From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:54:37 GMT

Paul Roberts writes:

>In article <1992Jul24.132306.6649@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>
>>But it seems so blindingly obvious to me that death from a rifle or a bow 
>>is orders of magnitude better than starvation,
>
>Agreed. But is that necessarily the choice? Hunters that post here tend
>to suggest that every single animal they they kill would have otherwise
>starved to death in the snow that following winter (I exaggerate a bit),
>but is that *really* so? Some populations of some species in some areas
>at some times - sure. But just how generally is it true? I realise that
>these are very compilicated questions of ecology, population dynamics,
>etc, and we are not going to be able to find a definitive answer here.

Paul, you are right in stating that these are tough questions.  It is
also quite true that not all species are hunted only to help prevent
them from starving.  If I'm one of the people that gave you the
impression that hunters think that (and I probably am, since I go a
little overboard sometimes on being pro-environment) then forgive me.
There are many reasons why I hunt.  Helping the environment is only
one; and not even the primary one (which is to get food).  However, I
would say that in general, *today* hunting is only allowed in those
areas and on those species where populations require it.  Animals have
a habit of increasing their populations to over the maximum that can
be supported by the food supply and then going over and over through
the viscious starvation cycle.  We've discussed that before.  In
general, the game departments will close hunting of a species in areas
where it is not overpopulated.  Now there are lots of exceptions, but
they are still in the minority.


>Referring me to article in "Petersen's Hunting" is probably not going to
>convince me.

Unfortunately, you won't find such studies in a PETA pamphlet. :-)
The only good source of such info is often the game departments
themselves, and if you're like most other AR folk, you probably won't
except their info either -- assuming they are being paid/funded by the
hunters to present their findings in a certain light.  Such an AR
mindset has been shown all too many times in the courts, and a
recently discussed example is the case I cited about the Everglades.
So let me ask you this, with all due respect, who would you trust as a
source for such information if you don't trust the wildlife biologists
studying the problem?  Do you trust the people that write the AR
pamphlets to give you unbiased accurate information?  A look at some
of the tidbits that Rob U. posted, such as "bowhunter kills 12 cows,"
seems to cast a bit of doubt in my mind about the competency of such
sources, muchless their lack of bias.


>              I guess it is this: just about everybody is busy wrapping
>themselves in the environmental flag these days - every bit of junk mail
>has "printed on recycyled paper" on it. And guess what, the hunters are
>now announcing that their chosen activity is really ultra-environmental,
>too. I don't think that you are actively being dishonest about this - most
>of the hunters here seem to be very sincere - but I wonder if you aren't
>a bit too quick to believe that the activity which you happen to enjoy
>just also happens to be such a great thing for the environment/planet/
>animals? We'd all like to think that that which we happen to want to do
>is actually good in and of itself, and are seldom highly critical of arguments
>that seem to support that belief.

The statistics of populations of animals, as well as the money we
generate and spend on buying and preserving wild habitat bear out the
good that we do.  Whether most hunters care, or whether they "care"
because it makes them look good during the recent environmental
movement doesn't strike me as relevant.  The point is that the good is
being done, and nothing more.  We aren't asking you guys to say "thank
you."


> death by natural 
>>predation. 
>
>Maybe, maybe not. In any case the animals would live longer, which might
>be of some worth and value to them.
>
>>           Dying of old age is a luxury we've attained by re-modelling our 
>>planet, among other things.  Animals in the wild rarely die of old age.  
>>Their death is long, lingering and painful in the normal course of events 
>>and I can't help but feel that death at the hands of a hunter is far far 
>>quicker and cleaner than much of anything else.  Thus, when I examine the 
>>AR cause, despite their claims of wanting less pain and sufferring for 
>>animals, I see banning hunting as advocating more pain and suffering, not 
>>less. 
>
>Life in the wild is really so awful that the animals are better off dead?
>Death in the wild is doubtless pretty unpleasant when it comes - but to
>the extent that we are actually doing the individual animal a kindness by
>going out and killing it? 

The key word is individual.  Hunters help the population, not the
individual that is taken.  Until you AR folk can understand where we
are coming from in thinking about "all the *other* individuals," our
arguments shall fall on deaf ears.  Sacrifice by the individual for
the good of the many.  That's a concept that comes easy for me, but
apparently others don't like it.  The word "selfless" does not come to
mind when thinking about such people.  They are rarely blood donors
(eww -- those needles *hurt*). :-(


>>       I would feel this way even if I didn't hunt.  I see it, not as a 
>>matter of opinion, but as an acknowledgement of the facts of life.  Because 
>>of this viewpoint, I feel very frustrated when someone tries to replace a 
>>quick, relatively painless death with a long, lingering one.  I hate to see 
>>anything suffer.  I don't mind watching it die but damnit I hate to see it 
>>suffer.
>
>Good. I am glad you feel that way. I hope all hunters do, too.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--