Hunting, the ethical choice

I was reading an article on Slate called “Hipsters who Hunt“, about liberal urban hunters in the US. Numbers are increasing as people realise the taste and health benefits of free range animals.

There is something satisfying in going out and getting tasty food for your family with your own resourcefulness..and when you get to taste the difference you wonder why you don’t do it more often.

If you eat meat, eating animals you hunt yourself is a more ethical alternative than eating those from the current industrial agricultural system. Rather than being confined in small enclosures and dosed with antibiotics and antidepressants, wild birds and mammals have been leading lives very similar to those their species have been living for thousands of years (though featuring more corn, soy, and suburban refuse, generally speaking). And instead of outsourcing their deaths to an underpaid slaughterhouse employee, you do it yourself, which seems somehow most honest. …

Getting your meat from outside the industrial food system is also better for the environment. Wild game isn’t fed on tons of grain that used excessive water, land, and fossil-fuel-based synthetic fertilizer. They aren’t clustered in “concentrated animal feeding operations” that produce toxic and terrible-smelling lagoons of manure.

As we have become more urbanised a great many skills have been lost, and also a number of stereotypes have arisen about hunters:

There’s another facile belief that the new kids in the duck blind need to jettison: the idea that all hunting is somehow the cultural property of jerky guys with big trucks and a fondness for the country music and Republican candidates. The cartoon of the red-state hunter has held back many people who would enjoy hunting and find in it a good solution to their ethical and environmental concerns. These people felt, somehow, that hunting was not what their “tribe” did. Yes, lots of hunters are conservatives. But many political conservatives are ethical and environmental hunters who deeply respect the animals they hunt. And there have always been plenty of liberal hunters.

The author states that she knows plenty of urban, lefty hunters…same here…and the beauty of hunting with them is when you are in the blind, or scoping out some Reds you talk about other stuff like velocity, bullet drop, scopes and calibres…but even in that conversation there is politics at play…which makes it all the more enjoyable.

Then of course there are the greenies…

Besides, hunting is green. Hazel Wong, a senior policy adviser at the Nature Conservancy, told me that to pass environmental legislation at the state level, “believe it or not, we work with hunting groups a lot.” I wasn’t surprised. Conservation in America was practically founded by hunters. Yellowstone was first envisioned as a giant game reserve that would create big populations of animals that hunters could nab as they spilled out over the boundaries. Our first conservation-minded president, Teddy Roosevelt, mowed down untold hundreds of animals in his long career as a sport hunter. And “hook and bullet” organizations continue to fight for land protection. You see, you need nature to go hunting. And hunters—liberal and conservative—generally like nature. That’s why they are out in it.

I tried to have this conversation once with Russel Norman, but he was having none of it. He is silly and so are most of the Greens…they should get onside with hunters not try and vilify them. We want clean rivers, and clean land, and nice forests…where they want nothing but birds we want some critters…but we want those critters to be living in a clean environment.

  • John1234

    The Greens are so inconsistent. They should love the idea of hunting, as they are against farms. Further, if everyone had to hunt to survive, that would slash the population – another of their goals.

  • Andrei

    Lol – shows how out of touch with reality the reality based community (aka lefty dim bulbs) are.

    A feral deer takes up far more planetary real estate than grain fed cattle beasts do..

    And there is lot more to harvesting protein than pinging a deer with your trusty 30-06 or whatever calibre takes the urban drawing room hunters fancy.

    Shooting the beast is the easy bit of course, it has to be dressed and toted out of the wild. And unlike the works killed beast much of the beast killed in the field is esentially wasted because you cannot carry it all out to turn into useful things.

    All in all that article is a bunch of tosh

    • Mitch82

      Do they have TV on your planet?

  • cows4me

    Quite true WO most hunters I know, myself included are more green then the deluded fruitcakes that call themselves Melons. If one does a lot of hunting and fishing one quickly comes to the realisation that a healthy environment and a healthy breeding stock population are in ones best interest. Meanwhile the nut cases in the green movement would like to put an end to it all in the totally fucked up idea that man is simply a disease on the face of mother earth. Man is part of the environment, a little fact that gets up greens noses, and given the chance and the right guidance will enhance the environment. Green politics are nothing more then communism in drag, communism will destroy the environment.

  • lyall

    True, hunting is great. but imagine if everyone suddenly decided to get their meat from the bush. Its already getting crowded in the hills, people are already getting territorial and cars are not safe parked up near the bush anymore in a lot of areas, the TW’s are starting to get organised with vandalism as a deterrant, just as you cant go diving in a lot of places without being abused or threatened or have your vehicle smashed. This suggests there is already heavy competition for these wild resources and gathering them is becoming harder and harder, if you;re the wrong colour that is.
    Now there’s some political discourse for your next hunting trip, who gets to go hunting when everyone wants to go hunting?

    • Mr_Blobby

      You don’t been the Brorocracy and customary rights do you.

  • Mr_Blobby

    The problem is if you don’t cull the wild population they will destroy the environment. You have 2 choices recreational hunters will do it for free or the Government can pay professionals to do it. What would it cost for professional hunters to cull 150,000 Dear and 250,000 Wild pig every year, and don’t forget the wild horses.

  • HtD

    This is what Ted Nugent was saying 35 years ago.

17%