From the San Diego Union Tribune 6/6/99, Quick Shots by Ed Zieralski (outdoor writer). I had to type this because this section is not part of the online paper, any errors are mine.

    Credit the University of Wyoming zoology department and its bioethics seminar for coming up with this idea. Dave Hullshizer, a Wyoming senior and bioethics major, organized a debate between Chris Madson, the editor of Wyoming Wildlife, and Andrea Lococco, western representative for the Fund For Animals. The event was called an "ethical and philosophical discussion dealing with hunting."

    Madison opened his argument for animal management by saying: "Humans can't deny that in whatever form our existence takes on earth we kill other organisms either directly by hunting or indirectly by paving ground and building subdivisions."

    Lococco countered that wildlife does not need to be managed and would be better off if man abandoned management and let natural forces take their course. Madison replied: "Just as we can't live on the planet without killing, we cannot live on this planet without managing. Deciding not to mange is a management decision with a set of consequences just as real as any more active management decision. And ultimately we are still responsible for it. "Organizer Hullshizer Lococco and Madson presented strong philospphical arguments, but he said Lococco's anti-hunting argument did not stand up very well when Madson injected biology into the fray. He picked Madson as the winner of the debate. Madson said wildlife agencies and hunters need to be armed with good data and sound biology when debating an anti-hunter in a formal or social situation.

    He recommends these arguments for the hunter:

• Sport hunting does not -- and will not --  ever threaten any species with extinction.The $600 Million spent each year on hunting licenses, plus the millions contributed to private conservation organizations, are crucial to wildlife in North America. How do anti-hunting groups contribute to the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat?
• Whenever you can, stress the common ground hunters and most anti-hunters share: a concern for wildlive. This argument helps drive home the point that wildlife benefits a lot more by habitat contributions than litigation.

Back to Index Page