From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:28:38 GMT

In <1992Aug17.183521.674@spdc.ti.com> Jeff Achenbach wrote in response to R Black:

rb>>If wildlife populations could be maintained either naturally without
>>excessive suffering or with intervention through non-hunting techniques,
>>what percentage of hunters would voluntarily and willingly forego
>>hunting entirely?

ja>Populations maintained naturally without excessive suffering?  Dream on!

Notice the "if" at the front of the sentence.  That denotes a hypothetical
proposition.

However, the idea of humane natural controls is not unheard of, as is
being debated vociferously in another thread.  Also, in your extensive
wildlife readings, have you stumbled upon THE NATURAL REGULATION OF
ANIMAL NUMBERS by David Lack or GROWTH AND REGULATION OF ANIMAL
POPULATIONS by Lawrence Slobodkin? I haven't read them, but they were
listed in this forum several months ago as sources supporting the
existence of some naturally operating birth control mechanisms that kick
in during hard times. 

My mind is still open on this subject.  As one who is trying to adhere
to an ethic calling for reduced suffering, I would rather see a quick
death by bullet than a slow painful death by starvation.  It becomes an
interesting issue, because hunters so often invoke the specter of
starvation to defend the relative humaneness of their practice.  

Yet the lingering suspicion persists that hunters hunt because they want
to, and these other reasons just serve as handy justifications for them
to latch onto.  On this issue, I believe that I am more open-minded than
most hunters.  And that was part of the point toward which my paragraph
above was directed. 


ja>Have you been watching Bambi again?

I guess I led a deprived childhood.  I never saw this movie.  Not even once.
There I've finally come out of the closet and admitted it.  What a relief!
I'm glad that's over.  However I did see 101 Dalmatians, so that probably
turned me against fur, right?  Now can we get on with some real issues?

ja> Mother Nature is a cruel, harsh mistress. The
>only animal that gives a damn about another species suffering is man.

I'm not so sure of this.  I've seen many examples where it certainly
appeared that dogs and cats have indicated signs of empathy and concern
toward grieving humans. 

ja> Kill or be killed, eat or be eaten, is nature's way.

Oh, so if humans don't eat deer and cows, then those deer and cows will
eat humans?

ja> Only in cartoons does the lion lay down with the lamb.

Or in the bible?

ja> Man is an efficient predator, and need not apologize
>for eating. 

No, but he may have to apologize for WHAT he eats. ;-)

ja>   Hunters are the only group that can be counted on to fund wildlife manage-
>ment (self interest at work).

Maybe once this was true, maybe.  But don't assume it always will be.  If
it comes to pass that others can be counted on to do the funding, then will
hunters quit?  Or will they keep coming up with other justifications, so
they can continue defending what they want to do anyway?

ja> When they get tired of their newfound cause, or
>when family and work begin to interfere, or when they find a new cause, the 
>AR loonies will have left a mess and wildlife will pay the price.

Are you assuming that name-calling like "AR loonies" is a substitute for
reason and citation of facts?  I saw from other posts that you are very
capable of more persuasive forms of discussion.  Why not stick with those?

Also are you assuming that AR people are engaged in a passing fad? To
use your own words: "Dream on." To give a more serious response: from
what I can tell all the key AR people nationwide are in this for the
duration.  It's something you'll need to get used to. 

rb>>If the percentage is high, then I would be more likely to believe that 
>>hunters are genuinely interested in the animals' interest.  If that
>>percentage is low, then I would question it.
>>
>
ja>   I think the main problem with arguments between hunters and ARs is that 
>hunters speak in terms of animal populations, whereas ARs are concerned with
>individuals of a species. 

I wouldn't call it a problem so much as a fundamental philosophical
difference in outlook.  Are you concerned with any individuals of the
human species? ... or just the general human populations?

ja>Hunters are concerned with maintaining viable 
>populations of healthy animals (for hunting and viewing). Individuals will 
>continue to die and be born in any event. I feel no more guilt when I kill
>and eat a deer than does a mountain lion. 

So what are you saying here?  Are you putting yourself on the same ethical
level of responsibility as a mountain lion?


>In article <BtCsFJ.179@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>
>>Russell Lawrence writes:
>>rl> Why would it be "ok" for cougars to violently fight over the 
>>rl> right to select a particular mate, but not ok for humans to do 
>>rl> so?  Or, for that matter, why would it be "ok" for a volcanic 
>>rl> eruption to decimate a small town, but not ok for a human tyrant to 
>>rl> wreak similar destruction?  
>>
>>From article <1992Aug19.173503.23618@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
>>ja> The competition for mates is still with us, it's just (usually) 
>>ja> more subtle.  Decimation of a small town or even a large city has 
>>ja> been deemed "ok" by society as a whole at various times in our 
>>ja> history.  Ever heard of Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima?  I am sure the 
>>ja> allied forces were the tyrants in the eyes of the victims.  
>>ja> However, winners write the history books.  

Are you seriously claiming that it was subtle competition for a mate
which led to Truman's decision to drop The Bomb on Hiroshima? Please
clarify your position on this. 

Your implication is that winners write the history and cover up all the
bad things their side has done.  Yet this is contradicted by the fact
that we all have heard of Dresden, Berlin, and Hiroshima.  In other
words, we do have honorable historians who try to get at and publish the
truth. 

[...]

Jeff, you also had some comments directed toward me in the thread
entitled "Moral Judgements" which I regret to say is lost.  If you want
followup and still have a copy, you'll have to repost or email. 

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

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals