-
Eight: Frivolous Fur: Veneration and Environmentalism
- Wilfrid Laurier University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
116 Animal Welfare and Human Values countries are not far behind. It is difficult to know how Bangladesh's enormous problems might be resolved, for whereas a 25 per cent proportion of forest is needed to maintain an appropriate ecological balance, only six per cent remains forested. It is ironic that we face such contradictory problems. The Gulf War wrought havoc on all the indigenous wildlife both through the oil intentionally spilled in the Gulf by Saddam Hussein and the pollution of the air by the criminal burning of the oil wells. Elsewhere the plethora of certain species threaten others and the vegetation. For example, the vastly increased presence of ring-billed gulls on the Great Lakes has had a devastating impact on other species such as the piping plover. We must both restore and cull—the latter hopefully only when there is no viable alternative. In his classic Wildlife in America,10 Peter Matthiessen depicted the damage wrought on our planet by the hunters. He wrote of the loss of the short-tailed albatross to satisfy the Oriental market for its feathers, the reduction in the hawk population, including the beautiful Aplomado falcon, "by that body of American gunners which regards the passing bird of prey as a fair target,"11 the extermination of the deer in Massachusetts, and on and on. But he noted equally that the activities of the lumber, mining, and other industrial interests were prime causes of the early depletion of wildlife before our industrial and technological revolutions became the uncontrolledmonsters of the present. We should recognize, though, that some early companies, such as the Governor and Company of Adventurers into Hudson's Bay (more popularly known in Canada today as The Bay), were at least as much benefactors as they were culpable through concern for the wildlife of their field personnel and their record-keeping of animals and their behaviour. If we must cull on occasion, how is it to be done? The hunters, of course, claim that they are the appropriate ones to do it. Not only will they keep the excesses in check but they will even pay for the privilege through license fees. Moreover, they are a constant stimulus to the economy through their purchases of weapons and shot. Hunters insist they are truly public benefactors, for if they were not to eliminate the excesses it would be left to government to fund all the necessary extermination. Prima facie the argument appears to have some merit. Or at least it would if we could have any confidence that the animals they killed were the ones which a consideration of ecological interests indicated were the ones that needed to be killed. There is in fact no shred of evidence that it is so. On the contrary, if deer are depleted, hunters demand the government take action to increase the stock. If abundant, 10 2d ed. (New York: Viking Penguin, 1987). (First published 1959.) 11 Ibid., 1987 ed., p. 47. Hunting, Fishing and Fowling 117 they claim their actions are necessary to maintain an ecological balance. Their purpose is the killing, not the health of the environment, as our discussion of the Ontario situation indicated. Of course, if a knowledgeable and caring government determines what may be hunted and in what numbers, then the hunters have a point—even though we would be quick to suggest that the destructive attitudes of the hunters encourage generally aggressive behaviour toward animals rather than a concern for their protection. The question must be whether governments make sound decisions in these areas. To date the answer appears to be that even if they had the will they self-confessedly lack the knowledge. In January 1990 the Director of the Wildlife Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources published a 60-page Report, Towards a Wildlife Strategy for Ontario. The report covers 'Wildlife Issues' and is the first of several projected reports arising from ongoing workshops throughout Ontario. One might initially wonder why it took until 1990 to produce the Report, since there has been public concern for half a century. But that would be a somewhat unfair criticism. Emotions abound, but knowledge is scarce. It would be unwise for governments to act in the absence of sound knowledge. But what is disturbing about the report is that even now it only raises questions and provides no answers. Time and again we read, "we do not have the data base or knowledge required" followed by "Knowledge provides...