In response to my post about my ‘pink-ish’ neck - JB commented:
“Although you have articulately argued the justification for slaughtering animals…colouring it any other way doesn’t change the fact that you are still choosing to take a life. Does choosing to take a life automatically make you a redneck? I am sure that there are many self-proclaimed rednecks out there that have never hunted, trapped, or fished a thing. So…I don’t think you have truly embraced the redneck mantra - but I wonder where the motivation comes from to kill things.
I’m sorry, but killing things is just never ok for me. Not when you consider where we live, what food is available to us (although don’t get me started on the unethical treatment of farm animals that are unlucky enough to be raised as food sources for us), and recognizing how delicate our eco-system is. The idea of driving into some animals natural habitat, loading a gun, and picking off creatures at random (because they are *so* overpopulated) is a little bit appalling to me.”
I thought I might respond to the comment. (I am a blogger after all - master of my own pulpit…) I hear what you suggest about driving into natural habitat to randomly pick off animals. At it’s most basic - you’re right but we all rationalize things differently.
Firstly - I won’t argue that non-hunters should be hunters. Nor do I believe or would I argue that non-hunters are ‘wrong’ in their opinion. I believe that it’s important to respect both viewpoints. As individuals we are born with a moral compass and though our compasses may not align exactly, it may have a great deal to do with where we stand, not where morality lies. For most of us however, I’m sure they’ll get us to the same general location in the end. I would only ask that a reader of this entry keep an open mind.
I also would ask readers not to paint all hunters with the same brush. Like any group - there are those who choose to play fast and loose, and those who choose to ‘use’ the system. I only provide here my personal philosophy - and why I personally am comfortable with performing the act of a hunt.
The phrase ’slaughter’ in the comment causes me some discomfort as it’s use connotates disregard for the animal. Similarly the application of “take a life” - which most often is used to indicate the end of a human life. The application of “take a life” here would also indicate that the chicken or deer in question exhibit similar ‘life’ characteristics to a human being. It is unlikely that wild animals have hopes and dreams, and beyond filling their bellies - they never plan ahead. While most wild animals are ‘life’ - few have ‘a life‘ to take (with the exeption of primates perhaps - which I could certainly not support the hunting of).
At it’s simplest - it is the cessation of life that causes issue here - the ‘killing’ of an animal for sport or food. At the root of it - how can one ‘kill’ an animal. Why hunt and why kill - as if the two are exclusive elements.
The ability of a hunter to seek out, find, harvest, prepare and utilize game is far from a skill-less venture. We must be mindful of habitat, understand the needs and numbers of game animals, understand our impact on that environment as it pertains to those animals, and use that knowlege to succeed at harvest. Along with the matter of sustenance, and learning the skills to provide for oneself (outside the trip to Sobey’s) is a matter of tradition.
One might suggest that the non-hunter, in many cases (not all of course) is routinely clueless about the environment they so strongly fight to protect. Are you familiar with Spruce fens? What is required to sustain a Lodgepole and lichen hillock? Have you ever walked or tried to survive off of an ancient erg complex? Found, made or drank Labrador tea? Could you find and use groundwater? Treat a broken bone, 10 miles from a road or vehicle? Stave off hypothermia or starvation?
I don’t mean to belittle by way of those questions - rather to show that as one learns the ways of the animals he wishes to harvest, he gains a deeper appreciation and understanding of that environment.
We are as a society getting farther and farther from the ability to survive outside the comforts of home. Without the 7-11 and Safeway, without power or running water - how long would you last? Sure - it’s pretty unlikely that you’d have to endure for long - but what if? It doesn’t take much to cripple a population dependent on technology - just ask those who perished during a power outage in 1965. (http://www.ceet.niu.edu/faculty/vanmeer/outage.htm) Were you unable to find shelter, build fire, seek water, find food - in 10 days you would not be able to do so. Again - it isn’t that it’s likely - it’s about building a relationship with the environment in which we live.
To that end, a single deer could provide meat (we are omnivores as a rule) for a family for a year. The harvested animal (from a statistical view) represents another animal that would most certainly die over the winter. Populations are carefully monitored and the ability to hunt any given species is based on the carrying capacities of any management unit (referring to a region distinct from others where populations are concentrated.) That single deer can represent additional habitat for animals that are endangered or threatened as a result of reduced load on the system.
Historically - these balances have been maintained by periodic culls, first by the natives, later by settlers, and in more recent times, by those charged with evaluating and maintaining the balance of wild ecosystems (ie: CWD Culls in Saskatchewan and Alberta to prevent Chronic Wasting). Hunting is a direct contributing factor to maintaining the balance of wildlife to habitat.
Therefore - hunting is a way to provide for oneself, become more involved with the relationship of man to his environment, and a way to retain the traditions of generations. Along the way - he may just gain a deeper understanding of his place in the world, and learn skills that could conceivably ensure his survival in extreme situations.
And now to the question of “taking a life”. Ortega y Gassett (wiki) said: “I do not hunt in order to kill. I kill in order to have hunted.” (Translated from: Prólogo a un Tratado de Montería (Preface to a Treatise on the Hunt [separately published as Meditations on the Hunt], created as preface to a book on the hunt by Count Ybes published 1944)
We as ethical hunters do not take the life of an animal merely as a trophy. A kill is a killing. There is no disputing that. But remember our place as humans. We did not survive and evolve as herbivores. Wild animals are just as keen to take the life of a child, or your dog, or a farmers herd of cattle as a hunter looking to provide wild meat for his family. Predation is predation and it goes up and down the food chain. Hunters are willing to take ownership of that relationship. We not only recognize that an animal has been killed to satisfy our need to hunt (from wherever it stems) but ensure that the animal is used fully, that the resource is effectively managed, and that the population does not suffer as a result of our actions. Wild animals are not a renewable resource. They are a finite resource, and the population surpluses are made available to legal hunters.
We shouldn’t confuse wild animals with what we see on television. Rabbits are not thumper, deer are not Bambi, and Bears are not Yogi. But what about wild animals that befriend farmers, and farm dogs! If a wild animal through fluke or fate receives food and comfort - they’ll befriend anyone. One might argue however, that the animal would no longer be wild. Once a human bond is forged - there is another level of ‘life’ imposed. I could no more harvest someones pet deer than a dog or horse.
Hunters with a focus on utilizing game as a food source are focused on two forms of game specifically - ‘big game’ and ‘game birds’. Hunters with a passion for the ’sport’ of hunting generally focus on predator hunting. When we talk about wild animals hunted as game like Deer, Elk, Moose or Antelope; game birds like Duck, Goose, Pheasant or Grouse;we are talking about a hunted food source.
In these cases, game hunters are consumers who wish to use natural, wild resources (talk about organic and free range…) and are willing to accept direct responsibility for their actions - full circle. How can I justify eating a hamburger, but not support the killing of the cow? How can I eat chicken wings - but contest the execution of the chicken? Any true vegetarian is exempt on this one - because often they cannot accept the slaughter for food. I respect that view too, and respect their conviction. Unless they wear leather shoes…
The harvest of an animal which would be consumed or used for food, for clothing, for protection is still a hunted animal. Be it a squirrel harvested for use in materials to catch fish; A deer harvested to fill a belly, or a Coyote killed in order to protect livestock; the end result is the same. Along the way - our choices cause animals to be killed. Leather shoes? Handbag? Coat? Leather seats in a car? Feather pillows? Glue to hold the spines of books together? Animals displaced from land and habitat to create farms to grow corn or wheat? What makes those acceptable? That we were not holding the knife that bled the animals that these comforts were made from. For one to truly find the death of a wild or farmed animal unacceptable - there is a difficult line to walk to avoid hypocrasy.
With respect to ’sport’ hunting, I cannot truthfully offer a complete opinion. I have not had the opportunity, nor have I closely examined my feelings regarding hunting large predators like bear or cougar. Where ‘varmints’ are concerned - Coyote, Gopher, or Rabbit - I’m not conflicted. These are all reasonable game opportunities - based on application of some criteria: It’s not in my view acceptable to hunt a predator animal in an environment where it’s numbers or presence is not having a negative impact of the use of the land, or a negative impact on the population balance of a native population of animals. In cases where the population is having a negative impact on the wildlife or land use - culling may certainly be justified. As an example - Coyotes are wild animals whose numbers were once closely controlled by predators. Those predators have been displaced, and their numbers reduced. The fact that you now live in a house, on a paved road, with power and water guaranteed that. The prey animals have become the new predators, and with little natural predation - are only growing in numbers as they move into our backyards. This is why I see scat on my driveway - 20 feet from my sleeping son, and a fence apart from my 1600$ once wild west-highland terrier.
Would I hunt that animal? Would I predate on that coyote - as it would on my dog or child? You betcha. Is there a difference between poisoning them and hunting them in this regard? None. Many would suggest calling ‘animal control’ or calling on another agency to manage these problems. In the city - a plan I wholeheartedly agree with. On rural land, the management of predators and pests is a valuable service to farmers and rural residents which happens to provide hunters the opportunity to practice and hone skills for use in harvest hunting opportunities to minimize suffering and maximize potential.
Is this a cut and dried topic? No. Of course not. Everyone is passionate about their viewpoint. I respect those who do not support hunting, and those who do not support sport hunting - but I also have comfort in the rationale that I use to calibrate my compass. All I ask - as does any hunter - is that you respect our view and agree to disagree. I’ll never drag a game animal into your yard, or show so much insensitivity as to force the topic down anyones throat. In the realm of managing our resources, and hunting game for the table, I get great excercise, see beautiful places, have learned much about the region I call home, and can say that I have taken part in the management of wildlife and ecology. Those are footsteps that I hope create lasting opportunities for my son to see when he is older.
You must have had a quiet day at the Office to come up with your essay on hunting. That sport isn’t for everyone, myself included but I am a lover of nature (actually, the one who taught you to love it) and if it is done with careful consideration for all and sundry, it causes no problems. Hunter have been a round since the dawn of man. It is how we survived to have the thing we call “civilization” today. Here on the west coast there is a over abundance of radicals raging against any veggies considered ‘un-organic’ to the culling of the bunnies that have over run Saanich (not to mention the deer problem and the odd cougar). These cute critter destroy crops and gardens. While they are adorable to look at, still…..
No - that was mostly last night after Ben went to bed. It’s funny how a topic like that can be so polar for people. I know a few people who all of a sudden consider me ‘edge case’ because I support hunting.
….A Post Script:
Further thought on taking a life of a living creature…..if someone or some creature were to threaten the lives of my family, would I stop to ponder the taking of that life if it were a “kill or be killed” situation? No es una problema, there would be absolutely no hesitation on my part. The assailant would be muerto pronto. This even though I am not a hunter and do not consider myself a violent individual. There are many slants one can put on a topic such as this. You have actually taken the time to portray your point of view accurately and completely.
Good on yer, Scratch (junior).
Greg - thanks for the thoughtful perspective in support of harvesting animals.
Unfortunately, the perspective of hunters as a bunch of ‘redneck yahoos’ seems to persist amongst mainstream society, particularly in urban areas.
I am a hunter who was blessed to be taught by someone who absolutely respects both the animal, the environment and others opinions. We hunt for meat, not the trophy. If we happen to harvest an animal with a ‘nice rack’ that’s simply a bonus. I’ve hunted for 6 years now and have one ‘trophy’ animal even though I’ve harvested more than a dozen. Most hunters are that way, contrary to popular opinion.
Given a choice between genetically modified beef, pork or poultry; animals grown only for their ability to provide food or a free ranging game animal, fed only on natural grasses, I know which one I will choose. Are we taking a life? Yes, absolutely. Which life do you think was richer? That left in an enclosed pasture, or, as in the case of veal, a pen where the animal can’t even move around, or the animal who was free to roam until that time when their life is quickly extinguished by a hunter who yearns for a quick kill? If I was a game animal, I know which I would choose.
Hunters are perceived as just going out there and blasting away at all kinds of animals. Non-hunters don’t understand the respect that hunters have for the wildlife, and how difficult it can be to successfully harvest an animal whose senses are far more sophisticated than ours. They don’t understand how many time hunters come home empty handed and that when that happens, the hunter still had an awesome day outside communing with nature. Hunting isn’t about blasting away at things. It’s about being outside, watching those sunrises, seeing the birds perching right next to you as you are watching a field. It’s about challenging yourself to understand the signs that the animal has made, to perfect your skills so that you can take an animal quickly without causing it any unnecessary stress. It’s about being able to take the animal from field to table and know that you had a hand in every step of the process. I get the same thrill out of that as I do from growing my own vegetables, knowing that I was part of the process from seed to table.
Do I respect vegetarians and those that choose not to hunt? Absolutely! All I ask is that they respect my right to hunt my own table fare. Oh yeah - an don’t complain next time your car runs into a game animal in an overpopulated area where the residents won’t allow hunting!
Buddy, I think I need to have you write this up now as an article in the 2009 Hunting Regulations Guide. You’ve said more then the Minister of Hunting & Redneckedness (a.k.a. Environment).
I am going to have to hook you up with Don Meredith, whom writes in the guide regularily now retired Fish & Wildlife / Conservation / Web Admin). And… loan you my signed copy of his “Grizzly One” book now. =)
http://www.donmeredith.ca/donspage.html
Uhm… PS… “I am sure that there are many self-proclaimed rednecks out there that have never hunted, trapped, or fished a thing.”
Show me a redneck that doesn’t hunt, fish, or drink beer… and I’ll show you Priest that isn’t […]
[ED NOTE: I did a little removal of a word there RB - just to keep you sane.
-GS]
Oh yah…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck
Redneck refers to a stereotype of usually rural, Caucasian (i.e. white) people of lower socio-economic status in the United States and Canada. Originally limited to the Appalachians, and later the South, the Ozarks, the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains, this stereotype is now widespread throughout North America. Southern comedian Jeff Foxworthy defines “redneck” as “a glorious lack of sophistication,” stating “that we are all guilty of [it] at one time or another.”
See also
* Black Rednecks and White Liberals
* Boer
* Cajun
* Caldoche
* Classism
* Cracker (pejorative)
* Folk culture
* Good old boys
* Good ol’ boy network
* Hillbilly
* Hoopie
* List of ethnic slurs
* The Redneck Manifesto
* Pākehā
* Pied-noir
* Redlegs
* Redneck Rampage
* Scots-Irish American
* Southern Culture
* Redneck Riviera
* Whiskey Rebellion
* White Trash
Excellent retort, Greg. Thank you for that. I thought a lot more about this topic last night - Jacob (my husband) and I even had a chat about it at length, and realized that my inital response and reaction did not quite encompass my entire feeling on this subject. This is definitely a gray area for me!
)
I will say again that I know what my personal limitations are. At the age of 17, I was provided the opportunity to spend a week in Yellowknife. Never before had I experienced the level of dependence that a community had on their environment. There I was (in all of my suburban innocence) surrounded by people wearing skins and furs to stay warm, seeing skins and antlers mounted on walls, and eating cariboo stew. I came back enlightened…and as a vegetarian. I remained a vegetarian for 2 years and have often considered becoming a vegetarian again (a different topic for another time). (P.S. I wear a plastic wristwatch and Converse running shoes.
Do I disagree with game hunting? After a good amount of thinking…my answer is “No”. I can appreciate learning and understanding where our food comes from, and developing a healthy respect for the value of food…particularly in a culture of hyper-consumerism that is enveloped in pretty packaging and cellophane. The term “harvesting” that Betty used in regards to her succcessful hunting expeditions (I am trying to be respectful and not use the word “kills” here) is a good choice.
I also had a long discussion with Jacob about the legislation that surrounds your beloved sport. Although I know little about the specifics of that legislation, I can appreciate that laws are in place to try and control the number of animals that are killed, to protect animals during rutting and breeding seasons, and to ensure that there is some level of sustainability. Jacob even surmised at one point that if everyone learned to hunt and harvested enough food for 1 year, then we could in fact reduce the number of animals that are bred for slaughtering (an industry that is responsible for catastrophic effects to our environment and our food system). However, that brought up a larger question for me…Could our environment handle a huge influx of game hunters? Probably not. But again, I haven’t done any research to support that.
That’s my line in the sand though. I will probably continue to be wary of this topic - especially when speaking to self-professed hunters because I have no idea what their motivation is for killing things (Game or sport; food or trophy; appreciating the Great Outdoors or shooting their giant boom sticks). Unfortunately there are many hunters who simply kill for the joy of killing and leave it at that.
The other thing that I mull over is that I can see hunting as a slippery slope. Although initially you gain an appreciation for life in the death of an animal, I worry that eventually one can become desensitized to the act of killing. (Killing a fish is ok, killing a bird is ok, killing a deer is ok, killing a coyote is ok, killing a bear is ok….see where I’m going with this?) Acknowledging that you are using hunting as a way to feed your family is noble, but I think it would be naive of me to believe that this is the only motivation for the pursuit of this sport.
In the end, the main thing to remember is that we are all on this planet together; sentient and non-sentient beings alike. Often we get in each others way. As the tool-weilding, more intelligent beings in this struggle for space, I feel that we have a responsibility to acknowledge that and come up with better long-term solutions.
That’s what is so wonderful about civilized discussion! As I said - I can understand and respect those who hold a contrary opinion to mine - particularly when they are brave enough to confront the issue with logic, and realism. Your conclusions may be different - but they are just as real when you apply your own thought processes. The important factor is that you are willing to consider both sides.
Hunting ethics are indeed a tad shy in a lot of places, and the run and gun for fun crowd is certainly evident in Alberta. Those ‘hunters’ are despicable to me too. So long as the reasons for hunting take into account the value of the resource - I’m comfortable with it.
Thank you for really thinking about the subject!
Indeed - the dinner table is only one piece of the pie for hunting as sport is just as significant. The comments Betty made really speak to that - especially when you consider the effort involved.
At the end of the day - a hunter assumes a great responsibility when they get a license. The Wildlife Certificate they obtain entitles them to the opportunity to harvest game, but also assigns a level of responsibility to uphold high ethical standards of conduct, safety and respect for the environment, and their fellow man - hunter and non-hunter alike.
As a side note - you may be interested to know some of the statistics regarding the number of legal / registered hunters out there. (From: http://www.huntingfortomorrow.com)
There are nearly 110,000 licensed hunters in Alberta annually.
The total number of hunting licenses sold in 2007 was 404,000.
The number of youth hunters increased by 9.5% from the previous year to 6,200.
Female hunter numbers have increased annually and in 2007 represented 6.2% of the Alberta hunting
population.
The average age of an Alberta male hunter is 44 years and 41 years for the average Alberta female
hunter.
The number of draw applications for 2007 was over 200,000 - these are applications for the right to be granted a ‘tag’ which permits the harvest of a single animal (Deer, moose, bear, elk, etc.) Caribou are protected in Alberta, as are Grizzly bear, Sage grouse, and a number of other animals. Of those - only a fraction actually receive a tag - based on the availability of surplus game population. A draw for a tag on an Antelope for example - may take you 5 years, a Mule deer may be only a single tag per year - or none depending on the region.
Yep it was an insightful and interesting conversation. Thanks to you too.
Good call on the edit for Ranger Bob’s retort as well. I’m not sure what his motivation was there:
1) Trying elevate the social status of rednecks; or
2) Bring the social status of hunters down by associating them with redneck mentality.
Either way, you lose!
also, if you want to make it a “sport”. Don’t take a gun. try and touch the deer. or get withing so many meters of it.
Yeah, I wonder about the Ranger’s retort a little myself.
You seem to be confusing “life” and “soul”. Animal’s are living, I do believe they think, dream and plan. Thinking and planing has been “proven” down to the fly level of animal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7586868.stm). Having a soul is where religion has to come into play and I won’t go there as it’s irrelevant to this conversation do it’s personal belief issues.
“One might suggest that the non-hunter, in many cases (not all of course) is routinely clueless about the environment they so strongly fight to protect. Are you familiar with Spruce fens? What is required to sustain a Lodgepole and lichen hillock? Have you ever walked or tried to survive off of an ancient erg complex? Found, made or drank Labrador tea? Could you find and use groundwater? Treat a broken bone, 10 miles from a road or vehicle? Stave off hypothermia or starvation?”
Not just hunters, many non-hunters can also do this. these are survival skills and don’t require any kind of hunting. Foraging, yes, hunting no.
“Historically - these balances have been maintained by periodic culls, first by the natives, later by settlers, and in more recent times, by those charged with evaluating and maintaining the balance of wild ecosystems (ie: CWD Culls in Saskatchewan and Alberta to prevent Chronic Wasting). Hunting is a direct contributing factor to maintaining the balance of wildlife to habitat.”
True but very foolish to think nature would not control itself without human intervention. Human “intervention” in nature generally breaks the cycles. HISTORICALLY population booms in prey (deer, rabbits, elk, …) were controlled by food shortages and/or predator population booms. Humans messed this up when we started killing the predator’s. i.e. culling of wolf/coyote packs. massive highways messing up bear territory.
Also, to say a hunter needs a deep understanding of the balance of nature isn’t quite right either. Most hunters (not all) don’t require it because the government heavily regulates what you can kill, how many and when.
Not to say I disagree with hunting, I don’t so long as you eat what you kill or you were genuinely in danger and had no other choice before you shot (yes, deer can be dangerous).
Also, you can hardly call wild animals organic no-a-days, in the same aspect that free-range and organic chicken are virtually mutually exclusive.
Also, if you want to make it a “sport”. Don’t take a gun, try and touch the deer.
Absolutely great essay about hunting, Greg. Though I am not a hunter, and have never been, this is more and more becoming my opinion on the matter. It is for many of the reasons you’ve listed that I am becoming interested in becoming a game hunter (though, I personally don’t much like the idea of trophy hunting; why shoot it if you won’t eat it or if it doesn’t pose a threat to you or your family and home?).
Whew.
So - speaking to a few points…
1. Ranger-Bob’s comment. I would agree - there are likely few ‘true’ rednecks who don’t hunt or drink beer. Casting wide aspersions is one of the great truisms of the internets. As for priests? I can’t say - I didn’t grow up catholic like him.
2. Life and Soul (from Jacob). I have no doubt that any animal has life. Soul is a spiritual matter - not a physiological one. Thinking and planning are by far different things. Even in the case Jake pointed out regarding the fly: “High speed, high resolution video recordings revealed the insects quickly work out where a threat is coming from and prepare an escape route. ” this is VERY different from planning. It indicates ‘reaction’. Reaction to stimuli can indeed pattern behaviour - even in ‘lower’ life forms. Not the same as planning. My comment regarding this meant that outside instinctive behaviour - few animals below primates are capable of identifying a situation and planning for consequences. I would surmise that most research would indicate effective reasoning and patterning based on initial stimulus, rather than ‘planning’.
3. Non-hunter cluelessness (from Jacob). I certainly didn’t say ‘all non-hunters are clueless about their environment’ and I didn’t say that you would have to be a hunter to do so. My intent was to show that by and large licensed hunters can do so in much higher percentages than the non-hunting population.
4. Natural population balancing (from Jacob). Agreed. Nature WILL and DOES manage itself without human intervention. Since there is NO possibility of man going away - there is no way to ‘autobalance’ anymore. Hence the role of hunter training as a contributing factor to wildlife management.
5. Understanding of Nature (from Jacob). Also agreed. Hunters don’t ‘need’ to understand the balance of nature - but amongst hunters it is an integral and fundamental component to the pastime. The depth of that understanding plays in terms of selecting areas to hunt, recognizing habitat, and calling in game. Recognition of bag limits inherently transfers knowledge above and beyond the likely understanding of the average citizen.
6. Sport hunting (from Jacob). You want sport hunting? I still stand by my desire to see someone practice catch and release bear hunting. (Paintball counts too - but it’s classified as “Harrassment” of wildlife.
I love it when smart people comment on blogs.
Thanks everyone!
“Also, if you want to make it a “sport”. Don’t take a gun, try and touch the deer.”
Haha - I’m picturing a group of adults in camouflage, trying to sneak up on wildlife and start a massive game of hide-and-seek!
Another option - shoot the animals with a camera!
Yep - Camera is always around - and I do that too.
Very interesting discussion - wow! Guess I’m a hunter by some definition…..I’m often shooting things, wildlife and people included - my weapon is a Nikon D70s. You have an appreciation of nature and do a lot of positives from the fish a wild-life aspect such as stream restorations and the re-stocking of these places. This is preservation and conservation of a species and most citizens couldn’t be bothered to expend the time and energy that this requires. You also do not hunt to excess and you eat what you catch - no trophy hunting. Hunting is not for everyone, myself included. This is something you choose and enjoy the tracking and outdoors as much as anything I think. Also part of the joy of hunting.