As a vegan who comes from a family of hunters and who used to hunt himself, I would like to comment on the claims that hunting is honourable, noble, and other statements which were made in last week’s letter from Natalia Danylyshyn.
The claims that hunting is both noble and honourable are simply baseless claims at best. There is neither honour nor nobility in using high powered rifles and other weapons to kill defenceless animals, and to state that hunting requires a large amount of skill is unsubstantiated.
I agree that it may require patience and hand-eye coordination, but there is certainly no real skill involved. If a person really wants to hunt with skill, go out into the animals habitat unarmed and see how well you fare. There can simply never be a fair or honourable victory in a fixed fight.
It was then claimed that hunting is acceptable because of the age old philosophy of survival of the fittest and that only the strongest in nature deserve to survive. If we indeed live by this philosophy then why are we not justified in rounding up and hunting all the mentally disabled and young children of our communities? This may seem like a harsh comparison but according to the theory of survival of the fittest it rings true and should be justified as above mentioned people are weaker than most.
We may have developed the intelligence and use of opposable thumbs which allowed us to become superior to other species in some ways, but what about developing the compassion to realise that we are part of a diverse ecosystem in which we should be protecting and not killing needlessly?
Hunting is as unnecessary as consuming meat in our modern society and should be stopped.
Justin Gilbertson
Shirley
