?) 
^5 5j 
(ORRESPONDENCE 
X 
2 
Jp-" AND 
Information^ 
The Psychology of Killing. 
(See page 70, October, 1921, number.) 
Newton, Massachusetts. 
To the Editor: 
It seems to me that any one who 
kills for the pleasure — as the so-called 
sportsman kills — can have in his whole 
being not one spark of love for animal 
life. The man who truly loves ani- 
mals and nature studies them as John 
Burroughs studied them. He, to my 
mind, was a true sportsman. He lived 
with them, made friends of them. 
The man who goes every fall to hunt 
with his gun, and returns glorying over 
his trophies, is a bad example for our 
young children. The destructive tend- 
ency is so strong in most of us that 
it seems to me every nature magazine 
should try to develop the constructive 
tendency in our young people, to help 
them live and let live. To do away 
with all unnecessary killing should be 
the aim of every nature publication. 
Very sincerely yours, 
(Mrs.) Marguerite A. R. Holmes, 
(comment by the reverend william 
J. LONG.) 
Stamford, Connecticut. 
To the Editor : 
You ask me kindly for an expression 
of opinion concerning a certain letter 
which condemns hunting and hunters. 
Frankly, I think that the letter is of a 
kind which admits no other opinion. 
There are people who believe that all 
hunting is wrong, and there are people 
who believe that moderate hunting is 
right. Hunters understand the first 
point of view and respect it; but those 
who condemn hunting are sweeping in 
their denunciation. That is a signifi- 
cant difference. 
You will therefore excuse me, please, 
if I make no argument in defense of 
those who hunt ; but perhaps you may 
be glad to have a plain statement of 
fact from one whom five hundred 
sportsmen asked to be president of 
their Fish and Game League because 
they knew him to be a naturalist who 
stands for the preservation of wild 
life : 
1. The writer of your letter says, 
“It seems to me that any one who kills 
for the pleasure — as the so-called 
sportsman kills — can have in his whole 
being not one spark of love for animal 
life.'’ Here is utter misunderstanding. 
Sportsmen do not kill for the pleasure 
of killing ; they hunt for the pleasure 
of hunting, which is a very different 
matter. In some of their happiest days 
afield there is no killing whatever. 
2. One man kills a lamb or a chicken 
which trusts him and feeds from his 
hand ; another kills a deer or a wood- 
cock which rushes away at the mere 
sound of his footsteps. One killing is 
a crude matter of business, and the 
creature has absolutely no chance for 
its life; the other killing calls for pa- 
tience, skill, knowledge of the woods, 
and the game has nine chances in ten 
of escape. The deer and woodcock no 
less than the lamb and chicken are used 
for food. 
Personally, if T had to make choice 
between these killings, I would shoot 
the woodcock, or try to, rather than 
take the axe to the chicken. The only 
refuge is to turn vegetarian, which 
lands us in a contradiction. The lamb 
and deer, which eat grass, and the 
chicken and woodcock, which eat in- 
sects, are taking life as surely, as the 
man who eats meat. Moreover, the 
insect and the grass feed upon other 
forms of living things. The very dirt 
under our feet swarms with life that 
is constantly being destroyed and re- 
newed, and in the glass of water which 
quenches our thirst is enough animal 
life to populate a universe. 
3. Some of the most devoted lovers 
of wild life I know are sportsmen. They 
guard every innocent thing that lives, 
game included, and are always ready 
to give time and money to bird and 
animal protection. To them largely we 
owe the absolute prohibition of killing 
