From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Hunting and Killing. Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:08:09 GMT

>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."

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

>> 
>> 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.

>> [...]
>> 
>>>...  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.

>
>> takes place.  Killing is one component of hunting.  But that's too
>> simplistic, because without it hunting does not take place.  And you say
>> below that the killing component and the non-killing component are
>> inextricably linked.  Why is it anything more than a minor error to
>> equate a sine qua non component with the whole? Why is it such a
>> dreadful error to equate the two?
>> 
>
>See above.
>
>>>
>>>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.

>  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?

[...]

>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.

>No.  ARFs are in my estimation people who boost their own 
>self-esteem and gratify their own need to feel important by setting 
>themselves up as the mouthpieces of 'the voiceless ones'.

Well thanks for your opinion, but I'm certain that you'll agree it
doesn't add a lot to the discussion.  One could just as well say, "HFs
(hunter fanatics) are people who boost their own self-esteem and
gratify their own need to feel important by hunting down and killing
'the voiceless ones'".  Both statements involve speculative OPINIONS
about the motives of others and without further discursive or empirical
evidence are not really that interesting. 

Your statement comes across as a failed attempt to distract attention
from the real issues.

[...]

>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.

[...]

>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?

---
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