Friends of the Moose

This Post could also be called Arm the Moose,  and I will no doubt offend some people, but you can’t please everyone.

I just do not get hunting. Actually I never have.

What is proven by taking high powered modern weapons, and using them to blow away animals in their natural habitat? How does this make a man more manly? How does this demonstrate any sort of ethical behaviour as a steward of the planet? In my complete biased view, it does exactly the opposite.

It certainly may demonstrate skill in the act of sneaking covertly about in the bush, and also in the precision of shooting. There is also the wonderful fellowship which participants report that they enjoy. All that is arguably commendable. But it is the obsession of the kill that we are talking about here, not the window dressing.

In secular terms, people today are usually obsessively concerned with fairness in all things. Without entering the debate about the appropriateness of fairness, how can killing animals as they stand unaware in the wild be considered fair. Thus we have my subtitle of Arm the Moose. Or let the hunter hunt with a knife and naked. That would be closer to ‘fair’.

There was most certainly a time historically when hunting was a necessity of life. In that context it was wholly appropriate, and I definitely get it. Today, however, that is not the case.

Today it is not a necessity either in term of survival, nor in terms of providing male identity. If it is, then the associate definition of identity is pretty trivial indeed. This could lead us to the whole area of Male actualization – expressed 20 or so years ago in the Male New Age movement, and repackage very successfully recently in the Eldridge phenomena. We will deal with that in due time, but suffice to say that it is not a justification.

In Christian terms, I do not see it as good stewardship, since it is not a necessity for survival, nor for successful character actualization.

Now, am I saying that shooting itself is a problem? Not at all. I see nothing inappropriate in target shooting, sheet shooting, and so on. I am also neither an NRA aficionado, nor a vehement gun control advocate. Lastly, I am not saying that you shouldn’t shoot the bear that is about to attack you.

So there we have it. The guns are on the table, to be issued to all Moose. Once that is done, I don’t think that I would object to the hunt at all!

Comments ( no shooting, please)?


6 thoughts on “Friends of the Moose

  1. Andrew

    When oil runs out hunting will be a darned good skill to have. I do not have this skill, so I will be a forced vegetarian. My only real hope is to get invited out to dinner by the people who do poses the hunting skills.

    I agree that if you shoot the animal and leave it then that’s ethically irresponsible from a stewardship point of view. However, if you take the animal and eat it, then that’s an entirely different story. Allow me to explain.

    In Genesis 9 God gives man animals to eat. In the N.T. Jesus declares all food to be ‘clean.’ Therefore, we don’t have to be vegetarians. So, you wanna eat meat, do ya? Well, someone’s gotta kill it. It may be at a slaughterhouse, or out in the wild. Either way you can’t spell ‘slaughterhouse’ without ‘laughter’. I mean, either way, the animal dies without defense. (Actually, the animal has greater defense in the wild than in a controlled area. It can run and hide, or simply run and get away.) If you don’t hunt the animal yourself, someone else has to in order for you to have the meat.

    So, in between the time you think to yourself “I want some meat,” to the time you are eating the meat, an animal has to be killed; by either you or by somebody else.

    I’m with out on this one; let somebody else do it.

  2. kwilson Post author

    No question about it, if you are going to eat it someone has to acquire it for you. My difference I think is in the ‘sport’ in it. I see no sport, and I have a real problem understanding the pleasure in the act of killing.

    While I fully realize the realities, and one could rightly tell me to remove my rose coloured glasses, I have to differentiate between the act of necessity and pleasure in the act.

    As an example, did the priests in ancient Israel take pleasure in the necessity of slitting the throats of the sacrificial animals. Maybe some did, but I have trouble conceiving that was part of the devine model (for a lot of reasons).

    It is an interesting discussion, and I certainly don’t have the complete answer, which is why I don’t express an opinion on allowing it. I just don’t “get it”.

  3. cnaphan

    I don’t agree with “sport hunting” but obtaining a portion of my meat supply from the wild is very appealing to me, either through fishing, bird hunting or big game hunting. We have laws to ensure that hunting does not hurt the supply of animals, but usually helps it remain stable. (Natural animal populations will tend to have peaks and valleys)

    As for using “high-powered modern weapons”, it’s more merciful to the animal. It’s rare to get a quick kill with a homemade bow-and-arrow.

    I am, however, against killing for “trophy” animals, which shows disrespect for life and a bizarre fascination with the size of the animal or the antlers or whatever. Pulling a big fish out of the water is thrilling, mind you, but it’s going in my belly, not my wall.

  4. cnaphan

    Oh. Most of your reasons would apply to sport and non-sport hunting. Like it not being a necessity. Farmed animals will always be cheaper, for instance.

    It’s like canoeing. Once upon a time, it was necessary and a lot of work. But it was fun then. Now, nobody needs to canoe. But it’s still fun. People don’t canoe to prove they could be a Voyageur or a Mohawk Indian. It’s just fun, like it and hunting always have been. Mind you, canoeing doesn’t kill animals, but most people do not have a problem with killing animals.

  5. Pingback: There be guns… « Extemporaneous Ramblings

Leave a Reply