Hunting communities of practice: what do hunter types mean?

Hunting has always been internally segregated as well as gate-kept by certain demographics to restrict the rights and access of others to game animals. This has commonly been done through appeal to what constitutes ‘real... [ view full abstract ]

Hunting has always been internally segregated as well as gate-kept by certain demographics to restrict the rights and access of others to game animals. This has commonly been done through appeal to what constitutes ‘real hunting’ and, with it, the privileging of a particular ethos, aesthetic, modus operandi or quality to the hunt. As contemporary sport hunting has become increasingly multifunctional, catering to a diverse range of new demographics, the need to internally segregate hunter types has arguably never been so strong. Today several axes of differentiation exist among hunters and unlike in historical times where some classes were excluded from hunting, these mostly co-exist. In some cases, these hunter types may coalesce or conflict as when competing over the same game, but there are also relatively discrete communities of practice of hunters with little engagement with each other.

A moose hunter venturing back to his countryside once a year, for example, may constitute himself as a breed apart from habitual, opportunistic small-game hunters with permanent residence in the countryside, just as a wildlife management oriented hunter will frown upon being put in the same category as a trophy hunter. In this paper, a comprehensive review of hunter types is outlined from the contemporary European context as a result of pooling findings from the Hunting Anthropologists of Europe Network. I show how axes of differentiation across hunters range from ‘type of landscape’ and ‘type of game’ to motivation and modality as well as how these have come about. The blurring of ideal types and graduation of hunters into different profiles across their hunting careers is also discussed.

In the second part of the paper, I engage a functionalist sociological analysis that argues that when hunters typologize one another, or are subject to external classification along these lines, they do so as part of defensive localism in restricting access to game; as status, belonging and identity positioning and to protect the frail social legitimacy of hunting in modern society. I critique external classifications for their static limitations and for frequently being grounded in market segmentation to inform business opportunities catering to different profiles and their demands for recreation, consumption and tourism. I conclude by considering the implications of this phenomenon on what we understand as the ‘essence’ of hunting, asking whether increased differentiation circumscribes the common experience of hunters, or if hunting is becoming more inclusive by opening to newly emerging types.