Due to the extent of this response, I felt it better to include as a new post rather than an extended comment.  Note the original post for reference.

Why the resistance to calling a spade a spade, and facing up to the fact that what we do is sport hunting… hunting for sport?  To borrow from Arthur’s original “Why I Hunt” challenge post (which is where this is all started, of course), he quoted a really eloquent statement from a Mr. Shane Mahoney.

“The task at hand is to articulate the relevance of hunting; not its correctness, nor its practical service to human kind. Rationalizing the mythology is both a tactical error and a diminishment of pride. Lies and excuses usually are.”

Why the squeamishness with being honest about what we’re doing out there? 

With all due respect, nobody reading this blog (or any blog) hunts because you “have to”.  It is not a matter of survival for most modern humans.  In fact, there aren’t all that many subsistence hunting cultures left in the world… especially on this continent. 

We are not market hunters, killing for profit.  We are not professional hunters, hired by government or private agents to target specific animals for a salary or bounty.  And we’re not subsistence hunters, living off the land (or if you are, and you’re still reading this blog, your lifestyle is by choice and about as authentic as Thoreau’s little “living deliberately” experiment at Walden).  We are sport hunters, and we do what we do because it brings us pleasure and diversion. 

To those who’ve responded to the original post, Holly, Arthur, Othmar, and Kristine, I’ve read your blog posts about why you hunt (or why you’re considering it).  They’re nicely written and well-worded, but every single one of them essentially points to the pleasure you get from the hunt, whether from the experience in nature, the diversion from the day-to-day, or from the fine and healthy meat you obtain.   Or, as Arthur concludes in reason number seven, “I hunt because it’s fun!”

And guess what?  In the eyes of the anti-hunters, that means you get pleasure from killing things.  No matter how you want to spin it, or turn it, or justify and rationalize… that’s what you all just said. 

Of course, what the anti-hunter doesn’t quite get is that the hunt is not equal to the kill. 

You’ve all read that poor, old, over-utilized Ortega y Gassett quote about how “one doesn’t hunt in order to kill…etc.”, and despite its simplicity we recognize the truth of it.  But Senor Ortega y Gassett wrote a lot more in that little book of his (a great reading exercise, although his philosophy gets a little convoluted from time to time, his points come through brilliantly). 

One other thing he says stands clear for it’s very succintness.  “The hunter is a death dealer.”

We can twist and turn and contort ourselves and our reason to any extent, but we cannot avoid that simple truth.  And that simple truth is where our way and the way of the anti-hunter diverge.   It is the key element that separates hunter from non-hunter… our willingness to kill, even when, as modern humans, we don’t have to. 

We can’t hide from it, and we can’t cover it up like a cat turd in the litter box.  Nor should we.  It’s what we do.  It has nothing to do with anything else the hunt might mean to us.  If we’re not out there to kill something, we’re not hunting.  And if we weren’t enjoying the hunting experience, we wouldn’t be out there. 

It all harkens back to that discussion we had months ago about our choices of terminology… how we write about the hunt.  Did we “harvest” an animal, or did we “kill” it?  Was it “taken”, or was it “shot”? 

Euphemisms are usually an indication of a guilty conscience.  It’s hiding the truth… or hiding from it.  They’re disingenuous, and when you’re caught out in one, your credibility is done.  At best you come off as an apologist.  At worst, you’re seen as a liar.  And once that happens, in a discussion or in a debate, every argument you offer up is invalidated. 

The anti-hunting faction, HSUS, PETA, ARF, etc. don’t need us to “open up the doors” for them.  They’re opening them just fine all by themselves, or making doors where none existed.  They use the buzzwords because they know we fear them… “Trophy hunting”, “Sport Hunting,” “Canned hunting,” etc. 

They know we’ll retreat, backpeddling and tripping over our boot laces from the image of the hunter as a killer.  We’ll start covering up, justifying everything we do by falling back to what Mr. Mahoney called, “rationalizing the mythology.”

Why?  We ARE killers because we are hunters.  The antis are going to paint that just as black as they can, and it doesn’t matter how you turn it, they’re going to try to nail us for that very simple, but critical point.  We kill animals… for fun.   Hunters think that’s OK.  Anti-hunters don’t.  That’s an argument that can never be won.

Then why try to explain ourselves, why even bother with debate?  What’s the point? 

The point is truth.  The point is honesty.  The point is that when we’re called out we need to step out into the street boldly, and shoot straight with the facts about who we are and what we do. 

The folks I listed earlier, you other bloggers, you’re already doing the right things.  You’re explaining why the hunt is important to you, and how the experience goes so much beyond the kill.  You describe the conflicted emotions involved in making a kill, and demonstrate that whatever we are, we are not cold-hearted killers.  You help your readers see that, unlike the abattoir the anti-hunters portray, the woods and fields of the hunter are a place where, occasionally, a mystical and sometimes spiritual, event takes place. 

Of course you’re all handy with the facts as well… the logic and quantifiable information about the benefits of hunting.  You’re willing and able to write about the positive aspects of sport hunting (as opposed to market, professional, or subsistence hunting), and the contributions sport hunters have made voluntarily and obliquely to wildlife, habitat, and the economy over the decades.  You present this information appropriately, and you’re honest about the fact that these are benefits of the sport, not reasons for participating. 

But don’t start painting on extra layers, making out that the hunt is more or less than it really is.  And even more importantly, don’t come across as apologetic about killing an animal, because if you really feel that you need to apologize for that, you shouldn’t be hunting in the first place. 

I’ve been hunting almost my entire life.  Some of my earliest memories were of being carried into the woods, then wrapped in a blanket and set on a stump while my dad shot squirrels.  Hunting is ingrained in my life and my being…it’s a part of my very identity.  I’ve tried a dozen different times to write about why I hunt, but it’s so much of the fabric of my life that I simply can’t find words to describe it… and that’s saying something. 

But as deep as all that runs… as important as hunting is to me… I still recognize that I do it for pleasure, not necessity.  If they ended all hunting tomorrow, I’d certainly find myself drifting aimless and sorrowful for a while.  But I wouldn’t starve, and I wouldn’t wither away to a husk of soul-less skin and bone.  I’d survive, just like all of you. 

I am a “Sport Hunter.” 

From Dictionary.com

sport – noun

  1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.
  2. a particular form of this, esp. in the out of doors.
  3. diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime.
  4. a sportsman.
  5. Informal. a person who behaves in a sportsmanlike, fair, or admirable manner; an accommodating person: He was a sport and took his defeat well.

sport – Verb

  1. to amuse oneself with some pleasant pastime or recreation.
  2. to play, frolic, or gambol, as a child or an animal.
  3. to engage in some open-air or athletic pastime or sport.

Related Posts

No related posts.