From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunting and Killing. Re: Letter to John Robinson
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:43:58 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Aug19.160809.12659@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul28.172145.21753@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>> In article <1992Jul22.142929.6621@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>> 
>>>>>>  Where you, and I suspect others, get confused, is in equating 
>>>>>>hunting with killing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Actually Mr.  Linan disabused me of this notion several months ago. 
>>>>> After that I thought I knew about the difference, until our Spanish
>>>>> philosopher made another cameo appearance and prceeded to cloud the
>>>>> issue.  :-)
>>>>
>>>>Well, I find our Spanish fellow rather easy to understand.  First, lets 
>>>>look at the quote, to be sure we're discussing the same thing: "One does 
>>>>not hunt in order to kill.  One kills in order to have hunted."  The first 
>>>>part is pretty straight forward.  It states that killing is not the sole 
>>>>purpose of the hunt.  One does not hunt in order to satisfy a blood lust, 
>>>>nor to derive pleasure from watching an animal die.  And yet, killing 
>>>>definately has a place in hunting.  The second part tells us what that 
>>>>is.  It tells us that without the kill at the end, or at least the 
>>>>intention of it, you're not really hunting.  Thus stalking a deer through 
>>>>the woods with a camera, while it has all the elements of hunting except 
>>>>the kill, is not really hunting.  I personally have always found a hunt 
>>>>that didn't result in venison in the freezer somehow incomplete.  It is 
>>>>still very satisfying, but it never feels like it has finished.
>>> 
>>> Okay, so the Spanish philosopher is saying that you're not "really"
>>> hunting unless you kill something.  So killing is one component of
>>> hunting.  But more than that: it's an integral component of hunting,
>>> such that without it, hunting does not really take place.  And those who
>>> equate hunting with killing are really equating one component with the
>>> whole?
>>
>>No.  You're not really hunting unless you have the *means* with which to 
>>kill something, given the opportunity.
>>
>>One may be presented with an opportunity to kill, and decline it, or blow 
>>it, or whatever.  Its still hunting because one has the means to kill.  
>>Stalking an animal with a camera is not, IMHO, hunting because one does not 
>>have the ability to kill an animal given the opportunity.  Thus, killing is 
>>only a small part of hunting, but having the ability to kill a large part 
>>of hunting.  So much so that without that ability it isn't really hunting.
> 
> Then the Spaniard, if he had possessed a greater respect for linguistic
> precision, should have said, "One does not hunt in order to kill.  One
> faces the opportunity to kill while in the possession of the means to
> kill, in order to have hunted."

Well, I think from here its clear enough that you have some understanding 
of it....it might be clearer if you also added in something about intent in 
there as well, but then his words are precise enough for me.

> 
> So one could "hunt" for years, decades, or even an entire lifetime
> without ever killing, as long as the POTENTIAL to kill was present?

You got it!  I hunted for several years before killing my first deer.  I 
had one opportunity prior to successfully bagging a deer.  I blew it.

> 
>>> 
>>> Don't we really just have a terminology problem here? Those who are
>>> allegedly equating hunting with killing (let's call them the "equators")
>>> may be using the term "hunting" to refer to this one component which
>>> they view as controversial, while hunters are using the term to refer to
>>> the whole instead of just one component.  Doesn't some of the
>>> communication confusion really derive from the absence of a word or
>>> phrase which the equators can use to name the component which they
>>> see as needing further discussion?
>>
>>Well, if they feel that it is the killing which is controversial, then it 
>>seems to me that we have a word already.  It's spelled K*I*L*L*I*N*G* :-)
> 
> We've established that.  We're seeking a word to describe the other
> component.

The other part is usually referred to as the chase.

> 
>>> [...]
>>> 
>>>>...  I consider 
>>>>people who view hunting and killing as equivalent things very ill informed 
>>>>and worthy of little consideration.  
>>> 
>>> Why? We've already said that hunting doesn't really occur unless a kill
>>
>>No.  You missed the point of the above, either deliberately or otherwise.  
>>I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume otherwise.  Hunting 
>>doesn't take place unless the potential for a kill exists.
> 
> If I've missed the point, it's because the point was not clear.
> Previously the key ingredient for hunting was the "kill"; now it's
> become the "potential for a kill."  And this seems like it's going
> beyond what the Spanish philosopher said - certainly in the literal
> sense.

I certainly don't think so.  It is a mistake to assume that one simply 
walks into the woods and shoots an animal.  It is not a mistake to assume 
that one takes the opportunities that are presented when they are 
presented, in most cases.  Some hunters pass up several deer, opting to 
wait until the one they want comes along.  They're still hunting.  But if 
they didn't intend to kill the deer they were waiting for they wouldn't be. 
 Thus, it is necessary, for the activity to be hunting, that one kill the 
animal one is hunting when the opportunity arrises.

> 
>>>>Actually, I don't see that the killing part is controversial so much.
>>> 
>>> Then take my word for it.  Or ask around.  Without the kill much of the 
>>> controversy fades away.  There are hunters who recognize this.  Here's
>>> a quote from hunter Humberto Fontova taken from the Nov/Dec Sierra Club
>>> magazine, which I quoted in a message to Brian Dixon last March:
>>
>>Ok. So let us assume for the moment that the kill really is what is 
>>controversial here.  Why is controversial?
> 
> It's controversial because you're taking the life of a conscious,
> thinking, feeling being, whose life we have good reason to believe
> matters to him or her.

It is obvious that we have two distinctly different views of animals here.  
I would not describe an animal as thinking, at least not in what I would 
define as a human sense.

> 
>>  What is wrong with killing an 
>>animal for food?  Its not like this is a new idea or anything.  ...
> 
> Does an idea gain automatic credibility merely by being old?  If so, how?

Of course not, I'm surprised that you should think so.  However, it has 
been accepted practice for some time and that combined with the fact that 
we both desire and need food gives it much credibility, in my eyes at 
least.

Now I could obtain food from other sources.  I do not choose to be a 
vegetarian.  I like meat.  I can buy my meat or I can kill it myself.  
Either way, the death of an animal is a necessity.  I prefer to kill it 
myself when I can.

> 
> [...]
> 
>>If ARFs were truly interested in reducing the killing that takes place, 
>>they'd focus on hunter education and certification more so than on banning 
>>hunting.  
> 
> What are you talking about?  One obvious way to reduce killing is to
> simply do less of it.

Sorry.  Fingers got confused there.  Killing should be suffering.  If you 
were interested in reducing suffering, you should concentrate on hunter 
education.

[...opinion deleted...]

> [...]
> 
>>Well, I suppose (1) depends on what, exactly, one means by 'blasting away'. 
>> Hunting deer from an elevated stand is common practice.  If he has to 
>>blast away at several deer then he is either in violation of the game laws 
>>(presumably) because he's shooting more deer than he's allowed to take, or 
>>he's a very poor shot. :)  As for (2) guided hunts are a fairly small 
>>proportion of hunting and hunts in Africa are an even smaller proportion.  
>>Neither of which has a whole lot to do with the guy who goes out in the 
>>woods to collect a deer during deer season.
> 
> But the point was that here is a self-proclaimed hunter defending actions 
> which do not appear to be in the animals' interests.  And if we continue
> the system of entrusting the humane population control of wildlife to
> hunters, then these hunters should not be types like Fontova whose own
> selfish motivations very likely make him unreliable.

I must be missing something here.....So he is a self-proclaimed hunter, and 
he talks about things that don't, to you, seem to be in the interest of the 
animals.  I tend to agree, in principle, that 'types like Fontova' are not 
especially welcome in the ranks of responsible hunters.  The problem, as 
with many people problems, is knowing in advance what unquestioningly 
characterises 'types like Fontova' in such a way as not to impede or 
interfere with responsible hunters.  This, in practice, is virtually 
impossible.

> 
> [...]
> 
>>Then why do most of the ARFs here carry on about the *suffering*?  
>>Suffering and killing are not the same thing.
> 
> They're both part of the wider concern.  But you already knew that.
> 
>>>>  Most
>>>>of the stereotypes of hunters (I find stereotypes good indicators of what is 
>>>>controversial) revolve around poorly educated individuals who either a) shoot
>>>>anything that moves, b) drink and shoot anything that moves or c) revel in 
>>>>the killing.  While there are people who call themselves hunters who behave 
>>>>this way, the vast majority, of course don't fit this picture.  As well, 
>>>>some of what I've read here has led me to believe many of you consider the 
>>>>killing of an animal as something that is painful to the animal.  It can 
>>>>be, if done inncorrectly.  But from witnessing the two procedures, it would 
>>>>be my guess that a majority of sufferring occurs in farm yard and 
>>>>commercial slaughtering, much more so in fact than occurs in hunting.  I 
>>>>have no numbers to back this assertion up with, but I have seen (and 
>>>>heard!) pigs being butchered, I've heard tell of cows being butchered by 
>>>>people who witnessed it first hand, and I've seen animals killed live and 
>>>>on video by hunters.  All of that information leads me to believe the 
>>>>assertion is correct.  Add to this the fact that a high population just 
>>>>prior to winter translates to a high winter kill (by slow painful 
>>>>starvation) and that other predators (coyotes, wolves, big cats) kill more 
>>>>slowly than man, and I think death at a hunter's hands is, short of dying of 
>>>>old age, is the least painful and traumatic death for the animal in most 
>>>>cases.
>>>>
>>>>So, I think that what is controversial about hunting is a) that we walk the 
>>>>woods armed, and that this makes some people who are especially insecure 
>>>>feel threatened; 
>>> 
>>> Where did you get this bizarre notion?
>>
>>Re-read the above paragraph regarding stereotypes and you'll see where I 
>>got it.
> 
> I still don't get it.  Above you're discussing the stereotype of the
> hunter as a poorly educated individual.  Are "especially insecure
> people" (your words) necessarily afraid of poorly educated people?
> 
> Wouldn't even secure person who believed the stereotype be sensible to
> fear for their own safety?

No, because a person who is secure would not, IMHO, accept such a 
stereotype without checking it out first hand.  An insecure person however 
would be quite content to let another do their thinking for them.
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals