As this is the Board's premier hunting forum, I thought to share with fellow members the story, "The Modern Hunter-Gatherer" by Michael Pollan in the Sunday New York Times Magazine 26 March 2006. Go to http://www.nytimes.com and put Pollan and Hunter-Gatherer in the search box.

Pollan found more than he bargained for in deciding to do his first hunt (for feral pig) as part of an effort to prepare a meal he had grown (fava beans), gathered (morel mushrooms) or hunted. He learned and he researched (Ortega y Gasset and Claude Levi-Strauss) and he has, for the most part, gotten it. More to the point, he has written about it in the premier weekly newspaper magazine of this country with its enormous and largely non, if not anti, hunting readership.

Some gems:
"And yet here I find myself slipping into the hunter's ecstatic purple, channeling Ortega y Gasset. It may be that we have no better language in which to describe the experience of hunting.... Or it could be that hunting is one of those experiences that appear utterly different from the inside than the outside."

"I had never hunted before, never had the need or the desire or the right kind of dad."

"The one emotion I expected to feel [after killing a 190 lb. pig] but did not, inexplicably, was remorse, or even ambivalence. All that would come later, but now, I'm slightly embarrassed to admit, I felt absolutely terrific -- unambiguously happy."

There is much more and very complicated reaction and effort to grapple with his reaction and to understand aspects of our sport that it sometimes laborious, but generally on track, in my view.
Regards, Tim

What sets the article apart is his skill as a writer.

I thought his descriptions of stalking game, and the appearance of the woods around him, is exactly what is missing in most hunting stories today: good prose.

I really enjoyed it.

Garrett

One can only hope that some young lad sitting in their living room reading this tonight will take up the sport and be as rewarded as we have been in this life's pursuit. Well done to Michael Pollan, and thank you Tim for sharing this.

While the article is positive overall about the experience of hunting, comparing the sense of being out in the wild to a marijuana experience is ridiculous, as is the nonsense about wanting to gag while dressing the sow. Even while endorsing the idea that hunting is a worthwhile hobby, the NYT could be trusted to find an author who could inject a dose of politically correct BS into the story.

Thanks for posting the link. I have never needed to justify my love for guns and hunting and am happy that politically correct rags like the NYT find it a positive experience after introspection. How I wish that rag would endorse gun ownership with the same, reluctant enthusiasm!

We live in a world where public opinion counts. We should welcome any good press and cringe at any bad (deserved or undeserved)press. The author tries to psychoanalyze hunting a little too much for my taste. But it's a better article then I'd expect from the Times. Thanks for posting it.

While I have no idea what Marijuana is like as a sensation I can sympathise with the gag reflex while dressing the game. I cannot abide some odors and will gag automatically (which is what a Gag is an auto reflex) and if I remain In proximity to the odor WILL throwup. If this signifies some lesser manly trait so be it. To me it's a fact of life.

I liked and appreciated this sentence.

"The one emotion I expected to feel [after killing a 190 lb. pig] but did not, inexplicably, was remorse, or even ambivalence. All that would come later, but now, I'm slightly embarrassed to admit, I felt absolutely terrific -- unambiguously happy."

There is no other activity that gives me the same feeling.....good to see it expressed in that publication.

Interesting article, and I expected a slam. The 1st experience field dressing a large animal is pretty intense, and he started with the smelliest of prey. I always like to have a few days between the enviscerating and the 1st meal. Think what you will about his marijuana paralell, but I firmly believe that hunting does tap into an altered state of consciousness that is characterized by sharply focused attention that he described very well. The difference is that reflexes are sharpened rather than dulled. Even though running and other exercises (like my martial arts) stimulate the morphine-like endorphins, those natural expreriences are far different from opium intoxication.
bob

The marijuana comment is just a sign of our times. Not necessarily a good sign.

I agree with Zimbabwe. There is nothing wrong with having a gag reflex at times. It means nothing much other than you dislike the task at hand. If we all were estatic about field dressing game more of us would work in slaughter houses. It is a necessary, but not necessarily an enjoyable task to perform.

I had a twist on the gag reflex once.

I was going on a solo antelope hunt near Ft. Sumner, New Mexico. I had to leave Las Cruces about 5:00am. I was in college, and I decided since I was going to be out late with my girlfriend, I would just pack the car and not bother going to bed that night.

My girlfriend and I spent the night pretty much welded together. She was a smoker. I don't smoke, don't like the smell of it, and since, automatically avoided women that smoked. Her hair smelled like an ashtray, she tasted like an ashtray.

I was fine until I left her in my apartment and went out to the car to head for Ft. Sumner. The experience got the better of me, the gag reflex got to me before I could start the car, so I got out and threw-up behind my apartment.

At that moment I would have rather field dressed a hog rather than gone back for another dose of her.

Enjoyed the article - useful and well presented to any non-hunting or 'outdoors' readership.

I have never had a gag reflex from gutting etc animals, even during culls when you can be 'knee deep in it', not that processing culling is enjoyable! Lion research or leopard baiting will cure you of a gag reflex!
I also used to do all kinds of projects as a teenager that usually involved some kind of skull or skeleton in semi-decayed phases buried in my yard or being boiled on my gas stove outside (much to the distaste of my moms freinds...who also thought my room clutered with snake cages was way beyond reasonable!).

The marijuana comment? Come on...who has hasn't been stoned once or twice in their life time? I don't know why people are so scared to admit it? Big deal. Half the university profs and 'young corporates' or professionals (i.e. the 'vanguard' of society) I know -some who hunt and fish - still light up on occassion!

Not saying its the best thing, but really, getting smashed on booze ain't good for you or society -its just legal and acceptable to more people - in fact not just acceptable, its encouraged in many circles as we all know. Fine line indeed...

Kayaker, me for one.

Your comment is an expression of your era. You think everyone has used marijuana. Must be a real shock to your system that there are actual live people that haven't been a user.

I suspect I'm not alone, but if it makes you feel better thinking everyone has used marijuana, go right on fooling yourself.

I applaud the writer for being honest, he could have easily written the story the antis wanted written. He didn't, he wrote what he felt and if on person tries hunting as a result of reading his article then I think it was a success.

I agree. It was a fine article. I would subscribe to hunting magazines if that type of article was written. I'm worn out reading macho, testosterone, ain't-I-a-stud re-hashes.

It wasn't easy reading for redneck, oilfield trash, but it said what most of us have felt at least once in our hunting careers. I think a non-hunter or two might go for it after reading the article, but not unless they read the New York Times.

Most of the young people I know that might be on the fence about hunting don't read the New York Times. There's the rub. The article needs to appear in a few hunting rags, and frankly none of them have big enough balls to try a hunting article written from a different angle. They only pay for the SOS.

Hi Kensco,

No where did I use the term 'everyone'. I realise not 'everyone' has! I am definately not 'fooling' myself either, I am not stupid or naive. Second, that is not a statement of my era either, its not like marijuana was just invented in the last decade or two. You think Westerners were smoking weed in the colonies a hundred years ago?

I simply find it odd that we live in a society where getting ripped, smashed, trousered, hammered, legless, pissed, wasted or 'off your face' at various celebrations or events comes with a ceratin level of acceptance, even encouragement while we dance around the issue of marijuana like its satan incarnate.

No, I am not a 'pothead' or user, I have in the past, sure. I just don't see why its such a big deal....Yes, excessive use is a problem undoubtedly, but then so is it with booze, so is too much junk food, prescription meds, and the list goes on... but I think we are now digressing from the topic of this forum, no?

A liberal college proffesor finally got to the heart of the hunt; killing is only a small part of the hunt and it has a value non hunters cannot appreciate.

I find it ironic that he is probably hooked on hunting and will hunt again.

Damn fine article. It is a breath of fresh air for someone who has never hunted before to try it and write about it and capture a lot of what hunters feel. One of my favorite quotes was:

"I was also curious to experience the food chain — which has grown so long and complex as to no longer even feel anything like a food chain — at its shortest and most elemental. And I had long felt that, as a meat eater, I should, at least once, take responsibility for the killing that eating meat entails. I wanted, for once in my life, to pay the full karmic price of a meal."

In todays world, so few people have any clue where food comes from. The end of the story where he has everyone over for dinner is dead on. I think I have as much fun cooking animals as I do hunting them. There is something extremely satisfying in producing a great meal that you hunted, killed, dressed, butchered and prepared yourself.

Tim carney,

Thanks for pointing this story out to us. I particularly enjoyed the fact that it was pig hunt in Northern California because years ago I made few of those hunts myself. (Though my brother and I ended up making brats, not prosciutto.) A very well-written story. Those looking for more well-written outdoor stories should check out RMEF's "Bugle." It is one of the few outdoor magazines that I almost always read cover to cover.

I'm glad to see BUGLE mentioned here. I agree that it is a fine magazine with articles that go beyond "testing" equipment and racking up body counts. Sad to say I've read comments in other hunting rags, usually in letters to the editor, and on forums where BUGLE is ravaged for being too touchy-feely or written by a bunch of bunny-huggers.

The radical nut-cases in hunting don't take well to a differing view. Not manly enough for them.

BUGLE is the one magazine that might re-print this article, except it has nothing to do with elk.

Hell Kensco, I'm only 31 and I've never been stoned or even taken a drag off a joint. So you know you're not alone, even outside of your generation.

I just started the article, but am even more motivated to read it. Interestingly enough, I never would have seen it without a colleague's liberal-leaning wife pointing it out to him. I too tire of the "SOS" (as you say) in the hunting rags. I've slowly started letting subscriptions to many of them slip, though I do enjoy a few articles in those that I still receive - just not as many as I did ten years ago...

Somewhat OT again, but most people who are on the fence would probably enjoy hunting if they were taken along by hunters. It happened to the writer of this article and it happened to my wife as well.

I must also salute womenhunters.org for the fantastic support the ladies there give other women to encourage them to shoot and hunt. Doing it is worth much more than any number of NYT articles, or, indeed articles anywhere else.

The comparison between hunting and smoking marijuana still irritates me - people may smoke it or even defend their habits if they want to, but the comparison is ridiculous. OT again, but aI would think that there always were, are and will be more people who have not smoked this than those who have.

Cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by Kensco:
I suspect I'm not alone, but if it makes you feel better thinking everyone has used marijuana, go right on fooling yourself.

Kensco,
I will join the crowd of "those few" who never have tested any sort of drugs The drug liberals rant about "almost everyone does it" and it's “hardly any worse than alcohol†is all bullshit.

Kayaker, what does smoking hemp has to do with hunting? I can't see your logic in this.

Cheers
/JOHAN

Too much of the anthropological, Margaret Mead analytical live with the illiterate savages and tell the literate world about them.

Too much emphasis on how embarrassed he should have been but wasn't and the utter and bewildering lack of irony of it all.

Too much of the let's condescend to understand it more than the ignorant peasants who know it elementally but can't justify it as well as I can.

Too much trying to justify the sensual reality of it to his artificial and superficial colleagues and soon-to-be-critics.

Still, I do think he stuck his scrawny little self-conscious neck out and told the truth, which is in and of itself refreshing.

I really enjoyed that article, I grw up in a nonhunting family. I killed my first big game animal at 35. I felt alot of the same emotions he did.

quote:

Originally posted by mehulkamdar:

The comparison between hunting and smoking marijuana still irritates me - people may smoke it or even defend their habits if they want to, but the comparison is ridiculous. OT again, but aI would think that there always were, are and will be more people who have not smoked this than those who have.

Cheers!

I really don't see the big deal about him comparing Marijuana with the hunting experience. He just used a couple of the effects of smoking pot to relate the way he felt as far as being more aware of his surroundings, I think he called it the Hunters Eye. He was just trying to relate the feeling of "The Hunters Eye" to people who have never been hunting and who may have(God Forbid) smoked pot a few times in their life. He also drew a link with the fact that we have cannabinoid receptors that cause heightened sensory awareness, hunger and a few other effects that he felt may be an adaptation for our hunting ways.

If thats the way he felt he could best convey his perception of the event then I have no problem with that whatsoever.

quote:

Originally posted by JOHAN:

quote:

Originally posted by Kensco:
I suspect I'm not alone, but if it makes you feel better thinking everyone has used marijuana, go right on fooling yourself.

Kensco,
I will join the crowd of "those few" who never have tested any sort of drugs The drug liberals rant about "almost everyone does it" and it's “hardly any worse than alcohol†is all bullshit.

Kayaker, what does smoking hemp has to do with hunting? I can't see your logic in this.

Cheers
/JOHAN

I agree with you that saying almost everyone does it is bs. There are definitely a lot of people who have smoked pot but saying everybody does it is taking it too far. As far as saying that it is hardly any worse than alcohol, I agree that is bs as well. It isn't any worse then alcohol, probably even better. Whens the last time you heard of someone getting stoned and crashing into a school bus or some innocent person on their way to work, Never. I can't say the same for alcohol.

How many people around the world everyday die or are hospitalized due to alcohol? I guarantee that number is exponentially larger then the number due to Marijuana.

Judging from some of the posts on this forum, when the writer is good at revealing the complicated emotions I associate with my best hunting experiences, many of us have had some moment of epiphany which transcended all the others. I will never forget JudgeG's "I've been to the mountaintop."

For me it was the first big game animal I took in Africa. We had walked for miles when a lone Blue Wildebeest was spotted in the thick bush, the tracker had the shooting sticks under my rifle as if by magic, the PH took what seemed like a very long look through his field glasses and said, "OK". I fired. The PH went one way, the tracker went another and we found the Wildebeest about thirty yards from where he was shot. Then the PH said, "The bakki is a long way from here. You stay with the animal and we'll be right back. If any scavengers show up be sure to scare them off." So, I sat down next to my first big game animal taken in Africa and was left alone for about an hour. That hour alone, in the bush, was a turning point for me. I saw everything with a clarity, a sensorial rush, like no other moment in my life. I felt like what I imagine a Navaho on peyote feels when he can sense Nature completely. I still get emotional when I think about it.

mrlexma

Congratulations, you have just exactly the attitude that turns people against hunting and hunters.

Scrawny??? Little??? He weighed 190 pounds. That is fairly significant, but then his education or way of describing his experience, or something, threatened you. (Sounds like a personal problem.)

Just make us a promise that you will keep the fact that you are a hunter a secret so you won't be identified with the rest of us.

We've got to get a few more educated, well spoken people interested in hunting before there is no hunting. Those that are on the fence need to be convinced to come our way.

Them good ol' make-believe mountain men and self-proclaimed great white hunters aren't gong to do anything for us except make a few bucks off hunting until hunting dies; while they proclaim they are the salvation of the sport.

I haven't read the NY Times article but I would say its all part of predator and limping prey phenomena.

When TV first arrived and hunters were not organized they got attacked by TV and then later the press because hunters were weak and disorganized because there was money to be made by doing so. Hunters and gun owners had a limp. They looked weak.

But when the NRA created and activated the ILA it put Liberals on notice and they realized that they couldn't get away with their hatchet jobs anymore without being called out. And now with the internet they have a much more difficult time controlling the flow of information.

Hunters and shooters in North America have teeth now and so the hostiles will automatically get increasingly polite. Look what happened to "The Gun's of Autumns" Dan Rather. Look what happened to Paul Martin in Canada. Liberals notice that and adjust their sets.

Modern Liberal philosophy is based on cowardice. They don't like to do or say , "anythi ng that isn't safe". It goes hand in hand with the first law of the media which is "don't offend your advertisers." These are the two tenants of political correctness.

I see where the NRA has recently expressed an interest in tackling The Humane Society of the United Sates and has torpedoed them a time or two.

Watch for the HSUS to get polite in the future or to pay the price. They are just a mail order business, and a lowly ranked one at that, wheras as the NRA has 4 million members and in a democracy numbers are what counts.

VBR,


Ted Gorsline

mrlexma

To be fair, if any of us went hunting with that writer a few times we could probably make him talk like a regular human being, because frankly I don't want to have to tote a dictionary around with me on a hunt.

I don't agree that he is scrawny or little, but by God he does talk a little funny.

Bulldog563,

It is the tacit comparison of hunters with marijuana users that is an insidious one, a suggestion that going out on a hunt is somehow comparable to drug intoxication. You could come up with a dozen neurological explanations to justify this but the comparison, and the way it was offered, is an odious one.

Mrlexma,

Good point about the writer's probable intentions and the positive end result.

As Ted Gorsline puts it, the politeness could be a reluctant one thanks to organisations like the NRA getting hunters and shooters together to confront the anti hunting and gun ownership arguments of very illiberal "liberals."

Cheers!

Ok...for what it is worth:

I read the article...liked it, primarily because, like the writer Mr. Pollan, I started hunting in my early 30's as opposed to many of you who have grown up with the sport. Unlike Mr. Pollan I did not suffer the "gag" reflex, but hey...that's me. I found his web site and emailed him my appreciation for the article, and for basically not going anti on us. He responded quickly and wrote me a very nice email thanking me for reading the article, and commenting on it. I may not agree with some of his politics...I certainly would never compare hunting with narcotics!...but I thought his response to my email was classy, and courteous. Say what you will....at the end of the day this dude turned out to be a stand up guy.

quote:

It is the tacit comparison of hunters with marijuana users that is an insidious one, a suggestion that going out on a hunt is somehow comparable to drug intoxication. You could come up with a dozen neurological explanations to justify this but the comparison, and the way it was offered, is an odious one

Mehul,

I think it was just a way for him to justify endulging in the fantastic lunch they had. What a way to satisfy the mid-hunt munchies...

-Steve

Steven,

Can you direct him to this thread? I think he would enjoy this discussion.

Tell him we want an arm-wrestling match between him and mrlexma. The loser has to eat hog liver paté. (Just the thought of having to eat that has my gag-reflex working.)

Kensco....

Good idea...I'll email him right now.

quote:

Originally posted by bulldog563:
I applaud the writer for being honest, he could have easily written the story the antis wanted written. He didn't, he wrote what he felt and if on person tries hunting as a result of reading his article then I think it was a success.

Ditto. I read the article last night and enjoyed it very much. Frankly, I never thought a guy from Berkeley would "get it" but he obviously did.

-Bob F.

Here's the email I sent him:

I enjoyed “The Modern Hunter-Gatherer†in the New York Times Magazine of 26 March 2006. I’ve hunted since I was a kid, for varying reasons, but now I do it to take responsibility for a few of the deaths that sustain my life instead of shifting that burden to others.

That changed when my father-in-law bought a coffee farm in Hawaii and I shot hogs and feral cattle to protect crops. I had no problem killing hogs, but the cattle had escaped from a ranch. The forest made round-ups impossible so the rancher told us to shoot them and keep the meat. I guess you can it hunting – it takes the same skills. The cattle were chasing pickers, so there may have been some danger. But the spiritual side wasn’t there. It was a Bronze-Age chore as old as agriculture, but killing for coffee made as much sense as killing for perfume or ribbons.

So you shot yourself a hog, cooked it and ate it. Now you understand what vegan arrogance denies: that God cursed Adam (Genesis 3:23) by making him a farmer, implicitly requiring him to spill blood forever.

Whether or not you ever hunt again, whether another bite of meat ever passes your lips, at least you went and learned. And that's the point...



And I also got a classy, though brief, reply.

I thought the article was good, for a Berkeley college professor writing in The New York Times. A lot of baggage goes with that territory and he handled it about as well as can be expected.


Okie John

I have now seen this modern hunter/gatherer angle used three times.

1) On the internet by an anthropologist in the Congo who obviosuly wanted to do as much hunting as he could but didn't want to admit to his fellow antropologists that he enjoyed what he was doing. So he pretended to be studying things. Just a sport hunter with no balls.

2) In an article in the Globe and Mail by Roy MacGregor about a man and wife living in arctic Canada. If you read between the lines you see she is the local doctor, makes the money and wears the pants. He is a house hubby bored to death who likes to go hunting for sport along the very handy Arctic Ocean. But he comes from urban Toronto so he can't say, "I like doing this to his peers". So he has to pretend its some kind of study.

Now again a third and similar NY Times story. You have three guys who enjoy hunting for sport as much as CJ McElroy or Elmer keith but who haven't got the balls to admit it. So they intellectualize it and become "modern hunter gatherers."

As for the New York Times. Why the editroial shift? They have written glowing editorials about Cleveland Amory in the past. Why a pro-hunting angle to the stroy. My take is this.

The New York Times is one of the mouth pieces for the Jewish Lobby. That is why they kept Seymour Hirsch as a freelancer and didn't hire him. He is a jew but he was objective and would give Arabs their equal space.

And they will support the Democratic party and its front people like Hillary Clinton.

But they no doubt noticed that America's hunters (and especially the NRA) had a great deal to do with the election of George Bush last time around. It is now in their vested interest to try to keep hunters from getting angry at the democrats.

So they have just printed a pro-hunting story to offer the olive branch with an anthropological twist so as not to offend their urban readers.

They don't want hunters to get wound up. Hillary could get her butt kicked if they do.

As for the author, he is just a budding Elmer Keith without the balls to admit it.


VBR,


Ted Gorsline

I tried to access the article but was unsuccessful. Can somebody email me a copy to gerhard@muskwa.co.za? I am building a database and on-line library on hunting and conservation which will eventually be available free of charge for anybody to use at AFRICAN INDABA - THE E-NEWSLETTER FOR HUNTER-CONSERVATIONISTS

If you have any other intersting articles and/or papers please send them to me. I am particularly interested in all aspects of Africa but also in general articles about hunting (philosophy, why do we hunt, etc). I really would appreciate the assistance of the forum members.

Thanks
Gerhard R Damm
PO Box 411, Rivonia 2128, South Africa
gerhard@muskwa.co.za www.africanindaba.co.za

Ted,

You are what we call in the oil industry a "booger hunter".

What justification for hunting do you require?

If you read almost any gun rag, the writers aren't really enjoying hunting they are "testing" equipment. There is a lot of "testing" going on by members of this forum. That is more BS than what you describe.

I've never tested any piece of hunting equipment, mainly because I never got anything for free, I guess. I just hunt. No excuses, for why I do it. I just hunt.

I personally don't mind someone trying hunting once and likeing it, or not likeing it to whatever degree. It doesn't say anything about him, other than he expressed his opinion.

You seem to require that everyone that hunts has to admit to you that they absolutely love it. They don't. Hopefully more people will get into it, but I'm not optimistic because we're a very judgmental bunch. That is one reason I've found only two good hunting partners in 45 years of hunting. That is one reason I prefer solo hunts.

Cut the guy some slack. He tried something new, who cares why, and he came away feeling different about the experience. More power to him.

Muskwa,

Apparently the article timed ut of the system. You can order a copy here;

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40E11F...758EDDAA0894DE404482

Or if someone on the board is a member of the website they could get you a copy.

Also I have a couple interesting articles that I have saved over the years that I will email you but you don't you need to get permission from the author before posting it on the net.