Deer Elk Hunting

1. 

   John R. Lott Jr.
   May 13th, 2010 - 05:00

   Review by John R. Lott Jr. for The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting
   Rating:
   If you want to know the facts about hunting, this is the book to read. This isn’t a how to hunt book, though after reading it, I wish that more people were hunters. Environmentalists, vegitarians, and even people driving in cars have a real friend in hunters. It would be nice if this book didn’t have to be in the politically incorrect series, but it will seriously challenge a lot of people’s strongly held views.

   Possibly Miniter’s book could be retitled “how hunting saves lives.” Hunting seems to be a particularly cost effective way of saving people’s lives. Deer collusions with cars kill 130 to 200 people a year and send 26,647 to hospitals. Deer also benefit from being hunted. One of my favorite chapters was how vegitarians are better off because hunting lowers the cost of farming in many ways.

   But with the number of hunters declining in the US, not only as a share of the population but in absolute numbers, hopefully a lot of people will read Miniter’s book.
2. 

   mianfei
   May 13th, 2010 - 05:23

   Review by mianfei for The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting
   Rating:
   The eleventh book in the erratic but fascinating “Politically Incorrect Guide” series takes a look at a subject my knowledge of Aboriginal foraging has entirely failed to help me understand, and which my previous reading of “New Age” literature or anti-hunting fanatics had clearly found me out even with the limited knowledge I could get at Melbourne University.

   “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting” demonstrates first of all how being an experienced hunter is an irreplaceable asset in understanding ecology. The knowledge Miniter gives of animal behaviour in particular, beats what I learned about environmental management as a student. Especially noteworthy is how he shows hunters must know a great deal about the behaviour deer and more essentially bears to hunt them at all. In a later chapter Miniter shows how this knowledge is needed to merely devise potential means of stopping animal-related accidents on roads and railways.

   One good thing about “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting” is that Miniter focuses enough on the practical benefits of hunting to avoid being too ideological. Indeed, in contrast to most other “Politically Incorrect Guides”, he does not follow the hard-line track so beloved of Human Events. Ample space is given to the potential negative effects of unregulated hunting on private land before Theodore Roosevelt, which is welcome from a publisher that too often omits anything that does not suit its arguments. Like Robert P. Murphy Miniter shows hunting can actually save species from extinction by preventing illegal poaching, but gives far more usable examples than Murphy does. Consequently Miniter cannot, like most “Politically Incorrect Guide” authors, be criticised as ignoring evidence from opponents: instead, he clearly recognises the need for regulation and does accept it matters little whether it comes from a private or public source.

   The section about animal attacks on people are particularly good and provide the best possible argument for hunting. Although Miniter shows how hunting bans make potentially dangerous animals genuine threats to people they meet, I do have considerable suspicion of his statistics’ accuracy because he fails to back a single one up with reliable sources. This is particularly true of the data about bear and cougar attacks, which quite probably are better reported with improved communication. Miniter’s data as to the safety of hunting can probably be doubted for the same reason, but hunting is obviously not as dangerous as, say, motor racing or gridiron.

   Having experience with deadly pests like cane toads, foxes and feral pigs in Australia, I very much agree with Miniter’s point that hunting is a very effective way of limiting the population of vertebrate pests. Tim Low shows the extreme difficulty of controlling vertebrate pests, and Miniter confirms my belief that finding ways to use their parts (e.g. toad skins or feral pig meat) is a vital part of vertebrate pest control. Miniter’s illustration of how these pests are at their most deadly on isolated islands like Hawaii agrees 100 percent with my basic knowledge of biodiversity, further adding to his credibility.

   Another thing is that – though only for a small part of the book – Miniter at least tries to move beyond the usual American-centredness that plagues the “Politically Incorrect Guides” series. His information about how Italy and Japan face the same problems as the American West is certainly surprising, whilst his point about elephant overpopulation is well-placed. It’s a pity he wouldn’t go into how hunting’s effect would be different in different environments.

   Apart from the statistics which often look and sound quite exaggerated, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting” offers what other books in the series claim to do but do not – refuting politically correct myths.
3. 

   John B. Snow
   May 13th, 2010 - 05:46

   Review by John B. Snow for The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting
   Rating:
   This is a fascinating account that takes apart the long list of misconceptions that most people hold about hunters and hunting. The author has done an impressive amount of research that demonstrates the contribution that hunters have made to saving wildlife and how the commonly-held beliefs about hunting–particularly those presented in mainstream media–are flat-out wrong.

   Happily the book doesn’t bog down in a sea of statistics. The author is clearly a natural storyteller and writes with a sense of humor about the topic that makes for easy reading.

   This is an excellent book.
4. 

   Michael D. Moses
   May 13th, 2010 - 06:31

   Review by Michael D. Moses for The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting
   Rating:
   I have been a Advanced Hunter and Bowhunter Instructor for 15 years and am impressed to find all of what I have learned and taught for these years put into one source. It never ceases to amaze me that people still do not realized the plain, simple truths, not only about hunting but about the natural world we live in. Even hunters themselves do not understand the game they hunt nor are they prepared to defend their sport against the misinformed and easily swayed individual who reacts to the sensationalistic media and special interest groups. We as hunters definitely need to be more active in finding out about our sport and supporting it in whatever area is most appropriate. I am glad to see an author and book that steps forward and presents information that can be used to this end. A definite “read” for all hunters.
5. 

   Patrick C. Burns
   May 13th, 2010 - 07:18

   Review by Patrick C. Burns for The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting
   Rating:
   The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting is well-written, packed with information, and well-organized.

   Unfortunately, it seems the publishing house has done as much as it possibly can to marginalize this book and keep it out of the hands of those who most need to read it.

   That’s a pity.

   Why do I say the publisher has marginalized this book?

   Simple. If you want to convert non-believers to your way of thinking, it’s probably best NOT to start off the conversation by poking your finger in their eye and calling them names.

   Sadly, however, that is what Regnery Publishing’s “Politically Incorrect Guide” series is all about.

   This series is not meant to convert people to anything, but to give die-hard conservatives a few cheap debating points to score against the Loony Left.

   Which is fine, as far as it goes, but I think this book could have been so much more. You will pardon me if I mourn for what might have been.

   You see, while The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting is somewhat flawed, it is quite well written and with a little editing and reframing, it might have been a truly important book. It misses that mark, I am afraid. Good, but no blue ribbon.

   Stripped down to its essential frame, Frank Miniter’s book has three core messages:

   ** Modern, regulated sport hunting is generally good for the environment, almost never bad for the environment, and creates a constituency for environmental and wildlife protection that is more meaningful than that generally offered up by arm-chair bunny huggers who tend to be ill-informed romantics;

   ** Modern, regulated sport hunting benefits all people, from tractor-driving farmers to SUV-driving suburban motorists, and from meat-eaters to vegetarians.

   ** Without regulated sport hunting, the cost of taxpayer-funded wildlife control would drive up taxes rapidly, even as public land and wildlife initiatives would be left politically weak and economically impoverished.

   A lot of Miniter’s research is pretty good.

   For example, he offers up terrific data on deer-vehicle impacts, and his first chapter on the differences between alligator management in Florida and Louisiana should be required reading in every college.

   Miniter correctly skewers the League of Conservation Voters for ignoring non-controversial and popular environmental votes (such as on the Conservation Reserve Program) in order to play up wedge environmental issues that may be less important to the overall picture.

   Similarly, Miniter gets it about right when he says a lot of the Big Green organizations are selling out to large corporations and white-shirt-and-tie foundation managers.

   He is spot-on when he talks about the failings of the deer immuno-contraception programs championed by the dithering idiots at the Humane Society of the United States.

   So where does Miniter go off-track? A couple of places:

   ** Miniter’s first three chapters are about alligators, bears and cougars, and here he suggests that the real reason we hunt animals is so that they will not kill us, which is complete nonsense. Alligators, bears and cougars kill fewer people in this country than swimming pools and lawn mowers. Is control of these animals necessary? Absolutely. Can they be dangerous? Sure. But according to Miniter’s own book, alligators, bears and cougars kill less than 8 people a year combined, while 93 people were killed from injuries related to hunting in 2003 alone. I am not opposed to control of bear, cougar and alligator (not to mention wolf) by well-regulated hunting, but let’s not suggest that the motivation of hunters is to protect us from the dangers lurking in the woods and swamps, eh? It’s simply not true. Most hunters are after sport, a few are after a peak experience and (with bear and cougar) a trophy. The state’s motivation for having a regulated hunting season for large predators may partially be to reduce human-wildlife conflict, but that’s not why hunters themselves are buying hunting licenses. Admit it and move on.

   ** Miniter fails to give so much as a nod to a huge swath of American hunting. While Miniter spends a lot of time talking about such rare sport as hunting bear, alligator and cougar, he gives little (generally no) mention of such common fare as rabbit, squirrel, quail, pheasant, duck, grouse, dove, geese, wild pig, groundhog, raccoon, and fox. This is like saying American anglers are all about controlling shark numbers — never mind that most of us are casting for bass, trout, sunfish, catfish, croakers, stripers, and blues.

   ** Miniter trims history to fit his thesis. This is a serious problem with ideologues on both the right and the left, and a problem if your goal is to convince and persuade folks to join your side of a debate. Miniter’s take is that the Big Green Groups are staffed and managed by bunny-hugging idiots, while hunters are leading the charge for the environment. Sorry, but that’s not quiet true. After all, it was the National Audubon Society that sued the Humane Society of the U.S. in order to keeps traps legal in California, and it was Audubon, the Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society (along with many other small green groups) that led the push to protect 60 million acres of roadless forest across the U.S. The National Rifle Association was nowhere to be seen in that debate. And while Miniter was demonizing liberal environmental organizations as being “anti-hunting,” the Sierra Club was sponsoring a “Why I Hunt,” essay contest, National Audubon was putting a “Wanted: More Hunters” cover on its magazine, and The Nature Conservancy was busy creating and promoting the kind of conservation easement programs that Miniter speaks so fondly of (and which he fails to give proper credit for).

   ** Miniter does not give enough credit to Mother Nature, the Endangered Species Act or Big Government programs funded by mandatory taxation. Hunters did not bring back the cougar, the alligator, the bald eagle, the wolf, or the manatee; Mother Nature and the Endangered Species Act did that. And though state wildlife agencies worked very hard to trap, move and reintroduce white tail deer, elk, bison, geese, turkey and beaver into areas where they had been extirpated, it was generally not hunters doing this reintroduction, but state wildlife agencies. Yes hunters paid a lot (but not all) of the tab through a compulsory tax system, but let’s not kid ourselves that state wildlife management programs are some sort of voluntary “Point of Light” thought up by Peggy Noonan and Ronald Reagan. In fact, the Pittman-Roberston Act is a Democrat idea (both Sen. Key Pittman and Rep. A. Willis Robertson were Democrats, as was FDR), and at its core this program is all about the power of taxation and the positive roll of Big Government. And, let it be said that Big Government has been doing a generally fine job of restoring wildlife, year in and year out, regardless of which political party was in office (either locally, regionally, or nationally).

   So what’s the bottom line? Simple: Frank Miniter has written a pretty good book and it’s well worth the price.

   Buy it and read it.

   That said, keep a skeptical mind. When Miniter brags that the NRA (his employer), has two-million members, remember that this is less than one-sixth of all hunters, which is a nice way of saying 84% said of all hunters are not members of the NRA. When you find out that of those 2 million NRA members, only 1 million wanted a free copy of American Hunter magazine, you can figure only 9% of hunters are actually NRA members — and 91% are not.

   When he says that urban sprawl is good for wildlife, ask which wildlife this sprawl is really good for (and here’s a hint, it’s not any wildlife we actually need more of).

   Also, ask yourself whether your own hunting access in your area is being improved by the rise of plastic houses in the countryside, or whether it is being constrained.

   Above all else, remember that while wildlife may be influenced by political decisions, the wildlife in our forests and fields are not political animals in and of themselves.

   The point here is that good science-based wildlife management and land stewardship is NOT going to happen by increasing the divisions between Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, but by unifying this country under the rule of common sense and moderation.

   Sadly, this is a mission that Regnery Publishing has never signed up for. And so this book, which might have been great, slips down a few notches to the level of “a very good passing read.” I really believe it could have been much more.

Leave a comment