From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:27:42 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <9_4tnnk@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.144308.4894@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <10zt2!d@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
>>> In article <1992Apr3.164107.4780@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>
>>>>Interesting huh?  I wonder.  Maybe we should come up with a quiz to test 
>>>>the knowledge of those in the AR camp wrt deer.....mind you, they could 
>>>>always go look up the answers so it might not be terribly useful....
>>>>
>>> And just who would you get to produce the definitive answers to those
>>> questions?  I suspect they will all be generated from common "hunting
>>> lore", not from established principles of cervine ecology or facts
>>> of deer anatomy and physiology.  Much of what hunters know about deer
>>> is correct.  However, very little of it is ever verified in factual
>>> studies.  Much is correct, but I'm sure some is incorrect, and I wouldn't
>>> be at all surprised if some of it were baldface, self-serving lies, or
>>> at least started out that way, even though it is commonly believed now.
>>
>>It could be a mixture of 'common hunting lore' and scientifically 
>>established fact.
>>
> Who is to say the common lore is correct if it isn't scientifically
> established?

Good question. :-)  We could allow the hunters to vote by consensus and 
label it as correct hunting lore, in which case it wouldn't have to be 
correct in fact.  Somehow I think certain people might, uhm, object to 
that. :-)

> 
>>Some lore may well have begun as 'baldface, self-serving lies'.  The 
>>difficulty with this is that it is quite easy to put a 'twist' on 
>>perception and view a simple misunderstanding in a sinister light.  Given 
>>that hunting has produced a large and by all accounts healthy deer herd 
>>where there was before only a decimated reminant and that hunters have 
>>participated actively in this, I think it is more reasonable to assume the 
>>former rather than the latter.
>>
> I'd agree.  I can't think of a single example of an outright lie in
> regards to deer hunting, though I can think of quite a few wrt fox
> and otter hunting.  But there may be a few I just haven't caught.
> At most, they are a tiny percentage of deer hunting lore, but may
> be there.    

Well, fox hunting perhaps.  Otter hunting too for that matter.  But is 
otter hunting not commercial?  And is not fox hunting predominantly the 
activity of a wealthy minority?

> 
>>Indeed, in closely examining pro-gun and pro-hunting arguments and anti-gun 
>>and anti-hunting arguments, I have to personally say that I've seen far 
>>more self-serving lies in the latter than in the former.
>> 
> In regards to anti-gun arguments, I agree completely.  I haven't seen 
> any true lies at all wrt the hunting debate, from either side.  A few
> errors on both sides, but nothing that smacks of malice.

I would say that the series that Andrew Werling posted from Friends of 
Animals entitled EXPLODING THE MYTHS ABOUT HUNTING was an example of malice 
and error combined.  Others will undoubtedly have other opinions.

> 
> E.S. 
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069