Details and order information at: www. Already a subscriber? Sign in. Thanks for reading Scientific American. Create your free account or Sign in to continue. See Subscription Options. Discover World-Changing Science. Get smart. Sign up for our email newsletter. Too much emphasis on management can take away the fun. Just as too much focus on antler size diminishes the other reasons we hunt, including for meat, memories, camaraderie and more.
Bullying has no place in the world — anywhere. That goes for hunting, too. Unfortunately, it causes some people to stop hunting. So much so, in fact, that some hunters report quitting after a really bad experience with this. Not to make light of that, but eventually, it happens to everyone.
As overall deer populations and herd age structures decline, hunters tend to become disheartened. When it gets to a certain point, it can lead to a level of discouragement that causes hunters to completely lose interest. Technology has greatly changed hunting throughout the past 20—30 years. Each season, this seems to continue at exponential rates.
The trail camera is a prime example. This item alone has taken much of the mystery out of deer hunting. Before, you wondered what was on a given property. Now, if cameras are used correctly, you almost always know. In the past, hunters rarely dealt with disease in whitetails. From epizootic hemorrhagic disease EHD to chronic wasting disease CWD , hunters are seeing declining deer populations in many areas. This too is disheartening. Everyone reacts differently, but it oftentimes causes a red-meat allergy, preventing them from eating meat, including venison.
Fortunately, it can dissipate or completely go away in time. But some try to make it seem that way due to their egotistical tendencies.
Unfortunately, this can deter new hunters, even causing them to quit. And so, some people choose not to hunt. As digital and social media continue rising in popularity, hunters continue to see more pushback from anti-hunters. That can be mentally taxing for some, and at times, they cave to the pressure. While things happen, these things and more are perceived as threats much greater than they are, though. This can come in the form of threats, or physical violence.
Hunters are more likely to be injured from a treestand fall than any other risk in hunting. The hunting industry has done a lot of good. A commonly overlooked reason is hunters who go off to war. Sometimes, these soldiers experience very traumatic events, which cause them to be unable to shoot or be around firearms without negative emotions and reactions.
Many hunters hunt for the camaraderie with family and friends. The time spent with loved ones is a major reason they do what they do. When this happens, it can lead to a reduced desire to go afield. One of the saddest things anyone can experience, but everyone does, is declining health. It keeps people from doing the things they used to do, and the things they love, including hunting. As people get older, they oftentimes stop doing the things they did before, whether they have health problems or not.
They just mellow out and stop doing what used to interest them. Hunting can be as laid back or as laborious as you want it to be. But it takes work, regardless of where one falls on that spectrum.
Some hunters report losing the excitement that seeing a deer — even a big buck — provides. Hunters see the act of stalking and killing deer, ducks, moose, and other quarry as humane, necessary, and natural, and thus as ethical.
Critics respond that hunting is a cruel and useless act that one should be ashamed to carry out. As a nonhunter, I cannot say anything about what it feels like to shoot or trap an animal. But as a student of philosophy and ethics, I think philosophy can help us clarify, systematize, and evaluate the arguments on both sides.
And a better sense of the arguments can help us talk to people with whom we disagree. One central question is why people choose to hunt. Environmental philosopher Gary Varner identifies three types of hunting: therapeutic, subsistence, and sport. Each type is distinguished by the purpose it is meant to serve. Therapeutic hunting involves intentionally killing wild animals in order to conserve another species or an entire ecosystem. Subsistence hunting is intentionally killing wild animals to supply nourishment and material resources for humans.
Agreements that allow Native American tribes to hunt whales are justified, in part, by the subsistence value the animals have for the people who hunt them. In contrast, sport hunting refers to intentionally killing wild animals for enjoyment or fulfillment. Hunters who go after deer because they find the experience exhilarating, or because they want antlers to mount on the wall, are sport hunters.
These categories are not mutually exclusive. A hunter who stalks deer because he or she enjoys the experience and wants decorative antlers may also intend to consume the meat, make pants from the hide, and help control local deer populations.
The distinctions matter because objections to hunting can change depending on the type of hunting. Critics often argue that hunting is immoral because it requires intentionally inflicting harm on innocent creatures. Even people who are not comfortable extending legal rights to beasts should acknowledge that many animals are sentient—that is, they have the capacity to suffer. If it is wrong to inflict unwanted pain and death on a sentient being, then it is wrong to hunt.
If sound, the objection from harm would require advocates to oppose all three types of hunting, unless it can be shown that greater harm will befall the animal in question if it is not hunted—for example, if it will be doomed to slow winter starvation. But if inflicting unwanted harm is necessarily wrong, then the source of the harm is irrelevant. Logically, anyone who commits to this position should also oppose predation among animals.
When a lion kills a gazelle, it causes as much unwanted harm to the gazelle as any hunter would— far more, in fact. Few people are willing to go this far. Today, it is hard to argue that human hunting is strictly necessary in the same way that hunting is necessary for animals. But sport hunting, almost by definition, cannot be defended this way.
0コメント