The following question to a website (ALLHunting.com) message board was sent to
me by a reader in California. While I currently have the proverbial
"full plate", like a muskie or shark with a belly full of some
freshly-killed fish, there are some baits that when presented properly are
too good to pass up. Responding to this question and "joining"
the website
(it is evidently free) to post the response on the message board is one such
too-good-to pass-up "bait". My answer is provided below for the
rest of
you.
THE QUESTION:
"I'm new to this board and a non-hunter. Still, I think I deserve to
have a
say when it comes to hunting. After all, we non-hunters are affected by
the
killing, maiming, and so forth that many of you are so actively and
enthusiastically engaged in.
My question is this: why do you hunt? I've heard all the cliches--it's a
family tradition, it's how I appreciate nature, it's how I get my food,
etc...--and while many of these are quaint and would almost certainly be
good enough for your fellow hunters, I want the truth. Why is it that you
find pleasure in killing (or just crippling/injuring/hurting) animals?
I await your answers and hope to gain some insight."
THE ANSWER (in the order asked):
In all honesty, you are clearly an "anti"-hunter as opposed a
"non"-hunter.
This distinction is relevant to clarify my humble attempt at responding.
Were you simply a "non"-hunter I would be explaining, instead of
defending,
hunting.
You say you "deserve to have a say when it comes to hunting". Of
course you
do and that is exactly what this great nation and the technology of the 21st
century and this website have so graciously provided you. You don't
however, "deserve" a response or answer but I am delighted to try and
provide one that informs you and maybe influences you about something you
and others may hopefully have an open mind about.
When you say, "After all, we non-hunters are affected by the killing,
maiming, and so forth that many of you are so actively and enthusiastically
engaged in" I must beg to differ for several reasons:
1.) You imagine that you are "affected" but in reality and
legally you are
not. By this I mean that wildlife is under the jurisdiction of State
government in our Nation. It is held in trust for all the people and like
any other living and renewable natural resource (timber, hydroelectric
power, mushrooms, wildflowers, ginseng, etc.) there is an annual increment
that may be taken by the public for use. Indeed, managing the proportion
of
the resource "harvested" or "controlled" each year both
maintains abundance
and provides income for continued management and oversight of species and areas
by the State. In fact, such management and control is beneficial to
you and others who enjoy the continued and minimally harmful harmful
abundance of all wildlife.
2.) I suspect you feel some mental anguish for what you envision is
"the
killing, maiming, and so forth". Life is full of such anguish about
things
others do that we disagree about. I feel anguish about the way a neighbor
raises his children or the way boxers batter each other. In a free
Republic, with guaranteed rights, should I be able to impose my views on the
way a father raises his family or the way a man seeks to earn a living or
what he finds interesting or entertaining? Of course not. Consider
this as
you imagine my "affect" on you.
3.) Also contained in your purported claim to my "affect"
on you is your
attitude about animals. I ask if you believe you "own" all the
wild
animals? I ask if you believe you "own" all the pets or
livestock that you
believe might be being "mistreated" or that you feel someone has
"too many
of"? Do you think OUR government (as opposed ALL the other
governments in
the world) "OWNS" all wildlife or all domestic animals and (like the
Kings
and Aristocracy we left behind and rejected when founding this great Nation)
we only "own" or "do" what government allows? I hold
the principles
involved here to be self-evident. I "OWN", and am not a guardian
of,
domestic animals be they pets or livestock. Government holds wild plants
and animals in trust for all the people. Regulated use and management of
these wild and renewable resources should benefit society and insofar as
possible pay for itself. The self-evident goal is the maintenance and use
of the species and the environment for generations to come. Killing
certain
numbers of animals be it to minimize harms to people or crops or other
species, or for food or fur or trophies or whatever is no different than
cutting trees or gathering mushrooms. When thoughtfully regulated it is the
best guarantee of future abundance. Laws and regulations that require use
of the animal (forbid waste) like requirements to minimize landscape
destruction when harvesting timber are all understood and enforced now
better than at any time or anywhere in the history of the world. We have
much to be proud of and limited government, private property, and uses and
enjoyment by all strata of society have more than a little to do with it.
4.) There is probably an element of morality or religion at work
here as
well. Do you believe that animals have "rights"? Do you
believe that
animals deserve more legal protection than we provide the unborn or
increasingly the aged or infirm or disabled? Do you believe that whatever
is voted as permissible from partial-birth abortion and embryo destruction
to killing kids up to six months of age for infirmities like cleft palates
or somebody's decision about their "quality of life" make such things
legitimate or right? I believe that animals, like our environment, are
something we should use and manage wisely for ourselves and our descendants.
Man and our societies and laws are in no way "equal" to any animals.
That is the basis of my acceptance of sustainable hunting and the
"ownership" of animals and I will fight to see that our society and
our Nation continue to recognize these "unalienable rights" that (as
our Founding Fathers put it in the Declaration of Independence) "are
endowed" by our "Creator".
5.) It is very telling that you mention "the killing, maiming,
and so
forth that many of you are so actively and enthusiastically engaged in".
It
is illegal and unethical and certainly something every hunter avoids (losing
an animal) to "maim" an animal. Wherever that happens, wardens
enthusiastically descend and make a public spectacle of the prosecution of
such activity. Honestly, how often have you known of this? I was a
State
and Federal law enforcement officer for years and "maiming" is
non-existent
in my experience. I can go into my "enthusiasm" at great length
and I have
written many, many articles about my enthusiasm in recent years but you said
you didn't want "clichés" and "traditions" and other
"quaint" things that
are only good enough for "fellow hunters". I can therefore only
agree with
you that I (and I must assume many others) are indeed "enthusiastic"
and
that as you requested, this is the "truth".
Finally you ask "Why is it that you find pleasure in killing (or just
crippling/injuring/hurting) animals?" As I said before,
"crippling/injuring/hurting" is illegal and certainly completely alien
to a
hunter that spends thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to hunt only
to "cripple, injure, and hurt animals". Consider retrievers
(ducks and
geese) and pointers (quail) and setters (grouse) and spaniels (pheasants)
and cockers (woodcock) and bassets (rabbits) and daschounds (ferrets and
weasels) and hounds (deer, bear, cougar, etc.) and ask yourself about where
the names come from and all the hours spent training them and can you still
believe hunters do it to "cripple. injure, and hurt" animals? Do
you think
hunters watch all those videos about how to track a wounded deer or place a
shot or get the quarry close and in a relaxed state to make a perfect shot
in order to "cripple, injure, and hurt" the animal? Do you think
any such
hunter would brag of such a thing or not be ostracized by other hunters? I
am honestly mystified that anyone, and I mean anyone, believes such things.
Well there you have it. Without mentioning the romance and tradition and
food value and family and fascinating literature and history and all the
other things that hunters feel are so important, I have tried to answer your
question. Like an Oregon logger talking to a spotted owl enthusiast about
why he shouldn't be forced out of business and moved to Los Angeles to live
in an apartment to drive a cab; without mentioning the renewable nature of
forests or his family life or the rural traditions of his community or the
love his father and grandfather and he and hopefully his sons have for the
woods and being the best sawyers and fellers in their community, I have
tried to explain and, I guess, defend hunting.
I probably haven't done as good a job as necessary to provide you with the
"insight" you requested. However, I can only refer you to what
GK
Chesterton said 100 years ago, "Anything worth doing is worth doing
badly".
Please forgive all the shortcomings of this feeble attempt to compose an
Honest Answer a Legitimate Question.
Jim Beers
12 July 2006
- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense)
- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
jimbeers7@verizon.net