Questions News Reporters Should Ask Animal Rights
Activists, But Don’t!
By Stephen M. Vantassel
Newspaper reporters, radio reporters, television reporters:
Read the questions below. Feel free to use them when interviewing animal rights activists. It contains a great deal of information that debunks the animal rights agenda. I have published a number of articles, including peer-reviewed as well as a book: Dominion over Wildlife: An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (Wipf and Stock, 2009) detailing the logical, conceptual, and factual inadequacies of the animal rights position. Feel free to contact me email@example.com for more information.
- Why should money be spent on contraceptives for deer, when hunting is effective and much cheaper, particularly when the money could be spent on purchasing more property for habitat preservation or the poor?
- Why does your organization persist in claiming that vegetarianism has less environmental impact on the planet when hunting/trapping disturbs the ecology less than farming and that some ecosystems can only handle ranching and not intensive farming? (If you are confused by the question just consider the environmental devastation caused by the sod busters of the Mid-West.) The least harm principle actually supported mixed use farming (see Davis, Steven L. (2003). The Least Harm Principle May Require that Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, not a Vegan Diet. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16, 387-394).
- Why do you keep insinuating that those who utilize animal resources are anti-environment? Are fur trappers and other sportsmen wishing that wildlife habitat be destroyed? See John Organ’s article “Fair Chase and Humane Treatment: Balancing the Ethics of Hunting and Trapping” 63rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conf. 1998 p. 536. Here Mr. Organ notes that fur trapping in the Yukon actually was sustainable and the work of trappers helped end the non-sustainable resource extraction. In other words, trappers helped stop mining because they wanted to protect the habitat of the animals they trapped.
- Why did your group (Pro-Paw) ban not only the foothold but traps that have been shown to be less injurious to wildlife like the Egg trap for raccoon in Massachusetts? Not to mention snares which are extremely humane when used in certain sets for beaver and coyote?
- Why does your group keep mentioning how many countries have banned the foothold when most of those countries don’t have viable furbearer resources and/or have traps that are no more humane than the foothold?
About the Author
Stephen M. Vantassel is a certified wildlife control operator who helps individuals, businesses, and agencies resolve wildlife damage issues through training, writing, expert witness, and research. His latest books are the Wildlife Damage Inspection Handbook, 3rd edition and The Practical Guide to the Control of Feral Cats. He can be contacted at wildlifecontrolconsultant at gmail dot com.
If you would like your publication, video, or product reviewed, please contact the author at the e-mail above.
All postings are the property of Stephen M. Vantassel and Wildlife Control Consultant, LLC. Text (not images) may be reprinted in non-profit publications provided that the author and website URL is included. If images wish to be used, explicit and written permission must be obtained from Wildlife Control Consultant, LLC.