Ethical Hunting Awards That Ignore the Actual Victims
Published November 06, 2009 @ 07:56AM PT
This one is just begging for commentary: For the 13th year, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is accepting nominations for its annual "ethical hunting award." What, I first wondered when I saw the headline, does that even mean? When I read about last year's winner in a brief AP piece published in the Chicago Tribune, I learned that at least last year, the "ethics" that won someone the award had absolutely nothing to do with how or why or whether the person killed an animal, but rather was about how he treated a fellow human while hunting: "An 18-year-old Rhinelander hunter won last year. He helped a sobbing young female hunter alone in the woods trail, field dress and retrieve a 17-point buck she shot but couldn't find."
I almost don't know what to say. The great almost-tragedy in this scenario was that someone wasn't going to get her trophy antlers, bragging rights, and meat if she didn't find the animal she'd shot. The animal who had been shot, who had fled in fear and pain to die a slow death, was incidental in the story. The celebrated ethical behavior had nothing to do with the ethics of hunting.
But apparently, helping fellow hunters -- not doing anything ethical in relation to the animals they're stalking and killing -- is indeed the point of this award. Wisconsin Ag Connection explains, "The award signifies the qualities of hunters helping others rather than pursuing personal gain and hunters engaged in behavior that positively reflects on the tradition of hunting."
Absent referent, anyone?
Someone has to be a hunter to win this award. The killing of animals is part of the package; it is the point of the whole practice. Yet this award for "ethical hunting" ignores that most obvious and significant ethical issue as if it weren't even there. I expected to read that this award had something to do with killing animals "humanely" or "nobly," and I would have had plenty to say on that topic too, but that the killing of the animals doesn't even play into the "ethical hunting" award is even more bizarre.
When a hunter is honored for helping an animal "rather than pursuing personal gain" by killing him or her, then Wisconsin will have an award I understand.
---
Photo by Flickr user Scott Ableman
Share this Post
Related Posts
-
"Shooting a Moose Is an Accomplishment Whether You're 12 or 38"
-
Elk "Calf Production" Down? Kill More Elk!
-
Updates on Wolves, Whales, and Dolphins: The Hunts Go On
Comments (6)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Email


















This is completely absurd.
Posted by Lisa R on 11/07/2009 @ 07:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Very well said, Stephanie.
Posted by Lisa Perkins on 11/08/2009 @ 05:18AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The absurdity is mind-boggling.
This would be akin to awarding "ethical pedophiles" for giving each other a lift to the local playground.
Or, an even better analogy: it's like giving Obama a Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by Steve McRoberts on 11/08/2009 @ 11:45AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree absurdlty
Posted by Donnie McGinnis on 11/08/2009 @ 07:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is most ridiculous.
Posted by Caitlin Miller on 11/08/2009 @ 08:31PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Pardon me for saying this but, I hate hunters. :-(
Posted by Kathy Jackson on 11/11/2009 @ 12:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.