A Tradition Reconsidered

Jan. 6, 2017

I know this won’t be popular, but IMO, sport hunting should be considered repugnant. All emotional justifications for hunting need to be weeded out of our culture, much the way we have (for the most part) uprooted our old romantic attachments to the practice of slavery. I think a time will come when people will see the old 21st Century photos of exhilarated hunters and their dead victims as almost unimaginably primitive. Sport hunting needs to lose its halo of naturalness and quasi-spiritual self-improvement. Ultimately, it needs to be criminalized.

Yes, that seem like a stretch. But humanity has made a lot of long stretches in our time here. Do you think we’ve advanced as far as we can? I don’t. Do you think our ideas of right and wrong have reached a level of perfection? Do you think our ability to solve hard problems, even hard problems of human nature, has exhausted itself? I don’t.

We do sometimes need to control animal populations through slaughter. And if it’s okay to raise livestock as food (which I believe it is), it is okay to kill wildlife for use as food. But this should be conducted in the most humane, dispassionate, solemn ways we can come up with. For starters, no one should be allowed to participate in this who enjoys it.

We can allow ourselves to desire and love the killing of animals. We can allow others to desire and love it. But we don’t have to. I think we can want something better than that, and I think we can figure out how to bring it about.

Anyone who says these ideas are reaching too far, asking us to change traditions too dear to the hearts of too many, and proposing practices that would be very, very hard to devise, implement and enforce is, I would argue, not trying very hard. Use your imagination. Have some confidence in the proven ingenuity and adaptability of humans. Loving the pleasure we feel when surprising and killing an animal—that’s not one of the wonderful aspects of human nature, is it? Can’t we do better? Can’t we want adults to have the same natural empathy and mercy for animals that most children do? Don’t you believe we have the intelligence to figure out how solve the practical problems these changes would require? I do.

Aren’t there enough other recreations available to us, enough other nostalgic reminders of pioneer times or times with our fathers, enough other ways to enjoy the thrills and sublimities of being outdoors? I think there are.

James J Gavin: You want to social engineer thoughts and emotions? That is sooo R-W.

Tom Beaver: Wait, what is R-W? I definitely want to engineer thoughts and emotions. Not the way totalitarians and evil scientists do, but the way parents and writers and comedians (and so on) do.

James J Gavin: R-W = Right Wing. It just does not sound like you, Tom.

Tom Beaver: Well, maybe I’m not being clear enough. Cultures and ideas evolve, and much of this evolution is the deliberate work of unconventional thinkers, writers and artists influencing society to use its head a little better.

There was a time in America when slavery was widely held to be God’s gift to white Americans and a way to ennoble a savage race. We came to see it differently. There was a time when people at all levels of society would die to defend the divine right of kings. Times when people of every intellectual type scoffed at the idea of women voting in elections. A time when the natural and universal rights of man was crazy talk. We came to see all these things differently.

I’m saying let’s reexamine our inherited ideas about hunting. I would bet real money that the people of the future will think we were nuts and a little sadistic, killing our living treasures this way, just as we ourselves have a dim opinion of the people who slaughtered buffalo almost to the point of extinction, and called it good fun. Why will the people of the future think that way? Because some of us between now and then will have pushed our imaginations, and the conversation, and what parents teach their children, and government policy, in that direction.

James J Gavin: I would encourage you to read A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold. Leopold was a hunter and land owner and also a biologist by education and a journalist by trade. He had a plot of land in Sand County, Wisconsin where he constantly tinkered with food plots and water holes to maximize population growth for wildlife. To make a long story short he used personal observations and scientific studies to show that wildlife populations do better when land is set aside for their population development. Leopold demonstrated what to do and the hunting population responded through land donations and hunting fees developed a system of Federal and State protected areas and in particular the protection of migratory waterfowl. In other words it was hunters who created the conservation movement. It was hunters who created wildlife refuges where the American Bison now roam. Hunting is highly regulated to sustain wildlife populations and it is hunting fees that help maintain wildlife areas.

Tom Beaver: That all sounds great. Even greater (IMO) would be accomplishing all that without allowing hunting as a sport. All our knowledge of sustaining wildlife populations could be carried over. We could even allow hunters to stalk the animals and shoot them with virtual bullets. What we remove from the equation is the actual slaughter of animals for sport. Any necessary killing would be done by professionals, and would be done in a way that removes as much as possible any possibility or semblance of enjoying that process. I believe the killing of any animal should be a regrettable and solemn exercise.

An alternate approach to keeping the slaughter solemn, dutiful and respectful rather than enjoyable might be to allow, or even require, non-professionals to take part in it from time to time. It would not be conducted with guns and stalking, but by hand, with appropriate armor and mechanical assistance as needed. The idea being that if we must kill an animal, we should experience to some degree the terribleness of it. Feel the animal’s strength, its personality, its will to live. Know in your bones that what you’re doing is ending some creature’s experience of consciousness and desire.

Only people who have passed a psychological test would be allowed to participate in this solemn act of duty. If there’s any chance that person would find the experience thrilling, they’re excluded.

IMO we should think of any wild animal as we think of our pets. If the internet has taught me anything, it’s that animals of the most surprising shapes and sizes are more like a dog or cat than unlike them.

Brigit Shari Drake: that’s rather Orwellian don’t you think?

James J Gavin: Tom Beaver People like Ted Nugent, the Trump kids, that Minnesota dentist, are outliers from normal hunters and give hunters a bad name. Generally speaking, Ted Nugent is an outlier with most human behavior. Game Hogs have always been bad for the sport and are also outliers. Missouri has a program for sportsmen to turn in game thief’s which also protect wildlife populations from over harvesting from criminal behavior. Hunting is an honorable sport that requires knowledge and skill. There are several communities in St Louis County that have looked at chemical sterilization and trapping to control deer over populations and found those programs cost prohibitive whereas selective hunting consistently proves to be less expensive and more efficient. Because of the system of wildlife areas created and supported by hunters for the preservation and conservation of wildlife IMHO regulated hunting will always be legitimate sport.

Tom Beaver: Jim, I’m not saying hunters are bad people or that the conservation efforts we have aren’t good. I’m saying we can do even better. I’m saying it’s a terrible thing to kill an animal and therefore should not be a sport. I think we can accomplish all the good things conservation and hunting accomplish for animals and for the environment, but without the hunting. If so, wouldn’t that be better?

The fact that hunters help to fund conservation is a wonderful thing. It would be wonderful no matter who did it. But it doesn’t mean that everything else they do is wonderful. If taking the life of a game animal is as sad and serious as taking the life of a household pet (as I think it is), that remains true no matter how many wonderful things a given person does for the world.

So I would say hunter-funded conservation is a good thing, just not the best we can do. As soon as we can do the better thing, we won’t need this one anymore.

If we could get, say, wildlife photographers to fund conservation instead of hunters, that would be better. I’m not saying we could. I’m not arguing a particular plan or basing the goal on whether or not we now how to achieve it. I’m just saying let’s have the best goal we can think of, then try to bring it about.

James J Gavin: Tom Beaver I am a bit confused, what would be gained for society in general by banning law abiding citizens from hunting?

Tom Beaver: I am basing all this on the idea that killing animals is a terrible thing. If that’s true, it’s something society should want to stop doing whether there’s anything to be gained from it or not.

But I do think there’s something to be gained by stopping the killing of animals. One, the satisfaction of knowing our fellow creatures are not having their lifetimes cut short by us. Two, a bigger heart, or a less obstructed integration of our sympathies and our actions—it’s hard to get this into words without a lot thought And revising. I mean something similar to what we mean when we say that the way a society treats its dead is measure of how it treats it’s living. Most of us start life loving animals and feeling a deep empathy for them. This becomes dulled as we grow older, partly by the fact that adults have to be practical, have to do what the here and now requires of us. When people have to hunt and butcher animals to survive, they don’t have the luxury of thinking of every animal as a creature with desires and feelings, the way we easily do with our pets and horses—or even with a farm animal, especially if it’s one we don’t think we’ll have to butcher someday. But wild animals and livestock animals do have the same inner life we see in our pets. Numbing ourselves to that reality is like any other numbness—it makes us less than our full selves. A world in which we no longer have to numb a large part of our empathetic nature would, I believe, make us larger people. When I think of every bird, squirrel, mouse as an animal I could interact with, have fun with, become a friend to, it’s like the whole world takes on the happiness of a dog park. But it also gives me pain, because I then think about every cow and chicken that way, too. To be able to stand that, I numb myself to that awareness. I think most of us do. It makes us able to tolerate the nightmare of so many innocent beings living short, miserable lives, but it also deprives us of that happiness and richness I mentioned. And I think it also twists our minds a little—having to harden our emotions that way and rationalize away our natural impulse to care for animals like we did as children. Guess that’s the best argument I can make right now. I’m typing on my iPad and can’t polish the ideas like I would prefer.

James J Gavin: The killing of humans is a terrible thing. There is a clear distinction between humans and animals, IMHO. While anthropomorphism is a strong force in human psychology it should be tempered with a clear distinction between mythology and hard science. I am not a hunter but that does not mean that I will never hunt because I like the taste of wild game. If hunting is a way to keep some people engaged in the outdoors then so be it.

Tom Beaver: I’m not anthropomorphizing, though. I’m just saying I feel about any animal like I do my dog, or at least believe I should. If someone tried to hurt my dog, I’d fight them. That doesn’t mean I think my dog has the same experience of consciousness and emotion that people do. But I do believe she would suffer if someone hurt her. I believe she would fight or try to escape for all she’s worth, and it’s painful to think of someone hunting her down with a weapon. I’m sure you must feel that way about your dog, too. If we shouldn’t care about a wild animal being chased down and killed, why should we care about our dogs that way?

Tom Beaver: Jim Gavin Don’t worry if you want to call the convo a wrap at any point. I know this is a long thread. We can always resume it another time.

James J Gavin: Aw, I was having fun. ;^) I know that you were not anthropomorphizing, I just like using the word any chance I get because it is such an awesome word. ;^) I think that we have a copy of “A Sand Co. Almanac” if you want to borrow it. Have a great evening, Tom,I enjoyed the thread.

Tom Beaver: Well, we can continue if you want. There are a lot of other awesome words we haven’t used yet. Fun convo. Have a good evening.

FYI, I’m not saying hunters are bad people. I’m saying hunting served various purposes in the past, but now we can start to retire it.

Brigit Shari Drake: I think trophy hunting may have evolved from the need to control over population in some species such as deer. I’m not condoning sport hunting and I do believe that it is going out of style as we rely more on industry and science. Also social media has an interesting role to play in how we view the world and what we find acceptable. Though virtual reality games can provide an outlet for the desire to hunt big game, it’s not going to be adequate for those who can afford the real thing and those who garner a great deal of peer appreciation, pride and power from the sport. 

Perhaps one day when we can grow meat like we grow hydroponic vegetables, we might be able to disconnect from the need to kill animals. What is the difference between sport fishing and quail hunts and safaris? Does consuming what you eat make hunting OK? 

There are plenty of fictional stories that give different and thought provoking perspectives on these issues.

Tom Beaver: Good questions. It’s complex.

My tentative answers are that we should evolve beyond not just lion hunting and deer hunting, but quail hunting, squirrel hunting, even fishing.

Does eating the meat you kill make hunting OK? Not in my book. It makes it less terrible, but it’s still terrible. If I had to eat my pet dog to survive, or to allow a friend to survive, or even to allow an enemy of the human race to survive—not naming any names here—I would do it. But it would be a horror I’d never forget. Killing a deer or squirrel in the woods should affect me the same way. Or a bluegill in a pond.

And the various associated pleasures don’t change the equation. Yes, fishing is a wonderful experience—the outdoors, the detachment from everyday life and its problems, the memories of fishing with our dads, the skill, the suspense, the achievement, the camaraderie, the campfire or dinner table afterwards, the trophy on the wall.

But it all hinges on killing an animal. Does someone think fish don’t want to keep living as much as we do? They should try catching one with their hands sometime. They should try it on a big fish that has teeth.

“I do believe that it is going out of style as we rely more on industry and science”—I do, too.

Brigit Shari Drake: I think there is a larger picture here that hunting is only a part of as we disconnect from nature. I believe we lose our compassion for people, animals and the earth in general. Isn’t it all a part of how we rape the earth and destroy our environment? How do we teach compassion?

How many people really need to hunt anymore? My dad fed the family and it was honorable and right at the time. There are a lot of old practices that just don’t apply anymore and their relevance changes rather than getting rid of it. It’s all adaptatio.

Brigit Shari Drake: adaptation!

Tom Beaver: Agreementio. Except that I’m saying we should work towards getting rid of hunting. Maybe what you’re saying is that hunting will fade away on its own as times change?