Why do hunters get such a bad rap?
Today’s Talk of the Day is inspired by a couple of things that have intersected in the last few days.
1) This week, we ran a story about a Sedalia deer hunter who shot a deer — and was subsequently mauled by the same animal before he finally finished him off. That story, as I write this, has 247 comments on it. Many of them run in favor of the deer and against the hunter.
2) I’ve noticed a steady flow of photos into our reader-supported IWitness “hunting and fishing” photo album. Every day, we get several more photos from hunters who have bagged a deer.
My colleague, Teak Phillips, a hunter himself, has also blogged about the Sedalia incident on his Hook and Bullet blog. I’m not a hunter, so I’m fairly ignorant about these matters. Teak gave me a lot of insight into the Sedalia case and hunting in general:
> Hunters were scornful of the hunter in that case. He should have let the deer alone for an hour, then approached it with his gun ready. If it’s eyes were closed, he should have shot it again; deer don’t die with their eyes shut.
> Hunters are very scornful of others that don’t follow the rules, which include abiding by state-imposed limits, getting licensed, hauling out what you kill, finishing off wounded animals, etc.
> A deer’s defense is more powerful than a hunter’s offense. They can smell a person a long way off, and hear them, too. They spend all their time surviving; actually finding a deer in the wild isn’t as easy as you might think.
> Critics complain that it’s not a fair fight. Deer don’t have opposable thumbs or a large brain; hunters have guns. But Teak says that once a deer is in a hunter’s sight, it’s NOT a fair fight. It isn’t designed to be. Hunting is designed for thinning overpopulated deer populations and providing food for those who want it. Again, hunters who drop deer and leave them to rot are scorned.
So, the question is, then, why do hunters who follow the rules get such a bad rap?


Kurt is the director of social media for the Post-Dispatch, where he has worked since August 2002. He's been a journalist since 1982, covering municipal government, courts, education and two hurricanes as a reporter before becoming an editor.
To answer the letter writer’s question, let’s be honest. Most hunters are gun nuts who will support the NRA till death do them part…regardless of cop-killer bullets, semi-automatic weapons, Saturday night specials, and unregulated gun shows where anyone can buy a gun with no-questions asked….The gun show “dealers of death” sell uzi’s used to obliterate living creatures including high school students.
Other than that, I don’t think hunters get a bad rap.
I think the question was answered before our typing began. Good hunters take the rap for bad hunters. Just like any other category of people. But why does society in general tend to have such a negative attitude? I can’t speak for others but here’s my feeling. I have no moral qualms about killing for food, whether it’s in the woods with a gun or in the slaughterhouse for my supermarket. Animals kill other animals to survive. It’s perfectly Natural and the Way Things Are. But hunting bothers me if it is considered a “sport.” Sport implies taking pleasure in the outcome, and being happy that something else is now dead doesn’t sit well with me. Do modern hunters follow Native American custom and thank the animal for giving it’s life to provide food for others? I’m thinking not. In addition, we historically removed so many natural predators (like the wolf) not only to protect livestock but because hunters of the time were whining that the predators were taking too many deer (or whatever) and they had nothing to kill anymore. Oh wah, wah, wah. Now we “have to” kill off x-number of deer because their population is exploding. Seems to me that we created the deer problem to appease hunters and it has just become a redundant full circle.
Sorry I’m getting in on this so late, but I used to do my postings early in the AM before the day really started.
I think we can hold Walt Disney responsible for humanizing animals.
Honestly, its righteousness. When I decide not to do something, like hunting, I make it wrong for myself and the others who do it. If I were to choose not to do it, I leave the possibility of it alive for others without judgment.
Most people operate in a world of decision and not choice driven by the desire to be right about themselves and to make others wrong.
You know who has the toughest go. The supermarket butcher. I would suspect most people approach the meat counter these days with an uneasy feeling. The butcher has to expereince that anxiety. We should start a campirh, “Love your Butcher”, no we should change that, “Love your meat cutter,”, no “Love your protein and fat worker.”
The people behind the fish counter have an easier time I think.
Everybody loves the produce workers.
From one who enjoys eating meat with my vegetables.
I have always wonder why we pretend to honor the spirits of animals more than plants. Plants seem to provide so much more for us.
Here’s one more little thought. I’ve never been hunting but I used to fish as a kid. Kind of hard to get all emotional about non-cuddly scaled creatures, right? Well, I guess I was either incredibly soft-hearted or entirely pragmatic. One day when I was about 14 I realized I was killing fish and I had no intention of eating one. (Didn’t go to waste. Gave them to somebody else.) So I said to myself, “If you ain’t gonna eat it, don’t kill it.” Today I might feel differently because as an adult I love fish.
One more thing. One day when I was lamenting bunny damage in my garden, I thought, “Good thing I don’t live where deer abound. I’d be out there chasing Bambi with a howitzer!”
Once again. I realize the need for hunting. Some of my best friends are hunters and I’ve eaten the deer sausage they provided. But I’ve also seen a couple of my hunting friends get out of the “sport” because other hunter-wannabes were making them nuts.
Thanks to all for contributing. I am impressed at how civil this conversation was, even with a wide variety of viewpoints.
Garrison, I would like to address your comment: “Most hunters are gun nuts who will support the NRA till death do them part…regardless of cop-killer bullets, semi-automatic weapons, Saturday night specials, and unregulated gun shows where anyone can buy a gun with no-questions asked….The gun show “dealers of death” sell uzi’s used to obliterate living creatures including high school students.”
It’s likely inaccurate to say that most hunters are NRA members. While many are, there are more hunters than NRA members.
“Cop-killer” bullets are not really defined, by the NRA or the government. Many groups have used the word to describe ammunition capable of penetrating body armor. That would include much of the ammunition used in big-game hunting.
“Semi-automatic” weapons are not necessarily synonymous with Uzi’s or other “assault weapons.” Many hunters use semi-automatic weapons that fire hunting cartridges and hold 5 or fewer rounds.
The gun show issue is a bit of a misunderstanding, which the media (my publication included) seldom clarifies. All firearms sold by licensed dealers must include a background check, with no exceptions. The majority of sellers at gun shows are dealers, in part because the BATF is quite strict in its enforcement of gun laws. Individuals (non-licensed) may sell firearms at gun shows but may not do so in an effort to make a profit because then they’d be unlicensed dealers, a major offense. Individuals may also sell firearms outside of gun shows, such as by taking out a classified at in the Post-Dispatch, and still not need to do a background check. Not only are private sellers (as in non-dealers) not required to conduct the checks, they lack the means. The FBI NICS (background check) system is available only to licensed dealers.
Hunters get a bad rap for several reasons, the main one is only bad incidents are printed in the media. Today the media is dominated by left leaning (mostly) liberals who are handicapped by their lack of knowledge on the subject, and srories like the Sedalia man do not help. (although we hunters do like to hear about those stories, especially when no person gets really hurt) Hunters do police their own kind and do not tolerate those who will not play by the rules, and won’t let others (like the Sedalia guy) forget their mishaps. Hunters in Missouri donated 90 tons of lean organic meat to the needy last year alone. (90 TONS!!!) Let’s hear of any other group in Mo. that has equaled that? Hunters (and fishermen) spend tens of millions of dollars on equipment, groceries, motels, restaurants, ammo, and processing almost exclusively in rural areas, which is a huge boost to those local economies. Not to mention the tens of millions of dollars spent on tags, and licenses that help keep our Conservation agency one of the best in the United States. The wonderful things that deer hunters do are not reported much. (bad stories outnumber the good by 10 to 1 and are never in the post dispatch except maybe once a year on the back of the sports section on Saturdays.) Yes as with any walk of life there are some bad apples, but that applies to ALL who live and breathe.
People like P. Carpenter, Nugent was young, Teresa, lunar, Boyd, Karen, and Dave Misham are all prime examples of the uninformed bashing something ONLY because of their beliefs, and they have that right but look unintelligent in the process. But they have missed the point and should not take part in this discussion solely as a cultural assault. How many of them have given back as BIG as the deer hunters they are putting down? Very little I suspect.
I as one take a deer for my own consumption and another to donate to the needy every year, and I feel very good about that.
I think the main reason hunters get “a bad rap” is the bias against gun owners and southerners. I can’t think of a movie where the brainy guy has a slow southern drawl – but I can think of plenty of movies where the bad guy does. The bias against guns runs so deep that when they made a movie of John Grisham’s “The Runaway Jury”, Hollywood changed the plot – instead the tobacco industry, they made gun makers the villains. I guess more Hollywood types smoke than own guns.
Personally, I don’t hunt, but I know plenty of people who do. Most of them are technical professionals, certainly not the stereotypical hillbilly cracking beers and blasting anything that moves. All of them eat what they kill, and are generous with it (I’ve enjoyed much deer sausage over the years). I don’t know of any that take a trophy and leave the deer – although I did know one who agonized over wounding a deer but not being able to track it down. He felt awful that his poor shot had caused the animal to suffer.
I guess legitimate arguments could be had about their motivations (machismo vs. environmental management), but the results of their actions are positive. The fees they generate help pay for wildlife management. The land hunters acquire and leave fallow make up large parts of the “natural habitat” that the animals have left. And yes, hunters prevent overpopulation and the attendant starvation that would cause. But despite the good that comes from hunting, lots of people will still insult and demonize the tradition. The old truism definitely applies here – You can’t please everyone.
It can hardly be ignored any more that Americans are suffering from twofold pathology: 1) severe political brainwashing, and 2) the need to mind their own damned business. Anyone who participates in any facet of what used to be traditional American culture is now mocked and derided by “enlightened” urban elitists.
In particular, the fact that residents of St. Louis do it with unusual glee shows how woefully ignorant they are as to their actual status in the hierarchy of urban elitists. You can make fun of “rednecks,” “hillbillies,” and “white trash,” but know that just because you live in a neighborhood with a Quicktrip or a 7-11, you’re no better than anyone else.
From what I can tell, there are whole bunch of readers of STLtoday.com that I should go hunting with.
Thanks again for the interaction here. And thanks to my colleague Kurt Greenbaum for bringing up the topic.
Teak, a little advice….You will never have a rational conversation with Garrison.