From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:23:06 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Jul21.221312.28925@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.155549.6609@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.053749.9571@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>>> In article <1992Jul20.112736.6595@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>> 
>>>>don't know of any hunters that revel in the kill.  And that, Paul, is the 
>>>>point that sailed oh so effortlessly over your head.
>>>>
>>> 
>>> Oh John, just when there seems some hope of actually discussing stuff, you
>>> decide that it's time to start spinkling more abuse about. Guess I was
>>> naive to think that we could do better than that ...
>>
>>No.  But when I get seriously annoyed I do get just a tad sarcastic. :-)
> 
> Yes, and I probably over-react when I feel I am being patronised. I've got all
> these certificates attesting to how smart I am; so I really *shouldn't* care
> when people seem to suggest that I can't follow the argument, should I?

No, you shouldn't, but we're all human.

> 
>>
>>It annoys me to see AR folx fixated on the kill I guess.
> 
> You can hardly be surprised that they regard it as the focal point, the
> defining event, of the whole activity - certainly from the animal's point
> of view. I agree that it is just one element among many from the hunters
> ppoint of view.
> 

But it seems so blindingly obvious to me that death from a rifle or a bow 
is orders of magnitude better than starvation, or death by natural 
predation.  Dying of old age is a luxury we've attained by re-modelling our 
planet, among other things.  Animals in the wild rarely die of old age.  
Their death is long, lingering and painful in the normal course of events 
and I can't help but feel that death at the hands of a hunter is far far 
quicker and cleaner than much of anything else.  Thus, when I examine the 
AR cause, despite their claims of wanting less pain and sufferring for 
animals, I see banning hunting as advocating more pain and suffering, not 
less.  I would feel this way even if I didn't hunt.  I see it, not as a 
matter of opinion, but as an acknowledgement of the facts of life.  Because 
of this viewpoint, I feel very frustrated when someone tries to replace a 
quick, relatively painless death with a long, lingering one.  I hate to see 
anything suffer.  I don't mind watching it die but damnit I hate to see it 
suffer.

I saw a book in the store authored by the Exec. Dir. of PETA around 
Christmas time.  I think it was called 101 Things Kids Can Do to Save the 
Animals (or the Planet, I forget which).  There were several things I 
disliked about it.  First of all, its connection with PETA was, I felt, 
heavily downplayed.  And yet, it was in my estimation little more than 
propaganda.  It was pushing the PETA agenda at children, encouraging them 
to view animals in human terms, something I'm opposed to.

In particular, there was a section on hunting.  It stated that if the 
children knew anyone who hunted, they should bug that person to hunt with a 
camera instead of a gun because animals that are shot by a camera can still 
go home to their family at the end of the day.  I found this bit very 
repulsive and misleading.  Animal and human social structures are not the 
same.  Hell, not even all animal social structures are the same.  Thus to 
characterize it in human family terms is, IMHO, a highly unrealistic, over 
emotional, misleading bit of pap.  To feed that to a child at an early age, 
before they've developed a facility for critical thinking is simply 
inexcusable.

Thus, from this, I see the AR groups as saying that death by non-human 
methods is ok and somehow more natural than death by man.  Basically, I see
it as a 'killing is bad' argument with only black and white (killing=bad, 
no killing=good) and I think this is false.  Thus, I can not support, or 
condone AR groups even though I'm sure they are, in some cases, doing quite 
a bit of good.  The fact that such groups persist in trying to ram their 
philosophy down the throats of others, including myself, forces me to 
actively oppose them.

I think that the 'voiceless ones' as you characterize them are far better 
served by hunting and professional wildlife management than by anything 
else I've seen proposed, here or elsewhere.  As far as I'm concerned, it is 
the job of the wildlife biologists to 'speak for the voiceless ones' and I 
think in most places they've done an excellent job of it.

>>	  I regard killing 
>>an animal for food as a natural, normal, healthy activity.  But then, I'm 
>>an omnivour with a well developed taste for venison.... :-)
>>
>>I don't have to hunt for food.  I *want* to.  I think it is somewhat 
>>hypocritical to eat meat and look down on people who kill their own.
> 
> I am with you there. 
> 
>>                                                                        I
>>like to eat meat, and I enjoy collecting it myself.  I think it is an added 
>>extra bonus that I can help reduce the winter kill (by starvation) in the 
>>process.
>>
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069