SO HUNTING IS CRUEL: YOUR POINT?

The Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘cruel’ as an adjective meaning to “wilfully or knowingly cause pain or distress to others” and of course when hunting’s opponents apply the adjective to the hunters’ craft we are apt to object, to claim hunting is not cruel. 

I can’t help but wonder why we invest so much time and effort refuting what is patently true – hunting is cruel.

A hunter cruelly about the business of feeding his family

The decision to debate cruelty with an Anti rides on two presumptions, both of them flawed: 

1. that their minds are open to the proposition that hunting is not cruel, and
   
   
2. that proving conclusively that hunting is not cruel, ‘unnecessary’ or ‘barbaric’ will induce a change of position in the Anti.

This being the case, the debate is already as good as lost because hunting's advocate is clearly delusional. 

Equally flawed is the presumption that it’s the Antis we have to win-over to ensure our future hunting rights. The committed Anti accounts for but a tiny fraction of the voting public and it is the voting public – the vast majority of whom have no conviction either for or against hunting – we should be making our case to. 

It’s a case we must make honestly and without resorting to lies or emotional blackmail, with the expectation not of winning the public to our side, but with the simple and completely achievable objective of preventing the Antis winning the public to theirs. 

Unlike the average rabid Anti, Jane and John Citizen have not spent countless hours trawling the internet in search of studies and damning images that support an already clearly defined and very negative opinion of hunting. The Citizen’s view of life in the wild is often very naive, nourished primarily by the occasional wildlife documentary, images collected on the annual caravanning excursion to the seaside and their personal interactions with the family cat, dog or goldfish, replete with all the luxuries and tender mercies one lavishes on non-human family members.

I believe it is in this climate of relatively open minded naivety that we should try a new tack.

With absolute honesty and sincerity we should inform John & Jane Citizen that hunting is cruel, except perhaps in the case of the instantaneous oblivion delivered by a perfect headshot. The key to winning the Citizen’s support for hunting, or at least their continued indifference to it, lies in challenging them to consider the infinitely greater cruelty nature has in store for each and every creature that does not die by the hunters’ hand. 

The Antis effectively capitalise on the Citizen’s lack of interest in the topic of hunting, exploiting their failure to progress the notion of life in the wild to its logical conclusion – death in the wild – and all the ramifications associated therewith. It’s a kind of mental block resulting in the subconscious belief the Antis exploit so efficiently – if we can only save Bambi from the nasty cruel hunters, she will frolic joyfully through the forest, ever young forevermore. 

By bursting the Disney bubble, armed with nothing more than the completely unsanitised and readily verified facts about life in the wild, we stand to open the Citizen’s minds to a new reality – the ‘cruelty’ of hunting is the lesser of a multitude of nature’s cruelties that, without doubt or exception, await every wild creature at the end of its allotted span. 

The point needs to be made that because humans are rational, self-aware creatures with the capacity to consider the wider implications of their actions, the hunter may take steps to mitigate pain and trauma. This commitment to mercy is unique to man.

No other creature gives any thought to the ethics of hunting. The majestic eagle feels no obligation to end the suffering of its prey with merciful speed and efficiency. The eagle’s only concern is that the joey or lamb impaled on its massive talons should not escape before it dies. How long its prey takes to die is of no concern, as it preens its feathers waiting patiently for all that futile kicking and struggling nonsense to subside enough to begin the disembowelling procedure with that enormous, razor-sharp beak. 

When a deer nears the end of its natural life it does not lay down comfortably to await the inevitable, all warm and cosy, surrounded by sympathetic family and friends, with morphine on tap and a nurse gently mopping sweat from its brow. As a deer nears the end of its short span it will find it increasingly difficult to find adequate nourishment and avoid predators. Struggling with the symptoms of whatever ails it, the deer approaching death will seek refuge in a shaded location where it will wait to succumb to the effects of  its illness, malnutrition and dehydration.

But a thousand natural predators will not respect the solemnity of the occasion.

Ants and flies will quickly infest various orifices, birds will target the eyes and other fleshy areas and an assortment of carnivorous mammals will move in to hold vigil, snapping as the opportunity arises, at vulnerable areas as soon as they think their victim too feeble to resist. Of course the deer will struggle to its hoofs, try to move to safety, collapse and the process will start anew, until the deer succumbs, ceasing all opposition to the inevitable.

There is no veterinary equivalent of Dr. Philip Nitschke patrolling the Australian wilderness dispensing merciful “green dreams” to the afflicted, no respectful amnesty in recognition of impending death, no choirs of angels nor machines that go “PING!”  The ultimate fate awaiting all animals in the wind is pitiless torment by innumerable opportunists.

There are no exceptions, save for the extremely rare circumstances in which animals may die ‘instantly’ as the result of heart attack or stroke, those hit by lightening, falling trees or motor vehicles and, you guessed it, those lucky few taken by hunters.

Empathy, humaneness, cruelty – these are all human constructs that simply have no weight in nature. Only the human hunter strives for a swift kill born of concern for animal welfare.

Likewise notions such as fair-play and nobility are meaningless in nature’s eternal struggle for survival, despite what Hollywood and worshipful vegans might choose to believe. Charismatic species such as lions, tigers and even wolves – all very popular tattoo studies amongst the latte-set – are imbued with a purity and innocence that simply doesn't stand up to objective scrutiny and the Antis work very hard at ensuring that scrutiny is never applied.  

As we all know, tigers only prey on animals equal in musculature and armaments i.e. other tigers...and....maybe...ummm...lions?

Wolves, wolves are fair! They only pick on rabbits, hare and beaver of comparable size and it would never occur to the wolf to get-together with a dozen mates and drag down an ‘innocent’ deer. Perish the thought! Wolves prey exclusively on guilty deer.

The lion, noble King of Beasts, it preys exclusively on fierce creatures with powerful jaws and enormous razor-sharp incisors such as wildebeest, zebras and...antelope which, being ruminants, have no upper incisors per se, but have been known to inflict a very nasty suck on a predatory lion. 

Of course none of the above would sink so low as to prey on the aged, the disabled, the marginalised, the injured, the birthing or the newborn babe, heaven forefend! Being ethical creatures with an unswerving commitment to the principles of fair-play, they adhere to a strict volunteer policy.

Fox prepares to eat rabbit volunteer

The nobility of beasts is a fraud, but it’s a fraud seldom explored and rarely articulated. All hunters capitalise on advantage to exploit the weaknesses of their prey. Man is no different, nor is he the only creature to use tools in that pursuit. But he is the only creature on earth that will concern himself with mercy or feel a pang of remorse for the life he ends.

There is a multitude of grizzly scenarios one can expound in order that the Citizens can better contextualise hunting’s inevitable yet unremarkable cruelty, but how to get the message across. How do we insert these realities into the Citizen’s consciousness when it’s clear the media is among the most avid of Antis?  

The electronic age affords us unprecedented access to online resources such as alternative, independent media outlets and even academic and professional e-journals, all of them crying out for edgy contributions on controversial topics. It’s all about bumping up the hits to sell advertising and stories debunking the conventional view of a tender and merciful Mother Nature, have the potential to go viral as the Antis rally to defend the all loving Earth Goddess.  

At a more grass roots and less academically rigorous level, there is the much under-exploited and always popular Letters to the Editor section of the local newspaper. This again is a free and readily accessed medium the Antis have used to great effect, but with a few exceptions we have not, preferring instead to shrug and ignore their wildly exaggerated, highly emotive and often offensive claims about hunters. We have given them the stage and they are only too happy to perform, unopposed, to sell-out audiences. 

Our access to social media affords us access to extensive networks of hunters across the country. By harnessing these human networks along with the magic of mechanisms such as Google news alerts, we can monitor the media with incredible efficiency. I believe it is possible to create an agency with one focused objective – to coordinate a network of media monitors to pick-up negative stories and assemble a network of capable respondents that will leave no negative hunting story to stand without eloquent rebuttal. 

Of course there are areas where hunting may never appear as a topic in the newspapers and it is just as important that the Citizens consciousness is introduced to the realities of life in the wild here too; perhaps even more so, if these areas are located in or around cities with large populations whose experience of wildlife is restricted to creatures with names like Belvedere, Mr Twinkles and Moby Dick.  In areas where hunting is not a hot topic, the objective would be to write letters to the editor likely to provoke debate. 

Surely it’s better to do this and explore the potential to insert balance into the Citizen’s consciousness, than to simply whine about the inequity amongst ourselves and allow the Disney World view to dominate unopposed?

Of course we could also do with cleaning up our act in terms of the ammunition we post on Youtube and the like, but that’s an issue to explore another day.

Anyway, let me know what you think. I’ll get outaya way now....

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/so-hunting-is-cruel-your-point.html 

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.

If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com  This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.