Today I turned on NPR and the Splendid Table was on. Not my favorite NPR program, I’m more of a “Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me”, kinda person. However, the guest was a cookbook author Jesse Griffiths. Never heard of him but as he started talking I knew I wouldn’t be jumping on Amazon to order his cookbook. I’m sure he is a nice guy and very sincere in what he believes but at the same time it was a little unsettling to try and follow his reasoning.
If you haven’t heard of him his latest book is “Afield: A Chef’s Guide to Preparing and Cooking Wild Game and Fish”. When I turned on the radio he was talking about the virtues of hunting. Nope, I won’t be buying his book.
Before I go into what he was saying I think I need to admit to the fact that years ago in my very unenlightened and unaware days I went hunting and yes, I shot and killed a pheasant. I am not proud of it and I really wish I could say that after taking the life of that beautiful bird I immediately realized what I had done and instantly became vegan. I didn’t. At the time I could quote you all of the reasons for hunting: it controls the animal population preventing animals from starving to death, it is better than going to the store and buying meat someone else killed, hunters actually care more about animals than most people…. and on and on. None of it true or logical but I didn’t know that at the time.
Anyway the thing that really grabbed my attention in the interview today was when he said that if someone isn’t emotionally impacted by hunting then they shouldn’t be doing it. He went on to talk about how it is important to respect that a life was just taken and that the animal did not know his day would end like this. Somewhere along the interview thanking the killed animal was mentioned. Now again, I do believe that this author was very sincere and that just like the way I thought so many years ago that hunting was natural, he really believes in what he does. What was hard for me to understand was that he appeared to know that the animal’s life had value and he was killing, not just hunting but killing an aware being that wanted to continue to live. And yet, to him, because it resulted in a meal it was justified. He talked about the importance of a good meal and how a good meal is about more than the food. Very sensitive but misses the fact that a sentient being that wanted to live, that may have others back home waiting on him or her to return, was killed purely to provide a dining experience.
I don’t know if I should be hopeful or saddened by hearing that interview. Part of me wants to believe that maybe hunters are starting to have more awareness of what they are actually doing. I thought I heard that somehow during this interview. Or maybe that is just what I want to believe. Or should I be saddened because a clearly intelligent and somewhat sensitive person can acknowledge the gravity of death but still believe it is justified as long as everyone enjoys the meal.
Nice post – for me the way we view hunting depends on the reason it was performed. Hunters who kill for trophies are very bad and I can’t find any sympathy at all. Obviously those who have little option but to catch prey due the lack of other food available must be seen in another light. Organised shoots for fun and profit are truly awful and cater to our basest instincts and must be stopped as soon as possible.
I think the point about traditional hunters holds – they certainly feel a spiritual and emotional bond with the hunted animal.
By: lowerarchy on September 17, 2012
at 2:56 am
I was just having a conversation like this with my wife. We drove past a turkey farm, not a huge factory, but a real-life farm, where the turkeys are outside wandering around, eating bugs. I started asking if that was better than Butterball. I guess I want to have a ton of arguments against eating meat, and my wife’s only answer was “whether it’s better or not, it’s still wrong.” I guess. . . I guess that if a person can appreciate that an animal has sentience, then maybe the jump to understand that it deserves that sentience isn’t very far. I’m heartened, and I think you should be too.
By: VegansHusband on September 17, 2012
at 4:37 am
The hunter/author’s views sound something like those the popular media blindly assign to all Native Americans: holding life sacred and yet feeling free to take it at the same time. Perhaps it makes him feel connected to nature in some way to consider an animal’s feelings before he ends them. Unfortunately, any awareness he has of an animals thoughts, emotions, and needs do not give him the right to end that animal’s life, no matter how sacred or hallowed he believes that moment, that life, that sacrifice, or whatever to be. Humans have been “hunter-gatherers” for as long as we know, but meat is no longer a required part of our diet. We have evolved, physically and mentally and medically, and now know that as hunter-gatherers what we hunt need no longer be flesh. Eating meat now is no longer a necessity, it is a choice, a habit, a preference. And ironically, this choice, which for centuries has involved us killing other things, is now resulting in our own deaths: heart disease, numerous cancers, Creutzfeldt-Jakob, obesity, the list goes on. Perhaps that is how this becomes sacred, Maybe that is why the taking of another life intended for human consumption deserves a moment of silence – in honor of the humans that may lose their lives as a result of that consumption. The world could be such a healthier, happier, more peaceful place if we simply made different choices, changed our habits, and developed new preferences.
By: Know Thank You on September 17, 2012
at 11:16 am
I, too, am perplexed at the rationale of “ethical hunters”. What truly baffles me is how someone can honestly believe that thanking the animal they are killing/eating somehow brings justice and peace to the animal on their plate. I touch on this issue in my blog post responding to the well-known NY Times contest challenging people to submit essays on why they believe meat is ethical, the post being located here: http://veganrabbit.com/2012/04/30/vegan-rabbits-response-to-new-york-times-put-your-ethics-where-your-mouth-is/
I think these people feel a sense of nostalgia, longing for a simpler time when people were more connected with nature, before industrialization and modern life became a reality. It’s almost like they are reverting back to their prehistoric ways, living off the land. There’s something to be said for that, but one can live off the land without taking the life of a sentient being.
If their goal is to get back in touch with nature, they should remember that nature is built upon evolution. We must constantly evolve to be better suited for our current time and place. Hypothetically, the world certainly cannot sustain nearly 7 billion people purchasing meat from farms (even pasture raised, grass fed, whatever whatever) and the world cannot sustain nearly 7 billion people hunting their meals either. This is why factory farms exist in the first place: people want a lot of cheap meat, fast. Even if hunters had their way and everyone hunted instead of bought, the earth still couldn’t sustain us simply because we want SO MUCH meat! We would massacre the whole animal population of the earth in only a few years, and would probably be right back where we started farming whatever animals were left. Meat is a food of the past. It’s time for our species to evolve.
By: Vegan Rabbit on September 19, 2012
at 5:39 pm
I really like your comment that “they should remember that nature is built upon evolution”. So many people point to the past or tradition to justify killing animals. I’ve never thought to respond with the point about evolution. Thanks!
By: Debbie on October 2, 2012
at 8:57 pm