Satire, by Jim Robertson (with a nod to the late Cleveland Amory, author of Mankind?: Our Incredible War on Wildlife and founder of the Hunt the Hunters Hunt Club):

In a comment on one of the many tragic hunting accidents I’ve blogged about lately, a gentle reader mentioned there should be a hunt the hunters hunting season, to which another compassionate soul replied, “I’d contribute to that.”

We’ve all heard (ad nauseam) hunters boast that their license fees pay for wildlife programs, implying that it entitles them to kill the subjects of their alleged generosity—of course hunters don’t contribute out of the kindness of their hearts or their profound love for living animals. This got me to thinking we need a non-hunter license and tag system that emulates hunter tags, to finally put to rest this notion that hunters alone pay for wildlife through their consumptive use licenses. There have been some good ideas out there about this; people have floated the notion of a non-hunters duck stamp, for instance, but those have yet to really take off.

Perhaps it’s because non-hunters wouldn’t get anything tangible for their money. Sure, they could bring back a photo or wonderful memories of the amazing wildlife they saw at a quiet slice of heaven preserved for the wild non-human species of the Earth. But how does that really compare to the kind of meaty trophy a hunter takes home with him? (Sorry, or her; I keep forgetting that more and more women are now being lured into the blood sport.) Hunters can pet and fondle the bodies of their dead victims, and even ingest certain parts they don’t plan to mount on the wall.

The only way a non-hunter can have such a tactile experience is if they can actually bring their “harvests” home with them. Granted, a human carcass doesn’t have the popular appeal of say, a mounted deer, elk, moose, goose, sheep or bear, but to the one who made that good, clean kill shot, it’s a symbol of their prowess and their mighty-yet-selfless effort to thin the hunter herd.

Fortunately, state game departments have given us a model to go by. State residents’ licenses would be kept at an affordable price, while out of state hunter hunters would have to contribute more to the coffers. Logically, someone would have to be hired to insure there were plenty of hunters out there to harvest; and who better for that job than the experienced wildlife “managers.” After all, they’ve been doing their darnedest to recruit more hunters for years now.

Tags for different breeds of hunters could emulate hunting tags for specific non-human animal species. (For those unsure of which sub-species of hunter they’re aiming at, check the archives of the C.A.S.H. Courier for, “A Field Guide to North American Hunters”). Obviously a tag for the average Elmer would cost less than a tag for a globe-trotting trophy hunter.

Since they’re among the most sadistic, and are the least likely to lay down their weapons and make peace with the animals willingly, out-of-state hunting licenses to hunt wolf hunters will hereby be reduced from $250 to $50. And wolf hunter tags for residents will be similarly underpriced at around $15, since the goal is ultimately to eliminate that breed altogether.