What’s in a name?
In discussions about pro-hunting versus anti-hunting, I put a lot of emphasis on the terms “sport hunting” and “sport hunters”, instead of just saying, “hunting” or “hunters”. I think it’s an important distinction to make, and here’s why.
First of all, as some folks may have seen in the discussion with Bob a few days ago, there’s a standing anti-hunters’ argument that “hunters” are responsible for the wholesale slaughter of species that dates all the way back to the earliest history of this continent. It’s a hard argument to refute, because an awful lot of killing went on back in the days before we knew about extinction, eco-systems, or even the simple fact that “God’s bounty” wasn’t unlimited. We all know about it… the passenger pigeon, Carolina parakeet, bison, eastern elk, whitetail deer, waterfowl… the list is frighteningly long.
“Well, those weren’t hunters,” someone might argue.
I have to disagree. Many of those people were hunters in the most real sense. They hunted to feed their families, whether directly or by commerce. Hunting was for market or for subsistence. Sure, there must have been plenty of folks who enjoyed it. There’s always been more to the hunt than simply filling the smoke pole or the wallet. But a “sport” who hunted solely for recreation was relatively unheard of, and when one did appear, he was generally perceived as an eccentric or a member of the privileged class (usually a correct assumption).
Things, of course, have changed.
The Industrial Revolution came, and right behind it came the 40-hour work week and the eight-hour day. Cash became king and barter became an anachronism practiced in the backwoods. People left the agrarian life and settled into towns and cities, engrossed with the business of industry and of managing money. You could get your meat and produce from the corner market… there was no need to hunt for it any longer. At the same time, a succession of wars improved both the quality and affordability of firearms.
Of course the tradition and spirit of the hunt never left. It just got redirected. There was less need to hunt, but men still did it because they wanted to. With spare time, cash, and the right tools, it was a whole new game now… recreation instead of subsistence.
And this is kind of where this really leads… as sport hunters entered the field, they saw a lot of things, not the least of which was the decimation of game species. Waterfowl that had once clouded the sky and covered the bays were becoming scarce. Deer and turkeys were becoming hard to find (by WWII they were almost completely gone from much of the southeastern US). Theodore Roosevelt urged hunters to get out to the west and hunt the game now, because it wouldn’t be there much longer. Something had to be done, and nobody else was doing it. Sport hunters stepped up.
Most of us know the history from here on. The foundation of the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 1937, Pittman-Robertson Act in 1939, waterfowl regulations, an end to market hunting, state hunting licenses, hunter safety courses… driven by and for sport hunters to conserve the resources, restore habitat, and repair past damages. While it would be naive to say that hunters have supported every change and regulation along the way, it is safe to say that sportsmen have been responsible for a significant amount of positive change.
It’s become something of a mantra for me over time, whenever I’m discussing or debating with non-hunters or antis. Modern, regulated, sport hunting has never been responsible for the loss or destruction of a species. It’s completely arguable, in fact, that sport hunters have had exactly the opposite impact. Sport hunters have driven and or paid for the majority of wildlife success stories in the US, from the restoration of waterfowl, whitetail deer and wild turkeys to the rebuilding and recovery of habitat for many species across the continent.
Even so, I still stress the SPORT aspect of what we’re doing. This is sport. It’s not necessary for us as individuals, no matter how much we may try to justify. We do it for fun, and for recreation. If we don’t kill game, we won’t starve or go broke. I’d say for most modern sport hunters, wild meat makes up less than half of our diets.
Sport hunters are not in the field to manage wildlife. We’re not here because our license fees and excise taxes on our gear pay for the resource, law enforcement, and management programs. Very few hunters hunt primarily because of the safe, chemical-free meat (although many would argue that). These are all benefits of hunting, but we hunt because we want to hunt. We enjoy the sport. There’s no need to justify that.
With all due respect but isn’t it “sporthunting” that most anti hunters use as argument against us. Of course it is. Antis say no animal should be killed for the “sport” of it. Also in my case I would be a little offended if someone would call me a sporthunter. I am born into hunting and that makes it for me a way of life because I cannot imagine ever being without it. I simply do not know any different and have no other interests in my life other than work, my family and friends.
Personally I prefer simply hunter and if someone like Bob accuses me of something our forefathers did then I will simply tell him that today hunting is very different, explaining what the difference is, and that I cannot be held responsible for what happened 100 years ago.
-ov-
May 15th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
HSUS loves the term “sport hunting” because it reinforces the image of salivating trogs who kill for fun. The distinction that it is the hunt we do for fun – not the kill – is lost on the general non-hunting public. And me, I don’t want to embrace names that are used against me.
If we need to distinguish between the hunters of old who hunted species to extinction and us, I prefer the term “modern” or “regulated.”
May 15th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I agree with NorCal and Othmar. While I see where you are coming from Phillip, I will not call my passion for hunting a sport. By doing that it is lumped in with a whole aspect of activities that I think hunting is distinctly different from.
I also, as Norcal said, will not embrace a name that is used against me. By using the term “sport” we are lumped together as bloodthirsty killers rather than hunters.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:10 am
You do have a point Phillip, most people hunt because they enjoy the challenge and the quality of meat they get as a result, and not becuase it is a necessity if they want to keep food on their table.
Still, I think calling it sport hunting does offer a huge opening for the anti hunting brigade. As NorCal said, it projects an image of people who are just out to shoot animals without regard for anything else.
I don’t know that justification of why someone hunts is necessary, but I do believe that explaining why people hunt can’t hurt. The more people who understand why hunting is appealing and what benefits it brings, the more people that will support hunting in the future.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Quite simply put,
Sport Hunting! is what the “legal” definition of what we do is, and what we are about.
All of the fringe benefits of this “Legally Defined Sport of Hunting” include all of your above comments and then some.
Especially, the monetary benefits which the states currently enjoy from all of our licensing fees, excise fees and taxes, heavily taxed ammunition, sporting clubs clothing and gear etc.etc.
If I were to argue this point in a court of law against the anti-hunting community the crux of my argument would be all of the moneys “lost” if “Sport” hunting were stopped altogether!
And furthermore, until sport hunting is outlawed, I am very proud to call myself a “Sport Hunter” !
May 16th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Read “The Wilderness Hunter” by Theodore Roosevelt. Awesome book, and very insightful reading about the period of history that directly followed the era in which many of our natural resources began to disappear. Roosevelt was no fool and he predicted much of what we see today.
At any rate, it’s a great book to read.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:01 am
[...] What’s in a name? [...]
May 16th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Thanks Blake, I’ve actually read several of Mr Roosevelt’s books, including the Wilderness Hunter, and it paints a pretty interesting picture. He was one of the most vocal (of course look at the pulpit he had)sport hunters when folks first started to realize that changes needed to be made.
It wasn’t market hunters who initiated those changes (although one of the first game wardens in the US was a “converted” market hunter), it wasn’t professional hunters, and it wasn’t subsistence hunters. It was sport hunters. People who hunt for the sake of hunting, for fun and for diversion.
And yeah, we can and do just call it “hunting”, on a regular basis. I’m not saying to change a thing. And call yourself whatever you like. But there’s a distinction to make, and it’s precisely BECAUSE the anti-hunters want to make “sport hunting” look bad that I believe in pointing out that is those “sport hunters” who are responsible for the positive changes in the resource and habitat.
And as to this:
No, Arthur. We are lumped together as bloodthirsty killers because we are hunters… by ANY name. You can call yourself Jose if you want, and the antis are still going to lump you together with other hunters, market, professional, and sport.
As far as to whether any of you are “sport hunters” or not… well, that’s for another post.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Appeasement, will only facilitate more of the privilege grabbing, which the antis already are doing in abundance weather we try and reason with them or not!
The hard and established facts will be the only way to stop the antis in their tracks, the thing to remember is that these people, when finished with one anti-agenda will quickly move on to the next. It is just a way of life for them to protest one privilege then the next right, then attacking our blessings of liberty and so forth and so on.
We still have to present our argument as: “Sport Hunting” Brings In Revenue And Preserves Resources and Habitat.
Stopping, Sport Hunting will only cut off much needed revenue and poaching will increase to astronomical levels because people who enjoy hunting will do it anyway, legal or not.
Also, do the antis have any organization which helps to fund habitat preservation and keep herd numbers up to balanced levels like our current D.F.G. system does?
The now overpopulated Mt. Lion numbers are direct evidence that the antis do not have any solid contingency plan to ensure a proper balance between predator and prey.
Since Theodore Roosevelt and John Mueirs plan seems to be working, for over (80 years now) I believe!
Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke!
Next time the State of California’s premier anti, Senator Diane Feinstein, begins talking about more restrictive gun laws ask why she still holds a carry permit when we could not get one if “our” lives were blatantly threatened.
***And the reason I bring up Ms. Feinstein is that she is gearing up for yet another attack upon the hunting community with several anti hunting issues she will be pushing hard for this year.
Educated and factual information backed by solid scientific evidence, along with exactly how much revenue the State would lose if it stopped Sport Hunting altogether, is the only way to win this battle against the anti hunting ,animal rights agenda.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:53 pm