|
|
|
Matt Hein / Philosophy / Hunting / | |
| ReAka Justifying hunting Short treatise Hunting handguide Principles to proper hunting/ justification. This is written as an extension to ReAka’s philosophy. Pretty much, it is a short treatise on hunting and its justification with a common sense with emphasis on the preservation of life. What is this? Mainly a field guide on judging when hunting is proper. There are four reasons to justify hunting, these contexts as provided below. 1. A Traditional, hunting culture must rely upon this. 2. Means for temporary survival or sustenance of a community (similar to above) 3. Recreation, but must be severaly limited, and state sanctioned. (see below) 4. Animal overpopulation and a need to maintain a lower count so diseases don’t spread. Reason three tends to be a difficult one to justify, and in respects to maintaining respect to nature, do not consider shooting animals to be a proper form of recreation. In the limited sense, this is to remove diseased animals (to prevent epidemic amongst flocks) or remove wounded animals from the field. (recreation in the sense for military training and a means of supplying certain provisions.) 4 describes animal overpopulation and is a common justification to a modern example of hunting that we may see today. With populations growing out of control, hunting should be allowed to skilled, knowledgeable people who can remove excess animals (in particular, large and aggressive ones) from the field in the most humane manner possible. In sone respects, this can be done by trapping and releasing the animals elsewhere, but mostly, this proves difficult, if not impossible so only one choice is allowed, lest epidemic eventually wipe out a considerable portion of the animal population. In the case of tracking populations, a state hunting assessor should be appointed to examine trends and deliver reports as needed. Presented threats- justify hunting a threatening animal, but only if it cannot be driven off by repreated nonlethal attempts and possesses motive to kill kin. section two Before we justify hunting, here’s something to take into mind. 1. ReAka states that animals are out equals, in both spirit and constitution. We are mammals as well, and should realize that life is the all important factor of existence. Animals have emotions and senses, and rights to live, like all of us. 2. Life is everything and must be preserved as much possible, removed only when absolutely necessary to preserve life. In general ReAka identifies nine rules that should be taken into mind when the context justifies hunting. 1. Hunt *only* that which is needed. (a typical outing should net one large animal, never any more. The spoils of such a hunt may last weeks or even a month or so until another outing is needed. Be considerate of what you actually need.) 2. Use everything acquired from the hunt. Bones, antlers, fur, you name it, use it! 3. Respect the animal population. Never overhunt or kill young animals. Doing so is immensely wasteful and ignorant and may stymie future populations. *1 4. Small animals with little amount of meat are not at all necessary to hunt. 5. Kill swiftly and in a humane fashion. Never, ever let a target suffer unnecessarily. 6. Avoid hunting endangered species. 7. Target the animal first for food, never, ever as a trophy or for furs. (See 4) 8. Observe any ordinances or seasons for hunting if you’re on private land. (if on private land, make sure you have explicit permission from the owners- this is a modern example) 9. Environs. Respect the natural surroundings around you. Leave the area the way you found it: absent of any evidence you were there. Nature does us a service by accomidating the hunter and least he can do is keep it clean of his presence long after he leaves. Simply put, many types vehemently oppose hunting for a variety of reasons, whether they are environmental concerns or simple empathy for animalkind as our equals. On reasons of morality, I’d agree that hunting in itself is dangerous and immoral to animal populations, but in the selected contexts above, can be shown to be beneficial to survival of both human/ animal races. in selected contexts. As in nature certain animals may acts as predators to other animals, we as humans are predators as well, with an exception being our intellectual advantages over such creatures. Some view this perk as an unfair advantage, but it’s important to rationalize why hunting is important on certain grounds. (addressing 4 and 3) Sportsmanship. Some view hunting as a vicious and cruel occupation, and I can agree with this as well, but some disgressions apply, particularly the morality of the hunters involved. A sound majority of hunters nowadays employ a strong degree of respect for the animals they hunt and only shoot the necessary amount they need with swiftness, in a sportsmanlike sense 1. These hunters are commonly selected by state lotteries, which are in place to control animal populations that could potentially flourish to levels dangerous for that population. relocation? Some rationalize this form of hunting to combat overpopulation, but I’ll disgress in certain cases. The most prudential way to move populations is by domestiation or non lethal trapping, then relocation. For certain species or numbers of them, this may prove next to impossible, and only in this case, should hunting be considered. When aiming to lower population counts due to overpopulation, focus attention on breeding (fertile targets), not young. 1 Must be done quickly, with minimal pain to the animal. Many view hunters as hard nosed, sadistic killers, and again I can agree with that, but only in certain cases. Tribes in third world regions such as the africas or the arctic in some cases are forced to rely on local animal populations to provide them with the sustenance of living. Now, on mere survival, are you a sadistic killer. It’s necessary to look at the other side’s situation to gain some perspective on that situation. Now, in a society based on agriculture (which eliminted nomadic life in the 99 percent range) hunting is no longer necessary unless we look towards the four reasons stated above. Shooting a target for furs/ appendages (e.g poaching)- This should be a byproduct of the hunt, not the target of one. Those who simply shoot animals for trophies but discard everything else are desecrating the animal and deserve to have their weapons and priveiedvged to hunt taken away. If necessary to hunt, at least use *Everything* that was acquired during the hunt. This incluides meat, hide, horns, fur, bones, etc. Doing so shows resourcefulness and a willingness to use as much as possible to preserve life. Fox/ small creature hunting - are abhorrent activities. As mentioned in the above, a good sportsman is one who fires upon a target in a humane fashion and uses everything they acquired in the hunt in a resourceful manner. This form of hunting however, violates these tenets in a shocking manner, by hunting foremost for trophies and in a disgustingly inefficient manner. small creatures are no means, a basis for provisions, even in the sense of fowl. Most notably, these hunters have a distinct advantage over their targets by sending packs of dogs after one or more targets, which go about shredding them to pieces. There is nothing humane, sportsmanlike or even resourceful about this form of hunting at all. Hunters usually take the furs (or what is left of them) or leave the carcasses to the dogs, which elicits barbarity. In regards to small creasture poaching, it is essentially the same as above, regardless of how you look at it! Now why people would go about killing hundreds of minks for pelts instead of a larger creature for sustenance as well as fur defies common sense. This brings us right back to tenet one. Life is everything, preserve it as much as possible, remove only when absolutely necessary. One life lost is better than a hundred lost, obviously. This is the sort of ethics that if instilled masively, would halt profiteering in the poaching sense. Common questions These are related to more modern examples, but reflect upon common sense answers. Furry rationale: all hunting is eviiiil! We have to stop it immediately. My response: Look towards indian culture, or any culture for counter proof to this. Hunting was integral to survival to cultures before the agricultural period, but still is today to cultures when drought or crop disease is present. Most of it is recreation, and what you may find abhorrant the next man will find acceptable. I think it’s important to look at hunting from other angles aside from a jaded, static point. There are perks to such activity, but the key is being respectable and realistic in such an endeavor. Read my nine tenets for some clarification. Furries: what about slaughterhouses My response: Pretty much, killing is hunting, and I do find this disturbing. As a society, I think the degree of respect in that area is dwindling to the point of ignorance. We should really look at this and realize that such bluntness is unnecessary. If a culture needs meat, I honestly think that they should get up and hunt for it, not shell out a few dollars for a hamburger and say that they’re proud supporters of moral hunting. That’s hypocrisy right there. The current rhetoric meat companies issue to this is nothing at all but simple obscurantism. The less people know, the better in their sense. Keep tabs on what you see, then realize for yourself what is necessary and what is not. I can easily go without the convenience of purchasing pre-killed meat from animals that don’t stand a chance and so can you. Another: industrialized societies can easily depend upon agricultural products and get along just fine. It’s been proven before and the respect for life there is greater. We may all be guilty of participating in the conspiracy, if you’d call is that, and there’s a million ways to justify it. (some will refer to the bible, yet I rarely use that source.) furries: Chicken! That’s meat too! My response: Yes, I know...that’s a hard one as well, and definitely something I’d have to will myself to stop eating. Now, I’m alright with eating a chicken that dies of natural causes after many years of living (or for that matter a turkey or any other fowl) but simply processing them on a conveyor belt scheme shows a disregard to life in favor of protifeering. I think a lot of us are blind on that context. furries: About traps, poisons that sort of thing. What’s your stance on that? My response: I find those methods of hunting to be quite cowardly and unsportsmanlike. They’re inaccurate (you can easily catch something you weren’t expecting, even an unsuspecting hunter or recreationist who may wander into one unwillingly) and they invoke excessive pain to their targets. (in the poison context, they are now unedible, and wasted.) Traps and hunting dog packs are also quite awful manners of hunting and show excessive disgregard for a humane, swift elimination of a target. I don’t think anything should ever die a death of being torn apart or having limbs snapped like a twig. Those images sicken me greatly. furries: What do you consider ‘honorable hunting’ I don’t believe in it. Community sustenance and occasional recreation as beneficial to the survival of a species. I exclude trophy hunting from my definition of honorable hunting unless the objective is to attain meat to sustain a family. Honorably hunting adheres to the nine tenets I outlined above, read them at your leisure. I’m confident that you will find them somewhat sensible, even for someone adamant in your position. Realize this and I’m sure we can see eye to eye, hopefully. furries: I see...next motive. Taxidermy/ furs. As I outlined in the nine tenets, hunt the animals for sustenance first, trophy last. I think it would be unwise and wasteful to discard furs from a hunt, and putting them to artistic use (as in sculpture/ apparel, jewelry, etc.) shows some creativity. For sustaining a popoulation, let’s say, furs can be invaluable for apparel such as burkas. They should never be viewed as trophies, but rather as byproducts of a successful hunt, and the honorable hunter will alert others to this ideal. When it gets down to huinting smaller animals but as foxes, let’s say or something even smaller such as a mink for their furs, well now that’s absurd. Even for sustenace purposes there are far more efficient venues. furries: overpopulation hunting. Does this extend to low sustenance animals, by any chance? I think relocation works to a better degree to small animals. For larger ones, regulated hunting may be more prudential. Some argue that the opposite is in fact true, but I don’t have field estimates, so I can’t be too sure there! Written as a compliment to ReAka’s philosophy. Other links of interest |
|
Primary content in this document is © Matt Hein. All other text, images, or trademarks in this document are the intellectual property of their respective owners. |
| |
©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR |