Yesterday I had someone, noticing me giving someone some venison, ask me if it wouldn’t be more “fair” to use a “bow or something”. They got it, though, when I explained to them that I don’t use a scoped rifle for me, but for the animal; it gives the best chance of a clean kill. (Rifle too easy? Heck, I’m new to pig hunting, and it took me four days to even SEE a pig for the first time.) The fact is a good shot with a rifle, a bow, a pistol, a crossbow, whatever, has the same goal. Eric’s right, dead is dead. I admire people whose hunting skills are accomplished enough for the all-or-nothing skill of a single shot or muzzleloader, or to get close enough to use a bow. However, I don’t think ethics is imbued in using one of these tools, or tying an arm behind your back, or hunting blindfolded. A high-powered rifle is only “unethical” if you think having a .300 super-duper short magnum means you take a shot at 500 yards when you’re not the one-guy-in-a-hundred that can. A semi-automatic is “unethical” if it means you take random, sloppy shots because you can spray the hillside. A bow can be too if you take an ill-considered shot. How is more important than with what.

The only other real aspect of ethics is as it relates to the overall sustainability of what we’re doing in regards to population and habitat. Of course, from a land ethic (ecological) standpoint, pigs are different than most other game animals, and there’s no issue of how many pigs are killed.

But another consideration is the future of our sport. Meat, good meat, is in vogue these days. More people are paying attention to where food comes from, and how it’s raised. They’re buying shares of animals from local farms and taking butchering classes. This path eventually runs straight into hunting, the pinnacle of responsibility. What the view of hunting is like when they get there is up to us. Most of these people probably won’t consistently show up at your duck blind, but they do vote. Momentum is on our side. Tens years ago mention of hunting in my town brought shudders, now more often there’s admiration and interest. We’re at a crossroads of opportunity to secure our heritage, and it’s up to us what road we take. If we don’t define hunting for ourselves, others will do so for us.

Thanks Phillip, for bringing this up, and for helping me learn the ropes of pig hunting.

Fair Chase DOES apply to the hunter, and not to the animal. That’s where the divergence occurs between us and the animal rights people. Their campaigns have blurred this line, not only for hunters but (and most importantly) for non-hunters.

For hunters, “Fair Chase” is an artificial construct, and I’ll posit that it’s a fairly arbitrary one. It came from a desire to apply honor or nobility to blood sport… to killing for recreation. And honestly, that is exactly what we do. You can couch it in whatever terms you like, and if you don’t want to call it “sport”, then call it anything else you want. But don’t lose sight of what we’re really doing here.

The idea of competition with Nature is an ancient one, as Galen pointed out a while back. Competition implies a set of rules. But to me, there’s a point where this is just as foolish as the idea of animal rights… rules are a two-way street. They’re a mutually agreed contract. But how can you have a contract with an abstract?

So then, is it not competition with Nature? Is it, instead, competition between men? Well then, that’s another whole can of worms right there, isn’t it?

In some cases, hunting is a competition between men. The trophy of the hunt is, after all, one way in which many societies have come to recognize skill and valour… hence the beginnings of trophy hunting. There are more trophy books and registries than there are species of game animals, and hunters are lining up to get their names on the list.

But that only addresses the motivations of a select group of hunters. What about the rest?

Several people have pointed out the need for “challenge” and the need to exert a certain amount of effort. How much challenge does it take to make it a “real” hunt? How much effort is needed? Can anyone quantify that for another person?

There seems to be a perception about people who hunt high fence, bait piles, behind hounds, or whatever controversial method they use. That perception is that they only care about the kill, and miss out on the “experience of the hunt.” However, if you speak to the individuals involved, you’ll find that this is usually not the case at all. Sure, some want a guaranteed kill, but almost all of them expect a certain amount of “hunting” in the bargain. I’ve guided and hunted with several high-fence hunters, and for the most part, they all describe the occasion as a satisfying hunt. Some recognize how easy it is, but enjoy it just the same as the sum of the parts… not in the kill itself. Others are a little disappointed, and decide it’s not something they’ll do again. And still others “outgrow” the experience and move on to open land hunting.

In other words, your average high-fence hunter isn’t in any hurry to rush off for a job at the abbatoir either. They want a hunt too, but they just have a different idea of what that entails. Who am I, or you, or anyone else to tell them they’re wrong? Why would it be wrong? What does it hurt?

Arthur, thanks… I do think the discussion is valuable, or I wouldn’t be spending the time and effort on it.

And Neil, thank you for chiming in. More voices in this conversation can only help. In reference to your final point, there are a lot of people out there who believe pay-to-play is definitely the future of our sport. I’m not sure I completely buy that, but it’s not a far out concept… as more prime land is privatized, and funding for public land runs short year after year, it may become the only way to keep any place open for hunters.

I also think you touched on a key point in your description of different “standards” for different situations… e.g. how you might use a guide for a once-in-a-lifetime hunt, or to learn skills… or how you can accept a new hunter using a managed ranch to learn more about hunting. While I think your conclusion and mine tend to diverge, at least you’re recognizing what several of us have been saying… sometimes ethics is circumstantial.

For me “sport” has never adequately defined hunting, and the effort to make it so is largely to sell equipment. I suppose you could compare it to something like surfing, where the real knowledge of it is learning the tide and dynamics of the water, knowing when and where to be when the wave breaks. It is more of an endeavor and a life skill, like gardening, which by the way people still do in spite of (indeed often because of) the efficiency of modern agriculture. Ideally, hunting is something that you learn to do for yourself and there most certainly is hierarchy to the pursuit of it. Learning to read the behavior of animals, the wind, and the terrain to get close enough to an animal are the skills one might call hunting. A guide might be a fine thing to help learn these skills, or as a hedge for success when you literally have to win the lottery to get a tag for an elk or some deer zones. A managed ranch might be a good way to get someones feet wet and have a measure of success. But hunting is about the knowledge and skill you gain from that experience. When you talk about that spot where you are sure of success you had to learn where to go, how to approach it, and put in the work to get there. Being driven to a blind to shoot a pig that has literally been trained to come to a feeder relates to hunting like riding a wave machine in a water park does surfing. There’s nothing really wrong with it in that animals are killed for food every day, but it’s on the steep side of the slippery slope to maintaining the heritage of hunting. In that direction I worry about the day when “hunting” becomes just another activity orchestrated by professionals in a controlled environment for those willing to pay.

There is no way to project an ethical standard to everyone. Ethics are defined by the individual, and very hard to be defined as a group. My way of hunting might not be your way, and thus my ethics may be different, but then how can I project my ethics onto you and consider them “right”? It’s impossible.

I do love the discussion, though. Lets keep it up.