This post started out as an email exchange between myself (Mat Brunton) and an Anchorage-based “nature writer” who’s writing has frustrated me on more than one occasion due to the ignorant anti-hunter sentiment it expresses. This exchange spurred me to post this because much of what I discuss below is sentiment I’ve been waiting to express, but hadn’t yet found the motivation or means by which to do so. This “nature writer” also has a history of disrespectfully attacking Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Alaska State Parks (and these agencies’ personnel) in his writings, although I do support any warranted criticism of public servants.

Animals (brethren “peoples” of this wondrous Community of Life on Earth) that I’ve known and loved, that gave their life for me, that I cried for, and whose communities and habitats I’ll defend till my death (and teach any of my posterity to cherish, respect, and defend as well):

BS,

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Unfortunately, it seems you’re afflicted by the sort of “libtardation” I suffered from myself and am trying to recover from. That’s glaringly obvious from your claim that I’m only less privileged than you if I’m not European American. That claim is about as racist as it gets. Suggesting that privilege is solely a function of skin color?

I acknowledge the historical trauma that various cultures and their peoples have faced (especially African Americans, American Indians, and Alaskan Natives here in the US). I’ve written much more extensively about it, and likely considered it much more thoroughly, than you have. You can find those writings on this website included as the intro to many of the trip reports.

That said, all peoples can suffer from historical trauma. Many European Americans have been oppressed too. Privilege and affluence is very arguably more a function of economics than ethnics. Reference societal dynamics throughout the world and that is easily understood. And historically people of the same color have oppressed one another, especially before societies were as diverse as they are now (i.e. when they were much more ethnically homogenous). I encourage you to read White Trash: The 400 Year Untold History of Class in America to help you break free from the liberal capitalist propaganda you’ve been programmed with in this regard. As Malcom X explained, “that white person you see calling himself a liberal is the most dangerous thing in the entire western hemisphere”:

Moving on, I really hope you’re a vegetarian. Otherwise, any anti-hunter sentiment you have is about as hypocritical as it gets. Wild meat is infinitely more sustainable than even the most humanely produced meat on the supposedly “free market,” and anyone with any awareness about the meat industry knows that the vast majority of the meat on the market is extremely inhumane for both the animals and human workers. Relatively speaking, not that much has improved since Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle.  Especially when considering the increase in industrial meat production, CAFOs, and use of a (often undocumented and thus unprotected) labor force. Perhaps, it’s gotten much worse. It definitely has in terms of the environmental impact of the meat industry.

You do realize that the science now suggests anatomically modern humans have been around for ~350,000 years, right? You do also realize that even the First (Neolithic and very limited) Agricultural Revolution only occurred ~10,000 years ago, right? Even going back that far (that agricultural revolution likely only involved a minority of the humans on the planet at the time) means that for ~99.97% of our existence Homo sapiens have been HUNTER-gatherers.

And you think we’d do fine not being hunters anymore, or consumptive users of public lands? The notion that humans are not part of nature and that “Wilderness” should be preserved only for (privileged and affluent) humans (who have the leisure time and disposable income) to “non-consumptively” travel through it as alien visitors is WHACK! Why don’t you talk to some indigenous folks about that. And “non-consumptive” recreation is a glaring misnomer. “Non consumptive” recreation still very much serves the consumer capitalist machine that is wreaking havoc on the biosphere. Additionally, the products primarily pertaining to the “non-consumptive” recreation industry are largely foreign produced in countries with questionable, if not outright exploitative, labor practices.  Contrast that to the firearms and ammunition industry (much more on that below) which is one of the few remaining industries still predominantly based in the (God-blessed) USA.

Hunters are what we are. Hunting is what made us the most successful species on the planet. We evolved as hunters. Our modern sensory experience is still based on our evolution as the planet’s apex predator. That’s why we suffer so much from our existence in increasingly man-made environments. As a psychology student, undergraduate and graduate, I studied this extensively (and continue to do so).

As for your anti “trophy hunting” sentiment. If humans had always been “trophy hunters,” earlier humans wouldn’t have driven so many species to extinction. In fact, the regulations that promote the sort of hunting you refer to as “trophy hunting” are science based so as to ensure the best for the species being hunted. Additionally, Alaska law imposes SEVERE penalties on anyone wasting meat. Meat must, by law with severe penalties, be removed from the field BEFORE any “trophy” animal part.

In the case of Ovis dalli, the regulations that promote what you refer to as “trophy hunting” of rams in Chugach State Park is science based so as to ensure the best for the herd and the habitat. You should really check out the Dall sheep management reports produced by ADFG. I’m not going to elaborate more here, assuming you’re intelligent enough to open your own mind and educate yourself so as to escape ignorance. I realize that can be hard to do. My own attempts to overcome ignorance have resulted in numerous 180º changes in my views that I’ve struggled with.

Given your anti bear hunting sentiment, and apparent mis-guided love for bears (don’t worry, I love them too, just in a different way), you’ll be intrigued by what should be a soon to be released National Geographic production about grizzlies preying on caribou herds. It will really help ignorant folks like yourself understand why ADFG does predator management the way they do (not that I agree with their predator management policies on all accounts).

To be clear, I do disagree with certain ADFG policies.  Especially regarding practices like bear baiting (as I think all hunting should be fair chase and baiting introduces bears to unnatural food sources they aren’t intrinsically attracted to), but that’s just my opinion as a citizen. I have to acknowledge that Nature provided me with the “privilege” of quality genetics and the associated fitness that allows me to hunt “fair chase.” Thus, I also have to acknowledge that bear baiting gives less physically capable hunters an opportunity they wouldn’t have if everyone was restricted to “fair chase” (as I define it).

Again, ADFG is managing the bears based on science and there are plenty out there in Alaska. There are many inaccessible and closed regions that hunters will never have any impact on, and those unaccessible and un-hunt-able bears will be able to re-populate over harvested areas. If bears were being over-harvested, which considering the hunt reporting policies ADFG would quickly know about it, ADFG would address the issue via regulations to protect the resource.

This is how ADFG manages many species. For instance, I harvested ~150 ptarmigan in Chugach State Park this past winter (my partner and I ate all of them: breasts, legs, and hearts). I myself was concerned about how effective I was hunting, considering that my effectiveness may create a shortage for next season (relative to the seeming abundance of last season) in the relatively easily accessible areas I hunt. But, ptarmigan from closed and inaccessible areas will move in to repopulate these areas in short order. Many of the valleys immediately adjacent to where I did most of this harvesting have thriving ptarmigan populations that I had no impact on, for instance.

Back to those bears and National Geographic. I was out at Meekin’s airstrip this spring when Mike was working for them on a production about bears preying on calving caribou. I happened to be there the day the Nat Geo crew returned with their sought after footage: a grizzly repeatedly barreling through the caribou herd killing calves for a feast. Needless to say, my understanding is that the bear got carried away in a “pre-feeding frenzy” killing more than he needed.

Regardless, it won’t go to waste: others critters, birds, and the living soil will put what’s left behind by the bear to good use. Nature doesn’t waste anything. But, that bear likely took away a lot of what would be sustainable meat in future seasons from human hunters that depend on the Nelchina herd for their subsistence in regard to a nutritious and sustainable protein source that enables them to avoid the inhumanity and cruelty associated with store bought meat (also consider that wild meat is much healthier than farmed meat). Thus, ADFG’s policies regarding the hunting of grizzly bears in a GMU like 13.

Don’t get me wrong, as mentioned already, I love bears too. However, I don’t think my love of them is as misguided as yours. As discussed above, I know what they’re capable of. You do realize that boars will kill cubs, perhaps even their own, to put a sow back in heat – right? That’s a pretty bold move to get laid. You can’t argue that it’s an instinct that promotes the health of the bear population. It only satisfies the boar’s sex drive.

I hope you also realize that in Canada, bear spray is restricted to a certain capsaicin percentage, whereas here in the US it’s not. That US bear spray you likely carry instead of a firearm could very arguably be a lot more detrimental to a bear than a firearm if either had to be use in a potentially dangerous encounter.

What I’m getting at is that bears may very well have the most powerful sense of smell of any animal; they’re very sinus-sensitive. In Canada the capsaicin content is restricted because beyond a certain percentage (which US-produced bear spray exceeds) it can permanently damage a bear’s sinus and sense of smell (its most important sense for survival) thus leading to a slow and agonizing death.

On the other hand, a firearm can be used to scare a bear away (bear spray can’t). It can also be used to take a non-fatal shot at a bear. It’s very arguable that a bear has a better chance of surviving a non-fatal gunshot wound than a permanently damaged sinus. That is, considering how bears regulate their heart and respiratory rates for denning, they can use that same ability to regulate cardiovascular activity to heal remarkably quick from wounds. Additionally, if I were a bear myself, I’d much rather attain the negative association with humans by being scared away by a gunshot than getting sprayed in such a way that may cause me to permanently lose my sense of smell.

Which brings me to another “dangerous liberal” talking point: gun control (taken beyond evidence and science based reforms). I hope you’re aware of the Robertson-Pittman Act (aka Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act). Due to this act there is a 10-11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition that provides funding for conservation. It’s arguable that the amount of money from this tax does more for conservation (especially science-based conservation efforts) than all of America’s supposed “environmental organizations” (e.g. Sierra Club) combined. If the “dangerous liberals” (as Malcolm refers to them) get their way and take away the natural right of US citizens to keep and bear firearms, there’d be absolutely devastating consequences for wildlife and conservation due to the disappearance of so much funding.

Additionally, the tax burden for the government to (unconstitutionally as it would be) take on an initiative to confiscate firearms and enforce such new restrictions on law-abiding citizens would be substantial, add to the deficit, further reduce funding for much needed programs (regarding things like healthcare, infrastructure, and education that serve all citizens), and (as already mentioned) potentially destroy an American based industry that provides a lot of decent jobs for working class Americans. Gun culture is American culture. Again going back to your racist ideas about white privilege (which I acknowledge is a valid theoretical concept in some regards that I’ve witnessed via my own life experiences), gun culture is not just white culture.

I encourage you to visit the Knik public shooting range on Maud Road for a truly American and Alaskan experience, or even the public Rabbit Creek shooting park in Anchorage. The diversity you’ll see there is fairly representative of the diversity of this, most populous, region of Alaska (which is one of the most diverse regions in the nation).

Additionally, as an outdoor educator (I have a MS in Outdoor & Environmental Education from APU), I have to give a big shout out to ADFG for their Hunter Education program. It was one of the best outdoor and environmental education programs I’ve ever experienced, especially in regard to its value as a very low cost public program (i.e. its societal equity in terms of accessibility). This is coming from someone that has a lot of outdoor education experience: I teach outdoor and environmental education for the University of Alaska, I went through an OEE MS program, I have the highest level of avalanche training available in the US, I’ve taken several WFR classes, have attended a host of other outdoor and environmental education workshops, clinics, trainings, etc.

I can assure you that hunters, as much or more than anyone, want the resource to be conserved for the future: for ourselves, our hunting posterity, and the prey we depend on for our sustenance. I encourage you to check out organizations that do a lot for wildlife such as the Wild Sheep Foundation. Combined with the Roberston-Pittman Act, the Wild Sheep Foundation has contributed more than $8 million to sheep-related conservation efforts in Alaska which has had a positive impact on areas we both love in Chugach State Park (e.g. Eklutna area).

Let’s move on to how hunters versus other recreationists affect the resource.

In fact, it has been widely documented how human recreationists (even without canine companions) stress wildlife. Contrary to hunters, other recreationists often have no concern about being inconspicuous in the backcountry. Hunters have to be inconspicuous in the backcountry. That’s how we obtain our quarry. A hunter’s inconspicuousness is arguably much less stressful to wildlife than non-consumptive recreationists’ conspicuousness (especially if you add dogs to the equation).

Here are a couple links (here and here) with some of the evidence you suggest I don’t have or that doesn’t exist (there’s a lot more out there, but I’ll leave you to do your own research to truly understand the matter). This research has a lot more weight than your purely anecdotal accounts, such as your recent Wolverine Bowl experience. As an anecdotal note of my own, I have a liberal friend (that seems somewhat anti-hunter, although I love him dearly) that was hiking with his dog (in an area where dogs aren’t allowed in MT) and his dog killed a baby goat. It regularly chases goats. This guy’s dog is one that I’d consider relatively under control. It’s also a rescue dog (don’t get me started on the inhumanity of the pet industry, especially as it pertains to “purebred” dog production). Nevertheless, shit happens.  And, would you seriously suggest dogs don’t (more often that not when given the opportunity – i.e. being off leash) chase (thus stressing) small game?

While it does seem that the wildlife most impacted by non-consumptive recreation is the wildlife typically hunted by humans, again, hunters are inconspicuous in the backcountry while non-consumptive recreationists generally aren’t. Do I need evidence to back that claim up? I think any intelligent human (and especially any with experience in the popular backcountry areas of Southcentral Alaska) can process that claim, and understand its truth, on their own – especially in regard to what I’ve already discussed about the inconspicuousness versus conspicuousness of the different user groups.

Now, again, add dogs to the equation – arguably most of which aren’t well controlled by their humans (as you’ve acknowledged). Again, using Canada as an example, dogs have been increasingly restricted from public lands considering their negative impacts on wildlife, habitat, and the wilderness experience in so many regards.

Trust me, I’m not anti-dog. For over a decade I had two dogs that went with me everywhere in the backcountry of Alaska (and YT and BC public lands as allowed). These dogs have likely climbed more peaks and traveled through more valleys of Chugach State Park than all but the most experienced CSP backcountry travelers. That being said, my anecdotal evidence is that their presence stressed wildlife (whether or not they were chasing wildlife or anything like that), as did mine.

My beloved canine companions have since passed, after living remarkably blessed lives (the unfortunate reality of which was likely better [and more “privileged”] than that of most humans on this planet), and it’s been several years since I traveled the backcountry with them. In that time, recreational use in the greater Anchorage area has absolutely exploded. Year round: I see it in the winter too as I’ve likely spent more time backcountry skiing in Chugach State Park than any other human considering my work on the Anchorage Avalanche Center project.

The unfortunate reality is that the current, and increasing, level of “human accompanied by dog” use in the park is unsustainable and degrades Anchorage’s greatest natural resource (especially in regard to the park’s value for individual and collective wellness by way of restorative outdoor experiences). I encourage ADFG and/or Alaska State Parks to do a scientific study on the human and canine impact; it’s much needed.

On the other hand, hunting in the park is very carefully studied, regulated, and managed so as to remain sustainable. To suggest otherwise is an insult to the scientific method and ADFG (which, as a citizen, I agree may warrant criticism in some regards).

In closing, anyone that cares about the future of our species and all species must acknowledge the most pressing reality in regard to biospheric degradation: there are simply too many domesticated animals (humans first and foremost) on this planet.

En garde,

Mat Brunton