This paper was written long before this year. No, it wasn't on paper but it was very alive in my thoughts. It had to be. I am a hunter and constantly on the defensive. Then one day in Writing Studio 209 we were assigned to write a large research paper on an unsolved mystery. Now, I've never been the type person who cared much about ghouls, goblins, and the like nor do I lose much sleep wondering about who killed JFK. This was it. My chance to explore why I hunt and hopefully convey these findings to others. So maybe, just maybe I could be accepted for who I was.
One cold and bleak December day, I set off into the woods with the sole intention of shooting a grouse for dinner. There would be no sport today; no explosive flushes, no finely crafted double barreled shotguns, no spectacular wing shots. They have their place but not today. A semester at college had made me hungry for fresh, clean, unprocessed meat. I would shoot the bird in the head, on the ground, with a .22 rifle. I was unashamedly out to kill.
It was getting dark when I glanced up into the dark boughs of the spruce. I had searched every alder thicket, brush pile, and apple tree that I knew of and here, not one hundred yards from my back door, was the dark, unmistakable, silhouette of a grouse. I slowly raised my rifle, took careful aim, and slowly pulled the trigger. With the snap of the shot, it somersaulted to the ground. My heartbeat quickened as I rushed over to where the bird had fallen . . .
********
Man is a predator and therefore by nature, a hunter. Do not doubt this. While we do not possess the speed of the cheetah, the rapier-like talons of the falcon, nor the strength of the bear, we do have the greatest weapon of all- our superior ability to think. It was the great equalizer that brought us the club, the spear, and the 30.06. For over ninety-nine percent of our history we have utilized weapons as hunter-gather societies (Caras 7), with males traditionally doing the bulk of the hunting. Certainly the remaining one percent is too short a time in our evolutionary history to lose complete touch with our instincts. True, today's "civilized," sedentary world has rid us of our original need to hunt but it has not completely rid us of the urge to hunt in all of us. There are still those of us, for what ever reason, maybe genetic or environmental, who wish to return to a simpler, natural state and satisfy some void within in us that remains unfilled among the skyscrapers and supermarkets (Gaddis 111). The instinct is in all of us and it does not necessarily have to involve killing. It is the force which motivates us to seek and capture a goal. I hunt, some play football. It might seem silly equating football with hunting but let's look at the elements involved. In football, a man chases another man that has something he wants--namely the ball (Marsh 112). Still sound silly? Could it be that my sister's insatiable appetite for shopping is just a socially acceptably means for satisfying some primal instinct? While we all possess a certain "nostalgia" for the past, there are those among us who would want us to deny who we are and our history, the very essence of our predatory nature. We must accept that in some way or another we are all hunters (Herndon 63-64).
*********
I looked down at the motionless body that lay at my feet. It was such a beautiful bird with its rufous coloration, fan-like tail, and gray banded breast. Such a beautiful bird. Such a beautiful bird. I have always been a rather reluctant killer, always feeling some degree of guilt, even with the smallest of creatures but this time was different. I was overcome with guilt. A tear formed. How could I do this? How could I kill the things that had meant so much to me in my life?. . .
*******
"One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted (Ortega 97)."
The kill is not the most important aspect of the hunt. We could not, nor would we want to be successful every time we went afield. It would not be hunting because there would be no uncertainty to the activity and uncertainty is a fundamental aspect of hunting (49-50). For instance, Bullfighting is not hunting because there is no question of the outcome--the bull will die. That is ritual. A recent survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the kill ranks eighth in importance, far behind getting back to nature and companionship, in hunter motivation. However, even in hunting, the kill is an essential act that must occur at some point or else one has not hunted. This is because, "Hunting is what an animal does to take possession, dead or alive, of some other being that belongs to a species that is basically inferior to its own (49). The kill signals the conclusion of the activity; without it you are merely wandering the woods.
Whether a kill is made or not, Hunting is neither moral nor immoral, the hunter neither good nor bad. "He is a good man only if he happens to be good and a bad man only if he happens to be bad (Caras 27). Yes, there are slob hunters but there are slobs in every segment of the population. The problem is that sportsmen
Have become handy scapegoats for Americans unhappy with the declining populations of many wildlife species and the deterioration of the environment generally. The real causes for this wildlife reduction;development, pesticide contamination, water pollution etc., are generalized, amorphous phenomena that seem incapable of being controlled, while the hunter is a specific group that can be focused on and attacked. (Reiger 26-27).
So the slobs who only make up a small minority of the sixteen million hunters in the U.S (NFW Survey), ruin the sportsman's image.
There is a moral dilemma which all good hunters face when they choose to complete the hunt, meet the goal, pull the trigger and that is how can we kill what we love so much? Ortega called it the "mysterious communion "when the hunter doubts himself and the correctness of his behavior yet still makes the kill. Not unlike the Christian who doubts his or her worthiness before drinking from the cup. How can the hunter love his game yet choose to kill it? It certainly seems ironic. Many would disagree that it is possible but maybe it depends on how you define love.
*********
How could I do this? Was this the same person who was widely recognized for his bird-watching abilities? Who would go to great lengths to see unusual birds yet still take great joy in watching the pigeons in the park? Not just birds either, all animals. My father is a Naturalist. I had grown up among them; in some respect they are my best friends. I have read volumes and volumes on just about any animal you could think of. I had informally studied them since I was five. I thought I loved animals. Yet here I was in the blood saturated snow...
*******
The hunter does not "love" his game is the usual sense of the word. It is more a pragmatic love and a deep respect then a blind passion for their prey. Though, as we shall see, there are some hunters whose feelings towards their quarry border on the traditional definition. How is it that the good hunter exhibits this respect?
"The hunter is", as Thoreau remarked, "Perhaps the greatest friend to the animal , not excepting the Humane Society" (Thoreau 155). He points out that hunters have regulated their harvest not because of an "increase in humanity" but rather it was the "scarcity of game". He shows us that the good hunter's interest lies not in him or herself but with the animal. Hunters were the first to call for game laws and equipment restrictions (155). If they really did not care for the animals why would they Bother? Hunters pay the lion's share of the costs of conservation, habitat preservation and wildlife research, through license fees and taxes on equipment (USFW). Of course, an argument can be made that the only reason for these actions was to produce a sustainable yield that they could shoot at. However, these actions do not just go to the relatively insignificant numbers of game animals killed, they benefit all animals through ecosystem preservation. For instance, Ducks Unlimited, a duck hunting organization, has saved over 5.5 million acres of wetland habitat. While trappers in British Columbia are leading the way in the effort to save the rainforests in the Northwest (Connif 133). The hunter's greatest concern is for the preservation of the species, not the individual. This mimics Nature herself. Starvation and predation bring little comfort to a single deer but are of great benefit to the herd.
This is not to say that the hunter does not have a deep sense of respect for the life of the individual animal he kills. The very fact that the hunter makes the conscious decision to kill shows a greater respect for animals (Robinson 273) than the "two billion served" at McDonalds do every time they take a bite into a Big Mac. Why? Because the supermarket has insulated us from the reality that our meat was once an animal. The hunter, on the other hand sees life, inflicts death and must deal with the consequences of his action. Consequences which often bring great sadness to the good hunter. Brad Herndon tells us that "many a time I've reverently knelt beside a dead buck with tears running down my cheeks, marveling at the majesty of the animal" (59).
It is important to note that Herndon used the word "majesty" to describe the buck. Brad Snow talks of the Moose he shot as a "beautiful beast (McPhee 242)". These are just a few of the countless examples in hunting literature in which such adjectives as "noble," "stately", and "intelligent" are used to describe the quarry. These words, obviously, underscore the true feelings of the hunter.
Elspeth Huxely, who, as a young girl grew up in East Africa says that " The best hunters were the best naturalists; they loved the lives they extinguished (264)." She makes a very valuable point. There are hunters who, in my opinion, loved their quarry in the traditional sense of the word. This list includes most, if not all, of this nation's greatest Naturalists; Leopold, Pinot, Roosevelt, Seton, Thoreau, Muir. Who could question Leopold's love of Nature after reading Sand County Almanac? Or Seton's in The Lives of Big Game Animals? The same can be said for our lesser known sportsman as well. Archibold Rutelidge certainly had a passion for deer, spending practically every waking moment of his life observing, studying, writing about, or hunting the White-Tail Deer. This deep respect, and in some cases love occurs because, as Thoreau points out, "Hunters, Fisherman, wood choppers and others, spending their lives in the field, in a peculiar sense a part of nature themselves, are often in a more favorable mood for observing her ..." (Thoreau 154)
They must be attentive to animal behavior, habitat, and population levels to be successful and in doing are become aware of all the wondrous things in nature. Thoreau even goes so far as to say that we should "pity the boy who has never fired a gun; he is no more humane, while his education has been sadly neglected (155)."
So does the hunter respect the game he hunts? Yes, there is no doubt. Is it love? Yes, but for most hunters , it is not love in the traditional sense of the word, It is, as Paul Shepard put it, "A true sense of Kinship" in which the hunter, like the bear or wolf, does not treat the prey like a baby but more as a brother in the endless chain of life (87).
********
The sun had set. I picked the bird up , headed for home, and began to think. It did not take long. Of course I love animals. In fact, the more I thought about it more I realize just how strong my feelings were. I was liberated from a dark question which had haunted me since I had picked my first gun five years ago. However, The story is not finished. My confusion gave way to curiosity. How is that I am able to kill the things that mean so much to me. I was not ashamed, just puzzled. ...
********
"What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood cries unto me from the ground"--God to Cain, after the slaying of Abel (Genesis 4:10)
We have found that the good hunter does love his or her game yet there still remains a great mystery. How can they love the animal yet choose to kill it? This is the great irony which complicates the hunt because "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" (Gasset 88). This doubt is enhanced by our limited understanding of what the animal is sensing and our convictions about killing any living thing. Yet the hunter, faced with these enormous questions, continues the hunt, and pulls the trigger.
One explanation for this behavior is given by Konrad Lorenz, in his book, On Aggression. In it, he says that perhaps the greatest expression of love is through aggression. This is because the bond came about as result of "ritualized" aggression (Lorenz 217). In the hunter's case, he or she came to love the quarry as a result of hunting it. (Remember what Thoreau said about how the hunter was able to learn the most from nature through their activity.) So, there would be no bond without the hunt and the best way to continue this love is to continue the hunt. While I do not doubt that the hunter's love for his game comes from his exposure to Nature, I question whether the kill is necessary for this love's maintenance. Many hunter's reach the point where they no longer feel the need to kill. They do not start by denouncing the hunt; on the contrary many encourage the young to start. A good example of such a person is Thoreau. However, Lorenz would argue that he would no longer be able to love Nature as much as he did when he hunted.
Another possible explanation for the hunter's great paradox is that the hunting instinct might be stronger then any of us realizes. There could be a point in the hunt when all the ethical quandaries about killing are overridden by an overwhelming desire to satisfy the desire. (Ortega 90-91). This seems plausible. If it can motivate me to face the misery of sitting motionless all day in rain, snow, and bone chilling cold, it certainly could help me make ethical decisions. I know there are times when I really do not want to kill but I do, without hesitation. Ortega would say I took "a vacation for human condition (111)" and let primal forces come together. Forces which sometimes seem uncontrollable. This is a frightening thought. There are not many people who would admit that their Instincts had so much control over their lives. Why is this instinct so powerful in some of us, when they so seemingly absent in others?
Our environment must play a large role in this. A person who has lived all their life in a city and never been exposed to hunting let alone Nature (except the pet cat), would have little want or need to hunt. In fact, the average anti-hunter, according to a recent study in the National Journal for Interpretation, is a white, urban, college aged female who knows little to nothing about wildlife. Contrast this with a rural setting, where hunting is a rite of passage for most young boys. Gender is, obviously, very important as well. The overwhelming majority of hunters are males. The instinct might be stronger in males because of traditional gender roles.
However, gender and environment cannot solve the whole puzzle. Some hunters seem to be born not made. I am a good example of this. My father was once an avid hunter but his interest had waned a great deal by the time I was born. Then one day, I began chasing rabbits with a butterfly net. My father tried to dampen my enthusiasm (he took away the net). It didn't work. Then I turned our suburban compost heap into a duck blind. I was a hopeless cause. It was in my blood.
********
I had held the grouse by my side as worked my way home. It had brushed my pant leg several times but it was dark. I could not see. The porch light revealed the truth. A large crimson spot now soiled jeans...
Jose Ortega y Gasset once remarked that nothing stains like blood No matter how we try, it never is totally wiped clean. It disgusts and delights and is forever present. This, as we have seen, is like the hunt (90) . The instinct was once a fundamental part of all of us. Times have changed, the need is gone, but the desire remains.
Hunting remains but what was once an accepted tradition is today, under attack. I guess it is a sign of a progressive society to question the past. However, problems arise when there are no clear answers. We don't like mysteries and it is just as hard for the hunter to explain as it is for non hunters to understand. The issue of hunting is further complicated because it involves personal ethics. What the hunter asks for is acceptance, acceptance in what he does and who he is.
*******
The blood never came out of my jeans. The grouse is now but a pleasant culinary memory;its feathers, fishing flies. While I am not sure why I do what I do, the orange stain remains as a constant reminder of who I am, a hunter.
Works Cited
Works Referenced