From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:26:09 GMT

Steve Pope writes:
>
>vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>
[stuff deleted]
>| Like most other hunters, I long for the day when the
>| media shows you AR folk for exactly what you *are*, instead of
>| painting you as a bunch of animal lovers and do-gooders.  
>
>I do not describe myself as "AR".  Note that I use the term
>"animal advocate" above.  Don't try to pin me with a rights-based
>philosophy.  I ain't got one.

"Animal advocate" is a term that I generally reserve for
environmentally conscious hunters like myself.  Forgive my arrogance
in not allowing others to so readily pin it on themselves. ;-)  It
certainly causes confusion when the true AR-types mislabel themselves
with it.  To my way of thinking, the hunters like me are looking out
for the animals (by controlling populations to prevent starvation and
other cruel types of death), whereas the AR folk are looking out for
their individual rights and notably *not* the good of the overall
group instead of the individual.  That is a KEY distinction.  But
you've mentioned that you're not particularly against hunting if
needed (or something like that) and are primarily against
experimentation on animals.  Since such experiments are indeed usually
for the benefit of humans, they do not directly benefit the animals
like hunting does, so I will readily admit that a person can indeed be
an "animal advocate" and want to do away with experimentation (such as
yourself).


>| You folk
>| would rather see animals die of starvation or be torn limb-from-limb
>| by predators while still alive than (God forbid) allow a hunter to
>| shoot one and feed his or her family.  
>
>Did I ever say this?

No, and I appologize for including you in the "hard-core" AR ranks.


>| You folk don't give a damn that
>| by trying to stop hunting you are taking away the single largest
>| source of money that is spent on environment restoration (an amount
>| over *one billion* dollars per year from license fees, the 11% excise
>| taxes on all our equipment, etc.).  
>
>A specious argument.  The same amount of money could be spent on
>the environment regardless of policies on hunting.  

But it won't be.  Sadly enough, hunters must pay for licenses and if
there were no hunting, apathy would spend this money on things other
than contributions to the environment, for the most part.  Some folks
like myself would still give, but I'd be either naive or stupid to
think that all or even most would. :-(


>| Imagine what would happen if the
>| media told the American public that, rather than hug bunnies, you folk
>| want to shut down Mickey D's and stop all animal experiments that
>| could cure illnesses such as AIDS or cancer instead of beating the
>| anti-hunter drums as part of their happy little agenda to disarm the
>| American people (us mean-old-nasty-"assault-rifle"-toting-scum-of-
>| the-Earth-Bambi-killers being a good start on their mission).  
>
>Did I ever say *this* ???  As it happens, yes, I do want to 
>shutdown animal testing facilities, moreso than I want to curtail
>hunting.  Actually, I haven't formed a strong opinion on hunting.  
>And yes, I'm in favor of gun control but for reasons that have 
>nothing to do with animal advocacy.

No, you never said this.  But I feel this is an accurate portrayal of
the media's representations.  I didn't mean to try and put these words
into your mouth, only into the media's, from whence I got them.  I'm
tempted to ask why you favor gun control, but that's a bit out of the
subject area of t.p.a :-).


>| The
>| media will never mention all the good that hunters do in controlling
>| animal populations and helping the environment, since after all we are
>| just a few more ornery old rebels that might poke our shootin' irons
>| out the window and let fly with a volley if "King George's" troops
>| ride into town.
>
>I never thought of this allusion.  Nice!  I'll use it from
>now on.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns