Hunters: More Humane Than Commercial Farms Some thoughts about a recent letter (“Hunting perpetuates a violent society” Dec. 25, 2014) in response to the Dec. 4, 2014 Between the Lines “Why I Hunt” by Tom Vannah. The letter writer states that you, The Advocate, have a “love of killing innocent creatures.” That statement if utterly ridiculous and shows a lack of perspective. Are you a vegetarian? If you are, I commend you, though not for the reasons you might think. If you eat the flesh of any creature, wild or not, you are guilty of having a double standard; meat bought at Big Y is okay, but killing a deer, cutting it up and eating it is not? Billions of commercially raised animals live horrible lives; intensively confined, pumped up with hormones, and restrained in medieval torture apparatus such as pig gestation crates and finger crates. Many of these animals are skinned, scalded, gassed, and ground up alive. On the other hand, you have people who spend many uncomfortable hours in the wild awaiting their quarry. To quote Vannah, “I’ve taken many lessons from what I’ve learned in the field, none more important than the humility instilled by spending long hours in nature.” He mentions hunters’ connection to the natural world. Sitting quietly in nature is a form of meditation, whether one thinks of it that way or not. Most hunters have a deep love and respect for nature. Yes, there are some who participate in slaughter, of coyotes for instance, but they are the exception to the rule. I have found hunters to be kind, sensitive people. I recall a time a hunter broke down and cried like a baby when I told him about a dead raccoon in the road. When a hunter shoots a deer, that animal has lived wild and free up to the moment of its death. It’s the only honest way to put meat on the table. There is a quota on how many deer can be taken in a given area. If the herd is not culled in a controlled way, it may become too large to be sustained in their environment; deer starving to death in the winter because they cannot find enough to eat. It’s not exactly quick and painless. Stop picking on hunters and do something for the billions of animals suffering in stockyards, cramped enclosures, and tortured in the name of science. Nancy Stark Shelburne A New Declaration of Independence As Governor Patrick ends his term there is much to thank him for, including his leadership in advancing treatment for addiction. Increased funding and cutting edge legislation place Massachusetts as a leader in the country in responding to an epidemic that has not been resolved through the war on drugs. This epidemic impacts us all — as individuals, families, and organizations and systems that comprise America. Denial of this reality prevents us from taking responsibility for understanding the root causes of addiction in all of its forms. New levels of healing are possible when we face the countless ways that addictive process plays out in our daily lives through our thoughts, patterns in relationships, and behaviors that separate us from being fully present in life. With so much discord in our world we need to move beyond the political, religious, and cultural conversation. The resolution of addiction through the spiritual healing possible in recovery is a powerful unifying force, one that enables people of diverse backgrounds to find common ground through the language of the heart. Taking personal responsibility for our consciousness is revolutionary in lighting the fire of a new flame of freedom. This freedom is one that comes from liberating ourselves from anti-life energies which stifle our unique spiritual purpose as souls and as a country. Governor Patrick serves as an inspiration for continuing the legacy of Massachusetts in preparing pathways of freedom for the future. In focusing, not on self-protection but on our own healing and transformation, we can rise into full participation as part of the collective whole, helping America to become a true beacon for the world — a beacon of light. Adair MacKay Marie Neal Eldon Koch
From Our Readers
Updated Comments are closed.
We won’t here settle the long-standing conflict between those who think animal killing is ok and those who don’t. I offer only a few comments. First, Batya Bauman is, of course, a vegetarian, and probably has been for at least 50 years. It would be hard, maybe impossible, to find somebody who leads a more decent and self-consistent life than she does. I grew up in a family of hunters, in a hunting-loving part of the US (central Pennsylvania), and saw the hunting lifestyle up close until I became an adult. Those who detest the taking of lives by going into the habitats where animals eke out an existence, and killing them, also do not approve of factory farming. This is not a question of choosing one or the other. Nobody wants to have his or her mate-for-life, or parent or offspring killed, whether in a slaughterhouse or outdoors. Animals have the same kinds of bonds to parents, mates, and offspring that we do–many studies have shown this. Given this, and the fact that we would not want our own loved ones killed, it seems obvious that we should not do this to those who treasure their loved ones as we do. I realize how easy it is to reassure ourselves that killing animals is ok,because it’s part of most of our heritages. However, alot of wrong things used to be considered ok. I trust that animal killing will turn out to be another one of those things, one of these days. Leonardo da Vinci, who said ” the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men” would probably have figured that this change in human behavior would have come about long before now! But on we trudge…
I think the statement made by Kristin about most hunters being “kind, sensitive people with a deep love of nature” rather upholds the point made by Sheila and Batya, which is that hunters repeatedly come up with all sorts of unsubstantiated, flowery reasons to justify their killing of animals in the forest, when in fact, they just get off on killing animals. For instance, research has confirmed that hunting only stimulates population growth in animals such as deer, whereas natural predator population reduction, where the focus is not on antlered males, but on the old, ill, weaker members of the population, IS effective. And I have to ask: how can hunters meditate in the woods, as suggested, when the silence is rent by gunfire? How can anyone, human or animal, feel safe in a woods where hunters are stalking prey? And finally, if one has a deep love of nature, one does not wish to gruesomely destroy nature. To wound–because many animals are not taken down with one shot, or ghoulishly worse, one arrow–to inflict anguish, pain, separate families, to pollute, with lead, the ground and eventually the rivers–these are kind, sensitive people with a deep love of nature, really? Relentless hunting of predators, and their prey, has brought terrible imbalance to many woodlands. Indeed, what is happening in the woods is but a microcosm of what is happening on a much broader stage, in the world. Because of humans, many ecosystems are struggling, dying, or horribly out of sync–and our self-focused ideas on how to fix things are simply (as with the culling of deer population myth), making it all terribly worse. At the heart of the matter isn’t a love of nature, it’s a startling disrespect of other life forms, highlighted by a refusal to acknowledge the depth of their intelligence or their right to live their lives, pain free. Whether the issue is antlered bucks or black fish, we are the monster at the door, no matter what non-lethal costume you dress us up in. We are the killers, and we’re killing this beautiful planet, one life at a time, with every shot that’s fired. With every deer that falls. Even as we protest this. Even as we pretend otherwise.
Amen, Sheila and Linda! I am in total agreement with both of you, as you said, studies back up our claims. Sheila, I greatly admire your not being brainwashed into that hunters’ mindset and opening your eyes to the facts. Regarding population control, I received my bachelor’s in environmental sciences and know for a fact that wildlife takes care of itself (carrying capacity formula and countless studies back that up). Many humans simply use culling as an excuse to keep wildlife out of “their” land, as most refuse to share it with our fellow creatures. Many humans also find murdering fellow creatures “fun” and even see it as a “sport”. Now THAT is the most frightening aspect. “Murder” and “fun” should not go together…especially nowadays with such violence in our world. Sheila also made a good point in that animals feel the same kinds of bonds to mates/family members that we do and greatly suffer when losing a loved one. I’ve read MANY studies, books, and articles that back that up. Simply look at our companion animals…they alone can prove that. Why should wildlife be any different? Simply watch shows like “Nature”, “National Geographic”, etc. and you’ll see ample evidence of nearly identical emotions. And last, but most certainly not least, claiming hunting is better than factory farms is a lame excuse. Anyone that TRULY has compassion for animals does not eat them, regardless of how “humane” the killing may be.
From Batya Bauman –
Kristin Palpini’s labored defense of hunting (Jan. 7) is so full of holes and so illogical, I hardly know where to begin responding to the tired rote and practiced arguments which she draws upon and uses to justify the unjustifiable. Claiming that hunters do what they do (kill) is because they love nature is an oxymoron if there ever was one. Such claims are ubiquitous in the world of sports hunting and it makes no sense at all. Any thinking person can readily see the dichotomy. Love and the desire to kill another are a disharmonious duality. Why can these folks not commune with nature and appreciate being amidst the beauty of the wild without carrying guns or other weapons of death and suffering and without the intent to do another harm? To say they are humane is factually incorrect. Often animals are wounded by bullets and by arrows, and run off to die somewhere in prolonged agony. And to argue that hunting is an alternative to the horrors of factory farming is really stretching it. Hunting is not an acceptable alternative to one of society’s cruelest accepted practices. Refusing to participate in it by adopting a plant-based diet is the humane alternative, not engaging in an alternative form of cruelty. But I would be willing to wager that many, if not most, hunters also dine on factory-farmed tortured flesh.
Exceptions might be made for those subsistence hunters (as opposed to sports hunters) who live in isolated areas where food is hard to come by, such as the northern extremities of the planet.
Love involves empathy and a desire for the welfare of another. Hunting requires the ability to separate oneself from their target and to repress any feelings of connection.
With regard to deer overpopulation, I find it dismaying that habitats are often “restocked” so that hunters will have enough animals to kill, after having depleted some habitats by wanton killing sprees. But in rare cases of natural overpopulation (usually brought upon because humans have killed off natural predators) there are more humane methods to control populations through readily available birth-control techniques. However, left to their own devices without any human intervention, animals in the wild can manage their own healthful population numbers.
I am glad that Ms. Palpini knows about the abysmal suffering of factory-farmed animals and assume she does not avail herself of it. But I would hope that her response to this knowledge would be to refrain altogether from eating animals, not by supporting another form of cruelty. To answer her question, I adhere to veganism in diet, clothing and any other items in my possession.
Kudos Batya for this very thoughtful message. I hope many will read it and heed its wise approach.
ooo boy! this comment isn’t from me. it’s a letter by adair mackay marie neal and eldon kock, they signed at the bottom. the new website is making it seem like whoever posted an article wrote it … we’re looking into this, but i just wanted to note, this letter does not reflect my opinion. glad it’s started a discussion though!