From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:50:22 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Jul25.203140.23951@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
> In article <1992Jul24.132306.6649@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>
>>But it seems so blindingly obvious to me that death from a rifle or a bow 
>>is orders of magnitude better than starvation,
> 
> Agreed. But is that necessarily the choice? Hunters that post here tend
> to suggest that every single animal they they kill would have otherwise
> starved to death in the snow that following winter (I exaggerate a bit),
> but is that *really* so? Some populations of some species in some areas

Of *course* not.  Do you honestly expect me to believe that that is what 
we're saying?  Come now.  Whether any particular animal would have starved 
or not during that particular winter is irrelevent.  What is at issue is 
the herd as a whole.  Perhaps the deer that was shot would have lived 
through the winter, at the expense of some other animal which would have a 
better chance of survival in its absence.  

> at some times - sure. But just how generally is it true? I realise that
> these are very compilicated questions of ecology, population dynamics,
> etc, and we are not going to be able to find a definitive answer here.

Very complicated questions.

> Referring me to article in "Petersen's Hunting" is probably not going to
> convince me. I guess it is this: just about everybody is busy wrapping

I don't expect it to, but I have a better suggestion for you.  Find a 
couple biologists in your local fish and game department and quiz them.  
Phone them up and ask them questions.  I do it all the time.  Reach out and 
touch someone.  With an organized and systematic approach and a detailed 
list of specific questions you would like answers to, you ought to be able 
to gather all the evidence you need in, oh, an hour or so at the outside 
I'd say.

> themselves in the environmental flag these days - every bit of junk mail
> has "printed on recycyled paper" on it. And guess what, the hunters are
> now announcing that their chosen activity is really ultra-environmental,
> too. I don't think that you are actively being dishonest about this - most

Hunters have always been concerned with the environment.  Far from jumping 
on the band wagon, we've been building it.  It is starting to get crowded 
now.

> of the hunters here seem to be very sincere - but I wonder if you aren't
> a bit too quick to believe that the activity which you happen to enjoy
> just also happens to be such a great thing for the environment/planet/
> animals? We'd all like to think that that which we happen to want to do
> is actually good in and of itself, and are seldom highly critical of arguments
> that seem to support that belief.

It isn't a matter of what I 'believe'.  Do a little research.

> 
>  death by natural 
>>predation. 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. In any case the animals would live longer, which might
> be of some worth and value to them.

Would they now?  Some how I don't think it is that simple.

> 
>>           Dying of old age is a luxury we've attained by re-modelling our 
>>planet, among other things.  Animals in the wild rarely die of old age.  
>>Their death is long, lingering and painful in the normal course of events 
>>and I can't help but feel that death at the hands of a hunter is far far 
>>quicker and cleaner than much of anything else.  Thus, when I examine the 
>>AR cause, despite their claims of wanting less pain and sufferring for 
>>animals, I see banning hunting as advocating more pain and suffering, not 
>>less. 
> 
> Life in the wild is really so awful that the animals are better off dead?
> Death in the wild is doubtless pretty unpleasant when it comes - but to
> the extent that we are actually doing the individual animal a kindness by
> going out and killing it? 

Interesting.  Sometimes I wonder if you truly misread things or if you do 
it deliberately to have something to argue about.  I wasn't talking about 
life in the wild.  I never said that life in the wild was all that awful 
and that the deer would all be better off dead.  Come now, I thought you 
wanted to rise above this childishness and have a discussion.  Life in the 
wild is probably quite enjoyable.  Its the death that isn't.  Virtually all 
of the alternatives to death at a hunters hands are longer and more 
painful.  In some cases, being killed by a car might be about as 
instantaneous.

> 
>>       I would feel this way even if I didn't hunt.  I see it, not as a 
>>matter of opinion, but as an acknowledgement of the facts of life.  Because 
>>of this viewpoint, I feel very frustrated when someone tries to replace a 
>>quick, relatively painless death with a long, lingering one.  I hate to see 
>>anything suffer.  I don't mind watching it die but damnit I hate to see it 
>>suffer.
> 
> Good. I am glad you feel that way. I hope all hunters do, too.

Most of us do.  Of course, you don't see us much because we don't parade 
around town with our kill on our roof.  You and everyone else sees the 
slobs and the road hunters.
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069