Recreation's Role in the Environmental Ethics Dialogue: The Case of Aldo Leopold and the Morality of Hunting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the past dozen years, perhaps no outdoor recreation pursuit has been as controversial as sport hunting. Supporters of sport hunting, including recreation resource managers, traditionally have used historic precedence, sustainable harvest of game species, habitat protection, and economic benefits to local communities as justification for sport. Rarely, however, does the pro-hunting argument offer a direct response to the primary concern of animal rights advocates; i.e., is the taking of life for recreational purposes morally defendable? This paper examines the moral issues of hunting. Specifically, it looks at the writings of Aldo Leopold. The article reveals that while Leopold was dissatisfied with the moral immaturity of most hunters, he also saw the pursuit as an opportunity for the mature hunter: (a) to practise true sportsmanshp; (b) to advance ecological thinking; (c) to confront moral dilemmas; (d) to enhance ecological education; and (e) to experience first-hand cultural heritage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".