From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:30:14 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Jul24.173326.1658@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.124725.6620@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.172135.19116@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>> In article <1992Jul17.052521.10939@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Jul16.161229.20082@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>John Robinson wrote to David Caruso II:
>>>>>>......  Would you think more highly of hunters if they dragged their 
>>>>>>heels as they went into the woods, reluctant to dicharge a distateful 
>>>>>>duty?
>>>>>
>>>>>				YES
>>>>
>>>>Quite. Conversely, what would you think of a state executioner who
>>>>really REALLY enjoyed his job? 
>>> 
>>> I certainly would not want this executioner to be the one who decided
>>> whether a particular individual should be executed or not.
>>
>>Executioners don't decide.  Others decide.  They're called jurors, judges 
>>and govonors.  Executioners just push the button or pull the switch long after 
>>the decision has already been made. None of which has the slightest bit to 
>>do with the topic of discusion, talk.politics.animals.  Nice attempt at a 
>>diversion though. :)
> 
> But what Paul was pointing out is that in the case of killing an individual
> animal, it's not "others" who decide.  The juror, judge, and executioner
> are one and the same.  And those who enjoy the execution are not the ones
> who should be the judges.  I don't think there's a great disagreement here,
> since all hunters in this forum allegedly don't enjoy killing.

And you discovered this by mind melding with him is that it?  I think he's 
demonstrated that he is quite capable of speaking for himself so why don't 
you concentrate on what you're trying to say? 

> 
> However if I know of a hunter who enjoyed killing animals (and I have
> met some), I would not want that individual to be doing hunting any more
> than I would want the rabid executioner to be a judge or juror.  Of
> course most hunters aren't likely to admit it these days, given the
> attention focused on their activities.  So one needs to watch for more
> subtle (and granted, less reliable) indications ...  possible candidates
> might be hunters who advocate techniques that cause greater crippling
> rates or methods likely to cause more pain and suffering, e.g.  hunters
> who would support legalization of, say, use of spears on wild hogs or
> who would support shooting at deer 2/3 of a mile away.  There are some
> of these types, as you know. 

As has been pointed out, the hunter is far from judge and jury.  The judges 
and jurors are in the F&G depts.  They decide.  They determine seasons, bag 
limits and so forth.  We carry out their decisions.

More subtle indicators huh?  Why is the hair on the back of neck standing 
up?  The words 'witch hunt' come to mind.  Personally, I would support the 
use of spears on wild hogs, or other game if I thought it would result in a 
clean kill.  I happen to have a particular interest in primitive hunting, 
and given the opportunity would like to try pig hunting with spears.

I'm not currently aware of any regulations regarding legal distances, so I 
don't see that there would be anything to legalize here.  But lets analyze 
your statement anyway.  Two thirds of a mile (a mile is 5280 feet or 1760 
yards.  Thus, 1760*2/3 = 1173.33 yards.  One might (*MIGHT*) be able to hit 
an animal from a good stable rest at this distance if (VERY BIG IF) it were 
standing broadside, standing stock still.  Personally, I have my doubts.  
No, I think Physics regulates this much better than the Game departments 
will ever be able to.  Go look up bullet drop for typical deer cartridges 
and then come back and tell me how high your rifle would have to be 
printing above the point of aim at 100 yards to be dead on (vertically) at 
1173.33 yards.  Then examine the degree to which the bullet rises and falls 
at 200, 300, 400,...all the way up the 1173.33.  If this doesn't convince 
you of the absurdity of your statement, nothing will.

> 
> [...]
> 
> ---
> 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