Ms. Sweeten,
You obviously don't get out much.
Hunters, more than anyone, know the grim reality of thousands of dear, fowl and other protein sources starving to death and rotting in the fields. Those who hunt cull herds and flocks, ensuring survival of healthy animals by reducing the number to be fed. Hunting is rarely for amusement or sport. Hunters kill, prepare and consume their prey, and many share with others through programs such as Hunters for the Hungry.

I no longer hunt due to physical effort needed, but hunters have my wholehearted support.
Burning, drowning and forcing dogs to tear one another apart is anathema to the hunters unspoken creed: kill quick.

Of course, none of this matters to you, does it, Ms. Sweeten? By extending your sick, twisted logic, those who hunt and kill terrorists are "barbaric" and "beneath contempt."
Am I wrong?

Sorry, but your marginal logic belies a hatred of diversity, and your moral superiority needs updating.

Equating hunters with those who practice barbarism is the same as equating vegetarians and vegans to lawn mowers.

Ms. Sweeten

This has got to be one of the most ignorant LTEs I've come across in a long time. Vick and hunters differ in several ways:

1. Hunters generally eat the meat of the game they catch.

2. Hunters purchase licenses and engage in their activities legally.

3. Hunters hunt for sport; not for the sake of being cruel, violent, or savage.

Every living thing kills another living thing to survive. Hunting is about food, Vick's actions were about being vicious and mean. This has nothing to do with hunters having moral superiority over Vick. If you can't understand hunting for food vs the cruelty Michael Vick showed towards those dogs then you are a truly lost individual.

WJ Ellis and Bishop, well said, but I'm afraid what you say will fall on deaf ears. Ms. Sweeten has her head so far up her butt that she really has no idea what she's talking about! She is one of those people who runs her mouth without investigating her subject beforehand. She forgot to add it's no different than the killing of cows and sheep and chickens.

Now let's take a step back. While I personally recognize the distinction between hunters and dog fighters, I hardly think Ms. Sweeten is as far off the deep end as Ellis and Bishop have protrayed her.

Mr Ellis would have us believe that hunters engage in the activity not as their hobby, but out if a sense of moral compulsion to prevent deer and birds from overpopulating. As if a hunter wakes up in the morning and says "I'd sure like to play golf today, but if I do, there will be deer starving to death. So it is my obligation to go out and blast a few of them." He says that "hunting is rarely for amusement or sport", but I bet if you poll the shoppers at Gander Mtn, you'd get a different reply.

And the Bishop (who contradicts Ellis by stating "hunting is for sport") suggests that the motivation for hunting is food-based. So is this a cost-cutting thing, or a freshness thing? I presume one could buy quail or venison somewhere. But is it less expensive to buy a tree stand, an ATV, some flourescent camo's, and some guns than to go to the Fresh Market? Or is it that the venison you buy from the butcher shop is two days old, vs. the taste of the fresh kill?

Again, I do not equate the barbarism of dog-fighting with hunting, but to suggest that hunting is a noble effort with the animal's welfare (or victim) in mind is a little tough to swallow. And the outrage you portray is excessive.

"I presume one could buy quail or venison somewhere. But is it less expensive to buy a tree stand, an ATV, some flourescent camo's, and some guns than to go to the Fresh Market?"

Last time I went quail hunting I used my father's bird gun (must be 40 years old), it was not done in a tree stand, we hiked in and did not ride ATVs, I wore a pair of my brother's BDUs, and ok I spent 10 bucks on an orange vest.

It's like anything else. You can spend a lot of money... or if you're resourceful you can get away with doing things on the cheap.

This letter is in response to a letter written by Ms. Arlene Sweeten. I have sat quietly for several weeks now while people have compared Hunters to “Dog Fighters” without saying anything. I can no longer sit back quietly while being attacked by an uneducated opinion and not by facts.

Ms. Sweeten, you call me and other hunters “Barbaric and Beneath Contempt.” I ask you when was the last time you contributed one dollar or one minute to the conservation of wildlife in Jamestown, North Carolina or anywhere else in the US. Hunters in this country through license sales, federal Duck Stamps, the Pittman-Robertson Act, along with private and corporate donations contribute over $745 million each year to these causes. (Fact) The monitored harvest of game animals in this country benefit the overall health of the herd and prevents disease and starvation. (Fact) I work tirelessly for the betterment and benefit of wildlife and the outdoors. I try to make sure every animal I harvest is a clean and ethical manner.

I will close with this. I invite you or any other Anti-Hunter in the Piedmont to come with me on a hunt. I will be happy to teach any you about the outdoors, hunting, time spent with friends and family and the general benefit I bring to wildlife here in NC and the US. Then try to find a “Dog Fighter” who will agree to bring you to a dog fight and then we will see if Hunters and Dog Fighters are one and the same.

Sincerely,

Paul Setliff

While agreeing to a degree with what Ellis & Bishop stated; Howie put the matter is a better frame.

As the others have noted, there is a VAST difference between hunting game and dog fighting. Remember, the dog fighting was a SPORT and it was about betting and winning sums of money! There is that greed thing again!

This LTTE writer is offtrack somewhat. I only hope that she reads these comments.

Shalom

It's going to sound like I'm trying to antagonize hunters, and I promise I'm not. But Mr Setliff's argument, while more reasoned and rational than some of the others, is still not justifying the actions of hunters.

I understand that hunters contribute to the conservation of wildlife, but the motivation appears to be so that they will have wildlife to kill. And the argument that is most often cited by hunters as their value to society -- that were it not for them, the country would be worse off because of disease and overpopulation -- is also misleading. I agree that the killing of animals prevents overpopulation. However, the absence of hunters would only require a different method for controlling their population. If we can control parasite growth rates, then surely, if the need arose, we could control birth rates of deer. So while overpopulation is aided by killing, there are certainly more humane ways of curbing this potential problem.

Finally, I will reiterate that the dog fighter and the hunter are different people. But to the animal, do you really think it matters whether he dies by drowning or by gunshot? So the claims of "ethical harvests" and "quick kills" distinguish the two sports, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that hunting is charity work. And just because hunters contribute to government mandated licensing and to funds to preserve hunting land, that doesn't really make it more noble. If Mike Vick built an animal shelter, would that make his actions any less vile?

Michael Vick is just a total jerk. He came from nowhere, excelled in a sport, made millions and would have made millions more. He just never elevated himself above that of being a jerk. And, as a child, he surely had a problem with cruelty.

He states a few days ago that he just finally found GOD. Now, GOD knows who was sending HIM those puppies to romp and play in HIS Heaven. The Dog's outa here.
Crime Dog

Howie,

You're doing a pretty good job of playing devil's advocate. Do you think Michael Vick should be punished for his actions? How about hunters?

I know families that primarily stock their freezers in the winter with food from hunting and vegetables and fruits from gardening.

Why? For a variety of reasons? Can you find venison for sale? I guess if you look hard enough. Venison tenderloin and filets run anywhere between $18 and $30 a pound. You may be able to find it cheaper. If I had to pay that price for steak, I'd be raising my own cows.

Then again, maybe there is a difference in taste to account for. And handling. When you kill your own food, you know who has been handling it.

For years, I've had a garden. Could I buy tomatoes for cheaper in the grocery store? Perhaps, if I wanted just a pound or two. But by having my own tomato plants, I can can enough tomatoes to last for years. And I haven't found a tomato in a grocery store yet that matches the flavor of mine.

Plus, I know when my tomatoes say organic, they really are organic. And I'm also saving the environment because my tomatoes don't have to be transported, packaged, etc.

Speaking personally, the only hunting I do is fishing. I don't really like to kill the fish. However, I do enjoy eating what I catch and I also enjoy the quiet time it affords me.

I believe animals were put on this planet for a variety of purposes and one of those purposes is to be food for other animals and people. We're all on the food chain somewhere.

Hunters could have a zillion different motivations. I'm sure there are a handful out there who just really like to kill stuff. Most I've spoke to go deeper than that.

It's hard to imagine any favorable motivations that Michael Vick had. Controlling the pet population?

nitpicker,

Yes, I realize I'm being a bit of a nitpicker. It started out differently, but that's where I find myself today.

To answer your questions: Yes, I believe Vick should be punished. No, I don't believe hunters should. Dog fighting is against the law; hunting isn't. That's the easy answer.

The ethics of both "sports" are less cut and dry. And my defense of the original letter was more a critique of the arguments by those who were so vicious in their attacks of its author. While the law dsitinguishes the two "sports", I can see how an animal lover would have a much more difficult time deliniating them. To an animal lover, throwing two dogs in a pit is not much different than blasting them into oblivion. And the high-minded justifications of those who disagree with the letter are clouding the issue.

How would Mr Ellis and the Bishop justify these hunting lodges we heard so much about a couple of years ago? In these situations, the "hunter" arrives and selects from a menu the kind of birds he'd like to shoot that day. Then the staff goes out and plants these birds under a trap. So the "hunter" is escorted to within a few feet of the trap, the "guide" kicks over the trap, the bird takes off, and the "hunter" blasts away. I struggle to see this effort as noble. The participants are clearly not trying to feed their huingry families, or cull the flock, or provide a benefit to society.

So I really don't care much about hunting one way or the other. It is not my place to say it's right or wrong. I am a carnivore, so it is no more or less justified to shoot a deer than it is for me to eat a cheeseburger. But the arguments distinguishing hunters as valuable contributors to society I find to be misguided, so I decided to challenge their logic. My opinion is that a large proportion of the hunting community is in the sport for the thrill of the kill. All the other stuff is justification to make themselves look/feel better. They call themsleves "sportsmen" because it is a sport to them. They don't call themselves charity workers.

"I know when my tomatoes say organic, they really are organic."

Talking tomatoes. What will they think of next!

Ha ha. That was a good one. They told me they preferred the pesticides to the pepper spray conconction I was zapping them with! I told them to shut up and grow. :)

Howie,

I see your points and I do agree that there are a good many hunters out there who do it for the chest-beating macho feeling they get in firing a big gun at a moving target. I don't know what percentage of them fit in that category but I have met a couple.

I also question why it's okay to eat a cow but not a dog. For all I know, dog could be really good.

However, I think the viciousness of the attacks on the author were in direct response to her
own attacks such as:

-- "I would think hunters, of all people, would understand Vick's low-life mentality."

Such generalizations are bound to get exactly the reaction they did. But then again, anybody named ARLENE is guaranteed to be an air-head know-it-all elitist who works in a beauty parlor.

hugh, "organic" talking tomatoes at that!

Shalom

"There's only two things that money can't buy, and that's true love and home-grown tomatoes."
-Guy Clark

Mr. Setliff: Well said.

I think something else that can't be understood by people such as the letter writer is a closer appreciation for sacrifice. Granted there are those who have few goals other than shooting the biggest and best buck, but I'd wager they are a minority. We others, for whatever personal reasons, hunt for the meat. And there lies the sacrifice, and the grasp of exchanging something as horrible as death to continue the cycle of life.

I would imagine your average hunter has a better understanding and respect for what has to occur in order for mankind to survive. I take no pleasure in the death of an animal, but being part of it takes one out of the consumer role. Hunting will make one stop wandering the aisles of the local Fresh Market looking at a "product." Too many people forget that something had to die in order for that roast to be prepared, or for the pot of chicken and dumplings to boil and make the kitchen smell so good. It's easy to forget when clean and packaged food is so readily available in an air-conditioned grocery store with music piped in over the intercom system. All you've got to do is drive over and give them some money. All it had to do was die.

Someone else does all of your dirty work.

Me? I made a dietary decision after listening to a butcher describe the tricks (read as chemicals) they use to keep "fresh" meat presentable. Two years ago I decided that, restaurants aside, I would not eat any more store-bought meat. It has worked out well, but I'll admit that I feel lots of pressure around Thanksgiving. Especially when we decided to prepare turducken. But it's nice to know exactly how something was handled throughout the journey from river or field to the plate. And, interestingly, I've noticed that one wastes less food when it is so hard-earned.

So Ms. Sweeten, I respectfully disagree with your letter. And, since the chances are good that you're a meat-eater as well, I'll counter it by saying that you are likely a supporter of things more cruel than what you accuse hunters of. Go tour a chicken farm/processing plant. Or any true bolt-to-the-head type business.

I'd bet the only difference between the two of us is that I care about the animals I eat.

Roger

"So the claims of "ethical harvests" and "quick kills" distinguish the two sports, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that hunting is charity work. And just because hunters contribute to government mandated licensing and to funds to preserve hunting land, that doesn't really make it more noble."

Either you're completely vegan, and have never consumed _any_ animal products, or you're standing on a moral high-horse based on false principles.

Mr. Bishop, as you'll see from a later post, I am not a vegan -- I am a carnivore. And I make no judgement about the act of hunting, because that would make me a hypocrite. Rather, I was trying to point out that while the two activities (dog fighting and hunting) are different, the nobility of hunting is overstated and exaggerated.

Having said that, I applaud Mr. Bennet for his well reasoned and sincere post. I have to think he is in the vast majority, but if most hunters had the same principles, I might be inclined to view the hobby differently.

Howie G,
I suspect that you are actually an omnivore.
Somehow, my post was compressed into "all hunters wake up and decide to balance the universe while unselfishly talking an animal into committing suicide" or something.
I have no such illusions- I do know many hunters, and have known some for over 40 years- and I have yet to meet a "sport" hunter. Most are keenly aware of the environment, and their effect on it. All of them kill, dress and preserve their kill to provide an extremely nutricious, low fat, high protein meat for their families (and often others).
There is much chatter about the great number of sports hunters that are all about killing trapped animals. I haven't seen any stats on that.

This is ridiculous. I am Ms. Sweeten's daughter and while my mother has better things to do than respond to these comments (many of which are way off base and quite off topic) I have to take this time and say a few things. I am assuming most of you are adults, although that is hard to tell from comments such as nitpicker's, "But then again, anybody named ARLENE is guaranteed to be an air-head know-it-all elitist who works in a beauty parlor". (She doesn't, by the way, although I also don't know anyone named Arlene who does).

In response to Mr. Setliff, my mother happens to be a strong supporter of environmental causes and donates quite a bit of money to the WWF (that's World Wildlife Fund, not World Wrestling Federation just in case you weren't sure) and other various wildlife organizations. She fosters kittens for the SPCA and dogs for a rescue society. She is also a Republican and would go to the mat for anyone's right to own a gun. It is what you do with that gun, however, that she takes objection to. (If you just want to shoot the thing off, go target shooting). I don't know anyone who cares more about animals than my mother and a lot of these posts obviously come from people who don't share that opinion and nothing is going to change their minds.

And as for Mr. Ellis' extension of her logic to the fact that the men and women defending our country ("by hunting and killing terrorists") would be barbaric and beyond contempt, I'm pretty sure the topic was animals, but I could be wrong. And, unlike terrorists, the animals being killed in either situation (Vick's or hunting) have done nothing wrong.

And I know quite a few hunters myself and, while some of them may choose to eat the meat of the animal they kill, NONE of them do so out of absolute financial necessity.

I appreciate Howie G's comments, at least someone actually read and understood the letter rather than just picking out what they wanted to read and attacking that. Are you single, by the way? :)

I'm sure that my mother will be supremely embarassed that I felt the need to stick up for her, so Mom, if you even read this, I'm sorry, but you know I can't let people say ignorant things and just not respond.

Thanks. Now go ahead and attack me all you want :)

This is ridiculous. I am Ms. Sweeten's daughter and while my mother has better things to do than respond to these comments (many of which are way off base and quite off topic) I have to take this time and say a few things. I am assuming most of you are adults, although that is hard to tell from comments such as nitpicker's, "But then again, anybody named ARLENE is guaranteed to be an air-head know-it-all elitist who works in a beauty parlor". (She doesn't, by the way, although I also don't know anyone named Arlene who does).

In response to Mr. Setliff, my mother happens to be a strong supporter of environmental causes and donates quite a bit of money to the WWF (that's World Wildlife Fund, not World Wrestling Federation just in case you weren't sure) and other various wildlife organizations. She fosters kittens for the SPCA and dogs for a rescue society. She is also a Republican and would go to the mat for anyone's right to own a gun. It is what you do with that gun, however, that she takes objection to. (If you just want to shoot the thing off, go target shooting). I don't know anyone who cares more about animals than my mother and a lot of these posts obviously come from people who don't share that opinion and nothing is going to change their minds.

And as for Mr. Ellis' extension of her logic to the fact that the men and women defending our country ("by hunting and killing terrorists") would be barbaric and beyond contempt, I'm pretty sure the topic was animals, but I could be wrong. And, unlike terrorists, the animals being killed in either situation (Vick's or hunting) have done nothing wrong, at least I don't remember any deer or dogs blowing up any of our buildings. They probably don't even know how to fly planes.

And I know quite a few hunters myself and, while some of them may choose to eat the meat of the animal they kill, NONE of them do so out of absolute financial necessity.

I appreciate Howie G's comments, at least someone actually read and understood the letter rather than just picking out what they wanted to read and attacking that. Are you single, by the way? :)

I'm sure that my mother will be supremely embarassed that I felt the need to stick up for her, so Mom, if you even read this, I'm sorry, but you know I can't let people say ignorant things and just not respond.

Thanks. Now go ahead and attack me all you want :)

I'm sure your mother is proud of you and I respect your post in her defense.

That said, paragraph one of her letter is an unabashed attack on millions of hunters who harvest the meat of animals who would otherwise rot in the fields.

Forgive me for not accepting the animal rights language that infuses the letter. Animals do not have rights. God put vegetation and wildlife on this earth to feed His people.

Their is no justification for equating greedy barbarity with hunting. If you go to the store and buy a pound of ground beef, you are a dissociated hunter.

You seem to have inherited your mother's inability to distinguish between hunters and sportsmen.

When I was young and stupid (as opposed to my presnt conditon of being middle aged and stupid) there was a saying that you could tell much about a person with just one question. I now believe you can tell much about a person from a few paragraphs. (read any of Darryl's, The Liberal Conservative's or for that matter, my humble posts).

Allison

I appreciate you sticking up for you mother. Yes, I do know what WWF is. I once again go back to facts.

If you look at what hunters do for wildlife, conservation, and the environment, it is far more than any of the so called animal rights activists.

We can argue all day and all night about who is right and who is wrong in this case, but if you take emotion out of the equation and look at the strait facts. You will see the benefit of what hunters do for the animals of the US.

Are there good and bad in both groups? Absolutely! Do I doubt that you or your mom love animals and wildlife? Absolutely not! Should you, your mom or any other animal right activist have the right to tell me or any other hunter that I can or can't hunt? No way! Do I have the right to tell you to stop your group? No way! Do I think it is good that you mom takes in Dogs and Cats? Yes. Do I think that contributing to the the WWF directly improves habitat and overall health and well being on wildlife? I would venture to say no, but I will reserve judgment. Do I think you have a preconceived notion of hunters as being beer drinkers "Hell Bent" on Killing me deer today by God. Absolutely!

I once again invite you or anyone else to come with me on a farm and see what we provide for wildlife of all kinds.

I still disagree with comparing me with Mike Vick and other dog fighters.

Couple of follow-ups. Yes, WJ, to be more precise I am an omnivore. Though I must confess I'm not much of a "sushi-vore" -- cant't wrap my mind around that -- but just about everything else is worth a try.

As for your other comments, it still appears to me that you are trying to force your opinion on others, and are overstating the nobility of hunters. Just because you do not believe that animals have rights, that does not mean that it is universally true. Some people believe that to take the life of any creature who has a will to live is wrong. If you don't believe that, then great for you, but for others, the divide between innocent dogs raised to kill and die, and innocent birds or deer blasted by firearms is not as vast as you portray. And the nobility of the hunter -- who you portray as motivated by an obligation to society to prevent overpopulation, a desire to provide food for his/her family, and a desire for healthier alternatives than are available in stores -- is misleading. Furthermore, you chastise the original Ms. Sweeten for her sense of "moral superiority", when in fact you are doing the exact same. And if I read her letter and your first response, I would say that the "hatred of diversity" is not confined to one person.

Second point, to the second Miss Sweeten. Your defense of your mother raised some excellent points. The argument that it is somehow less expensive to feed one's family by hunting than by shopping is absurd. And I've known hunters all of my life (not quite as long as WJ, but close), and I've known exactly zero who use hunting as a means to offset the high price of hamburger. And the invoking of the "terrorists" comparison is meant just to portray her as some kind of liberal nut. Finally, thanks for the kind remarks, I appreaciate it. (But I'm happily married) :)

Good luck fending off the attacks you're sure to endure.

Hunting is a sport, yes. I personally can see the diff between MV and hunters who kill and eat/use their game. I am sorry you cant.

If either of you actually do know people who hunt and let the game rot you are hangin with the wrong "friends" and those folks are indeed more similar to MV than true hunters.

Plus, it was Mrs Sweeten who set the tone for the discussion. I thought most of the responses were rather tame compared to her LTE.

"reap...sow" "kettle ... black" etc etc

Seems like the apple didn't fall far from the tree. Both you and your mom are alright with dishing out the attacks but don't like it too much when the shoe is on the other foot.

Did you read the sentence before mine about people named Arlene? Guess not. If you had, you would have realized that I was seeing how your mom liked it when people made negative sweeping generalizations from ignorance about an entire population. Her letter did a great job of that.

Although from reading her letter and your response, the only thing that it appears I missed was the beauty parlor.

Congratulations to Ms. Sweeten for pointing out important, obvious, truths and reminders to anyone who hurts or kills animals - cruelty to animals for enjoyment is indeed "barbaric" and "beneath contempt. I have to think the anger displayed in the rude personal attacks on Ms. Sweeten is probably the same anger that would fuel one to find it gratifying and acceptable to kill any animal and label it an act of kindness or be able to live such acts by calling it a “sport.” It is time to quit hiding behind these convenient labels - it is not okay to hurt or kill animals just because you have the power to do so – this is nothing short of bully mentality. Continue to be outraged about all the Michael Vick’s of this world, support all the wonderful organizations who operate spay/neuter clinics and rescue animals and vaccinate them against rabies, but if you want to help the environment, pick up all the ridiculous trash, cut off extra lights, recycle…nature is quite capable of taking care of the animal population. DeleteReplyForwardMove...