From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Date: 29 Jul 92 10:37:54 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Jul28.172145.21753@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.142929.6621@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>
> [...]
>>> 
>>>>  Where you, and I suspect others, get confused, is in equating 
>>>>hunting with killing.
>>> 
>>> Actually Mr.  Linan disabused me of this notion several months ago. 
>>> After that I thought I knew about the difference, until our Spanish
>>> philosopher made another cameo appearance and prceeded to cloud the
>>> issue.  :-)
>>
>>Well, I find our Spanish fellow rather easy to understand.  First, lets 
>>look at the quote, to be sure we're discussing the same thing: "One does 
>>not hunt in order to kill.  One kills in order to have hunted."  The first 
>>part is pretty straight forward.  It states that killing is not the sole 
>>purpose of the hunt.  One does not hunt in order to satisfy a blood lust, 
>>nor to derive pleasure from watching an animal die.  And yet, killing 
>>definately has a place in hunting.  The second part tells us what that 
>>is.  It tells us that without the kill at the end, or at least the 
>>intention of it, you're not really hunting.  Thus stalking a deer through 
>>the woods with a camera, while it has all the elements of hunting except 
>>the kill, is not really hunting.  I personally have always found a hunt 
>>that didn't result in venison in the freezer somehow incomplete.  It is 
>>still very satisfying, but it never feels like it has finished.
> 
> Okay, so the Spanish philosopher is saying that you're not "really"
> hunting unless you kill something.  So killing is one component of
> hunting.  But more than that: it's an integral component of hunting,
> such that without it, hunting does not really take place.  And those who
> equate hunting with killing are really equating one component with the
> whole?

No.  You're not really hunting unless you have the *means* with which to 
kill something, given the opportunity.

One may be presented with an opportunity to kill, and decline it, or blow 
it, or whatever.  Its still hunting because one has the means to kill.  
Stalking an animal with a camera is not, IMHO, hunting because one does not 
have the ability to kill an animal given the opportunity.  Thus, killing is 
only a small part of hunting, but having the ability to kill a large part 
of hunting.  So much so that without that ability it isn't really hunting.

> 
> Don't we really just have a terminology problem here? Those who are
> allegedly equating hunting with killing (let's call them the "equators")
> may be using the term "hunting" to refer to this one component which
> they view as controversial, while hunters are using the term to refer to
> the whole instead of just one component.  Doesn't some of the
> communication confusion really derive from the absence of a word or
> phrase which the equators can use to name the component which they
> see as needing further discussion?

Well, if they feel that it is the killing which is controversial, then it 
seems to me that we have a word already.  It's spelled K*I*L*L*I*N*G* :-)

> 
> [...]
> 
>>...  I consider 
>>people who view hunting and killing as equivalent things very ill informed 
>>and worthy of little consideration.  
> 
> Why? We've already said that hunting doesn't really occur unless a kill

No.  You missed the point of the above, either deliberately or otherwise.  
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume otherwise.  Hunting 
doesn't take place unless the potential for a kill exists.

> takes place.  Killing is one component of hunting.  But that's too
> simplistic, because without it hunting does not take place.  And you say
> below that the killing component and the non-killing component are
> inextricably linked.  Why is it anything more than a minor error to
> equate a sine qua non component with the whole? Why is it such a
> dreadful error to equate the two?
> 

See above.

>>
>>Actually, I don't see that the killing part is controversial so much.
> 
> Then take my word for it.  Or ask around.  Without the kill much of the 
> controversy fades away.  There are hunters who recognize this.  Here's
> a quote from hunter Humberto Fontova taken from the Nov/Dec Sierra Club
> magazine, which I quoted in a message to Brian Dixon last March:

Ok. So let us assume for the moment that the kill really is what is 
controversial here.  Why is controversial?  What is wrong with killing an 
animal for food?  Its not like this is a new idea or anything.  Quite the 
contrary.

> 
> *************************************************************************
> ****	From Message-ID: <1992Mar11.204645.19050@clpd.kodak.com>
> ***
> *********************** Start of Fontova quote **************************
> 
>        "... just once, I'd like to see hunters face up to the primal
>         instinct that motivates us ... essentially we are killers of
>         animals in the most direct way ... what distinguishes us from
>         everyone else who indirectly causes animals to die is that we
>         take delight in it."

Hmmm.  This guy seems more like an anti-hunter in hunter's clothing to me. 
:)

People who eat beef indirectly cause animals to die, and they take great 
delight in a well prepared steak or roast.  I don't see a difference here.

> 
>        "...we love to retort to the anti-hunters.  But they do have 
>         a point:  If we're attracted by the beauty of nature, surely
>         it's just as beautiful without a gun in hand.  If the challenge
>         is the key, why not sneak up on a bull elk and take a picture of
>         it?  If tradition and camaraderie are the inspiration, why pull
>         the trigger?"
> 

As I've said before, its kinda hard to eat a picture.

>        "I've never bought the classic hunting argument about the 
>         insignificant part the actual killing plays in the sport.  If
>         this were true, there would be no reason for the vitriol we hurl
>         at the anti-hunters.  These mushheads aren't out to stop us
>         from walking in the woods and embracing nature.  They're not out
>         to deny us the challenge of stalking an animal.  They're not out
>         to prevent the friendship and the card games at the cabin.  They're
>         out to stop one thing:  the killing. ..."

If ARFs were truly interested in reducing the killing that takes place, 
they'd focus on hunter education and certification more so than on banning 
hunting.  No.  ARFs are in my estimation people who boost their own 
self-esteem and gratify their own need to feel important by setting 
themselves up as the mouthpieces of 'the voiceless ones'.

> 
>        "...  the one thing that distinguishes a canoeing trip or a nature
>         walk from the hunt is the prospect of killing."

This is exactly correct IMHO.  The *prospect* of killing and thus the 
prospect of gathering food.

> 	       
>        "We like to kill animals. ..."

Here I think he should speak for himself.

> 					   
>        [he goes on to discuss some scenarios: (1) about a Texas hunter 
>         huffing and puffing to the top of a tower, sitting on a revolving
>         seat and blasting away at a grazing deer; and (2) a tycoon in a 
>         Land Rover in the African bush, getting out, walking 500 yards,
>         and killing a 60 year old elephant pointed out by a professional
>         guide]  "I see nothing wrong with any of these scenarios...
>         Hunters are simply guys who get a thrill out of killing animals."

Well, I suppose (1) depends on what, exactly, one means by 'blasting away'. 
 Hunting deer from an elevated stand is common practice.  If he has to 
blast away at several deer then he is either in violation of the game laws 
(presumably) because he's shooting more deer than he's allowed to take, or 
he's a very poor shot. :)  As for (2) guided hunts are a fairly small 
proportion of hunting and hunts in Africa are an even smaller proportion.  
Neither of which has a whole lot to do with the guy who goes out in the 
woods to collect a deer during deer season.

> 		    			    
> ************************ End of Fontova quote ***************************
> 
> Overlooking Fontova's predilection for bluntness, at least he's
> perceptive enough and honest enough to realize that the kill IS the
> controversy. 

Then why do most of the ARFs here carry on about the *suffering*?  
Suffering and killing are not the same thing.

> 
> 
>>  Most
>>of the stereotypes of hunters (I find stereotypes good indicators of what is 
>>controversial) revolve around poorly educated individuals who either a) shoot
>>anything that moves, b) drink and shoot anything that moves or c) revel in 
>>the killing.  While there are people who call themselves hunters who behave 
>>this way, the vast majority, of course don't fit this picture.  As well, 
>>some of what I've read here has led me to believe many of you consider the 
>>killing of an animal as something that is painful to the animal.  It can 
>>be, if done inncorrectly.  But from witnessing the two procedures, it would 
>>be my guess that a majority of sufferring occurs in farm yard and 
>>commercial slaughtering, much more so in fact than occurs in hunting.  I 
>>have no numbers to back this assertion up with, but I have seen (and 
>>heard!) pigs being butchered, I've heard tell of cows being butchered by 
>>people who witnessed it first hand, and I've seen animals killed live and 
>>on video by hunters.  All of that information leads me to believe the 
>>assertion is correct.  Add to this the fact that a high population just 
>>prior to winter translates to a high winter kill (by slow painful 
>>starvation) and that other predators (coyotes, wolves, big cats) kill more 
>>slowly than man, and I think death at a hunter's hands is, short of dying of 
>>old age, is the least painful and traumatic death for the animal in most 
>>cases.
>>
>>So, I think that what is controversial about hunting is a) that we walk the 
>>woods armed, and that this makes some people who are especially insecure 
>>feel threatened; 
> 
> Where did you get this bizarre notion?

Re-read the above paragraph regarding stereotypes and you'll see where I 
got it.

> 
> b) people who've not participated in hunting and have no 
>>first hand knowledge of it, imagine incorrectly that being killed by a 
>>bullet or an arrow would be painful; c) as seems to be demonstrated below, 
>>some people feel that animals and humans are equally entitled to life, 
>>liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> You forgot d) some people have recognized that in order to claim rights
> for humans, any rationale invoked, to be logical and consistent,
> necessarily includes some rights for animals. 

But this in no way should preclude us from using them as food!

Besides, I think (d) is poppycock. :-)

> 
>>> 
>>> But when you take the life of a conscious, thinking, feeling, living
>>> being which has moral rights and which may coexist in a complex social
>>> structure with others having rights, then you are committing a
>>> morally-significant action, whether you choose to realize it or not. 
>>> And if you choose not to realize it, then it falls to others to speak
>>> for the voiceless ones. 
>>
>>This is another serious problem I have with the AR cause.  I would have 
>>much less difficulty with the above paragraph if you were trying to disuade 
>>me from hunting human beings.  It seems here that you are putting humans 
>>and other animals on the same level so to speak.  This is a concept whose 
>>validity I question.
> 
> No, it's not putting them "on the same level so to speak."  Rather it's a
> case of recognizing that where there are ethically relevant similarities
> between human and nonhuman animals, then if the interests of humans are
> factored into ethical considerations so also must those of animals be
> factored into ethical considerations and in a consistent manner.

But this is silly.  What the hell is an 'ethically relevant similarity'?  
And what exactly do you mean by 'factored into ethical considerations'?  We 
are all guided by our own conscious and you can not effectively impose your 
concious, your morals and your ethics on someone else.  It just doesn't 
work.  Prohibition and the totally unsuccessful War on Drugs are just two 
prime examples of that.

> 
>>> 
>>> Additionally, if you were in the US, you would be killing something
>>> that at least partially "belongs to" others, since the Supreme
>>> Court has ruled a long time ago that wildlife is a national treasure
>>> belonging to everyone.  (I don't know if this is true in Canada.)
>>
>>Yes I know.  That's part of the reason one must pay a fee.  One must give 
>>back some of what one takes.  If it belonged only to me I could go out and 
>>kill it any time I decided to.  But I really don't see what this has to do 
>>with anything.  Wildlife may well be a national treasure, but unlike 
>>treasure it is not fixed and static.  It is a dynamic thing.  Hunters have 
>>been instrumental in nurturing and promoting the growth of that national 
>>treasure and they've been so successfull that it is necessary to trim it 
>>down to make sure it doesn't overflow its chest, so to speak.
> 
> Seems like an odd way to define successful.

It would be if we were dealing with something like gold coins, which are 
static.  Life is dynamic and must be handled that way or disaster will 
result.

> 
>>> 
>>>>  As much as I would 
>>>>like to correct this misunderstanding on your part, I don't think I can.  You 
>>>>see, I almost suspect its a deliberate misunderstanding, and as such, not 
>>>>correctible.
>>> 
>>> First, don't give up so easily.  Secondly, would it clarify these
>>> discussions if we divided "hunting" up into its two components: (1)
>>> animal-killing, and (2) everything else?  You can select a word for 
>>> the second component.  Then maybe it will be more clear which aspect
>>> of hunting is relevant at a particular point in any discussion.
>>
>>It would except for one thing.  The two are inextricably linked. See above.
> 
> And how does that prevent us from having different words or phrases for these
> two components?

But we already do.  Hunting is the whole activity.  Killing is the taking 
of a life.  I really don't see what is so complicated about this.  The fact 
that they're linked in no way prevents us from having separate words for 
them, nor did I suggest that it would.  
> 
> ---
> 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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals