Letters to the Editor: Black bears’ population growth isn’t an excuse for hunters to kill more of them
To the editor: Steven Rinella’s plea to be allowed to shoot dead more black bears fell flat on the ears of this “extremist” animal rights activist, no matter how many of his cruel and thoughtless friends prefer black bear meat at the unconventional (read: creepy) tasting parties he hosts.
First of all, any and all research funded by people who love nothing more than to kill wild animals for fun and amusement is suspect.
Secondly, he neglects to mention these facts: For every animal shot dead by a hunter, one is left wounded to die a slow and agonizing death, and hunters frequently kill new moms, leaving their cubs to the same sad and tragic fate.
Third, why oh why can’t we humans greet the good news that the black bear population is thriving with celebration and joy instead of seeing it as a new hunting opportunity?
Finally, it is the thinnest of lines that separates the killing of an animal from the killing of a human being.
JJ Flowers, Dana Point
..
To the editor: Hunting black bears in California? Though not a hunter myself (too lazy), I’m OK with hunting provided that the animal species is not endangered, and you eat what you kill.
Raymond Sokolov (“The Saucier’s Apprentice”) has a fine recipe for Sauce Grand Veneur that he recommends having with haunch of bear.
Bob Wieting, Simi Valley
..
To the editor: The assertion that black bear population growth justifies expanded hunting of the animals overlooks the ethical and ecological implications of such a proposal. California’s black bear population recovery is a conservation success story, not a justification for increased hunting pressure.
Claims that hunting fees fund conservation efforts fail to acknowledge broader environmental impacts and the welfare of individual animals and their families. Conservation should prioritize coexistence and non-lethal management strategies rather than perpetuating outdated practices that disrupt natural ecosystems.
Furthermore, the argument that hunters benefit wildlife management contradicts the broader community’s responsibility to safeguard biodiversity for future generations. It is crucial that wildlife policies uphold ethical standards and prioritize sustainable practices that protect all species’ interests.
Kayla Capper, Ojai
The writer is California state director of the group Animal Wellness Action.
..
To the editor: Rinella closes his article by writing: “It’s understandable that most Californians will never choose to be hunters. What’s less clear is why more don’t support those who do.”
Why?
Apparently, the author is unaware that the largest wildlife crossing in the United States is being built right here in Southern California to protect our mountain lion populations. He also seems unaware that most Californians do not condone the taking of innocent lives for the specious reasons he outlined.
Killing sentient beings simply for existing is cruel and inhumane — that’s why most Californians don’t support what he does.
Kelli J. Nicholas, Simi Valley
