Below is a comment left on the Blog Critic after an article there written by Bill George, Jr. called, “Canned Hunting Needs to Stop”.

Duane, I wouldn’t typically rise to the challenge you’ve tossed out here, but I’m kinda bored. You’re falling into a real old rhetorical trap here. You counter ever potential argument before it can be made, tipping your own hand and negating the value of discussion. Sorta removes the incentive for response.

But I’ll do it anyway, so first things first…

It really IS as simple as, “if you don’t like it, don’t do it.”

The choice to hunt or not is an emotion-based decision of “right and wrong”. Because it’s based on emotion rather than logic, folks who are against hunting will never understand the reasons that hunters participate in this sport. If you feel that animals are “victims” and subject to some kinds of rules of fairness, then in your mind it will never be right to hunt them. No explanation I can offer will change that because it is a very fundamental difference of opinion. May as well have a Baptist try to convert a Jew.

Whether it’s “fair chase” hunting or hunting a high-fence ranch, there is no victimization in hunting. That’s a poor, anthropomorphic construct that really means nothing in nature.

Predation is predation, whether it’s perpetrated by a human, a mountain lion, or a spider. It’s one of the few constants of nature, although far too many people are so removed from the natural experience (not to mention our very own animal nature)to appreciate that fact for what it means.

There is, in nature, no “decision making process” that determines a creature’s role in the food chain. Somehow humans have deemed ourselves the arbiters of reason though, and through it many of you have decided that you’ve somehow evolved above the need to be a part of the natural cycle. Let someone else kill for you… at the abattoir and in the factory fields. You’re better than that, right? And we see where that’s got us in our relationship with nature.

It’s actually pretty damned arrogant, this position some people take that we’re somehow “above” the natural order. It’s arrogant and it’s sad… because we’ve lost an awful lot as a species.

As a hunter, I choose to embrace the animal in myself. It’s as close to wildness as we can get in this modern age of factory farms and self-contained, climate controlled habitats. Maybe some folks don’t like that, but I’ll not apologize.

I choose to spend as much time as I can in an element where I’m not in total control of the outcome. Like most hunters, I often come away with nothing except the chase itself. It’s not all about “shooting up” animals. It’s about hunting them.

I don’t have to hunt to feed my family, but I do like knowing where the meat in my freezer came from. I like knowing that, in my household, better than half of the red meat we eat and a good part of the fish and poultry come from natural, wild stocks. They are not hormone injected, irradiated, styrofoam packed food products. It is a good feeling to me, to know that I have delivered meat to our table by my own hand. I take a personal pride in the ability to find, kill, process, and cook my own meat… skills that far too few modern people possess. I recognize that it’s a survival skill that’s probably never going to be put to the real test, but I’m glad to have it just the same.

I don’t hunt to manage wildlife populations. That’s an unintentional benefit of the sport. We point it out when hunting is challenged, not because it’s a reason that we hunt, but to demonstrate that hunting is often a necessary tool in wildlife management. We serve a purpose. If we don’t do it, someone will have to be paid to do it for us.

I don’t hunt to carry on any tradition, although the hunting tradition is a big part of my heritage. It’s a tradition I value, because it includes clear definitions of responsibility and ethical behavior. It lets us understand the power that we hold in our hands, and to make the hard decision to kill or not to kill. That’s not a small deal, despite the way it may look on video games or the evening news. And when hunters speak lightly of it, it usually belies the greater emotional chaos that comes with the power of life and death. I think there’s an awful lot of value in passing along that knowledge and understanding, but it’s not the main reason I hunt.

I don’t hunt because of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting, despite the popular misperception that it somehow does. The framers of the Constitution didn’t even consider hunting a question… it was the right to defend ourselves from the rise of tyranny that they were concerned about.

I hunt because I love hunting. I love everything about it. That’s all the reason I really need, because anything else would simply be justifying my behavior based on a set of beliefs that I don’t share.

However, I also understand that, of the 20 million-plus hunters in this country, there are many who measure success by the size of the antlers or the number of animals in the bag. There are some who will go out of their way to stack the odds in their favor, whether through the use of baits, fences, or technology… and as long as those hunters are within the bounds of the law, I will not fault their motives or methods.

Like most hunters, I have no desire to convert anti-hunters to hunting (although I’ll gladly take any interested non-hunter under my tutelage).

I don’t even really want to change your philosophical stance. If you find killing animals distasteful, consider yourself fortunate to live in a time and society where you have the luxury of letting someone else do it for you. I won’t even challenge the anti-hunting evangelist who wishes to preach his beliefs to the un-converted… as long as the scripture is factual… not propagandistic B.S. like this “canned” hunting thing that uses a few exceptional incidents to broad-brush the entire game ranching industry.

If the idea of killing animals is not “right” to you, then I can’t fault you for your feelings. I have no right to do so, because I don’t have to walk in your shoes or live in your mind. You’ve drawn your own lines, and as long as you live by them then I can’t see anything wrong with that.

All I ask is the same consideration for myself and for other hunters. For us, there isn’t anything wrong with killing animals, within certain legal and ethical parameters. This our philosophical position, and you can’t fault us for that either.

So now I’ve take a lot of time and effort to respond to your challenge, Duane. Here’s one for you.

Tell me, in terms of logic and empirical data, what’s wrong with sport hunting? Outside of the philosophical and emotional questions, which can never have a definitive answer, how is our sport wrong? What is it hurting?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this article check these out:

• “Hunting is a Sport For Men With Insecurity Issues” Says One Person
• When Thinking Of Black Bears, Think Mississippi?
• 84% Of North Carolinians Approve Of Hunting
• Are Our Officials Deliberately Starving Game Animals As Part of Management Policy?
• Hunters Rejoice! Hope For Our Future
• Minnesota Ordered To Stop Trapping In Lynx Habitat
• Does Second Amendment Guarantee Individual Right?
• As Many As Nine Bills Proposed For Idaho Elk Regulation
• The Idaho Sportsman’s Caucus Advisory Council Needs To Come Out Of The Closet
• Five Meetings Scheduled In Utah About Mountain Lions and Geese

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!