Avoiding "Silent Fall": Ethics and the Future of Hunting
Avoiding Silent Fall; Ethics and the Future of Hunting was written by Derek Larson College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University, and published in 2012. The opinions in the article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect ours.
We summarized the key sections of the article (below) and the complete article
follows in PDF.
We summarized the key sections of the article (below) and the complete article
follows in PDF.
As fewer Americans hunt and the historic connections between hunting and subsistence fade from memory, it is becoming harder for hunters to explain their pursuits to non-hunters.
In part by portraying hunting as little more than brutal killing pursued for fun by ill-educated rural conservatives, anti-hunting activists have achieved in a few years what decades of demographic trends have only begun to hint at: a future threatened not by Rachel Carson’s ominous silent spring, but a “silent fall” no longer marked by the seasonal rituals of millions of Americans returning to the field in pursuit of deer, waterfowl, and small game.
Rising Opposition to Hunting; A spate of studies have indicated that somewhere in the range of 15–20 percent of Americans oppose hunting for wide a variety of reasons, a population at least twice as large as the total of all hunters in the nation. While one might assume the majority of those in the 15–20 percent of the population opposed to hunting fall somewhere near the middle of this spectrum, the rhetoric of the anti-hunters is often compelling and may attract more people to the extreme end of the spectrum over time.
In the court of public opinion hunters must also overcome an experiential gap in regard to this issue that anti-hunters do not face, as anti-hunting tactics are typically structured to produce emotional responses linked to common experiences with pets and other domesticated animals.
Anti-hunting advocates blend animal rights rhetoric with other antihunting positions to appeal to a broader audience and commonly rely on shocking images of dead animals, tales of unethical hunters, and heart-wrenching stories of orphaned fawns to generate public support for their positions.
In part by portraying hunting as little more than brutal killing pursued for fun by ill-educated rural conservatives, anti-hunting activists have achieved in a few years what decades of demographic trends have only begun to hint at: a future threatened not by Rachel Carson’s ominous silent spring, but a “silent fall” no longer marked by the seasonal rituals of millions of Americans returning to the field in pursuit of deer, waterfowl, and small game.
Rising Opposition to Hunting; A spate of studies have indicated that somewhere in the range of 15–20 percent of Americans oppose hunting for wide a variety of reasons, a population at least twice as large as the total of all hunters in the nation. While one might assume the majority of those in the 15–20 percent of the population opposed to hunting fall somewhere near the middle of this spectrum, the rhetoric of the anti-hunters is often compelling and may attract more people to the extreme end of the spectrum over time.
In the court of public opinion hunters must also overcome an experiential gap in regard to this issue that anti-hunters do not face, as anti-hunting tactics are typically structured to produce emotional responses linked to common experiences with pets and other domesticated animals.
Anti-hunting advocates blend animal rights rhetoric with other antihunting positions to appeal to a broader audience and commonly rely on shocking images of dead animals, tales of unethical hunters, and heart-wrenching stories of orphaned fawns to generate public support for their positions.
Another animal rights activist employs a common negative stereotype in an Animal People editorial entitled “Hunters Out of the Closet,” in which she relates the unpleasant story of an encounter with hunters in New York state that resulted in an exchange of obscenities. The editorial concludes that … there is growing psychological evidence attesting to the sexual insecurity of many and perhaps most hunters, whose aggressive posturing frequently covers for inability to relate in a mature way with women, reflected in a high divorce rate; whose fascination with weapons may symbolize repressed penile obsession; whose violence toward animals displaces sexually frustrated impotence, and whose evident preference for male companions is suggestive of repressed homosexuality.
Anti-hunters apply for hunting licenses themselves, or register nursing home residents for free senior-citizen hunting licenses in order to reduce the limited number of licenses actually available to hunters. Also, activists enter the woods before the hunting season and interfere with hunting.
There is no central source of hunting ethics, however, and standards vary considerably from place to place and between individual hunters. Consequently, what one hunter may feel is a legitimate (or even the only) way to hunt a particular species may violate another’s basic ethical precepts. The contemporary debate over the future of hunting has created an ideal atmosphere for hunters to come together and collectively formulate an ethical code that will apply to all conditions, species, regions, and practices, while seeking to address the issues that give rise to conflict with nonhunters. Hunting ethics have historically been learned by young hunters from older hunters, usually transferring from father to son in our male-dominated hunting society. Older hunters with more experience in the field can be both more.
A 1985 article based on a University of Wisconsin study of more than 1,000 hunters proposed a five-stage model for hunter development that predicts an evolution of hunting ethics as experience in the field increases. Writing in North Dakota Outdoors, Robert Jackson explained the five stages he identified as the shooter, limiting out, trophy, method, and sportsman stages of development. These stages portray the hunter as first measuring success by simply achieving a kill, then moving consecutively to maximizing the number of kills, and then maximizing the quality of kill, before becoming concerned primarily with the method of the hunt.
Hunting advocate and writer Ted Kerasote believes that hunters must take every measure possible to redefine the place of hunting in our culture in positive terms and to self-police their ranks to reduce the incidence of unethical hunting. He would extend the ethical guidelines of the Hunter’s Pledge to include some specific reforms of current practices that are most offensive to non-hunters (and, he believes, ethical hunters as well). These include de-emphasizing the record book and reducing the prominence of trophy hunting and speaking out against most forms of hunting competition, especially things like prairie dog shoots that reduce hunting to simply killing for a tally. Kerasote is especially adamant about the need to recruit more women as hunters and to make them feel welcome in the field. The traditional role of the male as hunter has been overstated, he believes, and involving more women in hunting may help alleviate the emphasis on competition between males. More pragmatically, he notes that “it is women who will vote hunting out of existence.”28 Some public officials have already taken note of these demographics and have instituted programs aimed at recruiting new women hunters, including the establishment of special women-only hunts.29 Recruiting large numbers of new hunters, male or female, also offers the opportunity for formal ethical instruction at the beginning of their hunting careers.
Opponents of hunting “have produced what amounts to a literature of loathing, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the anti-Semitic tirades of the 1930s.” He called hunting foes “rudderless people who would sabotage family tradition, common sense and the confidence derived from the hunting experience in a vain effort to achieve the myth of the Peaceable Kingdom.”
Eliminating, or at least dramatically reducing, the problems of poachers and “slob hunters” whose actions fuel anti-hunting arguments would further reduce the negative attention hunters currently attract. Anti-hunting groups would then have to rely even more directly on animal-rights language in opposing hunting, a tactic that has proven effective with only small numbers of people and would likely fail to motivate enough voters to further restrict hunting.
Anti-hunters apply for hunting licenses themselves, or register nursing home residents for free senior-citizen hunting licenses in order to reduce the limited number of licenses actually available to hunters. Also, activists enter the woods before the hunting season and interfere with hunting.
There is no central source of hunting ethics, however, and standards vary considerably from place to place and between individual hunters. Consequently, what one hunter may feel is a legitimate (or even the only) way to hunt a particular species may violate another’s basic ethical precepts. The contemporary debate over the future of hunting has created an ideal atmosphere for hunters to come together and collectively formulate an ethical code that will apply to all conditions, species, regions, and practices, while seeking to address the issues that give rise to conflict with nonhunters. Hunting ethics have historically been learned by young hunters from older hunters, usually transferring from father to son in our male-dominated hunting society. Older hunters with more experience in the field can be both more.
A 1985 article based on a University of Wisconsin study of more than 1,000 hunters proposed a five-stage model for hunter development that predicts an evolution of hunting ethics as experience in the field increases. Writing in North Dakota Outdoors, Robert Jackson explained the five stages he identified as the shooter, limiting out, trophy, method, and sportsman stages of development. These stages portray the hunter as first measuring success by simply achieving a kill, then moving consecutively to maximizing the number of kills, and then maximizing the quality of kill, before becoming concerned primarily with the method of the hunt.
Hunting advocate and writer Ted Kerasote believes that hunters must take every measure possible to redefine the place of hunting in our culture in positive terms and to self-police their ranks to reduce the incidence of unethical hunting. He would extend the ethical guidelines of the Hunter’s Pledge to include some specific reforms of current practices that are most offensive to non-hunters (and, he believes, ethical hunters as well). These include de-emphasizing the record book and reducing the prominence of trophy hunting and speaking out against most forms of hunting competition, especially things like prairie dog shoots that reduce hunting to simply killing for a tally. Kerasote is especially adamant about the need to recruit more women as hunters and to make them feel welcome in the field. The traditional role of the male as hunter has been overstated, he believes, and involving more women in hunting may help alleviate the emphasis on competition between males. More pragmatically, he notes that “it is women who will vote hunting out of existence.”28 Some public officials have already taken note of these demographics and have instituted programs aimed at recruiting new women hunters, including the establishment of special women-only hunts.29 Recruiting large numbers of new hunters, male or female, also offers the opportunity for formal ethical instruction at the beginning of their hunting careers.
Opponents of hunting “have produced what amounts to a literature of loathing, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the anti-Semitic tirades of the 1930s.” He called hunting foes “rudderless people who would sabotage family tradition, common sense and the confidence derived from the hunting experience in a vain effort to achieve the myth of the Peaceable Kingdom.”
Eliminating, or at least dramatically reducing, the problems of poachers and “slob hunters” whose actions fuel anti-hunting arguments would further reduce the negative attention hunters currently attract. Anti-hunting groups would then have to rely even more directly on animal-rights language in opposing hunting, a tactic that has proven effective with only small numbers of people and would likely fail to motivate enough voters to further restrict hunting.