O MIGHTY American huntress, in your pseudo-Gulf-War combats, bearing your sniper-level high-tech rifle, picking unsuspecting goats off the cliffs of Islay, taking selfies with your bro-friend, grinning over your grotesquely glass-eyed spoils.
The modern Artemis, you ain’t. But what are you, exactly?
READ MORE: Is free speech cybercat out of the bag – or will we limit the sh*tstorm?
The immediate answer is that Larysa Switlyk, whose Twitter celebrations of her killing spree on the lovely island have triggered pearl-clutching on an epidemic scale, was legitimately hiring a sporting service provided by a local Islay landowner.
This is something we do (or let happen) in Caledonia. That is, we control land, flora and fauna, in order that visitors can spend money blasting away at fat birds, large-target stags, foxes, badgers, white mountain rabbits and God knows what else.
READ MORE: It's time to ask some serious questions ... about the BBC's Question Time
Well, we now know what else. The towering, ferocious, combative farm goat. What a trophy.
Beautiful wild goat here on the Island of Islay in Scotland. Such a fun hunt!! They live on the edge of the cliffs of the island and know how to hide well. We hunted hard for a big one for 2 days and finally got on this group. Made a perfect 200 yard s… https://t.co/AnIVSloS9J pic.twitter.com/x2FzvTF7No
— Larysa Switlyk (@LSwitlyk) October 22, 2018
Yet I guess this is Switlyk’s primary sin – parading her bathetic spoils on social media. My own feeds occasionally erupt in outrage at the sight of some midwestern dentist, corpulent executive or Trumpian scion grinning over their slain African giraffe, elephant or lion. Ricky Gervais explodes with c-words, and we all join in.
However, as many have pointed out over the last few days, it ill-behoves urbanites at their laptops to stream their outrage at the lurid violence of hunters. One meat trip to the supermarket implicates us in a system of mechanised carnage and heedless cruelty (you probably shouldn’t look up those “baby chicks fed into a mincer” videos on YouTube) that is barely imaginable. I don’t know about you, but I’m surrounded by Generations of Ys and Zs for whom veganism – moving entirely to a plant-based diet – is at once their practice, their community and even their planetary politics.
I don’t find it at all hard to respect their respect for animal sentience. (Indeed, it’s upped my kitchen game for tasty vegetables.) I won’t eschew meat when it looms before me, but these kids are making me hugely self-conscious about the very systems and practices that bring it to my plate.
As methods of land use and methane production (yes, animal farts) are massive inputs to climate change, I can’t see veganism/anti-meat trends doing anything but intensifying over the next decade or so. However, where I can’t follow my zealous young friends is when they render the appetite for meat itself as “unnatural”. More than 90% of our existence on the earth, as fully-evolved human animals, has been spent as hunter-gatherers.
So much of our contemporary human equipment has been forged by hunting. This includes hand-eye co-ordination, toolmaking, imagining and rehearsing scenarios, social and group co-operation (involving language, skills and tradition).
And straight off the bat, we should detach this from any cliches about male prowess. The most recent Paleolithic research by Kristin Hawkes and Sarah Hrdy notes that both hunting and gathering (of roots, fruits, nuts and tubers) were much more equally conducted by men and women than previously thought.
While studying modern and remaining hunter-gatherer tribes, they discovered that male-dominated hunts were only successful 3.4% of the time. Most of the community’s protein was brought back by grandmothers, leading the dig for roots in the dirt.
And the skills practised during this digging – humans “putting their heads together” socially, in a way that apes cannot really do – are as core to human flourishing as those honed on the hunt. So hunting does have its place in our evolutionary wiring. The point is not to overstate its power – either compared to gathering, or to our modern ability to consciously invent our culture and values. (As the psychologist Steven Pinker once said, we can always tell our genes to go take a jump in the lake).
Some hunting advocates do try to justify the practice as a return to the elemental sources of being human.
It was interesting to hear the Scottish theologian and environmentalist Alastair McIntosh on Radio Scotland the other morning.
Green spokesman Mark Ruskell
Alastair reminded us of the animal culling – not itself uncontroversial – involved in Highlands land management (and not even Scottish Greens spokesman Mark Ruskell, speaking on STV’s Scotland Tonight, could deny that). But Alastair also spoke of how many stalkers in Scotland he knew had “an ethic”.
He cited hunters who “accord to every kill the respect they’d give a funeral”. Or “tweet thoughtful nature observations from the stalks” they lead. Or whose favourite toast is “to the soul of the stag”. McIntosh cited a gamekeeper who complained that “this ‘hardcore’ hunting from America lowers the threshold of respect for animals”.
McIntosh (and his friends) are here voicing one of the oldest human relationships to nature – animism: a sense of deep connection, even communion, with the creatures around them. And again, the human sciences bear him out. Take, for example, the traditional Koyukon Indian subsistence hunters of northern interior Alaska.
According to Richard Nelson, who has studied them closely, “if you disrespect an animal — by boasting of your hunting skills, using taboo hunting techniques or technology, speaking disrespectfully of the animal or mishandling and wasting meat — you will spoil your entire tribe’s luck when hunting the offended species, until and unless tradition-prescribed ceremonial amends are made.”
We see exactly these forms of disrespect displayed in Larysa Switlyk’s hardcore pictures, and those of other trophy hunters. Is this part of what deeply violates us?
Anthropologists are very useful guides to the subtle judgments you could make around hunting. The right-wing philosopher Roger Scruton is a great justifier of hunting and in particular the foxhunt.
As it marauds wildly across fields and enclosures, Scruton believes the hunt briefly invokes a pre-modern, hunter-gatherer-like joy – a world before agrarian laws and rules.
“You do this in intimate conjunction with an animal, in full and blood-warming empathy with a pack of hounds,” he says.
Yet, in response, anthropologist Hugh Brody has noted that the right to run freely across the commoners’ lands has always been an elite and aristocratic privilege. The silly costumes and tooting horns are its lingering indicator. If land ownership became much less egregious in Scotland, could a hunting culture emerge similar to that in, say, Norway – where the hunt becomes an egalitarian and even communitarian exercise? A celebration of local resilience?
Or should we go with the agenda of rewilding of advocates such as Jim Crumley, who would reintroduce the wolf and its forests into Scotland – not to be hunted, but to support biodiversity and carbon capture.
Just to be clear: I speak as someone who gave up fishing the first day I failed to pluck a hook from a gasping mouth. I will never access the pleasures of hunting. I find absurd the idea that there is any real contest between even the most agile and alert animal, and a human with a 21st-century rifle. The class and elite connotations of hunting in Scotland are abhorrent to me.
And yet, we once did hunt, for millions of years. Both the action, and those hunted, deserve a degree of sacred respect, for how much they have forged our human civilisation.
A respect which our crass selfie-celebrity, tumbling around the cliff tops of Islay with her BF and her carcasses, most certainly does not display.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel