> I have a deep respect
> for hunters who hunt for food (not for sport) because they know what it's like
> to kill, to skin their food, to "have the blood on their hands."
I wonder why you respect someone for knowing what it's like to kill.
BTW, I believe that the distinction between trophy hunters and those
who hunt for food is pretty much empty in North America these days.
They're all trophy hunters, that is, they hunt to create a token of
their "successful" masculinity (the token can be a severed head on
the wall, a photograph of the man with the fresh kill, a corpse
strapped to the hood of the truck, or just a recitation of the kill
story). Many of them do eat the flesh however, to complete the
hunting experience, and to provide a convenient excuse for their
serial animal killing (they know that most americans approve of
hunting "for food" but not for sport).
There is a very provocative suggestion in Jim Mason's new book that
hunting may have never been really for food. In cultures feeding
themselves through gathering, men may have started hunting large
mammals in order to achieve status within the tribe, that is, in
order to offset the preponderance of esteem given to women because of
their ability to generate new life ("you can have babies?--well,
look at what WE can do!"). Hunting may have been, even at its
historical roots, primarily for trophies, not for food. The original
expression of womb envy.
Brian Luke
