FA+
Shop
Controversy: Trophy Hunting
16 years ago
Years ago I had the great privilege to visit a collection of mounted animals, a quantity of which exceeds any I have ever seen in my life, even that of the back of the museums I have visited. Granted, I only visit the ornithology sections and handle drawers of specimens, one at a time, but those are only study skins, not mounted animals.
It's easy to become righteously angry and difficult to understand. The issue is two faced and while some will always sit on one side of the fence or the other, many wrestle between awe and disgust. I think on it a lot, and these are my thoughts, disjointed syntax and all, but it's as true as I can make it.
These people, a husband and wife, are bazillionaires, people who have worked hard during their lives, starting with nothing. They own a logging company, a job that requires a fine balancing act of environmental conservation and destruction.
To say they enjoy hunting isn't saying enough. Yes, they enjoy the stalk, the kill, and the trophy they bring home. But they also enjoy the experience of where they GO. They are travelers. They learn about what they are hunting, about the local people and their customs and bring home a trophy of memories and stories as well as the mounted animals they have killed.
They are fiercely proud and love their collection, and they welcome your visit if you pass the test.
"Are you against hunting?"
Upon the negative, they beckon you in with open arms and an open bar. I'm not sure what happens if you say yes, I didn't care to find out.
They are friendly people and they love to answer questions, and are eager to show the amazing artifacts of cultural interest they have collected during their travels. Every animal has a story remembered and cherished.
I feel both ways about trophy or sport hunting. It's a sham to herd saiga antelope in a vehicle to an easy place of shooting. I have no idea if any of these hunts were canned, I didn't ask and I like to hope not. Canned hunting disgusts me to the core as well as any other kinds of cheating. After all these folks claim to enjoy the whole experience, so perhaps it was all a fair and careful stalk. The animals died to be eaten and stuffed which is a shame many of them hold records for the biggest this or the most numerous that. Taking out such animals depletes the gene pool of valuable strains. If they didn't eat the meat of the animals they take, I would shown my teeth. Waste is unacceptable.
On the other hand...the money used for the safaris goes back into the local economy, and back into the environment from whence the animals were taken. If they came from a game reserve, the money supports the herds and predators of the game reserve and further protects the land itself from developement. And the mounts themselves, one assembled in this room the size of a house, is an artistic expression that shouts the beauty of nature. It really seizes you by the throat and makes you realize how goddam puny you are next to a lion or an elephant. It opens your eyes to the variety of natural forms, to the elegance of creatures not human, and to what it is we need to protect and preserve. I know, it's a polar concept, but one that bends around to meet itself again. We know so much about animals these days because people used to go around hunting and stuffing animals and shipping them back home, either to the States or Great Britain. Dear Audobon was among the most trigger happy. He blasted most any animal he could, but he took the death of these animals and created a lasting impression. His work continues to educate and raise awareness. These people also contribute to raising awareness by donating hundreds of mounts to museums, schools, and other educational facilities.
So, why not just go on a photo safari? Why blast everything into oblivion? Why not just donate the hundreds of thousands, if not, millions of dollars into a conservation fund? Well, they already donate more than many small countries to conservation efforts. Does this give them the right to kill so many beautiful animals?
To get righteously angry at such a thing will begin the usual series of questions. Do you eat meat? Wear leather shoes? Are you vegan? You know that soybeans are a big cause of rain forest deforestation in South America? Are your clothes made overseas? Do you drive a car? You can't win, really, you can't.
It's a tangle of morals, ideas and ideals, and I think it really boils down to the human condition.
For my part, I think the Trophy Room itself is a monument to the glory of nature. It portrays the powerful beauty of both humanity and animals and the lands we share. Several hundred eyes glitter from the walls, small animals browse the foliage on the floor and tabletops. Skulls gleam eternal smiles. Leopards and pumas lounge from the ceiling. As an artist, it's a dream come true. It better than any Natural History museum. You can get right up close, touch them, size up your hand on a paw, or a horn, or a muzzle. I myself will one day go on safari armed with a camera and a knowledgeable guide.
I choose to appreciate the animals as they are. I feel little pity for them, they are dead, and their worries are over. More animals will die, either at the hands of these two people, other safari hunters, poachers, predators, disease, accident, or between the same species. I marvel, and I learn, and I feel very thoroughly put in my place.
It's easy to become righteously angry and difficult to understand. The issue is two faced and while some will always sit on one side of the fence or the other, many wrestle between awe and disgust. I think on it a lot, and these are my thoughts, disjointed syntax and all, but it's as true as I can make it.
These people, a husband and wife, are bazillionaires, people who have worked hard during their lives, starting with nothing. They own a logging company, a job that requires a fine balancing act of environmental conservation and destruction.
To say they enjoy hunting isn't saying enough. Yes, they enjoy the stalk, the kill, and the trophy they bring home. But they also enjoy the experience of where they GO. They are travelers. They learn about what they are hunting, about the local people and their customs and bring home a trophy of memories and stories as well as the mounted animals they have killed.
They are fiercely proud and love their collection, and they welcome your visit if you pass the test.
"Are you against hunting?"
Upon the negative, they beckon you in with open arms and an open bar. I'm not sure what happens if you say yes, I didn't care to find out.
They are friendly people and they love to answer questions, and are eager to show the amazing artifacts of cultural interest they have collected during their travels. Every animal has a story remembered and cherished.
I feel both ways about trophy or sport hunting. It's a sham to herd saiga antelope in a vehicle to an easy place of shooting. I have no idea if any of these hunts were canned, I didn't ask and I like to hope not. Canned hunting disgusts me to the core as well as any other kinds of cheating. After all these folks claim to enjoy the whole experience, so perhaps it was all a fair and careful stalk. The animals died to be eaten and stuffed which is a shame many of them hold records for the biggest this or the most numerous that. Taking out such animals depletes the gene pool of valuable strains. If they didn't eat the meat of the animals they take, I would shown my teeth. Waste is unacceptable.
On the other hand...the money used for the safaris goes back into the local economy, and back into the environment from whence the animals were taken. If they came from a game reserve, the money supports the herds and predators of the game reserve and further protects the land itself from developement. And the mounts themselves, one assembled in this room the size of a house, is an artistic expression that shouts the beauty of nature. It really seizes you by the throat and makes you realize how goddam puny you are next to a lion or an elephant. It opens your eyes to the variety of natural forms, to the elegance of creatures not human, and to what it is we need to protect and preserve. I know, it's a polar concept, but one that bends around to meet itself again. We know so much about animals these days because people used to go around hunting and stuffing animals and shipping them back home, either to the States or Great Britain. Dear Audobon was among the most trigger happy. He blasted most any animal he could, but he took the death of these animals and created a lasting impression. His work continues to educate and raise awareness. These people also contribute to raising awareness by donating hundreds of mounts to museums, schools, and other educational facilities.
So, why not just go on a photo safari? Why blast everything into oblivion? Why not just donate the hundreds of thousands, if not, millions of dollars into a conservation fund? Well, they already donate more than many small countries to conservation efforts. Does this give them the right to kill so many beautiful animals?
To get righteously angry at such a thing will begin the usual series of questions. Do you eat meat? Wear leather shoes? Are you vegan? You know that soybeans are a big cause of rain forest deforestation in South America? Are your clothes made overseas? Do you drive a car? You can't win, really, you can't.
It's a tangle of morals, ideas and ideals, and I think it really boils down to the human condition.
For my part, I think the Trophy Room itself is a monument to the glory of nature. It portrays the powerful beauty of both humanity and animals and the lands we share. Several hundred eyes glitter from the walls, small animals browse the foliage on the floor and tabletops. Skulls gleam eternal smiles. Leopards and pumas lounge from the ceiling. As an artist, it's a dream come true. It better than any Natural History museum. You can get right up close, touch them, size up your hand on a paw, or a horn, or a muzzle. I myself will one day go on safari armed with a camera and a knowledgeable guide.
I choose to appreciate the animals as they are. I feel little pity for them, they are dead, and their worries are over. More animals will die, either at the hands of these two people, other safari hunters, poachers, predators, disease, accident, or between the same species. I marvel, and I learn, and I feel very thoroughly put in my place.
It isn't a matter of 'purity,' it's a matter of either being a part of the change you want to see in the world, or surrendering to its cruelties (or in this case, actively pursuing it.) One may argue that electing to take the life of an animal isn't a big deal - I suppose this isn't the place for me to argue for vegetarianism and such, but I will say this: Just because things are going to happen doesn't mean we should contribute.
If I had to choose between rich Western hunters taking negligible game on an African safari in order to spend their money to save the species, and banning all hunting of any sort only to lose the revenue so desperately needed to preserve that species...yeah. I'll definitely bridge the two worlds with sustainable hunting.
That said... I'll always advocate new solutions to old problems if it means less taken from the environment. Like the awesome that's begun with big salt water fishing. Fish are weighed, measured, and photographed so people like me can recreate the whole thing in fiberglass. Preserves the memories while preserving the wildlife.
This post comes on the heels of the Endangered Ark project where so many artist came together to raise a touch of awareness and be proactive in helping various organizations around the world. Our meager monetary donations may not do much, but it's something, even as I sit in my living room with the lights on and my laptop sucking up energy.
I feel helpless most of the time, which is sort of what this post is about; the bigger picture of everything can be so overwhelming. But again I try not to be apathetic and help where I can. I will never be morally pure and I sure won't let that chicken in the fridge stop me from trying to help here and there.
I hope that makes some modicum of sense.
And from the other side of the viewing glass, it is man's attempt to control, stuff, and sanitize nature so that it fits nicely on an end-table. As is our consumption of natural resources, and our attempt to "save" it. Control.
I don't think issues like this can have clean answers, and they really shouldn't - they should facilitate discussion, and demand constant scrutiny. The reactions shouldn't be just logical and disconnected, they deserve our emotional consideration, and our compassion.
let it live organically and naturally, be a good shot so it wont know what hit it. In canada here we sometimes auction off rare hunting tags, and we get big shot american game hunters who put millions into conservation. so for food and for trophy im quite up for it. If youre against hunting i only respect you if your vegitarian too.
one time i was at a store and the manager had all his hunting trophies up, including a lion. this lion was a livestock killer and he payed thousands and thousands, all for locals to be his guide, to bag it.
I wish one day i can go hunting. unfortunately my mate cant stand the smell of meat, and refuses to let me "drag in a dead animal". Oh how i crave moose again.... or pheasant. ohh man if i bagged a moose i wouldnt have to buy beef for a year.... * mouth waters*
I personally have no stomach for hunting, fair or otherwise, but the fact is nature conservation as it is today is founded on men and women like John James Audubon... for all their trigger-happiness =/
Yes, I prefer to study live animals.
I think it is an excellent point (or several) that you have brought up. I often argue with myself over similar things.
For instance...I don't have the money to buy all organic and natural or fair trade, etc. But I can recycle and make choices to purchase from companies I know are trying to help the environment, impoverished people, etc. Perhaps my one bottle of environmentally friendly laundry detergent won't make a big difference by itself but if more people besides me also purchase and use these products it will make a bigger difference.
I can only do what I can do. I don't think I am a hyppocrite for wearing leather shoes and loving animals(others might disagree). I believe a cow is just as sacred as a fly. But I haven't found animal/environmentally friendly shoes that fit me right.
I can not change other people nor be the final judge over what is right or wrong. These people you visited do so much good so are they bad for what they do? It seems that they have great respect for the creatures they have taken. It's more than just blasting away critters for the fun of it. Perhaps what they do isn't so bad.
It is something to ponder.
So, until I have a way to sol
But to kill an animal just so you can get its hide or horns or whatever, you should be the one staring down the barrel of a riffle ready to be shot. Trophy hunting for the sake of killing something just because you can so you can have some stuffed dead animal hide in your house makes me want to take said hunters out and shoot them.
I do not equate rich people paying for the privilege of killing something as any different than trophy hunting, regardless of who it benefits. Responsibility and accountability needs to be paramount, not murder to boost someone's ego and perceived "social status". The whole thing just pisses me off.
Yes, I eat meat. Yes, I have leather goods. Mind you, said meat and leather is taken from domestic food animals bred and raised for that purpose, not wild/endangered animals. And where herds of Elk, Deer, and Bison are either carefully managed to prevent overpopulation or (especially) if they are captive raised for the purpose of food and hides (leaving wild populations intact), I feel that having said meat and leather is likewise acceptable.
I am also Cheyenne by blood, and in my heritage beliefs, being gifted with a totem animal's body is considered a blessing from Maheo and adds to one's personal "Medicine Bundle" and "Spiritual Strength". Do not confuse this with Trophies. The parts of animals that are someone's totems are not put on display for bragging rights, but are used for very specific ceremonies and rituals. In essence, they are considered personal religious artifacts. There is a huge difference between Totems and Trophies.
That being said... I think anyone that wears leather or eats meat has no right to judge someone who trophy hunts - especially those that do it in a conservation minded fashion. I don't enjoy racing cars, playing football, doing gymnastics, or a host of other things. But I can fathom that people do - I guess it's the same to me with trophy hunting. You are taking a life whether you are eating a chicken wing or mounting an african elephant for your mansion. Obviously there are environmental repercussions to big game hunting that have to be respected but...
I will never understand enjoying a kill. Some sort of macho feel good accomplishment or whatever it is that people get out of shooting something. I'm with you, I'd rather take photos. But I guess some people do, and so long as they aren't poaching/overhunting/etc. I believe those people who do it should have the right to do so. Canned hunts sicken me, I'm not sure how anyone gets any sort of enjoyment out of that garbage - at least hunters who are out hunting (trekking on foot, following animals, etc) are working for it - then I can see some feeling of accomplishment. Helicoptering or driving out to shoot something in the head must take some very perverse individuals. Or I guess the typical sort of people who just view animals as nothing but machines or walking meatbags. : /
It's a very complicated issue!
As I understand it (and I do a little), there's a sort of fierce possessive love that the hunter has, an intimate involvement with the animal that can only be developed by a dedicated hunt, and only satiated by the clean taking of the prey. It plumbs straight into atavistic parts of our selves, and it's satisfying as only a deep-seated instinct can be.
On the other hand, I am perturbed by this need to possess, this insistence on bringing the animal home, dead or alive (and alive's a no-go, so tough luck for the beast). It strikes me as an inability to let go, a kind of emotional immaturity.
So I don't regard hunting as a bad thing, per se, but the planet's getting smaller and we as humans are capable of higher modes.
I'm not comparing hunting with enslavement because I know they are two entirely different topics, but still I feel the same way about both. Sport hunting is not an absolute evil or a sin against nature, but at some point it will have to end, because today our situation is very different from that of hunters of the stone age. The stress we are putting on the environment is already huge from all other human activites and most of them are much more important than hunting, for example producing enough food for all humans through farming.
I too love studying anatomy and animal behavior and I realize that without hunting we probably wouldn't know all that we know about them. But this doesn't mean the act of hunting itself is still that much useful, morally acceptable, or sustainable. Without hunting we also wouldn't be struggling to save from extinction species reduced to a few individuals, supressing rhinos which had their horns sawed off, or wondering what the dodo and the Bali tiger looked like when they were alive.
Knowledge, keeping the ecological balance and celebrating the variety of nature are not the primary purposes of hunting, so if these are the goals we consider important there are more direct and blood-free ways of addressing them. Its primary purpose is still personal pleasure and, save rare exceptions, a strictly personal form of learning. Let everybody draw his or her own conclusions, but let's not just forget that.
In a world with 6 billion + humans and growing quickly hunting moves quickly from a potentially noble pursuit of food in one of the most ancient ways known to an anchor to the few remaining wild places of our planet and an eventual death-sentence for the lot of it. Humans in the past, present and likely future have little to no concept of using a resource in a sustainable fashion, even one that regenerates itself in time. In the Atlantic the collapse of the cod fisheries tells a woeful tale of what can happen when humans seek to extract a resource, salmon fisheries in the Pacific are following the same trend. Much of it is simply human greed, fishing companies must grow despite a shrinking resource base, but some of this is also due to the tradition of hunting, fishing or what have you. Natives have fished and hunted for millenia and wish to continue to do so not recognizing that with larger populations, smaller resource stocks and disrupted habitat it's simply not wise to do so before stocks are able to recover.
On land hunting by a small population in the Russian Far East keeps the Siberian tiger on a knife's edge having to roam massive distances to locate it's prey due to human hunting and trapping. Poaching of the tiger itself only further exasperates this cycle.
As to the question of putting money back into local economies, that certainly helps, but it dosen't replace the animal lost either directly or indirectly. It makes further losses slightly less likly, but that's a losing game that'll eventually lead to the question of, how much does someone want to pay to kill the last wild tiger?
Despite all this I'm sure there are some places where hunting remains sustainable and responsible, but I think that it's certainly limited to the places on the map with 10 people per square km or less. http://www.catsg.org/cheetah/07_map.....p_1994.jpg.jpg Much of the world dosen't allow for this and I think we'd be better served in trying to slow/halt hunting/fishing now, letting stocks and populations recover while we set out how to use these resources in a truly sustainable fashion.
A well regulated sustainable hunting program is a vital component for the conservation efforts of almost any prominent animal. The fact that people are willing to violate the law in order to hunt animals means that a complete ban is obviously not a good option. On the other hand, a total absence of regulation is just as foolhardy and more than a bit dangerous. A medium between the two lets hunters have the opportunity (not necessarily a guarantee) to hunt their desired prey, assuming they are willing to pay for it, while protecting the population as a whole. The money earned from selling the license usually goes right back into the efforts to conservation efforts in the area, in addition to cutting back on the demand for illegal hunting and poaching. Such a balance lets everybody win.
I think that the words of Teddy Roosevelt have significant bearing on this topic as he was both a prominent big game hunter and an ardent conservationist:
"Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us. I ask nothing of the nation except that it so behave as each farmer here behaves with reference to his own children. That farmer is a poor creature who skins the land and leaves it worthless to his children. The farmer is a good farmer who, having enabled the land to support himself and to provide for the education of his children, leaves it to them a little better than he found it himself. I believe the same thing of a nation."
However, I do think that the practice of hunting is obsolete and unnecessary (in most cases); humans only started hunting because they needed the meat for food and the hides for clothing and other parts for other stuff. Individuals no longer need to hunt to provide those needs, and so hunting in and of itself is archaic. The exceptions being people who live out in the country or wooded areas and can't get to a grocery easily, or people who raise their own livestock, that sort of thing.
The human race is throwing the ecosystem completely off-balance by having no natural predators. It rubs me the wrong way that people -still- find excuses to kill animals when there is really no need to anymore now that food and clothing are mass-produced, mass-distributed, and affordable. Hunting doesn't serve any -purpose- anymore besides bragging rights, and I'm not sure that I could respect a person who has to kill sentient creatures to feel good about themselves.
Of course, I still haven't found anyone completely willing to contemplate the most horrific environmental disaster. The estimated maximum sustainable human population is less than 100,000. The estimated current human population is over 6,000,000,000. How do we solve this?
That's a very thoughtful journal entry. You do a good job trying to weigh the pros and cons. And what I get most out of it is that we all share an awe of nature and its beauty and that their are no simple answers to the complexity of our interaction with the world.
But...(and this is where my colors will show) all the best arguments for trophy hunting still can't address one thing. That it brings death and suffering to animals.
Throughout history we have weighed the pros and cons of many things. Federalism, slavery, capitalism, child labor, monarchy, etc... many of them are still in debate, others have been abolished. In the days of slavery, there were plenty of very friendly plantation owners. Went to church, nice to their neighbors and kids and probably treated their slaves pretty well. They argued that slavery brings economy and jobs to their region, that people owned were better treated then people rented, that conditions and welfare were improving all the time. Slavery was rationalized for a very long time.
Ultimately, we decided as a society that the keeping of slaves was immoral, no matter how nice the owners were or how well the slaves are treated. Frankly its not so much a matter of the people doing it are bad but that the institution itself is monstrous. And that is the truth when it comes to hunting. It has nearly wiped out most all of the major mammals on this continent (the same ones they claim to be preserving), cause over-breeding of the ungulates, damage the ecosystem, weaken the gene pools, and disrupt animal families.
The best example of it is wolf hunting. Everything behind it is bullshit. They claim they need to manage the wolves, when wolves have been successfully managing themselves and their prey long before we got here. None of the states doing it have any serious interest in preserving the species, several even openly said they wanted them wiped out. They hunt the wolves during the months that they are raising the young (meaning the pups will die if the parents are killed) and are even going so far as to trying to remove them from the ESA so they can exterminate them without the law getting in the way.
This is the path that hunting leads down too, we end up gassing, poisoning, trapping, and shooting anything that is competition to us so that we can get the most revenue out of the other animals that we see as nothing more then resources. We can try to romanticize it on a personal level but it ultimately, factually comes down to us cutting short the already difficult lives of the other intelligent wild species we share the world with.
All the altruism doesn't hide the fact that these hunters are in it to kill the animal. That doesn't make them bad people, its just part of the history of our species evolving. We were designed to enjoy a the hunt coming from hunter-gatherers. But we don't live in that day and age. In an age and society where we are living in such abundance of wealth, peace and prosperity (try living 50 or 200 years ago if you don't like this recession) there is no excuse for us to be mean to others around us and violent towards other species.
The only thing I shoot with is a camera. I've been to wildlife rescues, preserves and parks across many countries. I've interacted with many species, especially wolves and wolfdogs. That's how I feel connected to nature, and I find that far more enjoyable then putting a stuffed corpse on my wall.
Take a moment to run several scenarios through when thinking about their arguments. Can I rob you and give it to the poor? Is it right for a wife to kill her husband and use his life insurance policy to feed the hungry? Can I kill your dog or any other animal you've loved or cared for, for science in an attempt to cure disease? How about we release shelter dogs from their kennels into the forest and hunt them for sport? We could give the money we raise to a good cause. Means to an end are not acceptable when they trample the rights of others, not even if they are for a higher cause.
To be clear, I do believe animals have basic rights. I am vegetarian and regularly try to be as vegan as feasibly possible. While I admire other species and nature my true love is just canines. When I first started to make changes I only boycotted beef because of ranching anti-wolf influences (not because I liked cows). I later, after studying animal rights, came to the understanding that I needed to be as consistent about my values towards other animals as I am with canines (wild or my own). I am not perfect in my practice, as I will never free myself from my connection to an animal exploiting society or able to foresee the ramifications of all my actions. But I do my part, just like I give to nonprofits, rescue dogs from death row and recycle. My choices and actions do make a difference, and doing something is measurably better then doing nothing.
Thanks for the good topic Vantid.