Editorial:
Thoughts from a Former Hunter

A dove falls from the sky. The young hunter walks briskly so as not to lose the bird in the tall grass. As he searches for his kill, he meets her heavy, dark eyes screaming back at him. She lay there watching his approach, unable to fly due to her shattered wing. They stare at one another.

The boy replays the lesson taught by his father on how to handle this situation: Pick "it" up, twist "its" neck, and move on-clear, concise protocol unbearable to him now. He knows he cannot touch her. He sees her distress, but he dare not feel it. She is encompassed by his shadow; her pain ends beneath his boot rather than the intimacy of his hands.

He stands in silence, places her limp, lifeless body in the back pouch of his hunting jacket-all the while contemplating the morality of this violence. His questioning drowns in the flooding remembrance of societal paradigms.

As her body cools against his, he searches the sky, shotgun raised, hoping to bag his limit. Is this pure evil?

Contrary to the dove's perception of me, I didn't think so. In fact, regardless of my selectivity in administering compassion to nonhuman animals, I believed I loved and respected them. I believed I was a relatively good, upstanding, young person. I wonder how affected I would have been had I been called a monster for my actions at the time. Would I be who I am now? Thus, the question is raised: What effects does the demonization of animal abusers and exploiters have on the goal of animal liberation?

Why do we feel the need to demonize people for their actions? Could it be to alleviate personal distress through a façade of advocacy? Is it our attempt to feel better about ourselves? And, if so, is this what is best for the animals?

Perhaps we witness how alienating and demonizing certain individuals responsible for human rights violations bring about unity and cohesion among the general public. Can we target vivisectors and the dairy industry, for example, in the same way the U.S. government does Hussein and Milosovich and get the same results? Of course not. "Animal rights" is not an accepted belief at this time. When we attack animal exploiters, we are attacking the general public-which makes us the deviants, thus further distancing the goal of animal liberation.

As animal rights activists, we are taking on a responsibility similar to—but unlike—any other social justice movement. Nonhuman animals have no voice in our community, and we have taken upon ourselves the daunting task of being their representatives. Therefore, each word we say and each action we take must be what is best for the animals. This requires analysis of every facet of our lives in a society that advocates animal exploitation, and calls for our own introspection, as well as an understanding of where our audience is coming from.

In the field of psychology, it is strongly recommended—if not required—that one undergoes psychoanalysis before administering it to others, so as to reduce the chance of projecting personal issues, feelings, etc., onto their patients. We cannot determine the mental profile of every person we encounter as activists; however, we can, with a clear understanding of our own selves, diminish the risk of additional interference in our attempts to clearly communicate the concept of animal rights.

When a person's belief system is completely uprooted and/or questioned, his or her defense mechanisms naturally kick in when challenged, manifesting in "fight or flight," and we as activists need to productively deal with this situation each and every time. The person may feel attacked, and many will turn their heads while others will lash out verbally or physically. In some cases, the issue is pushed aside as both sides clamor to be right. Logic and rationality can easily be overshadowed by one's need to "save face."

I wonder if had my morals been challenged as a hunter, how many more animals would have died as I struggled to stay comfortable in my own socialization.

Historian Ernest Toller once wrote, "As a rule, people are afraid of truth. Each truth we discover in nature or social life destroys the crutches on which we need to lean." It is not a question of whether we should demonize the action rather than the actor, because animal exploiters will feel attacked no matter how they are approached. The question is, how well can we relate to them and, more importantly, how well can we make them relate to us?

Previous Page | Index | Next Page