From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunter's legitimate concern
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:47:14 GMT

Russell Lawrence replies:
rl> Let me explain something to you.  When I earmark money for wildlife
rl> preservation, I expect it to be used for wildlife preservation,
rl> not for promotional merchandise, fun banquets, rafles, etc.  Nor 
rl> do I expect or want to be bribed into making a donation for a 
rl> cause that I truly want to support.  Since I'm not the only 
rl> person who feels this way, it seems to me that it may be a 
rl> mistake to judge potential support for any organization on the 
rl> basis of how much money the organization raises from promotional 
rl> items.  

From article <14151@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, by jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad):
js> Russell, you're missing the point.  Many of the items that are sold
js> with DU's emblem are items aimed gererally at hunters.  If a large
js> fraction of DU's members were not hunters would they do that?  No one
js> is bribing or tricking you into supporting DU.  I assume you know that
js> when you buy a T-shirt with DU's logo on it that they get a cut?

It seems to me that you're missing the point.  I can understand 
and appreciate the fact that many hunters might be attracted by 
trinkets and apparel items that contribute to a favorable 
clublike image, and I can understand why an organization that 
wishes to attract contributions or support from hunter 
constituents would be inclined to market such items.  What you 
don't seem to understand is that some of us don't want to have a 
t-shirt with DU's logo on it, and are more than willing to 
contribute to a good organization without expecting "free gifts" 
or promotional merchandise in return.  If I donate fifty bucks 
for the sake of some good cause, I want all fifty bucks to go to 
the good cause, and not have fifteen bucks taken away to pay for 
a trinket.  In short, it may be fallacious to judge all
supporters of a given organization on the basis of merchandise sales.  

js> As far as the fund raising banquets go, its interesting to look 
js> at the advertisements for AR conventions that have been posted 
js> recently.  It seems that they feature continental breakfasts, 
js> "famous tex-mex buffet", (would that be with the beef or the 
js> chicken?), dinner buffets, dancing, and civil disobedience 
js> training.  No mention of fund raising is made, so I assume these 
js> are purely social (well maybe not the civil disobedience training 
js> :-}).  Now how much habitat acquisition and conservation happens 
js> as a result of these AR social events?  

I've been intimately involved with several AR organizations for
several years now, and I've never, ever, received any literature
that featured buffets or dancing.  Frankly, I'd be offended by 
such literature if, indeed, it does exist.  That's not to say 
that I might not enjoy such activities in the proper time and 
place, but I don't see them as a fundamental attribute of the AR 
movement nor would they be attractive in such a context.  For 
similar reasons, I don't consider dinner banquets to be an appropriate
way of addressing or solving environmentalist causes. 

js> While money from yourself is appreciated as 
js> much as money from anyone else when you send it in you usually 
js> don't get to choose how DU spends it.  (Unless you're giving very 
js> large amounts -- how about a rehabilitated Lake Russell Lawrence?  
js> :-}) 

rl> No thanks.

js> Although I made the comment in jest, it is somewhat disturbing 
js> that you want no part of it.  I would be extremely proud to have 
js> made a major contribution to the rehabilitation of waterfowl 
js> habitat.  If it were a financial option for me I would consider 
js> it.  You, however don't want to be associated with it.  I thought 
js> you wanted to help ducks?  

Why would you assume that I'm not interesting in helping wildlife
simply because I wouldn't be attracted by the idea of having a
bit of nature labeled with my name?

> ...
rl> A more appropriate question to ask, in view of the original
rl> proposition, is whether hunters or anti-hunters are more inclined
rl> as a class to support preservation efforts.   Do you know the
rl> answer to such a question?

js> No I don't.  Do you?  I have seen evidence that hunters and fishermen
js> contribute a tremendous amount to conservation.  I have yet to see
js> evidence that anti-hunters do.  And the AR conference advertising we
js> have been subjected to recently doesn't seem to talk much about 
js> preservation.  

Perhaps.  Once again, you're saying that AR advocates like myself 
would be wise to treat ecological concerns as a monolithic aspect 
of the AR cause, and not as a separate but related issue.  Would
you like to see PETA develop some budgetary goals for wildlife 
preservation so that AR advocates can donate funds in ways that
might be more demonstrable to people like yourself?   Lake PETA,
perhaps?

As I mentioned previously, I wouldn't be interested in having my 
name or even PETA's name on a lake, whereas you would apparently 
relish such ego stroking.  If we were both rich philanthropists, 
do you really believe that we could compare your contributions 
with my contributions by the numbers of lakes named after each of 
us respectively?  

js> Maybe the civil disobedience training takes up too
js> much time.  Also, when I see things such the defacing of a sign marking
js> a grouse habitat improvement project with AR slogans I have to wonder
js> how that helps wildlife?
js> 
js> By the way, I thought my question was very appropriate to this 
js> discussion.  Why didn't you answer it?  You seem to get upset when 
js> other people don't answer your questions.  

My apologies.  I've answered your question below.

rl> To the extent that you cite a mandatory requirement as a point in 
rl> your argument, you're contradicting the claim made by a prior 
rl> poster that funds spend on such things as duck stamps constitute 
rl> proof that hunters are concerned about the well-being of wild 
rl> animals.  

js> Did it ever occur to you that hunters generally support and sometimes
js> ask for license surcharges to support various conservation programs?
js> Of all the government taxes and fees I pay, my hunting and fishing
js> licenses and stamps, as well as the hidden taxes I pay on equipment,
js> are the ones I don't mind paying because I know the money is going
js> to help with wildlife conservation.

If hunters are as generous, as a group, as you seem to think they are,
why would a mantatory tax be necessary? 

rl> To reiterate, I still consider it dishonest when pro-hunting 
rl> posters cite expenditures for such things as duck stamps as a 
rl> sign of the good intentions of hunters toward wild animals.  In 
rl> view of the fact that many people misconstrue the collections as 
rl> a referendum of sorts on hunting, it seems to me that people like 
rl> myself ought to be careful how we choose to spend our money lest 
rl> our contributions be mistaken, not as a sign of our support for 
rl> preservation, but as a vote in favor of sport hunting.   Pity.

js> I still think you didn't know much about DU before you donated.
js> I believe that you are correct that first and formost DU is about
js> duck preservation.  What I find curious is that given your anti-hunting
js> bent you gave money to a group that does not have an anti-hunting
js> platform and in fact encourages hunting and sees hunters as a vital
js> part of the duck preservation team.  

I was under the impression that DU didn't have an anti-hunting 
platform, but I was completely unaware that Ducks Unlimited 
actually encourages hunting.  To reiterate a point I made previously,
I donate time and money to quite a few organizations that are not
anti-hunting.  I do not, however, knowingly donate to organizations 
that are pro-hunting.    

js> Not to mention that they on
js> occasion cooperate with state and provincial DNRs, which seem to be
js> considered evil by most ARs.  

Most of the AR advocates that I know personally consider the concept
of "evil" to be a rather silly one.  Perhaps you're making some
false assumptions based on your own religious beliefs.

js> It gets back to the question I posed earlier that you declined to 
js> answer, would DU be worse off subtracting the hunter 
js> contributions or the anti-hunter contributions?  

I suspect that DU would be worse off subtracting the hunter 
contributions.  I do _not_ think that environmental concerns in 
general would be better off with the support of hunters as 
opposed to non-hunters.  

js> If there were no DU would the ducks be better or worse off?  

I doubt that it would make much difference, just as I doubt that
it would make much difference to the AR movement if PETA were to
disappear.    Organizations like DU and PETA are the offshoot
of fundamental concerns, not the cause of those concerns.

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