From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Hunter's legitimate concern
Date: 28 Jul 1992 18:16:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu


Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?

In article <BrwvDC.2AA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>John Van Etten writes:
>jve> This is starting to get old.  You seem to have a propensity for asking
>jve> the same question at least 28 times, over and over...  

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> I'll continue to ask the question until I understand your 
>rl> position.  Perhaps it would help if you would provide a complete 
>rl> and thorough answer in lieu of dodging around.  If you did, 
>rl> indeed, 

>From article <14p7n7INNbki@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> Russell feels that for some wild reason that John and other 
>ml> hunters must "dodge" his questions.  Apparantly he feels we are 
>ml> on trial here and we must lie or avoid what *he* views as the 
>ml> truth or God forbid, he will not agree with us or accept our 
>ml> answers as honest.  Is this sad or what?  :-) 

>I don't think hunters are on trial here.  Don't you think it may 
>be unreasonable for pro-hunting advocates to expect their opponents
>to accept their beliefs as gospel, regardless of glaring 
>inconsistencies, unfounded claims, and so on?  


What "glaring inconsistencies, unfounded claims, and so on" ?  As I remember
it, there have been many facts that substantiate the claims of hunters on why
hunting is needed and why it is a natural act.  The facts are there in some
cases and in some cases there are no facts one way or the other.  Whether or
not you choose to accept or believe what is being said makes no difference.


>rl> In that case, would you please answer the questions that you 
>rl> avoided previously: Has it occurred to you that life might have 
>rl> many values for whales and deer that you've simply failed to 
>rl> consider?  Has it occurred to you that we might be depriving them 
>rl> in some way in killing them?   Please answer the questions. 

>ml> Poor Russell just can't seem to understand that in this world it 
>ml> is a natural process that something must die in order for others 
>ml> to live.  Plants must die for the vegan, animals must die for the 
>ml> carnivore and both must die for the omnivore.  Every living thing 
>ml> no matter how small or large in one way or another benefits 
>ml> from the death of others.  The empirical facts that you so love 
>ml> Russell are there to prove it.  

>Would I be depriving a granite boulder of a meaningful existence if I 
>were to smash it into tiny bits and use the gravel to construct a 
>driveway?  If I consume a cabbage for lunch, have I deprived it in 
>any meaningful way?   Does it feel pain?  Does it have emotions?
>Does it join in meaningful social relationships with other cabbages?


Do granite boulders or cabbages die slowly from starvation as a direct result
of overpopulation?  No.  Is hunting an unnatural act considering that man is a 
predator?  No.  Does hunting also benefit the overall species and prevent more
death than it creates?  Yes.  Is death by a well placed hunters bullet more 
humane than death by starvation or by the jaws of wolves or other predators?
Yes.  Is it reasonable for you to ignore these facts while blindly and emotion-
ally adhering to you intolerant AR stance?  In my view, yes.


>rl> The notion that sport hunting is a remedy for man's prior 
>rl> meddling in nature strikes me as incredibly ironic.  Like man's
>rl> prior meddling, it's driven by self-interest, not concern for
>rl> animals.  If it were otherwise, sport hunters would seek out
>rl> sick and diseased animals instead of striving to kill
>rl> the largest and healthiest individuals in the prime of life.

>ml> And lets ask Russell why we should believe that his agenda which 
>ml> he claims is for the good of thinking, feeling animals of 
>ml> personhood isn't actually driven by self-interest.  Come now 
>ml> Russell, you don't expect us to believe that do you.  You're 
>ml> probably striving to get that warm, fuzzy feeling by fooling 
>ml> yourself into thinking that your are doing the world of animals 
>ml> so much good, when it has been illustrated that hunters and 
>ml> hunter groups have done far more good that you with less hot air.  


>jve> That's life.  If you don't like it, fine, I'm not
>jve> even going to ask you to do your part.  But it seems pretty rediculous
>jve> for you to try and stop me from doing the job.  It's about as
>jve> intelligent as stopping a dentist from drilling a child's tooth simply
>jve> because the drill causes some degree of pain.  The long term effects
>jve> are what is best.

>rl> Surely you don't expect anyone to believe that you're only concerned
>rl> about the welfare of the animals.   You've already stated that you
>rl> consider whales to be "just food", and have no qualms with killing 
>rl> any whale that doesn't belong to an endangered group.  Now tell me:
>rl> Is high-tech whale killing, like deer killing, the proper "fix" for 
>rl> man's prior meddling?

>ml> Ask yourself Russell if this is a foolish question in view of the 
>ml> fact that no scientific studys have been presented that would 
>ml> indicate whale are dying of starvation due to overpopulation or 
>ml> limited habitat.  

>Then why does John Van Etten think it's perfectly ok to kill whale
>individuals that do not belong to endangered genetic classes?    If
>the rationale for killing deer is that deer are overpopulated, what's
>the rationale for killing whales?


I don't know.  You'll have to ask John.  I suspect it is because nearly all
animals are prey and a source of food.  That is a natural act.  Man is intel-
ligent enough to realize the loss of a whole species.  Killing one, one-hun-
dred or one million of one species if done while keeping a healthy balance
within the species will not result in a loss of a species.


>jve> Unlike you AR folk that get off on sitting around saying "our 
>jve> philosophy is better than yours, nah, nah," and ignoring the fact 
>jve> that your Wonderfully Enlightened views don't do a damn thing to 
>jve> help the animals or the environment, hunters like me are at least 
>jve> doing what can be done to fix the problem.  

>ml> Russell, you are trying very hard to ignore your own motives.  
>ml> Such as no longer donating to organizations that greatly help 
>ml> wildlife (not only game animals) simply because they may raffle 
>ml> weapons and are largely made up of hunting members.  Now tell us, 
>ml> whose motives are suspect.  

>Are you suggesting that my motives are suspect simply because I
>choose my charities on a reasonable basis?   Would my motives be
>less suspect if I simply gave no thought to the manner?


I would suspect that your main concern would be if your donations were ben-
ifitting wildlife or not.   That you would be doing that in concert with
hunter should not be an issue and if anything should demonstrate to you that
hunters do indeed care.


>rl> In view of your prior comments, I find it difficult to believe that
>rl> "fixing problems" is first and foremost on your mind.    

>ml> Apparantly Russell feels that only people on his side of the 
>ml> fence are honest.  No way hunters, who do not view the world as 
>ml> defined by Lawrence can tell the truth or possibly be "right".  

>You're misrepresenting my position, Mike.


I am reflecting what position you project.  Correct me if I am wrong but,
this is what you look like to me.



>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan