By now, the world has learned about Colorado hunter Richard Kendall. He shot a black bear in its den. The bear’s carcass weighed 703 pounds and was 9 feet long. There’s more to it than that, however.
This news, originally reported in November by Brian Smith at the Craig Daily Press, has sparked debate across the nation and beyond. In a bitterly cold winter, nothing heats us up quite like healthy debate.
This is an upside-down version of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Only this time around, a human surprises papa bear in his home. Instead of slurping porridge for just the right temperature, the two-legged intruder kills the innocent beast. My title would be “Richard Kendall and Papa Bear Meet the Press.”
Let’s remember that hunting is a sport. What Kendall did was not only perfectly legal; he was doing what sportsmen do. Tracking wildlife with extreme patience, sneaking up close enough for a perfect shot, taking careful aim and then ka-BLOOEY!
Final score: Kendall 1, Bear 0. Public opinion swiftly turned the tide after hearing the news. Upon further review the score was reversed: Bear 1, Kendall 0.
One outraged reader, probably a proud owner of poodles, wrote to The Huffington Post: “This guy was just out for a trophy for his ego and he did it in a cowardly way, hopefully rules will be changed to stop this from happening again.”
Even hunters unloaded on Kendall. “The guy’s a schmuck, and he is going to cause a multitude of problems for hunters in Colorado now ,” a reader of Guns & Ammo wrote on the magazine’s website.
The head of the Colorado Wildlife Federation wants the practice of hunting bears in their dens prohibited because it doesn’t allow for fair chase, a criteria for ethical hunting. The Division of Wildlife may decide that shooting a bear inside its own premises is wrong and should be outlawed.
I have no skin in this game. I’m not a hunter or an animal rights activist or a bear. But it’s a story that deserves discussion not only at the corner tavern over beers but also in my classroom, where ethics is taught.
It’s not so much about “man versus bear” as it is about people judging others in the wake of the news. Reputations are unfairly destroyed this way.
The news left outsiders arguing in one of two camps. Some were impressed by the hunter’s boldness for entering an occupied den. Some were furious at the killing of a defenseless animal, possibly dozing off into a long winter’s nap.
So, let’s give him a big fancy award for doing what others might only wish they could have done. Or let’s lambast him for doing what the rest of us would never think of doing. Better yet, let’s think about this before jumping to conclusions.
I can’t put myself in Kendall’s boots any more than I can imagine what was going through Goldilocks’ inquisitive mind when she broke into the three bears’ house. But I’ve eaten bear meat, found it pretty tasty, and I have friends who are hunters. One of them told me he’d have done the same thing Kendall did.
A larger question for me is: How should we judge this bear hunter? Was he a courageous sportsman fulfilling a primordial quest for a huge beast or was he just a macho man who took advantage of a cornered animal? What’s ethical for us to say about Kendall?
The first issue students learn when studying Aristotle, Kant and other philosophers is the need to consider consequences of our actions before we act. It is not right to act without thinking about the impact on others as well as us.
Back to the sport of hunting. In football and baseball, rodeo and checkers, they say it’s not whether you win or lose but how you play the game. Cheating’s out. Play by the rules. Above all, treat your opponent with respect.
My guess is, Kendall did not consider the impact of his outdoor adventure on other hunters in Colorado. If he did, he probably expected they would congratulate him, which some did. But he was surprised by critics who accused him of poor sportsmanship.
Shooting wild game in this country is older than apple pie and baseball. So Kendall was just following American tradition. And he certainly showed intestinal fortitude by crawling into the den of a wild animal three times his own size.
Yet what he did after that does trouble me. I think he made a mistake.
In my opinion, he would have exhibited even more courage to crawl back out of the den without firing a shot. To leave that big old bear dreaming of huckleberries and trout — now wouldn’t that have been the ethical thing to do?
On the other hand, we need to realize that Richard Kendall went where most others fear to tread. Once inside the den, he did what he thought was right. When he squeezed the trigger, he unleashed a flurry of criticism. Now he is the target. We should think twice before attacking him, and then think again.
Eric Sandstrom (esandstr@mesastate.edu) teaches at Mesa State College in the mass communication program.
