| The argumentation of animal
rights activists is feeding on this variety of ethical,
pseudo-environmental and political arguments. A favourite is the alleged
guilt of hunters for the extinction of species. Female anti-hunters seem to
ride often on a rather obscure mixture of sexism, machismo and bloodlust.
The hunters’ right to bear firearms is conveniently considered an
anachronism at best or a provocation at worst. Feel-good-artists invoke the
"large eyes and round face" syndrome, and deplore the insensitive
killing of poor sentient animals, conveniently forgetting their last supper
of roast beef, their latest car with leather upholstery, the lounge suite
of rare mahogany and poached lobsters of their beach holiday! And, why do
they exterminate rats in their houses … maybe because rats are less
sentient than elephants?
Furthermore, romanticized ecotourism
despite of large scale commercialisation – along with the
"Disneyization" of nature - have led the uncritical observer to
overlook the hard necessities of conservation.
The ultimate consequence of all the
arguments against hunting aims at the "act of killing". Killing
is considered a taboo in western culture – since society has successfully
achieved to eliminate almost any association with it. Just look at the
clinically clean presentation of animal protein at supermarkets! But, that
society runs feature movies on prime time TV – with children watching –
where killing, mutilation, blood and guts are main ingredients. Do I detect
some hypocrisy here?
Fortunately, I perceive the "silent
majority" of society neither for nor against hunting. However, the
hunters must finally make concerted efforts to transform neutrality into
informed tolerance. Hunting is yet surrounded too much by an aura of the
inexplicable and even secrecy.
Hunters argue that hunting is as old as
humanity – but in reality hunting is much older. It forms the instinctual
basis of existence of many life forms past and present. In its uniquely
anthropocentric form it is part of human nature and culture. Human hunters
stood in the dawn of human existence and started the process of cultural
development of the human race.
When he releases the deadly bullet and
takes that final decision over life or death the hunter is always alone. In
this decisive second nobody exercises control over him, nobody gives him
advice and nobody can help! The hunter is obviously elated with the result
of a successful hunt. This success is usually determined by the death of an
animal. Without pursuing that final result, hunting would not be hunting,
and without achieving it, its functions in conservation could not be
fulfilled. But is game merely a target? Game deserves better, hunters
deserve better and our culture demands better. The hunting experience is of
essence - Ortega y Gasset aptly describes this as "we do not hunt to
kill, but we kill to have hunted". It is essential that we neither
shame the hunter nor the hunted.
Box 4
There are some activities that are clearly unfair as well as unethical. At
the top of the list is shooting captive or domesticated big game animals in
commercial killing areas where a person with a gun is guaranteed an animal
to shoot. These shooting grounds are alien to any consideration of ethical
hunting.
Fundamental to ethical hunting is the idea of Fair Chase addressing the
balance between the hunter and the hunted. It is a balance that allows
hunters to occasionally succeed while the animals generally avoid being
taken. |
Aldo Leopold – a celebrated American
hunter-conservationist – made a statement which I paraphrased into an
African context. In connection with the "canned" lions, "put
& take" shooting (see box 4), genetic and dietary
manipulations to produce "trophies", etc., Leopold’s statement
becomes quite significant. "[They] are too busy to produce
something to shoot at, to worry too much about the cultural values of the
shooting". Along that line of thought we can say that the hunter
only thinking about the product (trophy) misses out on the process
(hunting)! |
