Carl BrickeyMemberSeptember 14, 2016 at 1:57 amPost count: 105
I agree. I read it yesterday on my lunch break. I’ve only skimmed it again, but mean to re-read it.
“This means that a person’s life is not contingent upon his or her usefulness to us. This is what it means to treat someone or something as more than a means to an end, and I believe hunters already do this with animals and hunting.”
That statement stood out to me though. I hope that the majority of hunters see it this way, unfortunately, the few who don’t stand out to the non-hunting public like a festering sore on the face of hunting. Just my 2 cents.
Stephen GrafModeratorSeptember 14, 2016 at 10:48 amPost count: 2371
I didn’t like his treatment of those he didn’t agree with by calling them a “crowd”. You can disagree with people and say so in a philosophy paper, but you should leave name calling out of it. While “crowd” isn’t overtly insulting, it does have connotations that the word “group” does not.
While I would like to say the author is on the right track, his perspective on game animals is still stuck closer to Teddy Roosevelt’s “wildlife resource” end of the spectrum than to Aldo Leopold’s “land ethic” end of the spectrum.
I can’t support the previous statement with quotes from the article. I just get the feeling from reading it. It feels he doesn’t have empathy for what he is saying. It feels like a clinical treatment of something that should have metaphorical treatment.
These are superficial criticisms to how he delivered his message. My final comment is GOOD JOB!
Carl BrickeyMemberSeptember 14, 2016 at 12:38 pmPost count: 105
By “hunters who don’t see it this way” I meant non-ethical hunters, poachers, and canned killers. I apologize for not clarifying that and see how that was an overgeneralization to some extent. However, good point Steve, I hadn’t looked at it that way, as I’ve never read much TR, but have read some Leopold. Certainly peaked my interest on comparing Leopold and TR.
David CoulterMemberSeptember 14, 2016 at 5:10 pmPost count: 2270
I also have to open that article back up, but from the all too brief look I took the one thing that stands out for me personally is that hunting is such a holistic thing that I have a hard time cutting up into parcels. It’s a discipline, it’s a pleasure, it’s an adventure, it’s food, it’s exercise, it’s a large part of my spiritual expression, it’s our planet, it’s where we live.
I also get that there has to be a way to communicate what is important to save all this and putting it into something near and dear to all of us, food, might be the way.
I gotta take another look. I really do appreciate anyone who can speak to our issues with intelligence and eloquence.
All the best, david
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.