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

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.

Load more