A neat way to look at things

Phillip Loughlin has another great post over at Hog Blog, on an ethical conversation that comes up from time to time over there, specifically referring to high-fence hunting operations, but more generally on the idea of ethics, the law, and hunting practices. I hope I haven't driven Phillip to distraction with my commentary there, but it is such a great place to get good, thoughtful debate that I can't resist.

However, it's actually a comment from NorCal Cazadora at that post that really got me to thinking. Referring to the concept of sport hunting, she wrote:

"...I still disagree on the notion of “sport.” True - I don’t have to hunt for food; I could go to the grocery store like my neighbors do. But that really buys into my neighbors’ perspective as the right and true perspective. I prefer to turn the tables and say my neighbors don’t have to go to the grocery store - they could hunt, forage and garden for food. Some people enjoy convenience of driving to the store; I enjoy the fulfillment of the hunt."

This idea blew me away. I had been grappling with the notion of 'sport' in hunting and fishing for some time, understanding that I don't have to do so to eat. However, one reason I choose to hunt is to provide a bit for my family (jokes about my prowess aside), and because I don't like the mass production process we use to acquire meat in California.

What Cazadora did was open up that choice to those who do not hunt, give it equality and credibility, and blow open the whole notion of food for everybody. She also removed some of the elitism, both fatalistic and natural, I've felt creeping more and more into hunting.

I thought about this idea: People could choose not to buy beef and pork from huge, concentrated feedlots; they could, instead, pop squirrels or get to know their farmer better, or raise their own. Many people who argue that sustainably-raised food is prohibitively expensive also pay for cable TV, a cell phone for each of their kids, a station wagon on steroids (oh, I mean a sport-utility vehicle), etc. Not that any of those are wrong in each case, just that they are choices. Each of those choices has impact, too, and those impacts should be considered along with their benefits (the economist in me, I suppose), but a choice in acquiring food does seem to me deeper than a choice to play tennis.

If I were any good at either tennis or hunting, however, this opinion may have been different...

Now, this doesn't completely get at my discomfort with hunting as "sport", although I do understand it and believe that it is a concept to keep close, and not completely to disagree with. However, whenever I think of it, I immediately think of this quotation from Chief Sitting Bull, that, "when the buffalo are gone, we will hunt mice, for we are hunters, and we want our freedom." I can't see it the same if it were said, "and when the tennis balls are gone, we will play tennis with pingpong balls, for we are tennis players, and we want our freedom." There is a notion of freedom in hunting that goes beyond mere choice to include acquisition of food, interaction with the world, a connection to other things here. It puts us directly in touch with sacrifices made on our behalf, and makes us aware of our power and responsibility...