10& 



edffeable than I in terms of the process of butchery and the horror 

 of l)utchery, and the question of endangered species and so on. I will 

 not go into these areas where I know much less than Miss Herrington 

 and others. But, as a psychologist, I will tell you this, as someone who 

 has worked with thousands of individuals, who has counseled them 

 and tested them and run groups of training programs with them, I 

 will tell you that in this bill you have far more at stake than you do 

 the saving of animals. 



You have a great deal at stake in the saving of our society right 

 here in the United States, not worrying, gentlemen, about what other 

 countries do, because I do think they will come along. 



I do think we can exert leadership and get them to come along, 

 but this is a step less important than stating our own society's affirma- 

 tion of what we believe in, that we genuinely do not believe in kill- 

 ing; that we genuinely are willing to put our money where our 

 mouth is, and we are willing for once to say it is policy, it is the 

 law to do the right thing. 



We are willing to say we are going to back it up with the muscle 

 that the Harris-Pryor bill has to back it up with. 



This will do more than all the drug lectures, the pious speeches, 

 all the speeches and articles on tJie generation gap ; this little action, 

 I can guarantee, will do more than solve some of our basic youth 



Eroblems than any direct assault on these youth problems ever did, 

 ecause kids are looking for reality, not words. 



Thank you very much. 



Mr. DiNGELL. We are very grateful to you for this very helpful 

 statement. 



Dr. Greenberg. Mr. Chairman, may we, for the record, introduce 

 a letter which I will not take the time of the committee to have 

 read, but there is a letter from a 14-year-old boy that I think ex- 

 presses this very strongly. 



(The letter follows:) 



Before we lived on the face of this earth, plants and animals coexisted in 

 peace. It is true that nature was ugly at times, and yet there was never any 

 suffering without purpose, without that ultimate purpose, survival. No animal 

 killed out of greed or lost, none killed unnecessarily. And then there was man, 

 who broke all the traditional rulesL He killed for personal gain, and would 

 flaunt animal skins as status symbols, to show he was king of the beasts, he 

 could conquer all, he was the best, (because he had invented the gun, holding 

 in his hands the veir power to decide whether an animal should live or not. 

 Actually, this was a sign of mans weakness, because he would never dare face 

 an animal alone without his sacred weai)on) . 



Man is very thick-headed in that he is not quick to learn from past experience. 

 He must be shown over and over again before he realizes that he has made a 

 mistake. 



This unfortunate characteristic becomes quite api>arent when man kills cer- 

 tain specie's of animals frequently, and then looks back to the horrible realiza- 

 tion that there are no more left, (none left "to kill"). Once a species is extinct, 

 there is no way you can ever bring it back. When I see seals and other fur-bearing 

 creatures being killed off in masses ; when I see over a thousand polar bears 

 being murdered each year, (even though there are only 10,000 left), I just can- 

 not sit back and let this cruelty and insanity continue. I know what the ultimate 

 destiny of these creatures must be if something is not done immediately. Isn't 

 it obvious by now, or must we again show our ignorance by continuing to sup- 

 port this barbarism? I certainly hope not. 



I do not believe it is right to kill an animal unless it is a question of survival. 

 Certainly people do not need fur coats to survive. The only one, in this case, 

 who could not survive without killing animals is the Fouke Fur Company, be- 



