Chris,

Hope you don't mind if I reverse the order of some of these passages--it
won't materially effect the meaning at all.

I had asked Chris:
>> And as an aside to Chris: when you wrote,
>>
>> >Not so. As I said, for a period of my life,I spent every moment I could
>>dedicated to hunting in
>> >every form.I probably know as much about it as anybody in this country.
>>I had a magnificent
>> >teacher. Times change, and concepts of what it is to be a human being
>>change.
>
>Jim:
>> Did you consider yourself "depraved" during this period in your life? Or
>>reworded, do you think in hindsight that you were
>> a depraved individual when you were hunting? [snip of my post]
>
>Chris: No. I sought the thrills of hunting. It was all very exciting. I
>adored guns and ammo, and snares and nets, and all the
>paraphernalia. I was obsessed with catching and killing wild birds and
>animals. And fish. That kind of eclipsed the earlier love for
>nature I had had, which was more toward the conventional old fashioned
>'naturalist' variety, more a scientific study.
>

Jim here:
So from your response, I take it that you did not consider yourself
depraved during this period of your life when you were hunting for
"thrills," i.e. when you "sought the thrills of hunting."  I also take it
that, in your view, hunting for thrills in this sense is *not* necessarily
a good thing, but simply that hunting for thrills is less morally
bad/evil/depraved than hunting done for other, more depraved reasons.

>> Tantillo:
>> But I have to question a moral judgment about people
>> >> (presumably total strangers), which arises, as you say, from personal
>>revulsion: "depraved"???
>> >> That's a strong term. Are those individuals depraved because of what
>>happened in the school? Or
>> >> are all hunters who use hounds to hunt deer depraved? How about
>>hunters who use hounds to hunt
>> >> other animals: raccoons, bears, mountain lions? How about those who
>>use dogs to hunt
>> >> non-mammals: for example, the various species of game birds? Or
>>hunters who use a combination
>> >> of both dogs and birds of prey, as in falconry: also to hunt birds?
>
>Chris:
>Yes,I have done these kind of things myself. One of the two guys I
>mentioned (ex Korean war) who taught me,
>though now dead, is someone I will always love and remember with
>tremendous admiration and regard.
>He is certainly ranked amongst the most sensitive, aware people I have
>ever encountered.A very rare and
>special individual. So, I'm not just making a sweeping assertion of the '
>all politicians are scum ' variety.

Now about this hunting mentor you speak of: you write that he "ranked
amongst the most sensitive, aware people" that you have known.  I am going
to infer from that statement that *he* was not depraved, either--or evil,
or corrupt.  So, as you say, you are not making a sweeping assertion (akin
to "all politicians are scum") that "all hunters are scum (depraved)."
Hopefully I've got your meaning accurate so far.

Chris continued:
>But to get pleasure, at the expense of another person's suffering, - like
>sexually molesting children -
>is, in my understanding, depravity.

Here is where I start to get confused.  Undoubtedly both you and your
teacher enjoyed hunting--you yourself say as much.  I have a hard time
figuring out why when either you or your mentor hunted, it was *not* like
sexually molesting children; but when other people whom you *don't* know
hunt, it's like sexually molesting children.  But of course you *do* know
other hunters, and they are the ones who are depraved and for whom hunting
is like sexually molesting children:

Chris:
>And when I have encountered 'hunting folk', they are not at all like
>my teacher, and I find that what they are doing is deeply offensive to me.

So your experience with *some* hunters has led you to make certain
conclusions about hunters in general (perhaps about most hunters? or even,
*all* hunters?. . . no, of course not, you wouldn't go that far.)  Yet what
I find interesting is your acknowledgement that people like your hunting
mentor *can* be hunters, enjoy hunting, and yet *not* be depraved--in fact,
*can* be caring, sympathetic, genuinely nice people.

So how about someone who can make a similar observation about the hunters
in his/her experience, and says something like, "And when I have
encountered 'hunting folk', they are mostly like Chris Lees's teacher. . .
."  And this has certainly been *my* experience of hunters--but of course
it may be that I'm just an awful judge of character.  And while I
acknowledge the familiar problems with utilizing anecdotal evidence of the
type you offer (and which in turn I have just offered), doesn't the
existence in the world of seemingly non-depraved hunters at least give you
pause about your blanket condemnation of all hunters (who use dogs) as
"depraved"?  Which is how I interpreted your statement, "I consider all to
be depraved":

>> >Chris Lees:
>> >I consider all to be depraved, recognising that it is indeed a strong
>>term, in just the same sense that
>> >I consider people who get their kicks from torturing little children to
>>be depraved.

That sounds like a sweeping assertion to me.  Unless it means politicians
who hunt with dogs are depraved.  Or maybe just scum.  :-)   . . . on that,
we might be in agreement <s>.

Now to be sure, I think you are making a genuine distinction about "good"
hunting and "bad" hunting.  Bad hunting is indifferent hunting, or hunting
which does not respect life; hunting which in fact desecrates life:

Chris:
>If you like, they do not
>comprehend the sanctity of life, the Uluru or Shiprock, and they desecrate
>it, ignorantly and unescessarily.

You and I are in agreement that this type of disrespectful attitude
represents an extreme example of "bad" hunting--which is in contrast to
your hunting mentor, who then quite possibly represents an opposite extreme
of "good hunting."  And your own hunting background resembles nothing more
perhaps, than "ugly hunting."  Kind of like a Clint Eastwood movie.  :-)

Now what you have in fact done here (sounds to me anyway), is that you've
made some very substantive and insightful qualitative distinctions between
the good, the bad, and the ugly forms of hunting.  This is an argument I
can live with--in other words, an argument which states that not all kinds
of hunting (or motivations for hunting) are alike, and/or that not all
hunters are created equal.  I agree.

>Chris:
>Sure, I understand your objections to my word 'depraved', and your
>thoughts here. Off list, I'd speak of such people as do trophy
>shooting of rare species, using language that'd melt stones. I think some
>of you guys on this list have been studying this stuff in an
>academic fashion for years. The legalistic debate can go on for ever.
>There are plenty of philosophical balls that the Ancient
>Greeks set rolling, which are still not settled. I prefer to speak from my
>heart. To see a fox have its face shot off and the cubs
>torn apart by dogs is not pretty. I ask myself, as a zen buddhist, 'is
>this good ?', and my answer is 'No'. And for the people who
>do it for 'fun', I do not feel respect. It's not an honourable
>achievement. They don't risk their own lives, as a skydiver does.
>They destroy something that doesn't belong to them, which is no threat to
>them, something which has its own secret, mysterious,
>noble way of living, and they do it for frivolous, fatuous, trivial
>reasons, like " enjoying the fresh air " or  "it's traditional".

Here I must disagree.  And I do so partly on the basis of principled
reasons, not (in my view) trivial or fatuous ones.  For example, you
juxtapose the image of a fox being killed, presumably by hunters' dogs--"To
see a fox have its face shot off and the cubs torn apart by dogs is not
pretty"--with the subsequent comment, "for the people who do it for 'fun',
I do not feel respect."  Well, doing something "for fun" and enjoying
something (like hunting) are two separate phenomena.  This is why I made
the comparison earlier to tragic drama.  One might "enjoy" an absolutely
gut-wrenching production of _ King Lear _ and not have any "fun" at all.
It is not the death of the animal _  per se _ that one takes pleasure in.
The death of the animal is not what *pleases* us.  This would be perverse,
and possibly even depraved.  But yet I think it makes sense to speak of
enjoying the experience overall.

Moreover, why does the opinion that seeing an animal have its face torn
apart "is not pretty" lead to a moral evaluation of either the hunter or of
the dogs?  Coyotes rip the hindquarters off of whitetailed deer where I
live, and proceed to eat the viscera of the deer, sometimes while the deer
is still living.  Not pretty, perhaps, but . . . .  but what?  How does
"pretty" or "not pretty" enter into your moral equation?  As a zen
buddhist, do you ask yourself about coyote predation, "is this good?"  and
conclude, "It's bad when dogs do it, but ok when coyotes do it?" or is it
bad when coyotes do it, too?

Now of course I'll consider the potential objection in response.  "But of
course, hunters *cause* the dogs to kill the fox."  There's no human agency
involved with "natural" coyote predation.  Well, how about the coyotes whom
we "cause" to kill the fox with our permissive policies of allowing
predators to exist?

N.B. Recognize that this last question represents one serious argument that
has been made against reintroducing wolves and/or other large predators in
areas where they had formerly been extirpated.  I.E. the reintroduction of
wolves and other carnivores is wrong because it lacks a protective concern
for the prey animals that will be killed who otherwise would not have been
killed.  Seems to me the ethic you're espousing here might have a kind of
(unintended) intuitive appeal to the anti-wolf, moral individualist animal
advocates out there.

>Lees:
>Does killing of wildlife have to be done ? Well, in this country, the
>answer for deer is yes,IMO, because as in USA, we've
>exterminated the wolves. The deer multiply and destroy their own habitat,
>thus endangering other species. I accept deer
>culling. But by qualified marksmen, who approach the matter in a clinical
>manner. It is a matter of regrettable nescessity.

Now this in my opinion gets tricky.  (Aside from questions about wolf
reintroduction policy.)  Why should we view "clinical hunting" in any kind
of different way, i.e. as morally superior to sport hunting (if only
superior merely in the sense of being more widely "acceptable")?  Wildlife
managers have known since Leopold's time that recreational sport hunters
can be called upon to perform the same exact function of population control
that you describe here as a "regrettable nescessity."  Plus sport hunters
will do this for free!  Why does it matter morally that sport hunters enjoy
hunting, whereas in your imagined clinical setting, the "shooter" is a
"qualified marksman" whose primary virtue lies in his disinterested
"approach [to] the matter in a clinical manner"?  Several objections
quickly come to mind:

(1) For one thing, these animals still have to be *hunted.*  In contrast to
what nonhunters may believe they know about hunting, it is not simply a
matter of sitting around and waiting for animals to come to you to be
killed--which is a concern especially when your "qualified marksman" is on
the clock, i.e. being paid to do this as a job.  Are you prepared to pay a
trained marksman to hunt for ten, twenty, thirty, or more hours to kill a
single deer?  (Of course, if he/she is really good, maybe he'll shoot a
couple, maybe more.)  And if your goal is serious population reduction, how
many of these "qualified marksmen" do we hire?

And incidentally: how do we keep these marksmen from enjoying themselves
while they are out walking around in the woods on the prowl for those nasty
deer, whom they view in the most emotionally detached manner
imaginable--i.e. as the Other, i.e. as the opponent, i.e. as mere
"targets"? See (2).

(2) This "clinical" detachment scenario sounds chillingly like an emotional
disattachment from the animal killed.  Here the animal truly is perceived
just as an object to be exterminated, and not as a living breathing animal
worthy of respect.  I think sport hunters genuinely *love* the animal they
pursue--both the individual animal and the species of animal--as
paradoxical as that may seem to the nonhunter. For those on the list fond
of making analogies to the Holocaust--here's your image of the "qualified
marksman" as Nazi executioner.  Say what you will about "yahoos" and the
like, but I'm pretty sure that *not all* hunters have the sort of Grim
Reaper sense of duty about their hunting that you ascribe to the detached,
clinical marksmen.  This sounds a bit too much like butchery or pest
control than hunting, and there is a very real difference.  So I daresay
that recreational sport hunting is far more justifiable than this sort of
mercenary, "gun for hire" approach that anti-hunters sometimes advocate.
Why is hunting done for enjoyment "depraved," and doing it for money not
"depraved"--given that that both can equally well serve the same management
function you acknowledge is sometimes necessary?

[Jan Dizard makes some similar points in his book about the controversy
surrounding a special deer hunt in the Quabbin Reservoir in Massachusetts.
See Dizard, Jan E.  Going Wild: Hunting, Animal Rights, and the Contested
Meaning of Nature.   Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1994.]


>That's in a different category, in my view, to a bunch of yahoos who want
>to charge around the countryside following hounds
>as social entertainment.
>
>In fact, refering back, perhaps we should reinstate hunting of people, so
>that I could hunt some of them, and see how they like it ;-)
>

Well, you can joke about this all you want.  But I'm not sure I've ever
heard any of the "good" (sensitive, aware) hunters I know joke about the
hunting and killing of people.  This seems to be a staple on the
anti-hunting side, whereas I just don't think killing people is a joke. . .
.

Call me humorless, go ahead, I can take it.  :)  . . . but I do acknowledge
your smiley squiggle. ;-)


Jim