With Respect for All Life
An Editorial

By Jennifer Bratton

The whisper of wings sounds in the air as a bald eagle flies over a small valley and comes to rest at the top of a tall evergreen. Down below, on the valley floor, a young moose stands munching tree branches, cautiously watched by a horse in a nearby pasture. Across the field, a mother bear and two baby cubs climb up a small hill through the tamarack, aspen, and pine trees. A man hiking along a path stops to gaze at a herd of deer. This is Skycliffe. It is not only a HÜMÜH monastery and retreat center, but also a wildlife sanctuary.

Webster’s International Dictionary defines sanctuary as “a place of refuge for birds or…other animals where…hunting is not allowed.” This is true of Skycliffe, but it goes far beyond the definition given in the dictionary. It is about treating all sentient life with respect, because all sentient life contains divinity. The wildlife at Skycliffe are a part of the community. In spring, when it rains, and the earthworms crawl out onto the paths, everyone is very careful where they step, and they gently remove any earthworms that are in danger of inadvertently being stepped on. In late summer, when the apples are ripe, some are set aside for the bears so that they can share in the bounty. In the fall, the chipmunks and squirrels have the run of the hazelnut trees as they collect food for the long winter ahead, and in the winter, when food is scarce and the weather cold, the Wisdom Master feeds the deer. There is a harmony, a giving and receiving, a caring about everyone who is a part of Skycliffe, not just the human inhabitants.

Recently, when the Wisdom Master was searching for a new property for HÜMÜH, one of the pieces of land that she looked at bordered both an animal refuge and a bird sanctuary. However, hunting was allowed for a few weeks each year at both places, which goes against the whole purpose of a wildlife refuge or sanctuary. There are probably many valid reasons for this, but that is all they are—reasons. Reasons are not logical, although most of the world operates from reason. Usually, when we really want something, we start to give ourselves reasons for why it is okay to have what we desire, but that is rationalization, not logic.

An article in the November 2007 issue of National Geographic entitled: “Hunting: For the Love of the Land,” illustrates this point. The article contended that hunters and hunting benefited wildlife and land conservation. Many conservation groups and the work they had done were mentioned, along with the revenues and information generated by hunters for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The article also talked about the economic benefits hunting brought to different communities, as well as the social benefits for the hunters themselves. The article did not paint a completely pretty picture. It did mention cases of abuse and a new generation of hunters who disregarded the traditional ‘ethics’ of hunting, but overall, it focused on the apparent benefits hunting and hunters brought to land and wildlife conservation. However, it is illogical to think that hunting could bring any real assistance; nothing beneficial can come out of killing another sentient life, because killing harms part of the whole.

The conservation groups only raise money and work to conserve the habitats of the animals that they hunt. The article stated that “hunters…giv[e] 280 million dollars annually to organizations such as Pheasants Forever, the Ruffed Grouse Society, the National Wild Turkey Federation, Quail Unlimited, and other non-profit groups, which sponsor scientific research for particular species and maintain important habitat.” However, the purpose of such giving is not simply for the benefit of the animals and their habitats, but is focused on keeping a species alive so that the hunters will have something to kill in the future. There is a self-motivated agenda in the giving; it is not pure. The hunters give because they want something in return—more game to kill. Once one’s giving is tainted with desire it can no longer expand into something greater. It is all for self, and therefore, eventually has to fall apart.
 

Previous  1 | 2 | 3 | 4  Next

© HÜMÜH 2008