SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.
Wes Correll, Irvine
I do not know enough about the conservation effects of hunting to form an intelligent opinion.
I would rather Mother Nature take care of the “conservation” of animals without the interference of mankind, but obviously that ship sailed long ago.
If Mr. Erskine, featured in the July 12-18 edition of the San Clemente Times, wants to hunt and harvest animals to use the meat, etc., that is fine with me and certainly within his rights.
However, in most instances using an arrow to kill an animal must certainly cause more pain than being shot with a bullet. In some instances, the pain and suffering may be vastly greater.
I believe the killing should be done in the most reasonable, quickest and least painful manner available.
If Mr. Erskine truly believes he does not enjoy the “thrill,” then he should reevaluate the increased pain and suffering he may be inflicting on these innocent animals. The use of a bow and arrow to kill seems to contradict his “tremendous amount of respect for the animal, and nature.”
And I vehemently disagree with his statement that “the animals are everyone’s.” No wild animal is anyone’s.
I have done some research on this subject, but again I realize I’m not an expert on this matter either, and as painful as it is to think about I would like to know more.