SNAFU is an acronym that means Situation Normal, All “Fouled” Up. And if that sounds familiar, it should — because confusion, contradiction and pressure now define much of the predator-hunting world. From the constant agitation of anti-hunters to the steady creep of regulations that solve nothing while restricting everything, the squeeze is real and growing tighter.
It’s tempting for predator hunters to focus on the day-to-day challenges we face and lose sight of the bigger picture. Before we can begin formulating effective answers, we need to ask ourselves a few important questions. For example: Is hunting in general — and predator hunting in particular — easier and more accessible today than it was in the past? Are there more predators in more places to hunt now than before?
These are the kinds of questions we need to consider because, in many — if not most — wild places, the answers are a resounding no. Few predator hunters would argue that hunting in general, and predator hunting in particular, is underregulated. If anything, most would insist the opposite is true — that it is already overregulated. That fact alone should be enough to justify some serious discussion and thoughtful efforts aimed at finding practical, effective solutions.
But there is much more at stake. Anti-hunters and their ongoing attacks on hunting remain a serious concern because their efforts often result in the loss of hunting opportunities or the creation of regulations driven by emotion rather than science. Too often this plays out as what many hunters call “wildlife management by ballot box,” where activist groups mobilize uninformed voters and turn them into misinformed ones. Those voters then approve measures that not only restrict hunting but also undermine effective wildlife conservation.
All of these concerns are in play before we even set foot in the field. And what do we often find once we get there? Barriers and challenges that make hunting more difficult — even as the number of huntable animals declines. In many places, human development has removed large tracts of land from being available for hunting. And even where hunting opportunities remain, the number and quality of game animals on that land have often become degraded.
Predators and prey coexist in an endless cycle of life and death. There is no true “balance” in nature because nature itself is a study in imbalance. When prey numbers increase, predator numbers soon follow. When prey numbers decline, predator populations drop as well. There may be a seasonal — or even yearly — lag in those shifts, but the numbers of predators and prey are closely tied together.
Natural events such as drought or disease can upset the apple cart. So can management decisions — issuing too many or too few hunting licenses, changing the timing of seasons or closing certain areas to hunting altogether. Add to that the occasional reintroduction of predators that cannot be hunted legally but still impact prey populations, and the picture starts to take shape. When all of these factors combine, the result is often a real SNAFU in which predator hunters find themselves caught in the squeeze.
Often, hunters are encouraged to react to negative developments, and that’s fine. We shouldn’t remain silent and simply take it in the ear. But reacting after the fact is rarely the most effective approach. It is far better to take preemptive action than to wait until a problem grows too large to ignore. In the long run, it’s much easier to win on offense than it is to win on defense.
Although there are federal regulations that affect hunting, most hunting issues are addressed at the state level. In some cases, additional rules apply at the local or regional level, where even more restrictive regulations can exist. For example, hunting may be prohibited within the boundaries of a governmental entity such as a city, even when much of that land remains essentially undeveloped — wild ground separated only by an arbitrary line on a map. Wildlife pays no attention to those borders, but hunters are required to.
Being proactive at the state and local levels makes the most sense. In some places, however, that can be a challenge because the staffs of certain agencies include individuals who are openly opposed to hunting. When that happens, bureaucratic roadblocks can appear, and monkey wrenches get tossed into the gears of government whenever hunting issues come up.
But that shouldn’t deter predator hunters. It simply needs to be factored into the equation. Individually and collectively, predator hunters need to stay engaged and make their voices heard during public meetings of wildlife agencies and other governmental bodies where decisions affecting hunting are considered.
If we don’t make our concerns known, who will? Certainly not the anti-hunters — and not the non-hunters who can’t tell the difference between true wilderness and the local shopping center. Local hunting and predator-hunting organizations exist in many areas, and they are a good place to begin getting involved.
At the national and international levels, organizations such as the National Rifle Association of America and Safari Club International provide additional opportunities for hunters to get involved. Supporting and participating in these groups is another way predator hunters can help make a difference on the larger stage.
Most important of all is the personal/family sphere. Each of us can have more influence there than anywhere else. By serving as advocates for hunting with our families, friends and acquaintances, we can help shape public opinion — one voter at a time.
Hunting is an activity — and a culture — that has been passed from one generation of hunters to the next. That’s where we can play to our strengths instead of reacting to the distractions anti-hunters often create. Too often they introduce red herrings that only confuse the situation. Interestingly, the phrase “red herring” actually has its roots in hunting. Folks put out strong-smelling smoked herrings to throw hunting dogs off their scent trail. But I digress.
Regardless of where or how we are engaged in the public discourse about hunting, the important thing is for us to be engaged. And it’s not a one and done thing. Forces that impede predator hunting are pervasive and perennial. As much as freedom isn’t free, so, too, the freedom/privilege/ability to hunt is not a divine promise. Think about it. Then act.
