I often wonder about and have tried to pin down what
is the very essence of hunting ethic. Much has been said and written
about being "sportsmanlike" and fair chase and what constitutes
acceptable and unacceptable hunting behavior with respect to the
animal being hunted. But most of what has been written about what is
ethical and what is not tends to skirt around and evade the real
issues at hand and couches things hard to confront in language that
tends to fall softer on the conscience using words such as hunting,
culling, or harvesting as an alternative to the most unsettling word
of all "killing".
And so we hear of rangers "culling" elephants, or
game farm managers "harvesting" surplus game, or hunters "hunting
their quarry". By using "softer" words we fool ourselves into what
might be described as "reality denial" and the result is that our
ethics are sometimes questionable.
To
get to the point where we can identify the very essence of what a
hunting ethic should be we have to allow our defences to be broken
down so that we can confront what hunters really do. Call it what
you like, couch it in whatever terms you choose – terminating a life
on purpose if the choice to do so is done with forethought and
premeditation is – dare I say the word – killing.
So wildlife managers do not "cull" elephant they
kill them. Game farmers do not "harvest" surplus game – they kill
surplus game. The term "to hunt" is also somewhat ambiguous. You may
"hunt" all over the house to find your car keys but to "hunt" an
animal we all know goes beyond the idea of looking for or searching
for the animal - we know that the hunt culminates in the kill.
Because we are mostly in denial about the word
"kill", we formulate our ethics which, although they may perhaps be
related to hunting, actually miss the core value of what our hunting
ethic should be. And so we have formulated the creed of "fair
chase".
Let’s
look at how the term "fair chase" is defined by some hunting
organizations.
"Fair chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike and lawful
pursuit and taking of free ranging wild game animals in a manner
that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over
such animals."
Hmm! Interesting how the words "taking of free game"
are again used as an alternative to "killing of free game". See what
I mean! Circular reasoning is used because neither the terms
"ethical" or "sportsmanlike" are defined. So the argument goes: "
You are sportsmanlike and ethical because you chase fair and because
you chase fair you are ethical and sportsmanlike." Around and around
the argument goes and becomes even more convoluted by the phrase
"does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over such
animals."
What constitutes "unfair advantage" or "being
ethical and sportsmanlike?" Now again the inquirer is led astray on
a number of rabbit trails. How big should the area be that I hunt
animals on? At what range should I attempt the shot and where should
I aim? Is it OK to hunt at night with a spotlight? What calibre
should I use? Is it ethical to hunt with a longbow? On and on the
questions go and we became bogged down ever deeper into the bog of
moral confusion because we are not confronting the real issue.
What is the real issue? The real issue is that when
you decide to hunt an animal you have mentally taken the moral
decision to terminate a life – that is a nice way of saying that you
have already taken the decision to kill something – the place and
time is, in actual fact, quite irrelevant to the intended outcome.
And now comes the crunch.
If we are indeed as most of us would like to
believe, moral creatures, and we do believe in some moral code of
ethics, and we are not all masochists that derive some sort of
warped pleasure from inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering, then
we have to confront the fact that we have made the choice to kill
something.
The crux around which everything must now hang is
the answer to the question: "How can I kill this animal in the
quickest and most humane way possible and cause the least amount of
pain and suffering during this animals’ journey from what we know as
life to whatever lies beyond?"
That dear friends, fellow conservationists, hunters
and wildlife managers is the heart of the matter - the very core
issue of a hunting ethic!
It is the question most people conveniently choose
to avoid.Everything else is a side issue because everything else
will hinge around the fulcrum of this question.
If you wish to ask yourself from what range you
should attempt a shot the answer will be found in this question.
If you wish to know where you should place your shot
your answer will also be found in this question.
If you want to know what calibre to use the answer
will be found in this question.
If you want to know what weapon to use the answer is
to be found in this question.
If you want to know how big the area must be on
which to hunt an animal the answer too will be found in this
question.
And
some of the answers will be unexpected and not what you may want to
hear.
To decide to terminate a life and kill something is
a big moral step to begin with but because it is the life of a wild
animal, we tend to take the decision lightly because we assign far
less value to the life of a wild creature. And because we regard
them merely as a dispensable resource and assign less value to them
we are less perturbed about being their source of pain and
suffering. At best we dissociate ourselves with reality at worst we
become callous. If we had to take the decision to kill a fellow
human being we would be far more circumspect because we assign
greater value to human life and we are also more aware of the
consequences of taking the life of a fellow human.
A good hunter should not celebrate death but have a
profound appreciation for life. We can all kill. We cannot make
alive again. Once the trigger has been squeezed and the bullet is on
its way we cannot recall it. It must then do its work of bringing a
life to a quick and painless end or causing a crippling and
agonizing wound.
The macho attitude of hunters can be very wearisome
and disturbing but I think it is all a front.
I would like to think that most hunters after a
moment or two of euphoria at having "taken" or "despatched" their
quarry may have a moment or two of quiet and private reflection and
may experience a sense of regret and deep sorrow at having being
instrumental in bringing a life to an untimely end. If there is some
sense of this, however fleeting, it is good – not only for the
individual – but for hunting as well. If it is missing there is
something very wrong with our moral fabric.
If we can dish out pain and suffering and feel no
twinge of conscience or experience a sense of remorse, however
momentary, then we are on the slippery slope of moral decline, where
we have been so desensitized by the violence we see on television,
the movies, printed media and perhaps even around us and our claim
to be moral creatures, able to decide between right and wrong, good
and bad, ethical or non-ethical may well be in jeopardy.
I find it no contradiction in terms that most good
hunters end up being the best conservationists - that a time comes
in their lives when they have had and seen enough of the
blood-letting and dying, and life has taken on new meaning and been
elevated to greater importance, when they no longer want to see the
light of life slowly fading in a kudu’s eye.
Let’s take life seriously and death with reluctance.
Taking a decision to kill an animal (cull, harvest, hunt) is a big
deal. Life is precious. Death (until the Creator brings about
changes we cannot effect) is irreversible. The level of suffering an
animal experiences as it transitions from life to death lies
squarely in the hands of the hunter. The transition may come as
quickly and painlessly as the blink of an eye or may drag on
agonizingly for hours, days or even weeks.
If our love and appreciation for all things natural,
wild and free is indeed genuine and not a facade - then the hunt,
the cull or the harvest will remain for us a sad good, perhaps
necessary but always accompanied by a sense of irreplaceable loss.