Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 10:32:16 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting

>> Walking barefoot in wet grass at night, looking at the stars is
>> enjoyable, but one part of it is killing snails.  ....
>>
>this is an absurb comparison; you don't go walking barefoot in the wet
>grass planning to kill anything, while hunting has a purpose to it,
>killing.  Why go if you don't want to kill?  Why hunt at all?
>If the pleasure is to go out to commune with nature, or to build up
>father-son (or whatever for equality) relationships, then killing is I
>repeat gratitous or as one person said anti-climatic.  Just admit it,
>part of the whole event is to kill something, really face reality.

Yes, part of the hunting is killing.  Part of walking barefoot in
wet grass at night is killing also.  That's just as "real".

Yes, one can stalk without killing.  One can also "play basketball"
without shooting, but it's a different experience.

Killing is the most expensive part of hunting, yet hunters are happy
when they don't do it.  Given that, it is rather absurd to claim that
they feel that it is either gratuitous or "the point".  Non-hunters
views on the subject are irrelevant; they don't behave that way.

>>>Also, a movement toward a bigger appreciation for wildlife and nature
>>>seems to be needed in this world, and I'm not ready to say this is an
>>>utopian goal.
>>
>> That's possibly a noble goal (although I detect a whiff of something
>> else), but the habitat and species have to be preserved NOW.
>
>ok, I don't see me saying a law against hunting should be set up.  All
>I'm saying is that people can appreciate wildlife and nature without
>hunting.

They "can", but they don't in any way that contributes meaningfully
to keeping said wildlife and nature around.

>I found a tad perverse another poster's comment that he
>hopes all will go with their sons to hunt so by killing animals, we
>can appreciate life better.  "This son is a wonderful piece of nature
>son, be careful to get a clean kill.  And remember this is not about
>killing but the pleasure of hunting and wildlife."  Don't  be
>surprised if he says "huh?"

I've eavesdropped on exactly that conversation a number of times.  Not
one of the kids has ever said "huh?"  They've always figured out
what's going on.  That surprised me at first, but then I figured out
that I was projecting my values as a non-hunter on the situation, and
that my reaction was about me, not them.  If there's a bad guy in
this, it sure isn't them.

>> Yawn.  When you're perfect, we can talk about saving me from my sins.
>>
>I didn't ask you to support my ideas, I just included them to be
>honest.

And I included my honest idea in response.

I'm perfectly willing to believe lots of nasty things about hunters.
I believed them before, but I found out that I was wrong.  My
anti-hunting arguments were at least as good as those being offered,
but all that remains is a bit of squeamishness (plus a habit of
sleeping in which makes hunting impossible), which applies to surgeons
even more than it does to hunters.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU