The Anti-Hunter’s Dilemma

This letter is in response to all those who hold an anti-hunting stance so staunch that they would attack any bill or law which gives animals even limited protection. 

There are not grounds enough for any arguments which deny all animals current legislation to be put in place for their protection. Amendments can be made to law at later dates when society has reached a level more evolved for said changes. That is the beauty of the constitution.

Does this say that we stop trying to educate people in regard to the negativity of hunting or stop teaching compassion? Of course not, but to deny all animals protection within a framework where hunting is legal is absolutely ludicrous. Everyone really needs to start understanding United States constitutional law better and making choices that are based on defending life when it can be defended. Beside this point, bills like H.R. 5337 are worded particularly well. They give animals much more protection than the initial law that was dismantled. Some even have broad clauses which make depictions of ALL extreme animal cruelty illegal. What more are you asking for?

Bills like this are the proverbial apple pie with whipped cream and two cherries on top for animal activists in America and you would deny giving it support? The only way a bill like this has a snowball’s chance in hell of even garnering any real consideration would be if every ARA in the world got behind it. Activists in other countries would have to be walking in the streets in anti-US animal cruelty demonstration in order to put enough pressure on the Senate.

The NRA, as well as the ACLU would also be all over legislation like this. Believe me, they will not lighten their stance when comes to monies made through the hunting industry nor anything that might be seen as an attack on first amendment rights in their eyes. You aren’t looking at the big picture if you can not see that animals need protection to fit society at the time. All you are seeing is one particular cause and you will not generate the form of legislation you are seeking at this point in history. It simply will not happen.

So you will sacrifice the lives of millions of animals because of an “all or nothing” attitude. I am sorry, but out of a simple base morality, I can not stand with you on your stance. This is why I will not be labeled as only an anti-hunter. I abhor the practice and love all animals but there it stands. I love ALL animals, life and the Earth. I am informed enough to know that law against hunting can be addressed and amended at another time when enough support can be gained for it.

I, myself will support legislation that protects animals now, then worry about altering said legislation later. Anyone who can not understand this stance and wishes to judge me, they can do so.


Bill H.R. 5337 

Anthony Damiano


Core Member at and founder of A.E.L.L.A.

Previous Article

Do you believe animals deserve basic legal rights?

Next Article

Sample Letter to Senators regarding HR 5566

You might be interested in …

The bill is based on the law that was dismantled by the Supreme Court earlier in the year which basically legalized the depiction of animal cruelty. This particular bill, which is actually the strongest one, having the broadest protection, isn’t even being talked about amid the animal rights circle. Included in the blog is the link to the bill so that you can read it for yourself. There was a certain anti-hunting group that was attacking anyone who supported this bill about a month and a half ago simply because the bill doesn’t say that depiction of hunting will be made illegal. Since no law will be pushed through at this time saying that depictions of hunting will be made illegal, as hunting under specific terms is a legal act, I found it ridiculous to deny ALL animals of protection based on their stance. Amendments can be made to law which exist today at later dates, as already mentioned in my blog, so why deny many animals protection that we CAN give them now? If the only argument made happens to be that the only accepted law will be one which specifically states that hunting depiction is wholly illegal, or they will accept nothing at all, then I can not stand with that ideal. This is my opinion. I would choose not to sacrifice animals now, nor would I “cut off my nose to spite my face”. I would not choose to let animals die just for the sake of an ideal.
Again, most of us really do not understand why the NRA was so afraid that this would adversely affect the hunting industry as hunting is a legal act in most cases, but they were. The reason that they “jumped in” and lobbied for the original law to be dismantled was because of the “United States vs. Stevens” case which involved dog fighting video. Our best guess is that when they saw people trying to prosecute against dog fighting video using the law, they were indeed concerned that the hunting industry was next. Considering that “Hunting Magazine” alone rakes in about 135 million dollars annually, well, you get the idea. Regardless, the Stevens case was thrown out and the law was eventually removed from the Constitution. The Honorable Judge Alito was the only Justice of 8 to argue in favor of keeping the law, asking the others to please allow lawmakers to “re-write” it, rather than throw it away so there would not be an open the door for horrors like crush video. I hope the information we are providing is helping everyone to understand the issue.