From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:50:34 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of 24 Jul 92 01:47:58 GMT

In article <BrvEC1.4wL@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
   From article <RIGG.92Jul23131353@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
   tr> I do not understand why I "seem" to be making this assumption.  If I
   tr> kill a deer (especially a doe) in Wisconsin, the herd is healthier,
   tr> there may be fewer car deaths, and the habitat will be in better
   tr> shape.  The only short-term effects will be beneficial.  There will be
   tr> no long term effects.  In 5 (or 50) years, there will be little impact
   tr> of my hunting.  

   So you say.

   tr> However, if I were to kill enough of a species to
   tr> cause extinction, there is the obvious long-term effect that the
   tr> extinct species will not be around to fill its niche in the ecosystem.
   tr> Why do you keep ignoring this distinction?

   Again, you seem to be treating the "herd" as though it's a 
   thinking/feeling person while ignoring the thoughts and feelings 
   of individual members.  Is it tough for you to comprehend that 
   "herds" have no thoughts and feelings whatsoever, apart from 
   those of their individual members?  

Why do you have this fixation with personification?  I am saying that
the herd is worthy of consideration, as is the ecosystem as a whole.
I respect the individual members of the species but they are not as
important as the whole.

   Or perhaps you're saying that your actions are good for the "herd",
   in the same way that a mechanic might say that oil is good for a 
   car engine or a painter might say that coatings are good for 
   steel fixtures.  If that's the case, your motives on behalf of 
   the herd aren't altruistic at all, but purely selfish.  After 
   all, car engines and steel fixtures don't really give a damn 
   whether they fall apart or no.  

Selfish is not the right word.  I care whether the herd and ecosystem
will be around and healthy for the future.  Perhaps the ecosystem
doesn't care if we totally destroy it and replace it with pavement.

   The assumption that your killing of a deer has no detrimental 
   side-effects seems to be predicated on the assumption that 
   non-human organisms are totally devoid of sensory and cognitive 
   abilities, like car engines and steel fixtures.

My knowlege that killing a deer has long-term effects is not an
assumption.  Deer are prey animals.  Their "role" is the grand scheme
of things is to avoid predators.  Man is one of those predators.
Sometimes the prey wins and sometimes the predator wins. 

   Would it be reasonable to treat "society" as a person, while ignoring
   the minds and thoughts of individual citizens?    For example, would
   it be reasonable to say that "society" would be happier and healthier
   if we were to kill excess members of the population?  

AR folks are the ones that say humans and animals are equivalent.  The
rest of us, say that humans should be treated differently.  This is
perfectly natural, all species have one set of rules for themselves
and another for everything else.

   Vis-a-vis niches in the ecosystem, nature is everchanging.  Why do you 
   think you're qualified to decide that one particular man-made 
   configuration is preferable to another?

My goal is to keep things as close to natural as possible.  My
definition of "natural" is the state that would exist without any
pressures from man. Given the enormous influences of humans, this is
very hard to obtain.  For example, we could kick everyone out of
Wisconsin, stop all logging, maybe reintroduce a few more wolves and
let things work out for themselves.  However, I don't think such a
plan has much hope.  As an alternative, hunting is a viable suppliment
to other natural predation.

tim




--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals