From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:11:35 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <#=xtkg=@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
> In article <1992Mar31.154717.4678@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <a9qt_6_@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
>>> In article <1992Mar26.112655.4555@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>In article <1992Mar25.013534.10089@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>> Deer have almost no detail vision.  At 400 yards, they may know _something_
>>> is there, but won't be able to tell what it is if it doesn't move, make
>>> noise, or is downwind.  They show no fear because they don't know if
>>> whatever they detected is real or not.  Unless you give deer credit for
>>> knowledge of modern firearms.  Besides, their eyes are on the sides of
>>> their heads, so they have no depth perception.  They  could not tell
>>> how close you are, to any degree of accuracy.
>>
>>Generally true.  They have not recognized the hunter as a danger at that 
>>distance.  If hunters were routinely killing deer at that range they would 
>>catch on.
>>
> My point was they can't catch on.  They can't see details, so a stationary
> hunter is the same thing as the background.  Give them a few million
> years, and maybe, just maybe, they will grow more advanced eyes.  Otherwise,
> deer cannot be faulted for not showing fear when as far as they can tell,
> nothing is there.  It would be like if I were to start picking off your
> neighbors with an orbiting laser station.  You couldn't see it, couldn't
> be expected to know when it was or was not there, and if I didn't tell you
> what it was causing your neighbors to become little charred spots on the 
> lawn, you'd have no idea what it was you were supposed to be afraid of
> in the first place.  Your choice would be to stay indoors forever, or
> just do what you normally do, avoid what dangers you can understand,
> like cars and men with hockey masks and chainsaws, and just hope "whatever"
> doesn't vaporize you.

Your analogy doesn't quite hold.  Deer may not be able to see detail, but 
they can see shapes and movements.  If you move slowly and deliberately, 
you can get away with almost anything.  One quick, jerky movement though 
and that deer will be busy seeking out shrubs.

> 
>>> Humans hunted long before guns.  Some people even today use a composite
>>> bow.  But people who don't have even those still hunt in some areas.  Run
>>> them off a cliff, dig a pit for them to fall in, surround them with
>>> spear-wielding men, ...  There are a lot of ways to hunt besides guns.
>>> I'm not against hunting, and I love guns, but to say that a gun is not
>>> an unfair advantage over a deer seems ludicrous to me.  The question 
>>> to me is whether fairness is really necessary.  I mean, if someone wins,
>>> obviously something was uneven.   
>>
>>Yes, humans hunted long before guns but so what?  A bow is a projectile 
>>weapon, as is a spear.  I specifically referred to 'a human' so group 
>>hunting is irrelevant here.
>>
> But in no way do you have a 'natural right' to do so.  If you were 
> trying to live as man was meant to live, you'd hunt in groups.  If
> you believe justification for hunting is irrelevant, that's another
> matter.

Did I ever assert that we have a 'natural right'?  Now that you've brought 
the point up, who is to say whether we do or not?  

Live as man was *meant* to?  Meant to by who, exactly?  How exactly was man 
*meant* to live?

>  
>>So you think a gun is an unfair advantage?  How, exactly, do you describe 
>>fair?  The kill rate at present is usually between 25 and 33%, depending on 
>>a number of factors.  Last time I looked the most significant variable 
>>which affected the success rate was population.  That is, in areas where 
>>there are more deer, hunters have more opportunities to shoot deer, and are 
>>more successful.  In areas which have a lower population, hunters see fewer 
>>deer, have fewer opportunities and so the success rate drops.
>>
> What do you suppose the success rate is without a gun?

This question is meaningless.  Do you mean without any weapon at all?  With 
a bow?  With a shovel and some stakes?  What?

> 
>>Now, into this, let us inject your assumption that a gun is an unfair 
>>advantage.  If this were true, hunter success should be relatively 
>>independent of population.  There are variations in the success rate for 
>>the use of different weapons (muzzleloader, bow, centerfire rifle) but last 
>>time I checked they were not at all like the variation that accompanies 
>>population.  Indeed, the success rates for other weapons vary with 
>>population as well, indicating that population is a major factor in 
>>determining success ratios.
>>
>>Why is this?  Because hunting a deer involves much more than simply 
>>cruising out into the woods and shooting one.  Before you can shoot it, you 
>>have to find it.  It is the difficulty of locating an animal that 
>>distinguishes 'hunting' from 'shooting'.  Thus while a modern weapon does 
>>endow one with the means to kill a deer from a distance, it does not endow 
>>one with any added ability to *find* a deer to shoot.
>>
> What is the ratio of "found" deer to killed deer?  To show that that
> is fairly high would indicate guns to be fair.

FD/KD being high would imply that one sees many deer in relation to the 
number of deer one kills.  Ratios for me have been around 8/0, 1/1, 1/0, 
that first one includes a few deer I saw on the way into my hunting area.  
If I only included deer I saw while I was actually carrying a rifle, I'd 
say the ratio was 4/0, 1/1, 1/0.  Shots fired by the way were 1 1 0.  This 
is for the last three seasons that come to mind.  Looks like a high ratio of
found deer to killed deer to me.  The experience of others will probably 
match this.  There is much more involved to hunting than simply 
shooting a deer.  First you gotta find the deer, then you gotta get it to 
stand still long enough for you to shoot it, then you gotta shoot and hit 
it.

I of course am a meat hunter.  I'll generally shoot the first deer I see.  
Trophy hunters are usually much fussier.  They will often pass up several 
deer before taking a shot.

> 
>>> On a second point, I can hit a dime at 30 yds, in standing position.
>>> Granted, I use a target rifle, but even accounting for a less accurate
>>> weapon with more recoil, and the greater distance, I fail to see how
>>> anyone could have the kind of trouble you describe.  If you are not
>>> exaggerating, those people should spend some time learning to shoot
>>> rather than, or at least before, going hunting.
>>
>>Have you ever shot at a deer?  Thirty yards is a far far cry from 400.  
>>Time of flight, inherent accuracy and such like make such a shot on game a 
>>very difficult proposition indeed.
>>
>>An skilled marksman suffering from buck fever will most likely blow even a 
>>close, easy shot at 50 yards.
>>
> You said most shots were at less than 100 yards.  I've never shot
> a deer but I have shot several people at ranges approaching that.
> I was using a .60 calibre paint gun, btw.  Marksmanship is not the
> ability to hit a lucky bullseye on a good day, but to consistently
> and independently of emotional state, get as close to the bullseye
> as you normally do.  If an Olympic sharpshooter got too excited
> and botched a shot, he really wasn't that good.   

You've shot people at ranges of 100 yards with a paintball gun?  I think 
the gun was a trifle hot.  Given an intial velocity of 300 fps (outdoors) 
there is a hell of a lot of drop out to 100 yards.

Besides, shooting a human with a paintgun just isn't the same.  I've done 
it too.  Its nothing at all like shooting a deer.  For one thing you don't 
tremble nearly as much. :-)

> 
>>Besides, the diameter of a dime is about 1/2 inch.  At thirty yards, this 
>>is good from a standing position but not terribly impressive.  Let's 
>>consider what happens over a long distance.  At a distance 100 yards, a 
>>good hunting rifle can usually be expected to shoot a 2 inch group using 
>>factory ammunition.  It is often possible to improve on this substantially, 
>>but for the moment, I will assume this is the case.
>>
> I'm far from qualifying for the Olympics, though I am one of the best
> shots I know.  I said a dime because it's a small round thing, and it
> happened to come to mind.  I usually shoot at a dot the size of a
> period at 10 meters.  And that is without a scope.  I wouldn't hit
> anything at much more that 100 yds, since I wouldn't be able to see
> it.  
> 

That is why we put scopes on our hunting rifles. :-)

>>If we tighten up those groups a bit of course the situation changes 
>>somewhat.  If we were to take my rifle (a Weatherby Mark V) which shoots 
>>factory ammunition into a 3/4" group at 100 yards.  I can expect a group 
>>size of 1.5 inches at 200 yards, 2.25 at 300 and 3 inches at 400.  Again, 
>>this is from a rest.  All of this not withstanding, I will generally not 
>>attempt any shot at game if I don't use a rest of some kind.
>>
> That's good.  But too many hunters shouldn't even be handling a gun
> with other people around.  You may be one of the more responsible
> ones, for not shooting when you don't have a good shot, but too many
> are careless.  If hunting really were a sport, waiting for the perfect
> shot would be a challenge to be attempted, not an unfair element to
> avoid. 

It is a challenge.

Actually, most hunters are quite responsible.  Like any group, we have a 
few who probably qualify as candidates for moron of the year.  To suggest 
that such people make up a disproportionately large number of hunters is 
completely ridiculous.

> 
>>Everyone who hunts could probably use a little more target practice.  I'm 
>>sure I could.  However, don't assume that a miss as described above is due 
>>strictly to poor marksmanship.  There are many many factors that influence 
>>one's ability to hit game in the field with a gun and it is much more 
>>difficult than punching holes in a paper target.
>>
> A lot of the people at my range think that hunting is a lot harder than
> target shooting.  Then they start out and can't hit the bull at all.
> So many of them think they know all about how to shoot until they start
> doing it seriously.  Target shooting is much harder than hunting.

They're right.  It is a lot harder.  Targets stand still all the time.  
They're easy to find to, and they always present themselves at a right 
angle to your line of sight.

There could be several reasons they can't hit the bull's eye:

1) Rifle and ammo might not be up to it (depends on range, size of bull, 
caliber, etc.  Such a rifle could still be quite suitable for hunting).

2) They need practice.

3) They generally take running shots on game and are quite good at such 
shots because they do them instinctively.  Note: The word instinctive is 
being used to indicate activity that is rapidly becoming associated with 
right brain activity.

And this is only to name a few.

>  
>>>>> rl> Hint #1: wolves don't carry guns.
>>>>> 
>>>>> dirk> NO!  Really?  *snort* And humans can't run at the speeds wolves 
>>>>> dirk> do.  Humans don't have fangs like wolves do.  So humans compensate 
>>>>> dirk> by using thier brain, and building a gun.  
>>>>> 
>>> Humans compensate, as do wolves, by living in groups.  Lions are not so
>>> fast as cheetahs nor their prey, so they for a pride.  Wolves can't
>>> outrun deer either, so they form a pack.  Humans live in groups, like
>>> any other slow predator.  And there are many forms of hunting involving
>>> group cooperation.  Guns are not necessary.  Anyway, I doubt you have
>>> ever built a gun.  (If you have, I take that back, of course) 
>>
>>Whether or not Dirk or anyone else has actually built a gun is irrelevent.  
>>The point is that we as a species have evolved the technology.  Making a 
>>simple gun is incredibly easy.
>>
> I've never signed loyalty oath to Homo sapiens.  We as a species do a lot
> of things most members of the species could not do.  Does the fact that
> we as a species can build fuel air explosives make it fair to drop one
> in the woods and pick up the deer carcasses later?  

You would equate a weapon of mass destruction with a weapon of precision, 
like a rifle?  Your argument is fraying.... :-)

> 
> To claim that he is using his brain to hunt, as opposed to using it to
> avoid really having to hunt, would require that he design and build,
> or at least design and have built, his tools.  I could train my ferrets
> to carry money to the local gun shop and buy one.

On the contrary.  One's choice of tools in no way means that one no longer 
thinks.  One still must know the habits of one's quarry.

>  
>>>>> The wolf's test weeds out weak and sickly animals, thereby favoring
>>>>> strong and healthy members of the herd.  The human's test shows
>>>>> no preference for healthy or strong animals, but favors fear.  It
>>>>> seems ironic to me that many human hunters, including you, equate 
>>>>> the absence of fear with "stupidity" or "overconfidence" rather 
>>>>> than "courage". 
>>>>
>>>>It *favors* fear? No, I don't think so. It favors the deer's ability to use 
>>>>its sense to *detect* something it is *already* afraid of.
>>>>
>>> They lack the sensory apparatus to do so.
>>
>>Lack the sensory apparatus?  To do what?  Detect humans?  NOT.  Deer are 
>>quite capable of detecting humans through their sense of smell and hearing. 
>>
> They can't smell what is downwind, they can't hear what does not make
> sounds loud enough to reach their auditory threshold, and they can't
> see what doesn't move.  They can detect humans some of the time, but
> to say that their failure to detect humans is, in all cases, their fault
> is ludicrous.  They often are given no chance to find the human.  

Let's deal with this one step at a time.

1) They can't smell what is downwind.  This is true, but it isn't a very 
useful piece of information.  The wind never blows steadily here in 
November and the direction it blows in is determined by many things.  
Standing in one spot in the woods for a half an hour is a good way to 
distribute one's scent all around in a nice big circle.

2) They can't hear what doesn't make sounds loud enough to reach their 
auditory threshold.  True, but again, not very useful.  That threshold is 
extreemely low.  Deer have *excellent* hearing.

3) They can't see what doesn't move.  Again, basically true, and basically 
useless.  No human being I know of can be perfectly still.  One should sit 
on a stand as still as possible as one never knows when a deer is going to 
be mincing through the woods standing and looking, smelling and listening 
for about 5-10 minutes for every step it takes.

You could benefit from some deer hunting I think.  It would probably change 
your mind about just how difficult it really is. 

> 
>>>>We can not know for certain that the deer that is staring at us from 
>>>>accross the field is not afraid.  We do know that deer are generally fairly 
>>>>timid animals, certainly where people are concerned.  They are generally 
>>>>afraid of people and therefore a deer that stares at one but does not run 
>>>>can be surmised to not have recognized the danger, that is, not to have 
>>>>recognized the thing it is staring at as human.
>>>>
>>> 
>>> Deer that don't run can be surmised only to have not realized there
>>> is a danger.  This could be due to not seeing the human because they
>>> can't, not recognizing the human because they can't without help, not
>>> fearing humans, or just being stupid.  Deer in danger run.  It doesn't
>>> take much brains.  So I very much doubt the last one.
>>
>>You doubt what, exactly?  That the deer doesn't recognize what it is 
>>staring at is human?
>>
> I doubt that not running is a sign of stupidity.  It doesn't take much
> brains to run.  (btw, I posted this before you said you didn't mean
> stupidity exactly, so its basically a moot point)  
> 
>>>>Part of the reason that many hunters do not equate this lack of evidenced 
>>>>fear with courage is because they know better.  Hunting season usually 
>>>>occurs during the rut (mating season).  During this time, deer have been 
>>>>clearly shown to be less concerned with their safety.  The excess of 
>>>>hormones in their system makes them do things they wouldn't otherwise do 
>>>>(like waltz into a field in broad daylight).  In this situation, these 
>>>>actions could be characterized as 'stupidity', 'over confidence' or 
>>>>'horniness', to name a few.  They could not be characterized as courageous. 
>>>> Courage is defined in part as: "the attitude of facing and dealing with 
>>>>anything recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful, instead of 
>>>>withdrawing from it;...."  From this it is clear that in order to be
>>>>courageous one must be aware of danger on some level.  Personal observation 
>>>>and virtually everything *I've* read indicate that deer are oblivious to 
>>>>danger when they stand and stare at people.  They simply haven't recognized 
>>>>them as people, and therefore as a threat.
>>>>
>>
>>Nooooo.  I don't think anything in the above could be construed as 
>>selecting for traits that are disadvantageous to the deer.  A strong mating 
>>instinct is part of what gets a deer in trouble in limited habitat in the 
>>first place.  Pop quiz:  how many deer, expressed as a percentage of total 
>>population, need to die in a given year for the population to remain about 
>>the same?
>>
> No, overbreeding gets them in trouble.  They will breed no matter how 
> weak the breeding instinct is.  Population is not a function of breeding
> just of breeding attempts.  All that weakening the breeding instinct will
> do is make for sick deer.  If all that was left on the planet were wimps,
> we'd breed wimps.  I don't think we'd go extinct.

A strong mating instinct is what I would call a significant contributing 
factor to over population.  You still didn't answer my question.  The 
answer is 40% or thereabouts.  That is total kill, not just hunting.  
Hunting in fact makes up a relatively small but very important fraction of 
that total.  Pop Quiz:  Why is it important?

>  
>>> So you admit you are selecting for traits disadvantageous to deer.  A strong
>>> mating instinct is something millions of years have bred into deer, because
>>> natural conditions favor it.  You, on the other hand, have said you hunt
>>> those deer that show just that trait.  That alone is enough to make you
>>> totally different from wolves, from a moral standpoint.  
>>
>>I haven't been arguing that we are morally better or worse than wolves.  
>>Wolves select circumstances that are favorable to them.  So do we.
>>
> But you are different.  I've never said we were worse, just different.
> Therefore, comparisons to wolves are irrelevant, and justification of
> hunting on the grounds that "wolves do it" doesn't hold water. 

Actually, I haven't been arguing that we should hunt because 'wolves do 
it'.  The AR folks have been arguing that somehow wolves do it better. :-)
They are the one's who introduced wolves into this discussion in the first 
place if I remember correctly.

> 
>>> In any case, deer do not stare at people.  Their eyesight is simply a
>>> motion detector.  They are staring around, looking for whatever it was
>>> that they thought they smelled or heard.  They lack any capacity to
>>> recognize a person unless that person moves or deliberately gives his
>>> presence away.   
>>
>>I have, nonetheless, been stared at by deer.
>>
> No, deer have looked in your general direction.  Ask anyone versed in
> public speaking.  When someone looks in your general direction, you
> are primed to assume it is at you.  The guy giving his speech who
> "looks at you" is actually only looking into space near you.  Deer
> have their eyes on the side of the head.  To stare at you, they
> would be looking to the side. 

Funny you should say that.  I am well versed in public speaking (public 
typing too :-)  Generally, when you look at someone in the audience you 
should try to make eye contact with them, if only briefly.

> 
>>>>> Speaking of courage, wolves risk serious injury when they attack
>>>>> healthy deer.  What do humans risk when they shoot deer from a
>>>>> distance?
>>>>
>>>>Only one who has never carried a rifle afield during hunting season could 
>>>>ask *that* question.  Humans in search of venison run many risks:
>>>>
>>>> - the risk that they will injure themselves and be unable to return to 
>>>>their vehicle under their own power;
>>> 
>>> And then their families will send out search parties for them.  Besides,
>>> that is a risk taken by anyone who goes out in the woods.  It is not
>>> unique to hunters.
>>
>>So it isn't unique to hunters, so what?  The question was wrt what risks 
>>hunters face.  No one said those risks had to be unique to hunters.
>>
> The question was what risks hunters take by shooting at deer.

You are correct, shooting deer was the criterea.  Since one does not go out 
to the deer pen, stick the muzzle in and pull the trigger I felt it was 
legitamate to include those risks incurred in finding deer to shoot.  
Obviously we disagree on this point. :-)

> 
>>I remember a case of a guy around here a few years ago who got lost.  He 
>>dropped his gear one item at a time as he wandered through the woods.  As 
>>near as anyone could tell he actually walked across several roads.  
>>Eventually, he stripped of his clothes and attempted to swim a lake that 
>>had the audacity to be infront of him.  I don't think they ever found the 
>>body.
>>Just because someone will send a search party for you doesn't nullify the 
>>risk.  It helps to reduce it, provided you do your part and don't panic.
>>
> Now that's natural selection! :-)  

True.  Still, it is awfully easy to panic in the woods.  I've come close to 
it a couple of times and each time I had to conciously make an effort to 
bring it under control.  Funny thing panic.....

> 
> If you plan well, and go where you are supposed to, there should be no
> trouble finding you unless you are swept down a river or fall into
> a hole.  Every beginning swimmer knows of the buddy system.  Getting
> lost is occasionally due to honest error, like misreading a map, but
> to say that wandering away without telling anyone where you are going
> and then getting lost is foolishness.

Or unless you panic and wander off into never never land.

>  
>>>> - the risk of mis-identifying a human or some other creature for a deer 
>>>>and killing or maiming it;
>>>> - the risk of being so mis-identified, and killed or maimed;
>>> 
>>> The first is not a personal risk.  The second is an argument against letting
>>> people go out and hunt.  Especially those who are not trained marksmen.  
>>> Gun safety is the paramount part of training, and people who shoot at other
>>> people because they don't take the time to make sure they have a good target
>>> clearly need a refresher course, if not a first course, in just that.  
>>> Anyway, wear some bright orange.  Even Elmer Fudd had red panels on his hat.
>>> Deer have no color vision, so if you don't give yourself away by moving,
>>> they still won't see you. 
>>
>>The first is not a personal risk huh?  Around here a 'hunter' mistook a 
>>dairy cow for a deer and killed it.  Don't ask me what made him think it 
>>was a deer, I have no idea.  He was required to compensate the dairy farmer 
>>for his loss.  Sounds like a personal risk to me.
>>
> Did the hunter kill him?  Risking money is not a personal risk.

Obviously we disagree here to.  We'll just have to agree to disagree I 
guess.

> 
>>The second is anything but an argument against letting people go out and 
>>hunt.  It is an argument in favor of hunter saftey courses, something I 
>>favor by the way.  It is also an argument for more widespread awareness of 
>>firearms saftey.  I think this is something that should be taught, probably 
>>by the NRA, in public schools, but that is a topic for a different 
>>newsgroup.
> 
> Common sense is anything but.  Look at driver's ed. courses.  We teach
> people what they should do, test them to make sure they know what
> they should, judge them o.k., and then most of them don't know how to
> operate a car anyway.  Hunter safety courses should be mandatory, as a
> start, but so should rigorous licensing procedures and review procedures.
> People who demonstrate an inability to safely operate a firearm without
> supervision should not be allowed to do so.  They should still be allowed
> to own one, since the constitution guarantees that, but just as I can't
> hold a shooting contest in a crowded cafeteria, there is no guarantee that
> anyone should be allowed to shoot a gun where it isn't safe to do so.  And
> for some people, there probably is no safe place but a well supervised
> shooting range. 

Yes.  Let's look at driver's ed courses.  Better yet, let's look at drivers 
tests, which are what driver's ed courses are designed to get people to 
pass.  Talk about using trained ferrets......

I drive a motorcycle.  I bought my bike after having driven a car for about 
10 years.  I had driven a bike a couple of times in traffic prior to this 
and done a fair bit of dirt biking as a kid.  I drove it around my parking 
lot a couple times and then had a friend drive it to the examiner's office 
for me.  I made one mistake (I cut a left hand turn) but other than that I 
passed the test with flying colors (10 written questions and a short 
driving test with the examiner watching).  I got my license.  Was I 
qualified to drive in traffic?  No way.  That's why I took the Canada 
Saftey Council course.  That taught my how to control a motorcycle in every 
concievable circumstance, and a few inconcievable ones as well.  One can 
not blame people for poor trainning and poor certification.  A person with 
no experience in a given subject area is the last one who is qualified to 
judge the adequacy of their trainning.


> 
>>While I agree with your comments with regards to saftey, hunter orange is 
>>not the panacea you suggest.  I was wearing hunter orange last season and 
>>some asshole took a shot in my direction.  I was wearing a shirt and a cap 
>>both of which were clearly visible.  This is by no means a common 
>>occurrance around here, but with province mandated hunter orange, saftey 
>>courses and the like, the point is that it does still happen occaissionaly 
>>and it is a risk that hunters face.
>>
> So despite everything, it still shows not everyone should be allowed to
> fire a loaded weapon around other people.

No.  It just shows that some people are inadequately trained.  Or one could 
argue that it shows that there will always be a small percentage of twits 
in any activity. Or one could argue....you get the idea.

> 
>>>> - the risk of being blown to bits by having gotten something stuck in the 
>>>>barrel of their firearm (dirt, water, ice etc);
>>> 
>>> See above.  Good equipment maintenance is another part of safety.
>>
>>True, but this goes a little beyond maintence.  It is easy to get a little 
>>bit of something in the barrel if you're not very careful.  All it takes on 
>>a fairly large caliber rifle (say .30 cal) is a small piece of a twig, a 
>>couple of rain drops etc.
>>
> That may be a legitimate risk of hunting.  Still, if you are careful,
> it is highly unlikely to happen.

I would strike the word highly from this.  Depends on conditions and what 
precautions, if any, you take.

>  
>>>> - the risk of being hurt by booby traps set by AR activists;
>>> 
>>> A legitimate, though unlikely, hazzard.  In any event, not directly related
>>> to the threat posed by the deer hunting itself.  It could be said that
>>> it is just something to even up the odds.  Most AR activists are opposed to
>>> that, btw.  Stopping you from hunting successfully is one thing, hurting
>>> a (human) animal is quite another. 
>>
>>All these hazards are legitimate.  Far from being something that might 
>>'even up the odds' this kind of stuff can be a real problem.  As I outlined 
>>above with regards to success ratios, the odds are already pretty even.
>>
> The odds are even?  30% of hunters die every year?  

This comment show that you don't really understand what you're talking 
about.  The odds would be even if, on average, hunters killed one deer for 
every two they saw.  That is, half the time the deer gets away and half the 
time it doesn't.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the number of 
hunters who die.  In fact, on average, I suspect that the sight to kill 
ratio is much higher than two to 1.

> 
> They are not all legitimate risks.  And as I said before, most of even
> the risks that are legitimate are not risks of hunting per se.  

To each his own.

>  
>>>> - the risk of surprising a dangerous animal at close quaters and being 
>>>>maimed or killed while attempting to extracate one's self;
>>>>
>>> Make it clear you are not hunting them and most anything will avoid you.  
>>> I've surprised some fairly dangerous small carnivores, even cornered a 
>>> few by accident, but because I make it clear that I'm not hunting them, 
>>> I've never had any trouble as a result of that.  The stalking behavior
>>> of most people in the woods is typically predatory.  How would you expect
>>> an animal to react to a predator coming at them?  Go casually and they
>>> won't mind you at all. 
>>
>>Hello Mrs. Bear, I didn't mean to surprise you but I was just looking for 
>>some deer.  You haven't seen any have you?  The element of surprise insures 
>>that neither party was aware of the others' presence.  A surprised and 
>>scared animal is much more dangerous than one that heard you comming from a 
>>distance.  Unfortuately, 'going casually' is likely to insure that you 
>>don't see any *deer*. :-)
>>
> Avoid surprise.  Then they will be less dangerous, or will move to a
> safe distance.  And unless you or someone you know hunts without
> stalking and never sees deer (I don't mean someone you know who 
> can't be quiet, but still acts like he's trying to), I'd say my
> experience wandering among wildlife is still the only evidence
> you have.  Go slowly and quietly, but steadily, and make sure you
> deliberately make some noise, like clicking your tongue.  I'd bet 
> that if you did it, you wouldn't scare much of anything away.  Then
> you can sit in a tree and hide.

Deer become ultra suspicious during hunting season (who can blame them) so 
any non-normal noise in the woods is likely to provoke a run first ask 
questions later approach.

When I surprised a bear in the woods I was going slowly and quietly, but 
steadily.  I wasn't deliberately making any noise, but I wasn't really 
hunting either, I was on my way to a different hunting area.

>  
>>>>Of course, after successfully completing the hunt, the hunter has other 
>>>>risks to consider as well:
>>>>
>>>> - the risk that the deer isn't really dead.  Stories abound of hunters who 
>>>>got a hoof or antler in a tender spot at close quaters.
>>>>
>>> I thought humans hunting deer was a quick and painless death.  
>>
>>Well, it is if done properly.  One does however occaissionaly get yahoos 
>>who think their the marksman of the year or something and try long shots, 
>>neck shots, running shots and other unadvised activities.  Some people are 
>>actually capable of making such shots and they generally know who they are. 
>> Unfortuately others sometimes think they can do this too, when in fact 
>>they can't.  This opens the door to being wounded by an animal you wounded 
>>yourself, certainly a tasty bit of irony at the very least. :-)
>>
> Once again, it supports the idea that not everyone has the right to 
> hunt.  

I don't think anyone, except possibly native americans, can be said to have 
a right to hunt in our current society.  Last time I checked most 
jurisdictions regard it as a priviledge......

> 
>>>  
>>>>-- 
>>>>John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
>>>>robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
>>>>DOD #0069
>>> 
>>> I agree with that, but as you yourself said, there is legitimate fear
>>> of some trigger happy idiot mistaking you for a deer.  
>>
>>Trigger happy idiots do not fall into the class I define as honest 
>>citizens.
>>
> I wouldn't mind them owning a gun for self defense, provided they kept it in
> their houses.  But saying "hunting is justified" and shooting wildly, without
> any real justification for it is another matter entirely.  I question the 
> wisdom of permitting people who can't even puzzle out a coherent reason
> for what they are doing besides "I like it" to carry loaded firearms and
> rely on their judgement as to what's a good target.

Again, your characterization of hunters is completely out of line with 
reality.  It is a situation in which a few miscreants have a very high 
profile.  That doesn't mean they are representative of the population as a 
whole.

> 
> E.S.
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals