I dunno how this is going to work, especially since I haven’t even bounced the idea off of anyone involved… but here goes.  Galen, over at The Thinking Hunter has truly lived up to the spirit of his site and started some conversations that have several hunters thinking.  The topic revolves around two things… first, the question of whether we should re-evaluate the concept and definition of “Free Chase”, and then what that definition might look like.  He’s got some great points, and he’s also elicited some pretty good replies from participants, including Holly (NorCal Cazadora),  Arthur (Simply Outdoors), and T. Michael Riddle (Native Hunts).   Because the topic is so complex, and not really suited to short replies (such as you’d get in the Comments section), I thought it better to devote a post on the blog to it.  Maybe other bloggers can respond the same way, and maybe form this into a sort of roundtable discussion? 

In order for this to work properly, and to maintain context, I’ll provide a link to the originating blog post.  You should read it first, or you won’t necessarily see where I’m coming from.  If we continue this discussion as a roundtable, each blogger who responds can do the same thing… starting the post off with a link to the previous posts.  So here goes:

Galen’s last post discusses a likely evolution of the hunting ethic, and how ethics seem to be applied on a “conditional basis” in modern sport hunting.  Read his post first.

I’ve tried pretty hard to come up with a comprehensive and coherent response to this line of discussion, but it’s not easy to do in this medium.  This is the kind of thing that’s best done across a table, maybe with a crackling fire and a glass of whiskey close at hand… not tapped out on a keyboard on a forum designed for short attention-spans and instant gratification.  Sitting here, surrounded by the demands of work, family, and a beautiful day outside, it’s tough to string together an unbroken train of ideas.  I’ll have a go at it, but no promises that it’ll make my point… or even make sense.  At the very least, I expect there’ll be some logical gaps. 

Galen, I think you’ve presented some pretty intriguing (and insightful) ideas, even if I think they get a little romantic.  That doesn’t mean I completely disagree with the idea that the hunt, at least on an individual level, often holds much deeper meaning than the simple collection of meat or skins.  That much is beyond debate.  But what does that symbolism and the subsequent idea of a hunting “ethic” really have to do with modern sport hunting?  

Is it because the idea of honor and discipline justifies a practice that is no longer, strictly necessary?  Maybe.  I totally agree that the advent of the agrarian society created a whole new set of social standards.  As we’ve moved from the agrarian to the industrial (and even the tehnological?), that change has become even more marked.  The connection to nature that once meant the very survival of the hunter/gatherer is very nearly severed.  Hell, science is on the verge of creating commercially viable synthetic meat!

Reading all the way through your post, it strikes me that what you’re describing is a situational ethic (you called it conditional… which is the same, I guess).  It’s defined by where you’re hunting, what you’re hunting, and why you’re hunting it.  That means that what is “right” in one case may be “wrong” in the other… even though it’s really the same thing.  And that’s where I think the idea of trying to affix a single definition of ethics falls to pieces.  You can’t pigeonhole it. 

At its core, a hunting ethic is a purely individual thing, no different than any other set of ethics, really.  At best, it’s framed by some common ideals, but when it comes down to it, it’s all about the hunter’s personal values and motivations.  And those motivations and values are subject to constant change and evolution. 

When I started bowhunting, I chose to use only traditional archery tackle because I wanted the challenge.  I was going to embrace what I saw as the “true spirit” of archery… the trad-hunter’s ethic.  Devote myself to mastering the bow.  “Be the arrow.”  Get close.  Take the perfect shot or no shot.  I could see the honor in that, even if some other folks simply saw hard-headedness.    

After several years and some wounded animals I re-evaluated my position.  For a handful reasons, I couldn’t achieve a consistency with the trad-bow that would allow me to cleanly kill my prey.  I switched to a compound bow.

So did I just trade one ethic for another, just like that?  Are ethics interchangeable?

I think they are.  And maybe my example isn’t the best, but I do think it illustrates the idea that we can not only pick and choose our “ethics”.. we SHOULD pick and choose them.  Sometimes one has higher value than the other.  In my case, of course the humane kill was more important than the honor (or pride) in the choice of a challenging weapon.  But should my choice apply to everyone else?  Should everyone surrender their long bows and recurves? 

How do we evaluate an ethic? 

I’ve proposed in the past that any hunting ethic should be based on a couple of key points. We should strive for a humane kill.  Our methods should not endanger the habitat, the species, or other people.  Beyond that, we have to ask what we really expect to achieve from defining a hunting ethic.

Is it a justification for the hunt, simply to provide positive PR to convince non-hunters (and maybe ourselves) that hunting is not a bad thing? 

I believe there is a lot of value in the idea of good public relations, and it should be a consideration when we look at hunting practices and methods.  But we have to consider this in the context that we’re trying to defend a sport that most people neither understand nor want to understand.  The critical point of our sport is to kill animals… for fun.  For non-hunters, that’s a barely acceptable concept.  Fortunately, the majority of then don’t care enough to challenge us.  For others, we’ve been able to sell them on the ideas that we eat the meat, or we’re helping to control populations, or we’re managing pests and invasive species.  But none of those reasons are universal among hunters. 

I’ve said many times that we’re falling into a trap if we keep narrowing the definition of ethical hunting in order to meet the expectations of non-hunters.  This is particularly true when we start to talk about esoteric ideas like “fair chase”.  What’s “fair” about arming ourselves with high-powered weapons, artificial scents, lures, decoys, baits, hounds, blinds, etc.?  That’s a dangerous veil to hide behind, because it doesn’t take a heck of a lot of logic to poke right through it.  And when they poke a hole, we have to mend it… and the veil grows thinner while the noose grows tighter.  How long, at this rate, until we are only hunting with stones and loin-cloths?  And at what point does someone point out that a stone is really not a humane weapon? 

I’m not saying we shouldn’t govern our behavior, or even that we don’t need to consider how our actions are perceived by others. I’m fully aware that the future of our sport rests in the hands of non-hunting voters.  But the essence of what we do doesn’t change, no matter how noble we try to make it look.

Remember, feel free to comment here, but if you have a blog, why not compose your reply as a new post with links back here and to Galen’s blog? 

Related Posts