I just read this really interesting essay on the Desert Rat blog.
In a nutshell, the author, Dr. Robert Brown, questions the technologicial and biological advances in hunting, and whether those advances are turning us into livestock shooters instead of hunters. Yeah, it sounds pretty incendiary when I put it that way, but if you read the essay you’ll find that it’s actually pretty well-balanced, and his points make pretty good sense. There’s a growing ethical question here, and it’s a question that I think is worth asking.
Here’s one of his key points:
My argument is that each hunter needs to individually draw our line in the sand as to what is an ethical hunt, and what is legitimate wild game. We need to consider if we are still in this for the beauty of nature and the thrill of the hunt, or are we compromising our ethics and our values for the sake of a big trophy head on the wall. Surveys have shown that most of the public approves of hunting, but only for harvesting the meat and controlling the wild population. The non-hunting public strongly disapproves of trophy hunting. What would the non-hunting public think if they understood where we were going with hunting “technology” and feeding and breeding our “wild game.”
He has a lot more to say in the essay, and I encourage you to follow the link over there, from above or from my blog roll, and read it for yourselves. I posted my initial comments there, and encourage you to do the same.
Related Posts
No related posts.



Good post Phillip. A few weeks ago I wrote a column with the same topic. At times I worry too were it all will end with the advance in hunting from modern high-tech gadgets and breeding bigger bucks and the direction it takes.
Have we lost track of what hunting really is all about? What message will this send to new hunters and lastly what will the public at large make of it all.
-ov-