- Rockford visitor spending jumps
- The misguided Cecil the lion debate
- State, union extend contract again
- Willow Creek left in the dust by development
- CUB helps residents find best deal
- What the Scott Walker fundraising controversy means for 2016
- Corn prices fade as supplies stay in surplus
- Cubs make history in an unfortunate way
- Pension battle headed for SCOTUS?
- Closed for Progress: downtown’s steady revival
In response to anti-hunting letter
I’m writing in response to Mr. [James] Wilson’s anti-hunting letter [“Hunting does not benefit wildlife,” Nov. 18-24, 2009, issue].
Let me start out by saying that I personally do not hunt, though I sometimes purchase a hunting license for political reasons.
I don’t hunt because I’m just too sqeemish to eat something I killed. Other than that, I’m all for it.
The problem I have is that every animal on this earth was given ways to survive, both by means of getting food, and avoiding being eaten itself.
This gift was from God himself. Some are stronger, some run faster, some are camouflaged, and some are just plain sneaky.
Man, some say, is at the top of the food chain. We were given greater intelligence and ingenuity, allowing us to devise ways to take our food in face of greater size and speed.
We survive as a species because we have developed tools to hunt with and protect ourselves with.
Farming, raising our food in a barn, is not natural, not the way God saw it, but necessary because there are just too many of us, in too concentrated areas.
We would be like locusts on a feeding frenzy, with not a morsel left for tomorrow if we all hunted our food.
The logic that killing a few doesn’t keep population growth down is absurd. It’s simple math—if there are 100 deer in a herd, 50/50 male/female, and hunters take 20 deer, one way or another, there is not going to be 50 does get pregnant, even if there were no does killed.
There absolutely is data, by federal and state agencies, that proves that the population of any animal, except endangered animals, is best served by regulated hunting.
As for poor people having canned goods to eat, I’m sure they want variety in their food just as you do, and fresh meat is much more healthy, with no salt or other preservatives, than anything canned.
Of course, it is indeed man’s fault there is a need for regulated hunting—we have exceeded God’s expectations in proliferating.
We overpopulate the land, forcing the rest of the animal kingdom into a corner, because we have adapted to the point that our only natural predators are ourselves.
From the November 25-December 1, 2009 issue