I do wonder what exactly is the Star newspaper's stance on these things

On March 11, I sent an email to the Star to post up a response of mine to a certain other person who had placed her opinion on the newspaper's Views section. It was about the recent decision of the Johor Sultan to ban all hunting within the state. It has been a few weeks now, and apparently the Star might have decided to throw out my email and not publish it. Perhaps their use of VERY LARGE FONT for the headline for that woman's letter suggests that it would be a bit embarrassing if they did publish my own letter that destroys her somewhat flimsy arguments. Or perhaps they are simply biased against one of the two things, hunting or guns. I do not know, but I would certainly like to know what they lean towards to be prepared in the future for inevitable total media bias and blackouts.

I know that this is only semi-related to what this blog is working towards, as hunting is only an optional sub-aspect of firearms ownership. However, I think it is as appropriate as any other story to fight against the plethora of anti-gun movements. In any case, this is a cut and paste of my letter.

I refer to Siti Bahijah Bakhtiar's letter "Hunting animals is so destructive" (The Sunday Star, March 7). I will not dispute the Johor Sultan's decision to ban all hunting in the state, but I would like to differ specifically on your opinion on the treatment of animals.

Firstly, I would like to point out that you seem to place both poachers and hunters in the same basket. It is my understanding that poachers illegally kill animals specifically for parts desired by whatever twisted medicinal market, and often leave the rest of the body alone to rot away. Hunters on the other hand, are the more responsible law-abiding ones who will make use of that body as food and the keeping of trophies are the bonus, not necessarily as the ultimate goal.

I disagree with the notion that hunting animals for food is in any way abhorrent to civilized society, in the past or present. Lets assume the person in this argument is not a vegetarian. What difference is there in killing an animal for food yourself, compared to asking someone else to do it for you on a farm? One kills by him or herself, another does the same by an unspoken proxy. I would go as far to say that hunting an animal is morally superior to raising them on a farm. For an animal that gets to live free and in the wild, a moment's pain of death is nothing compared to the freedom of living in its natural habitat, to be able to do what it wants when it wants, and being able to have a real purpose in life. When a hunter attempts to kill animal for food and sport, it may still manage to run away and survive, which incidentally serves evolution. Compare this to an animal bred by civilization on a farm. That animal will be locked and trapped in a sort of cage, whether a tight metal box or a fence around a grassland, and is sentenced to death from the moment it is born. It has no ability to escape this prison, and is not capable of deciding its own fate in life. It is in effect degraded to the status of a meat factory for the pleasure of the human, whereas the ones hunted in the wild can boast of a full and free life, before death.

Hunting is not necessary in the modern world where there is a system for almost any need, but is necessity the only cause for action? If it harms no one, and the hunter responsibly consumes the animal that he has hunted, then he or she should be allowed to do so if they so desire. I understand that it Can have negative effects on the environment, but isn't that problem caused by the irresponsible poachers who cross the line and go overboard, rather than the act of hunting itself? Whatever has happened in the past is irreversible in any case. In some countries, a natural predator may have gone extinct for some reason or another, and it is now up to the lawful hunters (within reasonable limits) to make sure that the herbivore population does not increase to uncontrollable levels, where they will strip the land bare of green plants and do far more damage then overhunting a single species could ever do.

I understand that perhaps in this small country of ours where apparently just about any game-size animal worth hunting is being endangered, then it is reasonable to place protection upon said endangered species, hence my statement at the beginning of not disputing the Johor decision. However, I believe the decision should not be made on the unreasonable rationality of what is necessary or and what is not. If we were restricted from doing anything that was both unnecessary and had an effect on the environment, everyone would be pretty much sitting on the grass looking at the clouds all day every day, as nearly every thing we do is based on some form of environmentally damaging power source, small or large in its effect.

Lastly, I would like to ask if you could clarify the source of that British study as well as all the other statistics and percentages in your letter. Most statistics are made up unless they are sourced and proven, as the saying goes, although I am not declaring your statements as outright false. I take an extra helping of salt from Britain, seeing as they are vehemently anti-gun and said hunters may not have had the right tools for the job. I see nothing wrong with shooting more than once, especially since no correlation was given between number of shots hit and length of time before death. It may be that the hunters who only shoot once are the ones causing the deer to suffer the longest!