I am a hunter, yet I do not like to kill animals

[Jonathan Hanson]

Vince, I’ll accept that you don’t want to provoke or inflame. Nevertheless, however politely, you made the case that hunting is essentially an atavistic, indefensible part of our instinctive past that should naturally fade away in a civilized society. I disagree. Furthermore, hunting as an important facet of wildlife conservation goes far beyond license fees and the inarguable good they do.

Obviously you disagree philosophically with hunting, so we’ll probably never agree on the basic premise. But in your arguments you made several broad-stroked statements that were little more than speculation, and a couple that were simply wrong.

First, you wrote:

I think the hunting and killing of wild animals will ultimately be viewed as unenlightened, primarily because it is usually not a humane act.

Not humane by comparison to what? Do you think when a deer is killed by a cougar or coyotes, or dies of starvation or disease, that that is easier on the deer? What natural death that a deer could experience do you think would be easier or faster than a well-placed bullet? Only if a likely alternative death would be easier on the animal can you claim that death by hunter is inhumane.

Then, you make this statement:

But, on balance, IMO the professional slaughter houses accomplish the minimum of pain more than the hunter.

Sorry, but that is wildly false. I refer you to Michael Pollan’s excellent book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, for a horrifying account of what cattle experience courtesy of modern mass-production methods - callous cruelty that does not begin at the slaughterhouse but months beforehand. That’s my definition of inhumane. A deer I shoot lives a full and natural life up until the instant I kill it. Which life would you pick?

You mention the human-caused imbalance of nature. First, the "balance of nature" is a myth promulgated by those who know nothing about evolution or biology. The natural world has always been a dynamic, constantly changing system. With that said, the fact that a certain species’ overabundance might be caused by man is irrelevant. The overabundance is there, and realistically we’re not going to reintroduce a perfect suite of predators to take care of it in every place it occurs.

Vince, you mention how good it is that some hunters feel remorse. Sorry, wrong word. Remorse implies regret. I don’t regret killing an animal for food, even though the death does make me temporarily sad. Big difference.

Finally, your remarks about civilization moving on to a more "enlightened" plane actually spell what could finally be the death of the wild, not just of hunting. The more we remove ourselves from closeness to the natural world – whether that closeness be through hunting, birdwatching, fishing, or whatever - the less we care about it. A hunter, even one who enjoys killing, is apt to do much more to preserve habitat and wildlife than your more "enlightened" human living in a 60th-floor apartment in New York and eating bean curd.

Even though you might dislike hunting, Vince, you should keep in mind what wildlife biologists recognize as axiomatic: It is the species that matters, not the individual animal. Individual deaths might be sad and even wrong to you, but hunters do more than their share to ensure the continued existence of many species of animals, and a whole lot of habitat.

 

[Haggis]

Well said, sir. Well said indeed.

 

[VikingVince]

Jonathan,

I'll respond because your statements are not in concert with the main ideas of what I said. Furthermore, none of my statements are "wrong" anymore than your statements are "right" because they are subjective expressions of opinion within a philosophical context. You're right we will likely never agree...it's somewhat like arguing the abortion debate. (Is it killing or isn't it? The two sides will never agree)

Not humane by comparison to what? Do you think when a deer is killed by a cougar or coyotes, or dies of starvation or disease, that that is easier on the deer? What natural death that a deer could experience do you think would be easier or faster than a well-placed bullet?

This is essentially not relevant. It's not humane by comparison to the fact that humans can think, rationalize, and make choices regarding their behavior. The wild animal cannot...the cougar, by its very nature, has to attack the deer to survive. We do not. Of course the deer experiences a painful death in the examples you chose. That is the natural process.

Only if a likely alternative death would be easier on the animal can you claim that death by hunter is inhumane.

This is simply faulty reasoning. An alternative death easier on the animal doesn't make death by hunter a humane act. Death is often a painful process for both human and animal. I don't know of a likely alternative, less painful death for a deer other than instant death. Yes, the bullet can be a means of instant death, but IMO, more often than not this is not the case. Most hunter kills are not instant death. If the deer struggles for a minute or longer after being hit by the bullet, that is less humane than the near instant death of the cougar breaking the neck. As I said, we have a choice; the cougar does not.

I refer you to Michael Pollan’s excellent book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, for a horrifying account of what cattle experience courtesy of modern mass-production methods - callous cruelty that does not begin at the slaughterhouse but months beforehand. That’s my definition of inhumane. A deer I shoot lives a full and natural life up until the instant I kill it. Which life would you pick?

Because the deer leads a full and natural life is the very reason I would not shoot it and unnecessarily destroy that wild animal Spirit. I recognize some of the undesirable aspects of production cattle lots and chicken farms. But there is also a difference in animal Spirit between wild animals and animals raised solely for consumption. Ultimately I do tend to think that the most enlightened way to exist on the planet might be vegetarian...but I haven't gotten that far in my own evolution.

the fact that a certain species’ overabundance might be caused by man is irrelevant.

I couldn't disagree more. In some places, man has intentionally created a species overabundance for the very purpose of hunting and generating revenue for the state. (elk in NM for example) Ethical? Not in my opinion.

Finally, your remarks about civilization moving on to a more "enlightened" plane actually spell what could finally be the death of the wild, not just of hunting. The more we remove ourselves from closeness to the natural world – whether that closeness be through hunting, birdwatching, fishing, or whatever - the less we care about it.

I never suggested or implied in any way, shape, or form that we remove ourselves from nature. The more we embrace nature, the better. However, the difference between birdwatching and killing wild animals is obvious to me.

A hunter, even one who enjoys killing, is apt to do much more to preserve habitat and wildlife than your more "enlightened" human living in a 60th-floor apartment in New York and eating bean curd.

I never made any such implication in my original statement. Apparently, to say the least, you don't embrace the word "enlightened." Understandable. You are simply insulting my point of view...I will not likewise respond.

Even though you might dislike hunting, Vince, you should keep in mind what wildlife biologists recognize as axiomatic: It is the species that matters, not the individual animal. Individual deaths might be sad and even wrong to you, but hunters do more than their share to ensure the continued existence of many species of animals, and a whole lot of habitat.

Yeah, tell that to the species that have nearly been hunted out of existence. Biologists also make the case that the continued existence of some species would be better ensured by no hunting whatsoever. Of course that doesn't apply to overabundant deer and elk populations.

Finally, I have received several PM's from forum members who support my point of view but do not want to express it on this forum. Hmmmm...interesting...

 

[WhereTheHellIsJames?]

The amount of respect that I have for many of the members of this forum is great, and I personally find it very refreshing to read such honest and well thought out philosophies as to one’s mores, morals, and values regarding hunting, as well as the interesting views that folks have about animal mortality. Though there is no 'one' right answer, these are all really excellent posts from several different points of view regarding the topic at hand as it has strayed from the original; which is that some, if not most, feel saddened when taking the life of an animal, weather one believes that hunting is an appropriate act or not.


:camping:
*Peace*

 

[SEREvince]

First of kudos to Jonathan for expressing so well the way I feel towards hunting and the harvesting of animals.

To the OP: Hunters share a connection wth the wildlife and nature that an "observer" will never fully grasp. I do experience a deep feeling of gratitude when I harvest an animal cleanly. Accordingly I offer a small prayer of thanks for the animals that I have harvested and treat the resulting bounty with respect. To not feel anything would, to me, indicate a problem.

I would also point out that without the "un-enlightened" hunters out there past and present, there would be far more extinct species and far less habitat set aside for the preservation of said species.

Those cows and soy beans contribute exponentially more to the death of wildlife that even the most ardent hunter could ever achieve in a lifetime. All of the land used to feed us, used to be habitat for some species. The pesticides used to protect the crops and the water used for livestock and crops all contribute to the death of wild species. Yet the individual harvesting of wild animals for food is "un enlightened"?

Cheers

Vince

 

[7wt]

Finally, I have received several PM's from forum members who support my point of view but do not want to express it on this forum. Hmmmm...interesting...

That is because you are the preacher to their chior. Trying to make the argument that hunting is imoral negates the whole concept of morality. When man has little more to do than argue the nebulousity of his existance he start fogging the line of that very existance. Hunting in it's own right is not nor ever will be imoral. Morality is not something to be debated, it is either right or wrong. The mear fact that you argue the counter point proves that it is not a matter of morality but your own opinion. An opinion that I respect for it's well presented and thoughtful points but disagree with non the less. I know you do not wish to offend but it is offensive to suggest that ones "total man" is not developed due to his desire to hunt. I would argue that the closer a man gets to who he is and not what he thinks he has to become is the enlightened man.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

As a moderator it's time I recused myself from this thread. However, Vince, you came into a section of the forum that was designed as a meeting place for those who hunt, not as a podium for those who are against it. Dan's original question was directed at fellow hunters, not anti-hunters, so you can't really come in here and tell us how wrong hunting is and then accuse me of insulting you when I point out your mistakes. Your conclusions about humaneness are subjective based on your prejudices, and simply wrong. Whether it is a human with an IQ of 150 or a cougar killing the deer is irrelevant to the deer - the only thing it knows is what it feels.

And,

But there is also a difference in animal Spirit between wild animals and animals raised solely for consumption.

Um, you got any scientific evidence for that? It's an extremely convenient excuse for continuing to support an inhumane industry.

 

[Spikepretorius]

It's such a great pity that any thread on hunting is reduced to a debacle within a short time. Particularly one as thought provoking and sensitive as this one. Where can an ethical hunter go to discuss his interest?

(I'm not a hunter!)

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

I agree, and I hope we can move this back to a discussion between hunters who obviously care about the animals they hunt.

One thing I'd like to hear comments on, and this is a bit of a challenge on my own part: I hear frequently from hunters who say they no longer hunt deer but still hunt birds, or who don't hunt but fish. It seems to me this hierarchy of justification is probably not a good thing. If it's not okay to hunt deer but okay to hunt birds, is it okay to hunt rabbits? Javelina? It seems to set up hunting in general for a slippery slope.

It's an intensely personal thing, and I imagine everyone is subject to it on some level. For example, I personally could never shoot an elephant unless it was in the course of some badly needed cull. Yet I realize that elephant hunting is bringing a tremendous amount of money to southern African communities, and is a driving force behind continued elephant conservation in those areas.

For me the line might be drawn at those animals that evolved as prey and are good to eat. I don't hunt predators. But with elephants their obvious intelligence is the factor.

 

[Streakerfreak]

It's such a great pity that any thread on hunting is reduced to a debacle within a short time. Particularly one as thought provoking and sensitive as this one. Where can an ethical hunter go to discuss his interest?

(I'm not a hunter!)

Hence why I did not speak up about MY feelings toward hunting. I told the story I knew about my future father in law that was relavent to the OP and that was it. I did not want to get into a big discussion on a thread that was not about if hunting is right or wrong. PMs work better for that kind of discussion in my opinion. Personally I would love to sit around a camp fire and discuss this, as that is always the best way to get a point across.

 

[HongerVenture]

Regarding the original post...
This is an excellent thread. I'm glad to hear of other's sadness upon taking an animal life. I've always wanted to hunt and got my first opportunity last year. Didn't come back with a kill... but came back with a desire to get out in the woods and try again, if for nothing else than the time spent surrounded by nature for so long in solitude. However, the whole time I was out there I wondered if I'd pull the trigger if/when a dear came within range. I'm not sure how'll I'll feel when I make my first kill, but I look forward to experiencing that.

This thread only affirms that those feelings are natural, and part of the experience.

A quick story...
I recall as a teenager shooting one of the neighborhood cats with my BB gun. It was an un-spayed tomcat that had wounded our cat several times. My mother authorized me to use my BB gun on low power to discourage his presence in our yard. I recall the first time I shot him... he fell over on the spot and I was so scared. I ran over to the cat and found no blood, no wound, just a stunned cat. I had knocked the wind out of him and when he gathered his wits he took off. After a couple more encounters like that he began to stay out of our yard. I think this episode is why I'm unsure of how I'll handle finally killing a dear.

One final note...
On the humane nature of industrial slaughterhouses vs. hunting game. In my limited reading and understanding of the mass production of meat products for Western consumption, there is very little humane about the overall process. In addition, mass production of meat products is a very unsustainable and ecologically disruptive practice. Even if the process was humane for the collective herd of cattle, overall it is very inhumane to the "environment." They are a large point-source of air and water pollution. If more people hunted game and relied less on packaged meats, the cumulative effect would be far more humane for the environment and animal species overall. At least those are my limited observations.

 

[Dave]

One thing I'd like to hear comments on, and this is a bit of a challenge on my own part: I hear frequently from hunters who say they no longer hunt deer but still hunt birds, or who don't hunt but fish. It seems to me this hierarchy of justification is probably not a good thing. If it's not okay to hunt deer but okay to hunt birds, is it okay to hunt rabbits? Javelina? It seems to set up hunting in general for a slippery slope.

Around here, folks quit deer hunting because the land prices have been driven up, so it's not as easy to get permission to hunt private land unless you're writing a big check to the land owner. My uncle quit rifle hunting years ago when someone set up on him way too close on public land. He only bow hunts his private land now.

I've never been too interested in deer hunting, but duck hunting is something I enjoy immensely. It is a family tradition. Just about everyone in my family is involved somehow, either in the actual hunt, the brushing of the blind, the cooking of the harvest, or by donating time and money to conservation organizations that are focused on preserving the resource and it's habitat. Everyone in my family has carved duck decoys sitting on shelves or beautiful prints of duck scenes hanging on the walls of homes. There is a clear admiration and respect for waterfowl in every house. I've been going to our families duck woods since I was able to take breath, but I never truly appreciated waterfowl until I sat in the blind and watched a flock of mallards circle the decoys and pitch in. I will never forget the first time I a group of birds to respond to my call. I'm not just watching birds fly in circles, I'm interacting with them. Having a conversation with a duck in it's native tongue as it tries to decide on whether or not to land amongst my decoys is not something I expect to ever get tired of.

I do experience sadness when a bird is dropped. That bird died because of me or because of someone sitting to my left or right. The gravity of that situation is not lost on me. That sadness is multiplied exponentially if the kill is not quick. "Cripples" are my absolute least favorite part of duck hunting. Every year I work to improve my aim in an effort to reduce the number of cripples I am responsible for. I take shots that are within my range. This year I am training a dog to retrieve my birds so that cripples are less likely to flee and so that they can be dispatched faster. I am trying.

I've learned a lot about the world around me simply by sitting in a boat seat watching the sky. As much as I've learned sitting out there, I've left the duck blind with even more questions, amazement, and respect for the natural world. I don't know if I would have learned those lessons or asked those questions without being part of a hunt. I'd hate to see that go away for generations that have not yet had a chance to experience it.

And Jonathan, please do not remove yourself from this discussion simply because you are a moderator. It is hard telling where this thread would have gone if you had not participated.

 

[VikingVince]

This thread was started by a young man who was having conflicting thoughts and feelings about hunting and killing.

I think every post in this thread, mine included, is in concert with that original post. IMO, this thread has stayed totally on topic. Creating a platform to preach? No one in this thread has done that. If one is going to give responses to the original post, it's only natural that your reasoning is included. To call anyone's posts in this thread preaching, is simply putting down the messenger because you don't like the message.

This forum prides itself in being a place where different ideas can be exchanged respectfully. Different ideas include both sides of an issue.

Over and Out.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Dave, as a southern Arizona boy I've never had the pleasure of a classic duck hunt. We occasionally are able to put up a few at cattle tanks down here, but it's a comical Laurel and Hardy sort of endeavor, not the stuff you see on the cover of Sports Afield!

How do you recover a duck from the middle of a cattle tank with no dog? A Hula Hoop and a long piece of string . . .

 

[7wt]

One thing I'd like to hear comments on, and this is a bit of a challenge on my own part: I hear frequently from hunters who say they no longer hunt deer but still hunt birds, or who don't hunt but fish. It seems to me this hierarchy of justification is probably not a good thing. If it's not okay to hunt deer but okay to hunt birds, is it okay to hunt rabbits? Javelina? It seems to set up hunting in general for a slippery slope.

With me it's not a matter of hierachy, it is a matter of interest. I grew up deer hunting but never really was smitten with it.

I do see your point however. I know people that hunt only birds because they believe it is wrong to kill a deer. It doesn't matter what you take, you are still taking a life be it a bird or a deer.