From: "Catherine Rogers" <rogers@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Animal rights bashing
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:05:18 -0500

In article <DOCONNOR.92Oct9113301@potato.sedona.intel.com> doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>
>tracy@scoraz.resp-sci.arizona.edu (Tracy Scheinkman) writes:
>] A group of people in Arizona has been trying for years to ban the leg-hold
>] trap for several very good reasons ...the groups fighting this measure
>] including the NRA and various other hunting and fishing organizations* have
>] labelled this measure as an "Animal Rights Extremist" measure in
>] an attempt to defeat it, despite that it has written into it specifically
>] that hunting and fishing are to be protected.
>
>The proposition as drafted says that game populations must be
>"managed by nonlethal means". How is that going to be done ?
>Distribute free condoms to the bucks ? How is hunting going
>to be allowed given such a requirement.
>
>Prop. 200 may have started as a good idea, but it's been broadened by
>animal rights extremist and radical vegitarians to the point of lunacy.
>It's poorly written, expensive to implement and a ecological disaster.
>If all they wanted to do was ban leg-hold trasp, why didn't they just
>say so ? What's their REAL agenda, I wonder ?
>
>And why(are) the gun-banning proponents are supporting Prop. 200, too...
>--
>Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com

Well, it is possible to manage the game populations by "nonlethal
means"; it's been proposed here in Indiana.  At Brown County State
Park (close to Bloomington) there is a real overpopulation
problem with the deer, resulting in a lot of starving deer.
The problem is that this is a real family outing type park all
year round with no  hunting allowed normally. They were going
to propose a "shoot out" of sorts but I think they decided against
it because of the nature of the park; it would be really dangerous
since it's always so full of tourists.  Even if they closed it off.
The proposal that I last heard of is giving the does birth control
shots; the main problem right now I think is that the shots have
to be administered twice to be effective and capturing them 
twice would be tough.  I hear they're working on a once a year type
(may be an oral med, not a shot).  The other problem is that these
deer are really tame from stupid people hand feeding them and hence
they seem to hang out in the "crowded" section of the park.  There's
probably food in the areas they rarely go, but they've become
dependent and tend to gravitate to people.  So you can see the
damage caused by well-meaning humans.  They may be against hunting
because this would hurt the deer, but the deer are suffering more due
to this kind of interference than they would from hunting (with
guns not traps, AND not in every single case of course. At least
I believe it would be more humane to kill an animal cleanly with
a gun than to allow it to starve to death). And of course they
don't have any natural predators in the park, except maybe a coyote 
or so and i don't know if they'd hunt deer.

Sorry this is so long, but there is a point in all this.  Managing
populations by "nonlethal means" is not impossible but is certainly
a very expensive and burdensome proposition.  Personally I think
that responsible and SAFE hunters are less hypocritical than the
average human carnivore. At least they are aware of the process the
animal goes through before they consume it.  Most of us are several
steps removed, and yet still think we're more "humane" than hunters,
when we have no idea of what kind of treatment we're supporting.
That doesn't mean I want to go out and hunt; I don't, but I'm very
careful about criticizing the RESPOSIBLE hunters who are the majority.
I don't have enough bad to say about irresponsible ones, but that
goes for irresponsible horse owners, parents, etc. too.

just my .02 cents worth.

cathy rogers
indiana university