I don't hunt, but my father does. I always thought Pop was a swell guy, until I read Gloria Cohen's letter {Free for All, Sept. 26}. Turns out my dad is a sadist with serious psychological defects!

Imagine my surprise. My mind reeled back to lost days of youthful innocence -- my father playing with me, teaching me to drive, showing me the value of work, financing my education. All these years I thought he did those things out of love and concern for my well-being, but all the while he was secretly insane. Who knows what his twisted motives were? Perhaps it was all a cover for his bloodlust for Bambi's mom.

Next time Dad calls to see how I'm doing in the big city, I'll be ready for him. Love and concern? Ha! I won't fall for that trick again.

G. Robert Boston

The emotional and unreasonable nature of the animal rights people is exceeded only by their ignorance of the basic reasons hunting wild animals is allowed by law. Hunting is designed to reduce the populations of certain types of animals, not to satisfy any "sadistic" tendencies man may have. If hunting were outlawed, as these people seem to advocate, the wild animal population would swell to such a degree as to become a menace to human populations, as well as to cause untold suffering to the animals themselves.

There is nothing intrinsically immoral or unethical about the killing of a wild animal. Granted, there are hunters out there who are not humane and have no regard for the pain an animal may have to endure because of their carelessness. Still, the vast majority of hunters hunt for the sport of it, do it in a humane way and perform a public service in the process. These are not bloodthirsty men who stand around drinking beer while some animal writhes on the ground in agony. These are normal, everyday Americans who enjoy the sport of hunting.

I am not a hunter myself and I certainly never will be. I love animals as much as anyone, and I could never kill one myself. I do recognize, however, that there are those who wish to hunt for sport and for food, and I believe they have every right to do so, provided they stay within the law.

It seems to me that it is actually more humane to kill an animal quickly with a bullet than to allow the starvation and misery that inevitably come with overpopulation.

Francis J. Dietz

The hysterical wordage set forth in the letters of Gloria Cohen, Ingrid Newkirk and Jessica Sandler demonstrates their radical bent and lack of rational thought: "bloodletting," "sadism," "death throes," "mad ritual," "depraved," etc. Cohen states sportsmen are "individuals with serious psychological defects." I wonder who really has the serious psychological defects, having read in recent months the following by or about animal rights advocates:

A writer to Ann Landers stated she would be less concerned about running down a human than an animal.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals condoned breaking, entering and theft.

During the hot, dry summer, Christine Jackson suggested not eating chicken to save water (a devious approach), as chicken-processing plants use large amounts of water.

The same writer condemned an area mink farmer for teaching his children the business was an acceptable vocation.

Other writers denigrated a physician's long commentary outlining the great and many benefits accruing to mankind through animal research.

Last and by far the most ludicrous, they persuaded the city of Takoma Park to catch rats alive and to dispose of them in some harmless manner, such as releasing them in another jurisdiction.

I question Newkirk's statement that The Post likes to get a shot in at the animal rights people. My concern is that The Post constantly has their letters spread over the pages of Free For All, Letters to the Editor and elsewhere, which may lead the regulators to believe the majority of Americans concur with their view.

Incidentally, why have PETA and company not attacked The Post about the regular articles directed to another type of sportsman -- fishermen? Fishy, eh?

-- Marion L. Polli