On Compassionate Bullets
A comment left yesterday on a two-year old post, by None Please presented a phrase I've never heard before and I'd like to address it.
"In the Washington metro area, we have a BIG deer problem. I have a question for you, would you prefer to get shot by a compassionate bullet to the head,and be eaten by a lifeform that thanks god for you flesh and appreciates it. Or to get struck by an automobile, die slowly, of failing internal organs, and be unfit for human consumption."
There's a lot going on in the above three sentences. Let's deconstruct:
- What we have here is the myth that killing animals in the wild and then eating them is somehow a compassionate act. Now, if hunters were in the woods seeking out injured, dying, starving animals, and ending their lives in a way that most would call euthanasia, I might be able to get on board with the compassionate-bullet theory. But that's not what happens. After all, the goal is a corpse that is fit for human consumption, by the commenter's own admission.
- When one calls animals of any kind a "problem," that's usually code for:
they're inconvenient or they're a nuisance to us or they are in some
other way reminding us that they exist. Perhaps we should consider
thinking about the ways in which the deers have a "BIG" human problem.
- It's difficult for me to understand how the act of thanking a god, who likely doesn't even exist, would matter to the nonhuman animal who is killed for the crime of being a nuisance to a human animal.
- Whether or not someone appreciates the taste of my flesh after they have
killed me doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that someone has ended my life. What happens after that is immaterial.
- None Please presents death by bullet and death by car as the only two options for the deers.
For more on how one specific community is dealing with the violent deer-killing plan of some of its members, see CayugaDeer.org and those who agree with None Please might want to pay particular attention to the alternatives page.
Photo from Flickr user Red~Star's photostream.
The comment left by NonePlease also equated the use of petroleum to the killing of animals. The sort of logic (?) exemplified by the contents of the comment are astonishing and a bit frightening to behold.
Mary, when I see posts from sickies like NonePlease, I'm tempted to hold out my hand & say…"you want a negative/angry/putting you down for your stupidity,answer, YOU HAVE TO PAY ME FIRST.
I have no idea why some people get their kicks from getting
negative responses…..but they do & to my mind, they should have to pay, just like they have to pay prostitutes to pee on their sorry selves. Which by the way is one of the things "the girls" are asked for most often ….who knows why??? I bet you anything NonePlease is into that as well…enough said.
Human beings are interesting creatures (to say the least). Every complaint we have against nonhumans, indicates a serious, desperate need for human behaviour to change. We create [every] "problem" with respect to wildlife, and then we expect the wildlife to pay for our screw-ups.
None Please has indicated another reason why the Animal Rights movement started in the first place.
Please, visit here for real logic >http://www.rpaforall.org/wildlife.html
Very well said, especially the last sentence "None Please presents death by bullet and death by car as the only two options for the deers."
I live on Capitol Hill in Southeast DC, and work in Northwest DC. At one time, I drove to and from work, and on one memorable occasion, while driving down Massachusetts Ave NW adjacent to a wooded area, a doe and her two fawns stopped and waited at the crosswalk to cross the (very busy) street. They got their signal and crossed, and, after a few seconds of goggling amazedly, all of us car commuters continued on our way. We coexisted in that moment – and honestly, there are a lot of human pedestrians who aren't that conscientious about paying attention to the crosswalks.
Anyway, this goes to say that, even with the "population problem," it seems to me that there is enough room here for both us and the deer.
So basically the deer's existence is its death sentence.
Great post, sound arguments. Sadly the same thing is now happening to the "brazen" black bears in New Jersey. They're being hunted for the first time in 5 years. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-21/new-jersey-black-bears-growing-bolder-prompting-first-hunt-in-five-years.html
It's sad that so many see the dog in the lifeboat always as an either or situation. If we indeed are as brilliant as we think we are, seems like we'd figure viable alternatives.
As with the lifeboat all could take turns swimming along side the vessel – Then there IS hope for all! I don't think the deer and the planet are any different. There's always a choice to killing, one just has to be willing to make it so.
Good grief. All we can assume is that NonePlease is a selfish person with a ridiculous and myopic world view. Mary, you've pretty much said everything that needs to be said–I continue to be baffled by NP's total lack of logic.
"After all, the goal is a corpse that is fit for human consumption, by the commenter's own admission."
This is very good point. I might add the "trophy" impetus to hunting as well.