From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:36:28 GMT

In <Bv5tGE.Eux@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>The vast majority of the hunters I know wouldn't engage in the sport
>if the game could shoot back.  Yet, they still view the sport as
>a "manly" endeavor for some reason.

	Since you seem to be asking for information here, let me give
my biased opinions for the above.  First, hunting is a manly sport
not because of any actions required therein, but mainly because so
few women seem to partake in it.  Competetive sewing would be seen as
a feminine sport for the same reasons, and these are societal, not
hormonal, based.  The same can be said for automobile racing, tractor
pulls, mud drags, and even competetive shooting.  None of these
sports require strength that many women do not have compared to men,
but for some reason the interest is not there.  This also shows up
in academia, where female engineers are a notable minority.

	As for your hunters not wishing to hunt if the animal could
shoot back, this is a simple risk assessment.  With weapon, a human
has a huge crutch with which to assist his own meager sensory
capabilities and natural weapons.  Adding weapon systems to the
formidable sensory array and natural weapons of many animals, and
especially the carnivores, makes hunting a death wish and not an
even remotely fair contest.  Personally, I'd hunt any animal other
than man that had a gun, since they wouldn't be able to fire it or
aim it accurrately, but we'll let that one go because all weapons seem
to have this magical ability to kill 100% of the time (unless the
crux of our argument is that they wound too often, and then the kill
rate seems to drop to 10% or thereabouts).

	Also, an animal capable of manufacturing weapon systems even
remotely as effective as a simple flint-lock rifle doesn't exist yet,
and if it did would most likely be accorded the respect it deserves,
or else exploited beyond all previous records.  It is quite likely
the animal you are referring to is quite well modeled by the Aztec
and American Indians when the Spaniards and later the Pilgrims and
settlers killed them off.  When it's a case of unnatural weapons
versus unnatural weapons, we call it warfare, not hunting.

>There was nothing silly about my request for information.  I don't 
>understand how a man who earnestly believes that witch-killing is 
>ok, simply because one of his books says so, was able to determine that 
>a poster who doesn't share his beliefs is an "idiot".   

	I, for one, don't think you an idiot; I did, however, think
the analogy was idiotic.  BTW: you seem to be quite fond of citing
books and papers to support your positions on here, and I find it
somewhat ironic that citing the bible is any less supporting than
citing, say, Darwin or Mowat.  Could your religous biases be
at work here?  If so, I'd say my dietary biases are no less valid
if they show Whoozits, the vegetarian, as an invalid source.

	At the risk of making a pun, it's food for thought.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals