From: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunter's legitimate concern
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:59:35 GMT
Reply-To: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC


From article <13635@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, by jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad):
js> It's almost like you didn't read the paragraph in my original 
js> post prior to the you quoted.  As I said, I am aware that not 
js> every single member of DU and similar organizations are hunters.  
js> However, very large percentages of the membership are hunters.  
js> This is obvious just from the kinds of things that are sold with 
js> DU's emblem on it.  

 Russell Lawrence replies:
 :
 rl>Let me explain something to you.  When I earmark money for wildlife
 rl>preservation, I expect it to be used for wildlife preservation,
 rl>not for promotional merchandise, fun banquets, rafles, etc.  Nor 
 rl>do I expect or want to be bribed into making a donation for a 
 rl>cause that I truly want to support.  Since I'm not the only 
 rl>person who feels this way, it seems to me that it may be a 
 rl>mistake to judge potential support for any organization on the 
 rl>basis of how much money the organization raises from promotional 
 rl>items.  

Russell, you're missing the point.  Many of the items that are sold
with DU's emblem are items aimed gererally at hunters.  If a large
fraction of DU's members were not hunters would they do that?  No one
is bribing or tricking you into supporting DU.  I assume you know that
when you buy a T-shirt with DU's logo on it that they get a cut?

As far as the fund raising banquets go, its interesting to look at
the advertisements for AR conventions that have been posted recently.
It seems that they feature continental breakfasts, "famous tex-mex buffet",
(would that be with the beef or the chicken?), dinner buffets, dancing,
and civil disobedience training.  No mention of fund raising is made,
so I assume these are purely social (well maybe not the civil disobedience
training :-}).  Now how much habitat acquisition and conservation happens
as a result of these AR social events?

js> While money from yourself is appreciated as 
js> much as money from anyone else when you send it in you usually 
js> don't get to choose how DU spends it.  (Unless you're giving very 
js> large amounts -- how about a rehabilitated Lake Russell Lawrence?  
js> :-}) 

 rl>
 rl>No thanks.

Although I made the comment in jest, it is somewhat disturbing that you
want no part of it.  I would be extremely proud to have made a major
contribution to the rehabilitation of waterfowl habitat.  If it were a
financial option for me I would consider it.  You, however don't want
to be associated with it.  I thought you wanted to help ducks?

js> In a way its like your taxes;  even if you are opposed to 
js> the military you can't tell the government not to spend your 
js> money on defense.  Even if you could, they'd just spend more of 
js> someone else's money to compensate.  It seems to me that if you 
js> don't approve of something that DU does you can always find 
js> another organization that helps ducks, or get on their board of 
js> directors somehow and change what they do.  From everything 
js> you've said, it seems like you really didn't know too much about 
js> DU before you sent in your money.  Think about it: which would be 
js> worse for DU's fund raising, taking away all hunter contributions 
js> or taking away all contributions from those opposed to hunting?  

 rl>A more appropriate question to ask, in view of the original
 rl>proposition, is whether hunters or anti-hunters are more inclined
 rl>as a class to support preservation efforts.   Do you know the
 rl>answer to such a question?

No I don't.  Do you?  I have seen evidence that hunters and fishermen
contribute a tremendous amount to conservation.  I have yet to see
evidence that anti-hunters do.  And the AR conference advertising we
have been subjected to recently doesn't seem to talk much about 
preservation.  Maybe the civil disobedience training takes up too
much time.  Also, when I see things such the defacing of a sign marking
a grouse habitat improvement project with AR slogans I have to wonder
how that helps wildlife?

By the way, I thought my question was very appropriate to this discussion.
Why didn't you answer it?  You seem to get upset when other people don't
answer your questions.

 rl>To the extent that you cite a mandatory requirement as a point in 
 rl>your argument, you're contradicting the claim made by a prior 
 rl>poster that funds spend on such things as duck stamps constitute 
 rl>proof that hunters are concerned about the well-being of wild 
 rl>animals.  

Did it ever occur to you that hunters generally support and sometimes
ask for license surcharges to support various conservation programs?
Of all the government taxes and fees I pay, my hunting and fishing
licenses and stamps, as well as the hidden taxes I pay on equipment,
are the ones I don't mind paying because I know the money is going
to help with wildlife conservation.

 rl>To reiterate, I still consider it dishonest when pro-hunting 
 rl>posters cite expenditures for such things as duck stamps as a 
 rl>sign of the good intentions of hunters toward wild animals.  In 
 rl>view of the fact that many people misconstrue the collections as 
 rl>a referendum of sorts on hunting, it seems to me that people like 
 rl>myself ought to be careful how we choose to spend our money lest 
 rl>our contributions be mistaken, not as a sign of our support for 
 rl>preservation, but as a vote in favor of sport hunting.   Pity.

I still think you didn't know much about DU before you donated.
I believe that you are correct that first and formost DU is about
duck preservation.  What I find curious is that given your anti-hunting
bent you gave money to a group that does not have an anti-hunting
platform and in fact encourages hunting and sees hunters as a vital
part of the duck preservation team.  Not to mention that they on
occasion cooperate with state and provincial DNRs, which seem to be
considered evil by most ARs.  It gets back to the question I posed
earlier that you declined to answer, would DU be worse off subtracting
the hunter contributions or the anti-hunter contributions?  If there
were no DU would the ducks be better or worse off?

Joe
All opinions mine, etc.
-- 
================================================================
= C. Joseph Semrad                  =   Phone: 612-553-4758    =
= EMPOWER Development               =   FAX:   612-553-4018    =
= Empros Systems International      =   jsemrad@ems.cdc.com    =
================================================================
=      1991 Minnesota Twins, Baseball's World Champions!       =
=           So, Jack it was the money, wasn't it?              =
================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals