ArticlePDF Available

Recreational Hunting: Ethics, Experiences and Commoditization



Starting with the paradox that hunters claim to love the animal species they hunt, this article examines three inter-related issues: the ethics of hunting, the hunting experience and the commoditization of hunting in the contemporary world. I discuss two contrary philosophical approaches to hunting in general, and then turn to the specific problem of the ethics of recreational hunting, arguing that its protagonists fail to render a consistent justification for killing animals merely for the experience, but create a hunting ideology which obfuscates the issue. While hunters claim that the chase is the main point of hunting, its conclusion in the kill constitutes the apex of the hunting experience. However, the intensity of the experience fades with the commoditization of the pray in the contemporary world. I present a series of settings according to the extent to which they are ‘framed,’ ranging from open areas, designated ‘wildernesses,’ and game parks, to game farms (and virtual hunting establishments), where tame and restricted animals are easily shot for a trophy at a stiff price. The outrage the hunting community raised by those practices, serves to highlight its moral supremacy. The article concludes that the paradox of killing a loved animal inherent in recreational hunting is irresolvable on the ethical sphere, but can be interpreted as an antinomian but exalted ritual, resembling sacrifice in the religious sphere.
Recreational Hunting: Ethics, Experiences and
Abstract: Starting with the paradox that hunters claim to love the animal species they
hunt, this article examines three inter-related issues: the ethics of hunting, the hunting
experience and the commoditization of hunting in the contemporary world. I discuss
two contrary philosophical approaches to hunting in general, and then turn to the specific
problem of the ethics of recreational hunting, arguing that its protagonists fail to render
a consistent justification for killing animals merely for the experience, but create a
hunting ideology which obfuscates the issue. While hunters claim that the chase is the
main point of hunting, its conclusion in the kill constitutes the apex of the hunting
experience. However, the intensity of the experience fades with the commoditization of
the pray in the contemporary world. I present a series of settings according to the extent
to which they are ‘framed,’ ranging from open areas, designated ‘wildernesses,’ and
game parks, to game farms (and virtual hunting establishments), where tame and
restricted animals are easily shot for a trophy at a stiff price. The outrage the hunting
community raised by those practices, serves to highlight its moral supremacy. The article
concludes that the paradox of killing a loved animal inherent in recreational hunting is
irresolvable on the ethical sphere, but can be interpreted as an antinomian but exalted
ritual, resembling sacrifice in the religious sphere.
Keywords: hunting; animal ethics; commoditization; game parks; game farms; virtual
ISSN (print): 0250–8281/ISSN (online): 2320–0308
©2014 Tourism Recreation Research
ERIK COHEN is Professor Emeritus at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel and lives in Thailand.
... each man kills the thing he loves,
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!
(Oscar Wilde)
Students of tourism have, in the last two
decades, shown a growing interest in the
interface of tourism and hunting under such
headings as recreational hunting (Dickson et
al. 2009), consumptive tourism (Novelli et al.
2006), sport hunting (Dowsley 2009; Hussain
2010; Loveridge et al. 2007) and trophy
hunting (Gunn 2001; Lindsey et al. 2007).
Much of that work was done from an
environmentalist perspective, with topics of
environmental impact, conservation,
sustainability and game management in the
foreground (Reis 2009). While anthropolog-
ists devoted considerable attention to hunting
in hunter-gatherer and other simple societies
(e.g., Harako 1976; Liebenberg 2006;
Nadasdy 2007; Sharp 1977), and social
historians studied hunting during the pre-
colonial (Allsen 2006) and colonial periods
(e.g., Hussain 2010; Sramek 2006; Steinhart
1989; Taylor 2004), detailed studies of
contemporary hunting practices are
Recreational Hunting: Cohen
4 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014
relatively rare (but see Dahles 1993; Howe
1981; McLeod 2004; Reis 2009), and tend to
focus on big game trophy hunting by
Westerners in Africa (Lindsey et al. 2007;
Novelli et al. 2006; Treves 2009) and in the
Arctic (Dowsley 2009; Freeman and Wenzel
2006). But, like tourism studies in general, the
study of contemporary hunting suffers from
two major shortcomings: One, it has a strong
‘Eurocentric bias: while there are many
studies on subsistence hunting in non-
western countries (e.g., Alvard et al. 1997;
Alves et al. 2009; Carpaneto and Fusan 2000;
Condon et al. 1995 and Wilkie 1989), there
are virtually none on contemporary
recreational hunting by their own
inhabitants. Two, it focuses on hunting on
the international scale, particularly on
hunters for whom hunting is a ‘serious
leisure activity (Stebbins 1982), while paying
less attention to the occasional tourist-hunter,
seeking to taste the experience or to acquire
a trophy. This unbalanced distribution of
sources constitutes a constraint on the
present study.
The study focuses on three interrelated
issues: The development of a hunting ethics,
which seeks to justify recreational hunting,
the nature of the hunting experience, and the
ongoing process of commoditization of
I depart from a fundamental paradox
inherent in recreational hunting: recreational
hunters take animal life for an intrinsic
experience, while declaring an intimate
relationship with, and love for the species
whose individual members they kill. To take
a telling example: for the American
‘sportsmen’ hunters in the 19th century,
The Adirondack deer symbolized the goodness
of natu re…It appe are d to be a gen tle ,
intelligent, harmless creature, whose life in
the wilderness, so far as the hunters knew,
was easy and untroubled… the sportsman
detested the carnivorous animals like wolves
and panthers because these species appeared
to be vicious and out of place in the paradise
that nature was supposed to be, but the deer,
herbivorous, apparently at peace with its fellow
creatures, appealed to the nineteenth-century
mind as typical of the goodness inherent in
the natural world (Terrie 1978: 14).
However, it was the deer those
‘sportsmen’ hunters were after. Terrie (1978)
comments that
…while the sportsman may occasionally be
aware of the paradox in his sentimental
attit ude t owa rds t he de er an d his
simultaneous impulse to eat it for dinner, this
perception seldom kept him from hunting (p.
Deer hunters in contemporary New
Zealand manifest virtually the same
attitudes. Reiss (2009) found that hunters
often refer to deer as beautiful and majestic,
and admire its beauty, intelligence and
physical ability; but though their, admiration
seems contradictory to the act of killing, for
hunters it is part of the performance and
needs to happen. Reiss (2009) quotes a hunter
who seems to struggle with the ambivalence,
admitting that the killing is not the nicest
thing to do, but is the thrill of the hunt.
Dahles (1993) similarly found that, in
Dutch society, hunters claim to hunt ‘for the
love of animals’. They hence ambivalently
‘kill and eat the animals which they love
(Dahles 1993: 167).
This paradox informs much of the
current discussion regarding the morality of
killing animals merely for the experience.
While contemporary critics attacked
recreational hunters as ‘murderers’ (Dahles
1993: 180), their defenders sought to
formulate an ethics, which would make
Recreational Hunting: Cohen
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014 5
recreational hunting morally acceptable. But
its underlying motive, the chase culminating
in the experience of the kill, remains a
contested ethical issue.
It is necessary to stress, that ‘recreational
hunting’ is not a sharply distinguishable
activity. Loveridge et al. (2007: 226)
distinguish between subsistence hunting,
market (or commercial) hunting and sport
(or leisure or recreational) hunting, on
motivational grounds. However, these
categories are blurred: ‘there is a commercial
element in sport hunting because hunted
animals are often saleable commodities;
sports hunters also often resemble subsistence
hunters, in that they choose not to kill more
than they can eat’ (Loveridge et al. 2007: 226).
Domestic hunters seem to resemble
subsistence hunters more than international
hunters, who hunt primarily for the trophy,
and are therefore at the focus of the discourse
on the ethics of recreational hunting.
Hunting and Ethics
The extensive recent literature on the
ethical status of hunting, tends to confound
two very different issues: the ethics of hunting
and the recreational hunting ethics. The
former relates to the circumstances, if any,
under which hunting (wild) animals can be
ethically justified. It takes an exogenous (or
‘etic) perspective, which does not relate
directly to actual hunting motives and
practices. The latter takes an internal (or
‘emic’) perspective from within the (Western)
hunting culture; it is concerned with
arguments justifying recreational hunting
practices, in contrast to other practices which
involve the killing of (wild) animals, such as
slaughtering, shooting or poaching. Such
justifications provided the basis of an ethics
and ideology, by which recreational hunters
seek to defend their pursuit against the
opponents of hunting.
The Ethics of Hunting
At the mid-20th century, evolutionary
anthropologists declared the turn to hunting
a crucial stage in human evolution.
Washburn and Lancaster (1968) claimed that
Hunting has dominated human
history…Our interests, emotions and basic
social life are all evolutionary products of
the success of the hunting adaptation’ (quoted
in Cartmill 1996: 9). Hence, they argued,
‘Men enjoy hunting and killing and these
activities are continued as sports even when
they are no longer economically necessary’
(quoted in Cartmill 1996: 11). As an inborn
trait of ‘Man the Hunter’ (Washburn and
Lancaster 1968), hunting in this evolutionary
discourse was not perceived as an ethical
problem. However, with the fall of the
‘hunting hypothesis’ (Cartmill 1996: 17-18)
hunting was recognized as a human cultural
choice. The uncoupling of the discourse of
hunting from human evolutionary theory
and the rise of two new, partially discordant,
discourses, namely animal ethics and
environmentalism, unleashed a heated
controversy on the ethical justifiability of
recreational hunting. Gunn (2001: 71) states
the moral issue clearly ‘the question for sport
hunting advocates to address [is], if it is
admitted that the life of an animal is valuable
to it and that animals have an interest in
continuing life, whether this interest may
justly be overridden’.
The controversy can be seen, on the
highest level of abstraction, as a particular
instance of conflict between two allegedly
‘mutually exclusive ethical worldviews
(Starr 1999: 407) discerned by Max Weber
(1991 [1921]), namely, the ethics of
Recreational Hunting: Cohen
6 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014
conviction (Gesinnungsethik)’ and the ’ethics
of responsibility (Verantwortungsethik),’ the
former prioritizing a single value (e.g., in the
present context, respect for animal life or
prevention of pain to sentient beings)
irrespective of consequences, the latter taking
account of the benefits against costs in the
realization of particular values (e.g.,
preservation of animal life against
conservation of natural eco-systems).
Some people view hunting as
uncivilized, and hence ‘unworthy of civilized
beings’ (Gunn 2001: 70). Theodore Vitali
(1990: 69) condemned hunting [as] a
disgusting sport that recalls and rehearses the
worst in human behavior’ (quoted in Gunn
2001: 70). Proponents of an ethics of
conviction in the discourse of animal ethics
(Fennell 2012a), such as the advocates of
animal rights (Fennell 2012b; Regan 2004),
animal liberation (Callicutt 1980; Singer
1995), deep ecology (Reis 2009) and
eco-feminism (Kheel 1996), prioritize
unconditionally the preservation of life of
individual animals and hence oppose hunting
under any circumstances. Some animal rights
activists have expressedly condemned
hunting as obscene killing, or a war on
wildlife (Dizard 1999: 30). The ethicist Regan
has argued that the goal of wildlife
management should be to defend wild
animals in the possession of their rights,
providing them with the opportunity to live
their own life, by their own lights, as best as
they can, spared that human predation that
goes by the name of “sports”’ (Regan (2004:
357, quoted in Fannell 2012: 163).
Such approaches conflict with
environmental ethics approaches (Callicutt
1980), whose perspective reflects an ethics
of responsibility, favoring the survival of the
species over that of individual animals: as
Dizard (1999: 14) has pointed out in his case
study, ‘in order to survive, deer…must have
their numbers controlled.’ Killing of animals,
and hence hunting, would under such
circumstances become ethically acceptable.
Gunn (2001: 68) claims that he had
‘found no published source that condemns
hunting per se’. None of the gesinnungsethisch
approaches, is completely consequential in
its prioritization of animal life; all concedes
that hunting animals might become ethically
permissible under certain circumstances
(Gunn 2001: 82). The verantworungtsethisch
representatives of an environmental ethics in
fact sought to define these circumstances.
Environmentalists have justified hunting as
an effective means ‘to control the numbers
of some species’ (Gunn 2001: 80) and thus
maintain the balance of the eco-system, or
even assure the long-term survival of those
species themselves. But, this is an exogenous,
utilitarian justification, applicable to any kind
of killing. There is nothing in the
environmentalist approach to justify
recreational hunting per se, as an enjoyable,
discretionary activity. As Dickson (2009: 65)
points out, killing individual animals might
be necessary for the survival of the species;
but ‘the appropriate emotion [for necessary
killing] would be one of regret, rather than
exultation’. Indeed, in wildlife management
particular ‘destructive species,’ which are
‘culled’ or exterminated are referred to as
‘vermin’ (Gunn 2001: 68) or pests (Gunn
2001: 78). That terminology indicates that
killing them is perceived as an unpleasant,
but necessary activity. Dickson (2009) argues,
regarding recreational hunting, that ‘doing
it for fun turns what otherwise might be
permissible [or necessary] into something that
is wrong. On this reading the motive is
central to what is wrong with the activity’.
Recreational Hunting: Cohen
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014 7
In other words, the environmental
justification of hunting does not justify the
recreational hunter’s motive for engaging in
it. His enjoyment of the hunt demands a
separate, intrinsic ethical justification.
Recreational Hunting Ethics
In the past, the monarchy and
aristocracy in the West and the Asian
potentates did not see it necessary to justify
recreational hunting in their domain; it was
perceived as their uncontested privilege. Kete
(2002: 20) comments that ‘access [to hunting]
most directly marked the powerful in
medieval and modernizing Europe.’ But their
privilege came increasingly under scrutiny in
the 19th century by opponents of the
monarchical state. Taylor (2004: 31) details
the royalty’s opponents ‘narratives of privilege
and animal abuse that became the scourge
of royal patrons of the hunt’. However, once
democratization allowed urban professionals
and others access to the killing of game, the
monopoly on the protection of game for the
West European landed elites was broken
(Kete 2002: 20-21).
Remnants of upper-class hunting
privileges could also be found in the eastern
United States. Terrie’s (1978) study of 19th
century hunting in the Adirondacks by
‘sportsmen’ belonging to New Yorks or
Boston’s urban elites, demonstrates their
disregard for the very wilderness they
extolled, as they frequently killed ‘by legally
prohibited means, a dozen deer in a few
weeks, only a fraction of which were used as
food’ (Terrie 1978: 9).
The need for a distinctive moral
justification for recreational hunting emerged
only with its plebeization or democratization
in the modern West, since the new middle
classes lacked the kind of entitlements
enjoyed by traditional elites. In the English-
speaking world, that justification was based
on the traditionally well-established
perception of hunting as a “sport” and on a
fundamental modern Western middle class
value, ‘fairness’ (Rawls 1999).
‘Fairness’ is a basic principle of sports in
the sense of ‘fair play,’ the observation of the
rules warranting equal opportunities of
winning to the sides in a human agonistic
contest. That principle was transposed to the
contest between the human hunter and his
animal prey in the concept of ‘fair chase’
(Posewitz 1994) . The main injunctions of the
recreational hunter’s ethic were that the
hunted animal had to be wild (rather than
tame), unrestrained or free roaming (rather
than fenced-off), and have a chance to escape
or to kill the hunter. There is nothing in these
precepts which would link recreational
hunting to the preservation of ecological
balance, on which the exogenous ethical
justification of hunting is based.
The derivation of the hunters’ ethics
from sports has an important implication: it
ameliorates the reality of the kill, as an
inescapable, final act of the hunt. ‘Sport’ is a
‘limited province of meaning’ (Schuetz 1973),
a variety of ‘play’ or ‘game,’ and thus not
part of everyday reality. Agonistic sports, like
boxing, are conducted under the rules of a
‘fair fight’. Within the sportive framework,
boxers are permitted to punch each other
(according to boxing rules), whereas such
conduct would be seen as a brawl, and hence
an infringement of public order, in everyday
life. Recreational hunting came to be similarly
perceived as a playful activity (as against
subsistence hunting, which was deemed as
necessary for human survival). Like punching
in boxing, shooting in recreational hunting
is permitted, while strictly prohibited in
Recreational Hunting: Cohen
8 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014
everyday life; and huntable animals are called
‘game,’ an allusion to the playful character
of the activity (Kheel 1996). Hunters claim
that they have a high esteem for ‘fighting’
game. Since ‘tame animals have lost their
fighting spirit [they] are considered unfit for
hunting’ (Dahles 1993: 178). Hunting is thus
seen as a ‘playful fight’ (Dahles 1993: 179-
However, this argument glosses over the
fact that the image of the ‘hunting game’ is
one-sided, because ‘the animal has not
consented to the competition’ (Kheel 1996:
31). The prey is not aware of participating in
a game; and it is not defeated playfully, but
killed for real. Recreational hunting is hence
an ambivalent activity, straddling the border
between everyday reality and a limited
province of meaning. This ambivalence is at
the bottom of the controversy about the
morality of recreational hunting, its
protagonists emphasizing its sports-like,
playful nature (for humans), their antagonists
its real consequences (for the animals). The
analogy between hunting and sports is
therefore untenable, but it constitutes an
important element in the ideology of the
defenders of recreational hunting.
The apparent parallel between ‘fair
fight’ in agonistic sports and ‘fair chase’ in
hunting is also misleading: ‘fair fight’ implies
an equality of chances to win the contest; but
in recreational hunting the encounter is
heavily loaded against the animal: the
relative chances of hunter and prey surviving
the encounter only rarely approached a
semblance of equality.
Hunting tigers in colonial India (Sramek
2006) and big ‘game’ in sub-Saharan Africa
(Steinhart 1989) approximated most closely
an equality of chances for hunter and prey
to kill each other. In colonial India, hunting
tigers was considered a dangerous business
(Sramek 2006: 666). The British ‘sportsmen’
hunters showed a high regard for the
cunning, intelligence and power of the tiger.
They ‘described their encounters with tigers
as an agonistic, life-and-death encounter
between valiant adversaries’ (Cohen 2012:
195). A British army officer, Walter
Campbell, warned newcomers to India,
when facing a tiger while on foot, to ‘face
him…and kill him if you can; for if you fail
to kill him, he will certainly kill you
(Campbell 1864: 162, quoted in Sramek 2006:
659). But hunters have rarely faced a tiger
alone. They were typically accompanied by
shikaris (trackers and hunting guides), from
whom they learned to hunt tigers
successfully as well as safely’ (Sramek 2006:
671) from the relative safety of a hunting
platform or an elephant’s back (Sramek 2006:
During the early colonial period in
Africa, European ‘pioneer hunters,’ hunting
big game on foot, accompanied only by
African guides and trackers (Steinhart 1989:
254) were exposed to potentially fatal injury,
especially from a wounded animal.. But
visiting ‘sportsmen’ of eminence and wealth
were accompanied by experienced white
hunters as advisers (Steinhart 1989: 253).
Over time, ‘African hunters [also] began to
assume new roles as ancillaries to white
hunters’ (Steinhart 1989: 254). These various
associates certainly reduced the exposure of
‘sportsmen’ hunters to the risks of attack by
the hunted big game.
However, the hunters apparent
exposure to danger helped to reinforce the
impression of ‘fair play,’ while enhancing the
thrill of the hunt and the esteem accorded to
their achievement. The American elite
Recreational Hunting: Cohen
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014 9
hunters ‘wanted to believe that their camping
trips…involved an element of peril’ (Terrie
1978: 11), while they hardly faced any real
Exposure to danger makes hunting
resemble an equal contest, and thus appears
to constitute a justification of the kill. Big
game hunting became the emblematic
example on which the recreational hunting
ideology is based. The risks involved in
hunting other animal species are obviously
much lower, and absent in hunting small
“game,” such as hare or birds, or in indirect
hunting methods, such as snaring or
falconing, where the hunter does not even
face his prey. Furthermore, the more hunting
became commoditized in the contemporary
world, even shooting big game could become
a safe, risk-less entertainment (see below).
In the contemporary world, recreational
hunting became quite strictly regulated, both
by law and by various ‘codes of ethics’
instituted by hunting associations. Luke
(1997: 25), summed up ‘The primary rules of
the ‘Sportsman’s’ Code,’ on the basis of a
review of such codes in the literature, as
SC1. Safety first;
SC2. Obey the law;
SC3. Give fair chase;
SC4. Harvest the game;
SC5. Aim for quick kills;
SC6. Retrieve the wounded.
Luke (1997) argues that ‘Several of the
[‘Sportsman’s Code’s] rules presuppose a
respect for animals that renders hunting a
prima facie wrong’, and hence argues that
‘Sport hunters…are in a paradoxical position
the more conscientiously they follow the
code, the more strongly their behavior
exemplifies a respect for animals that
undermines the possibilities of justifying
hunting altogether (Luke 1997: 25).
Formalized codes thus fail to provide a
congruent ethical justification of recreational
hunting; but they provide an ideological tool
which obscures the paradox inherent in that
However, even as the ethics of
recreational hunting became formally
codified, its basic rules were increasingly
infringed upon by commercial enterprises
offering hunting opportunities to casual
Hunting Experience and Commoditization
Gunn (2001: 70) states unequivocally
that the central meaning of hunting is
killing. But killing animals is a morally
ambivalent act; it becomes more problematic
if it is committed, as in recreational hunting,
without an extrinsic, particularly utilitarian,
purpose, and even more so when hunters
affirm their love for the animals they hunt.
Killing the prey is an under-emphasized act
in the ideology of recreational hunting. Kheel
(1996: 32) points to the ‘often noted claim of
hunters that it is not the killing of the animal
that is the primary purpose of the hunt; it is
the experience of hunting.’ She and others
quote Ortega y Gasset’s (1985: 97) saying,
‘One does not hunt in order to kill: on the
contrary, one kills in order to have hunted’
(Kheel 1996: 32; Reis 2009).
Franklin (2007) in his advocacy of
consumptive as against non-consumptive
tourism, links his argument to an alleged
‘embodied turn’ in contemporary tourism,
away from the dominance of the disembodied
‘visual gaze, perspective, distance and the
fleeting visit,’ towards ‘getting ‘up-close’ to
objects that were hitherto held at arm’s
length’. He infers that, consequently, ‘it is
possible that consumptive forms may
Recreational Hunting: Cohen
10 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014
become more attractive [in wildlife leisure]
because they offer a more embodied and
intimate relationship with the natural world’
(Franklin 2007: 38-39). Reis (2009) similarly
found that for whitetail deer hunters on
Stewart Island in New Zealand, the killing
act is secondary to the experience of sublimity,
stemming from the multi-sensual embodied
involvement of the hunter in the island’s
pristine nature.
In his study of hunters’ writings,
Franklin (2007) found that the principal joy
of hunting is ‘the pleasure of temporary union
with the natural order’ (p. 37). In those
writings the ‘distinctive emphasis was not the
thrill of killing but the thrill (and excitement)
of being sensually turned into specific, highly
sensitive and difficult tension balances with
quarry species’. Franklin (2007) concludes
that ‘through their written reflections,
hunters…seem to suggest that our relating
with animals offers a way out of the human-
centered world, an opportunity to live less
by our intellect and more by our senses…’
(p.37). That kind of argument reaches its
apex in Kheel’s (1996: 36) description of the
‘holy hunter,’ for whom ‘hunting is a religious
or spiritual experience,’ and becomes ‘akin
to a religious rite’. Holmes Rolston (1988: 91,
quoted in Kheel 1996: 36) claimed that
‘Hunting is not sport; it is a sacrament of the
fundamental, mandatory seeking and taking
possession of value that characterizes an
ecosystem’. Kheel (1996: 37) concludes: ‘Holy
hunters do not ‘kill’ animals according to this
world view; rather, animals ‘give’ their lives’.
However, though in such accounts
killing appears to be merely incidental to the
over-all hunting experience, there is no
escaping the fact that ‘the narrative structure
of the hunt requires the intention to kill. If
someone goes hunting and does not kill an
animal, it is still called hunting. But, if
someone goes into the woods without the
intent to kill, the term hunt cannot be applied’
(Kheel 1996: 32). Thus it remains the case
that ‘there is a moral problem entailed in the
idea of pursuing the death of another living
being for the opportunity it affords one to
engage in an enjoyable experience’ (Kheel
1996: 32).
There is considerable evidence that the
act of killing the prey is not just an enjoyable
act, but constitutes the culminating
experience of the hunt. Ann Causey (1989:
332, quoted in Gunn 2001: 70) says ‘The one
element that stands out as truly essential to
the authentic hunting experience is the kill.’
The experience of shooting tigers in India has
been described in terms of high exhilaration,
reminiscent of Maslow’s (1964) concept of
‘peak experience,’ or as a brief but intensive
moment of existential authenticity (Cohen
2012: 200).
However, the recent literature indicates
a trend towards the prioritization of the
trophy over a quest for a profound, holistic
experience (Gunn 2001: 74-75). Gunn
distinguishes between sport hunters and
trophy hunters, who ‘kill purely for the sake
of acquiring prestigious evidence that they
have killed an animal,’ but ‘cannot claim that
they are pitting their wits against a cunning
adversary, let alone running a personal risk’
(Gunn 2001: 75). They engage in ‘plastic
hunting’ (Gunn 2001, citing Loftin 1988) The
trend to trophy shooting is encouraged and
facilitated by a wider process of
commoditization of recreational hunting, that
involves a growing spatial restriction and
managerial control over hunting settings, and
an itemized pricing of the prey, thereby
enabling casual hunters to engage in trophy
hunting as a pastime.
Recreational Hunting: Cohen
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014 11
According to the prevailing recreational
hunting ideology, ‘hunting must occur
outside and, traditionally, in an area that is
considered “wild”’ ((Kheel 1996: 32), so the
animals would be unrestrained, a
precondition of the ‘fair chase’. However, as
Kheel (1996: 32) points out, ‘The boundary
between what is considered wild and what
is considered tame is rapidly being blurred.’
Within the range of hunting settings several
main types can be distinguished, according
to the extent to which they are ‘framed’ in
Goffman’s (1974) sense, namely marked-off,
physically or symbolically, from the flow of
everyday life (Cohen 2012: 194-195).
Accordingly, five major types of hunting
settings, ranging from the most open and
unrestrained, to the most restricted and
constrained one can be distinguished:
1. Open natural areas which have been
little, if at all, affected by human penetration,
such as jungles, forests, mountains and
deserts, in which wildlife is fully unrestrained
and hunting uncontrolled. Such settings are
not separated from the flow of life; they are
un-framed. Hunting is open to everybody,
whether subsistence or recreational hunter.
The forests of colonial India, the colonial sub-
Saharan grasslands, the Russian tundra, the
tropical forests of South America and the
Arctic regions are leading historical examples
of this type of setting. There were no hunting
permits and no limits on the kind and number
of animals killed. Being un-regulated, the
concept of ‘poaching’ was inapplicable. Up
to the eve of the Second World War this was
the spatially most extensive type of hunting
settings in the non-western world, but has
by now almost disappeared, as authorities
in most countries sought to protect and
manage the remaining open natural areas,
and control hunting in them for
environmental and economic reasons.
2. Wildernesses, set-aside, environment-
ally managed nature areas, barred to
uncontrolled human penetration and
exploitation, such as national parks, safaris,
animal preserves and designated hunting
areas; in such settings wildlife is ‘culled’ and
sometimes restocked by the authorities to
maintain their ecological balance and
facilitate sustainable hunting. Such settings
may be marked by signage, but are not
physically fenced-off. Animals are thus still
unrestrained, though they might in some
areas, intensively frequented by humans,
become half-tame. Hunting in such settings
is mostly subject to permits, but, especially in
non-Western countries, pouching is
widespread. The number of animals a hunter
is permitted to kill is in some instances
unlimited (e.g., Reis 2009); but authorities
have increasingly restricted hunters to the
species and number of prey during a hunting
season or a hunting excursion. In
wildernesses harboring highly valued,
‘exotic’ prey, recreational hunting became an
important economic resource. Thus, in the
Canadian Arctic, each Inuit community is
given a quota (‘tags’) for the number of polar
bears to be hunted in a given year. The
communities allocate the quota between
subsistence hunters and outfitters, who sell
them to wealthy hunters (Freeman and
Wenzel 2006: 26). The latter pay about
$20,000 for a trip in which they are permitted
to kill only a single bear (Freeman and
Wenzel 2006: 24). In national parks in
southern Africa, hunters are charged stiff fees
for the animals they kill. For instance, around
2000, fees in Botswana ranged between USD
25,000-60,000 for a white rhinoceros, USD
3000-30,000 for a lion, and USD 19,000-
40,000 for an elephant (Loveridge et al. 2007:
228). In Zimbabwe, the fee for shooting an
elephant is presently about USD 60,000
(Betghe 2012: 113).
Recreational Hunting: Cohen
12 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014
3. Game parks (or r anges), large,
frequently fenced-off areas in which wild
animals are kept for hunting under relatively
natural circumstances. Southern African
game parks are often of considerable size and
constitute privately owned or concessed parts
of larger wildlife conservation areas. In
Namibia, for example, the Dzoti Hunting
concession of the Van Heerden Safaris
Company spreads over 250 square kilometers
caprivi.html), while some other game parks
also embrace tens of thousands acres.
While the animals in such big parks are
unrestrained, the owners tend to adjust the
numbers of animals to hunters’ preferences;
hence ‘Many game parksmaintain
populations of trophy animals…usually
drawn from surplus national park
populations or are purpose bred like
Christmas trees’ (Gunn 2001: 76). Some such
animals hence probably tend to be half-
South African companies offer hunting
packages, which include high fees for specific
game species. Thus, African Sky Safaris,
charges from about USD 3,250 for a 5-day
tour for beginners (including fees for three
animals of some common species), up to USD
78,670 for a 21-daylion, buffalo and
elephant’ tour (including fees for these three
species, and for a kudu, a wildebeest and a
Hunting in African game parks is an
expensive activity, pursued by relatively a
few, wealthy elite hunters. Hunting is a
cheaper, popular pastime in the following
4. Game farms, relatively small, fenced-
off areas, found predominantly in the U.S.
and Canada (Herring 2000; Ireland 2002),
but also in South Africa (Loveridge et al. 2009:
111), in which often quite tamed animals,
restricted in their movements or even
physically restrained, are kept by commercial
establishments to be shot by visiting clients.
The principal interest of the clients is in the
trophy, rather than in a hunting experience.
In some game farms, clients are able to
choose from a price list the animal they want
to shoot, just as purchasing any other
commodity. Unlike in the above settings there
is no element of uncertainty involved (Kluger
2002). As one such establishment advertised
itself: ‘Bag a Trophy, Guaranteed Kill, No
Kill, No Pay (Ireland 2002: 223). Such
establishments offer ‘the chance to kill a wild
animal, right in the heart of your home state,
with no experience, not even a license,
necessaryfor a few thousand dollars
(Ireland 2002: 223). The kill is made easy.
Familiar with their habits, ‘guides will often
simply trap the animals in a corner of the
enclosure in preparation for the kill’ (Ireland
2002: 226). About 2000, ‘there [were] up to
two thousand [such] facilities in over twenty-
five states [in the U.S.]’ (Ireland 2002: 225).
Most offered ‘hunters’ local wildlife, such as
elk or deer (Ireland 2002), but some offered
rarer creatures, often old animals sold by
circuses, or zoos, such as an ‘odd rhino, zebra
or tiger…for ‘trophy fees’ of upto $20,000’
(Kluger 2002).
In game farms, animals are ‘in any sense
of the word, captive they are kept within
enclosures and are dependent on humans for
food and shelter’ (Ireland 2002: 224). They
are ‘essentially domesticated animals who
have little or no fear of humans’ (Ireland
2002: 226).
Shooting such tamed and constrained
animals just for a trophy has been dubbed
Recreational Hunting: Cohen
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014 13
‘canned hunting and condemned as an
‘inhumane and unethical’ practice (Ireland
2002). Mitchell (1991) called canned hunts
‘slaughter, not sport, with no vestige of fair
contest between man and beast.’ Gunn (2001:
75) points out that ‘Defenders of hunting
invariably contrast what they regard as
“true” sport hunting with hunting for some
other purpose, and especially with hunting
just for the sake of killing something, “slab
hunting”’ (Gunn 2001: 74). But such
condemnation of ‘canned hunting,’ however
ethically justified, is not innocent: it helps to
uplift the ethical superiority of real
recreational hunting, and thus contributes to
its social acceptability.
5. Virtu al hunting, ranches keeping
animals, which can be shot by physically
remote ‘hunters’ by way of the Internet. As
Bell (2005) puts it in a critical report: ‘All you
need to do is to align the virtual cameras, aim
your virtual rifle and, if you are lucky, a real
gazelle lies dead in the Texas grass.’ Or as a
company advertises the practice without
irony: ‘ allows you to sit at
home in the comfort of your easy chair and
shoot live bullets at real animals’ (Bookofjoe
2005). The practice has been condemned, not
only by the Humane Society of the U.S., but
also by the Texas Wildlife Society and the
Safari Club International; the later stated that
the “recently publicized form of Internet
activity…has been improperly designated as
‘hunting’ (Field and Stream 2005). The
practice was declared illegal in the US in 35
states, and is apparently still found in just a
few states. But it is significant for the present
analysis because it constitutes the end-point
of a process of commoditization of hunting,
in which different ‘limited provinces of
meaning’ (Schuetz 1973) intersect, so that a
virtual act can lead to real consequences.
Franklin (2008: 39), observing that
tourists, who showed reverence for
endangered species during a visit to an
Australian conservation area, did not hesitate
to eat them in local restaurants, concluded
that our view of animals is contingent: ‘We
pass between a variety of viewpoints and
discourses on them and they become different
objects as we do so’ (Franklin 2008: 40). But
that insight does not help to resolve the
paradox that hunters are thrilled by killing
the animals, whom they profess to love: the
hunters’ love and killing of animals go
together, and do not represent separate,
contingent viewpoints on animals.
Neither did recent efforts in formulating
a hunting ethics succeed to resolve the
paradox. I have made a distinction between
an exogenous ethics of hunting, which
defines the circumstances in which hunting
might be ethically justified, and a recreational
hunting ethic, intrinsic to the hunting
community, which seeks an ethical
justification for the enjoyment of hunting. By
presenting recreational hunting as a sport, a
‘limited province of meaning,’ implicitly apart
from ‘real’ life, this ethic seeks to represent
the hunt as a contest between humans and
wild animals, involving a ‘fair chase, and
hence a fair chance for the animal to escape.
However, unlike in other sports, the animal
does not consent to the contest, nor has it an
equal chance to survive it. Such an ethic is
thus on a shaky ground, and does not
provide a consistent justification of the
enjoyment of the killing of the hunted animal.
I assert that the ethics and the codes built on
it obfuscate the issue, and hence help to make
recreational hunting socially acceptable,
without resolving the paradox.
Recreational Hunting: Cohen
14 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014
But perhaps the failed effort to resolve
the paradox, and formulating a consistent
recreational hunting ethics, missed a crucial
point: namely, that the kill, as the culmination
of the chase, is perceived by hunters as
beyond good and evil, an antinomian, a-
moral, but exhilarating act of a virtually
mystical appropriation of the life of the
animal they love, as Kheel (1996) has
indicated; it thus resembles an animal sacrifice
in the religious sphere.
However, the existential character of
that experience fades progressively as the
excitement of the chase came to be
overshadowed by a desire for the trophy
among contemporary casual hunters. I have
mapped-out the process of commoditization
of prey animals, which both facilitates and
encourages the realization of that desire. That
process is marked by four basic
characteristics: 1. The emergence of
commercial enterprises offering hunting
opportunities; 2. The gradual restriction of
the range of wildlife, even as the animals
become increasingly tamed; 3. The pricing of
individual prey animals; and 4. The turning
of the uncertainty of the chase into the
certainty of the kill. I argue that the wave of
criticism and indignation in the hunting
community, raised by the offer of restrained
animals for shooting by trophy-seeking clients
in game farms (and virtual hunting settings),
served that community to sharpen its own
identity, and to buttress the legitimacy of its
This study suffers from some serious
limitations, which are partly due to the
unequal distribution of the sources. Its focus
was primarily on big game. However, it is
questionable if modern hunters, shooting
hare, rabbit or squirrels for a meal, enjoy the
same depth of experience as big game
hunters. There is thus a need for more
detailed studies of this kind of hunting.
Perhaps of more importance is the fact
that the literature on which this article is
based exhibits a marked Eurocentric
tendency. It deals virtually exclusively with
hunting by Westerners, whether in their own,
or in non-Western countries. Like in tourist
studies in general, there is a need for
comparative studies on contemporary Asian,
African or Latin American recreational
hunters, who might differ significally in their
practices and desired experiences from those
in the West.
Finally, recreational hunting is here
studied in isolation from other blood-sports.
But a comparison of hunting with Spanish
bull-fighting, and other forms of human-
animal agonistic confrontation, as well as
with animalanimal fights set-up and
controlled by humans, could make a major
contribution to a culturally sensitive
understanding of agonistic contests in the
field of human–animal engagement.
Acknowledgement. Thanks are due to
David A. Fennell for his comments on an
earlier draft of this article.
ALLSEN, Th. (2006). The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History. Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press.
ALVARD, M.S., ROBINSON, J. G., REDFORD, K. H. and KAPLAN, H. (1997). The Sustainability of Subsistence Hunting
in the Neo-tropics. Conservation Biology 11(4): 977–982.
ALVES, R.R.N., MENDONÇA, L.E.T., CONFESSOR, M.V.A., VIEIRA, W.L.S. and LOPEZ, L.C.S. (2009). Hunting Strategies
Used in the Semi-arid Region of Northeastern Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 5(12).
BELL, S. (2005). Virtual Hunting: Click, Click, You’re Dead. Yahoo! Voices 6 August
hunting-click... – Accessed on 23 February 2013.
Recreational Hunting: Cohen
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014 15
BETHGE, Ph. (2012). Ganz Nah Bei Gott. Der Spiegel (6August): 112–113.
BOOKOFJOE (2005). Virtual Hunting – for real. hunting.html – Accessed
on 22 February 2013.
CALLICUTT, J.B. (1980). Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair. Environmental Ethics 2(4): 311–338.
CAMPELL, W. (1864). My Indian Journal. Edinburgh. Edmonston and Douglas.
CARPANETO, G.M. and FUSAN, A. (2000). Subsistence Hunting and Bushmeat Exploitation in Central-western
Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation 9(11): 1571–1585.
CARTMILL, M. (1996). A View to a Death in the Morning: Hunting and Nature through History. Cambridge. Harvard
University Press.
COHEN, E. (2009). The Wild and the Humanized: Animals in Thai Tourism. Anatolia 20(1): 100–118.
COHEN, E. (2012). Tiger Tourism: From Shooting to Petting. Tourism Recreation Research 37(3): 193–204.
CONDON, R.G., COLLINGS, P. and WENZEL, G. (1995). The Best Part of Life: Subsistence Hunting, Ethnicity and
Economic Adaptation among Young Inuit Males. Arctic 48(1): 31–48.
DAHLES, H. (1993). Game Killing and Killing Games: An Anthropologist Looking at Hunting in a Modern Society.
Society and Animals 1(2): 169–184.
DICKSON, B. (2009). The Ethics of Recreational Hunting. In Dickson, B., Hutton, J. and Adams, W. M (Eds) Recreational
Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods. Oxford. Blackwell: 59–72.
DIZARD, J.E. (1999). Going Wild: Hunting, Animal Rights, and the Contested Meaning of Nature. Amherst MA. University of
Massachusetts Press.
DOWSLEY, M. (2009). Inuit-organized Polar Bear Sport Hunting in Nunavut Territory, Canada. Journal of Ecotourism
8(2): 161–175.
FENNELL, D.A. (2012a). Tourism and Animal Ethics. London. Routledge.
FENNELL, D.A. (2012b). Tourism and Animal Rights. Tourism Recreation Research 37(2): 157–166.
FIELD AND STREAM (2005). A Virtual Long Shot: Hunting Texas Whitetails from a Computer. Available at http:// – Accessed on 23 February 2013.
FRANKLIN, A. (2007). The “Animal Question” and the “Consumption” of Wildlife. In Lovelock, B. (Ed.) Tourism and
the Consumption of Wildlife: Hunting, Shooting and Sport Fishing. Abington, Oxon. Routledge: 31–44.
FREEMAN, M.M.R. and WENZEL, G. W. (2006). The Nature and Significance of Polar Bear Conservation Hunting in
the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 59(1): 21–30.
HARAKO, R. (1976). The Mbuti as Hunters: A Study of Ecological Anthropology of the Mbuti Pygmies. Kyoto University
African Studies 10: 37–99.
HERRING, H. (2000). Money Game. The Atlantic Online (June). Available at
Wolves/Monwy-game.pdf – Accessed on 15 February 2013.
HOWE, J. (1981). Fox Hunting as Ritual. American Ethnologist 8(2): 278–300.
HUSSAIN, Sh. (2010). Sport-hunting, Fairness and Colonial Identity: Collaboration and Subversion in the Northwestern
Frontier Region of the British Indian Empire. Conservation and Society 8(2): 112–126.
GOFFMAN, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York. Harper and Row.
GUNN, A.S. (2001). Environmental Ethics and Trophy Hunting. Ethics and the Environment 6(1): 68–95.
IRELAND, L.J. (2002). Canning Canned Hunts: Using State and Federal Legislation to Eliminate the Unethical Practice
of Canned “Hunting”. Animal Law 8: 223–241.
KALOF, L. and Fitzgerald, A. (2003). Reading the Trophy: Exploring the Display of Dead Animals in Hunting
Magazines. Visual Studies 18(2): 112–122.
KETE, K. (2002). Animals and Ideology: The Politics of Animal Protection in Europe. In Rothfels, N. (Ed.) Representing
Animals. Bloomington. Indiana University Press: 19–34.
KHEEL, M. (1996). The Killing Game: An Ecofeminist Critique of Hunting. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 23: 30–44.
Recreational Hunting: Cohen
16 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014
KING, R.J.H. (1991). Environmental Ethics and the Case of Hunting. Environmental Ethics 13(1): 59–85.
KLUGER, J. (2002). Hunting Made Easy. Time (11 March).
LIEBENBERG, L. (2006). Persistence Hunting by Modern Hunter Gatherers. Current Anthropology 47(6): 1017–1025.
LINDSEY, P.A., FRANK, L.G., ALEXANDER, R., MATHIESON, A. and ROMAÑACH, S.S. (2007). Trophy Hunting and
Conservation in Africa: Problems and One Potential Solution. Conservation Biology 21(3): 880–883.
LOFTIN, R.F. (1988). Plastic Hunting and Real Hunting. Behavioral and Political Animal Studies 1: 317–323.
LOVERIDGE, A.J., PACKER, C. and DUTTON, A. (2009). Science and the Recreational Hunting of Lions. In Dickson, B.,
Hutton, J. and Adams, W. M (Eds) Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods. Oxford. Blackwell: 108–
LOVERIDGE, A.J., REYNOLDS, J.C. and MILNER–GULLAND, E.J. (2007). Does Sport Tourism Benefit Conservation?
In Macdonald, D.V. and Service, K. (Eds.) Key Topics in Conservation Biology. Oxford. Blackwell: 224–240.
LUKE, B. (1997). A Critical Analysis of Hunters’ Ethics. Environmental Ethics 19(1): 25–44.
MCLEOD, C.M. (2004). Pondering Nature: An Ethnography of Duck Hunting in Southern New Zealand. Ph.D.
dissertation. University of Otago.
MASLOW, A.H. (1964). Religion, Values and Peak Experiences. New York. Penguin.
MITCHELL, E. (1991). Shooting Leopards in a Barrel. Time (10 June).
NADASDY, P. (2007). The Gift of the Animal: The Ontology of Hunting and Human-animal Sociality. American
Ethnologist 34(1):25–43.
NOVELLI, M, BARNES, J.I. and Humavindu, M. (2006). The Other Side of the Ecotourism Coin: Consumptive Tourism
in Southern Africa. Journal of Ecotourism 5(1&2): 62–79.
ORTEGA Y GASSET, J. (1972). Meditations on Hunting. New York. Charles Scribner’s and Sons.
POSEWITZ, J. (1994). Beyond Fair Chase: The Ethics and Tradition of Hunting. Guilford. Falconguides.
RAWLS, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition). Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.
REGAN, T. (2004). The Case of Animal Rights. Berkeley. University of California Press.
REIS, A.C. (2009). More than the Kill: Hunters’ Relationships with Landscape and Prey. Current Issues in Tourism
12(5&6): 573–587.
ROLSTON, H. (1988). Environmental Ethics: Duties and Values in the Natural World. Philadelphia. Temple University
SCHUETZ, A. (1973). Multiple Realities. In Schuetz, A. (Ed.) Collected Papers Vol.3. The Hague. M. Nijhoff.
SHARP, H.S. (1977). The Caribou-eater Chipewyan: Bilateral Strategies of Caribou Hunting and the Fur Trade. Arctic
Anthropology 14(2): 35–40.
SINGER, P. (1995). Animal Liberation. New York. Vintage.
SRAMEK, J. (2006). Face Him Like a Briton: Tiger Hunting, Imperialism, and British Masculinity in Colonial India,
1800–1975. Victorian Studies 48(4): 659–680.
STEBBINS, R.A. (1982). Serious Leisure: A Conceptual Statement. Pacific Sociological Review 25(2): 251–272.
STARR, B.E. (1999). The Structure of Max Weber’s Ethic of Responsibility. Journal of Religious Ethics 27(3): 407–434.
STEINHART, E.I. (1989). Hunters, Poachers and Gamekeepers: Towards a Social History of Hunting in Colonial
Africa. Journal of African History 30: 247–264.
TAYLOR, A. (2004). “Pig-sticking Princes”: Royal Hunting, Moral Outrage, and the Republican Opposition to Animal
Abuse in Nineteenth- and Early-twentieth-century Britain. History 89(293): 30–48.
TERRIE, Ph. G. (1978). Urban Men Confronts the Wilderness: The Nineteenth-century Sportsman in the Adirondacks.
Journal of Sport History 5(3): 7–20.
TREVES, A. (2009). Hunting for Large Carnivore Conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 1350–1356.
WASHBURN, S.L. and Lancaster, C. S. (1968). Man the Hunter. New York. Aldine.
WEBER, M. (1991 [1921]): Politics as a Vocation. In Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C.W. (Eds.) From Max Weber: Essays in
Sociology. Abingdon, Oxon. Routledge.
Recreational Hunting: Cohen
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014 17
WILKIE, D.S. (1989). Impact of Roadside Agriculture on Subsistence Hunting in the Ituri Forest of Northeastern Zaire.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78(4): 485–494.
Submitted: March 14, 2013
Accepted: January 1, 2014
... Furthermore, as travelling for recreational hunting is a consumptive form of wildlife tourism (cf. Lovelock, 2008), it highlights ethical aspects and has been described as a morally-contested area (Cohen, 2014;von Essen, 2018). ...
... Trophy hunting is often seen as the most notorious form of international hunting tourism, and apart from divided or ambiguous views on its effects on the conservation of wildlife (Aryal, Morley, Cowan, & Ji, 2016), studies of local residents' and the public's views on trophy hunting and sport hunting in various parts of the world demonstrate underlying moral, social and political tensions (MacKay & Campbell, 2004;Mkono, 2019;Nordbø, Turdumambetov, & Gulcan, 2018). Trophy hunting and sport hunting is often associated with the wealthy, and hunting 'merely' for pleasure symbolizes asymmetrical power relations, sometimes with colonial connotations (Mkono, 2019) and a marketized, even itemised (Cohen, 2014) view of wildlife. In contexts where hunting tourism is perceived as a more 'folksy' and less upmarket form of recreational hunting, it seems to evoke more positive attitudes among local residents and the general public (cf. ...
... Hunting tourism is a special type of market in several senses. Erik Cohen (2014) has highlighted the paradox expressed by hunters when they state that they love the animals they kill (see also Reis, 2009). This engenders a need for justification and methods for dealing with this paradox. ...
Full-text available
The article analyses how hunting tourism businesses in Sweden navigate in the nexus between moral and economic value spheres. Through the analytical lens of 'moral gatekeeper', the business operators are depicted as acting from a position where they navigate in a contested space. The analysis demonstrates how the operators balance different norms and practices of recreational hunting, wildlife management, business ethics and customer expectations. The study is based on ethnographic interviews with business operators, observations of hunting arrangements, and document analysis of hunting media, with a focus on narratives and accounts of value. The findings show a complex moral economy where stewardship hunting and gift economics are both intertwined with and kept separate from market relations, which makes the hunting arrangements, appear as a 'peculiar' form of commodity. The analysis demonstrates how moral arguments concerning wildlife management and human well-being are embedded in market relations and discourses on experiences, entailing seemingly opposite forms of commodification. One is related to calculable values, as in trophy hunting, and one is related to the embodied experience of nature. The study provides nuanced and contextual knowledge of the intertwinement of personal and market relationships in recreational hunting and the commodification of wildlife experiences.
... Sport, or recreational, hunting and angling are differentiated from subsistence forms of the same activities in that the felled animals are not used to sustain one's life (Cohen, 2014;McGuigan, 2017). Once reserved for the monarchal elite, recreational killing sports are now more commonplace (Cohen, 2014;Simon, 2019). ...
... Sport, or recreational, hunting and angling are differentiated from subsistence forms of the same activities in that the felled animals are not used to sustain one's life (Cohen, 2014;McGuigan, 2017). Once reserved for the monarchal elite, recreational killing sports are now more commonplace (Cohen, 2014;Simon, 2019). Yet, today, many consider hunters a "minority" in the United States (Posewitz, 1994, p. 110) and numbers of hunters have decreased in recent decades (Larson et al., 2014;Quartuch et al., 2017;Ryan & Shaw, 2011;Schorr et al., 2014;Winkler & Warnke, 2013;Wszola et al., 2019). ...
Understanding dynamics around the neoliberalization of conservation is an important direction within current scholarly research. In this paper, we contribute to these discussions by examining how companies within the hunting industry engage in practices that are reflective of neoliberal environmentality. We conduct a Foucaul-dian discourse analysis of four companies' websites to interrogate what discourses of technology companies promote to hunters and anglers, how they mobilize these discourses, and how these discourses function to reproduce wildlife conservation-minded subjects and maintain particular beliefs, identities, and practices about both wildlife conservation and conservationists that uphold state conservation objectives. Through our discourse analysis, we find that companies within the hunting industry construct hunter/angler wildlife conservation-minded subjects by educating consumers, legitimizing trophy animals, using identity politics, positioning technology as a conservation(ist's) tool, and through wearing camouflage. Subsequently, we argue these companies present a view of wildlife conservation that problematically privileges neoliberal values, trophy animals, and exclusionary politics, illustrating how discourses of technology function to obscure such issues. Examinations of environmentality must therefore more explicitly consider discursive absences and other hidden aspects of conservation as well as potential consequences of failing to address oversights.
... Hayvan etiği tartışmaları son 30-40 yılda hiç olmadığı kadar aşama kaydetmiş ve insanlar kendi hayatlarında da somut adımlar atabilme adına beslenme, eğlenme ve turizm tercihlerinde değişikliklere gitmişlerdir. Vegan yaşam tarzını benimseyen insan sayısındaki artış, av turizmi tartışmalarının derinleşmesi (Reis, 2009;Fennel, 2012a;Fennel, 2012b;Cohen, 2014a;Descubes ve ark., 2018), yanında hayvanların zor şartlarda yaşamalarına neden olan sirkler, yunus parkları, fayton ve vahşi hayvanlı safari yolculukları gibi uygulamalara ve hatta kültürel öge olarak tanımlanan boğa güreşi (Cohenb, 2014), horoz dövüşü gibi etkinliklere karşı protest bakış açısının benimsenmesi onlarca yıldır süregelen hayvan etiği algısı yaratma çabasının sonuçlarıdır. Hayvanlı rekreatif etkinliklere ve hayvan etiğinin ihlal edildiği uygulamalara karşı gelişen protestoları ele aldıkları çalışmalarında Shaheer ve arkadaşları (2021) ekofeminizmin insanlar, hayvanlar ve çevre arasındaki bağın anlaşılması için bir mercek görevi görebileceği sonucuna varılmıştır. ...
Full-text available
Son yıllarda her alanda ve her sektörde yaşanan yoğun rekabet ve pazarlama anlayışında yaşanan değişimler işletmeler açısından tüketici odaklılığı ve tüketici ile iletişimi zorunlu kılmaktadır. Bu durum ürün ve hizmet üreten tüm sektörlerde olduğu gibi turizm sektöründe de tüketicilerin yani turistlerin isteklerini, ihtiyaçlarını ve beklentilerini ürünlerin üretim ve sunum süreçlerinde dikkate alınması gereken en önemli faktörler haline getirmiştir. Turistlerin ürünlerden ve hizmetlerden memnun kalmaları ile geleceğe yönelik eğilimleri ve davranışları arasında bir ilişki söz konusudur. Hem bu ilişkinin varlığı hem de pazarlamanın etkin bir şekilde yürütülebilmesi turistlerin beklentilerinin anlaşılmasını gerektirmektedir. Teknolojik gelişmeler ve küreselleşme dünyanın her noktasının bilinir hale gelmesine ve ulaşılabilir olmasına katkı sağlamıştır. Uzak ve o kadar zamanım yok! gibi ifadeler çok geride kalmıştır. Artık en uzak mesafeler bile hem zamansal hem de ekonomik açıdan tasarruf sağlayacak şekilde farklı ulaşım araçlarıyla kat edilebilmektedir. Bu da daha çok turisti, ziyaretçiyi, yatırımı, ilgiyi ve talebi kendisine çekmek isteyen ülkeler, bölgeler, kentler, köyler kısacası destinasyon olarak adlandırabilecek alanlar için yoğun bir rekabetin yaşanmasına neden olmaktadır. Sanayi Devrimi ile başlayan ancak 2000’li yıllarla birlikte zirveye ulaşan bu rekabet ve yarış, her pazarı, ürünü, hizmeti ve sektörü içine çekmektedir. Bu rekabet ve yarış ortamında destinasyon ve turistler arasında kurulacak uzun vadeli ve sadakat temelli bir ilişki oldukça önemlidir. Her ürünün, markanın, hizmetin, stratejinin ve teknolojinin çok hızlı bir şekilde taklit edilebildiği bir pazar ortamında uzun vadeli, memnuniyet ve sadakat temelli kurulan bir turist ilişkisix destinasyonların geleceğe taşınmasında hayati rol oynamaktadır. Benzer ürünler üreten, var olan kaynaklarıyla yetinen ya da bu kaynaklardan yeterli ölçüde yararlanmayan, gelişmelere ve değişimlere ayak direyen, mevcut turistlerle yetinip potansiyel turistleri kendisine çekemeyen destinasyonlar çok kısa sürede pazarda yok olmaktadırlar. Sadece altyapı ve üstyapı yatırımları ile yetinmeyen, ürün geliştirme ve pazarlamaya kaynak ayıran, hedef kitleye kendisini doğru bir şekilde anlatabilen ve potansiyel turistlere sürekli mesajını iletebilen destinasyonlar ise turizm pazarlarındaki varlıklarını uzun süre devam ettirebilmektedirler. Destinasyon yönetimi ve pazarlamasının yanı sıra birey bazında her turistin istek, ihtiyaç ve beklentisinin anlaşılması ve bu taleplere zamanında ve uygun fiyatlarda cevap verilmesi de ayrıca önemlidir. Bu kitapta da turistlerin turizm ve destinasyon satın alma süreçlerine ve satın alma sonrası değerlendirmelerine doğrudan ve dolaylı etki eden ve katkı sağlayan tüm güncel bileşenler ve boyutlar çeşitli yönleriyle 19 farklı kurum ve kuruluştan 26 yazarın katkıları ile değerlendirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu denli kapsamlı ve güncel yönleriyle turizm ve destinasyon konusunu ele alan alanyazındaki ender çalışmalardan biri olan kitabımızın hem akademik araştırmacılara hem de turizm ve destinasyon yönetimlerine ve pazarlamacılarına katkı sağlayacağı ve yol gösterici olacağı düşünülmektedir. Eserimizi okumaya ve yararlanmaya değer gören tüm araştırmacılara, akademisyenlere, öğrencilere ve kitap ve okuma gönüllülerine sonsuz teşekkür ederim.
... 39 The common justification for recreational hunting as an experiential fulfillment has been argued to be morally inconsistent, because its protagonists create a false hunting ideology given that commoditization of the prey weakens justification regarding the thrill of the chase. 41 Furthermore, there are philosophical arguments that expose the fallacy of attempting to distinguish the morality of sport versus subsistence hunting, and that ethical hunting of any type cannot rely on human constructs and should be instead couched in terms of ecology and evolution. 42 Trophy hunting in particular is a charged emotional stage, with entire treatises devoted to understanding why elements of society are either strongly supportive of or morally outraged by the idea. ...
Full-text available
The widespread activity of recreational hunting is proposed as a means of conserving nature and supporting livelihoods. However, recreational hunting-especially trophy hunting-has come under increasing scrutiny based on ethical concerns and the arguments that it can threaten species and fail to contribute meaningfully to local livelihoods. We provide an overview of the peer-reviewed literature on recreational hunting of terrestrial birds and mammals between 1953 and 2020 (>1,000 papers). The most-studied species are large mammals from North America, Europe, and Africa. While there is extensive research on spe-cies' ecology to inform sustainable hunting practices, there is comparably little research on the role of local perceptions and institutions in determining socioeconomic and conservation outcomes. Evidence is lacking to answer the pressing questions of where and how hunting contributes to just and sustainable conservation efforts. We outline an agenda to build this evidence base through research that recognizes diverse social-ecological contexts.
Full-text available
Son yıllarda hayvanlarla ilişkilendirilen turizm türlerine olan ilginin giderek artmasıyla birlikte turizm endüstrisinde hayvan kullanımı ve dolayısıyla hayvan etiği konuları yoğun olarak tartışılan konular arasına girmeye başlamıştır. Turistlerin hayvanlara bakışı ve tutumu, gruplar hatta milletler arasında farklılık gösterebilmektedir. Pek çok turist, hayvan kullanımının söz konusu olduğu turizm türlerinin arkasında büyük acıların yaşandığını bilmeden, sadece hayvanları sevdikleri için ilgili turizm hareketliliklerine dahil olabilmektedir. Hayvan refahına ve korunmasına önem veren bu turistler hayvanların kullanıldığı turizm faaliyetlerine katılmakta, talep neticesinde gerçekleşen ticari ilişki de daha fazla hayvanın endüstriye konu olmasına paradoksal olarak sebebiyet vermektedir. Yaşanan bu bilinçli ya da bilinçsiz istismarın önüne geçilebilmesi ve hayvanların endüstri içerisine sürdürülebilir bir algıyla dahil edilmesi gerekliliği, hayvanların turizm endüstrisindeki kullanımının tüm yönleri ile açıkça ortaya koyulması ve incelenmesi ile mümkün olabilir. Bu çalışma turizm endüstrisinin hayvanlar ile ilişkisini, turist-hayvan ilişkisinin ortamını ve türünü incelemektedir. İlgili incelemeler; Turist-hayvan temasının gerçekleştiği alanlar, gerçekleşen temasın yapıcı veya yıkıcı oluşu, hayvanın doğal ortamından koparılıp koparılmadığı gibi unsurlar üzerinden gerçekleştirilmektedir.
Full-text available
Moment Dergi’nin Erkeklikler 1 sayısına hoş geldiniz. Erkeklikler, ataerkillik ve cinsiyetçiliğin her an birbiri ardına dizilen tezahürleriyle kuşatılmış günümüz dünyasının en yakıcı konularından biri. Bir önceki sayıdan bu yana Türkiye, İstanbul Sözleşmesi’nin feshedilmesi, sayısı daha da artan kadına şiddet vakaları ve kadın haklarına yönelik saldırılar gibi haberlerle sarsıldı. Ataerkil erkekliğin hegemonyası kadınlar, çocuklar, heteronormativiteyi aşındıran, “suç ortaklığını” reddeden tüm cinsiyet kimlikleri ve tüm “ötekiler” için bir baskı, şiddet ve tehdit unsuru olmayı sürdürüyor. Mevcut toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizlikleri, her dönem farklı saiklerle derinleşiyor; pandemi sürecinde yükselişe geçen ev-içi şiddet vakalarında görüldüğü gibi. Bu koşullar altında, Moment Dergi’nin “erkeklikler” sayısı için yapmış olduğumuz çağrıya beklediğimizden çok sayıda yazı geldi. Erkekler ve erkeklikler üzerine Türkiye’de eleştirel tartışmaların çoğaldığını ve zenginleştiğini görmek sevindirici. Yayınlamak üzere değerlendirmeye aldığımız nitelikli yazıların çokluğu nedeniyle, “erkeklikler” temasını iki sayı halinde yayınlamaya karar verdik. Erkeklikler 2 temalı sayımız da Aralık’ta yayınlanacak. Welcome to Moment Journal’s issue “Masculinities 1”. Masculinities is one of the most incendiary subjects of the world today which is besieged by manifestations of patriarchy and heterosexism lining up day by day. Since the previous issue, Turkey has been shaken by the news of the denouncement of the Istanbul Convention, the growing numbers of violence against women, and a rampage against the rights of women. The hegemony of patriarchal masculinity maintains to be an element of repression, violence, and intimidation against women, children, and all the gender identities and “others” who corrode heteronormativity and refuse “complicity”. Existing gender inequalities intensify in every period with varying motives; as seen in the rising acts of domestic violence during the pandemic period. The call we had made for Moment Journal’s masculinities issue has met with more submissions than expected under these circumstances. It is pleasing to see an increase in the inquiries on men and masculinities in Turkey. Therefore, we have decided to publish the theme of “masculinities” under two issues due to the abundance of eligible submissions. The issue Masculinities 2 will be published in December.
Full-text available
This study examines how different masculinities are constructed around hunting and how the narratives of masculinity affect the relationship established with nature. Ideal male qualities of hegemonic masculinity cannot be said to have produced positive results in nature's perspective. Ecofeminist theories, which argue that masculinity dominates both nature and women, have tried to reveal the interlinks of its oppressive structure. Because of its violent relationship with nature, hunting is a practice in which these connections are visible. The last 24 issues of Av Tutkusu magazine were examined using thematic analysis to discuss the relationships between hunter-men and nature-woman-animals and the themes of masculinity that were constructed by hunters. Hunters exhibit typical male behaviors such as being strong, resilient, and brave, try to legitimize hunting with scientific and nationalist discourses, and establish conceptual links between the animals they hunt and women. Although it seems that the exclusionary relationship of hegemonic masculinity with nature has been transformed with the image of the nature-friendly hunter, a close reading can reveal that the nature-friendly hunter actually reproduces the power relationship between man and nature-woman-animals by using the quality content in the repertoire of hegemonic masculinity in accordance with his interests.
En la academia contemporánea, la geografía del turismo y la geografía de los animales se intersectan en el campo de la ética poshumanista —consideración filosófica de igualdad entre los animales humanos y no humanos—. Con base en una metodología de análisis del discurso se expone que la geografía del turismo devela al espacio como sistema complejo entre las regiones de emisión, tránsito y destino, y la geografía de los animales, centrada en la zooética poshumanista, revela que los animales no humanos pululan en el sistema turístico a través de su mercantilización. Aunque en el turismo se han reconocido acciones benéficas hacia los demás animales, son preponderantes las investigaciones que muestran la persistencia de su zooesclavitud. En el espacio emisor se difunden representaciones y se construyen imaginarios que incidirán en la explotación de los demás animales; en el espacio de tránsito resulta paradójica la preocupación por el bienestar de los animales de compañía con los que se viaja, mientras que otros son usados para movilizar a los turistas; en el espacio de destino los animales no humanos son el fin o el medio para concretar las apetencias de los visitantes a través de la observación, la comida, el abuso, etcétera.
Full-text available
The seeming absence of mutual consent in interspecies sports makes it difficult to justify non-human animals participating on equal terms with humans in for example sport hunting. Nevertheless, hunted animals might appear to be ‘playing the game’ to the extent they resort to counter-deceptions, which often fool the hunters or their dogs. In this paper, we consider whether counter-deception by hunted animals is evidence that they are not playing the hunter’s game at all, or rather playing a different serious game of survival, one in which they repudiate the role of ‘worthy opponent’ instead by playing the role of trickster-resistors.
Full-text available
With this issue, we are introducing a series of papers on ‘Tourism and animal ethics’, a somewhat obscure though significant theme. The series will include discussion on animal ethics: rights, welfare, etc. David Fennell comes up with the inaugural contribution and takes up one of the five main theories that frame the debate on animal ethics. Readers are welcome to send their opinion (1000 words) for our Readers' Response column which is open to constructive criticism that advances knowledge on this subject. For details, contact Editor-in-Chief, Tourism Recreation Research, A-965/6 Indira Nagar, Lucknow, India, e-mail,
Full-text available
This article investigates the changing forms of human engagement with tigers—in terms of manner of interaction, perceptions, experiences, and activation of the senses—in a four-fold sequence of settings. It outlines the process by which the fascinating ‘Otherness’ of the tiger in the wilderness has been gradually attenuated, as he was mastered by humans, first by virtual extermination, and then by increasingly strict forms of subjugation, eventually to become an apparently harmless plaything for patting tourists. The article dwells upon the tiger's resistance to domination, expressed in occasional outbursts of aggression, perceived by his masters as ‘accidents’. It concludes that the consequences of contemporary tourism for the conservation of wild tigers are predominantly negative, even as tourism encourages the proliferation of captive tigers, and argues that without political will the problems engendered by tiger tourism cannot be resolved, even with the best professional advice.
I analyze the "Sportsman's Code," arguing that several of its rules presuppose a respect for animals that renders hunting a prima facie wrong. I summarize the main arguments used to justify hunting and consider them in relation to the prima facie case against hunting entailed by the sportsman's code. Sport hunters, I argue, are in a paradoxical position - the more conscientiously they follow the code, the more strongly their behavior exemplifies a respect for animals that undermines the possibilities of justifying hunting altogether. I consider several responses, including embracing the paradox, renouncing the code, and renouncing hunting.
From antiquity to the nineteenth century, the royal hunt was a vital component of the political cultures of the Middle East, India, Central Asia, and China. Besides marking elite status, royal hunts functioned as inspection tours and imperial progresses, a means of asserting kingly authority over the countryside. The hunt was, in fact, the "court out-of-doors," an open-air theater for displays of majesty, the entertainment of guests, and the bestowal of favor on subjects. In the conduct of interstate relations, great hunts were used to train armies, show the flag, and send diplomatic signals. Wars sometimes began as hunts and ended as celebratory chases. Often understood as a kind of covert military training, the royal hunt was subject to the same strict discipline as that applied in war and was also a source of innovation in military organization and tactics. Just as human subjects were to recognize royal power, so was the natural kingdom brought within the power structure by means of the royal hunt. Hunting parks were centers of botanical exchange, military depots, early conservation reserves, and important links in local ecologies. The mastery of the king over nature served an important purpose in official renderings: as a manifestation of his possession of heavenly good fortune he could tame the natural world and keep his kingdom safe from marauding threats, human or animal. The exchanges of hunting partners-cheetahs, elephants, and even birds-became diplomatic tools as well as serving to create an elite hunting culture that transcended political allegiances and ecological frontiers. This sweeping comparative work ranges from ancient Egypt to India under the Raj. With a magisterial command of contemporary sources, literature, material culture, and archaeology, Thomas T. Allsen chronicles the vast range of traditions surrounding this fabled royal occupation. Copyright
We are familiar with Black Liberation, Gay Liberation, and a variety of other movements. With Women’s Liberation some thought we had come to the end of the road. Discrimination on the basis of sex, it has been said, is the last form of discrimination that is universally accepted and practised without pretence, even in those liberal circles which have long prided themselves on their freedom from racial discrimination. But one should always be wary of talking of ‘the last remaining form of discrimination’. If we have learned anything from the liberation movements, we should have learned how difficult it is to be aware of the ways in which we discriminate until they are forcefully pointed out to us. A liberation movement demands an expansion of our moral horizons, so that practices that were previously regarded as natural and inevitable are now seen as intolerable.