More To The Kill:
Confronting the criticisms of hunting.
In a civilized and cultivated country, wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen.
– Theodore Roosevelt.
Throughout Australia our hunters and shooters are vilified. Critics are quick to oppose hunting yet have no urgency to understand it. The opponents of hunting profess the unquestionable importance of tolerance of all cultures and lifestyles, so long as they align with their own interests. Yet there is more to hunting than most realise; it goes far beyond the kill.
The Myth of the easy kill
Critics of hunting often argue that modern technology has removed the element of fair chase, believing that it is now ‘too easy’. The reality is that almost all technological advances in this area have been to address safety and comfort, not effectiveness. Only in the use of scoped rifles have improvements made a significant difference, yet it takes a hunter of considerable skill and experience to take game from beyond a prey’s natural range. Even in the bush large game can rarely be seen as much as a hundred metres away.
This criticism fundamentally misunderstands the challenge of hunting, which is to find game within effective range to deliver a deadly shot before the animal becomes aware of the hunters’ position, a task that requires immense patience and endurance. That’s why hunters don’t always do a lot of shooting; that position is hard to achieve.
The rules of engagement
Hunting is one of the few activities in modern society in which the killing of un-endangered species is regulated to ensure safety and conservation. Open seasons are legally specified by species and weapon, while hunters adjust rifle calibre to produce a clean, quick, and humane kill. Hunting is about discipline, not destruction.
Modern hunters also embrace social and ecological responsibilities, having to balance the chances of a successful hunt with the competing values of (a) preserving the health of prey species and their natural habitat; (b) a fair chase; (c) causing minimum harm with a clean shot and; (d) the safety of themselves and those around them.
Modern hunters also embrace a number of social and ecological responsibilities, having to balance the chances of a successful hunt with the competing values of (a) preserving the health of prey species and their natural habitat; (b) a fair chase; (c) causing minimum harm with a clean shot and; (d) the safety of themselves and those around them.
Into the wild
The enjoyment for hunters encompasses a passion for time spent out in the bush, enjoying our country’s rugged and sometimes unforgiving landscape. Hunter’s don’t just observe nature through a roadside viewing or a bush walk, they’re an active participant in it and understand the value of preserving it.
There’s also a distinct difference between the hunt and the kill. Hunters don’t kill every animal they see, but recognise that populations of certain animals can’t be allowed to exceed the carrying capacity of the land. If there are too many deer for example, they’ll end up eating away the vegetation and destroying Australian farms along the way.
Hunters understand their prey and the environment it inhabits, while recognising better than most how unpredictable these environments can be. That’s why hunters rebuild wetlands and create traps for predators to increase the survival rate of ducklings; to ensure the strength of the species that they engage. Strength is about more than numbers - wildlife doesn’t manage itself; left alone it will eat itself out of habitat and into extinction.
A break in the food chain
The hypocrisy of anti-hunters can be measured by how far removed they are from the reality of the food-chain. The food we eat requires the death of animals, even for vegans. That’s because wildlife needs more than food to survive - it needs habitat. Left alone, feral deer will continue to wreak havoc on the environment and our crops.
While many are ignorant to the process behind the food on their plate, hunters know that the most organic and cleanest protein comes from the meat they take down themselves.
Inner-city cafes endorse ‘farm to table’ meals, yet consumers are often oblivious to the consequences and conditions facing food production. Meanwhile, the hunter is facing the animal they are to eat in its natural life. The ability to find game rests on their knowledge of local habitats and species; there is a dignity to their discipline.
Experienced hunters are true conservationists and are often regarded as experts on the ecology of their hunting grounds. They’re one of the few non-professional groups that regularly survey locally threatened habitats, including during harsh weather. It’s for this reason that hunters also often respond to requests from local governments about non-game species of concern; they have an intimate knowledge of the changes taking place in our wild areas.
Not for everyone
Hunting isn’t for everyone. Many people are uncomfortable with an animal being killed, which is fine, but more often than not they’re still happy to eat meat. They’re also unlikely to have an emotional response to a dead animal on the side of the road, yet there is a well-orchestrated, emotional outrage towards our hunters. This characterises the disconnect most of us now have with the natural world and the food that we eat.
Yet for many Australians, hunting closes that gap - taking them into the wild on wild business, allowing them to be more self-sufficient while experiencing our remote bush and alpine regions. Then there is the hunter doing the hard work required to protect their crops, and in doing so preserve our country’s farms and food production. There's more to the kill.
References:
Cahoone, L. (2009). Hunting as a Moral Good. Environmental Values, [online] 18(1), pp.67–89.