Before reading the two articles we were assigned about hunting, I was super torn on the matter. Though I could never bring myself to kill an animal, I thought, it must be a good thing that people are killing animals in the wild rather than supporting mass meat production that one could easily find in a supermarket. However, after reading the two articles one expressing the negative side of hunting and one on Michael Pollon's personal account of hunting, I am pretty swayed toward the anti-hunting side.
I remember when I was younger my family would always go to my second cousins house around Christmas time for a big extended family dinner. My mom's cousins husband (not sure what he is in relation to me) would cook venison that he hunted, and every year and I was always uneasy about it. Even from when I was very young I didn't eat the venison, though everyone else did, simply because the idea of eating meat that had recently been killed by someone I knew just threw me off. Now that I think about it, it's pretty silly that I ate other meat when I was younger but not Elizeo's venison. Hunting added a new personal element, but maybe this personal element should be in all meat so that people get a clear picture of it.
The first article I read provided clear biological reasons for why hunting throws off an ecosystem. I found these really compelling because there is no denying the science behind how a deer populations reacts to hunting pressures. I hadn't realized that there was such a difference between a predator killing a deer and a hunter killing a deer! The aspect of hunting that makes me the most uncomfortable is the adrenaline aspect of it. After reading Pollon's account of hunting, my thoughts were proven true, that hunters get a sort of high from killing animals and get addicted to the sport. Pollon even related it to marijuana and to drinking, in the sense that you almost don't feel like yourself because your senses are so altered. Pollon experienced just about every emotion while and after killing the pig, but eventually ended up feeling pure remorse. I think that most hunters hold on to the rush they get after the kill and that is what keeps them going. If someone is hunting for survival - that's one thing - but if it is to fulfill a human desire of pride and domination over nature, that is pretty pathetic to me.
From a non-violence perspective I have always been uncomfortable with the idea of eradicating an invasive species. This idea was touched upon by "Without a Tear" and brought up a point I hadn't even thought of, that the cure may be worse than the disease. We often don't know the full picture when we eradicate a species. When I studied abroad in Zanzibar last semester, there was a crow eradication program going on. One girl in my group did her independent study project on this and I never fully understood the appeal. Though I understand that the crows were annoying and loud, who are we to just poison them when it was not their fault that they came here in the first place? Wiping out whole species, even if we think it is more beneficial, does not reflect well on humans as a species and merely promotes a dominant view over nature.
Whew, this was long and ranty... Basically I still don't know how I truly feel about hunting and invasive species because I can see both sides pretty well! I'm glad that these articles got me thinking a lot more about it because they provided me with a lot of information I needed.
HAPPY WEDNESDAY EVERYONE :)
No comments:
Post a Comment