Animal Writings

Dear Editor,

Three comments on children who hunt ["For Young Hunters, Challenge to Tradition," Nov. 13].

Paul Peditto, director of the Maryland Department of of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service, seems to think that as long as minors of any age pass a safety test and are accompanied by an adult, it's no problem having them out in the woods with a loaded, high-powered rifle in their hands. Should we use the same criteria for driving a car?

Perhaps the young hunters—and all hunters—should pass a competency test, to reduce the number of animals who die slowly and in agony from their bullet wounds. Even pro-hunting groups acknowledge that up to 25 percent of animals shot by hunters do not die right away.

Excerpt from the last paragraph of the article: "A deafening gunshot blast pierced the air. The deer crumpled in its tracks. The son's face glowed with satisfaction, the father's with pride." Lovely. In this already-violent world, we're teaching children that it's fun to kill.

---

Dear Editor,

Stephen Hunter's glorification of blood sport ["News of the Vice President's Misfire Hits a Fellow Bird Hunter Where It Hurts," Feb. 14], in which he uses words ike "beautiful," "elegant," and "art" to describe the killing of innocent creatures, is obscene. Taking pleasure in harming others is a psychological disorder. But it's promoted by the afflicted, and the organizations that make money off them, as "sport."

In his account of his own near-hunting accident, Mr. Hunter conveys the great care he took to avoid shooting his dog. Presumably he has sympathy for his dog and would feel terrible about hurting him or, God forbid, killing him. But the birds he shoots and kills also feel pain; they also suffer and feel terror. Science and countless observations suggest that birds are smart and emotional, and are capable of experiencing happiness and grief. But to Mr. Hunter, they're just things.