What’s in a name… Part II
Due to the extent of this response, I felt it better to include as a new post rather than an extended comment. Note the original post for reference.
Why the resistance to calling a spade a spade, and facing up to the fact that what we do is sport hunting… hunting for sport? To borrow from Arthur’s original “Why I Hunt” challenge post (which is where this is all started, of course), he quoted a really eloquent statement from a Mr. Shane Mahoney.
“The task at hand is to articulate the relevance of hunting; not its correctness, nor its practical service to human kind. Rationalizing the mythology is both a tactical error and a diminishment of pride. Lies and excuses usually are.”
Why the squeamishness with being honest about what we’re doing out there?
With all due respect, nobody reading this blog (or any blog) hunts because you “have to”. It is not a matter of survival for most modern humans. In fact, there aren’t all that many subsistence hunting cultures left in the world… especially on this continent.
We are not market hunters, killing for profit. We are not professional hunters, hired by government or private agents to target specific animals for a salary or bounty. And we’re not subsistence hunters, living off the land (or if you are, and you’re still reading this blog, your lifestyle is by choice and about as authentic as Thoreau’s little “living deliberately” experiment at Walden). We are sport hunters, and we do what we do because it brings us pleasure and diversion.
To those who’ve responded to the original post, Holly, Arthur, Othmar, and Kristine, I’ve read your blog posts about why you hunt (or why you’re considering it). They’re nicely written and well-worded, but every single one of them essentially points to the pleasure you get from the hunt, whether from the experience in nature, the diversion from the day-to-day, or from the fine and healthy meat you obtain. Or, as Arthur concludes in reason number seven, “I hunt because it’s fun!”
And guess what? In the eyes of the anti-hunters, that means you get pleasure from killing things. No matter how you want to spin it, or turn it, or justify and rationalize… that’s what you all just said.
Of course, what the anti-hunter doesn’t quite get is that the hunt is not equal to the kill.
You’ve all read that poor, old, over-utilized Ortega y Gassett quote about how “one doesn’t hunt in order to kill…etc.”, and despite its simplicity we recognize the truth of it. But Senor Ortega y Gassett wrote a lot more in that little book of his (a great reading exercise, although his philosophy gets a little convoluted from time to time, his points come through brilliantly).
One other thing he says stands clear for it’s very succintness. “The hunter is a death dealer.”
We can twist and turn and contort ourselves and our reason to any extent, but we cannot avoid that simple truth. And that simple truth is where our way and the way of the anti-hunter diverge. It is the key element that separates hunter from non-hunter… our willingness to kill, even when, as modern humans, we don’t have to.
We can’t hide from it, and we can’t cover it up like a cat turd in the litter box. Nor should we. It’s what we do. It has nothing to do with anything else the hunt might mean to us. If we’re not out there to kill something, we’re not hunting. And if we weren’t enjoying the hunting experience, we wouldn’t be out there.
It all harkens back to that discussion we had months ago about our choices of terminology… how we write about the hunt. Did we “harvest” an animal, or did we “kill” it? Was it “taken”, or was it “shot”?
Euphemisms are usually an indication of a guilty conscience. It’s hiding the truth… or hiding from it. They’re disingenuous, and when you’re caught out in one, your credibility is done. At best you come off as an apologist. At worst, you’re seen as a liar. And once that happens, in a discussion or in a debate, every argument you offer up is invalidated.
The anti-hunting faction, HSUS, PETA, ARF, etc. don’t need us to “open up the doors” for them. They’re opening them just fine all by themselves, or making doors where none existed. They use the buzzwords because they know we fear them… “Trophy hunting”, “Sport Hunting,” “Canned hunting,” etc.
They know we’ll retreat, backpeddling and tripping over our boot laces from the image of the hunter as a killer. We’ll start covering up, justifying everything we do by falling back to what Mr. Mahoney called, “rationalizing the mythology.”
Why? We ARE killers because we are hunters. The antis are going to paint that just as black as they can, and it doesn’t matter how you turn it, they’re going to try to nail us for that very simple, but critical point. We kill animals… for fun. Hunters think that’s OK. Anti-hunters don’t. That’s an argument that can never be won.
Then why try to explain ourselves, why even bother with debate? What’s the point?
The point is truth. The point is honesty. The point is that when we’re called out we need to step out into the street boldly, and shoot straight with the facts about who we are and what we do.
The folks I listed earlier, you other bloggers, you’re already doing the right things. You’re explaining why the hunt is important to you, and how the experience goes so much beyond the kill. You describe the conflicted emotions involved in making a kill, and demonstrate that whatever we are, we are not cold-hearted killers. You help your readers see that, unlike the abattoir the anti-hunters portray, the woods and fields of the hunter are a place where, occasionally, a mystical and sometimes spiritual, event takes place.
Of course you’re all handy with the facts as well… the logic and quantifiable information about the benefits of hunting. You’re willing and able to write about the positive aspects of sport hunting (as opposed to market, professional, or subsistence hunting), and the contributions sport hunters have made voluntarily and obliquely to wildlife, habitat, and the economy over the decades. You present this information appropriately, and you’re honest about the fact that these are benefits of the sport, not reasons for participating.
But don’t start painting on extra layers, making out that the hunt is more or less than it really is. And even more importantly, don’t come across as apologetic about killing an animal, because if you really feel that you need to apologize for that, you shouldn’t be hunting in the first place.
I’ve been hunting almost my entire life. Some of my earliest memories were of being carried into the woods, then wrapped in a blanket and set on a stump while my dad shot squirrels. Hunting is ingrained in my life and my being…it’s a part of my very identity. I’ve tried a dozen different times to write about why I hunt, but it’s so much of the fabric of my life that I simply can’t find words to describe it… and that’s saying something.
But as deep as all that runs… as important as hunting is to me… I still recognize that I do it for pleasure, not necessity. If they ended all hunting tomorrow, I’d certainly find myself drifting aimless and sorrowful for a while. But I wouldn’t starve, and I wouldn’t wither away to a husk of soul-less skin and bone. I’d survive, just like all of you.
I am a “Sport Hunter.”
From Dictionary.com
sport – noun
- an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.
- a particular form of this, esp. in the out of doors.
- diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime.
- a sportsman.
- Informal. a person who behaves in a sportsmanlike, fair, or admirable manner; an accommodating person: He was a sport and took his defeat well.
sport – Verb
- to amuse oneself with some pleasant pastime or recreation.
- to play, frolic, or gambol, as a child or an animal.
- to engage in some open-air or athletic pastime or sport.
[...] Arthur NorCal Cazadora Outdoors with Othmar Kristine from Gun Safety Innovations A Blessed Crazy Life Phillip from The Hog Blog [...]
May 16th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Hmmm, that’s a lot to chew on. I’ll have to confess to using the words harvest rather than kill – but I’ve never considered it as backing away from the use of the word kill either…just sometimes it comes out one way and sometimes it comes out another way – I don’t see using the term “harvested” as hiding the truth…in fact, I see a lot of resemblances of a traditional crop harvest and killing an animal – I hope that doesn’t make me a liar to have used both terms. I dunno – I’m finding out that I’ve been happily ignorant for most of my life, anyways…
Here is what I like about this post, though as if you needed to know what I like about it!
You’re very straight forward with no backing down. I admire that.
You explain very well why you reference hunting as “sport hunting” AND why we shouldn’t be ashamed to call it such. Personally, I don’t see why we can’t just call it hunting – as you pointed out, there is no other type of hunting, anymore – or very little, at least – so can’t we call it simply, “hunting” and save us all some breath?
You explain something that I’ve been trying to explain to myself for a while – and I don’t know if you intended to…I’ve always said that I have just as much fun when I kill something as when I don’t on a hunting trip, and that’s a fact – but there is an undeniable thrill when an animal is killed. Call it bittersweet, call it awesome, call it whatever – there is a thrill in that and I think if that thrill is gone, then what are we doing out in the woods? Perhaps you said it best with this:
“it’s so much of the fabric of my life that I simply can’t find words to describe it… and that’s saying something.”
Dang it, yer blogs make me think too much!
May 16th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Wow, there’s a lot to think about there. For myself, and I certainly can’t speak for anyone else, I come at this from a sort of unique position. I don’t hunt yet, and prior to the events of the past few years thought I never would. I stumbled into this new world about which I knew little and discovered a cause about which I am becoming increasingly passionate. I didn’t expect that nor did I have a plan for it.
Yes, killing is part of hunting. It is also part of what makes me say “I don’t hunt, yet”. I haven’t faced that moment when I have to pull the trigger and I can’t predict how I’ll feel when I do come to that place. I know that I understand hunters and hunting and why people hunt a lot differently and, I think, a lot better than I did previously. I also know that I had to be eased into that understanding.
Maybe this is the Marketer in me, but I think you sometimes have to talk about the same subjects in different ways depending on to whom you are speaking. I needed to read some of the more poetic versions of why people hunt before I could process “Becuase it’s fun”. I had to sit with the more gentle euphamism “harvest” before I could be o.k. with “kill”. I also think there is a difference between apologizing for what hunters and anglers do, which is essentially take the life of an animal so they can eat it, and easing those who don’t know much about the activities of hunting and fishing into that idea.
As you say yourself Phillip, hunting has always been a part of your life. It isn’t like that for everyone and I think some people need to be eased into it more gently. That doesn’t mean glossing over the fact that the end result of a good hunt is meat in the freezer, it just means that sometimes we emphasize the other aspects more.
As you say, the anti’s are going to paint hunters and anglers as black as possible no matter what we do or say, that’s a given. The problem is that anti’s are putting out a warm and fuzzy message that is very palatable for a lot of people. The antis don’t come out say that, at the bottom, they put the lives and welfare of animals before that of people, and they sometimes don’t safeguard the animals very well. They tell people that fur is murder and animals have rights and put a cute little bunny in their ad.
I’m not sure what the ultimate answer is to this. From a Marketing standpoint, I think there is a lot that could be done to influence more people to support hunting, and I think some of that involves saying “harvest” instead of “kill”. That is, however, just my opinion.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Thanks, Tom and Kristine.
First things first, Tom, I’m definitely not calling anyone a liar. Not directly, I guess. But there’s a personal honesty, honesty to ourselves, that we really need to be conscious of and treat carefully. It’s important to stop and consider, for example, our real reasons for hunting and the joy we get from the whole experience… including the kill. Then we have to be honest with ourselves, in order to present ourselves honestly to other people. We (hunters) are killers.
Of COURSE there’s a lot more to it than that, but really, the anti-hunters could care less about all that other stuff. They’re honed in on that one thing, killing animals. And they want us to lie about it, to cover it up and hide it and act ashamed. Because if we act ashamed of what we do, then they have us where they want us. “Look,” they’ll say. “The hunters know they’re wrong. Look how hard they try to hide the fact that they’re killing animals.”
I also want to emphasize that many of my comments are not directed at the folks who regularly post on this blog. You guys are pretty much past this… but I still hear it all the time from hunters who want to defend the hunt by claiming to hunt “for the benefit of wildlife.” Others defend the fact that they kill by burying it under so much rationalization that they honestly come off as apologists. “I stroked the soft fur and cried.” “I wept and said a prayer of thanks.”
It’s like they’re sorry they killed the game. And for the most part, I’m pretty sure that’s not the case at all. An astute person will recognize the lies too, and will then wonder why the hunter felt the need to dissemble.
Tom wasn’t here when we had the discussion about “harvest vs. kill”, but Kristine, what I said then stands as my opinion. It is smart, of course, to manage the message based on who it’s for. There’s a line there between sensitivity and bluntness where we need to tread carefully. It doesn’t help your cause if you shut your audience down before you even get the message across.
But there’s also a line between dishonesty and honesty. Marketing and advertising are all about insinuation and hidden truths, and there’s an ethical divide there. Some folks cross it, some don’t. It’s no different when discussing hunting, and if you’re perceived as disingenuous, you’re going to lose the audience.
To paraphrase something you just wrote, sometimes you have to talk about the same subjects in different ways… but that doesn’t mean to talk AROUND them. You can’t skirt the facts, and one of the primary and distinguishing facts of hunting is that the goal is to kill an animal.
But whether you’ve been hunting for a lifetime or a day, there is no gentle “easing into” killing an animal or a bird. It’s not supposed to be gentle. It’s a harsh and sudden thing if you are not at ease with it in your mind.
Maybe what’s getting folks stirred up are that these are the things we seldom speak of in public or in private. The kill… the death of the animal… are the topics we keep locked away, often to ourselves. And maybe that’s the right thing to do. The kill is an individual experience, the emotions and physical reaction to the event are deeply personal and pretty hard to describe.
What goes through your mind when you put that last ounce of pull on the trigger, or as the bowstring slips from your fingers knowing that it’s too late to stop the power you’re about to unleash? How do you feel when you see the creature, mortally hit as it crumples to the ground, its life running out of the bloody hole you made? What are you thinking when the animal lies thrashing out its last moments on the ground? How does it feel when the shot is not a clean, quick kill… when the animal bolts at the shot and disappears from view? What do you do when the blood trail peters out and you have to face the reality of a lost animal?
Tough questions, huh? Trust me, coming up with the answers is just as tough. I know, because these are the kinds of questions I’ve had to answer in discussions with anti-hunters and some non-hunters. They want to know how I can “justify” the killing of an animal… not about the hunt experience, but about the kill.
Can YOU answer those questions, honestly?
May 17th, 2008 at 9:48 am
A lot to digest here and I will re-read everyones post so that I understand it all. Very good comments and Information from everyone.
I believe that I have already given this information to everyone before, but as I approach this mid-life age I find that I have repeated myself quite a lot lately (please bear with me I “am” getting to a forgone point)
Back about 20 years ago a few dog men and women wanted to change the name of the American Pit Bull Terrier to: St Benedict’s Terrier.
They lobbied the U.K.C. and other organizations, spent a lot of money doing so and lost their cause miserably. This being due to the fact that dyed in the wool Pit Bull Fanciers would not relinquish the 200 year old title which the dog had earned through its years of hard service to the men who owned him.
Now, understandably, the reason for the desire of the name change was because of the disparaging public image of the term (PIT) in the dogs name and the negative images which that name would bring to the minds eye.
The A.K.C. however, took in the first (Pit Bull Dog) into its registry (Pete from the old “Spanky and our Gang” movies back in the late 40′s and because, as the above paragraph states, changed the Breed Name of the dog from “Pit Bull Terrier” to “Staffordshire Terrier” And then later changing it yet another time to “American Staffordshire Terrier” so as to not confuse our American terrier with the “English” Version of the dog.
Now, here we are 70 years later and not one single Wild Boar Hunter which I know of will use “any” full bred American Staffordshire Terrier for hunting purposes. This is because the A.K.C. version of the dog has been bred strictly for “show” for the last 70 years and has lost most all of its prey drive and hunting instincts which it originally started with!
If you would like to change the name: Sport Hunter, to something else more benign, then why not lobby the United States Wildlife Services to change our currently legal moniker to something like: GREEN HUNTER!
Because, we certainly create a lot of green, we Sport Hunters do now don’t we?
A significant amount of these green backs are generated by us, and in turn those green backs are spent directly on keeping our National Forests and National Parks and Refuges all in a “Green” state of being.
And as for the term “Harvest” I use it quite frequently as it is an aptly titled term to describe what we Sport Hunters do.
Also, when someone uses the term “Kill” when asking how I could do such a thing to an innocent animal I gently persuade them to please use the term, Harvest as I believe that a person using the “Kill” term is only using such an incendiary word to either start an argument or is completely ignorant of the “facts” concerning Sport Hunting.
Then, I very gently begin educating the person about this sport of hunting and hopefully they will stay for the duration of my oratory lesson.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t, and for those that don’t, I just simply place myself in their shoes and then ask myself these questions:
Could an anti-hunter ever convince me to stop sport hunting by telling me his/her moral/ethical point of view upon the subject?
No! would be my answer each and every time!
Could an anti-hunter ever convince me to stop sport hunting by presenting hard scientific facts that what I was doing was somehow harmful to the animal populations and our environment?
Maybe, if the data was proven truthful!
May 18th, 2008 at 5:01 am
Man…I am not even sure where to start with this one.
I tend to still have a problem with calling hunting a sport. I do realize it doesn’t have to happen, in this day and age, for us to survive, and I do realize that it is an activity that I choose to do, and definitely meets the definition of sport, but it is much more than that for me.
To lump our particular way of life into the same definition, as a baseball player or football player, just doesn’t sit very easy with me. They are two very distinct and different things.
I will never try to hide behind some cloak when it comes to hunting either. I do ultimately do it for a kill, and I will use the word kill, but it is not what the hunt is all about. I won’t sit here, and go to the complete opposite side, and say that I cry over a kill, or pet my kill, but there is a certain remorse that comes with killing an animal. There is also a feeling of pure joy that comes from the kill as well. Knowing that I can provide pure, wholesome food for the table is something to be proud about.
How to explain these emotions to an anti-hunter is a difficult thing that is for sure.
One thing is for certain though Phillip. Your posts always get me thinking!
May 18th, 2008 at 9:16 am
As usual a very well written argument, however I am still not keen on someone calling me a sport hunter and neither do I appreciate to be called a liar (not from you).
As I stated in my comment on your other article and in the article I wrote on my blog. For me hunting is a part of life practically since the day I was born. On the other hand I understand that man by its very nature is a hunter. If that is so, and all research done on human nature and behavior points to that truth, I am simply following my natural ability that is with us for as long as humans exist on this planet.
Just because some people deny that fact of their nature to come to the fore and become domesticated like zoo tigers does not mean I have to bow down too. True there is no need to hunt in order to get food on the table but animals still have to be killed so humans can fulfill all their nutritional values they need to survive in a healthy manner. I am not afraid of the fact that I have to kill to survive. Heck I kill every week over thousand beef so others get meat on their plate.
Animal rights have the hunting instinct, common to all people, too. Just watch them chasing a pesky mosquito buzzing around in their bedrooms and the joy they express when they finally swat the critter. Unlike those that deny that part of their nature and suppress it I endorse it.
Many years ago I came to the conclusion that it is utterly pointless to try and explain anything that has to do with animals to rabbit animal rights. I rather spend my time explaining to the fence sitters and the vast majority that have no opinion on hunting. Over the years I have spoken to thousands of people and the vast majority can see our reasons for hunting. Not all of the people I spoke to became hunters but all view hunting more favorable. My goal is not to convert animal rights, because it can’t be done, but to take the steam out on which they drive. The more people we can educate the less people will fall for the animal rights ignorant-anti-human agenda.
-ov-
May 18th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Maybe that’s all I’m asking here… is for folks to think about what I’m saying. You don’t have to agree without consideration. If I thought you would, I probably wouldn’t have bothered to post it… preaching to the choir and all that.
I understand there’s a certain incendiary nature to the way I’m framing this, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take here. It’s something that gets glossed over and avoided and brushed under the carpet… but seldom is it confronted head on. Why?
This is a pretty important topic, at least to me… and I wonder how many outdoor communicators, even the “big names” take time to think this over. How would they respond?
If you don’t want to consider hunting a “sport”, then short of getting too steeped in semantics, tell me what you would call it. Because the fact is, one of the key challenges from anti-hunters is that same argument… that hunting is not a sport. According to the antis, it has no legitimate purpose whatsoever. Now we all know it has a lot of unintended consequences…that list of benefits we’ve all listed over and over… but we’ve also established that these aren’t the purposes that we hunt.
Think it over. If it’s not a sport, what is it? A hobby? A pastime?
May 18th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Phillip – I am not too concerned what the antis think hunting is because we do know that they will find whatever excuse ridiculing hunting for whatever term for it we might come up with.
All I can tell you is that when I explain hunting to non-hunters and call it “sporthunting” I get not so positive results as when I call it a tradition that goes back to the beginning of times. Or explain that we humans are hunters by our very nature. Even deeply religious people that do not believe in evolution had to agree with me that humans physically and mentally have more in common with a predator (hunter) than with an herbivore.
With that experience under my belt I stick to call it simply “hunting”. The drive, or instinct if you will, to hunt is in all of us. We all hunt in many different ways not necessarily for animals, anyone observing people will detect forms of hunting in their daily lives. To list this behavioral patterns here would take up a lot space, but when I explain it to people they seem to understand perfectly. Sport, especially the ones that involve chasing something like a ball or competitor or involve tackling opponents are hugely popular because these sports are a form of hunting where humans can to a degree satisfy their hunting instinct.
For all these reasons I call it still just “hunting”. Of course I am completely aware that the antis also would disagree with that -when do they not disagree with anything we have to say. But I am not answerable to the antis, or anyone else for that matter, what my motivations and feelings are that make me a hunter. The non-hunters I talk to understand or at least respect me for it and that is good enough for me, because they will take an antis opinion with a large pinch of salt in the future.
-ov-
May 18th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Hi Everyone,
I have re-read your posts and I still have came to the conclusion that most of you, are really not fully understanding the term”Sport Hunting” and why our United States Wildlife Service settled upon this title for what it is that we do!
Arthur, when you stated that some people feel remorse for killing an animal, I believe that it might be in reference to a person whom is first introduced to the hunting and killing of another living and breathing creature. The first stage of becoming a sport hunter is an array of emotions which usually manifest themselves into what can be referred to as remorse.
The second stage of emotional development during the process of learning to hunt would be shooting the first animal which comes into range, because as an immature individual that person has not yet learned control.
The third, and not so final stage, which a developing and more mature hunter would be going through at this point is complete control.
Control, of emotions so that you do not experience “Buck Fever” and also by “not” harvesting the first animal which comes into sight and by patiently awaiting that precise moment.
And, that you are harvesting the right animal. The one which you are sure is mature enough to have bred several times and passed on his wonderful genetics to insure that a sustainable herd is completed, and thriving after his death.
That precise moment in time when you know that everything is completely in place and that you are perfectly balanced mentally, physically and emotionally to kill that particular animal.
Remorse? not from the fully matured and well rounded and come full circle “Sport Hunter”
Traditions, Arthur, are not very solid ground to stand upon! Traditions can be broken and they can be changed or even forgotten over a period of time.
Dogfighting, was legal before 1972 and was intensely steeped in “Tradition” by the deeply traditional southern gentleman. That still did not make it the right thing to be doing.
The slave trade, also was a tradition amongst our colonists and it was not the right thing to do either.
My point is, that using “Tradition” as an argument in support of sport hunting is not a very strong argument.
My above post concerning the American Pit bull Terrier and the people whom tried to bring about a “name change” for the dog is strongly correlated to the debate which we are having here and that is the appropriate name for what we do as fully matured hunters.
Othmar, back in my home state of Florida, in my youth, I have hunted (like yourself ) for Sustenance, I also hunted and Marketed alligator meat and hides. And I have been involved in hundreds of animals which were killed upon Depredation permits here in California.
I still am very proud to now call myself a Sport Hunter and all of the positive things which are associated with that title.
And, also as my above post states, If todays hunters want to change the “legal” title of Sport Hunting to something other than, such as “Green Hunter” or whatever, then you should all get together and lobby for that change of title, for a name more benign or sterile which may, or may not , help to relax the pressure from the Anti’s.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:08 am
The problem we are having is not so much how we address or what we call hunting. No matter how politically correct – God to I hate this word and what it stands for – become we will NEVER be able to “relax” the antis.
All we can do is to explain what good hunting does for wildlife and what it means to us personally to the non-hunting public and get them to understand so they are less vulnerable to the lies and hypocrisy of the animal rights zealots. It is in such discussion with the public that I have found that “sporthunter” does not sit well at all.
Here in British Columbia the government advertises hunting in the media as “conservation” and “steward of our natural recourses” and a natural human tradition as in “we’re born hunters by nature”, these parts of hunting and the money hunting generates for wildlife conservation are used to promote hunting among other things. We do that now for just a bit over a year and we can see that the public opinion starts to change in favor of hunting. I do not think we would have the same success if we would advertise it as a “sport”.
As for hunters loosing that feeling of remorse once they pass the three stages I have to say that I doubt that very much. I am sure some hunters loose that little sting deep inside them when they kill an animal but not all hunters do. After over 40 years of hunting I still feel a little sting inside me. I feel that same sting every single day at work in the slaughterhouse. I once asked my dad when I still was a child why I have these feeling each time I kill an animal, and he said. “It’s a good feeling to have, it’s what makes you a human. Once you loose that feeling you become an emotionless robot.”
-ov-
May 19th, 2008 at 5:21 am
I tend to agree with Othmar – as I stated in my first comment – why can’t we just call it “hunting” and leave it at that? I don’t understand the need to label it one way or another. But, then, I don’t understand a lot of things! I can’t sit here and say, “I hunt for the sport of it.” It goes way deeper than that – and I don’t think Phillip is arguing that point You can strip just about anything down to a very general term to cover the “why we do something” – I think though, that doing this gets us nowhere.
Anyways – I know the experience for me goes deeper than “for the sport of it” and I know it does for everyone on this blog, too – so I’ll just call what I do “hunting” and try my darndest to explain the full experience I get out of a hunting trip.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Othmar and Tom,
I can see how you would think that I was being facetious when commenting upon the name change from the legal and documented term, Sport Hunter, to a more sterile or benign term like, Green Hunter.
I am sorry but I did not say that with any degree of levity, I really meant it when I said to go out and lobby for a legal name change to something that will make you all feel better about what we all do concerning the hunting and harvesting of animals.
As for myself, I could go either way, just as long as I can continue to enjoy the privilege of the hunt and the exhilaration which I experience during the chase.
Also, please remember what I said concerning the, “Third, And Not So Final Stage” of an individuals development during the process of learning to hunt and kill an animal.
Meaning, that there is also, so very much more to learn about hunting than the simple act of killing!
I, also used to slaughter our chickens and cows for our meat at home, Now, granted I did not slaughter en-mass for our sustenance but, nonetheless I do understand remorse in a very human sense of the word as you speak.
The point which I am trying to make here is that “Until” a legal name change is made here in the U.S. I am proud to carry the title: Sport Hunter.
This means to me, that no person on earth may refer to what I do as: Market Hunting or Depredation Hunting, Poaching or any other form of hunting, than simply referring to the sport which I Monetarily, Emotionally, Spiritually, but most of all, conscientiously support, endorse and as well as participate in.
I do not think that I will ever concede to the terms “Conservation” or “Steward” as these are the exact terms which our very own “gestapo” like organization, The Natures Conservancy, uses when they deem a species Endangered, and then proceed to take private land away from U.S. citizens in the name of Imminent Domain.
But, that is entirely another topic and I will stick to the discussion at hand!
Please remember that what we do “is” Already Labeled! weather we like it or not!
And, any emotional argument in a court of law will fall upon deaf ears!
The “only” argument which will have “any” bearing whatsoever in a legal defense for our “great sport of hunting” is Dollars and Cents.
#1 How much money will the State and Federal governments lose if any form of hunting is entirely outlawed?
#2 How will that lost money be replaced by the organizations which want to outlaw all hunting?
#3 How much commerce will be lost if any form of hunting is outlawed?
#4 How will the current checks and balance’s in our wild lands be affected if any form of hunting is outlawed?
#5 what will the psychological implications be if any form of hunting is outlawed?
*And lastly, but not in the least sense by any means,
#6 The carnivore human will hunt, no matter what any law says, and then we will have complete anarchy or at best the same as the British Crown had during the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, lots of poaching and people being hanged for doing what comes naturally.
Hunting Animals!
May 19th, 2008 at 4:20 pm