Some things I've been thinking about.

[shankspony]

I put something together for another forum, then thought it would be interesting to see what others from a totally different background thought. Some of this will be irrelevant too here, and if its not suitable for this forum Then Admin, please feel free to remove any or all of it.

There are, to me, some interesting topics going on at the moment. (The helihunt debate, and MHUNTA's thread here.  http://www.fishnhunt.co.nz/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1370315657  )Again, to me they are on my mind as I read a book in which the thoughts and opinions that have evolved with my experience of life in hunting, are very eloquently expressed.


From Mountains without handrails. By Joseph L Sax & chapter 3

 http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sax/contents.htm


   

  The hunting literature is very explicit in this respect though, like fishing, it at first seems wholly built around the conquest of a prey. One of the most provocative books ever written about that sport is the Meditations on Hunting of the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset. [15] Ortega's book was begun as a preface to another writer's conventional book about hunting, but it expanded into a full volume as he pondered the question, Why do we hunt? He was impressed by the fact that people have hunted over many centuries, and that the essence of the activity has nor changed. A principal premise of the book is that rather than using every technological advantage available to him, the hunter has self-consciously neutralized his technological advantage in favor of the opportunity to develop what Ortega called technique:

For hunting is not simply casting blows right and left in order to kill animals or to catch them. The hunt is a series of technical operations, and for an activity to become technical it has to matter that it works in one particular way and not in another. . . . It involves a complete set of ethics of the most distinguished design. [16]

To describe the hunting of animals as an ethical activity at first seems highly eccentric. Yet the recreation literature gives powerful support to Ortega's cryptic statement. The proposition that accomplishment is not of the essence is substantiated by a uniform view that the game gets better the more the player is able to intensify the experience. One practical application of this hypothesis is to disembarrass oneself of equipment whose purpose is simply to increase the ability to prevail.

The celebrated American wilderness advocate, Aldo Leopold, wrote about hunting in terms quite similar to those of the Spaniard Ortega. "There is," Leopold said, "a value in any experience that exercises those ethical restraints collectively called 'sportsmanship'. Our tools for the pursuit of wildlife improve faster than we do, and sportsmanship is a voluntary limitation in the use of those armaments." [17]

Leopold goes on to say something about hunting that is reminiscent of Olmsted's perception of recreation as a contrast to achievement. In the Yosemite report Olmsted not only spoke of accomplishment, but used the phrase "accomplishing something in the mind of another," that is, doing something because it wins the admiration of others. The fishing writers respond by observing that they are engaged in an activity that is judged only by the standard the fisherman sets for himself. And Leopold notes, "a peculiar virtue of wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscience rather than by a mob of onlookers. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this fact." [18]

The attitudes associated with an activity may be more important than either the activity itself or its setting. To the extent that we infuse the parks with symbolic meaning by the way in which we use them, the symbolism attached to particular uses itself becomes a critical factor in the meaning that parks have for us. Consider, for example, the controversial question of off-road motorized vehicles (ORVs). [19] While ORVs have sometimes caused great and long-lasting damage, the vehicle itself is not the crucial factor in the controversy its use has created, for it is possible to imagine the lonely cyclist exploring the backcountry in quite the same fashion as the hiker or the horseman. [20]

Yet, in fact, the ORV has associated itself in our minds with a style of use that is quite at odds with Leopold's description of the ethical hunter, Olmsted's contemplative visitor, or Walton's pensive fisherman.

And further on.


 

In Hemingway's late story, The Old Man and the Sea, the question of the hunt is posed in its starkest form. [51] Man strives for mastery and yet finds triumph only when he recognizes that he is not master. The desire to prevail is treated as natural: Santiago was born to be a fisherman just as the fish was born to be a fish. [52] But just as surely we know that victory alone is hollow; indeed, as has often been remarked in noting images of the crucifixion in the book, there can be victory in defeat where success is something other than conquest. The old man is beyond sentiment, as he is beyond proving himself to anyone, and this is what rescues the venture from meaningless sacrifice or wanton slaughter. It is the fisherman's ability to accept the inevitability of the struggle, without sentiment and without moralizing, that invests the venture with nobility. "Fish," he said, "I love you and respect you very much. But I will kill you dead before this day ends." [53]

From Olmsted to Faulkner and Hemingway by way of mountain climbers seems a tortuous route, but it is not nearly so indirect as first appearances suggest. The first step is detachment from conventional expectations and imposed obligation, for which the natural setting is a stimulus and a context. The sense of detachment that engagement with nature stimulates brings to the surface atavistic longings, while the "ethical" structure of activities like fishing and mountaineering constrains that atavism from becoming a mere will to conquer. The strong attraction of nature for denizens of modern industrial society draws its power from these elements. Engagement with nature provides an opportunity for detachment from the submissiveness, conformity, and mass behavior that dog us in our daily lives; it offers a chance to express distinctiveness and to explore our deeper longings. At the same time, the setting—by exposing us to the awesomeness of the natural world in the context of "ethical" recreation—moderates the urge to prevail without destroying the vitality that gives rise to it: to face what is wild in us and yet not revert to savagery.

Yet again

 

There is something primitive and frightening in these feelings, and yet something even more frightening in repressing them. When civilized attitudes tame us to the point that the instinct to prevail no longer weighs upon us, when we only think of animals as sides of beef to be eaten, we may do something worse than killing animals; we obliterate the problem of the kill from our consciousness. The hunter recognizes the problem because he is in touch with it; the ethical dilemma is still real for him because he knows the objects of his hunt face to face. [60] It is therefore not surprising to find Thoreau, though he himself ultimately abstained from hunting and fishing, saying that "perhaps the hunter is the greatest friend of the animals hunted, not excepting the Humane Society."

I think, In essence, though I never could use language to express myself this well, this is why helihunting upsets me so much.

It is the absolute destruction of hunting!

On a lower level I take it further into other parts of my sport. I would ask. Why bow hunt, if you would then use technology like Rangefinders to remove some of your skills? Why take up a sport thats known to be harder, then try changing the rules to your favor?

Why would anyone ever consider shooting an animal behind wire? You wouldn't play soccer by removing the field and just having 2 nets.

I would also make the statement that longrange shooting it should be, but never call it hunting. Though I would accept LR shooting as a legitimate form of meat gathering with its own set of skills. I have no problem with it in that context. its just not hunting and it worries me that it will help with the destruction of hunting in the publics eye once they see that the technological advantage we have largely kept out, is now taking over.

[Cyclic-Rivers]

When the prize becomes more important than the game, the game will suffer. When the prize is the game, only then will the game prevail.

[Pete McMiller]

Craig,

Thank you for putting this together - excellent.  If we had a philosphy section on Tradgang this would be a sticky IMHO.

I agree with you in the sense that our personal ethics, whatever they may be, are important to what we perseeve as success.  

While one may find a certain activity associated with taking of game abhorent, only through our own actions will attitudes change.  I too struggle with that point.  While I would like to be able to change the law to prevent an activity, I also know that just like morality, you can't legislate ethics.  We must lead by example.  

IMHO it is posts such as these that challange our thinking and bring to the fore the philosophys of Leopold, Ortega, Hemmingway that will pave the way for an improved climate of personal ethics in those sports that are dear to our hearts.

[maineac]

An interesting series of observations you put together.  I have read two of the three books quoted (Guess I'll have to add Old Man and Sea to my summer reading list).  I think most folks on here have thought deeply about these ideas, even if they have not read the books.  That is why we hunt the way we do.  It makes the quest that much more challenging and restricts our advantages (actually in my case generally eliminates them).  Thanks for posting,it will give me thoughts to ponder for a few days.  I'll keep checking back as the discussion progresses.

[shankspony]

Thanks guys, some great views.

[VictoryHunter]

[mbugland]

Great words and a great post... it does pose a bit of a conundrum.
I grew up both fishing and hunting purely for meat. With quite a few kids now I might transition back to the same. I truly love fishing, for the pure challenge and even when the intent was to fill the freezer for subsistence, I would fill my creel limit and then truly fish for the love of it, to find that perfect fish in my far away hidden holes down the river. On the same note... Deer, buck and doe tags get filled, antelope tag gets filled... and then the true hunting happens with your elk tag. Bird hunting was somewhere in the middle, it was used to scout for deer and elk (upland game bird... don't remember every thinking about Ducks, and a goose was just a target of opportunity.)
I guess This year is the first for me in a long time to venture into the woods on a new mindset. After spending several years away from the woods and in the sand hunting humans, I do not want to venture into the woods with a firearm, or with others that are there with them. I am excited to start my first hunt in 16 years with stick and string, and go truly Trad. Although, with 5 kids, I may convert to pure meet gathering to subsidize my family later in the season, I miss the true hunt, never been in a stand before, and really don't know how this whole east coast thing is going to treat me. Definitely look forward to seeing what happens to my thoughts once I am in the woods.
Truly thank you for the thoughts, it inspired some nice memories and thoughts of my own.

[shankspony]

Wow! That brings a whole different perspective.

Thanks in Return.

[Brianlocal3]

Outstanding post.  You worded it in a very concise manner and a fabulous example of putting thoughts into view do that even old gun slingers and hammer throwers like myself can understand.

Great post

[McDave]

All big game animals in the United States are managed, and have been for more than 100 years.  If they hadn't been, many of them would be extinct, like the passenger pigeon.  When tags are issued, it is for the purpose of maintaining the herd at an optimal level.  If too many or too few animals are taken, then adjustments have to be made the following year.  Elk herds are fed during the winter to boost the number available to hunt in the summer.  There are more similarities between herds of "wild" animals on public lands and herds of cattle on farms than we would like to admit.

Taking that into account, there have to be differences between public and private motivations for hunting.  From a public policy standpoint, the hunter who arrives on a helicopter and shoots a trophy 500 yards away is providing more of a public benefit than a hunter who hikes in with his homemade bow and arrows to hunt for some meat.  The helicopter hunter spends more money, both in equipment, guides, and fees, and is more likely to fill his tag and less likely to wound an animal.  He probably has less impact on the environment than a hunter who walks in from the trailhead and sets up a camp for two weeks, and certainly less than hunters who get to their hunting grounds on ATV's.  Any benefit to society of having hunters who are trained in the skills of getting close enough to game animals to shoot them with a traditional bow would be a hard argument to make, apart from the stalking skills already taught in certain units of the armed forces.

So that brings us to private motivation.  At a very basic level, is there any difference between the motivation of someone who rides in on a helicopter and shoots a trophy at long range, and someone who walks in with his homemade bow and arrows to hunt for some meat, assuming both have the money and could buy meat cheaper at the store, considering all the costs of hunting, including alternative uses of the time spent?  Frankly, I have no idea what the motivation of a helicopter hunter is, but it must be pretty strong, since alternatives would include things like sitting on a beach watching topless babes in the south of France.

Closer to home, most of us have a better idea of the motivations of a traditional bowhunter.  But are there different motivations for one who hunts with a rangefinder, and one who hunts without?  How about binoculars?  I don't think there is any bright line that separates a "true" bowhunter from someone who is taking unfair advantage of the game.  There is just a continuum between someone with a compound bow and all the gadgets to someone hunting with only a homemade bow and arrows and a hunting knife.

I think in the end, we each have to establish our own goals and be true to ourselves.

[shankspony]

Cheers McDave,
I totally agree with your last sentence. I would add that first you have to be able to evaluate your own actions with an open mind. I've done that a few times, and occasionally I've been surprised  to find I don't like what I see.

For information purposes. Helihunting is a peculiar Kiwi invention where a mountain animal is spotted from a helicopter, then driven to exhaustion, or towards a hunter placed on the ground so it can be shot. There is no connection to it and Long Range.  But enough about that, its a topic that inevitably turns nasty.

Most of the authors mentioned in the first post, were non hunters, or at least didn't define themselves as hunters.
I Like the view that a thinking non hunter can see the merits of what we do and support us.

The paragraph below is taken from my wwoof page. Woof is an organisation that allows Traveller's/backpackers, mostly young from overseas to stay and work on organic farms here in NZ and I am an organic farmer.


 

We realise though, that you may also want to just take part in and experience the day to day farm work, we will be happy with that. The main thing is that everyone is enjoying themselves. We respect people's beliefs regarding Vegetarianisim, and will endeavour to accommodate this, but feel its only fair to tell you we are hunter/fisher types, and our house's reflect this, in case that would make you feel uncomfortable.

Yet still a 3rd of the people who come are vegetarian or semi vegetarian. Almost all participate in a hunt while here and most are happy to eat or try the meat derived from that hunt or the farm.

The only tears I've seen shed, were at the killing of a lamb in a pen for the house. Looking through her eyes, the inevitability of it was brutal.

There have been some great discussions in my house on what could be a polarized subject, yet given the chance to experience hunting for meat, and witnessing the life the animal lived/ the way it died, seems to negate most of the concerns.

[mbugland]

What a truly great subject McDave...
I was almost spat on when I would sign the petition against the Guide's "Golden Ticket" Tags. If an out of stater pays enough to a guide service he can have one of our once in lifetime tags. As you said the amount of money dumped into that once hunt by Mr. SuperRichDude is amazing.  He pays for gear that supports my rights, he pays for tags, that take care of my herds, he employs my buddies to guide him around the hills... which takes care of my scouting, feeds their families and buys me a beer or two. And, the same guide services secure rights to hunt land with Million Dollar Price tags, that pay the bills for a farmer, and keep him his family fed, keep his farm going... and keep the price of beef down.
 
If Hunting were purely a hard work and poor man's game, we would have lost all of our 2nd amendment rights by now... and it would probably be Curly and Illegal. As you mentioned extinction,  many of these animals would only exist in a zoo. Dollars make the world go round, love it or hate it... it's a fact.

[McDave]

I agree that usung a helicopter to drive animals should be illegal, and would be illegal in the places where I hunt.  I can't imagine why anyone would think that harassing animals would be good public policy or private motivation.

[Thumper Dunker]

Good stuff.  

[mbugland]

guess that was one thing I forgot to say: Legal or illegal.... That Heli-Hunt has to leave the meat tasting like absolute crap. Always felt you could taste a clean kill.