Nov 08
13
To hunt or not to hunt…
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.
)
