From: shawn@ut-emx.uucp (Shawn Boyd)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: Cows at 12,000 Feet.
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:30:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <1992Sep10.220114.7938@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes:
>In article <14563@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep10.144422.965@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
  rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes:
>>>In article <14534@auspex-gw.auspex.com> 
   johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>>|> 
>>|>Unfortunately there might also be fewer hunters.
>>|>
>>|	This is a problem?? :-) It's not like they're an endangered
>>|species!
>>|
>>They're also people.
>>
>
>  	So?  A little gene-pool selection never hurt! :-) <--note
>smiley.
>
>
>Brad Whitehurst

 Careful now, gang.  Experienced hunters (especially those who take their 
 hunting responsibilities carefully) rarely shoot cattle.  It's usually an
 inexperienced and/or irresponsible hunter who does not properly identify
 his or her target.  I won't apologize for that kind of hunter, and in fact 
 would go so far as to say that such individuals don't fit my definition of 
 the term "hunter," but instead are more like some nincompoop who has miscast
 themself in the role of hunting, and who requires education and correction, 
 and when necessary, force of law to uphold the laws, rules, regulations and 
 general principles which govern a hunter's behaviour.  We do hunt with deadly
 weapons, and every serious hunter shoots to kill.  As such, safety measures
 must always be first and foremost in a hunter's mind, even in the almost 
 crisis like situation of making a proper kill.  Not the least of the rules of
 safety when determining whether to make the shot, is target identification.
 Without that, the shot should not even be contemplated, much less taken.
 Hunters don't shoot cattle.  Fools who are trying to act like hunters might.

 Most hunters are intensely interested in trying to perpetuate our natural 
 heritage and outdoor environment.  We are on the same side you are, although 
 I ocassionally have a moderately difficult discussion with one of my fellow 
 Sierra Club members, usually a peaceful discussion of the topics at hand 
 results in at least a partial meeting of the minds.  Fellow members of Green-
 peace are less likely to be as agreeable on the subject, but do after a time
 at least become willing to discuss the various topics associated with hunting
 in a calm way.  In addition to my membership in both the above organizations,
 I also belong to several bowhunting organizations, and after having looked 
 at the issues and disagreements both sides tend to have, I end up with the
 idea that when both sides disagree, they tend to do so on an emotional basis,
 with very little attention paid to the facts involved.

 Moreover, trying to put an experienced hunter on the losing end of some 
 imagined up gene pool selection criteria might very well end up in exactly 
 the opposite results of what the potential enforcer of the process of natural
 selection had intended.  Armed confrontation is a very bad idea.  I'm sure 
 you meant the above as a joke.  As a joke it is moderately funny.  :-)

 Shawn Boyd
 Austin, Texas
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry