© 2011 Joshua Stark
It's funny, because my title, compared to those at Holly's, Tovar's, and Phillip's, is pretty high-falutin, but I won't go nearly as deep as they.
Currently, these three sites are having a great philosophical conversation over whether or not A: hunting is a sport; and B: whether that is good or bad.
Tovar and Holly (and me, to be honest) take the tack that hunting, to us, is not "sport" in the general sense of the word, and that the term dilutes, diminishes, and ultimately harms hunting in the general public's eyes. Phillip, bless his soul, embraces his hunting as sport, and gently chides us for falling for stereotypes (sport and "trophy" hunters as bad folks), rather than trying to destroy them. His inference (which he's made more clear at other times) is that the hunting community shouldn't be torn apart by these esoteric distinctions.
Personally, I don't think hunting is a sport, in the general definition of the term. That is, I believe that the impacts to hunting (physically, emotionally) separate it from the category of sports. Specifically, I think the fact that you try to kill an animal during hunting (and much fishing) means that it is, inherently, different from other categories of recreation, and "sport" has a dismissive tone to it nowadays that diminishes the gravity of killing. I, for one, don't use the term for this very reason.
Phillip's argument seems, to me, a bit off-focus. First, he seems to define "sport" as encompassing all recreational pursuits. If this is true, then I concede that hunting is a "sport", but I don't buy his definition. I think there are many pursuits, and that within the realm of recreational pursuits there exists both sports and other things (reading, for example). There are also some activities that are both recreational and something else, entirely. For example, many people do not grocery shop as a recreational pursuit, but many people fish for both recreation and food.
There are characteristics to the common definition of "sport" that do not ethically fit with hunting, especially when considered from the perspective of the non-hunting public. For example, sport tends to have a competitive element, but when that is applied to hunting, the non-hunting public imagines people who want to kill something in order to beat somebody else, and they tend to be repulsed by this urge.
It seems as though Phillip is really upset that some hunters condemn certain hunting practices or attitudes, and that this leads to fractures in hunting that may jeopardize it for all of us. He gives a lecture on the evils of stereotypes, and ends by suggesting that Tovar and Holly are not trying to destroy stereotypes, but are actually bolstering them by taking a side.
But, this isn't a case of stereotypes, this is a case of identifying unethical actions and condemning those actions. I (and probably Tovar and Holly) aren't taking a group of people, identifying them by one shared characteristic and then attributing to them additional characteristics that aren't true. We are saying that a particular action may be, or is, wrong. In the case of hunting, there are people who hunt for trophies, there are hunters who kill only to kill, and I (and probably Tovar and Holly) do not believe this is ethical behavior. We have a different standard from Phillip (we don't draw the ethical line at the law, which is a totally different conversation). But, that's okay. Hunting, like all good human endeavors, will thrive when people think more deeply about it and talk openly about it.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and if hunting couldn't survive public scrutiny, then it shouldn't survive it. I, for one, know that much of it is good and important to pass down, including the ethical considerations. I know hunting can survive this argument.
(Note: Phillip's link doesn't seem to be working, so go to his main website page for reference.)
Showing posts with label hunting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hunting. Show all posts
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
On ethics: hunters vs. nonhunters
© 2011 Joshua Stark
Phillip over at the Hog Blog has an interesting piece on the idea of hunters who purport to hunt for ethical reasons quite possibly creating a false dichotomy or a subtext of superiority over those who do not hunt.
He specifically points me out (in amazing company), though he does so in a nice way.
It's a great read, I highly recommend it (he writes circles around me, which isn't fair, so keep that in mind).
Basically, Phillip thinks that we may be creating a "false dichotomy" in claiming that our hunting has an ethical component to it. I've way oversimplified his article (read it, he makes more sense and includes more nuance), but that is the gist as I see it. For example, Phillip writes,
"Hunters... say that they accept the role of predator, and by this acceptance they feel a critical connection. By the blood on their hands, they have taken responsibility for the death of the animal and become active participants in the primal cycle of life and death. This provides a deeper understanding of the natural world and environment. With this sense of connection comes a suggestion of moral superiority."
I feel that comment all the way up to the "moral superiority" claim, but that is only because I think there are real distinctions among ethically preferable actions, feelings of moral superiority, and expressions of profound connections and feelings that relate to human nature.
We all make choices based on ethics; we all take ethically preferable actions. We don't, for example, actually physically accost the person who cut us off on the interstate. We help our neighbors and friends. Many people give to charities. All of these actions are ethical choices, they are, at their most basic, sets of "should" or "ought" statements that we have answered.
Further, we all make ethical claims on other people. Here in the U.S., our general public ethos has a strong libertarian bent, and so it is often hidden from view, but every time a person says that a person has a right to do something, that person is making an ethical claim. For example, Americans are often incensed when a person is shouted down, or not allowed to speak at all. We say, "hey, he has the right to say his piece, even if it's ridiculously stupid or even mean." Effectively, we are telling the bully to shut up and let the other guy speak, and this is an ethical claim we place on the bully.
To me, anyway, this is different from claiming moral superiority. Moral superiority implies a personal, patriarchal or condescending superiority lorded over others. If we were to make all ethical decisions equal to a sense of moral superiority, and therefore try to avoid it (an ethical claim, by the way, to say that moral superiority should not be pursued), not one of us would be able to function in society.
Phillip is concerned that hunters may alienate non-hunters, and give anti-hunters more ammunition, by making our ethical preferences clear, because it may be perceived as moral superiority. He is worried that we hunters who talk about our ethical reasons for hunting may come off as evangelical blowhards who, instead of encouraging more people to hunt and support hunting, turn non-hunters off from the whole shebang. And he has a point, but only to a point.
There is a dichotomy between hunters and anti-hunters, and it is an ethical dichotomy. No matter how hunters act, anti-hunters have decided that all hunting is ethically wrong, and they will always think that is so, as a group (which is why they label themselves "anti-hunting").
The public's decision-making power determines all other actions, and many people make their decisions based on ethics. To pretend that hunting is just another sport, like basketball, is to falsely downplay both its bloody and violent nature as well as its values to society. Nonhunters know that hunting is bloody and violent, that it hurts animals. If hunters do not point out hunting's values to society, there will be no counter to this set of feelings, and hunting will take even more pressure.
Further, if hunters actively refuse to point out the ethical value of hunting, we may just as easily come off as looking "morally superior", withholding some kind of secret, as if the public isn't worthy of knowing the profound nature of hunting. Hunters, therefore, do need to illustrate, to the public, that hunting is an ethically preferable exercise to not hunting, though, like many ethical claims, it is not for everyone in all cases and times.
But there is something else. Phillip is taking issue with expressing the feelings of connectedness with nature that hunting can bring. This may not even be ethical, much less "morally superior", but it is a profound set of feelings that talk about human nature - always a sticky subject. Truly, for the hunters I know who have been moved by the nature of hunting, I've never felt a sense of "moral superiority", but instead a desire to express the profundity, the intimacy and finality and love of hunting, that they feel. Is there an ethical claim in there? Perhaps. But just as likely, there may be a sense among some that expressing something that changed a person's life and nature may be uncomfortable to consider.
But, like I said, Phillip has a point. There is a time and place for these arguments, and times and places where they aren't appropriate. Obviously, judging by my traffic here, I'm still working on that one, but Holly and Tovar have their audiences down pat, so I think they understand the appropriateness of the subject.
For me, I know my writing comes off as stuffy and probably a tad haughty, but that's just the way I write. I try to do better, but I often just let it stand. In my defense, my conversations with nonhunters do not ever come off this way. Most times, I get people who have always wanted to try hunting (or fishing), even among groups that are normally considered hostile toward hunting. Even among people who don't express a desire to hunt, I've, with only one exception I can remember, never had a hostile reception to my hunting. What I almost always experience, instead, is a conversation about the profundity of and love for nature. So I'll keep on talking about the ethics of hunting as well as the other parts of it, too. It's gained me some great friends, and I feel it may help, if only a little bit, in getting people to understand hunting and its value. But, because I respect Phillip so very much, I might tone down my rhetoric in the vacuum of the internet. Maybe.
Postscript
Phillip ends his piece with these words: "I sometimes wonder why we can’t just say we enjoy something because we find it enjoyable", to which I respond: Where's the blog content in that?
; )
Phillip over at the Hog Blog has an interesting piece on the idea of hunters who purport to hunt for ethical reasons quite possibly creating a false dichotomy or a subtext of superiority over those who do not hunt.
He specifically points me out (in amazing company), though he does so in a nice way.
It's a great read, I highly recommend it (he writes circles around me, which isn't fair, so keep that in mind).
Basically, Phillip thinks that we may be creating a "false dichotomy" in claiming that our hunting has an ethical component to it. I've way oversimplified his article (read it, he makes more sense and includes more nuance), but that is the gist as I see it. For example, Phillip writes,
"Hunters... say that they accept the role of predator, and by this acceptance they feel a critical connection. By the blood on their hands, they have taken responsibility for the death of the animal and become active participants in the primal cycle of life and death. This provides a deeper understanding of the natural world and environment. With this sense of connection comes a suggestion of moral superiority."
I feel that comment all the way up to the "moral superiority" claim, but that is only because I think there are real distinctions among ethically preferable actions, feelings of moral superiority, and expressions of profound connections and feelings that relate to human nature.
We all make choices based on ethics; we all take ethically preferable actions. We don't, for example, actually physically accost the person who cut us off on the interstate. We help our neighbors and friends. Many people give to charities. All of these actions are ethical choices, they are, at their most basic, sets of "should" or "ought" statements that we have answered.
Further, we all make ethical claims on other people. Here in the U.S., our general public ethos has a strong libertarian bent, and so it is often hidden from view, but every time a person says that a person has a right to do something, that person is making an ethical claim. For example, Americans are often incensed when a person is shouted down, or not allowed to speak at all. We say, "hey, he has the right to say his piece, even if it's ridiculously stupid or even mean." Effectively, we are telling the bully to shut up and let the other guy speak, and this is an ethical claim we place on the bully.
To me, anyway, this is different from claiming moral superiority. Moral superiority implies a personal, patriarchal or condescending superiority lorded over others. If we were to make all ethical decisions equal to a sense of moral superiority, and therefore try to avoid it (an ethical claim, by the way, to say that moral superiority should not be pursued), not one of us would be able to function in society.
Phillip is concerned that hunters may alienate non-hunters, and give anti-hunters more ammunition, by making our ethical preferences clear, because it may be perceived as moral superiority. He is worried that we hunters who talk about our ethical reasons for hunting may come off as evangelical blowhards who, instead of encouraging more people to hunt and support hunting, turn non-hunters off from the whole shebang. And he has a point, but only to a point.
There is a dichotomy between hunters and anti-hunters, and it is an ethical dichotomy. No matter how hunters act, anti-hunters have decided that all hunting is ethically wrong, and they will always think that is so, as a group (which is why they label themselves "anti-hunting").
The public's decision-making power determines all other actions, and many people make their decisions based on ethics. To pretend that hunting is just another sport, like basketball, is to falsely downplay both its bloody and violent nature as well as its values to society. Nonhunters know that hunting is bloody and violent, that it hurts animals. If hunters do not point out hunting's values to society, there will be no counter to this set of feelings, and hunting will take even more pressure.
Further, if hunters actively refuse to point out the ethical value of hunting, we may just as easily come off as looking "morally superior", withholding some kind of secret, as if the public isn't worthy of knowing the profound nature of hunting. Hunters, therefore, do need to illustrate, to the public, that hunting is an ethically preferable exercise to not hunting, though, like many ethical claims, it is not for everyone in all cases and times.
But there is something else. Phillip is taking issue with expressing the feelings of connectedness with nature that hunting can bring. This may not even be ethical, much less "morally superior", but it is a profound set of feelings that talk about human nature - always a sticky subject. Truly, for the hunters I know who have been moved by the nature of hunting, I've never felt a sense of "moral superiority", but instead a desire to express the profundity, the intimacy and finality and love of hunting, that they feel. Is there an ethical claim in there? Perhaps. But just as likely, there may be a sense among some that expressing something that changed a person's life and nature may be uncomfortable to consider.
But, like I said, Phillip has a point. There is a time and place for these arguments, and times and places where they aren't appropriate. Obviously, judging by my traffic here, I'm still working on that one, but Holly and Tovar have their audiences down pat, so I think they understand the appropriateness of the subject.
For me, I know my writing comes off as stuffy and probably a tad haughty, but that's just the way I write. I try to do better, but I often just let it stand. In my defense, my conversations with nonhunters do not ever come off this way. Most times, I get people who have always wanted to try hunting (or fishing), even among groups that are normally considered hostile toward hunting. Even among people who don't express a desire to hunt, I've, with only one exception I can remember, never had a hostile reception to my hunting. What I almost always experience, instead, is a conversation about the profundity of and love for nature. So I'll keep on talking about the ethics of hunting as well as the other parts of it, too. It's gained me some great friends, and I feel it may help, if only a little bit, in getting people to understand hunting and its value. But, because I respect Phillip so very much, I might tone down my rhetoric in the vacuum of the internet. Maybe.
Postscript
Phillip ends his piece with these words: "I sometimes wonder why we can’t just say we enjoy something because we find it enjoyable", to which I respond: Where's the blog content in that?
; )
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Women's rights, food justice and security - from the social to the individual and back
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Two great articles out last week, speaking to different issues around the ethics of food, got me to thinking about the nexus of hunting, food security, and women's rights.
First, this article at Grist on the implications of a whitewashed food justice movement. The author is honest, thoughtful, and far better at her craft than I. Definitely read it. Two weeks back, I posted a piece on how the environmental movement (which, in my mind, includes 'food justice' folks) hamstrings itself through apprenticeship programs, subsequently passing on its expertise and influence to a disproportionately wealthy group of individuals, and creating difficult burdens to entry for those who cannot afford to work for free. Natasha Bowens, the author of the piece at Grist, talks about this from a different perspective, and also shows just how one group is trying to break the homogeneity.
Next, I wanted to get a little more traffic over to Ms. Winfrey's site, to help out as I can... O Magazine has a wonderful article on hunting for the Thanksgiving turkey. Although the category is "women and hunting", the author (Kimberly Hiss) doesn't wax political about it - I wouldn't care if she did, it's a great subject, and she is an amazing writer - she writes about hunting and shooting a bird for Thanksgiving, and this act's personal and family implications. She does allude to the strange, new pressures she received when she began hunting, and also the beauty and sense of fulfillment she gets by providing food through hunting, and her subtlety is wonderful. Being thoughtful and considerate, she really lets the reader join her.
Ms. Hiss might not have considered her's a piece on food justice or food security, but I do. When she talks about her bird's diet vs. those packaged in stores and when she describes the hunt, she alludes to important aspects of food security. Food security means, at its most basic level, the ability to safely provide healthy food, now and in the future, for you and your family. For some of us, this is solely an economic problem, but for many, food security addresses the quality of food (a healthy variety) and the physical act of acquisition (keeping out of harm's way when getting it) as much as it does the ability to pay for it when it is available.
Many parts of our country are effectively food deserts, communities with no walking access to anything other than the local liquor store. In these places (as in almost everywhere on Earth), women are most often responsible for providing food for the family, and yet, the physical act of trying to get healthy food often puts them in harm's way. The empowerment that comes from effectively and efficiently wielding a gun (or a bow) to provide for one's family is profound; it strikes the very core of both food and security.
Which is why I read with happiness this piece by Holly Heyser, the Nor Cal Cazadora (another writer of the fist caliber), on the numbers of women hunting. As she points out, women hunt at a much higher rate in the West than in other parts of the country. This core of hunters and what they represent, if I may be allowed the latitude, can have a global impact on the role and empowerment of women.
Hunting embodies empowerment. Taking the life of an animal to provide sustenance is one of the three or four most basic things a human really needs in order to survive, and honing those skills requires controlling and mastering a powerful force. Guns are powerful, they equalize people like few other things - and this empowerment can mean so much more in the hands of women.
Now, I'm no trigger-happy gun fanatic, nor am I a violent person, a condition of my religion. What I am, as my Momma raised me, is as much a feminist as a man can be. And I'm not naive when it comes to understanding and recognizing power as choice and the ability to defend and provide for oneself, especially at the personal level, and especially as that relates to women in the World. In my household, I'll make darned sure that my daughter and son can shoot, of course, and also catch, garden, forage and cook good food. On the social level, I recognize that access to these basic skills is vital to equality.
As I thought more about this issue, I remembered a piece by Scott Simon of National Public Radio. When he learned of the possibility for peace talks with the Taliban, he reminded his listeners about Afghanistan under their rule, as he had reported from there for quite a while in the early 2000's. In particular, he talked about watching the first soccer game in Kabul after the Taliban were run out, where a British commando took off her beret to call to a friend, and the crowd erupted in cheers. Soon after, and every few minutes during the game, a woman would stand up in the crowd and remove her veil.
Yes, this may feel like a tangent, but I think you know where I'm going. There in Afghanistan, one empowered woman expressed that power without even thinking about it, and helped other women to see themselves as powerful. Around the world, U.N. forces with women soldiers empower local women who've suffered as slaves for untold millennia, just by being there. I don't pretend that all these women are automatically freed, but changes do happen because of these experiences. Here in the Western U.S., where women first took the right of suffrage in the U.S., it is important to remember, make conscious and plain and pass down, this power.
Hunting necessarily taps and hones that power. Increasing food security for communities and individuals by developing local means to produce food also empowers individuals. From Holly, Ms. Bowens and Ms. Hiss all the way to those women in Afghanistan who stood up in that stadium and dared to show their society that they have faces, these expressions of power shake our very foundations in the best possible way. Thank you.
Two great articles out last week, speaking to different issues around the ethics of food, got me to thinking about the nexus of hunting, food security, and women's rights.
First, this article at Grist on the implications of a whitewashed food justice movement. The author is honest, thoughtful, and far better at her craft than I. Definitely read it. Two weeks back, I posted a piece on how the environmental movement (which, in my mind, includes 'food justice' folks) hamstrings itself through apprenticeship programs, subsequently passing on its expertise and influence to a disproportionately wealthy group of individuals, and creating difficult burdens to entry for those who cannot afford to work for free. Natasha Bowens, the author of the piece at Grist, talks about this from a different perspective, and also shows just how one group is trying to break the homogeneity.
Next, I wanted to get a little more traffic over to Ms. Winfrey's site, to help out as I can... O Magazine has a wonderful article on hunting for the Thanksgiving turkey. Although the category is "women and hunting", the author (Kimberly Hiss) doesn't wax political about it - I wouldn't care if she did, it's a great subject, and she is an amazing writer - she writes about hunting and shooting a bird for Thanksgiving, and this act's personal and family implications. She does allude to the strange, new pressures she received when she began hunting, and also the beauty and sense of fulfillment she gets by providing food through hunting, and her subtlety is wonderful. Being thoughtful and considerate, she really lets the reader join her.
Ms. Hiss might not have considered her's a piece on food justice or food security, but I do. When she talks about her bird's diet vs. those packaged in stores and when she describes the hunt, she alludes to important aspects of food security. Food security means, at its most basic level, the ability to safely provide healthy food, now and in the future, for you and your family. For some of us, this is solely an economic problem, but for many, food security addresses the quality of food (a healthy variety) and the physical act of acquisition (keeping out of harm's way when getting it) as much as it does the ability to pay for it when it is available.
Many parts of our country are effectively food deserts, communities with no walking access to anything other than the local liquor store. In these places (as in almost everywhere on Earth), women are most often responsible for providing food for the family, and yet, the physical act of trying to get healthy food often puts them in harm's way. The empowerment that comes from effectively and efficiently wielding a gun (or a bow) to provide for one's family is profound; it strikes the very core of both food and security.
Which is why I read with happiness this piece by Holly Heyser, the Nor Cal Cazadora (another writer of the fist caliber), on the numbers of women hunting. As she points out, women hunt at a much higher rate in the West than in other parts of the country. This core of hunters and what they represent, if I may be allowed the latitude, can have a global impact on the role and empowerment of women.
Hunting embodies empowerment. Taking the life of an animal to provide sustenance is one of the three or four most basic things a human really needs in order to survive, and honing those skills requires controlling and mastering a powerful force. Guns are powerful, they equalize people like few other things - and this empowerment can mean so much more in the hands of women.
Now, I'm no trigger-happy gun fanatic, nor am I a violent person, a condition of my religion. What I am, as my Momma raised me, is as much a feminist as a man can be. And I'm not naive when it comes to understanding and recognizing power as choice and the ability to defend and provide for oneself, especially at the personal level, and especially as that relates to women in the World. In my household, I'll make darned sure that my daughter and son can shoot, of course, and also catch, garden, forage and cook good food. On the social level, I recognize that access to these basic skills is vital to equality.
As I thought more about this issue, I remembered a piece by Scott Simon of National Public Radio. When he learned of the possibility for peace talks with the Taliban, he reminded his listeners about Afghanistan under their rule, as he had reported from there for quite a while in the early 2000's. In particular, he talked about watching the first soccer game in Kabul after the Taliban were run out, where a British commando took off her beret to call to a friend, and the crowd erupted in cheers. Soon after, and every few minutes during the game, a woman would stand up in the crowd and remove her veil.
Yes, this may feel like a tangent, but I think you know where I'm going. There in Afghanistan, one empowered woman expressed that power without even thinking about it, and helped other women to see themselves as powerful. Around the world, U.N. forces with women soldiers empower local women who've suffered as slaves for untold millennia, just by being there. I don't pretend that all these women are automatically freed, but changes do happen because of these experiences. Here in the Western U.S., where women first took the right of suffrage in the U.S., it is important to remember, make conscious and plain and pass down, this power.
Hunting necessarily taps and hones that power. Increasing food security for communities and individuals by developing local means to produce food also empowers individuals. From Holly, Ms. Bowens and Ms. Hiss all the way to those women in Afghanistan who stood up in that stadium and dared to show their society that they have faces, these expressions of power shake our very foundations in the best possible way. Thank you.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Quick thought from the Each One Teach One idea
© 2010 Joshua Stark
In responding to NorCal Cazadora in my previous post, in occurred to me that we could help solve the chicken-and-egg conundrum about hunters and environmentalists.
Oftentimes when I'm attending an environmental advocacy conference, I come across one or two people who would love to try fishing and/or hunting, but who don't know how to start. I often also come across open-minded hunters who absolutely love having new folks to show hunting. I propose, then, a Take an Environmentalist Hunting Day, and I mean that in the sincerest sense.
Many hunters believe that environmentalists and animal rights people are one and the same, but they are not. In fact, I don't even consider animal rights advocacy part of the environmental movement (with a couple of notable exceptions, of course), although I must admit that the fact that many members of nonprofit environmental groups also tend to be knee-jerk members of animal rights groups, which clouds the situation.
Many environmentalists believe that hunters today are paramilitary members who spend part of each year in a compound in Idaho and worry about the New World Order. However, they carry a romantic notion of the act of hunting, because they have grafted themselves to the Tree of Conservation, whose trunk is T.R. and Thomas Seton, and whose roots are their romantic notions of subsistence hunters and pre-Columbian folks in North America. They know that deep within their love of the wild exists a need to be the wild, to be a part of it in the most natural way possible, through getting some of their sustenance from it. They may salve that empty part of their hearts by telling their conscious selves that this is a New Era, and that hunting, today, doesn't have the same spirit and heart, but many long for the experience.
What happens, then, when we introduce enthusiastic environmentalists with the likes of Holly at NorCal Cazadora, Hank at Hunter, Angler, Gardener, Cook, Phillip at the Hog Blog, or Tovar Cerulli? And there are many, many more like them, ready to share their love for hunting and what it provides, physically, mentally, emotionally, and in some cases, spiritually.
Hunters, if you are so inclined, I recommend you seek out some of your more environmentalist acquaintances, talk up the beauty and experience of intimately knowing your habitats and gaining sustenance from them, and see what happens. You may end up with a new hunting partner, and helping to re-engage two artificially separated communities. But if it doesn't even go that far, I doubt you'll be disappointed in the conversation and the shared feelings about those things to which we all feel connected.
Addendum: If you are interested in hunting or fishing, but have never done so and don't know where or how to start, please shoot me an email, and I will do my darndest to find a hunter in your area who will give you more information, and may even want to meet you and help show you the ropes.
In responding to NorCal Cazadora in my previous post, in occurred to me that we could help solve the chicken-and-egg conundrum about hunters and environmentalists.
Oftentimes when I'm attending an environmental advocacy conference, I come across one or two people who would love to try fishing and/or hunting, but who don't know how to start. I often also come across open-minded hunters who absolutely love having new folks to show hunting. I propose, then, a Take an Environmentalist Hunting Day, and I mean that in the sincerest sense.
Many hunters believe that environmentalists and animal rights people are one and the same, but they are not. In fact, I don't even consider animal rights advocacy part of the environmental movement (with a couple of notable exceptions, of course), although I must admit that the fact that many members of nonprofit environmental groups also tend to be knee-jerk members of animal rights groups, which clouds the situation.
Many environmentalists believe that hunters today are paramilitary members who spend part of each year in a compound in Idaho and worry about the New World Order. However, they carry a romantic notion of the act of hunting, because they have grafted themselves to the Tree of Conservation, whose trunk is T.R. and Thomas Seton, and whose roots are their romantic notions of subsistence hunters and pre-Columbian folks in North America. They know that deep within their love of the wild exists a need to be the wild, to be a part of it in the most natural way possible, through getting some of their sustenance from it. They may salve that empty part of their hearts by telling their conscious selves that this is a New Era, and that hunting, today, doesn't have the same spirit and heart, but many long for the experience.
What happens, then, when we introduce enthusiastic environmentalists with the likes of Holly at NorCal Cazadora, Hank at Hunter, Angler, Gardener, Cook, Phillip at the Hog Blog, or Tovar Cerulli? And there are many, many more like them, ready to share their love for hunting and what it provides, physically, mentally, emotionally, and in some cases, spiritually.
Hunters, if you are so inclined, I recommend you seek out some of your more environmentalist acquaintances, talk up the beauty and experience of intimately knowing your habitats and gaining sustenance from them, and see what happens. You may end up with a new hunting partner, and helping to re-engage two artificially separated communities. But if it doesn't even go that far, I doubt you'll be disappointed in the conversation and the shared feelings about those things to which we all feel connected.
Addendum: If you are interested in hunting or fishing, but have never done so and don't know where or how to start, please shoot me an email, and I will do my darndest to find a hunter in your area who will give you more information, and may even want to meet you and help show you the ropes.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Aldo Leopold, & why I don't see a difference between my hunting and environmentalism
© 2010 Joshua Stark
This morning, I read some of Aldo Leopold's, "A Sand County Almanac" to my son (he is one month old). If you are interested in understanding just why I cannot comprehend how hunters and fishermen don't consider themselves as brothers and sisters to environmentalists, or indeed, environmentalists, themselves, then please read the first three paragraphs of Mr. Leopold's foreword.
The spirit conveyed in this work, so beautifully put in those first paragraphs, lays bare the reasons that many of us hunt and fish.
The only thing separating us into different communities are other politics, and that is a crying shame.
Thoughts?
This morning, I read some of Aldo Leopold's, "A Sand County Almanac" to my son (he is one month old). If you are interested in understanding just why I cannot comprehend how hunters and fishermen don't consider themselves as brothers and sisters to environmentalists, or indeed, environmentalists, themselves, then please read the first three paragraphs of Mr. Leopold's foreword.
The spirit conveyed in this work, so beautifully put in those first paragraphs, lays bare the reasons that many of us hunt and fish.
The only thing separating us into different communities are other politics, and that is a crying shame.
Thoughts?
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Last weekend's hunt, and thoughts on archery hunting
© 2010 Joshua Stark
I had an absolutely amazing time on my bowhunt with Phillip and Cat. No game was bagged, but something in me clicked, in a good way.
Archery hunting tends to do that to me. It makes me calm, it helps me move more deliberately and understand that serenity goes a long way in life.
When a person moves when archery hunting, they are trying to get in close, without being recognized. Many people automatically anthropomorphize creatures, but when one hunts with a bow, even the most basic human assumption - that sight is the most important sense - has to go out the window. At least, it does when you hunt pigs or deer.
flx1247rg
When bowhunting, the wind is more important than cover. Sound, too, becomes very important.
And so, one pokes slowly through the forest, using game trails and old roads, and always checking the wind patterns. Especially when there is no persistent breeze, winds can be tricky.
I consider myself fairly astute at reading the wind, for which I credit my nearsightedness. When I was young, I went a few years without knowing I needed glasses. I was quiet and shy, and I also got good grades, so it just never really came up until I was about to get my driver's license. However, I walked outdoors constantly, but came to rely more and more upon my understanding of the wind, especially in regards to how it moved sounds, but also smells. (I also greatly enjoyed tracking, because tracks were close and thus more visible than, say, sunlight through the ear of a cottontail.)
Luckily for me, then, I've a decent ability to read the wind, a downright invaluable asset when bowhunting. Rifle hunters need to know the wind, too, but usually only if it is moving big, or if they are still-hunting, or hunting heavy cover; but for a bowhunter, there is much more to it. My most recent trip provides a prime example:
This last weekend, I had the absolute privilege and joy to stalk wild hogs. In particular, after stumbling (a little more literally than I'd have liked) upon a wallow on a creek, I decided... well, my calves decided to sit a bit, because I knew it had been used recently (I could smell pigs there - isn't that cool?). The Sun was setting, and I knew I had maybe 20 minutes of light left.
The creek was nestled between two steep, dry hills that rose a few hundred feet on either side. They were very steep in some places, impassable in others, and covered in varying degrees of deep, dark wood, oak park habitat, and grassy open spots. The grass was golden and dry, the ground baked by the California Sun, making bushwhacking too noisy a prospect. But, a road paralleled the creek.
After "hearing" something up-creek a bit, I slowly walked around a small bend. I realized almost simultaneously that the noise had come from the water, and that, 100 yards distant, browsing calmly between two oak trees and out in the grass, moseyed a sow, a boar, and six piglets. I froze.
Now, if this had been a story with a rifle, I would have had the picture of the pig at the end of this story, right? But with my recurve, I was just beginning a stalk, and I had 70 yards to go.
Thanks to my nearsightedness, when I stopped moving I immediately knew the bad news. The back of my arms and neck, the exposed parts of my body, were colder than the front. The wind was slowly wafting from me to my prey. With little light left, I knew I couldn't hike up the hill and back down to them, so I attempted to close the distance a little quicker than normal. Using the cover of the creek berm, I moseyed, myself, toward them.
Crap! I walked up onto another wallow, and I immediately knew that's where they were headed, and if I'd stayed put, they might have walked right up to me.
I made about 30 yards before the boar caught wind of me. A little snuffling snort, and all of them stood stock still, wound up tight, and ready to run. Then they did run, back into the deep, dark wood, and into my memories forever.
They never once saw me, of that I'm sure - and the creek's gurgle ensured that they never heard me, either. All it took was the familiarity of my smell (my wife will laugh at that one) for them to know, as surely as I would know if I'd seen a man with a gun stalking me, that they needed to leave, and fast.
Archery hunting hones a lot of lessons that regular hunting teaches, including the human need to move slowly and deliberately through the wild, the need to understand how you influence the world, and the vital lesson that things happen that you cannot control, and that accepting them and putting yourself out there are more important.
Getting out there also reminded me that I love and thrive on just being there. I saw a tiny owl, I saw bandtail pigeons ripping through the air. I saw quail, and had the hooey scared out of my twice by a lovesick grouse and his beautiful, brown mate. Twice. I stalked a jackrabbit and was showed equal shock and an instant of stark terror when a horrifying pig-squeal rose up from the canyon below us. I realized that no successful North American mammal predator has a green coat. And I spent a great time with two great, new friends - laughing, joking, eating and drinking, recounting tales, and sharing a sad moment (read Phillip's piece on that one).
So, when I got home and started poking around a few sites looking for archery and bowhunting legends and lore, and I stumbled upon this amazing video, I won't feel shame to say it brought tears to my eyes. Please take a couple of minutes to hear the last question of the last interview given by Fred Bear. You won't be disappointed.
I had an absolutely amazing time on my bowhunt with Phillip and Cat. No game was bagged, but something in me clicked, in a good way.
Archery hunting tends to do that to me. It makes me calm, it helps me move more deliberately and understand that serenity goes a long way in life.
When a person moves when archery hunting, they are trying to get in close, without being recognized. Many people automatically anthropomorphize creatures, but when one hunts with a bow, even the most basic human assumption - that sight is the most important sense - has to go out the window. At least, it does when you hunt pigs or deer.
flx1247rg
When bowhunting, the wind is more important than cover. Sound, too, becomes very important.
And so, one pokes slowly through the forest, using game trails and old roads, and always checking the wind patterns. Especially when there is no persistent breeze, winds can be tricky.
I consider myself fairly astute at reading the wind, for which I credit my nearsightedness. When I was young, I went a few years without knowing I needed glasses. I was quiet and shy, and I also got good grades, so it just never really came up until I was about to get my driver's license. However, I walked outdoors constantly, but came to rely more and more upon my understanding of the wind, especially in regards to how it moved sounds, but also smells. (I also greatly enjoyed tracking, because tracks were close and thus more visible than, say, sunlight through the ear of a cottontail.)
Luckily for me, then, I've a decent ability to read the wind, a downright invaluable asset when bowhunting. Rifle hunters need to know the wind, too, but usually only if it is moving big, or if they are still-hunting, or hunting heavy cover; but for a bowhunter, there is much more to it. My most recent trip provides a prime example:
This last weekend, I had the absolute privilege and joy to stalk wild hogs. In particular, after stumbling (a little more literally than I'd have liked) upon a wallow on a creek, I decided... well, my calves decided to sit a bit, because I knew it had been used recently (I could smell pigs there - isn't that cool?). The Sun was setting, and I knew I had maybe 20 minutes of light left.
The creek was nestled between two steep, dry hills that rose a few hundred feet on either side. They were very steep in some places, impassable in others, and covered in varying degrees of deep, dark wood, oak park habitat, and grassy open spots. The grass was golden and dry, the ground baked by the California Sun, making bushwhacking too noisy a prospect. But, a road paralleled the creek.
After "hearing" something up-creek a bit, I slowly walked around a small bend. I realized almost simultaneously that the noise had come from the water, and that, 100 yards distant, browsing calmly between two oak trees and out in the grass, moseyed a sow, a boar, and six piglets. I froze.
Now, if this had been a story with a rifle, I would have had the picture of the pig at the end of this story, right? But with my recurve, I was just beginning a stalk, and I had 70 yards to go.
Thanks to my nearsightedness, when I stopped moving I immediately knew the bad news. The back of my arms and neck, the exposed parts of my body, were colder than the front. The wind was slowly wafting from me to my prey. With little light left, I knew I couldn't hike up the hill and back down to them, so I attempted to close the distance a little quicker than normal. Using the cover of the creek berm, I moseyed, myself, toward them.
Crap! I walked up onto another wallow, and I immediately knew that's where they were headed, and if I'd stayed put, they might have walked right up to me.
I made about 30 yards before the boar caught wind of me. A little snuffling snort, and all of them stood stock still, wound up tight, and ready to run. Then they did run, back into the deep, dark wood, and into my memories forever.
They never once saw me, of that I'm sure - and the creek's gurgle ensured that they never heard me, either. All it took was the familiarity of my smell (my wife will laugh at that one) for them to know, as surely as I would know if I'd seen a man with a gun stalking me, that they needed to leave, and fast.
Archery hunting hones a lot of lessons that regular hunting teaches, including the human need to move slowly and deliberately through the wild, the need to understand how you influence the world, and the vital lesson that things happen that you cannot control, and that accepting them and putting yourself out there are more important.
Getting out there also reminded me that I love and thrive on just being there. I saw a tiny owl, I saw bandtail pigeons ripping through the air. I saw quail, and had the hooey scared out of my twice by a lovesick grouse and his beautiful, brown mate. Twice. I stalked a jackrabbit and was showed equal shock and an instant of stark terror when a horrifying pig-squeal rose up from the canyon below us. I realized that no successful North American mammal predator has a green coat. And I spent a great time with two great, new friends - laughing, joking, eating and drinking, recounting tales, and sharing a sad moment (read Phillip's piece on that one).
So, when I got home and started poking around a few sites looking for archery and bowhunting legends and lore, and I stumbled upon this amazing video, I won't feel shame to say it brought tears to my eyes. Please take a couple of minutes to hear the last question of the last interview given by Fred Bear. You won't be disappointed.
Friday, July 9, 2010
I'm off after the great Hart
© 2010 Joshua Stark
In a few hours, I'm on the road to meet up with Phillip from the Hog Blog, and pursue both blacktail deer and wild pigs.
The last deer I took, a beautiful, tiny, blacktail doe during the late season archery hunt in Monterey County, happened while my wife was pregnant with our now three-year-old daughter. I was elated that my daughter was made out of the coast blacktail, and I've told her that her whole life (she's also made out of the wild rainbow surfperch and rainbow trout of the Sierra).
This year, we are expecting another baby, a boy, some time in September or early October. Of course, I again hope to bring home venison and pork.
However, even if I come home with only life-sustaining stories with what I know will be a wonderful, powerful time, I am still lucky. From my relatively new community of blogging friends, my baby is already made from coast blacktail and wild boar. For, we were invited to Hank and Holly's Big Fat Greek Party back in Spring, where they served up wild sausages I believe were made from Maximus. Later, they also provided me with venison stew meat, and chunks of Trinity River steelhead.
It sounds fru-fru hippie, I know, but it isn't that in my mind. In my mind, places are very important, and places include the animals and plants that have thrived there for hundreds or even hundreds of thousands of years. And though my family doesn't have the ancestral connections to this most beautiful of places, I have still thought myself a Californian, in love with the myriad habitats and climates, and the wonders they hold. This is why I have taken off for the wilds my whole life. This is why I hunt.
And knowing that my children's synapses were formed from this place, that they have been nourished, if only a little, from these amazing lands, makes me very happy.
In a few hours, I'm on the road to meet up with Phillip from the Hog Blog, and pursue both blacktail deer and wild pigs.
The last deer I took, a beautiful, tiny, blacktail doe during the late season archery hunt in Monterey County, happened while my wife was pregnant with our now three-year-old daughter. I was elated that my daughter was made out of the coast blacktail, and I've told her that her whole life (she's also made out of the wild rainbow surfperch and rainbow trout of the Sierra).
This year, we are expecting another baby, a boy, some time in September or early October. Of course, I again hope to bring home venison and pork.
However, even if I come home with only life-sustaining stories with what I know will be a wonderful, powerful time, I am still lucky. From my relatively new community of blogging friends, my baby is already made from coast blacktail and wild boar. For, we were invited to Hank and Holly's Big Fat Greek Party back in Spring, where they served up wild sausages I believe were made from Maximus. Later, they also provided me with venison stew meat, and chunks of Trinity River steelhead.
It sounds fru-fru hippie, I know, but it isn't that in my mind. In my mind, places are very important, and places include the animals and plants that have thrived there for hundreds or even hundreds of thousands of years. And though my family doesn't have the ancestral connections to this most beautiful of places, I have still thought myself a Californian, in love with the myriad habitats and climates, and the wonders they hold. This is why I have taken off for the wilds my whole life. This is why I hunt.
And knowing that my children's synapses were formed from this place, that they have been nourished, if only a little, from these amazing lands, makes me very happy.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Archery season! Archery season!
© Joshua Stark 2010
It's time, again. The seasons roll around, and although my life has changed dramatically the past couple of years, and continues to do so, the seasons still roll around. What season is it now? Well...
I read many hunting blogs and magazines this time of year, and I also break out two very important books, one by Fred Bear and one by Chuck Adams. Both of these books were given to me when I was a high-schooler, and I've read them and re-read them almost every year since. They are books about archery, and about bow hunting, in particular.
Archery is my favorite hunting season in California. I know that sounds weird, because I read about how horrified people get at the prospect of hunting in 100+ degree weather, but that has always been my experience.
I didn't grow up in a hunting culture, and so I've rarely been successful at big game. Four years ago, then, when I bought a recurve bow and decided to pare down my gadgetry and gear for archery, I was very surprised to take a doe with it. Archery, and in particular "traditional" archery, had taught me valuable lessons.
I've blogged about archery gear over at my Lands on the Margin blog, if you are interested. I hunt with a cheap, 55 lb. draw recurve I named Versorger (German for "bringer" or "provider"... basically, a caterer) that pinches my fingers bad and stacks like a beast (stacking is bad, if you don't know archery). But it has provided, and I shoot fair-to-middlin' with it. What I do when I hunt with it is hunt better.
In archery season you at least see bucks sometimes. In California, with very few exceptions, you can only shoot forked-horn or bigger deer (for you over-compensating whitetail hunters, that would be a "three pointer" or bigger), and for many years I thought the notion of deer with antlers was a myth perpetuated by the Dept. of Fish & Game to sell tags. But in archery season, buck sightings are more common, probably because the hunters are quiet, unlike during rifle season, when shots occasionally roll across the canyons and valleys, and many, many more people take to the "field" (meaning, drive up and down logging roads).
Archery, itself has a great quality about it: it is a deeper brush with our connections to the wild. I enjoy shooting guns, for sure, but every aspect of archery provides me with a deeper meaning. The symmetry of the bow, the speed of the arrow, the finality of the shot, the ultimate reliance on one shot, and the need to get closer all appeal to me.
Ethically, I have the same problem with archery season that I do with most people who think they can shoot past 100 yds.: Many people don't practice enough, and when they are in the field, they aren't honest with themselves about the range and opportunity of shots.
Some animal rights people are concerned with the wounding danger of arrows, but they haven't had enough experience with a bow, either. Poorly shot arrows do wound game animals, and that is a shame. However, an arrow-wounded animal that gets away has a much better chance of surviving and thriving than does an animal wounded by a gun. Arrows kill by slicing clean, often passing completely through. Guns kill by opening holes, too, but also by shock. A gun hits with a blunt force. An arrow, as Chuck Adams states, has less kinetic energy than the smallest pistol, a .22 short. Yet, with an arrow, a person can kill bison.
Archery also teaches one how to hone skills, not just acquire them. Everything about archery, from the actual honing of the broadhead to the need to improve tracking skills, read the wind, and know your prey, thrives on betterment. Above all, archery rewards accuracy, and it can be practiced in a relatively small space.
This year, I hope not to put down the bow with the end of archery deer season. California has an early season archery quail hunt in August, and I hope to get up into the mountains after them. I also hope to get family out with bows for stump-shooting after pinecones and the like. It's a great sport just by itself, and it teaches a lot without preaching. Something I could learn...
It's time, again. The seasons roll around, and although my life has changed dramatically the past couple of years, and continues to do so, the seasons still roll around. What season is it now? Well...
I read many hunting blogs and magazines this time of year, and I also break out two very important books, one by Fred Bear and one by Chuck Adams. Both of these books were given to me when I was a high-schooler, and I've read them and re-read them almost every year since. They are books about archery, and about bow hunting, in particular.
Archery is my favorite hunting season in California. I know that sounds weird, because I read about how horrified people get at the prospect of hunting in 100+ degree weather, but that has always been my experience.
I didn't grow up in a hunting culture, and so I've rarely been successful at big game. Four years ago, then, when I bought a recurve bow and decided to pare down my gadgetry and gear for archery, I was very surprised to take a doe with it. Archery, and in particular "traditional" archery, had taught me valuable lessons.
I've blogged about archery gear over at my Lands on the Margin blog, if you are interested. I hunt with a cheap, 55 lb. draw recurve I named Versorger (German for "bringer" or "provider"... basically, a caterer) that pinches my fingers bad and stacks like a beast (stacking is bad, if you don't know archery). But it has provided, and I shoot fair-to-middlin' with it. What I do when I hunt with it is hunt better.
In archery season you at least see bucks sometimes. In California, with very few exceptions, you can only shoot forked-horn or bigger deer (for you over-compensating whitetail hunters, that would be a "three pointer" or bigger), and for many years I thought the notion of deer with antlers was a myth perpetuated by the Dept. of Fish & Game to sell tags. But in archery season, buck sightings are more common, probably because the hunters are quiet, unlike during rifle season, when shots occasionally roll across the canyons and valleys, and many, many more people take to the "field" (meaning, drive up and down logging roads).
Archery, itself has a great quality about it: it is a deeper brush with our connections to the wild. I enjoy shooting guns, for sure, but every aspect of archery provides me with a deeper meaning. The symmetry of the bow, the speed of the arrow, the finality of the shot, the ultimate reliance on one shot, and the need to get closer all appeal to me.
Ethically, I have the same problem with archery season that I do with most people who think they can shoot past 100 yds.: Many people don't practice enough, and when they are in the field, they aren't honest with themselves about the range and opportunity of shots.
Some animal rights people are concerned with the wounding danger of arrows, but they haven't had enough experience with a bow, either. Poorly shot arrows do wound game animals, and that is a shame. However, an arrow-wounded animal that gets away has a much better chance of surviving and thriving than does an animal wounded by a gun. Arrows kill by slicing clean, often passing completely through. Guns kill by opening holes, too, but also by shock. A gun hits with a blunt force. An arrow, as Chuck Adams states, has less kinetic energy than the smallest pistol, a .22 short. Yet, with an arrow, a person can kill bison.
Archery also teaches one how to hone skills, not just acquire them. Everything about archery, from the actual honing of the broadhead to the need to improve tracking skills, read the wind, and know your prey, thrives on betterment. Above all, archery rewards accuracy, and it can be practiced in a relatively small space.
This year, I hope not to put down the bow with the end of archery deer season. California has an early season archery quail hunt in August, and I hope to get up into the mountains after them. I also hope to get family out with bows for stump-shooting after pinecones and the like. It's a great sport just by itself, and it teaches a lot without preaching. Something I could learn...
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Lead bans in California
© Joshua Stark 2010
Phillip at the Hog Blog beat me to it, but I wanted to note here that the proposed lead ammunition ban in California wildlife areas was killed in committee. I don't expect this decision to be paraded around by opponents as another example of wise leadership on the part of our legislature, but it should.
flx1247rg
That's right, I said that the folks who were opposed to this ban need to acknowledge, vocally and in public, that this decision was a good, wise decision. Then, they need to take it a step further, and offer a bill that would provide for research on these properties, research that looks for any and all impacts from potential pollutants, including lead, but also other pollutants. It's time to judo-flip this puppy, lock arms with other members of the environmental and EJ communities, and say, "hey, there is a concern for pollutants on our lands. We worry, because we love the wild, and we also eat the wild. We want healthy places for our land and for our children."
Now is the time to step up with some solid language. I propose the bill language include general research into airborne, soil, and water pollutants with a focus on identifying the toxins and determining their vectors into the habitat. I also propose that findings be reported by five years' time. Last, I propose that the research consider each wildlife area individually, that it not be lumped into some general statements.
We are a huge state with many climates, dozens of microclimates, many different watersheds, and a huge diversity of industries. We also have a gigantic population that is highly urbanized. All of these factors weigh in on the various pollutants with which we live.
Seriously, this could be the impetus for bringing together those who care about our environment, whether for hunting, for its own sake, or for the pollutants that harm our own neighborhoods.
Editorial note: I did support the lead ban in condor country, but opposed the proposed lead ban in all wildlife areas. I also no longer shoot lead at all when hunting, because I have a pregnant wife and a three-year-old daughter. We need solid science to show that a lead ammunition ban would, indeed, positively impact my wild places, and where this comes to light, I do support lead bans. But, where it is determined that it is not causing a problem, I do not support a ban.
The sorrowful pessimist in me says that other politics (namely, the grip of huge industries on our political sphere) will keep our groups from organizing on this issue. But, I try to remain hopeful, and if anyone is interesting in helping out, please let me know.
Phillip at the Hog Blog beat me to it, but I wanted to note here that the proposed lead ammunition ban in California wildlife areas was killed in committee. I don't expect this decision to be paraded around by opponents as another example of wise leadership on the part of our legislature, but it should.
flx1247rg
That's right, I said that the folks who were opposed to this ban need to acknowledge, vocally and in public, that this decision was a good, wise decision. Then, they need to take it a step further, and offer a bill that would provide for research on these properties, research that looks for any and all impacts from potential pollutants, including lead, but also other pollutants. It's time to judo-flip this puppy, lock arms with other members of the environmental and EJ communities, and say, "hey, there is a concern for pollutants on our lands. We worry, because we love the wild, and we also eat the wild. We want healthy places for our land and for our children."
Now is the time to step up with some solid language. I propose the bill language include general research into airborne, soil, and water pollutants with a focus on identifying the toxins and determining their vectors into the habitat. I also propose that findings be reported by five years' time. Last, I propose that the research consider each wildlife area individually, that it not be lumped into some general statements.
We are a huge state with many climates, dozens of microclimates, many different watersheds, and a huge diversity of industries. We also have a gigantic population that is highly urbanized. All of these factors weigh in on the various pollutants with which we live.
Seriously, this could be the impetus for bringing together those who care about our environment, whether for hunting, for its own sake, or for the pollutants that harm our own neighborhoods.
Editorial note: I did support the lead ban in condor country, but opposed the proposed lead ban in all wildlife areas. I also no longer shoot lead at all when hunting, because I have a pregnant wife and a three-year-old daughter. We need solid science to show that a lead ammunition ban would, indeed, positively impact my wild places, and where this comes to light, I do support lead bans. But, where it is determined that it is not causing a problem, I do not support a ban.
The sorrowful pessimist in me says that other politics (namely, the grip of huge industries on our political sphere) will keep our groups from organizing on this issue. But, I try to remain hopeful, and if anyone is interesting in helping out, please let me know.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Connections and connectedness
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Last week, at an environmentalist convention (I live a very unorthodox life, I'll tell ya), I had a typical lunchtime conversation that I thought you all might be interested in.
flx1247rg
I attend many environmental get-togethers - conventions, seminars, "summits", annual meetings, those sorts of things - and almost inevitably, at lunchtime, I find myself sitting at one of those large, round tables in a convention hall of some big hotel. The food is almost always the same, and oddly enough, is just like everybody else's conventions: Hotel-catered lunch meats, but with a slightly more robust veggie section, to give the vegetarians something. Most environmentalists, even here in Northern California, are not vegetarians.
Anyhoo, I find myself sitting at a large table, and the conversation always goes to food and where it comes from (odd, that...). At some point, I give my philosophy (that animals should get to live as they were intended to live, wild when wild, and that we should take responsibility for the lives that sustain us). Then I tell the folks that I hunt.
Every time I have done this, one or two people at the table begin talking in hushed tones: "I've always been interested in hunting. I've never had the chance (oh, I shot my friend's uncle's gun when I was a teenager), and it has always appealed to me as an idea." They are truly excited, they are looking me straight in the eye, leaning across the table, no longer eating. I can see their eyes focusing on something else sometimes, even, somewhere else. They have that spirit within them, but they've never had a conversation with it, and now they see that it isn't just a little, dirty secret, it isn't just some vague blood-bespattered notion without a word to give it a beginning within their hearts, it isn't some voyeuristic vision which they can only feed by watching Shark Week. It is alive, it is a part of them, and it is shared. It has an ethic, even.
So we talk, mostly questions asked of me, and always in hushed tones.
What do you hunt? Do you eat what you kill?
Where do you go?
What do you need/use? How do you learn?
Well, this week, I offered to take a fellow out to the shooting range, and he bit. Next week some time, then, I'll be teaching a man how to shoot, as well as just showing him around the American River parkway and fishing with him (he's fished in the past, and wants to start again).
Interestingly enough, a couple of times I've mentioned my hunting to get a rile out of somebody, but it has never come. The people who have dedicated their lives to environmental action, who have chosen livelihoods to complement their passions, have never once been offended by my statements at lunch, including every vegetarian I have ever spoken to at an enviro. get-together. There is an honest respect for and understanding of ecology, food webs, habitats, etc., and there is also a deep desire within the community to connect with the land. Many of these folks were compelled to become biologists, ecologists, guides, because of a need to be in the wild, to know it deeply and respectfully. I am always happy to find myself in their company, happy to be among folks who so deeply love the wild for what it is.
Last week, at an environmentalist convention (I live a very unorthodox life, I'll tell ya), I had a typical lunchtime conversation that I thought you all might be interested in.
flx1247rg
I attend many environmental get-togethers - conventions, seminars, "summits", annual meetings, those sorts of things - and almost inevitably, at lunchtime, I find myself sitting at one of those large, round tables in a convention hall of some big hotel. The food is almost always the same, and oddly enough, is just like everybody else's conventions: Hotel-catered lunch meats, but with a slightly more robust veggie section, to give the vegetarians something. Most environmentalists, even here in Northern California, are not vegetarians.
Anyhoo, I find myself sitting at a large table, and the conversation always goes to food and where it comes from (odd, that...). At some point, I give my philosophy (that animals should get to live as they were intended to live, wild when wild, and that we should take responsibility for the lives that sustain us). Then I tell the folks that I hunt.
Every time I have done this, one or two people at the table begin talking in hushed tones: "I've always been interested in hunting. I've never had the chance (oh, I shot my friend's uncle's gun when I was a teenager), and it has always appealed to me as an idea." They are truly excited, they are looking me straight in the eye, leaning across the table, no longer eating. I can see their eyes focusing on something else sometimes, even, somewhere else. They have that spirit within them, but they've never had a conversation with it, and now they see that it isn't just a little, dirty secret, it isn't just some vague blood-bespattered notion without a word to give it a beginning within their hearts, it isn't some voyeuristic vision which they can only feed by watching Shark Week. It is alive, it is a part of them, and it is shared. It has an ethic, even.
So we talk, mostly questions asked of me, and always in hushed tones.
What do you hunt? Do you eat what you kill?
Where do you go?
What do you need/use? How do you learn?
Well, this week, I offered to take a fellow out to the shooting range, and he bit. Next week some time, then, I'll be teaching a man how to shoot, as well as just showing him around the American River parkway and fishing with him (he's fished in the past, and wants to start again).
Interestingly enough, a couple of times I've mentioned my hunting to get a rile out of somebody, but it has never come. The people who have dedicated their lives to environmental action, who have chosen livelihoods to complement their passions, have never once been offended by my statements at lunch, including every vegetarian I have ever spoken to at an enviro. get-together. There is an honest respect for and understanding of ecology, food webs, habitats, etc., and there is also a deep desire within the community to connect with the land. Many of these folks were compelled to become biologists, ecologists, guides, because of a need to be in the wild, to know it deeply and respectfully. I am always happy to find myself in their company, happy to be among folks who so deeply love the wild for what it is.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Flat-out on the Ethics of Hunting, and Fair Chase in particular
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Quite a while back, a number of thoughtful hunters in the blogosphere started a round-robin sort of series of posts on the ethics of hunting, in particular over the concept known as fair chase. (Phillip at Hog Blog has a good compilation of the links.) Fair chase has an interesting history, in the United States becoming ingrained in the community as hunters both became less dependent upon killing for the table, and as technological gains substantially changed the nature of hunting.
flx1247rg
For those of you who don't hunt, fair chase is the idea that hunters should use equipment and techniques that limit their chances, in order to make the hunt more fair for prey. That description sounds weird, especially because we are talking life-and-death, so let's put it in context: Humans have devised many techniques to very efficiently take animals. When hunting was vital to peoples' food, hunters would drive large herds over cliffs, use fire to burn out places and drive animals, use bait to bring animals to places where they could be dispatched more easily, use traps, etc. As we grew more technologically advanced, and as economic systems encouraged larger and larger takings, acquiring wild meat became very easy - actually, too easy, and animal populations plummeted. Today, in the parts of the world where hunting is not vital to providing food, and where commercial hunting has been outlawed due to its tremendous impacts, hunters have often developed the concept of fair chase as a way to hone skills and to properly manage their impacts on animal populations.
Well, after having read blog posts and comments, I felt just about everything had been said, and didn't see much to contribute. And yet, I felt like there was a piece missing in the connection between fair chase as a personal choice and fair chase as an ethical concept. On a broader note, I truly believed that there was something to the ethics of hunting that needed to be said, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
But the other day, Tovar's piece on his problems with Ortega y Gasset led me to a stronger connection to one idea about fair chase developing as a replacement for hunger as the impetus for improving one's skill. I had already believed this, but in contemplating the conversations related to Tovar's post, it dawned on me that this is a sufficient reason to consider fair chase an ethic rather than an aesthetic.
The betterment of skill is desired by a hunter, at least because of the improved results that come with skill, and oftentimes the desire to make quick, clean kills to minimize pain and other negative impacts on the prey and habitat. Improving one's skill, therefore, is a "good", both in the Aristotelian definition of the word and in the definition as described by many other ethical philosophies (e.g., Kantian, utilitarian, Judeo-Christian).
Hunting traditions place fine skill above almost anything else. An expensive gun may be envied, and nice clothes do sell, but real admiration and respect goes to the hunters who have honed their skills to a great degree. Tracking, understanding habitat, weather, and especially the spirit of the prey are most appreciated, as are a respect for and skill with one's equipment. The next time you get a chance, ask a hunter which he feels more admiration for, a man with a Kimber shotgun who hits 10 out of 25 clay pigeons, or a man with a Mossberg who can hit all of them, and I will 100% guarantee you how the hunter will answer. When hunger and the need to provide for family and community were lost from hunting, and when human ingenuity outpaced animals' abilities, fair chase became the impetus for honing one's skills and techniques.
Many hunting traditions have strong codes of conduct, strong ethical traditions. In fact, skills that would be merely important in other endeavors, but not ethically so, reach the level of ethos in hunting because of the seriousness of the activity. In the past, hunger drove hunting, and good hunters were rewarded, but due to our social nature, everybody was rewarded by the good hunters, too. "Eating Christmas in the Kalahari" provides one great example of this shared good through individual skill. In addition, a hunter could very well be successful today and horribly unsuccessful for the next few weeks, or even be wounded in the field. Because of these factors, magnanimity, humility, and respect for the environs are other ethical claims in which many hunters strongly believe. The vital need for success, the finality and emotional ambiguity involved in killing and death, the dangers involved in taking to the wilds after animals, and the necessary respect for and constant need to improve skills, all exemplify why hunting lives by an ethical code rather than just a series of preferences, and why the conversations around hunting are so passionate.
This digging deep into the human soul is actually why many are attracted to hunting, especially in our culture, where few things are left that have such depth and importance, or deal with such basic human needs and concerns with such seriousness and sincerity.
So, skill is not merely something that a person might or might not work to improve in hunting like it is, say, in basketball. A person may play pool occasionally, or go bowling without practice, but the person who claims to be a hunter without trying to improve their skills at the very least in preparation for the hunt commits an unethical act, as their actions will more likely result in no animal, or worse, a wounded animal, or even worse, a wounded person. A person dismissive of skillfulness in hunting crosses a line that doesn't exist in a pick-up basketball game or photography.
Without the vital need for sustenance, without the need to rely on others directly or supply food for neighbors and family, hunters still value skill beyond just a neat thing to acquire, and they have devised fair chase in consideration of conservation efforts, and in understanding the need to improve skills, both of which are ethical concerns. And since the reasons for fair chase are ethical reasons, the act of fair chase is an ethical concern, too.
Please weigh in - let me know what you think of the concept of fair chase, or of the ethics of hunting.
Quite a while back, a number of thoughtful hunters in the blogosphere started a round-robin sort of series of posts on the ethics of hunting, in particular over the concept known as fair chase. (Phillip at Hog Blog has a good compilation of the links.) Fair chase has an interesting history, in the United States becoming ingrained in the community as hunters both became less dependent upon killing for the table, and as technological gains substantially changed the nature of hunting.
flx1247rg
For those of you who don't hunt, fair chase is the idea that hunters should use equipment and techniques that limit their chances, in order to make the hunt more fair for prey. That description sounds weird, especially because we are talking life-and-death, so let's put it in context: Humans have devised many techniques to very efficiently take animals. When hunting was vital to peoples' food, hunters would drive large herds over cliffs, use fire to burn out places and drive animals, use bait to bring animals to places where they could be dispatched more easily, use traps, etc. As we grew more technologically advanced, and as economic systems encouraged larger and larger takings, acquiring wild meat became very easy - actually, too easy, and animal populations plummeted. Today, in the parts of the world where hunting is not vital to providing food, and where commercial hunting has been outlawed due to its tremendous impacts, hunters have often developed the concept of fair chase as a way to hone skills and to properly manage their impacts on animal populations.
Well, after having read blog posts and comments, I felt just about everything had been said, and didn't see much to contribute. And yet, I felt like there was a piece missing in the connection between fair chase as a personal choice and fair chase as an ethical concept. On a broader note, I truly believed that there was something to the ethics of hunting that needed to be said, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
But the other day, Tovar's piece on his problems with Ortega y Gasset led me to a stronger connection to one idea about fair chase developing as a replacement for hunger as the impetus for improving one's skill. I had already believed this, but in contemplating the conversations related to Tovar's post, it dawned on me that this is a sufficient reason to consider fair chase an ethic rather than an aesthetic.
The betterment of skill is desired by a hunter, at least because of the improved results that come with skill, and oftentimes the desire to make quick, clean kills to minimize pain and other negative impacts on the prey and habitat. Improving one's skill, therefore, is a "good", both in the Aristotelian definition of the word and in the definition as described by many other ethical philosophies (e.g., Kantian, utilitarian, Judeo-Christian).
Hunting traditions place fine skill above almost anything else. An expensive gun may be envied, and nice clothes do sell, but real admiration and respect goes to the hunters who have honed their skills to a great degree. Tracking, understanding habitat, weather, and especially the spirit of the prey are most appreciated, as are a respect for and skill with one's equipment. The next time you get a chance, ask a hunter which he feels more admiration for, a man with a Kimber shotgun who hits 10 out of 25 clay pigeons, or a man with a Mossberg who can hit all of them, and I will 100% guarantee you how the hunter will answer. When hunger and the need to provide for family and community were lost from hunting, and when human ingenuity outpaced animals' abilities, fair chase became the impetus for honing one's skills and techniques.
Many hunting traditions have strong codes of conduct, strong ethical traditions. In fact, skills that would be merely important in other endeavors, but not ethically so, reach the level of ethos in hunting because of the seriousness of the activity. In the past, hunger drove hunting, and good hunters were rewarded, but due to our social nature, everybody was rewarded by the good hunters, too. "Eating Christmas in the Kalahari" provides one great example of this shared good through individual skill. In addition, a hunter could very well be successful today and horribly unsuccessful for the next few weeks, or even be wounded in the field. Because of these factors, magnanimity, humility, and respect for the environs are other ethical claims in which many hunters strongly believe. The vital need for success, the finality and emotional ambiguity involved in killing and death, the dangers involved in taking to the wilds after animals, and the necessary respect for and constant need to improve skills, all exemplify why hunting lives by an ethical code rather than just a series of preferences, and why the conversations around hunting are so passionate.
This digging deep into the human soul is actually why many are attracted to hunting, especially in our culture, where few things are left that have such depth and importance, or deal with such basic human needs and concerns with such seriousness and sincerity.
So, skill is not merely something that a person might or might not work to improve in hunting like it is, say, in basketball. A person may play pool occasionally, or go bowling without practice, but the person who claims to be a hunter without trying to improve their skills at the very least in preparation for the hunt commits an unethical act, as their actions will more likely result in no animal, or worse, a wounded animal, or even worse, a wounded person. A person dismissive of skillfulness in hunting crosses a line that doesn't exist in a pick-up basketball game or photography.
Without the vital need for sustenance, without the need to rely on others directly or supply food for neighbors and family, hunters still value skill beyond just a neat thing to acquire, and they have devised fair chase in consideration of conservation efforts, and in understanding the need to improve skills, both of which are ethical concerns. And since the reasons for fair chase are ethical reasons, the act of fair chase is an ethical concern, too.
Please weigh in - let me know what you think of the concept of fair chase, or of the ethics of hunting.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
New lead ban proposal in California
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Assemblyman Nava (D - 35th Dist.) recently introduced AB 2223, banning lead shot in all California State wildlife management areas. Though not a gigantic leap (all Federal refuges in the state already ban lead shot, as does Ft. Hunter-Liggett), I would really love to see some regional science to support banning lead shot in these particular places, and since this is currently lacking, I must, sadly, not endorse this bill.
flx1247rg
First, let me note that I do not use lead in any hunting anymore. This is a personal decision I've made, especially since my baby was born. I also do believe that lead has harmed many raptors and California condors. Because of this, I fully supported the lead ban in California condor range.
On a broader note, I've argued that lead bans seem to be just about the only way to move companies to provide lower-cost alternatives for hunters who want to switch. Volunteer efforts are hindered as long as the cost of non-lead ammunition remains prohibitively high (e.g., my 30-30 ammo. costs $18 for lead, or $52 for nonlead), and ammunition companies see no need to re-tool, so long as they can help convince hunters that this is just another enviro-commie conspiracy to end hunting. (Cost, by the way, is not an issue for steel shot, anymore, precisely because lead was outlawed from waterfowl hunting nearly 20 years ago.)
Lead in the environment can pose problems to particular species (including us!), and so it would be nice to see a cost-effective, non-toxic alternative to what most hunters currently use in rifle ammunition.
So why, then, do I not support this particular legislation?
First step back a minute, and consider where much of our conservation funding originates. Yes, it's cliché, but only because it continues to be true - hunters pay for much of our conservation efforts, and they are definitely paying the lion's share of conservation on these particular sites. Now, consider that they pay because they are out there.
Hunting is a love of a place almost as much as a love of game and food. Sit out in a blind at sunrise, with a view of the flooded marsh, and Mt. Diablo or the Sutter Buttes beyond it, and you understand. Watch the tules, listen for the tell-tale scurrying noises in a particular stand of oaks or blackberry bramble, and you get to know them as much as, or more than, the animals you pursue. Hunters know which side of which mountain holds a decent covey, and the particular bend in the river above which struts a tom. Place is vital to hunting. This is why Aldo Leopold called it a "land ethic".
So it behooves those non-hunters who would work for the betterment of these places to first understand them, too. If the folks who supported and wrote this legislation had, instead, proposed a research study to identify the impacts of lead shot at particular management areas, or better yet, proposed annual research on ecosystem health and impacts (good and bad) within these systems, I would be charging ahead in support. And, if it were determined after a year or two of research that lead shot was adversely impacting these ecosystems, including bad impacts to particular species (including us!), then I would work hard to help eliminate lead shot from these places, because, you see, it's the places that are important. Knowing and respecting place is important in getting hunters to make good decisions about their impacts.
It's also good science. What these beautiful, bountiful places need is real, place-based understanding. In the rush to do good, I worry that we may overlook real problems suffered by these wonderful areas, while thinking we've helped. My worst fear is that well-meaning, non-hunting advocates will use political capital to ban lead shot, and subsequent research will show that there is, in fact, a lead problem on these lands, but it isn't from shot. In this case, hunters will be even less trusting of the new efforts (and maybe even stopped supporting these places), politicians will have moved on to the Next Big Thing, and by far worst of all, animals (including us!) and habitat will continue to suffer.
So long as non-hunting advocates ignore the place-based nature of hunting, and instead rely upon general notions of what is best, they will continue to suffer the anger and disappointment of many hunters, a group who is already leery of notions about Big Brother.
Californians concerned about lead in habitat should take a page from the Peregrine Fund's work in Arizona and Utah, as Phillip noted over at the Hog Blog. Surely here in California we can encourage a back-to-nature hunting movement already afoot (e.g., see here) through volunteer efforts, using the power of reason and love for a place and perpetuating an important tradition.
Now, let's focus on good research on the places we love.
Assemblyman Nava (D - 35th Dist.) recently introduced AB 2223, banning lead shot in all California State wildlife management areas. Though not a gigantic leap (all Federal refuges in the state already ban lead shot, as does Ft. Hunter-Liggett), I would really love to see some regional science to support banning lead shot in these particular places, and since this is currently lacking, I must, sadly, not endorse this bill.
flx1247rg
First, let me note that I do not use lead in any hunting anymore. This is a personal decision I've made, especially since my baby was born. I also do believe that lead has harmed many raptors and California condors. Because of this, I fully supported the lead ban in California condor range.
On a broader note, I've argued that lead bans seem to be just about the only way to move companies to provide lower-cost alternatives for hunters who want to switch. Volunteer efforts are hindered as long as the cost of non-lead ammunition remains prohibitively high (e.g., my 30-30 ammo. costs $18 for lead, or $52 for nonlead), and ammunition companies see no need to re-tool, so long as they can help convince hunters that this is just another enviro-commie conspiracy to end hunting. (Cost, by the way, is not an issue for steel shot, anymore, precisely because lead was outlawed from waterfowl hunting nearly 20 years ago.)
Lead in the environment can pose problems to particular species (including us!), and so it would be nice to see a cost-effective, non-toxic alternative to what most hunters currently use in rifle ammunition.
So why, then, do I not support this particular legislation?
First step back a minute, and consider where much of our conservation funding originates. Yes, it's cliché, but only because it continues to be true - hunters pay for much of our conservation efforts, and they are definitely paying the lion's share of conservation on these particular sites. Now, consider that they pay because they are out there.
Hunting is a love of a place almost as much as a love of game and food. Sit out in a blind at sunrise, with a view of the flooded marsh, and Mt. Diablo or the Sutter Buttes beyond it, and you understand. Watch the tules, listen for the tell-tale scurrying noises in a particular stand of oaks or blackberry bramble, and you get to know them as much as, or more than, the animals you pursue. Hunters know which side of which mountain holds a decent covey, and the particular bend in the river above which struts a tom. Place is vital to hunting. This is why Aldo Leopold called it a "land ethic".
So it behooves those non-hunters who would work for the betterment of these places to first understand them, too. If the folks who supported and wrote this legislation had, instead, proposed a research study to identify the impacts of lead shot at particular management areas, or better yet, proposed annual research on ecosystem health and impacts (good and bad) within these systems, I would be charging ahead in support. And, if it were determined after a year or two of research that lead shot was adversely impacting these ecosystems, including bad impacts to particular species (including us!), then I would work hard to help eliminate lead shot from these places, because, you see, it's the places that are important. Knowing and respecting place is important in getting hunters to make good decisions about their impacts.
It's also good science. What these beautiful, bountiful places need is real, place-based understanding. In the rush to do good, I worry that we may overlook real problems suffered by these wonderful areas, while thinking we've helped. My worst fear is that well-meaning, non-hunting advocates will use political capital to ban lead shot, and subsequent research will show that there is, in fact, a lead problem on these lands, but it isn't from shot. In this case, hunters will be even less trusting of the new efforts (and maybe even stopped supporting these places), politicians will have moved on to the Next Big Thing, and by far worst of all, animals (including us!) and habitat will continue to suffer.
So long as non-hunting advocates ignore the place-based nature of hunting, and instead rely upon general notions of what is best, they will continue to suffer the anger and disappointment of many hunters, a group who is already leery of notions about Big Brother.
Californians concerned about lead in habitat should take a page from the Peregrine Fund's work in Arizona and Utah, as Phillip noted over at the Hog Blog. Surely here in California we can encourage a back-to-nature hunting movement already afoot (e.g., see here) through volunteer efforts, using the power of reason and love for a place and perpetuating an important tradition.
Now, let's focus on good research on the places we love.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Climate Change impacts to hunting and fishing
© 2010 Joshua Stark
At first I thought the idea I'm going to post here would make me look incredibly slow - maybe it does - but after I did a little googling, I've realized that, with few exceptions, we must all be slow.
flx1247rg
I thought, "gee, I wonder if anybody has done any work on the impacts of climate change to hunting and fishing, not just as pastimes or endeavors, but also to the industries that serve them, and to the habitats, animals, and folks that these pastimes protect."
After poking around a bit, I found two good websites that start this discussion. One, of course, comes from the National Wildlife Federation: Target Global Warming (http://www.targetglobalwarming.org/). This is a beautifully designed website with some amazing photos, and is a good place to start when you want to find out about potential global warming impacts on habitats and animals. However, I found no forecasts on the impacts to industries, or to hunting and fishing as ways of life, and links to their information take you back to NWF articles and publications about more general impacts. That is fine, but it would be nice to see some more hunting- or fishing-focused stuff.
The second website, Season's End (http://www.seasonsend.org/), is the kickoff of the book by the same name, edited by staff at the Bipartisan Policy Center. BPC is an organization founded by Bob Dole, Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, and George Mitchell. This is THE place for information on the potential impacts of climate change to hunting and fishing. The book is free on the website as a download (8 MB), the site is also beautifully designed, and the information is great. They break down impacts by game (waterfowl, big game, etc.), and you can click on links that give you a little bit of information and a taste of what the book offers. For example, they state that the Prairie Pothole region may see a 90% loss in its wetlands, and the Chenier Plain Marshes of Louisiana may lose 99% of its waterfowl.
My one complaint is that their blog hasn't been updated since July of 2009.
Season's End is supported by a number of well-known hunting organizations - perhaps you are a member of one - and is well worth a look. So is NWF's site.
If you tend not to believe in the science of human-cause global warming, just remember that conservation is good in and of itself. Also, please reconsider your position by reading, especially since every outdoors organization that I know of, regardless of political affiliation, is concerned about it and trying to educate and help solve it as a problem.
At first I thought the idea I'm going to post here would make me look incredibly slow - maybe it does - but after I did a little googling, I've realized that, with few exceptions, we must all be slow.
flx1247rg
I thought, "gee, I wonder if anybody has done any work on the impacts of climate change to hunting and fishing, not just as pastimes or endeavors, but also to the industries that serve them, and to the habitats, animals, and folks that these pastimes protect."
After poking around a bit, I found two good websites that start this discussion. One, of course, comes from the National Wildlife Federation: Target Global Warming (http://www.targetglobalwarming.org/). This is a beautifully designed website with some amazing photos, and is a good place to start when you want to find out about potential global warming impacts on habitats and animals. However, I found no forecasts on the impacts to industries, or to hunting and fishing as ways of life, and links to their information take you back to NWF articles and publications about more general impacts. That is fine, but it would be nice to see some more hunting- or fishing-focused stuff.
The second website, Season's End (http://www.seasonsend.org/), is the kickoff of the book by the same name, edited by staff at the Bipartisan Policy Center. BPC is an organization founded by Bob Dole, Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, and George Mitchell. This is THE place for information on the potential impacts of climate change to hunting and fishing. The book is free on the website as a download (8 MB), the site is also beautifully designed, and the information is great. They break down impacts by game (waterfowl, big game, etc.), and you can click on links that give you a little bit of information and a taste of what the book offers. For example, they state that the Prairie Pothole region may see a 90% loss in its wetlands, and the Chenier Plain Marshes of Louisiana may lose 99% of its waterfowl.
My one complaint is that their blog hasn't been updated since July of 2009.
Season's End is supported by a number of well-known hunting organizations - perhaps you are a member of one - and is well worth a look. So is NWF's site.
If you tend not to believe in the science of human-cause global warming, just remember that conservation is good in and of itself. Also, please reconsider your position by reading, especially since every outdoors organization that I know of, regardless of political affiliation, is concerned about it and trying to educate and help solve it as a problem.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Some thoughts on the Gov's. proposal to cut $5 million from fishing and hunting programs
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Yesterday, I listened in on the California State Senate's Committee on the Budget and Fiscal Review, to hear how the Committee would consider the Governor's proposed $5 million cut from the General Fund contribution to Program 25, the Hunting and Fishing Program at the Dept. of Fish & Game.
flx1247rg
Last year, this program received $37 million from user fees (hunting and fishing licenses, entry fees, etc.), and typically, these are supplemented with $15 million from the State General Fund.
Administration officials explained that this amounted to a less than 10% reduction in the program, and assured the Committee that the cuts would not impact endangered species programs, the Marine Life Protection Act, or law enforcement.
After each budget proposal is made, the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) makes its recommendations, and in this case, the LAO recommended the cut, with the caveat that the Legislature and Governor's office meet to set specific priorities for programs impacted by the cut, pointing out that this program receives some federal matching funds. (One factually misleading statement the LAO made was that these cuts would not impact fees. However, I ask you: if a fishing dock is closed, or if a waterfowl refuge is closed, will these impact fees? Why yes, you are correct, they would impact fees.)
After the LAO's comments, anybody in public can speak (even you). Representatives from two groups commented on the proposed cut: the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance (COHA), and Defenders of Wildlife. I was happy to see them both, but I was surprised at the outcome.
COHA's representative spoke first, and the first thing he did was concur with the LAO's recommendation. He immediately said that his constituents' interests needed to be protected, and that this cut would/could impact them, but that they were willing to talk with the Legislature and Administration to figure out how to allocate the cut.
At this point, the Chair of the Committee (Sen. Ducheny) asked about the possibility of raising hunting and fishing fees. Her actual words were, "have we looked at fees?" COHA pointed out that fishing and hunting fees were adjusted annually, and that this system isn't exactly fair, in that hunters and fishers pay for access to places other people use for free.
Then the Defenders' representative spoke, and she did not concur with the cut, but instead compared it to last year's $30 million dollar cut to the Department, which was backfilled by Preservation Fund money (which includes hunting and fishing fees). She also said that the vast majority of these cuts would go to sportfishing programs and management.
I don't understand a couple of things. First, I don't understand COHA's decision to agree to a 33% cut to General Fund money to a program that COHA already believes is unfairly funded. Second, I don't understand, in light of Defenders' comments, why the sportfishing people weren't out to defend their program's funding.
By the end of the short session, I was impressed with Defenders' position, and I look forward to help them keep our hunting and fishing programs intact, for ourselves and our children. I also hope other groups will help step in to defend hunting and fishing as endeavors worth supporting and fostering. If you are a member of Defenders, COHA, or any other hunting or fishing group, I highly recommend a call to your representatives, as well as a call to your groups' folks, to let them know that you support their efforts at keeping all of our funding.
Yesterday, I listened in on the California State Senate's Committee on the Budget and Fiscal Review, to hear how the Committee would consider the Governor's proposed $5 million cut from the General Fund contribution to Program 25, the Hunting and Fishing Program at the Dept. of Fish & Game.
flx1247rg
Last year, this program received $37 million from user fees (hunting and fishing licenses, entry fees, etc.), and typically, these are supplemented with $15 million from the State General Fund.
Administration officials explained that this amounted to a less than 10% reduction in the program, and assured the Committee that the cuts would not impact endangered species programs, the Marine Life Protection Act, or law enforcement.
After each budget proposal is made, the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) makes its recommendations, and in this case, the LAO recommended the cut, with the caveat that the Legislature and Governor's office meet to set specific priorities for programs impacted by the cut, pointing out that this program receives some federal matching funds. (One factually misleading statement the LAO made was that these cuts would not impact fees. However, I ask you: if a fishing dock is closed, or if a waterfowl refuge is closed, will these impact fees? Why yes, you are correct, they would impact fees.)
After the LAO's comments, anybody in public can speak (even you). Representatives from two groups commented on the proposed cut: the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance (COHA), and Defenders of Wildlife. I was happy to see them both, but I was surprised at the outcome.
COHA's representative spoke first, and the first thing he did was concur with the LAO's recommendation. He immediately said that his constituents' interests needed to be protected, and that this cut would/could impact them, but that they were willing to talk with the Legislature and Administration to figure out how to allocate the cut.
At this point, the Chair of the Committee (Sen. Ducheny) asked about the possibility of raising hunting and fishing fees. Her actual words were, "have we looked at fees?" COHA pointed out that fishing and hunting fees were adjusted annually, and that this system isn't exactly fair, in that hunters and fishers pay for access to places other people use for free.
Then the Defenders' representative spoke, and she did not concur with the cut, but instead compared it to last year's $30 million dollar cut to the Department, which was backfilled by Preservation Fund money (which includes hunting and fishing fees). She also said that the vast majority of these cuts would go to sportfishing programs and management.
I don't understand a couple of things. First, I don't understand COHA's decision to agree to a 33% cut to General Fund money to a program that COHA already believes is unfairly funded. Second, I don't understand, in light of Defenders' comments, why the sportfishing people weren't out to defend their program's funding.
By the end of the short session, I was impressed with Defenders' position, and I look forward to help them keep our hunting and fishing programs intact, for ourselves and our children. I also hope other groups will help step in to defend hunting and fishing as endeavors worth supporting and fostering. If you are a member of Defenders, COHA, or any other hunting or fishing group, I highly recommend a call to your representatives, as well as a call to your groups' folks, to let them know that you support their efforts at keeping all of our funding.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Up in arms over junior deer hunt
I read this piece in the Sacramento Bee yesterday, where folks are raising a stink about proposing a proposed junior doe hunt (that wasn't a typo) for Southern Placer County.
When I first heard of the proposal, my first instinct was selfish: My child is only two, and I'm, well, not a junior anymore. However, the article is about the 'controversy' of such a proposal, because of the youth focus, the doe focus, and the urban-wildland interface. Of course, the online comments quickly span the range of ridiculousness, with little in the middle.
So, my two cents: Folks, if I hadn't hunted and fished as a kid, I would most likely not have become an environmentalist. In addition, hunting and fishing (and kayaking, of course) are the primary ways in which I continue to interact with the wild. So get your young ones out there with guns in their hands! Teach them ethics, teach them that they need to know how they impact the world, and also sit back and let them learn things for themselves, on their own time, with their own experiences and in unstructured places. That's right, I'm not just condoning, but encouraging that we arm 16 year-olds, and let them run around in the wild. We complain that our kids never seem to grow up, yet we don't let them off the kiddie-leash. You would be surprised at the responsibility many teens can take if they are given the chance. We give them weapons that kill more people in the US every year and let them loose in highly urban, dense neighborhoods (cars), so stop your hypocritical whining.
Second, a doe, as the song goes, is a deer. That folks viscerally react to the notion of culling female deer more than male deer means that our motives have moved away from honest, clear-eyed management decisions to one of emotion, and an emotion based on some pretty sexist thinking, and with some serious violence thrown into that thinking, too.
Third, folks concerned with hunting going on at the urban-wildland interface need to move back to the city. Yes, I said back, because it's obvious where you came from.
My biggest problem with the report was the bias, beginning with referring to opponents not as animal rights activists, but as "animal activists." I am an animal activist, yet I am diametrically opposed to the position and philosophy as described in the article. This first bias of omission belies the angle of the rest of the story, and it gives me the feeling that the reporter is so completely unable to understand hunting that Mr. Fletcher cannot seem to get the balance right (I checked out his Tweets, and the closest thing to hunting he's done is, "Just killed 150 emails.")
So, Mr. Fletcher, if you wish to try to understand it, I am more than willing to take you hunting, especially if you hope to accurately report Placer County. Deer season is just around the corner up there.
When I first heard of the proposal, my first instinct was selfish: My child is only two, and I'm, well, not a junior anymore. However, the article is about the 'controversy' of such a proposal, because of the youth focus, the doe focus, and the urban-wildland interface. Of course, the online comments quickly span the range of ridiculousness, with little in the middle.
So, my two cents: Folks, if I hadn't hunted and fished as a kid, I would most likely not have become an environmentalist. In addition, hunting and fishing (and kayaking, of course) are the primary ways in which I continue to interact with the wild. So get your young ones out there with guns in their hands! Teach them ethics, teach them that they need to know how they impact the world, and also sit back and let them learn things for themselves, on their own time, with their own experiences and in unstructured places. That's right, I'm not just condoning, but encouraging that we arm 16 year-olds, and let them run around in the wild. We complain that our kids never seem to grow up, yet we don't let them off the kiddie-leash. You would be surprised at the responsibility many teens can take if they are given the chance. We give them weapons that kill more people in the US every year and let them loose in highly urban, dense neighborhoods (cars), so stop your hypocritical whining.
Second, a doe, as the song goes, is a deer. That folks viscerally react to the notion of culling female deer more than male deer means that our motives have moved away from honest, clear-eyed management decisions to one of emotion, and an emotion based on some pretty sexist thinking, and with some serious violence thrown into that thinking, too.
Third, folks concerned with hunting going on at the urban-wildland interface need to move back to the city. Yes, I said back, because it's obvious where you came from.
My biggest problem with the report was the bias, beginning with referring to opponents not as animal rights activists, but as "animal activists." I am an animal activist, yet I am diametrically opposed to the position and philosophy as described in the article. This first bias of omission belies the angle of the rest of the story, and it gives me the feeling that the reporter is so completely unable to understand hunting that Mr. Fletcher cannot seem to get the balance right (I checked out his Tweets, and the closest thing to hunting he's done is, "Just killed 150 emails.")
So, Mr. Fletcher, if you wish to try to understand it, I am more than willing to take you hunting, especially if you hope to accurately report Placer County. Deer season is just around the corner up there.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Environmental Justice and hunting groups together? Why not!
These two groups are about as far from each other on a traditional political spectrum as can be, but the political spectrum is irrelevant to conservationism. First, a little background:
By "hunting groups", I mean to include those organizations whose original impetus for creation came from hunting. In my mind, this includes folks like The Wild Turkey Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, the California Waterfowl Association, etc. These groups are largely made up of older white males, people who care deeply about hunting as a tradition and the wild as a necessary component to humanity. These are people who often cradle baby chicks in their hands, understand animal husbandry as well as shooting, and think hard about a conservation ethic.
By "environmental justice groups", I mean to include those organizations whose original impetus for creation came from an outrage against pollution in their immediate communities. This includes groups like Citizens Against Waste, the Coalition for Clean Air, the Verde Group, the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, etc. These groups are largely made up of poor and disenfranchised folks who have organized out of a sense of outrage and a desire to protect their towns, neighborhoods, and children. These are people who see lung cancer rates in some places at 1,000 times the national average, folks with a quarter of their kids suffering from asthma, people who are literally fighting to keep other people's poop from being dumped on them.
Now, these two cliques, as radically different as they seem on the surface, share some remarkably deep traits. Both grew out of battles against huge businesses and business trends, fighting and beating major corporate interests. Both have a deep sense of conviction and an evangelical streak when it comes to their passion. And both serve large, more socially conservative constituents who enjoy the outdoors.
Hunting groups tend to forget just how radical were their ideas when first proposed: Huge tracts of land taken completely off the market, owned and managed by the government or quasi-governmental institutions and run by volunteers, not profit; species and entire habitats protected from hunting; water quality improvements forced on major companies. Many hunters can, with pride, talk about the conservation efforts of the hunting community and our conservation forefathers like TR and George Grinnell, but doing so means that we are proud to support government efforts that curbed business interests for the greater common good.
On the other hand, many EJ groups represent constituents who trend more socially conservative than the typical environmental policy analyst. EJ communities tend to be deeply religious, are usually one generation or less from the farm or the wilds, and carry a strong fishing and hunting tradition. Today, many folks who live in EJ communities can be found fishing local ditches for carp and bass, hunting the National Forest and BLM lands for deer, squirrel, and quail, and, increasingly, showing up at the local wildlife refuges for ducks and geese.
Now is a great time for these two communities to get into active conversations and cooperative arrangements, and two places where this seems a natural fit are in community/youth outreach, and work on public policy. Both groups are fighting to stay relevant to young people, and each group has something to offer the other - they both currently cater to very different people, yet these people could mesh well. Setting up information booths at each others' outreach events would be a great start, with each group bringing their strength: EJ groups, bring the kids, urban youth, and their parents, who know how to hunt and know the land; hunting groups, bring baby birds, bring recipes and sausages and video of ducks and deer. Heck, bring guns - people like to shoot guns, it's fun.
The political policy realm may be a bit trickier for these two groups, as they tend to fall on different sides of the political spectrum, but there are many common goals, and their political tendencies can result in some major victories. My recommendation? Work on a local public lands access issue or clean-up effort. These make for good media, and can bring together pretty diverse people for a common, and reachable, goal.
In our current economic climate, conservation efforts are going to take a hit, both at the public policy and individual levels. Cooperative efforts are vital at this point, and they are also vital in the long run. These two groups have important things to share, and their cooperation could take the establishment by surprise and by storm. It would be just in time.
By "hunting groups", I mean to include those organizations whose original impetus for creation came from hunting. In my mind, this includes folks like The Wild Turkey Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, the California Waterfowl Association, etc. These groups are largely made up of older white males, people who care deeply about hunting as a tradition and the wild as a necessary component to humanity. These are people who often cradle baby chicks in their hands, understand animal husbandry as well as shooting, and think hard about a conservation ethic.
By "environmental justice groups", I mean to include those organizations whose original impetus for creation came from an outrage against pollution in their immediate communities. This includes groups like Citizens Against Waste, the Coalition for Clean Air, the Verde Group, the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, etc. These groups are largely made up of poor and disenfranchised folks who have organized out of a sense of outrage and a desire to protect their towns, neighborhoods, and children. These are people who see lung cancer rates in some places at 1,000 times the national average, folks with a quarter of their kids suffering from asthma, people who are literally fighting to keep other people's poop from being dumped on them.
Now, these two cliques, as radically different as they seem on the surface, share some remarkably deep traits. Both grew out of battles against huge businesses and business trends, fighting and beating major corporate interests. Both have a deep sense of conviction and an evangelical streak when it comes to their passion. And both serve large, more socially conservative constituents who enjoy the outdoors.
Hunting groups tend to forget just how radical were their ideas when first proposed: Huge tracts of land taken completely off the market, owned and managed by the government or quasi-governmental institutions and run by volunteers, not profit; species and entire habitats protected from hunting; water quality improvements forced on major companies. Many hunters can, with pride, talk about the conservation efforts of the hunting community and our conservation forefathers like TR and George Grinnell, but doing so means that we are proud to support government efforts that curbed business interests for the greater common good.
On the other hand, many EJ groups represent constituents who trend more socially conservative than the typical environmental policy analyst. EJ communities tend to be deeply religious, are usually one generation or less from the farm or the wilds, and carry a strong fishing and hunting tradition. Today, many folks who live in EJ communities can be found fishing local ditches for carp and bass, hunting the National Forest and BLM lands for deer, squirrel, and quail, and, increasingly, showing up at the local wildlife refuges for ducks and geese.
Now is a great time for these two communities to get into active conversations and cooperative arrangements, and two places where this seems a natural fit are in community/youth outreach, and work on public policy. Both groups are fighting to stay relevant to young people, and each group has something to offer the other - they both currently cater to very different people, yet these people could mesh well. Setting up information booths at each others' outreach events would be a great start, with each group bringing their strength: EJ groups, bring the kids, urban youth, and their parents, who know how to hunt and know the land; hunting groups, bring baby birds, bring recipes and sausages and video of ducks and deer. Heck, bring guns - people like to shoot guns, it's fun.
The political policy realm may be a bit trickier for these two groups, as they tend to fall on different sides of the political spectrum, but there are many common goals, and their political tendencies can result in some major victories. My recommendation? Work on a local public lands access issue or clean-up effort. These make for good media, and can bring together pretty diverse people for a common, and reachable, goal.
In our current economic climate, conservation efforts are going to take a hit, both at the public policy and individual levels. Cooperative efforts are vital at this point, and they are also vital in the long run. These two groups have important things to share, and their cooperation could take the establishment by surprise and by storm. It would be just in time.
Monday, October 13, 2008
My trip to the White House Conference on North American Wildlife Policy
At the last minute I was able to attend the White House Conference on North American Wildlife Policy, organized by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and in response to the President's Executive Order 13443. This order calls on federal agencies to, "facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat..."
The event was spread over two evenings and two days, with fine dinners hosted by major conservation organizations. DU's evening was especially nice, due to the short film they kept re-playing, showing birds flying; I felt like a dog, mesmerized by the cupped wings and slightly rocking descent of two drakes and a hen, orange legs outstretched, putting on the brakes from sizzling through the air to drop down onto some decoys... okay, snap out of it.
One day was dedicated to "plenary sessions", based on a series of white papers prepared by a number of organizations and sent out to participating groups. These papers outlined ideas for achieving the goals of the Executive Order, and also provided the framework for conversations. I was disappointed by this method, as it really framed the questions, rather than opening up the floor to hear ideas from many different perspectives. Of course, folks jumped outside the boundaries when offering ideas or questions, which is always a good thing when you get a chance to talk to the government in a public forum.
Personally, I felt a bit disconcerted by the amount of emphasis on resource extraction, in particular for "biofuels", a controversial topic right now. But, I'm going to accentuate the positive here, and state that I found two points of focus on which groups from the entire spectrum of the conservation and environmental community can focus: Funding and youth involvement.
I defy you to talk to an involved hunter or angler for five minutes about conservation without hearing about how these folks contribute more dollars to the effort than any other group. It's stated so often (and I'm one to blame) within the community, that it starts to feel more like self-aggrandizement, however, so I propose we take it a bit more public. NorCalCazadora has mentioned some recent hunting-related news in some major publications lately. Perhaps we could build on this publicity by reminding the public of the importance of hunting/fishing dollars to conservation efforts, especially as they relate to the current economy?
In the meantime, environmental and conservation groups are looking to help out in funding. Many would love to see an additional funding source, like binoculars taxes, or making people buy duck stamps to access wildlife refuges. Many would love to see an uptick in the numbers of people hunting and fishing, thus buying more excise-taxed items and licenses. These are both areas where coalitions of groups who may not always see eye-to-eye could actually accomplish a shared goal.
The other idea where collaboration potential exists is in youth involvement. There is a movement afoot right now by the moniker, "No Child Left Inside." Folks see that kids these days aren't getting out, they aren't gaining a love and appreciation for a place, and they (and we) are suffering for it. This is just another symptom of unfettered suburban development, the single largest threat to the environment today, and it is one that needs to be addressed in a big way. Requiring the application of outdoors activities to particular curricula is one step, but in poor, urban schools, access to park lands is limited, and pollution is a big problem. We need to combine mandates with the funds and ability for schools to accomplish the goals we set.
Last year, the Sierra Club offered legislation to encourage outdoor education for young people. It didn't make it out of committee. Next year, why not get some kind of bill at the state level which offers outdoor education with an archery component, and possibly some fishing or hunting access? This could garner the necessary bipartisan support (no small task in California) for passage, and could be accomplished through cooperative efforts between groups like the Sierra Sportsmen, Ducks Unlimited, and the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance.
Which brings me to the best part of my trip to the conference: I was able to meet some great folks representing a wide array of organizations and interests. In particular, I got to meet a man I highly regard, Jim Posewitz of Orion, the Hunters' Institute. I recommend a trip to that website. I came away hopeful in our ability to gain hunters and anglers, to come up with wise resource and habitat management decisions, and to find some common ground and make some concerted moves toward the goal that all in the conservation and environmental community share: Protecting and preserving our common inheritance, and instilling in our children a love and passion for our places.
The event was spread over two evenings and two days, with fine dinners hosted by major conservation organizations. DU's evening was especially nice, due to the short film they kept re-playing, showing birds flying; I felt like a dog, mesmerized by the cupped wings and slightly rocking descent of two drakes and a hen, orange legs outstretched, putting on the brakes from sizzling through the air to drop down onto some decoys... okay, snap out of it.
One day was dedicated to "plenary sessions", based on a series of white papers prepared by a number of organizations and sent out to participating groups. These papers outlined ideas for achieving the goals of the Executive Order, and also provided the framework for conversations. I was disappointed by this method, as it really framed the questions, rather than opening up the floor to hear ideas from many different perspectives. Of course, folks jumped outside the boundaries when offering ideas or questions, which is always a good thing when you get a chance to talk to the government in a public forum.
Personally, I felt a bit disconcerted by the amount of emphasis on resource extraction, in particular for "biofuels", a controversial topic right now. But, I'm going to accentuate the positive here, and state that I found two points of focus on which groups from the entire spectrum of the conservation and environmental community can focus: Funding and youth involvement.
I defy you to talk to an involved hunter or angler for five minutes about conservation without hearing about how these folks contribute more dollars to the effort than any other group. It's stated so often (and I'm one to blame) within the community, that it starts to feel more like self-aggrandizement, however, so I propose we take it a bit more public. NorCalCazadora has mentioned some recent hunting-related news in some major publications lately. Perhaps we could build on this publicity by reminding the public of the importance of hunting/fishing dollars to conservation efforts, especially as they relate to the current economy?
In the meantime, environmental and conservation groups are looking to help out in funding. Many would love to see an additional funding source, like binoculars taxes, or making people buy duck stamps to access wildlife refuges. Many would love to see an uptick in the numbers of people hunting and fishing, thus buying more excise-taxed items and licenses. These are both areas where coalitions of groups who may not always see eye-to-eye could actually accomplish a shared goal.
The other idea where collaboration potential exists is in youth involvement. There is a movement afoot right now by the moniker, "No Child Left Inside." Folks see that kids these days aren't getting out, they aren't gaining a love and appreciation for a place, and they (and we) are suffering for it. This is just another symptom of unfettered suburban development, the single largest threat to the environment today, and it is one that needs to be addressed in a big way. Requiring the application of outdoors activities to particular curricula is one step, but in poor, urban schools, access to park lands is limited, and pollution is a big problem. We need to combine mandates with the funds and ability for schools to accomplish the goals we set.
Last year, the Sierra Club offered legislation to encourage outdoor education for young people. It didn't make it out of committee. Next year, why not get some kind of bill at the state level which offers outdoor education with an archery component, and possibly some fishing or hunting access? This could garner the necessary bipartisan support (no small task in California) for passage, and could be accomplished through cooperative efforts between groups like the Sierra Sportsmen, Ducks Unlimited, and the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance.
Which brings me to the best part of my trip to the conference: I was able to meet some great folks representing a wide array of organizations and interests. In particular, I got to meet a man I highly regard, Jim Posewitz of Orion, the Hunters' Institute. I recommend a trip to that website. I came away hopeful in our ability to gain hunters and anglers, to come up with wise resource and habitat management decisions, and to find some common ground and make some concerted moves toward the goal that all in the conservation and environmental community share: Protecting and preserving our common inheritance, and instilling in our children a love and passion for our places.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
White House Conference on Wildlife
Does anybody know about this conference taking place in Reno, October 1st-3rd? I've just heard about it, and hope to attend.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Calling out a disgusting comment, and then talking ethics
There exist many great websites about the outdoors. My interests and questions have led me to a number of hunting-related sites, where I find lively forums (fora?) filled with interested and interesting folks, most of whom are very mannerly and helpful. My tastes being more eclectic, I usually find myself in forums related to traditional archery (recurves, longbows, and selfbows) or subgauge shotguns (I shoot a 20 guage). However, two recurring themes stand out in these forums that I want to address - one directly related to hunting, but the other possibly a shared trait in other forums.
The first is the disgusting term, "sss" popping up with alarming frequency every time somebody talks about predators, in particular mountain lions in California. "sss" stands for, "shoot, shovel, shut up", which the person is suggesting someone do when they find a mountain lion. Currently, mounain lion hunting is illegal in California, and many hunters are upset about it, so when somebody posts a topic saying, "hey, I got a great picture of a mountain lion while deer hunting", somebody inevitably posts just those three letters in response. But, regardless of a person's position on this law, suggesting to another that they willingly break it in a web forum is inappropriate, ill-mannered, and unethical.
I have written a short piece alluding to laws and ethics on this blog; if you care to read it click here. I stopped visiting a couple of forums because of the prevalence of this practice, and I encourage hunters everywhere to consider, at least, the implications of suggesting illegal activity to someone who may be a minor and/or get caught in the act and pay a large fine or do jail time. In a future entry I'll attempt to cover the argument in the conservation community over the role of predators in our dramatically altered ecosystems, but for now I'm just going to stay on solid ground and condemn "sss" as a practice, and especially as a suggestion on web forums.
Considering this activity, and considering that the person receiving such "advice" may be a fifteen year-old with no other hunting role models, I'd like to consider ethical advice on forums in general. Of course, I love conversations about ethics (hence the blog). And very frequently people give their ethical views on many topics in the forums I frequent. Ideas like appropriate shooting distances, the nature of hunting preserves, and crossbows during archery season are all very important ethical topics about which many people disagree.
However, when somebody asks to hear others' ethics on a topic, even in the most mundane and calm way, the response is most frequently a defensive claim that ethics is personal, and people should stay out of folks' business. This claim then quickly gets caught up in other peoples' attempts to answer the question, and the ensuing conversation can get nasty. Two ideas come to mind when I come across these conversations: 1) Any of these people could be a child, and many reading it probably are; & 2) Do the people telling the questioner to butt out understand that they are making an ethical claim? The second bears explaining:
Statements with 'should' or 'ought' are ethical claims, in that they tell someone how to act. Telling a person that they should not interfere in anothers' ethical decisions is an ethical statement. The fact that this form of mannerly behavior is so deeply ingrained in our libertarianism does not separate it from ethics, it just makes it a predominant ethical claim, and one, therefore, easier to claim in public.
Granted, this ethical claim has helped make for an amazing, dynamic, diverse and wealthy country, especially when it goes hand-in-hand with our 1st Amendment rights. However, using it as a cudgel to bludgeon others' speech has its problems, not the least of which being the spirit of the 1st Amendment. In the context of web forums, I have a suggestion:
Remember that one of your readers is twelve years old, or fifteen, and forming their first views on hunting (or whatever your topic may be). Include in your description the idea that a person's ethics are individual and are to be respected, if you believe it. But, also include your ethics about hunting tactics, laws, and the like. If it were just you and this kid out in the field, would you do any less? Don't shortchange others' of your ethical perspective. You don't have to preach, though sometimes it'll sound preachy (I know), but in the end, the people who read it will take what they will.
Sure, this last advice is an ethical claim, but, as I'm not bound by relativism, I'm okay with that.
The first is the disgusting term, "sss" popping up with alarming frequency every time somebody talks about predators, in particular mountain lions in California. "sss" stands for, "shoot, shovel, shut up", which the person is suggesting someone do when they find a mountain lion. Currently, mounain lion hunting is illegal in California, and many hunters are upset about it, so when somebody posts a topic saying, "hey, I got a great picture of a mountain lion while deer hunting", somebody inevitably posts just those three letters in response. But, regardless of a person's position on this law, suggesting to another that they willingly break it in a web forum is inappropriate, ill-mannered, and unethical.
I have written a short piece alluding to laws and ethics on this blog; if you care to read it click here. I stopped visiting a couple of forums because of the prevalence of this practice, and I encourage hunters everywhere to consider, at least, the implications of suggesting illegal activity to someone who may be a minor and/or get caught in the act and pay a large fine or do jail time. In a future entry I'll attempt to cover the argument in the conservation community over the role of predators in our dramatically altered ecosystems, but for now I'm just going to stay on solid ground and condemn "sss" as a practice, and especially as a suggestion on web forums.
Considering this activity, and considering that the person receiving such "advice" may be a fifteen year-old with no other hunting role models, I'd like to consider ethical advice on forums in general. Of course, I love conversations about ethics (hence the blog). And very frequently people give their ethical views on many topics in the forums I frequent. Ideas like appropriate shooting distances, the nature of hunting preserves, and crossbows during archery season are all very important ethical topics about which many people disagree.
However, when somebody asks to hear others' ethics on a topic, even in the most mundane and calm way, the response is most frequently a defensive claim that ethics is personal, and people should stay out of folks' business. This claim then quickly gets caught up in other peoples' attempts to answer the question, and the ensuing conversation can get nasty. Two ideas come to mind when I come across these conversations: 1) Any of these people could be a child, and many reading it probably are; & 2) Do the people telling the questioner to butt out understand that they are making an ethical claim? The second bears explaining:
Statements with 'should' or 'ought' are ethical claims, in that they tell someone how to act. Telling a person that they should not interfere in anothers' ethical decisions is an ethical statement. The fact that this form of mannerly behavior is so deeply ingrained in our libertarianism does not separate it from ethics, it just makes it a predominant ethical claim, and one, therefore, easier to claim in public.
Granted, this ethical claim has helped make for an amazing, dynamic, diverse and wealthy country, especially when it goes hand-in-hand with our 1st Amendment rights. However, using it as a cudgel to bludgeon others' speech has its problems, not the least of which being the spirit of the 1st Amendment. In the context of web forums, I have a suggestion:
Remember that one of your readers is twelve years old, or fifteen, and forming their first views on hunting (or whatever your topic may be). Include in your description the idea that a person's ethics are individual and are to be respected, if you believe it. But, also include your ethics about hunting tactics, laws, and the like. If it were just you and this kid out in the field, would you do any less? Don't shortchange others' of your ethical perspective. You don't have to preach, though sometimes it'll sound preachy (I know), but in the end, the people who read it will take what they will.
Sure, this last advice is an ethical claim, but, as I'm not bound by relativism, I'm okay with that.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Notes from the field
Though I did not get a deer today, I did have an enjoyable time, and like almost every other time I've ever gone out in the field, I had some interesting moments.
The first deer sighted this morning, although it was on private property, was a gigantic four-point buck, laying in an old apple orchard. In fact, I thought at first he was a broken apple tree trunk, but after passing him, I realized that those branches seemed a bit too symmetrical. I backed up , and sure enough, he was a great, big buck.
I hunted a small patch of little-known public land where I've seen pileated woodpeckers, deer, turkeys, quail, mountain lion tracks (again today), and many, many tree squirrels. Today I added a new animal to that list, as I came upon a grey fox resting in a gulley. He was real long, especially with his fluffy tail, and very pretty.
Getting the chance to get out and experience a particular place and all therein is an amazing and wonderful deal. Over time, in the same place, you get to really feel a part, and also may see things that few can notice.
The first deer sighted this morning, although it was on private property, was a gigantic four-point buck, laying in an old apple orchard. In fact, I thought at first he was a broken apple tree trunk, but after passing him, I realized that those branches seemed a bit too symmetrical. I backed up , and sure enough, he was a great, big buck.
I hunted a small patch of little-known public land where I've seen pileated woodpeckers, deer, turkeys, quail, mountain lion tracks (again today), and many, many tree squirrels. Today I added a new animal to that list, as I came upon a grey fox resting in a gulley. He was real long, especially with his fluffy tail, and very pretty.
Getting the chance to get out and experience a particular place and all therein is an amazing and wonderful deal. Over time, in the same place, you get to really feel a part, and also may see things that few can notice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)