It seems hunting is senseless only when the prey is beautiful
Science and know-how dismissed in favour of emotional pleas, writes Will Verboven
Re: “Cat’s out of the bag on senseless cougar hunt,” Naomi Lakritz, Opinion, Dec. 27.
One notes by the tone of Naomi Lakritz’s column that she appears to follow the approach of those who have little experience with wildlife and who view predators through a Disneyesque filter.
She claims cougars are highly intelligent and self-aware beings. Compared to what? Humans? Turkeys?
I suspect cougars would have trouble passing even the most rudimentary intelligence test — although domestic pet cats seem to have developed enough intelligence to outsmart gullible humans, persuading them to look after their every need and whim for nothing in return.
In a previous life on the ranch, I was surrounded by predators and had to deal with their deadly intentions on a daily basis. Very quickly, I discovered predators do not eat Corn Flakes for breakfast, which a lot of city folks don’t seem to realize.
To survive, they are hardwired to kill almost anything — and just because they look pretty or regal, doesn’t make them any less deadly.
Therein lies the hypocrisy of those who show outrage at seeing pretty and iconic animals killed. Unless they are full-fledged vegetarians, their duplicity is obvious, as it implies killing the ugly and stupid — such as hogs, cattle or poultry — is OK.
One notes wild boars are ruthlessly hunted in Alberta, but no one seems to be outraged with their fate. Could that have something to do with the rather fierce and repulsive look of the animal?
Would Lakritz propose we let nature take its course with those highly intelligent and self-aware beings?
A group called Predator Defense was used by the writer as an information source on cougars. I am continually perplexed by the presumption that zealously biased, self-appointed, donation-fixated lobby groups are deemed to be the fountain of truth on any particular issue. Most such groups have become businesses with campaign directors.
Lakritz dismisses the perspectives of the Alberta Environment department on the cougar issue by declaring them simpletons and ignorant of research on predator control and hunting.
Really? I expect the wildlife management experts in the Environment department are highly educated professionals with many years of field experience with predator species in Alberta.
As well, that would be local experience, not what has happened in distant California and Oregon, in completely different ecological environments.
I should add, quoting case studies done by faraway academics based on statistical analysis with theoretical conclusions is hardly convincing.
For instance, from personal experience, most ranchers who suffer livestock losses from predators rarely report them unless compensation is available, and even then, the intricate reporting protocol and paperwork discourages submissions.
That reality makes a sham of the so-called official numbers of livestock losses to predation used in studies.
Closer to home, is there a study on cougar predation of endangered woodland caribou calves? Letting nature take its course could see that species become extinct from uncontrolled predation. Be careful what you wish for. Finally, what about the perspective of the dead cougar that was so lamented in this story? Does it matter to the cougar how or by whom it was killed?
Most wildlife, contrary to Disney movies, lead hard, brutal and short lives that can end in a lot worse manner than a quick shot in the head.
Thousands of predators are killed and maimed by vehicles, and hundreds of aerial predators, such as eagles, are killed by windmills.
All of that carnage would vastly outnumber the cougars killed by hunters.
Where is the outrage over the loss of all those unfortunate thousands of predators? Which is the more senseless?