Thanks for the very informative segment on wild pigs in California. Very fine photograpjy on wid animals!!

I was happily impressed with the plain unbias presentation of the "wild pig problem" and how hunters have been inlisted as one of the ways to manage the problem.

I have hunted and fished my entire life.(age 54) I seek to harvest each animal quickly and painlessly. Our family diet consist of "free range" deer, wild pig, waterfowl and saltwater fish. It is a very lifestyle and certainly not for everyone. I have intimate "hands on" knowlege of my food, from the time it is harvested uptil it is placed on the table. Very similar to those who enjoy planting and harvesting their own fruits and vegetables.

Thanks again for the great photography and fairminded journalism.

Steve

Hunting hogs in California is ecologically and morally justifiable. Groups like In Defense of Animals will likely argue that it isn't the hog's "fault" for being non-native, and so the hog shouldn't be disparaged as a "bad species." But it isn't the quail's fault either; or California's oaks or purple amole or any of the other species harmed by the pig's presence. If you side with the boar, you side against California's indigenous wildlife, and that means these other species will not only suffer more individual deaths, but they may go extinct.

Excellent, unbiased reporting of the facts and one of the many solutions to the inevitable, wild boar problem which we are facing.

Great narrative mixed with actual hunting footage along with science based data, spoken by real scientists.

Superb work Chris, Jenny and crew!

M Figgis, I appreciate your measured tone, and I agree with you that ever-expanding human development is a huge problem.

But I do take issue with one thing: your suggestion that "sport hunting" and "hunting for meat" are mutually exclusive.

The term sport hunting was designated about a century ago to distinguish what we do from market hunting, which was partially responsible – along with habitat destruction – for decimating some species of game animals. I deeply dislike the term because it suggests we kill for fun, when in reality, most hunters kill only what they'll eat, and most hunters eat what they kill.

I suppose you can call it "sport" instead of "necessity" when someone like me chooses to hunt for meat instead of buying it at the supermarket. Of course, I don't HAVE to hunt to get meat. But nor do I HAVE to go to the supermarket to get meat – I can choose alternatives that are healthier for me and for the environment than the factory-farm option at most meat counters.

As Sam's grandmother, I'm delighted with this production. Sam loves his dog Boone, also featured, and is following his bliss as a hunting guide. I have never hunted but enjoy the game he and his dad (my son) provide. I feel terrible about the conditions in which most meat is produced, such as commercial feedlots for beef, and rarely buy meat. Thank you for the story.

@ Mr. Phillip, yes, we are probably at an impasse. I have strong feelings about the vast amount of violence we inflict on animals in general. And I'm clearly outnumbered here by hunters — even if I do recognize the diplomatic efforts.

For people like me, though, it feels manipulative when hunters say, "it's for the meat," when in fact, some pretty brutal sport hunters (Safari Club comes to mind) either use or donate the meat, even when their ultimate aim is simply the head for mounting. I also wonder how viewers perspectives on hog depredation might have changed, had the video featured — instead of one clean shot (still traumatic for any living being) — one of the dog-driven or hand-knife hunts that also take place against these animals.

When I hear the meat argument, it strikes me as an end-justifies-the-means type of tactic where, as long as the meat is used, there's an expectation that the the rest of us grant validity to all variations of "hunting." It's not that your point is invalid. But it carries with it such a broad, varied and often brutal interpretation that it loses its strength. And, unless a hunter is living entirely off hunted meat (no store-bought meat, no restaurant meat, no Burger King) you're contributing to both industrialized meat process and killing in the wild, which could be construed as double jeopardy for the animals, if you want to see it that way.

Of course, animals tend to lose any consideration when they themselves are objects for food or for human use. So that's where we will always butt heads, I'm sure. I suspect your views would be more Cartesian than mine — earth and animals for our use, as we see fit.

On the point about the pigs being dead anyway. It may be misguided, but I think people tend to have more faith in trained rangers doing the shooting — precisely because it's not for trophy, it's not for fun, and to the best of my understanding, there are some stringent baseline requirements.

I'm not arguing for that. I personally feel that non-lethal solutions are never tried often enough, that depredation permits are issued far too easily whenever people and animals collide. I just meant to answer that particular point. Most of us don't have much faith based on the things we see out there in the big bad world of killing animals for sport.

One last thing. I noticed the hunters here are saying how very well balanced this piece was. It was "balanced" in the sense that it didn't come down on hunting. Technically, this segment only carried one point of view: hogs gone wild, hunting good, hunting the solution. And, of course, if you hunt, that would seem balanced. But there should have been at least one view point exploring a counterpoint — someone of credibility, perhaps also a scientist, who had some refutation for the points presented. It might have made for a stronger argument and maybe even kept annoyed viewers like me at bay. You know what they say, anticipate your opponents argument and answer it first. That didn't happen with this piece, and people like me are left maybe even less reconciled, having viewed something that to me seems highly biased toward a single-solution answer.

M Figgis,

Yes, there is a very small percentage of hunters who hunt solely to put a trophy on the wall. However, bringing that small fraction of the population up as an example of the whole denotes ignorance of the sport and its participants… or it's an intentional effort to incite negative opinions among people who don't know better. To offer benefit of the doubt, I'll attribute your reference to ignorance.

As far as a motivation for hunting, meat IS often secondary to the overall experience. It's a wonderful bonus that we get when everything else comes together, but it's neither a given nor an expectation. If all we wanted was meat, of course we could get it cheaper and easier through other means.

The reasons for hunting vary from individual to individual, and there have been chapters, verses, and books written about them. I won't begin to delve into that here though, because it's really irrelevant. I'm fairly certain that no esoteric explanation of personal motives, spiritual reward, or contact with wildness will change the mind of someone who is philosophically opposed to sport hunting. You may as well challenge a devout Jew to defend his beliefs against a devout Muslim.

In light of all that, the "meat argument" IS an ends-justifies-the-means tactic. It's a product of the increased public assault on hunting by animal-rightists and anti-hunters, and is primarily a way of explaining that we aren't just out there laying waste to living creatures for no reason… we're making good use of the animals we kill.

It's no different than the conservation argument when it comes to that. Most hunters aren't out there to control game populations, and we don't buy hunting gear with the express intent of contributing more Pittman-Robertson taxes. Most of us don't hunt out of a desire to minimize the impacts of wild hogs on the barley or grapes or to save the environment. Those are all great benefits of our sport, but the honest truth is that we're out there because we love to hunt.

All of these other things are quantifiable benefits of our actions… as was stated in the episode, it's a kind of symbiosis. The habitat wins, the rancher wins, and the hunters win.

And yeah, I get it… in some people's opinion, the animals lose. But I think we agree that this point is a given… the question is more about to whom they lose.

As to whether the program was balanced, I get your point. The thing is, though, that turning this into a "hunting pros vs cons" discussion (which is really what you're proposing) would have been cliche and pointless. The emotional rhetoric of that discussion would completely overshadow any valid information in the program. It's the stuff of talk shows, not of a science and nature program.

The segment carried "one point of view" because that point of view was the topic. We're seeing a hog population explosion in CA (and across the country) and sport hunters are one management tool. There are others, but that's not what the show was about. It's an 11 minute segment, not a 2-hour special.

I can't make a claim of abject expertise, but I'm plugged into the hog issue enough to know that the controversy you're looking for really isn't part of the larger discussion. The bigger debate right now is about eradication versus management, and in CA the biologists and wildlife managers have pretty much recognized that eradication isn't a valid option. I don't think there's anyone out there saying that the feral hogs aren't an environmental issue, or that we shouldn't do anything about it.

With all that said, what counterpoints would you have expected to see?

Mr. Figgis,
Birth control: Tried and , Failed
Eradication by trained specialist's: Tried and , failed
Fencing them out: Tried and , failed
Just simply trying to get along and living with, with wild hogs: Tried and , failed.

Next best solution: State sells tags gains revenue and hunters enjoy the meat, wild pig population remains stable and threat to crops and environment, less than all of the above = Success

Try over thinking this process a little less and guaranteed: SUCCESS! ;-)'

@NorcalCazadora The subtext is that domestic animal lives have less value than wild animal lives. Funny, didn't Americans once talk that way about slavery? Yes, we did. Those black people were born into slavery, so their lives had less value than white people's lives.

It's interesting you would use this argument. Animal rights philosophers have sometimes made that same comparison, and it's usually those who use animals in one way or another — including hunters — who ridicule the analogy. I would argue for your point, absolutely. But I would take it a step further to suggest that this rationalization is used by hunters (and others) to justify all manner of harm toward animals. I cannot tell you how many times, when push comes to shove, in a discussion with someone who kills animals for sport or for a living, the discussion ends when any comparison is made between how we once viewed some humans, and how we view animals today. People who use animals in one way or another, commercially or for recreation, do not want to make those comparisons.

Thus began my deep loathing of the hypocrisy of people who eat meat without a single thought for meat animals' lives while issuing blanket condemnations of hunting. I won't indulge it.

You and I come at this discussion by way of similar motivations. Because of my love affair with a hunter, I had a much more open world view when we first got together. Even though I was a vegetarian. But it was, in part, the hypocrisy of the "I'm just part of nature" hunting crowd that made me into the more opinionated person I am on these topics.

The people I knew relied upon the "subsistence level" arguments, but at the same time, they were employing the best in technology, driving ATVs right to the shooting spot, hiding in blinds and stands next to feeding stations, wounding and not always tracking. It blew my mind. I never knew. And it crushed me. I found it lazy and hypocritical to suggest that these activities could even be considered "outdoorsman-like." I was more of an outdoors person, having grown up, literally, without a lot of modern amenities and spending much time in the forests where I was born. So, that's what you and I have in common — a personal experience or experiences that fuel the adamance on either side.

@Phillip – Next best solution: State sells tags gains revenue and hunters enjoy the meat, wild pig population remains stable and threat to crops and environment, less than all of the above = Success

Depends on how you define success. From a pragmatic, numbers standpoint, I see your point. But any animal labeled invasive or nuisance is subject to much less control as a result. And I've seen some pretty brutal footage and photos of hog hunts that are not conducted within the humane constraints you and NorcalCazadora seem to employ (our differences about hunting and killing for sport, notwithstanding). I mentioned earlier the hounds and knife hunts. I've seen other things with respect to wild hogs and other "varmint" animals that were so repulsive I can't sleep if I evoke the images. And anyone who argues that type of hunt is preferable to a slaughterhouse is trying to pull the wool over the non-hunting public's collective view.

If the state (or states) stipulated that a "cull" were to happen with the utmost humane standards in mind, it might be tolerable. But there's wide variability in how people are allowed to treat varmint animals (well, any hunted animal for that matter) and if it truly were about the "Best possible" control, I would expect such standards to be a part. So in my mind, the fullest spectrum of possibilities with respect to wild hogs have NOT been explored. This strikes me as the easiest, but not necessarily the sanitized version this segment wants to suggest.

Try over thinking this process a little less and guaranteed: SUCCESS! ;-)'

A little patronizing . . . but then I don't blame you with the jabs I've taken at hunting. I have to disagree, however. The most arduous struggles in our history were accomplished by those who suffered and struggled over the injustices they saw. I don't necessarily view "under" thinking as a resolution to a problem that has some genuine, questionable aspects.

I, as well as every other hunter whom, as Holly said, Hunts for fun, and the killing is just a by-product of the process, would simply:
Find another animal to set my sights upon!

As a famous Native American author (Sitting Bull, I believe) stated:
When there are no more buffalo to hunt then we will hunt bird's!

Birth control for wild animals is "Not" a success story, it has proven to be too costly and ultimately in the end, Non Effective.

M Figgis, I was 100 percent certain you'd have that reaction to what I wrote, and I wrote it anyway.

I used to wonder, before I started hunting, if the human race would some day view consumption of animals the way we now view human slavery. Would I, as a meat eater, come to regret my actions?

I don't wonder anymore. I believe that despite our incredibly big brains, we are what we are, and we are, for the most part, omnivores. And while I do sometimes apologize to individual animals I've killed, I do not apologize to them as a whole, any more than the hawk apologizes to the mice.

I also used to wonder, just before I started hunting, if hunting would make me more callous toward and uncaring about animals. Imagine my surprise when I found them actually growing in my esteem. I recognize that perhaps very few other hunters would say this – I'm well aware of a religious bent many of among us that holds God gave us dominion over animals – but I'm actually coming to believe that we all, animals and humans, have the same right to live. And the same certainty that any of us can become anyone else's food at any given moment. Humans have certainly tilted the odds in our favor, to the extent that we're shocked and dismayed when animals occasionally eat one of us. But there's nothing to be shocked about. It's just life.

It is quite simply the truth!!
When I see supposed "Hunter's" trying to console the inconsolable (such as yourself, M. Figgis) it smack's so very much of insincerity.

The sooner that the general hunting community sees this, then the full understanding of the real agenda of the animal rights movement will become crystal clear.
There is no common ground to the understanding of one another, so lets just agree to an impasse and move quietly on.

Suffice it to say that "discouraging" or not, I have told the truth, that I hunt for fun.
It is my genetic character and predisposition as well as the other 95% of the meat eating population.
Be it they go to the grocery store to hunt for a pre-packaged bit of commercially harvested meat, or they summon up the intestinal fortitude to venture out and into the wilderness to kill it themselves.

As Chief Sitting Bull so eloquently stated: For We Are Hunters, That Is What We Are And Have Always Been, And Will Forever Be!

Beautiful prose and anthropomorphically moving are what your wording M. Figgis, brings immediately to mind.
And for the record here, my support of a more honest approach to the sport of hunting hails all of the way back to my childhood, and has completely nothing to do with my chosen profession.
I can market my business quite well thank you without having to hide behind, and as you say: "Move right along, nothing to see here"

In fact, I would have to say that the experiences which formulated my "No Apologies" and truthful attitude towards the sport of hunting are the very things which led me to my current profession of being a hunting guide.

The honesty of the wide open spaces, following the track, getting inside of the thinking process of the pursued quarry.
These are the things which have led me here to this place, and not the lure of commercial gain.
Because if you even had an inkling of how little pay there is involved in being a hunting guide you would not make such an ill informed statement.

You are an individual whom has obviously never had to survive by learning how to hunt as well as gather. and growing up with a Native American grandmother in rural, pre-Disney Florida I have.
My dual perspective concerning animals, and yes! I very much love, respect and am full of compassion towards them, all stems from a practical knowledge of them.
To Anthropomorphize them is as unnatural and abhorrent to me as witnessing someone simply driving a motor vehicle.

The pollutants which are spewed into our environment each and every day from our automobiles, and all of the by products which are associated with them are killing us, and our beautiful planet and wildlife which we coexist with here.

I would prefer to see all gas driven engines wiped out of existence, but is that a realistic view of our world or in the proper realm and view of reality? of course not!

We could argue philosophies, semantics and also utilize thesaurus derived verbiage doing so until the cows come home but, the simple fact still remains withstanding.
I am a hunter and I enjoy the act, you are not a hunter and will never understand that.

Nuff' said bout' that!

@T. Michael Riddle: You are an individual whom has obviously never had to survive by learning how to hunt as well as gather. and growing up with a Native American grandmother in rural, pre-Disney Florida I have.

Your assumption about me is wrong. I have a long heritage of farming in my family, but my family wasn't engaged in industrial farming or animal husbandry. I learned at a very young age to gather from the forest — berries, mushrooms, anything edible. And grew up with an organic ethic that was all about survival on very low income, with the least effect possible on the land (e.g. no pesticides) but also an existence that did not include killing animals as part of it. My parents and grandparents were early proponents of humane lifestyles. And I've spend enough time learning about Native American traditions to understand that modern hunting — even as presented in this video — driving right up to the kill — is nothing that the more benevolent of Native American leaders would have approved of. (That's not to say that there weren't unscrupulous and cruel practices among Native American traditions, no need to glorify that. The Sioux practice of running buffalo off cliffs comes to mind.)

In as much as you believe people like me have mistaken notions about hunting, hunters often make these generalizations about those who don't hunt — assuming they're naive, have no outdoors knowledge, don't have survival skills. I'd put my knowledge of the wilderness, survival and wildlife up against anyone's. In fact, I'm often surprised how much many hunters don't know about these things. They understand animals as prey. But in terms of genuine behavior and other elements that require study and observation beyond the predator-prey relationship, I'm often surprised at how many people claim to be "outdoorsmen" with very little knowledge of the animals societies at large.

@T. Michael Riddle: Because if you had done so, you would have noticed that my company was mentioned more than twice in print

I watched the video several times. I didn't want to confuse the ID presented in the video with the ID you used here in the blog. I did the same with NorcalCazadora and Phillip — to make sure the commenters here were the same as the two hunters presented in the film. I should have suggested that linking on your link confirmed the two were the same.

In bringing that up, I didn't mean to suggest that you were using this comment section to promote your business. And I'm very sorry it came across that way. I mentioned it merely to suggest a vested interest that anyone in your position might have to stifle discussion of the obviously uncomfortable truths many of us face about hunting and killing wildlife.

@T. Michael Riddle:I would prefer to see all gas driven engines wiped out of existence

On this point, you and I agree. I'd like, at the very least to see a dramatic reduction in the horrors we inflict on the planet and on its wildlife through the stresses of technology, poisons, pollution, automobiles. But, unlike you, I would include among those stresses, gunfire, leghold traps, injuries from bowhunting and pellet guns, and other predatory behavior that significantly affects animals and their social structures.

@T. Michael Riddle: To Anthropomorphize them is as unnatural and abhorrent

I'm sorry, but it's not "anthropomorphism" to acknowledge that animals have these unique qualities — some of which are similar to ours. Many non-human animals share enough of our physiology that we can assume some of their feelings, their fears, their physical sensations would be identical to ours. Accusing someone of anthropomorphism is a convenient way to, once again, create a delineation between us and "them" in order to more readily exploit the "them." But to suggest that animals form bonds, feel love, experience fear and pain, bond for live, have sophisticated communication, or live in complex societies, sometimes akin to ours, is not putting human characteristics on the animals (the definition of anthropomorphism). It's seeing animals in their own right, as living entities that our much more complex than a predator-prey relationship would suggest. That's too easy a cop out.

@T. Michael Riddle: I am a hunter and I enjoy the act, you are not a hunter and will never understand that.

You may have missed my earlier post where I mentioned that I lived with a hunter for a number of years. I tried very hard, even as a vegetarian, to grasp it, to be a part of it, to understand it. So I have more than the average non-hunter's experience of this side of life. You can't just dismiss me that easily. Of course, I never could come to terms with the bloodshed inherent, and the joy the people around me seemed to take in the kill, so that relationship didn't last. But not before so many incidents formed these very views. If you had met me before I got involved, however peripherally, in the hunting world, you would have found a much more accepting person. It's precisely because I've seen hunting up close that I am having this argument with you.

@Chris Bauer

Thanks for responding here. A discussion on this pragmatic and scientific level obviously takes the thread out of the ethical and theoretical realm where it has been for many days now. And, as the producer of the segment, I appreciate your willingness to address those concerns and questions about matters not fully explored.

I will continue to maintain, however, that it's in the language of pragmatism that we sometimes lose the human (or humane, if you will) context of what we are doing. Numbers, statistics and so forth are valid for assessing the macro vision of managing habitats, conservation and so forth. And technically, had I not been part of the discussion, I imagine that's where the thread would have rightfully stayed.

As I'm sure you noticed in this conversation, it takes but one emotional trigger to call hunter to his or her own defense, and an anti-hunter like myself to my own defense. And there, the talk tends to spiral into less tangible realms, but ones I feel are worthy of, or even critical to, any program that promotes or at least showcases hunting and killing as an environmental option.

Although I'm sure the hunters here would disagree, I don't believe we can dissociate our remedial measures from the sentience we know to be present in animals who, unlike us, have no choice in the matter. And as we look at hunting as a whole, there is so much to question in terms of how that "control" is meted out, not just with pigs but with any hunted animal. I obviously come at this with a bias, having seen a lot of what I guess you could call down-home killing on private property, farms, etc. that was pretty random and thoughtless.

I agree with you that both NorcalCazadora and Phillip represent the cream of the crop in terms of not only how they view the humaneness of their endeavor, but also in how Phillip, in particular, sees environmental issues. He and I seem to be on the same page about that. And I appreciated that about both of them. It's precisely why I made that point about how differently your viewers might have seen the "pig hunting" control measures if they'd witnessed some of the other, more bloody forms of pursuing and killing pigs. But again, I realize that's not pertinent to the more objective aspects you addressed. Well, it could be considered an objective facet to question one's level of skill when it comes to a life at stake.

I've had a chance to read from the blogs of the hunters in question, a privilege in that they are both willing to be open about their pursuits. I will say that they stand out, with just a handful of other hunting blogs I've read over time, as exceptional. They are not the norm, on the net at least. And they certainly don't represent the hunters I've been around, sadly. I wish they did. If you, as a middle-of-the-road guy abides by hunting as environmental control, based on what you saw with NorcalCazadora, Phillip and their crew, I would also challenge you to immerse yourself in the more wanton types of varmint hunting and so forth — just to understand better how wide the spectrum is and how distasteful the very same concept of "control" by hunting then becomes.

My personal feelings and what I know from my many years spent in the outdoors, interacting with animals all of my life – those feelings will probably never allow me to abide by the explanations all of the hunters here give for their pursuits. Both Phillip and T. Michael Riddle are correct in pointing out at least some semblance of philosophical impasse. But I will say, that had my overall experience been like yours, in the hands of competent and thoughtful hunters (I mean, NorcalCazadora wouldn't take the shot because she wasn't sure she could kill the animal!) I may not be as adamantly doubtful as I am today. I wouldn't like it. But I wouldn't be as jaded about the rationalizations.

Of course, if you bring this up with many hunters (I have, in the course of my lifetime) they won't allow for the fact that all hunters (and young hunters who shoot willy nilly) should be subject to much stricter controls on aptitude and ethics — they prefer, I believe, to leave that open to interpretation and a much wider swath than someone like me is comfortable with. I do find that to be the most unfortunate impasse of all. That we can never come to any humane consensus when it comes to inflicting pain, injury and death on living beings. And that even those of us who might be willing to grant some leeway for hunters like NorcalCazadora and Phillip, based on the types of arguments you set forth in the above commentary — we simply cannot because we know the rest of the story.

Not saying any of that should have been in the segment. Just responding to the personal notes you set forth above.

D Scarfeo,
Well said, practical and to the point!

The overwhelming scientific evidence points to the human body's need for the B-complex vitamins, protein and their very important role's in the development of the human nervous system, and complete development of the body general.

The B-complex nutrients can only be found in the amounts needed to accomplish full body development (from birth to mid teens) in meat and meat by products.
Plants do not contain enough of theses nutrients to sustain human life in a fully healthy manner.
The same vegans/vegetarians who believe that they are not harming animals and the environment, are also indirectly consuming meat through the synthesis of the B-complex vitamin in pill form.
This vitamin pill can only contain enough of the nutrient through process of a meat by-product for a human to obtain the proper amounts needed.

The latest scientific reports are that Vegetarians have 5% less bone mass than a person who includes meat in a well rounded diet.
Vegans are even worse off by being at 6% less bone mass.

I for one, simply refuse to compromise my children's health and mental well being by imposing my "Adult" philosophies upon them by not giving them the proper nutrients for their full growth potential.

When they are fully grown, then they can do as their conscience dictates.
I will have done my job as a conscientious parent and started them upon the proper road to a healthy body and mind!

@ M Figgis: I see no nobility whatsoever in your choice not to reproduce. In fact, it renders all of your arguments absurd. Your bloodline will end with you, so why do you care about anything? None of these issues will be resolved in your lifetime. And even if they are, since you have borne no fruit, what difference does it make?

The biological imperative to advance one’s genetic material into the future is as essential to nature as is gravity. If you truly believe that by not reproducing you are accomplishing something of great significance, I would suggest that you find the courage to take it one step further and eliminate yourself. My progeny and I will be deeply indebted to you and will honor your memory and sacrifice.

In response to the question: Do we ever take our children on an outing into the wilderness just to observe animals and nature?
Answer: All of the time!

My children are taught that we do not harm anything which we do not intend to eat, as well as just simply observing the animals during their daily routines.

As far as giving to the local and state parks, my "taxes" pay for that quite nicely thank you!
But, in addition I do donate my time during my visits in picking up trash left there by careless individuals, as well as putting in my time to improve habitat at my ranches and the local parks included.

Oh, and by the way, now, who is avoiding the issue and hoping everyone will just move right along with nothing to see or learn here!

* In reference to Vegans/Vegetarians being less healthy and suffering 5%-6% bone mass loss as well as not getting all of the proper nutrients into their systems. Because science has proven that Plants alone do not give the human omnivore a proper, nutritious and well rounded diet.

@ M Figgis: I see no nobility whatsoever in your choice not to reproduce. In fact, it renders all of your arguments absurd. Your bloodline will end with you, so why do you care about anything? … I would suggest that you find the courage to take it one step further and eliminate yourself.

How lovely of you. And after I agreed with your point about population, too. I'm sorry I didn't realize you were being facetious. I actually thought you were providing a provocative but still interesting debating point. There is validity to population control and to that particular argument, and I genuinely thought you were addressing that. Egg on my face for not seeing the sardonic nature of your quip.

So, if I read you right, you're saying that if there's no personal benefit in it for me or my offspring, to hell with caring or doing anything about the wretched state of affairs on this planet? I guess we really do live in two separate belief systems.

For the record, I care about the world that YOUR children inherit, even if you are being a horse's ass. I care about anyone who will be growing up into a very troubled existence with fewer resources, potentially no water, and other strife that's bound to occur if we don't try to stem the tide of development.

And although it's obviously outside the frame of your reference to understand this, I'd like to do what I can while I'm here, to help — even incrementally — make sure that some viability continues for those who will inhabit this place when I'm gone. But it's not entirely unselfish. I'm not that good a person. I care about what happens here, while I'm here, too.

For argument's sake, I don't see any nobility in not having children. It's a personal choice. I mentioned it because I think it's pertinent to a discussion on population control, to come from a place where you are, in fact, walking your talk. If I'd told you I had three kids, you would have used that to denigrate any population arguments.

I don't think anyone else here who's been engaging with me thinks my arguments are absurd. But if they do, and are just humoring me — using their valuable time at a cost — so be it. But for you to dismiss everything I've said outright based on a decision I've made not to reproduce. Now THAT is what's truly absurd.

As far as taking myself out, if it's any consolation, I probably won't need to take any action, based on the health circumstances life has handed me. So you and your progeny can start your celebration now, if you like. It's only slightly premature. And it's awfully kind of of you to hope that this particular process accelerates.

At this point in my life, frankly, I wish I could strike a deal and give my life in exchange for a reduction in the massive amounts of suffering I see every single day. But the deal doesn't work that way. I don't have a problem with my own death either. I don't hold myself in such high esteem that I feel entitled to avoid what becomes of every other species. Often at our hands, no less.

My biggest concern is that something critical changes in the human paradigm, to allow this life and planet to continue as a life-sustaining place for humans and non-humans alike. I do care about our shared destiny. Believe it or don't.

By the way, you're a great emissary for your cause, D Scarfeo. Good on you.

T. Michael Riddle: Oh, and by the way, now, who is avoiding the issue and hoping everyone will just move right along with nothing to see or learn here!

As you can see, I've already written manuscripts here, so not taking up that particular issue was just a matter of having followed a different trajectory in my notes. But I will happily discuss that if you like. If you don't mind, I'll do it in a day or two. I'm fielding hits solo here — not a complaint, it's my choice to engage. I just wasn't sure how long everyone wanted me to continue spouting off my points of view.

D Scarfeo has only been here a few days and he (I'm assuming "he") is already ready to see me off myself. So it must be getting pretty bad. :)

It would be great if some other non-hunters interacted and, perhaps, presented more coherent points than I've done. I certainly don't represent everyone. But I know I represent some.

Actually Ms. Figgis, I have begun to soften my outlook a little towards the animal rights movement.
And this can be directly attributed to your comments and essays right here on this site.
So as hardened, skeptical and exasperated as I previously had been towards the A.R.G.s, you have caused me to reassess my position.
And for that, I do thank you for being so patient with me by not losing control and flinging obscenities and accusations as so many other animal rights persons do these days.

I do stand by my position with respect towards the health issues associated with strict vegetarianism and in fact, my very firm stance against the sometimes "Hitleresque" attitude of most Vegans/Vegetarians, and their willingness to readily give up our basic and fundamental human rights in order to accomplish their goal of forcing all humans into such a lifestyle, still stands as well.

I have been fighting a hard fight for almost 30 years now against such things as "Breed Specific Legislation" that of which can be back traced directly to the totalitarian mindset of the Animal Rights Movement.
I have received death threats against me and my family for simply choosing not, to become a vegetarian.
The safe sanctuary of my very home has been violated by these extremist's and I have begun to fight back, Hard!!
Henceforth, why I appear to have little patience with the A.R.G.s and give very short, and to the point commentary concerning my position towards them.

You, on the other hand have remained civil and a gentle person, and I have actually been enlightened by you a bit.

Although, my position, just as Zeppelin's "The Song Remains The Same, still stand's pertaining to my fundamental rights of being allowed to live my lifestyle in tranquility without the threat of being attacked from within by my own countrymen.

And while agreeing with some of the opposing commentary here, I on the other hand would have to say that without a person such as yourself living amongst us, and challenging our outlook and philosophical direction, well, that would be a very sad state of affairs indeed.

M Figgis, I'm sorry you're so outnumbered here (and a little surprised, too). I have tremendous respect for your persistence and kind demeanor. Having this conversation with you has helped me understand where you're coming from, which in turn helps me understand what hunters need to do to earn more respect. Unfortunately, I don't think we can achieve the kind of moral perfection that will eliminate the idiots who make all of us look bad – the people who don't care about the lives they take and who shoot without purpose (i.e., for "fun," not for food or to protect livestock or property).

I'm also aware that animal rights activists are prone to the same human imperfections – if you spend much time on the internet, I'm guessing you know what I mean. One example that comes to mind – which I've seen repeatedly – is people taking great joy in the accidental shooting of hunters. Not helpful.

And this should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: I have no desire – whether to make a point or not – to see you eliminate yourself, and I'm sorry about your health problems.

D Scarfeo, I just don't like it when antis say things like that to me. And no, it doesn't make me feel better to say this.

Dear M Figgis,

You are an extremely well educated, thoughtful, and eloquent person. The hunters, engaged with you here, are unaccustomed to debating “antis” whose arguments are constructive in there purpose and intellectually arrived at. Please do not apologize for sharing some of your personal issues with us. Just because we disagree on a particular issue, does not mean that we are incapable of caring about each other and being friends. The pro hunting caucus on this blog is fawning over you because you are a rare breath of fresh air. What hunters typically get from the “antis” are epithets and ad hominem arguments. So, speaking for myself, I have actually become quite fond of you (no patronization intended, I promise).

I hope that this debate has also left you with an understanding that hunters are not a bunch of blood thirsty Neanderthals. We care deeply about our environment. We invest a significant amount of time, effort, and capital to preserve, manage, and maintain the wilderness. We have chosen to connect ourselves to the planet in a very deep and profound way. I know many, many hunters, and not one of them will tell you that they had a bad hunting trip because they failed to bring home game. Personally, I can recall a 10 day whitetail bow hunting adventure in the Ithaca Lakes region of New York State. It was late fall, cold as hell, and we were tent camping in the forest. We suffered greatly on that trip, killed absolutely nothing, but took with us a lifetime of stories and memories. If I could re-take that trip tomorrow, knowing that I would be very uncomfortable and that I would come home empty handed, I would start packing immediately.

The manner in which you concluded your last post sounds like you are disengaging. If that is true, I am sorry to see you go and I too will detach myself from the discussion as I have no interest in singing in the choir.

I am extremely disappointed, however, that you have chosen not to address “the matter of hogs and management and control” before leaving. I would truly love to hear any solutions to this problem that did not employ hunting as the implement of population control. I suspect that you have avoided the issue because you cannot think of one. In America, hunting is one of the tools of wildlife management. That’s just a fact. I lived in Montauk, New York, where deer hunting was not permitted. At some point, for reasons that were not clearly understood, the deer herd population exploded. They were everywhere. The deer were foraging in residential areas and virtually no one in town had escaped the dreaded car-deer encounter. The herd was not healthy. The environment could not sustain its numbers. So, the Department of Environmental Conservation, as they are called today, was forced to open up a deer hunting season. In short order, the whitetail herd population was brought under control, a lot of very tasty venison was put on the table, and the deer hunting ban was reinstated. How is that not responsible stewardship of our ecosystem?

I thought I was done but I felt I had to justify the impasse I suggested on my way out of this discussion.

Here's the bottom line for me — I stress "for me" because this is truly personal and don't expect anyone to share my perspective on this. You may. But I'm okay with it if you don't.

I'm elated to engage with anyone thoughtful and intelligent on a variety of issues — especially one as close to my heart as this one. I'm horrified by the prevailing attack paradigm that's evolved in this country, where sane and animated debated is replaced with hateful rhetoric and, sometimes, outright lunacy.

I believe we all need to listen to the arguments we find most difficult. I think it's the only way for us humans to progress and become, indeed, "progressive" in our thought and action, especially on subjects where both sides feel immovable and even angry. I think a conversation like the one we've just had is testament to the potential of at least softening the anger one might feel for the other.

It may seem like a small accomplishment, but I treasure any interaction that brings me closer to the heart of another — human or animal — because I think that intangible spiritual connection and the understanding of that connection is what rescues any of us from some of the horrors this world can be.

All that said, this morning all of you will be back to your hunting and outdoors pursuits, and I'll be back to my workaday world, my environmental projects and occasionally finding qualified help for whatever injured animal someone calls me about in desperation. (I'm not a vet or a tech or a biologist, but I'm reasonably competent and at least people know I won't eat the animal. :)

So, in as much as we may have softened our stances toward each other, there will remain that fundamental difference between those who can go out and hunt and kill for fun, as many of you have candidly acknowledged, and those of us who have had the privilege of caring for the objects of the hunt (or the farm or the abusive home) and cannot fathom inflicting harm on these creatures we've come to know and embrace (philosophically, that is. I've never "hugged" any wild animals or trees, for that matter. They wouldn't like it.)

NorcalCazadora rightly pointed to the disconnect many meat eaters have between the meat on their plate and the animal who died to provide that meal. D Scarfeo brought up the imperfection of a vegetarian diet, in spite of its intent. I wasn't raised vegetarian, I don't know if I mentioned that. In spite of my animal-loving environment, I was given many choices in terms of how I saw fit to run my life. My views formed gradually. The most profound was in caring for a young farm fowl who had been abused and discarded. I remember the day I looked at him and realized that if he were killed for dinner, his life would give me just one meal. I looked at this life I'd nurtured and couldn't conceive of taking a lifetime for maybe a half hour of my pleasure. It wouldn't have been for my survival. It would have been for my pleasure.

But that was just me. Another person in the same position would have made a different choice. I realize we all evolve in our own ways, based on the experiences we have and, perhaps more importantly, how our brains and our society at large process those experiences we do have, and through what filters. I recognize it's really one big gray area although my arguments in this thread would suggest, maybe, more of a black-and-white perspective. The tough part is understanding this variability in life, but wishing some areas were more defined. I think that's why many people get drawn toward more dogmatic stances. Clarity is easier than murkiness.

Those of us who have been vegetarian but have cared for animals who are not vegetarian and cannot be, understand the innate paradox of trying to live peacefully on an earth that was designed with some built-in cruelty and injustice. A just world, in my view, wouldn't have any sentient creature born as prey. So, we may choose to inflict the least harm possible, however we construe that. But we still have to acknowledge the wretched injustice that reigns. You all are correct in pointing that out.

Hunters aren't free of that disconnect, either. Although as you hunt, you're connected to the process of acquiring your meat, I would venture that the standards you have for your "pet" animals (and any harm others might inflict on them) are different than your standards for food animals, despite the fact that they share similar physiology with many non-pet animals (dogs and wolves, for instance). So that's another gray area paradox.

Let's face it …… we're all hypocrites on some level. How many people do you know that uphold the same standards across the board without exception? It's another humbling rejoinder to my adamance. And it brings me back my own base level of existence, and that is to do what I can do, if I'm so inclined, to ameliorate the suffering we see. I realize that's not what's in everyone's heart. We're each here to learn (or not learn) on our individual paths. It's extremely hard (sometimes agonizing) when our roads intersect and we are, in fact, at cross purposes. I believe, however, that part of the lesson (whatever it may be) is in sorting through the mayhem that happens when we cross beams from the proton packs. (Sorry, bad 80s movie reference.)

In defense of hunters, the animals I've helped "re-home" from bad farm settings or from abusive homes (pets), are as battered or distressed as those I've encountered who've been harmed by hunting activity or by kids with weapons. Frankly, suffering is all the same to me, whether the victim is a human or an animal. It's my Achilles Heel.

In the end (again, for me) it all helps to soften any tendencies toward dogma, even if our day-to-day activities don't change one iota. So maybe it's not really an impasse. Maybe it's a case of two dramatically different trajectories colliding for what amounts to a millisecond on the timeline. It might take the Hadron supercollider to understand what quantum movement occurred as a result of this intersection. But maybe it did. Just a bit.

D Scarfeo, I wish our exchange had started on better terms when I had a bit more energy to pursue your viable points. If you re-read I did address the hog issue briefly and expressed my thoughts but also acknowledged some of Phillips points.

With respect to rats in my domicile, I have had some roof rats that didn't cause any problems, I was fortunate. With them, and with squirrels in the attic — once the animals left their nest (I don't relish orphaning squirrel babies) I worked with a local wildlife hospital for humane solutions. We sealed all entries and handled the issue in this preventive way which sometimes works, sometimes doesn't.

It's not feasible for everyone and I never expect people to do as I do. It requires much more work and diligence. But since you asked what I've done, that's what I've done. Whatever people implement, I wish they would not poison because I've seen the effects of poisoned rodents not just on the animal themselves but on unintended species, and then in those higher up the food chain who consume the poisoned animals. I wish "humane" was at bare minimum, part of the equation. But so be it, it often is not.

As far as me being presumptuous in relaying how I see my IDEALISTIC world would look — yes idealistic — well, that's for your interpretation. All I meant to say was that given my sensitivity to the issues of suffering and injustice (as it pertains to humans or non-humans) if I could create an existence from scratch, yes, I would manifest it in a different way.

My family has been through war, through loss, through poverty, through deportation, through just about everything you can imagine. So if you think I don't have a grasp on reality of how the world truly is, you are underestimating those who manage to somehow remain sane and reasonably compassionate in spite of a very hard and unjust place. I do my best to correct injustice when I see it. But I don't strive to change the paradigm that is this world — which, as you say, is profoundly unjust.

I don't revere Gaia in the extreme. I have my own sensibility as to how much pain anyone ought to be put through. And I do my best to ameliorate that when I encounter it. I never fully reconcile it. But if you read my previous note, you'll realize I ultimately always come to the conclusion that I can only do what I can do, as I see fit in terms of my own contribution.

You obviously have a very different world view and I'll leave our differences at that.

M Figgis -

It's my opinion – and some hunters disagree – that vegetarians and vegans probably lead a less hypocritical life when it comes to consistent treatment of animals. You're right about how we view our pets: I shot a rabbit Saturday and plan to eat him. If someone shot my cat, I'd be out for blood, because my cat=my baby. I recognize that inconsistency. The difference between me and vegans/ethical vegetarians (as opposed to health vegetarians) is that I see the world for what it is and choose to embrace, rather than alter, my fundamental nature.

But that's not why I chimed back in today: I really wanted you to take a look at this: http://outdoorswithothmarvohringer.blogspot.com/2009/08/canadian-hunting-community-outraged.html

I haven't looked at the video on that blog and I don't want to – I've read enough about it. But I hope you'll find it heartening to read how hunters are upset by the malicious slaughter of wildlife up in Canada, which sounds like a youth thrill killing – something I've read too much about lately. Ethical hunters have rules of engagement. Some we debate endlessly; others have much more consensus. This case is one where the consensus is broad.

Another thing to check out is what happened at my house on Saturday: http://www.honest-food.net/blog1/2009/08/03/a-vegan-dinner-served-by-a-hunter/. The only thing I need to add here is that I've enjoyed the discussion on this blog more than the discussion at dinner on Saturday – not that Saturday was bad; we just never engaged at this level. Inother words, I'm grateful for the discussion we've had here.

'Nuf said for now. I suppose eventually this conversation will come to a close :-)

@NorcalCazadora

First, most importantly, I've enjoyed this, too. I've had many debates across the board in my lifetime, but this one moved me more than others to reexamine my own paradigms. Not to change them so much as to reassess the consistencies and inconsistencies in my own words and actions. Thank you. (And yes, eventually it really should end. Why am I coming back?)

Second, I couldn't bring myself to watch that video but I appreciate you spreading the story and letting me know about it. I hadn't heard it yet. It is, indeed, encouraging and heartwarming to see the response from hunters. I do know that hunters are as horrified by these acts, maybe even more so, than many others among us. I share your outrage. I was relieved to learn that if caught, the penalties for poaching would be significant. I feel they should be much, much worse here in California.

I'm going to have a hole in my heart the rest of the day thinking about what probably happens in that footage. I'll probably have to end up seeing it, in spite of my reservations. I've witnessed too much of this stuff, it wears away at a person. I know you all agree — I just can't begin to fathom what lies in the heart of a human who can perpetrate this.

You said: You're right about how we view our pets: I shot a rabbit Saturday and plan to eat him. If someone shot my cat, I'd be out for blood, because my cat=my baby.

I get that. I've had rescue pets of all sorts, all of my life and they are my kids, too. Truly. I would experience that same level of anger, even if my non-violent beliefs would preclude me from being out for blood. :)

I don't know if this will put some of us "antis" and our feelings into a bigger context. But I've also taken in injured or foster animals of a variety of species (both domestic and wild) since I have some measure of experience in caring for them. For instance, right now, I have a game bird I'm looking after. He was probably pen-raised, but was rescued, wandering the countryside with an injury that it turns out is not fatal. He will recover.

Well, I've had him for some time now. His mixed affiliation, that is, being a wild species but also being human reared, makes him not quite domestic, not quite wild. So he's not a "pet" in the classic sense. He doesn't want to be held. He has his own needs which are very specific to his species. But he knows me and I know him. I watch him at play, how excited he gets when we wake him up in the morning with fresh food. He gets down on his haunches and plays like a dog does when he sees another dog. I see what makes him happy, what terrifies him, what hurts him. In short, I see the same emotional mechanisms at play in his life, that I see in my cat's or my dog's or in the horses and goats I used to care for.

Thankfully, this guy won't be re-released to the wild. He wouldn't make it. But many orphaned or injured wild animals are, once they have recovered. And although it's the nature of caring for wild animals, that they must be sent back to their proper place in the cycle, it doesn't hurt any less when a band number of a dead bird is reported and it turns out to be the bird you nurtured. Or when, in one case with a fellow animal rehabilitator, a duck she'd rehabilitated from a pellet wound, was brought back in a year later, shot again. How odd is that? Unfortunately, This time that bird didn't recover from the infection.

The tears shed over those animals have brought many of us to the place with wild animals that you feel about your cat. I can say personally, I have felt as strongly protective over a crow I nurtured as I have over my cats and dogs. So it becomes inconceivable to us that these animals are viewed as simple commodities, either for food or pleasure, by so many. Same holds true for farm animals. And I think that's where it strikes at the heart to see the wanton pleasure sometimes induced by the killing of these animals. I think that's probably the heart of the matter. I believe that may be in irreconcilable point in the end, but I've often wished that everyone could have the experience I've had — just to see if it might change how they felt as much as it has changed my feelings in the course of my lifetime. Unfortunately, federal law precludes the general public from being a part of this rehabilitation process. You have to be trained, which makes it more difficult for anyone to have that "bonding," if you will, with an animal normally kept at quite a distance.

That's often the emotional basis a person like me has in even stating a case to begin with. Although most of this discussion is rendered through interesting and intellectual means, I maintain that all of us — and I think you'd agree — have some emotional connection to the subject. And it's most often the emotion (overt or covert) which forms our view.

Sadly, the emotions we vegetarians or "treehuggers" or "antis" or "animal lovers" feel in this regard are often diminished as infantile. I think otherwise. I think that what you feel for your cat is as valid as what I or anyone feels for ANY entity, person or thing we love in this life. It's love. And it's relative to our world view and our experience. And I think that relativity in all of its complexity is what brings all of us together in a forum like this.

D Scarfeo, the issue of injured wildlife and wildlife euthanasia is complex (beyond emotional considerations) owing to the illegality of anyone harming waterfowl or other wild species. It's heartbreaking to see an animal in such distress, I agree. And yet, technically, as you probably know, especially if you are a hunter — people cannot harm, harass or kill many if not most species intentionally, outside of hunting season and outside of certain legal parameters.

In other words, I cannot safely speak to the question you ask, except to say that the optimal option for anyone in such a situation is to phone a wildlife facility, Fish and Game, or animal control to get help or advice on how to proceed. If you are in California, there are many wildlife facilities, often nearby, depending on where you're located. What you experienced was an awful occurrence and one I cannot resolutely define except by the constraints of legality which bind me, myself, to certain protocol.

Animal hospitals do obviously [humanely] euthanize animals who cannot be rehabilitated and for whom the suffering is clear. To be honest, that is a call I do not make. I'm not a vet nor a vet tech, even though I have worked with animals most of my life. I rely upon the professional technicians with whom I'm associated to make those assessments.

With respect to feelings, I agree with you that the most effective balance is one that takes into account both feelings and logic or intellect. You and I seem to meld on that point. I do, however, believe that the language of logic and reason is too often used to remove a person from the emotional underpinnings that ought to be informing some of the most important decisions of our lives.

You say "a person driven only by their feelings is not well." And I would add to that, a person driven exclusively by intellectual brilliance can border on dangerous, depending on how much power that person wields in this world — in the absence of empathy.

Reason overtaking emotion tends to render a very Cartesian approach. And, as you might expect, I'm not a huge fan of Descartes and his sterile, mechanized view of nature and animals.

D Scarfeo, your convenient isolation of comments — without taking into account the full of what I've written in this thread — has [thankfully] convinced me to [finally] meander away from this discussion after this comment.

I had a sense you would use that situation to bait me in one way or another. I thought it might be granting too much benefit of the doubt to assume you were presenting that scenario as a genuine point of compassion and discussion over the best way to help an animal in harm's way. I bit, but I guess you could say I knew there was a price in taking that bait.

The truth is, in many places, if one comes upon an injured deer, for instance, a person cannot legally nor often safely pull out a rifle and shoot the distressed animal, in spite of its intense suffering.

Does lacking the power to take these situations entirely into our own hands sometimes cause me and others intense grief? You bet. Does it damn near kill me to wait for an animal control officer when I see an animal that I am not qualified to rescue or don't have the manpower to rescue – while the animal writhes in pain? You don't know how few nights I sleep soundly for the visions of what I've witnessed.

Do I take necessary action whenever I encounter an animal in distress? No question. Do I ever leave an animal in distress when I can help? Never.

I have pretty much abdicated a "normal" life or at least a normal social life for the many detours I take, whether it's on behalf of a pigeon or a fox or a wild turkey. I always stop the car and help injured animals — even if the jerk in front of me who hit the animal shows no semblance of care. I renege on dates if I happen to be walking in the city and find a distressed pigeon that needs rescue or transport somewhere. I've taken vast detours after learning that a desert tortoise needed transport to a hospital. I've taken on battered or abandoned animals that others conveniently leave when they become "inconveniences."

If that's a life rife with poor judgment and lacking in empathy, you must have some pretty stringent standards of what constitutes compassion and feeling for others.

For the record, what gives you the qualifications to truly assess the "mortal" injuries in that coot? I've seen animals brought into hospitals that were so injured, their fate seemed beyond repair. And yet they were rehabilitated and released. I've seen others who didn't seem that injured or ill, who dropped dead within a few hours.

There are reasons for some of the boundaries that exist — and there are case-by-case situations that require alternative approaches and ingenuity. Which is precisely why I began my response to you with these words: "the issue of injured wildlife and wildlife euthanasia is complex" and "I cannot safely speak to the question you ask, except to say that the optimal option for anyone in such a situation is to phone a wildlife facility, Fish and Game, or animal control to get help or advice on how to proceed." Optimal.

Of course, you're free to interpret what others write, as you see fit. Based on some of your previous commentary, however, I'll defer to my own admittedly fallible "judgment" when it comes to issues of animal welfare.

How incredibly presumptuous of you

Again, D Scarfeo, our discussion began with a fundamental lack of respect on your part. So to suggest that we've been engaged in respectful discussion perhaps overlooks how our interaction began on rather tenuous terms.

In that context, I admit it's difficult to regain any semblance of "trust" in the integrity of the debate, if you want to call it that. So right or wrong, motives do become suspect. Among the first comments you uttered was this: "I would suggest that you find the courage to take it one step further and eliminate yourself. My progeny and I will be deeply indebted to you and will honor your memory and sacrifice."

I don't really think that sets us up for a mutually satisfying and respectful discussion on these topics. I realize you later recanted that particular desire or observation, for which I was appreciative and said so.

But here again — you asked a question which, in the interest of respectful discussion, I hoped was legitimate. And that is, what does one do if one encounters the type of situation you encountered with an injured animal?

As someone who works with animals, the best I could suggest — that response was from the heart — was to notify a qualified person who can help you (or anyone) deal most humanely with the situation. And I explained that in some detail, realizing that this answer could somehow be taken out of context.

When you replied just now, you seemed to pass over the entirely of my note to focus on the fact that I relied upon "legality" with respect to informing my judgment about an animal in distress or an animal suffering. You wrote:

"You abdicate your own judgment, based on a lifetime of experience working with animals, to a professional technician, whatever that is. Where is your compassion for the duck?"

How do I answer that question legitimately without "waxing poetic" on what compassion has, indeed, meant in my life? I don't mean to suggest it's any personal sacrifice to do what I do — so much as to explain how your definition of empathy and compassion must be so dramatically skewed from mine, given how much I feel and care for those I have rescued and treated.

And yes, those of us who work with animals, as volunteers or those employed professionally, do understand the legality involved in our licensing, our treatment options, and — in the case of your injured duck — with respect to euthanasia and humane treatment.

I assume you have not worked in an animal hospital or wildlife facility. If you had, you would have seen close up that legality and compassion are far from incongruous. They are cohabitants in a field rife with gray areas and extremely difficult decisions.

But again, if you think that taking proper and even legal action on behalf of a suffering animal constitutes a person devoid of empathy and compassion, I don't suppose there's much I can do to change your mind.

And there again — I've "waxed poetic" in my own defense. No worries. This is the last defense of myself I will offer because I agree with you that it has, indeed, become tiresome to hear me prattle on. Perhaps you will see this issue in the same way, as coming to its natural conclusion. Or perhaps you will feel compelled to offer your own defense. Either way, I won't be smothering this board with my words beyond this point.

Looking forward to seeing this show after reading so many thoughtful comments.

I will be watching with a conservationist point of view, from my home on 120 acres of oak woodland and forest in Mendocino County. I have worked tirelessly over the past 16 years to restore and enhance the native habitat. The reward for my efforts is priceless.

We have been dealing with a band of 16 or so pigs that can bulldoze over an acre of pasture in one night. They are terribly destructive to the native animals habitat and cause considerable silting of the streams that feed the Russian River. If a developer did what these little devils do in one night, they would be behind bars.

For me, it's not about hunting and food. It's about eliminating a serious threat to the native species that I take pride in protecting. My only concern is that the pigs are killed humanely. I often call a poor family to gather the meat. Or, leave the pigs in the pasture for the coyotes, bobcats, vulchers and eagles to eat. They completely finish the job within 24 hours.

The "feeling" side of me is sickened at killing an animal. It's not easy nor fun. As the steward of the land, it's my obligation.

Before I moved to the country, I would have found this topic much harder to understand.