From: "Lars", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Speech by Bo Lindevall, Information manager for the
Swedish Hunters Association, at Intergoup,
the group of EU-parliament members who are engaged in
hunting Issues.
"
How can we hunters keep on a positive perception of
hunting by the Public Opinion as we increasingly see
ourselves as a threatened species? On the one hand we
perceive a hostile public and on the other opponents
who are either environmentalists or, increasingly
animal rights activists who make heard their voice
hard.
As usual reality is more complicated that this and
vary from country to country. Several surveys have
shown that hunting has a strong position in many
countries and is supported by large groups of the
population and knowing that should help hunters to
feel themselves accepted by the public opinion and
behave so.
Of course we should not underestimate the strength
of those who want to make it more difficult to hunt,
or wish to ban hunting altogether. But we should not
allow our opponents to define how we are perceived.
There is a risk that if we consider ourselves to be
losers, we will actually become losers. But we have
a sound philosophy - the wise use of sustainable
resources - and we must not relinquish this image of
ourselves.
Our first message, then, is that we, as hunters, use
nature in a sustainable and responsible manner, and
it is important to communicate his view.
But society is not static - it develops - and one of
the strongest political influences today, as you are
aware, is the conservation movement. WWF, Greenpeace
and similar organisations are icons, particularly for
the young. The animal rights movement is also a powerful
influence in society. These people consider that animals
are ethical objects towards which we have, in broad
terms, similar obligations to those we have towards
human beings.
As regards the environmental movement, it is often a
mystery why hunting organisations come into conflict
with them. In my own country, Sweden, we have on some
occasions had reason to discuss substantive issues with
the most prominent environmental organisations. We found
that we had different views within some areas but that
for the most part we were in agreement about how nature
should be protected, conserved and used in a long-term
manner.
This means that we can work together with conservationists.
Obviously the opportunities vary from country to country,
but one thing is clear: hunters and conservationists will
only harm their own interests if they fail to respect each
other's opinions.
With animal rights activists the dialogue is more difficult.
But some of their arguments do merit serious consideration
and we must discuss them, not necessarily to win the debate
but to demonstrate to those on the sidelines - often young
people - that we take criticism seriously. We do not dismiss
out of hand views which are different to our own.
Our second message is that we hunters adhere firmly to our
values and can advance them in serious public debate.
Furthermore, many of those values are actually shared with
nature conservationists and others whom we sometimes
imagine to be opposing us.
Another consequence of a changing society is that increasing
numbers of young people are losing contact with the
countryside, its wildlife and its way of life. Here hunters
make a great contribution either through organised youth
activities or simply by taking our own and friends' children
hunting. We are among the very best teachers of biology,
ecology, ornithology and all that fund of knowledge and
experience which is fundamental to successful hunting.
And in a society that is becoming obsessed with violence it
is significant that when young people are introduced to
weapons through hunting it is in a way that is responsible
and undramatic. Most importantly, youngsters are taught to
treat guns safely and with proper respect for the quarry.
As guns become increasingly glamourised and their criminal
use grows at an alarming rate, hunting provides a healthy
counter-balance to the development of a so-called 'gun
culture.'
Of course, there is an intrinsic value in 7 million people
throughout the EU sharing a common interest and similar
views. In many EU countries hunting is a factor that binds
together the rural community and forms a bridge between
the city and the countryside. When we are asked to explain
why we hunt we often end up claiming that hunting is
necessary to prevent damage to forests, crops or traffic
but this argument is not sufficient. Hunting is more than
a management duty, it enriches the lives of millions, and
for many people it is nothing less than a way of life.
Our third message is that hunting benefits society and
enriches the life of the individual.
However, what benefits most from hunting is the wildlife
itself. Not just those species we hunt, but all animals
that depend on the diversity of nature. Without game
preservation by hunters we would have an impoverished
environment, we would have diminished diversity of species
and a duller countryside. This is a factor that, above all
else, the conservation movements must learn to value. The
effects of game preservation are not limited by national
boundaries. The successful management of habitat for ducks
and geese is important for all the countries through which
they pass. And we ourselves must be aware of this larger
perspective - good game conservation means fighting
pollution, degradation and all the other things that
damage the wider environment.
The fourth message is that hunting, game preservation and
habitat management benefit everyone, not just the hunters.
