From: pfeiffer@nmsu.edu (Joe Pfeiffer)
Subject: Re: Rover stares down my barrel.
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:00:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.163010.42252@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

	   I wonder how many hunters out there have pets.  And I wonder how they 
   would react if I decided that the cat and dog over-population problem was 
   something I needed to take into my own hands, and shot their pets.  Oh, and 
   don't forget that I enjoyed it, too.  I enjoyed putting a bullet through Rover 
   and knowing that I had been the direct cause of the termination of Rover's 
   life.

Do you honestly believe that the analogy you're drawing here is even
close to an accurate one?  First, unlike wild animals, there are
effective means of controlling pet populations that don't involve
hunting (both of of my family's dogs are spayed).  Second, you still
don't understand that the scenario you're describing -- walking up to
a tame animal and shooting it -- isn't hunting.  You continue to
demonstrate that you have no concept of either wild animal populations
or the nature of hunting.

The most basic problem with your analogy is the confusion between an
animal in the wild and one that is cared for.  Your walking up to one
of our dogs and shooting them is equivalent to me shooting a deer in a
zoo (and is about as likely to happen).  If you were looking for a
good analogy to hunting that involved a dog, you'd be a lot closer if
you drew up a scenario of a farmer shooting a feral dog that was
attacking his sheep.  That's even something that happens quite
routinely -- but then you wouldn't be able to get the tug on the heart
strings, would you?

Funny -- whenever hunters accuse AR'ers of not being able to tell the
difference between a pet and a wild animal, we get told that you guys
are perfectly aware of the difference.  But confusing the two is
precisely the point of your post.

	   But wait.  Of course, me, not being a perfect marksman, shot Rover
   first in his hind-quarters, and shattered his spine.  Or I could have just shot
   him in a non-vital area.  Of course, this is fair, because people have the
   right to kill animals because they enjoy it, and because there are too many
   animals.  So I shot Rover, and he howled and bled, until I slit his throat with
   my hunting knife.  Then I dragged Rover home, and threw him in the freezer with
   the rest of animals.  Then to reward myself, I went to the grocery store,
   skipped the meat department (because I was feeling very independent and self-
   sufficient), and bought myself a 12-pack of beer.

No, we don't have the right to kill animals because we enjoy it.  We
have the right because it is a right we share with the animals
themselves.  You may wish to reflect that the end you describe for
Rover is a whole lot more humane than nearly any death he would have
met in the wild.

	   Then I come home, and I turned on the tube.  I watch this very shocking 
   news report about people who pay around eight or nine hundred dollars to shoot 
   an animal that has been captured and re-released in a fenced-in area.  I can't 
   believe people would do that!  Forget that fact that's is extremely cruel to
   the animal, it's just not sport!  You have to shoot an animal in it's natural 
   habitat to feel like a real man.  I wonder why those people feel like they can 
   do that?  But hey, I'm sure they have some kind of justification.  Everyone 
   does.

Well, at least you're half right here -- the situation you describe
isn't sport, and shouldn't happen.  But I really don't understand why
you persist in telling me what I have to do to feel like a man.  I'm
quite secure, thank you, and hunting has nothing to do with my
manhood.  Didn't I just see another post from you in which you
complained that people shouldn't do that... let's see, now -- here it is!

In article <1992Aug10.163010.42252@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

	   This thread is ridiculous.  No one actually knows anyone else well 
   enough to claim that the other is perverted or macho or whatever.  You simply 
   can't judge someone solely by what they write about one topic.
	   The thread is very childish.  Let's everyone take a deep breath, count 
   to ten, and resume objective discussions.  Nothing will ever get accomplished
   if people grasp for each other's throats rather than sit at a table and
   discuss the matters at hand with an open mind and a respectful nature.
	   I've learned my lesson about this, so please listen to me.  If you 
   don't respect the other's viewpoint, at least respect their rights as a 
   thinking person so that they will listen to you and you to them.  That's fair.

Yes, there it was.  And according to my news reader, you posted this
little note on 5 August, which is before you told me what I have to do
to feel like a man!

	   Anyway, hunters, I have every right to shoot your dog or your cat.  I
   do so in the name of population control.  And don't tell me that there are more
   humane methods to kill an animal, like the methods they use at the humane
   societies.  I'd rather shoot them down myself, because it's more fun, and it
   helps me feel like a big shot.  Plus, I can avoid all those damned fees. Oh,
   and don't worry, I'll feed them to my beloved piranha, so it's not like
   they're going to waste or nothing. 

Let's see.  You don't have the right to shoot my family's dogs,
because (1) they're legally our property so you don't have the legal
right, and (2) they aren't part of the problem you are purporting to
be trying to solve.  Also, note that we do pay fees to go hunting; we
pay our license fees.

-Joe.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals