Eww.

Lucky they don't try to pull that off with fish. That would've been awkward...

For what it's worth, I have always heard that pictures of a killed animal are taken that way out of respect for the animal. My impression is that many hunters want to document their kill, but don't want to do so in a gruesome manner. That's why they go to so much effort to clean the blood from the animal, pose the animal naturally, to de-emphasize the wound, and so forth.

There is also a political component in that photographs that emphasize the death of the animal would be leaped upon by anti-gun, anti-hunting advocates, to argue how sick and death-obsessed hunters are. Responsible hunters and other gun-owners often go out of their way to present a positive example of themselves in order to avoid giving more ammunition to their ideological opponents.

You write: "That is, they don’t destroy nature with their guns, they tame it." It is a mistake to equate killing an individual animal with "destroying nature." With our guns, humans are capable of fulfilling the natural role that predators play in any ecosystem. Without predators, the ecosystem can get out of balance, to the detriment of all its members.

I do have some mixed feelings about the whole safari-vacation industry, and I think some legitimate criticisms could be leveled against it. I just disagree with the specific tradition of posing an animal a certain way in a hunting photograph.

Whoops. I meant, "I disagree with your criticism of the specific tradition..."

I think that if a person is proud of the role they play in killing "prey" to eat they are driven by ego, not by the need to survive. If people need animals to eat, which plenty of people who can't pay for safari's do, they should kill it, bless it for it's death and use all of it, not display it as though it's death wasn't violent and terrible, because this is not the truth. If any person were to think about being chased and then shot to death for another's meal, they certainly would consider it violent and terrible...but yes, another could argue they needed you to live...this I can be okay with. It is not wrapped around an ego to display ones kill, it lacks respect and promotes ego based domination over. Humans have done a great deal to negatively impact ecosystems, humans role as predator has been way out of balance for a long time, what we need is a larger conscience about what we choose to do...this is humans natural predator, it keeps us in balance.

I notice that some of those last pictures were for a New Zealand based safari company (the email address and URL are visible).

The animals in the photos are deer, which are an introduced species, and a major pest here in New Zealand. They damage the habitat and ecosystems of our native, and often endangered, fauna and flora.

Creating a safari industry not only provides business opportunities for locals, it also safeguards New Zealand's unique indigenous species.

More info here: http://www.northland.ac.nz/hunting/

I think it's definitely interesting that you noticed this trend.

Hunting is interesting in general. It's easy to assume that someone who hunts is sadistic or egotistical in nature. In my experience, though, some of the hunters I've known have also been the kindest, gentlest animal lovers I've known--as well as deeply involved in conservation and environmental efforts. I've also known people who go out to a deer blind with a 12 pack of beer and think global warming is a myth.

For about as long as we've been killing animals we've been displaying said kills in some capacity. Just like there's a spectrum of motivation for hunting in general, I think there's a spectrum of this sort of display. For some, it's likely our western need to make hunting/killing more palatable by making it look less like what it is. For others, there's a lot of care and reverence that goes into the kill, and they do feel an unexplainable kind of bond with these animals. It's not a matter of taming, conquering or destroying them--it's a matter of feeling part of the cycle.

As a point of interest, Susie, all of the hunters I've known who are not the stumbling-around-drunk-in-blind sort are extremely occupied with the efforts to make the death as quick and painless as possible. If an animal dies in a violent and terrible way, then the hunter is incompetent. The ideal, at least in deer hunting, is that they aren't alerted to your presence and--particularly with bow hunting--they die cleanly and instantly.

That isn't to say I'm particularly fond of the practice. It's just more complex than most people who've never been exposed to it tend to think.

I am *very distressed and upset*, indeed, to read such an *undamning and complicit analysis* of photos in hunting magazines on such an anti-oppression blog such as Sociological Images. While Socio Images has tons of insightful criticism of the oppression of women, people of color, and queers, it *has yet to really challenge the oppression of nonhuman animal individuals*.

Many social scientists and feminists have been demonstrated how interlinked violence towards women and "animals" is, whether in the home or out in the woods. The link between domestic abuse of women and companion animals as well as hunting, pornography, and rape has especially been noted. by figures like Amy Fitzgerald, Brian Luke, Marti Kheel, Carol Adams, Frank Ascione. Kheel and Luke has examined the discourses and narratives of hunters to demonstrate that killing animals is either sexual in nature or analogous to the patriarchal male climax during intercourse. Of course, there is also the issue of consent and the pornographic depiction of these animals' deaths.

There are few posts I can recall on Socio Images, which I love btw, analysing the "arrogant eye"/"male gaze" and objectification of animal others. The only time I see posts about animals is in regard to animalizing women or masculinizing dogs. Other than that, it's always a criticism of PETA. I was excited to see this post as I thought Socio Images was exploring some new territory, but alas, animal others were reincorporated into the realm of "nature" as asocial objects without subjectivity (there has also been a surge in research into "animal subjects" within cultural studies). Also, don't forget the colonialism inherent in these hunting expeditions in Africa--there has been a great amount of research on the domination of Africa through Safaris and Natural Parks by Europe (check out Harriet Ritvo's _Animal Estate_ for a classic analysis).

How about analysing some of the comments others have made. Is it obvious how much *spin* they put on these narratives and ontologize humans as natural predators! How "kind" and "gentle" is a moral agent if they pursue killing other animals for the pursuit of sport? How "natural" of a role is hunting, and does it really help "nature?" Studies have shown that hunters select the strongest animals and through natural selection smaller, faster breeding animals come to which are bad for ecosystems. Also note aerial wolf hunts and quotas that protect cattle, deer, and elk from wolves so humans may kill them (as well as the near extinction of the species).

Western hunting is at it's best paternalistic, filled with "dominance and affection" (Tuan 1982) and at it's worst it is patriarchal, colonialist, and pornographic to it's core. However much reverence for "animals" most hunters have, it is for the species/group, not the individual/singular subjects, that animal Others are.

@ adam: I agree with you. It is vexing to see a site like this which is devoted to analyzing the way oppression of different groups interlocks and yet see virtually nothing considering the subjectivity of non-human animals and their exploitation.

Regarding your observation about imperialism, I don't think its a coincidence that in nearly every (if not every) picture, the hunters appear to be white westerners. Thus, there are at least two ways of approaching these images: the oppression of animals through violent and unnecessary death, and imperialism both literal and metaphoric.

It's well known that carefully managed hunting is part of a balanced approach to natural resource management, and has multiple benefits, from culling herds to healthy popilations in the stead of absent predators, to promoting wilderness awareness.

Of course, I disapprove of the hunting of endangered species.

Susie Cousar mentioned using all of the animal, which is a sentiment that I've always found strange. Clearly it's never meant literally, or are hunters expected to harvest bone marrow, stomach lining, and the liver, for example? It attribute this meme to students learning about pre-columbian native american cultures in elementary school where it seems to be emphasised.
The standard of use I would hold hunters to is the same used in the slaughter of domestic animals like cattle.

These poses in the hunting community are more common the larger and rarer the game. You'll never see a naturally posed rabbit. If someone bothers to document their success on small game it almost exclusively for a large number of animals harvested, or to record a new hunter's first kill.

Finally, the most dangerous safari animal, the cape buffalo shown in the top left of the second-to-last picture, is one of the Big 5. Hunters who get the opportunity to go ofter this beast typically must win a lottery system and pay 10's of thousands, if not over $100,000 for the trip.
In the 1870's, the african elephant was almost extinct from poaching. By allowing hunting and hunting revenue, african states created an incentive for stewardship and sustainable management of their wildlife resources.

One of the largest hunter-lead conservation efforts in the US is Ducks Unlimited: http://www.ducks.org/

And all of the safari-going hunters are white. I'm shocked, just shocked, I tell you.

How about analysing some of the comments others have made. Is it obvious how much *spin* they put on these narratives and ontologize humans as natural predators! How “kind” and “gentle” is a moral agent if they pursue killing other animals for the pursuit of sport? How “natural” of a role is hunting, and does it really help “nature?” Studies have shown that hunters select the strongest animals and through natural selection smaller, faster breeding animals come to which are bad for ecosystems

I'm assuming that html tags work. If they don't, I apologize.

Since you appear to be analyzing my comment in particular, I'll go ahead and answer your question for you.

As to your first question--extremely, as I already said. My father is a hunter, and while I don't in any capacity approve of that fact, I have never seen him be cruel to animals. He has always been kind, loving, and gentle to every animal we've ever encountered both domesticated and wild. He's the sort of person who will stop on the side of the road to help an injured cat, dog, deer, racoon, or even possom. That makes me sound incredibly backwoodsy, when in reality I'm not. There are just a lot of animals in proximity to people in Texas.

I very much respect your argument that hunting and patriarchal violence share a correlation. I think it lacks some important factors, but it's certainly something that we should be discussing. I do, however, take exception to the notion that an individual who hunts must be cruel. It simply isn't true, and derails the discussion completely. You can critique the actions, but to critique the individual's complete character is nonsensical.

Additionally, I find the question of how "natural" the role of hunting is to be ridiculous, and perhaps fallacious. The argument is circular, as most every appeal to nature tends to be. In having these conversations with my father, that tactic always disintegrates to "We've been doing it since the dawn of time!" "But we don't need to anymore!"

Also, which studies? Because, again, the hunters I've known specifically avoid particular bucks (again this is deer hunting)--the largest and strongest--so as not to ruin the ecosystem--which would honestly ruin the entire point of what they're trying to do.

In any case, I respect the position you're coming from, I just wish you'd make it without all of the baseless accusations. When the conversation becomes "Here are these very nuanced and well thought out reasons people do an activity" "But those people are EEEEEVIIIIIIL!" we're not really getting anywhere.

I'm not impressed by the "imperialist" handwaving. For example:

I don’t think its a coincidence that in nearly every (if not every) picture, the hunters appear to be white westerners.

So what to make of this coincidence? Does this amount to an "argument" that hunting is bad? Or is it merely a political tactic bound to split people into two camps based on their ideological preconceptions and group allegiances?

Just would like to point out that one can criticize an action without demonizing the person doing it. Cats, I'm sure your father is very kind, but that doesn't mean his hunting is kind.

Jesse, I think the significance may be that they're paying to hunt African animals in non-western "safaris". Yet this is supposed to be some "natural" thing. There's no handwaving about it. It's a legitimate point to bring up. I would love to know how this is not imperialist at all.

I'm also disturbed by the "appeals to nature" that someone else pointed out. Let's not mention nature here, these people are probably not going to eat these animals. Even if they were hunting to eat, why are they paying tons of money to hunt on "safaris" with "exotic: animals?

"You write: “That is, they don’t destroy nature with their guns, they tame it.” It is a mistake to equate killing an individual animal with “destroying nature.” With our guns, humans are capable of fulfilling the natural role that predators play in any ecosystem. Without predators, the ecosystem can get out of balance, to the detriment of all its members." -Loraan

Thank God for guns! How would the ecosystem ever manage itself with out the big fatherly human and his gun of mercy!

Just would like to point out that one can criticize an action without demonizing the person doing it. Cats, I’m sure your father is very kind, but that doesn’t mean his hunting is kind.

I appreciate that distinction, Alby, and agree. That's the conversation I'd very much like to have regarding this subject. Pointing at hunters and accusing them of being terrible people is not going to further discourse regarding the ethics of their actions--as opposed to the value of their character.

Alby said, "Let’s not mention nature here, these people are probably not going to eat these animals. Even if they were hunting to eat, why are they paying tons of money to hunt on “safaris” with “exotic: animals?"

I'd like to point out that this posing behavior which the post discusses is not exclusive to safari hunters - we see it even with the deer. It likely tracks closest with the infrequency of the hunt. The rarer the experience, the more likely the pose will be made more naturally. This may explain taxidermy as well.

Cats,
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was calling *all* hunters cruel. Certainly some are, but then again, so are some vegetarians (i.e Himmler).

The issue of cruelty/humane is a misnomer. By focusing on the character/virtue of an individual's character one detracts attention away from the issue of oppression, which is *systemic * in nature, not individual. Certainly there are many "benevolent" patriarchs and "kind" racists, but this does not alleviate them from their complicitness within oppressive systems.

Again, the point is ot that "hunting is 'bad,'" rather it is *who is hunting whom and *why.* Killing and eating animals is tightly interwoven with patriarchy and capitalism. In pastoral cultures, women were/are traded for cattle at marriage, retaining/concentrating power in male heirs--these cultures are the roots of Western civilization after the nomadic invasion of Europe and the Asian minor 4.5kya. The first currency had the heads of animals on them and cattle/capital share the same root. Cattle also were crucial in world conquest as easily mobile currency and food and the diseases they gave to Europeans is what wiped out the Amerindians. Also note how meat is unequally distributed in patriarchal and hierarchal societies to those with privilege. Men are given/consume/desire more meat, and the global North depend on the unsustainable exploitation of South America to provide feed for their livestock. Read _The Animal Estate_ and you'll see the intersections of colonialism, clasism, and racism more clearly. Europeans and Americans created National Parks to create revenue through recreational spaces for the white elite by killing/displacingthe indigenous people. Hunting lands have been privatised for the privilige of the aristoracy since Mideival times, and the same is true today on game reserves where safaris take place.

For more specific examples, citations, and greater depth, please read the post "The Racial and Colonial Politics of Meat-eating" on my blog.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3854/is_200210/ai_n9100235
http://eco-health.blogspot.com/2008/12/racial-and-colonial-politics-of-meat.html

And some recent research refuting the idea that large deer populations may actually *increase* biodiversity: http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1021-ohio_deer.html

"Kheel and Luke has examined the discourses and narratives of hunters to demonstrate that killing animals is either sexual in nature or analogous to the patriarchal male climax during intercourse. Of course, there is also the issue of consent and the pornographic depiction of these animals’ deaths."

My analysis of the discourses and narratives of sociology blog comments has shown an inordinate preoccupation/obsession with phallic imagery portrayed with negative associations. "Patriarchal male climax?" Huh? Do vegan men experience matriarchal male climaxes? Are male climaxes really so dangerous? Can they take down a Cape Buffalo?

"Is it obvious how much *spin* they put on these narratives and ontologize humans as natural predators! How “kind” and “gentle” is a moral agent if they pursue killing other animals for the pursuit of sport? How “natural” of a role is hunting, and does it really help “nature?”"

The problem with this kind of topic is that it often ends up being several different topics all mixed up. Humans are top predators; we are natural hunters to the core, and that is simple evolutionary fact (study your front teeth closer, and consider your digestive enzymes). Most of our pre-historic food was plant based, but without animal protein our species' range would have been restricted to the tropics, which might not have been such a bad thing really.

That was a nice attempt to conflate hunting for sport with hunting in general, btw. Being 'kind' and 'gentle' has nothing to do with nature or hunting, those traits are human inventions and the traditional purpose of hunting was to survive, not "help nature." And for what it's worth, predator-prey relationships are pretty much what nature is all about. It's our technology that changes the whole equation.

Using trucks, helicopters, and guns in the act of hunting for sport is a separate issue from hunting itself, as are the associations of safaris with Africa's disturbing colonial history. As natural and human as hunting is, these Safari-style mockeries are something else. Just about anybody can look into a tube, put the little "X" thingy over the animal you see in the tube, then exert as much effort as it takes to push a button to actually kill the animal. That's not hunting; that's remote-control killing, which in a real survival situation would be a wonderful thing but these people are ostensibly out to 'experience' some abstract romantic notion of 'nature.' Riding around in a truck and killing at the push of a button is not exactly providing that experience, so to me the trophy-hunter scene is a sad joke.

As to using all of an animal that we kill, we do happen to use all of the cattle we slaughter, so deer hunters ought to take heed. Ever heard of hot dogs? Know where the taurine in Red Bull comes from? The list goes on, and gets pretty disgusting actually.

For what it's worth, I have been taught how to make my own bow and arrows, hunt, kill, skin, then dress a deer, and use nearly all of it, so I speak from experience about some aspects of hunting. I was shown how to use the stomach lining, sinew, bone marrow, many of the bones themselves, the hooves, the hide, and the brain (every animal has exactly enough brains to tan its own hide, seriously!). Using nearly all of the animal is not such an unrealistic expectation; it just takes a bit of learning and practice. Thanks to pollution, the liver is not so coveted anymore however (and no deer have been found with CWD yet where I live hence the use of the brain for tanning).

Lastly, it's not wise to assume that the skills of hunting and gathering are part of our past, as if we don't need to hunt any more thanks to industrial agriculture. We might not need to hunt at the moment, but we still need to know how. Every civilization that came before us has had a period of decline or collapse where such skills were again relied upon for a time, and it is myopic hubris to think our current one will last forever. I bet ancient Romans were pretty confident in the immortality of the Roman Empire after it had been around its first thousand years or so, but they were obviously mistaken.

Duran, Bob, and Village Idiot:
You brings up some valid points. I don't think all hunting can be clumped together. To be clearer, my responses have been in regard to specifically Western cultures, especialy within the context of *recreational* hunting.

More impotantly, my comments were not intended to spark a debate over whether it is "natural" or "moral" to hunt. Instead, I wanted to illuminate 1) how the oppression of animals intersects with the oppression of women, people of color, and the global south. Even still, 2) the reason I wrote to begin with is because **"animals" (as opposed to "humans") are subjects of discourse, and like marginalized humans, their bodies are marked as Other and lacking subjectivity. Within the context of this post their subjectivity is utterly ignored** (i.e. they are referred to as "it" and "nature" as a passive object to be acted upon and no attention is given to the animals' prior experience).

In 1987, Barbara Noske called for an "anthropology of animals," and while their is a lot of human-animal studies in the social sciences today, few sociologists are willing to accept "animals" as social actors (such as in actor network theory). If one is to study them, they must go through the "natural sciences" and reduce them to biologically determined mechanisms. This is what I am upset about... and so far no one but Caitlin has even commented about this--neither for nor against!
--Love, adam

Adam,

I very much appreciate the links, and the clarification. If I had more time, I'd comment further, as I have more questions for you. Unfortunately, I have to get to work. It appears that your blog may answer some of my questions, though, so I may pop in over there.

please give me some better essays

I've hunted deer and elk my whole life and we always take photos. Because most hunters are after a large set, we hold the heads up to show off the horns, there really isn't much more though put into it then"what would make for a better picture?" Also we protect the animals all year long until hunting season, and then we only kill older males. The animals live their whole lives outside in the wild. The practice is much more humane than the practices employed by any sort of industrial meat factory. Rather than exploiting nature, we are far more connected to it than people who buy their meat wrapped up in plastic wrap and styrofoam in the grocery store.

I think that there could reasonably be coalition building between "stewardship" advocates on the right & "environmentalist" groups on the left. Hell, we had Teddy Roosevelt, didn't we? The problem is...outside of New Hampshire, do actual stewardship advocates really exist? I've only ever heard it advanced as a post-hoc rationalization for selling out natural areas for profit.

Shot animals that are dying will often "bed down" after their initial flight, and will often die in that position from blood loss. The animal resting on its belly is often simply the position it died in, not posed. For lighter, human-weight animals like deer, they're often manhandled more simply because we're physically able to without much exertion.

i recall seeing on a hunter website once, they had strict rules about submitting pictures and that the animal be in a position that preserved their sense of the animals natural "dignity", ie no pics in which animals corpse was being dominated, showing wounds, or otherwise "disrepecting" it. Whether or not one agrees or approves, I think it showed an interesting insight into hunter culture.

This is just bad sociology. Instead of, you know, asking a hunter about this practice, Wade engages in fanciful speculation that happens to be wrong. First, a quick read of any hunting magazine should have shown her that hunters do not want to "tame" anything. If anything, they want to exaggerate the wild aspects of hunting. Second, she fails to consider the counterfactual: how else would you take a picture with an animal you have just killed? The idea is to show off the horns, so how else to do that? Finally, she is wrong about the blood. I have killed many deer, and seen many killed. I've never once seen anyone wipe blood off. The reality is that bullets don't always leave a big gaping wound, and animals aren't usually covered in blood. But don't let the facts get in the way of your imagination.