From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:31:14 GMT

unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

`>Robert J Unglenieks writes:
`>> If preventing the needless slaughter of animals isn't animal welfare,
`>> what is?

`Christopher Morton writes:
`>Who defines "needless"?  Ingrid Newkirk would consider a cure for AIDS 
`>developed using animals as needless.  An AIDS patient would probably 
`>disagree.

`So are they hunting deer now to find a cure for AIDS.  The topic at hand was
`FFA's stand on black bear hunting and hunting in general.  To go after an animal
`for "sport" is needless.  To "manage" populations so that a viable crop is 
`around the next year for "management" is apparently needless.  To use an animal
`that is unable to develop full-blown AIDS also appears to be needless.  How 
`many potentially life-saving drugs have been discarded as useless because the
`animal "model" didn't work?

How many haven't?  If one out of a hundred works, it is still worth countless
animals lifes if one human life is saved as a result.  That is the point.
You (and most AR followers) equate human life as equal or lower than that
of animals.  I feel that is sick and unlogical regardless of morals or
ethics.

You want to call my hunting useless?  If I deer hunted for sport, I would have
gotten out of it a long time ago.  Because Undeniable Truth #1 is that I
have never killed a deer.  But if given opportunity (as I have had and both
passed up or had equipment difficulties that led me not to risk taking the
shot and unsuccessfully killing the animal) I would.

And how can you call it useless when every deer that our family has gotten
has gone in the freezer.  I don't know if you eat me, but I do and I always
will.  I have the balls to kill my own food instead of paying someone at the
slaughter house to do it for me.
Besides the meat, we have all the hides, all the horns, occassionally use
the hoofs and bones for various things.  We do not waste, we use.  This year
I have talked all the hunters in my immediate hunting circle to donate
their hamburg and any other meat they can spare to Hunters for the Hungry.
And you call this waste?

And, by the way, you speak of "management".  My state offers thousands of
block permits a year to farmers who have crop damage from high deer
deer populations.  These are not deer feed crops.  These are human feed.
If AR groups had there way, we would all be vegetarians and hunting would
be abolished.  If AR groups had there way, there would then have to be
more farming.  Thus if AR groups had there way, humans would have to
starve because high populations of deer and other animals were eating
crops that would normally go to market (prices would rise, and poor
vegetarian families would not be able to afford to eat)
Is this what you want?  When deer run out of food in the woods, they either
_die_ or find other food.  Is this what you really want?  Dead deer and dead
people?  Or are you going to be willing to fork out money to supplicate these
animals diets with high priced veggies when that occurs?

`>> >When in fact some types of hunting are necessary to control populations of
`>> >animals.  
`>> 
`>> Why is hunting the only option?  What are the different "types of hunting" ?
`>
`>Why is hunting NOT an option?

`Why is it about the only option tried?  In a few instances you hear of re-
`locating animals, but that appears to be one of the least used.  All too
`often, the blown them away option is more "economic" or "feasible".

We are talking about overpopulation.  How much money (taxpayers money no
doubt, hell the deficit is growing anyway) do you plan on spending to do
this?  And how many do you move?  And what happens next year?  The fact
is, that when animals become overpopulated, you must get rid of them.
Period.  You either slaughter them like the buffalo (not that they were
over populated without having to share resources/land with man - but they
were in fact slaughtered) or let hunters - humans - utilize the resources
as they desire to do.  As is right to do.  As is their right to do.

`>> If management policies were aimed at expanding available habitat, promoting
`>> decreased breeding of the species instead of providing resources for hunters,
`>> some of the problems could be SOLVED rather than put off for a few years....
`>
`>Expanding available habitat WHERE?  Are you willing to have your home or 
`>apartment bulldozed to make room for deer habitat?

`How about allocating land taken by the State in foreclosures, drug arrests,
`etc. and convert them to wildlife habitats?  Why allow continued expansion
`of cities into rural areas while many of the inner cities are falling into
`ruin?

O.K.  I will find a crack house somewhere in a run down section of town.
I will tear it down and put up a game reserve with my own money.  Or perhaps,
if you ever look for a new place, you can move there.  How does that sound?
Try to tell a would be criminal/neighbor or a crackhead who is looking for
his old dealer that you bought the place to save a rabbits life and count
how many seconds it takes for them to blow your head clean off.  The only
way to do programs like that is to increase spending and level whole
blocks.
Don't get me wrong.  I think it is a great idea.  I would support any plan
that could make it work - hell, it would help to secure state lands for
hunting.  But I wouldn't want to move to a "run down" neighborhood and I
don't think many other people would either.

`>> Well, at least the animals appear to be smart.  Isn't the overabundance of
`>> elk an indication of a problem with the local ecosystem?
`>
`>Yes, not enough predators.  Since man is also a predator the situation is being
`>rectified.

`To whose benefit, the animals' or the hunting clique?  Why is man now elevated
`to the status of "THE ONLY PREDATOR"?

The point was that there are no other predators in these areas powerful
enough or even inclined to try to take down an elk.  Even a calf.  The area
where we go - the area which I spoke of - has coyote as the largest predator.
Very very seldom do they ever even take down a young deer for hungers sake.
Sick or weak animals will always be pray to any type predator, but the
healthy animals have no control.  If you can not understand that concept,
then you have not studied enough about ecology and you should hit the
books before opening your mouth again.

The Timber Wolf is gone in these areas now, due to their inability to
adapt with man, and the Grey wolf has only been introduced to the
Upper Peninsula.  I would not say the present population of the lower
peninsula would see fit to bringing timberwolfs down there, and anyway,
if you have ever read "Never Cry Wolf", you would know that even wolves
survive on mainly small animals and rodents.
The black bear in that area are and always have been low to moderate in
number, and tend to eat fruits and berries and other vegetation or insects.

The point is, and I have stated it many times, is that the cutting of mature
forests (which also represent _NO_ significant food for ground dwelling
animals - none - nil - zippo - they kill ground growth below them and
bring tree related foods out of reach - that is why deer and elk populations
were low when white man came here) has brought about more food resources
to support deer and elk populations.  The populations can grow to the point
that they literally devastate young forest growth, as well as getting to
the point that mortality increases from the increase in spread of disease
and lack of habitat.

(I feel redundant on this point - when will you people get it?)

swood
-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals