Hunter's Ed

A piece in today's New York Times reports that legislators in West Virginia passed a bill permitting public schools to offer hunter education classes when at least twenty students in a school express interest. This is one of a number of initiatives in states to boost declining hunter numbers, and probably the most ambitious I've heard of.

As the article details, not everyone is happy about such developments--some wonder whether, in an era of school shootings, schools ought to endorse the use of guns in any way. More generally, one might ask whether such classes have a place in modern schools that need to teach students to thrive in the global economy.

I think that question points to the best argument in favor of these classes.

Hunter's ed classes make as much sense---and the same kind of sense---as classes in art, music, and drama (all offerings I strongly support). As supporters of the hunter ed classes note, hunting was a traditionally a part of life in many communities, one that is being lost to developments in technology, land use, and new interests for kids. It's part of the culture that once defined rural (or formerly rural) places, and that long influenced daily life in, as well as the art and literature of, North America. It offers ways of learning about and reflecting on the world that academic inquiry doesn't, though it can support and enrich that inquiry. Hunting, or any traditional outdoor pursuit, may contribute to a well-rounded education as much as athletics or forensics.

Aldo Leopold once wrote that hunting had become a pursuit very comparable to opera, recreating aesthetically "a drama once inherent in daily life." Much like the art of the past, the outdoor sports help to tell us who we are and where we came from--we being the human race.

But pedagogical questions aside...would hunter's ed classes lead to any change in offerings at the school cafeteria?