In life, opportunities come in a variety of ways, and one secret to success is learning to recognize them. When I got an Email from an anti-hunter who had found this Web site, I had a choice: 1) answer it and keep the exchange private, or 2) make my reply public, in hopes that others will benefit from the exchange. I'll take option number two.
One of the most enduring and popular articles on this Web site is called Q&A: Hunters & Killing. In it, I addressed positive and negative comments from various readers of another article, entitled Why do Hunters Kill? I have had numerous requests for more of the same, so here goes.
The Email in question is from someone calling herself Donna, but that hardly matters. I have received many such messages over the years, most of them reflecting the same tone and general message. This serves merely as an example of their way of thinking.
"You will never convince me that hunting is a sport. It is so cruel and inhumane."
To quote myself from as early as 1999, "It is my feeling that hunting is not a sport, inasmuch as a sport is most often perceived as an organized activity performed for the entertainment of the participants and/or onlookers. Hunting is something that goes much deeper than that."
So you will not find me trying to convince anyone that hunting is a sport. It is, however, a legitimate and traditional outdoor activity enjoyed by millions of good people who are unafraid to face their deepest human instincts.
The mention of cruelty and inhumanity must also be addressed. Webster's Ninth new Collegiate Dictionary defines "cruel" as "disposed to inflict pain or suffering." While folks who know nothing about hunters may believe that the goal of hunting is to inflict pain and suffering, nothing could be farther from the truth.
The goal of hunting is to hunt! The kill is a necessary part of that experience, but it is not the be-all, end-all motivational factor that some people think it to be. And when the time comes for the kill, as any true hunter will tell you, it is always the goal of the hunter to effect it with a bare minimum of pain and suffering.
My dictionary defines "inhumane" as simply "not humane." Referring to its definition of "humane," I find the following: "marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for other human beings or animals." For hunting to be accurately called inhumane, then, it must be proven that hunters do not have compassion, sympathy, or consideration for other human beings or animals.
Hunters display their sympathy for living creatures by striving for fast, efficient kills when they do kill. Their compassion is displayed in their willingness to swiftly take the life of an animal which might otherwise starve slowly to death due to overpopulation, or meet an ugly, lingering death in an auto collision, something that is often costly and injurious to drivers as well as wildlife. Hunters also use the animals that they take, unlike so-called "sharpshooters" that some municipalities employ to kill excess wildlife.
Hunters' consideration for all living things, both animal and human, is embodied by the things mentioned above, and by their polite demeanor which does not demand that others enjoy these same activities. We hunters do not wish for everyone to share our beliefs or commitment to our outdoor heritage; we wish simply to be left alone to enjoy this intimate connection with nature and our roots.
We are secure in our place and in our commitment to hunting - why can't everyone just let us be? After all, we extend that courtesy to non-hunters.
"They should outlaw [hunting] in every state."
That idea is both impractical and misguided. Hunting is a legitimate activity and wildlife management tool - hunters pay their own hard-earned dollars to manage wildlife populations which would otherwise explode to unhealthy levels in many regions of the USA. No other method of wildlife management is as practical or as effective as hunting. (continued)
