In the article, “In Midwest farm country, a tradition of duck hunting has healed the dried-out landscape” (4/13/25), the Star Tribune offers yet another attempt to dress up recreational hunting in the trappings of environmental stewardship and cultural tradition. This piece, like many before it, seeks to paint duck hunters as accidental conservationists—heroes who just happen to enjoy killing animals while restoring wetlands.
We are told that duck hunting “has healed the dried-out landscape,” as if the primary goal of these hunters was ecological restoration rather than bagging a limit of ducks. The story leans heavily on the idea that hunting has played a role in preserving habitat, yet barely pauses to consider the ethical contradiction of celebrating the protection of nature by way of destroying the lives of the beings who live in it.
Once again, the real narrative is obscured by a litany of familiar excuses. Hunting, we are told, is not about the killing—it’s about tradition, connection to the land, multigenerational bonding, and the “thrill of the chase.” Somehow, the bloodshed at the heart of it all remains peripheral, if it’s acknowledged at all.
But if the act of killing truly is incidental, as hunters so often claim, then why insist on pulling the trigger? Why not simply restore wetlands, watch the ducks, and leave the guns at home? Why is the death of the animal always part of the ritual, even as its importance is downplayed?
The truth is, no amount of camouflage and conservation talk can disguise what duck hunting really is: the recreational killing of animals. And perhaps what’s most telling is how much effort goes into denying that simple fact.
There may be water in the marshes again—but there’s still blood in the water.
