From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:30:08 GMT

In article <mpvxd+m@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>Robert Black writes:
>
>>In article <1992Jul22.124725.6620@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul21.172135.19116@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>> In article <1992Jul17.052521.10939@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Jul16.161229.20082@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John Robinson wrote to David Caruso II:
>>>>>>>......  Would you think more highly of hunters if they dragged their 
>>>>>>>heels as they went into the woods, reluctant to dicharge a distateful 
>>>>>>>duty?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>				YES
>>>>>
>>>>>Quite. Conversely, what would you think of a state executioner who
>>>>>really REALLY enjoyed his job? 
>>>> 
>>>> I certainly would not want this executioner to be the one who decided
>>>> whether a particular individual should be executed or not.
>>>
>>>Executioners don't decide.  Others decide.  They're called jurors, judges 
>>>and govonors.  Executioners just push the button or pull the switch long after 
>>>the decision has already been made. None of which has the slightest bit to 
>>>do with the topic of discusion, talk.politics.animals.  Nice attempt at a 
>>>diversion though. :)
>>
>>But what Paul was pointing out is that in the case of killing an individual
>>animal, it's not "others" who decide.  The juror, judge, and executioner
>>are one and the same.  And those who enjoy the execution are not the ones
>>who should be the judges.  I don't think there's a great disagreement here,
>>since all hunters in this forum allegedly don't enjoy killing.
>
>But you and Paul are *both* wrong about hunters being "judge, jury,
>and executioner."  The judges and jurors are the wildlife biologists
>and game department officials that set the bag limits and number of
>permits that get issued.

Actually if we're going to continue this analogy, the wildlife
biologists and game department officials are more like legislators
because they establish the rules (laws).  The ones who make the
individual life and death decisions, that is the judges and jurors as
well as the executioners, still seem to be the hunters in the field. 

>  It seems to be a pretty popular
>misconception by you AR folk that hunters just go out into the woods
>and shoot anything they want, completely unchecked.

I don't think anyone here has said that.

>  I don't mean to
>be sarcastic, but aren't you guys aware of seasons and limits and all
>that?

Of course we are.  What makes you think otherwise?

>
>>However if I know of a hunter who enjoyed killing animals (and I have
>>met some), I would not want that individual to be doing hunting any more
>>than I would want the rabid executioner to be a judge or juror.  Of
>>course most hunters aren't likely to admit it these days, given the
>>attention focused on their activities.  So one needs to watch for more
>>subtle (and granted, less reliable) indications ...  possible candidates
>>might be hunters who advocate techniques that cause greater crippling
>>rates or methods likely to cause more pain and suffering, e.g.  hunters
>>who would support legalization of, say, use of spears on wild hogs or
>>who would support shooting at deer 2/3 of a mile away.  There are some
>>of these types, as you know. 
>
>Do you consider them to be representative?

I suspect them to be a minority, but find it alarming to see some
numbered among Usenet posters (not you) who have written eloquently
about how they act in the best interests of animals. 

>
>
>John
>
---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.