Aram Von Benedikt
Recently, hunting chat rooms and social media sites have been awash in a brouhaha concerning Aram von Benedikt and a young woman hunter. The gist of the story is that they both shot too far (730 yards or so) and too poorly, tracked down and finished the wounded deer, discussed the situation, and parted without coming to blows or even, reportedly, a shouting match, with von Benedict taking the deer. Thereafter, the young woman criticized von Benedict for pushy behavior and taking possession of a deer that should have been hers. He responded with his version of the event, and all hell broke loose online. Because I interviewed von Benedikt a couple of times on my podcasts, many are demanding I respond and, ideally, condemn him. This seems an odd demand since I am not his employer, associate, or remotely related to him. His identical twin brother, Joseph, does contribute videos to my channel. This may be causing confusion for many. Nevertheless, I’ll engage:
Overall, this is a sad, unfortunate incident made worse by ugly online gossip, assumptions, accusations, and condemnation. However, this is a serious issue involving hunter ethics, thus worthy of deep contemplation and discussion — ideally so that we all can learn from it.
My opinion is fluid because new “facts” pop up, but at this time, I think:
1. It's unfortunate this swirls on social media because too many of us are quick to pass judgement based on hearsay or insufficient or inaccurate information.
2. Everyone should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.
3. I don't want to foster or become part of Cancel Culture, itself a hasty, cruel, nasty, and usually unfair process.
4. It is not every person's job to pronounce judgement on others. Judge not lest ye be judged.
That said, each of us can and should form opinions and share them with an eye toward learning something about ourselves and advancing good behavior among our peers, but not to tear people down. Savaging someone's reputation online based on "he said-she said" is not useful and surely not ethical. Based on the information I have been reading and hearing on various videos, IF the woman did indeed shoot at the deer from 600 or 700 yards, her conduct (and her husband’s, who likely encouraged her, since I understand he even had to reload the rifle for her) was unethical. She was reportedly an inexperienced if not new hunter and wholly untrained and unpracticed at long range shooting.
And IF von Benedikt shot hastily at the deer from 700+ yards (and he reportedly wrote that he did) without a precise, double-checked laser reading, he was also unethical. Doubly so because he has written and published articles promoting ethical hunter behavior on public lands. Do as I write, not as I do?
Unclear to me is who contributed to the taking of this deer. I’ve heard the woman merely grazed the buck. I’ve heard she gut shot it. Most cite the “first blood” tradition to pronounce this absolutely her buck, but I have reservations about that old standard. Specifically, if someone draws first blood with a mere flesh wound, what are the chances they’d ultimately get that deer? Most of us have been involved in long searches for game that left significant blood trails, yet ran for miles and ultimately escaped. Many of us have butchered deer to find broadheads and bullets embedded in them. Are we to seek the original owners of those projectiles and give them the deer?
That may seem far fetched in this situation, but we really should consider whether the woman’s hit was crippling enough that she and her team would have ultimately found that buck. Or was von Benedikt’s ill advised shot to the lower leg what provided an adequate blood trail and hindered the buck enough for them to finish it? Because none of us were witness, we really don’t know. Von Benedikt has claimed that he caught up with the buck and finished it with two shots. Should he have waited for the woman before pursuing so aggressively? He supposedly claimed that pushing the buck hard was their best chance for getting it, figuring if left undisturbed its wound would coagulate, the blood trail dry up. Right or wrong? Again, we weren’t there.
I also wonder why they didn't work all this out amicably on site. Apparently they parted without rancor, without coming to blows, without even a verbal altercation. The woman has shared a photo of herself smiling happily behind the dead buck. Odd for someone who later suggested it had been stolen from her. Von Benedikt reportedly offered to make and pay for replica antlers for the woman. Did he offer to also give her half the meat? If she truly felt she deserved the buck, that her shot led to its ultimate capture, then she and her husband should have made that claim more strongly then and there, not attack von Benedikt from afar via social media. But if von Benedikt knew the woman had seriously wounded the deer first or discovered post mortem that her shot would have led to its demise, he should have congratulated her and asked to have a replica rack made for him.
It's easy for us Monday morning quarterbacks to pronounce sentence, to climb aboard our moral high horse and announce that we'd have not only graciously given the lady her buck, but gutted it, dragged it to her truck, cut and wrapped it for her and stored it in our freezer until she needed it! But what if all the evidence we saw indicated her shots contributed nothing to slowing down the deer or leading to its demise? How would we have felt and behaved then? In a perfect world a perfect hunter, a perfect gentleman, would have bowed out, but that's not the world I've observed low these past seven decades.
Obviously, the more experienced hunter, von Benedikt, should never have shot. He could have offered to help them track that buck, maybe even asked if they wanted him to give it an anchoring shot if the opportunity arose, but otherwise, he should have stayed out of it. And I've absolutely no doubt that at this juncture, he sure wishes he had. The man's reputation is destroyed. He's lost jobs and, I assume, a significant chunk of income. This seems overkill for an argument over who deserves a deer two hunters hit. Think long and hard about this and ask yourself what other "thefts" of this nature lead to sentences this severe? Every deer season, there are incidents like this. Shouting, anger, hard feelings. Participants suffer local ire and damaged reputations, but they aren't crucified on-line around the world. They don't lose their livelihoods, their careers. If von Benedikt knew, based on his extensive hunting experience, that the woman had hit that deer well enough to eventually recover it, his ethical behavior is doubly wrong. He was wrong to shoot too hastily and too far and he was wrong to claim the deer.
In defense of many calling for von Benedikt’s head (figuratively speaking,) he should have known better. He set himself up by not living up to his own written and published advice regarding ethical field behavior. He didn’t walk the talk. But was his in-field behavior (in tagging the buck as his own) done under agreeable acquiescence on the other party’s part? Did they protest strongly and make the case that they deserved the buck or give von Benedikt signals that they accepted his conclusions? Subtle differences unknowable unless we were there.
The woman involved should also have known better than to air her grievances to the world, especially the all too vast social media world. Not only has she ruined one man’s reputation (deserved or not,) but called into question her own. Beyond that, she and von Benedikt have given hunters a black eye and anti-hunters more ammunition with which to condemn us. I imagine they’re snickering with glee. I can imagine their headlines: Unethical hunters squabble while poor deer dies!
But even that raises a heretofore unaddressed issue: the waste of a big buck. One of the most magnificent, hard-to-find game animals in the world, a fully mature mule deer buck sporting the kind of rocking chair rack most hunters dream of, has been reduced to an unwanted, un-cherished heap of flesh and bones. Can you imagine either von Benedikt or the woman shooter relishing a meal of this venison? Every bite would be incriminating. And those spectacular antlers? Instead of hanging proudly on a wall to refresh memories of a hunt well done, of a wild, magical desert landscape, they can do no more than whisper, if not shout, condemnation to all parties involved. The most beneficial use of those antlers now would be in a public display with a concise retelling of the events that highlight the wrong ways to conduct and conclude a deer hunt.
Finally, let’s address another elephant in this room: antler lust. Who doesn’t believe that both parties were so fixated on those trophy antlers that they became willing to cut ethical corners, to let a “me first” attitude overcome common sense and cultural norms? It’s understandable. Especially today with limited opportunities, hard-to-draw tags, and fewer and fewer fully mature, big mule deer. And who is guilty for that? Most of us, I’m afraid. We discuss big antlers, showcase big antlers, brag about big antlers, trade and buy big antlers, hold conventions around big antlers. We promote antler lust at the expense of hunting ethics. And look what a mess that makes.
In conclusion, I am not condemning von Benedikt nor the woman shooter. But I am using this ugly incident to reflect on my own attitudes, my own behavior. Fortunately, I’ve been around enough, hunted enough, and collected (legally and ethically) enough big, mature game animals to no longer suffer the deep longing to get the biggest and best before the next guy beats me to it. This is a predictable and natural evolution of the hunter. Perhaps we should start celebrating that and helping eager younger hunters to contemplate it and strive to embrace it in their own field ethics.