Growing up in a “hunting family” in the northern Midwest, I was always around, and even participated in, the killing of animals in their native habitats. From Bambi to Chip & Dale, no furry creature was beyond the power of my mighty bow and arrow or .410 gauge break-action shotgun. My tenure as “Conqueror of Nature”, however, was abbreviated as I only bagged a handful of squirrels and one rabbit. Turns out I wasn’t very good at it and it sort of just slipped away from my mind for a few decades.
Only until I reached my mid-30s and noticed the surprisingly large numbers of my adult friends that still hunted, did I start to ponder the ethics of hunting. Why were these grown men, who had hopefully evolved past the mindless brutish thinking of adolescence, still going out of their way to kill animals? Was such an activity a necessary means of population control as the hunting community loves to boast? Or, was there something deeper to it? In my research I have read what seems to be a never ending point-counterpoint on the killing of wild animals every fall and I’d be lying if I said the issue was any clearer. It is to be noted that in my more recent years I have leaned rather significantly in the direction of the anti-hunters but I will openly admit that the hunting community brought up some interesting points, which I will discuss:
WHY PEOPLE HUNT
For seemingly an eternity, psychologists and other mind-docs have claimed that hunting is an activity that only caters to the perverted and inadequate. Arguably, most of the anti-hunting activists would agree. It is easy to climb onto this bandwagon as it makes the most sense to anyone with even a semester of psychology under their belt. The answer as to whether or not this viewpoint is accurate, however, is a little more elusive.
I figured the best place to start asking question about hunting would naturally be with hunters. Predictably, when I would question them and challenge their activities, accusing them of merely looking for an excuse to kill something, they would reply, most often, with one of the three following counterpoints:
1. Hunting for meat: This reasoning drives me absolutely mad. While there are surely some seasoned hunters out there that can identify a prime eating animal as it walks by their tree stand, the vast majority of hunters shoot the first (and every single following) animal that may come across their path until their bag limits have been filled. Not to mention, a cost benefit analysis of hunting (license fees, weapons, and other equipment) vs. buying grocery meat also voids this argument.
When taking into account the array of both good and bad cuts of meat, even in times of inflated food prices, beef costs on average $3.80/lb., according to CNNmoney.com. In doing a cost-benefit analysis, it would be preposterous to even consider small game hunting as being more affordable that buying meat in a supermarket, so for the sake of argument, we will look at how much it costs a hunter to get a deer from the woods into his stomach. The average slain deer will produce 50 lbs. of meat (according to several Departments of Natural Resources). Therefore, the cost of hunting must be under $200 in order to make this argument sound. A decent shotgun or compound bow costs anywhere from $500-$1000. Not including licenses and other assorted gear, and cost of processing the deer. This argument obviously holds little water. Next.
2. Control overpopulation: Admittedly, there is solid scientific evidence that suggests hunting is a very effective means of controlling animal overpopulation in certain areas where the animals would otherwise starve or contract disease. This reason, however, is kind of a “dickish” response to Mother Nature. Humans are the ONLY cause for deforestation, urban sprawl and diminishing wildlife habitiat. Therefore, humans using population control as an excuse to hunt the weak and diseased (as a result of the aforementioned actions of humans) is somewhat reminiscent of Hitler’s Lebensraum in which the domination of neighboring nations was necessary for the healthy expansion of the Nazi empire. Killing of those conquered citizens was merely a formality, of course.
3. Controlling pests that pose a risk to you, your family or your property: I get this. I really do. In fact, I support it. If a coyote is a threat to your livestock, by all means kill it. If a bear takes a run at you as you get out of the car, I fully support disposing of the bear. This is no different than killing a rat that has invaded your kitchen or an opossum in your garage. The difference in this act from the others, however, is that this is based in the defense of yourself, your loved ones and your possessions. Most acts committed in the defense of oneself are wholly acceptable, perhaps not by the law, but nevertheless by the mindset of most Westerners. Basically, you do what you gotta do to protect your stuff.
Back on track…
After considering the invalidity of the aforementioned replies (of course, omitting the last), an anti-hunter could only be led to believe that hunters likely kill animals just for the sake of killing something without the fear that the about-to-be-killed may respond in kind if you miss. To take it a step further, walking into a home and see multiple heads of various animals stuffed and hanging on walls is the ultimate “in your face” to mother nature and sends the blood boiling through most animal lovers. As if it wasn’t enough to kill our Earthly companions en masse, now we need to make an exhibitionist spectacle of it? The author, Aldo Leopold once observed in his 1953 publication Round River that “Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason—the thrill to beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game for one and the same reason—to reduce that beauty to possession.” On its surface, this act seems barbarous and borderline sociopathic. However, the hunting community has interesting points of defense.
In a 2007 issue of Montana Outdoors, author John Madson explains the brotherhood and sense of community and bonding that hunting may bring; “Ten thousand years ago the hunter might have stood by a fire and recounted the great deed to his clan brothers, while the old men nodded their approval and stripling boys back in the shadows listened in wonder. It hasn’t changed much. The trophy hunter, the ethical killer of the great stag, or bear, or ram, still commands attention by the fire as he recites his deeds. His peers still salute him, the old men still nod and remember, and boys still dream of tomorrow’s hunts.”
Madson continues; “Companionship can be a strong element in hunting. For as long as men have hunted, they have banded into special hunting packs with their own taboos, traditions, and rituals. And sometimes the companionship and the rituals become more important than the hunt itself, and sometimes the greatest pleasure is in anticipation and recollection, with the hunt only serving to bond the two.”
Ultimately, until the exact reason for why people hunt are mapped out via brain scan, much like recent research shows how video games turn kids into killers (Sorry advocates, it’s true. See ANYTHING written by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman), this back and forth will go on ad nauseam. Hunters will always postulate that they kill for a variety of reasons ranging from “working the dogs” to “being one with nature”. In response, the anti-hunting community will continue to scream “sociopath”, “murderer” and “hypocrite”. Hopefully someday both sides will understand the other. Then again, perhaps, we are just not equipped to understand.
0 comments:
Post a Comment