Animal rights protest industry activists know how to exploit the public’s ignorance and prejudices. One of the most successful ways they do is by using the political tactic of divide and conquer. By attacking trapping, animal rights protest industry activists can frequently gain support from sportsmen and sportswomen in opposing trapping. The irony is that these sportspeople think that hunting and fishing are somehow more humane than trapping and therefore immune from the animal rights activists ire.
The position of these sportspeople is actually quite sad. For they are either ignorant or in outright denial of the goals and beliefs of the animal rights movement (they hate hunting and fishing alike), or they think that sacrificing trappers on the altar of expediency will placate the animal rights activists, at least for a little while.
I suspect that sacrificing trapping would give hunters and fishermen a little political breathing space. The animal rights activists would need time to raise more money from their acolytes as they crowed about their victory over “cruel trapping.” But this window of relief would be short-lived. Political change makes more political change easier. So if trapping goes, hunting can more quickly follow.
But I want to emphasize that the public should understand the following: Animal Rights Protest Industry Activists want to end all consumptive forms of wildlife use. Just because they may not mention fishing, doesn’t mean they don’t hate it and want it to end. I encourage readers who doubt my words, to simply do a google search using the terms fishing + animal rights.
Stephen M. Vantassel is a tutor of theology at King’s Evangelical Divinity School. His interests include environmental-theology, conflict studies, and ethics. His latest book is Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (Wipf and Stock, 2009).
Copyright 2010 Stephen M. Vantassel