Why I Hunt
Back in February at my own blog I wrote a review of The Wild Within, a new Travel channel show featuring Steve Rinella. The series is based on his interest in sustaining his family on food he kills himself. Since then and with a memorable turkey season now behind me I have found myself thinking about the specific reasons why I hunt. It has been an unexpected internal conversation because I thought I had settled this question long ago.
Since I first started writing persuasive papers back in English 101 I have been talking about why I hunt and what it means to me. Because I was a bit of a hippy in college trying to explain to my other hippy friends why I hunted was a tall order. At the time it seemed necessary to jump through a lot of philosophical hoops about how hunting connected me with nature and with the ‘circle of life’. This was all true of course. I really did feel like I was accessing something deep in my DNA, left there by ancestors who had to hunt to survive. I also knew that animal populations benefit from controlled culling. Much like Rinella does on his show I talked about the ethics of eating what I killed and how this was more humane than buying faceless meat processed by factory farms. I still feel that way, but my maturing ego has allowed me to think more multi-dimensionally about what I do.
Because a decade ago I was staking out and rabidly defending the moral high-ground in the ‘why do I hunt’ conversation I was building a wall between myself and the reality of my choices. Looking back I think part of the reason I identified more with the spiritual and ethical aspects of hunting is because I just wasn’t having much luck. I would bring home a couple of squirrels per year, a dozen doves and maybe a duck. Not a big haul. Because I was spending most of my time NOT killing things I often felt more like a naturalist rather than a hunter. I always brag about my ability to find joy in an unsuccessful hunt but I realize now that this trait may have been borne out of necessity as much as personal nobility.
In the past few years some things have changed for me that have made hunting different. The most obvious change is success. I’ve been blessed with friends and family who now own land and who allow me to hunt in great spots that produce game. I leave the house with much more confidence that I will actually see wild game and usually I do. I can also afford more range time so I shoot better. The other factor that has changed is time. I’m out in the field a LOT these days, partially because I have a fantastic wife who indulges my one true obsession and also because my kids are teenagers now and don’t need constant attention. What is interesting is that because I am hunting more it now feels less like an occasional pursuit and more like a vocation. I have more time to simply enjoy hunting and the pressure I once felt to deliver has disappeared. This leads to my latest realization…these days I hunt for the sport of it.
Because hunting has become less and less popular in the last few decades there has been a quiet yet growing trend of hunters secretly embarrassed to admit that in addition to being outdoorsmen and conservationists we are also sportsmen. We sometimes find ourselves ashamed to admit in mixed company (i.e. hunters and non-hunters) that we take pride in the perfect wing shot or an arrow that hits the mark. We still swap stories about our shining moments but only with other hunters. What is worse is that we have become so fearful of condemnation that when we reveal to someone that we are a hunter we then brace ourselves for the inevitable interrogation that follows. We get weird questions about whether or not we eat what we kill or if we hunt outside of approved seasons. Hunters tired of these ambushes arm ourselves with statistics about the need to control wild animal populations and how healthy deer meat is.
What we really want to say is that hunting is complicated. It’s a sport where a successful day means that something died. This means that on a moral level our pursuit transcends other sports. Additionally, the PETA folks are right. Hunting isn’t something we have to do. It’s something we choose. Or maybe it chooses us. But no one forces us to pull the trigger. Our families won’t starve if we take up golf instead. We’re pursuing a sport that has a unique moral impact and limited social approval but it still appeals to some of us at the very core of our being.
This year I can try to compartmentalize my feelings and go back to pretending hunting is a purely spiritual pursuit…or I can embrace the sport of it. I can proudly admit that I get a thrill from matching wits with the creatures of the forest. I can pump my fist after I drop a bird with a difficult shot and not feel embarrassed about it afterwards. Maybe after a season of embracing this idea I will be disappointed with myself. Or maybe I will feel like I’ve added another layer of complexity to an ever-involving personal philosophy. We’ll see. In the meantime, I’m an outdoorsman and a conservationist…but dammit I’m also a sportsman.
Honest and thoughtful, Mike. I’ve not ever given the ethics of hunting much thought, and so I don’t really have an opinion on it in general or in detail. Your post has given me some food for thought.Report
Mike, this may seem an odd question, but I’m curious about what part of the country you live in – and if that makes a difference in non-hunters reactions. I assume since I live in a ultra-liberal city that these kinds of reactions are just regional.
My dad was a huge outdoorsman, and when he died I inherited an old family flintlock that hung over his fireplace. I hung it in a room in my house, and have been amazed – even after explaining how a flintlock works and how there is no way it can “go off accidentally” – people are genuinely freaked out about it, and ask me how we can have it up with children in the house.Report
RTod,
I live in Louisville, KY. It’s actually a pretty hunter-friendly town BUT it’s still a city so you get plenty of ill-informed questions. Once you leave the city and head out into the rural areas it’s a lot different.
Overall I would say that it’s more of a genrational thing. I have plenty of friends who have never shot a gun. This was far less true for my father’s generation.Report
Live and let kill, that’s what I always say.Report
That’s very true in the world in which we live in.Report
I’ve never packed a longarm out into the woods, but that’s due to inverse pressure of the same factors you’re talking about, Mike. Time, money, and access. I keep meaning to get a license squared away and go out one season, but the confluence of factors just hasn’t been there.
I worked in a slaughterhouse during one summer in college, so I’ll cheerfully defend (to the extent that defense is legitimate) some parts of the industrialized nature of the nation’s food supply. On the other hand, working in a slaughterhouse for even a couple of days (at least, if it’s a job of choice and not one of economic necessity) will deeply inform you about how you feel about killing and eating other living things.
I’m okay with it.Report
Pat,
I would say that the transformative experience for me regarding eating animals was not my introduction to hunting but instead the first time I helped slaughter hogs on a neighbor’s farm. Gruesome, sobering and it taught me a lot. I still love to eat pork but I certainly appreciate it more now.Report
I do agree that more Americans ought to take their hand at a butchering. If you’re going to eat meat every day, you ought to make yourself familiar with the source of it.
Mebbe if you find it too repulsive, you ought to have more salad in your diet 🙂Report
I agree. I think the whole local food movement is a good first step. People are now geting to know the farmers that raise (and slaughter) their food. I’d like to see a Phase II where farmers start hosting do-it-yourself butchering workshops for suburban types.Report
In SWPL Portland, this is already a thing.Report
That doesn’t surprise me much.Report
I’ve never hunted, but I’m certainly not going to judge (mainly because dinner tonight will be a steak burrito). So don’t take this as an accusation from a righteous vegetarian. But I do have a question–why not hunt with tranquilizer guns or nonlethal nets or something of that nature? If the appeal is matching your wits against nature–which again, I totally get–it seems like that could be satisfied without killing things yourself.
I eat meat because I enjoy it, and because I don’t think my own consumption has a large enough impact to meaningfully sustain the system of meat-eating. Nothing would happen systematically if I became a vegetarian, so why not eat carnitas (this is the same way I justify the massive carbon footprint from my vacations). But if they came up with synthetic meat that tasted the same, I’d call that obviously morally preferable to killing animals for meat, and support a ban on non-synthetic meat if it were up to me. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.Report
Dan,
I guess the answer is that those types of non-lethal exercises would be pretty cruel to the animals in a way that maybe surpasses a quick, clean kill. For that reason I rarely fish anymore and completely disagree with the concept of catch and release.
I think I look at it like this: All of those motivations I used to put forward as primary like the need to manage animal populations and to take more ownership of the meat I eat…they are still there. To be honest they are probably my core values. The sport of it remains perhaps secondary. The point of my post though was to say that for once I don’t want to be embarrassed about that secondary reason and I kind of want to embrace it and lose myself in the thrill of the hunt itself. I’ve had moments like that but always suppressed that impulse long-term because it seemed to contradict my ethics.
Those primary motivators allow me to enjoy the sport of hunting with a clear concience and see it as a compliment to my ethics, not a contradiction.
Hope that makes sense.Report
Nice post. I don’t have problems with killing what I eat, and I’ve never had a good chance to try out the sport. Your post makes me want to try it a little bit more.
Please forgive (and hopefully appreciate) the nitpick, but it’s “complement” you want in this context.Report
“I also knew that animal populations benefit from selective culling.”
Can we please drop this line of bullshit? I have hunted for 30 years.
Yes, animal populations benefit when the weak and the old are culled by natural predators. When wolves bring down the slowest elk in a herd, the dead elk won’t reproduce, won’t eat possibly scarce food, etc. But when I sit 350 yards away from a herd and drop the largest, strongest bull with my .338, I ain’t helping the herd. If anything, it’s the opposite. Same thing when I call in a flock of mallards, the lead duck is usually the first shot, not the straggler at the end of the flock.
I agree with taking ownership and responsibility for the meat you eat, but the “I’m helping the herd” is a crock.Report
You say that now, but just wait until the elk evolve steel armor plating.Report
Animal populations still benefit from culling when they’re overpopulated. Which, in some scenarios, is the case.
If you have 1,000 deer on acreage that supports 500 at optimum, without them becoming a destructive force on vegetation, then killing half the deer (healthy or not) is still beneficial from an ecological balance standpoint.
Not that you don’t have a point at all, just that there’s some nuance there.Report
I disagree Jncc. Less animals mean less drain on natural resources. It’s a simple math problem. Yes, there will always be animals at the top of their species and sometimes those are the ones we kill, but over time if an animal population has less and less resources if not thinned.Report
You’re right, but that’s not the usual meaning of improving the herd by selective culling.Report
Mike – you’re right. I should have simply said ‘culling’ and left out the ‘selective’ part.Report
If we’re worried about natural resources, we should be giving hunting licenses out to hunt Hummers, not deer.Report
Of course, a true libertarian economist would just say that you’re giving another animal a chance to be the biggest/fastest/strongest.Report
Rimshot!Report
There’s also the old joke about how economists don’t hunt elephants because they believe that if you just paid the elephants enough they’d hunt themselves.Report
In this part of the Ohio Valley deer are referred to as ‘radiator killers’ or ‘woods rats.’ And, the dudes who spend a grand or so getting decked out to kill bambi can thin the herd out all they want. A dead deer is a good deer, and they taste good. There’s more deer now then when the Mingo and Delaware were running around these parts.Report
I don’t have much problem with hunting for food. Hunting for “trophies,” on the other hand, is pathetic. I am thoroughly unimpressed by an animal head on the wall, unless that animal had a high-powered rifle too and could shoot back.
Of course the animal kingdom always has unequal predator/prey relationships. An Arctic tern doesn’t take much pity on the salmon fingerlings it plucks out of the water. But an Arctic tern isn’t pretending there’s anything “sporting” about its search for food. It’s survival, not “fun.”
A corollary problem with hunting is the perverse idea that we should exterminate natural predators because they “take” too many prey animals and, thus, leave less for human hunters. See, for example, the huge controversies over reintroducing wolves.Report
Travis brings us back to the moral dimension, which is where the debate invariably goes.
The bottom line, the one which we hunters have smothered for so long under pressure from those who have different morals, is that we hunt because we like it. There are many other reasons that run parallel, but enjoyment is the most important.
For people like Travis, the bottom line is that they don’t like it. Just as we use various terms to justify our view, those like Travis use terms like “pathetic” to denounce hunting.
For an Arcrtic tern, it really is about survival, not fun. For me, it is certainly not. To various degrees, it is about reducing feral populations, harvesting my own meat, and behaving as a predator species does. Mostly, it is about having fun.
It’s an emotional reaction, true, but so is viewing a hunter as pathetic. Remove the emotion and it is very hard to make a case against sustainable hunting.Report
Mick – I think you misread Travis’ comment. He was referring specifically to trophy hunting. I know a lot of hunters, myself included, that feel the same way.Report
Travis – I share your view on killing predators. You might check out this post here:
http://progressconservative.com/2010/11/16/thoughts-on-coyotes/Report
Mike, this is an excellent essay, unlike anything I’ve read in a very long time. You’ve conveyed a totally foreign world to me, and almost made me nostalgic for something I’ve never experienced.Report
Thanks Christopher!Report