From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: ethics and rec.hunting
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:35:01 GMT

Andrew Taylor writes:

#In article <...>, rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
#> Please see my comments today in rec.hunting.  More importantly, please
#> see the flood of posts condemning the idea of killing the bird.
#
#I checked, not only didn't you condemn the killing of a protected species
#but you posted another article discussing how to kill the woodpecker.
#
#There were 3 articles condemning the killing of a protected species but all
#3 posters were birdwatchers, presumably led to rec.hunting by a posting
#made in rec.birds. Unless one of these three is also a hunter, no hunter
#has posted to rec.hunting condemning the killing of a protected species.
#
#However [...] (jerry) did add a telling note to rec.hunting:
#
#> BTW, some of the fanatics on talk.politics.animals have been reading
#> this list and have commented about how unethical all of us hunters
#> are with regard to woodpecker shooting comments.
#
#I'm the only non-hunter to post and these are my first postings to t.p.a.
#Apparently opposing the killing of protected species makes me a fanatic!
#I think this expresses the general attitude of rec.hunters well.
#
#Andrew Taylor

Andrew,

     I think you're a little off base in your accusations against Tim
Rigg, as moderator of rec.hunting.  I don't need to fight his battles
for him, but I'd like to remind you that his job as our moderator is
to decide whether or not a posting fits within the group's charter.
It is *not* to act as some high authority in judging right and wrong.
The only issue currently banned from r.h is the "morality" of hunting,
which I interpret to mean that he gets to throw out posts which say
that hunting is a bad thing and that animals (in general) should not
be killed.
     Ethics discussions are allowed in the group, although Tim now
cautions us when we get out of line.  I support his decision to post
the original woodpecker query and the follow-on thread.  They did not
violate the charter.  Because freedom of speech is something quite
dear to Americans like myself, I feel that the original poster has the
right to know methods for killing a woodpecker, if people are willing
to post such information.  He only breaks the law if he actually kills
one.  And I hope he does not.
     I'd also like to let you know, for the record, that I was one of
the first people to respond to Curtis's post, on the same day it was
put in r.h.  I did so off-line, because I felt that bandwidth should
be saved (since IMO at the time, he was probably the *only* guy
reading the group that wanted to kill a woodpecker :-).  The first
sentence of my e-mail was something like "Curtis, It is illegal to
kill a woodpecker."  As I wrote in my previous post in this group, I
wish you had cross-posted to r.h as well.  Then I could have defended
our group before now.
     FYI, I don't think you're a fanatic.  Nor do I think that most
members of r.h think you are either.  You're just someone who wants to
protect woodpeckers.  A bit excitable, perhaps ;-).  But if you feel
strongly about protecting a species such as woodpeckers, then such
excitability is not so bad.  But please don't stereotype r.h'ers as
condoning death to all woodpeckers.  I think I can speak for the group
and say that we DON'T.

Thanks again,
John
--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
        Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
                 --"You can't spell geek without double E"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals