From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:44:45 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <jy1xhx-@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>Paul Roberts writes:
>
>>In article <xqvxh5m@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>>>Robert Black writes:
>>>
>>>[lots of stuff deleted]
>>>
>>>>There's nothing inherently bad about fanaticism if the cause is just and
>>>>the tactics are ethical.
>>>
>>>OK, Bob, I'll bite.  What tactics do you consider ethical?  In
>>>specific, do you consider PETA's tactics ethical?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'd just love to know what "PETA's tactics" are, that you apparently
>>object to. Their chief tactic seems to me to be asking people to
>>write to their Congresscritters in support of this or that bill,
>>write to corporations urging them to give up one form of product
>>testing in favour of another, etc.
>>
>>Just what "tactics" do you object to?
>
>Paul, I appologize for not getting right back to you on this, but I've
>been pretty busy recently.  I was also trying to find the info that I
>have.

No hurry, no hurry.

>
>OK, I finally dug it out.  This comes from (you guessed it) Petersen's
>_Hunting_, July 1991, p. 24 (any typos are mine):
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>"How To Attack Hunting By PETA" [sic]
>
>[Editor's note: The following was exerpted from _Wyoming Wildlife_
>Magazine.  The following was obtained from a pamphlet produced by PETA
>(People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals) [sic], a well-known
>antihunting organization.  Here is what that organization encourages
>its members to do in order to disrupt hunting activities.]

You know, I am sceptical that these are verbatim quotes from PETAs
own literature. Would PETA really say:

 "Place antihunting literature in your schools and libraries to
  indoctrinate young minds when they are most vulnerable."

instead of:

 "educate the young before they are exposed to hunter's propoganda"?

I think what we have here is what "Petersen's Hunting" claims are
PETA's tactics, rather than what PETA explicitly recommends. Needless
to say, I have no more faith in "Petersen's Hunting" to present
things fairly than you have in "PETA News" to do the same thing.

>
>1. Deny hunting lands (i.e. post them) [sic] by convincing your
>neighbors that hunters cause more damage than do animals.
>
>2. Apply for special permits to deny them to hunters.
>
>3. Go into the woods before the season starts and disrupt normal
>animal habits, using loud noises, dogs, and so on.
>
>4. Any blinds found should be desecrated with rotten eggs, cow dung,
>and the like.
>
>5. Tear down tree stands.
>
>6. Use repellents, such as taking a female dog in heat into hunting
>areas.
>
>7. Where bait is used, take it or spoil it with human urine, hair, or
>deer repellant.
>
>8. Encourage the passage of firearms bans (including bows and arrows)
>in your hometown in the name of public safety.
>
>9. Develop antihunting sentiment in your town.
>
>10. Lobby for laws requiring written permission to hunt on private
>land.
>
>11. Organize groups to enter the woods during hunting season and
>disrupt hunts.
>
>12. Write your congressman encouraging the banning of hunting and
>trapping on public lands.
>
>13. Get your governor to appoint non-hunters to the Fish and Wildlife
>Board.
>
>14. Place stuffed animals in the hunting area to encourage hunters to
>shoot them, scaring off wildlife.
>
>15. Look for announcements of hunts and picket the area.  Be sure to
>contact the media first to ensure maximum exposure.
>
>16. Put pressure on the sponsors to cancel the hunts.
>
>17. Sue every chance you get, but contact a lawyer first, because the
>threat of litigation is a good deterrent.
>
>18. Place antihunting literature in your schools and libraries to
>indoctrinate young minds when they are most vulnerable.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Now most of this stuff is indeed "harmless" spreading of propaganda
>and such.  But I'd like to call your attention to items 4, 5, and 7.
>And I'll ask my question again, do you and Bob truly consider actions
>such as trespassing (in order to "tear down a tree stand" you must go
>on private property, since they are not allowed on public lands),
>theft, and destruction of another person's property to be "ethical?"
>In most places they are *illegal*, muchless ethical.  These are the
>"tactics" that PETA advocates which I object to.  Any comments?
>
>
>John

As you say, most of it comes down to "campaign!". That seems a very
legitimate tactic in a democracy.

I am not too comfortable with vandalism etc as tactics, but there MIGHT
be circumstances under which they are justified. 

For instance, bombing the railway tracks that led to Dachau would have
been ethically justified, I think. Destroying a leghold trap found in
the woods would also be ethically justfied, I believe.

Basically one has took look at actions on a case-by-case basis.


>
>P.S.-- Do you folks *really* think 14 is going to work??? :-)

Hmmm..

>14. Place stuffed animals in the hunting area to encourage hunters to
>shoot them, scaring off wildlife.

 ... it does seem kind of unlikely. On the other hand, every year we
read in the papers stuff like "Mrs Whatnot was shot in her yard while
hanging out the laundry. Mr Whoever said that he `mistook her for a
deer'".

 So maybe it would work occasionally.

Paul