From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:03:11 GMT

Robert Black writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.113014.6677@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Jul24.173326.1658@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
[stuff deleted]
>
>John Robinson wrote:
>>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.
>
>No.  The F&G departments make the rules.  The individual hunters are the
>judges and jurors who make the life and death decisions that affect the
>individual animals.

Sorry, guys, but I still don't buy this.  The legislators don't tell
the cops that they can arrest 65,783 rapists, and only *one* per man,
and that all the rest go free.  That's what the game departments do,
and that's why they are *judge* and *jury*, as well as legislators.
Hunters are still only the executioner.  Once one of us drops a buck,
we do not "judge" whether or not the other bucks we see are "guilty."
The game department has already done that.  And they go free.


[stuff about spear hunting deleted]
>John Robinson wrote:
>>  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.
>
>The ethical issue of shooting at animals 1200 yards away was brought up
>by hunters, and initially by one who used to be a prolific poster to
>t.p.a.  My point had nothing to do with physics.  I mentioned this
>because some hunters defend practices like this which are not necessary
>and which can increase the chances of inflicting a crippling non-fatal
>injury.
>
>So despite the lofty proclamations and eloquent language that we often
>hear in t.p.a. from hunters about their concern for animals, the words
>of hunters in other forums would seem to belie the selective claims made
>in t.p.a. within earshot of AR people. 

C'mon, Bob.  Is this really a fair statement?  You're making it sound
as if *many* of the hunters supported the now-infamous 1200-yd elk
shooting in the thread that was running in the rec.hunting group.  Is
that really true?  As I recall, Toby damn near stood alone in his
defense of the practice (and those few posters that "supported" him
seemed more-or-less to be in support of freedom, rather than 1200-yd
elk shooting).  The general gist of the thread seemed to be that the
1.6+ seconds that it takes to "arc-ball" a 300-gr .30-378 bullet out
to that distance was just *too much time*, and the risk of wounding
the animal was *FAR too great*, no matter how skillful the shooter.
Did you really get a different impression?


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals