On Hunting as Child Abuse

Remember that 11-year old who shot and killed the thousand-pound pig about a week ago? Each time I saw a news segment about it, with the anchorperson all congratulatory, I had one thought: child abuse.

In order for the prepubescent Jamison Stone to have been in a position to kill a pig, he would have to:

• know how to use a 50-caliber handgun, and
• think hunting and killing animals is a good idea. (In fact, after he killed the pig, he said "It feels really good . . . It’s a good accomplishment.")

And if a child is growing up so desensitized to the lives and deaths of other animals (Jamison killed his first deer at age 5), his odds of becoming a compassionate adult who respects nonhuman life are slim. He has been programmed, and without deliberate, systematic attempts at deprogramming, say, through therapy, his notions of justice and value regarding the lives of others are skewed in a very harmful direction.

The recent update of the story makes the episode creepier than at first it appeared. Let’s deconstruct:

• The pig, named "Fred," wasn’t wild. His owner, Phil Blissitt, "bought the 6-week-old pig in December 2004 as a Christmas gift for his wife, Rhonda, and . . .  they sold it after deciding to get rid of all the pigs at their farm." At this point, I wasn’t sure if it was supposed to be a food-related gift or a pet-gift. It would be most odd if people who raise pigs for slaughter also had pet pigs. Talk about your cognitive dissonance. Then again, a gift of a creature to kill? Isn’t that a warped way to commemorate the birth of Christ?
• " Blissitt said that he had about 15 hogs and decided to sell them for slaughter, but that no one would buy that particular animal because it was too big for slaughter or breeding." Oh, so the gift was a present-for-slaughter. Am I the only one who has a problem with that?
• Jamison’s dad said "[Blissitt], was nice enough to tell my son that the pig was too big and needed killing." Nice enough to say someone needed killing? It’s going to take me a minute to get used to those words in the same sentence.
• The boy was then assured that he didn’t kill the family pet. Phew, that’s a relief. I almost thought the pig had some sort of intrinsic value as an individual for a moment. I’m glad that nonsense has been cleared up.

With grown-ups all around him referring to nonhuman animals as needing to be killed and encouraging him to do the killing, what hope does little Jamison have of developing his own code of ethics that is based on anything but archaic traditions and ignorance of the realities of the suffering of nonhuman animals (and ignorance of the way humans manipulate wildlife populations to easier justify their need for "management")? If it’s okay for him to hunt and kill at 11, imagine what he’s going to think is acceptable when he’s 20. What is going through his mind when he sets out to kill, and is it acceptable for children to have such thoughts and for adults to encourage them?