The recreational pursuit of hunting is under increasing scrutiny by the public at large and animal rights advocates in particular.
Every hunter should be very clear on why he (or she) hunts so as to be able to defend the morality of hunting with sound and logical reasoning. If you cannot do this, don’t hunt – you will bring the activity into disrepute.
Hunters are frequently questioned on the morality and ethics of hunting. Is it morally acceptable to hunt? We are generally quick to give an opinion, often just repeating – like well-trained parrots – what we have heard, without thinking about what we are saying.
Before we start making any rash statements on hunting ethics, we must first define the words we are talking about – “morality”, “hunting”, and “ethics”. What is “hunting” and what is its purpose? What are ethics? Answering these questions leads to further questions that also deserve consideration.
Morality is defined as: “Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior”.
A dictionary definition of “hunting” states that hunting is the pursuit of game (i.e., wild animals) with the intent of killing.
A definition of “ethics” is a little more difficult. Some alternative words for ethics will help to explain the meaning of the word: principles, morals, beliefs, code, or rules that govern behaviour.
“Hunting ethics” by extension is therefore a set of rules, principles, morals, beliefs, or code of behaviour which governs the hunter’s attitude towards the animal he (or she) is hunting and how he hunts.
To try and grasp what hunting ethics constitute, we have to look back into man’s history to understand what role hunting played in the daily life of man. Hunting was a means of procuring products necessary for survival. Meat for food, skins for clothing, bones for implements, sinews for bowstrings and cordage. Successful hunts meant people survived. Persistent hunting failure would ultimately lead to starvation or ill health, so hunting success would be measured only by being able to kill something to provide food and byproducts necessary for living.
Primitive man did not hunt for recreation – he hunted because he had to, to survive, and any means for bringing a hunt or trapping effort to a successful conclusion was therefore justifiable.
A bushman would not be plagued by conscience or moral issues if he had to shoot a gemsbok from a hide made from branches erected at a waterhole, or if it would take many hours for the arrow poison he made from Diamphidia grubs dug from beneath a “kanniedood” tree to take effect. In the present day and age, we hunt because we choose to do so, not because, in terms of physiological survival, we have to. So, we have to then ask ourselves two questions.
If we do not have to hunt, “Are we then justified in continuing with this activity?” It is, after all, no longer hunting for survival but has now become a recreational pursuit.
The second question that must be asked is “Do the same ‘rules of engagement’ apply, and if not, why not?”
Let’s translate our example of the bushman into a modern context. A “modern” bowhunter with the latest equipment gets lost on a hunting trip in the Kalahari – but really lost
After four days trying to reorient himself, he is still well and truly lost!
He has been fortunate in finding a small waterhole, so he has water but is as hungry as a horse. He needs food – not because it would be a nice to have but because it has now become a survival issue. He has some wire in a small survival kit and sets a snare on one of the game paths leading to the water. From some brush, he constructs a crude hide next to the waterhole (the only one within miles) and lies in wait for any animal to come and drink, which he has determined to shoot no matter what the species – critically endangered or not.
Just before sunset, a springbok comes to drink water. The only shot it presents is a frontal shot. The hunter takes it. Is he justified in using a wire snare, high-tech equipment, taking a frontal shot at last light, and hunting over a waterhole – of course, he his. He intends to kill because he must, to survive.
The “rules of engagement” in this scenario are very similar to those of the subsistence hunting bushman. Should the rules or ethics be different in the case of a bowhunter who is not lost and hunting for “sport”?
Here we face the first dichotomy – hunting for sport is not the same as hunting to survive. In the modern context and in terms of “pure” hunting, we do not hunt anymore. So what do we base our ethics and morality on?
Hunting ethics and morality are a complex subject and not easily definable in some simplistic terminology, such as “fair chase”, for example.
Hunting organizations like using the term “fair chase” as a way of defining their ethics. This term is questionable because the term “fair” is almost impossible to define. “Fair” would imply that the (sport) hunted animal has a 50/50 chance of getting away unscathed. Here, we must again draw a distinction between a sport-hunted animal as opposed to an animal that is hunted for survival purposes.
There is no moral obligation to be “fair” in the survival context. Any method is justifiable if your life hangs in the balance.
Unfortunately, the term “fair chase” must be exposed as the smokescreen and myth it is to placate a hunter’s conscience and/or to mollify the sensibilities of non-hunters. Animal rights proponents are not fooled by the term and expose it for its hypocritical leanings. This is stated because it is very difficult to define a “fair” contest between man and wild animal. In terms of bigger animals, they are generally swifter and stronger than we are and, in many instances, have senses better developed for survival in the natural environment.
On the other side of the “fairness” equation, which we are trying to balance, we factor in man’s intelligence and ingenuity. So we might not be as fast or as strong as the animal we are hunting, but we are probably smarter and use this capacity to “even the odds” with technology. But when we have in our hands a bow propelling an arrow or rifle pushing bullets at a velocity anything faster than the flight speed of an animal the contest is no longer “fair” but it may, at the same time be more effective and therefore more acceptable in terms of possessing the capacity to dispatch an animal quicker and more humanely than what would be possible with a more primitive weapon such as a knife, spear or arrow.
The greater the “challenge” aspect of the hunt (in the modern context), the greater the probability of causing unnecessary suffering (wounding) and the harder the activity becomes to defend on moral grounds (if we wish to accept the responsibility of being “moral” that is). Hunting with a high-velocity firearm must therefore be more ethical as opposed to hunting with a more primitive firearm, such as a bow, because (all things being equal) it is easier to kill an animal with a rifle of appropriate calibre than it is to kill one with a bow.
In the same context, a modern compound bow may also be regarded as being more ethical than a longbow. For those who say hunting with a bow is the most “humane” method of hunting I say “twaddle” for three reasons: 1) The person who makes this statement is merely repeating what he has heard or read somewhere without thinking for himself; 2) The statement defies logic; 3) He is not on the receiving end (of the arrow or bullet) to be able to pass judgment.
In terms of ethics, based on the moral responsibility of causing the least amount of suffering when killing an animal, shooting from a hide over a waterhole or feeding station must be more ethical than walk-and-stalk shooting. A statement bound to raise some hackles! But THINK for yourself logically for a moment. The number of animals wounded by walk-and-stalk bowhunters is significantly higher than those wounded by bowhunters shooting from a hide. Why is this so?
- In shooting from a hide, the distance is usually short range and generally known.
- The shot is open with few or no obstructions.
- The animals are usually not aware of the hunter.
- The animals more often than not at some stage present themselves appropriately for a side-on or quartering away shot.
- The animal is stationary.
- The animal comes to the hunter.
Remember now our term of reference is “the technique used which will result in the greatest probability of the animal being dispatched with the minimum amount of suffering”.
If the term of reference was “the technique which will give the animal the greatest chance of emerging unscathed”, then walk and stalk must be regarded as the most ethical hunting technique, but at the same time, it will result in the highest probability of suffering by more animals being wounded. So, in terms of “fair chase”, this might at first glance appear to be the more ethical way of hunting, but at the same time, it is less ethical than hunting from a hide because it is not the most effective technique. The two terms of reference often end up being a contradiction in terms, so there are no clear-cut answers. If all walk and stalk hunters disciplined themselves in such a way that the shooting conditions ended up being the same as when shooting from a hide at the moment the arrow was released or the shot fired, then this would be the more ethical technique. But things just do not work that way in the real world.
Walk-and-stalk hunters often become frustrated and impatient when their stalks are repeatedly blown (Figure 3) and end up taking shots under poor conditions and/or which are beyond their optimum range, which translates into higher wounding rates and greater suffering for the hunted animal.
The one thing that is said to set us apart from the animal world is that humans are “moral” creatures, which have the innate ability to differentiate between what is considered “right” and what is considered “wrong”. The crux of the hunting issue is that hunters have already taken a conscious decision to kill a living creature should the opportunity present itself. If they are comfortable with this decision, the next question that begs an answer is “how”, and the answer to this question will determine the way in which the hunter decides to dispatch the animal. Those termed “ethical” will attempt to do this with the least amount of suffering to the animal. Does this mean then that the hunter will be morally compelled to use the most effective equipment (scope mounted high power rifle over compound bow over long bow over spear over knife etc.), and method most likely to result in the quickest and most humane death of the animal (brain shot from relatively close range on foot (Figure 4), from a hide or, for that matter, a vehicle)?
Would this then detract from the “sport” (challenge) aspect of the hunt? Would the hunt then not be more enjoyable to the hunter if it provided a greater challenge (at the cost of a greater probability of being less “humane”)? What ultimately, is more important – the enjoyment (challenge) of the hunt or the limitation of suffering?
We may not yet have any clear answers as to what “hunting ethics” are, but we should have a clearer concept of what “hunting ethics” are not. Many of the popular notions and definitions of “ethical hunting” are a smokescreen, trite, superficial, simplistic, and deeply deficient.
We are strange creatures, are we not? We are inclined to avoid issues that sometimes nag at our consciences and brush them off, much as we would an unwelcome visitor. Yet the visitor has a habit of returning uninvited, arriving suddenly and unexpectedly to again confront us.
Continued in Part 2.
