From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:14:39 GMT

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. 

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?

[...]

>> 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.

>
>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.

>> 
>> 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.

[...]

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.