer management groups, fox the House of Lords. Following a period notably the bison and the passenger destruction clubs, and shooting syn- of consultation, new legislation pro- pigeon—and to increase public dicates) may achieve a similar effect. posed in late 2002 was again support- awareness of the loss of wildlife to Very recently, and as a significant ed by the House of Commons but was market hunting (Mighetto 1991). change, many organizations hunting also likely to face opposition from the Deer, beaver, wolves, bears, cougars, with dogs have submitted themselves Lords when it was to be voted on in and other animals killed by hunters to voluntary regulation by the Inde- late 2003 or 2004. The proposed bill, or trappers had been nearly extirpat- pendent Supervisory Authority for as amended in committee, bans hunt- ed from most of their range in North Hunting. However, the U.K. situation ing with dogs unless two tests are America, and many waterfowl species generally contrasts sharply with the passed: first, that the hunting is nec- were in serious decline (Nichols, situation elsewhere in Europe, where essary to prevent serious damage of Johnson, and Williams 1995; Paquet wildlife culling is subject to a statuto- some kind and, second, that the dam- and Hackman 1995; Woolf and Rose- ry licensing system and/or cull plans age cannot be prevented using a berry 1998). Massachusetts was the approved by government authorities, method involving less suffering.

108 The State of the Animals II: 2003 first state to close deer hunting for a ry of natural selection may have been sent day, as has the wildlife manage- number of years; by 1880 state game a catalyst for the concern of humani- ment strategy of producing wildlife laws became widespread throughout tarians for animal welfare, because for hunters to kill, in spite of the fact the country, imposing bag limits, rest the theory clearly indicated that that Leopold’s (1933) embrace of days, closed seasons, and buck laws, humans and other animals share a cropping wildlife came at a time when the latter of which prohibited the common origin. production of wildlife seemed a shooting of anterless deer (Leopold During the early 1900s, increasing responsible alternative to the 1933; Conover and Conover 1987; populations of some wildlife species exploitation of scarce wildlife popula- Woolf and Roseberry 1998). Restric- allowed wildlife managers to move tions. Some authors now suggest that tions on waterfowl hunting were away from a strategy of simply continuation of the cropping strategy nonexistent until passage of the restricting hunting to recover scarce as a primary goal of wildlife manage- Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in wildlife populations, adopting instead ment may hinder progress toward 1918 authorized the federal govern- a strategy in which the “cropping” of whole-ecosystem management (Pey- ment to implement hunting regula- game species was emphasized. (Crop- ton 2000). Even in those regions tions (e.g., Nichols, Johnson, and ping, as a management technique, where some wildlife populations, such Williams 1995). involves encouraging the reproduc- as white-tailed deer, are considered Hunters and anglers around the tion and survival of animals so that too abundant, state wildlife agencies turn of the twentieth century fre- many will be available to be killed by often respond to pressure from sport quently are credited with kick-starting recreational hunters without decreas- hunters by continuing to manage the early conservation movement that ing the population beyond the capa- habitat to provide increased food and eventually led to passage of the Lacey bility of the next reproductive cycle to cover for deer so that hunter satisfac- Act of 1900, the MBTA, and associated replenish the population.) This strat- tion remains high (Woolf and Rose- treaties, and an end to destructive egy was accomplished through berry 1998). In areas where native market hunting (Leopold 1933; Mig- attempts to limit the negative impact predators have returned (e.g., hetto 1991; Schmidt 1996). Critics on wildlife of hunting, as well as to cougars in the West) or have been point out that these sport hunters- mitigate the effects of disease and replaced by others (e.g., coyotes turned-conservationists acted for the habitat degradation. Refuges and replacing wolves in Maine), hunting “selfish” purpose of providing “abun- parks were also established on which and trapping seasons for these preda- dant sport for themselves” (Grinnell, hunting was prohibited or restricted tors often are established or liberal- in Mighetto 1991, 41). Regardless of (Leopold 1933). Sport hunters in the ized under the generally untested the motives of the hunters of the past, early and mid-1900s were provided assumption that this will increase their actions resulted in the initiation with hunting opportunities and in populations of popular game species. of early wildlife conservation. turn provided a means to limit now- The American public, including While hunters of this era pushed for increasing deer herds which, though wildlife managers and some hunters, laws and regulations that would pro- still limited by food and disease, were has begun to question more critically tect the game species they found no longer being held in check by large the emphasis of state wildlife agen- valuable, they simultaneously refined predators such as wolves and cougars cies on satisfying the desires of the “sporting” aspects of hunting by (Woolf and Roseberry 1998). Sport hunters (e.g., Williams 1986). In emphasizing particular ethical stan- hunters became a self-designated response to this and other criticisms, dards, such as the concept of fair “tool” for wildlife management and hunters’ organizations in several chase and self-imposed restrictions began funding state and federal states have lobbied for passage of leg- on the number of animals killed to wildlife management agencies islation establishing their “right” to allow wildlife populations to rebuild— through a tax in the form of fees for hunt (Table 1). It is not yet clear what and, ultimately, be used by future the purchase of hunting licenses and effect this will have on wildlife man- generations of hunters (e.g., Posewitz duck stamps (Migratory Bird Hunting agement strategies or hunting regu- 1999). The need to hunt for subsis- Stamp Act, 1934) and via excise taxes lations. tence was rapidly diminishing, and imposed on purchases of sporting humanitarians concerned for the wel- arms and ammunition (through the fare of individual animals began to Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in pay attention to the suffering of at Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937). least some hunted wildlife species. The notion of hunters as the Mighetto (1991) suggests that the “clients” of U.S. state wildlife agen- publication in 1859 of Darwin’s theo- cies has largely persisted to the pre-

The Science and Sociology of Hunting: Shifting Practices and Perceptions in the United States and Great Britain 109 Table 1 States that Currently Have a Constitutional Amendment Guaranteeing the Right to Hunt for All Citizens

State Bill or Amendment Highlights of Text

Alabama Alabama Constitution, “All persons shall have the right to hunt and fish in Amendment No. 597(2002) this state in accordance with law and regulations.”

Florida Section 8, Section 372.002, “The legislature recognizes that hunting, fishing, and the Florida Statutes (2002) taking of game are a valued part of the cultural heritage of Florida and should be forever preserved for Floridians….”

Minnesota Minnesota Constitution, “Hunting and fishing and the taking of game and fish are Article XIII, Section 12 (2001) a valued part of our heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people….”

Missouri Title XXXVIII. Crimes “It is the intent of the general assembly of the state and Punishment; Peace Officers of Missouri to recognize that all persons shall have and Public Defenders the right to hunt, fish and trap in this state….” Chapter 578.151

New Hampshire Title XVIII. Fish and Game Chapter “…The general court further finds that it is in the best of 207 General Provisions as to Fish the state and its citizens that the fish and game recognize, and Game Jurisdiction. 207:58 preserve, and promote our special heritage of hunting, (2001) fishing, trapping, and wildlife viewing by providing opportunities to hunt, fish, trap, and view wildlife….”

North Dakota North Dakota Constitution, “Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game Article 11, Section 27 (2002) and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people....”

Virginia Virginia Constitution, Article XI, “The people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game….” Section 4 (2002)

Hunters in the Table 2a United States Percentage of the United States Absolute numbers of hunters (paid Population Holding a Hunting License license holders) in the United States have decreased over the past two 1980 1990 2000 decades, from approximately 16.3 million in 1980 to 15 million in 2000. The popularity of hunting, measured Number of Paid Hunting 16,257,074 15,806,864 15,044,324 1 by the proportion of the U.S. popula- License Holders tion that purchases hunting licenses, U.S. Population 2 226,542,199 248,709,873 281,421,906 has declined steadily, from an esti- mated 7.18 percent in 1980 to 5.35 Percentage of Population 7.18 6.36 5.35 Holding a Hunting License percent in 2000 (Table 2a) ( U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1981; U.S. Cen- 1Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, based on data provided by state wildlife agencies. A paid sus Bureau 1996; U.S. Census Bureau license holder is one individual regardless of the number of licenses purchased. Some states do not 2001; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service require the purchase of a hunting license by senior citizens, youth, or disabled individuals; some 2001). Trends in most states follow unprotected species, such as prairie dogs or marmots, may be shot without a license in some states. the national trend, though there 2Source: U.S. Census Bureau is substantial variation in hunting

110 The State of the Animals II: 2003 participation among states (Table 2b). Between 1980 and 2000, nine- Table 2b teen states showed a decrease of 2 States Showing an Increase or Decrease percent or more in the percentage of the population that purchased licens- of 2 Percent or More in Hunting es; however, a few states (Montana Popularity, 1980, 2000 and the two Dakotas) showed an increase of at least 2 percent in the Percent of State Population percentage of paid license holders. (It Holding a Hunting License is not clear the extent to which non- resident trophy hunters may affect 1980 2000 state-by-state variation in these trends.) These recent trends contrast Hunting Popularity Increases with the period 1955–1975, during Montana 27.64 31.46 which the number of paid license holders in the United States in- North Dakota 15.33 19.23 creased 46 percent, from 11.7 million to 14.0 million (U.S. Department of South Dakota 20.66 30.23 the Interior 1997). Another measure of participation in hunting is the average number of Hunting Popularity Decreases days hunted per year. Between 1991 Alaska 17.96 15.55 and 1996, hunters spent, on average, approximately 17 percent fewer days Arizona 7.31 3.83 hunting annually than in 1975, 1980, Colorado 10.81 7.85 and 1985 (U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Com- Georgia 7.03 4.03 merce 1997). Enck, Decker, and Idaho 25.21 19.26 Brown (2000) point out that most of this decrease can be accounted for by Kansas 10.51 7.80 a decrease in time spent hunting Louisiana 9.14 6.23 small game (a 40 percent decrease in days spent hunting); days spent hunt- Maine 21.28 16.37 ing big game and waterfowl actually Mississippi 11.45 8.86 increased by 28 percent and 5 per- cent, respectively, between 1980 and Nevada 6.53 3.02 1996 (see also U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of New Hampshire 9.07 6.17 Commerce 2002). These authors sug- New Mexico 11.08 6.00 gest further that the reduced interest in small-game hunting may be indica- Oregon 14.98 9.09 tive of reduced participation by Pennsylvania 10.73 8.37 younger hunters, for whom small- game hunting is often part of the Utah 19.68 7.69 introduction to hunting (Enck, Deck- Vermont 26.86 16.70 er, and Brown 2000). Perhaps for this reason, hunter recruitment efforts by Virginia 8.78 4.45 state wildlife agencies and non- Washington 8.73 3.65 governmental hunting associations often focus on encouraging young Wyoming 41.21 29.90 people to begin or continue hunting, though efforts to recruit minority Popularity of hunting is indexed as the number of paid hunting license holders divided by the total U.S. population. groups and women are also becoming Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, based on data provided by state wildlife agencies more common (e.g., Matthews 1993; and the U.S. Census Bureau. A paid license holder is one individual regardless of the number Mangun, Hall, and O’Leary 1996). of licenses purchased. Some states do not require the purchase of a hunting license by senior citizens, youth hunters, or disabled individuals; some unprotected species of wildlife, such as prairie dogs or marmots, may be shot without a license in some states.

The Science and Sociology of Hunting: Shifting Practices and Perceptions in the United States and Great Britain 111 Several factors may be contributing opposed to rural, settings. Other fac- wildlife conflict or to provide food), to the apparent decline in the popu- tors correlated with decreasing hunt- and whether hunters respect laws and larity of hunting in the United States, ing participation included a declining regulations (Duda 1993; Posewitz but urbanization is the factor most percentage of the white population 1994; Kellert 1996). For example, in a frequently cited. The trend toward and increasing average education survey Kellert (1988) found that more an increasing concentration of the level (Heberlein and Thomson 1991). than 80 percent of the general public human population in urban areas was Related factors affecting declining approves of Native American subsis- recognized and lamented by hunters hunting participation may include a tence hunting as well as any hunting and outdoors enthusiasts in the lack of a family mentor who hunts done exclusively to obtain meat. Hunt- late 1800s. For example, Theodore and isolation from social systems that ing for sport or recreation is accept- Roosevelt in 1893 complained that support hunting (e.g., Decker, Pro- able to most Americans (64 percent) American society was becoming too vencher, and Brown 1984; Brown et only if the meat is used. However, 60 civilized and was in danger of losing al. 1987; Applegate 1991; Organ and percent of those surveyed indicated an the toughness—or “vigorous manli- Fritzell 2000). Other wildlife-depen- opposition to hunting done solely for ness”—that only dangerous and phys- dent activities, such as bird watching, recreation or sport, and 80 percent ically demanding experiences such as appear not to be predominantly rural were opposed to trophy hunting (Fig- hunting could provide (Roosevelt (McFarlane and Boxall 1996). ure 1). Results of other surveys have 1900, 7–8). John Muir, on the other mirrored these findings, indicating hand, observed that the trend toward that public approval of hunting is urbanization and the “deadly apathy Public stronger when the motivation for of luxury” had at last awakened in hunting is not solely for recreation or Americans an appreciation for nature Acceptance of a trophy (Bissell, Duda, and Young (1901, 1). Wildlife management pro- 1998; Minnesota Department of Nat- fessionals today complain that an Hunting in the ural Resources 1992). increasingly urbanized and suburban- Urban vs. rural residency is corre- ized America is losing touch with na- United States lated with public opinion on hunting ture and holds idealized notions of Public acceptance of hunting in the in the United States (as elsewhere, see wildlife populations that can exist United States hinges on ethical con- Macdonald and Johnson 2003) and free of human intervention (e.g., siderations such as fair chase, the per- with attitudes toward wildlife and Organ and Fritzell 2000), an idea sup- ceived humaneness of the hunting other animals in general. In survey ported by Kellert (1996). On the method, whether hunting is conduct- studies, Kellert (1996) found that other hand, however, Kellert (1996) ed primarily for sport/recreation, the people who own large amounts of land asserts that attitudes of rural resi- extent to which hunting is viewed as or reside in open country areas tend dents are biased in another direction: necessary (e.g., to resolve a human- to hold a more utilitarian view toward these residents are more likely to value wildlife and the land pri- marily because of their usefulness to humans, rather than through an appreciation of their role in natural 100 ecosystems. Hunting is, in fact, more popular in 80 rural populations, as indicated by the fact that rural residents are more 60 likely to hold hunting licenses or to have hunted at least once (Duda 40 1993). In a regression analysis of fac- tors associated with hunting partici- 20 pation, Heberlein and Thomson 0 (1991) found that declining partici- pation was associated with a decreas- ing percentage of individuals who spend their teens in rural communi- ties, and, in general, an increasing number of people living in urban, as

112 The State of the Animals II: 2003 nature and animals compared with those who live in large cities, own lit- tle or no land, or are college-educat- ed, and compared with younger adults. Relatively “urban-oriented” people in the United States tend to express a greater concern for the pro- tection of wildlife and wildlife habitat, and exhibit levels of knowledge about nature that are not significantly dif- ferent from those of rural residents. Similarly, Manfredo and Zinn (1996) found that urban Coloradoans are more likely than rural residents to have positive value orientations toward wildlife rights or welfare, and are less likely to value wildlife use, including hunting (Figure 2). Perhaps because of changing demo- graphics, the prevalence of Kellert’s (1988, 143) “utilitarian” attitude, defined as the “practical and material exploitation of nature” for the pur- pose of “physical sustenance/security,” appears to have declined substantially between 1900 and 1976 (Figure 3). This analysis was based on the fre- quency of occurrence of the utilitarian attitude in newspaper articles from two rural and two urban newspapers. Interestingly, the decline in utilitari- an attitudes depicted by Kellert (1988, 1996) would be more substan- tial if Kellert had accounted for the fact that the proportion of the human population living in rural areas had changed from 60 percent in 1900 to 25 percent in 1976. In addition to the urban-rural split, several researchers have found opin- ions of hunting in the United States that vary with age. Kellert (1996) suggests that changing values of young children may reflect, at least in part, a developmental process similar motivated by more than just the pos- adults and older individuals. In par- to Kohlberg’s (1984) stages of moral sibility of being punished for harming ticular, elderly Americans tend to development in children. For exam- other creatures” (Kellert 1996, 49). have less interest in and affection for ple, very young children view animals Utilitarian aspects of children’s atti- animals and for nature in general. in egocentric, exploitative ways. How- tudes toward animals decrease by Manfredo and Zinn (1996) also found ever, by age nine, children appear to their late teens, while attitudes re- differences between young adults “develop a conscience toward the flecting support for conservation or and older age groups in Colorado: nonhuman world, recognizing ani- an interest in animal welfare increase. younger adults (ages 18–30) tended mals and nature as having the right Kellert (1996) also found that views to view wildlife rights or welfare more not to be selfishly manipulated, a view toward wildlife differ between young positively and wildlife use (e.g., hunt-

The Science and Sociology of Hunting: Shifting Practices and Perceptions in the United States and Great Britain 113 Attitudes of U.S. Wildlife Management 80 70 Professionals 60 Changes in both attitudes and cur- 50 riculum also are evident in the pro- fessional wildlife management com- 40 munity. Organ and Fritzell (2000) 30 conducted a survey of university fish- 20 eries and wildlife programs in the 10 United States to assess changes in 0 student interests and attitudes and in the curriculum and course content. Senior faculty members from the twelve programs responding to the survey estimated that approximately 25 percent of fisheries and wildlife program undergraduates participate ing) more negatively compared with accidents that kill or injure humans. in hunting. Faculty estimated that as older adults (Figure 4). Manfredo and Many members of the American many as 24 percent of the undergrad- Zinn interpreted these age-related public are concerned with animal suf- uate students in this discipline are differences in values as a generational fering and the unnecessary killing of likely have “anti-hunting” views, change. Kellert (1996), however, wildlife, particularly if it occurs as though this ideology was attributed implies that these differences may part of a recreational activity. Some more often to fewer than 10 percent also reflect continuing moral develop- types of hunting may be viewed as of the students. Over the past twenty ment in adulthood. Longitudinal more purely recreational, even if the years, the numbers of students who studies, in which the same individuals animals killed are sometimes used for hunt were estimated to have de- are followed for several years, will be food or other purposes. Waterfowl creased by 10 to 60 percent, while the required to determine the extent to hunting, dove hunting, varmint (or numbers of students opposed to hunt- which age-related differences in opin- “pest”) hunting, and traditional ing may have increased by 30 to 50 ions toward wildlife and acceptance of British fox hunting from horseback percent. Changes in course content hunting indicate a developmental (see page 119) are examples of more at the universities surveyed by Organ change within an individual versus a purely recreational forms of hunting and Fritzell (2000) include a greater generational change reflective of the for which justification as a form of emphasis on conservation biology changing values of American society. “management” frequently is weak. and rare-species conservation and Clearly, not all non-hunters are Predator hunting is another practice reduced time devoted to harvest man- “anti-hunter.” However, even people that is less likely to be defended for agement. These estimates and trends who are not strictly opposed to hunt- population management purposes or are based solely on the perceptions of ing may be concerned with the suffer- as a way to provide food. Public atti- senior faculty members at a small ing of individual animals that can tudes toward predator hunting indi- number of universities and should be occur as a result of hunting. Based on cate that this practice may be viewed interpreted with caution. However, group interview sessions with individ- as less justifiable, especially when this brief survey suggests that the uals claiming to have a neutral opin- hounds are used. For example, Teel, ethical views of students going into ion toward hunting, Rohlfing (1978) Krannich, and Schmidt (2002) found the wildlife management field are identified and ranked 115 problems that Utah residents showed general changing along with those of the pub- associated with hunting and hunters. opposition to bear and cougar hunt- lic as a whole. Of the top ten most bothersome prob- ing. Though rural residents were less Among members of professional lems, five were related to the opposed than urban residents to bear associations of wildlife biologists suffering of wounded animals left and cougar hunting in general, a and wildlife managers in the United to die a “slow,” “painful,” or “horri- majority of both rural and urban resi- States, Muth et al. (1998) found that ble” death. Two of the ten most both- dents was opposed to the use of 49.4 percent considered themselves ersome problems, including the num- hounds to hunt cougars and black to be hunters; as one would expect, ber one problem, involved hunting bears. this is a much higher percentage than

114 The State of the Animals II: 2003 is found in the public as a whole (see philosophy. Finally, there is a growing 1980). Kellert (1996) estimates that Table 2a). Surprisingly, however, only number of people who consider them- nature hunters make up 10 to 20 a bare majority—52.5 percent—of selves to be both animal protection- percent of all hunters in the United those surveyed agreed with the state- ists and conservationists. States. Another category, “meat ment that “[w]ildlife and fish species Divisions among hunters in terms of hunters,” includes those whose pri- are resources to be harvested in a sus- their concern for conservation, ani- mary motivation for hunting is ob- tainable way and used for human ben- mal welfare, or other ethical consider- taining food. These hunters are more efit.” This suggests that one of the ations have certainly existed since the likely than nature hunters to be older foundations of the wildlife manage- late 1800s and early 1900s. Mighetto and male and to live in rural areas. ment discipline (Leopold 1933) has (1991) provides several illustrations of Meat hunters, according to Kellert not prevailed in the seventy years or so interpersonal differences among (1996), make up around 40 percent since its establishment. Organ and hunters. For example, one may con- of all hunters. Of course, most of Fritzell (2000) cite unpublished data trast Roosevelt’s writings, which Kellert’s meat hunters are not true suggesting that wildlife managers who focused on the excitement of pursuit subsistence hunters in that they do had been in the profession for five and of the kill, with those of Ernest not depend upon meat obtained in years or fewer are much less likely to Thompson Seton. Roosevelt particu- this way to survive. It is conceivable support consumptive uses of wildlife larly relished hunting dangerous that some meat hunters use the meat (e.g., hunting, trapping, and fishing) predators and, in general, revealed of the animals they kill as a source of compared with veterans of twenty through his writings a “streak of protein in much the same way that years or more. Thus, individuals now bloodthirstiness” (Mighetto 1991). they would use farm animals; howev- entering the wildlife management dis- Seton was also a hunter, but in his er, it is likely that the use of wild meat cipline in the United States appear to writings, such as Wild Animals I Have as a substitute for farm animals is represent a change in ethical views. Known, he portrayed animals as indi- decreasing in the United States. This shift may be reflected in growing viduals and showed concern for their Finally, “sport hunters,” who account consideration for the humaneness of suffering, in part by using anthropo- for around one-third of all hunters, management actions and for manage- morphism as a literary device. Anoth- hunt primarily for recreation rather ment actions that benefit non-game er contrast can be seen between Aldo than for food or to be close to nature. species. Leopold and those hunters who vexed These hunters primarily cite reasons him through their increasing depen- for hunting that are related to social dence on “gadgets” as a means of companionship and a chance for com- Divisions facilitating hunting (Leopold 1966, petition. Sport hunters differ from originally 1949). Interestingly, Leo- nature hunters in that they tend Among U.S. pold started off with a Rooseveltian not to have exceptional knowledge disrespect for wolves and other preda- regarding wildlife. Moreover, unlike Hunters tors; his attitude toward wolves later meat hunters, they are less concerned In 1913 Theodore Roosevelt identi- changed with his realization of the for the usefulness of the animals they fied three groups of people concerned important role of predators in an kill (e.g., for meat). Hunting purely to with wildlife conservation: “the true ecosystem (Leopold 1966). obtain a trophy is included in this sportsman, the nature-lover,” and More recently, several authors have category (Kellert 1980; Kellert “the humanitarian” (Roosevelt 1913, attempted to differentiate types or 1996). Other studies have generally 161). Today these categories may still subgroups of hunters based on differ- supported these or similar categoriza- approximate, respectively, the subset ent motivations for hunting and/or tions (e.g., Brown et al. 1987; Allen of hunters concerned with conserva- the degree of specialization (Duda 1988; but see Causey 1989). Some tion; non-hunting conservationists 1993). Kellert (1980, 1996) charac- authors suggest that a temporal pro- such as bird watchers; and animal terizes the attitudes and values of gression often occurs in a given indi- protectionists. However, the distinc- three main types of hunters. “Nature vidual’s motives for hunting that tions among these categories often hunters” include those who emulate essentially leads from a sport hunter are blurred and each could be further Aldo Leopold in their desire to be a perspective to one of a nature hunter subdivided. For example, only some part of nature, filling a role that they (e.g., Decker et al. 1987). Others sug- hunters actively participate in conser- consider to be much like that of a gest that, when changes in attitude vation, beyond the now-involuntary nonhuman predator. Nature hunters occur over a hunter’s lifetime, this contributions to wildlife conservation include a greater proportion of women often can be characterized as an through the purchase of licenses or compared with other categories and increase in specialization, in terms of equipment (Holsman 2000). Bird are, on average, more likely to be col- either the species hunted or the hunt- watchers and other naturalists may lege educated and to engage in non- ing method employed (e.g., Bryan be hunters or may lean more toward consumptive wildlife activities such as 1979; Ditton, Loomis, and Choi an animal welfare or animal rights wildlife watching or hiking (Kellert 1992). Some of the more specialized

The Science and Sociology of Hunting: Shifting Practices and Perceptions in the United States and Great Britain 115 Data and Observations on Duck Hunting in the United States For nearly a century, wildlife managers have pointed to waterfowl conservation, an ambitious effort designed to preserve an abundance of ducks across the length and breadth of a continent, as the crown jewel of North American wildlife management. It began in 1916 with the signing of the North American Migratory Bird Treaty between the United States and Canada. A second treaty with Mexico in accompanied by the establishment of Figure A. 1936 extended these protections south waterfowl refuges across the middle The number of ducks counted each of the Rio Grande. This allowed each and southern United States to provide spring across the North American waterfowl breeding grounds has re- North American nation to ban the com- wintering habitat and give ducks a mea- mained essentially stable during the sure of protection from hunters. The mercial sale of wild waterfowl and years 1955–2000, as shown by the solid restrict the sport kill to prevent over- protection was accomplished via both trend line. The populations are five-year shooting. public and private efforts that continue averages (Wilkins and Otto 2002). A second initiative began in the to this day. 1930s when severe drought seized the But it was not until the latter half of northern prairies, the major breeding the twentieth century that the focus across the Canadian Prairie provinces ground of North America’s continental shifted to attempts to develop a scientif- and boreal forest to the Beaufort Sea. flocks. Duck populations plummeted. ic management approach, based on data The wintering grounds extend across This prompted a drive to protect breed- collection and mathematical analysis. the middle latitude and southern United ing wetlands in both the northern Unit- The 1950s witnessed the first conti- States into Mexico. ed States and prairie Canada. Protec- nental surveys of the breeding and win- These surveys were (and are still tion of breeding grounds was tering grounds. The breeding grounds today) unprecedented in scope. extend from South Dakota northward Although they are still incomplete, they represent the longest-running continen- tal wildlife surveys in the world. The breeding-ground survey tallies eleven species—mallards, northern pintails, gadwalls, shovelers, wigeon, green- winged teal, blue-winged teal, canvas- backs, redheads, and scaup (both less- er and greater). The survey data are the basis for the government analysis used to judge whether populations are

Figure B. The northern pintail, once the second most abundant North American duck, has dropped from an average popula- tion of 7.4 million in 1955–1960 to 3.0 million in 1996–2000, a 59 percent decline according to the plotted trend line (Wilkins and Otto 2002).

116 The State of the Animals II: 2003 Figure C. Wintering-ground surveys disclose that the average number of black ducks has fallen from 603,000 in 1955–1960 to 274,000 in 1996–2000, a decline of 56 percent (Fronczak 2002).

breeding-ground survey suggests that, despite weather-related population fluc- tuations, the overall numbers of ducks have remained essentially stable in the past half-century. Critics argue that the monolithic “total-duck” argument avoids the central issue of whether wildlife managers have really learned how to manipulate water- fowl populations. They point to declining numbers of those species most prized by hunters—northern pintails, black increasing or decreasing. ing hunting regulations, that should lead ducks, scaup, and mallards—as evi- In 1961 biologists began gathering to an increase in the breeding popula- dence that management is not achieving additional data designed to give them tion of a species in decline or to a reduc- what it claims. Some indication of the greater insight into the population tion in the numbers of an overabundant trend line for duck populations from the dynamics of various species. These species. late 1800s through the early 1900s data include counts of nesting potholes However, the enormous amounts of might have helped support or refute on the northern-prairie breeding data have not yet led to a general agree- management claims. Unfortunately, no grounds; age-ratios of ducks taken by ment on what determines spring breed- data are available prior to the 1950s. hunters (which index annual reproduc- ing success and whether changing Two primary causes for the pintail’s tive success); numbers of hunters; and hunting regulations have any significant losses are given by wildlife managers— the number of each species killed by impact (see Grandy 1983). the loss of short-grass prairie nesting hunters. In addition, a number of ducks Those who assert that waterfowl habitat on the western plains and over- each year are captured and fitted with management has succeeded in main- shooting, especially in recent years. leg bands. When hunters return these taining an abundance of waterfowl cite Unlike prairie-nesting species, the bands, the data are used for statistical as evidence the overall breeding-ground black duck has not suffered extensive estimates of annual mortality from nat- counts. A look at the average numbers loss of its eastern-forest nesting habi- ural causes (disease, predation, etc.) of all species counted during the spring tat. Its decline is attributed largely to and sport hunting. These data are designed to allow biologists to create a population model that will allow waterfowl managers to predict and control numbers of ducks. They permit wildfowl managers to make decisions, largely based on chang-

Figure D. Biologists remain baffled over the decline of scaup, medium-sized diving ducks whose populations have dropped from an average of 6.4 million in the period 1976–1980 to 4 million in the period 1995–2000, a decline of 38 percent (Wilkins and Otto 2002). The primary cause of their decline remains unknown, although some believe over-shooting in the 1970s and early 1980s played a sig- nificant role (Allen et al. 1999).

The Science and Sociology of Hunting: Shifting Practices and Perceptions in the United States and Great Britain 117 Continued from previous page

over-shooting, although some argue that mallards have displaced black ducks from portions of their range. Restrictive hunting regulations have been imposed for nearly a quarter-cen- tury, but these restrictions have not allowed the species to rebuild its num- bers. In recent years, in spite of the low population levels, hunting regulations have been liberalized, permitting an even greater kill of black ducks by hunters. A detailed analysis and critique are provided in Grandy (1983). The remaining species—gadwall, shovelers, wigeon, green-winged teal, and blue-winged teal—make up approximately another 12 million wild- fowl but have not been subjected to much analysis. Half a century of data collection and able nesting habitat for any species is Figure E. associated scientific analysis does not filled to capacity. Indeed, the evidence The beleaguered canvasback, once the appear to have brought the authorities suggests—and several studies have most celebrated duck in North America, much closer to their goal of under- found—that there is more habitat than has so far not responded to a forty-year effort to increase its breeding numbers, standing the factors affecting duck pop- ducks to occupy it, especially for mal- although the last ten years have produced ulations. lards and pintails (Bethke and Nudds an upward trend. This increase may not The debates continue unabated. 1995). However, few studies have continue because hunting of this species Some blame the loss or degradation of attempted to determine the carrying was closed in the 2002 season when breed- northern-prairie breeding habitat. How- capacity of available nesting habitat in ing numbers dropped to 487,000 (Wilkins ever, no study has shown that all avail- the northern prairies or whether carry- and Otto 2002). hunters may include those who come birds, sometimes within forty-eight Schmidt (2002) found that, although to rely on those gadgets to which hours of their release. Other authors a majority of Utah hunters approve of Leopold (1966) was so opposed (Pey- have expressed concern over the cougar and black bear hunting (66 ton 2000), which would seem to dis- ethics of some hunting activities, and percent and 57 percent approval, qualify them from the ranks of nature what the activities mean for the respectively), most hunters (64 per- hunters. future of what they consider legiti- cent) disapprove of the practice of Evidence of the divisions among mate forms of hunting. Peyton (2000, bear baiting. This study also indicates general types of hunters also has been 777), for example, criticized some that a surprising number of hunters manifested in criticisms directed hunters’ “overzealous attitudes in Utah have negative views toward toward hunters by their peers, or by toward wildlife as a crop,” such as the use of hounds to hunt predators: other writers who generally support those individuals who frequent game one-third of Utah hunters disapprove hunting. For example, Williams farms that resemble a “barnyard” of the use of hounds to hunt cougars (1986) sharply criticizes hunters who more than a hunting opportunity. and nearly half oppose the use of shoot the pheasants who are raised in Similarly, Peyton states that hounds to hunt black bears. captivity and released by state wildlife landowners in Michigan (and else- In a similar vein, some authors agencies to provide a put-and-take where) who feed free-ranging deer assert that hunters often display opin- (i.e., release and kill) recreational have essentially created game farms ions and behaviors that are not in the hunting opportunity. Williams ques- without fences. Varmint hunters, who best interests of conservation or the tions the ethic—on the part of both shoot ground squirrels, prairie dogs, environment, despite the prevailing the pheasant shooters and the wildlife and other rodents, often purely for claim to the contrary by modern-day managers—in promoting this artifi- sport, are sometimes viewed by other hunters. In particular, Holsman cial type of hunting experience involv- types of hunters as “wasteful” or oth- (2000) reviews several studies from ing the killing of half-tame non-native erwise unethical. Teel, Krannich, and the 1990s indicating that hunters at

118 The State of the Animals II: 2003 Figure F. The population of the mallard, North America’s most abundant and adapt- able duck, has essentially been stable over the last fifty years (Wilkins and Otto 2002). The data indicate that mal- lards are holding their own in the face of heavy shooting pressures and agricul- tural degradation of the northern- prairie breeding grounds.

their while. Therefore, in most areas, hunters can kill a “basic bag” of six ducks. To that they can add up to five mergansers (“fish-eating” ducks) and fif- teen coots. However, mergansers and coots are rarely if ever eaten (one of the justifications given for duck shooting). The data gathered over the past fifty years continue to challenge the ing capacity in this region has been alleviated by reducing the kill of hens by assumptions and premises upon which reached. human hunters but, to date, this has wildfowl management is based. For Some blame increasing predation on been attempted only for the mallard. those who appreciate the beauty of nests and nesting hens for the failure of The data represent a continuing chal- ducks and the joy of watching them some species to rebuild their numbers. lenge for wildlife management and undisturbed, modern waterwildfowl But losses to natural predators general- modern-day duck hunting in the United management is, to date, more of a fail- ly affect only duck populations that are States. Regulators have long since con- ure than a success. declining for other reasons, such as cluded that duck hunters will not go —John W. Grandy over-hunting or habitat loss (Côté and “afield” (i.e., to shoot) if they are unable Sutherland 1997). These losses may be to shoot enough ducks to make it worth that time were among those least (Theodori, Luloff, and Willits 1998; likely to support conservation of bio- see also McFarlane and Boxall 1996 Hunting and diversity or an emphasis on manage- for evidence of bird watchers’ willing- ment of endangered species; accord- ness to contribute to conservation). Shooting in ing to these studies, hunters also Wildlife protection advocates also are the United were least likely to engage in environ- demonstrating their willingness to mentally responsible behaviors. protect habitat. For example The Kingdom Williams (1986) and Holsman (2000) Humane Society of the United States both cite examples of hunters and Wildlife Land Trust, an affiliate of The hunters’ associations opposing HSUS, has grown steadily since its “Hunting” versus attempts to restore native wildlife to inception in 1993 to encompass sixty “Shooting” regions from which they have been thousand acres in twenty one U.S. In the United Kingdom, the term extirpated, especially wolves and states and four countries outside of hunting generally refers to the use of other predators. More recently the the United States. The Wildlife Land dogs—hounds, fast coursing dogs, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance has Trust is one of a growing number of and sometimes terriers—in a hunt; it opposed efforts to end bear baiting organizations that seek to protect does not include the use of retrieving and to restrict the release of pen- wildlife, not only through habitat pro- dogs or pointers, which neither pur- raised non-native pheasants. tection but also by prohibiting hunt- sue nor kill the quarry. Typically Other outdoor recreation enthusi- ing and trapping in protected sanctu- hounds chase the fox, deer, hare, or asts, such as bird watchers, may be aries. other animal and humans follow on more likely to support such goals, horseback, on foot, or in vehicles. The either by volunteering their time or term shooting, on the other hand, is through financial contributions used in the United Kingdom to

The Science and Sociology of Hunting: Shifting Practices and Perceptions in the United States and Great Britain 119 describe the use of a rifle or shotgun can go on for up to six hours (Bateson has hunting with dogs in the United to kill foxes, deer, or other animals 1997). More than 80 percent of hinds Kingdom, and access to guns is regu- and does not involve the use of dogs are pregnant during the hind hunting lated heavily, shooting is widespread for pursuit. season (Langbein 1997); the extent and is probably the predominant In the case of fox hunting as of abortions among hinds that escape means of wildlife culling (Macdonald defined above, despite wide variation, the hounds is not known. More than et al. 2000). Shooting by stalking the average pursuit lasts half an half of the deer roused and hunted with a rifle or large bore shotgun is hour (Macdonald and Johnson 1996; escape without being brought to bay the most common method used to Masters of Foxhounds Association (Masters of Deerhounds Association cull deer in England and Wales, as [MFHA] 2000), and about 75 percent 2000). Once the deer has been brought well as in Scotland and Northern Ire- of foxes found during a mounted hunt to bay or has stopped running and land (British Association for Shooting evade capture (n=149 hunts, data, attempting to escape, it normally is and Conservation 2000; British Deer 1990–1996). On average, 64 percent killed by a shot at close quarters with Society 2000). Shooting, particularly of fox kills are made by the hounds. In a modified shotgun, pistol, or, under as part of organized Deer Manage- 30 to 40 percent of cases where a fox some circumstances, a humane killer ment Groups (groups of adjoining is killed (by any means) during a (a captive bolt pistol used from landholders coordinating their deer mounted hunt, a terrier is used either extremely short range). Staghounds management), is the method of deer to kill the fox underground or to are trained to surround the deer and control recommended by government locate it or flush it out so it can be bark at the end of the hunt, and (MAFF 2000). From its 1996 survey, killed by hounds or shot. In the Unit- should not attack or savage the deer, the British Association for Shooting ed Kingdom, packs of foxhounds, although Bradshaw and Bateson and Conservation (BASC) estimated occupying largely non-overlapping (2000) report attacks by dogs in one that 10,000 of its members were territories, are registered with the out of four deer kills observed. Hunt- active deer stalkers. Of these, 87.6 Masters of Foxhounds Association. In ing deer to hounds is now restricted percent (8,700) were “recreational” common British usage, each of these almost entirely to one small part of stalkers, and 12.4 percent (1,300) is referred to as a Hunt. (The proper England lying within West Somerset were “professional” deer stalkers who noun distinguishes these organiza- and North Devon. accounted for 40 percent of the total tions from a hunt, the common noun Hares are hunted with dogs either deer cull. referring to a particular chase. Inter- using packs of hounds, or by coursing One part of the debate surrounding nationally, this usage can be ambigu- in competitions or on an ad hoc basis. the hunting of foxes with dogs in the ous, so here we refer to each “club”— With packs of hounds, a hunt usually United Kingdom is whether it is more a word that itself would have different lasts for an hour to an hour and a half, or less humane than shooting. Sup- connotations in this context in Great and only an estimated 5 percent of porters of hunting argue that shoot- Britain—as a “pack of foxhounds.”) hares sighted are killed (Association ing leaves wounded foxes to die long, However there is enormous variation of Masters of Harriers and Beagles lingering deaths and that shooting among packs of foxhounds: some dig 2000). During organized competition would necessarily increase should out no foxes, while in others up to 86 coursing, dogs are not released until hunting be banned. An alternative percent of fox kills are dug out by ter- the hare is at least 80 meters away; view is that foxes killed by shooting riers, having gone underground after the hare must be “in a fit condition”; die quickly and painlessly, without the being pursued (Macdonald et al. nothing must hinder the hare’s distress of the chase and capture. 2000). Digging to reach the fox escape; and it must have “sufficient Foxes are shot mainly either at night and/or fighting between fox and ter- knowledge” of the ground (National with a spotlight and rifle (known as rier underground may last from ten Coursing Club 2000). An average “lamping”) or during the day by minutes to three hours (Phelps, greyhound course lasts 35 to 40 sec- groups or individuals, sometimes at Allen, and Harrop 1997). This activity onds, and an average of 13 percent of the cubbing den (or “earth”). Gun is not considered to be part of hunt- the hares chased are killed, either by packs and shooting at earths may ing “proper.” From an anthropologi- the dogs or by human “pickers-up,” combine shooting with the use of cal perspective, at “this point hunting the latter of whom have a duty to dogs to find, bolt, or flush out foxes. has ceased and vermin control takes ensure that hares are killed quickly Research commissioned by the All over” (Marvin 2000, 195). Indeed, and humanely (National Coursing Party Parliamentary Middle Way MFHA rules stipulate that those out Club 2000). There are no data on the Group (Fox et al. 2003) formed the hunting may not participate in dig- extent or nature of ad hoc coursing, first experimental attempt to address ging to reach a fox. which often is associated with illegal the humaneness of shooting foxes. In a deer hunt, the average overall gambling and use of land without the The research used colored cut-out fox time for a deer to be successfully owner’s permission. silhouettes as targets to assess the hunted, brought to bay, and killed is Although it has attracted a much penetration, kill rate, and wounding around three hours, though hunts lower level of public controversy than rate of fifty-one different shooting

120 The State of the Animals II: 2003 Table 3 Responses of Urban Dwellers and Farmers Regarding the Acceptance and Need for Fox Control

Urban Respondents Rural Respondents Questions (percent in agreement) (percent in agreement)

Where do foxes need to be controlled? In the country? 47.7 73.9 In towns? 61.9 70.7

Why do foxes need to be controlled? To control disease? 56.6 45.7 To protect livestock? 48.7 67.6 To protect game species? 14.4 44.5 Foxes too numerous 21.1 65.1

Do you approve of fox control for these reasons? To improve shooting? 6.7 42.0 For pelts? 3.3 16.8 For sport with hounds? 11.8 68.4

Do you approve of active conservation of foxes? 46.0 19.3

Source: Macdonald and Newdick (1978). Results are based on a questionnaire distributed to 14,000 households in Oxford, England, of which 3,468 (26 percent) were returned the following day. The differences between urban and rural respondents were statistically 2 significant overall: X (1) > 23, P<0.0001. regimes, including different shot es largely on culling of foxes, the most method to be acceptable. In a ques- sizes and user competencies. Fox abundant mammalian carnivore in tionnaire-based study, Macdonald and wounding rates increased significant- the United Kingdom. Although both Newdick (1982) found that urban ly when No. 6 shot was used in shot- include a significant element of sport, dwellers were much less likely to state guns, due to poor penetration, but hunting and shooting in the United that foxes needed to be controlled the use of BB shot minimized wound- Kingdom often are justified in terms and were less likely to state that any ing rates. Experienced shooters using of their contribution to pest control of the listed motives for culling was correctly zeroed rifles achieved a high (Burns et al. 2000). When ques- acceptable (Table 3). Urban dwellers kill rate. While studies such as this tioned, however, neither farmers nor were also more likely to approve of can point to ways of making culling members of the public necessarily the active conservation of foxes. more humane, it remains extremely consider either method—especially Upbringing appears to play a role in difficult to compare different types of hunting with dogs—to be acceptable attitudes toward fox hunting and suffering. Welfare science is advanc- or effective for wildlife damage reduc- other forms of fox control: respon- ing rapidly in this respect; for exam- tion or sport. dents raised in the country were sig- ple, McLaren et al. (in press) have For example, in a public opinion nificantly more likely to favor fox con- recently described a measure of stress poll of 801 adults throughout Great trol in the countryside (53 percent) based on leucocyte competency that Britain regarding fox hunting, 63 per- than were those brought up in the can provide rapid results in the field. cent of respondents either supported city (46 percent). or strongly supported a ban on hunt- Baker and Macdonald (2000) asked Attitudes toward ing foxes with dogs. Most people (69 farmers in the county of Wiltshire to percent) disagreed with the state- say which, among a list of non-exclu- Hunting/Shooting in ment that fox hunting is a necessary sive options, were their principal the United Kingdom means of preserving the balance of motivations for hunting. All respon- There have been few studies exam- wildlife in the countryside; more rural dents opted for “recreation,” while 55 ining attitudes of either the general (39 percent) than urban (20 percent) percent said “to control foxes as a public or landowners toward hunting respondents considered fox hunting pest.” Farmers’ perceptions and prac- and shooting. Those that do exist to be necessary (Macdonald et al. tice of hunting and shooting are like- have occurred largely in response to 2000). As in the United States, urban ly to be colored by the extent to public concern over mounted fox- residents appear less likely than farm- which they consider target species to hunting, therefore this section focus- ers to find culling of foxes by any be a pest, the extent to which they

The Science and Sociology of Hunting: Shifting Practices and Perceptions in the United States and Great Britain 121 Table 4 Farmers’ Attitudes toward Hunting on Their Land, according to Enterprise, “Pest” Status, whether Gameshooting Took Place, or the Farmer Himself Hunted1

Encourage Tolerate Discourage Disallow Hunting Hunting Hunting Hunting

All Farms (n=97) 30.9 50.5 12.4 6.2

Dairy (n=63) N.S. 23.8 55.6 14.3 6.4

Non-Dairy Stock (n=13) 53.9 30.8 7.7 7.7 N.S. Mixed (n=16) 31.3 50.0 12.5 6.3 Arable (n=5) 60.0 40.0 0.0 0.0

“Pest” Farms2 (n=25) 40.0 56.0 4.0 0.0 X2=4.68

“Non-Pest” Farms (n=52) 26.9 50.0 17.3 5.8 P=0.094

Game-shooting Farms (n=31) 41.9 48.4 9.7 0.0 X2=3.76

Non-Game-shooting Farms (n=66) 25.8 51.5 13.6 9.1 P=0.052

Hunting Farmer (n=12) 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 Fisher’s Exact, P=0.036

Non-Hunting Farmer (n=63) 23.8 55.5 15.9 4.8

Numbers shown are percentages of farmers who encouraged, tolerated, discouraged, or disallowed hunting.

1Some farms comprised Council Farms on which the farmer surveyed was a tenant and may not have had control over whether or not hunting occurred on his land.

2Pest status indicates whether a given farmer considered the fox to be a pest.

Source: Baker and Macdonald (2000) themselves hunt or shoot for sport, shire. In 1995 the sporting rights on Reynolds 2000a). and the extent to which they believe a 88 (73 percent) of the local authori- Two questionnaire surveys, one cov- method to be humane and effective ty’s 120 farms had been retained by ering 859 farmers from ten regions in for pest control (Macdonald and the local authority, and fox hunting England in 1981 (Macdonald and Johnson 2002). was automatically permitted regard- Johnson 1996) and the other covering Mounted fox hunting occurs over less of the farmer’s wishes. In a ques- 72 farmers in Wiltshire in 1995 about two-thirds of England and tionnaire survey of gamekeepers, (Baker and Macdonald 2000), have Wales (Macdonald et al. 2000), but a slightly fewer than half (48 percent) assessed whether farmers believe dif- farmer allowing hunting on his land of 203 respondents (persons em- ferent methods of fox control are does not necessarily see it as part of a ployed on shooting estates) cited “humane.” In both surveys and all strategy for fox control. For example, hunting with dogs as one of the meth- regions, shooting was consistently in the English county of Wiltshire, ods they used to cull foxes (National considered the most humane method only 31 percent of farmers encour- Gamekeepers’ Organisation 2000). of fox control (69 percent overall in aged the hunt; 6 percent did not Arable farmers (those who raise food 1981, 58 percent in 1995; Table 5); in allow it and 63 percent “tolerated” or crops but not livestock) are less likely 1995 49 percent considered it effec- “discouraged” it (Table 4) (Baker and than those with game birds or live- tive as well as humane. In 1981 a high Macdonald 2000). The high propor- stock, especially more vulnerable ani- proportion of farmers believed both tion of tenant farmers, and the reten- mals such as chickens, to consider hunting with hounds (55 percent tion of sporting rights (Parkes and the fox a pest on their farm, although overall), and gassing (49 percent) to Thornley 1994) by the local authority most farmers consider the fox to be a be humane; in Wiltshire in 1995, how- (Wiltshire County Farms Estate), may pest in the wider sense (Baker and ever, only 29 percent believed gassing create this complex situation in Wilt- Macdonald 2000; Heydon and was humane, although more than half

122 The State of the Animals II: 2003 still thought hunting with hounds changes since 1980, or the smaller change” in the legislation governing humane. Macdonald et al. (2000) sample size in the Wiltshire study. fox hunting (Produce Studies, Ltd. investigated whether these farmers' According to 1981 data, farmers 1995; n = 831); 11 percent said they judgments regarding the humaneness who reported that they had sustained would instruct their M.P. to vote for a of different methods, and the justifi- damage by foxes were more likely to ban on foxhunting; while 14 percent cation of different motives, were influ- say that killing foxes to improve held no strong view. Regionally, those enced by damage they had sustained pheasant shooting or for fur were in favor of no change varied between that they attributed to foxes, and by acceptable motives (Table 6). Dam- 86 percent (southwest England) and the field sports in which they partici- age had no effect on the likelihood of 56 percent (Scotland). Those in favor pated. In Wiltshire the proportion of farmers approving the active conser- of a ban varied between 6 percent farmers who considered each method vation of foxes. Hunting farmers were (southwest England) and 26 percent to be humane did not vary significant- less likely to say that shooting and (Scotland). ly from the proportion who had, and gassing were humane and more likely had not, designated the fox a pest on to state that digging with terriers was Hunting/Shooting their farms (Baker and Macdonald humane. Paradoxically, farmers who 2000). However, more farmers report- considered hunting to be a form of and Wildlife Damage ing actual stock loss to foxes in the pest control were also more likely to Reduction previous year said hunting was approve of the active conservation of The motives for culling wildlife in the humane compared with those who did foxes. This may be because hunting United Kingdom are not always clear- not. This contrasts with findings in farmers are more likely both to cite cut, and different groups of people 1981 (Macdonald and Johnson 1996), pest control as a rationale for the take contrasting views on the desir- which suggested that farmers were sport and to want foxes to persist in ability of certain motivations. For more likely to think shooting, snaring, the locality of a pack of foxhounds. example, the only way to prevent local poisoning, or the use of terriers In the United Kingdom as a whole, extinction of some populations of humane if they had suffered losses to 75 percent of farmers (including water voles, a species native to foxes, but that their opinions of hunt- those who did not consider foxes a Britain, is to remove (de facto, to kill) ing and gassing were not affected. The problem on their farms) said they American mink, an introduced differences between these studies would instruct their member of Par- species. Conservationists may see this could reflect regional variation, liament (M.P.) to vote for “no as a regrettable necessity, whereas

Table 5 Percentage of English Farmers Replying “Yes” When Asked Whether They Believed a Method Was Effective or Humane in Controlling Foxes

Wiltshire County (1995 study) n=72, 10 Regions in England except hunting and snaring, n=71 (1981 study) n=859

Control Methods Effective Humane Effective Humane

Shooting 62.5 58.3 68.8 68.8

Hunting 54.9 52.1 43.7 54.8

Gassing1 38.9 29.2 61.0 49.2

Poisoning1 22.2 8.3 41.2 8.3

Terriers/digging 19.4 9.7 34.2 23.0

Snaring 7.0 1.4 39.1 13.2

Adapted from Baker and Macdonald (2000); Macdonald and Johnson (2000, 2003).

1Gassing was made illegal in 1987, poisoning in 1963.

The Science and Sociology of Hunting: Shifting Practices and Perceptions in the United States and Great Britain 123 Table 6 The Effect of Fox Damage and Hunting Participation on the Perceived Humaneness of Different Control Methods

Fox Damage? Farmer Hunts? Farmer Shoots?

No Yes No Yes No Yes

Motive

Protect pheasants 35.3 56.5 43.8 39.5 22.9 62.8 For fur 12.8 25.1 18.9 12.2 12.7 22.1

Humaneness

Shooting 70.7 77.3 80.5 59.1 76.4 77.4 Gassing 48.8 62.0 59.9 38.7 56.6 64.1 Snaring 9.1 24.6 14.3 13.4 11.4 18.3 Hunting 59.0 59.3 41.4 91.2 44.0 44.0 Poisoning 17.4 32.6 24.2 36.5 24.2 28.9 Terriers 21.2 34.8 19.1 36.5 21.3 36.1

Percentage of respondents approving of the motive or stating that the control method is humane welfarists may not. Another recent individual estates or farms; and by the involved shooting) was 73 percent, 18 example in the United Kingdom is the fundamental difficulty in assessing percent, and 11 percent for the same proposed cull of introduced hedge- the extent of damage attributable to three regions, respectively (Heydon hogs from Scottish islands where they any one species. Nevertheless such and Reynolds 2000a,b; Heydon, threaten endangered seabirds. In gen- studies as there are for foxes have Reynolds, and Short 2000). Attempts eral, however, the two major reasons generally found that the population to model the effects of hunting with people hunt or shoot in the United impact of hunting and shooting is hounds further suggest that this Kingdom are, first, to control wild small (Phillips et al. 1972; Hewson method, by itself, has little impact on mammal populations that are and Kolb 1973; Storm et al. 1976; the abundance of foxes at a national believed to damage livestock, game Harris 1977; Macdonald 1980; Hew- or regional level. Shooting is more birds, or crops and, second, for sport son 1986; Voigt 1987; Wandeler likely to effectively reduce popula- (Macdonald et al. 2000). Conflicting 1988; Baker, Harris, and Webbon tions regionally, provided that it takes management aims therefore arise, 2002), though, in some upland areas place over a high proportion of the particularly for species such as hares of the United Kingdom, hunting may region (Macdonald et al. 2000). In and some deer, which are simultane- contribute more substantially to fox addition to human-induced mortality, ously considered pests, game species, mortality (Heydon and Reynolds fox populations appear to be regulat- and quarry, and are of conservation 2000a,b). Macdonald et al. (2000) ed by density-dependent effects on concern. estimated that registered mounted reproductive output, likely as a result Although damage reduction is a foxhunts, together with upland foot of food availability and social (stress- frequently cited motive and justifica- and gun packs, probably take a cull in mediated) suppression of reproduc- tion for hunting and shooting in the the region of 21,500 to 25,000; this tion (e.g., Macdonald et al. 2000; United Kingdom, there are few com- represents perhaps 4 percent of annu- Heydon and Reynolds 2000b). parative assessments of the effective- al fox mortality in the United King- Stag hunting kills, on average, 228 ness of different control methods in dom. There are no U.K.-wide data red deer per year, roughly 13 to 17 the literature for any mammalian regarding numbers of any mammal percent of the total cull required to species. Assessing effectiveness is shot. However in three regions of prevent further population increases complicated by a lack of data pertain- England, the proportion of the fox within the stag hunting area. Shoot- ing to cull levels (as there is no oblig- cull taken by methods involving ing with a rifle kills at least 1,000 per ation to report numbers killed) and shooting was 46 percent, 62 percent, year (Macdonald et al. 2000). Shoot- to population sizes (monitoring is and 68 percent, in mid-Wales, east ing is the most common method to largely absent or rudimentary); by the Midlands, and west Norfolk, respec- control population numbers of all six lack of coherent management goals tively, while that taken by methods of the deer species present in Britain, and strategies over areas larger than involving dogs (some of which also as well as in most other countries

124 The State of the Animals II: 2003 throughout Europe and in North ment core-funding will not be ade- Hunting, Shooting America, though it is not clear the quate to supplant the need for volun- extent to which human-induced mor- tary involvement for the foreseeable and Habitat tality may be compensatory with future (Macdonald and Tattersall Preservation other sources of mortality. The total 2002). Some effort is now being In the United Kingdom, where much annual red and roe deer mortalities applied to assessing the factors deter- of the landscape is dominated by the due to shooting during 1995–1996 mining the efficiency of volunteers effects of farming, the existence of in six countries of Western Europe (e.g., Newman, Buesching, and Mac- hunting and shooting as sports activi- were 110,000 and 1,750,000, respec- donald 2003). ties may provide an incentive for the tively (Deutscher Jadgschutz Verband Macdonald and Johnson (1996) preservation and restoration of some 1997). Macdonald et al. (2000) calcu- analyzed a time series of approximate- habitat types. For example, mounted late that, as a percentage of the pre- ly thirty years of cull data generated packs have traditionally managed breeding population (Harris et al. by MFHA packs, quantifying both woodland and copses as cover for 1995), shooting kills approximately regional differences and temporal foxes and maintained their hedgerows 14 to 20 percent of red deer, 29 to 40 trends; these were thought to reflect and dry stone walls to provide jumps percent of fallow deer, and 16 to 22.5 real patterns in fox abundance. The for followers on horseback (where percent of roe deer. These estimated recent establishment (in 2000) in the otherwise lower-maintenance wire percentages fall within the range of United Kingdom of an Independent fences, which are much less desirable human-induced mortality thought to Supervisory Authority for Hunting from the biodiversity perspective, be necessary to contain population (ISAH) has presented an opportunity might have been substituted). Mac- increase, provided that population to standardize and regulate the col- donald and Johnson (2000) used sizes are not greatly underestimated. lection of these data and to ensure farmer questionnaire data to identify There are no data on the extent to that all potentially useful data are patterns in habitat management which population control is reflected recorded. Packs of hounds are now across different sporting interest in damage control. recording, where possible, the sex and groups in the 1970s and 1980s. They Macdonald et al. (2000) concluded age of culled foxes. Early returns sug- found that there was a tendency for that, for deer, foxes, mink, and hares, gest interesting and hitherto unrecog- hunting and shooting farmers to hunting with dogs is generally less nized patterns. For example of the report having removed less hedgerow effective than alternative methods of approximately 6,000 foxes culled in in the decade preceding the survey, population and damage control, with the (at the time of writing, incom- particularly in the 1970s (rates of the possible exception of the use of plete) 2002/2003 season, the sex removal were everywhere much lower terriers to control foxes in upland ratio (male:female) as recorded for in the later period). There was also areas. The potential for non-lethal adults is approximately 2:1. evidence that other non-productive methods to mitigate the need for le- The commissioners of the ISAH habitats were better treated by these thal control is at an early stage of ex- (who include D.W.M.) have encour- interest groups. Oldfield et al. (2003) ploration (Baker and Macdonald 1999). aged the MFHA to maximize their have recently reported a similar utility in monitoring a number of result. Aerial photography and ques- Hunting and other species. These wildlife reports tionnaires showed that farms where Shooting as seem likely to yield some fascinating hunting and shooting occurred had geographic patterns when subjected more woodland, and had planted Monitoring Tools to close scrutiny. For example at a more new woodland and hedgerow, While there is no legal requirement national level, we can already see that than did farms where these activities for packs of hounds to record the perceived trends in deer species differ were absent. number of foxes killed, MFHA packs markedly: the majority of respon- record this information voluntarily dents record that Roe and Muntjac and have proven willing to make it deer are more abundant than they Conclusions available for scientific scrutiny. In the were ten years ago, while most record In both the United States and the context of monitoring in general in no change in fallow deer numbers. United Kingdom, attitudes toward the United Kingdom, the use of vol- The United Kingdom’s Game Con- hunting—and toward animals in gen- untary contributions seems likely to servancy Trust has for some time eral—have changed in the past sever- continue to form an important com- made similar efforts to use shooting al decades. Interestingly, the public’s ponent of the total endeavor. While bags and gamekeeper records to study acceptance of hunting, at least in the the ecological importance of moni- trends in pest and quarry species on United States, is dependent largely on toring is reflected in national and large estates. Tapper (1992) gives an hunters’ abilities to justify this activity international agreements, govern- account of these data. for the sake of providing food, rather

The Science and Sociology of Hunting: Shifting Practices and Perceptions in the United States and Great Britain 125 than merely as a sport; simultaneous- cies relating to wildlife has been Service, Office of Migratory Bird ly, Americans’ attitudes toward wildlife changing rapidly. Perceptions and Management, Washington. D.C. have become less utilitarian. If the policies are also changing fast, within Applegate, J. 1991. Patterns of early emphasis on the non-utilitarian values a labile cultural framework. Even desertion among New Jersey of wildlife increases, the public may between such similar nations as the hunters. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: also increasingly question utilitarian United States and Great Britain, 476–481. motivations for hunting. there are substantial differences in Association of Masters of Harriers and Mirroring the changing perception this context, and such differences Beagles. 2000. The hunting of the of hunting in the United States, par- become immense when the discus- hare with hound, Joint submission ticipation there has declined steadily sion is generalized across the globe. to the Burns Inquiry by the Associ- over the past twenty years. Though However, our short and incomplete ation of Masters of Harriers and potentially constrained by a financial review of this enormous topic, notwith- Beagles (AMHB) and the Masters dependence on this dwindling popula- standing its geographical restrictions, of Basset Hounds Association tion of hunters, professionals in does reveal its inescapable inter-disci- (MBHA). First round evidence wildlife management appear to be plinarity and the complex entangle- submission to the Committee of placing less importance on “produc- ments of fact and perception. Ulti- Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs. On ing” wildlife as a “crop.” Instead, mately, society’s judgments—and the CD accompanying the Report broader concepts from conservation policies—on wildlife issues such as of the Committee of Inquiry into biology are increasingly prominent in this will be heavily influenced by ethi- Hunting with Dogs, CM 4763 (by the profession, with management cal considerations. However, these T. Burns, V. Edwards, J. Marsh, seeking to integrate the needs of non- judgments, and the ethics that decide L. Soulsby, and M. Winter). Nor- game wildlife species. them, should be based on the clearest wich: The Stationary Office. Management of mammalian wild- possible understanding of what is Baker, P.J., S. Harris, and C.C. Web- life in the United Kingdom is mini- known factually, and an equally clear bon. 2002. Effect of British hunting mally regulated in governmental appreciation of what is not known. ban on fox numbers. Nature 419: terms and lacking in any cohesive 34. national strategy. Culling, mainly for Notes Baker, S.E., and D.W. Macdonald. pest control and sport, occurs largely 1Limitations of space preclude a full discus- 1999. Non-lethal predator control: on private land and out of public view, sion of the means by which wildlife damage may Exploring the options. In Advances be reduced through either lethal or non-lethal and public debate regarding the means. See Henderson and Spaeth (1980), Robel in vertebrate pest management, ed. acceptability of hunting and shooting et al. (1981), Baker and MacDonald (1999), and D.P. Cowan and C.J. Feare, 251— revolves mainly around foxhunting Knowlton, Gese, and Jaeger (1999) for a discus- 266. Furth: Filander Verlag. sion of this issue. and hunting with dogs in general. ———. 2000. Foxes and foxhunting This is perhaps unfortunate, as it has Figures 1 and 3 are reprinted from The Value of on farms in Wiltshire: A case study. deflected attention away from other Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society, Journal of Rural Studies 16: by Stephen R. Kellert. Copyright ©1996 issues relating to hunting and shoot- Island Press. Reprinted by permission of Island 185–201. ing. One issue, for example, that has Press/Shearwater Books, Washington, D.C., and Bateson, P. 1997. The behavioural and received little attention outside the Covelo, California. Figures 2 and 4 copyright physiological effects of culling red ©1996 from “Population Change and Its Implica- Scottish conservation community is tion for Wildlife Management in the New West: A deer. London: Report to the Coun- the very large population of red deer Case Study in Colorado” by M.J. Manfredo and cil of the National Trust. in the Scottish Highlands (more than H.C. Zinn. Reproduced by permission of Taylor Bethke, R.W., and T.D. Nudds. 1995. and Francis, Inc., http://www.routledge-ny.-com. 350,000, up from 150,000 at the end Effects of climate change and land of the nineteenth century). For many use on duck abundance in Canadi- owners of large upland estates in an Prairie-Parklands. Ecological Scotland, red deer are a significant Literature Cited Applications 5 (3): 588–600. financial asset, bringing revenue from Allen, S.A. 1988. Montana bioeco- Bissell, S.J. 1993. Ethical issues in stalking and venison. However, the nomics study: Results of the elk state wildlife policy: A qualitative current high deer numbers pose a hunter preference study. Report analysis. Ph.D. diss., University of problem to native woodland regenera- prepared for Montana Department Colorado. tion and moorland conservation, and of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Bissell, S.J., M.D. Duda, and K.C. there have been calls for widespread Mont. Young. 1998. Recent studies on reductions in deer densities across Allen, G.T., D.F. Caithamer, and M. hunting and fishing participation in the Scottish Highlands. Otto. 1999. A review of the status of the United States. Human Dimen- The science that should, and one greater and lesser scaup in North sions of Wildlife 3(1): 75–80. hopes increasingly will, underpin poli- America. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Bolen, E.G. 2000. Waterfowl manage-

126 The State of the Animals II: 2003 ment: Yesterday and tomorrow. Côté, I.M., and W.J. Sutherland. United States. Wildlife Society Bul- Journal of Wildlife Management 1997. The effectiveness of remov- letin 28(4): 817–824. 64(2): 323–335. ing predators to protect bird popu- Fox, N., S. Rivers, N. Blay, A.G. Green- Bradshaw, E.L., and P. Bateson. 2000. lations. Conservation Biology 11 wood, and D. Wise. 2003. Welfare Welfare implications of culling red (2): 395–405. aspects of shooting foxes. London: deer (Cervus elaphus). Animal Wel- Dasmann, R.F. 1964. Wildlife biology. All Party Parliamentary Middle Way fare 9: 3–24. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Group. British Association for Shooting and Decker, D.J., R.W. Provencher, and Fronczak, D. 2002. Waterfowl harvest Conservation. 2000. First round T.L. Brown. 1984. Antecedents to and population survey data. evidence submission to the Com- hunting participation: An exploratory Columbia, Mo.: U.S. Fish and Wild- mittee of Inquiry into Hunting with study of the social-psychological life Service. Dogs. On the CD accompanying the determinants of initiation, continua- Fulton, D.C., J. Pate, and M.J. Man- Report of the Committee of Inquiry tion, and desertion in hunting. Out- fredo. 1995. Colorado residents’ into Hunting with Dogs, CM 4763 door Recreation Research Unit attitudes toward trapping in Col- (by T. Burns, V. Edwards, J. Marsh, Publication 84-6, Department of orado. (Project Report No. 23). Pro- L. Soulsby, and M. Winter). Nor- Natural Resources, New York State ject Report for the Colorado Divi- wich: The Stationary Office. College of Agricultural and Life Sci- sion of Wildlife. Fort Collins, Colo.: British Deer Society. 2000. First ences. Ithaca: Cornell University Colorado State University, Human round evidence submission to the Press. Dimensions in Natural Resources Committee of Inquiry into Hunting Decker, D.J., T.L. Brown, B.L. Driver, Unit. with Dogs. On the CD accompany- and P.J. Brown. 1987. Theoretical Gill, R.M.A. 1990. The Global Envi- ing the Report of the Committee of developments in assessing social ronment Monitoring System: Moni- Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, values of wildlife: Toward a compre- toring the status of European and CM 4763 (by T. Burns, V. Edwards, hensive understanding of wildlife North American cervids. (Gems J. Marsh, L. Soulsby, and M. Win- recreation behavior. In Valuing Information Series No. 8). Nairobi, ter). Norwich: The Stationary Wildlife: Economic and Social Per- Kenya: United Nations Environ- Office. spectives, ed. D.J. Decker and G.R. ment Programme. Brown, T.L., D.J. Decker, K.G. Purdy, Goff, 76–95. Boulder: Westview Grandy, J.W. 1983. The North Ameri- and G.F. Mattfield. 1987. The Press. can black duck (Anas rubripes): A future of hunting in New York. Decker, D.J., T.L. Brown, N.A. Connel- case study of 28 years of failure in Transactions of the North American ly, J.W. Enck, G.A. Pomerantz, K.G. American wildlife management. Wildlife and Natural Resources Con- Purdy, and W.F. Siemer. 1992. International Journal for the Study ference 52: 553–566. Toward a comprehensive paradigm of Animal Problems, Supp. (4): Bryan, H. 1979. Conflict in the great of wildlife management: Integrat- 1–35. outdoors: Toward understanding ing the human and biological Harris, S. 1977. Distribution, habitat and managing for diverse sportmen dimensions. In American fish and utilization and age structure of a preferences, Bureau of Public Ad- wildlife policy: The human dimen- suburban fox (Vulpes vulpes) popu- ministration, Sociological Studies sion, ed. W.R. Mangun, 33–54. Car- lation. Mammal Review 7: 25–39. Series 4. Tuscaloosa: University of bondale: Southern Illinois Universi- Harris, S., P. Morris, S. Wray, and D. Alabama. ty Press. Yalden. 1995. A review of British Burns, T., V. Edwards, J. Marsh, L. Deutscher Jadgschutz Verband. 1997. mammals: Population estimates Soulsby, and M. Winter. 2000. DJV Handbuch. Verlag Deiter Hoff- and conservation status of British Report of the Committee of Inquiry mann, Mainz. mammals other than cetaceans. into Hunting with Dogs in England Ditton, R.B., D.K. Loomis, and S. Peterborough, England: Joint and Wales. London: The Stationary Choi. 1992. Recreation specializa- Nature Conservation Committee. Office, CM 4763. tion: Re-conceptualization from a Heberlein, T.A., and E.J. Thomson. Causey, A.S. 1989. On the morality of social world’s perspective. Journal 1991. Socio-economic influences hunting. Environmental Ethics 11: of Leisure Research 24(1): 33–51. on declining hunter numbers in the 327–343. Duda, M.D. 1993. Factors related to United States 1977–1990. In Conover, M.R., and D.O. Conover. hunting and fishing participation in Transactions of the 20th Congress 1987. Wildlife management in the United States. Phase I: Litera- of the International Union Game colonial Connecticut and New ture review. Responsive Manage- Biologists, ed. S. Csanyi and J. Haven during their first century: ment. Erhnhaft, 699–705. Godollo, Hun- 1636–1736. Transactions of the Enck, J.W., D.J. Decker, and T.L. gary: University of Agricultural Sci- Northeast Section of The Wildlife Brown. 2000. Status of hunter ences. Society 44: 1–7. recruitment and retention in the

The Science and Sociology of Hunting: Shifting Practices and Perceptions in the United States and Great Britain 127 Henderson, F.R., and C.W. Spaeth. Knowlton, F.F., E.M. Gese, and M.M. R. Bornkamm, J.A. Lee, and M.R.D. 1980. Managing predator problems: Jaeger. 1999. Coyote depredation Seaward, 123–137. New York: Hal- Practices and procedures for pre- control: An interface between biol- stead Press. venting and reducing livestock loss- ogy and management. Journal of MacDonald, D.W., and F.H. Tattersall. es. Manhattan, Kan.: Cooperative Range Management 52: 398–412. 2002. The state of Britain’s mam- Extension Service, Kansas State Kohlberg, L. 1984. The psychology of mals: 2002. Oxford: WildCRU and University. moral development. San Francisco: Mammals Trust UK. Hewson, R. 1986. Distribution and Harper and Row. Macdonald, D.W., F.H. Tattersall, P.J. density of fox (Vulpes vulpes) Langbein, J. 1997. The ranging behav- Johnson, C. Carbone, J. Reynolds, breeding dens and the effects of iour, habitat-use, and impact of deer J. Langbein, S.P. Rushton, and M. management. Journal of Applied in oak woods and heather moors of Shirley. 2000. Managing British Ecology 23: 531–538. Exmoor and the Quantock Hills. mammals: Case studies from the Hewson, R., and H.H. Kolb. 1973. Fordingbridge, England: British hunting debate. Oxford: WildCRU. Changes in the numbers and distri- Deer Society. Manfredo, M.J., and H.C. Zinn. 1996. bution of foxes (Vulpes vulpes) Leopold, A. 1933. Game manage- Population change and its implica- killed in Scotland from 1948–1970. ment. Madison: University of Wis- tion for wildlife management in the Journal of Zoology 171: 345–365. consin Press. New West: A case study in Heydon, M.J., and J.C. Reynolds. ———. 1966. A Sand County alman- Colorado. Human Dimensions of 2000a. Fox (Vulpes vulpes) man- ac and sketches here and there: With Wildlife 1(3): 62–74. agement in three contrasting other essays on conservation from Manfredo, M.J., D.C. Fulton, F. Ciruli, regions of Britain, in relation to Round River. New York: Oxford Uni- S. Cassin, J. Lipscomb, L. Skjorows- agricultural and sporting interests. versity Press. ki, and S. Norris. 1993. Summary of Journal of Zoology, London 251: Macdonald, D.W. 1980. Social factors project report: Coloradoans’ recre- 237–252. affecting reproduction amongst red ational uses of and attitudes toward ———. 2000b. Demography of rural foxes (Vulpes vulpes L. 1758). Bio- wildlife. Summary of Project Report foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in relation to geographica 18: 123–175. No. 6. Project Report for the Col- cull intensity in three contrasting ———. 1987. Running with the fox. orado Division of Wildlife. Fort regions of Britain. Journal of Zoolo- London: Unwin Hyman. Collins, Colo.: Colorado State Uni- gy, London 251: 265–276. Macdonald, D.W., and S.E. Baker. In versity, Human Dimensions in Nat- Heydon, M.J., J.C. Reynolds, and M.J. press. Non-lethal control of fox pre- ural Resources Unit. Short. 2000. Variation in abun- dation: The potential of generalised Mangun, J.C., D.A. Hall, and J.T. dance of foxes (Vulpes vulpes) aversion. Animal Welfare. O’Leary. 1996. Desertion in the between three regions of rural Macdonald, D.W., and P. Johnson. ranks: Recruitment and retention Britain, in relation to landscape 1996. The impact of sport hunting: of sportsmen. Transactions North and other variables. Journal of A case study. In The exploitation of American Wildlife and Natural Zoology, London 251: 253–264. mammal populations, ed. V. Taylor Resources Conference 61: 161–167. Holsman, R.H. 2000. Goodwill hunt- and N. Dunstone, 160–207. Lon- Marvin, G. 2000. The problem of ing? Exploring the role of hunters don: Chapman and Hall. foxes: Legitimate and illegitimate as ecosystem stewards. Wildlife Macdonald, D.W., and P.J. Johnson. killing in the English countryside. Society Bulletin 28(4): 808–816. 2000. Farmers and the custody of In People and wildlife: Conflicts in Kellert, S.R. 1980. Activities of the the countryside: Trends in loss and anthropological perspective, ed. J. American public relating to ani- conservation of non-productive Knight, London: Routledge. mals. Phase II of U.S. Fish and habitats, 1981–1998. Biological Masters of Deerhounds Association. Wildlife Service Study. Washington, Conservation 94(2): 221–234. 2000. First round evidence submis- D.C.: Government Printing Office, ———. 2003. Farmers as conserva- sion to the Committee of Inquiry 024-010-00-624-2. tion custodians: Links between per- into Hunting with Dogs. On the CD ———. 1988. Human-animal interac- ception and practice. In Conserva- accompanying the Report of the tions: A review of American atti- tion and conflict: Mammals and Committee of Inquiry into Hunting tudes to wild and domestic animals farming in Britain, ed. F.H. Tatter- with Dogs, CM 4763 (by T. Burns, V. in the twentieth century. In Ani- sall and W.J. Manley. Yorkshire: Lin- Edwards, J. Marsh, L. Soulsby, and mals and People Sharing the World, nean Society Occasional Publica- M. Winter). Norwich: The Station- ed. A.N. Rowen, 137–175. Hanover, tion, Westbury Publishing. ary Office. N.H.: Tufts University/University Macdonald, D.W., and M.T. Newdick. Masters of Foxhounds Association. Press of New England. 1982. The distribution and ecology 2000. First round evidence submis- ———. 1996. The value of life: Biolog- of foxes, Vulpes vulpes (L.), in sion to the Committee of Inquiry ical diversity and human society. urban areas. The second European into Hunting with Dogs. On the CD Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Symposium. In: Urban Ecology, ed. accompanying the Report of the

128 The State of the Animals II: 2003 Committee of Inquiry into Hunting Union. Norsk Institut for Natur- letin 28(4): 774– 779. with Dogs, CM 4763 (by T. Burns, V. forskning Utredning 18: 1–47. Phelps, R.W., W.R. Allen, and S. Har- Edwards, J. Marsh, L. Soulsby, and National Coursing Club. 2000. Ques- rop. 1997. Report of a review of M. Winter). Norwich: The Station- tions 2–17, First round evidence hunting with hounds. London: ary Office. submission to the Committee of Countryside Alliance. Matthews, B.E. 1993. Recruiting a Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs. On Phillips, R.L., R.D. Andrews, G.L. new constituency for sportfishing the CD accompanying the Report Storm, and R.A. Bishop. 1972. Dis- and hunting in the 21st century. of the Committee of Inquiry into persal and mortality of red foxes. Northeast Wildlife. Transactions of Hunting with Dogs, CM 4763 (by Journal of Wildlife Management 36: the Northeast Section of The Wildlife T. Burns, V. Edwards, J. Marsh, 237–248. Society 50: 159–166. L. Soulsby, and M. Winter). Nor- Posewitz, J. 1994. Beyond fair chase: McFarlane, B.L., and P.C. Boxall. wich: The Stationary Office. The ethic and tradition of hunting. 1996. Participation in wildlife con- National Gamekeepers’ Organisation. Helena, Mont.: Falcon Publishing, servation by birdwatchers. Human 2000. First round evidence submis- Inc. Dimensions of Wildlife 1(3): 1–14. sion to the Committee of Inquiry ———. 1999. Inherit the hunt: A jour- McLaren, G.W., D.W. Macdonald, C. into Hunting with Dogs. On the CD ney into the heart of American hunt- Georgiou, F. Mathews, C. Newman, accompanying the Report of the ing. Helena, Mont.: Falcon Publish- and R. Mian. In press. Leukocyte Committee of Inquiry into Hunting ing, Inc. coping capacity: A novel technique with Dogs, CM 4763 (by T. Burns, Produce Studies Ltd. 1995. Farmers’ for measuring the stress response V. Edwards, J. Marsh, L. Soulsby, attitudes to fox control. Newbury, in vertebrates. Journal of Experi- and M. Winter). Norwich: The Sta- Berkshire, England: Produce Stud- mental Physiology. tionary Office. ies, Ltd. Mighetto, L. 1991. Wild animals and Newman, C., D.D. Buesching, and Robel, R.J., A.D. Dayton, F.R. Hender- American environmental ethics. D.W. Macdonald. 2003. Validating son, R.L. Meduna, and C.W. Spaeth. Tucson: The University of Arizona mammal monitoring methods and 1981. Relationships between hus- Press. assessing the performance of volun- bandry methods and sheep losses Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and teers in wildlife conservation: Sed to canine predators. Journal of Food (MAFF). 2000. First round evi- quis custodiet ipsos custodies. Bio- Wildlife Management 45(4): 894– dence submission to the Commit- logical Conservation 113: 189–197. 911. tee of Inquiry into Hunting with Nichols, J.D., F.A. Johnson, and B.K. Rohlfing, A.H. 1978. Hunter conduct Dogs. On the CD accompanying the Williams. 1995. Managing North and public attitudes. Transactions Report of the Committee of Inquiry American waterfowl in the face of of the North American Wildlife and into Hunting with Dogs, CM 4763 uncertainty. Annual Review of Ecol- Natural Resources Conference 43: (by T. Burns, V. Edwards, J. Marsh, ogy and Systematics 26: 177–199. 404–411. L. Soulsby and M. Winter). Nor- Oldfield, T.E.E., R.J. Smith, S.R. Har- Roosevelt, T. 1900. The wilderness wich: The Stationary Office. rop, and N. Leader-Williams. 2003. hunter. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Minnesota Department of Natural Field sports and conservation in the Sons. Resources. 1992. Constituent inven- United Kingdom. Nature 423: ———. 1913. Our vanishing wildlife. tory: What Minnesotans think about 531–533. Outlook 103: 161–162. hunting, fishing, and native plant Organ, J.F., and E.K. Fritzell. 2000. Schmidt, R.H. 1996. A modest pro- management. St. Paul: Minnesota Trends in consumptive recreation posal to assist in the maintenance Department of Natural Resources, and the wildlife profession. Wildlife of a hunting culture. Wildlife Soci- Division of Fish and Wildlife. Society Bulletin 28(4): 780–787. ety Bulletin 24(2): 373–375. Muir, J. 1901. Our national parks. Paquet, P., and A. Hackman. 1995. Storm, G.L., R.D. Andrews, R.L. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Large carnivore conservation in the Phillips, R.A. Bishop, D.B. Siniff, Muth, R.M., D.A. Hamilton, J.F. Rocky Mountains: A long-term strat- and J.R. Tester. 1976. Morphology, Organ, D.J. Witter, M.E. Mather, egy for maintaining free-ranging reproduction, dispersal and mortal- and J.J. Daigle. 1998. The future of and self-sustaining populations of ity of mid-western red fox popula- wildlife and fisheries policy and carnivores. Toronto: World Wildlife tions. Wildlife Monographs 49: management: Assessing the atti- Fund. 1–82. tudes and values of wildlife and fish- Parkes, C., and J. Thornley. 1994. Fair Stroud, D.A., S. Gibson, J.S. Holmes, eries professionals. Transactions of game—The law of country sports and C.M. Harry. 1999. The legisla- the North American Wildlife and and protection of wildlife. London: tive basis for vertebrate pest man- Natural Resources Conference 63: Pelham Books. agement in Europe (with examples 604–627. Peyton, R.B. 2000. Wildlife manage- from the UK). In Advances in Verte- Myrberget, S. 1990. Wildlife manage- ment: Cropping to manage or man- brate Pest Management, ed. D.P. ment in Europe outside the Soviet aging to crop? Wildlife Society Bul- Cowan and C.J. Feare, 85–108.

The Science and Sociology of Hunting: Shifting Practices and Perceptions in the United States and Great Britain 129 Fürth: Filander Verlag. ———. 2002. Status of ducks. Wash- Tapper, S.C. 1992. Game heritage: An ington, D.C. ecological review from shooting and Voight, D.R. 1987. Red fox. In Wild gamekeeping records. Fording- Furbearer Management and Con- bridge, Hants, England: The Game servation in North America, ed. M. Conservancy Trust. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, Teel, T.L., R.S. Krannich, and R.H. and B. Mallock, 379–392. Ontario: Schmidt. 2002. Utah stakeholders’ Ministry of Natural Resources. attitudes toward selected cougar Wandeler, A.I. 1988. Control of and black bear management prac- wildlife rabies: Europe. In Rabies, tices. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(1): ed. J.B. Campbell and K.M. Charl- 2–15. ton, 365–380. Boston: Kluwer Aca- Theodori, G.L., A.E. Luloff, and F.K. demic Publishers. Willits. 1998. The association of Wilkins, K.A., and M.C. Otto. 2002. outdoor recreation and environ- Trends in duck breeding popula- mental concern: Reexamining the tions, 1955–2002. U.S. Fish and Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Rural Wildlife Service Administrative Sociology 63(1): 94–108. Report, Division of Migratory Bird U.S. Census Bureau. 1996. Inter- Management, Laurel, Md. censal estimates of the total resident Williams, T. 1986. Who’s managing population of states: 1980 to 1990. the wildlife managers? Orion 5(4): Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 16–23. of Commerce, Bureau of the Cen- Woolf, A. and J.L. Roseberry. 1998. sus. Deer management: Our profes- ———. 2001. Ranking tables for sion’s symbol of success or failure? states: 1990 and 2000. Washington, Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(3): D.C.: U.S. Department of Com- 515–521. merce, Bureau of the Census. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997. 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Accessed at http://federalaid.fws. gov/surveys/surveys.html* survey _trends. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2001 Nation- al Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Accessed at http://federalaid.fws. gov/surveys/surveys.html* survey _trends. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. 1980 hunting and fishing license revenues continue to increase. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. News release, June 1. ———. 2001. Number of anglers and hunters remains steady. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. News release, August 15.

130 The State of the Animals II: 2003