A unit of Lasting Forests Sustained forests; sustained profits evolving since March 30, 1999

Life Along a Continuum

We have to talk. We just have to talk about anti-hunting. In a country where individual freedom is respected, where resources are used, where a frontier history is respected, where free speech is encouraging-we just have to talk. I have a feeling that the anti-hunting groups and concept are like sex in Victorian times. We don't talk about it.

I do not want to talk to some people about some things. I'm narrow-minded. I suspect I'm not alone. Maybe hunting or not hunting is one such topic. Maybe this is a non-discussible topic, one like denominational religious beliefs. Perhaps there are other dimensions or aspects that can be discussed. The scientist in me suggests that there is an hypothesis here than can be tested.

I have no preconceptions about such talks. It need not be a debate, for there is no judge and we have not yet formed" the question "and both sides have not agreed to the debate or for the rules for it. Let's not debate. Let's just talk. Emotions are high and easily stimulated. There are not two "sides", but several, and they shift. The discussions are rarely any fun because they can be emotional; no one really likes to make another person angry, to find ground where discussions are impossible or unwelcome, to create frustration that result in inefficiencies and perceived needs for costly counter-activity just to regain a place, one not desired in the first place.

The phrase "anti-hunting" is a call to arms. It itself is inflammatory. I do not like to be called "anti" anything. I'd rather make up my own mind, thank you. If I must wear a name tag, I'd rather select the one I prefer-the pretty green one with "Bob Giles; Citizen, Earth."

Some people like to talk about religion. Others do not. Some people will talk about religious beliefs, compare them, study their parallels, seek their sources, record their history. Some people have "revelations" and they like to talk about them. There are some things discussible and some things not. I do not invite into my home everyone who appears at my door wanting to discuss religion with me. I imagine that there are few who do so. I'm not sure how I would find out how many such people that there are. I suspect a questionnaire would suggest that there are more open doors than really exist. It is very difficult to ask a good, clear question, one that will yield an unbiased answer.

I'm no longer sure what the question should be, the one for which I once felt that I needed an unbiased answer. I now believe that people exist along a continuum of beliefs. There are no simple categories like 1 to 5, but all possible places along a scale from 0.001 to 5.999. Maybe I'm 1.63 and you're 4.24-don't call me a 2! Don't call me a 4!

The continuum is as follows. I do not yet have any hypotheses of how many people are in each category related to their attitude toward hunting. The words are new categories, just like the old yes or no, but I'm trying to suggest that there is likely to be a smooth line, a unique place, probably, for every individual to stand between the outer limits.

I. I am an avid hunter. I go hunting at least 8 of 10 years for meat and "success."

II. I am an avid hunter. I go hunting at least 8 of 10 years for trophy animals.

III. I am an avid hunter. I go hunting at least 8 of 10 years for social reasons, to remain a member of one or more social groups (family hunts, hunt clubs, etc.).

IV. I do not hunt but I legally shoot deer. I have to because they are destroying my crops or forests.

V. I have a gun and I think about going hunting.

VI. I do not have a gun, but I think about going hunting.

VII. I have a gun but know I'll not go hunting.

VIII. I do not hunt but I am glad that others do (for whatever reason(s)).

IX. I do not hunt but have no opinion one way or another about whether others do so or not.

X. I do not hunt and I wish others would not do so, but I tolerate it for I realize that some animals need to be removed because of ecological or financial reasons.

XI. I do not hunt and I wish others would not do so but I tolerate it for I realize the economic importance of related sales of extra lodging, food, travel, and equipment.

XII. I do not hunt and I wish others who do so would not engage in certain practices or hunt certain animals.

XIII. I do not hunt and I wish (for various reasons) others would not do so.

XIV. I do not hunt and I participate in various limited ways to reduce or prevent hunting.

XV. I am opposed to hunting and actively participate in ways to prevent hunting.

As we struggle with the Continuum with 15 classes or types we realize that it is not a simple line with a point on which we, personally, may stand. There are other dimensions of time and place?; what species?; is trapping parallel or equal? Is opposition of hunting to the method and means, to the people who engage, to their habits, to fear of human casualties? Perhaps for some people the topic is death itself and whether it may be caused by people.

I went to India to study with one of my students the beautiful blackbucks, an antelope. Along the road were hundreds of people walking to a festival. Several wore thin white veils across their face. I was told this was the traditional garb of the Jain. Wearing the veil originated from a desire never to kill anything, even to prevent inhaling and killing an insect.

In a Louisiana wildlife area on bucks-only days, M.K. Johnson (1982) found that hunters seemed to have the atrocious behavior of shoot-first then look. He found that almost half of the hunters on the public area (48%) were probably taking antlerless deer illegally.

As deer populations increase and hunters decrease, the strong tendency to take the first deer seen -- any deer -- will decrease. Hunters of all types and attitudes need to control themselves and to talk-down illegal takes. The shoot first, look later tendency is part of the problem with hunter casualties and deaths. We need much more caution. By carefully selecting deer and by sophisticated management, more deer can be taken by more hunters because the right deer are taken. The anti-hunting public can (and should) use these statistics, not those about illegal and unsafe shooters.

Deer hunters need to engage in a conscientious, concerted effort to clean up these behaviors -- that are bad for people, deer, the resource, and for hunting itself.

We all probably exist somewhere along the continuum. Some of us probably see ourselves in some region or zone along it, not a point. Some people claim that positions are frozen. I've seen too many people change their position for too many different reasons to accept this. This observation strengthens my desire and willingness to talk. There are plenty of ways to reduce conflicts in this world that do not require conquest or subjugating people. Perhaps we can overcome together some of the things that offend us. Then life may be of higher quality when lived along the continuum.

This Web site is maintained by R. H. Giles, Jr.
Last revision January 17, 2000.