Looking for a last minute item for that outdoors person on your list?
[Note: The following was first published in the May 2011 Alberta Outdoorsmen.]
Copyright (C) 2011 Don H. Meredith
We don’t do it enough. When we do, we are often criticized for supposedly not understanding where society is headed. Yes, defending hunting can be a lonely job. Of course, it’s not that difficult when you are talking to like-minded individuals who happen to agree with you. But that is indeed the problem: it’s too easy to talk only to ourselves and not so easy to talk to those who not only don’t understand hunting but who might be called upon to decide its future.
Long-time readers of this column know that “why people hunt” is a pet subject of mine. What drives us to hunt? Why are we so passionate about it? And conversely, why are opponents to hunting so passionate about their positions? That is why when I saw the book, Hunting—Philosophy for Everyone: In Search of the Wild Life (2010, Wiley-Blackwell), I had to read it. [Order it Now: Canadian $$ or US $$]
The book is an anthology of essays about hunting, why it is so important for some and not for others. The essays are written by a wide variety of hunters and non-hunters from around the world, some who are philosophers and others who are not. This is not light reading but neither is it difficult. The book is part of a series, “Philosophy for Everyone,” that attempts to bring philosophy out of academia and into the realm of everyday life by using clear language without “talking down” to the reader. In Hunting, each essay is short enough to be read in a sitting and provides much food for thought. If you are not concerned about what motivates you to hunt or others not to understand why you do, this is not the book for you. If, on the other hand, you are concerned about the status of hunting in our modern world, then this book is a must read.
The editor, Nathan Kowalsky, (St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta) grouped the essays into four sections: 1) the morality of hunting, “The Good, the Bad, and the Hunter;” 2) what it is really like to hunt, “The Hunter’s View of the World;” 3) how hunting fits into nature and conservation, “Eating Nature Naturally;” and 4) the role of hunting in our culture, “The Antler Chandelier: Hunting in Culture, Politics, and Tradition.” Now, it is impossible for me to review all 19 essays in the space of this column, so I will just touch some of the highlights.
Fair chase is a common subject in the morality section. In his essay, “But They Don’t Shoot Back: what makes fair chase fair?” Theodore Vitale probably gives the best description of the concept. He is a professional member of the Boone and Crockett club, as well as Chair of Philosophy at Saint Louis University. He takes issue with the common misconception that fair chase is fair to the animal being hunted. Of course it is anything but. The animal has not asked to be hunted and its “choice” between escape or losing its life is patently unfair. Vitale argues that fair chase must refer to the hunter and not the hunted. He states that fair chase requires “that the hunter hunts in a manner that is conducive to his or her own well being and to the well being of the community” (both human and natural). Modern “sport” hunters do not hunt for subsistence but for the experience. Therefore, these hunters must hunt in a “fair” manner that allows each to learn and come to understand his or her role in nature as well as the broad human community. Following the rules and being ethical is just the beginning.
In “A Shot in the Dark: the dubious prospects of environmental hunting,” Lisa Kretz—a vegan philosopher, takes a completely opposite view. She argues that hunting is anything but ethical, and that it is not an activity that is in anyway conducive to the well being of the environment. Those are fighting words to anyone who is passionate about their hunting, and I must admit that she got my blood boiling. But you need to hear her out to understand the position of many people in our society who do not understand why we would want to kill something that wants to live. She makes some good points while others are completely off-base, at least in my humble if biased opinion.
Perhaps the most interesting essay in the morality section is that by Tovar Cerulli, a “vegan deer hunter”. In “Hunting Like a Vegetarian: same ethics, different flavors,” Cerulli explains his transformation from someone who only ate vegetables for environmental reasons (e.g., overpopulated world can’t support meat production, cruelty of meat processing industry) to someone who hunted (and ate) deer to achieve the same level of personal and environmental awareness that he could see certain deer hunters achieving.
Jacob Wawatie and Stephanie Pyne describe how aboriginal hunters view the world in “Tracking in Pursuit of Knowledge: teachings of an Algonquin Anishinabe bush hunter.” Through ancient stories that are told to each generation, they describe how it is impossible for aboriginal people to separate hunting from other interactions with nature. It is an essential part of their spiritual as well as biological existence and teaches many skills that help them understand those connections.
How those connections were first made is the subject of the essay, “The Carnivorous Herbivore: hunting and culture in human evolution” by well known and respected conservation biologist, Valerius Geist (Professor Emeritus, University of Calgary). He directly challenges the assertion made by many vegetarian anti-hunters that humans are natural herbivores and not natural hunters. Geist points out that our physiology is that of an omnivore that eats both meat and plants. He backs this up with considerable evidence in our evolutionary and archaeological history that hunting came about out of need, and that it was an important component of the development of our intelligence and culture.
In “Flesh, Death, and Tofu: hunters, vegetarians, and carnal knowledge,” T. R. Kover cranks up the level of the debate by looking at modern society’s wish to ignore the inevitability of death. He argues that anti-hunters are not so much concerned with the lives of animals as they are with avoiding the reality of their own deaths.
If Kover cranks up the heat, James Carmine blows the pot off the stove in the last essay in the book, “Off the Grid: rights, religion, and the rise of the eco-gentry.” Carmine argues that over 100 years of conservation achievement and government regulation are a conspiracy by alleged elites to control the right of hunters to slaughter wildlife at will. His hyper-libertarian view conveniently ignores the realities of biology and an exploding human population consuming fixed resources, while at the same time confirming Kretz’s vision of hunter as blood-thirsty brute. Need we give aid and comfort to the antis?
These are just a few of the fine essays that look at this incredibly complex subject from many viewpoints. If you don’t mind having your convictions challenged or your viewpoint broadened, this book should be on your reading list.
So, what’s wrong with that?
Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.
It was a long overdue book! A good way to introduce people to these complex issues in way that was approachable and not packed with impenetrable and turgid writing.
I thoroughly enjoyed it too!