From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:27:49 GMT

rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:

>   Hence, we AR folk are not the ones you should be so mad at, or 
>   even be so intent on arguing with.  Indeed, why do you bother, 
>   since my impression is that hunters have pretty well written us
>   off.

>The same questions can be asked of you. I quess, I enjoy a good
>debate.  Since you say that you don't think you'll change the minds of
>any hunters and few nonhunters read the list, why do you bother?

Good point.  Why do we bother?  Maybe I can only speak for myself.

First, I really don't think that I'm going to persuade you or
anyone else who hunts.  Second, I am quite uncertain as to how
many undecided folk really bother to read these tedious exchanges
of ours.  I franky think not many, but I could be wrong.

     Why do I bother?  Indeed, why am I even bothering now?  
First of all, I get to review my thoughts on this issue, attempt
to put them in a form that can address the kinds of remarks you
might make, which, from my point of view are often odd and not
frequently entertained.  I believe that it is always good to
reassess one's views and presuppositions, to even talk to people
who are certainly not the kinds of people that I am normally
exposed to.  I even get to practice my quick letter writing
and public debating skills, which might well be improved
for some future situation where such skills hopefully can be more
usefully applied.  And, I must admit to a certain pleasure in
good debate even with people who stance is most objectionable
to my own.   

    Now, I should be too presumptious, after all,
ethics did play some role for some people in their decision.
Who knows, just maybe one person will give up the game, 
and maybe "in part" because of being made more cognizant of
the ethical issues involved in what formerly was merely a
taken for granted, unquestioned weekend "entertainment".

    Franky, I must admit to some puzzlement why you might be 
so interest in debating with us AR folk.  Maybe it is just
to pride yourself on resisting/rebuffing our best arguments.
Heck, you can only bring a horse to water, you can never 
force a drinking of even the more informed view and progressive
outlook.  Some hunters might really believe that we do pose
such a threat to your chosen "sport", but the evidence provided
suggests that this is unlikely.  Do you really think that
there is a huge silent readership to our exchanges?  I think
this is almost delusional.  Possibly a few, certainly not enough
to make any real difference in the world from your perspective.
Saving just one animal, one squirrel, one bird, one deer, for me
is a success.  Hardly a success in your eyes.  All that can
be called a success from maybe your point of view would be
to see the AR movement disappear or at least be stopped.  But
this is hardly going to helped by what transpires on this 
conference.  Given some of the almost livid hostility and
contempt that is sometimes expressed towards us AR folk,
I can't help wondering where this comes from?  Is there
a need for a convenient scapegoat to the frustrations of
your changing world, of the lack of complete approval of
your interest in killing animals for "sport"?  Maybe
there is an underlying guilt that needs to be appeased or
stiffled by furious debate and dismissal of us AR folk.
Who knows.  I am sure a multitude of reasons prevail,
and each individual has his own set and personal 
profile of reasons.

                                   ted



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals