From: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunter's legitimate concern
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:36:35 GMT
Reply-To: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

In article <Bs7tIs.2x1@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
|> 
|> From article <14151@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, by jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad):
|> js> Russell, you're missing the point.  Many of the items that are sold
|> js> with DU's emblem are items aimed gererally at hunters.  If a large
|> js> fraction of DU's members were not hunters would they do that?  No one
|> js> is bribing or tricking you into supporting DU.  I assume you know that
|> js> when you buy a T-shirt with DU's logo on it that they get a cut?
|> 
|> It seems to me that you're missing the point.  I can understand 
|> and appreciate the fact that many hunters might be attracted by 
|> trinkets and apparel items that contribute to a favorable 
|> clublike image, and I can understand why an organization that 
|> wishes to attract contributions or support from hunter 
|> constituents would be inclined to market such items.  What you 
|> don't seem to understand is that some of us don't want to have a 
|> t-shirt with DU's logo on it, and are more than willing to 
|> contribute to a good organization without expecting "free gifts" 
|> or promotional merchandise in return.  If I donate fifty bucks 
|> for the sake of some good cause, I want all fifty bucks to go to 
|> the good cause, and not have fifteen bucks taken away to pay for 
|> a trinket.  In short, it may be fallacious to judge all
|> supporters of a given organization on the basis of merchandise sales.  
|> 

Russell, I wasn't speaking of free promotional material.  I was speaking
of items sold in stores and catalogs that are definately NOT free and may
be obtained by DU members and non-members alike.  I don't think DU or any
charitable organization for that matter would have a problem accepting
your $50 donation and not giving you anything in return.

|> js> As far as the fund raising banquets go, its interesting to look 
|> js> at the advertisements for AR conventions that have been posted 
|> js> recently.  It seems that they feature continental breakfasts, 
|> js> "famous tex-mex buffet", (would that be with the beef or the 
|> js> chicken?), dinner buffets, dancing, and civil disobedience 
|> js> training.  No mention of fund raising is made, so I assume these 
|> js> are purely social (well maybe not the civil disobedience training 
|> js> :-}).  Now how much habitat acquisition and conservation happens 
|> js> as a result of these AR social events?  
|> 
|> I've been intimately involved with several AR organizations for
|> several years now, and I've never, ever, received any literature
|> that featured buffets or dancing.  Frankly, I'd be offended by 
|> such literature if, indeed, it does exist.  That's not to say 
|> that I might not enjoy such activities in the proper time and 
|> place, but I don't see them as a fundamental attribute of the AR 
|> movement nor would they be attractive in such a context.  For 
|> similar reasons, I don't consider dinner banquets to be an appropriate
|> way of addressing or solving environmentalist causes. 
|> 

I suggest you look at articles 6708 and 6754 t.p.a.  In case they are no
longer available to you, I will reproduce the relevant parts:

Begin Article 6754:
                The Fund for Animals
         Invites You to attend the Third Bi-Annual

             TEXAS CONFERENCE for the ANIMALS

                   October 3 & 4, 1992

                  at the Red Lion Hotel,
             6121 I-35 North, Austin, Texas
[ stuff deleted ]
Space is limited, so register early.  Price includes one continental
breakfast, two lunches, and a banquet dinner.  All meals will be
absolutely animal-free.

End Article 6754

Begin Article 6708:
                  THE FUND FOR ANIMALS PRESENTS:

  OUR 1992 CONFERENCE FOR THE ANIMALS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
                   HEGINS PIGEON SHOOT PROTEST
[ stuff deleted ]

                   WEEKEND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS:

 Saturday, September 5 - Civil disobedience training sponsored by
 PETA

 Saturday, September 5 - Cash-bar reception, dancing.

[ stuff deleted ]

                   PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE SCHEDULE

  8:00 am - Registration and continental breakfast

[ stuff deleted ]

  12:00 pm - Our famous tex-mex buffet [ If its famous they must have it all
                                         the time ]

  5:00 pm - Cash bar, social hour, dinner buffet, keynote speakers

End Article 6708

|> js> While money from yourself is appreciated as 
|> js> much as money from anyone else when you send it in you usually 
|> js> don't get to choose how DU spends it.  (Unless you're giving very 
|> js> large amounts -- how about a rehabilitated Lake Russell Lawrence?  
|> js> :-}) 
|> 
|> rl> No thanks.
|> 
|> js> Although I made the comment in jest, it is somewhat disturbing 
|> js> that you want no part of it.  I would be extremely proud to have 
|> js> made a major contribution to the rehabilitation of waterfowl 
|> js> habitat.  If it were a financial option for me I would consider 
|> js> it.  You, however don't want to be associated with it.  I thought 
|> js> you wanted to help ducks?  
|> 
|> Why would you assume that I'm not interesting in helping wildlife
|> simply because I wouldn't be attracted by the idea of having a
|> bit of nature labeled with my name?
|> 

Thank you for clarifying your response.  I wasn't sure whether you disagreed
with DU rehabilitating lakes or just attaching someone's (yours) name to it.
In my case, I would derive pride from having contributed to the rehabilitation
of a wetland and wouldn;t care if my name were attached to it or not (in fact
I'd probably prefer not).

|> > ...
|> rl> A more appropriate question to ask, in view of the original
|> rl> proposition, is whether hunters or anti-hunters are more inclined
|> rl> as a class to support preservation efforts.   Do you know the
|> rl> answer to such a question?
|> 
|> js> No I don't.  Do you?  I have seen evidence that hunters and fishermen
|> js> contribute a tremendous amount to conservation.  I have yet to see
|> js> evidence that anti-hunters do.  And the AR conference advertising we
|> js> have been subjected to recently doesn't seem to talk much about 
|> js> preservation.  
|> 
|> Perhaps.  Once again, you're saying that AR advocates like myself 
|> would be wise to treat ecological concerns as a monolithic aspect 
|> of the AR cause, and not as a separate but related issue.  Would
|> you like to see PETA develop some budgetary goals for wildlife 
|> preservation so that AR advocates can donate funds in ways that
|> might be more demonstrable to people like yourself?   Lake PETA,
|> perhaps?
|> 

Yes I would like to see PETA do this.  At least then SOME of the money
that they raise would be going for something constructive.  Wildlife
can use all the money it can get these days.

|> As I mentioned previously, I wouldn't be interested in having my 
|> name or even PETA's name on a lake, whereas you would apparently 
|> relish such ego stroking.  If we were both rich philanthropists, 
|> do you really believe that we could compare your contributions 
|> with my contributions by the numbers of lakes named after each of 
|> us respectively?  
|> 

Where did I say that I would like my name on a lake?  As I said earlier
if I were able to make very large contributions I probably wouldn't want
anything named after me.

|> rl> To the extent that you cite a mandatory requirement as a point in 
|> rl> your argument, you're contradicting the claim made by a prior 
|> rl> poster that funds spend on such things as duck stamps constitute 
|> rl> proof that hunters are concerned about the well-being of wild 
|> rl> animals.  
|> 
|> js> Did it ever occur to you that hunters generally support and sometimes
|> js> ask for license surcharges to support various conservation programs?
|> js> Of all the government taxes and fees I pay, my hunting and fishing
|> js> licenses and stamps, as well as the hidden taxes I pay on equipment,
|> js> are the ones I don't mind paying because I know the money is going
|> js> to help with wildlife conservation.
|> 
|> If hunters are as generous, as a group, as you seem to think they are,
|> why would a mantatory tax be necessary? 
|> 

There are some expenses associated with running hunting and fishing seasons,
and it only seems right that that hunters and fishermen bear those costs.
This is no different than say, license plate fees going to the highway
department.  There are a number of other services that hunters and fishermen
use along with non-fishing and hunting segments of the population, such as
campgrounds, boat launches, and Conservation Officers.  Those need to be
paid for, and it only seem fair that hunters and fishermen help here as well.
The licences and stamps ensure that each hunter and fisherman pays at least
some minimal amount towards the services used.  They also, and this is very
important, serve as a way for the DNR measure numbers of participants for
its own budgetary and resource commitment planning, as well as determine
statewide and regional success rates as one factor in determining game
population levels.  It also gives the state a way to take away hunting and
fishing privileges from law violators by refusing to sell licenses to them
in the future.  Note there are probably even better reasons that I haven't
even thought about.  Why don't you call the La DNR and ask them why they
sell hunting licenses (I assume they do).

|> js> I still think you didn't know much about DU before you donated.
|> js> I believe that you are correct that first and formost DU is about
|> js> duck preservation.  What I find curious is that given your anti-hunting
|> js> bent you gave money to a group that does not have an anti-hunting
|> js> platform and in fact encourages hunting and sees hunters as a vital
|> js> part of the duck preservation team.  
|> 
|> I was under the impression that DU didn't have an anti-hunting 
|> platform, but I was completely unaware that Ducks Unlimited 
|> actually encourages hunting.  To reiterate a point I made previously,
|> I donate time and money to quite a few organizations that are not
|> anti-hunting.  I do not, however, knowingly donate to organizations 
|> that are pro-hunting.    
|> 

Maybe encourages is too strong a word.  In the case of the Ruffed Grouse
Society, to which I belong, their magazine contains articles describing
hunting and hunting techniques, hunting is allowed on most (all?) of their
habitat improvement projects, and I believe they occasionally run seminars
for young people.  I presume (perhaps wrongly) that DU does simlar things.

|> js> Not to mention that they on
|> js> occasion cooperate with state and provincial DNRs, which seem to be
|> js> considered evil by most ARs.  
|> 
|> Most of the AR advocates that I know personally consider the concept
|> of "evil" to be a rather silly one.  Perhaps you're making some
|> false assumptions based on your own religious beliefs.
|> 

In this case I meant evil as a synonym for bad.  No religious meaning was
implied.  I was refering to the DNR bashing that I have seen in some
earlier AR posts.

|> js> It gets back to the question I posed earlier that you declined to 
|> js> answer, would DU be worse off subtracting the hunter 
|> js> contributions or the anti-hunter contributions?  
|> 
|> I suspect that DU would be worse off subtracting the hunter 
|> contributions.  I do _not_ think that environmental concerns in 
|> general would be better off with the support of hunters as 
|> opposed to non-hunters.  
|> 

How are you going to replace the funds the hunters would have contributed?

|> js> If there were no DU would the ducks be better or worse off?  
|> 
|> I doubt that it would make much difference, just as I doubt that
|> it would make much difference to the AR movement if PETA were to
|> disappear.    Organizations like DU and PETA are the offshoot
|> of fundamental concerns, not the cause of those concerns.
|> 

Such organizations address such concerns, often in cases where no other
group does, or at least no other group does in a particular way.  To the
exten that duck lovers and ARs would turn to other groups if DU and PETA
went away, you're probably right.  If however DU diasppeared and the 
support disappeared with it I suspect that the ducks would be
significantly worse off.  Just as if PETA's supporter disappeared
that the AR movement would have suffered a significant loss.

Joe
All opinions mine, bla, bla, bla.
-- 
================================================================
= C. Joseph Semrad                  =   Phone: 612-553-4758    =
= EMPOWER Development               =   FAX:   612-553-4018    =
= Empros Systems International      =   jsemrad@ems.cdc.com    =
================================================================
=      1991 Minnesota Twins, Baseball's World Champions!       =
=           So, Jack it was the money, wasn't it?              =
================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals