From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:15:48 GMT

From article <1992Jul24.132306.6649@ac.dal.ca>, by robinson@ac.dal.ca:
jr> But it seems so blindingly obvious to me that death from a rifle or a bow 
jr> is orders of magnitude better than starvation, or death by natural 
jr> predation.  

It seems blindingly obvious to me that death by starvation or natural
predators is not the only alternative outcome for a healthy stag
that's just been shot by the hunter's bow.  

jr> Dying of old age is a luxury we've attained by re-modelling our 
jr> planet, among other things.  Animals in the wild rarely die of 
jr> old age.  Their death is long, lingering and painful in the 
jr> normal course of events and I can't help but feel that death at 
jr> the hands of a hunter is far far quicker and cleaner than much of 
jr> anything else.  

Is it better for the healthy stag in the aforementioned scenario to be
killed by humans at age three than killed by wolves at age 14?  To 
answer such a question, we'd have to consider all the experiences
that the stag might have in the interim eleven years.   

jr> Thus, when I examine the AR cause, despite their claims of 
jr> wanting less pain and sufferring for animals, I see banning 
jr> hunting as advocating more pain and suffering, not less.  

A few months ago I came across a woman, with tears in her eyes who
was ambling down the sidewalk in slow motion.  When I asked her if I 
could be of service, she explained that her dog friend had been 
suffering from cancer and that she had decided to have the animal 
euthanized after the vet explained that his pain was no longer 
controllable.  Just a few minutes previously, she had left the
vet's office, clutching her dead friend's leash and collar tightly
in her hand.

I'm sure that most of us would agree that her decision was an 
ethical one, in view of the fact that it was based on her 
understanding of the facts and her selfless concern for the dog
individual's well-being.  If human hunters were to kill an animal 
that's presently starving or diseased, I'm sure that the two 
situations would be analogous, but it doesn't make sense 
for someone to argue that human hunting is a good thing because 
it might spare a healthy animal from the possibility of some future 
deprivation.  

jr> I would feel this way even if I didn't hunt.  I see it, not as a 
jr> matter of opinion, but as an acknowledgement of the facts of life.  

It seems to me that one of the facts of life is that life is, indeed,
enjoyable despite its terminal hardships.   Surely it wouldn't make
sense for us to kill a young man in his late teens just because his
family medical history and lifestyle suggests that he might someday
succomb to heart disease and cancer.

jr> Because of this viewpoint, I feel very frustrated when someone 
jr> tries to replace a quick, relatively painless death with a long, 
jr> lingering one.  I hate to see anything suffer.  I don't mind 
jr> watching it die but damnit I hate to see it suffer.  

I'm not fond of suffering, but I think it'd be a mistake to kill an
animal that's not suffering simply because it might suffer in the
months or years ahead.

jr> I saw a book in the store authored by the Exec.  Dir.  of PETA 
jr> around Christmas time.  I think it was called 101 Things Kids Can 
jr> Do to Save the Animals (or the Planet, I forget which).  There 
jr> were several things I disliked about it.  First of all, its 
jr> connection with PETA was, I felt, heavily downplayed.  And yet, 
jr> it was in my estimation little more than propaganda.  It was 
jr> pushing the PETA agenda at children, encouraging them to view 
jr> animals in human terms, something I'm opposed to.  
jr> 
jr> In particular, there was a section on hunting.  It stated that if 
jr> the children knew anyone who hunted, they should bug that person 
jr> to hunt with a camera instead of a gun because animals that are 
jr> shot by a camera can still go home to their family at the end of 
jr> the day.  I found this bit very repulsive and misleading.  Animal 
jr> and human social structures are not the same.  Hell, not even all 
jr> animal social structures are the same.  Thus to characterize it 
jr> in human family terms is, IMHO, a highly unrealistic, over 
jr> emotional, misleading bit of pap.  To feed that to a child at an 
jr> early age, before they've developed a facility for critical 
jr> thinking is simply inexcusable.  

I would agree that not all animal social structures are the same, but
this doesn't excuse us from thinking about the social consequences 
of our dealings with animals, vis-a-vis animals themselves.

My girlfriend was commenting just the other day that the two dogs 
that share our household are far more sociable than the human 
inhabitants.  When someone goes away on a trip, they're the first 
to grieve, and they're the first to jump for joy when the 
individual returns home.  Do you think one of these dogs might be 
deprived in some way if one of his companions (human or dog) were 
killed in some unexpected way?  

jr> Thus, from this, I see the AR groups as saying that death by 
jr> non-human methods is ok and somehow more natural than death by 
jr> man.  Basically, I see it as a 'killing is bad' argument with only 
jr> black and white (killing=bad, no killing=good) and I think this 
jr> is false.  

I think you've misrepresented the position of your opponents.  Most
AR advocates that I know support the concept of euthanasia, but not
the concept of murder.  There's a difference between putting an animal
out of his misery, and justifying sport killing because the victim 
might otherwise, at some undefined point in the future, be subjected
to pain.

jr> Thus, I can not support, or condone AR groups even though I'm 
jr> sure they are, in some cases, doing quite a bit of good.  The 
jr> fact that such groups persist in trying to ram their philosophy 
jr> down the throats of others, including myself, forces me to 
jr> actively oppose them.  

If we were to stop a rapist from seizing the body of a woman, are
we ramming our philosophy down his throat?  Or conversely, are we
preventing him from claiming something that is not rightfully his?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3124 alt.postmodern:2237 rec.arts.books:13460