By ANTHONY MAURO

t’s not about eliminating fishing and hunting…it’s about eliminating our freedom of choice.

It is becoming more commonplace to read letters from animal rights activists that label hunting as cruel and the Division of Fish and Wildlife, the agency that manages New Jersey’s wildlife, as purveyors of death. These advocates represent themselves as guardians of wildlife and portray the hunter and the DFW as unpopular with New Jerseyans. The depiction is self-serving and misleading.
A recently released survey by Responsive Management shows that New Jerseyans strongly support the professional management of the state’s fish and wildlife by the Division of Fish and Wildlife. Responsive Management is a nationally recognized public opinion and attitude survey research firm specializing in natural resource and outdoor recreation issues.
The survey confirms that 82 percent of state residents believe the division is the most credible source of fish and wildlife information. Not surprisingly, respondents ranked the least credible sources of information as the spokespersons of advocacy organizations. The vast majority of respondents determined that the DFW effectively balances the interests of anglers, hunters, conservation groups and the public.

Regarding fishing and hunting, 87 percent of New Jerseyans approve of fishing and 66 percent approve of hunting. While many people may not participate in these activities, the survey points out that they enjoy popular support.
Some may wonder why hunters and the DFW are portrayed as evil doers when they have the backing of the majority of New Jerseyans. Further examination of the issue leads to an intriguing supposition.
Animal rights activists target hunting for elimination because it occurs within the public’s periphery and easily evokes strong sentiments. On the other hand, the institutional processing of cows, chickens, pigs, turkeys and other staples offered by food markets are performed by businesses and out of the public’s eye. They are not as easily maligned. Additionally, 97 percent of the population eats meat, fowl and fish so to avoid a backlash to the animal rights movement hunting is aggressively targeted.
However, the hunter and the meat purveyor are one in the same — both serve as a source for providing sustenance. If hunting is removed, the hunter that once brought home wild game for table fare simply moves to the line that gathers before the butcher. This only serves to increase demand for domestically slaughtered meat and fowl, offsetting the loss to wildlife. However, the amount of slaughter remains the same; it saves the deer but does so at the expense of the cow.
The animal rights activist that protests the killing of wildlife furthermore protests the killing of domesticated animals. The advocate knows that the amount of killing will remain unchanged regardless of the removal of hunting, but their reasoning is that it is easier to eliminate a consolidated grouping that stands before the butcher. Their beliefs do not allow for celebration until all animal and fish consumption is purged, and a vegetarian lifestyle becomes the mainstay.
The animal rights movement is not about eliminating fishing and hunting; its roots are in restricting people’s table fare. It is about eliminating our freedom of choice.

Mauro is chairman of New Jersey Outdoor Alliance.