animal in question may be, hunters must periodically be
allowed to “harvest” theexcess population—this allegedly
beingintheinterestsoftheanimalsthemselves.Theuseof
theterm “harvest”—often foundin the publicationsof the
hunters’ organizations—gives thelie to theclaimthat this
slaughterismotivatedbyconcernfortheanimals.Theterm
indicatesthatthehunterthinksofdeerorsealsasiftheywere
corn orcoal,objects ofvalue onlyin sofar astheyserve
human interests. This attitude, which is shared to a large
extentbytheU.S. FishandWildlifeService,overlooksthe
vitalfactthatdeerandotherhuntedanimals arecapableof
feelingpleasureandpain.Theyarethereforenotmeanstoour
ends,butbeingswithinterestsoftheirown.Ifitistruethatin
special circumstances their population grows to such an
extent that they damage their own environment and the
prospectsoftheirownsurvival,orthatofotheranimalswho
sharetheirhabitat,thenitmaybe rightforhumansto take
some supervisory action;but obviously if weconsider the
interests of the animals, this action will not be to allow
hunterstokillsomeanimals,inevitablywoundingothersin
theprocess,butrathertoreducethefertilityoftheanimals.If
we made an effort to develop more humane methods of
populationcontrolforwildanimalsinreserves,itwouldnot
bedifficultto comeupwith somethingbetterthanwhat is
donenow.Thetroubleisthattheauthoritiesresponsiblefor
wildlifehavea“harvest”mentality,andarenotinterestedin
findingtechniques ofpopulation control thatwould reduce
the number of animals to be “harvested” by hunters.^30
Ihavesaidthatthedifferencebetweenanimalslikedeer—or
pigsand chickens,forthatmatter—whomweought notto
thinkof “harvesting,” and cropslike corn, which we may
harvest,isthattheanimalsarecapableoffeelingpleasureand