Edition: U.S. / Global


By ART McGRAY; Art McGray lives in Stamford.
Published: October 30, 1988

HUNTING season is here again, and along with it all the tired old cliches, reasons and excuses hunters use to defend their sport. That is if you can call hunting a sport. There is something about the act of blowing an unarmed animal out of a tree with a high-powered semi-automatic rifle that somehow stretches the definition of the word sport to its broadest limits.

Sport is supposed to be a fair and evenhanded venture, but this is not true with hunting. Nowhere else in the world of sport are the odds weighed so heavily in one side's favor.

Would boxing allow Mary Lou Retton to climb into the ring to face off against Mike Tyson? Would the New York Giants step onto the gridiron to battle the Aqueduct jockeys? Of course not! So why should hunting be excluded from the laws of fair play?

If hunting is here to stay - as the hunters say it is - then maybe we should revise the rules a bit, and make hunting a bit more sporting. If Wrigley Field can adapt to night baseball and professional football can live with the instant-replay call, then hunting can survive a little modification.

Hunters like to boast of the skill, patience and strategy they contend is inherent to their sport. If hunting is to retain those characteristics, then the first thing we must do is ban the use of firearms in the forest. Like almost everything else in the 20th century, guns have been radically improved by modern technology. Using today's rifle, with its infrared telescopic sight, laser-guided aiming system and exploding bullets, even a blind man could pick a squirrel off a tree stump at 300 yards. Where's the skill in that?

By limiting the hunter's arsenal to spears, clubs and knives, at least we would give the animals a fighting chance. It's a lot more challenging to take down a 400-pound brown bear with a bowie knife than to shoot him with an elephant gun from a helicopter.

To further even the odds, I suggest that we arm the animals. This could be accomplished by releasing bands of specially trained chimpanzees into the woods to guard their furry brethren. If they can learn to use sign language, they can learn how to use a slingshot.

For ammunition they can use those paint pellets that are so popular with the ''weekend warrior'' crowd. Upon striking the target, the pellets burst open, splattering the unfortunate soul with Day-Glo paint. That type of ammunition would not only protect the hunter from serious injury, but it would also probably embarrass him to the point of never stepping into the woods again.

Baseball has its spitball, football has the late hit, but the dirtiest trick in all of sports has to be the use of lures in hunting. Basically speaking, lures are artificially produced scents that imitate the odors emitted by animals during their mating cycle. A hunter will sprinkle the lure around his camp and himself, sit back and wait patiently for his prey to come to him, making this travesty not only dishonest, but lazy as well.

How would you like to follow the sweet aroma of Chanel No. 5 all the way across a crowded singles bar, only to discover a pack of bloodthirsty wolverines? It's no fun, as I can tell you from experience. If the hunter is going to spread any scent around himself, it should at least smell like the New York Knicks locker room at halftime, so the animals can at least get a headstart.

Perhaps the most overused excuse we hear to justify hunting is the old ''we've got to feed our families'' routine. I would think that a man whose family was starving would have the good sense to sell off his rifles, tents, pistols, recreational vehicle, camouflage gear and ammunition and invest in a couple of sides of beef, which would at least feed everybody until gardening season. I know some hunters who could open a small restaurant with the capital from their liquidated hunting equipment.

And while we're on this subject, has anyone ever met a child who actually enjoys venison? Most parents have enough trouble trying to persuade their children to eat spinach, much less something that reminds them of their favorite cartoon. Besides, if you like your meat on the gamey side, you can get the same effect by marinating beef overnight in kerosene.

Still, if a man insists on raiding the forest for food, he should always remember this: horns, antlers, fur pelts and fuzzy tails make for lousy sustenance. Such trophy hunting should be strictly outlawed. After all, the only reason you guys are hunting is to feed your families, right? What kind of a casserole are you going to make out of rabbit's feet?

That does not mean that the inedible parts of the animal have to go to waste, however. We can always ship such parts as antlers to the Far East, where they can be ground down and put to the more practical use of aphrodisiacs. If any of this talk frightens the taxidermists, they should not worry. They can always apply their skills in the more lucrative and rewarding field of upholstery repair.

Many hunters defend their sport by citing the valuable ecological service they provide. A common rationale is: ''If we didn't go out and kill all those animals, they'd starve to death.'' Although there may be some truth in that, hunters should be informed that this burdensome task has been lifted from their backs; building developers have taken the baton.

No longer do we have to worry about the overpopulation of wildlife in the woods, or even the woods itself, for that matter. Just check out the side of the parkway for the sad proof of this.

Yet, if a man's heart still drives him to perform thankless environmental duties, I think we should assist him by providing a free tree or bush with every hunting license issued. By planting it on this year's expedition, the hunter can rest assured that next year's animal population might have a little more to eat.

And while they're at it, maybe the hunters can pick up all that garbage they left littering the forest floor on last year's trip. How's this for motivation: whover collects the most cans and bottles wins a free trip to the San Diego Zoo.

These have been but a few suggestions for improving the sport of hunting. I'm sure we could come up with dozens more. For example, we could require every hunter who bags a deer to bring home a skunk as well, or we can toy with the idea of stocking the woods with anaconda. And if, after all these rules are implemented and a man still wants to hunt, then he should certainly be permitted. Or should that be committed?