Let's build a coherent philosophical and ethical case for hunting.

[nun_hunter]

I would go back to sustainability. Natural ecosystems live on predation and evasion; these are some of the main driving forces of evolution and will exist long after Homo sapiens is no more. I think you, Pine Marten are tying yourself in knots for no real reason. I see sustainability as the key moral imperative now. Life must go on and all human activity must allow for this to happen- that is what I believe at any rate. Hunting, if sustainable and part of a balanced natural world, has an important role to play. I kill deer out of choice because various population groups of deer need to remain in balance. And I think that selective predation is the natural most morally upright way of doing this. Applying birth control or other such nonsense to wild animal populations is tantamount to making them into humans which they really to not want; in fact birth control applied to deer is in my opinion the same as their eradication as pests. Individual deer do not matter; the greater population and its health and welfare is the issue. As secondary reasons, I gain from killing deer: having access to venison and healthy meat, being out to hunt in the UK, being outdoors a lot, knowing other hunters, keeping up my outdoors skills and ways while living in London etc., but these are not crucial to the activity. And I say as I enjoy doing it and want to do it in a humane and right way, I am being most respectful to the deer I hunt. I would never sign up for a lamping exercise.

It seems a bit odd to state you'd never sign up for lamping when in certain circumstances it may be the only or best management strategy for the herd as a whole. Forgive me if I'm wrong but it sounds more like you don't want to lamp deer as it doesn't sit well with your personal view of being a "Deer Stalker" and the enjoyment you get from being a "deer stalker".


It is this enjoyment that is the reason I stalk and shoot deer. I could go out with a camera and just stalk deer to photograph and then buy venison from the game dealer and butcher it at home, maybe do some target shooting too. Although not politically correct, some of us (almost everyone who stalks I would suggest) do derive pleasure from killing (in certain circumstances), if we didn't we'd get someone else to do it. It isn't something I think we should be ashamed of, if we all felt exactly the same then humans would never have evolved to where we are now.

I think the hardest position to defend are from those who pay to go stalking with a guide and then do not purchase the meat to take home and eat. I am not saying that I disagree with those actions but from a moral stand point it is hard to explain your actions other than "I just paid some money to kill a deer and enjoyed doing it". Nothing wrong with that but do not try and dress it up as conservation, herd management, animal welfare etc, whilst those are good reasons they are far from the most important driving factor; enjoyment!

 

[nun_hunter]

I will give my answer to these questions.

We each justify our actions only unto ourselves. What I deem to be acceptable is not necessarily acceptable to someone else.
I don't feel the need to justify anything to anyone else.

For me, hunting is not a choice. I do not choose to be a hunter. I was born a hunter. It is a totally natural thing.....how can that be bad? When I look back through my life, my earliest memories are all of gathering fruit, fishing and learning about hunting/gathering in all its forms. I am basically "programmed" to hunt and kill, to eat and to protect. It is a primeval process, some people even see hunting as a "spiritual" experience, as Klenchblaize pointed out. There is nothing else like it. I guess it all boils down to one thing: INSTINCT
Other species hunt animals without having their morals judged. Why should I be any different?

Another superb post.

 

[Dalua]

I will give my answer to these questions.

We each justify our actions only unto ourselves. What I deem to be acceptable is not necessarily acceptable to someone else.
I don't feel the need to justify anything to anyone else.

For me, hunting is not a choice. I do not choose to be a hunter. I was born a hunter. It is a totally natural thing.....how can that be bad? When I look back through my life, my earliest memories are all of gathering fruit, fishing and learning about hunting/gathering in all its forms. I am basically "programmed" to hunt and kill, to eat and to protect. It is a primeval process, some people even see hunting as a "spiritual" experience, as Klenchblaize pointed out. There is nothing else like it. I guess it all boils down to one thing: INSTINCT
Other species hunt animals without having their morals judged. Why should I be any different?

I'm not sure that deeming something acceptable to you is a moral or philosophical justification for a particular behaviour: nor is having an instinctive drive to act in a particular way a guarantee that the action is morally, ethically, philosophically or lawfully justifiable.

To argue the absence of moral judgment on the behaviours of non-human species seems to be to be anthropomorphism of the same kind that we denounce in those who draw on the Beatrix Potter or Bambi factors in counterarguments to stalking.

Is there anyone on this forum who is in some sense qualified (ideally PhD/DPhil-level) in philosophy and/or ethics who could help us out a little, I wonder?

 

[Pine Marten]

Just spoke to an evolutionary biologist (don't think I just rest at weekends, it's just that my hands aren't free to type) about the likelihood of the existence of an urge to pursue game or fish for food. Apparently all the literature on behavioural evolution for humans is a disaster, specifically because it's so hard for people to be objective on the matter.

 

[User00047]

I'm not sure that deeming something acceptable to you is a moral or philosophical justification for a particular behaviour: nor is having an instinctive drive to act in a particular way a guarantee that the action is morally, ethically, philosophically or lawfully justifiable.

I think this depends on your definition of the word "morally"

Copy and pasted from the Cambridge Dictionary Online:

B2​

​based on ​principles that you or ​people in ​general ​consider to be ​right, ​honest, or ​acceptable


So in my case I'll take " based on principles that I consider to be acceptable"

 

[User00047]

To argue the absence of moral judgment on the behaviours of non-human species seems to be to be anthropomorphism of the same kind that we denounce in those who draw on the Beatrix Potter or Bambi factors in counterarguments to stalking.

I would not base my theories solely on behaviour of other individual animals or other individual species, but when you consider that Homo sapiens as a species, is part of a group of species' "the predators", an omnivore but still definitely a predator, why should we attempt to alter the natural behaviour of our own species? Individual animals will exhibit idiosyncratic behaviour in any species, and we do not tend to judge the morals of vegans just because they behave in a peculiar way, so why are we judged for behaving in a completely natural way? a way which was essential in our evolution as a species?

This is a cultural argument not an ethical one. I would not attempt to argue or reason with "western culture" as it is......how can the masses, so detached from the realities of the natural world, be reasoned with????

 

[Dalua]

I think this depends on your definition of the word "morally"

I was using the context to help with the definition. Here, the purpose of the thread seems to be to help justify the act to persons other than those carrying it out.

 

[User00047]

I was using the context to help with the definition. Here, the purpose of the thread seems to be to help justify the act to persons other than those carrying it out.

Then, I could only explain why killing a deer is acceptable to me and leave the "persons other than those carrying it out" to form their own opinions.

 

[Dalua]

Then, I could only explain why killing a deer is acceptable to me and leave the "persons other than those carrying it out" to form their own opinions.

That is exacly what you've done. I suspect the rest of us can do it too, more or less.

However, this leaves us unadvanced towards the Higher Purpose of the Thread.

 

[User00047]

That is exacly what you've done. I suspect the rest of us can do it too, more or less.

However, this leaves us unadvanced towards the Higher Purpose of the Thread.

Yes. Point taken. Apologies everyone.

 

[Paul at Fechan]

why do people always say killing! Can't be PC using aggressive language! Selective culling introduces humane death avoiding suffering through age illness or injury blah...

 

[Dalua]

why do people always say killing! Can't be PC using aggressive language! Selective culling introduces humane death avoiding suffering through age illness or injury blah...

That's more like it - ethics and philosophy shrink before the awful truth that the advertising copywriter's pen is mightier than any amount of high-falutin' book-larnin' and pi-jaw.

 

[Greymaster]

Now I know that you need to be sparing with your posts for now as you're cooking up something special for the 5000th, but fair point. I think we're all quite well versed in the practical necessity or deestalking and the environmental benefits of managing land to maximise use for sustainable hunting and so on. So instead, let's move on from the following proposition. Our notional anti has heard everything we've said so far and broadly agrees that it's OK to shoot the deer, that perhaps it sometimes even has to be done, that no serious suffering is caused and that the impact on the environment may even be positive and so on. But he or she returns to this sticking point: "But why do YOU personally have to do it, or want to do it?".

They're not at all happy with the idea of allowing someone to kill an animal for pleasure as they would see it. So how do we argue in favour of it? I think this is where the civil liberties argument comes in. If we accept that it has to be done, or at least isn't harmful, then why not let those who want to do it, do so? No-one else is forced to. It is perfectly legitimate to have no desire to kill animals yourself. We also need to look into the nature of the enjoyment, which has been touched on before. Because if it was just about killing, you could go and work in a slaughterhouse.

Table 1. Attitudes toward animals (from Kellert 1976).
Attitude: Characteristics
================
Naturalistic: Desires personal contact with natural habitats, concern for wildlife
Ecologistic: Intellectual understanding of interactions of wildlife and environment
Humanistic: Strong personal affection for animals,especially pets
Moralistic: Ethical concern; vigorous opposition to inflicting suffering or death in animals
Scientistic: Interest in animals as objects of study
Aesthetic: Interest in physical and symbolic attractiveness of animals
Utilitarian: Animals are valued for tangible usefulness to man
Dominionistic: Interest in mastery and control of animals
Negativistic: Desire to avoid animals; fear and alienation

Anti-hunters are most likely to exhibit humanistic and/or moralistic attitudes.
The humanistic attitude attributes human qualities to animals, and possessors of that attitude are frequently interested in animals as pets, often treating them as they would other humans. While other animals share similarities in our basic senses, they are not human. In many ways, they are superior to us.

 

[Tulloch]

Right if I am going to spend much of my precious time on this subject I am going to have to do it properly and a "some" people think I am an idiot I hope this will help change their minds.

Over a 100 years ago now there was NO animal rights activists and every animal was fair game and up until the 60's there was No real legislation that protected an animal species, but, by the time legislation came in it was genuinely too late and the damage has been done. Now what we are left with in this country is a need for animal "control" and land management as there is no natural species to do it for us. I spoke to a gentleman one day in regards to having to cull back some of his deer and he asked the question "Am I doing the right thing?" I had to tell him unfortunately "Yes You Are", why did I give him that answer you may ask? Well! I took a walk through his 50 acre wood and saw because of so many deer over populating one place the land was so poached that his deer was starving to death even though he fed them daily. What he found was the animal kingdom doing what it was famous for, the biggest gets bigger the smallest starves. So in that sense of things it was more humane to cull of the beasts that were not surviving in the conditions he is providing for them.

I had a similar issue with a farm where the rabbits were so out of hand that the whole area was being destructed on a daily basis, after a years worth of every night shooting 20 or 30 I am now down to a management level of around 10 per night. I have no interest in killing them all off.

I shoot not to kill things but because I enjoy getting out of the house and being "At One" with the places I love the most, I like the solitude and I get enjoyment out of the challenge, the worst part of my job is the killing and I am happy to watch others do the killing. Now do I believe it is right to do what we do? Yes I do ! but I do not believe that right does not come with some responsibility and it is not a god given right to hunt when the need for hunting in modern times is NOT needed to put food on the table in MOST situations, however, We do have the responsibility to manage the mistakes of the past due to our ancestors "Over Kill".

In conclusion the biodiversity of the UK needs some sort of land and animal management, all the protective organisations (whether they admit it or not) do have some sort of cull management program in place, the reason why they do not publicise this is due to the hypocrisy of their own politics and the fear that their sponsors will stop paying (as with what happened to RSPB when they announced their deer cull figures a couple of seasons ago). If what we kill can be put back into the food chain then that's even better and as most of us that hunt either consume our own kills or put it into a game dealer that again makes what we do not for nothing. I think it is right that we go through certificates and training as that makes us responsible, I also agree on insurance again it shows we are willing to be responsible and professional. There is no other industry in the country that is as self regulated without legislation as we are, it is not compulsory to get trained to hunt likewise it is not compulsory to be insured to hunt and that's "our" choice not forced upon us. Ok we do have regulations on our firearms and what we can shoot but again, although frustrating at times, I agree with it.

I hope I have been able to explain myself ok

ATB

DT

 

[Gzl]

This is the bit that gives the antis most 'encouragement' in my opinion as we do struggle to assert a coherent statement. If indeed we offer one at all. So, as you suggest let's not continue bumping into that bloody great elephant as we blindly thumble around the Uncomfortable Room of Truth but rather grab it by the tusks and give it a good shot from the heart:

I hunt with a rifle (bow too if the law allowed) because it provides a degree of spiritual and personal fulfilment that I simply cannot obtain by any other combination of mechanisms. Yes, an element may be achieved by simply being in the woods & meadows with no more than my thoughts but I never obtain that criticall oneness as assails body & soul when a squirrel tumbles into the Autumn leaf litter and a faint whiff of cordite catches my nostrils.

The taking of a life is an integral part that cannot and should not be relegated to an argument of a need to cull but rather see an acceptance that in many of us the desire to hunt remains a constant, close-to-the-surface itch, that must be scratched if life on this planet is to be of meaning beyond simply procreation.
‎
In summary it is not enjoyment/fun as many derive from multiple circuits of Bluewater ‎Shopping Centre on a Saturday but something far closer to the comfort and understanding those given of an accepted religion bath in an society, for the most part at least, affords both tolerance and respect.

Of course this may be different for you but for as long as one may legally shoulder a squirrel rifle I will continue to dive deep.‎

K‎
‎

I couldn't agree more.
What I don't agree with is the constant reference and lame excuse, and let's face it easily argued against, dough balls who constantly state they are somehow culling for the benefit of the species! If that was true then only shoot the deer that are under weight diseased or injured, oh and just let me check the photos on this web site to check all the deer fall into the aforementioned "cull" beasts? I think not!
For gods sake man up and take responsibility for taking an animals life for the thrill and excitement. All this tosh about being one with nature, if you want that arm yourself with a camera and enjoy the pictures!

 

[nun_hunter]

Right if I am going to spend much of my precious time on this subject I am going to have to do it properly and a "some" people think I am an idiot I hope this will help change their minds.

Over a 100 years ago now there was NO animal rights activists and every animal was fair game and up until the 60's there was No real legislation that protected an animal species, but, by the time legislation came in it was genuinely too late and the damage has been done. Now what we are left with in this country is a need for animal "control" and land management as there is no natural species to do it for us. I spoke to a gentleman one day in regards to having to cull back some of his deer and he asked the question "Am I doing the right thing?" I had to tell him unfortunately "Yes You Are", why did I give him that answer you may ask? Well! I took a walk through his 50 acre wood and saw because of so many deer over populating one place the land was so poached that his deer was starving to death even though he fed them daily. What he found was the animal kingdom doing what it was famous for, the biggest gets bigger the smallest starves. So in that sense of things it was more humane to cull of the beasts that were not surviving in the conditions he is providing for them.

I had a similar issue with a farm where the rabbits were so out of hand that the whole area was being destructed on a daily basis, after a years worth of every night shooting 20 or 30 I am now down to a management level of around 10 per night. I have no interest in killing them all off.

I shoot not to kill things but because I enjoy getting out of the house and being "At One" with the places I love the most, I like the solitude and I get enjoyment out of the challenge, the worst part of my job is the killing and I am happy to watch others do the killing. Now do I believe it is right to do what we do? Yes I do ! but I do not believe that right does not come with some responsibility and it is not a god given right to hunt when the need for hunting in modern times is NOT needed to put food on the table in MOST situations, however, We do have the responsibility to manage the mistakes of the past due to our ancestors "Over Kill".

In conclusion the biodiversity of the UK needs some sort of land and animal management, all the protective organisations (whether they admit it or not) do have some sort of cull management program in place, the reason why they do not publicise this is due to the hypocrisy of their own politics and the fear that their sponsors will stop paying (as with what happened to RSPB when they announced their deer cull figures a couple of seasons ago). If what we kill can be put back into the food chain then that's even better and as most of us that hunt either consume our own kills or put it into a game dealer that again makes what we do not for nothing. I think it is right that we go through certificates and training as that makes us responsible, I also agree on insurance again it shows we are willing to be responsible and professional. There is no other industry in the country that is as self regulated without legislation as we are, it is not compulsory to get trained to hunt likewise it is not compulsory to be insured to hunt and that's "our" choice not forced upon us. Ok we do have regulations on our firearms and what we can shoot but again, although frustrating at times, I agree with it.

I hope I have been able to explain myself ok

ATB

DT

If this is truly the case why don't you subcontract out the shooting or sell your rifles and take someone with you on the jobs where you have to be present and just buy a camera so you can still go out and be one with nature? By not admitting to the excitement and thrill obtained by a well placed shot on live prey brining about its swift and humane demise you're not going to convince anyone about your moral right to shoot animals for conservation.

 

[bogtrotter]

I couldn't agree more.
What I don't agree with is the constant reference and lame excuse, and let's face it easily argued against, dough balls who constantly state they are somehow culling for the benefit of the species! If that was true then only shoot the deer that are under weight diseased or injured, oh and just let me check the photos on this web site to check all the deer fall into the aforementioned "cull" beasts? I think not!
For gods sake man up and take responsibility for taking an animals life for the thrill and excitement. All this tosh about being one with nature, if you want that arm yourself with a camera and enjoy the pictures!

There speaks a man who knows nothing about how deer management is performed.

 

[Hereford]

Been following this from the start - am liking all the honesty, including the thrill of the kill which is now a proud elephant strutting its stuff - it is all justified and coherent.

Now the negative bit....

Call me and old cynic, but, as long as shooting is portrayed in the media as a toff's / wealthy / upper class / old boy network pursuit you'll be hard pushed to justify your sport to the many antis that are fuelled by this 'class' spin - the same concerted spin that saw the fox hunting ban.

Not only does the media cleverly dovetail into the vague fringe of animal rights, they pull the class strings as well which chimes with many people whose only knowledge of the countryside is what they're fed by television, paper and social media.

I'm afraid that (the topic of the moment), trophy hunting, the portrayal of upper crust pheasant shooting (like the Mirrors' articles' photos in a recent thread) and the estates debate in Scotland with the SNP's 'Robin Hood' plans, to name but a few, fuel the fire of the antis that look no farther than the end of their noses.

The sport MUST MUST MUST be portrayed in a more normal light by all responsible - that includes all the magazines we love who'll quite often peddle tweed and Range Rover on and between its covers.

We've all been a bit exclusive and up our own arses for a while now (rightly or wrongly). When you compare attitudes in other countries, you'll see there that hunting is seen as a 'normal' pastime - open to all and accessible by all - we don't have that kind of feeling in the UK.

All of the justifications work as far as I'm concerned - what you need to deal with is the skilfully deployed 'toff top trump' card which is the social acceptance deal breaker.

 

[Gzl]

There speaks a man who knows nothing about how deer management is performed.

There speaks a man who knows nothing about nature, and is all too willing to believe his own hype. Enlighten me with pearls of wisdom on why you deem it necessary to intervene with what nature takes care of on a daily basis? The clue is in the title " deer management"

 

[bogtrotter]

There speaks a man who knows nothing about nature, and is all too willing to believe his own hype. Enlighten me with pearls of wisdom on why you deem it necessary to intervene with what nature takes care of on a daily basis? The clue is in the title " deer management"

But nature doesn't take care of it,any area of ground can only hold a given amount of deer before they become over populated summer feed is not the problem its how much winter feed is available
resulting in starvation or at best surviving with an ever increased likelihood of disease,and an ever increasing lack of condition.

It could be argued that this is natural, but is it desirable I don't think so and neither would the general public if they saw the numbers of deer that can die in the winter especially in a Highland winter.

You are wrong that if we were really managing deer that we would only be culling the sick and the old, managing deer is about matching the population to the food available to them just to keep a population level stable you need to cull a third of the population annually, as that is the natural increase in numbers, you also need to keep the population right across the age spectrum to keep that right 60% of your cull needs to be youngsters (a year old or younger)

If a population is to high you need to alter it by culling females that is the key to number control

While culling the sick and old is part of it , it is only a small part there is much more involved in deer management, if as you suggest it doesn't exist and is only a term we use to make us feel better
why are so many of us employed to do it at no small expense.

Or perhaps the last fifty years of my working life have just been a waste of time.