President Theodore Roosevelt often wrote and lectured on hunting ethics

Today we are going to tackle a subject that is both highly personal and somewhat uncomfortable if you are capable of any degree of self-examination: outdoor ethics, specifically of the hunting variety.  With the recent arrival of hunting season, perhaps a few words on the topic will fall onto interested ears.

First, please approach the following paragraphs secure in the knowledge that Yours Truly does not claim to hold special powers of virtue or feel morally superior because this column befouls many thousands of newspapers each week.   My viewpoint on this entire subject would be similar to Mark Twain, the famous writer who chronicled the follies and downfalls of man while occasionally participating in the least severe varieties.

The genesis for this lecture is rooted in a fascinating document that was recently brought to my attention.  The name of this paper is “Attitudes and characteristics of Hunters and Antihunters”, published in the Transactions of the forty-third North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference by Yale professor Dr. Stephen Kellert.  Written in 1978, it still seems a good representation of hunters and their attitudes.

Kellert thoroughly questioned hunters, examined their responses then categorized hunters according to their motivations and attitudes.  Experiences in the field would seem to show that the good doctor is solidly in the ballpark.  The type and percentage of hunters defined are: Utilitarian/Meat hunter-43%, Nature hunter- 17% and Domination/Sport hunters-38%.

The Meat Hunter is described as a person who views game primarily as a source of food, perhaps a sort of free-roaming grocery meat case.  These hunters tend to be older and very familiar with animals, both farm and wild.  This category is fairly straightforward and, if you operate within the law, not fraught with too many ethical problems aside from the entire meat-eating issue.

The next largest category are the Domination/Sport Hunters.  These people tend to be less interested in nature or animals and more concerned about proving their prowess to fellow man, regardless of the methods used to take game.  The outstanding and ironic characteristic of this group was low animal knowledge scores, equal to the anti-hunters surveyed.  This group also includes a few of my friends.

The third group is known as Nature Hunters.  These are people who are afield primarily for close contact with nature and the entire overall hunting experience.  They tend to be younger and engage in far more varied outdoor activities than the other groups

Hopefully, considerate hunters would aspire to be the Nature Hunter, enjoying the entire outdoor world and not placing too much emphasis on ultimate killing of game.  I have heard a similar sentiment expressed as “Sometimes, I don’t want fish to get in the way of my fishing”.

Unfortunately a large percentage of hunters, including the aforementioned friends, fall into the Sport Hunting group, seeing hunting not as a animal-oriented activity but as means to prove something to society.  With this drive to succeed come the abuses and ethical violations that ruin the sport, providing material for anti-hunters to ridicule.  Being ethical extends beyond simply following the laws regarding things such as trespassing and bag limits, and extends into the realm of game handling and general courtesy.

Before heading afield, take a moment to see where you fit into the above spectrum.  You might find examples of each category in your own previous hunts, but honestly evaluate your overall motivation for going out with a gun.  This might be slightly uncomfortable.

Why are you hunting?  Is it because you enjoy witnessing the incredibly complex interplay of the elements of nature or because you think you can impress people by killing something?   Is the field a place for quiet reflection and thought or someplace place to go hog wild and take target practice on road signs, barns and livestock?

Do you choose your weapons based upon a sense of challenge or simply sheer firepower?  Are you skilled enough to take game with one, possibly two shots or do you simply “fire for effect” whenever game is within visual range?

While hunting, are you genuinely excited when a partner makes a clean kill or are you overcome by jealousy at his success?  Coming home, do you gush about the beauty of a frost-rimed morning and the clear November sky or just complain because no deer were seen?

Does a fence in the woods mean stopping, or do you look over your shoulder and continue onward even though the landowner has turned down your request to hunt?  Is there a salt block conveniently located near your tree stand?

Hunting ethically is really just the idea of treating other hunters, game and even the land with respect and courtesy.  Unfortunately, this concept seems increasingly unusual and forgotten in our world as we hurtle toward the millenium.

Why are you hunting?

photo credit: Library of Congress

Bookmark It

Hide Sites