Ethics Blog Roundtable Continues
Some great stuff seems to be coming out of the running ethics discussions, as well as the spin-offs (intentional or not) from the two posts by Thinking Hunter, Galen Geer, in which he first describes the ethics problem and considers holding a “symposium” for discussion, and then goes into some thoughts about an approach to the hunter’s ethics problem.
Arthur has put up a couple of good posts on his Simply Outdoors site, including this one. Chad Love, the Mallard of Discontent, takes a run at it in his surly post about the SHOT Show and the proliferation of high-tech gadgetry. And finally (in my list, not necessarily in order of appearance or relevance), there’s Eric Nuse’s considered response on his Fair Chase Hunting blog. (I know this is a lot of links, but if you’re interested in the topic or conversation, it’s worthwhile. Honest. Otherwise, Holly, the NorCal Cazadora has mentioned setting up a new blog to collect these threads in a single location… great idea for a way to utilize our spare time.)
It is the comments on Eric’s blog that spurred my return to the topic, particularly those from someone named Shaun. Shaun’s posts hold tight to what I consider the traditional argument for hunting ethics… that without a certain ethical ideal, what we’re doing is not really “hunting”, but simply killing. I can understand that perspective, and even agree with it to a point. But it also smacks of that elitist attitude that fails to take into consideration that every individual has their own set of values, and their own motivations for hunting.
Is the person who hunts a high fence with a rifle a lesser hunter than the man who hunts the far outback with nothing more than a bow? And if so, isn’t the man who hunts with a rifle a lesser hunter than the one who hunts with a bow… or the man who hunts with a compound bow a lesser hunter than the one who hunts with a traditional bow?
Why, exactly? Because they don’t live up to your standard?
I don’t know why people can’t see the endless, downward spiral of this desire to define someone else’s experience based on their own values. Once you start, it doesn’t end… it can’t end once it’s started:
- A fence isn’t “hunting”.
- A scoped, high-powered rifle isn’t “hunting”.
- A compound bow isn’t “hunting”.
- Any missile weapon isn’t “hunting”.
It’s a rhetorical trap. At some point, you have to recognize that there’s no such thing as “fair chase”… and short of running them down by foot and biting their heads off, every tool or weapon we use gives us “unfair advantage”. That’s the point of inventing tools.
Shaun says hunting really is the “natural outdoor experience in pursuit of a game animal.”
Help me out here. What is “natural”? What is “fair” when it comes to predators killing prey? Is it somehow supposed to be based on the uncertainty of the kill… The level of effort required?
I have known hunters to enter a high fence and leave again empty-handed. In one of the posts that started all of this, Galen Geer describes exactly such an experience.
I have a place I hunt where I am surrounded by over 200,000 acres of unfenced, wild lands. Beyond that is more open land, eventually bounded on one side by the Pacific Ocean, on two sides by urban areas (Bakersfield and Los Angeles), and on the other side by the Mojave desert. Yet on this place, I have a spot where I know that I can walk less than one mile two hours before sunset, wait an hour or so, and kill a wild hog. It’s the closest thing to a sure thing that I’ve ever seen. Even so, I’ll hit this spot at least a couple times per year, because I know that I can count on it. When it comes down to it, I’m there to kill a hog. If I simply want a walk in the woods, I can do that much cheaper and closer to home.
Is that any different than hunting under a feeder where I know the animals will usually appear within five minutes of the whirring motor? Why? And if that’s not wrong, then why is it wrong to hunt in a fence with the same expectation of success? Does hunting that spot lessen my experience or my enjoyment of that experience?
A bigger question… If, for whatever reason, I can’t hunt according to the standard set by people like Shaun, should I simply forego hunting altogether? I appreciate the fervor, but it simply doesn’t apply across the board. Motivations vary. Abilities vary. Values vary.
Hunt and live according to your personal ethic, but it’s a dangerous road to project your own values onto others… especially if your best rationale is some arbitrary concept of what the hunting experience should entail.
That doesn’t mean, however, that we shouldn’t promote our own ideas of hunting ethics… nor that, should we choose to take the challenge, we don’t strive to elevate our own ethics.
We should definitely throw our ideas on the table, dissect them, and see where it leads. That’s why I got involved with this conversation, and why I am encouraging others to take it on as well. The discussion is good and valuable, even if it’s primarily academic. I’m just still not convinced that there’s a defined right or wrong answer to the questions. Let’s keep it civil and keep it going.
I must get that roundup blog started! But today’s the first day of school. I’m gonna be in a whirlwind for a while now…
January 25th, 2010 at 6:58 am
We completely agree when it comes to this topic, Phillip.
There is no way to project an ethical standard to everyone. Ethics are defined by the individual, and very hard to be defined as a group. My way of hunting might not be your way, and thus my ethics may be different, but then how can I project my ethics onto you and consider them “right”? It’s impossible.
I do love the discussion, though. Lets keep it up.
January 25th, 2010 at 7:47 am
Living in an urban area, I have this conversation often. When I was younger, I hunted on land that was my great-great grandfather’s homestead, and for me deer hunting was rooted in land, family, sharing food, and a sense of commonsense ethics and safety that was rigorously enforced. Now having wandered the world a bit I have come back to hunting as an adult.
For me “sport” has never adequately defined hunting, and the effort to make it so is largely to sell equipment. I suppose you could compare it to something like surfing, where the real knowledge of it is learning the tide and dynamics of the water, knowing when and where to be when the wave breaks. It is more of an endeavor and a life skill, like gardening, which by the way people still do in spite of (indeed often because of) the efficiency of modern agriculture. Ideally, hunting is something that you learn to do for yourself and there most certainly is hierarchy to the pursuit of it. Learning to read the behavior of animals, the wind, and the terrain to get close enough to an animal are the skills one might call hunting. A guide might be a fine thing to help learn these skills, or as a hedge for success when you literally have to win the lottery to get a tag for an elk or some deer zones. A managed ranch might be a good way to get someones feet wet and have a measure of success. But hunting is about the knowledge and skill you gain from that experience. When you talk about that spot where you are sure of success you had to learn where to go, how to approach it, and put in the work to get there. Being driven to a blind to shoot a pig that has literally been trained to come to a feeder relates to hunting like riding a wave machine in a water park does surfing. There’s nothing really wrong with it in that animals are killed for food every day, but it’s on the steep side of the slippery slope to maintaining the heritage of hunting. In that direction I worry about the day when “hunting” becomes just another activity orchestrated by professionals in a controlled environment for those willing to pay.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Holly, that’s pretty much what I’d expected… another time-consuming task on your full plate. It was a good idea, but I know I wouldn’t be able to make time to get it done.
Arthur, thanks… I do think the discussion is valuable, or I wouldn’t be spending the time and effort on it.
And Neil, thank you for chiming in. More voices in this conversation can only help. In reference to your final point, there are a lot of people out there who believe pay-to-play is definitely the future of our sport. I’m not sure I completely buy that, but it’s not a far out concept… as more prime land is privatized, and funding for public land runs short year after year, it may become the only way to keep any place open for hunters.
I also think you touched on a key point in your description of different “standards” for different situations… e.g. how you might use a guide for a once-in-a-lifetime hunt, or to learn skills… or how you can accept a new hunter using a managed ranch to learn more about hunting. While I think your conclusion and mine tend to diverge, at least you’re recognizing what several of us have been saying… sometimes ethics is circumstantial.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Fair chase is misunderstood to be apply to the hunted. A deer doesn’t care whether it is killed with a bow or a rifle at 1,000 yards. Dead is dead. Fair chase applies to the hunter. The enjoyment of the sport of hunting is in the hunt. It is the reason we do it. The kill validates that you are hunting, but has very little to do with the enjoyment of the hunt. The icing on the cake as they say. Otherwise we would volunteer down at the slaughter house – as you can image that is work, not fun or enjoyable.
Fair chase is important because it makes the hunt more of a challenge thus more enjoyable. It can also make the hunt last longer, stretch your endurance and skills, etc.
I have no problem with laws and hunting codes that set the bottom line of acceptable hunter behavior. Nor do I have a problem with touting examples of ways to hunt that are a stretch to reach and still stand a chance to validate the hunt with a kill. But I agree these stretch methods should not be codified or forced on people that are not ready for them and may never be ready for them.
Ethics are different than hunter preferences. Unfortunately we mix them up quite ofen.
January 25th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Eric, you just hit the nail right on the head!
Fair Chase DOES apply to the hunter, and not to the animal. That’s where the divergence occurs between us and the animal rights people. Their campaigns have blurred this line, not only for hunters but (and most importantly) for non-hunters.
For hunters, “Fair Chase” is an artificial construct, and I’ll posit that it’s a fairly arbitrary one. It came from a desire to apply honor or nobility to blood sport… to killing for recreation. And honestly, that is exactly what we do. You can couch it in whatever terms you like, and if you don’t want to call it “sport”, then call it anything else you want. But don’t lose sight of what we’re really doing here.
The idea of competition with Nature is an ancient one, as Galen pointed out a while back. Competition implies a set of rules. But to me, there’s a point where this is just as foolish as the idea of animal rights… rules are a two-way street. They’re a mutually agreed contract. But how can you have a contract with an abstract?
So then, is it not competition with Nature? Is it, instead, competition between men? Well then, that’s another whole can of worms right there, isn’t it?
In some cases, hunting is a competition between men. The trophy of the hunt is, after all, one way in which many societies have come to recognize skill and valour… hence the beginnings of trophy hunting. There are more trophy books and registries than there are species of game animals, and hunters are lining up to get their names on the list.
But that only addresses the motivations of a select group of hunters. What about the rest?
Several people have pointed out the need for “challenge” and the need to exert a certain amount of effort. How much challenge does it take to make it a “real” hunt? How much effort is needed? Can anyone quantify that for another person?
There seems to be a perception about people who hunt high fence, bait piles, behind hounds, or whatever controversial method they use. That perception is that they only care about the kill, and miss out on the “experience of the hunt.” However, if you speak to the individuals involved, you’ll find that this is usually not the case at all. Sure, some want a guaranteed kill, but almost all of them expect a certain amount of “hunting” in the bargain. I’ve guided and hunted with several high-fence hunters, and for the most part, they all describe the occasion as a satisfying hunt. Some recognize how easy it is, but enjoy it just the same as the sum of the parts… not in the kill itself. Others are a little disappointed, and decide it’s not something they’ll do again. And still others “outgrow” the experience and move on to open land hunting.
In other words, your average high-fence hunter isn’t in any hurry to rush off for a job at the abbatoir either. They want a hunt too, but they just have a different idea of what that entails. Who am I, or you, or anyone else to tell them they’re wrong? Why would it be wrong? What does it hurt?
January 25th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Thanks Phillip, Eric and all of you for the interesting dialog on this. It does seem ethics gets mixed up with preferences. I do think ethics matter in every part of hunting, whether in the manner of the kill or overall respect and understanding of the land and ecosystem. But this has nothing to do with what tool is used. That’s simply aesthetic.
Yesterday I had someone, noticing me giving someone some venison, ask me if it wouldn’t be more “fair” to use a “bow or something”. They got it, though, when I explained to them that I don’t use a scoped rifle for me, but for the animal; it gives the best chance of a clean kill. (Rifle too easy? Heck, I’m new to pig hunting, and it took me four days to even SEE a pig for the first time.) The fact is a good shot with a rifle, a bow, a pistol, a crossbow, whatever, has the same goal. Eric’s right, dead is dead. I admire people whose hunting skills are accomplished enough for the all-or-nothing skill of a single shot or muzzleloader, or to get close enough to use a bow. However, I don’t think ethics is imbued in using one of these tools, or tying an arm behind your back, or hunting blindfolded. A high-powered rifle is only “unethical” if you think having a .300 super-duper short magnum means you take a shot at 500 yards when you’re not the one-guy-in-a-hundred that can. A semi-automatic is “unethical” if it means you take random, sloppy shots because you can spray the hillside. A bow can be too if you take an ill-considered shot. How is more important than with what.
The only other real aspect of ethics is as it relates to the overall sustainability of what we’re doing in regards to population and habitat. Of course, from a land ethic (ecological) standpoint, pigs are different than most other game animals, and there’s no issue of how many pigs are killed.
But another consideration is the future of our sport. Meat, good meat, is in vogue these days. More people are paying attention to where food comes from, and how it’s raised. They’re buying shares of animals from local farms and taking butchering classes. This path eventually runs straight into hunting, the pinnacle of responsibility. What the view of hunting is like when they get there is up to us. Most of these people probably won’t consistently show up at your duck blind, but they do vote. Momentum is on our side. Tens years ago mention of hunting in my town brought shudders, now more often there’s admiration and interest. We’re at a crossroads of opportunity to secure our heritage, and it’s up to us what road we take. If we don’t define hunting for ourselves, others will do so for us.
Thanks Phillip, for bringing this up, and for helping me learn the ropes of pig hunting.
January 31st, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Neil says, “We’re at a crossroads of opportunity to secure our heritage, and it’s up to us what road we take. If we don’t define hunting for ourselves, others will do so for us.”
I agree we are at a pivotal place, what we do and how we proceed will be telling.
I think we should greatly expand the definition of hunting beyond the person who pulls the trigger. It seems to me that everyone who helps scout, passes on information about game, helps with the skinning and cutting, enjoys the stories and eats the meat are just as much part of the hunting process as the shooter. Perhaps we should be selling family hunting licenses, maybe call them hunting associates, get them as fans to hunting group and Dept websites and blogs and let them know they are important and necessary. I suspect for every licensed hunter there are 5-10 hunting associates.
Orion has a program called Windsor dinners, where a group of hunters and friends, invites an equal group of non-hunters to a game supper. At the supper the story is told about the lives of the animals and the hunt that are being enjoyed. It is a great excuse to get together and let folks know who we are and why we love wildlife, plus how good it is to eat!
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:38 am