HUMANS AND ANIMALS: TO KILL OR NOT TO KILL

Our attitude towards animals has been rightly challenged by a movement of activists, many of whom consider themselves anarchists. They have campaigned around a variety of issues including animal experiments, the fur trade, vegetarianism/veganism, endangered species and fox hunting. Many of these causes have found support from a wide-range of people, affecting lifestyles as well as opinions. We are beginning to realise that animals have their own claim to this planet, independent of their use to the human species. This political movement appeals to people’s emotions. Most people love to see furry creatures and they can elicit soppiness from the most macho hard-man. It is also popular amongst urban dwellers because the only form of wildlife they might come across is the neighbour’s rotweiler. The sighting of a fox or a kite, or even visiting ducks in a park, can give the resident of a concrete jungle a lot of pleasure. Naturally, people don’t want to see these creatures hurt.

It has been the horror stories about the treatment of animals that has caused many to become vegetarians or vegans and to argue animal life should not be taken for the use of human beings. (There are, of course, other reasons for not eating meat eg land use and health risks). Killing of animals is ‘morally wrong’ and for some this is an absolute principle, just as some people are pacifists and hold to the belief that human life should never be taken, no matter what the circumstances.

It is very difficult when political issues enter the realm of morality and ethics. Such issues require us to ask, ‘Why is it wrong?’ and ‘Who decides?’ Anarchists have great difficulty with these questions because we have no doctrine from either the Christian or Leninist church to tell us what’s right and wrong. Some issues are clear-cut, but many are not so clear and the answer of whether something is right or wrong often depends on the circumstances. However, these issues do need to be discussed and debated so that we can work out an anarchist ethics. In the case of killing animals, I would argue that it is not ‘wrong’. It would be ‘nicer’ not to, but it is not a moral wrong.

As anarchists, we would agree that we want to create a society where animals have a respected place. The whole relationship between human and animal can be transformed, just as the relationships between people will be. However, will this mean that animals will cease to have any role in the satisfaction of human needs? Will they just hang around where they want and get on with their lives? Will humans never again have to kill an animal? Though I do not want to rule out this scenario, I do not think it is a realistic option. There are a number of contexts in which humans kill animals, including research using animals and factory farming, that are very dodgy and have been much discussed in many animal welfare publications as well as in our own Ecology pamphlet and Manifesto. In this article I will be looking at the killing of animals in the ‘wild’ and relating this to other issues such as conservation and land management and land ownership that have been discussed in the series on ‘Land’ in the past two issues Organise!

Human beings have been killing wild animals for food and other products very early on in their emergence as a species. Rituals and art forms developed around the theme of the hunt. Prehistoric rock paintings and carvings invariably feature the animals that are the hunter’s prey. Domestication of animals and the advent of raised livestock have meant that hunting wild animals has been less important. Capitalism has reinforced this with the profit-driven factory farming system where animals are force-fed, packed together and slaughtered on an assembly line. However, in some parts of the world, hunting is still the main way of obtaining a food source, as well as many other essential products. These traditional societies do not yet have access to Tesco’s and other ‘benefits’ of global capitalism! Also, even in western societies most people lived on the land until very recently. Killing deer, rabbits or fowl was an important way of supplementing a rather meagre diet. Puffins and fish were about the only things available to the inhabitants of the very bleak and barren St Kilda’s island off the coast of Scotland. Poaching has had a long tradition amongst the rural working class as a way of gaining some power. Food is power because without food people are at the mercy of the landowner. This is one reason why landowners have always cracked down on poaching; they don’t want the people to have an independent source of food. If people had been able to shoot and fish on the private estates in Ireland and Scotland, the failure of potato crops would not have had such a devastating impact.

Unfortunately, all life forms have to use other life forms for food, for shelter and for play. The mere fact that we exist means that other species have to die. Humans have been a particular problem because of our success in expanding our numbers. This fact, together with the development of exploitative economic systems and destructive technologies, has resulted in the loss of habitat for countless animals and other species. And loss of habitat means death. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try and limit our impact (population control is an unpopular subject but needs to be addressed) but, unless we commit mass suicide as a species, we have to accept that our existence depends on the death of others on the planet. Therefore to kill an animal is not ‘wrong’ but unfortunately necessary. I have already mentioned examples where people either have to eat meat or starve. We could still limit our food consumption to the so-called lower life forms. But who decides what is higher and lower? And, then again the lower life forms aren’t present on the Siberian tundra in winter! Isn’t it preferable that people living in these difficult areas are able to provide their own food supplies rather than relying on imported vegetables? Even if we stopped eating meat, what about our beloved pets? It is uncertain whether or not we can turn all animals into vegetarians. People can at least choose to not eat meat, carnivores cannot. In addition, there are a number of people who actually like eating meat. There may be many things like rape and murder, racism and sexism that we would want to ban, but eating meat is still too morally contentious to be included in the proscribed activity list in an anarchist society. In our Manifesto for the Millennium, the question was deliberately left open.

However, certain principles should be adhered to when taking life. Firstly, the animal/bird/fish should not be endangered. In fact, we should take what we need from those animals that are maybe too abundant. In this country deer and rabbits are considered a threat to many other species and therefore would make the ideal source of meat. Secondly, the animal needs to be killed without cruelty. Those doing the killing must be extremely skilled and able to kill the animal in one shot. And, finally, there should be respect. Though accounts may be over-romanticised, Native Americans and other traditional peoples have an approach to killing animals which honours them and thanks them for giving their lives so that humans may live. Now this may seem pointless because the animal will still be dead regardless of the attitude of the hunter, but an attitude of respect and reverence will help ensure that life is not needlessly taken. Anyone who does eat meat should have the experience of either killing or witnessing an animal being killed, at least once. They will then have to confront directly the consequences of being a meat-eater and gain respect for the animal.

We live in a very sanitised and safe environment in Britain. Most natural ‘enemies’ have long ago been wiped out. The dangers that do exist have been created by ourselves: cars, pollution, viruses and each other. Therefore, it is understandable that today many argue for humans to not intervene; we’ve caused enough problems already, let ‘nature’ get on with it. However, it’s not so simple. We can only take such a position because we don’t feel threatened by the natural world. When we do, spiders in our houses, being bitten by mosquitoes, rats in the courtyard of a housing estate, most of us would take drastic action. Recently, Central Park in New York was saturated with insecticide because of a deadly virus-carrying mosquito. In less urbanised parts of the world, where nature has not yet been covered in concrete, there is much more intervention, often needed to combat diseases like malaria. Humans, like all other species, adapt their physical environment to suit their needs. Beavers build dams, birds build nests. So human alteration of the environment to make it more hospitable is itself a natural process.

Therefore, the idea of land ‘management’ is not new. (The word ‘management’ is an unfortunate term that is currently being used to refer to any conscious modification of the environment by humans.) And a key part of this alteration process is taking the lives of other species. Farmers and shepherds have always killed animals to protect their crops and flocks. Anyone would do the same: whatever is necessary to protect the food supply. The process of growing food is more complex than many of us urbanites would imagine. There are many obstacles to be overcome, some of which are caused by animals and birds eating the crops at various stages of growth.

The other area for intervention is when some species threaten other species’ existence. You could argue that we should let ‘nature take its course’, but the reason some species are so vulnerable is because humans have already made a mess of the situation in some way. For example, the RSPB is quite willing to kill foxes and crows because they are a serious threat to the almost extinct capercaillie. Rabbits cause enormous problems in woodland areas, as do red deer. Wardens on nature reserves therefore have to make a choice: will they kill the rabbits or allow a rare aspen grove to be destroyed? (This issue was discussed at length in the last Organise!)

Recognising that humans may need to kill animals as part of a land management policy does not mean that an anarchist communist society could not do things better. The problem is not human adaptation of the environment as such, but its scale and quality, driven by the need for capitalism to produce profits and be ‘cost-effective’. A society not governed by the profit-motive could develop alternatives where human interests were safeguarded, whilst at the same time allowing animals to keep their lives. Often so many animals are killed because of the desperation not to lose any part of the crop or flock. When the world food production system is organised differently then we can allow animals to take a bit without worrying that there won’t be enough for us. Organic farming techniques are being developed that hopefully will mean that we don’t have to resort to pesticides every time we are plagued by insects. The way humans modify their environment is determined by ruling class interests and ‘experts’, usually with no consultation with the people involved. And they can choose to intervene when it suits them. Cars are causing probably more harm both to humans and other species than rabbits. But a whole range of capitalists are making too much money out of this private transport system to look for alternatives. And farmers aren’t allowed to complain when the local fox hunt tramples over their fields, causing more damage than the presence of the fox itself!

Introducing natural predators, such as wolves, is often put forward as a way of reducing the need for humans to kill annoying animals. However, if people think that having wolves do the dirty work for them lets them off the moral hook, they are mistaken. Introducing wolves that you know will prey on other animals will still mean that you have been responsible for killing animals. And it is only more ‘natural’ if you assume that humans aren’t part of nature. Wolves are also a problem for domestic animals. In the southern Alps in France, wolves have been reintroduced. It is generally recognised, even by the wolves’ most staunch supporters, that they do tend to follow the herds of domestic sheep which make an easy source of food for them. Needless to say, shepherds aren’t too happy! This problem has been got around by offering shepherds compensation for sheep killed by wolves. This doesn’t mean that wolves shouldn’t be reintroduced but that we need to be aware of the consequences. It’s still based on human choices and values of what is thought important. In Britain, it has been discussed, but the problem is lack of habitat for the wolf. The first priority must be to create more forests for them to live in.

As can be seen from the wolves’ example, there is no quick fix to the moral dilemma of not wanting to kill animals but having to nevertheless. Therefore, though there is much we could do now, and even more we could do in an anarchist communist society, it will take time and much practical experience to work out new ways of doing things that don’t involve the death of other species.

Whereas we just might accept that there may be circumstances where animals need to be killed in order to defend human interests, it seems impossible to justify the killing of animals for sport. Therefore, sports that involve the killing of animals should be banned. Or should they? The issue is actually more complex and therefore the solution not so straightforward. First, we need to distinguish between hunting and shooting. In other parts of the world, hunting is the general term used for the killing of animals in the wild. In Britain, the term ‘hunting’ is only used for killing animals with dogs. Many who participate in the sport of shooting would agree that this is cruel. The animal is chased for prolonged periods of time and experiences intense fear. A small animal such as a fox may be killed quickly once caught, but a big stag will inevitably take time to die. Shooting does not cause suffering in this way. Shooters take pride in making a clean shot. The stag is killed without even knowing it was being stalked. So whilst it makes sense to ban foxhunting on the grounds of cruelty, the same argument cannot be applied to shooting. Second, stereotyping anyone involved in the sport of shooting as a bloodthirsty brute is unhelpful. There certainly are people like that, but most would say that it’s not the actually killing that they enjoy. It is the process that they enjoy: the getting to know the animal and its habits, the being out-of-doors, the camaraderie of participating in an activity with other people. The idea of just going for a walk without a gun seems senseless to many from a rural background. There is often great respect for and knowledge of the prey. In the way they speak about an animal or bird it is often hard to tell the difference between a wildlife enthusiast or a birdwatcher and someone who is going to go shoot something! Finally, much of the call for an end to killing animals for sport has focussed on the ruling class varieties. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between disgust for the killing of the animal and the hatred of the people who are doing it. Many who would protect the stag or the grouse would quite happily take the gun and use it on the rich bastard him- (or her-) self. Therefore, a class analysis of the sport of shooting is needed.

The origins of killing animals as a form of recreation lie clearly with the ruling class. It was only they who could afford the luxury of killing an animal for other purposes apart from wanting it as food. The ‘sport’ goes back at least to Norman times. William the Conqueror was a fanatic hunter. Whole areas of the country were cordoned off and called ‘Deer Forests’ (often with no actual forest there!) and were the special preserve of the King and his entourage of knights and nobles. Heavy punishments were liberally dished out, including hanging and transportation, to anyone who dared poach a deer or even a rabbit. The class struggle over poaching went on for centuries and still goes on to some extent. Many of the locked gates around sporting estates are there so that any poachers won’t be able to get a deer out easily by vehicle.

Queen Victoria gave an added impetus to the sport when she and her hunting consort started coming up to Scotland for the ‘season’ — a practice still maintained enthusiastically by the current Royals. Balmoral, in Deeside in Scotland, became the model for the Highland ‘sporting estate’. Sporting estates proliferated all over the Highlands, distorting both the landscape and the economy. The new landowners came from all sections of the ruling class, not just the aristocracy. The big event is the Glorious Twelfth (of August) when the grouse-shooting season begins. September and October are popular for the stag shooting. In Scotland and on the grouse moors of Yorkshire, the landowner invites his/her cronies for a shooting holiday. It is a form of recreation that symbolises belonging to an elite. Though the stag or grouse might eventually be eaten by someone (eg venison exported abroad), food is not the objective of the shoot. What matters is the size of the ‘bag’ of grouse (how many they managed to get) or the quality of the antlers ie how many points the antler has. A 12 or 14 ‘pointer’ is the most sought after ‘trophy’ for the mantelpiece. The Royal shooting party has been known to kill almost 600 grouse in a day! The animal or bird is thus seen as a symbol of one’s skill.

Recently, the nature of the sporting estate has changed. Estate owners usually earned their wealth outside and the estate was a way of spending their money to enhance their status. Nowadays, for many (not all by any means), there is some pressure to make the estate pay, or at least reduce the losses. The situation of Archie in ‘Monarch of the Glen’ is not total fiction! This has meant that shooting has become more commercial. Whole companies exist in order to market ‘Shooting Holidays in Scotland’. The ‘guests’ come mostly from abroad. There are many reasons why the rich of the world choose Scotland. The main prey are grouse and red deer stags. Some people come to shoot roe deer or hares but they tend to be less well-off, often working class people from Germany, Holland or Italy, because this type of shooting doesn’t have the same status. In these countries, with a larger rural population and fewer restrictions from landowners, there has been more of a tradition of shooting small animals for the ‘pot’. Hares are an expensive delicacy in Italy and a trip to Scotland with a rented refrigerated van can make a tidy profit. Scotland is the only country in the world that has red grouse and where red deer are so numerous. The guests do not have to go on big wilderness treks to get their trophy. The deer are on open ground so that they can be stalked with minimum effort. Even less effort is required for the grouse as the moorland terrain allows the guests to be driven to their butts. All of this, together with the romantic image of the Highlands, makes Scotland a much sought-after venue. They come in couples, the men usually (but not always) shooting whilst the women shop. Or they come from companies, a form of corporate bonding amongst the executives. On a world-wide level, these wealthy businessmen often belong to the ‘Safari Club’. They travel around the world and collect ‘trophies’, competing with other members of the club for the biggest, rarest and most numerous trophies. The income from these commercial shoots is considerable. Guests pay £50 a bird and usually book 100 or so birds for the party. However, the costs of organising the shoots is quite high and many estates are still losing money. However, the owners are reluctant to abandon this tradition as it is still an important part of ruling class culture. As a result, many people’s livelihoods, the whole pattern of land use in the Highlands, not to mention the fate of much wildlife like the capercaillie, is linked to the continued existence of these playgrounds for the rich.

Much that counts as working class shooting is actually work and could be considered as part of land ‘management’. Shooting of deer is done regularly by Forestry Commission and nature reserve stalkers as part of the general effort to reduce deer numbers and allow for tree regeneration of the Scots pine. However, most of those employed will be working on sporting estates and therefore their work is related to the shooting of wildlife as sport. The shooting done by the keepers and stalkers needs to be distinguished from that of the guests. Their purpose is to ‘manage’ the wildlife in such a way that the objectives of the sporting estate are achieved. These are: to obtain greater than average numbers of grouse on the moors and to make the cull target for both hinds and stags as agreed by the estate with the Deer Commission. The keepers spend their whole year doing everything they can to keep the grouse and their offspring alive. Their knowledge and care of the birds rivals that of a naturalist. Keepers can be very single-minded and therefore any other form of wildlife that threatens their grouse is considered a legitimate target. Keepers have been known to poison golden eagles’ nests because they may eat their grouse. They themselves must be aware of the irony of this situation; all this work so that some of these birds can be killed! The stalkers, a part from the few months where they takes guests shooting, spend their time completing the cull. The hind season is after the stag one: November to February. As few guests are interested in shooting hinds (no antlers for trophies), the stalker walks (and drives) around the hills on his own.

Some of this type of working class shooting can be justified. It is agreed that deer need to be killed anyway to allow tree regeneration. If anything, those keen to see the regeneration of Scotland’s native pine forests argue the stalkers aren’t killing enough. When land has been transferred to community ownership, just like on land owned by conservation bodies, deer stalking continues. However, the shooting of the enemies of the grouse is only necessary in order to maintain a ruling class tradition. Most people, including the keepers themselves, never shoot ‘driven-grouse’ from a butt and therefore do not need to have artificially high numbers of grouse on the moors. If they do shoot them, it is as walked-up or rough shooting and the end result will be a bird in a pot.

Keepers and stalkers have a reputation for being forelock-tugging lackeys. They have traditionally sided with the landowner and historically have a role in catching poachers and keeping people off the land. Climbers in the ’50s had to crawl along the tops, sneaking past gun-toting keepers, in order to put up new routes on the cliffs of the Peak District. This role continues today. Many walkers have had nasty encounters with zealous keepers denying them access to their laird’s land. However, like all groups of workers, there is potential for winning them over to our side. Estates are much less likely to be in the hands of the same owner for generations. In addition, keepers and stalkers are increasingly likely to come from outside the area, often having taken degrees in ‘wildlife management’. This means that the old loyalty to the ‘family’ has been replaced by a more independent attitude. Properties are changing hands so frequently in some cases or owned by landowners that are never there. Keepers and stalkers often find themselves running the place on their own as they are the only people who know what to do, instilling a certain contempt for the landowner. Their wages are very low and their houses dependent on the job. With the increasing commercial pressures, there have been redundancies and heavier workloads. They can work incredibly long days, for no extra pay, during the season itself. Keepers look down on the guests for not being able to shoot without someone loading the gun for them and telling them which way to point. On some estates, the stalkers come into regular conflict with the guests over which stag to shoot. The stalkers aim to shoot stags that do not have a ‘good gene pool’. This means that they want to keep the 12 and 14-pointers alive and the guests can have a 10-pointer at most. The guests don’t like this because a smaller antler doesn’t look so good above the mantelpiece or in the boardroom. Stalkers hate going out with a bad shot. They want to see the deer killed in one and if the guest doesn’t kill the deer with the first bullet, the stalker will quickly intervene.

In many cases, keepers and stalkers do not actually enjoy the killing of the animal. They are doing it because it has to be done from a land management perspective or because its part of the job. They may enjoy other parts of the job, however. The being out-of-doors, the observing of the wildlife and variety of tasks the job offers. However, there are many others who enjoy the sport itself and would practice it if they had more time. Other recreational working class shooting involves people in rural areas who do other jobs, but who go shooting rabbits or stoats. To do this they have to know people like farmers or form a syndicate. They might shoot roe deer or hinds, but they would have to known someone, though poaching does actually take place. Young people might have a ferret or an air pistol that they go out with to get rabbits. People from the city may also take part but they tend to have some rural roots or connections. In America, having been prevented from shooting animals (poaching) by the landowners in Europe, the new immigrants took advantage of their new freedom to be able to kill their own food without the risk of hanging or transportation. This tradition has been passed down amongst the males in many working class families. Therefore, there are a number of working class people who would argue against the banning of shooting.

Though both involve the killing of animals, there are important differences between ruling class and working class shooting. The ruling class obsession with the size of the ‘bag’ and with trophies has led to the extinction and near-extinction of many species. Because they are shooting purely for sport and for social objectives, there is no concern to consider the effects of their actions on the land as a whole or on the local economy. For the working class, killing animals has traditionally been done for a purpose: to put food on the table. And today, that legacy remains. The object of the shoot are animals that they believe need to be killed for land management or which can be killed and eaten because they are not endangered. This does not mean that all working class shooters are exemplary. Like their ruling class counterparts, there will be many who are cruel and kill with total disregard for the consequences. In the Alps, ex-soldiers machine-gunned marmots and chamois for no reason whatsoever. Native Americans played their part in the demise of the buffalo. The almost exclusive male character of the sport can lead to much macho posturing that is quite sickening.

There are therefore two issues to consider. Are we in favour of creating a society where all shooting by people who say they enjoy it, even if they are doing it in keeping with strict conservation and humane criteria, is not allowed? And if so, how do we go about winning over other members of our class to this position? In answer to the first question, I would argue that the answer depends on whether or not we will still be killing animals for food and as part of land management. If we are, then I see no problem with the job done by people who enjoy it. If we don’t actually need animals to be killed, but some people want to go out and kill wild animals that are not endangered for their own pleasure, then it is more difficult. As long as they actually use the animal for something, though, I can’t see how we can force people not to. Instead we would hope that as the new society developed, people would become more interested in looking at and observing wildlife than shooting it. This process has already begun. Many shooters have become wildlife photographers instead and a majority of people living in rural areas are not at all interested in shooting. The children of gamekeepers have learned much from their fathers but are using their knowledge and appreciation of wildlife in different ways, some of them working for conservation agencies.

The second question is particularly important in the current period. The Countryside Alliance has managed to mobilise many of the rural working class under their umbrella and for their objectives. The Gamekeepers demonstration in Edinburgh in July against the Watson Bill illustrated this. The Watson Bill is explicitly aimed at foxhunting, which is only in the Borders on a very small-scale. But the landowners have instilled the idea that it will first be foxhunting and then shooting — something Watson himself has categorically dismissed. This has put the fear of job loss into the workers themselves as well as other rural residents. We could dismiss all these workers as counter revolutionary, but I would argue for another tack. We need the rural working class on our side both during the revolution and in the constructing of a new society. Their experience on the land will be vital.

First, moralistic arguments about how awful it is that these ‘bad’ people are killing cute little animals will not get us anywhere. This will only alienate many people and reinforce the view that city dwellers really don’t understand the countryside. I have already tried to show that there are many cases when animals do actually need to be killed. Instead, the focus of struggle must be against landowners, not against shooting. Workers like gamekeepers will not be class enemies because their occupation involves them killing animals but if they side with the landowner against the rest of the working class. The conservation organisations tend to have a strategy of changing the land use without changing the system of ownership. They would be content if the private landowner would agree to stop running the estate for sport and plant trees instead. This is already happening on some estates. There is an example of one foreign owner who can’t stand the idea of shooting anything and wants it all to stop! So, instead of saying we want the shooting to stop, we should argue for the end of the private landowner and for the estate workers, together with people in the community and even those from outside who visit the area, to manage the estate themselves. If this were the case, then we would see quite a transformation in land use and power. This is happening to a certain extent on Knoydart and, though they are not revolutionary, the John Muir Trust on their Skye properties has attempted to show that things can be done differently when conservationists work together with people who live on the land. If the workers see that there is an alternative, one which is better paid and where they don’t have to kow-tow to landowners and rich Americans, then the alliance which has been cleverly constructed by the ruling class will fall to bits.

This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t campaign against the killing of wild animals. But the focus should be on ruling class sport, the killing of endangered species and cruelty. In addition, it should be linked to a general campaign for a transformation of the way land is owned and cared for and should be based on debate and discussion with other members of our class in order to construct a united movement that can create a better world for both humans and the other species that we share the planet with.