WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 1

Module # 1 – Component # 1

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

! "
# $ % # &
"

Foreword by WildlifeCampus

This course differs in a number of respects from the usual format employed by
WildlifeCampus. Firstly, as the above note explains, it’s origins is a Masters Thesis,
and not a specific training course. Thus the format of writing (deliberately not
adapted) is frequently one of the 1st person expressing the authors own viewpoints
as he attempts to clarify certain arguments and issues.

The style of writing is also quite different from what you may have previously read
in other WildlifeCampus courses. Since the author does not come from a natural
science background and the fact that the material has not been materially changed
from it’s Masters Degree format, some students may find the material challenging.

WildlifeCampus does not take a specific viewpoint or position in this course,

and we do not attempt to influence or sway the reader in any specific direction.
The subject matter is emotive and controversial, but important. Hunting, in many of
its forms is frequently mentioned throughout a variety of our other courses, and thus
a thorough exploration of the topic is relevant to the WildlifeCampus student.

The course itself attempt to portray a balanced view of the hunting debate. Both
the pro-hunting and anti-hunting perspectives are examined in their own words and
on their own terms. We trust that you’ll be able to reach your own informed
conclusion.

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 2

Introduction

In few other environmental debates is the moral ambiguity surrounding choices of

ethical responsibility toward nature and non-human beings more palpable than
in the debate surrounding Trophy Hunting. An overview of this debate reveals the
epicentre of environmental conflict between what are broadly defined as the main
categories of preservationism and conservationism1, and exposes the plurality of
environmental values inherent in what is essentially a moral debate.

Arguments from a preservationist (also referred to as protectionist) perspective

may be regarded as entailing elements through a spectrum from deep ecology to
ecocentrism (having a focus on environmental concerns), which characteristically
require a certain purist approach to preserving ecosystems and habitats, with
minimal or no human interference.2 Preservationism assumes a notion of intrinsic
preciousness, fragility and eternality that needs to be preserved without disturbance,
and assumes that the actions of humans have an intrinsically harmful effect for
the environment if not curtailed in some way, by excluding certain areas or putting
them off limits to human activity. It therefore implies a distinction, or dualism, between
nature and man, purity and impurity.3

Conservationism, on the other hand, while similarly recognizing the harmful effects
of human activity on the environment, argues from an anthropocentric
(Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience) perspective
and assumes that the best way in which to safeguard the environment is to
treat it as sustainably as possible given that humans are less likely to
completely destroy ecosystems if they see them as a valuable resource which
is able to bring immediate and practical benefits to them. It assumes that the
best way to do so is through direct human action in the form of management and
sustainable use of natural resources.

Within and under these two main categories, I identify sub-categories of views and
theories from the perspectives of sustainable utilisation, animal rights, animal
liberation, the natural sciences of biology and ecology, utilitarianism, economics,
religion and sociology, all of which are expressed and used to justify or condemn
hunting on a moral and/or ethical basis.

' ())*+(,(-(,) .
" /
! 0 1222+*),-324 " ! 0
5 "

"
6 7 . ""
6 7 8 8 "
! 1222+19,-19)"

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 3

The Arguments

The motivation for writing a course on trophy hunting was born out of recognition of
the validity, in context, of certain points and arguments on both sides of the
hunting debate. I say in context because an argument in favour of trophy hunting
based on projected economic benefits for the environment and local communities
presupposes an acceptance of the utilitarian (having a useful function) context
within which the argument is put forward. As soon as one begins to question the
basic assumption of the argument, namely that purely economic consequentialism
(specifically profit maximisation as opposed to lesser lucrative options) is a priority
when making decisions affecting wildlife, the force of the argument diminishes. This
questioning leads to the idea that other values have an equal claim to
consideration when making decisions affecting wildlife and our relation to the
environment, at least on the theoretical level.

Similarly, an argument against trophy hunting on the grounds that it is morally

objectionable to kill for recreation presupposes a uniform acceptance of a
theory of natural rights (for example, one that is grounded in an ethical theory such
as Humane Moralism)4 as the context within which the objection is made, as well as
an assumption surrounding the motives behind trophy hunting.

An exploration of the cultural significance and objectives of trophy hunting

against the weight of human history reveals that while hunting in general has been
for eons a vital, and necessary, component of human survival, there are varying
types of hunting that take place today, some of which cannot be explained as a
mere desire for recreation; nor should they be seen in isolation from their cultural
emergence and significance. Therefore, blanket moral arguments against all
forms of hunting either ignore certain aspects of what constitutes human
cultural development, or they assume certain (morally objectionable) human
psychological characteristics to be self-evident in all acts of trophy hunting.

This line of questioning is important and vital against the backdrop of increasing
challenges facing conservation efforts and natural wildlife refuges in Africa
today. Arguments against hunting based on strict preservationist views do not
adequately address the practical implications of what history and experience leads us
to conclude is fallible human nature, with its destructive consequences for the
environment.

Preservationism as yet does not seem to offer an adequate and workable

solution to environmental conflicts in Africa that takes the main human, ecological
and economic factors into account (these are namely: poverty, hunger, education,
ecosystemic integrity, ecological balance, sustainability of ecological processes in
enclosed areas, exorbitant costs of preserving wildlife etc.). Proponents of hunting
make a strong pragmatic case for it on the basis that it potentially offers a

# ()):+1*);< ())(+99"

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 4

tangible solution to human/wildlife conflicts, as it offers an economic incentive for

people, landowners and rural communities in particular, to protect wildlife.5

Sustainable utilisation of natural resources is fast becoming the norm in

developing African countries, while regulated hunting practices are able to
provide a vital boost to local economies and wildlife populations as a whole,
particularly in countries where lack of infrastructure fetters potential income from
tourism. By giving animals an economic value, regulated and sustainable hunting
serves to make wildlife an attractive and economically viable resource to be
protected, which may serve to cultivate cultural values in relation to wildlife as well.6
However, economic determinism is also largely the cause of environmental
problems, which naturally causes a certain amount of caution and scepticism
towards claims that an economic approach be used as the basis to solve
environmental conflicts.

Habitat loss and hunting are generally accepted as being the two greatest threats
today to wildlife populations,7 whilst illegal hunting remains a major source of
income for poor rural communities adjacent to some national parks, such as the
Serengeti National Park in Tanzania for example.8 As a sub-set of the arguments
against hunting in general, arguments against Trophy Hunting, then, are fuelled
both by concerns over the sustainability of ecological processes, as well as
questions about the integrity of human action deemed to be detrimental to
wildlife populations and the interests of individual animals and species.

The long-term synopsis of continued unregulated hunting and exploitation of wildlife

populations, if taken in context with an increasing human population and resultant
pressure on wildlife areas through habitat degradation, is one of small, restricted and
increasingly fragile ecosystems less able to sustain and recover from detrimental
human action. This is unless a determined course of beneficial human action is
undertaken which negates the damage done. A central point of debate is whether
Trophy Hunting is the most morally and ethically pragmatic method of
offsetting harmful human action.9

$ ())2+*91"/ 6 7

"
= 122( "
$ -= $5 > % 5 1221+14-1)"
5
" "
' 5 ? < # 1221+*)3-*),"
!
@ . A
+
5
" 8
5 - B &- B
& "

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 5

In broad terms, humans and the consequences of human activity are pitted against
the non-human natural world, living, non-living, plant and animal alike; but in
essence, the environmental conflict has its seat between humans themselves. It is to
be found in the disparate views and moral theory over “what is the right thing to do”
as a human being. The environment cannot speak for itself nor voice its opposition to
certain human activities – those who speak on behalf of the environment do this.

Environmental conflict therefore lies in the disparaging views of people over “what is
the right thing to do” concerning the environment, and is therefore in essence found
to be between people with differing views over use, values and priorities.10 This is
largely characteristic of the hunting debate, as those taking a fundamental stand
for or against a conservationist or preservationist viewpoint differ extensively
over values, priorities and use when the killing of animals for sport is
concerned. This is particularly evident in the emphasis often placed by
preservationist approaches on the rights of individual animals and species, as
opposed to the more holistic approach of conservationism and its emphasis on
ecosystems and ecological processes.

"
# "' (),2+191 +6
"/
7"' ()),+32:-3(9
' &' 6/? > C7

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 6

Hunting Agendas

The debate over Trophy Hunting remains highly contentious in the public domain
precisely because the opinions both for and against trophy hunting are held with
such a depth of conviction that it becomes very difficult to acknowledge the
validity of some of the other side’s claims. This may be for fear of relinquishing
ground to these claims and compromising the strength of one’s own position, even
though there may be a certain truth to the opposing claims.11 These strongly held
views and opinions, on both sides of the debate, therefore seem at times to be
propped up more by the person’s absolute conviction that they are right than the
absolute rational truth and validity of their claims.

It is very clear that in everyday discussion of this topic certain arguments, both
for and against hunting, are based upon rather shaky premises, many of which
can be shown to be indefensible in certain contexts.12 This may be because of
individual/collective interests and agendas that may reinforce certain ideological
stances, both on the part of those for and against hunting, with the result that these
interests and agendas outweigh immediate moral and ethical concerns on certain
levels.

If those in the pro-hunting lobby had a different agenda to those in the anti-hunting
lobby (which they undoubtedly do), then the obvious enquiry would be to try and
discern what these respective agendas could be, and to what extent these
agendas reinforce or negate the beliefs or ideological stance of the parties involved
in the debate.

Concerns are therefore raised about the consistency in which personal values,
reinforced by certain ideological stances and beliefs, are applied and adhered to in
the argumentation of a position for or against hunting, as well as the consistency of
theoretical arguments and moral positions themselves.

This serves as a basis for my questions about the arguments surrounding trophy
hunting and integrity. As mentioned briefly, certain agendas and interests, influenced
by belief and ideology, may outweigh immediate moral and ethical concerns on some
levels, resulting in inconsistency and therefore a lack of integrity in terms of the
holistic application of moral principles through action. Answers to questions about
integrity and consistency may therefore help to bridge the gap between
agenda, actions and interests on the one hand, and belief and ideology
(influenced by culture) on the other in terms of the quality of the moral justifications of
hunting.

!
"/
5
.
"
# ())9+9:-4)"

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 7

The interpretation of integrity has a direct bearing on the management of game

populations and ecosystems as far as hunting is concerned, because it entails
the idea that by protecting the integrity of community processes (ecosystems) one is
essentially protecting the plurality of values exemplified in nature. And it follows that
by protecting the integrity of ecosystems, one also protects the animals and
species that are sustained by them.13

This goes to the heart of the debate surrounding the sustainable utilisation of wildlife
through activities such as hunting – especially where claims are made that trophy
hunting is ecologically sustainable – as it recognises the inherent complexity of
ecosystems and the fact that an integrated, systems approach to environmental
management is required to address and manage these complex ecosystems,14
considering that species do not exist as separate units in isolation from one
another but rather exist interdependently. Game management practices15 that are
geared towards determining carrying capacities and appropriate levels of off-take
for hunted animals are intended to be mindful of this consideration, as short-
term financial considerations often take precedence over sustainability and
wildlife concerns in instances where natural resources are exploited.

The “shortsighted economic reasoning that ignores the scientific evidence that
intensive management often leads to gradual decline in productive systems”,16 has
been symptomatic of many wildlife conflicts. Approaching environmental decision-
making and management issues with the aim of preserving ecological integrity is thus
intended to reduce the risk of this occurring.

An obvious response to this would be: firstly, how does one quantify integrity and
what sort of indicators could be used to denote the integrity of ecosystems?17
The seasonal rainfall and climate of biospheres and ecosystems change, populations
fluctuate, plant encroachment and succession takes place, all in line with the
dynamic nature of complex ecosystems. Furthermore, human intervention or
interference is inevitable in enclosed ecosystems, so a notion of integrity needs to
include the human factor where the changes in the ecosystem are brought
about by human action. This is admittedly difficult to answer, and Norton’s
interpretation attempts to provide for one: namely, that the two concepts of “stability”
and “beauty” be employed as additional criteria in the search for integrity.18

D ())9 +((,"
D ())9 +((,"
6 7 !
$ E 5
5 ())) . "$

.
"% 6
7 ! ())1+)) "
D ())9 +))"
E < ())(+99-9, "
D ())9 +((,"

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 8

However, as integrity, stability and beauty are themselves value-laden concepts open
to interpretation, which in management approaches inevitably imports human
preferences as to what is beautiful, stable etc.,19 a second question arises: namely,
does an emphasis on the notion of integrity in relation to the management of
ecosystems need to take cognisance of other values and considerations, such as the
notion of duties and obligations towards individual animals within the
ecosystem, and how would such a cognisance influence the broader objectives
of biodiversity preservation?

The hunting debate thus centres around the above considerations, as well as the
separation of the notion of the rights of animals and species, through the
emphasis on ecosystems and the biotic community, which is a common
characteristic of most management approaches to conservation. I aim to
therefore explore different notions of integrity and how they relate to each other
within the broad issues which characterise the hunting debate, namely the integrity of
moral action, ecosystemic integrity, the integrity of integration (i.e. the integration of
moral views within human life), and the logical integrity of certain arguments
themselves.

!
< ())(+9,"

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 9

Public Opinion

One of the main aims for both sides in the hunting debate is undoubtedly to win
public support for their views. A large portion of the public can be considered
uninformed, uninterested, or even ambivalent regarding the morality of hunting or
killing for recreation.20 Pro-hunting parties are therefore pitted against anti-hunting
groups in a fierce battle over public opinion and sympathy for their agendas and
interests.

This is because the weight of public opinion will be an important factor in

determining the future of trophy hunting, as enhanced public awareness about
conservation issues inevitably brings a lot of pressure to bear on decision-making
bodies in conservation.21 Conservation organizations, governmental and non-
governmental alike, whilst by no means contingent on public opinion for their decision
making process, do need to be mindful of the interests of the public at large in the
transparent nature of a developing democracy in South Africa particularly, and in
accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa22 and environmental
legislation.23

No wonder, then, that the issue of trophy hunting has been so fiercely and vigorously
contested between the two positions. For years, hunters have been under fire from
what they termed were “naïve” and “hypocritical” “bunny-lovers”, “tree-
huggers”, “greenies”, “bleeding hearts” etc.,24 and had perhaps been reluctant to
continually defend their views and lifestyle from what they may have perceived to be
“intolerant extremists”. For example: “The emotionally and ideologically founded
attacks of the animals rights industry against the sustainable use of nature, and in
particular against sustainable hunting practices is increasingly considered as

"
# ())9+4("
! @ ()):+:(-:1" . # D
#
"
6
@ 7F 122*+*1-*3 "
. 5
" #

.
- 5 " & "
(24 ())9 ((G ())9 # "! ())9 "
! $ > # 1 13+
6 -
;

; ;
A
7; D
D (2, ())4 # ( 3
D "():() 1,D ())4 "(1"" ! ())4 "
D ()):+*("

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 10

interference in the sovereign rights of developing countries and as a subtle form of

neo-colonialism ...”25 In South Africa, some have even gone as far as calling for
society to “purge itself of the social canker (A source of spreading corruption or
decay ) of animal rightism”.26

Similarly, anti-hunters condemned hunters for being “cold-blooded immoral

killers”, “brutish”, “bloodthirsty”, “arrogant” and “selfish”. Hunters have also
been labelled as “inhumane”, “uncaring”, “irresponsible” and “unjust” in their
approach and activities towards wildlife.27 These moral judgements stem largely
from sceptical assumptions surrounding hunters’ motives and intentions (and their
views towards wildlife), which is hinted at by generalised statements such as the
following: “Killing for fun, status or profit is ethically unjustifiable and must be
condemned by all responsible people.”28

A common response by some hunters, when faced with criticism from anti-
hunting groups, often took the form of a declaration that: “if you don’t hunt, you
don’t know”; meaning that in order to understand hunting, you need to be a
hunter, and once you are a hunter, you will know what I know and realize that I
am right.

Although this is not representative of most of the pro-hunting groups who were
striving to put forward legitimate defences of hunting, it does serve to highlight
the personal frustration that can be generated by discussions of the topic, as well as
the unwillingness to abandon a particular position when faced with arguments to the
contrary. This could also be because hunting holds considerable cultural value as
“a way of life” to the people who practice it, and has contextual significance to
them and their daily existence. Indeed, pro-hunters state that, “[Hunting] is more than
our heritage and culture, it is our essence”.29

122( "
1221+1,"
D ()):+*(;? ()))+::;?! !122* "
! ! 5 @ '#GD E D ()):+*("
!
# @ 122* "

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 11

Organised Proponents

Moral arguments, without context, against hunting by animal rights and liberation
groups therefore do not always consider, as King says, that: “hunting is a sign of a
particular way of looking at the nonhuman world”.30 Whilst it may be true that this way
of life itself may be the object of moral inquiry,31 it does not follow that moral
arguments (without context) against the practice of hunting necessarily lead to an
appraisal of the moral character of hunters, something which anti-hunters often
do.

In the past, anti-hunting groups have arguably been more successful than pro-
hunting groups in winning over public opinion and garnering sympathy for
their cause, largely because of the pro-active nature of their campaigning; whereas
pro-hunting groups took a more reactive approach, only responding to criticisms
when it felt it was necessary, and begrudgingly so.

This has changed in recent years, however, as pro-hunting groups have made a
more concerted effort to offer an organized and collective response to the
allegations and arguments against hunting. By collectively campaigning for
greater understanding of their position and views, the pro-hunting groups have
undertaken a pro-active position in the debate: “As tolerant citizens we have to live
with these fringe movements, but we certainly do not have to suffer their attacks
without reaction. As a matter of fact, the time of reactive play is past. Hunters and
conservationists have finally woken up and are ready to put facts straight and
to open the eyes of a sadly gullible public to the harsh realities of life in the
new millennium.”32

The battle lines have been clearly drawn as it were, and the battle, generally
speaking, is between two groups: people arguing from a preservationist
perspective (anti-hunting), and those from a conservationist perspective (pro-
hunting).

Reports, articles, books and papers dealing with the topic of the ethics and
morality of hunting are numerous and varied in scope, with new publications
appearing continuously. Within this body of literature, many attempts have been
made to try and clearly posit the relevant problems inherent in taking a specific
fundamental stand for or against hunting, and some of the arguments both for and
against hunting have been shown to be far from infallible.33 Moral arguments from the
perspectives of animal rights,34 animal liberation,35 utilitarian value theory,36 scientific

"
<())(+,2"
<())(+,2"
122( "
D $5 H ())(+*,:-*,4 ;# ())9+9:-4) ;'
()43+13(-1:2 ; % ()),+*)(-323 "
> "()4*" $ 5 + # "
! "(),9" "D I 5+ $ 5"

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 12

ideology and ecology (ecosystem integrity)37 are just some of the theories that are
drawn on in the debate, and thrown into the mix as it were.

The choice of values and viewpoints expressed seem to overlap and the line
between sub-categories of conflicting values inherent in the debate is by no means
clearly defined. As such, there is a distinct lack of consensus both within and
between those groups for and against trophy hunting over criteria for
establishing the moral and ethical validation of hunting. The result is that within
the theoretical and philosophical sphere of debate surrounding the issue of hunting,
there is a valid concern that the pluralism (The belief that no single explanatory
system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life) that is
characteristic of the debate lapses further into an “indecisive form of relativism”.38

I offer a theoretically holistic and contextually sensitive alternative to

approaching environmental decision-making and the hunting debate, with
integrity as the founding conceptual criterion. In this approach, as such, I don’t
offer one moral theory, position or criteria over another, or seek to replace one with
another as far as the moral criteria for the validation of hunting is concerned, but
rather to adopt an approach and “cultivate an attention to the conditions under which
things become ‘evident,’ ceasing to be objects of our attention and therefore
seemingly fixed, necessary, and unchangeable”.39 This is in order to help further an
understanding of the contexts in which arguments for and against hunting function,
as well as the role the act of hunting plays in societies.

= 122(+94-):;J ())2+9)-41"
% 0()4*+(4*-(),"
' < 0())9+3"
!
> ())3+.."

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 13

# $ % $ &

% .

C
% C
% C
? C
?
0 C
%

-K- C
?
C
? .
6 . 7
C
/
6 7
. .
E C
G . .

C
% ""
. "
6 7 C
% 5C
? C
? .
- C
% - A

? 0 C

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 14

Methodology

There is a vast field of reference to consult before one is able to gain a clear idea
of where the crux of the problem lies. This is by no means easy, and a fair amount
of “conceptual unpacking” needs to be done before a coherent description of the
moral and ethical problems inherent in the debate can be formulated which
encapsulates them sufficiently. Central to this is an understanding of the meaning of
hunting both as an individual experience, and as an ideological construct. It is
important to understand the social, political, historical and economic contexts within
which hunting originates and finds its expression. In line with this, the concepts of
integrity, hunting, experience, intention, and desire will require further clarification.

Many justifications of hunting revolve around the meaning of the hunting

experience to individuals. Moral theories about hunting, however, do not convey
the meaning of the experience of hunting (and they are rightly not intended to either,
nor can they). Moral philosophical theories are a reflective, objective discourse about
the moral quality of actions resulting from ethical choices, and are intended to
semantically explore and clarify the rightness and wrongness of human action.
An experience however is a singular, immediate, lived-through immersion in the
present by an individual and is by nature highly subjective and impossible to
empirically quantify.

With this in mind, namely that it is impossible to grasp absolutely the essence of an
experience through language, it would help to examine the articulation of experience
through narratives in order to overcome this. An examinaton of the hunting
experience as related by individuals through hunting narratives (stories), the
historical and cultural context of the emergence of these narratives, and the
significance of their impact on individual ideological stances may serve to highlight
different conceptions of what the hunting experience entails. If more than one
essential kind of hunting experience can be shown to exist, then to what extent do
they differ? How do these differences affect the moral justification of a hunting
experience? Furthermore, by which criteria do we accept or reject the validity of
a hunting experience – in terms of integrity?

An ideological critique of the hunting experience, therefore, may help to identify or

clarify, firstly, the reasons why people are able to have such divergent views40
and believe that they are right (an examination of intentionality); and secondly, to
examine the essence of hunting and what it entails.

"
? ()), "

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 15

In undertaking an ideological critique of the hunting experience, the methodology

used will be to briefly examine the hunting experience as it is revealed through
different narrative perspectives. By taking examples of these hunting narratives, I
aim to explore their ideological character, and how “the hunting experience” may
function within the debate as a historical and symbolic construction, by analysing:

1) the historical context of the emergence of the narratives,

2) how they are articulated,
3) how they were circulated and received, and
4) their effect in terms of constituting the meaning of hunting.41

This will be done after a discussion of the political climate surrounding the
hunting debate, and will help to contextualise certain ideological notions of the
hunting experience within the debate. The following specific texts and narratives will
therefore briefly be examined with the above aim in mind: hunting narratives in the
form of traditional San folklore and hunting tales, which may offer an insight into a
pre-modern and perhaps authentic conception of the hunting experience of certain
hunter-gatherer communities; the writings of Ernest Hemingway,42 which chronicle
his big game hunting adventures in Africa and serve as a good example of a
modernist perspective on the meaning of the hunting experience; and the hunting
experience propounded by José Ortega y Gasset.

Hemingway’s book, The Green Hills of Africa, chronicling his hunting trip to Africa,
will be examined for the reason that (as Carlos Baker wrote): “Anyone interested in
the methods by which patterns of experience are translated to the purpose of art
should find abundant materials for study in the three stories – nonfiction and fiction –
which grew out of Hemingway’s African expedition.”43

The famous Spanish existentialist philosopher Ortega y Gasset, on the other

hand, writes from a discernible postmodern perspective in his famous treatise
Meditations on Hunting.44 He states that: “Just as the leaping stag tempts the
hunter, the topic of hunting has often tempted me as a writer. My intention is to try to
clarify a little this occupation in which devoted hunters engage with such
scrupulousness, constancy, and dedication”, and: “I ask myself, what the devil kind of
occupation is this business of hunting?”45 Meditations on Hunting is also a landmark
text in the philosophical explorations of the meaning of hunting, and because it is
extensively quoted by pro-hunting groups, it would be useful to examine the role it
plays in the pro-hunting debate.

#" @ L> "())3" !" # $ % &

' + $ 5; > " ""()43" &
' + $ 5"
? "())3" ' ' + $ 5"
$ 5 ():9+()9"
G = H
"(),1" & ' D I 5+# ! &! "
G = (),1+1(-11"

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 16

Besides the above texts, I consulted the extensive body of philosophical literature
dealing with the issue of hunting and animal rights, and also conducted interviews,
formal and informal, with people on both sides of the debate. I found the Internet
useful in reliably gleaning the various positions of the parties involved and their
arguments as they present themselves publicly, in cases where I was not able to do
so through interviews or private correspondence; it was also useful in getting an idea
of the variety of arguments used by individuals not officially affiliated to the main
groups in the debate, and to see how language is symbolically used to sustain
certain ideological “truths”.

To a certain extent, the Internet offered an up to date and current reflection of

the status of the debate, particularly in the informal public arena, which may have to
do with the fact that the World Wide Web is a useful medium in disseminating
information quickly, and serves to efficiently saturate the debate with a particular
point of view. Other forms of popular media, such as weekly/daily newspapers, and
magazines served the same purpose, and are used extensively by both groups to
enforce or affirm their viewpoints.

Furthermore, the focus of this course will primarily be on Trophy Hunting in

Africa of the “Big Five” species (Lion, Leopard, Rhinoceros, Elephant, and Buffalo).
Doing so will allow for the motives and desires which drive individuals to hunt, to
be examined against a contextually sensitive ethical framework, as the hunting
of each animal species respectively entails ethical considerations. This is because
the different social structures and behaviour patterns of the respective species
require varying methods of hunting them. For example, leopard are normally “baited”
at night and shot from a concealed blind,46 whilst buffalo are tracked on foot in
daylight; each method therefore highlights various definitions of the Fair Chase
Principle.47 Also, the fact that leopards and lions are themselves predators, and only
kill or engage with other predators when threatened, due to territorial disputes, or
over food,48 etc. raises ethical considerations regarding the nature of the animal
being hunted and the motives behind it; namely, whether for food, conquest,
competition, etc.

The course will atttempt to construct a suitable analysis of “what the right thing to do”
would be concerning trophy hunting with integrity, or even if this is at all possible.

122( +39-34"
! # 1 # #
"
$ ' > ()43+1,9"

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 17

Structure of the Course

In Modules # 2, # 3, and # 4, I aim to identify the most prominent role players in

the hunting debate, giving an overview of their respective positions regarding
hunting in a Southern African context, in keeping with the focus of the course. This is
in order to, firstly, provide a detailed orientation to the debate as a whole; secondly,
to clarify the levels of influence and links in the debate, and the manner in which
certain positions are reinforced by other views and positions; and thirdly, to reveal
and map the stalemate as it were.

In Module # 5 I give a summary of the stalemate between the pro- and anti-
hunting groups, explain some of the sources of it, and give preliminary pointers to
overcoming it.

I begin Module # 6 with an exploration of the act of hunting, and aim to offer
definitions of the different conceptions and forms of hunting, in seeking to
conceptually clarify the usage of the term. I look at and examine certain common
usages of the word in literature, and define certain categorical types. I also examine
the historical origins of hunting from anthropological, cultural, traditional and
economic perspectives.

Once we have an idea of the commonly accepted usages of the term hunting, its
various definitions, and its historical emergence and significance, we will be in a
position to examine the hunting experience as an ideological construct and as a
philosophical and psychological phenomenon in Module # 7. There I discuss the
political climate within which the debate takes place, and the political characteristics
of the debate itself. I examine hunting narratives relating an immediate hunting
experience from a pre-modern, modern and postmodern perspective and explore
their historical emergence, the way in which they were received and articulated, and
their effect and influence.

Module # 8 is devoted to a discussion of the concept of integrity and its

importance as applicable to individual hunters (the hunting experience as a
psychological/philosophical phenomenon) and the ideological construct of the
hunting experience; with a final analysis of the relevance of the concept of integrity to
modern day trophy hunting against the backdrop of ideology and experience.

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 18

'

( ) &* % + ,

# M (L / ?

( ) &* - *+ ,. ,

# M (L ! # /
# M 1L # @ #
# M *L ? N'

( ) &* ' - *+ ,/ - 0 % -

# M (L D=G % $ N= "G
# M 1L / ! 5 ?

( ) &* 0 *+ ,/ -

# M (L / -? D=G
# M 1L

( ) &* ( , '

# M (L # !
# M 1L # % J

( ) &
*+ 1 , 2 + ,3 - % 0

# M (L ? N
# M 1L ? ?
# M *L % ? 6 7
# M 3L % ? 67+
# M :L ? 6 ? 7

( ) &* 2 - + ,

# M (L D G ?
# M 1L ? #
# M *L ? . ? ! #
# M 3L ? G D
# M :L ? -= !

( ) &* % , + ,14

# M (L / ? .
# M 1L / -?
# M *L / ? $ @ / $ N >!
# M 3L #

Introduction to the Hunting Debate

WildlifeCampus – Hunting: A Balanced Perspective 19

Importance of the Study

Trophy hunting in Africa is a human activity that directly affects lives of individual
animals and species, as well as the complexity of ecosystems and biodiversity as a
whole. It entails the killing of animals in situations where it is not absolutely
necessary to do so in terms of survival for the individual hunters. However,
trophy hunting has the potential to pragmatically effect positive change in the
lives of rural African communities, and their cultural values towards wildlife. This
obviously raises many concerns about the sustainability of the practice, and the
ethical and moral basis of undertaking such an activity; and many arguments and
rationales are put forward to justify or condemn the practice.

The trophy hunting debate therefore offers a prime example of an environmental

conflict that combines social, political, economic and ecological arguments relevant
to concerns over the preservation of biodiversity, in line with the concerns expressed
in landmark international treaties such as the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Against the backdrop of increasingly fragile and threatened ecosystems,

habitat degradation, loss of biodiversity imposed by human pressures, and the
increasing rate of anthropogenic extinction,49 any human tendencies that
further threaten the life sustaining natural processes of the planet need to be
critically analysed and evaluated in order to minimise any risk of needless
exploitation.

The necessity of the activity of trophy hunting is therefore continually

questioned against this backdrop, and the importance of this study lies in
examining the role of contextual approaches to environmental issues, and
particularly the development of certain arguments and justifications for the
sustainable use of natural resources; as well as the manner in which these
arguments are applied.

By using integrity as a founding conceptual criterion, an appeal to a universal

and moral virtue is made, one that is hopefully able to bridge the ideological
stalemate inherent in the hunting debate.

!
5 ())4+*)*-*):"

Introduction to the Hunting Debate