The Politically Incorrect Guide To Hunting

277 Pages·2008·5.3 MB·English

by  Frank Miniter

Politically Incorrect Guide·M
The to
You think you know about hunting.
But did you know:
:-+ Hunters, not environmentalists, do the
most for conservation
:-+ Vegetarians rely on hunters for their dinner
:-+ Professional hunters keep our airport
runways safe
:-+ Bear attacks go up when hunting is banned
:-+ Hunters saved deer, elk, bear, and waterfowl
from extinction
:-+ Hunting is safer than table tennis
:-+ EXTRA: A how-to guide for beginning hunters
including kids
Politically Incorrect Guide
The TM to
HUNTING
Frank Miniter
I Since 1947
REGNERY
PUBLISHING, INC.
An Eagle Publishing Company • Washington, DC
Copyright © 2007 by Frank Miniter
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical,
including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval
system now known or to be invented, without permission in writing from
the publisher, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages
in connection with a review written for inclusion in a magazine, news­
paper, or broadcast.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Miniter, Frank.
The politically incorrect guide(tm) to hunting / Frank Miniter.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-59698-521-6
1. Hunting—Moral and ethical aspects. 2. Miniter, Frank—Political
and social views. 3. Political correctness. I. Title. II. Title:Politically incor­
rect guide to hunting.
SK14.3.M56 2007
179'.3-dc22
2007029530
Published in the United States by
Regnery Publishing, Inc.
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
www.regnery.com
Manufactured in the United States of America
10 987654321
Books are available in quantity for promotional or premium use. Write to
Director of Special Sales, Regnery Publishing, Inc., One Massachusetts
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001, for information on discounts and
terms or call [phone].
CONTENTS
Introduction: How to Talk to an Anti 1
Part I: The Humane Case for Hunting
Chapter 1: Hunting: When Killing Is Right 9
When killing is right
Thoughtful compassion
Hunters know more about nature
Compassion and reason
Return to the natural state
Chapter 2: Why Florida Has Killer Gators 23
Welcome to Monster Island, U.S.A.
Why Florida’s gators are eating people
Proof that hunting prevents gator attacks
Chapter 3: Why Bear Attacks Are Increasing 37
Bear attacks are at a historic high
What environmentalists don’t want you to know
Black bear attacks are increasing, too
The front lines of bear control
More un-hunted bears than ever
Chapter 4: Predators Aren’t Public Pets 63
There is no reliable record of attacks
California cougars are overpopulated
Cougars are moving east
Without hunting even coyotes attack
“Tame” coyotes attack people
Hunting stopped the attacks
Wolves need to be hunted, too
What does the future hold?
Chapter S: Nature’s Deadliest Animal 87
Hunters created the problem?
Non-lethal alternatives don’t work
Why sharpshooters are necessary
Part II: Hunting as Conservation
Chapter 6: Hunting’s Reformation 105
A naive beginning
The resurrection of America’s wildlife
The modern hunter-conservationist
Chapter 7: Hunting Is Better Than Birth Control 117
Birth control for deer?
A cost-effective solution
Chapter 8: Why Vegetarians Owe Hunters 131
Wildlife damage: The big numbers
No-hunting areas hurt farmers
The small farmer takes it on the chin
Part III: America’s Real Environmentalists
Chapter 9: Some Environmentalists Carry Guns 141
Meet our last line of defense
The front lines of wildlife management
The worst livestock kill in Utah history
Reintroduced wildlife needs hunters
Chapter 10: Why Songbirds Love Deer Hunters 157
Deer need to be hunted
Do hunters want more deer, period?
Pennsylvania’s reformation
Chapter 11: Hunting Is Incentive-Based Environmentalism 169
Hunting fuels rural land prices
A hunter-financed solution
Hunters are wildlife’s best defenders
Hunters are ducks’ best friends
Conservation easements ward off suburbia
Chapter 12: How Hunters Recaptured Environmentalism 187
How hunters quietly took Capitol Hill
How environmental groups lost touch
The Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus
Hunters turned the tables in 2000
What the future holds
Part IV: Hunting for a Future
Chapter 13: Hunting Is Good for Kids 203
Why hunting is good for kids
The anti-hunting propaganda
On the right side of the issue
Chapter 14: Hunters and Gun Rights 21S
The truth about the Second Amendment
The mainstream media gives in
The newest tactic: Divide and conquer
“Reasonable gun control”
Appendices: A. How to Get Started 229
B. Wildlife Departments 235
C. Hunter-Conservation Organizations 241
D. Youth Programs 245
Notes 249
Index 259

Introduction
HOW TO TALK TO AN ANTI
W hen you edit for a hunting magazine based in Manhattan,
you become acutely aware that the best-educated Americans
know the least about the wild world, and you see first hand
that it’s fashionable—even morally desirable—in our most sophisticated
circles to hypocritically disregard the realities of nature. You’re bemused
to learn that many urban elitists oppose logging, yet live in wood homes
with fireplaces; drive gas-guzzling SUVs, yet support blanket restrictions
on oil and gas development; laud clean energy, yet scream when wind­
mills are to be placed within view of their beach homes; and oppose
hunting, yet benefit from hunting every time they fly, as hunting prevents
geese from taking down airliners.
And you sometimes find yourself in awkward, even scrappy,
exchanges. Which is what prompted me to create a five-step program for
talking to anti-hunters. For example, one warm summer evening a few
years ago I attended a dinner party at a trendy New York restaurant and
found myself seated across the table from a smartly dressed, prim, and
priggish woman who amiably introduced herself as an attorney and asked
what I did. “I edit for a hunting magazine!” I replied.
Moments later, as she speared a baby carrot with her fork, she looked me
in the eye and fired. “I’m a vegetarian, you know. I’m above all that killing.”
The first step in debating an anti-hunter is to be cordial, even if they
spew invective—it keeps the dialogue rolling and tempers the emotion
fueling their convictions; after all, most anti-hunters just don’t know the
politically incorrect truth about hunting. So I smiled.
The second step is to prompt the person to state her beliefs—
contradictions and all. To induce them to explain why they’ve come to
their conclusions on hunting. It’s the Socratic method of debate and it
works wonderfully with such convoluted utopianists, people who base
their knowledge of nature on Walt Disney animations. So I replied with
calculated surprise, “Oh, you only eat vegetables?”
“Yes.”
“Why?”
“I deplore killing, the murdering of animals,” she declared.
“Oh.” I nodded. “Then your vegetables must come from no-animal-
killing farms?”
“What are those?” she asked as her fork hovered in front of her lips.
“You look for the label that says ‘no-animal-killing farm participant’
when you purchase vegetables, don’t you?”
“Um, no. Where does it... ?” She put her fork down.
“You’d better ask the waiter if this restaurant’s vegetables come from a
USDA-certified no-animal-killing farm.”
The waiter wandered by moments later, and she actually asked, “Excuse
me, I’d like to know if your produce comes from no-animal-killing farms.”
His eyes flitted about uncertainly, and he stuttered, “Oh... I... I’ll have
to check.”
He was back with a worried look. “I’m sorry, but the cooks haven’t
heard of that designation. But I’m sure the vegetables are safe. We get
them from organic farms. They come in fresh every day.”
She looked petulantly at her salad. She didn’t know what to do. Then
she saw me smirking and turned venomous. I felt mischievous, even a lit­
tle rude, and so I apologized, “I was playing a joke, there’s no such thing.”
“Well, I never!”
The third step in talking to an anti-hunter to is point out her contra­
dictions, which I’d just done in a less than civil way—a complete disre­
gard of step one. Before she could slap me, I jumped to step four: let them
know they’re speaking to someone who knows, of all the dastardly things,
the real facts.
“I’ve hunted on farms from Montana to Maine, and the farmers are
always very appreciative.”
“So?”
“They all have produce to defend. I haven’t met a farmer yet who
doesn’t kill geese, rabbits, or deer to preserve his livelihood.”
“And your point is?”
“Every cabbage or carrot you eat was raised by farmers who kill deer
or rabbits or something so they have a crop to harvest.”
She was cogitating, stumbling over her contradictions, getting agitated.
It was time for the closer, step five: to provide a way out of muddled
logic. This is a very important step, yet most debaters neglect it. Con­
fronting a person with the real facts is never enough. People get rattled
when you shed light on their contradictions; well-educated people never
like to learn they’re defending unsubstantiated biases, because that is the
blindness of bigotry. If you leave them like that they’ll fall back on emo­
tion, not reason, and so they won’t learn anything.
So I continued. “You shouldn’t feel guilty that farmers need to pro­
tect their crops. It’s only natural. Many species defend a territory and
thus a food source. Wolves will kill an intruder that’s not from their