From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 01:01:33 GMT


John Robinson writes
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.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> It seems blindingly obvious to me that death by starvation or natural
rl> predators is not the only alternative outcome for a healthy stag
rl> that's just been shot by the hunter's bow.  

From article <slwxt8#@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
rl> True.  But it's just as "blindingly obvious" that a cruel death by
rl> starvation or natural predators is going to happen to more of his
rl> fellow deer if he is not taken.  That's a fact which cannot be denied.

Yes, it can be denied, and I'm denying it.  I think it's 
preposterous for you to assume that the failure to kill one 
particular deer will, by necessity, lead to the starvation of 
other deer.  Although such an outcome might be likely in a 
particular case, it's clearly not likely in all cases.  

rl> Call the Florida DNR if you want to read a very eye-opening study
rl> about it that I cited that happened in the Everglades.  The "hands
rl> off" approach just doesn't work, old friend.

Having spent most of my teenage years on the edge of the Everglades,
I'm intimately aware of the ecological damage that's been wreaked 
(and continues to be wreaked) on the state of Florida.  I'm not
convinced that one particular made-made solution to one particular
man-made problem is the only solution available.   Even if hunting
were the only practical solution in a unique case, it's surely
unreasonable to pretend that your favorite solution represents a
universal truth summed up by the phrase, "The handsoff approach 
just doesn't work".    Even if the phrase were true, there are other 
"handson" approaches apart from sport hunting.  

Is it true that a reduction of adipose tissue in female mammals
reduces fertility?  If so, is it not true that a reduction in
food resources would reduce birthrate in succeeding seasons?

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.  

rl> Is it better for the healthy stag in the aforementioned scenario to be
rl> killed by humans at age three than killed by wolves at age 14?  To 
rl> answer such a question, we'd have to consider all the experiences
rl> that the stag might have in the interim eleven years.   

jve> While you're getting all excited thinking about our stag 
jve> frolicking in the sun with his friends, don't forget the pain of 
jve> starvation.  Don't forget the "loss" that you claim our stag will 
jve> feel when his friends die around him due to lack of food (more 
jve> friends than the hunters would kill).  And don't forget all the 
jve> fawns which are usually the weakest and die the cruelest deaths 
jve> during their first winter without enough food.  Don't forget all 
jve> the unborn ones that will never be born and will never know what 
jve> it's like to frolick in the sun at all.  You can't just look at 
jve> what you want to look at, old chum.  

According to the literature, current game management practices 
are designed to maximize "harvests", rather than reducing the 
populations to conform to sustainable food supplies.  If you 
support such game management practices, don't you think it's 
hypocritical for you to pretend that you're primarily motivated 
by your concerns about the well-being of deer?  In any case, it 
seems highly unlikely to me that the average deer killed in the 
US is going to face starvation as the only alternative to 
premature death.  

jve> You've got to look at it 
jve> all.  And I invite you to hop on a plane and buzz up here to New 
jve> York some winter.  I'll take you out and let you feed the 
jve> starving deer with us, in those areas where hunting isn't allowed 
jve> by the landowners like you that hate us nasty old hunters.  And 
jve> you can look them in the eye and tell them all about the huge 
jve> favor you want to do to the other animals just like them by 
jve> outlawing hunting in all areas.  And you can watch them die, 
jve> Russell, because they can't even chew the food you've put in 
jve> their mouths.  

I think it would be ludicrous to look a deer in the eye and tell 
him about such favors.  Perhaps it gives you a sense of 
intellectual courage when you mockingly misrepresent your 
opponents views in emotional terms, but such practices aren't 
likely to fool critical readers.  Would you mind sticking with 
the arguments, and perhaps make an effort to avoid the tendency 
to miscast your opponents as childish sots?  

If it's true that your justification for killing deer is to prevent
starvation, what's your excuse for your allegation that it's ok
to kill whales because whales are "just food".   Surely you're
not going to suggest that a whale that isn't killed by the harpoon
is destined to die a slow and lingering death from insufficient
food.

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

jve> Russell, that's not "might," it's "will."   
jve> ... [same claim presented over and over]

Are you seriously suggesting that sport hunting is never allowed in 
places where starvation is not anticipated?  If not, your statement 
isn't true.

rl> My girlfriend was commenting just the other day that the two dogs 
rl> that share our household are far more sociable than the human 
rl> inhabitants.  When someone goes away on a trip, they're the first 
rl> to grieve, and they're the first to jump for joy when the 
rl> individual returns home.  Do you think one of these dogs might be 
rl> deprived in some way if one of his companions (human or dog) were 
rl> killed in some unexpected way?                 ^^^^^

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

Such attempts at humor are revealing.  Many people who live with 
animals could testify that companion animals often embark on 
long, melancholy fasts when a close human friend has died or 
moved away.  And yet, you seem to think that hunger is the only 
sort of loss that such an animal might be capable of 
experiencing. 

rl> ...
rl> I think you've misrepresented the position of your opponents.  Most
rl> AR advocates that I know support the concept of euthanasia, but not
rl> the concept of murder.  There's a difference between putting an animal
rl> out of his misery, and justifying sport killing because the victim 
rl> might otherwise, at some undefined point in the future, be subjected
rl> to pain.

jve> *WILL*, Russell, *WILL*.  See above.

It's been many years since I've hunted, but I haven't lost my 
memories.  Some of the places where I hunted were strange venues, 
but most of them were as well known to me as your backyard might 
be known to you.  As such, I was well-aware of the environmental 
conditions surrounding many of the animals that I killed.  I 
can't think of a single instance where an animal that I killed 
would have been likely to face starvation as an alternative to my 
bullet.  

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.  

rl> If we were to stop a rapist from seizing the body of a woman, are
rl> we ramming our philosophy down his throat?  Or conversely, are we
rl> preventing him from claiming something that is not rightfully his?

jve> Apples and oranges, old friend.

As I've mentioned previously, you seem to be a proponent of the
characteristically feudal notion that "right" is an attribute of
power, rather than a reflection of good.

You've stated previously that it would be ethically ok for a 
"superior" alien-being to hunt human-beings for sport.  If one of 
the peers of such a alien were to halt such practices, would it 
be reasonable to say that he's ramming his views down the throats 
of hunters?  Or, would it be more accurate to say that he's 
impeding them from claiming something that isn't rightfully 
theirs to claim?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals