On the Death of Hunting

Exposing the Big Game: Living Targets of a Dying Sport
BY JIM ROBERTSON

Literally, figuratively and statistically, hunting is a dying sport—it just hasn’t accepted that fact yet. Over the centuries, hunting in this country has been on a slippery, downward slope. It’s gone from being an almost universally practiced, year-round method of meat-gittin’ and “varmint” eradicatin’ (during the pioneering, God-given “Manifest Destiny” days that near-completely brought an end to the continent’s biodiversity) to the desperate, “sportsmen are the best environmentalists” perjury of present day—a laughable last-ditch attempt to stay afloat if you ever saw one.

Whether consciously aware of it or not, hunters, individually and as a well-funded whole, are in the process of grieving the impending demise of their favorite pastime. The question is, which stage of grief are they currently in, and more importantly, when will they finally give up the ghost and leave the animals alone?

If we apply the Kübler-Ross model (a hypothesis introduced by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book, On Death and Dying, commonly referred to as the “five stages of grief” including denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance) to the death of hunting, it would appear that hunters are somewhere between the first and the middle stage in their emotional journey toward acceptance. Kübler-Ross originally applied these stages to people suffering from terminal illness, later expanded this theoretical model to apply to any form of catastrophic personal loss, which could include job, income, freedom or some other significant life event. To a dyed-in-the-wool nimrod, the death of hunting definitely qualifies.

Known by the acronym DABDA, the five stages of the Kübler-Ross model include:

1)    Denial — “I feel fine.” “This can’t be happening, not to me.”

Denial can be a conscious or unconscious defense mechanism; a refusal to accept facts or the reality of the situation. This feeling is generally replaced with a heightened awareness of possessions that will be left behind after the death—in this case, after the death of their blood sport. For hunters, these possessions might be their beloved weapons, which they covetously cling to with Gollum-like obsession and zeal. Whenever the specter of gun control rears up after a mass school shooting, you can hear them breathlessly whispering, “My precious, my precious.” Denial is usually only a temporary defense for the individual, but some can become locked into this stage…

2) Anger — “Why me? It’s not fair!” “How can this happen to me?” ‘”Who is to blame?”

Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to be around due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Anger can manifest itself in different ways. For hunters, it’s usually directed toward non-hunters, especially environmentalists or animal advocates, but is often also directed against species they view as competition, such as coyotes or wolves. It is important to remain detached when dealing with a person experiencing anger from grief.

3)    Bargaining — “I’ll do anything for a few more years.” “I will give my life savings if only…”

The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow postpone or delay death (or the death of their favorite lethal hobby). Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Psychologically, the individual is saying, “I understand I will die, but if I could just do something to buy more time…” In the case of hunting, this negotiation is with the non-hunting majority and includes reinventing their persona, trying to sell themselves as “the best environmentalists;” pitching hunting as an admirable part of our heritage and trying to get laws passed to enshrine it; or recruiting women and young children into the fold.

4)    Depression — “I’m so sad, why bother with anything?” “I’m going to die soon so what’s the point?” or in the case of the hunter, “If I can’t have my beloved blood sport, why go on?”

It’s natural for the hunter to feel sadness, regret, fear and uncertainty when going through this stage. It is not recommended to attempt to cheer up an individual (or a hunting organization, such as the NRA or the Safari Club) who is in this stage, as these emotions indicate their acceptance of the situation.

5)    Acceptance — “It’s going to be okay.” “I can’t fight it, I may as well prepare for it.”

In this last stage, individuals begin to come to terms with their mortality or another tragic event, such as the loss of a loved one…or, for the hunter, the long-dreaded ceasefire in the war waged against the animals.

One of the most popular arguments for hunting is, “But humans are carnivores, we’ve always been hunters.” The fact is, human predatory behavior is killing the planet. The only way any of us are going to survive is if we lay down our weapons and return to our plant-eating origins.

Sound radical? Arthur Schopenhauer spelled out his own set of stages that undeniably applies here: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jim Robertson is a wildlife photographer and self-taught naturalist whose habitat is in the mountains of Western North America, beyond the reach of cable television and mercifully out of earshot of Sarah Palin’s daily sound bites. Living among the likes of elk, wolves and bears has led to a keen awareness of animals as individuals. Yet, with wildlife habitat comes the depraved concept of “sportsmen’s paradise” and the wanton evils of hunting. The painful loss of some of his cherished animal neighbors has triggered an evolution from outspoken animal advocate to all out anti-hunter.

_______

CODA/ Warning on Jim Robertson’s site:

HUNTERS BE ADVISED
http://exposingthebiggame.wordpress.com/about/

This blog site  is a haven for wildlife and animal advocates, a wildlife refuge of sorts, that’s posted “No Hunting,” as any true sanctuary should be. Just as a refuge is patrolled to keep hunters and poachers from harassing the wildlife, this blog site is monitored to keep hunters from disturbing other people’s quiet enjoyment of the natural world.

It is not a message board or a chat room for those wanting to argue the supposed merits of animal exploitation or to defend the act of hunting or trapping in any way, shape or form. There are plenty of other sites available for that sort of thing.

For your sake, I urge you not to bother wasting your time posting your opinions in the comments section. This blog is moderated, and pro-hunting statements will not be tolerated or approved. Consider this fair warning—if you’re a hunter, sorry but your comments are going straight to the trash can. This is not a public forum for animal exploiters to discuss the pros and cons of hunting.

APPENDIX

Ghastly distinctions without a difference

Note to Hunters Prepared by The Sierra Club, New Mexico
(The Sierra Club, Rio Grande Chapter*, like many enviro groups, justifies and endorses hunting)

Trappers like to say that if trapping with leg-hold and lethal traps is banned on public land, then hunting will be next. However there are some important differences between trapping and hunting.

Foremost is that trapping is not considered “fair chase” by ethical hunters. The Fair Chase rules were established at the turn of the century by men including Theodore Roosevelt to counter the over-exploitation of wildlife that was occurring at the time. Fair Chase is a way to place the hunter and hunted on a more equal footing and insure the outcome is sporting.

The hunter places himself in the prey’s environment and must be observant and stealthy to make a kill. In trapping, the animal is captured while the trapper is not even present and killed while it is restrained. It is illegal to hunt any animal in NM at night, but traps work day and night. Night is when animals are most active and vulnerable.

Hunters in NM may not use bait or scent attractants, but trappers may. Hunters are restricted by bag limits. Trappers are not. Hunters may donate their kills to the hungry, but they may not sell them. The point of trapping is to sell the animal’s fur.

No other wildlife if commercialized in this way- not fish, not quail, not deer, not elk. Ethical hunters will identify their quarry and take careful aim to insure a swift, clean kill. Trappers have no idea what will be in the trap nor how badly it will already be injured. The actual kill is brutal in order to not harm the pelt. Often the helpless animal is strangled to death with the catch pole. It may also be bludgeoned in the head and rendered unconscious, then the chest cavity stood upon to rupture the heart. Sometimes it is shot execution style. If a hunter kills or wounds an endangered or protected animal, it is called poaching and he will face steep fines and jail time. The trapper is not held liable in any way if his trap does the same thing. Being opposed to trapping on ethical and conservation grounds is not an anti-hunting position.
_______

* Like the river for which it’s named, the Sierra Club’s Rio Grande Chapter is comprised of five local groups covering New Mexico and West Texas. The region stretches from alpine tundra to Chihuahuan desert and everything in between.