[ad_1]
I recently read about an ethical recreational hunter who doesn’t support the recreational hunting of predators. I’ve been told there are many hunters of this ilk. I was surprised by the implied contrast between, on the one hand, ethically killing common animals such as deer and other ungulates who aren’t predators for sport and, on the other, killing predators as trophies for various reasons, including bragging rights.1,2,3 I talked with a number of people who also were surprised and dismayed. Based on these discussions, I decided it would be useful to delve deeper into the distinction between, for example, ethically killing deer for sport and killing large, dangerous predators, also for sport, by focusing on the words that are used to describe these voluntary recreational activities and the psychological musings of people who engage in them.
Psychological stress and the emotional lives of hunted animals
The phrase “ethical hunting” is an oxymoron because regardless of how rapidly an animal dies, there is psychological harm from the get-go of being followed, stalked, and chased before being killed. It’s a given that an animal’s emotional lives are put to the test and they don’t like it.4 Even heavily hunted wild wolves experience higher stress than wolves under lower hunting pressure. Being killed instantaneously or near-instantaneously may be more “ethical” or “humane” than slowly pursuing, hunting, and killing them, but nonetheless, the brute reality is the same in either case—a life has been taken.
What does the phrase “ethical hunter” mean?
Humans are especially good at coming up with reasons to make it okay or fair to go out and kill animals, but for animals whose lives are lost, euphemisms don’t matter. For example, people often use the phrase “ethical hunter” to refer to people who don’t engage in trophy hunting but who feel it’s perfectly okay to kill other animals as long as it’s done “ethically.”
I’m sure that there are numerous books that can be written about questions such as, “What is ‘ethical hunting’?” and “Who is an ‘ethical hunter’?” but let’s be clear—“ethical hunting” is adopting a mindset allowing someone to rationalize killing other animals and sanitizing it by claiming they are doing it ethically or humanely. What this means is that, for example, they go out and stalk an animal as silently as possible, kill them, and they hope the animal dies instantly, rather than after a long and painful death. Many animals who are killed to become wall hangings are also killed instantaneously. For people who don’t hunt for food—and I realize this raises a number of questions about whether ethically hunting for food that is needed is okay—the ethical hunters are, in fact, killing another being, usually a sentient being.2 So, the mindset that it’s okay to take another life so long as it’s done cleanly begs the question of what right we have to kill another animal in the first place.
Another phrase that sneaks into discussions of our relationship with wild animals is “mutualist hunter.” However, there is nothing beneficial for the animals who are killed.
When all is said and done, the mindset of people who choose to kill other animals is one of domination, not mutualism, which would result in peaceful, non-lethal coexistence.
What’s fair about “fair chase?”
Another phrase used to justify “ethical hunting” is “fair chase.” Originally coined by the Boone and Crockett Club, “fair chase” refers to “the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the game animals.” Some of their fundamentals of hunter ethics include: “Attain and maintain the skills necessary to make the kill as certain and quick as possible; Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the environment; and Recognize that these tenets are intended to enhance the hunter’s experience of the relationship between predator and prey, which is one of the most fundamental relationships of humans and their environment.”
We’re also told that “fair chase rules make sure hunters have no unfair advantage over wild animals by balancing the skills and equipment of the hunter with the abilities of the animal to escape. The rules of fair chase are defined by law, regional preferences, and personal choice.”
What’s fair about a human with a high-powered rifle going after a deer who hasn’t evolved anti-predatory skills against such a weapon? Fair chase clearly favors humans who choose to go out and kill other animals who can’t possibly defend themselves against these unnatural human predators. In the real world, prey animals have evolved a wide variety of different behaviors to counter being attacked and taken as a meal by would-be natural predators. But they haven’t evolved strategies to counter humans with guns who go out to kill them, so it’s a far stretch to use words and terms such as “ethical hunter,” “mutualist hunter,” and “fair chase” to justify killing other animals for sport.5
What’s the mindset of an ethical hunter?
If some people choose to hunt and kill other animals when they don’t need the food, it’s important for them to face up to the decision and not sugarcoat what they’re doing. Some people enjoy killing other animals—their “pleasure smiles” tell it all—and that’s why they do it, but at least they’re not sanitizing what they’re doing. Some people claim they love the animals they kill. Some people hunt because of the feeling of achievement. Still others choose to kill more dangerous animals which bring status, such as larger-bodied carnivores.
A lot would be gained and little would be lost if people used the correct words to describe the one-sided emotional relationships they have with the animals they choose to stalk and kill, who suffer before their lives are needlessly ended.
Words and phrases count, and discussing them would be a useful avenue into having respectful conversations about the lack of fairness in fair chase and other aspects of hunting. A number of people I know who say they’re “ethical hunters” and embrace the principles of “fair chase” are very serious about what they do and I want to know more about why. One friend, Dan, and I have had good conversations, and while we differ on a number of points, I’ve learned from him and he’s learned from me and neither of us has budged, unlike another friend, Erik who eventually changed his ways.3
[ad_2]
Source link