Letter from Stan Tyvoll, a Hunter - August 19, 2005
Though I don't understand why you think what you think, I do know that this whole issue revolves around the belief/non-belief that animals are sentient beings of the same value of humans or resources
to be used. I mean, if that is what prompts you to believe this trash, than you should say it right out front as part of your mission. If
you don't believe that animals are beings with souls, than what is your argument against hunting? "Innocent animals"? How can animals be innocent if they are not sentient? If they are not moral beings, animals cannot be held accountable for their actions; hence they can
be neither innoncent nor guilty, good or bad. Animals are animals. they have no rights. They are a resource just like wood, water, and air.
Yet that fact does not give us a right to abuse them. But hunting is not
C.A.S.H. Reply:
Hello Mr. Tyvoll:
Thank you for contacting the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting. I
would like to address the points you raised in your message to us.
You wrote: "Though I don't understand why you think what you think, I
do know that this whole issue revolves around the belief/non-belief that
animals are sentient beings of the same value of humans or resources to be
used."
Our mission is based on several areas of concern, each being as
important as the others.
We are concerned with the way state and federal fish and game
departments manipulate wildlife populations to perpetuate an
overpopulation of animals for hunters to shoot at. Since the salaries of
fish and game employees are funded through the sales of hunting, fishing
and trapping licenses, hunters have to be kept busy if these people are to
keep their jobs. We are also concerned about the clear-cutting that is
done to create a larger food supply for deer.
Breeding and stocking birds such as pheasant, chukar and partridge
concerns us because it has no ecological value and gives a hunting
experience equivalent to shooting fish in a barrel. Those pen-raised birds
who are not killed by hunters will undoubtedly starve to death or be
attacked by predators since they have no survival skills.
We are also concerned about the suffering that animals must endure
whether they are trapped, shot or stabbed (spear hunting is permitted in
many areas), or when they are orphaned after their mother is killed by a
hunter.
Animals who are shot, wounded, and manage to escape often die slow and
painful deaths from infection or starvation.
Lastly, we oppose the continuation of the extreme violence that is a
part of every hunting and fishing trip. In a world that is becoming
increasingly violent with each passing day, we see hunting as an
impediment to peace on earth.
"If you don't believe that animals are beings with souls, than what is
your argument against hunting?"
Discussion about the existence of a soul is something that is best left
to philosophers and theologians, and we do not have the expertise to
tackle the issue in an authoritative way. What we know about biology and
the dynamics of wildlife populations gives us our arguments to defend our
case against hunting.
"'Innocent animals'? How can animals be innocent if they are not
sentient?"
Animals are indeed sentient. They have highly-developed nervous systems
and are able to experience physical sensations as well as a range of
emotions.
Anyone who has ever heard an animal cry out in pain or has seen them
nurture their young can easily see that animals are sentient.
"If they are not moral beings, animals cannot be held accountable for
their actions; hence they can be neither innoncent nor guilty, good or
bad."
Animals are "innocent" because they have done nothing to deserve the
treatment they receive at the hands of mankind. We beat, burn, maim,
poison, shoot, stab, drown, boil alive, skin alive, starve, suffocate,
crush and psychologically torture animals by the tens of billions every
year, and all of this is absolutely unnecessary.
"Animals are animals. they have no rights. They are a resource just
like wood, water, and air. Yet that fact does not give us a right to abuse
them."
If animals have no rights, why do we not have the right to abuse them,
as you say? Animals do have rights. If you did to your dog what typical
hunters and trappers do to wildlife, you would be brought up on animal
cruelty charges. If animals had no rights, there would be no legal
recourse against you if you beat your dog to death or if you set fire to
your cat.
We understand that many people do not share our opinion when it comes
to sport hunting, trapping and the role state and federal wildlife
agencies play in creating many of the problems associated with wildlife.
We hope that in time, as you continue to read The C.A.S.H. Courier and
website, you will change your opinion and come to share our views.
Sincerely,
Joe Miele
C.A.S.H./Wildlife Watch
