As for the personal nature of ethics, Phillip is right. I’m no ethical social relativist… I’m closer to what one would think of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (that there is a constant in there).

I’ll also quickly disagree with your conclusion that each “modality is inherently flawed”. I don’t agree with your premise that they all originate from a human mind, though I recognize the flaws that appear as it is projected through human consciousness. But that’s alright, I really enjoy your comments, and I appreciate your love and compassion.

And Ingrid, I don’t know why this one got flagged. I don’t see any specific keywords that would cause it… but anyway, here it is.

I also find it interesting that your points regarding the personal nature of “ethics” actually mirror my own pretty closely. This is the basis of my general feeling that we have to be very, very careful about trying to apply one set of hunting ethics across the board. It’s a discussion I’ve had here and on other blogs in the past, and one in which Josh and I don’t always see eye-to-eye.

http://enviroethics.blogspot.com/2010/06/utilitarian-environmentalism.html

http://www.parlidebate.org/pdf/vol10no2.pdf

What you describe, CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis) is an important method, but it isn’t always the best way to analyze environmental concerns (in fact, I recently blogged about its parent ethos, utilitarianism, and the disconnect it can have vis a vis environmentalism): http://enviroethics.blogspot.com/2010/06/utilitarian-environmentalism.html)

Ingrid, I totally respect and appreciate where you’re coming from. (I was actually familiar with your background from Tovar’s blog.) You’re living by your convictions, and that’s all I’d ask of anyone, whether I share those convictions or not.

I’m pretty sure that our fundamental differences are irreconcilable, but that doesn’t mean I don’t welcome your input and comments here… and on the other blogs. There is always something new to learn.

I had a similar event recently at Holly’s blog, btw, after I’d composed a reasonably coherent response to her question. I tried to reconstruct, but it was nothing like the original. And it’s exhausting, to say the least. So I appreciate your analysis and the personal expenditure involved.

I agree with your assessment of the non-hunting community. Frankly, I came of age in an era where I knew more people who could not, to save themselves, kill an animal for sport. I’m seeing less of that sentiment which — as you might imagine — from my perspective, is distressing. But for hunters, it’s a positive development.

The only thing I will add is something I’ve also mentioned to Tovar. And that is, my opinion of hunting is a long time in forming. I was not this committed to my point of view, even as a young, new vegan. I became a vegan at that time, because I saw the hypocrisy in eating meat but not killing my own animals. And I realized I could never engage in the slaughter and hunting I’d witnessed as a child, even though most of my hunting experience as a child involved the aftermath — the dead animal, not the hunt itself. Even then, though, I appreciated hunting for its “walk your talk” methodology.

What changed for me was getting involved in wildlife photography and then wildlife work. I began to share outdoor spaces with hunters since, as you might imagine, the same places you go to hunt, we go to photograph, observe or, sometimes, rescue. And that put me face to face with hunting event after hunting event, many of which I simply could not reconcile — especially as I began to learn, intimately, how wild animals react to pain and stress.

The most life-changing incident was an archery hunt of a deer where the deer thrashed and struggled and took a very long time to die. I felt like I was going to jump out of my skin and die, it was so brutal. And I was helpless to do anything. I’ve had a similar experience with an elk, not quite as long a death.

But those things motivated me to get involved in wildlife rescue and it also made me realize that the descriptions I’d heard of hunting, across the board, in no way represented what I was witnessing. What I witnessed was brutal, often cruel (from my perspective) in the hands of the inept, and pure agony for someone who cared as much as I do about compassion toward our fellow earthlings.

So, non-hunters may embrace hunting intellectually, as I did. And some may have no issue with the things I’ve seen, the things that constitute the hunt. I suppose it serves hunting that the majority of non-hunters are urban and suburban, and don’t venture into the enclaves you mention . . . the secret place of the hunt. On one level, as you say, it seems to benefit hunters to share that experience. On the other hand, people would not want to know a lot of what happens in the context of some hunts.

I guess you could say that’s my pet philosophy.

In something of a nutshell, though…

What I’ve actually found, even here in the “liberal” Bay Area, is that many non-hunters are actually quite receptive to hearing about hunting, even though I think many of them think of it as little more than an anachronism. While I doubt many of the people I’ve spoken to are going to run right out and get their Hunter Safety certificate and pick up a license and gun, most are quite interested in learning more from a “real hunter”.

These folks often do want to know more about the hunting traditions, and I have spoken to several who told me that I have given them a much more positive opinion of hunters. The fact that we kill animals for sport seems pretty inconsequential compared to their interest in our methods, weapons used, and whether or not we eat the animals we hunt.

I know that Holly and several other folks in this little corner of the blogosphere can attest to similar experiences.

The thing is, far too many hunters go out of their way to keep their activities shuttered from public view. I know guys in this area who practically sneak out to their truck to go hunt for the weekend, and sneak back home to sequester their prize in the freezer. Fear of confrontation or ostracization keeps them from talking about the sport to their co-workers or in social situations.

And as a result, the ignorant stay ignorant. Stereotypes prevail when there is no contrary evidence.

I believe this is what Roosevelt was talking about in his speech to the Boone and Crockett record holders. Instead of keeping our sport as our dirty little secret, share it with the public. Let them know how important the sport is to us, how it’s changed or shaped our lives, and what it’s meant to family and friends. Evangelicize!

OK, maybe not quite that extreme… but the gist is there.

The non-hunting public is more receptive to the idea than some folks may believe. Public opinion is still tilted positively toward sport hunting, despite the propaganda inroads made by anti-hunting/animal rights organizations. By showing that we really are human, and that our traditions go so far beyond simply killing stuff, I believe we can dispel many of the negative myths and sway concensus even more in our favor.

That said, I do believe that the final defense of the sport rests on quantifiable data, and not on emotion. Public opinion is important, but it’s not the alpha and the omega.

When it comes to decisions restricting or expanding hunting opportunity, methods, or access, the science and the facts should ALWAYS trump emotion. Wildlife management, habitat protection, and in some cases, economic interests should be considered before we worry about how some people feel about the issue… and in most cases, I do apply this to “controversial” practices such as baiting, high fences, and hound hunting.

This is one of my pet philosophies, though, and I’ve written about it too many times to repeat it all now.

I should have clarified that in using the word “harm” I mean to suggest — harm as in, a practice enjoyable to participants, but which involves harming another for that enjoyment. Not the type of large-scale harm to which you alluded in your writings (poaching, resources, etc). which is a separate issue.

(Sorry, bad M. Python reference.)

I see your point. And I agree with your assertions. The only thing I will say, coming from the non-hunting camp, is that tradition as a defense of hunting isn’t that easy because of a point you made earlier in your post: ” . . . if we can explain what that tradition means, where it comes from, and how important it is to the participants.”

It’s last bit, “how important it is to the participants.” I’m sure you’ve encountered this in people who oppose hunting. And I certainly carry some of this in me as well. It’s the idea that the enjoyment of the participants is enough to sway consensus toward a certain practice.

I think that’s probably why hunting groups revert to arguments about resources and sustainability — the hard, tangible numbers that attempt to refute emotion. Because it’s a tough sell to a non-hunter (in general terms), to suggest that a person’s personal fulfillment supersedes the harm inflicted by that enjoyment.

Believe it or not, I’m inclined to truncate my idea there and let it sit. That’s not my pattern, is it? Cheers.