I am writing in response to Judy Vorreuter's recent column, “Is hunting truly a sport?” As a sportsman and avid hunter, I would like to offer the following: Yes, hunting is a sport.

I am always amused at the lack of education and misinformed opinion shared by the animal advocates such as Ms. Vorreuter. Hunters are probably the most conservation-minded group in America, especially with respect to providing habitat for the game they pursue. The monies hunters spend on guns, ammunition, archery equipment and related gear used to hunt is all taxed. This money is collected under the Pittman Robertson Act, and the funds are used to support the state wildlife agencies, which directly benefits all wildlife. License fees, as well as state/federal required stamps all raise money to provide habitat for animals and wildfowl which benefit directly from the hunters who contribute annually to pursue their sport.

Many hunters also belong to organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, Pheasants Forever, Quail Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, Ruffed Grouse Society, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation - you get the idea. The money and effort these organizations expend annually also greatly help wildlife to thrive in a world where habitat is disappearing at a pace that is staggering.

It can probably be argued that hunting is cruel, but I disagree. Most if not all of the hunters I have associated with are devoted to their quarry, and take their practice of marksmanship, archery skills and so on very seriously. The evolution of the sport has made hunting more humane today than at any time in human history. Technology has also made the hunter more efficient as well, and tremendously improved the ability of hunters to harvest an animal in a humane manner.

On another note, the above article suggested that hunting was no longer necessary for subsistence. I disagree here also. I just prefer lean venison or wildfowl to any piece of hormone injected, artificially fattened beef or poultry that I could purchase in a store. I have more control of the process, killing, butchering, packaging and preparing meat than I would if I had to depend on the supply chain and the local supermarket. Whether I am eating a deer that has enjoyed my garden all summer, or a steer that I have had to feed and fatten, the animal still has to die to satisfy my intended purpose for its consumption. It is simply a matter of choice and opportunity, that hunting allows me to bypass the local market and allow nature to provide my table fare.

Just as all vegetarians do not necessarily have the luxury of a space to work their own garden, not all hunters have the luxury of owning property upon which to hunt. To infer that public land financed in great part by Pittman Robertson funds should be closed to hunting does not make sense coming from one that proposes to be an advocate of the animals that live their life in a habitat that has been provided them in large part due to the support of hunting as a sport, and hunters in general. If hunting were to vanish, so too would the habitat that hunting dollars provide.

In closing, I would hope that Ms. Vorreuter can realize that hunters are truly caring individuals, and that the deer and other wildlife would suffer far more due to disease, habitat loss, overpopulation and starvation than they would if their numbers were not reduced by hunters. Without natural predators to keep deer numbers in check, they would quickly overpopulate. Farmers will tell you how damaging deer herds can be to row crops and fruit trees.

The insurance industry reports that there are more than 1.5 million deer-automobile collisions annually in the United States. A deer is far more likely to die an agonizing death due to an automobile collision than it would a humane death at the hands of a hunter pursuing the sport. As a hunter, I can justify taking the life of a deer or other animal because I know that I am helping preserve the species and habitat that will ensure the very future of the game I pursue.

Bill Parsons

Cayuga