The following is a letter written in response to an email this hunter received from someone who is opposed to hunting, which he refers to as an "antihunter." The underlined text is that of the "anti-hunter."

"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."

At least he has the last part right. Hunting is technically not a sport or an activity organized for the entertainment of onlookers. Hunting appears to be a reaction to a physiological sensation occurring in the mid to lower quadrant of a man's body, which is signaling to him that his pipes may need cleaning. Preferably a roto-rooter in the shape of a female is available, but if one is not available, could be substituted with killing a large, beautiful and wild creature enjoying his life in a nearby wooded area.

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.

I will not disagree that it is "enjoyable" for them to kill something as it satisfies a very deep-seated physiological need to clean one's pipes. If you ask the animal if killing it is "legitimate," I hardly think it would agree as every indication of their body language screams it does not want to die. As far as being unafraid to face one's deepest human instincts, cleansing one's pipes is probably one of the deepest."

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.

I don't believe most "anti-hunters" believe hunters are pursuing animals just to inflict pain and suffering. So this argument is neither here nor there. "Anti-hunters" understand that death to a beautiful, healthy, vital animal is cruel. When each of us, either human or animal, are given only one life, it is natural to want to preserve that life and to go to any and all lengths to do so. 

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.

What I would like to know is who determines that killing is a necessary part of the hunting experience? Don't we all know people who can be satisfied to hunt with their cameras? Why must a hunter actually rob an animal of it's life to achieve the rush of pipe cleansing?

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.

This statement is a blatant oxymoron. There is nothing "humane" about killing a beautiful, strong, healthy animal and depriving it of the only life it will ever have. It's time they get this straight in their minds. The only time an animal is "humanely" killed is when it is terminally suffering from illness or injury.

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.

This particular paragraph is especially interesting. He says hunters display sympathy by killing fast and clean. If they truly had all this sympathy they talk about, they would not be robbing this animal of it's life in the first place. He goes on to make the same old tired argument about overpopulation and deer-auto collisions. What he leaves out is the well-documented research which shows that killing animals actually stimulates reproduction and the next Spring there are more births than the previous Spring. He also fails to mention the "driving" technique hunters use where one group situates themselves on one side of the deer area and walks toward the other side making a lot of noise in order to drive the deer to the opposite side where other hunters are waiting to ambush them. In their distress of being cornered, the deer run catywampus in all directions, running out onto nearby roads and highways, only to meet their death in another way--by being hit by a vehicle. Of course, the blame is always put on the deer.

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.

Well why wouldn't the hunters wish to be left alone? Of course they don't want to be harassed about stealing from the rest of us and robbing animals of their one and only life. Deep down inside they know that we are no longer cowboys and Indians. Reminders of our heritage will only be as far as the nearest library.

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.

Why can't everyone just let them be? Because they are robbing from the rest of us. They are upsetting the fragile balance of nature by killing the strongest and most vital animals, those that in nature would naturally endure. They are not concerned at all with the sympathy and compassion they feign. If they were, they would be out looking for the sick and the weak and the terminally ill and helping them.  Instead, they prey on the largest, the strongest and the healthiest. In my book, this is a self-esteem problem.

"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.

Who says hunting is a legitimate activity? Just because killing innocent, defenseless animals is legal doesn't make it right. We killed and abused slaves at one time and that was considered legal. But most of us have evolved beyond this type of behavior and have come to understand that in nature, we are all one. Hunting should be recognized for what it is - all part of a profit-driven business where the animal must sacrifice their one and only life.

Mind of a Hunter (and a rebuttal)

For those of you familiar with the parody newspaper tabloid, "The Onion," you will understand this article is being written tongue-in-cheek. That being said, the seriousness of the subject should not be discounted.

A R S

P.O. Box 80663

Lincoln, NE  68501

402 - 476 - 4414

info@animalrescuesoc.org