One of the most important parts of becoming an animal rights activist is spreading the message around that animal cruelty is wrong, fur is murder or whatever the message need be, given the specific issue.
Prior to December 16th 2001, Toronto Sun columnist Connie Woodcock has been spreading her latest batch of hate towards animal activists and even went as far as to compare us to terrorists!
One of the 'In support of..' letters was sent in by Roxann Lynn - the owner of a hunting lodge in Canada (that shall remain nameless, she doesn't deserve the plug). She used the words "animal rights terrorists.." numerous times to describe the caring, compassion and action of animal welfare supporters.
Having let this issue ride out long enough without saying anything, I sent in a letter that covered both Connies original article, and Roxanns Dec. 8th letter. Below is what got printed on Dec. 16th:
If someone were to stalk someone else, kill and eat him/her it would be called stalking, murder and cannibalism. If someone stalked, killed and ate an animal it would be called "supper."
In order to take blame off the shoulders of the hunters and gain more support, kinder names are used. See? "Supper" sounds a lot better than "dead animal corpse," and so on. As a non-violent animal rights activist I'm sick of people like Connie and Lynn using the word terrorist incorrectly. The people guilty of the Sept. 11 tragedies are terrorists. The people (like me) who are working towards better treatment of animals are not. Killing an animal to survive is no longer necessary. Our ecosystem was just fine before humans came along and killed animals, and it'll be fine again once we stop killing them. Let Mother Nature do her job!
In response to Connie Woodcock's column, "Animal crackers" (Dec. 2) and Roxann Lynn's letter (Dec. 8); If a human were to follow another human and then kill him/her it would be called stalking and murder. If that same human did the same thing to an animal it would be called "sport hunting."
What can I say? I do see a difference between the September 11th terrorist attacks on the U.S. and someone working towards better treatment of animals. It isn't brain surgery. Some of us want the animals to live out happy, safe lives and others don't give a crap. Just because an animal can't talk like we do, or can't go to work to earn a living doesn't mean its not capable of feeling a wide range of emotions and doesn't have rights. As the animal welfare organization Last Chance for Animals points out: "Why do we call some animals pets, and others dinner?" You wouldn't treat your dog like that, so why treat a bear, cow, moose or any other wild animal like that? There is no line between a pet and dinner - they're both animals and they both deserve rights.
The editor commented, saying "Since you probably won't be stuffing a turkey this Christmas, you could always go stuff yourself" How nice.
On December 23rd, 2 responses were printed concerning my letter. The first was in support of what I had said, the second asked a few questions. Below is a copy of what Peter Nebelung wrote:
I am responding to Katie's statement that "killing animals to survive is no longer necessary," and "the environment was fine before humans came along and killed animals, and it'll be fine again when we stop killing them" (Letters, Dec. 16). That has to be the most amazing drivel I have ever read. Does she honestly think the world can grow enough food to keep 5.5 billion humans alive? The environment will never return to the status quo, as there are now about 5.45 billion people nore than there were in her happy little pre-history. Not unless she's planning on offing the excess population in order for her animals to go on the way they were.As far as hunting goes, I wonder if she has ever watched deer starve in the winter from over-population. Culling them in a kindness. I trust she is a vegan, and would never stoop so low as to consume "dead animal corpses." Suits me fine. Means there's more steak for me.
The editors comment was It offends some sensibilites to remember that man is an omnivore.
Although I have much to add on his letter, I'll wait and see if my response to him gets published, as it speaks for itself - then I'll post it here with any follow-up.
If you can't wait and want to read my response to Peter in its raw form, send me an email by clicking here.
Main Page
Toronto Sun newspaper website
