 |
 |
Jim Tantillo wrote... >I know you won't like where I go with this one, but you've just given one >of the best defenses of hunting I can think of. "I personally feel most >fully alive and concious when involved in play." This is a good "defense" of play. It's not necessarily a good defense of hunting. The fact is that there are many ways to "play." The more central issue, as I understand it, is whether or not hunting is a justifiable form of play. >Part of what makes sport hunting sport hunting, then, and not mere killing >or butchery, is the adherance to a set of rules (or "obstacles" as stated >above) that define the boundaries of permitted activity. It is this set of >unnecessary rules that defines hunting as a sport. I agree that hunting can be defined as a sport. But I still question if it is a fair sport, and if killing is a justifiable part of any sport. >As far as I know, no one considers the use of hand grenades, missiles, >machine guns, flame throwers, biological weapons and the like >"sporting"--which helps capture some of the rationale behind labeling the >activity "sport hunting" as opposed to alternatives like "meat" >hunting/hunting for the pot, or even just "recreational hunting." As Suits >argues, "the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favor of less >efficient means." Well Jim, the situation of methods and technology used in hunting still seems quite arbitrary to me. A high powered rifle is clearly more efficient in hunting than a spear. You mention later that a high powered rifle makes for a cleaner kill. This I understand. But so does a machine gun. With a maching gun a hunter can be more certain of the animal not running off after being shot. Or with a (imaginary) sonic boom weapon or some such death ray it could be certain of killing the prey cleanly and efficiently. Tom Brown Jr, in "The Search" talks of some of his adventures in hunting with a spear. He actually sneeks up on deer (using the skills of his American Indian unbringing) and throws a spear through its heart from about 9 feet away. It's necessarily an older, weaker deer. In another section he describes being next to starvation in the woods and catching a fawn with his bare hands and eating it raw (mmmm... sounds delicious). Now *that's* a level playing feild. And I agree with >Steve Bissell, who said something to the effect that if you think "sitting >in a treestand and simply waiting for a deer to come along" is easy, you >should try it some time. Oh please Jim. It's absurdly easy. As I've stated before I've done treestand hunting when I was younger. It's quite peaceful. I love the natural setting. And I really and truly can see the attraction of it. I just don't think the killing part of it is justifiable. I got just as much out of the experience sitting there with a video camera as I did sitting there with a gun. Glimpsing the deer in it's natural setting can be breathtaking. Subsequently shooting it with a gun (for sport) is murderous and cowardly. >And this is why hunting and angling are so *very* important to the people >who practice these activities. When one is immersed in the predatory act >of hunting, when one is most highly alert to one's surroundings, when one >loses themselves in the activity--that is hunting. That is also mountain >climbing, running, dancing, etc. etc. etc. for devotees of those particular >practices. Can we say, "take up a new hobby"? I've played many sports in my life. If later I realized that one of them caused x amount of pain and suffering more than the others, it would be no problem to focus my energy in the other sports, or perhaps to take up a new one. Take one of these activities away from people, and you take >away their *reason for living* in many cases. I think that's a bit exaggerated. >Now granted, an animal loses its life in the culmination of the hunting >practice/game. But a "good" hunter or a "thoughtful" hunter or a >"reflective" hunter takes his/her responsibility for taking that life very >seriously. And this serves as a justification? It's like the murderer getting a lesser sentence for showing remorse. Is being remorseful (or taking the act seriously) better? Yes, I think so. But it does not justify the act. >To return to sporting ethics: these codes of sporting ethics, or rules, >what Suits above calls the "unnecessary obstacles," do in fact function to >limit the human advantage over the animal. Maxims like "Take only sure >shots," "Shoot birds on the wing," "Do not overplay the fish," etc. all >have an effect on everything from the choice of equipment used to the >ultimate decision whether to shoot or not. . . . I just don't see how a hunter could have any greater advantage than sitting in a tree stand (perhaps picking his nose to pass the time, or reading a book), waiting for a deer to walk along, and filling it full of lead (so to speak). Bryan H. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Tantillo <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Cc: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tuesday, April 06, 1999 5:10 PM Subject: Hunting as Play, Part 1 was Re: Enviroethics and the Problem ofSuffering >Hi again everyone, > >Some thoughts on play. . . . > >>Dreamer: The operative word in the first sentence of the above quoted >>paragraph is "feel." There is no compelling reason to conclude that >>self-conciousness depends upon linguistic capabilities. Moreover I >>question the underlying assumption that other species do not have >>linguistic capabilities or something analogous. While it "may" be that >>animals glide through the day completely unaware, I think it's just as >>likely that many of them interact more fully and conciously with the >>world than most humans. A criteria that I think deserves at least as >>much weight as linguistic capability is the capacity for play. Play is >>at the root of many of the institutions and practices which we consider >>"civilized" and uniquely human: humor, drama, music, law, sports, magic, >>and ritual of all types. I personally feel most fully alive and >>concious when involved in play. > >I know you won't like where I go with this one, but you've just given one >of the best defenses of hunting I can think of. "I personally feel most >fully alive and concious when involved in play." Part of what makes >hunting a sport is its play aspect--sports are physical games, and games >involve the following of (somewhat) arbitrary rules which serve to make the >game both interesting and *challenging.* > >Philosopher of sport Bernard Suits writes: >"To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs . . . >using only means permitted by rules . . . , where the rules prohibit use >of more efficient in favor of less efficient means . . . , and where such >rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity . . . . I >also offer the following only approximately accurate, but more pithy, >version of the above definition: _Playing a game is the voluntary attempt >to overcome unnecessary obstacles_" [emphasis added]. > >Part of what makes sport hunting sport hunting, then, and not mere killing >or butchery, is the adherance to a set of rules (or "obstacles" as stated >above) that define the boundaries of permitted activity. It is this set of >unnecessary rules that defines hunting as a sport. This relates to Bryan's >continued questioning of methods and technology in sport hunting (and in >angling as well, I might add): > >Bryan: >>You may have missed out on a previous line of questioning of mine Chris. It >>seems that many of the pro-hunting contingent (and let me digress for a >>moment. I'm not against hunting per se. In fact one of my theories is that >>every person who eats meat should have to kill their own animals. Basically >>I'm against killing to eat meat, which includes but is not limited to >>hunting. Being omnivores, we have the ability to choose a vegetarian diet.) >>on this list missed it as well, or just didn't choose to answer. The tiger >>is not wrong for killing with his claws, teeth, speed and strength. >>Obviously nature gave the tiger these means of finding food. My question >>was/is this: At what level of our means of killing the animal is it not >>hunting? Hand grenades? Missiles? Infrared? Machine guns? Flame >>throwers? Biological weapons?! Extrapolating from your analogy between >>gunpowder and a tiger, you would say all of these ways are acceptable? > >As far as I know, no one considers the use of hand grenades, missiles, >machine guns, flame throwers, biological weapons and the like >"sporting"--which helps capture some of the rationale behind labeling the >activity "sport hunting" as opposed to alternatives like "meat" >hunting/hunting for the pot, or even just "recreational hunting." As Suits >argues, "the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favor of less >efficient means." If one is motivated by hunger and hunger alone, it seems >that one might use *any means possible* to capture the prey and fill one's >belly. But voluntarily limiting one's technological advantage is (partly) >what makes sport hunting and sport fishing what they are. And I agree with >Steve Bissell, who said something to the effect that if you think "sitting >in a treestand and simply waiting for a deer to come along" is easy, you >should try it some time. I have a friend who simply cannot sit still--he >is neither an effective hunter nor a good angler (at times). Occasionally >he's a pretty good trout fisher, but that's a very active "sport." > >Dreamer again: >>It is also part of the specialness of >>play that when you are most involved in it, you come closest to losing >>your "self"-conciousness, that is your fixation on the particular >>identity that you wear before and after the play. (I enjoy Huizinga's >>exploration of the play topic in Homo Ludens: Man, the Player.) > >And this is why hunting and angling are so *very* important to the people >who practice these activities. When one is immersed in the predatory act >of hunting, when one is most highly alert to one's surroundings, when one >loses themselves in the activity--that is hunting. That is also mountain >climbing, running, dancing, etc. etc. etc. for devotees of those particular >practices. Take one of these activities away from people, and you take >away their *reason for living* in many cases. > >Now granted, an animal loses its life in the culmination of the hunting >practice/game. But a "good" hunter or a "thoughtful" hunter or a >"reflective" hunter takes his/her responsibility for taking that life very >seriously. This is why at least historically there has been so much >emphasis on the idea of a sporting code of ethics. A sporting ethic is one >which restrains, for example, the nearly inevitable "beginner's enthusiasm" >which many commentators rightly describe as game hoggery. When one starts >out hunting and fishing, there is a desire to demonstrate proficiency and >yes, "success," which leads to killing more animals necessary (necessary, >that is, either for food or for sport). With time, the hunter/angler >becomes comfortable with his/her level of proficiency and then doesn't need >to show off as much. Lots of this has to do with simple human >psychological development: the young and immature need to show off as many >"trophies" as possible to show that they know what they are doing and to >prove that they are successful. The older, wiser hunter/angler doesn't >have such a compulsive need to prove himself in the eyes of others. > >AS AN ASIDE, lest anyone go off on a "trophy-hunter-bashing" thread, it >seems to me that a similar dynamic operates in other realms. Take academia >for example: many academic departments proudly show off their faculty >publications in prominent locations out in the hallways, display cases, >etc. Since every publication is a coup of sorts, the more "pubs" one has >on the wall, the more status one has in others' eyes. I don't think it's >too far a stretch to refer to the "publish or perish" phenomenon as simply >another form of "trophy hunting." :) > >To return to sporting ethics: these codes of sporting ethics, or rules, >what Suits above calls the "unnecessary obstacles," do in fact function to >limit the human advantage over the animal. Maxims like "Take only sure >shots," "Shoot birds on the wing," "Do not overplay the fish," etc. all >have an effect on everything from the choice of equipment used to the >ultimate decision whether to shoot or not. . . . > >Now, Dreamer anticipated many of the above reflections about play when >he/she responded to Chris Perley and added more about play. So I'll >respond to those comments in Part 2 of this email. > >Jim T. > >p.s. the Suits cite (now say *that* ten times fast): >Suits, Bernard. "The Elements of Sport." The Philosophy of Sport: A >Collection of Original Essays. Ed. Robert G. Osterhoudt. Springfield, IL: >Charles C. Thomas, 1973. 48-64. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%