Archived: Nov 26, 2007

> Editorial

Humane or inane?

The truth of “animal rights” activism

By Aaron Jeske

Allow me blow your minds: I do not have a beer-belly or a confederate flag hanging in my room. My idea of hunting is not to drive around the forest at night on my ATV and chase deer with a high-powered automatic rifle by means of night vision and laser sighting.

“Animal rights” activism is probably one of the most misinformed and incomplete political ideologies that has set foot on American soil. I go day to day listening to how we should protect animals because they “feel” and “hurt” and have “emotions,” too. I have some news for those of you who read Elina Pries and Joshua McCracken’s colorful and well-played editorials.

Animals are not people. “Animal rights” activists cleverly use the term “non-human animals” to insinuate that, in some way, we are no different from that cute squirrel you pass on your way to class. While it may be true that animals may have emotions or some complex reasoning, the fact remains that, for some reason that I do not know, we are not the ones in zoos.

We are not food for cows, and chickens do not eat our eggs. Humanity is on top for one reason or another. Animals are not our equals; rather, they are a resource like coal or trees or water. We harvest them, and they help us live our lives. They can work for us and they can sustain our healthy lives. We have a right to control their lives because we are on top.

Hunting is not barbaric, nor is it “manly.” (Anyone who has met my 11-year-old sister would know otherwise.) As a proud member of a family of hunters, I am insulted when people affront hunting saying it is inhumane and cruel. I know that people who harshly criticize hunting, like McCracken, have never hunted a day in their lives and are therefore completely unqualified to make such claims

I know what some of you already think of me. Allow me blow your minds: I do not have a beer-belly or a confederate flag hanging in my room. My idea of hunting is not to drive around the forest at night on my ATV and chase deer with a high-powered automatic rifle by means of night vision and laser sighting.

I am a normal student. I hunt only animals I would eat, and I only hunt them when they are in season. I took a hunters’ safety class before I even set foot in the woods with a weapon. I get a DNR rulebook before I go hunting every year, and I follow the regulations to the “t.” I only bag as many animals as I paid to bag, and that money goes directly to the DNR so that they can help to provide habitats and strengthen the environment. I am the standard Wisconsin outdoorsman.

“Animal rights” activists like McCracken do not know a thing about hunting, and as a result they make several errors in trying to attack the outdoorsman. First, wall decorations are the least of your worries, since deer mounting is a very expensive process and therefore reserved for only the biggest of racks.

Second, the population-control aspect of hunting is not focused on protecting our lands; rather, it is for the good of the ecosystem. An over-population of deer can damage the environment, affect the food supply of other herbivores and produce significant crop damage.

Third, hunting is a tradition, and most hunters uphold it with the utmost respect. Real hunters believe in “fair chase,” the practice of trying to keep the ground as even as possible between the hunter and the hunted. We allow ourselves only the minimum amount of advantage over our game and shun those who spoil our image by using unfair methods.

Lastly, we do not waste the animal as much as you think. Hunters take their kill to be processed for the meat, and some still use the hide for clothing and such. In Wisconsin there is even a program that takes deer hunters do not need and processes them to feed those in need. We may not be as resourceful as the Native Americans, but then again recent market trends show the demand for deer-bone hammers has been on the sharp decline, and you just can’t argue with economics.

So to get to the “meat” of my argument, hunting in Wisconsin has a slew of advantages for the animals themselves. McCracken of course failed to mention Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) which is basically mad-cow disease for deer, and a prominent problem for the deer population of Wisconsin.

Can you guess the most prominent method of collecting deer for study of the disease? That’s right, it’s hunting. Think about it: The only use for a deer head is a trophy, and if the animal is a sub-par buck or a doe, you don’t need to mount it. So what do you do? You take the deer to a local DNR station and they take the head for CWD research. By doing so, you have lessened the chance that other deer in the area develop CWD. Now aren’t you the savvy environmentalist?

I could go on and on, but I’ll leave you with one final thought. Outdoorsmen are some of the most ecologically friendly people you will meet, and it comes from generations of experience. My grandfather taught my dad the ways of the wild, and now I am learning as well. We spend considerably more time keeping our hunting land in prime shape – clearing brush, planting trees and food for the deer themselves – than we spend actually hunting. We know without the work we put into the land, we can not enjoy it and its benefits to us as hunters.

So remember when you see someone in blaze orange this fall, you will see he or she are not barbarians, but rather they are a different form of environmentalist. They are Wisconsin outdoorsmen.

> Comments

BGH is in your milk. on Nov 27, 2007 at 06:54 PM:

Aaron-

I realize that you are writing in reaction to an inflammatory article, so I will grant you that benefit of the doubt.
However, you really aren't addressing "the truth of animal rights activism." There are many, very well-reasoned arguments for animal rights that go beyond cute fuzzy squirrels and deer hunting.

You are right that humans are at the top of the food chain. However, humans also have the knowledge that protein can come from beans and nuts just as easily as meat. Eating meat becomes considerably less ethical when you do not need to.

There is also a very solid argument that "coal, trees, and water" don't exist merely for human exploitation.

"Humanity is on top": http://youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4

Anna Lemberger on Nov 28, 2007 at 10:01 PM:

First of all, humans may be on the top of the food chain but that doesn't mean we have the right to disregard creatures less intelligent than us. The truth is we have a responsibility to help those living beings who can't help themselves. If we don't, who will? But what truly makes us better than animals? That we can eat them? That we can torture them, hunt them, control them, or imprison them? If you think about it, isn't that what we, the “super” species, are doing to each other? (If you don't know anything about Darfur please google it). Also, you insinuate that intelligence is one thing separating us from and setting us above animals. We may have all this intelligence and power but what is it good for if we only use it to hurt other beings and other people?

Secondly, I agree with the comment that Aaron made. You haven't really addressed the major issues of animal rights activism. I suggest, if you haven't all ready done so, to read up on all sides of the issue so you are able to take more validated and well-informed stances.

V. Thao on Nov 29, 2007 at 11:50 AM:

I remember seeing a montage of animal hunting in Africa by Caucasian men. These men would pay a lot of money to hunt rhinos, hippos, lions, leopards.... what for really?

I don't want to know that it costs a lot of money to mount a deer onto the wall and stuff a water buffalo is you ever shot one.

I'm fascinated by a human's appeal to hunt wild animals. Already our food industry keeps pigs, cows, sheep, chicken, lobsters, etc. in tight cages to slaughter for the man to eat, so why bother killing other wild animals?

It's not a sport or a hobby if you take the interest in killing. Hunting is killing obviously. Why can't we call what Jeffrey Dahmer did a hobby or an interest? After all, he did eat the food that he killed. He probably stalked his preys and then went in for the kill, but he didn't use guns. There isn't much of a difference. Animals have the same wants and needs as us, why do we underestimate their abilities to live and understand that when a strange being that walks on two and carries a gun is dangerous?

You say it's helping the ecosystem. Kind of funny how you can say it's helping the ecosystem. I didn't know that killing wild animals was helpful. It's almost like saying manslaughtering is helping the ecosytem because less population will equal more food and room for us on earth, plus if we wipe out NYC, CHINA,INDIA, or any other heavily populated area, then maybe we could save our planet earth.

I agree with Anna that just because humans are at the top of the food chain, we shouldn't disregard creatures less intelligent than us. Animals are the most sensible living creatures that are able to abide by natural instincts. By that i mean, they don't kill recklessly especially their food. Would man be able to kill a lion if they didn't use guns? If you want to kill, why don't you think of a strategic plan to kill the animal, using spears and knives and a trap? Isn't that how all the other animals attack their prey? Plus, using a gun is only a weapon that symbolizes the weakness of a person. If you want that animal that badly, why not go one on one with that animal? I'd really like to see those Japanese whalers attack those humpback whales. If it's man against animal, animal would win since we're so selfihsly rely on guns and bullets to do our hunting and slaughtering. So if REAL outdoorsmen really want to hunt their animals, next time you go out, don't take your guns. Make yourself a little hideout in the trees, stalk out your animal, go one on one combat with this creature and see if man can handle being at the top of the food chain (I do recall we don't have sharp nails, can't run that fast, most of us around under 200 pounds, don't have advanced hearing, seeing or smell.... so what will you use?)

By the way when you said "we are not the ones in zoos" We didn't use our hands to catch lions and tigers. We either used tranquilizers, traps to cage these animals. How is this any different from putting a human in a cage or having them under house arrest for the rest of their life? Don't put animals in a different intelligience level. What they lack in intellgience, they make up for in their quality of life and ability to use their strengths to get their food. A monarch butterfly is capable of flying across the Atlantic ocean. Cheetahs can run almost 70mph. Bats are able to use echolocation to find their way in the dark. Turtles can live up to be 100 years old. So many natural instincts and qualities make animals sensational creatures to study and preserve. They're in their fully developed state, I'm guessing, and able to use that to their advantage. I don't know how intelligent they are, but if Amelia Earhart couldn't fly across the ocean and a butterfly can, who really dominates who? If man was faced with a bear, wild cat, surival of the fittest, with the physical form and attributes that we were born with, who would really win?

Outdoorsmen like yourself is a pathetic excuse to make yourself feel better that although mankind has been able to kill habitats, put hundreds of animals on the extinction list, feel you've accomplished something rewarding for using a GUN to kill an animal, you're all pretty much promoting mankind's inability to preserve what has been created and the lack of compassion for nature and the wilderness that you wouldn't be able to survive in if you didn't have your gun.

Joshua McCracken on Nov 29, 2007 at 05:15 PM:

I had planned to stay out of this whole thing, since I have been dealing with the fallout from this article for nearly a month now, but I simply can't keep my mouth shut on this. You say that animals are not people, and you're right, since people are defined as human beings, a completely separate species. That does not mean that they are not capable of rational thought, or of forming groups (if you have actually observed any of your prey, you might notice that they do form small governments in the wild, and wolves operate in almost perfect synch with one another when stalking prey, all clearly forms of intelligent, abstract thought) much as humans do. My article's intent was not to decry the food industry, because I do think that eating meat is a natural thing for people to do, just as not eating it is, it all comes down to choice. My issue in the first place was that hunters have to drive hours away from towns in order to stalk their prey, and I hardly see how these animals could possibly be a threat to humanity if you have to go that far out of your way to kill them. I applaud you for eating your kills, however please bear in mind that the money that you spent to get your license and ammo probably could have bought you a good quantity of McDonald's cheeseburgers. I claimed that the sport was barbaric because it is needlessly done, and I stand by that statement. The point of op-ed columns are to display public opinions, and frankly your total lack of ability to make an argument without resorting to personal attacks (by the way, my one hunting experience is WHY I feel the way that I do about the "sport", thank you very much) does not do very much for your piece. While I respect the traditions, it would be much more impressive and much more worthy of praise if your kills were made at the expense of real effort on the part of hunters, instead of having to hide away and wait til an animal gets into their sights so they can shoot it. If you were not within 100 feet of your kill, I wouldn't call it anything to be proud of, it just means you can recognize an animal through the scope of a rifle. Yes, I'm aware of CWD, and while I do think that research should be done, it would probably be more beneficial to the ecosystem if maybe, just maybe, only a certain number of them were taken for study and the rest left alone. You have the right to your sport, as you put it, even if I could I would not try to take that right away. But, like I've said, over and over, for four weeks now, my opinions in the original article stand firm.

Aaron Jeske on Dec 01, 2007 at 10:27 PM:

Wow, I never knew you crazies had so much time to actually take this to the internet. Wonder what the rest of the sane world is doing while you complain about animal rights.

Listen, I don't have time to counter every single one of your arguments, but if I did I’m sure I can find answers to all of your points.

One that caught my attention was the comment made by the lovely "BHG is in your milk" (Fine name you got there, no wonder you are messed in the head) It’s a common fact that beans and such do supply the same nutritional stuff that meat can. In fact they just so happen to be in the same food group. Now ain't that just dandy? We can substitute our diets and save those wonderful cows that are so wrongfully imprisoned and slaughtered for our benefit.

So follow me on a hypothetical point here. We will take all of our meat-making resources and transfer them to making beans. We will even forget the immense economical collapse that would happen if this were to happen in reality. So the US is now a gigantic happy, green, hippie commune. Fantastic! Everything is dandy cause all those animals we set free form bondage and certain death are going to thrive and reproduce like rabbits. (I like rabbits don't you?) Warp a good half century in the future and we see that now animals out populate humans in the United States, and guess what! Animals eat Plants! But wait, we all eat plants now don't we? But we can't do anything unfair like control their population to compete for food, because that is wrong!

Bottom line of that statement, if everyone ate plants like animals did, and therefore increase humanity's competition for food, would you die because a cow got to your wonderful crops before you did? As cleverly put by the reputable V. Thao, humans as animals have little in the way of natural advantages besides our brain. So if we can't take advantage of our brain to use technology to control animal populations we just screwed ourselves over.

I know that won’t have much effect on your closed minds, but again I don't expect you guys to look ahead and consider the consequences of what you support.

I see you guys also attack the use of Guns in hunting practices. Never mind that Most of deer season is actually archery season (bow and arrow for you guys who probably don't understand). In fact I would go as far to say that Gun Season exists just because getting a deer with a bow is extremely difficult, and therefore not a good method of population control. Also I dare you to go into the woods and get closer than 100 yards to a dear and actually know it. Oh wait I forgot to mention that 100 yards is an incredibly long shot to make in the standard dear environment. Where I hunt I can see up to 250, but the chance of me actually hitting a deer where I want to at that range, considering that I am up in a tree and have nothing to steady my aim for such long ranges. I keep reading and rereading all you comments, and Ill I can understand is that your closed minds have misunderstood and twisted about everything I have said so far.
And to the studious McCracken who I am sure to butt heads with for many years to come, keep in mind that it was you who attacked hunters like me to begin with. “Cowardly” is the word you chose and most people will take offense if you call them “cowardly”? Sure you didn’t name anyone personally, but does that lessen the offense? I am sure none of this will influence you to change your minds, but I write not to do that but provide the balance to the argument that would otherwise go unheard to the public at large. I end in the famous words of Maddox, “For every animal you don’t eat, I will eat three.”

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=animals

Joshua McCracken on Dec 02, 2007 at 06:27 PM:

I agree, we are almost guaranteed to butt heads for a long time. Yes, that's great if 100 yards is a long shot. I am aware of our system of measurement. However, you miss the fundamental point of what I was complaining about, the animals are sitting there, minding their own business, and suddenly they have a bullet in their body. Can you see how that might be a bit of an unpleasant surprise, such as how maybe a person getting shot while taking getting a glass of water would be? Yes, not naming names does lessen the offense. My rage is directed at the hunting INDUSTRY, and the people who propagate these myths that somehow driving out miles away from anywhere and hiding out with a scope rifle to pick off an animal is actually a GOOD thing. By the way, citing a guy who actually wrote a book called the Alphabet of Manliness is not a good way to drive an intelligent argument. You say the people who have responded to your article have twisted your words, welcome to the world of an op-ed writer. I have reread your article and your comments, and I have yet to see ANYTHING that could make me change my mind on these issues. You eat your kill, great. You have difficulty firing a shot from 100 yards, so sorry, that sucks. But these things which you seem to expect pats on the head for don't change the core of your argument, and that is that hunting animals in the wild is completely above reproach. It isn't. Even terrorism isn't above reproach for the people who do it (and before you seize on an opportunity, I am not calling anyone a terrorist, I am using the metaphor to illustrate my point). Everything is subjective, and since MY subjective opinion is that hunting is pointless, ridiculous and inane, and since I write for an opinion (AKA, subjective thoughts on an issue) section, if you are right, then so am I. And so are all of the people who have commented on this article.