Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Ethical or not? 1376 yard elk by a 12 year old

One of Ortega y Gasset's main points is that once we bypass an animal's natural survival instincts with our technology, then we're not hunting but just killing: “The confrontation between man and animal has a precise boundary beyond which hunting ceases to be hunting, just at the point where man lets loose his immense technical superiority—that is, rational superiority—over the animal.”

Ringman,

Actually, that very concept was discussed long before laser rangefinders appeared. You may or may not have heard of a little book entitled MEDITATIONS ON HUNTING written by a Spanish hunter and philosopher named Jose Ortega y Gasset in the 1930's. It's most famous for this comment: "One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted."

But Ortega y Gasset also wrestles with technology, partly because he acknowledged that by the 20th century hunting wasn't essential to physical existence of most humans. Instead it had become a more ritualized activity, even though many of us also value and eat game meat.

Here's another short quote from the section on modern hunting technology, which obviously wasn't as advanced in the 1930's as the 21st century. One of Ortega y Gasset's main points is that once we bypass an animal's natural survival instincts with our technology, then we're not hunting but just killing: “The confrontation between man and animal has a precise boundary beyond which hunting ceases to be hunting, just at the point where man lets loose his immense technical superiority—that is, rational superiority—over the animal.”

Some hunters would counter that any technology more complex than bonking an animal over the head with a rock bypasses the animal's survival instincts, so in order to be ethical we should be restricted to hunting with hand-held rocks, because even a club is "rational superiority."

But that's not the point, precisely because non-survival hunting is more of a ritual with nature than a basic physical need. Ortega y Gasset is saying that while we don't need to kill an elk in order to keep from starving, we still need to interact with an elk's survival instincts in order to be hunters rather than mere killers.

The question of what's ethical (and not just in hunting) has been debated by humans for thousands of years, and goes far beyond the typical Campfire debates, which tend not to be debates but pronouncements, such as:

"My hunting method is legal, so it's ethical."
"What does what some dead Spaniard wrote have to do with today?"
"Is too."
"Is not."

Probably the most practical observation in this entire thread is we need to teach kids to shoot well so they can kill cleanly. However, I'd sure want any of my kids to be capable of hitting a bull elk more than 50% of the time.

However, Ortega y Gasset's essay isn't about subsistence hunting. Instead it's about is generally called "sport" or "recreational" hunting, even though we often eat the meat and it may even help us get by economically. If I had to get some meat to avoid starving to death, then I'd use whatever means possible. But that's not what we're discussing, so claiming using technology is OK, because humans have always used technology for obtaining meat, is irrelevant.

So, where does fair chase begin.

smokepole,

Since Mule Deer's post is declared "Great" I will declare this one "Stupendous and Magnanimous!"

To the group:

For the recreational hunter. Does fair chase only exist when the animal has the opportunity to escape capture or death? If so then Stuarts Pig adventures are the only example of fair chase that has been presented so far. In that many here only shoot when the outcome is a given.

I'm more interested in hearing how close I need to be before I'm actually hunting.