Last month it was revealed that Rep Hugh McKean, in Loveland, Colorado, has introduced a bill which “requires local education providers, upon entering into an agreement with an individual or entity to provide a hunter education course, to require all seventh graders to complete a course offered by the local education provider”. If you managed to decipher that incredibly awkward syntax, you might be as shocked as I was to learn that kids as young as 12 are being forced to take a hunting course. There’s no opt out for children who may be morally or ethically opposed to hunting, although they can refuse ‘hands on’ activities.
A few weeks ago we were given Lawrence Cahoone’s infamous justification of “Hunting as a Moral Good” to read as part of our MSc studies. You can imagine how that went down on an animal welfare course. Cahoone argues that hunting is not a sport, but ‘a neo-traditional cultural trophic practice consistent with ecological ethics, including a meliorist concern for animal rights or welfare’. Really? Hunting represents real progress for animal rights?
Nope. The only possible instance when hunting a wild animal can be morally justified is if you have no other option in order to survive. The one justifiable motivation would be to kill and eat the animal because you have no other viable food options. Yet between 100 and 200 million animals are killed annually by hunters in the US (Bekoff and Pierce, 2017). That’s a whole lot of ‘starving’ hunters.
Given that this justification can’t reasonably be used by the majority of people in western society, many of these hunters assert that killing wild animals is a more ethical option than buying farmed animal meat, taking a similar position, for instance, to those who consider that catching wild fish is ‘better’ than aquaculture. It’s certainly true that at least the wild animal had a life of freedom, hopefully with minimal suffering, before slaughter. Indeed, Cahoone argues that death by hunter is ‘on average’ less painful than death in wild nature (2009). Hmmm. In fishing, the death of a hooked fish in open seas is a horrific, prolonged ordeal, more so than slaughter in aquaculture. The same applies for hunted animals on land, despite many hunters’ insistence that a ‘clean kill’ offers a humane death. Incompetence, accident, inappropriate equipment or technique, or poor visibility or conditions can cause an injured animal to escape, prolonging their suffering. Thiriet states that it can take an hour for an animal hit by an arrow to die and, in one study, 13 percent of bow hunters admitted to not recovering their prey (2012). Even if the animal escapes injury, he or she can still suffer enormously. In one paper, researchers tracked red deer who were hunted by people with dogs. These deer covered an average of 19 km, depleting carbohydrate resources and disrupting muscle tissues. They also had elevated levels of beta-endorphins and high concentrations of cortisol, suggesting extreme stress (Bateson and Bradshaw, 1997).
Some hunters justify their sport as necessary for the preservation of ecosystems or species, a means of ‘wildlife management’. Yet hunting more often disrupts the gene pool, with larger, more biologically successful animals particularly targeted (after all, bigger formally-fierce dead animals make for better selfies). Being hunted also disrupts animals’ natural activities, forcing them to alter their ‘activity budgets’ i.e., they may increase their vigilance, leaving less time for foraging and other behaviours. Andres Ordiz studied the movement of brown bears in Scandinavia, before and after the start of hunting season. Normally bears would increase their daytime activity as winter approaches and the days shorten. But because of the presence of hunters, they decreased daytime activity and moved more during dark hours, disrupting their rest time. This interrupted hyperphagia, when they need to store fat reserves before hibernation, critical for reproduction (Ordiz et al., 2012).
Cahoone concludes that in some cases hunting is not only permissible but morally good compared with farming, because less animals may be killed to get more calories. But even if killing an animal in the wild is ‘better’ than buying one who has led a whole life of suffering in captivity, we live in a society where nobody has to eat meat. The western hunter has another choice: not to eat an animal at all. If hunters were truly killing wild animals as an ethical protest against farming, demonstrating Cahoone’s so-called ‘meliorist concern for animal rights or welfare’, they would surely be vegetarian apart from the meat they kill themselves. I seriously doubt this is the case for many, if any, western hunters. These people aren’t substituting farmed meat with wild animal meat, they’re eating both.
Ultimately, any moral justification of hunting by a person who lives in close proximity to civilisation, where they can buy or even grow plant-based food, is purely an excuse for an activity that brings them sadistic pleasure. It’s very well to say that killing your own meat is an act of ‘appreciation’ and ‘respect’ for the animal, but this conflicts with the beaming smiles displayed by proud hunters posing next to their dead victims. These hunters are having a lot of fun partaking in this ‘unique experience of animal inter-dependence’ (Cahoone, 2012). In a 2015 paper, researchers conclude that the odds of true ‘pleasure’ smiles are greater when hunters pose with prey, with large versus small prey, and with carnivores versus herbivores (Child and Darimont, 2015). One of the researchers asserted that ‘you can’t fake a pleasure smile, you can’t do it on demand.’
People can put forward all kinds of moral justification for hunting, but the most convincing reason seems to be simply that killing animals makes them happy.
References
Bateson, P. and Bradshaw, E. L. (1997). Physiological effects of hunting red deer (Cervus elaphus). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 264, 1707-1714.
Bekoff, M. and Pierce, J. (2017). The Animals’ Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age, Beacon Press.
Cahoone, L. (2009). Hunting as a moral good. Environmental Values, 18, 67-89.
Child, K. and Darimont, C. (2015). Hunting for trophies: online hunting photographs reveal achievement satisfaction with large and dangerous prey. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20, 531-541.
Ordiz, A. et al. (2012). Do bears know they are being hunted? Biological Conservation, 152, 21-28.
Thiriet, D. (2012). Recreational, conservation and traditional hunting: the ethical dimensions. In: Animal Welfare and Ethics: From Principles to Practice. Proceedings of the 2012 RSPCA Australia Scientific Seminar. 28 Feb. 12-19.
I have been seeking the same answers as you for so long. I really enjoyed your article, and like you, I have so many questions.
I work for the Game and Fish department in my state- a tech job. I still haven’t come to terms with how I feel about hunting, and it’s a controversial subject for all people I work with including biologists, surveyors, conservationists, etc. We learn right away that as off-putting it may be, hunting and fishing is necessary when it comes to the overall welfare and conservation of our ecosystem. Imbalance within various animal populations will throw off the entire environmental ecosystem and could result in it falling apart irreparably down the line. Carefully eliminating invasive species and doing everything to protect our endangered species is of the utmost importance.
As you can imagine, the state wildlife department is a melting pot of passionate conservationists and wildlife lovers. But there are just as many who love the outdoors for recreational reasons as well- hunting included. But the crossover between these worlds is inseparable and can make it extremely hard to distinguish right from wrong within individuals. And it can be just as confusing to those individuals themselves who find themselves on both ends of that spectrum.
When I first started my job, I overheard a guy, that just by looking at, you would assume has a rifle permanently under his Ford F350 passenger’s seat, say something like “I ran across a photo on some lady’s page where she posed herself up next to a beautiful big dead jaguar. She had a huge smile on her face. She had just hunted it. And for what? She just wanted to kill it. It was disgusting.” Unfortunately in my field I always have to hear about these things, and I also have to be faced with the reality every single day. They never fail to make my heart hurt, but the way that man reacted gave me back a little faith in humanity. A miniscule amount.
So, it’s also our department who supplies hunting and fishing permits to those who want to “MAKE A DIFFERENCE” and contribute to the necessary cause of selective elimination. Obtaining licenses, especially for big game, is insanely competitive. Some hunters try for years and years entering themselves into the raffle multiple times, paying hefty amounts to do so. This goes to show just how sought after of an activity this is for folks, and is one very off-putting detail to me.
There are things that are objectively true and false when it comes to hunting and its necessity. We know it has to happen. But is the guy who bought 200 raffle tickets over the past year in order to be drawn to hunt bear, elk and bighorn sheep really motivated by conservation efforts? Doubtful. Most people’s first instinct isn’t to get in line to kill the biggest animal they possibly can if they love animals and want to preserve them. So are we hiring sociopaths or hitmen? This is the person who you’d likely see with a big bloody carcass head in hand, sporting an even bigger smile as the cherry on top.
I would never hurt a fly myself, and it disgusts me to see photos of hunters next to animal carcasses whether they’re presented in a “trophy-like” matter or not. Who wants to see a dead animal anyway? Any photos that lend the animals “some” respect would show no gore, no hunters holding them up with a smile on their faces, no visible wounds and gracefully portrayed in their natural environment. And these photos would be for professional use that surveyors present when they find wounded or killed game in the wild and want to respect the animal, not to be shared around with friends.
But if they’re doing it for the cause alone, why are they smiling? I can’t get over that, WHY are they smiling? I wonder if they look into the eyes of animals like we do and see their souls. I FEEL the souls of the eyes I look into. Most people who were to come across a slaughtered, beautiful animal would probably be devastated, not even consider to take a photo at all. But to actually have the Gaul to stalk and kill it, mutilate it and then hold it up next to you with a big ol’ grin? Gross. The sheer amount of joy and enjoyment coursing through the veins of those individuals is impossible to hide.
They can say all they want that it’s a necessary part of life, but then what makes want to be the one to take the shot? What the heck happened to them in the womb? Who knows, but we can observe the many behavioral parallels between animal hunters and criminals who partake in acts of violence in society. Many are personally seeking to fulfill their sense of self-worth and value, which maybe to many of them only can come in the form of physical or societal power. Perhaps that’s why we come across way more male hunters and violent criminals- they’re not only physically stronger, but then there’s the patriarchy which also quite resembles this exact dynamic.
I find that trying to analyze these individuals tends to be a fruitless endeavor. There’re the people who say they hunt not because they particularly enjoy killing animals, but because the “experience” is about connecting to nature in deeper way and the wholesome family bonding experience it can bring (wholesome, what??). There are people who say they hunt to put food on the table (if you’re living in remote wilderness with no other options, I have no objections, but that might be the case for like 1% of Americans).
There comes to be a point where asking is pointless because nobody will let you put them in a position where they’re forced to acknowledge the animal as another sentient being, just like themselves, and consider what it means to them. You won’t find them eager to let you know they see animals as nothing more than a lesser species- fair game to an apex predator, which they hilariously consider themselves. So there is a disconnect it seems with hunters as they see themselves on a totally skyrocketed level that they’ve got rights to anything below them.
A lot of people like you and I can instantly put ourselves in any animal’s shoes and we see ourselves as no better than any one of them. The hunter will see the animal as a competitor, so the bigger and harder to get, the more self-pride and value they get in return. Hence the competitive trophy photos, which also create a whole new issue of competitiveness between hunters themselves and worsens things even more.
It feels wrong saying that hunting is a method of conservation, and it sucks giving people the go-ahead to be violent and weird towards animals. It is incredibly complex because it’s an exact science when it comes to conservation. That would why the majority of licensed hunters are considered as “ethical” hunters, as long as they’re following the rules and preventing as much collateral damage as possible.
In terms of the overall cause, elimination is ethical, but in terms of human behavior, I don’t view hunting as ethical. And in terms of my career, I can’t let myself get in my head about the human behavioral side because this full-on essay comment just goes to show my fruitless efforts to understand. It’s a necessary evil that I have to constantly deal with hearing about, and it comes with the territory.
Thought I would briefly mention “Fair Chase” hunting as well, as is also purported as ethical for supposedly leveling the playing field between hunter and animal. I don’t understand how it’s fair to use weapons that were not or could not be forged by the hands of the hunter themselves in this case. That’s a whole different conversation and essay for another day! YAY!
Rambling over. I agree with you that killing animals simply brings them joy.
If you ever want to have a conversation, you have my email.
Kudos for the article.
Firstly, thank you for reading and so thoughtfully and honestly engaging with my comments. I wrote that blog a while back, as an immediate emotional response to a news item, and would probably write it a little differently now! It’s incredibly valuable to have your input as somebody working in this area and refreshing to hear that you feel the same way about the lack of respect shown by hunters who relish the kill. As part of my publishing job in Life Sciences, including Zoology, I now work with authors who are directly involved in animal management, from black-tailed deer in North America to kangaroos in Australia, and I’ve had many interesting and challenging conversations with them about conservation, ecosystems and hunting/culling. I still despise the idea of hunting and would always advocate for alternatives where possible (Marc Bekoff’s ideas around ‘compassionate conservation’ for instance) but the more I learn about ecology and animal management, the less obvious the answers seem to be when it comes to animal welfare and ethics. That said, my views remain exactly the same regarding those who hunt for sport or fun – I echo all your sentiments here and seeing photos of hunters posing with dead animals still makes me sick to the pit of my stomach! Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to write and for sharing your insider perspective.