A Closer Inspection of Non-Hunters and Hunters.

Remember this: Throughout the  years of hunting, social media as we know it today did not exist in the same form.

In the 'good old days' people came together for social functions be it hunting, dancing or celebrating some special occasion on a regular basis. Neighbors interacted and depended on others in their community while relying on hunting as a resource to provide food in good times and bad. Hunting was a social function and people physically spoke and interacted face to face. That is not done anymore.

If a hunter did claim wild game for food there was the option of tanning a hide or in later years mounting a trophy head. If someone came over to your house that is where you displayed your mount to others that you most likely were very close to. There would be no judgments except for the appreciation of the endeavors based on your time spent afield.

In the current age of media, photo sharing has become very present on social media. Anyone can post or present a photo of any subject no matter how pristine or vulgar the image may be. Depending on the individual psychological make-up or de-sensitivity of a person, how that image or subject matter therein contained will be ingested or processed is left to be seen.

In the past there was not an extreme pinpoint attack on hunting whereas now the evidence of such an attack is rampant. This has been increased by the availability of the internet and sharing sites. There are many arguments from both sides of the duck blind which requires close scrutiny. Before those arguments can be approached who are the players and why do they hunt? Why do they not?

For a moment let's take a closer inspection of people that do hunt. People hunt for many reasons. What prompts people to hunt? For all intensive purposes the reason people hunt is for food. That is a pretty basic fundamental human need. There are several scenarios that could lead to this. Let's imagine a few for a moment.

• There is an unemployed single parent that has a child or children but for reasons are denied the ever hated EBT food assistance program on the part of working people. Most people do not believe life is lived as a commune where one person does work while the other does nothing but eat off their back. They do not take into consideration the person in question may have a hard time getting back on their feet or even feel they are entitled to help these people. This is because most people think the charity case should be achieving in their timeline and considerations. Other than stealing out of peoples gardens, shop lifting, or taking the ornamental cabbage at the local bank that has been so nicely landscaped: hunting is an option to explore. This parent would probably forego the problem of what other people think at learning to hunt. In order to feed their children, hunting solves starvation. The dilemma here in their psyche would be: I have to kill something to feed my children. Who is more important? My children or the animal in question. If there is no other workable option to supplement nourishment what one believes could be over-ridden to provide for the family.
• Due to an abundance of farmed livestock, processed meats are readily available at the grocery stores. Unfortunately there are many reports that processed livestock that are not free range might be providing questionable health problems due to antibiotics, feeding habits, and processing techniques. The discerning health nut may turn to eating just vegetables while excluding meat. Then again the option of hunting wild game and solely living off of the food you hunt brings a wider health benefit while supplementing with free ranged livestock that are only farm raised.
• A person may decide to take a vacation on a planned hunting excursion. The goal is to hunt a specimen that is worthy to be food, a trophy for appreciation and nostalgia, and memories. Even when a person is hunting the idea of food is at the front of his/her unconscious. You do not want to kill a diseased animal because what would you do with the meat? You can't really eat the meat. You would only be doing a mercy kill and keeping others of that species from becoming infected unless the problems are based on old age.  The problem herein would be the treatment of the body.
• A person is employed with a conservation agency. The employee has been directed to hunt and terminate X amount of a species for the delicate balance on a plot of land.
• A farm owner has a herd of cows that have been menaced by pack animals or the individual varmint. He decides to protect his herd of cows by trapping, tracking or hunting.

Even though each situation is not covering all the reasons or ideas on 'why' people decide to hunt it can set the stage for a discussion for each situation. This kind of conversation is more appropriate because it is not single or feeble minded. People at times live their lives like mules with blinders on. They only think and go one way. Why would a person decide not to hunt? Give that not all non-hunters are vegans should be taken into consideration.

• There is an abundance of meat and vegetables available at the grocer. The individual does not want to know how food is processed but only wants the food to be readily available while no questions are asked. As long as they don't see what they consider  is a 'murder scene', decide not to dwell on the details only the outcome: food on the plate.
• The individual decides personally eating meat is not for them but doesn't condemn hunting.
• Due to some previous trauma an individual decides that they do not believe in the slaughter of animals but eats plant material only. Even though the vegan has more reverence for animal life because the mentality is that animals are equal to humans. Plants are like objects without a life force yet feeds animals/people to help them maintain life. In this situation it seems the individual doesn't have a full grasp on the necessity for sustenance to maintain an optimum level of life.
• People who are detached emotionally from human relationships for psychological reasons. They maintain animals are basically pure because animals are instinctual and simple. Animals give love freely and unconditionally without making demands on them. They believe animals are helpless and oblivious to the fact that animals kill one another or people. The person that has no reverence for human life or their own because they exhibit self hate. Animals are elevated above human life and would be willing to take part in terrorist like activities to satisfy their open ended agendas. This kind of person would kill all humans and let animals take the world regardless of real life animal behavior.
• Persons that only eat plant material but holds the belief that all life on planet Earth can eat the same kind of uniformed food regardless of nutritional requirements, there will be no fighting or killing within or outside of species, no living thing shall eat another, and basic universal harmony through non violence from birth until death.

The main goal into this inquiry is to take a look at a particular vantage point from the differing sides. Given these simple examples non-hunters are driven more by emotional and psychological reason but reject biological instincts to hunt for their food in the wild. Hunting is rejected as a part of the self or the identity.

Hunters are driven by instinctual needs for food but vary in concept based on emotional and psychological reasoning. Basic biological instinct is not rejected but accepted as a part of the self and the hunter identity.

The crisis lies in the suggestion by both sides that the perspectives of the other are flawed and how this perspective is addressed or handled.

Could it be that non-hunters are trying to make up for a guilt where the human population has exploded hence strangling out wildlife and their lands? Is it so that hunter's are stewards of that ever decreasing space trying to manage the wildlife on it? Does there lay a possibility of compromise on each groups' behalf to come to a civil agreement without a winner. These are reasonable questions. Could there be better questions: yes.

If the argument is more important than finding a solution then the "cause" is just an illusion to help perpetrate a pointless never-ending war.
Its worth a closer inspection but there are other topics to explore.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~