Hello,
I heard on the news yesterday that Prince William, whilst in Africa, killed a Bambi-like animal with a spear. As an animal rights activist, I was outraged, and quite surprised as I had always credited Prince William with having a greater amount of compassion as opposed to others in the Royal family.
The following link gives the address to write to Prince William. I encourage anyone who is opposed to hunting, to write him.
what was he thinking? you don’t spear hunt deer! you spear hunt boar.
this does kind of irk me though being an avid hunter, chances are he’s just going to bury the carcass and mount the head in his study. heck the guy probably doesn’t even like venison.
Thinking safe and cheap thrills. Spearing a boar takes, er, bollocks?
Who would like venison, if boiled and dressed with mint sauce? 
Degenerate offspring, all the same. Bolsheviks tried to eradicate them in 1917, but stopped short of London. We cornered one under a Paris bridge a few years ago, but one alone was petty of us: they knnnigggets reproduce faster. 
I am not apposed to hunting as a general idea. Trophy hunting or hunting aniamls that are not usable for food is another matter though.
Here’s the PETA FAQ sheet, which is very good and well-worth
reading. Unfortunately their (unincluded) letter about Prince William is
less good, IMHO, being mocking and condescending. Also one
wishes some context were provided as a matter of fairness
(e.g. apparently the Prince was with Masai tribesmen and
being trained by them).
Frequently Asked Questions
“What do you mean by ‘animal rights’?”
Animal rights means that animals deserve certain kinds of consideration—consideration of what is in their own best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or an endangered species and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally-challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful or even if everyone dislikes him or her). It means recognizing that animals are not ours to use—for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation.
“What is the difference between ‘animal rights’ and ‘animal welfare’?”
Animal welfare theories accept that animals have interests but allow these interests to be traded away as long as there are some human benefits that are thought to justify that sacrifice.
Animal rights means that animals, like humans, have interests that cannot be sacrificed or traded away just because it might benefit others. However, the rights position does not hold that rights are absolute; an animal’s rights, just like those of humans, must be limited, and rights can certainly conflict.
Animal rights means that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation. Animal welfare allows these uses as long as “humane” guidelines are followed.
“What rights should animals have?”
Animals have the right to equal consideration of their interests. For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest in not having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We therefore are obliged to take that interest into consideration and respect the dog’s right not to have pain unnecessarily inflicted upon him or her.
However, animals don’t always have the same rights as humans, because their interests are not always the same as ours and some rights would be irrelevant to animals’ lives. For instance, a dog doesn’t have an interest in voting and therefore doesn’t have the right to vote, since that right would be as meaningless to a dog as it is to a child.
“Where do you draw the line?”
The renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, who accomplished so much for both humans and animals in his lifetime, would take time to stoop and move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth. Aware of the problems and responsibilities an expanded ethic brings with it, he said we each must “live daily from judgment to judgment, deciding each case as it arises, as wisely and mercifully as we can.”
We can’t stop all suffering, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop any. In today’s world of virtually unlimited choices, there are usually “kinder, gentler” ways for most of us to feed, clothe, entertain, and educate ourselves than by killing animals.
“What about plants?”
There is currently no reason to believe that plants experience pain, devoid as they are of central nervous systems, nerve endings, and brains. It is theorized that the main reason animals have the ability to experience pain is as a form of self-protection. If you touch something that hurts and could possibly injure you, you will learn from the pain it produces to leave it alone in the future. Since plants cannot locomote and do not have the need to learn to avoid certain things, this sensation would be superfluous.
Plants are completely different physiologically from mammals. Unlike animals’ body parts, many perennial plants, fruits, and vegetables can be harvested over and over again without resulting in the death of the plant or tree.
If one is concerned about the impact of vegetable agriculture on the environment, a vegetarian diet is still preferable to a meat-based one, since the vast majority of grains and legumes raised today are used as feed for cattle. By eating vegetables directly, rather than eating animals such as cows who must consume 16 pounds of vegetation in order to convert them into 1 pound of flesh, one is saving many more plants’ lives (and destroying less land).
“It’s fine for you to believe in animal rights, but you shouldn’t tell other people what to do.”
Now you are telling me what to do!
Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but freedom of thought does not always imply freedom of action. You are free to believe whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt others. You may believe that animals should be killed, that black people should be enslaved, or that women should be beaten, but you don’t always have the right to put your beliefs into practice.
As for telling people what to do, society exists so that there will be rules governing people’s behavior. The very nature of reform movements is to tell others what to do—don’t use humans as slaves, don’t sexually harass women, etc.—and all movements initially encounter opposition from people who want to go on doing the criticized behavior.
“Animals don’t reason, don’t understand rights, and don’t always respect our rights, so why should we apply our ideas of morality to them?”
Because an animal’s inability to understand and adhere to our rules is as irrelevant as a child’s or a person with a developmental disability’s inability to do so. Animals are not usually capable of choosing to change their behavior, but human beings have the intelligence to choose between behavior that hurts others and behavior that doesn’t.
“Where does the animal rights movement stand on abortion?”
There are people on both sides of the abortion issue in the animal rights movement, just as there are people on both sides of animal rights issues in the pro-life movement. And just as the pro-life movement has no official position on animal rights, neither does the animal rights movement have an official position on abortion.
“Is PETA pro-life?”
No. We are not pro-life or pro-choice as an organization, for that is not part of our charter. We are an animal rights organization and our mission statement is that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. However, we have pro-life members and this message is brought to you by people who care about all life. We are asking people who feel in their hearts and souls that taking the life of an unborn child is wrong, to also consider the lives of other wonderful beings who do not want to die.
“It’s almost impossible to avoid using all animal products; if you’re still causing animal suffering without realizing it, what’s the point?”
It is impossible to live your life without causing some harm; we’ve all accidentally stepped on ants or breathed in gnats, but that doesn’t mean we should intentionally cause unnecessary harm. Just because you might accidentally hit someone with your car is no reason to run someone over on purpose.
“What about all the customs, traditions, and jobs that depend on using animals?”
The invention of the automobile, the abolition of slavery, and the end of World War II also necessitated job retraining and restructuring. This is simply an ingredient in all social progress—not a reason to deter progress.
“Don’t animal rights activists commit ‘terrorist’ acts?”
The animal rights movement is nonviolent. One of the central beliefs shared by most animal rights people is rejection of harm to any animal, human or otherwise. However, any large movement is going to have factions that believe in the use of force.
“How can you justify the millions of dollars’ worth of property damage by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?”
Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are both examples of people breaking the law in order to answer to a higher morality.
“The ALF,” which is simply the name adopted by people acting illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. It burns empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF “raids” have given us proof of horrific cruelty that would not have been discovered or believed otherwise. They have resulted in officials’ filing of criminal charges against laboratories, citing of experimenters for violations of the Animal Welfare Act, and, in some cases, shutting down of abusive labs for good. Often ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs.
“How can you justify spending your time on animals when there are so many people who need help?”
There are very serious problems in the world that deserve our attention; cruelty to animals is one of them. We should try to alleviate suffering wherever we can. Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings—they are both important. Animal suffering and human suffering are interconnected.
“Most animals used for food, fur, or experiments are bred for that purpose.”
Being bred for a certain purpose does not change an animal’s biological capacity to feel pain and fear.
“God put animals here for us to use; the Bible gives us dominion over animals.”
Dominion is not the same as tyranny. The Queen of England has “dominion” over her subjects, but that doesn’t mean she can eat them, wear them, or experiment on them. If we have dominion over animals, surely it is to protect them, not to use them for our own ends. There is nothing in the Bible that would justify our modern-day policies and programs that desecrate the environment, destroy entire species of wildlife, and inflict torment and death on billions of animals every year. The Bible imparts a reverence for life; a loving God could not help but be appalled at the way animals are being treated.
“Wasn’t Hitler in favor of animal rights?”
Although the Nazis purported to pass an anti-vivisection bill, they did not. In fact, they were required by law to first perform their experiments on animals before carrying them out on humans. Experiments on humans did not replace animal experiments; on the contrary, animal experiments made them possible. John Vyvyan in The Dark Face of Science summed it up correctly: “The experiments made on prisoners were many and diverse, but they had one thing in common: All were in continuation of or complementary to experiments on animals. In every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is mentioned in the evidence; and at Buchenwald and Auschwitz concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried out simultaneously as parts of a single programme.”
However, even if this weren’t the case, the merits of an idea cannot be determined by the character of its proponents. If Hitler believed in evolution, does that mean we should not believe in evolution? What if Gandhi also believed in evolution—how would we reconcile the two? An idea must be judged on its own merits.
“Animals in cages on factory farms or in laboratories don’t suffer that much because they’ve never known anything else.”
To be prevented from performing the most basic instinctual behaviors causes tremendous suffering. Even animals caged since birth feel the need to move around, groom themselves, stretch their limbs or wings, and exercise. Herd animals and flock animals become distressed when they are made to live in isolation or when they are put in groups too large for them to be able to recognize other members. In addition, all confined animals suffer from intense boredom—some so severely that it can lead to self-mutilation or other self-destructive behavior.
“If animal exploitation were wrong, it would be illegal.”
Legality is no guarantee of morality. Who does and doesn’t have legal rights is determined merely by the opinion of today’s legislators. The law changes as public opinion or political motivations change, but ethics are not so arbitrary. Look at some of the other things that have at one time been legal in the U.S.—child labor, human slavery, the oppression of women.
“Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse/vivisection laboratory?”
No, but enough people have filmed inside and written about what goes on in these places to tell the story. You do not need to experience the abuse of animals close up to be able to criticize it any more than you need to personally experience rape or child abuse to criticize those. No one will ever be witness to all the suffering in the world, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to stop it.
“Animals are not as intelligent or advanced as humans.”
If possessing superior intelligence does not entitle one human to abuse another human for his or her purposes, why should it entitle humans to abuse nonhumans?
There are animals who are unquestionably more intelligent, creative, aware, communicative, and able to use language than some humans, as in the case of a chimpanzee compared to a human infant or a person with a severe developmental disability. Should the more intelligent animals have rights and the less intelligent humans be denied rights?
“Conditions on factory farms or fur farms are no worse than in the wild, where animals die of starvation, disease, or predation. At least the animals on factory farms are fed and protected.”
This argument was used to claim that black people were better off as slaves on plantations than as free men and women. The same could also be said of people in prison, yet prison is considered one of society’s harshest punishments.
Animals on factory farms suffer so much that it is inconceivable that they could be worse off in the wild. The wild isn’t “wild” to the animals who live there; it’s their home. There they have their freedom and can engage in their natural activities. The fact that they might suffer in the wild is no reason to ensure that they suffer in captivity.
Good grief.
One of the issues here in the UK is that the aristocracy (that includes the monarchy) have a tradition of hunting (fox hunting, deer hunting, etc), so a male member of the royal family hunting is not unusual. We also need to bear in mind that this is a press report and we don’t entirely know the facts for real or the context if it did in fact happen.
For my part, any animal hunting other than for food where there is absolutely no other source is a travesty of behaving like a decent human being, never mind “animal rights”. I’ve never understood how someone can pick up a gun (or whatever) and just go out and shoot an animal for fun.
I guess what it boils down to is, what’s the difference between me killing a deer to feed my family and a cougar killing a deer to feed it’s family? I suppose if deer could make the choice they would probably rather be dropped quickly by a rifle as opposed to being pounced on by a cougar or dragged into the water to drown by a croc.
And where is Cranberry through all this!!!
I agree, I can understand how someone would get a rush from the hunt though, still doesn’t make it right. I have to admit though that I don’t personally eat all of my kills, I usually give a large portion to homeless shelters or family members who can’t afford to buy much meat.
FWIW, he gave the animal (it was a dik dik…a small antelope about the size of a small Australian Shepherd) to the African tribesman who taught him how to use the spear, so it could be consumed. The tribesman commented that “we eat such animals, but Prince William probably doesn’t.” So at least he DIDN’T keep it as a trophy, but gave it to people who would normally hunt such creatures for food anyway.
I’m no fan of sport hunting, and the British aristocracy’s fondness for “blood sports” appalls me, but at least in this case the animal didn’t become a trophy on the wall.
Redwolf
The basic difference is that humans do not have to kill for food, except in extreme circumstances (for example, a person living in the Arctic may well have to depend on meat to live…a person living in the Lower 48 probably doesn’t, unless forced to it by poverty). We don’t have to eat meat to live, and to live healthily and well. The cougar doesn’t have that choice…he or she is an obligate carnivore and must eat meat to survive. The basic moral question is, are we killing for survival or killing for pleasure? (whether the pleasure comes from the hunt or from eating the meat…the same argument applies to those who don’t hunt but do buy slaughterhouse-killed meat, since they are basically paying someone else to do the killing) And if we are killing for pleasure, can we justify that? For myself, I can’t…that’s why I’m a vegetarian.
Redwolf
Ever watch a cat “play” with a mouse or a bird?
I guess this all means that we have to either regulate or outlaw cats and dogs then. They are well known for their killing and/or maiming for the fun of it.
If you are a religeous person that believes in the Bible then there should be no question about this issue. Animals are here for our use.
If you are not, then you will have to agree that our natural instincts should allow for the hunting of other creatures for survival regardless of the method used.
PETA’s effort to come across as a righter than you organization is BC, not PC! Their illegal breaking in and releasing animals goes completely against what was stated above. Their attemps to circumvent the constitution of this country (USA) totally violates my constitutional rights as well.
What do you think of PETA’s response to
your version of the biblical argument?
It’s in the quotation from PETA, above.
jim stone, you are a mighty typest!
tansy 
Mighty pest?
Also, i wonder what kinds of animals can be hunt with different kinds of whistles. It would take a really long low whistle to make a good spear! A good solid low D (an Overtons, maybe) can be used effectively as a club; conical bodies are best! Or remove the fipple and use your whistle as a blow-gun. Some cheaper whistles have edges sharp enough to stab something with.
I haven’t killed any animals for sport, but my whistling has likely hurt some neighbors’ dogs’ ears! Which is fine since they’ve been known to keep me awake barking half the night
Seriously, though, hunting is big down here in the south. I’m not a guy so didn’t do a lot of it, but most folks I know eat their kills. Deer-hunting is the favorite here, and many guys have a recipe for venison. A coworker of mine makes awesome deer sausage, wonderful on biscuits. I agree with others that hunting is OK, but torture is not, though PETA’s a bit out there for me. I probably wouldn’t enjoy hunting and have often wondered how I would eat if I weren’t able to buy my meat in the store wrapped in plastic wrap, rather than having to kill and process it myself . . .
Hi, Sara (and others).
I appreciate your sincere concern, but I would like to point out, first of all, that there is no such thing as a “Bambi-like animal.” I think that movie, classic though it is, has done more to harm people’s understanding of the natural environment than any other. Ungulates such as dikdiks don’t laugh, cry. have close relationships, or talk (mule deer grunt and use scent limited body language to express displeasure, alarm, and sexual desire, but that’s about it). Even wolves and apes, which are comparitively intelligent, are a far cry from people. That isn’t to say they don’t deserve our respect and kindness, but as I said, nature isn’t Bambi.
From the things Jim posted, it sounds as if PETA is at least consistant. (I hear otherwise around here, but this IS Wyoming, after all) We shouldn’t value animals more or less because they resemble Bambi. If what PETA believes is true, a mosquito is just as valuable as a deer or a human. But I still swat them mosquitos, spray yellowjackets with RAID when they move into my woodwork, and kill my own food, as humanely as possible and with great respect for the animal and for what it gives me. I don’t believe that humans are just another animal.
The Bible (which I mention only because PETA misrepresents it) says that only man is made in the image of God, and while the law of Moses does lay out some principles for prevention of animal cruelty, we are also given permission to use them for food. (Genesis 9:1-4, among many many other places) Even Jesus ate fish and lamb.
Wild animals are not helpless (trust me on this–I hunt) and William must be skilled indeed to kill a dikdik with a SPEAR, of all things. A dikdik (as well as any other member of the deer/antelope kin) is a walking radar instalation with built-in stealth technology. You don’t just stroll up and toast one with a sharp stick. I’m guessing he spent the better part of a day just stalking it, not to mention all of the training involved, and a very hefty dose of luck.
I don’t know (or really care) why William did this, but the fact that he donated his kill to the Massai, who don’t really have the option of being vegans, makes me respect him all the more.
Finally, I realize this thread is for those who are opposed to hunting, which I obviously am not. I hope I have not offended or hijacked the thread by posting this; if so email me and I will cheerfully delete my post with my appologies.
Tom
I did not say abuse, I said use. If you read my other post you would see that I have a tempered view of this. My argument was this, eating of animal flesh is justified whether you are religeous or not. Religeous: they are here for our use, to include the consumption of said animals. Non-religeous: We are just animals and if a mountain lion can eat a deer, so can humans. Plain and simple. PETA seems to want us to be “just animals”, to be on their same level and deny the right of those human animals to do what comes naturally at the same time. That is flawed as far as I am concerned. Their premise just does not make sense to me.
I work in the medical field as well. We use animals to determine the safety of medical devices prior to approval for use in humans. The federal government requires this procedure. I believe this to be a valid procedure. I have observed these procedures. The animals have been cared for and treated in a respectful manner, at least in the cases my company has been involved with.
As a “religious person who believes in the Bible,” I must respectfully disagree with you. Animals were put here because it pleased God to put them here…not for “our use.” Our relationship with all of Creation changed radically after the Fall, but to say that God put animals here for us to use is to read something into the scriptures that simply isn’t there. Humans were granted permission to kill for food after the Flood, but only under fairly strict guidelines.
FWIW, yes, I do believe that cats and dogs should be “regulated”…not because of their instincts, but because of the danger to them and to the enviroment when they’re allowed to roam unchecked. I also don’t see how cats and dogs pertain to this discussion, since they ARE entirely driven by instinct in this regard, whereas we are not. We are free to choose.
Our “instincts” may allow for the hunting of other creatures for survival (or may not…if you see a deer, do you have to fight to suppress an instinct to run it down and kill it with your bare hands and teeth? I haven’t noticed that particular instinct in myself, but that is how the prey response normally works in hunting animals, such as cats and dogs), but how many hunters in our modern world actually MUST hunt to survive? Human beings are fully capable of living healthily and well on a meat-free diet, so unless one is driven by environmental circumstances or extreme poverty, it’s hard to argue that we need to kill animals for our survival.
Again, it comes down to a basic moral question…is it right for us to deprive another creature of its life to satisfy our pleasures? I’m not talking about the Inuit in the Arctic, who may have little choice, or the cat, who has none at all, but when faced with the real choice of killing for our own pleasure or allowing another creature to keep its life, is it perfectly OK to decide that our desire to eat its flesh overrides its right to its own life? That’s the question before us…what is right for us, collectively and as individuals, not what is proper behavior for a cat or dog.
Redwolf
I shouldn’t touch this discussion with a ten-foot pole, but for what it’s worth, cats and dogs (pets) are part of the human context and are our responsibility, since we (hairless monkeys) are responsible for their shapes, behaviour and numbers, by selective breeding according to our purposes.
g