From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 07:48:27 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I'd say that nature is harsh, but not cruel.
rl> 
rl> My major problem with human predation is that it makes no distinctions
rl> between unfit animals and healthy ones, and thereby upsets the balance
rl> of forces that would otherwise exist in nature.  It seems to me
rl> that there's a kind of justice at work when wolves bring down an
rl> animal that's dying of old age or disease, and hence, unable or
rl> unwilling to defend himself.  On the other hand, I don't see much
rl> justice at all when a hunter shoots down a healthy stag in the
rl> prime of life from 100 yards away.

From article <1992Aug18.201943.29066@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> ... Correct me if I'm wrong, but you posit a conception of nature 
jh> that does not include people.  As observer, as appreciator, but 
jh> not as predator.  If, contrary, nature does include people, 
jh> people hunting--then what is the upset to the "balance of forces 
jh> that would otherwise exist in nature"?  

I agree that humans are part of "nature", as participants as well as
observers.   

I'd also agree that human technology is part of "nature" in the 
fullest sense of the word.  In this sense, we might say that 
nuclear destruction, deforestation, desertification, sprawling 
suburbs, (etc, etc) are all "natural" events.  In the previous 
passage, however, I was using the term "natural" in a more 
limited sense, to indicate the sort of balanced, sustainable 
activities that one would expect to find in settings that are 
unaffected by the warping effect of human technology.  

jh> Do you believe that as mankind hunted in the ancient hunting and 
jh> gathering era he was a prey animal such as the wolf, preying on 
jh> the diseased and sick?  This is what I understand you would say.  

I don't understand your question here. :-)

jh> Presumably, you would argue that modern armaments permit hunters 
jh> to shift the "balance of nature" in an unnatural manner due to 
jh> the newfound ability to select healthy specimens.  Is this what 
jh> you're getting at?  

In part.  The evidence suggests that human predation, using human 
tools, has a very different impact than the sort of predation still
practiced by non-human animals.  Much of this is summed up by an 
eskimo myth about the origin of wolves which I'll get around to 
posting in a day or so.  

Jeff Achenbach (I think) writes:
ja> Why is it ok for wolves and mountain lions to kill a caribou and 
ja> eat it, but not for man? Are we not also part of the natural order?

jh> Basically, I'm asking the same question as Jeff's above, addressed 
jh> initially I believe to small "t" ted.

Why would it be "ok" for cougars to violently fight over the 
right to select a particular mate, but not ok for humans to do 
so?  Or, for that matter, why would it be "ok" for a volcanic 
eruption to decimate a small town, but not ok for a human tyrant to 
wreak similar destruction?  

We can't answer for hungry wolves and mountain lions, nor can we 
answer for lusty cougars and fiery volcanos.  We can, however, 
answer for ourselves.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals