Addressing Questionable Practices in Hunting
Unfortunately, despite what I believe to be valid criticism of these and other least defensible practices within the framework of hunting in California and elsewhere-- for the most part, those troublesome facets of the hunting culture remain. And in so much as hunters and hunters groups avoid scrutinizing the elements of their sport that non-hunters rightly point to as unnecessarily vile, they undermine the acceptance we non-hunters are supposed to extend to hunters in the face of questionable if not outright disdainful choices some shooters make.
I've spoken with seasoned and thoughtful hunters who -- in spite of their philosophical and ethical differences with me -- express disdain for the most egregious and unethical elements of the sport -- which include the various hunting ranches with pen-released birds and virtually tame game, the video-game shooters, the super RVs parked on hunting grounds with ATVs and all manner of modern warfare technology in tow, the attitudes of disrespect toward the animals and toward the environment, the high-priced trophy hunts, the inexperienced shooters inflicting more injury than necessary. These elements exist around the Bay Area and California, and (obviously) throughout the world, as does a fervent PR machine that would argue otherwise to the non-hunting public.
Hunters vs. Non-Hunters
The arguments for and against hunting are so entrenched as to seem insurmountable. I've read the books and essays hunters have recommended to me which aim to explain the motivation that drives them to the sport -- tomes in the spirit of the Jose Ortega y. Gassett. But I admit, I've never heard any explanation that truly swayed me.
I finally picked up a book, often recommended to me by hunters with whom I've discussed this issue, A Hunter's Heart. It's a tome as widely prescribed as Outdoor Alliance talking points are uttered. And, I suppose, for good reason -- given the breadth of hunting experience held by the authorship in those pages.
As is typical with any reading of such a book, I gravitate toward those passages that seem to elucidate what I've been trying to say, trying to explain in the context of my ambivalence about hunting. And I find it in the words of Ann Causey in her essay "Is Hunting Ethical?" She writes: "As hunters, we toe a fine line between profundity and profanity and must accept the responsibility of condemning those practices and attitudes that trivialize, shame, and desecrate all hunting. To inflict death without meaningful and significant purpose, to kill carelessly or casually, or to take a life without solemn gratitude is inconsistent with genuine reverence for life."
The questions we non-hunters ask, she says, must be carefully and thoughtfully addressed by hunters in a way that doesn't trivialize legitimate concerns germane to the act of killing a living animal. I agree. But many hunters don't.
For example, there is a palpable fear among some hunters with whom I've spoken, that a right they've held as inviolable throughout the years could be threatened by any practical or theoretical restrictions on behavior or questionable ethics. So, in an effort to push back against that possibility, there is (from my perspective) a reluctance to pragmatically assess and rectify the worst of the lot -- and then the whole spectrum of behavior remains unchallenged under one umbrella.
Hunting for Food, Hunting for Sport
Almost any hunter will tell you they hunt for food, and they say this knowing that the general public, for the most part, will accept the idea of subsistence hunting -- and that more people are reticent to embrace hunting for sport. Although a hunter's use of his or her prey may indeed be in the context of a meal, you'll find few hunters who would be pleased to reduce the practice of hunting to subsistence only. I've known a few such subsistence hunters in my life and their view of sport hunting was, sometimes surprisingly, similar to my own.
So when killing becomes a sport, and it is that indeed, there burgeon all variations of that "sport," some of which are designed merely to please a client in a guaranteed kill and/or trophy, and to incur a profitable sporting experience. Of course, these practices often occur on private lands and vary state to state, with significant variations in the law.
Toward a More Humane Understanding
This issue came up for me again recently because of an incident where I witnessed the brutal and inhumane [but legal] killing of an animal by a hunter in an area that could almost be construed as fenced suburbia -- in a place where the animals are habituated to humans and have no fear. And it was an incident handled in the most callous of manner. No matter how one might explain away this type of action in the face of its legality -- and some people have tried -- for those of us who witnessed it, it was again, a crack in the universal understanding. An old-time hunter I know said upon hearing this story: "That is not sport. That is not hunting. That is just killing."
Working With Wildlife vs. Hunting Wildlife
When you work intimately with wild animals -- and become accustomed to their behavior and their social systems -- you naturally see them in a way that defies the type of compartmentalization and dissociation that hunting requires. The problem is, it's tough to turn that recognition on and off. So when it comes to embracing the reality of hunting season, the point of this post, there's a disconnect that's just impossible to engender. And it makes for a reluctant, sometimes despondent, understanding.
In the world of the hunter or the farmer or the furrier, such perceptions are often belittled as anthropomorphizing. And it's one I don't believe you can convincingly argue with the tools of language. It's a recognition born of life experience and visceral connection. The understanding between us human animals and the non-human animals naturally defies words since we do not share a common verbal language. But that lack of commonality does not diminish what many of us know and believe to be true about sentience.