A new tactic is emerging amongst those opposed to hunting for what they perceive to be the ‘cruelty’ it inflicts on ‘innocent’ animals. It involves convincing the public that the personality traits that motivate the hunters’ activities are identical to those that drive the psychopath or serial killer.
This imaginative theory’s proponents deliver their invariably highly dramatised diagnoses via innumerable anti-hunting websites and Facebook communities, where they play to packed audiences. The thrust of the pseudo-psychology behind the ‘theory’ goes something like this:
- When young, the budding psychopath often exhibits cruelty toward animals, for which he feels neither guilt nor remorse.
- The psychopath exhibits a profound lack of empathy as demonstrated by the hunter for his prey.
- The psychopath is prone to anti-social behaviour e.g. hunting.
- The psychopath loves to display his anti-social and disinhibited behaviour e.g. hunting photos posted on Facebook etc.
The spurious detail of the theory is always needlessly emotive, but that’s it in a nutshell.
Psychopathy; also known as – though sometimes distinguished from – sociopathy, is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterised by enduring antisocial behaviour, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behaviour. It may also be defined as a continuous aspect of personality, representing scores of different personality dimensions found throughout the population in varying combinations, blah blah.
Of course if the hunting = psychopath/serial killer theory were true, it would mean the human race owes its success to the disorder. ‘Humans’ have hunted for at least 2 million years. It has long been a vital part of social cohesion and the focus of great celebration, and hunters have long shared pictures of their hunting endeavours, as Australia’s 40,000 year-old rock art clearly shows. Even today, Australia’s remote aboriginal people are happy to dance semi-naked as they tell the stories of the Dreaming, many of which have a hunting focus and I suspect this could be considered pretty ‘disinhibited behaviour’ if it suited one’s agenda to portray it thus.
If in fact the hunter-psychopath/serial killer theory were true, one would be forced to wonder that our forebears were not wiped out eons ago by generations of Jeffrey Dahmers returning from the hunt intent on mass murder, cannibalism and the invention of the chest freezer.
While it is tempting to simply dismiss the hunter/psychopath theory as the work of lunatic fanatics desperate for justification, the comments left by its many acolytes on anti-hunting websites and Facebook walls reveal some interesting, if troubling facts about the anti-hunting community. But more on that shortly. First I thought I’d look briefly at some of the common claims intended to incite opposition to hunting and disdain for its practitioners. As always, I am interested in the readers’ views on my analysis, which may be shared in the comments section below.
Hunting is cruel
This is the most common and perhaps the least logical of the common claims. Cruelty has two main definitions, neither of which can be applied to the hunters’ trade; 1. wilfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others 2. enjoying the pain or distress of others. The hunter goes to great lengths to ensure his quarry will feel no pain or distress whatsoever. S/he puts in many hours of practice and instrument tuning in order to ensure a swift clean kill marked by the fact that the quarry “never knew what hit him.”
To accomplish less than an instantaneous death is considered among hunters to be a mark of failure and few people set out to fail in the eyes of their peers. Of course sometimes the hunter will fail and the failure is recognised by the hunter, not least for the distress it causes the quarry, but as it was not his intent to cause distress, or pain, the incident cannot be counted ‘cruel’. It may be considered deeply regrettable perhaps, certainly unfortunate, but not cruel because the act lacks the callous disregard for, or delight in, pain and suffering intrinsic to acts of genuine cruelty.
Hunters kill for fun
I am yet to meet the hunter who claims s/he kills for ‘fun’. This is the construct of people such as the Greens and the media, aimed at giving the public cause to hate people and activities they would otherwise be indifferent to. The promulgation of hatred in the community is their stock in trade and though they will deny it, the fact that seething hatred is the outcome their activities produce is beyond question.
Their media releases, their programs, their news stories featuring hunting are always contrived to incite hatred for those whose culture includes hunting as an activity. For example, Channel 7's Morning Show recently included a segment on lion hunting in Africa. Comments were invited on the network's website, where a picture of lion cubs at play was posted to head-up the comments column. Yes, lion cubs at play, not grown lions of the sort actually hunted, but rather gorgeous little baby lions, which are never hunted, this being the image guaranteed to convey the "awww" factor and incite the vilest comments. Mission accomplished!
They do this in order to encourage people to watch their programs, buy their papers and visit their websites, because this is where their meal tickets advertise. And they know exactly who the consumer is, so they make their pitch accordingly, planting the seeds of anger, fertilising them just so, and harvesting the desired result.
They do this in order to encourage people to watch their programs, buy their papers and visit their websites, because this is where their meal tickets advertise. And they know exactly who the consumer is, so they make their pitch accordingly, planting the seeds of anger, fertilising them just so, and harvesting the desired result.
There is one notable exception to this rule of course. While news and current affairs programs, animal welfare and political agencies will always contrive content and propaganda to portray hunters as cruel, mindless, primitive brutes, this is only the case when the hunter is white. If the hunter is not white, his hunting activities are noble and traditional and must be preserved as a vital and sustainable aspect of a highly spiritual cultural heritage. If the public is uneasy about this, cultural education and tolerance are recommended. If the hunter is white, only the humiliation of a public pillorying, with associated threats and general demonisation will do.
Hunting is not a sport
This common refrain has some merit in my view, but then I know few hunters who refer to their activities as sport, save perhaps for want of a more appropriate noun. “Sport’ suggests competition and as it is often claimed; “if hunting was sport the quarry would surely know the rules?” In fact the rules are known to the quarry and they are very simple rules.
Rule 1. When danger approaches, evade the danger.
Rule 1. When danger approaches, evade the danger.
Rule 2. Use the senses, abilities and strategies honed and perfected over millions of years to obey Rule 1.
Still, for the vast majority of hunters, hunting is not a sport any more than farming or mushroom collecting could be called sports. For that matter, I think the term “sports fishing” has dubious merit. The objective is to put food on the table, to live off the land (or sea) and to do so in the company of others who enjoy learning and preserving simple skills and traditional practices.
Shooting and archery are certainly sports in the appropriate setting, with targets, scores, handicaps a competition schedule etc. Trophy hunting and game fishing might be considered sports, because the object is to outclass other hunters/fishers by catching an animal that is bigger or better in some way than the animal harvested by an opponent. But the vast majority of hunters and fishers do not hunt for trophies or points.
Hunting is a cultural pursuit, a tradition, a natural harvest activity, but probably not a sport. However, given few hunters believe they’re engaging in a sport anyway, surely to call hunting’s varsity as a sport into question says more about the intellectual inadequacy of the accuser, than the ethical inadequacy of the accused?
Big gun, small dick
This common (in all respects) slight merits little commentary for the puerile inference is clear - hunting is all about power, a pursuit of males of dubious masculinity. I will say only that the mind truly boggles at the hue and cry that would follow the suggestion that women aspiring to be CEOs, do so only in the pursuit of power and this of course makes them deficient as females. After all, as we all know, the bigger the title on the door, the dryer the....!
Yes, it is offensive isn’t it, but no more so than the vacuous big gun, little dick mantra.
Of course the above accusations would be nothing were they not accompanied by the usual litany of heartfelt wishes expressed by the caring, empathetic, shining examples of responsible community participation and positive social adjustment who object to hunting.
“I hope you die painfully, you disgusting filth”, writes Tammy L, animal lover from Perth.
“I hope a lion kills your children in front of you, so you can know what it’s like, you pervert”, writes Tanya B from Padstow.
“Scum like you killing animals makes me sick. I hope you die horribly from cancer of the balls, you...!” offers Michelle T , from North Terrace, SA.
Who could forget Charmaine B from Frankston in Victoria, “I look forward to the day someone pushes rusty saws up your children’s orifices while beating them to death with clubs so we can watch it all on youtube and laugh, you sicko scum!”
Or what about Christina C, “Disgusting and barbaric..... If you want to be a hero.....get a herd of paedophiles and have a paedophile hunt.” I guess we know Christina's views re: penalties for paedophilia.
Tracey L has this to say on the topic of ‘canned hunting’ in Africa, “Sad poor animals bred just to be killed”. Not so malicious I’ll grant you, but I guess she forgets all the pigs, chickens, cows, goats etc. she buys at Coles, all of them bred just to be killed.
Charli M writes, “Are you actually serious! Fair enough an animal killed for food but how disgusting anyone who is ok with that [trophy hunting] should be hunted themselves.” I must remember to ask her which animal told her it was happy to be killed for food? Oh, it’s just her opinion. Right, gotcha!
And finally there is the contribution made by Morning Show “social commentator” Amber Petty, “If I thought I could get away with it, I would actually go shooting these people! [referring to trophy hunters] but, umm, I prolly wouldn’t risk that? But these people need to be locked in a cage with these lions, without their guns and just left there while everyone drives off into the sunset, because it’s just appalling!” [Morning Show hosts heard agreeing in the background]
Obviously there is nothing sociopathic about entertaining the notion of killing people, or locking them up with man-eaters, oh no. That’s just Amber's revenge fantasy and hence perfectly acceptable, perhaps even responsible?
Interestingly, the male commentator invited to participate in the same segment (7 News reporter Bryan Seymour), expressed no malice toward hunters and in fact made a point of saying he was not opposed to hunting, though 'canned hunting', he indicated, was a different matter. Fair enough.
Believe me I could fill a book the thickness of the Sydney telephone directory with evil, malicious and disturbingly imaginative wishes for hunters and their families to suffer in retribution for killing ‘innocent’ animals. And perhaps most disturbing of all is the fact that all but an infinitesimally small percentage of them could be attributed to women!
 |
| 'Social Commentator' Amber Petty, the Morning Show |
Yes, the traditional nurturers of our society. They just happen to be the people who create the bulk of the hunter hate websites and Facebook communities such as the renowned “We Love Hunting Accidents” Facebook community. Women are the principal authors of articles making appallingly graphic attacks on their fellow community members, other women among them.
Women account for the majority of fanatics who generate the most ethically corrupt petitions and spiteful pamphlet campaigns too, calling hunters filth and comparing them to paedophiles and perverts and suggesting boys should be carefully monitored for signs of hunter psychopathy etc.
And they are incited to riot by the likes of the Greens and a media only too happy to manipulate sadistic, fanatical people to bolster their approval and viewer ratings.
It would be disingenuous of me to suggest that hunters are not capable of some pretty angry spits via social media. However, in terms of psychopathology there is a world of difference between calling someone a “Stupid bloody greenie” or suggesting the “Hippie should go get a bloody job”, and wishing them and their children actual bodily harm, trampling, dismemberment, disemboweling, murder and even prolonged and often elaborately detailed tortures. This is the province of the anti-hunter alone, mostly women, who delight in calling hunters callous animals that are primitive and without empathy.
If the reader doubts my claims about the depth of malice attributable to predominantly female opponents of hunting, I challenge you to visit a few anti-hunting communities and check for yourself. Then analyse the number of vindictive, malicious comments that can be attributed to the far smaller representation of male contributors on the same sites.
What must be remembered is that hunting is not some new and perverse activity like kitten bonsai, equine auto-eroticism, or, perish the thought, philately. It was not so very long ago that the hunter was revered by his community, which survived or perished on the basis of his skills. I say ‘his’ skills because until relatively recently hunting was an all male domain, however, I acknowledge this is no longer the case.
Still, there was a time when the hunter returning from the field was the focus of great anticipation and community engagement, and why not? A successful hunt meant resources for the community, full bellies and the promise of a relatively easy winter.
There would be feasts as an immediate result, but also much work to be done drying, salting or smoking meat, preparing hides for various uses such as clothing and shelter, sinew for sewing, bone for tools such as needles, fish hooks and points for spears and arrows, creating handicrafts, combs, jewellery and even religious artefacts. All of this took place in an atmosphere of community cooperation, conversation and not inconsiderable merriment. And it must be said, this is still the case amongst the people’s off less developed, less affluent countries throughout the world, whose “killing” does not make them the objects of scorn and threats, but rather of respect and romantic aspiration.
So why is the hunter reviled in the affluent west today? Why should it matter to non-hunters, if hunters wish to carry on a perfectly natural, productive and healthful tradition of eons standing, and why are those who hate the hunter with every malicious fibre of their being, predominantly female?
I don’t claim to know the answers for certain; I have not completed any exhaustive peer reviewed research into the matter, nor do I claim to be some great oracle with the power to make windows into women’s souls. I do, however, have some suspicions that I will share, no doubt forever branding myself the misogynist for the effort. So, here we go...(mind the step).....
I believe women’s antagonism towards hunters is the result of a number of factors, aside from their generally recognised role as society’s ‘nurturers’. To begin with I think that as with so many things people seek to ban, they find it easy to do so because they are not immediate stakeholders. It is easy to demand an end to things we don’t participate in or benefit from and on the whole women are few and far between in the hunting game, although it must be said a resurgence of interest in the self-sufficient lifestyle is drawing increasing numbers of women to hunting as a source of organic and genuinely free-range resources.
But perhaps it is the fact that over the eons, women were traditionally excluded from hunting activities, considered men’s pursuits, which lies at the root of their opposition today?
As a result of this exclusion, women didn’t develop the same basic mindsets and capacities required for hunting, many of which were drilled into boys from the time they could walk. These things are deeply ingrained in the male psyche, not only genetically, but also through the many subtle differences in the way we treat boys as compared to girls. These subtle differences prepare men for their role as hunters and defenders, which includes the very necessary capacity to look at another living creature without becoming instantly invested in it emotionally.
Were this not the case a community might starve or freeze to death surrounded by a myriad adorable little faces with gorgeous big brown eyes that’d just break your heart.
Women have embraced the rarefied affluent western lifestyle that affords them the luxury of abandoning yesterday’s necessities. The most commonly expressed defense for their anti-hunting vitriol, is that "hunting is no-longer necessary!" But must a pursuit be 'necessary' to be valid? Necessary to whom and in accordance with what measure of necessity e.g. is portraiture 'necessary' now we're all equipped with digital cameras? Is it necessary to raise sheep for sheering, so folk can spin in the traditional manner, now synthetic textiles can be made and spun by machines with no need of docking, mulesing or sheering?
Women are content in a world where bread and milk come from Coles, meat from a butcher who does the unpleasant work for them, and where warmth is provided by air-conditioning rather than hides and a belly full of solid protein. They therefore see no need to keep redundant anachronisms like hunting, alive.
Women are content in a world where bread and milk come from Coles, meat from a butcher who does the unpleasant work for them, and where warmth is provided by air-conditioning rather than hides and a belly full of solid protein. They therefore see no need to keep redundant anachronisms like hunting, alive.
In short, women have embraced modernity, which is their right. But they do not have the right to sneer at, to ridicule, to insult or to vilify those of us who see some practical, cultural or even spiritual merit in preserving practices of the past, provided those practices are sustainable and not unreasonably cruel in an honest and objective sense.
If one needs an example of what is and isn’t cruel, I would say killing Bambi and skinning her for her hide is perfectly acceptable. The other way ‘round, not so much!
Finally, I’d like to touch on the subjective nature of ‘cruelty’.
I was recently crucified via social media for daring to counsel restraint in some very public and very hateful criticism of Glenn McGrath’s African hunting activities. My critic was a well educated, articulate and highly qualified, and in most other respects, a very reasonable woman with something of a profile in various social justice related spheres. Her very aggressive and offensive statements shocked even this old cynic and eager that there should be no bad blood between us because we work together on occasion, I nipped over to her Facebook page intent on reconciliation.
It was there that I found a post in which she spoke proudly of her departed grandfather, whom it was clear she held in the very highest esteem. Accompanying her tribute to ‘Grampy’ was a photograph of a bequest he’d made to her, a Sulfur Crested cockatoo named ‘Mate’. Mate could talk and dance, he could even whistle just like Grampy used to, and why wouldn’t he, for Mate had been Grampy’s prisoner and the focus of his anthropomorphic efforts for some 75 miserable bloody years!
The net result of confinement to a cage a little over a metre square, not to mention imposed celibacy for three quarters of a century, is a ‘bird’ that no-longer knows it’s a bird, that cannot speak bird nor fly, and due to the appallingly bland and repetitive diet it has been forced to endure for longer than many humans live, a bird without a single feather on its poor underdeveloped body. All this work of Grampy’s my critic thought “absolutely adorable”. In my view, it was testimony to prolonged, callous abuse that was set to become intergenerational, and lo, I was suddenly struck by a profound reluctance to offer an olive branch to a fecking hypocrite of the first order!
But then my thoughts on ‘cruelty’ are such that I will not own a dog while I live on a residential block. I just don’t think it’s right to own an animal simply to deny it the liberty it craves and deserves, except in short spurts when it suits me to take it walkies. Ergo, I have made a decision for me. I do not feel the need to convert others to my philosophy of dog-space and I do not feel compelled to label as cruel, heartless, evil etc., or to wish harm and misfortune to those choosing to confine three cats and an Alsatian to a home-unit. I simply choose not to do it myself.
Hunters do not want the public’s approval for their activities, but regrettably they need the public’s tolerance. We need it because in our democratic system, if enough vile, malicious, ignorant harpies with a world of hate and intolerance to share get together, even this base element can put the fear of election failure into cowardly opportunistic politicians and law makers.
So the battle continues and perhaps the ‘enemy’ is a little more clearly defined. But if I am correct, if hunters are predominantly men and if opposition to hunting lies predominantly with women, is the war not then just a wee bit sexist in nature?
Anyway, 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/2015/03/hunting-and-psychopath.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.
I've been waiting years for some one to articulate the truth about the haters. Absolutely brilliant!
ReplyDeleteas always, a very well thought out and written Article. In this day of social media and the self-important feelings that it endows on the less intellectually minded, I find it still shocks me to read some of the pathetic comments made by these people & it completely highlights the levels of lack of cogitation and depth of these (non) contributors' to the social fabric of the community. and when I checked out who Amber is - channel 7 with the home & away show that answered that question.
ReplyDeleteI always feel for the chooks & fish who are used to feed us and the Halal blood letting now in Oz Abattoirs' - if that's not animal cruelty? a Hunter shorts to kill immediately, when this immediate death is instituted re Fowl, cattle and Fish etc., these self named animal lovers shouldpay attention to that area of animal cruelty!
These critics should also look closely at their Politicians and Big Business Executive who are largely anti-social personalities/Sociopaths' in the way they treat their fellow HUMAN beings - turn their energies to that area which is long overdue in the last 30+ years.
I am not a Hunter, I am a woman & rarely go to Coles/Woolies when I live in Australia as I think their Big Business attitudes/lack of responsibility to Australians health is only worthy of my contempt, and I find little in those "Super"markets that I need to buy. I grow my own vegies wherever I live and fortunately that is Italy where there is a slow food movement and Hunting is regarded to be used for the table, and the Slow Food Movement was started by an Italian. There's a lot ot be said for their traditional way, unlike Australia which sadly follows the USA - even down to the trashy comments and Channel 7 shows (tho I realise that Home & Away " is an Oz production -inspired by ???
I do have a son who is a Sports Shooter, and his right to do that is undeniable, his level of responsibility is extremely high in everything he does, and I find that the social comments that are referred to in this Article shows a lack of responsibility & depth in thinking and in making such puerile comments. I dismiss them completely, and the Greens also. The aims of the Greens years ago had merit but the lack of quality in their representatives damns their cause.
D Ryan
I've hunted Goats with Muslim blokes from work, I had to be very precise about placment, the "blood letting" was done only after we had shot dead 5 kids. It was a very delicate operation but suffered no pain. To say that it's any different is wrong and should be losing their Halal certification. taylor (Christian & Aussie)
ReplyDeleteWell said, if the hunters were as cruel and mentally unstable as we are portrayed we would hunt the anti's to extinction, but at least we would most likely kill them in a human way rather that the torturous methods they wish upon hunters. There can be no fair civilised debate about hunting with those who think that animals are people. Sure animals have some rights, and deserve to be killed humanely, but the vast majority of animals on the planet are bred simply to provide meat or skins or wool or milk for human use. I have yet to see these anti hunting idiots speak out about the horror and cruelty inflicted by ISIS and similar on innocent people who really are people, as well as on some animals, perhaps it is because they are afraid that those targets of their abuse will fight back while they know that we hunters have more dignity, and responsibility and tolerance than the terrorists, and yes, more than the anti hunters too.
ReplyDeleteAs a female hunter I'm always mortified by the amount of vitriol that is directed at hunters by what sadly appears to be an overwhelming majority of female haters. The author is quite right in pointing out that people who don't have a stake in something can often be quite happy to decry what they dislike or cannot understand. The conclusion that hunters are psychopaths demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic anthropology and human psychology. Sadly, this kind of thinking seems to be spreading as out spoiled western society disconnects more and more from the realities of food production. I'll keep this link handy for discussions on social media.
ReplyDeletePlease submit this marvellous article to 'The Conversation'- so many more than just Hunters need to read this message.
ReplyDelete"I just don’t think it’s right to own an animal simply to deny it the liberty it craves and deserves," But it's ok to shoot an animal just to deny it the liberty it craves and deserves? Yeah, that makes sense.....
ReplyDeleteForgive me. I can see how it would appear a contradiction...to a person of simplistic intellect that is, such as those who are the subject of the article and apparently yourself.
DeleteRegardless of how you may choose to emote about my statement, your comment is a perfect example of the limited reason that, unfortunately, all too often determines policy. You see, your concern demonstrates that the whole argument is about you and your feelings and not the animal's. Allow me to explain...
When I kill an animal, it has no idea it’s dead! It doesn’t know I have taken its life, robbed it of liberty, nor any other worldly matter. It is dead and totally unconcerned about what I have done in every respect. This is what’s known as fact. On the other hand, the animal confined by a kindly and responsible “animal lover” such as yourself, must endure incarceration for many, many, many, years, along with all the physical and psychological denials and expediencies that go with your selfish desire to impose an alien world upon an animal because YOU think it’s life is wonderful, because YOU get a kick out of owning another creature and because YOU have declared yourself worthy of determining another creature’s needs and desires for, what, 20 years in the case of a dog or cat. Bravo!
In short, because I suspect it’s best kept that way for you, it’s the difference between ripping the bandaid off and picking at it for year after year after year because you get a kick out of prolonging misery and because you are arrogant enough to determine what is, and is not, misery.
No, really, don’t mention it!
Well said. I have often struggled to convey the reasons we do what we do, to loved ones or friends.
ReplyDeleteI will definitely be sharing this around as much as possible.
I'd love to see this article in a mainstream media publication like the WEST AUSTRALIAN or the Herald. But we all know that will never happen right?
Well done Garry this was a very accurate and enjoyable article!
A very interesting piece. I am a life-long vegetarian so I don't like hunting but I have far more respect for those that can kill their own food versus those that just buy it from the shop where they can be divorced from the reality of how it came to be there. That said I am fervently against duck shooting and do not (no doubt controversially) consider it to be hunting. Any hunter that takes pride in a swift kill should be appalled by the wounding associated with duck shooting. I'm happy to discuss my beliefs about duck shooting further but the main reason I felt compelled to respond to this post was due to the comment about threatening posts being "the province of the anti-hunter alone". I must say I totally disagree with this statement. I am happy to admit that anti-hunters come up with some disturbing and highly inappropriate comments on social media but so do the other side, and regularly. I actively screenshot threats of death or violence made by shooters toward antis. They are equally as graphic and disturbing as the ones made by antis and generally quite scary. Often savvy page hosts will delete them but that doesn't mean that antis don't see them or feel threatened by them. Generally distasteful posts by antis are left up as they don't risk losing their gun licences over it. I'm not excusing aggressive behaviour by antis (and I wish their comments would be condemned and deleted) but I wanted it understood that it is most definitely not a one-sided phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Eleanor
Thanks for the feedback, Eleanor. Apropos the sole province claim, it was intended to be comparative, not absolute. I agree there are instances of people claiming to be hunters abusing anti-hunters in the most appalling terms. I too have studied this phenomena and I have noted a number of differences:
DeleteHunters tends not to seek out Cuddle the Bunny on Facebook with the sole intent of threatening people for displaying content they don't like, in communities that have no relevance to them. Whereas the anti-hunter will troll hunting cites, where they can have no possible interest or affinity, simply to call people scum and wish them ill. I can cite any number of individual hunters' pages where literally thousands of haters have dropped by just to say "Die Bitch!", however I know of no individual who preaches animal equality/sentience etc where the hate of thousands of hunters can be seen. If you're aware of any, please let me know and I will be in there like the proverbial shot to express offence.
That brings me to another observation. Hunters, upon hearing that someone claiming to be a hunter has offensively berated a non-hunter, will tend to tell the aggressor to pull his/her head in, pointing out that threats are not tolerable under any circumstances and suggest that such behaviour is counter to the cause. Conversely I have seen women post the most appalling threats against hunters, their partners and kids and all the other haters do is 'Like' the comments, agree and try to outdo one another's venom, even sharing the hateful posts on other sites where more vile comments can be drawn.
There are many high profile (stars/entertainers, whatever) who hunt, but never have I see even one of them rally the support of their millions of blindly adoring fans and direct them to seek out an individual from an animal welfare agency for a hate campaign. I have seen several such celebrity campaigns against hunter, Gervais being the most recent, which are outrageously hateful and totally irresponsible too, given they cannot possibly know the mental state of the star stalkers they set-to on people. Such individuals are sometimes happy to go to extremes to please their idols.
While hunters will lose the plot sometimes, my research suggests this tends to be an individual and spontaneous responsive, rather than pro-active. They may visit a forum that's not pro-hunting in an attempt to put a case for responsible, sustainable hunting, and after being assailed with allegations of cruelty, thrill-killing, zero empathy, hillbilly mentality and a general lack of heart and soul, they may retaliate with an intemperate bombshell, but that sort of clanger born of frustration is not, to my mind, born of actual hatred.
So as a general principle I'll stand by the claims I make in the blog.
DeleteFinally, re duck shooting - I have no problem with people hunting ducks. How they do it is more the issue for me. I used to shoot ducks, but because I wasn't out to win any competitions with the boys, I was never concerned with numbers. Ergo, I could choose my shots, only taking those I was 99% certain of, which meant I might come home with two ducks, but two was all I needed at a time. However, my old dad taught me the most foolproof method of duck hunting when I was a boy growing up in the Sydney. A rabbit trap tied to a piece of surfboard is floated out on the pond or swamp with grain or pollard on the pressure-plate. The duck would inspect, peck at the grain and bang, the trap went off killing him all but instantly. He'd then be reeled in on a string attached to the contrivance. This method has next to zero risk of collateral damage, can be tugged away from undesirable species and doesn't upset nearby residents with noise and deposits no lead in the environment, while ridding waterways of crossbred domestic ducks that are out breeding our native species. And of course the flesh is not bruised so they're great for the table.
Note: I do not endorse this depression era method of duck hunting, even if it is safe, humane and 100% environmentally friendly.
Apologies for the long-winded response
Thanks for your response Garry. I can't comment on hunting pages in general but the duck shooting issue that I follow very closely most certainly attracts a lot of unprovoked abuse. We do have reasonable shooters that come to our pages who are polite and decent but we have many who come and troll with vile abuse and threats, many of which are undeniably shooters. I think it is too simplistic to excuse the shooters for their behaviour, in the same way as I would not seek to excuse the antis that do the same. Shooters comments are more quickly deleted because pro-shooting page admins know that such aggression risks the shooter losing their gun licence if reported (I have reported death threats in the past) and on anti websites the aggressor tends to get blocked pretty quickly which means that all their posts are instantly deleted. It is sad that people would abuse individual hunters but I would be incredibly surprised if this did not also happen to high profile antis as well. I have seen MANY posts longing for Laurie Levy to get shot or drown so I don't see why they would not say that to him directly as well. I honestly think this is a problem that needs to be addressed from both sides and not swept under the carpet by either.
DeleteCheers, Eleanor
I agree, it's an issue that needs to be addressed. And I have said, publicly, on many occasions, that the abusive, irresponsible hunter is the bane of our cause. Still, having researched the issue extensively, I stand by my conclusion that the antis -- and in fact the female antis in particular -- are by far the more hateful, not just wishing ill on hunters, but very often on their children, to wit "I wish a lion would rip your children apart in front of you, so you know what it feels like!", which to me cannot be compared to people wishing Laurie would slip and break his neck. Off the cuff statements like that, simply don't measure up to the violently imaginative scenarios I've seen from anti-hunters, up to and including rusty saw blades ad nauseam. Also, the media, which is traditionally very pro-anti-hunter, has even reported on the depth of bile expressed by the anti-hunting fraternity, acknowledging the depth of hatred is extreme and often encouraged by celebrity. But I agree, there is no place for any of it, from anyone, period! It doesn't help, though, when funded agencies attempt to associate hunting with the most extreme forms of mental illness and lunatic behaviour. One such agency recently made a big deal about Ivan Milat being a hunter. This, they claimed, was evidence of the kind of mind that hunts. But Ivan also owned dogs, a budgie and tropical fish, so I guess one might equally propose that it's the kind of mind that loves pets.
DeleteThose against duck hunting, who protest hunting activities, are particularly frustrating of course. They are among a very small group of objectors who are permitted to disrupt legal activities, year in, year out, on a highly coordinated basis. They protest indiscriminately, disrupting the responsible and irresponsible alike and of course they do so on grounds that, when all's said and done, are disingenuous.
Sure they claim they oppose cruelty of leaving injured birds to die slowly, the devastation of protected species etc., but I think it's fair to say they would not call it quits if every duck hunter adopted absolutely instantaneous, 100% species specific and totally safe harvesting methodologies and quotas that were scientifically proven completely sustainable. What it really boils down to, surely, if that they don't want any ducks to be killed by people, in any manner at all, ever.
Anyway, thanks for your feedback and for sharing your insights, and if ever you witness a hunter attacking someone on a page you visit in a way that's unconscionable, feel free to look me up on Facebook. You can count on my to express my contempt for his actions.
This just in
DeleteI certainly don't seek to excuse aggressive and disturbing posts from antis. Similarly I don't excuse it from shooters either, things like 'shoot the dumb c*nts', 'catch them and slit their throats' and 'let's hunt the greenies and put their heads on sticks' ect. They have also been very abusive and threatening to me in the field even though I haven't gotten in their way or communicated with them at all. I have been quite scared at times, particularly when they nearly ran me over in a 4x4 even though I was off the track and not near the water.
DeleteI wish there was a way to make duck shooting 100% accurate and ethical but unfortunately I don't see how that's possible.
Thanks for recognising that abuse happens on both sides of the fence. Hopefully more level headed people can continue to lead by example!
Eleanor
I agree, Eleanor, it must stop and I am sorry that you have had bad experiences at the hands of those among our number we all abhor. I know first hand, what it's like to be threatened for my views, having had to give journalism away some years ago, due to threats to my family, and more recently being forced to turn down a spot on a TV lifestyle program because I was concerned for my old mum (93, blind, dementia) whom I care for. She'd have not dealt well with the late night calls, the contemptible sign painting, the broken windows etc that followed my last splash.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't help that spokespersons for animal welfare agencies refuse to publicly condemn violent activism, as reported by the ABC here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-05/act-kangaroo-cull-contractor-condemns-radical-opposition/6592832 "Animal Liberation ACT spokeswoman Carolyn Drew said the group would use any means necessary to stop the culling."
Such attitudes should be condemned by all parties, for or against.
Live long and prosper!
I'm sorry too that you have had such horrible experiences. It is a sad state of affairs all round!
ReplyDeleteOh simple hunters. Lets address a few things here beginning with the anti-hunter quotes you so proudly displayed. It really is a shame you lack the IQ to distinguish between the real-life actions of hunters (kill, maim, abuse, torture animals) and the "fantasy" written by opponents to your twisted hobby (I hope you die, rot in hell, etc), none of which actually occurs in real life. You're saying its okay to go out and take the life of a species you consider less worthy than yourself, but its not okay for others to WISH death upon you? So it would be okay for a peadophile to molest your children, but not okay for you to SAY you'd kill the mother f*cker? Makes perfect sense if you're a redneck, I guess. Shit, I was going to write more but I can't stop shaking my head in bewilderment at the lengths you hunters will go to justify your behavior.
ReplyDeleteShelly, thank-you, sincerely, for your comment, an affront to logic though it maybe. You appear to have missed a very-very basic truth, which given the general tenor of your response is perhaps not so surprising. Hunters are not driven to kill by hatred. You, the self-appointed defenders of the animal kingdom, are motivated by hatred when you make threats. It's so simple it's surprising you missed it.
ReplyDeleteBut how can I ridicule you? It's not often your ilk is courteous enough to cruise by and professionally endorse the substance one of my posts. Yes, that's right, endorse it. You claim the anti-hunters' threats of death, disfigurement with saws and so on, are fantasies, but you see that is exactly what the psychopath does. He/she fantasies about killing, disfiguring, torturing etc., drawing personal - even sexual - satisfaction from the prospect, as you have just confirmed with your post. Thanks for that!
Good luck with the whole head-shaking thing. It's important to get those synapses communicating and who are we to judge your means of achieving it. Perhaps in the future, if you're successful in this endeavour, you might not open your mouth in public simply to change feet.An outcome devoutly to be wished I'm sure.
I wish you well.
Aaaah, the wascally little wabbit nibbles on the carrot and lashes out predictably, grasping for whatever little thread he can cling on to. Thanks for proving a point Garry, that being that hunters will twist words any way they can so long as it somehow justifies their behavior. Its almost comical that you would relate the harmless "anti-hunters threats of death" to psychopathic fantasies while excusing the psychopathic behavior of hunters who actually commit to killing purely for self-gratification. And let's not forgot the very disturbing practice of putting your trophy (usually a decapitated head) on display, a practice most psychopathic serial killers also partake in. Words don't kill, hunters do. Instead of worrying about where my feet are you should concentrate on removing your cranium from your rectum. It might bring some clarity to your otherwise clouded reality...
ReplyDeleteDear Friend,
ReplyDeleteMay I call you friend? I feel we've grown so close.
Thankyou for your most ineloquent response which, due primarily, yet not exclusively to its puerile and vacuous nature, I have chosen not to post because it contributes nothing to debate, not even a clever riposte.
I say not exclusively, because as you’d realise if you had even the intellect of an anaemic Tsetse fly with high lead levels, this is my blog and I decide what ‘contributions’ I post, and on the basis of intellectual merit alone. Oh dear!
Once again I thankyou, almost sincerely, for your input. The personal satisfaction I have derived from the very rare pleasure of listing you as a spammer, is surpassed only by the knowledge that this will make you very very grumpy indeed. But fear not, Shelly. I am not frightened by the prospect of your rage, as I have recently read in a reliable peer-reviewed journal, that the individual’s physical prowess is directly proportionate to their intellectual prowess.
Clearly, then, it would be foolish of me to fear the consequences of failing to indulge the threat equivalent of that posed by an asthmatic ant with very heavy shopping.
PLEASE come again. It has been such a hoot I feel certain my friends will want to thank you personally.
Your friends will indeed thank her. The night's entertainment has been amusing. I would call it a drama, but it's too intellectually light weight for drama, so I'll settle for comedy. Vegans and their ilk are always such a laugh.
ReplyDeleteThankyou.
ReplyDeleteI love watching the vegans squirm and try to weasel their way out of the hole they dig themselves.
NEWS FLASH TSETSE FLY: Your on the wrong blog. (Its been entertaining though)
Gary Mallard, although very articulate, begs the question of having us believe that the recreational killing of animals by well-outfitted modern hunters with name-brand equipment and high-tech support is somehow equivalent to the killing of animals by stone-age humans for food or self-defense, closely tied to surrounding rituals of proving oneself in less refined technological times. As if humans have not evolved past those times.
ReplyDeleteHe also begs the question of having us believe that psychopathy is equally defined across all historical eras, and that no refinement in its definition is possible to match the relevant historical period. The very concept of psychopathy is fairly recent, and this recent evolution would seemingly signal a need for such a classification to better guide our collective actions in a much more populated, shared world. Alluding to how things have always been, therefore, does NOT justify how things are NOW in an entirely different era of knowledge, insight, understanding, and human dominance of the planet. Different times call for different psychological adjustments, and to ignore this is to ignore reality.
His glib reference to the possibility of our forebears being "wiped out by generations of Jeffrey Dahmers returning from the hunt" is a dramatic twisting of this same false assumption about the immutability of hunting ethics over eons. . We all have psychopathic tendencies. Our responsibility is to keep these in proportion with our more salient traits as they evolve over time.
He passively aggressively suggests, with condescending politeness, that the "hunter/psychopath theory" (as he refers to it) is the work of "lunatic fanatics desperate for justification", and then goes on to give the appearance of discussing various claims against recreational hunting.
He does a pretty good job of DIRECTLY addressing the issue of cruelty to animals, although his analysis falls short by ignoring death itself as a component of cruelty. He also outlines a standard of the clean kill that certainly is NOT practiced widely by all recreational hunters, as anyone can see by watching a few disturbing videos on You Tube. Many hunters are so amateur that they do not have the skills or experience to execute such clean kills, especially with bows and arrows, which they admittedly know cause great, prolonged suffering in the targeted animals.
On the issue of "hunting is fun", he spends 350 words (I counted them) evading any semblance of disproving this claim about fun, instead using all those words to portray non-hunters as some sort of conspirators, conniving to spread hate through propaganda, as if inciting hate were the main objective - clearly a ridiculous conclusion.
Next, he spends more words denying that hunting is a sport, imposing his own personal definition of "sport" as proof. This serves as a distraction by mincing words to delay addressing the more salient underlying issue, which is that killing animals is fulfilling to hunters, and that this fulfillment from killing a real living being is NOT shared by a majority of other people in the modern civilized world.
He then addresses sexuality issues, which is entertaining but also revealing of the very truth that he appears to be denying, namely that the feminine regard for life might somehow be overly subdued in the recreational hunter's mind.
He closes by alluding back to the hunting-ethic-is-equal-across-all-times plea, which, by now, has grown even weaker as a justification.
Thanks for your comment. I note, however, that while you go to some pains to share your views of the psychopathic nature of the hunters’ activities, you devote not a single word (I counted them!) to the psychopathic nature of the animal rights advocate who claims satisfaction in the notion of hunters, their partners and children, being killed in the most imaginative and painful ways. Perhaps you think this a normal response among the ‘evolved’.
DeleteOn the topic of our evolution, your views appear most egocentric. Evolution is not a matter of changing social constructs, identified in their own time and by their designers, as superior. Evolution has no ego and improvement is not identified by those currently experiencing its processes. Evolution is a measure of success in terms of sustainability. I see no evidence, whatsoever, that today’s penchant for obtaining meat on foam trays, the production of which has led to protracted misery and great land degradation, is either superior or sustainable.
Fewer humans is the answer to the planet’s current and future woes, not fewer hunters. The hunters I speak for that is, not the one’s you would attempt to link my opinion piece with. Associating my article with the very worst on what Youtube has to offer, as you have striven to do, is like associating everyone who consumes alcohol responsibly with the likes of those seen ploughing through school yards in “Most Frightening Police Chances” at al.
I assume that most readers enjoy an intellectual capacity sufficient to extrapolate I am not referring to the extremist scenarios which, you may be surprised to learn, are abhorred and condemned by most hunters too.
As for the suggestion that alluding to the sustainable harvest of free range, organic meat and resources by our ‘primitive’ forebears is somehow irrelevant to the discussion, I couldn’t possibly fail not to disagree with you less. Which panel of city-centric while folks gets to be arbiters of cultural validity? I know the Catholic Church has had a bash at it over the centuries, even burning people with the assistance of the wider community, for their failure to embrace what was considered the ‘enlightenment’ of the era.
And of course until relatively recently it was considered OK to imprison, bash or even kill gay folks based on ignorant societal opposition to what they think they represent and do, but I’m not sure we look back on those days with pride. Rather, they represent the days of regrettable actions based on flawed perceptions of superiority, themselves based on a simplistic philosophy born of ignorance.
As an Australian hunter of mixed race, I’m quite lucky. When people set-out to criticise me for my hunting activities, I need only invoke my Aboriginal heritage and suddenly it’s OK to throw pointed sticks and imaginatively curved pieces of wood at animals. That’s preserving the culture and tradition of the oldest surviving culture on earth and is therefore a noble pursuit, or so the pontificating white majority would have it. The fact I have money and supermarkets exist in abundance matters not. What is important is that I should tickle the romantic fancy of those who believe being white invalidates culture and being black validates it and even mitigates ‘cruelty’ and a dearth of any real necessity.
If I do not declare my Aboriginal connections, my use of the traditional bow and arrow of my white-forebears makes me a heartless murderer who simply lusts for blood and gets his kicks from killing.
Worse, as a white man, I will be asked to demonstrate an unbroken lineage of white hunting culture to satisfy my judges, which is an exercise in futility at anyrate. As an Aboriginal Australian no-one would dare task me to do so. White folks expect black folks to be a shade primitive and thus to know no better than to indulge their primitive drives. And of course those primitive drives are still strong amongst the many “stone-age” cultures that still exist in non-white lands today. In fact, not only do they thrive, they are venerated amongst the same white folks who believe white hunters are motivated by psychopathic tendencies.
DeleteFinally, in Australia, the hunting of native mammalian species is strictly prohibited by law throughout the year, the only exception applying to Aboriginal peoples who may hunt them. For everyone else, hunting is restricted to introduced (feral) species of which there are innumerable millions, perhaps billions, all of them having decimating impacts upon native species and the environment in general. These creatures must be controlled, with a view to eradication, if endemic species are to be saved. On the whole, those who oppose hunting on principle, nonetheless agree with the eradication of feral species. This leaves few options e.g. biological control, trapping and poisoning, all of which are painful over protracted periods and wasteful. Hunting may also be painful, but the duration of that effect is, for the most part, considerably less so and potentially far less wasteful. The objective should be to foster the highest possible levels of hunter ethics and proficiency in order to mitigate waste and suffering as much as humanly possible.
Again, thankyou for your comment.
Heya Jase, nice blog lad.
ReplyDeleteThanks and rest assured that if anyone named 'Jase' ever writes for this blog I'll be sure to pass your message along.
Delete