From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:33:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: osnome.RIGG.92Apr14113327
	<altar.703193607@sfu.ca>
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca's message of 13 Apr 92 19:33:27 GMT

In article <altar.703193607@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
   rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
   >In article <altar.703144584@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
   >     So guys,
   >   don't blame us if your numbers are declining, blame this "sport"
   >   for being uninteresting and yourselves for finding better things
   >   to do.

   >First, I'd like to commend you on posting scientific studies.  It is
   >much nicer to discuss "facts and figures" than rhetoric.

   Thanks; just call me stats Can.  I trust, however, that you are not 
   implying by the second sentence that "moi" would ever resort to
   mere rhetoric? ;-)

I am not sure which "moi" you are referring to.  I am sure that we can
agree that there is plenty of "mere rhetoric" from both sides.

   > I
   >have tried a zillion recreational activities, most of which I no
   >longer do..  The reason why I don't do them anymore is that I have
   >found better ways to spend my time.  Does this say that all those
   >other activities were too easy and unrewarding.  Perhaps.  However, a
   >better explanation is that they simply didn't appeal to _me_.

   Tim, have you decided to quit hunting and hang up your bow and
   arrows?  I didn't think so.  Now, remember we were looking at data
   regarding those hunters who apparently have quit the game.  Your
   testimony, as interesting as might be, is probably irrelevant.  I
   did ask that we suspend any self-reference as we inspect the
   results of this survey of people who did not bother to renew their
   hunting licence.

I have decided to quit bowling and golf for nearly identical reasons
to those given by the ex-hunters. So I had to ask what their responses
were supposed to indicate about hunting.

   My point is that we AR folk are not the ones who are deterring you
   hunters from killing harmless animals.  I wish appeals to ethical
   rationality were more effective, but it is simply not the case. 

This months Deer and Deer Hunting talks about the diminishing number
of hunters. I am not sure but I don't think theyeven mentioned the
anti's.  The primary reasons were a shift to a more urban population,
fewer wild lands to hunt, and fewer traditional families with the
father around to take kids hunting.

   Hence, we AR folk are not the ones you should be so mad at, or 
   even be so intent on arguing with.  Indeed, why do you bother, 
   since my impression is that hunters have pretty well written us
   off.

The same questions can be asked of you. I quess, I enjoy a good
debate.  Since you say that you don't think you'll change the minds of
any hunters and few nonhunters read the list, why do you bother?


   If, for instance, the question of interest were to better assess how 
   the killing of other living animals figures in this business of
   hunting, then we are probably better off with using some indirect
   behavioural or projective measure.  For instance, consider the
   data of hunter desertion again.  Note that one of the reasons
   given was that of not being sucessful in killing an animal.  Well,
   this can be interpreted (as indeed our pro-hunting researchers
   did so interprete this reason), as an indirect measure of how
   much killing as such figures in continuing to hunt.

I don't golf much because I am not that good at it.  It is frustrating
to head to the course with a specific objective in mind and not
fulfill it.  I probably wouldn't hunt if I never saw a deer.  Many
beginners without any guidance do not even see a deer let alone kill
one.  After a several years of this, I would give up too.

   Anyway, the point of all this Tim, is to indicate that self-reports
   are useful when what is being asked is something people can answer
   with self-understanding and freedom from response sets like social
   desirability.  Your testimony about why you continue to hunt may
   indeed be problematic on these counts, unlike the self-reports of
   those who quit.  Please take this as a fairly general statement,
   more or less applicable and very much dependent on the nature of
   what is being asked, what is being reported.

I agree with this point that surveys can be misleading.

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals