Status of animals among Klingons

[Klythe]

The way I see it, there are basic rights for non-Klingon people and also very basic rights for animals.   There is no honor in slaughtering life merely for person enjoyment.   Some would argue that this is all the ritual hunt provides.   They would be wrong.  The hunt provides a connection with nature, a reminder of a Klingons rightful place as master of his environment and his duty to be a good master and steward.  It also hones many skills in a way that slaughtering an entire herd with a disruptor does not.   Slaughtering animals without any other reason, is both wasteful and dishonorable.   Slaughtering or abusing good servants is also dishonorable.  The loss of honor of the sadistic master or animal abuser is an enforcement of a social (if not legal) laws.

    I agree, things would be venerated and afforded only the honor(more properly the aetheln) they are due.

[Kesvirit]

During her time on the Enterprise, Dematrix Mara tries to enlighten Kirk by explaining her comrades’ collective stance: “We have always fought. We must. We are hunters, Captain. Tracking and taking what we need!” and “There are poor planets in the Klingon systems. We must push outward if we are to survive.”

These statements do not support an attitude of stewardship or conservatorship of the lesser animals. Animals are potential food. Food does not have basic rights. It is a resource to be claimed, harvested, and used as part of the nal komerex, khesterex doctrine of Klingon manifest destiny.

Nor do I see any injunctions, social, legal, or otherwise, against the mistreatment of animals. The only reason this would be a concern is as an indicator of how the abuser regarded and treated other beings in general. Those with no reservations against abusing those who are weaker than themselves would be a hazard to others in the social group. The degree of their anti-social behavior would determine punishments, from losing status in the eyes of others to being theld-barred or discommended to being channeled into the military for use as shock troups.

This of course assumes that the abuser is punished at all, and has not taken the path of sadism and fear to power.

-=- Kesvirit

[KAllen]

I am trying to think of a culture that has both dragons and animal gods(except where one or the other was imported from another culture).   Off the top of my head I can't think of any, but I am hardly an expert on any Terran cultures.   I took it for a given that Durgath was a mythical creature.

The only culture that I feel would come close are the Aztecs in Central/South America.  They have a god named Qoaxaycoytle (sp?). I believe that was one of their chief gods as well.  "Q" was a winged serpant in his normal form, but was said that one day he would appear in the form of a bearded human. Aztecs had no facial hair, but Cortez did.  The Aztecs also worshiped animal gods including the Jaugar, Macaws, and I believe Sea Turtles.

[Klythe]

During her time on the Enterprise, Dematrix Mara['s ...] statements do not support an attitude of stewardship or conservatorship of the lesser animals. Animals are potential food. Food does not have basic rights. It is a resource to be claimed, harvested, and used as part of the nal komerex, khesterex doctrine of Klingon manifest destiny.

    Don't hunters have a stake in the health of the prey which sustains them?  Wolf packs perfer to take the very young, the old, the sick and the injured, over healthy prey of breeding age, not only because they are easier to catch, but also because it is helpful to the long term survival of the prey herd, which is an advantage to the long term survival of the wolf pack.   A wolf pack that slaughtered whole herds indiscriminately, or otherwise wastes food is a threat to all wolves.  Klingons are smart enough to release this.

    Hmmm...   This might even be the one of the first social laws, the first behaviours society shuns, the underpinnings of the code of behaviour we call 'honor'.  But that is just wild speculation on my part.

    Dematrix Mara says "tracking and taking what we need", not "taking what we wish".  Is it not just as likely that we need to push out and expand in order to avoid over hunting on those poor worlds, which cannot sustain themselves?

Nor do I see any injunctions, social, legal, or otherwise, against the mistreatment of animals. The only reason this would be a concern is as an indicator of how the abuser regarded and treated other beings in general. Those with no reservations against abusing those who are weaker than themselves would be a hazard to others in the social group. The degree of their anti-social behavior would determine punishments, from losing status in the eyes of others to being theld-barred or discommended to being channeled into the military for use as shock troups.

This of course assumes that the abuser is punished at all, and has not taken the path of sadism and fear to power.

-=- Kesvirit

    Sounds exactly like honor to me.   A sufficiently powerful tyrant will use their power to overcome social laws.  But otherwise, social sanctions work.  What you describe there are social injunctions, from reacting less favourably through outright shunning to passive elimination.  We may disagree to what the motives behind the social law are, but you seem to agree that it exists, even when the most powerful manage to avoid it's penalties.   But that is the same for any law.

    The principle at stake is aetheln.   Everything has a place in the universe, and should be respected and appreciated to the extent that it fills it's roll.  Prey animals are to be used as food, yes, but they should be respected to the level of their duty.  They should not be wasted or abused in a way that prevents them from completing their duty.

[qoSagh]

Since Klingons are a hunter race as opposed to a getherer race, it makes sense that they developed animal treatment rules. I, however, suspect that this was a matter of survival rather than a desire to be nice to little furry things. I am sure sometime in the dawn of Klingon pre-history, that animals were killed and hunger/greed kept the killing going, untill food was wasted. This activity can lead to famine, which as we know from Pawns & Symbols, has been a repetative problem in the Empire. Remember that a lack of refridgeration is often responsible for letting the food stay alive until needed. I'm not sure that honor has much of a role in this. Honor may be a paralel development, but I don't think that hunting rules are seen as having anywhere near the same level of importance as honor. Again we get back to the language thing, for the differences to develop in language, they had to be in place in the culture also. I am reminded of the joke, "I don't eat vegitables.....vegitables are what food eats" Kligons might not see this as funny, but rather as a truism. I think that hunting rules have over the years evolved into a ritualistic set, simply because so many other Klingon laws are expressed this way.

[Klythe]

Who said anything about being nice?   Some animals are kept as pets, and others as livestock, Klingon's have reasons to treat these animals more nicely.   Animals in general, no, I wouldn't say there would be little reason to put any effort towards treating animals "nice".

    As far as prehistoric klingons killing too much...  Keep in mind that back then, killing a large animal was a serious endeavour.  We are talking about primitive spears, here.   After all the stalking to get close enough to the prey without scaring it away, you get one, maybe two tries before the prey bolts away, and few two footers can keep up with a four-hoofer.  Or worse, it could turn and attack and you or one of your tribe could be hurt or killed.

     So it's likely that any actual killing too much phase happened after weapon technology increased to the metal age or later...
 

[qoSagh]

I wasn't thinking about the size of animals so much. I was simply thinking that as soon as Klingons discovered that animals were made of meat, and that meat was good to eat, they started killing animals for food. I think there was a phase where greed ruled. As with any new toy it gets overused for a bit. I think rotting food, combined with hunger, even if it wasn't to famine proportions yet, led to conservation rules. It probably also led to systems of keeping the animals in a smaller area for hunting. Not a coral but perhaps feeding them to keep them at this end of the forest.

I think that weapons technology came after the rules were in place, and that at least within mainstream society, the rules did not change. If I am only allowed to kill 2 targhmey a day with a spear, I am probably only allowed to kill 2 targhmey a day with a disruptor. The overall hubt is faster, but that doesn't increase the bag limit. I think the only thing that increases the limit is how many people one is hunting to feed. Even then you are limited by herd size, and perhaps if you need to hunt for a really large group, you need to go where there is a really large herd, rather than destroy a smaller herd.

So I agree that there are rules for livestock, probably a bit more free range than humans think of livestock. There are rules for pets which I think are almost all safety rules. Although I can see pets as a status symbol. In a society that is no stranger to famine, the ability to not only feed your family but a pet as well, speaks towards your material wealth. I would imagine that the larger the pet, the more it would consume, so the higher status it would imply.

I think that animals that are not useful as food or pets, are probably thought to be beneath the notice of most Klingons. So there probably aren't too many rules about treatment of "useless" animals.

[Klythe]

   Perhaps you should think more about the size of animals and the difficulty of the hunt.   Primative human had a rough time hunting, and thier animals are pussycats compared to the Klingon animals we've seen.  Hunting and killing and possibly carrying the caracass back to the young Klinglings is not effortless tasks, even for primative Klingons (who aren't necessarily considered a culture of warriors yet).  Don't think one klingon hunting a herd of animals.  Think a small band of Klingons hunting a single animal at a time.

    What do you mean by "as soon as Klingons discovered that animals were made of meat"?   What would the kingons have eaten before this sudden 'discovery'?   Considering other animals know that they animals are made of meat, we can pretty much assume that Klingons new this long before they were Klingons.  Forget the modern Klingons you know.  Primative Klingons are not the same as modern klingons without starships and disruptors.

    Feeding/baiting animals is probably one of the first steps towards domestication, which implies a good understanding of the prey animal's mindset.  This is quite a bit after 'discovering that animals are made of meat".

    Finally, I'd like to point out that nearly all animals are food fore something.   Those that aren't useful for Klingons as food are either too small and fast, and therefore food for smaller faster predators, or too large and strong for primative Klingons to hunt, and it's hard to ignore those.

[qoSagh]

When I wrote about discovering, I was thinking kind of like the opening to 2001: A Space Odessy. I was going more in the direction that errors were made at first, and those errors lead to rules which are still largely in place today. One of those errors could very well be wasting of perfectly good food. While with a group hunting a single large animal, there is little chance of killing too many animals, there is I suppose the chance of killing too big an animal. At least until food preservation comes into play. Knowing that Klingons eat quite a bit raw and according to KGT the preparation methods may not always involve actual cooking, I would think that food preservation is still not favored over fresh product.

As for the other animals being beneath notice, at least to hunters an animal which is neither a threat or food is of little concern. I suppose that a small fast animal could be what food eats, making it important as bait, but I still say there are going to be animals that are seen as useless. At least for the animals in that category, I don't think anyone cares how they are treated.

[Klythe]

     Why do you think Klingon evolution would be along the same lines as 2001?   An unrelated fictional account, that doesn't even describe hyoomin evolution all that well...   I am trying to be serious here and create a realistic evolutionary model that does involve godlike bits of rock. 

     We seem to have very different ideas of what primitive hunters face.  Take a look at Klingon animals.  They are nasty critters.  Hunting them is very dangerous.   When mistakes are made hunting animals with horns, tusks and nasty temperaments, it usually ends up to be worse for the primitive hunters with their pointy sticks than for the hunted animal.

     I know of one animal the Klingons have no respect for.  The tribble.  Reportedly they were hunted to extinction, but seem to have made a reappearance in Federation space, near Sherman's Planet.   I'm sure there are other animals that are also considered pests.   But for creatures neither harmful nor helpful to anything the Klingons care about... there is no reason to bother to abuse them, except to prove your dominance over them...  And if you have to do that, you're basically showing how much of a disgrace you are having to resort to abusing common animals in order to demonstrate your superiority.

[qoSagh]

As for 2001, I was thinking about the scene where the apes went from forraging to hunting (killing) for food. It's not a theory I have been working for a long time on, it was just the image that came to mind. Unfortuneately the only image of prehistoric Klingon we have is the proto-klingon that w\Woof turned into in TNG. I was thinking of that kind of animal, but early in it's development.

I realize that a mistake in hunting would most often lead to death, I was going with a mistake in proportioning or rationing the already hunted meat. Once one learns that hunting is fun in addition to useful, I theorized that there would have been a brief period where wastefulness might have happened. Conservation rules were then enforced to prevent that wastefulness.

I never said that Klingons abuse the lesser animals. I just don't think that they have specific rules about animal welfare for the animals they don't use. I think in general Klingons view the environment as resources for the use of the Klingon race/empire. This is part of thier expansionist needs. Where as, there are cultures where stepping on an ant on the sidewalk would be frowned upon, I don't think Klingons care one way of the other about such things. I don't think Klingons go around kicking dogs to the gutter, but I'm not sure it would be viewed as a crime if they did.

[Klythe]

    I think we agree that conservation rules were needed, but merely disagree as to when they became necessary.  I don't think that the timing iis important, we both agree that it happened *before*.

    I think we agree more on the second point too.  Throughout this thread I've been talking about social laws not legal laws.   I don't think Klingons would have any respect for someone who actively abused animals.  Their tolerance for such things would be based only as far as the personal power of the abuser(s).
   

[Abbot Nej vIt]

As Usual I Seem to Have Stumbled Upon this Thread after it has Been Going for a Bit already...

It Occurs to me that we are Talking about a Variety of Subjects here, not all are Directly Relevant to the Original Question, but all of them are Interesting...

The Original Statement by Klythe seemed to Support that Klingons would have a Generally Indifferent Attitude Towards The Treatment of Animals, that perhaps Favored Good Treatment over Poor... (Regardless of Questions of Stewardship)...

I am Not Sure that there is a Clear Cannon Answer to this Really, Since We Have Seen Vaguely Conflicting Arguements Between The Various Shows...

According to Mara (TOS: Day of the Dove), Klingons Were Hungry Hunters, Needing to Expand the Empire For Reasons of Survival... Now How Much of that was Imperial Propaganda, and How Much of it was Personal Opinion we May Never Know... But One Thing is Certain, and that would be That Mara Believed it to be True, To Her it seemed a Logical Arguement...

In TNG When Worf Travels to the Carraya System (TNG: Birthright Part II) the Young would be Warrior toq, is told by Worf that the Ritual Hunt is Not a Matter of Finding Food, but rather that it is a means by which Klingons Re-awaken their Warrior Nature... (This Follows Worf's Discovery of an Ancient klingon Game designed to teach Children How to Throw a Spear, being played by the Young Klingons in the Prison Camp)... It is the Act of Hunting Which Makes toq make the Connection between An Old Hunting Song used within the camp as a Lullyby, and his Klingon Roots...

In TKW (The Klingon Way), there are a Couple of Klingon Quotes which I Do Not Recall in the Original tlhIngan hol (Klingon Language), but which stand out in my memory as being potentailly Relevent here...

1- There is no honor in attacking the weak.
2- Do not kill an animal unless you intend to eat it.
3-The hunter does not lie down with the prey.


Besides Potential Conflict between Sources, here are some Examples of Various Klingon Perspectives (Though Worf's Usefulness as a Cultural Refferences Could be Easily Challenged), With regards to this Discussion...

In the First Mara Attests that Klingons Must Expand Because of a lack of Resources, and this is Tied into the Hunter Nature of Klingons... This is Born out by ST-6: TUC, When Praxis is destroyed it Nearly Takes the Empire with it... So Perhaps at that Time Klingons still "Needed" to Hunt For Survival? I Doubt it, I Think rather that her Comments were meant to Show Kirk that Klingons Have a "Need" which is Primal within them to Conquer and Expand the Limits of the Empire... And that this was a Natural Progression of the Hunters of Klingon History... In this there is Neither Support nor Detraction from the Main Question about How Animals are Treated, except Perhaps to Suggest that the Hunter Must Continue to Find New Territory to Hunt within or Eventually Go Hungry, but this Still is more a Testament to Klingons Seeing themselves as a Priority in the Food Chain (Something Most Animals would Do Including The Ever Conflicted Humans)...

The Second Reference Suggests that Klingons as a Culture have Moved Beyond the Need for Hunting as a Source of Food... Worf specicifically refers to the "Ritual" Hunt... And that it's Purpose is to Fine Tune and "Experience" The Klingon (Presumably Hunter's), Senses... But Again their is No Direct Attitude established between Hunter and Prey... Although the Act is Ceremonial it is Pivotal to The Klingon Psyche again suggesting that by Engaging in the Hunt The Klingon Establishes themselves within the Natural Order of Things (The Food Chain)...

It is Not until we Look at Okrands more In-depth Klingon Cultural Commentary that we see "Sayings" which refer perhaps more directly to the Discussion... We have seen the Topic Brought up elsewhere on these boards about the Distinction within Klingon Language between A Thing which is Inanimate, A Living Creature and a Living Creature With "Hands" Which is Capable of Language... So From the Basis of the Language alone we Know that Klingons are Not Likely to See An Animal as Sharing Status with Those of Higher Intelligence (Relative as the Discussion may in fact be).

Yet The Statements About Not Killing an Animal that One does not intend to eat Definately Supports at the Very Least a Recognition of the Conservation of Valuable Resources. Rather that is in the Form of Not Over Hunting, or in terms of the Danger to the Tribe of Losing a Valuable Hunter for No Better Reason than Sport... This Would after all place the Success of the Hunter for Personal Means Above the Needs of the Group... Honor Is Gained By Serving the Greater Whole, Not Purely by Serving Ones own Pride... A Wise Klingon will Find a Way to do Both...

Further the Statement that there is No Honor in Attacking the Weak, Could Certainly be applied to Non Prey Animals... Attacking Something (An Animal), Which is Weaker than the Hunter is Apparently Not Honorable... BUT it does not Specify that it is Dishonorable either... So If One Must Kill a Weaker Animal in order to Survive, though it may not be a Thing Worthy of Great Song, it Does not Make it Dishonorable... Does this Apply Only then to Ones "Need"? I am Not Sure, it may be Foolish to Waste a Resource, but it may not Mean that Much in the Grand Scheme of things either... So as an Example Being Cruel to a Pet may be Wasteful on several Levels, especially if that Pet serves a Purpose within the Household, Destroying it or Maiming it may Not Bring Direct Dishonor, but it also does not really serve any Function...

Now, the Saying "The Hunter Does Not lay Down with the Prey"... Well, that is Significant in another way... It Suggests that there is a reason why Klingons See a Difference between Those Creatures which Use Language and those which do not... Again Perhaps the Food Chain is Important here... Klingons do Not Place the Same Significance on the Life of an Animal as they Would on a "Thinking" Being because they Know that the Priority is Ultimately Going to be Placed with the Klingon...

BUT this again is a Survival Issue, Not a Matter of Honor so much as of Simple Nature, Klingons Are Likely A Classic Example of Darwinism at work... It is Not Practical to Place too Much Value on the Life of an Animal, other than where it serves it's purpose, as Food, As Pet or As Food for Food or Pet... I Think that this Could be Cautionary as Much as anything, Do Not Become So Attached to the Lower Life Form that you would Sacrifice the Good of the Group for that of the Animal... However as Previously Stated, There may not be much (If any) Value Placed on Deliberate Mistreatment of another, (Especially Weaker), Creature. A Clean Kill For Survival (To Include the Need to Hunt Ritualistically), Would not be Cruel so it is really A Seperate Discussion...

So My Short Answer is that Deliberate Mistreatment of An Animal Does not Contribute to the Groups Survival, Could be A Waste of Resorces and or Time, Is Likely not in and of itself a Particularly Honorable Pursuit, but may not be seen as Directly Conflicting with DaHar for any Philosophical Reasons... It's Just sort of Pointless to do, therefore Unlikely to be An Attractive Form of Entertainment in the Healthy Well Adjusted Klingon...

[qoSagh]

Worf's usefulness for anything can be easily challenged regardless of culture. However in Birthright, the ritual hunt showed a couple of interesting issues. First the hut as a ritual included eating the animal. When asked what he intended to do with it, he said he was going to eat it after he cooked it. This also somewhat fixes one of my pet peeves that had long been prevalent in fandom. Many assume that because qargh is best eaten alive, that all food is best eaten raw. I have been told that a real Klingon would not eat cooked meat. Either way, the ritual includes eating, so perhaps the proverb also extends to not performing the ritual (or any act) unless youare fully prepared to finish what you started.

There is no honor in attacking the weak, I think this extends past animals to all enemies, but also shows that despite Odo's sarcastic remark there never were any "Great Tribble Hunts". The ecological menace was simply cleansed by the glommer, a utilitarian not a glorious act. So the feds can stop whining about tribble ballads.

I think not lying down with prey, is very closely related to the language issue. Remember that he who sleeps with targhs, wakes up with gob flies. More than one proverb and we see this as an important lesson to teach/learn. It reinforces the need to know ones place in society. There are Klingons, there are the rest of the talkers, then there are the animals we eat, the animals we use and the animals we more or less ignore.

As for the expansionist nature of the Empire as a whole, I think that hunting was related to the expansion but is no longer the primary means of obtaining food. As the needs grew and technology developed Klingons obviously began mass production of food. They retained hunting as a ritual but also retained conservation, in that they still do not waste the hunted food. Probably due to the many famines the Empire has known, wasting food is a very bad thing. If anything the new technologies have allowed the expansion to move faster. I think calling Klingons "Hungry Hunters" may have been idiomatic, meaning nothing more than expansionist. Remember nal komerex khesterex. The lack of resources would of course lead one to expand outward, but I think would also lead to conservation of remaining and newly located resources.

[Abbot Nej vIt]

As a Sidebar, On our Clubs Boards we have a Role-play Area, and a TOS era (Virtual) Ship. Although the Role-play has slacked off a bit of Late, the Current Main Mission of the IKS Blood Song is to Follow the Imperial Order to Actively Seek Out the Source of the Tribble Menace and Eradicate it... We are in Fact Beginning the Quest which Will Be "The Great Tribble Hunt"...<Chuckle>... The Glommer is still in it's BETA Stage so it has Not Played a Large Part in this yet...

Anyway, I Agree that the "Hungry Hunter" Comment was used to Describe an Ideal rather than to Be Taken Litterally, although the Ignorant Scoundral Kirk Probably Took it that way...

And at the Risk of Parroting my Earlier Statements, It likely Comes down to a Matter of Wasteing Time and Resources Rather than Having a lot to do with Honor... There Just is not much to be Gained by Mistreating an Animal...