The competitive consumption and fetishism of wildlife trophies

Abstract

This article argues that trophy hunting is not an ahistorical phenomenon. Hunting for sport became popular among US elites in the late 1800s. Since this time, in addition to animal trophies being displayed as evidence of one’s economic and cultural capital, these commodities have served as symbolic evidence of their owner’s courage, skill, and fortitude. Currently, the hunting industry (i.e. sporting goods retailers, weapons manufacturers, and advertising supported media) seeks to perpetuate and expand these perceptions. Displaying animal trophies is unlike many other forms of competitive consumption, such as displaying expensive jewelry, in that the hunting industry has attempted to create the often false perception that these commodities required their owners to conquer dangerous and cunning opponents. Trophy hunting is unlike many other sports, in that economic resources, as opposed to skill, are often the primary factor in determining one’s success. Therefore, the use values of animal trophies are fetishized.

Keywords

Commodity fetishism competitive consumption conspicuous consumption trophy hunting wildlife

Thorstein Veblen (1979) noted that when a culture transitions from living in a state of “peaceful savagery” to a “predatory phase,” in which social stratification exists and the concept of private property is well developed, “… an invidious comparison of one hunter or warrior with another grows … Tangible evidence of prowess – trophies – find a place in men’s habits of thought as an essential feature of the paraphernalia of life” (pp. 16–17). In the 21st century, wealthy individuals from all over the world travel great distances to appropriate and display animal trophies (Gunn, 2001). The focus here will be on trophy hunting in the United States.

Trophy hunting is both a sport and a means of what Veblen (1979) referred to as “conspicuous consumption,” or what Juliet Schor (2000) has more recently referred to as “competitive consumption.” I argue that acquiring animal trophies is unlike many other forms of competitive consumption, for example, purchasing a luxury automobile, in that, in addition to animal trophies serving as evidence of one’s cultural and economic capital, they may also serve as ostensible evidence of one’s courage, skill, and fortitude. Moreover, killing wildlife is a means of claiming competency in other areas, such as statesmanship. Trophy hunting is unlike most sports, in that economic resources, as opposed to skill, can be the primary factor in determining one’s success. Thus, the use values of animal trophies are often fetishized.

First, the history of how Euro-Americans came to regard hunting a sport and the possession of animal trophies symbolic evidence of courage, skill, and fortitude will be summarized. Second, the methods that the contemporary “hunting industry” (McGuigan, 2017), that is, sporting goods retailers, weapons manufacturers, and advertising supported media, utilizes to perpetuate and expand these perceptions will be detailed. Third, the role that economic resources play in providing wealthier hunters with privileged access to “trophy quality” wildlife will be explored. Fourth, I argue that the skill, persistence, and personal risks required to attain animal trophies are often highly exaggerated, which, in turn, fetishizes their use values. Finally, some of the adverse consequences for wildlife and wilderness ecosystems that result from state governments and the hunting industry’s attempts to mass produce “trophy quality” wildlife in the United States will be briefly discussed.

Shifting Euro-American perceptions of hunters and hunting

Sut Jhally maintains that objects can potentially have multiple, socially constructed, use values. For instance, the body parts of wildlife could be perceived as the raw materials for food, clothing, medicine, tools, decorations, religious icons, or worthless materials that should be disposed of. In cultures that hunt and gather food for subsistence, the social relations of production are transparent. Under capitalist relations of production, the connection between producers and consumers of objects is severed. It is often unknown who produced the object and under what conditions it was produced. Thus, objects are stripped of their meanings. The advertising industry fills this void by imposing meanings on objects (Jhally, 1990). In the case of trophy hunting, hunters do perform some of the labor required to produce their trophies. However, the hunting industry attempts to manipulate the social meanings of animal trophies. Through purchasing advertisements in hunting magazines and hunting television shows (McGuigan, 2017), marketing hunting DVDs and video games, and sponsoring trophy hunting groups, such as Safari Club International (Safari Club International, 2016a), weapons manufacturers and sporting goods retailers portray hunting as form of recreation that requires skill, courage, and fortitude.

From the 1600s through the early 1800s, most Euro-Americans considered hunting for food an inefficient use of land and labor. It was stigmatized as an activity engaged in by indigenous peoples and Euro-Americans who lacked the ambition to raise livestock (Herman, 2005). In 1790, Dr. Benjamin Rush, who was among the signers of the Declaration of Independence, maintained that hunting “… hardens the heart … consumes a great deal of time, and thus creates habits of idleness, [and] … frequently lead men into low, bad company” (Rush quoted in Dizard, 2003: 32). Thus, it can be assumed that displaying deer antlers and the like during this period would not have enhanced one’s social status.

In the late 19th century, the writings of Theodore Roosevelt, as well as other elite sportsmen, began to change perceptions of hunters and hunting. In 1893 he wrote, “The chase is among the best of all national pastimes; it cultivates that vigorous manliness for lack of which in a nation, as in an individual, the possession of no other qualities can possibly atone” (Roosevelt, 2004: 329). He further asserted that the successful pursuit of game in wilderness areas was evidence of an individual’s “… hardihood, self-reliance, and resolution …” (Roosevelt, 2004: 348). Despite there being no record of a US President hunting while in office prior to the 1850s (Herman, 2005), the Manhattan born and raised Roosevelt (2004) further asserted “… it is worth noting how many of the leaders among our statesmen and soldiers have sought strength and pleasure in the chase …” (p. 766).

The hunting magazines of the late 19th and early 20th centuries made it clear that hunting was an elite sport and not intended for the working classes or racial minorities. In the early 20th century, Charles Hallock, the editor of Forest and Stream, decreed that the “great mass of those who shoot – the small farmers, bushrangers, and frontiersman (to say nothing of the negroes of the south, who all use guns) …” did not have the “instincts” of elite sportsmen (Hallock quoted in Smalley, 2005: 188). After World War II, the American labor movement successfully bargained for higher wages, better benefits, and increased vacation time for many workers. This, combined with greater access to affordable automobiles and a dramatic increase in road building, gave many working-class men opportunities to hunt (Fine, 2000). The 1950s were the high water mark for participation in hunting among Euro-Americans. During this time, approximately 25% of men in the United States participated in some form of hunting (Dizard, 2003; Herman, 2005). This was a period in which hunting magazines defined the activity as a highly masculine sport that enabled men to reproduce the camaraderie, excitement, and acts of bravery they ostensibly experienced during the war. Women were not welcome in this newly defined brotherhood (Fine, 2000; Smalley, 2005).

Some of the same historical trends that led to increased participation in hunting during the first half of the 20th century led to decreased participation in hunting during the second half of the century. Nibert (2002) argues that urbanization, combined with the increased economic security provided by rising wages and the Keynesian welfare state, enabled many US citizens to expand their fields of concern to non-human animals. This, in turn, has led to decreased participation in hunting. Currently, 11% of men and 1% of women participate in some form of hunting – which is a significant decline from a 25% participation rate among men in the 1950s (US Department of the Interior, 2011).

The hunting industry

Despite the decrease in the popularity of hunting, the market for hunting paraphernalia and hunting-related media remains strong. Hunting appeals to a demographic, that is, older white, non-Hispanic males, who have higher disposable incomes than the general population. Eighty-nine percent of hunters are men. Ninety-seven percent of hunters are white. One percent of Hispanics hunt compared to a 6% participation rate among non-Hispanics (US Department of the Interior, 2011). Fourteen billion USD are spent annually on hunting equipment, and sporting goods retailers report that firearms and other hunting paraphernalia are their most profitable items (McGuigan, 2017; US Department of the Interior, 2011). One hundred million USD are spent annually on hunting books, magazines, and DVDs (US Department of the Interior, 2011). As mentioned above, big box retailers, such as Cabela’s and Bass Pro Shop, market their products by purchasing advertisements in magazines and by sponsoring trophy hunting organizations, such as Safari Club International (Simon, 2016). Beginning in the 1990s, specialized cable television channels, for example, The Outdoor Channel and The Sportsman Channel, which focus on hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation, began to proliferate. The A&E Network currently airs two programs, Duck Dynasty and Country Buck$, which feature affluent families who hunt and have made their fortunes by manufacturing hunting paraphernalia. These programs and channels have created additional mediums for retailers to advertise hunting equipment and related goods (McGuigan, 2017).

In the 21st century, hunting magazines continue to portray hunting as a sport that enables white males to engage in acts of bravery and to assert their dominance over wildlife, women, and racial minorities. In their content analysis of photos of people posing with dead animals in trophy hunting magazines, Kaloff and Fitzgerald (2003) noted that only 5% of the photographs were of women posing with dead animals. Moreover, unlike the majority of the photographs that contained men, almost half of the women did not pose with weapons. When women were holding weapons, they appeared awkward. Men were often photographed with a weapon placed over the dead body of the animal they had killed. Less than 2% of the people who appeared in the photographs appeared to be non-white. Unlike the “… negroes of the south who all use guns …,” whom the editor of Forest and Stream, Charles Hallock, had objected to a century before, none of these individuals were shown holding a weapon. The majority of the non-white individuals appeared to be hunting guides, or other employees, of the white hunters. Most of the dead animals in the photographs were males and displayed in a manner that conveyed that a “worthy opponent” had been defeated. According to Kaloff and Fitzgerald (2003),

In the large animal photographs, hunters commonly have their hands symbolically placed on the head of a huge bear, or clutching the antlers of large elk or moose, or just resting on the body of a dead animal. This human physical contact with the dead body serves no practical purpose other than to strike a pose that conveys messages of dominance and possession. (p. 118)

Sporting goods retailers, trophy hunting groups, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) portray hunting as an inherently risky sport that places the hunter in a David versus Goliath contest against dangerous and aggressive wildlife. Safari Club International (2016b) offers its membership the opportunity to acquire the “Grand Slam Dangerous Game of Africa Award.” Bass Pro Shops (2016) assures its customers that “… our country [i.e., the United States] has its own share of potentially dangerous game.” It lists bison, grizzly bears, black bears, cougars, and moose as potentially dangerous. An article written in the NRA’s publication American Hunter asserted that “The term ‘dangerous game’ is something that we hunters often associate with Africa but there’s plenty of dangerous game hunting to be had right here at home” (Wood, 2015). Cabela’s markets hunting video games that feature hunters being attacked by animals indigenous to North America, such as moose, bears, and wolves. In one game, a hunter must defend himself, as well as his freshly killed trophy moose, with a firearm from a pack of wolves that repeatedly attacks him (Cabela’s, 2016). In this case, it was not the fictitious hunter’s quarry that attacked him. Just having wolves in an area is portrayed as an existential threat to hunters. Thus, hunters who pursue species that are commonly perceived as being non-dangerous, for example, deer, rabbits, and the like, may be given the impression that they too may be risking their lives. The NRA has informed its members that “Most hunters that are killed, wounded or threatened by dangerous game in North America are after other species at the time …” (Wood, 2015).

Many hunters’ perceptions of what constitutes a “successful” hunt are apparently congruent with the definitions of success portrayed in video games, DVDs, television shows, and magazines. Child and Darimont (2015) analyzed photographs that had been posted on the Internet of people posing with animals they had killed. The hunters’ smile types were scored to measure their levels of satisfaction. Hunters displayed greater levels of pleasure when they were posing with a dead animal than if they were not displaying any evidence of a kill. It was found that individuals displayed evidence of greater satisfaction when posing with large game versus small game. Older men showed greater levels of pleasure when posing with carnivores than they did when posing with herbivores. Child and Darimont (2015) concluded that “… the prospect of displaying large and/or dangerous prey at least in part underlies the behavior of many contemporary hunters” (p. 531.)

Being adept at killing wildlife continues to be utilized as an indicator of competence in other arenas, such as statesmanship and land stewardship. For instance, President Donald Trump announced during his campaign that he intended to appoint one of his sons – both of whom are avid trophy hunters – to the position of Secretary of the Interior. He maintained that their main qualifications for heading the Department of the Interior are their hunting skills and their advocacy for Second Amendment rights (Bedard, 2016). In 2008, when John McCain was running for President and announced that he had selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, Palin was arguably among the least experienced, knowledgeable, and qualified candidates for Vice President in the history of the office (Herbert, 2008). Although Palin is reportedly unfamiliar with, and uncomfortable in, the Alaska wilderness, an extremely poor marksman, and unable to fire a bolt action rifle without assistance, she claims to be an avid hunter (Jans, 2011). In his speech endorsing the McCain–Palin ticket, the former US Senator Fred Thompson dedicated approximately 3 minutes of his 27-minute speech to detailing Palin’s qualifications to serve as Vice President. Palin’s alleged hunting skills were presented as evidence of her courage and willingness to engage in reforms at home and to face threats from abroad. Thompson asserted,

She has run a municipality and she has run a state. And I think I can say without fear of contradiction she is the only nominee in the history of either party who knows how to properly field-dress a moose. With the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt. Okay. When she and John McCain get to Washington, they’re not going to care how much the alligators get irritated – they’re going to drain that swamp. (The New York Times, 2008)

Excluding the masses from participation in hunting

Hunting for sport typically occurs in societies that are highly stratified. For instance, in the 18th century, in the regions of Europe controlled by the Holy Roman Empire, it was illegal for commoners to hunt (Knoll, 2004). During the same period in England, ordinary citizens could receive the death penalty for hunting the “king’s deer” (Eliason, 2012a). In the contemporary United States, there are no formal laws that prohibit the poor and working classes from hunting. However, as will be discussed below, access to prime hunting grounds and the right to kill “trophy quality” captive animals have become commodities that people of modest means often cannot afford.

As mentioned above, early Euro-Americans were far more interested in farming than hunting. However, beginning with the introduction of livestock to Jamestown in the early 1600s, they became determined to eradicate all indigenous fauna, for example, deer, wolves, bears, and crows, that threatened their crops or farm animals (Coleman, 2004; Lopez, 2004; Nibert, 2002). The Euro-American practice of indiscriminately killing “vermin” continued largely unchecked until the late 1800s (Coleman, 2004; Matthews, 1992). By the late 19th century, wealthy sportsmen, such as Theodore Roosevelt, became concerned that unbridled capitalism would lead to the extinction of game species, such as elk and bison. Although they were proponents of capitalist expansion and believers in the doctrine of “Manifest Destiny,” they were willing to use government intervention as a means of conserving game animals, timber, water, and other resources (Sandlos, 1998). Naomi Klein (2014) has observed that “Like the Christian missionaries who travelled with traders and soldiers, most early preservationists saw their work as a civilizing addendum to the colonial and industrial projects – not as a challenge to them” (p. 183). The North American model of wildlife management, which emerged from the late 19th-century conservationist movement, defined wildlife as a “public trust” that was to be sustainably managed. Thus, unlike the “king’s deer” of 18th-century England, wildlife could be hunted by any citizen as long as they were not violating game laws or trespassing on private lands that had posted signs that specifically prohibited hunting (Eliason, 2012a).

Despite the designation of wildlife as a “public trust,” there has never been an epoch in which all US citizens, regardless of their economic resources, had equal access to game species. As early as the 1920s, Aldo Leopold (1919, 1990) contended that public lands were overcrowded, and that hunting was becoming a sport reserved for the rich. In 2011, 13.7 million people in the United States participated in some form of hunting. Eighty-four percent of whom hunted on both private and public lands. Sixty-one percent of hunters hunted only on private property, and 13% hunted only on public lands (US Department of the Interior, 2011). Thus, in order to hunt, the majority of hunters must either own a hunting property, pay a private landowner for hunting rights on their property, or depend on the largesse of landowners.

An extreme example of this phenomenon is the privately owned captive wildlife that is raised and “hunted” on game farms. These farms give hunters, who have the means to purchase the right to kill captive wildlife, opportunities to hunt close to home and throughout the year – regardless of the laws that regulate the taking of non-captive wildlife. For instance, the Moonshine Ranch is located in Pennsylvania and is within easy driving distance of New York City. For prices starting at 4,200.00 USD, an eastern urbanite can purchase the right to kill one of the ranch’s “trophy” bull elk without traveling to one of the western states or risking being evaded by free roaming wildlife. Opportunities to kill species that are indigenous to Africa on the ranch’s property are available by special order (Moonshine Ranch, 2016). In the last decade, private game farms have rapidly expanded throughout the United States. Many of these businesses guarantee that their clients will kill the animals they have purchased and further claim that they can accommodate hunters of all skill levels as well as hunters who may have physical disabilities that confine them to wheel chairs. Thus, like many other commodities, animal trophies may be acquired by virtually anyone – regardless of their skill level – who has the means to purchase them (Simon, 2016).

Wealthy hunters are often better able to attain game tags that grant the right to kill free roaming wildlife – which is legally owned by the public. The sale and distribution of hunting licenses and game tags are regulated by state governments. The price of licenses and tags is usually substantially higher for non-residents of states. For example, in Utah, the fee for a Henry Mountains bison tag for a resident of the state is 413.00 USD. The fee for a non-resident is 1,518.00 USD (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2016). Due to a scarcity of “trophy quality” wildlife, most states have a lottery for the right to kill members of species that have high trophy values. In Utah, bison tags are issued by lottery, and a hunter may draw only one tag during their lifetime (Simon, 2007). Thus, a state resident with limited economic means may never successfully draw a bison tag. If they do, it will be their only opportunity to hunt wild bison. A person who has the economic means to purchase multiple game tags may enter other states’ lotteries, for example, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and South Dakota, and thus have a greater chance of being awarded a bison tag and may also have multiple opportunities to hunt wild bison during their lifetime.

Most federal land, that is, roughly a half billion acres, is located in the western states. However, living near public land is no guarantee that one will have access to this resource. Roads to public property often pass through private property. It is not uncommon for landowners to claim that these roads are also their private property and deny the public access to the federal lands bordering their property. Landowners are not required to prove that these roads, which in some cases were built with taxpayers’ money, are not public roads. The burden of proof lies with groups or individuals who wish to have access to public land. Owning land adjacent to public land can be very profitable. Some ranchers sell the hunting rights on their deeded acres and are able to further profit from granting hunters access to the public lands bordering their properties, which, for all intents and purposes, converts land held in common to private property (Swearingen, 2015).

Nature itself can create significant barriers to lower income trophy hunters who want to kill rare species located in remote areas. For instance, in Southeast Alaska, there is an abundance of national forest land that is not bordered by private property. Many of these forests have dense populations of brown bears, which is a highly prized “trophy species.” A resident of the state may purchase a brown bear tag for 25.00 USD. Non-residents are required to hire guides and pay much higher fees for licenses and game tags. Total expenses for a guided brown bear hunt are approximately 17,000 USD (Robb, 2009). The forests of Southeast Alaska are mountainous and contain few roads or developed trails. Moreover, many of the prime hunting grounds, for example, Admiralty Island, can only be reached by boat or plane. One study found that non-resident hunters were far more likely to kill brown bears than resident hunters. The authors concluded that hunters who purchased the services of guides, bush pilots, and boat captains were significantly more likely to kill brown bears. Non-residents, who are required to hire guides, have a kill rate of 55% on brown bear hunts, whereas Alaskans, who are not required to hire guides, have a kill rate of 8.7% (Albert et al., 2001). Thus, although local, lower income hunters may have a strong desire to kill a “trophy quality” brown bear and hunting skills that meet or exceed the skills of non-resident hunters, their inability to purchase the dead labor of machines and the labor power of guides place them at a disadvantage in the competition to appropriate animal trophies.

This analysis is not intended to suggest that many hunters are not highly skilled. Hunting may require proficiency with weapons, knowledge of local flora and fauna, and what Aldo Leopold (1987) referred to as “woods craft.” However, as we have seen, if the primary goal is to attain the body parts of game species by the most expedient means available – as opposed to engaging in a hunt that requires patience and skill and more often than not, does not result in killing an animal – these commodities may be purchased by anyone who possesses sufficient economic resources.

The fetishism of animal trophies

Marx maintained that a commodity becomes fetishized when its exchange value is perceived as an inherent property of the commodity instead of its value coming from the labor required to produce the object. Thus, the value created by workers, the conditions under which the commodity was produced, and the social relations of production are obscured (Marx, 1984). As discussed above, a commodity can have multiple use values. Moreover, the use value of a commodity can also be fetishized. Jhally (1990) contends that advertisers insert meanings into commodities that have been stripped of their meanings by capitalist relations of production. Like the fetishism that occurs with exchange values, use values constructed via advertising obscure the social forces and relations of production that create a commodity.

In the case of animal trophies, the commodity’s appearance may tell a very incomplete story of the conditions under which it was produced. For example, the use value of a bison’s head displayed on a wall may be to serve as evidence that its owner possesses the skill to conquer a cunning and dangerous opponent. However, the bison may have been raised on a game farm, be habituated to human contact, and may have been no more dangerous or difficult to locate and kill than a domestic cow. The trophy has been fetishized, in that the labor required to raise the bison, locate it, and process the carcass into useable commodities, for example, meat, hide, and trophy, is often not performed by the trophy’s owner. Thus, a product that required the labor of captive animals, farm workers, guides, butchers, and taxidermists may be perceived as the sole product of the trophy owner’s ostensible skill, courage, and labor. Many hunts do not occur on game farms. Moreover, in many cases, even very skilled hunters, such as Aldo Leopold (2013), are often unable to kill non-captive animals that are truly wild and free roaming. However, as discussed above, individuals who are able to purchase the services of skilled guides, pay for access to private lands, and purchase game tags from multiple states are able to inflate their chances of acquiring animal trophies. Thus, like the trophy that was appropriated from farm raised wildlife, the labor of skilled guides and the dead labor of machines utilized to assist the hunter in killing non-captive wildlife are obscured, and the trophy may be perceived as the symbolic representation of the efforts and skill of a single individual.

This analysis is not meant to suggest that individuals who have appropriated trophies from captive animals on game farms or through guided hunts do not genuinely feel a sense of accomplishment or that they are consciously deceiving others when they display their trophies. As mentioned above, hunters posing with their kills appear to be genuinely pleased with themselves. Like most athletes, in most cases, trophy hunters have likely obeyed the rules of their sport. The hunting industry has informed them that if they abide by the rules of their sport and they kill a “trophy” animal, they should be proud of their accomplishment. Thus, the feelings of accomplishment that one may feel after shooting a trophy bull elk, that a guide has located and lured in to close range with an elk cow call, are likely genuine. It does not matter that the guide subsequently field dresses the elk, delivers it to a butcher, and that the only skill the hunter may have demonstrated is that she or he is capable of shooting a large animal, with a modern rifle with a telescopic sight, that is only 30 yards away. Like other athletes, who have played by the rules of their sports, the successful trophy hunter likely feels genuinely entitled to a trophy and to be recognized for her or his accomplishment.

As discussed above, the hunting industry portrays some North American wildlife, for example, bears, wolves, and mountain lions, as posing significant risks to hunters. Thus, in addition to trophies serving as ostensible evidence of one’s skill, they may also be perceived as commodities that were attained at considerable risk of bodily injury or death. This, in turn, further fetishizes the trophy’s use value. Almost all livestock, domestic pets, and wildlife are potentially dangerous. For instance, on average, 4 million people are bitten by dogs in the United States each year. Approximately 19 of these 4 million attacks are fatal (Langley, 2009). While it is possible for a hunter to be killed or injured by wildlife, the dangers they face in North America have been inflated by the hunting industry. Theodore Roosevelt (2004) claimed that he was unaware of any incidents in which wolves had attacked people and further asserted that the dangers of hunting grizzly bears had been “… greatly exaggerated …” (p. 289). According to Roosevelt (2004), “No game is dangerous unless a man is close up, for nowadays hardly any wild beast will charge from a distance of a hundred yards, but will rather try to run off …” (p. 305). Thus, the rhetoric employed by the hunting industry in the 21st century is at odds with the experiences and perceptions of one of the most renowned 19th-century trophy hunters.

Contemporary wildlife biologists and seasoned wilderness travelers tend to agree with Roosevelt’s assessment of the dangers posed by North American wildlife. For instance, between 1890 and 1990, in the United States and Canada, 10 people were killed by mountain lions (Beier, 1991). Some scientists have argued that their return to states like New York would result in fewer human deaths by reducing deer populations, which, in turn, would reduce human fatalities from deer-related automobile accidents (Gorman, 2016). Fatal wolf attacks are even less common than fatal mountain lion attacks (Coleman, 2004; Lopez, 2004; McNay, 2002). Doug Smith who is a lifelong hunter and chief biologist in charge of Yellowstone National Park’s wolf recovery program maintains that, in regard to human safety, wolves are “… not an issue. People over-blow that” (Doug Smith, 2014, personal communication).

The hunting industry has also exaggerated the threat that bears pose to people. A study of fatal black bear attacks in the United States and Canada between 1900 and 2009 found that 63 people had been killed in 59 black bear attacks during this period. The authors concluded that

The risk of fatal black bear attacks on people in our study area was extremely low. Each year, millions of interactions between people and black bears occur without any injury to a person, although by 2 years of age most black bears have the physical capacity to kill a person … (Herrero et al., 2011: 599)

Grizzly bears are typically much larger than black bears, and grizzly sows are more likely than black bear sows to attack humans if they feel their cubs are threatened. However, because grizzly bears live in remote habitats and their populations are much smaller than black bear populations, fewer humans are injured or killed by grizzly bears than are injured or killed by black bears. Between 1900 and 1979, 19 people were killed by grizzly bears in National Parks in Canada and the United States (Herrero, 1985) – which is also approximately the same number of people who die from being attacked by domestic dogs every year in the United States. Although the risks posed by a rare species that lives in remote areas cannot be assessed by comparing injuries and fatalities caused by a common domestic pet, it appears that grizzly bears do not pose a significant risk to hunters or other backcountry travelers. According to the renowned bear expert, Steven Herrero (1985), “… one’s chances of being injured by a grizzly are small if proper precautions are taken” (p. 7).

At this writing, Forest Wagner, who is a Professor of Outdoor Recreation at the University of Alaska Southeast and grew up hunting and fishing in Alaska, is recovering from wounds he sustained from a brown bear, which is a larger subspecies of grizzly bear. According to Wagner (2016, personal communication),

Wilderness users in bear country are far more likely to face … challenges such as hypothermia … than contact with large wild animals … the probability of attack is very low. Bears are solitary, and move in well-studied patterns throughout the course of a year. In my recent incident, a brown bear attacked quickly and unexpectedly in an alpine zone at a time of year when bears normally sleep. Due to the warm and mild winter, bears across coastal Alaska apparently did not hibernate. It is likely I skied over or very near the bear’s den. The bear investigated because of concern for the well-being of her cub, a predictable response, unusual because of the time of year, and attributable to climate change. I hold the sow grizzly harmless, and remain convinced that wilderness mountaineering in bear country has manageable risks.

Thus, while human hunters in North America may be injured or killed by wildlife, these risks have been greatly exaggerated by the hunting industry.

The above anecdotes and summary of empirical data are not meant to suggest that many hunters do not genuinely feel that they have gained their trophies at considerable personal risk. Through video games, television shows, and magazine articles, the hunting industry has portrayed some species as vicious and aggressive. Therefore – just as some whites have genuine, albeit, irrational, fears of African-Americans (Willer et al., 2016) – perceptions that some North American species are highly dangerous are likely also real. Moreover, in both cases, these perceptions can have lethal consequences for individuals who are perceived to be members of a stigmatized race or a stigmatized species.

Adverse impacts on wildlife and wilderness ecosystems

In the United States, most coveted game species (e.g. moose, bison, elk, mule deer, white tailed deer, black bears, and brown bears) are not classified as either “threatened” or “endangered.” Although polar bears are both endangered and highly sought after “trophy animal,” the US Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits killing polar bears within the United States (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016). Thus, assertions that it is necessary to allow hunters to kill individual members of North American game species, in order to prevent the extinction of these species, are not widely debated. It has been argued that allowing trophy hunters to kill members of some species, located in Africa and other continents, that are classified as “threatened” or “endangered,” such as African lions, is necessary in order to raise funds to protect these animals (Gunn, 2001). Others have asserted that, in some cases, trophy hunting actually further imperils these rare beings (Packer et al., 2009). Additionally, it has been contended that gratuitous killing is unethical under any circumstances (Nelson et al., 2016). Although these issues are worthy of further investigation, there is no room to adequately explore the moral dilemmas of hunting in Africa or other continents as the focus here is on trophy hunting in the United States.

In the United States, attempts by the hunting industry, as well as government agencies, to mass produce “trophy quality” animals for hunters have harmed both individual members of wildlife species and wilderness ecosystems. As mentioned above, during the last decade, game farms have rapidly proliferated throughout the United States. Leder (2012) has applied Marx’s concept of alienated labor to animals raised in factory farms. Like humans, other animals also have a “species being” that is suppressed when they are forced to perform the labor of producing commodities on game farms and factory farms. In these cases, the commodities are their offspring, their bodily fluids (e.g. sperm for artificial insemination and urine to be used as a lure for non-captive wildlife), their flesh, and other body parts. In the case of captive deer, they are unable to freely roam, freely associate with other members of their species, or freely copulate. Some bucks have been selectively bred to have large antlers to the extent that they have trouble holding their heads up. Furthermore, when wild animals are artificially concentrated, diseases are more easily spread. For instance, there have been cases of chronic wasting disease spreading from captive deer populations to free roaming deer populations (Knox, 2011).

Attempts by state divisions of wildlife to mass produce game species also have negative externalities. For instance, in Alaska, with the aim of artificially inflating populations of moose and caribou, the state government allows aerial killing of wolves, extended hunting and trapping seasons for wolves, and, in some cases, state agents have removed wolf pups from their dens and shot them with pistols (Simon, 2009). Wildlife biologists have objected to Alaska’s wolf-killing campaign for two reasons: The state’s policies are not based on sound science and highly social and sentient beings, that is, wolves, are being killed for the benefit of human hunters who have alternative means of attaining food, alternative forms of recreation, and alternative forms of competitive consumption. In regard to the environmental impacts of Alaska’s wolf-killing campaign, wildlife biologist and former member of the Alaska Board of Game, Victor Van Ballenberghe (2006), maintains that “Efforts to chase unattainable population and harvest objectives with poorly designed predator control programs risk long-term sustainability of ungulates, protection of habitat integrity, and predator population viability” (p. 10). In regard to killing wolves for the benefit of human hunters, the late wolf biologist Gordon Haber (1996) asserted that wolves’ “… extraordinary sentience … provides an ethical reason for not allowing them to be harvested and for considering remedial short-term control only in the rarest circumstances, when there are solid, irrefutable biological and cost-benefit arguments and no reasonable alternatives” (p. 1076).

Game species are mass produced for the benefit of a small, well-organized minority. In the United States, in 2011, 13.7 million people engaged in some form of hunting and spent 33.7 billion USD on hunting trips, equipment, and related expenses. In that same year, 71.8 million people engaged in some form of wildlife watching and spent 54.9 billion USD on equipment- and trip-related expenses (US Department of the Interior, 2011). Thus, wildlife viewing is both more popular and contributes more to the US economy than hunting. Capture theory has been utilized to explain why state departments of wildlife tend to focus more on creating recreational opportunities for hunters than creating recreational opportunities for wildlife viewers or the viability and stability of wilderness ecosystems. In a nutshell, state departments of wildlife primarily rely on fees paid by hunters for licenses and game tags to fund their budgets. Thus, these government agencies have economic incentives to privilege the interests of hunters over other interest groups and wildlife conservation (Holsman, 2000). Taxing equipment utilized by wildlife viewers, collecting fees for wildlife viewing, and distributing these funds to state divisions of wildlife may be one means of creating incentives for these government agencies to focus on broader ecological objectives.

Conclusion: The commodification of skill, courage, and fortitude

Trophy hunting is very similar to, as well as significantly different than, other sports and other forms of competitive consumption. Participation in sports is positively correlated with economic capital (Wilson, 2002). Like many other sports, people with lower incomes are underrepresented among hunters. In 2011, the median US household income was 50,502.00 USD (Noss, 2012). In that same year, 36% of people who hunted had household incomes below 50,000.00USD, and 64% of hunters had household incomes greater than 50,000.00 USD (US Department of the Interior, 2011).

Like bullfighting, trophy hunting is unlike most sports, in that one’s opponent has nothing to gain – but everything to lose – from their involuntary participation in a contest (Cohen, 2014). It is also unlike most sports in that much of the labor required to excel at the highest levels of the sport can be performed by others (e.g. guides, farm workers, boat captains, aircraft pilots, hunting dogs, pack horses, and captive wildlife) and by machines (e.g. aircraft, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and boats). In other sports that are associated with elites, such as golf and polo, athletes may utilize the labor of non-human animals or other humans. While a good caddy or a good polo pony may increase one’s chances of success, an unskilled rider would not excel at polo and an unskilled golfer would not excel at golf. Moreover, the use of a golf cart would not give an unskilled golfer a significant advantage over a skilled golfer. In contrast, as long as they have sufficient economic resources to purchase commodities, such as access to private land, the labor power of humans and animals, and the dead labor of machines, or the right to kill captive game animals, persons who are in poor physical condition, have no prior hunting experience, no knowledge of the local flora and fauna, and no knowledge of hunting weapons may significantly inflate their chances of successfully killing an animal and earning an award from a trophy hunting organization.

Like other forms of competitive consumption (Schor, 1999), the desire to attain coveted dead animal parts can lead to criminal activities. The hunting industry has created a milieu, that has been referred to as “the antler religion” (Knox, 2011), in which trophy hunters of all income levels aspire to appropriate the same “trophy quality” animals that are displayed in sporting goods stores and appear in magazines, DVDs, television shows, and video games. Thus, local hunters with similar incomes are not the reference group of many trophy hunters, it is the hunters who appear on television and in magazines. Data gathered from interviewing Montana game wardens found that the peace officers felt that magazines and television programs had created unrealistic expectations among trophy hunters, which, in turn, led some of them to illegally kill “trophy quality” wildlife (Eliason, 2012b).

When the commodity fetishism of an object or an activity is exposed, public perceptions – albeit, often only for a limited time – are affected. When it was revealed that Apple iPhones are made by poorly paid Chinese workers, whom are exploited to the degree that many are too exhausted to eat during their short breaks, there was widespread outrage (Jamieson, 2014). Similarly, Walter Palmer, the US dentist who killed the Zimbabwean lion known as Cecil, was the target of international scorn and contempt. These feelings were exacerbated when it was revealed that Palmer had paid guides approximately 50,000 USD for the hunt that Cecil was habituated to humans and had been lured outside of a national park with a carcass, and that Palmer initially shot him with an arrow, which, in turn, led the lion to have a painful and protracted death (The New York Times, 2015).

Like other forms of competitive consumption (Erhardt-Martinez et al., 2015), trophy hunting often has a large ecological footprint. Hunting that is done at the local level, for the purpose of attaining meat, may result in less environmental degradation and animal suffering than factory farmed meat (Bruckner, 2007). When competitive consumption is the primary goal of a hunt, it is often an energy-intensive and labor-intensive activity. For instance, as part of her television show, Sarah Palin’s Alaska, Palin and her father chartered several private airplanes to fly 600 miles to shoot a caribou. Palin missed a caribou, six times, at close range. After each shot, her father chambered another round in the bolt action rifle for her. On her seventh shot, Palin was able to fatally wound the caribou. The hunt, which cost approximately 42,400 USD, produced about 100 pounds of meat at a price of approximately 141.33 USD per pound (Fuller, 2011; Jans, 2011). It can be assumed that the costs and ecological footprints of flying from locations, such as Western Europe or North America, to kill exotic species in Africa or Asia are much larger.

With many forms of competitive consumption, for example, ownership of expensive jewelry, luxury homes and automobiles, yachts, and the like, it is widely recognized that these items may have been gifted to the individual or acquired through inheritance. Therefore, it is recognized that the acquisition of these objects possibly did not require the individual to perform any labor, possess any desirable personality traits, possess any skills, or place themselves in harm’s way. Conversely, in addition to animal trophies being displayed as evidence of one’s cultural and economic capital, as we have seen, these commodities are often perceived as evidence of skill, courage, and fortitude. Moreover, it is often assumed that these alleged skills can be applied in other arenas, such as statesmanship. Thus, trophy hunting is yet another way that the power of money can be utilized to create artificial differences among people (Marx, 1964).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Alexander Simon is an associate professor of Sociology and Environmental Studies at Utah Valley University. His current research focuses on the political economy of wolf reintroduction programs.

References

Albert

Bowyer

Miller

(2001) Efforts and success of brown bear hunters in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2): 501–508.

Bass Pro Shops (2016) Five of the most dangerous big game animals in North America. Available at: http://1source.basspro.com/index.php/component/k2/86-big-game-hunting/1315-five-of-the-most-dangerous-big-game-animals-in-north-america.

Bedard P (2016) Trump, sons plot cabinet posts they’ll take as presidency gets ‘very real.’ Available at: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-sons-plot-cabinet-posts-theyll-take-as-presidency-gets-very-real/article/2582285.

Beier

(1991) Cougar attacks on humans in the United States and Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19(4): 403–412.

Bruckner

(2007) Considerations on the morality of meat consumption. Journal of Social Philosophy 38(2): 311–330.

Cabela’s (2016) Cabela’s dangerous hunts: Moose hunt & wolf attacks. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us1dE-vfWRM.

Child

Darimont

(2015) Hunting for trophies: Online hunting photographs reveal achievement satisfaction with large and dangerous prey. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 20: 531–541.

Cohen

(2014) Recreational hunting: Ethics, experiences, and commoditization. Tourism Recreation Research 39(1): 3–17.

Coleman

(2004) Vicious: Wolves and Men in America, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

10.

Dizard

(2003) Mortal Stakes: Hunters and Hunting in Contemporary America, Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

11.

Eliason

(2012a) From the king’s deer to a capitalist commodity: A historical analysis of the poaching law. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 36(2): 133–148.

12.

Eliason

(2012b) Trophy poaching: A routine activities perspective. Deviant Behavior 33(1): 72–87.

13.

Erhardt-Martinez

Schor

Abrahamse

et al. (2015) Consumption and climate change. In: Dunlap

Bruille

(eds) Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 93–126.

14.

Fine

(2000) Rights of men, rites of passage: Hunting and masculinity at Reo Motors of Lansing, Michigan 1945-1975. Journal of Social History 33(4): 805–823.

15.

Fuller B (2011) Sarah Palin’s hunting trip to feed her family cost – $42,400 or $141.33 per lb. of caribou meat. Available at: http://hollywoodlife.com/pics/sarah-palin-alaska-hunting-trip-kills-hunts-eats-caribou-family/.

16.

Gorman

(2016) Study suggests letting cougars return to native range to counter deer. The New York Times. 20 July, p. A17.

17.

Gunn

(2001) Environmental ethics and trophy hunting. Ethics & The Environment 6(1): 68–95.

18.

Haber

(1996) Biological conservation and the ethical implications of exploiting and controlling wolves. Conservation Biology 10(4): 1068–1081.

19.

Herbert

(2008) She’s not ready. The New York Times. 12 September, p. A19.

20.

Herman

(2005) Hunting democracy. Montana: The Magazine of Western History 55(3): 22–33.

21.

Herrero

(1985) Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance, New York: Lyons & Burford.

22.

Herrero

Higgins

Cardoza

et al. (2011) Fatal attacks by American black bear on people: 1900-2009. Journal of Wildlife Management 75(3): 596–603.

23.

Holsman

(2000) Good will hunting? Exploring the role of hunters as ecosystem stewards. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4): 808–816.

24.

Jamieson D (2014) The factory workers behind your iPhone are too tired to eat, report says. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/23/apple-zhen-ding-labor_n_6372294.html.

25.

Jans N (2011) What Palin’s show says about us. Available at: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-01-06-column06_ST_N.htm.

26.

Jhally

(1990) The Codes of Advertising: Fetishism and the Political Economy of Meaning in the Consumer Society, New York: Routledge.

27.

Kaloff

Fitzgerald

(2003) Reading the trophy: Exploring the display of dead animals in hunting magazines. Visual Studies 18(2): 114–122.

28.

Klein

(2014) This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate, New York: Simon & Schuster.

29.

Knoll

(2004) Hunting in the eighteenth century: An environmental perspective. Historical Social Research 29(3): 9–36.

30.

Knox

(2011) The antler religion. Wildlife Society Bulletin 35(1): 45–48.

31.

Langley

(2009) Human fatalities resulting from dog attacks in the United States, 1979–2005. Wilderness & Environmental Medicine 20: 19–25.

32.

Leder

(2012) Old McDonald’s had a farm: The metaphysics of factory farming. Journal of Animal Ethics 2(1): 73–86.

33.

Leopold

(1919) The national forests: The last free hunting grounds of the nation. Journal of Forestry 17(2): 150–153.

34.

Leopold

(1987) A Sand County Almanac, New York: Oxford University Press.

35.

Leopold

(1990) A plea for wilderness hunting grounds. In: Brown

Carmon

(eds) Aldo Leopold’s Southwest, Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 155–161.

36.

Leopold

(2013) Gila trip. In: Meine

(ed.) A Sand County Almanac & Other Writings on Ecology and Conservation, New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., pp. 643–656.

37.

Lopez

(2004) Of Wolves and Men, New York: Scribner.

38.

McGuigan

(2017) The hunting industry: Exploring the marriage of consumerism, sport hunting, and commercial entertainment. Journal of Consumer Culture. 17: 910–930.

39.

McNay

(2002) Wolf-human interactions in Alaska and Canada: A review of the case history. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(3): 831–843.

40.

Marx

(1964) The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, New York: International Publishers.

41.

Marx

(1984) Capital Volume 1, New York: International Publishers.

42.

Matthews

(1992) Where the Buffalo Roam: Restoring America’s Great Plains, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

43.

Moonshine Ranch (2016) Moon Shine Ranch.com. Available at: http://themoonshineranch.com/2-our-property.html.

44.

Nelson

Bruskotter

Vucetich

et al. (2016) Emotions and the ethics of consequence in conservation decisions: Lessons from Cecil the Lion. Conservation Letters 9(4): 302–306.

45.

Nibert

(2002) Animal Rights/Human Rights, New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

46.

Noss A (2012) Household income for states: 2010 and 2011. U.S. Census Bureau. Available at: https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-02.pdf.

47.

Packer

Kosmala

Cooley

et al. (2009) Sport hunting, predator control, and conservation of large carnivores. PloS ONE 4(16): e5941. Available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005941.

48.

Robb

(2009) The price of the hunt. The Alaska Sportsman 75(6): 56–64.

49.

Roosevelt

(2004) Hunting Trips of a Ranchman & the Wilderness Hunter, New York: The Modern Library.

50.

Safari Club International (2016a) SCI corporate sponsors. Available at: https://www.safariclub.org/join-and-participate/partners/sci-corporate-sponsors.

51.

Safari Club International (2016b) Grand slams. Available at: https://www.safariclub.org/docs/default-source/record-book/alternative-methods-24.

52.

Sandlos

(1998) Savage fields: Ideology and the war on the North American Coyote. Capitalism Nature Socialism 9(2): 41–52.

53.

Schor

(1999) The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don’t Need, New York: Harper Perennial.

54.

Schor

(2000) Towards a new politics of consumption. In: Schor

Holt

(eds) The Consumer Society Reader, New York: The New Press, pp. 446–462.

55.

Simon

(2007) Leopold, Pinchot, Marx and the ethics of buffalo hunting in the 21st century. Teaching Ethics 7(2): 63–94.

56.

Simon

(2009) The use of contemporary and historic justifications for killing wolves by the Palin administration. Capitalism Nature Socialism 20(4): 6–30.

57.

Simon

(2016) A Marxian-Leopoldian critique of trophy hunting organizations. Monthly Review 68(4): 17–31.

58.

Smalley

(2005) I just like to kill things: Women, men, and the gender of sport hunting in the United States, 1940-1973. Gender & History 17(1): 183–209.

59.

Swearingen M (2015) Private property blocks access to public lands. Available at: https://www.hcn.org/issues/47.2/this-land-is-their-land.

60.

The New York Times (2008) Fred Thompson at the Republican National Convention. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03thompson-text.html?_r=0.

61.

The New York Times (2015) The death of a lion. The New York Times, 31 July, p. A24.

62.

US Department of the Interior (2011) National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior.

63.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (2016) Polar bear, Ursus maritimus. Available at: Https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A0IJ.

64.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (2016) Licenses and permits. Available at: http://wildlife.utah.gov/license-permit-fees.html.

65.

Van Ballenberghe

(2006) Predator control, politics, and wildlife conservation in Alaska. Alces 42: 1–11.

66.

Veblen T (1979) The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Penguin Books.

67.

Willer R, Feinberg M and Wetts R (2016) Threats to racial status promote Tea Party support among white Americans. Available at: http://www.elnacional.cat/uploads/s1/11/18/29/SSRN-id2770186%20(1).pdf.

68.

Wilson

(2002) The paradox of social class and sports involvement: The roles of cultural and economic capital. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 37(1): 5–16.

69.

Wood K (2015) Dangerous domestic game. Available at: http://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2015/2/18/dangerous-domestic-game/.