At 03:14 PM 07/09/99 -0600,  Steve Bissell wrote:

>Bissell: agreed. Killing for the "thrill of killing" is wrong under all
>circumstances. In a little of 35 years in the wildlife business I'm met a
>few, but very few, hunters who enjoyed killing in the sense you are using
>it.
>
McLeod respondes: "Then I think we are by and large in agreement. But my
experience with hunters, which has also been extensive (living in a rural
area), that this
(the thrill of killing) is the intention and frame of reference for quite a
number of hunters. While they may enjoy treking through the woods and they
may (or may not) use the animal for food, this is secondary. Their primary
purpose is the thrill of the kill. Why else does one mount a deer head (with
as large a rack and as many points as possible) on one's wall. It's a
trophy, a proof of their control and superiority over nature."

Bissell here: Well, "While they may enjoy treking through the woods and they
may (or may not) use the animal for food, this is secondary. " According to
the research, mine and Stephen Kellert's, "treking through the woods and/or
food" have consistantly been *primary* satisfactions/motivations for
hunters. This is comprehensive research dating back for more than 30 years
now. No one, that I am aware of has found significant
satisfaction/motivation in killing. Kellert's work has looked most closely
at it and he gives significant justification to the "domionistic" aspect of
hunting. His work is well summarized in _The Value of Life_ and _Kinship to
Mastery_. Both of these I reviewed in the last issue of _Environmental
Ethics_ I'll send Dr. McLeod and anyone (up to a certain number) a copy if
they are interested. My own work is summarized in _Wildlife and the American
Mind: Public Opinion and Attitudes toward Wildlife Management_. This is
available from Responsive Management;

http://www.responsivemanagement.com

I think Mark Duda is asking US$20 to handle shipping and costs.

As to Dr. McLeod point about dead heads on the wall; "It's a trophy, a proof
of their control and superiority over nature."

It's much more complicated than that. As far as we know, hunters have kept
proof of their hunting skills for as long as we've been hunters. I strongly
doubt if it has anything to do with control and superiority. In fact, I
suspect it is a talsiman to protect hunters as much as anything. It's all
too easy to label complex behavior as something trivial, like "trophy"
without any real analysis. I'm not sure why some hunters have animal heads
on wall, but to label it as superiority and control is, as far as I am
aware, unproven. The little research done on it seems to show a very strong
aesthetic influence, art is afterall a matter of taste, and I also suspect
that many hunters have a strong desire to show their prowess. In Inuit
culture, the word for hunter means "One Who Knows." Ortega y Gassett has
shown that hunters are elite in many cultures and some cultures have
restricted hunting to the ruling class as a way of showing cultural
superiority, but not, as far as I can tell, superiority over nature.

It is not really a good arguement to make a behavior seem trivial and then
say "now we can dismiss it." Minority behaviors and cultural norms are often
offensive to others, that does not diminish their signifigance as far as I
can see. I'm thinking of Natives of the Northern Islands of Japan. They
capture bear cubs, raise them in pens, and then torture them to death. It
seems barbaric, but I'm sure if I knew more about it, I'd find very
important cultural signifigance. Does that justify it? well, probably not,
but it certainly makes it more difficult to think about than if we dismiss
it as "thrill of killing."
sb




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%