Hunting-killing for sport is barbaric

By Melissa Martin


Humans eat animals. Cow, hog, chicken, turkey, deer, squirrel, racoon, reindeer, rabbit, fish, and many other creatures. Animal meat provides subsistence and nutrition. But killing just for the challenge and the thrill is cruel.

“The year was 1905 and President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt was living up to his reputation as a cowboy. The renowned outdoorsman was on a Mississippi hunting trip, and most of his companions had already brought down an animal. In an effort to please their boss, some of his attendants cornered, clubbed, and then tied a black bear to a tree before bringing Teddy over to shoot it. To their surprise, the President refused, calling the act unsportsmanlike,” according to a 2016 article at

Hunting for food is one thing, but hunting for recreation is barbarous. A powerful passion for being a human predator over the animal kingdom reveals a lust for blood and death. And wildlife killing contests should be banned. Find another way to have fun.

Guys, if you just want to bond around the campfire—then say so. You don’t have to kill animals as an excuse to get together for male friendship circles.

Hunting in USA

According to an article for NPR, “State wildlife agencies and the country’s wildlife conservation system are heavily dependent on sportsmen for funding. Money generated from license fees and excise taxes on guns, ammunition and angling equipment provide about 60 percent of the funding for state wildlife agencies, which manage most of the wildlife in the U.S.”

Once again, it’s about money. Let’s allow anything that generates funds. Endangered species, no problem as long as the cash flows.

Deer Hunting in Appalachia Ohio

The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) is Ohio’s most popular big game animal. Is hunting and killing necessary to stop overpopulation of deer? That’s a controversial debate.

PETA says, “No. Starvation and disease are unfortunate, but they are nature’s way of ensuring that the strong survive. Natural predators help keep prey species strong by killing the only ones they can catch—the sick and weak.”

The goal of Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, “has been to maintain county deer populations at a level that provides maximum recreational opportunity including hunting, viewing, and photographing, while minimizing conflicts with agriculture, motor travel, and other areas of human endeavor. In short, our goal is to provide enough deer to hunt and enjoy, but not so many that they cause undue human hardship.”

The ODNR Division of Wildlife issued 429,006 deer permits during the 2017-18 license year, 3.6 percent fewer than last year and the eighth consecutive year that sales have declined… Since 2011 the number of individuals purchasing at least one deer permit has dropped from 359,000 to 309,000 – a 14 percent decline in just the last six years.

Ohio’s white-tailed deer hunters concluded the 2019-2020 hunting season by harvesting 184,465 deer, according to ODNR Division of Wildlife. Deer hunting in Ohio began Sept. 28, 2019, and concluded Feb. 2, 2020. The final harvest total represents all deer taken during archery, gun, muzzleloader, and youth seasons.

Do you consume the deer you hunt and kill? Venison is an alternative to beef or a way for a family to supplement another source of protein. Eating what you kill is different than killing just for recreation or population control.

Boom! The sound of a rifle goes off. “Quick, to the thicket!” Bambi’s mother yells to him. “Faster! Faster, Bambi! Don’t look back! Keep running! Keep running!”

The right to hunt and fish is called barbaric

April 27, 2017

A proposed Constitutional amendment to “Establish the Right to Hunt and Fish” drew angry testimony from the anti-hunting and anti-trapping crowd.

“This bill is barbaric,” testified John Glowa of China, who called LD 11 “the worst piece of legislation I have seen in more than twenty years of coming before this committee, and I have seen some bad ones.” Glowa also called the bill “the poison fruit of the paranoia seed planted by the out-of-state gun lobby and by radical extremist consumptive users.”

And yes, that was way over the top. Katie Hansberry of the Humane Society of the United States, who is always well-prepared and courteous in her work at the legislature, testified “The Humane Society of the United States has worked with wildlife management agencies across the U.S. to combat poaching. And in recent years, we joined sportsmen and the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to crack down on poaching by helping Maine become the first state in New England to join the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact.

“We are concerned that putting a right to hunt in our constitution could amount to an open invitation for poachers to exploit it to their advantage, and could subject longstanding conservation laws to legal challenge from those arguing that this constitutional right exempts them from existing restrictions like bag limits or prohibitions on spotlight or road hunting. Unnecessarily putting this existing right into our constitution could invite lawsuits from individuals who want to argue that conservation laws on quotas, season closures, or land area closures could infringe upon their constitutional right to hunt and fish,” said Katie.

Karen Coker of WildWatch Maine joined in the criticism of the bill, testifying that, “It’s intent… is to silence Maine citizens concerned about unethical practices and to prevent citizens from initiating ballot initiatives on wildlife issues.” She said “This proposal’s vague terms open the door to inhumane, unethical trapping and hunting practices,” and called the bill “a legal nightmare.” She also insisted that “hunting and trapping and fishing are not fundamental rights.”

She might have a disagreement with Katie Hansberry on that, because Katie testified that “Mainers already have the right to hunt and fish.”

DIF&W’s Testimony

Tim Peabody, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, surprised some supporters by testifying “neither for nor against” the bill. He called hunting and fishing “significant privileges” here in Maine.

Tim also noted that last year the legislature amended the Department’s mission statement to include the direction to “use regulated hunting, fishing and trapping as the basis for the management of these resources whenever feasible.” That was a significant victory for hunting, trappers, and anglers.

Tim questioned “How would this bill, and the resulting constitutional rights affect existing hunting laws, landowner’s rights, or the Department of Health and Human Services ability to enforce child support obligations by suspending licenses? The precise answer to these and many more unanticipated questions likely will not be supplied until these issues are tested in court. In the face of the unknown, I hope the Committee and the Legislature as a whole proceeds with caution.”

He summed up his testimony with this statement: “We urge careful consideration of the possible impacts of the current privilege enjoyed by all law abiding sportsmen and women. There is a distinct difference between a privilege and a right,” he said.


Supporters of LD 11 including the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, National Rifle Association, and Maine Professional Guides Association.

Rep. Steve Wood, a member of the IFW Committee, sponsored and spoke for the bill, testifying “I’ve proposed this bill as an attempt to join 21 other states around the country which guarantee the right to hunt and fish in their constitutions; most recently Kansas and Indiana.”  Steve distributed a fact sheet about state constitutional amendments and the right to hunt and fish.

Dave Trahan emphasized that LD 11 is a SAM bill, not an NRA bill as some opponents charged. He took the committee through a bit of history of wildlife management in this country, noting that “conservationists and sportsmen of conscience” supported the Pitman-Robertson Act which established an excise tax on outdoor gear, a tax that has directed $3 billion to wildlife management agencies including Maine’s Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Department.

“Hunting, trapping and fishing regulations have existed for less than half the life of this country,” testified Dave. “They were not put in place by the courts or a constitutional ruling and certainly not established to give governments the sovereignty over wild creatures; to the contrary, sportsmen and conservationists willfully placed these limits on wildlife consumption because they recognized the value in our natural world and wanted to insure that they would be around for future generations.

“This Constitutional Proposition is before you because animal rights organizations are trying to change that narrative and history… They believe hunting and fishing are cruel and inhumane, but readily accept the slow, vicious and terrifying death of wild animals through starvation, disease or to be torn apart by wild predators.” Said Dave.

Rep. Karl Ward testified for the bill, reporting that, “As of today, twenty two states now guarantee the People’s Right to Hunt and Fish in their State Constitutions. Vermont enacted this in 1777. The other seventeen – Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have passed amendment to their Constitutions since 1996. Indiana and Kansas passed this amendment last year. Texas and Nevada the year before.”

What’s Next?

It will take a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate to place this Constitutional amendment on the ballot, and the people will make the deciding decision.

I am concerned about the amount of money that will need to be raised to win this ballot fight, but there’s a long way to go before we have to be concerned about that.