Ban hunting

If the news of the American who killed, decapitated and skinned Cecil the lion turned your stomach, you know it’s time to ban hunting.

Sadly, in his desire to reduce gun violence after each massacre du jour, our President occasionally considers it necessary to say it’s OK to use guns to hunt – i.e., shoot wildlife to death for pleasure.  Yet somehow, endorsing the killing of other sentient creatures doesn’t seem a sane way to discourage killing among the supposedly most sentient of them. In the 21st century hunting has become a moral hypocrisy, if not a crisis.

To exempt hunting from conversations about reducing gun violence is to embrace the absurdity that, in order to persuade law-abiding gun owners to embrace rational gun safety laws (and most do), they must be reassured they can still use their guns to kill something – anything! – ‘else what’s a gun for?’

Though hunters shoot tens of thousands of living creatures to death for the fun of it with guns or bows (drones are still prohibited) there is almost no examination of hunting’s insidious contribution to our violent culture. It’s the (dead) elephant in the room.

Interesting is a 2009 National Institute of Health paper, which noted in part:

“Cruelty to animals . . . is defined as treatment of animals that causes gratuitous, unwarranted or unjustifiable suffering or harm (including death). Animal cruelty is gaining recognition as a serious social issue that may be reflective of more extensive psychopathology at the individual level . . . In 1987, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition-Revised (DSM-III-R) incorporated animal cruelty as a diagnostic criterion for Conduct Disorder (CD) and Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD).” (Italics added)

Not all hunters have conduct or personality disorders, of course, yet hunting is defended by otherwise sane, pleasant people who seem blind to the fact that the ‘virtues’ attributed to this blood sport can all be realized without killing. Some examples:

• “Hunting gets people into Nature and teaches youngsters about the outdoors.” (As does hiking, camping, scouting, eco-tourism.)
• “It promotes marksmanship and firearm safety.” (Visit a shooting range and take lessons.)
• “I eat what I kill” (Safeway is cheaper/quicker/safer and open 24/7.)
• “Hunting fees support wildlife conservation” (Nothing conserves wildlife like not killing it. Donate those fees to a wildlife conservation group.)
• “Hunting controls species overpopulation” (Natural eco-systems work better; hunting disrupts them.)
• “I hunt because I enjoy seeing wildlife” (Shoot it with a camera.)
• “Hunting is a manly part of a boy’s growing up” (Like rape, predatory killing is not part of any boy’s Rite of Passage.)
• “Hunting is our heritage” (Ditto slavery, Native American genocide and other dark stains on our national past.)
• “Hunting is important to rural economies” (Money was a core Confederate argument in defense of slavery.)
• The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to hunt (No, it does not.)

The excuses are endless and unconvincing. In 21st century America, less than six percent of the population (less than one percent of Californians) still hunt.

Beyond even dogfighting – a felony in all states – hunting is arguably the ultimate act of animal cruelty, underscored by the worldwide revulsion and outrage over the killing of Cecil. When hunting is recognized “as a serious social issue that may be reflective of more extensive psychopathology at the (cultural) level,” we may someday reduce gun violence among ourselves, and Cecil will not have die in vain.

Mr. Edwards is a retiring attorney and mediator, currently completing the first of a 35-volume set entitled: “Examples of American Exceptionalism: The Dumbest S#*t You Ever Heard.”