From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:20:54 GMT

In article <viking.716092162@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sore
nson) writes:
>jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>
>>Well, I agree that it doesn't matter if a fawn suffers at
>>the paws of a wolf--that is the way of nature.
>
>    Remember this -- it's important.
>
>>If we as humans do not comprehend that our intelligence places us
>>(somewhat tragically) both within and removed from nature
>
>    And just *how* are we removed from nature?  We have intelligence
>and the abilities that brings about instead of brawn, speed, or natural
>weapons.  It seems we must still live within nature, as we have yet to
>determine a way of escaping the physical laws that govern this planet.


Let me try to be as explicit as I can be.  The human animal is just as
integral part of nature as any other animal, plant or mineral that you can 
name.  Sometime in the past we developed self-consciousness, the ability to
learn from the past and plan for the future, make tools...all the abilities
you cite above.  Our understanding that we only of the species on the earth
have developed these skills to such an extent, allows us alone to reflect on
nature.  That's all I mean; our ability to reflect and analyze *metaphorically*
"removes" us from nature.  At a point, our ancestors stopped running through
the savannah dismembering animals for our evening meals; we learned to kill
effeciently and reverentially.  The Egyptians came to worship the cat.  Some
cultures also thanked the spirits of the animals they consumed.  In America
it's consume, consume, consume.  For some the reverence is gone.




>>I believe that animals should
>>not suffer--whether we eat them or not.
>
>    As you so cleverly noted above, the wolf doesn't seem to give a whit
>about what you believe.  Strangely enough, I'll side with the wolf on this.

Right, the wolf doesn't give a damn about me; I feel fortunate in that I can
appreciate the wolf.

I see the hunters in this group go to great lengths (I'm not sure of your
position) to point out that the ideal kill is quick, efficient, clean and
minimizing of pain.  Why shouldn't this ideal extend to farm animals?
I come from a farm background, and most practices are acceptable to me.
I have some trouble with some modern practices (some ancient ones have been
supplanted by much better ones too, mind you), usually those associated with
greater concentrations of animals in confined areas.  Why should farm animal
practices be so sacrosanct that you are unwilling to evaluate whether
alternative practices would have a different effect on the animals?

>
>>Give Mr. Lawrence a break.  He's healthy and an outdoorsman who likes to
>>hike, winter-camp and rock climb.  He's also a damn good writer.  He has a
>>perspective on nature that is different from yours.  His only one failing as
>>he participates in this forum (and we all have many) is his insistence that
>>his way is the way.
>
>    While I agree with the sentiments, might I add that the last sentence
>is equally fitting for nearly averybody in this group.  Learn to live with
>the fact that not everybody agrees with you.  Russell and I certainly have,
>and that includes with each other.

Good point, which I accept.  Where I differ is that Mr. Lawrence is so 
cock-sure of what is right from his point of view that he never exhibits any 
tendency that his position has been modified or enriched by anything you, me or
anybody differing from him has ever said.  It's all water off a duck's bill.
His tenacity is amazing.


**