From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:19:38 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Jul24.171439.1436@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.150051.6606@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.170659.11775@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>> In article <1992Jul15.155857.6524@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>> 
>>> [...]
>>> 
>>>>Objectivity, or its lack, has little to do with facts.  Facts have a nasty 
>>>>habit of just existing, with complete disregard for bias.  
>>> 
>>> You should have stopped here while you were on a roll.
>>> 
>>>>Actually, it is a miracle that they managed to rebound from a miniscule 
>>>>500,000 around the turn of the century.  This would have been virtually 
>>>>impossible without the advent of sport hunting and the revenue stream it 
>>>>creates.
>>> 
>>> "Miracle?" "Virtually impossible?" You'll have to provide some support
>>> for such sweeping claims. 
>>
>>Well, I consider such a low population as being on the verge of extinction, 
>>especially when one realizes that market hunters, not sport hunters, were 
>>actively shooting as many deer as they could bring to market.  That this 
>>was stopped, and a method was found to satisfy both our desire for venison 
>>and our desire to have a large sustainable deer population is, given the 
>>historical rapacity of the human species, a miracle in my book.  I consider 
>>it a miracle that they didn't go the way of the buffalo, or worse, the 
>>passenger pigeon.
> 
> 500,000 deer at the turn of the century was obviously a low number
> compared with that of a few centuries earlier.  But with the knowledge
> gained since then, we now know that it is relatively easy for them to
> re-populate, especially in view of the fact that other forces like the
> great increase of browse plants was working to the deer's advantage.  To
> say that the rebound was "virtually impossible" without sport hunting is
> stretching the bounds of credibility, no matter what the hunting
> magazines tell you. 

This has nothing to do with what 'the magazines tell me' Paul.  Re-read the 
above paragraph.  Sport hunting is a workable system that was substituted 
for market hunting.  The miracle is more in the fact that this took place 
(in my estimation) than in deer's reaction to it.

> 
> And remember 500,000 IS half a million.  That's still a lot of deer, even
> if only 2% of the peak total at an earlier time.  Now saving the 50
> remaining Florida panthers ... there's a challenge that is "virtually
> impossible" and will probably take a miracle.  Would "the advent of sport 
> hunting" be a recommended measure here?

Its not a lot of deer for the continental U.S.

In order to determine if sport hunting would help the panther population or 
not, we would have to determine what is killing the panthers.  Would sport 
hunting result in a more predictable and manageable kill?  Dan Sorenson has 
already indicated in another reply to this that cars kill the most panthers 
by far.  Assuming this to be the case, I don't think that sport hunting 
would be really useful here.  I think a more important question is "Is 
there sufficient habitat left in Florida to support these creatures?"  My 
guess would be no.

> 
> [...]
> 
>>> Let's do some simple arithmetic.  $60 per year is $1.15 per week.  If
>>> these people are "Fanatics", do you really think they wouldn't be
>>> willing cough up much more than this paltry sum? And if they aren't
>>> willing to fork over $1.15 per week, can they really be classified as
>>> fanatics?
>>
>>Perhaps I should elucidate further.  Where, exactly, does the money go?  
>>Money from the purchases of guns, ammunition, and other hunting gear goes 
>>directly into the management of wildlife.  I suspect that much of the money 
>>spent by ARFs goes directly into organizations that advocate animal rights 
>>and gets spent in ways which most directly benefit said organizations, not 
>>in ways that have a direct and immediate impact on the animals themselves.  
>>I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that the amount of money spent 
>>by ARFs, on average, which actually reaches wildlife in some tangible form 
>>is far far less than $60.00/person/year.  I doubt even more strongly that 
>>it is as consistent, predictable and sustainable as monies spent by 
>>hunters.
> 
> AR money figures are available, but I don't have them at hand.  However,
> there's still an apparent contradiction in what you're saying.  Either
> ARFs are truly fanatical, in which case you're incorrect about the lack
> of consistency and sustainability of their contributions, or their
> contributions are not consistent and sustainable as you say, in which
> case you've exaggerated their fanaticism.  Either way, the fanaticism
> issue is not that relevant, as long as the behavior is consistent with
> the deep-rooted ethical principles upon which the AR movement originated.
> There's nothing inherently bad about fanaticism if the cause is just and
> the tactics are ethical.

People give in accordance to their means.  If they can't spare the money, 
they can still give their time, energy and creativity to a project.  In 
which case, they could easily be considered a fanatic without ever 
contributing a dime.  The only contradiction here arrises from your 
attempts to link fanatacism and economics.  Some fanatics give their lives, 
though I've not heard of this (yet) in the AR cause.

FANATIC: n. "A person whose extreme zeal, piety, etc. goes beyond what is 
reasonable; zelot." Webster's New World Dictionary.

To such a person, the end justifies the means.  For this, and other obvious 
reasons, the tactics are rarely if ever ethical, and the cause, no matter 
how just it was in the beginning becomes tarnished and tainted by its 
contact with the fanatic.  If you would like a real world example of this, 
study the French Revolution.

> 
>>
>>All of that notwithstanding, the amount of money one spends is not what 
>>dictates fanaticism.  Fanaticism is a mindset.
> 
> No, but the amount of money spent is one indicator.  Someone unwilling
> or unable to spend $60 for a cause is not a good candidate for the label
> of fanatic in support of the goals of that cause.

Poppycock.  Such a person can easily donate time and energy far in excess 
of a street value of $60.00.

> 
>>> 
>>> In your Bash Animal Rightists Fanaticism (BARF), you're losing all
>>> objectivity, which is the very quality that you started out lecturing us
>>> on. 
> 
> [...]
> 
>>I think there is a place in this world for ARFs, but I don't think it is in 
>>attempting to destroy a system that is working quite well to preserve not 
>>only the game animals, but their habitat and consequently many of the other 
>>animals that live there.
> 
> Agreed.  Before anyone jettisons an existing system, there should be some
> assurance that a better alternative is available and ready to be phased in.
> But "better" in this context implies what is better for the animals not the
> hunters, wherever the interests of the two are in conflict.

Wherever the interests of the two *are* in conflict, the wildlife 
biologists usually err on the side of protecting the animals.  Personally I 
wouldn't have it any other way.

> 
> [...]
> 
> ---
> Robert Black 
> black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
> These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals