[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”21952″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
Dear Amy,
I know you animal whacktivist treehuggers are all boo hooing the new legislation that’ll let 12 and 13 year old kids hunt with an adult and use crossbows. My advice since you obviously need it is you’re barking up the wrong tree. My generation grew up in the woods and fields and kids these days need more of that and less time on the I Phone. My grandkids all use their AK 47s and AR 15s LEGALLY and now they can add crossbows which are better than smart phones. At least New York did one thing write. Only a snowflake like you would disagree.
Signed, Rod H. “Cueball” Perkins, Sr.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Dear Cueball (if I may),
The recent passage of the Bill you refer to has been criticized not only by animal activists, but by anyone with a sliver of common sense. Have you ever read The Blessing, by Gregory Orr? It’s not a book against guns or hunting, rather, it relates the devastating, lifelong consequences of the author’s deadly shooting of his brother at age twelve. Young Gregory had just shot a deer when he was overcome by excitement, and accidentally emptied his chamber into his brother rather than the ground. The boys were accompanied by a responsible adult–their father–who had taught them gun safety. It is a horrific story, and one we see repeated far too often.
Placing a deadly weapon of any kind into the hands of a seventh- or eighth-grader is asking for trouble. I KNOW (and adore!) kids this age, and while I love their silliness, their curiosity and impulsivity, children generally can’t (and shouldn’t be forced to) bear the weight of life-or-death responsibility. Plus, the use of crossbows by hunters of any age inevitably results in slow and agonizing death for the animal involved. This cannot be contested: dying by crossbow is a terrible way to go. I don’t suppose you’d want it done to you, but I suspect you pride yourself on teaching your grandkids some version of the Golden Rule. Oh, the irony!
Young people do indeed benefit from spending less time on electronic devices, and more time connecting with nature. There are valuable lessons to be found in this kind of engagement, but what kind of message are we sending when we say that killing animals for sport is okay? How is that an acceptable way to commune with nature, knowing all that we do about the fragility of the environment, the complexity of the animal kingdom? I’ve been lucky to connect with many former hunters in my time as an activist, who are scarred by the trauma of having felt parental pressure to hunt, to (in many cases) “be a real man” by killing wildlife. Lowering the minimum age for hunting is a deliberate attempt on the part of state agencies and the hunting lobby (including many hunter-cult parents) to indoctrinate young people as soon as possible, and ensure the next generation of wildlife killers.
Most counties in NY will need to opt-in to this proposed change. To NY residents, the pressure is on to encourage these counties NOT to opt-in!
—
Dear Amy,
We have been proudly facilitating a well-known contest for more than a decade to fundraise for our local volunteer fire department. I won’t name the contest because we’ve done great work with rebranding in recent years, after animal activists turned the spotlight on our picturesque town. This impacted not only local business but even home prices as well! As a team that has worked hard to raise money for an amazing cause, we are appalled that you continue to go after charitable contests that are rooted in tradition and that control unwanted nuisance species. We see your efforts in many states to strip these rights from us, and we are here to tell you that we will not back down!
Signed, Anonymous but Proud Conservationists
Dear AbP,
Your unwillingness to name what you’re referring to is telling. Just say it: wildlife-killing contest. I know that many such contests are “rebranded,” as you say, with catchy, esoteric names, or labeled as “hunting contests.” Rebranding often includes replacing terms like “derby” or “slam” with catch- phrases like “responsibility,” “management,” and “conservation,” while doing nothing to change the content of the event.
Hunting, trapping, and fishing are neither responsible management nor conservation, but wildlife killing contests are seen by many activists (and informed members of the general public) as especially despicable. Killing contests are not about subsistence hunting (neither is modern hunting for most, but that’s another story). These contests typically award prizes to hunters or trappers who “bag” the heaviest individuals of the target species, and often target predators such as coyotes, bears, and bobcats. They may also victimize crows, squirrels, fishes, and other wildlife. Even many state agencies and hunting proponents recognize that there is no conservational value. Those who endorse mass-slaughter events defend them by citing tradition and charitable fundraising, as you have claimed in your letter, along with the “control” of “nuisance” species.
You fail to understand, however, that each species holds their vital niche within the ecosystem; each has evolved interdependently to claim that space. To insist that certain undesirable species must be controlled by lethal human intervention is to ignore the ever-increasing body of work by scientists whose salaries are independent of the sale of hunting and trapping licenses. Even some state wildlife agencies have denounced killing contests, which speaks volumes since, as we all know, their positions are almost always representative of their hunter constituencies.
It’s impossible to deny the palpable hatred the sportsmen’s community has for coyotes in particular. While claiming that humans must lethally manage deer populations, many in the hunting crowd also cheer on killing contests intended to decimate predators, since these individuals are viewed as competition. I remember one hunter telling me, when our paths unfortunately crossed at a Christmas party, “No coyote is going to take MY deer!”–a revealing and proprietarystatementthatreflectsthe killing contest mentality. Ironically, killing coyotes doesn’t reduce their population, and has even been shown to disrupt pack structure and increase individual numbers.
Beyond the die-hard, slaughter-happy contest defenders, anyone with a scrap of conscience and a pulse would be appalled by the photos of mass-slaughter events, which reveal hundreds of bloodied bodies laid out, strung up, on display. As awareness growsregarding the grotesque superfluity of killing contests, more states are taking a stand, with Maryland being the latest state to ban them. You can rebrand all you like, pretend that it’s necessary, and say it’s for a good cause. Or you can promote your cause honestly, and raise money in about a million ways that harm no one: Plant trees! Host an adopted-dog social! Hold a mini-marathon to encourage human health! Wildlife killing contests have nothing to do with social responsibility or good conservation, and they must be brought to an end in every state.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]