When we hunters set forth to pursue wild game, is it for recreation, species management, to gather food, or simply due to an ingrained predatory instinct? Regardless of whether you look favorably or unfavorably on hunting in general, that question has been bandied about by both sides for decades with less than satisfactory and unbiased answers from either.
Randall L. Eaton, Ph.D, of Purdue University, holds a M.S. in ethology (the study of animal behavior throughout history) and comparative psychology, and a Ph.D. in ethology, and has spent his adult life studying human behavioral patterns. Dr. Eaton is considered one of the top authorities on man’s urge to hunt.
“As an inherited instinct, hunting is deeply rooted in human nature. Around the world in all cultures the urge to hunt awakens in boys. They use rocks, make weapons or sneak an air gun out of the house to kill a bird or small mammal. In many cases the predatory instinct appears spontaneously without previous experience or coaching, and in the civilized world boys often hunt despite attempts to suppress their instinct.
”Hunting is how we fall in love with nature. The basic instinct links up with the spiritual, and the result is that we become married to nature. Among nature pursuits, hunting and fishing connects us most profoundly with animals and nature. As Robert Bly said in his best-selling book ‘Iron John’ only hunting expands us sideways, ‘into the glory of oaks, mountains, glaciers, horses, lions, grasses, waterfalls, deer. Hunting is a basic aspect of a boy's initiation into manhood. It teaches him the intelligence, beauty and power of nature. The young man also learns at a deep emotional level his inseparable relationship with nature as well as his responsibility to fiercely protect it.’"
Dr. Eaton’s intellectual views may seem miles apart from the contemporary attitude of modern society in heavily developed nations such as ours, but from this laymen’s view I admit that a lifetime of hunting and fishing have done more to teach me that man and nature are one in the same than all the National Geographic themes put together. Some may believe that we can control and manipulate nature, but in the end we usually discover the folly of such efforts.
Watching a grouse being attacked and killed by a Cooper’s hawk, a weasel catch and kill a chipmunk, a bass gobbling up a duckling, and a starving late-winter deer too weak to travel were all flesh-and-blood lessons that taught me early on that Mother Nature was far from motherly when viewed in contemporary modern societal attitudes. But the roles of prey and predator are entwined for the mutual benefits of both. Biology has taught us that prey’s eyes are normally located on the side of their heads for 360-degree sight (to detect danger), while predators’ eyes are located in the front for targeted vision (of prey). Last time you looked in the mirror, where were your eyes located?
Daniel Cappon, M.D, a physician in psychological medicine and professor of environmental studies at York University, Ontario, Canada, has studied man’s changing brain and thought processes over the eons and has developed his theory as to why modern man’s natural instincts have dulled but the basic urge to hunt remains.
“Once the conscious, new brain evolved, with its two cerebral hemispheres joined by connective nerve fibers (corpus callosum), the mind had to protect its cone of consciousness—its precious, concentrated thinking—by thinking about a thing at a time. The mind thus evolved barriers, dams or censors to protect that pinpoint of clear, alert reasoning from invasion by items stored in the brain's memory banks.”
If Dr. Cappon’s deductions are correct, wouldn’t it stand to reason that when we’re in a totally natural outdoor environment, those acquired barriers relax and some of those rascally instinctive memory cells sneak forth, allowing us to become one with nature again? How else could we explain how otherwise domesticated urbanites so enjoy being outdoors for whatever reasons that draw them there, hunting being just one of them? And might urban violence by frustrated inner-city youths with no availability to the natural outdoor world be another? But just as some cultures are gatherers and some are hunters, the urge to do either dwells far deeper than even the good doctor may be able to explain.
I’ve been afield with both gun and camera countless times, and despite logical claims by those who don’t hunt (with gun) I definitely feel the difference. In both cases I’ve met with failures, but I accept failure more so when hunting with a gun than with a camera. Why? I’m not sure. Maybe it has something to do with my honest feelings that everything I consume to exist comes from nature, and a photo, regardless of how good it may be and how much I may sell it for, makes lousy table fare – and only means I then must get food that a third party had to harvest from nature for me.
I certainly respect the wishes of those who don’t choose to hunt, but I also expect them to respect those of us who choose to hunt. I also wonder what non-hunters would do if they had to hunt or else starve (not likely). Or if they were threatened by a wild animal with little chance to escape being attacked. Would those sneaky instinctive survival brain cells surface again? And how do non-hunters feel about killing wildlife on the road with their vehicles? Toyota or gun, the animal involved is still dead.
Why someone hunts is a personal matter. Many do it to spend time outdoors with friends or family. Others hunt to continue a tradition passed down from their parents and grandparents. Some go for the satisfaction of providing their own meat or the challenge of outwitting an elusive wild animal. Many hunt simply because they feel an urge to do so. As environmentalist and hunter Aldo Leopold put it, "the instinct that finds delight in the sight and pursuit of game is bred into the very fiber of the race."
When I’m spending time hunting this fall, I guess I’ll just forget about all the psychological reasons and just enjoy being in a role as old and natural as mankind itself