Case Against Hunting Birds
©2004 Harri Vainola
©2004 Harri Vainola
Killing for one's pleasure is wrong; this should be a self-evident enough concept to accept universally, yet we still allow it to happen.
We are not the only species mourning our dead, using tools, or language, but we are, as far as I know, the only one who claims to have moral standards, the understanding of right and wrong.
I have no saying against native tribes, who have co-existed in harmony with their world for centuries, harvesting their food from their habitat as they needed; this is the way of nature.
Urban man, however, does not rely on a forest for his sustenance; we have a society, which has evolved to cater our needs in concrete jungles.
It is no more necessary to go out to kill wild animals for our daily survival; agriculture, together with the industrial revolution have freed us from that.
Yet some of us see it as their right to kill wild birds for their enjoyment, without the fear of being punished for it. This is often justified by tradition; I strongly disagree. Tradition, by itself, can not entitle unjustifiable actions; anything from slavery and racism to mistreatment of women have each been vigorously defended by tradition.
Often hunters call their killings management, or regulation of wildlife; I find this particularly chilling, and human-chauvinistic. Throughout human history, men have invented innocent-sounding expressions for their unspeakable acts; this does not, however, make those actions just.
A wild bird does not need our management; a bird needs a habitat to live in; a bird needs a home.
Some defend killing a bird by the virtue of the killer being a human, and their victim "only" a bird. Again, I strongly disagree. The killer might have some abilities beyond those of the bird (and the bird has some beyond his), but both are living, individual beings, with their own hopes and aspirations. Those of the bird might be more modest; finding a home, raising a family, gathering enjoyable food.
Both are habitants of the same world; one claims to be superior due to his humanity, yet what it is that humanity ? His superior moral standards ? Is it not wrong to kill ?
But surely the hunter is more intelligent than the bird ? The killer will perform better on an intelligence-test drawn by men; however, should we consider the cognitive ability, as the only measure of value of a being, man or bird, we are in a sorry state of affairs indeed.
Some let us know that they have a right to kill, as it has been granted to them the by God. I believe in the freedom of religion, as long as the believer does not hurt other beings for his cause; enough atrocities have been carried out throughout time, in the name of religion.
What is left for the hunter, is his ability to kill the bird, he wants to kill, because he can.
One might not find this all that surprising, should one be familiar with current affairs; if we humans can not refrain from killing each other, what hope is there for birds ?
People can change. By and large, the change has been for the better; racism still exists, but not as blatantly as before; legislation and education are slowly making a difference.
Many countries have passed laws to protect the birds; it is only a start, but the environmental awareness has risen over past decades. Great many hunters have seen the error of their ways, and turned into protectionists. So there is hope.
I believe, that most people have the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong, and have some compassion in them. All hunters are not evil; they lead their lives as they have been taught to, never stopping to question their actions.
So it is for us, and the officials chosen by us, to educate the public, and to see that there is legislation which respects life, and the right to the pursuit of happiness, for both birds and men.
We are not the only species mourning our dead, using tools, or language, but we are, as far as I know, the only one who claims to have moral standards, the understanding of right and wrong.
I have no saying against native tribes, who have co-existed in harmony with their world for centuries, harvesting their food from their habitat as they needed; this is the way of nature.
Urban man, however, does not rely on a forest for his sustenance; we have a society, which has evolved to cater our needs in concrete jungles.
It is no more necessary to go out to kill wild animals for our daily survival; agriculture, together with the industrial revolution have freed us from that.
Yet some of us see it as their right to kill wild birds for their enjoyment, without the fear of being punished for it. This is often justified by tradition; I strongly disagree. Tradition, by itself, can not entitle unjustifiable actions; anything from slavery and racism to mistreatment of women have each been vigorously defended by tradition.
Often hunters call their killings management, or regulation of wildlife; I find this particularly chilling, and human-chauvinistic. Throughout human history, men have invented innocent-sounding expressions for their unspeakable acts; this does not, however, make those actions just.
A wild bird does not need our management; a bird needs a habitat to live in; a bird needs a home.
Some defend killing a bird by the virtue of the killer being a human, and their victim "only" a bird. Again, I strongly disagree. The killer might have some abilities beyond those of the bird (and the bird has some beyond his), but both are living, individual beings, with their own hopes and aspirations. Those of the bird might be more modest; finding a home, raising a family, gathering enjoyable food.
Both are habitants of the same world; one claims to be superior due to his humanity, yet what it is that humanity ? His superior moral standards ? Is it not wrong to kill ?
But surely the hunter is more intelligent than the bird ? The killer will perform better on an intelligence-test drawn by men; however, should we consider the cognitive ability, as the only measure of value of a being, man or bird, we are in a sorry state of affairs indeed.
Some let us know that they have a right to kill, as it has been granted to them the by God. I believe in the freedom of religion, as long as the believer does not hurt other beings for his cause; enough atrocities have been carried out throughout time, in the name of religion.
What is left for the hunter, is his ability to kill the bird, he wants to kill, because he can.
One might not find this all that surprising, should one be familiar with current affairs; if we humans can not refrain from killing each other, what hope is there for birds ?
People can change. By and large, the change has been for the better; racism still exists, but not as blatantly as before; legislation and education are slowly making a difference.
Many countries have passed laws to protect the birds; it is only a start, but the environmental awareness has risen over past decades. Great many hunters have seen the error of their ways, and turned into protectionists. So there is hope.
I believe, that most people have the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong, and have some compassion in them. All hunters are not evil; they lead their lives as they have been taught to, never stopping to question their actions.
So it is for us, and the officials chosen by us, to educate the public, and to see that there is legislation which respects life, and the right to the pursuit of happiness, for both birds and men.