From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Bambi Fishing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:20:32 GMT

In <Bvrq9w.LM9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes
in response to my quoting a magazine:

>ds> 	I found something interesting in the October issue of American
>ds> Rifleman.  Page 6: "HELPING THE DISABLED.  Those who think some of the
>ds> animal rights terrorists are less concerned about their fellow man may
>ds> find a believer in a Shawano County, Wis. farmer.  It seems that Elmer
>ds> Schmidt had been letting a limited number of disabled hunters take
>ds> whitetail deer on his property.  After receiving threatening letters,
>ds> a petition, and, the last straw, his mailbox having been blown up,
>ds> Schmidt said he will stop sponsoring hunts for the disabled.  The
>ds> subject was reported in the Green Bay Gazette of July 26."

>This reminds me of the crock about AR activists allegedly 
>throwing blood on women who wear fur coats.  Have there been any 
>arrests?  Any convictions?

	How should I know?  I wear a leather jacket and boots, and
few AR activists would be too fond of tossing blood on a biker, and
especially on one that looks like I do.  I do remember hearing of an
incident like this in Chicago, but have no written sources.

>  If not, it seems rather silly for 
>anyone to blame the threats and the blown-up mailbox on an 
>unknown group of animal rights "terrorists".  Why not blame Santa 
>Claus or the Easter Bunny instead?  Or perhaps we should blame 
>one of the many groups whose financial interests are threatened 
>by the growing debate over animal rights.  

	Do you honestly think hunters are going to go through this
kind of trouble?  The service provided was a PR bonanza!  Threats
and bombings are not the ways of hunters, or their organizations.  You
will never see Pheasants Forever releasing canaries from cages in
zoos or labs.  Those who have financial interests threatened by AR
activities would hardly want to shut down this hunt.

>If you consider personal attacks to be an acceptable means of 
>"discrediting" your opponents, I can't help wondering if you, 
>yourself, would refrain from blowing up a mailbox.  

	You parsed it wrong the first time it was posted, Russ, but
that's OK -- I've been rather busy lately and was going to let it
go.  However, personal attacks can discredit an opponent when the
subject matter is relevant.  You've been a hunter before, and you
can use that to bolster your credibility in your arguments.  If I
find you never actually did so, my calling you a liar is a personal
attack that tends to discredit not only your credibility on hunting
issues, but on virtually anything you post or say from then on.  In
this sort of attack, though, the attacker should have iron-clad
evidence of the act.  Witness the trouble the "no new taxes" pledge
George Bush made have given him.  He made it, it was broken, and
now the credibility of Bush is seriously depleted.  There's nothing
wrong with such attacks, provided they are relevant to the topic.

	As for blowing up mailboxes, I wouldn't do that.  First, it's
a federal offense, and I'm a law-abiding gun owner.  Second, it's
a cowardly thing to do.  I prefer my confrontations to be face-to-face;
there is less danger to innocent bystanders this way, and I have no
reason to hide my beliefs and opinions.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals