[285] in Vegetarian_Support_Group
hunting: justified or not?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (elsiedee@MIT.EDU)
Sat Dec 3 14:20:24 1994
From: elsiedee@MIT.EDU
To: vsg@MIT.EDU
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 1994 14:18:59 EST
The following is what I considered to be an unusually good opinion post
which concerns hunting, an issue that to my recollection hasn't been
addressed on the list before.
Thanks to people who have already responded to the mini-survey. If you
haven't yet, please do respond - I will tabulate the results and post them
when they're all in.
Thanks,
Laura
"I'm eating a COW???" -Calvin, Calvin & Hobbes
------- Forwarded Message
From: "Brian A. Luke" <LUKE@checkov.hm.udayton.edu>
Organization: University of Dayton
To: AR-TALK@cygnus.com
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 13:02:13 EST
Subject: Re: Hunters vs. Meat-eaters
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Message-Id: <136C286438AC@checkov.hm.udayton.edu>
> To me, I feel that people who hunt are more
> honest than people who eat only grocery meat. People who hide behind
> styrofoam and saran wrap aren't fessing up to the flesh contained inside that
> was once a live animal.
>
> !!!***Singling out hunters from any other person who eats meat is plain wrong
> in my opinion.***!!! What is the difference between buying a steak or
> shooting a deer? The consequences of the action result in the death of an
> innocent creature.
>
I disagree with the idea that hunters are more honest than meat-
eaters. Yes, the typical american meat-eater is dissociated from the
slaughter process, perhaps deliberately so in order to preserve their
conscience, and this is pathetic. But the hunters engage in quite a
bit of self and other-directed deception themselves. For example,
the idea that they are out there for meat is a lie. They propagate
this falsehood because they know that most americans oppose hunting
for trophies. Once in a while a hunter is honest (while talking to
other hunters), and from that we can figure out what's really going
on:
"Using venison as a basic source of food gives the sport of deer
hunting a sound, utilitarian foundation. We must remember that the
non-hunting public does not accept deer hunting for either
recreational purposes or antler collecting; the non-hunting public,
however, accepts hunting when it is done to put deer meat on the
table" (Robert Wegner, Deer and Deer Hunting, Book 3, p. 165).
"Nobody hunts just to put meat on the table because it's too
expensive, time consuming and extremely inconsistent" (Ted Nugent's
World Bowhunters Magazine, March 1990, p. 7).
They make up this story about hunting for meat, and in fact often try
to "utilize" most of the carcass, in order to quell the guilt they
feel for killing an animal needlessly:
"Every good hunter is uneasy in the depths of his conscience when
faced with the death he is about to inflict on the enchanting animal.
He does not have the final and firm conviction that his conduct is
correct" (Ortega y Gasset, Meditations on Hunting, p. 88).
Gasset was an avid hunter.
>
> I learned that day that modern hunters have a shield between killing an
> animal and the animal's death. It's the distance a bullet has to travel.
> Killing animals is easy as long as the only act you have is to pull the
> trigger (or lay down some $$$). Hunters are detached from their actions. It
> was only when I saw an animal suffer in my own hands that I questioned my
> hunting. Once you do not get a clean kill, it is clear that the animal is
> not just a target in a shooting gallery (It is a living, feeling creature.)
>
I'm sure your point is valid for some hunters, but not all. Many
hunters today use a bow and arrow. They are not oblivious to the
kill, they enjoy it. And most of the animals they hit do not die
"cleanly."
> To a concerned hunter (and
> not a Joe Bob Redneck), fostering the environment so that wild animals can
> live is as natural as hunting them for food.
>
Animals are not hunted for food, they are hunted to achieve male
status. This is not natural (as in instinctive) it is a cultural
choice made by some men.
> I see a great problem with focusing on hunters because I see no difference
> between the death of a wild animal versus a farm animal.
Hunters stalk and kill because they enjoy it. Farmers are being paid.
There's a difference between sadism and financially motivated
callousness.
If you single out
> hunters, then you point a finger at individuals. Right now, the eating of
> meat is so pervasive in our society that we must work at changing the
> paradigm that a main course at dinner is a slab of meat. Pointing fingers
> will only put people on the defensive. Rather than driving them to the other
> side, we must try to find a way to change their minds. Telling them they are
> wrong is just counterproductive because they will strive to show how they are
> right.
>
I agree. Hunters will not stop because we tell them they are wrong
to hunt. But, we may be able to undermine the institutional support
for hunting by debunking the lies told to the NON-hunting majority.
We can address the non-hunters and through them get the wildlife
managers working for the animals and for ALL the people, not just for
the 7% minority who hunt.
> I see most concerned hunters as lovers of nature.
"I have so loved them that I longed to kill them."
William Thompson, bowhunting patriarch.
peace for all beings,
Brian
>
> Disclaimer:
> Please folks, no flames! These are my _opinions_ as a bona fide ex-hunter.
> If you think I am "wrong", that's fine. But don't try to disprove my
> opinions.
This post was not meant as a flame or as an attempt to change your
views. I'm just putting my $.03 in (adjusted for inflation).
------- End of Forwarded Message
