Dealing with Anti Hunting Comments

Good post. I’ve never gotten an anti-hunting comment but am always on the lookout.

Damn, everyone gets one but me!

I like your take, and I think that we, as hunters, should heed your advice from our end as well. We need to be respectful and intellectual in our defense of hunting.

I don’t think any right-minded person disagrees with hunting for food, but I can understand how trophy hunting would be a turn-off to many people not necessarily of the “bambi” mentality. There are a lot of beautiful creatures in the world (even the ugly ones!), and to kill for the sake of displaying the conquest’s head in one’s den seems like an affront to the Creator. I’m about to go on a hog hunt with longbow myself, so I’m not anti-hunting by any means. But in watching videos of safaris recently, with the hunter merely sitting in a blind by some bait, and plugging animals like sitting ducks at distances of less than 20 yards, it just didn’t seem like ‘sport’ to me, and left with with a bad taste.

On a side note: I keep thinking about that movie Predator… ‘the demon who makes a trophy of man’… it made me think about things from the prey’s perspective.

Very respectful conversation you have going here, and for that reason I’m comfortable expressing my opinion. I am going to pose a question, and if it’s offensive, know that I didn’t intend it to be so. I am a vegetarian. I stopped eating meat at 22. I’m 29 now. I read things about the horrors of factory farming, and the psychological stress that the animals endure prior to being slaughtered. Many studies state that the animals are aware that they are in danger and can see and hear other animals being killed long before it is their “turn”. The conditions some animals are kept in, such as gestation crates, are absolutely disgusting to me.

Would you say that most hunters are also against factory farms that practice inhumane methods and keep animals in unnatural and uncomfortable settings?

My vile comments and insults are reserved mostly for the perpetuators of that system of torture. Although I admit, I do have a reserve of equally vile comments and insults for people who support or participate in dog-fighting, bear baiting, etc. I actually didn’t know bear baiting existed until I came across an article on the net yesterday and decided to do some research. I have seen cruelty, but never in my life have I seen anything so utterly nauseating as that. (for more info…http://www.wspa-usa.org/pages/391_bear_baiting.cfm)

A comment I read on a video I watched (briefly…as it sickened me to the core) challenged the notion that bear baiting can be called a sport, because the bear is defenseless. Its teeth are removed, it is weakened, and it is tethered through the nose. It is malnourished. It is up against several very strong dogs at a time (who are also hurt and often crushed).

Obviously, as you were stretching when comparing hunting to childbirth, I too am reaching when comparing legal hunting to bear baiting. Still, I have to pose the question, and not as an instigative remark, but as a genuine question.

Should legal hunting (I will not address illegal hunting or poaching, since you are obviously not involved in that.) be called a sport, or would hobby be a better word?

Most definitions of the word sport that I’ve read go something like this (copy and pasted): Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports (a common name for some card games and board games with little to no element of chance) and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors. Sport is commonly defined as an organized, competitive and skillful physical activity requiring commitment and fair play. Sports differ from games based on levels of organization and profit (not always monetary). Accurate records are kept and updated, while failures and accomplishments are widely announced in sport news.

Now, according to this definition, and others like it, isn’t fair play an essential ingredient? I just don’t think it’s fair play when humans have equipment to lure, confuse, trick, trap, and kill animals…yet the animals don’t have the same.

I know an argument can be made that some animals, especially predatory animals, have instincts that can, indeed, “trap, lure, and kill” humans. However, given the level of technology today, and the high powered scopes that allow humans to sit a good distance away and shoot, I don’t think that anyone would be in a position to pose a valid argument stating that the hunted animals are just as capable of killing the hunters.

Statistics show that hunters sometimes die during the hunt, more so as a result of an inexperienced or naive hunter yielding a weapon nearby than as a result of a vicious animal attack. However, statistics show very obviously that there is a much higher ratio of animals who die during hunting vs. the number of hunters who die.

I liken it to a baseball game where one team has wooden bats to swing when it’s their turn at the plate, while the other team is given nothing but their arms. I think the Vegas lines would say that the team with the bats is going to win. (Ok, that was sarcastic, but I promise no more sarcasm.)

That being said, is hunting a fair sport? Or is it more of a hobby?

When hunters call legal hunting a sport, do they mean that the competition is hunter vs. hunter or hunter vs. his/her own previous record? Or is the intended “competition” to be thought of as hunter vs. prey?

If it’s hunter vs. prey, then, for all the reasons detailed above, I feel that it should be called a hobby instead of a sport, since there doesn’t seem to be a strategist out there equipping the animals with decoys and such to lure the hunter to a point where he is unlikely to escape and then use a weapon to kill him.

It may seem that I’m rambling excessively over a matter of semantics, but being an English teacher, I’ll admit that I sometimes get caught up in terms. I wonder if hunting would be more accepted if it were called a hobby. (Hobby is commonly defined as a spare time recreational pursuit.)

If the sport is based on competition between hunters, or between a hunter and his own previous record, then I suppose the animals are just seen as a piece of sport equipment. Correct me if you feel I’m wrong, or if you feel I’m missing something altogether. I just don’t think that it is fair to use a living, sentient thing as a pawn in a game or sport without that living, sentient thing’s knowledge or consent.

All of that being said, would I personally be happier if hunters went “mano e mano” with the animals and had a physical battle to the death? No. Obviously not. I don’t want to see a human being killed. I also don’t want to see an animal killed slowly and painfully.

I’m not going to start in with the (insane) argument some anti-hunting camps throw around that rants, “If hunters are so tough, then why don’t they go hand to claw with the animal?” That’s an unintelligent rally cry, if you ask me. First of all, it insinuates that all hunters are doing what they do because they “think they’re so tough”, and I think that is an unfair generalization based on…well…not based on much. Secondly, hunting without weaponry wouldn’t result in any less suffering. Yes, it would likely result in less actual animal death during hunting, but the animals who were killed in “hand to claw” combat would obviously be killed in a terrifying and painful way. I’m not suggesting that hunters lose the guns.

My question is more about the use of the word “sport”.

For the record, yes, I am opposed to hunting. Hunting is not something that I enjoy watching, participating in, or hearing stories about. However, it’s hunting that has nothing to do with the food chain that I really have a problem with. Yet, I’m also opposed to eating meat. I know that most people are NOT vegetarians, and as of yet (who knows what the future holds) I haven’t converted or tried converting anyone to vegetarianism. Nobody in my family is a vegetarian. My boyfriend of two years enjoys meat, and often. I prefer hunting for meat to the sickness, filth, and torture perpetuated by factory farms.

I’ve learned to choose my battles. I’ve learned that as an animal lover, I will direct my activism against dog fighting and breed specific laws that prohibit responsible people like me from owning American Pitbull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Rottweilers, and other large, muscular dogs. (As you may have guessed, I share my home with a wonderful, beautiful Pitbull.)

I am not the enemy, and I’m glad your open forum acknowledges that. You are not the enemy, and I hope that my detailed, researched, and (almost) sarcasm free comment attests to that.

I look forward to your response regarding the idea of hunting as a sport.

Thank you for the open forum.

I read your post on fair chase, and it’s very thought-provoking. However, I think that it’s dismissive to call ourselves animals when it’s convenient in debate. Yes, we are the only animals who seem to really care about a level playing field. That’s because we are rational beings. The animals being hunted are far less rational.

Humans should see it as their responsibility to protect the earth and its resources. You mentioned in your fair play blog that hunters play a major part in population control, which actually reduces suffering. So in that case we’re seeing nature as something we can control because of our advanced intelligence and rationality. We’re shaping nature, we’re deciding perimeters that animal populations and migrations must adhere to, and if not, they’re killed for their own good. So in that matter, we’re rational and logical enough to declare ourselves nature’s protector; an overseer rather than just another animal.

Yet on the other hand, there is the depiction of human beings as just another animal in the food chain. One that happens to have all of the equipment necessary, though not provided by nature, to be the victor. The other animals have to make do with what they’ve been given through evolutionary traits. We have science and electronics on our side.

Humans are not just another animal or species. If we’re just another species, then why are we the only species categorized under “human”, while there are thousands categorized under “animal”? We can jump right into that animal category when necessary, but back into the protected and more respected human category whenever we choose.

Finally, if a hunter (be he/she a bubba or a fair game proponent) must kill something for food, I understand (not necessarily agree or disagree…but certainly understand the logic) why you say that fair game is a moot point. Then that hunter is a member of a food chain and is doing what he or she needs to do to eat what he or she wants. (I’m not going to say “to survive”, because, well…I haven’t died just yet.) Still, there are plenty of hunters who kill things that they don’t want to eat. I don’t think it’s natural, in the animal world, to hunt and kill something only to use its head, carcass, or fur for flair in your home. Because there are hunters who do so, it unfortunately affects hunters who do not. If all hunters were killing for food, because they wanted to feel connected to nature and actively participate in the food chain rather than take advantage of factory farms, well…then I think it would be much easier to gain public approval. However, it’s hard to look at someone smiling and holding a high powered rifle in one hand and a dead animal that he/she does not want to eat in the other and say, “Man, that guy is really one with nature.”

And while I do appreciate your response, I don’t think that it was given proper time and consideration, in your words. I think that referring to it as a sport vs. hobby vs. survival strategy (for those who refuse to rely solely on factory farms) makes quite a bit of difference in terms of how your chosen pastime is viewed by the public. Unless you don’t care about how it’s viewed, but from your blog that’s not the impression I get. You’re obviously a fan of words, as you use them well to make your point and to educate people about something important to you. I’m a fan of words, too, and I think that sometimes the titles and tags we give things make all the difference in how they’re perceived and in how well they’re received.

I said finally, and I’m not quite through yet. I just remembered something I wanted to bring up. The definition of fair game that many hunters agree with includes declining to hunt animals who are trapped. However, what does “trap” really mean? Again, you may feel I’m getting caught up in meanings, and maybe I am. I think it’s important that intended meanings aren’t lost in shuffles or molded to convenience one point of view vs. another. An animal can be trapped in many ways. The picture that comes to mind when many people hear “trapped animal” is animals with their legs in clamps. However, trapped can also mean lured into a life threatening situation from which there is no realistic escape.

After reading several of your entries, I have more of a respect for hunter-eaters who do engage in fair play as generally outlined by the excerpts in your blog on the topic.

I meant hunter-eaters as hunters who do so to eat, not as in respect for people who eat hunters. That’d be twisted.

As for opinion, nobody has the right to judge and everybody has the right to judge, isn’t that truth! My opinion is that I personally have no desire to argue with those who hunt humanely (meaning that the animal does not suffer before it dies) and do so for food. However, I’m disturbed by hunters who do so for “sport”. And that’s how much of a difference a few little titles and words mean to me.

As I wouldn’t exactly consider myself the uneducated public, I hope that you and your loyal readers take my concerns seriously, as I’m not here for confrontation…I’m here for education. Both mine and yours. I’ve allowed you to educate me about hunting as practiced by an intelligent, ethical, educated person. I hope you’ll take something from these comments and allow me to educate you about the way educated, ethical, intelligent anti-hunters think.

I think public image is important to all controversial issues, one of which is certainly hunting.

Just as not all hunters are “bubbas”, not all “antis” are PETA lunatics. (Sorry, PETA…but, you’ve let some real loose cannons into your camp, so I packed my bags and left.)

And I’m still up in the air. I wouldn’t call me an anti. Not in all respects, anyway. Thought provoking stuff. We don’t see eye to eye, but that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from each other.

Perhaps I might realize that hunting can be necessary and you might think about the idea that fair and unfair, while hard to define, do exist and do impact how the community at large judges things.

Thanks for the time and consideration. Don’t know that there’s much more to say to avoid redundancy, but I appreciate you responding so quickly initially, and I’ll bookmark the site.

Please direct anyone who thinks that all animal rights people are uneducated militants to my comments, and I’ll direct anyone who thinks all hunters are blood covered rednecks to your site.

Amanda

(For any animal rights person, hunter, or just anyone reading this thread who is interested in getting involved in an animal issue that really needs our time and attention, please visit http://www.pbrc.net and learn more about breed specific legislation and bans on certain breeds of dogs.)