Re: Thoreau on the Moose, Paul Theroux

["C. L. Rawlins" <rawlins@carbonpower.net>]

As an occasional hunter, I resist the dichotomy (Republican 
moose-murderer, Democratic wimp/vegan). 


Being also somewhat animist about animals and hunting,  I think it's bad 
practice to boast of one's good fortune in hunting, and to incorporate 
that swagger in cheap political blather is obscene.   (one risks offense 
to the Moose Spirit, and no I'm not kidding).   The loss of one's mana 
for hunting, fishing, etc. is a serious matter with people who depend on 
it as a primary source of food. 


My moral calculus on hunting is that it depends on where and how one 
lives.  I live where the deer, elk, and antelope live.  All my hunting 
is done on foot, from my front door:  no monster SUVs, no jet flights, 
no posh outfitter camps.  Moose are few hereabouts, and I'd not choose 
to hunt them for that reason.  Nor (except at the point of starvation) 
would I choose to hunt any animal that didn't have a healthy population 
in this area (limited by my choice to pursue on foot).   If I lived in a 
city, I wouldn't hunt.


My partner (a biologist and professor of environmental law) also hunts.  
When we have enough for the coming year (one or two animals), we stop 
hunting.  We do all the skinning and cutting at home, keep the scraps 
for stock and dog food, and get the hides tanned for clothing, etc.  If 
we feel rushed or unsettled, we don't hunt at all.  


David Petersen and Richard Nelson have written and edited some very fine 
books in this area. 


Thoreau is Thoreau.  Theroux is most notable for traveling all over and 
complaining bitterly about every place he goes.   And, no less, by 
having great connections and appealing to the urban reader, while making 
a great deal more money for his work than writers who actually know 
something about their subjects.  I think Thoreau would have hated his 
guts. 


cheers,
Chip