Anti-Hunter blast hunters in local paper

[Cottonwood]

Hunting season is really the ‘slaughter of the innocents’
By Sean D. Mac an Airchinnigh

Well….. here wear are again, time to slaughter the innocents once again.  Time to blow the chest out of deer, elk and even bear.  Time to use the human mind to lull and through trickery con the creatures of the forest into wandering into the sight of a gun.

The brave and might warriors use their super cunning skills to take off the heads of unsuspecting animals.  How men and some women can get a thrill of watching the blood spill from one of God’s beautiful little creatures is beyond my comprehension, and beyond the scope of understanding of many people.  I am grateful that many parts of Europe, there certain hunting and blood sports banned or in the process of being outlawed.  Thank God too for organizations like Defenders of Wildlife, and others who actively work to save and preserve our wildlife from base desires to spill blood.

Many make the excuse that they don’t kill for the thrill of killing but eat what they slaughter.  That is no excuse to slaughter the innocents.  They in fact, love the blood sport.  No one needs to kill wild animals to eat; there are venues for anyone in this nation to obtain food without having to go into the forest to slaughter the innocents.  It is actually more expensive to hunt than it is to purchase from a grocery outlet.  Many in state and federal government feel that their jobs are necessary because without their control of wildlife the animals would suffer.  God has been in the business of controlling wildlife for hundreds of thousands of years, and He does not need trigger-happy wardens to use flimsy excuses for slaughtering the innocents.

What is remarkable is that woman are supposed to be the kinder, gentler compassionate gender.  Yet many of these hunting woman are in competition with men to kill our precious wildlife, and join the pseudo-brave bragging-rights and become one of the boys, so to speak.  I guess hunting is the easiest way to bolster sagging and weak masculine self images.

The truth is, that hunting is barbaric, Neanderthal and unethical in modern society.  It is totally unnecessary.  I have spoken to a few men who have gained wisdom through the aging process, and told me they used to hunt but they cannot ever hunt again.  One young man told me that he had an “experience” while hunting and he too could never hunt again.  He did not relate the experience and I did not ask.

I was aghast last year when the Daily Inter Lake published pictures of a hunter that had killed a very young albino bear.  What in the world is there to brag about in this instance?  Why does the Daily Inter Lake give approval of this archaic savagely cruel conduct?  Perhaps the editors themselves are part of this nefarious behavior.  It would be much more acceptable if they would just throw a football around and brag about the great passes that were made.

I certainly intend to give my financial and moral support to organizations that are exposing the pseudo-sport that is not a sport, but more truthfully called a blood sport.  One day, in the not-too-distant future, this heartless and sadistic practice will be outlawed.  The allegedly brave, mighty-hunter warriors would not be so brave if the deer, bear and elk were armed with AK-47’s and they were able to shoot back.  I strongly suspect that ballet lessons would become much more appealing to the former mighty hunter warriors.

Mac an Airchinngh is a resident of Rexford, Mt.

Want to comment on this:

Please write to:

The Daily Iner Lake
PO Box 7610
Kalispell, Mt. 59904

By e-mail edit@dailyinterlake.com

Phone 406.752.6114

When responding please include your name and address and phone number so the paper can verify authenticity.  You can all the editor at 406.758.4447 to confirm receipt of your letter.

[Dusty Miller]

Somebody from MT needs to respond and remind this person that ALL animals die sooner or later.  In the wild animals die from: 1.) predation, 2.) disease, 3.)starvation, or 4.) freezing.  Is that REALLY preferable to the relatively quick death that results from a gunshot wound?

[SLAVAGE]

he wouldent be bitchen like that after he wrecks his nice 30k sports car in a deer one night an ends up in the e room

[Maxd]

I think that if I lived in montana and wrote such an article with my name attached to it, having bags packed and 30k sports car already warming up for rather quick exodus back to one of the coasts would be prudent...

[Buckskin]

His financial support is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions of $ put into wildlife habitat, resources and protection that we hunters contribute every year.  He has no idea what the outdoors would be like if not for hunter.  We preserve far more animals than we harvest.

[cattleskinner]

I get these kinds of questions once in awhile about working in a meat plant, and the first thing that I ask this kind of people is.....do you eat meat???  The majority of the time they say yes, and that settles it in my mind.  The guy who wrote that column says that you should go and buy from a store rather than hunt for your meat??  Now, I like my beef as much as the next guy, but on the same token, you can't beat a good deer tenderloin either.  That comment about buying your meat is just a way for that kind of person to place the blame/guilt/or whatever of killing an animal onto someone else...they are just as guilty about it as anyone who does the slaughtering.  Do I like to kill beef, hogs, sheep, deer, or anything for that matter??  Not really, but on the same token, I'm not going to hide behind some yuppy ideals.  I feel humbled that the big man upstairs put those animals on the earth for our use, and to those animals for giving their lives to sustain mine.  I agree with the previous posters...that guy needs to grab his double frappochino latte mocha, or whatever he drinks(I like it black, with a bit of creamer), and drive his convertable back to whatever big coastal city he came from.  Thats just my two cents from an opinionated young pup .

~~~Amos

[elmer]

Buckskin,

You the nail on the head. While the "environmentalist" whine, protest, and put bumperstickers on their vehicles, the hunting groups work and spend massive amounts of money preserving habitats.

Catteskinner,

I agree. If a vegetarian (a real one not a chicken-etarian, fish-etarian, etc) wants to discuss the subject I can talk to them. I won't give someone that eats meat but don't want to know about the killing the respect of a discussion. My stepdaughter tried giving me grief at one point about hunting. I told her to  give up Wendy's bacon cheeseburgers and then we can talk until then she was being hypocritical.

[harvfire]

Probably pro abortion!

Harvfire

[hazey]

I think that it is fitting that a story in the Daily Interlake today was:

Wildlife awareness tips for drivers
Posted: Friday, Sep 30, 2005 - 08:39:19 am PDT
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/articles/2005/09/30/lifestyle/lifestyle03.txt

I personally agree with a lot of what people are saying here.  As a biologist (currently working on non-game native fish conservation) and having worked on wildlife management and habitat conservation for federal, state, and major non-profit agencies, I will relate that the majority of conservation organizations are NOT anti-hunting.  I also believe that most true "environmentalists" are not against our tradition of providing food for ourselves either, while some of them may not practice hunting themselves for other reasons.  The person who wrote this letter is simply an example of someone who is ignorant of the environmental role of hunting and hunters.

I happened to be a non hunter until I was 25, then read Aldo Leopold's "A sand county almanac".  I was never against hunting, but just did not grow up in a hunting family.  I am now hooked on the experience of hunting, and feel that hunting is the best environmental alternative to provide food for my family.  Not to mention, as a life long hiker, and student of nature, hunting is by far the best way I have found to observe and connect with wildlife.  I have seen far more interesting things from a treestand than an average nature walk.

The organizations that this person discusses are NOT antihunting agencies.  Defenders of Wildlife is a non-profit environmental organization that focusses on habitat conservation for endangered, threatened or rare species (not game species).  Much of the money that goes into habitat protection for these species is raised through the hunting industry.  Strike number one against Mr. Mac an Airchinnigh's logic.

Now if Mr. Mac an Airchinnigh was to mention PETA, he might discuss an organization that is more on topic with his feelings.  The difference between Defenders of Wildlife and PETA is that one is an environmental organization and the other focussed on the "ethical treatment of animals".  PETA's mission, while important to all of thier members often looses strength in the arguments they propose: example 1.  banning milk as an alternative to soda in California school snack machines.  The resulting effect of this decision would be to encourage our children to choose sugar loaded sodas that are associated with the obesity epidemic in American children...hmmm does that sound like a reasonable fight?
example 2.  PETA has proposed that keeping domestic animals of any sort is unethical, and so is neutering/spaying of pets... what would they have us do? release all livestock and domestic pets into the wild?  This would in no doubt increase the population of strays throughtout the country which are somewhat responsible for the harassment and deaths of millions of songbirds and other wildlife species each year, not to mention the starvation and torture that the domestic animals would endure in environments that they are not adapted for.  Yet another strike against the pseudo-environmentalist movement.

As stated above, the majority of true environmentalists are not anti-hunting.  I happen to be first a biologist and second a hunter, attending one of the best Natural Resources schools in the country.  As my career in natural resources has expanded, so has the list of environmental professionals that I meet whom are also hunters.  The only way to truly love the outdoors is to experience it, and hunting is one way in which these people were introduced to the world of nature.  This connection was so strong that they decided to dedicate their lives and work to wildlife and conservation.  Does hunting still sound like an anti-environmental movement?  I don't think so.  Strike three for the pseudo-environmentalist.

The list could go on, but I will leave it there.  One thing I think we as hunters should recognize is that there are people out there like this gentleman who can not relate to what we do, nor are they willing to learn as they are blinded solely by the idea that hunting is just "killing".  I think that it would be difficult to teach all of them the importance of hunting, but we can do our part by hunting responsibly and by taking part in organizations that have dual roles of hunting advocacy and non-game habitat restoration and conservation (like Ducks U., Quals U., Trout U., Whitetails U., Izaak Walton League... and many others).  

In closing, enjoy your hunting season... enjoy the habitat you hunt in, and appreciate all the wildlife, not just what you are hunting.  Continue to hunt responsibly and give back to nature in all ways you can.

Thanks for reading

Hazey

[PeterB]

Well, I'm just not good at rebuttal for these folks, and their lawyer style.  Do I hunt? Yes.  Do I need to hunt to live.  No.  My preference is to be along with someone else while they hunt.  Just went with my 75 yr old dad for his trophy bull elk hunt.  I will go with my wife and two nephews on there upcoming hunts.  Do I love it? Yes.  It's like the Jeep phrase.  It's a Jeep thing,  you wouldn't understand.  When I see a deer, elk, etc.  I don't start drooling and foaming at the mouth saying I sure wish I could kill that creature.  It's about hunting.  You wouldn't understand.  If I'm a neanderthal I'm OK with it.

[760 Nut]

Anti anything groups are only searching for a reaction. The best thing we can do as hunters is just don't give them the time of day. Don't acknowledge the skewed opinons and don't reply to the ignorant statements. If they get reactions, then they think they are making a difference and that fuels the fire. If they are ignored, their star falls from the sky and they are left scratching their heads wondering what their next tactic might be.

We as hunters need to support the sport and continue to do they right things and idiots like this guy and the groups they stand for will fade into oblivion. These anti groups do not threaten our sport today as they once did in the 80's.

[AZ223]

I never cease to be amazed at the ignorance of anti-hunters and the like, who eat as much or more beef and animal products as I do, and yet think hunting is barbaric. I usually ask them whether they're vegetarian. Since the answer is almost always a resounding "no", I ask them how they think feed animals die? After explaining it to them, the topic us usually considered over.

One note regarding organizations such as PETA and Defenders of Wildlife: Starvation, predation, freezing, and otherwise lingering death in the wild is usually referred to as "unfortunate". And they generally don't care at all about their fellow man. That, I think, is the real tragedy.

[Mikey]

Aw heck.,let's just get the guy a buckskin jacket with a couple of white shoulder patches for riding around inhis convertable.  Mikey.

[alsatian]

I assume this was a letter to the editor.  I also assume, given the forum was a Montana paper, that this letter was selected deliberately to "stir the pot."  I suppose this sells newspapers.

I think we should respond to this kind of thing whenever hunting is disparaged.  In some cases there may not be time or you might not have a good reasoned argument to present, but when it works out it is best to contest this kind of thinking whenever possible -- otherwise some people are going to be persuaded.  This is probably a non-issue in Montana, but perhaps not in Dallas, Texas, near where I live, or in Chicago, Illinois, etc.  While Texas may be red blooded and hunter friendly, an urban concentration like Dallas might be more on the edge.

I noticed that the letter writer dwelled on his assumptions of what motivated hunters.  He commented more than once that he thought hunters hunted to demonstrate their bravery and/or their masculinity.  This is a sterotype that one sees often in movies and television depictions of hunters, but I don't believe it to be very accurate in my experiences with many hunters.  He just doesn't have a real experience or perception of hunters, he his demonizing a "strawman."  He said that hunters enjoyed making game animals spill blood.  Again, not accurate in my experience.  I would not be at all surprised to find that most hunters feel a little uncomfortable with the gory details of hunting -- eviscerating their kills, disjointing the limbs when butchering, etc.  But just as a good teeth cleaning visit to the dentist is unsettling and makes us uncomfortable, we tolerate these unpleasant realities not for themselves but for the other goals, the hunting experience, a connection with a deep fundamental part of our being (predator), and to harvest the game meat.

The writer also spoke of the "slaughter of the innocents."  While deer might be argued to be innocent, I'm guessing this writer is characterizing man as "non-innocent" and animals as "innocent."  Now, in my opinion there is nothing innocent about the way a wolf or coyote takes down a prey and throttles the life out of that animal.  Nature is not intrinsically forgiving or kind.  I think of that scene in "Bambi" where the affable owl is sitting talking with rabbits and other small creatures.  I don't know where that owl gets his food, but in my neck of the woods that owl would be ripping the guts out of the rabbit and squirrel and any other small creature that was foolish enough to leave themselves vulnerable to the owl's attack.  The use of the word "slaughter" also is inappropriate.  Slaughter implies what we do with cattle -- march in a file to certain death.  This doesn't characterize hunting.  My son hunted deer all week long and drew down on narry a deer.

Basically the guy was clueless, but nevertheless dangerous.  People like this influence others who have no first hand connection or experience of hunting.  Please counter such thinking cordially, level-headedly, but firmly when you have a chance.  Otherwise some day the 80% of US citizens who do not hunt and have not first hand experience of hunting are going to vote to ban hunting, I fear.

[Tn Jim]

I have to agree with Alsatian on this. I'm afraid people have watched too many Disney movies. They are trying to assign human feelings and emotions to animals. Hence the "innocent" and "non-innocent" titles. These poeple need to have their views countered with fact at every opportunity. We have to show the non hunting public that the "warm and fuzzy feeling" syndrome is a slow death sentence for all our wildlife.

[CJ]

Didn't think ANTIs were allowed in MT, sure hes not from  NYC or California.    :-D  :-D

[Slamfire]

Didn't think ANTIs were allowed in MT, sure hes not from  NYC or California.    :-D  :-D

As an escapee from Los Angeles, I don't think folks in Philly's 'burbs have much room for castin' aspersions.  

[dodd3]

i live in western australia and duck hunting was band here. but when there was duck hunting and we had drought condisions and all the ducks were geting sick in the lakes, where you could go to hunt them. where were all the antiy huntig buffs then, no where to be seen it was the duck hunters who were pulling them out of the ooz not the animal libers. it seems there the same all over the world i call them vegi freaks,i dont try and push  peopole to go and hunt so why should they push  there opinions on me.

bernie  :x

[Tn Jim]

Unfortunately dodd3, that's the nature of a lib. They have a nasty habit of forcing their happy happy joy joy feel good feelings down everyone elses throat wheather they are right or not. Emotions rule over common sense or fact. :roll: