As for myself, I could go either way, just as long as I can continue to enjoy the privilege of the hunt and the exhilaration which I experience during the chase.

Also, please remember what I said concerning the, “Third, And Not So Final Stage” of an individuals development during the process of learning to hunt and kill an animal.
Meaning, that there is also, so very much more to learn about hunting than the simple act of killing!

I, also used to slaughter our chickens and cows for our meat at home, Now, granted I did not slaughter en-mass for our sustenance but, nonetheless I do understand remorse in a very human sense of the word as you speak.
The point which I am trying to make here is that “Until” a legal name change is made here in the U.S. I am proud to carry the title: Sport Hunter.

This means to me, that no person on earth may refer to what I do as: Market Hunting or Depredation Hunting, Poaching or any other form of hunting, than simply referring to the sport which I Monetarily, Emotionally, Spiritually, but most of all, conscientiously support, endorse and as well as participate in.

I do not think that I will ever concede to the terms “Conservation” or “Steward” as these are the exact terms which our very own “gestapo” like organization, The Natures Conservancy, uses when they deem a species Endangered, and then proceed to take private land away from U.S. citizens in the name of Imminent Domain.
But, that is entirely another topic and I will stick to the discussion at hand!

Please remember that what we do “is” Already Labeled! weather we like it or not!
And, any emotional argument in a court of law will fall upon deaf ears!
The “only” argument which will have “any” bearing whatsoever in a legal defense for our “great sport of hunting” is Dollars and Cents.

#1 How much money will the State and Federal governments lose if any form of hunting is entirely outlawed?
#2 How will that lost money be replaced by the organizations which want to outlaw all hunting?
#3 How much commerce will be lost if any form of hunting is outlawed?
#4 How will the current checks and balance’s in our wild lands be affected if any form of hunting is outlawed?
#5 what will the psychological implications be if any form of hunting is outlawed?
*And lastly, but not in the least sense by any means,
#6 The carnivore human will hunt, no matter what any law says, and then we will have complete anarchy or at best the same as the British Crown had during the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, lots of poaching and people being hanged for doing what comes naturally.

Hunting Animals!

Anyways – I know the experience for me goes deeper than “for the sport of it” and I know it does for everyone on this blog, too – so I’ll just call what I do “hunting” and try my darndest to explain the full experience I get out of a hunting trip.

All we can do is to explain what good hunting does for wildlife and what it means to us personally to the non-hunting public and get them to understand so they are less vulnerable to the lies and hypocrisy of the animal rights zealots. It is in such discussion with the public that I have found that “sporthunter” does not sit well at all.

Here in British Columbia the government advertises hunting in the media as “conservation” and “steward of our natural recourses” and a natural human tradition as in “we’re born hunters by nature”, these parts of hunting and the money hunting generates for wildlife conservation are used to promote hunting among other things. We do that now for just a bit over a year and we can see that the public opinion starts to change in favor of hunting. I do not think we would have the same success if we would advertise it as a “sport”.

As for hunters loosing that feeling of remorse once they pass the three stages I have to say that I doubt that very much. I am sure some hunters loose that little sting deep inside them when they kill an animal but not all hunters do. After over 40 years of hunting I still feel a little sting inside me. I feel that same sting every single day at work in the slaughterhouse. I once asked my dad when I still was a child why I have these feeling each time I kill an animal, and he said. “It’s a good feeling to have, it’s what makes you a human. Once you loose that feeling you become an emotionless robot.”

-ov-

Arthur, when you stated that some people feel remorse for killing an animal, I believe that it might be in reference to a person whom is first introduced to the hunting and killing of another living and breathing creature. The first stage of becoming a sport hunter is an array of emotions which usually manifest themselves into what can be referred to as remorse.
The second stage of emotional development during the process of learning to hunt would be shooting the first animal which comes into range, because as an immature individual that person has not yet learned control.
The third, and not so final stage, which a developing and more mature hunter would be going through at this point is complete control.

Control, of emotions so that you do not experience “Buck Fever” and also by “not” harvesting the first animal which comes into sight and by patiently awaiting that precise moment.
And, that you are harvesting the right animal. The one which you are sure is mature enough to have bred several times and passed on his wonderful genetics to insure that a sustainable herd is completed, and thriving after his death.
That precise moment in time when you know that everything is completely in place and that you are perfectly balanced mentally, physically and emotionally to kill that particular animal.

Remorse? not from the fully matured and well rounded and come full circle “Sport Hunter”

Traditions, Arthur, are not very solid ground to stand upon! Traditions can be broken and they can be changed or even forgotten over a period of time.
Dogfighting, was legal before 1972 and was intensely steeped in “Tradition” by the deeply traditional southern gentleman. That still did not make it the right thing to be doing.
The slave trade, also was a tradition amongst our colonists and it was not the right thing to do either.
My point is, that using “Tradition” as an argument in support of sport hunting is not a very strong argument.

My above post concerning the American Pit bull Terrier and the people whom tried to bring about a “name change” for the dog is strongly correlated to the debate which we are having here and that is the appropriate name for what we do as fully matured hunters.

Othmar, back in my home state of Florida, in my youth, I have hunted (like yourself ) for Sustenance, I also hunted and Marketed alligator meat and hides. And I have been involved in hundreds of animals which were killed upon Depredation permits here in California.
I still am very proud to now call myself a Sport Hunter and all of the positive things which are associated with that title.

And, also as my above post states, If todays hunters want to change the “legal” title of Sport Hunting to something other than, such as “Green Hunter” or whatever, then you should all get together and lobby for that change of title, for a name more benign or sterile which may, or may not , help to relax the pressure from the Anti’s.

All I can tell you is that when I explain hunting to non-hunters and call it “sporthunting” I get not so positive results as when I call it a tradition that goes back to the beginning of times. Or explain that we humans are hunters by our very nature. Even deeply religious people that do not believe in evolution had to agree with me that humans physically and mentally have more in common with a predator (hunter) than with an herbivore.

With that experience under my belt I stick to call it simply “hunting”. The drive, or instinct if you will, to hunt is in all of us. We all hunt in many different ways not necessarily for animals, anyone observing people will detect forms of hunting in their daily lives. To list this behavioral patterns here would take up a lot space, but when I explain it to people they seem to understand perfectly. Sport, especially the ones that involve chasing something like a ball or competitor or involve tackling opponents are hugely popular because these sports are a form of hunting where humans can to a degree satisfy their hunting instinct.

For all these reasons I call it still just “hunting”. Of course I am completely aware that the antis also would disagree with that -when do they not disagree with anything we have to say. But I am not answerable to the antis, or anyone else for that matter, what my motivations and feelings are that make me a hunter. The non-hunters I talk to understand or at least respect me for it and that is good enough for me, because they will take an antis opinion with a large pinch of salt in the future.

-ov-

I understand there’s a certain incendiary nature to the way I’m framing this, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take here. It’s something that gets glossed over and avoided and brushed under the carpet… but seldom is it confronted head on. Why?

This is a pretty important topic, at least to me… and I wonder how many outdoor communicators, even the “big names” take time to think this over. How would they respond?

If you don’t want to consider hunting a “sport”, then short of getting too steeped in semantics, tell me what you would call it. Because the fact is, one of the key challenges from anti-hunters is that same argument… that hunting is not a sport. According to the antis, it has no legitimate purpose whatsoever. Now we all know it has a lot of unintended consequences…that list of benefits we’ve all listed over and over… but we’ve also established that these aren’t the purposes that we hunt.

Think it over. If it’s not a sport, what is it? A hobby? A pastime?

As I stated in my comment on your other article and in the article I wrote on my blog. For me hunting is a part of life practically since the day I was born. On the other hand I understand that man by its very nature is a hunter. If that is so, and all research done on human nature and behavior points to that truth, I am simply following my natural ability that is with us for as long as humans exist on this planet.

Just because some people deny that fact of their nature to come to the fore and become domesticated like zoo tigers does not mean I have to bow down too. True there is no need to hunt in order to get food on the table but animals still have to be killed so humans can fulfill all their nutritional values they need to survive in a healthy manner. I am not afraid of the fact that I have to kill to survive. Heck I kill every week over thousand beef so others get meat on their plate.

Animal rights have the hunting instinct, common to all people, too. Just watch them chasing a pesky mosquito buzzing around in their bedrooms and the joy they express when they finally swat the critter. Unlike those that deny that part of their nature and suppress it I endorse it.

Many years ago I came to the conclusion that it is utterly pointless to try and explain anything that has to do with animals to rabbit animal rights. I rather spend my time explaining to the fence sitters and the vast majority that have no opinion on hunting. Over the years I have spoken to thousands of people and the vast majority can see our reasons for hunting. Not all of the people I spoke to became hunters but all view hunting more favorable. My goal is not to convert animal rights, because it can’t be done, but to take the steam out on which they drive. The more people we can educate the less people will fall for the animal rights ignorant-anti-human agenda.
-ov-

I tend to still have a problem with calling hunting a sport. I do realize it doesn’t have to happen, in this day and age, for us to survive, and I do realize that it is an activity that I choose to do, and definitely meets the definition of sport, but it is much more than that for me.

To lump our particular way of life into the same definition, as a baseball player or football player, just doesn’t sit very easy with me. They are two very distinct and different things.

I will never try to hide behind some cloak when it comes to hunting either. I do ultimately do it for a kill, and I will use the word kill, but it is not what the hunt is all about. I won’t sit here, and go to the complete opposite side, and say that I cry over a kill, or pet my kill, but there is a certain remorse that comes with killing an animal. There is also a feeling of pure joy that comes from the kill as well. Knowing that I can provide pure, wholesome food for the table is something to be proud about.

How to explain these emotions to an anti-hunter is a difficult thing that is for sure.

One thing is for certain though Phillip. Your posts always get me thinking!

I believe that I have already given this information to everyone before, but as I approach this mid-life age I find that I have repeated myself quite a lot lately (please bear with me I “am” getting to a forgone point)

Back about 20 years ago a few dog men and women wanted to change the name of the American Pit Bull Terrier to: St Benedict’s Terrier.

They lobbied the U.K.C. and other organizations, spent a lot of money doing so and lost their cause miserably. This being due to the fact that dyed in the wool Pit Bull Fanciers would not relinquish the 200 year old title which the dog had earned through its years of hard service to the men who owned him.

Now, understandably, the reason for the desire of the name change was because of the disparaging public image of the term (PIT) in the dogs name and the negative images which that name would bring to the minds eye.

The A.K.C. however, took in the first (Pit Bull Dog) into its registry (Pete from the old “Spanky and our Gang” movies back in the late 40′s and because, as the above paragraph states, changed the Breed Name of the dog from “Pit Bull Terrier” to “Staffordshire Terrier” And then later changing it yet another time to “American Staffordshire Terrier” so as to not confuse our American terrier with the “English” Version of the dog.

Now, here we are 70 years later and not one single Wild Boar Hunter which I know of will use “any” full bred American Staffordshire Terrier for hunting purposes. This is because the A.K.C. version of the dog has been bred strictly for “show” for the last 70 years and has lost most all of its prey drive and hunting instincts which it originally started with!

If you would like to change the name: Sport Hunter, to something else more benign, then why not lobby the United States Wildlife Services to change our currently legal moniker to something like: GREEN HUNTER!

Because, we certainly create a lot of green, we Sport Hunters do now don’t we?
A significant amount of these green backs are generated by us, and in turn those green backs are spent directly on keeping our National Forests and National Parks and Refuges all in a “Green” state of being.

And as for the term “Harvest” I use it quite frequently as it is an aptly titled term to describe what we Sport Hunters do.

Also, when someone uses the term “Kill” when asking how I could do such a thing to an innocent animal I gently persuade them to please use the term, Harvest as I believe that a person using the “Kill” term is only using such an incendiary word to either start an argument or is completely ignorant of the “facts” concerning Sport Hunting.

Then, I very gently begin educating the person about this sport of hunting and hopefully they will stay for the duration of my oratory lesson.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t, and for those that don’t, I just simply place myself in their shoes and then ask myself these questions:

Could an anti-hunter ever convince me to stop sport hunting by telling me his/her moral/ethical point of view upon the subject?
No! would be my answer each and every time!

Could an anti-hunter ever convince me to stop sport hunting by presenting hard scientific facts that what I was doing was somehow harmful to the animal populations and our environment?
Maybe, if the data was proven truthful!

First things first, Tom, I’m definitely not calling anyone a liar. Not directly, I guess. But there’s a personal honesty, honesty to ourselves, that we really need to be conscious of and treat carefully. It’s important to stop and consider, for example, our real reasons for hunting and the joy we get from the whole experience… including the kill. Then we have to be honest with ourselves, in order to present ourselves honestly to other people. We (hunters) are killers.

Of COURSE there’s a lot more to it than that, but really, the anti-hunters could care less about all that other stuff. They’re honed in on that one thing, killing animals. And they want us to lie about it, to cover it up and hide it and act ashamed. Because if we act ashamed of what we do, then they have us where they want us. “Look,” they’ll say. “The hunters know they’re wrong. Look how hard they try to hide the fact that they’re killing animals.”

I also want to emphasize that many of my comments are not directed at the folks who regularly post on this blog. You guys are pretty much past this… but I still hear it all the time from hunters who want to defend the hunt by claiming to hunt “for the benefit of wildlife.” Others defend the fact that they kill by burying it under so much rationalization that they honestly come off as apologists. “I stroked the soft fur and cried.” “I wept and said a prayer of thanks.”

It’s like they’re sorry they killed the game. And for the most part, I’m pretty sure that’s not the case at all. An astute person will recognize the lies too, and will then wonder why the hunter felt the need to dissemble.

Tom wasn’t here when we had the discussion about “harvest vs. kill”, but Kristine, what I said then stands as my opinion. It is smart, of course, to manage the message based on who it’s for. There’s a line there between sensitivity and bluntness where we need to tread carefully. It doesn’t help your cause if you shut your audience down before you even get the message across.

But there’s also a line between dishonesty and honesty. Marketing and advertising are all about insinuation and hidden truths, and there’s an ethical divide there. Some folks cross it, some don’t. It’s no different when discussing hunting, and if you’re perceived as disingenuous, you’re going to lose the audience.

To paraphrase something you just wrote, sometimes you have to talk about the same subjects in different ways… but that doesn’t mean to talk AROUND them. You can’t skirt the facts, and one of the primary and distinguishing facts of hunting is that the goal is to kill an animal.

But whether you’ve been hunting for a lifetime or a day, there is no gentle “easing into” killing an animal or a bird. It’s not supposed to be gentle. It’s a harsh and sudden thing if you are not at ease with it in your mind.

Maybe what’s getting folks stirred up are that these are the things we seldom speak of in public or in private. The kill… the death of the animal… are the topics we keep locked away, often to ourselves. And maybe that’s the right thing to do. The kill is an individual experience, the emotions and physical reaction to the event are deeply personal and pretty hard to describe.

What goes through your mind when you put that last ounce of pull on the trigger, or as the bowstring slips from your fingers knowing that it’s too late to stop the power you’re about to unleash? How do you feel when you see the creature, mortally hit as it crumples to the ground, its life running out of the bloody hole you made? What are you thinking when the animal lies thrashing out its last moments on the ground? How does it feel when the shot is not a clean, quick kill… when the animal bolts at the shot and disappears from view? What do you do when the blood trail peters out and you have to face the reality of a lost animal?

Tough questions, huh? Trust me, coming up with the answers is just as tough. I know, because these are the kinds of questions I’ve had to answer in discussions with anti-hunters and some non-hunters. They want to know how I can “justify” the killing of an animal… not about the hunt experience, but about the kill.

Can YOU answer those questions, honestly?