From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:25:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.172838.11352@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In <1992Aug17.183521.674@spdc.ti.com> Jeff Achenbach wrote in response to R Black:
>
>
>My mind is still open on this subject.  As one who is trying to adhere
>to an ethic calling for reduced suffering, I would rather see a quick
>death by bullet than a slow painful death by starvation.  It becomes an
>interesting issue, because hunters so often invoke the specter of
>starvation to defend the relative humaneness of their practice.  
>
>Yet the lingering suspicion persists that hunters hunt because they want
>to, and these other reasons just serve as handy justifications for them
>to latch onto.  On this issue, I believe that I am more open-minded than
>most hunters.  And that was part of the point toward which my paragraph
>above was directed. 
>

I agree with you on this one. Personally, I hunt because I enjoy hunting, 
prefer wild game to domestic meat, and  see little difference between
killing for myself and paying others to do so. As I've stated before, I 
will not hunt a species whose survival is even remotely endangered. I continued
buying duck stamps long after I quit hunting ducks (because their populations
were in decline). I view wildlife as a renewable resource, to be utilized
(as in harvested= killed and eaten) in a responsible manner. Death should be
as merciful as possible. Antihunters probably don't realize the depth of grief
felt by many hunters when they make a bad shot and cause excessive suffering
to an animal they hunted. It is important and relevant to me to have respect
for those whose life we take. I really love the outdoors and most all the 
animals in it (exceptions are fire ants, fleas, ticks, chiggers, and
mosquitos). However, I consider myself a predator and as morally justified in
killing to eat as any other. The fact that I could probably survive in some
sense as a vegetarian is irrelevant to me. Sorry to carry on so long, but I
want to make sure my position is clear.
>
>ja>Have you been watching Bambi again?
>
>I guess I led a deprived childhood.  I never saw this movie.  Not even once.
>There I've finally come out of the closet and admitted it.  What a relief!
>I'm glad that's over.  However I did see 101 Dalmatians, so that probably
>turned me against fur, right?  Now can we get on with some real issues?
>

I love both movies. Also Old Yeller (the only movie that ever made me cry and
still does). My reference was a smartass remark to those who view these
cartoons as factual representation of animal behavior.

>ja> Mother Nature is a cruel, harsh mistress. The
>>only animal that gives a damn about another species suffering is man.
>
>I'm not so sure of this.  I've seen many examples where it certainly
>appeared that dogs and cats have indicated signs of empathy and concern
>toward grieving humans. 
>

And I believe these are a very special case. The family dog IMO views himself
as a pack member with you as pack leader. Have you ever had a dog hump your 
leg? Ever seen interspecies sex in the wild? I don't mean this facetiously,
by the way.

>ja> Kill or be killed, eat or be eaten, is nature's way.
>
>Oh, so if humans don't eat deer and cows, then those deer and cows will
>eat humans?
>

Good point. Sorry for the use of a trite old expression.

>ja> Only in cartoons does the lion lay down with the lamb.
>
>Or in the bible?
>

Which is certainly not an environmental handbook. 

>ja> Man is an efficient predator, and need not apologize
>>for eating. 
>
>No, but he may have to apologize for WHAT he eats. ;-)
>

Apologize to who? Would a deer, for instance, understand and accept an apology?

>ja>   Hunters are the only group that can be counted on to fund wildlife manage-
>>ment (self interest at work).
>
>Maybe once this was true, maybe.  But don't assume it always will be.  If
>it comes to pass that others can be counted on to do the funding, then will
>hunters quit?  Or will they keep coming up with other justifications, so
>they can continue defending what they want to do anyway?
>

I sincerely hope others will become more involved. I don't think this is a 
philosophical justification for hunting. I also don't think there need be one.
If hunting can be shown to be damaging to wildlife populations, a case can be
easily made against it.

>ja> When they get tired of their newfound cause, or
>>when family and work begin to interfere, or when they find a new cause, the 
>>AR loonies will have left a mess and wildlife will pay the price.
>
>Are you assuming that name-calling like "AR loonies" is a substitute for
>reason and citation of facts?  I saw from other posts that you are very
>capable of more persuasive forms of discussion.  Why not stick with those?
>

Good point. Got carried away by emotions I guess. I'll try to be more careful.

>Also are you assuming that AR people are engaged in a passing fad? To
>use your own words: "Dream on." To give a more serious response: from
>what I can tell all the key AR people nationwide are in this for the
>duration.  It's something you'll need to get used to. 
>

I hope you're right. I also hope they put some effort into habitat preservation
and renewal. In many ways, I think hunters and ARs want some of the same things
such as a more natural, cleaner environment for man and wildlife. 

>rb>>If the percentage is high, then I would be more likely to believe that 
>>>hunters are genuinely interested in the animals' interest.  If that
>>>percentage is low, then I would question it.
>>>

There are good and bad folks in any group. Some folks labeled hunters I would
not dignify with the term. There are, in fact, people who go out only to kill.
I believe them to be a small minority. You cannot become an accomplished hunter
without developing a deep and abiding appreciation for the outdoors and the 
wildlife in it.
>>
>ja>   I think the main problem with arguments between hunters and ARs is that 
>>hunters speak in terms of animal populations, whereas ARs are concerned with
>>individuals of a species. 
>
>I wouldn't call it a problem so much as a fundamental philosophical
>difference in outlook.  Are you concerned with any individuals of the
>human species? ... or just the general human populations?
>

I am concerned with friends and family. The general population has gone to 
hell and is trying to take the earth with it. I have no love of humanity.

>ja>Hunters are concerned with maintaining viable 
>>populations of healthy animals (for hunting and viewing). Individuals will 
>>continue to die and be born in any event. I feel no more guilt when I kill
>>and eat a deer than does a mountain lion. 
>
>So what are you saying here?  Are you putting yourself on the same ethical
>level of responsibility as a mountain lion?
>

In regards to hunting, yes.
>>>
>>>Russell Lawrence writes:
>>>rl> Why would it be "ok" for cougars to violently fight over the 
>>>rl> right to select a particular mate, but not ok for humans to do 
>>>rl> so?  Or, for that matter, why would it be "ok" for a volcanic 
>>>rl> eruption to decimate a small town, but not ok for a human tyrant to 
>>>rl> wreak similar destruction?  
>>>
>>>From article <1992Aug19.173503.23618@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
>>>ja> The competition for mates is still with us, it's just (usually) 
>>>ja> more subtle.  Decimation of a small town or even a large city has 
>>>ja> been deemed "ok" by society as a whole at various times in our 
>>>ja> history.  Ever heard of Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima?  I am sure the 
>>>ja> allied forces were the tyrants in the eyes of the victims.  
>>>ja> However, winners write the history books.  
>
>Are you seriously claiming that it was subtle competition for a mate
>which led to Truman's decision to drop The Bomb on Hiroshima? Please
>clarify your position on this. 

No, I meant that as two answers to Russell's two questions.

>Your implication is that winners write the history and cover up all the
>bad things their side has done.  Yet this is contradicted by the fact
>that we all have heard of Dresden, Berlin, and Hiroshima.  In other
>words, we do have honorable historians who try to get at and publish the
>truth. 
>

We heard about them, and for years they were hailed (by our side) as great
victories.

>
>Jeff, you also had some comments directed toward me in the thread
>entitled "Moral Judgements" which I regret to say is lost.  If you want
>followup and still have a copy, you'll have to repost or email. 
>
Sorry, I don't recall it.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals