Sparring With An Animal Rights Activist It was a warm Sunday afternoon, and I had driven to the main library, in downtown Santa Rosa, to research an article. The library wasn't open yet, so I decided to walk down to Sears and buy a jacket. Ahead of me was a restaurant specializing in natural foods; in front of it stood an attractive young woman handing out flyers. What were the flyers? A mall grand opening? Or something political? I'll admit it -- I'm a sucker for political activists. I've stood in front of post offices distributing anti-draft literature; I've picketed meetings honoring notorious gun prohibitionists like Joe McNamara; I've walked precincts distributing literature against rent control. It's unpleasant, embarrassing work, but someone needs to do it. Because it is so unpleasant, there's a camaraderie shared with other activists, and I never miss the opportunity to observe other activists in action. I can admire a competent activist, even one I don't agree with, and there are almost always lessons to be learned from their mistakes. The young woman was in early 20s, wearing one of those Flashdance pre-ruined sweatshirts, with a pro-choice political statement emblazoned on it. She was from San Jose, a solid three hour drive from Santa Rosa; she was meeting a friend here to distribute anti-hunting flyers. The flyer she was handing out showed a Jeep, with a hunter tied to the hood, and an elk behind the driver's seat. The caption asked, "Would you feel differently if this were happening?" The remainder of the flyer, from a group called "Voice for Animals", asked people to show up at a wild game ranch to picket an elk hunt in August. It was tempting to just walk on, and discard the flyer, but I had a few minutes, and I thought it might be interesting to find out what motivated her concerns. "So, what's your objection to hunting elk?" "This hunt is so wealthy businessmen can pay $80,000 each to kill elk to put a trophy on the wall!" She was indignant. "Why does that bother you? I don't hunt, in fact, I've never hunted, and I wouldn't do it myself, but what's the problem if other people do it?" I asked. She then repeated her previous statement, emphasizing the $80,000 fee, and "wealthy businessmen", in the same disgusted tone that I'm sure used to be heard in the South to describe black people. "The Fish & Game Dept. gets money for breeding elk to be shot." "Would it be more acceptable if the fee were $1?" "No." "Then why are you making an issue of the amount of money? Why does it matter if these are `wealthy businessmen'?" She said nothing -- but I could see anxiety building. I explained that hunting is a necessity to keep wildlife populations in check, since man has so dramatically reduced their ranges in the last few years. "You don't really think that the numbers can be kept down without hunting, do you?" "They shouldn't be breeding the elk to be hunted. They're overbreeding the species." She was beginning to get a little edgy, as though she hadn't expected difficult questions. "What's your objection to that? Is it damaging the species? What if they were hunting rats?" "They just shouldn't be doing it," and she turned up her a nose a little. "So, are you a vegetarian? You don't use any animal products of any sort do you?" She gave a smile of self-satisfaction. "Right. I don't eat meat." She started to show me her purse. "Look inside my purse." It took me a moment to realize that she meant her purse wasn't made of leather, and that she was trying to prove that she was morally pure. "How would you feel if you were being bred just to be hunted?" she asked. "I take it you consider elk and people to be morally equivalent?" I asked. "A boy is a pig is dog is a rat?" "Well, basically. But that's not really what I'm here about. I'm just here to save the elk." I pointed to the picture of the man tied up on the hood of the Jeep. "So you are arguing that men and elk are equivalent. Why don't you put a picture of a package of hamburger here as well, to show people what you are driving at?" My implication was that she viewed meat eating as the moral equivalent of hunting an animal -- that animals have rights equal to the rights of people. "I'm not here about that. I'm just here to save the elk," she repeated. The tone in her voice told me that she knew she was in trouble. "So why don't you tell people the rest of what you are interested in? It would be more honest. Of course, 95% of Americans would lose interest then, wouldn't they? Most Americans don't believe animals are moral equals to people." "I'm just amazed that anyone has enough time to spend arguing about something like this. I'm just here to save the elk." She was beginning to sound rather disturbed. "Most people are just happy to save the elk." "Most people also don't vote anymore, because they don't think very deeply. I just want you to be honest about your goals, and let people know the philosophical basis of your beliefs." By this point, she was beginning to look a little afraid. "I have to go, I have a phone call to make," and she quickly walked into the restaurant. Twenty minutes later, I retraced my path from the library to Sears. She wasn't there. No one else was distributing anti-hunting flyers. There are some lessons to be learned here -- and they aren't all specific to the anti-hunting crazies. In my experience, there are certain characteristics that are common to nearly all political activists, regardless of their cause, or position on the political spectrum. First of all, political activists don't expect to be questioned closely about their beliefs in public. They certainly don't expect careful, logical analysis of their beliefs from people to whom they are distributing flyers. Questioning them carefully in front of an audience can be an effective method of either demonstrating the internal consistency or inconsistency of their beliefs; if inconsistent, you can destroy their credibility. There may be only a few people watching the exchange, but if they form an opinion as a result of your questioning, those opinions are likely to persist. Second, political activists must believe that what they are doing is right. It's not easy being on the front line; if you have any doubts about the cause you are espousing, you won't be on the front line very long. In this case, the young woman hadn't really thought through that she was in fact trying to get meat-eaters to "save the elk" for "ethical reasons". When she realized that an honest, complete explication of her beliefs would make her cause unacceptable to nearly everyone, she stopped (at least temporarily) distributing the flyers. Even if she persuades herself to resume this activity, I suspect that she will be uncomfortable about her cause. Third, this young woman was engaging in guilt by association. The constant refrain of "wealthy businessmen" was intended to persuade me that, simply because the hunters made money by participating in the capitalist system, they and their hunt was somehow immoral. (If you don't understand how such a strategy can work, you need to spend more time in California, where the only "morally correct" employment seems to either be with the government or a non- profit environmental organization). The emphasis on "$80,000" (an absolutely impossible license fee) was designed to promote the feeling that the elk hunters were profligate and irresponsible, and this was an event in which only wealthy people could participate. Fourth, time spent talking to anti-hunting political activists prevents them from talking to other people. To be a political activist, as I've mentioned, you have to believe that you are right, or you wouldn't be an activist. If you think you are right, you believe that you can persuade others of the rightness of your ideas. During the 15 minutes that this young woman and I verbally sparred, she managed to distribute one flyer -- and that flyer was to a couple that approached her. During the time this young woman was talking to me, she was unable to influence the dozens of other people that passed us. Finally, I regret that I made one major mistake. As I've mentioned, her sweatshirt carried an abortion pro-choice political message. I'm pro-choice also (perhaps the only issue on which this young woman and I were in agreement). If I had been quicker on my feet, I would have asked her why she was pro-life for elk, but pro-choice for human fetuses. So much for moral equivalence! ------ Clayton Cramer is a software engineer with a Northern California telecommunications manufacturer. His first book, By The Dim And Flaring Lamps: The Civil War Diary of Samuel McIlvaine, was published in 1990. Mr. Cramer limits his hunting to the meat section of his local supermarket.