From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:34:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: AT&T

In article <Bu1FLs.K39@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
(I noticed when reading this that it was Russell's 6th post of the day.
Perhaps we should consider starting a new newsgroup:
talk.politics.animals.russell's_opinions to accommodate the traffic in
that area.)
>In article <1992Sep3.235134.4802@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, Mary Rita Otto writes:

My post was in defense of Tim against Russell's interpretation
of the statement "hunters take the deer that the winter didn't", in 
which Russell criticized Tim for casting "winter" as an evil being:

>mo> I don't believe for a minute that Tim was attempting to personify
>mo> winter in any way.  Tim was refering to "the winter" as an elapsed
>mo> period of time in the life of the deer herd.
>mo> 
>mo> From what I have read, personification of animals is common in the
>mo> Animal Rights movement literature.  It certainly has been in those
>mo> postings by Russell which I have seen.  Perhaps this lead to Russell's
>mo> interpretation of Tim's "turn of phrase".
>
In the following paragraph, Russell proves my point.  Thank you, Russell.
>I trust that you agree with me that it's a mistake to validate 
>ideas by asking ourselves whether or not mindless entities 
>approve of them.  However, you apparently disagree with me that 
>animals possess qualities of personhood.  Have you had any 
>experience with individual animals?  If so, did you notice that 
>most of them clearly have their own unique emotional behavior, 
>their own unique responses to stimuli, their own methods of 
>problem solving, etc?  In short, most mammals and birds have 
>their own unique personalities.  To the extent that we recognize 
>the thoughts and feelings of our non-human animal relatives, 
>we're not "personifying" them by any means.  To the contrary, 
>we're merely recognizing qualities that they clearly possess.  
>
Russell, to ascribe a personality to an animal would require that
I consider an animal to have the mental characteristics and emotional
characteristics of a human being.  Nothing in my experiences with
a great number of animals has ever led me to believe that they
have those types of characteristics.  It is my belief that because
humans live within societal groups that they have developed many
of the same instinctive behaviors present in packs of wolves and
dogs and in prides of lions.  These instinctive behaviors facilitate
the cooperative function of the group and enhance survival.  That
they are demonstrated in both humans and some animals does not
indicate anything more than that humans have also, in the process
of evolution, chosen the adaptation of living in societal groups.
Humans, however, have evolved well beyond those pack and pride
structures.  While a pack of dogs will hunt a field until there
are no rabbits left, a human hunter will use evolved intellectual
capacity to make sure that enough rabbits survive to replenish
the area.

What personification does is take areas where human and animal
instinctive behavior is similar and generalize it to the entire
range of human congnition.  There is absolutely nothing to
substantiate that generalization.

Russell, dogs don't have contemplations and emotions.  Humans wrongly
project their own emotional and philosophical interpretations of the actions
of dogs and label them as the thoughts and feelings of dogs.  The same
for other animals.
for other animals.

>mo> Personally, I see the practice of winter feeding and subsequent
>mo> hunting as a management practice that works.  I also feel that
>mo> hunters who are serious enough about it to pay the $$$ to hunt at
>mo> a resort are more likely to kill the animal quickly and effectively.
>mo> I find that preferable to the animals starving to death over the
>mo> winter.
>
>If management programs were available that would reduce the risk 
>of starvation by reducing populations, would you be willing to 
>adopt them?  Or, would you still favor management programs that 
>assure bumper "crops" of fawns, regardless of the likelihood that 
>the additional animals could not survive winter without culling 
>or supplemental feeding?  
I think that I've clearly stated my endorsement of the feed and hunt
process above.  I also took the time to state it as a personal
opinion of the previous post.  But you editted that out.
>
>Why would you assume that people with money to spend on resort
>fees would be more humane than poorer hunters?
My belief is that the more serious hunters, who take the time to
practice, who take the time to study the game animals, who are
the most dedicated to hunting are the ones who will save and
scrimp to go to a hunting resort.  These hunters will put in
a significant amount of practice time to enable them to quickly
and effectively kill the animal.  Those who I have met have
spent months practicing for a trip like this.  They would feel
that they had ruined their trip if they were to wound but not
kill an animal, or were ineffective and caused the animal to
physically suffer unduly.  There is no enjoyment in watching an animal
physically suffer.  It would be viewed as a disgrace.  Similarly, I have
seen too many starving deer come to the edge of the road where
the salt has melted away the ice and snow, trying to get a nibble
of food, only to be startled by passing traffic and dart out to
be struck by a passing vehicle.  To witness the thrashing of an animal
dying of severe internal injuries, struggling on the roadside is
an awful experience as well.  That is one reason why I endorse the
feed and hunt management technique.

But reuniting with the previously argued points, why does it matter
to humans if an animal suffers?  Humans project their own emotions
about the suffering onto the animal because it is an instinctive
behavior that has enabled us to live in societal groups.  When we
have little or no interaction with animals in the wild, we have
all our interactions with humans.  It affects our behavior.  It
causes us to react to the animal as if it were human, simply because
there is no other pattern of behavior.  There is no knowledge of
death, no acceptance of death as part of the natural cycle.  The
greatest failure is to ignore the true nature of animals by glossing
over it with personification based on our emotions rather than true
understanding.

>
>One final question: Do you consider hunting to be a sport that you 
>would find personally appealing?   
>
I find the process of traversing the backwoods to be extremely positive
in my life.  I like finding animal tracks, and following them to find
where the animals live, eat, sleep.  I enjoy finding and watching the
animals in their natural surroundings, wild.  When I am in the woods
like that, I feel like a part of nature.  I feel in tune with it.  But
I realize that my role in nature is not as a passive observer, but
as a predator.  My senses detect sounds, motion, color, and shapes to
help me spot animals not for self-protection, but as a predator.
Humans have the eyes of a hunter, both forward looking.  We have the
role of a hunter in nature.  I am not ashamed to be human, nor of the
role humans have within nature.  There is an artificial distancing
in society from the cycle of life and death.  Alone in the woods, that
distance is eliminated.  I am immersed in it.  I am part of it.  The
desire to hunt is the desire to return to our role in the natural
cycle of life and death, to claim our place in nature.

Does it make a difference if the harvest I take from the forest or
the marsh is a photograph?  I have, nonetheless, hunted the animals,
haven't I?  I find it thrilling.  To return with my stories of seeing
the coyotes at about 20 yards.  To point out the turkey vultures to
someone who has no idea what they are, or that they have been attracted
to the urban area because of the numerous roadkills on which they feed.

Russell, I sense from your postings that you are disenfranchised from
your humanity, from the nature of yourself as a human animal.  You
deny you canines and incisors.  You deny your human ancestry of hunters
and omnivores.  Are you seeking companionship in animals to fill the
void, that you claim such comradeship with them?  Are you so isolated
that you seek animals, which, having no emotions, can be ascribed
emotions that fulfill your needs?  Your postings are full of such rage
and such misunderstandings of the nature of humans and other animals.
I am answering your sixth post of the day, and I haven't finished
reading them since I stopped to answer this one;  how much time are you
spending locked away with the modem and not interacting with the
non-electronic environment?  I went for a lovely walk at lunch and
saw some toads and heard some crickets and watched some bird and felt
the wind blow around me and life was good.  Then I came back to the
office and helped some friends out and read some news and answered your
post.  Life needs balance.  I hope you find both balance and harmony
in the world.

[Note to readers:  I originally drafted my response to Russell on the
day the referenced post appeared.  I delayed posting the response for
a few days in order to reconsider some statements and to get some
feedback on ideas from friends.  This note is to explain any discrepancy
of referenced times.]

Mary Otto