From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:20:43 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

>From article <1992Jul24.132306.6649@ac.dal.ca>, by robinson@ac.dal.ca:
>jr> But it seems so blindingly obvious to me that death from a rifle or a bow 
>jr> is orders of magnitude better than starvation, or death by natural 
>jr> predation.  
>
>It seems blindingly obvious to me that death by starvation or natural
>predators is not the only alternative outcome for a healthy stag
>that's just been shot by the hunter's bow.  

True.  But it's just as "blindingly obvious" that a cruel death by
starvation or natural predators is going to happen to more of his
fellow deer if he is not taken.  That's a fact which cannot be denied.
Call the Florida DNR if you want to read a very eye-opening study
about it that I cited that happened in the Everglades.  The "hands
off" approach just doesn't work, old friend.


>jr> Dying of old age is a luxury we've attained by re-modelling our 
>jr> planet, among other things.  Animals in the wild rarely die of 
>jr> old age.  Their death is long, lingering and painful in the 
>jr> normal course of events and I can't help but feel that death at 
>jr> the hands of a hunter is far far quicker and cleaner than much of 
>jr> anything else.  
>
>Is it better for the healthy stag in the aforementioned scenario to be
>killed by humans at age three than killed by wolves at age 14?  To 
>answer such a question, we'd have to consider all the experiences
>that the stag might have in the interim eleven years.   

While you're getting all excited thinking about our stag frolicking in
the sun with his friends, don't forget the pain of starvation.  Don't
forget the "loss" that you claim our stag will feel when his friends
die around him due to lack of food (more friends than the hunters
would kill).  And don't forget all the fawns which are usually the
weakest and die the cruelest deaths during their first winter without
enough food.  Don't forget all the unborn ones that will never be born
and will never know what it's like to frolick in the sun at all.  You
can't just look at what you want to look at, old chum.  You've got to
look at it all.  And I invite you to hop on a plane and buzz up here
to New York some winter.  I'll take you out and let you feed the
starving deer with us, in those areas where hunting isn't allowed by
the landowners like you that hate us nasty old hunters.  And you can
look them in the eye and tell them all about the huge favor you want
to do to the other animals just like them by outlawing hunting in all
areas.  And you can watch them die, Russell, because they can't even
chew the food you've put in their mouths.


>jr> Thus, when I examine the AR cause, despite their claims of 
>jr> wanting less pain and sufferring for animals, I see banning 
>jr> hunting as advocating more pain and suffering, not less.  
>
>A few months ago I came across a woman, with tears in her eyes who
>was ambling down the sidewalk in slow motion.  When I asked her if I 
>could be of service, she explained that her dog friend had been 
>suffering from cancer and that she had decided to have the animal 
>euthanized after the vet explained that his pain was no longer 
>controllable.  Just a few minutes previously, she had left the
>vet's office, clutching her dead friend's leash and collar tightly
>in her hand.
>
>I'm sure that most of us would agree that her decision was an 
>ethical one, in view of the fact that it was based on her 
>understanding of the facts and her selfless concern for the dog
>individual's well-being.  If human hunters were to kill an animal 
>that's presently starving or diseased, I'm sure that the two 
>situations would be analogous, but it doesn't make sense 
>for someone to argue that human hunting is a good thing because 
>it might spare a healthy animal from the possibility of some future 
    ^^^^^
>deprivation.  

Russell, that's not "might," it's "will."  And more than one.  You can
play ostrich all day long and try to hide from that fact, but it will
always be there.  The sooner you except it, the better off the animals
will be.


>jr> I would feel this way even if I didn't hunt.  I see it, not as a 
>jr> matter of opinion, but as an acknowledgement of the facts of life.  
>
>It seems to me that one of the facts of life is that life is, indeed,
>enjoyable despite its terminal hardships.   Surely it wouldn't make
>sense for us to kill a young man in his late teens just because his
>family medical history and lifestyle suggests that he might someday
>succomb to heart disease and cancer.
>
>jr> Because of this viewpoint, I feel very frustrated when someone 
>jr> tries to replace a quick, relatively painless death with a long, 
>jr> lingering one.  I hate to see anything suffer.  I don't mind 
>jr> watching it die but damnit I hate to see it suffer.  
>
>I'm not fond of suffering, but I think it'd be a mistake to kill an
>animal that's not suffering simply because it might suffer in the
>months or years ahead.

You've missed the point.  But you're good at that.  It *will* suffer,
as will *all* the others.  There is no magical process by which if
there isn't enough food for all the animals, whatever number is left
over just stops eating and only those die from starvation.  If there
is not enough food, *all* animals eat until *no* food is left.  Then
*all* go without food for the rest of the time.  *ALL* are in pain and
*ALL* are suffering.  Why can't you figure that out?  I realize it's
highly inconvenient to your lame arguments, but it *is* a fact.  Deal
with it.


>jr> I saw a book in the store authored by the Exec.  Dir.  of PETA 
>jr> around Christmas time.  I think it was called 101 Things Kids Can 
>jr> Do to Save the Animals (or the Planet, I forget which).  There 
>jr> were several things I disliked about it.  First of all, its 
>jr> connection with PETA was, I felt, heavily downplayed.  And yet, 
>jr> it was in my estimation little more than propaganda.  It was 
>jr> pushing the PETA agenda at children, encouraging them to view 
>jr> animals in human terms, something I'm opposed to.  
>jr> 
>jr> In particular, there was a section on hunting.  It stated that if 
>jr> the children knew anyone who hunted, they should bug that person 
>jr> to hunt with a camera instead of a gun because animals that are 
>jr> shot by a camera can still go home to their family at the end of 
>jr> the day.  I found this bit very repulsive and misleading.  Animal 
>jr> and human social structures are not the same.  Hell, not even all 
>jr> animal social structures are the same.  Thus to characterize it 
>jr> in human family terms is, IMHO, a highly unrealistic, over 
>jr> emotional, misleading bit of pap.  To feed that to a child at an 
>jr> early age, before they've developed a facility for critical 
>jr> thinking is simply inexcusable.  
>
>I would agree that not all animal social structures are the same, but
>this doesn't excuse us from thinking about the social consequences 
>of our dealings with animals, vis-a-vis animals themselves.
>
>My girlfriend was commenting just the other day that the two dogs 
>that share our household are far more sociable than the human 
>inhabitants.  When someone goes away on a trip, they're the first 
>to grieve, and they're the first to jump for joy when the 
>individual returns home.  Do you think one of these dogs might be 
>deprived in some way if one of his companions (human or dog) were 
>killed in some unexpected way?                 ^^^^^

Sure, no Alpo.  Oh... sorry, I guess cantelope is the prefered food
that you veggies offer them. :-)


>jr> Thus, from this, I see the AR groups as saying that death by 
>jr> non-human methods is ok and somehow more natural than death by 
>jr> man.  Basically, I see it as a 'killing is bad' argument with only 
>jr> black and white (killing=bad, no killing=good) and I think this 
>jr> is false.  
>
>I think you've misrepresented the position of your opponents.  Most
>AR advocates that I know support the concept of euthanasia, but not
>the concept of murder.  There's a difference between putting an animal
>out of his misery, and justifying sport killing because the victim 
>might otherwise, at some undefined point in the future, be subjected
 ^^^^^
>to pain.

*WILL*, Russell, *WILL*.  See above.


>jr> Thus, I can not support, or condone AR groups even though I'm 
>jr> sure they are, in some cases, doing quite a bit of good.  The 
>jr> fact that such groups persist in trying to ram their philosophy 
>jr> down the throats of others, including myself, forces me to 
>jr> actively oppose them.  
>
>If we were to stop a rapist from seizing the body of a woman, are
>we ramming our philosophy down his throat?  Or conversely, are we
>preventing him from claiming something that is not rightfully his?

Apples and oranges, old friend.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--