I read your article entitled “On the Anti Hunting point of view” and noticed towards the end a request for comments. Therefore I have respectfully submitted mine.

The issue of hunting is fraught with emotion on both sides of the fence and no doubt leads to some of the opinions you have obviously encountered.

I agree that most people are very isolated from the true origin of their food. I also agree that this isolation from the harsh reality of the livestock industry and meat production leads to inconsistencies in certain activist’s logic. To claim that hunting is a violation of an animal's rights while still participating in the consumption of meat is to ignore the plight of livestock world wide. This is indeed a double standard and you were correct to make note of it. However, there are those activists who defy such condemnation. These anti-hunters are vegans. Veganism is a lifestyle that seeks to exclude any animal products or byproducts both in diet and daily living. For these individuals, such a transgression as you have illustrated does not apply.

Unfortunately, I have met and experienced far too often the excessive ravages of hunting such as disregard for hunting regulations and animals left to rot because they were not legal to harvest having been killed just because they were there. However, again I will agree that most hunters do not support these actions much less participate.

You stated, “When compared to cougars, wolves, alligators, and other predators, the human hunter is perhaps the most humane hunter in the wild.” As for animals conducting their kills in a humane manner I would go one step farther by stating that no animal kills in a humane way. Simply, this is due to one important fact which is that animals are not human. Acting humanely is to direct ones actions in a manner which coincides with the unique ability to ascertain that other creatures feel and perceive pain. With this knowledge in hand we conduct our actions accordingly to eliminate suffering of sentient beings. As far as we know, animals by default hold no such knowledge, nor can they be taught about the suffering of others. It is therefore unlikely, if not impossible, for an animal to possess and furthermore to extend a trait towards another creature when that trait is exclusively human.

As for your statement of “Isn’t it more humane to be shot from a distance unexpectedly” I would contend that this action prevents any notion of what a humane understanding would entail. Consider an example concerning amputation. If a subject were brought to a local police station for interrogation and the interrogator were posed with the choice of removing one of the subject's fingers or two in order that it should coerce him to talk, it would not be the case that the interrogator was more humane by choosing one finger over two. Maybe the subject would even choose one finger over the removal of two, but this does nothing to bolster the claim that the lesser action was more humane. Rather, amputating one finger causes less pain and suffering for the subject. Less pain does not equate to an action being considered humane especially when there are other solutions for the interrogators which do not involve pain.

It is the same for hunting. Because farm animals are raised for slaughter and may experience some apprehension about their death when they approach the kill floor doesn’t mean that hunting, by shooting animals “unexpectedly,” proves to be more humane (This is especially true when one considers all of the situations where the kill shot is not immediate and the animal attempts to flee the scene only to die while in flight).

If we were to practice true humane actions there would be no debate about which method to extinguish life is more preferable. Under the true humane influence the question restated would be; “Isn’t it more humane to allow a animal to live than to shoot it unexpectedly from a distance (or to raise it for food)?”

You state, “Game animals…can sometimes be very threatening. Game animals have very strong defenses.” According to Webster threatening is to utter threats, to portend, or act in a menacing manner. None of these things are described in your attempt to classify game as a threatening animal. Instead you discuss the defenses of deer. Ole factory senses are neither threatening in utility or by definition. I have yet to witness a hunter tremble in fear when a deer smells his/her presence. Even if such basic logic should be overlooked and we should grant the proposal that a deer’s keen sense of smell is threatening to that of humans, the weapons humans use on these creatures further depletes any vestige of reason from this argument. As you did not cite your source behind the knowledge that deer can smell at 300 feet, I shall, for the purposes of this discussion take this claim at face value. Even with the deer’s superb sensory perception hunters kill hundreds of thousands of these creatures in every state every year. One need only look at each state's harvest information located on many "Department of Fish and Game's" websites to discover the exact kill numbers. It is clear that these figures indicate what animal activists have known and hunters have denied for years; that the weapons utilized in the killing of deer far exceeds its natural capacity for defense. For instance, a high powered rifle, though not allowed in every state, can result in a kill far beyond the scent range of a deer; almost twice as far to be exact. Even the most primitive weapons such as compound and recurve bows constitute many kills each year. Even the most “threatening” defenses seem inadequate for the tools hunters bring into the arena (any sense deer posses is countered by human tools; scents cover smell, camouflage breaks up a hunters outline, tree stands better the hunters vision while removing him from the deer’s).

It is true that hunters pay for certain things pertaining to conservation through taxes but little can be said about that which is compulsory. That is, money obtained by the state and federal governments from such things as consumer spending and wage earnings are not voluntarily donated. Certainly, taxes give the consumer some concern about where their money goes, yet this is not enough to establish the notion of being charitable. The federal government takes a substantial portion of my paycheck, yet I don’t claim to have donated to the various areas to which my money has been sent. If I speed and am caught, I may receive, as a receipt of my fine, a breakdown of the areas my money was sent, yet again I am unable to accurately claim that I donated to these various areas, and so too it is with many of the areas hunters claim to finance.

You claim Anti-hunters condemn “hunting and hunters,” as much as I would like to argue this point unfortunately many animal rights activists do condemn people for their actions (just as some hunters condemn activists). I believe it is proper that activists condemn the activity of hunting based on what it entails for the hunted. However, while a hunter’s actions can be inexcusable this does not mean that they as a person are. Any activist who dislikes a person solely because they hunt is doing a disservice to themselves and the individual they dislike. Luckily there are some individuals who have learned that regardless of the actions certain individuals perform, they are still deserving of some level of decency.

“Hunters aren’t the enemy of wildlife.” Maybe not, but I would hate for those who are not my enemies to treat me as hunters do some animals.

Regards,
Jeremy Alcorn
Animal Liberation Now!
www.veganvanguard.com

The reply:

greetings,

thank you for your feedback.

i would love to reply to each of your points, but time does not allow it. i agree with you on some points and disagree on others.

the only point i have time to respond to is that animals potentially being threatening and having strong defenses is two separate statements. being charged by a deer, moose or elk or mauled by a bear can be very threatening. sense of hearing and smell are defenses and are in no way physically threatening.

just wanted to let you know thati have posted your comments in our forum at: http://pub15.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=1222508415&cp=

please visit when you get a chance and feel free to post comments as you feel appropriate.

thanks again for your feedback and have a great day!

mike lapierre

VeganVangaurd.com's Response:

The position he is contesting has been corrected in the updated version of his article. As it was originally written the contention was as quoted in the reading above. He has now corrected his article to differentiate between another animal being threatening and their use of defenses. His rewording has made the first portion of the 9th paragraph which begins “You stated, “Game animals…,” somewhat irrelevant due to the fact that what I was arguing has been removed from his article. The remaining portion of the paragraph is still sufficient to rebuke claims of animal defenses in the face of human tools.

Essentially, he continually updates his article, as I do with the articles on this site. Keep in mind that as his article changes this one shall remain the same. I have archived his article as of the 10th of October, 2003. If any significant changes are made I will be better suited to keep track of them and provide original content if needed (by anyone).

|  |  | 
|  |  |  | 

Posted/Updated: 4/12/04

Copyright © 2003 Jeremy Alcorn
All Rights Reserved - Reservation of Rights