From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re:HUNTING FOR SPORT
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:58:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul18.084849.24570@tom.rz.uni-passau.de> guenther@vati.
fmi.uni-passau.de (Thorsten Guenther) writes:

:I have to agree. hunting requires a lot of skill, if you are just equipped with
:a rifle and nothing else (e.g. cars, helicopters, infrared sensors, guided
:missiles). And I consider hunting legitimate, as long as I consume meat.
:But, IMHO, hunters should only kill for meat or to kill suffering animals
:(injured, ill, etc.), but they should not hunt for trophies. Really, I consider
:wolf hunting with helicopters (have you seen 'Wolfen'?) one of the most stupid
:and senselessly cruel human behaviours.


Hi, Thorsten;

Thanks for your input.

Well, actually, I prefer the bow to the gun, but that's just my preference;
I like the challenge, and that's even more important to me than the meat.
BTW, I don't know anybody that hunts with copters, infrared sensors, guided
missiles, etc., and I know LOTS of hunters;  perhaps you have hunters confused 
with 101st Air Assault? :-)

I often hear non-hunters object to "trophy hunting" such as you have, so
I would like to clarify what it's (usually) all about.

Most hunters that I know (and as I said, I know a lot of them) hunt not just
for the venison, or for the trophy explicitly, but out of the sheer love
of the process of hunting.  Nonetheless, the venison is usually a big number 2
and a nice set of antlers is a nice number 3.  When a hunter takes an animal
(a deer, for example, since that is the most popular game animal in the US)
he almost always uses the meat, either by eating it himself, or donating it
to someone else who will. (My archery club donates extra venison to homeless
shelters, and believe me, they're glad to get it!)  :-)

If the deer has a nice set of antlers, these will be retained and turned into a 
"trophy", but this is usually just another benefit that comes with a successful
hunt, rather than the main reason for the hunt.  

Conversely, I do know a few people who consider themselves "trophy
hunters", in that taking a "trophy" quality animal (rather than just a
freezer-filler) is their main goal;  these people differ from "non-trophy"
hunters in that they are simply willing to put in more time waiting for
a special animal meeting their requirements before taking a shot, rather than
taking the first deer that they can.  But rest assured, when a "trophy hunter"
takes a deer, he also uses the venison;  the image often put forward by
people who do not understand this, of a "trophy hunter" that just "kills a 
deer and cuts off the head, leaving the rest to rot" is simply incorrect
(but it gets repeated a lot, since it's great propaganda for the opposition).

WRT to "hunting" wolves from helicopters:  please don't refer to this
sort of practice in the same breath as sport hunting.  It isn't hunting,
it's just killing;  it isn't for sport, it's to eliminate wolves.

Just as an aside, the only place that I am personally aware of "helicopter
hunting" is in New Zealand, where they have suffered such serious animal
overpopulation problems, along with severe resultant habitat depradation,
that they sometimes shoot deer from copters and leave the carcasses to rot.  
And the hunters in New Zealand generally find this practice just as repugnant
as you feel about the shooting of wolves that way.

Of course, if the ARs succeed in banning hunting, expect the same sort of
problems to occur here in the US, due to increasing game population levels. 


Best Regards,


Ken Whitehead