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.

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.

I recounted a tragic story and asked you a simple question. You have waxed poetically for nearly 1,000 words, but have yet to answer that question.

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.

And yet, your reaction to the circumstance I described seems quite circumspect. Suddenly the constraints of legality take precedence over empathy. 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? I did not kill the duck; an errant golf ball did. I just could not stand idly by and witness its fear and suffering for another minute or two. Perhaps I am the one who is too emotional?

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.

The emotions you feel are not infantile. Feelings are what they are. They are subjective. Knowledge, on the other hand, is empirical (true knowledge, not faith). It is not subjective. Knowledge is often unpleasant. Perhaps it’s one of the reasons they say, “Ignorance is bliss.” Personally, I cannot contemplate being directed solely by my emotions or feelings. I do not know what sort of pathology that defines, but a person driven only by their feelings is not well. Feelings and judgment (the intellect) must find a reasonable balance.

While playing golf, a friend of mine hit a coot with a golf ball. The bird was mortally wounded; no ifs, and, or buts about it. It had a broken leg, broken wing, and was bleeding profusely. I euthanized the bird to end its suffering. We all felt awful that the cost of playing golf that day included the accidental death of an innocent bird. My friend, who had hit the duck, couldn’t thank me enough for putting an end to its suffering. His feelings would never have allowed him to put the bird out of its misery. I felt very sorry for the bird, but my intellect concluded that he was a goner and shouldn’t suffer needlessly. In your opinion, did I do the right thing or the wrong thing?

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.