|
The savage nature of hunting...
By Allan Saxe, WBAP Political Analyst Why not mount grandma's head on the dining room wall or in a restaurant? That may sound ridiculous, cruel and outlandish. However, we do affix the severed heads of deer, moose, elk and a variety of other creatures to some of our homes and commercial enterprises. We even stuff many four-legged creatures and place them in a prominent living areas. It is done as a matter of pride and attraction. To me, it is as outlandish as if a human head were affixed. All living creatures are sacred. Humans have attempted to portray themselves as somehow higher, more moral, more valuable than other living creatures. Some may ask, "How can you compare grandmother to a deer?" But to have respect for human life means to have respect for all life. It is too dangerous, too easy, to make distinctions about which lives can be taken and which spared. Hunting is one of the most primeval of human endeavors. It has been defended over many years. The defense pivoting upon hunting being a means of human survival may have been valid years ago. Today, we simply need go to the nearest butcher shop. The defense about hunters being wonderful conservationists is heard loudly these days. Cannot we conserve living creatures without killing them as well? Former President Theodore Roosevelt admitted that he was in favor of conservation so animals would always be available to hunt. Conservation of natural resources should be a worthwhile end in itself, without worrying about animals being around to hunt. Hunters talk a lot about how wonderful it is to take the kids out into the wilds to bond together with each other and with nature. Why not take the kids to a movie or to a concert instead? Some hunters who seem a little guilty about hunting say they really just go out in the woods with others as a sort of camaraderie, and hardly ever shoot anything. If it is just camaraderie they are after, why the need to go use hunting as a recreational excuse? Some great white hunters talk about how they are doing nature a favor by killing some animals or else there would be starvation. That may be true, but if so, are there not other methods of sterilization to limit animal population in place of killing? In this age of intensive biotechnology there must be animal population methods available to replace the hunting excuse. What kind of excuse do hunters use in shooting doves? Doves are the quintessential symbol of peace. Do they too die of starvation if not for the hunters' gun? What bravery to go into the wilds and shoot at dove! There are even hunters who use archery skills at hunting, believing they are some re-incarnation of Ernest Hemingway testing life against life. If we really relish machismo why not go into the wilds without any weapons and fight the bear, the deer, the elk and even the dove without our artillery? The animals that we have been shooting for years feel pain and they experience fear. If we humans are the noblest of creatures as we hold ourselves, why do we cause so much strife among other animals? To live out our lives without killing except for our basic survival should be a worthwhile goal. Hunting for sport and pleasure should be taken out of our recreational equation. If we desire violence in our lives as recreation there is plenty available. Why not go to a good tough pro football game or hockey match? At least in these games adult humans voluntarily opt to go into the arena for big money. They are not hunted involuntarily as a human sport. And there is no goal of killing in football, hockey, or even boxing. If it occurs it is an incident to the sport, not the goal itself as in hunting.Hunting is so basic and common in our lives that even those vehemently opposed to guns often say they would exempt the hunter's weapons. I would reverse the proposition. As a semi-libertarian I hold strongly in the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but only in defense against our fellow humans. We humans are so violent that we occasionally need to protect ourselves from others of our own species. But it is the hunter who goes after the innocent animal who has caused him little or no harm. Let all the creatures of the world live out their days as peacefully as possible, unafraid of human activity. Listener Comments: I agree with Allan Saxe to a degree. Why do all you people think that because we are on top of the food chain and smarter then other living creatures that our life is some how worth more then there's? We are in no way better then them. We may be superior to them but our life is in no way worth more then there's. Parents are superior to there children, does that make there life worth any less then there parents? NO. I don't see anything wrong with hunting if that's what it take's for you to survive. But the majority of hunters do it for recreation not necessity! You ask what the difference between raising animals to slaughter an eat an going out and hunting one. The difference is they don't kill the animals for recreation, they do it for food an only food. There will always be meat in the super market. So there is no need to go kill another helpless animal! Again, I don't think there is anything wrong with hunting if you are doing it to survive. Dan Harlow - Attleboro MA
While I feel that Mr. Saxe certainly has a right to express his opinion regarding hunting, I feel that he is overlooking some facts. I agree!
Mr. Saxe is a thoughtful, giving person. I thought of this as I was driving today and saw his Adopt-A-Median sign. I think of this when I go to the Humane Society and see the sign he donated, as well as all of his other generous contributions to society. There is a lot to learn from him, such as respect for life, thoughtfulness, and selflessness. In my opinion, hunters who hunt for sport are selfish people who take "game" life just for the thrill of it and their own satisfaction. The same being said for fishermen. People who fish and then throw their catch back for the fun of it should think about how they would feel if they were yanked up by their mouth with a sharp instrument and then their air supply cut off. I have to change radio stations in the morning during hunting season so I won't have to hear it being glorified. Mr. Saxe is someone we all could learn from, including some of the air personalities of this radio station. Shana Reed
- Fort Worth Animal populations can be controlled.by malnutrition and disease, or by hunting...take your pick. As America becomes more urbanized and Oprah-ized, I'm sure the anti-hunting noise will continue to get louder. John
Davis - Lewisville I truly feel that most "so-called hunters" are only after the "rush" of thekill. How can anyone justify in their own mind, much less to anyone else, the act of going out and setting up a feeder that conditions an animal to come for food and then set in a blind to wait and ambush the animal. That surely isn't hunting! Most these people are out of shape, hunter wannabes that slaughter so they can have bragging rights. B. Hickman - Granbury I used to hold a similar opinion about preserving the lives of innocent little animals, but that was before I realized that they were conspiring against me, and spreading rumors about me. Then I would go into the woods and hide to spy on them. The oh so CUTE looking little bunnies, deer, and doves -- yes, Allan, DOVES, were talking about me, telling lies about me. Mike
is afraid of us, they said. Mike is a sissy, they said. Mike is so
dumb he flunked out of UTA, they said. That's when I decided to get
even -- with all of them. So whenever I can, I put on my black BDU's,
and go very quietly into the woods at night. I never take a gun, though-
that would make
a lot of noise and warn all the others. Instead, I take my very special,
razor sharp, double edged, non-glare, combat knife. I hide behind
a bush on a well-used trail, and wait- patiently, quietly, barely
breathing. Then
I take my prisoner to my special, secret place. I give them a chance
to save themselves by telling me what unit they are in, who their
commander is, and where their hideout is. When they don't tell me
-- and they never do -- I skin them, mount their heads, and put them
on the wall in my trophy Mike Morrow - Carrollton If Mr. Saxe truly believes that humans and animals are equal, then to be logically consistent he must believe in several other things. Mr. Saxe must be totally opposed to the death penalty, or even any type of imprisonment that confines a human being in an unnatural setting. I wonder if Mr. Saxe has ever been to the Fort Worth Zoo where animals are kept out of their natural habitat? Mr. Saxe has to be against
abortion, but where is his outcry for the life of those murdered babies?
William Edwards - Southlake Well, I guess everyone can
voice an opinion. And Alan has done just that. With this point I have
to totally disagree with the idea of hunters. Hunting is a basic skill
of mankind. I really don't care if it is necessary any longer. I prefer
to do my own killing thank you very much! The fact that someone else
is slaughtering them makes no difference to me. I can't imagine someone as "learned" as Allan Saxe having such poor reasoning when it comes to his version of the anti-hunting argument. I've read some of the other letters from others on the WBAP site, and I cannot really add anything earth-shaking to the discussion. I can, however, add that I come from a hunting family, and because I've been involved in other hobbies in the last few years, I've simply been too busy to go hunting, or even fishing for that matter. I suppose that fishing is on his list of barbaric hobbies - for that matter, would he have the Terminex and Raid people cease their business activities. After all, if a deer is going to be compared to my grandmother, then it's a logical assumption that a fire ant, termite, black widow spider, scorpion or yellow jacket is also equal to her. Where does
it end? I am a practicing hospital pharmacist and daily I prepare
antibiotics which are administered to people to kill bacteria, fungi
and other such microscopic life-forms. Oftentimes it is Without getting up on a soapbox and thumping the Bible, I can unemotionally state that God DID make us superior to every living thing on this earth, and sports hunting therefore is fair game (pun intended). I do, however, applaud his support of the Second Amendment. It does not guarantee my right to hunt, but then again, we're talking apples and oranges (which I guess I have to "kill" to eat them). Thank you. Tom Griffith - Belton Whatever Allan. I've never thought Saxe's political
analyses were insightful, and now I know why. He can't think rationally.
Almost anyone can get a doctorate and profess to know something. I
went to school with a lot of people like that. Let me respond briefly to both the column and the others who have responded. I do not hunt, unless you count fishing; however, there is nothing morally wrong with hunting as long as you follow the Law of the State in which you are hunting and eat whatever you kill. To make a moral claim that all life is equal is false. You can, and many do, respect all life and still kill. And please don't go quoting the Bible unless you know what you are talking about. God did give man dominion and man blew it. He proved in one fateful moment that he could not handle the responsibility. The only reason we eat meat today is that our perfect world was destroyed by the sin of Adam and Eve. Humans were, indeed, vegetarians, until after the fall. When creation was tainted by sin, God allowed the killing and eating of meat by men. There is no record of humans eating meat before that, as Adam and Eve were to eat only of the plants in the garden. But it is not wrong to hunt, kill, and eat meat, whether you participate actively or just eat the results from your supermarket shelf. God told Peter in a vision in the New Testament to take and eat of a group of ALL living animals. God said it was okay to KILL and eat any of them. Is hunting morally wrong? No. Is it morally wrong to kill for the sport of it? Yes. We are responsible to be good stewards of this earth and use it as we see fit. And you can't disprove either moral concept without going off on some liberal tangent, religious or otherwise. Phillip Way - Round Rock
Skip Allcorn - Denton Pretty Silly Allan, God is sacred, He set us up higher than the animals and you must have a conscience to have morals. I think I'll side with God on this one. Steve Howe - Hurst First of all, I am assuming that Mr. Saxe is at least a vegetarian, if not a full-blown vegan. Otherwise, his little rant about hunters has no validity whatsoever, and he should have no credibility with the listeners of this radio station, or the readers of his column. If it is wrong to kill and eat animals, because we are all living creatures, equal in the sight of God (if he believes in God), then why on earth do we not kill and eat other humans? And, if he does believe it is ok to eat certain select animals that have been raised to be slaughtered for food, then he is simply saying that he prefers to have someone else do his killing for him. I believe
that God placed us at the top of the food chain, giving us authority
and dominion over all animals. They are here to be used by us for
whatever purpose we deem necessary. I do believe that He expects us,
as superior beings, to be kind and humane to the animals, but he also
expects us to use them, as was stated so many times in scripture.
Even if one doesn't believe in God, then a study of the history of
mankind will show that man has always been, and will always be an
omnivore, and that meat (animal flesh) has always been a part of his
diet. Allan, This is really weak. I don't even believe that you believe what you wrote. Humans are superior! Why are you so upset that humans hunt animals? Don't you think that a deer feels as much pain and fear when it is killed by a bear or cougar? Hunting is a natural normal and acceptable part of existence. It is necessary in many aspects of nature. For my family, it is a way of life, and our main family activity. We all hunt, camp, photograph and really enjoy the outdoors. We follow all the hunting laws and are responsible conservationist. If you don't understand why going to a movie or ball game is no replacement for the camaraderie shared while hunting, camping and the like, then you have obviously never experienced the true beauty of nature. Nature is a movie directed by God. Darla
Stepich - Poolville
I respectfully
disagree with Mr. Saxe for two reasons. First, he limits himself to
an emotional appeal, and second, he makes the flawed assumption that
human and animal lives, since they are both "life," are both
equally sacred.
Mr. Saxe is certainly entitled
to his opinion and his emotions on this issue. However, not once does
he bolster his argument with facts. As a hunter, I can bring facts
to the table that are attested to by many naturalists that demonstrate
the beneficial nature of hunting. White-tailed deer, for example,
have fewer predators in the wild than ever before and regulated hunting
helps to keep their population numbers in check. Which is more savage,
Mr. Saxe--a death that in most cases is quick, or slow death by starvation
and disease? To take humans out of the equation for a moment, it is
important to remember the savagery of nature itself. Animals destroy
each other over matters of food, territory, and preserving their family
lines. Why must the criticism begin
with the "savagery" of human beings hunting animals? The
bullet or the arrow is a much more merciful way to die than being
torn limb from limb and being eaten alive. Another fact that bears
mentioning is the highly-regulated nature of hunting. Regulations
limit hunters to how many bucks can be killed per county and per season.
Hunting season isn't a time when hordes of trigger-happy fools go
stumbling through the underbrush. Responsible hunters and game wardens
work together to keep hunting what it is: a celebration of the beauty
of nature and man's responsible dominion over it. This brings me to my second
point regarding the "equality" of human and animal life.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Saxe begins with blatantly emotional appeals
(the "grandma analogy"). Anyone with familiar with the most
elementary tenets of reason and logic would dismiss those out of hand-they
are meaningless in helping to prove a point. All life deserves our
respect, and no one who takes hunting seriously would condone the
abuse of animals. However, believing in a Creator
of life and a hierarchy of that creation, it is insulting to be told
that I might as well be mounting a human head instead of an animal
one. Humans are superior to all other forms of life and have been
given dominion over nature--this dominion does not equal destruction,
but rather responsible care. The facts I cited in the previous paragraph
support this position--bare emotions do nothing of the sort. I have respected Mr. Saxe
for his political insights in the past, but now I will be listening
to him with a much more critical ear. It is surprising that someone
of his intellect could be given over to such emotional ranting in
trying to support a position, and I wonder how much this flaw affects
other opinions he holds. David Isgitt - Fort Worth
For the record, I have never been hunting in my life, and have no
intention of beginning now. However, as one who enjoys an occasional
hamburger, I find myself unable to condemn hunting without feeling
like a hypocrite. It doesn't seem to me that it makes a lot of difference
whether an animal is killed in the wilds or butchered in the stock
yards - if I plan to eat it, I can't very well condemn the man who
kills it.
Along
these lines, then, I disagree wholeheartedly with Mr. Saxe. I agree
that it's important to respect all life. But everyone's continued
existence hinges on the deaths of other living things - even vegetarians
have to bring another life to an end to survive. Mr. Saxe says that
"It is too dangerous, too easy, to make distinctions about which lives
can be taken and which spared", but he makes those distinctions, too.
He just draws the line further down the evolutionary tree.
On
the whole, I think he and I would agree that hunting simply for the
sake of killing something is wrong. Respect for life does, I think,
require that death in and of itself not be made a thing used for recreation
But
all of the hunters I know eat the animals they kill - and I have absolutely
no problem with that
Dan
Miller - Fort Worth
Off the deep end is all I can say about Mr.
Saxe. I am disappointed that he is given the forum on your radio show(s)
and web page to tout his position on matters as if he were an authority
on why we should not hunt. WBAP is supposedly an unbiased news reporting
station and you let this happen. Yes, you do have Mr. Davis and Mr.
Limbaugh and their opinions also, however, every one knows that they
are talk show hosts and the listening public can call in and speak
with these men. And don't forget Mr. Boortz! (I do enjoy all these
programs) These are entertainment programs and most people understand
that. Mr. Saxe is a "guest" of your station and also a professor
I may even have one or two myself.
I am against his sensationalism type tactics (Grand Ma's head on the
wall) which, in my opinion, is typical of what I think are radical
thinking people and the fact that he is able to speak his mind on
your News station as fact is disturbing. Again, in my opinion, this
is one of the reasons the media is so well liked by the liberals.
In closing, I ask that you please reserve your airways for truth and
unbiased reporting when the news programs are running. What happens on talk shows is fair
game for all. Jeff Blitch - Granbury You can express
your opinions to this column by CLICKING
HERE. Be sure to include your name and city of residence. This
information may be included with any published opinions.
Return To The Allan Saxe Opinion Page
|
