Differences in Hunting

Cecil the Lion is in the news again, and some people don't see the point to hunting, saying it's inhumane or whatever (well, yes, lions are not humans, duh). Scruton takes the objection and flips it on it's head. Hunting, he says, is a participation of our species with theirs. It's getting in touch with our animal roots. It's is part of being in the community of species. This is what other animals do: they hunt. If we want to be part of the animal community, we should hunt. So, far from it being a practice of dominance and over lording, it's a recognition that we are in some sense like them.

It should also be noted that his type of hunting is vastly different from the American type of hunting. He wears ironed and pressed clothing, he has horses, trumpets, hounds, antique looking guns, etc. There is a class and civilization in his presenting his humanity to the other animals. This is what distinguishes himself from the other animals, this culture. You are a fox, and I am a human. You do what foxes do, and I do what humans do. The American type of hunting is different. It does not seek to present itself as distinguished from nature. He wears camo, he sprays himself in doe urine, and comes off as much more primitive and feral.

One looks like a polo player, the other looks like a bum (which is not to say that is a bad thing). I think these two approaches to hunting carry with it two different philosophies of hunting (what the American one is, I'm not sure, maybe I should try to flesh that out some other time) and most Americans seem not to remember Scruton's flavor of hunting, just the primitive American one. Maybe if we remembered that, people wouldn't be so opposed to hunting. I dunno. But I think it's interesting.