From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: (none)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:19:49 GMT

gregb@service.csrv.uidaho.edu (Greg Brown) writes:

`But I think a stronger case against hunting can be made on the grounds of
`morals and ethics.  Hunting today amounts to "killing for fun."  Less than
`2% of hunting qualifies as subsistence hunting.  

An important thing to remember in these discussions and debates is that in
fact it is not the requirement of the hunters or the hunting supporters
to justify their activities.  It is the AR-head groups that are in fact
challenging the concepts of hunting and that thus must justify the reasons
to ban it.
Hunting has not only been a need in the past, but a tradition and is rapidly
gaining in strength as a staple of income in many areas.  Why then do the
animal rights activitists go after hunters and what are they really trying
to prove then?

Well, from all that I have seen, there could only be a few possible solutions.
By saying that hunting is no longer 'necessary' for subsistance is to say
that they do not feel people should feel obliged to gather their own food
when a world/local market is capable of providing it for them.  I would be
willing to suggest that instead of going after hunters for gathering their
own food, that in fact they are going after hunters for gathering "MEAT".

It is easy to gain support for a campaign against a fringe group such as
the hunting community, as a lot of people have repressed feelings of guilt
for the cows and chickens that have to die to make their hamburgers, etc.
They feel sad for the squirrel that ran out in front of their car or the
chikadee that was eaten by the neighbors cat or for all the little creatures
that had to lose their homes to provide them with their own house.
Pick on a group that activily participates in chasing animals that most
industrial urban residents would only see in Disney movies and World
Wildlife magazines, and you are bound to gain support.

If in fact these groups are after the practice of animal use (for food
or otherwise) then why are they not instead going directly after the heart
of McDonalds or the Beef industry in general?  Because they would get their
butt whipped that's why!

I made a call into the local radio station after they gave a serious tongue
lashing to a member of the Fund for Animals that they had sweet talked into
calling into the morning show by leading her on to believe that they were on
her side.  In the process they had made some statements that kind of made them
selves look like paranoid idiots even though they did manage to make the woman
(Heidi?) look pretty bad.
I had called in as the Clarkston PPF co-chapter leader to add some input
but did not get a chance to talk to her directly.  In the process of the
conversation with the morning show crew a comment was made about my putting
my arguements up against her arguements, to which I replied that I do not
make arguements 'for' hunting.  I make arguements against banning hunting.

They are challenging me for my ethics.  I am challenging them for their
opinions and their logic - both of which I believe to be very poorly rooted
in mere emotion instead of common sense.

`Being outdoors, being
`with friends, enjoying the scenery, etc. consistently rank above or on par
`with the killing experience.

The killing is the part that I hate most about my hunting experience.  For
me however there is much more to the hunting season than waking up on
November 15th., grabbing a gun, and heading for the woods.  The hunting is
a full fledged experience that starts when the last season ends and some
times even before as the experiences are remember and shared over passing
years.
It is foolish to say that any one activity has but one good result.  Any
thing that we do has multiple goods and occasionally some bad sides to it.
Going on vacation may be a chance to get away, spend time with friends,
try out some new camping equipment, take walks in the woods or to see some
sights.  When you get there you may decide to take in some of the local
color or to do something completely unexpected.
To live by the misconception that to be a "true hunter" you have to enjoy
killing is so rediculous that it does not even justify response.  However,
you will find that to the majority of hunters, though they do find the
moment of the kill as an exhilarating experience (nervous tension and
months/years of anticipation can create quite a cardiac moment and the
accompanying adrenalin rush is something to be remembered) they usually
have great remorse about the kill itself.
But I find that even with these feelings, when the first steak is put on
the grill when you get back to camp, things come much more into perspective.
The meat tastes better (to hunters anyway) and is healthier than beef.  And
to hunters, the feeling of being responsible for filling your own plate is
in itself a strong feeling of ethics.

`As such, hunting is a blood "sport" that will (hopefully) fade as we as a
`species expand our ethics to include others.

As I have stated in numerous posts as well as articles that have been
published in local hunting journals and news papers.  Hunting to the
main stream hunting community is NOT a blood sport.  As your own post
suggests - success to most hunters IS NOT dependent on the game bag....

swood
-- 
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Bird season in Michigan and pheasant in zones 2 & 3
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Goose season (U.P. of Michigan)
  Nov. 14   Closing day of early Archery Deer season in Michigan
  Nov. 15   Opening day of Rifle Deer season in Michigan (YES!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals