I DID! I DID! I've killed a mess of squirrel before. Ate them too.
No tree squirrels (yet), there wuld not be enough left after I shot them with what I have. Also, my JRT's enjoy conversing with them, begging them to come down and play [ :-) ],However, I have shot, plowed over, disced up and poisoned numerous ground squirrels, they dig holes that my horses can step into and break a leg.
Crows? Only when they are too numerous, and attempt to feed on my neighbor's freshly delivered lamb's eyes or umbilicus, or other bad habits they may get into, otherwise, they don't look like they would taste good. Although, my freind says they taste like somewhat between a spotted owl and a california sea gull....
The point is, the article attempts to refute hunting per se, and attempts to bolster the argument with his statements, which have no basis in fact, and simply can not be made with a straight face by anyone with any sense.
Picking a particular "cutesy" animal as evidence of "bad hunters" does you or your agrumentative skills no justice. Indeed, most hunters probably have a favorite game, and probably quite a few have some game they would rather not engage.
Does the author, or do you, have the moral authority to place judgement on another's actions for wanting to circumvent the supermarket to place food on their table, or perhaps ease the pain and suffering of a herd by thinning it out, or perhaps simply ridding their yard of dangerous vermin?
Would you complain if your neighborhood were being overrun by great big sewer rats, and a kindly neighbor offerred to off the ones seen in your yard with a shotgun or a .22?
I am sure your fertile mind can come up with numerous other examples where it would be "OK" to pull the trigger on an animal.