>
>Bissell here: Why don't you stop some evening and ask them why they are
>fishing? I'd bet that most of them *do not* say it's for supper.

McLeod responds: "Indeed they do. Unfortunately, such abject poverty still
exists in the US."


Bissell again. I didn't say poverty doesn't exist. I said that you should
ask these people why they are fishing. I have, in South Carolina to be
exact, and have found that less than 5% of anglers do so *primarily* as a
food source. Incidentally, that "less than 5%" is within a margin of error
of 4%. We suspect that the actual percentage is closer to 1%. Poor people
can, and do, hunt and fish for lots of reasons other than food. At anyrate,
I'm interested why you think that hunting and fishing *primarily* for food
changes the ethical issue? Or is it the financial status of the person? I
just talked to a guy from Nova Scotia. There the population, pretty middle
class, hunts and fishes at a rate of about 90%. The *all* do it for the
meat. He hasn't bought any meat in a store for 15 years. He can't grow much
because Nova Scotia is not good agricultural land. So, he could afford to
buy meat for "survival" but choses to shoot it himself. Because he has a
choice does this change your criteria of "survival?"

(snip)>
McLeod continues: Just trying to draw out the implications of your position.
You argue that modern hunting is not merely a means to acquire food, but it
entails certain
other benefits that accrue to the hunter.

You wrote:

7/8/99 posting:

Bissell:
>I think that some of us posters, such as Jim Tantillo and myself, are
saying that hunting is much >more than "mere recreation," and may, in fact,
represent a relationship with animals with profound >meanings.

>Some newly discovered cave paintings in (I believe) Spain show half
man-half animal figures. >Consider that the painter had to crawl on his/her
belly carrying a bowl of burning animal fat and >paint these figures. Why
did they choose hunting as the subject of most of the paintings? I think
>these people had a very clear understanding of the relationship of animals
and themselves. They >knew that taking a life was an important event, and
not just for survival. If that was the case they >would not have attempted
to show a metaphysical relationship with animals. In fact some >non-hunting
cultures do not have any indication of metaphysical attitudes toward
animals.


7/9/99 posting:

Bissell:
>My contention, and that of Paul Shepard, Jim Tantillo and a few others, is
that hunting has far >greater signifigance than "survival." There are
profound anthropological, psychological, historical, >cultural and,
practical implications with modern hunting


7/11/99 posting:

Bissell:
>The relationship of a hunter to prey requires, at some point, death. The
sterile and detached >relationship of a photographer is not even close. One
is an ecological/evolutionary relationship, the >other is recreation.


7/11/99 posting:
>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.


McLeod:
I'm particularly interested in the psychological aspects of hunting that you
mentioned. You also mentioned Ortega in your 7/11 posting, who, along with
others, such as Randall Easton and Aldo Leopold discuss this facet of
hunting, which leads me to explore the instrumentality and dualistic nature
of non-survival hunting..

Easton and Ortega both suggest that hunting reflects an attempt toward some
mystical oneness or unification with either nature (Easton - "The
Human/Animal Connection") or the hunted animal (Ortega - "Meditations on
Hunting,"). According to Ortega, hunting is a "vacation from the human
condition," a "mystical union." ("Meditations," pp. 121, 124). Ortega even
writes of the "contagion" of the hunt and the "unequaled orgiastic power" of
blood ("Meditations," 124, 92).

The ultimate purpose of the hunt, for these at least, seems to be some
reversion to an earlier stage of being in which one's separateness from
nature has not yet occurred. However and very telling, the act of
identification coexists with the desire to kill the being with whom one
identifies. Ortega writes that "death is essential because without it there
is no authentic huting." ("Mediations," 96-97). This ambivalence arises from
the equivocal nature of man's relationship with animals. Ortega contends,
"Nor can it be otherwise, because man has never really known what an animal
is." ("Meditations," 88).

For these two, hunting is not a means of subsistence, but rather a desire
that fulfills a deep psychological need, the need to identify with animals
and to deny that he is an animal himself. The unification is sought through
the hunt (Ortega writes that the hunt, not the death, is the end), but the
death of the animal, which must occur, ensures that the unification never
occurs.

IMO, for the hunter, the animal becomes an object. Aldo Leopold, in fact,
makes this clear, writing, "Hunters outwit their animals for one and the
same reason–to reduce that beauty to possession." ("Sand County Almanac,
230)

The "prey" is not seen as a unique, living being, a subject of respect and
care, but as an instrument to achieve a desired psychological state. The
animal is reduced to an object or symbol, some 'thing' that is separate from
the human hunter. The attempt at unity is, at the same time, paradoxically,
an attempt at separation."

Bissell here: I was with you up until the last paragraph. All of the
previous does *not* lead to the conclusion that the hunter does not see the
prey as "a unique, living being, a subject of respect and care."  Or only
perceives the prey as "an instrument to achieve a desired psychological
state. The animal is reduced to an object or symbol, some 'thing' that is
separate from the human hunter." As I have said before, the bond between
human hunter and animal prey is very intense and very often not at all
instrumental. There are examples in all hunting cultures of hunters asking
"forgiveness" for killing animals. In modern hunting this has come to be a
variety of behaviors. For example, in Germany, hunting is controlled by
local "hunt masters" who have wide powers of control. When a hunter kills an
animal, red deer mostly, there is a very strict code of conduct around the
treatment of the dead animal. It has to be cleaned carefully, laid on one
side, a sprig of vegetation is placed in it's mouth, you are not allowed to
step over the body, but have to walk around. The sharing of the meat is
prescribed by the hunt master. Violation of any of this can cause immediate
lose of hunting rights, which are very difficult to obtain in the first
place. All this is a very modern society. To dismiss this as "a thrill" just
doesn't make it for me.

As to the desire to acheive a certain psychological state, why do you
dismiss that out of hand? Isn't that largely the point of ethics? Or if
doing the "right" thing makes us feel good, does that diminish the ethical
content?

I guess I don't understand why you feel hunting for survival is any less
"dualistic" than hunting for cultural, historical, psychological, or other
reasons. I've never really got the point of "dualistic" claims anyway. Of
course we, you and I, we and them, are seperate. Unless you are aware of
something I've missed, that is the point of ecology. We are foreced by
ecological circumstances to compete for limited resources. This is the
engine that drives evolution. As Leopold states;

"All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual
is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him
to compete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also
to co-operate (perhaps in order that there may be a place to compete for.)
    The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to
include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land."
(Almanac pg 204).

Notice that Leopold is careful to say "parts" and not imply any sort of
metaphysical unity. I don't know if you are going the direction of "all is
one" or not, but the lessons of ecology and evolution are that we are
distinct and seperate, but that interdependence is forced on us, it is not
an issue of choice. But this interdependence requires the actions of
seperate beings.

I think I'm drifting off point pretty badly here. Let me go back whence I
started. I firmly believe that hunting can be a way of understanding in a
visceral way the ecological/evolutionary/cultural role humans (should) play
in ecosystems. I think the seperation from nature you seem to decry is more
likely if you treat animals as something other than what their role in
ecosystems are (is?). A deer is very pretty, I love to photograph deer and
often do so. I also hunt deer, kill them, and eat them. I don't *have* to
either photograph or kill them for survival, if survival is defined as the
only way I can get protein necessary for basic physiological functions.
However, if I define "survival" as living within the constraints of my
ecological/evolutionary role in ecosystems, it may very well be necessary
for *me* but not for you.

Paul Sheppard wrote this:

"The proponents of this fanatic individualism retreat from a hostile and
absurd world to an inner life whose only values are personal and subjective.
By valuing ony the unique and individual they rightly oppose mass man and
the treatment of human beings as replacable machines--at the price of
ecological nihilism. It is the act of a screaming and emented oyster." (Man
in the Landscape, pg xiv)

I see the inablility to actively and aggressively interact with animals as a
symptom of seperation from nature. The desire to see animals as individuals
and worthy of the same respect and treatment we give memebers of our own
species implies some sort of blanket ethic. It is not, however, an ethic of
convergence with nature, but rather an ultimate seperation from nature. We
only accept our role as an individual and reject all responsibility for the
loss of our species role in ecosytems. Recycle, don't eat meat, drive a gas
efficient car, eat yogurt out of a hand shaped bowl, listen to Paul Winter
CDs; but, don't for heavens sake go out and kill an animal and eat it. I
really hope this never happens. It is a brave new world I find terrible
depressing.

Sorry for the length of this. I'm trying to avoid work today. Guess I'll go
walk the dog and do some bird watching, won't kill anything except a few
ants by mistake today.
sb




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