LAST UPDATED: May 1st, 2015
A recent letter and subsequent interview by a PETA representitive has struck a chord with hunters around the country. Has the animal rights group, known for it’s outrageous attacks on hunting and hunters, gone too far yet again?
It’s always difficult to respond to PETA, not because their arguments are hard to refute, but because there is so much misinformation and faulty logic in their statements that it’s necessary to correct nearly every word they spew.
For example, according to PETA’s supposed logic, the idea that hunters manage populations to ensure there are animals to hunt next season is a bad thing. I’m pretty sure that a healthy, well-structured, reproducing population of animals is a good thing. If hunting were to cease entirely – which is the ultimate dream of PETA – then we would begin to see over-population that will lead to increased disease, limited food, less habitat, weakened animals, starvation, prolonged suffering, and an increase in slow, miserable deaths, which will ultimately result in lower populations or the eventual vanishing of species.
But let’s put the irrational opinions aside for a moment and look simply at PETA’s actions. PETA might speak of empathy and compassion, but where were those ideals when they sent a reprimanding letter to, Camille Bomboy, a suffering and scarred young woman that was the victim of a bear attack.
The letter (http://www.peta.org/media/news-releases/peta-asks-mauled-teen-hang-hunting-gear/) includes this chilling statement, “There used to be a bumper sticker that read, ‘I support the right to arm bears!’ That was a joke, but in all seriousness, it would be a blessing if you were to abandon hunting and decide to live and let live.”
So PETA thinks the arming of animals – and subsequent, theoretical attacks on hunters by those animals – “was a joke, but…”
But what?
PETA is basically telling this afflicted young girl that she got what she deserved. The letter speaks of the “frightening and painful experiences that hunters set out to impose upon animals,” and suggests that frightening and painful experiences are what hunters will, and should, experience as a consequence of pursuing these animals.
The mother bear that attacked this young woman was doing what her natural instincts (not her conscious reasoning) told her to do – defend her young. The bear is not at fault, and the young hunter is not deserving of the mauling she received simply because she was a hunter.
We, as hunters, should welcome civil disagreement and respectful dialogue about conservation issues, but PETA is never willing to have those discussions. Instead these animal rights radicals would rather hide their deception and hypocrisy behind publicity stunts, such as those that target suffering teenagers.
