From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:47:17 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <1992Oct8.142846.27614@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.182351.15869@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.221442.21930@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct5.172447.22649@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>>In article <viking.718076141@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>>>>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>
>
>Robert Black:
>>Though I haven't yet mentioned a bowhunting ban, I have not seen any
>>convincing reasons to oppose such a ban.  
>>
>>The main case for bowhunting seems to be that it provides excitement and
>>recreation for a subset of hunters.  From the animals' standpoint, it
>>offers no "advantages" which are not already available from gun hunting.
>>
>
>I guess this is a question of value. Excitement and recreation is reason 
>enough in my mind. These are the same reasons people gun hunt, rock climb,
>and do many other things which have a social cost that is not usually 
>considered. The main "advantage" to animals of bowhunting can be seen in
>the extremely low success rate for bowhunters as compared to gunhunters.

It sounds like you're saying that the advantage here is that there are
fewer deaths.  But that same advantage could of course be achieved
without bowhunting at all, so it's not an advantage to animals that's
uniquely provided by bowhunting itself - which was the point I was
driving at.

>
>>So assuming that there does exist a serious wounding problem in the 
>>bowhunting world, let's examine three potential solutions:
>>
>>     1.	A ban - I would not be at all disappointed by a ban.  Hunter
>>	recreation is not a persuasive rationale for continuing a
>>	practice that so easily leads to excessive and avoidable
>>	suffering.  Who pays the terrible price of hunter mistakes?
>>	The animals do.  That's not fair and it's not sporting.
>>
>
>Life's not fair, for them or for many people. The persuasiveness of recreation
>as justification is very subjective. We will obviously not reach any form
>of agreement on this.

Sure life's not fair.  But why contribute needlessly to any further
unfairness beyond that which already exists?

>
>>
>>     3.	Better training for bowhunters - This is of course the 
>>	hunter-proposed solution.  But there are reasons for concluding
>>	that an inordinate and unacceptable level of suffering is
>>	inherent and can never be adequately eliminated from
>>	bowhunting - without the use of SCC or something similar.
>>
>
>Inordinate and unacceptable is a judgement call. I agree that any suffering
>should be minimized. To what degree and at what cost is the point I disagree
>on. I've already stated my feelings on SCC.

I don't recall seeing them.  Tim objected to the idea of drug-tainted
venison.  Is that your gripe too?

---
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