From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:58:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.113014.6677@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.173326.1658@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[...]

Robert Black wrote:
>> However if I know of a hunter who enjoyed killing animals (and I have
>> met some), I would not want that individual to be doing hunting any more
>> than I would want the rabid executioner to be a judge or juror.  Of
>> course most hunters aren't likely to admit it these days, given the
>> attention focused on their activities.  So one needs to watch for more
>> subtle (and granted, less reliable) indications ...  possible candidates
>> might be hunters who advocate techniques that cause greater crippling
>> rates or methods likely to cause more pain and suffering, e.g.  hunters
>> who would support legalization of, say, use of spears on wild hogs or
>> who would support shooting at deer 2/3 of a mile away.  There are some
>> of these types, as you know. 

John Robinson wrote:
>As has been pointed out, the hunter is far from judge and jury.  The judges 
>and jurors are in the F&G depts.  They decide.  They determine seasons, bag 
>limits and so forth.  We carry out their decisions.

No.  The F&G departments make the rules.  The individual hunters are the
judges and jurors who make the life and death decisions that affect the
individual animals.


>More subtle indicators huh?  Why is the hair on the back of neck standing 
>up?  The words 'witch hunt' come to mind.

Please explain what you're talking about here.


>  Personally, I would support the 
>use of spears on wild hogs, or other game if I thought it would result in a 
>clean kill.  I happen to have a particular interest in primitive hunting, 
>and given the opportunity would like to try pig hunting with spears.

Interest?  That's fine.  Go ahead and be interested.  Opportunity to try?
What could possibly be your reasons?

Previously you have stated this about spear hunting:

******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
* > In article <1992Jun1.085928.292@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
* >> 
* >> All this bow hunting stuff has gotten me thinking, what about other 
* >> primitive weapons?  I own a muzzleloader, and have hunted, although not 
* >> successfully, with it.  Does anyone out there spear hunt?
* >> 
* >> Does anyone hunt deer with hand thrown spears?  Does anyone hunt dangerous 
* >> game like wild boar with boar spears? 
* >> -- 
* >> John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
* >> robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
* >> DOD #0069
*
* [... response of another poster deleted ...]
*
* I was thinking more along the lines of bracing the spear but in the ground 
* and letting the hog impale itself when it charged......such spears usually
* had orthoganal attachments to prevent the hog from reaching the hunter.
* --
* John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
* robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
* DOD #0069
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************

You have also stated this regarding a conflict of interest between hunters 
and animals:

******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
* Message-ID: <1992Jul27.111938.6676@ac.dal.ca>
* 
* [...]
* 
* Wherever the interests of the two *are* in conflict, the wildlife 
* biologists usually err on the side of protecting the animals.  Personally I 
* wouldn't have it any other way.
* --
* John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
* robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
* DOD #0069
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************

Now regarding this idea of impaling wild hogs on spears with orthogonal
attachments to prevent the hogs in the agony of their death throes from
injuring you:  how is it in the interests of the hogs?

What would be the purpose of doing this, other than for the amusement,
entertainment, and recreation of the hunter?


>I'm not currently aware of any regulations regarding legal distances, so I 
>don't see that there would be anything to legalize here.  But lets analyze 
>your statement anyway.

Read my words more carefully.  With regard to long distance shooting,
the words are not referring to legalization.  They are referring to the
practice itself.  The word "legalization" is in the clause that refers
to spear hunting. 

John Robinson wrote:
>  Two thirds of a mile (a mile is 5280 feet or 1760 
>yards.  Thus, 1760*2/3 = 1173.33 yards.  One might (*MIGHT*) be able to hit 
>an animal from a good stable rest at this distance if (VERY BIG IF) it were 
>standing broadside, standing stock still.  Personally, I have my doubts.  
>No, I think Physics regulates this much better than the Game departments 
>will ever be able to.  Go look up bullet drop for typical deer cartridges 
>and then come back and tell me how high your rifle would have to be 
>printing above the point of aim at 100 yards to be dead on (vertically) at 
>1173.33 yards.  Then examine the degree to which the bullet rises and falls 
>at 200, 300, 400,...all the way up the 1173.33.  If this doesn't convince 
>you of the absurdity of your statement, nothing will.

The ethical issue of shooting at animals 1200 yards away was brought up
by hunters, and initially by one who used to be a prolific poster to
t.p.a.  My point had nothing to do with physics.  I mentioned this
because some hunters defend practices like this which are not necessary
and which can increase the chances of inflicting a crippling non-fatal
injury.

So despite the lofty proclamations and eloquent language that we often
hear in t.p.a. from hunters about their concern for animals, the words
of hunters in other forums would seem to belie the selective claims made
in t.p.a. within earshot of AR people. 

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals