From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Views on hunting and environmental issues (somewhat long)
Keywords: ARers, Greenpeace, whaling, seals, hunting
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:28:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.000529.15756@news.uit.no> tomg@stud.cs.uit.no (Tom Grydeland) writes:
>The reason I wanted to post here is to discuss some of *my* views on
>different types of hunting. I am an occational hunter myself, and I've been
>listening to your discussions concerning hunting for a few weeks now, and
>my feeling is that the people most adamantly against hunting are a bit
>removed from the facts of life and death in nature. The way I see it, *all*
>animals on this planet nourish themselves by killing, whether they hunt
>other animals, just eat plants or both. People who want all species living
>together with no killing seem to me to be further from nature and the
>realities of life than people who look upon hunting and killing as a
>natural and healthy way to supply your diet.

The issue of whether eating plants constitutes the same level of killing
that meat eating does is a contentious one among different groups of
environmentalists.  The AR have the most popularity here beacuse it is
traditional to place life in a hierarchy.  Those who resist this
hierarchy are accused of trying to protect bacteria and microbes.
Your comment that some are "further from nature" has an element of
truth to it for me.  I would also say that those who hunt and don't use
the animal for essential needs are also not so close to nature.  
Although there are cases of wild animals killing for no reason,
it isn't typical.

>Most people in the Western World, whether hunting or not, consume fantastic
>amounts of animal meat and meat products. Most animals raised in captivity
>today will not reach full mature age, as the meat/fur is of better quality
>on the younger animals. If an animal lives in freedom and get shot down by
>a hunter, that *must* be better (as seen from the animals point of view)
>than being born and raised in captivity with nothing to look forward to but
>being killed in the end. Anyone who has been to a chicken farm or anything
>of the like would surely agree with me.

I agree completely but the sheer volume of meat products demanded requires
captive production until/unless this consumption decreases.
>
>Hunters have been accused of being brutal, blood-thirsty, insensitive
>barbarians trying to prove their Machoism[tm] by killing those pretty,
>fuzzy, cute, furry animals with big, black, sad eyes. This is a somewhat
>romantic approach. Yes, some animals (and in particular the young ones) ARE
>irresistably cute (this could account for all the cats people are trying to
>give away). To give an example: Pups of the grey seal (which lives in
>abundancy off the coast of Norway) are *irresistably* cute. Their snow
>white fuzzy fur, somewhat helpless and clumsy movements, and big black sad
>eyes make them an obvious target for affection. It caused an uproar here in
>Norway (and also many other nations) when the researcher Odd Lindberg
>filmed "brutal" Norwegian seal hunters killing these pups with "hakapik"s
>(a pick-axe). What the film *didn't* show was fishermens nets filled with
>seals dead from drowning. They had gone into the nets, maddened with
>hunger, as there are too many seals and not enough fish. Do you ARers out
>there really think that this is better? (By the way, Canadian seal-hunters
>kill their seal pups with baseball bats).
>
What are the traditional hunters of seal?  You should try 
talk.politics.animals if you want to find more ARers.

>How can we let sentimental issues decide which animals we are allowed to
>kill and eat and which we are not? Why should cute animals be spared and
>ugly animals not? Why is it so much more OK to kill and eat a cow or a pig
>than a deer? If *those* are our moral standards, perhaps we should revise
>them a bit? If looks decides which animals we can eat, how can we expect
>such a decision to be to the best of Nature? Remember, true beauty is in
>the eye of the beholder.

Many environmentalists and biologists are trying to get beyond this
emotional aspect to species preservation but the political motivation
for the masses promotes it.  VP Quayle last week said that we should
save the eagle but that many other species don't deserve protection.
Biologists refer to something like the "super-charismatic" species
that get the most protection, usually large mammals, raptors and whales.
We won't get beyond this, IMHO, until all species are respected for
their existence, which I feel requires some amount of an ecocentric
attitude.
>
> [extended discussion of minke whales and emotional appeals to save
>  them deleted to save space]

Unfortunately, emotional appeals that lack merit are common and are
not unique to environmentalists are any ideology.  Claims about jobs
for loggers in the U.S. northwest are of a similar vein when it is
understood that the logging is destroying fishing jobs and that the
jobs will be lost soon anyway if the fast logging continues.  The
decimation of other whale species probably leaves many environmentalists
whose culture never depended on whales pretty unsympathetic to your
arguments.  The pendulum swings.
>
>I think it is time to take a closer look at Greenpeace. They have a lot of
>employees, big ships, helicopters, fast zodiacs and so on. Where did they
>get the money? From private persons trying to do their bit to save the
>earth? Probably not. This is money in a totally different league. Consider
>the fact that several important chemical companies are not very bothered by
>Greenpeace at all. Consider the fact that Greenpeace are spending a lot of
>money "protecting" animals that are far from being threatened by extinction
>when there are so many other important things to do in the fields of
>pollution, economic imbalance between North and South and insane levels of
>consumption in the Western world. I wonder, who makes their priorities?
>Could it be that Greenpeace are more interested in high-profile media
>oriented actions which assure television coverage than actions that
>actually matter in saving this earth? Let's look at Greenpeace in Norway.
>One by one, the Norwegians on the board have left in protest against the
>organisation's statements and politics, the last one (a professor in marine
>biology) over the Norwegian whaling issue. So there are no Norwegians
>currently on the Greenpeace Norway board. In addition, consider the fact
>that close to all Norwegian environmental organisations actually *support*
>the Norwegian decision to resume whaling. So where did Greenpeace's
>credibility go?

I think that Greenpeace in a large and inconsistent organization.  On some
areas they do good work and are honest and in other areas, they aren't.
In general, any organization, of any political stripe, that focuses on
big media actions is less likely to be doing genuinely needed work.  They
may start that way, but the media circus will corrupt it.
>
>I consider myself a concerned environmentalist.
>
>I do *not* however, consider it a valid use of time and resources to strike
>out at all other small details that we would all like to improve.  In this
>perspective, eating meat *is* a waste of resources. It takes approximately
>10 kg of plants to produce 1 kg of meat. This should *not* however, stop us
>from topping off plentiful populations for consumption.
>
>If we want to talk about saving the earth, we must look at issues which
>can contribute towards this goal.
>
>We must look at nuclear waste.
>We must look at the Consumer Culture in the West.
>We must look at the population explotion.
>We must look at the increasing use of fossil fuels.
>We must look at the accelerating use of energy.
>We must look at the pollution introduced by large industrial companies.
>We must look at the disappearing fresh water resources.
>We must look at the trade imbalance between North and South.
>We must look at the deforestation of the huge rainforests.
>
>In short, we must come to an agreement on whether we are interested in
>reducing our spending to a level which this planet can sustain for us and
>the coming generations. We must come to an agreement on whether this planet
>is meant for us alone or for our children too.
>
And I hope that you find groups that pursue these goals and help them in their
activities.  I personally think that the agreement you want is probably
idealistic in the short-term.  I think that your list is substantial
and does get to the core problems.
>
>We didn't inherit this world from our parents
>we borrowed it from our children
>
>
>It's our responsibility to keep it alive for them. Let's start taking that
>responsibility *NOW*.
>
>-- 
>//Tom Grydeland(tomg@stud.cs.uit.no)._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
>|A._| . . ._| | |_._._. . ._|_._._._._. ._|_. ._ _._. ._| | . ._|_. | . ._._. |
>| ._|_| |_. | | | | ._._|_. |_._. . |_. | | | ._._| |_._._._| | ._. ._| . . |_|
>|_._._._._|_._._._._._._|_._._._._|_._._._._._._._._._._._._|_._._|_|_._|_|_.B|


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)