From: CBARNES@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes)
Subject: Re: fox questions
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: 12 Jan 93 07:16:55 CST
Originator: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu

In article <1993Jan11.074310.20296@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
   ses@hpfcls.fc.hp.com (Steve Speer) writes:
 
>   Brent Danielson writes:
>> Needless to say, I really resent this type of attitude.
 
   ....rest of Brent's article deleted....
 
 
>
>And this sort of attitude really ticks me off.  You don't know where
>this guy is at.  You don't know the species.  You don't know what
>efforts he's made to protect his property from this predator.  You
>don't know the legal status of what was done.
 
Wrong!  We do know something about the original poster's motives.
We know that he lost some chickens, *possibly* to a fox.  We know that
he knows very little about foxes.  We know that he was more than willing
to kill any animal he suspected *might* have killed his chickens with-
out knowing the first thing about what he was killing.  To me, this
sounds like "Bubba-type killing" (ie.  Bubba doesn't care, he just
shoots).  And this is WRONG.  It's the same type of attitude that
inspires people to kill every snake or spider they see around their
house.  It inspires people to shoot eagles because they *might* kill
their sheep.  It inspires people to kill aligators because they can't
duck hunt in the swamp.  etc.  It inspires ignorance.  And because
of that, I agree with Brent.
 
 
>You have simply assumed
>the worst in each of these questions and flamed away.  What you have
>said and demonstrated as a thought process here reminds me very much
>of the emotional non-thinking drivel that spews forth from the animal
>rights crowd at every opportunity.  FYI, I hunt foxes on a regular
>basis in Wyoming.  No license is needed (furbearer, small game or
>otherwise) because they, along with such animals as jack rabbits,
>coyotes and skunks, are classified as predatory and can be shot on
>site, day or night, any weapon, with the aid of artificial light or
>even electronic calls.  Sounds like a very different animal than the
>one you are crying over.  Maybe your perspective is the one that needs
>to be broadened.
 
So just because they have arcahic laws in Wyoming, does that mean
they are right?  I think not.  Tell me, does the fact that it's a
preditor mean that it should be eliminated?  That sure sounds like
what you are arguing for.
 
 
>I'm far more amazed than I am offended.  For the record, this sort of
>attack offered very little rational thought and a great deal of
>emotional attack.  Aside from the fact that the moderator has far more
>important miracles on his mind, I'm amazed this post got through.
 
I believe this type of post BELONGS here, for the simple reason that
it brings up discussion of hunting ethics (which if you read the
charter - IS a valid topic for discussion in this group).  Just because
it's moderated, doesn't mean that articles and opinions you dislike
should have been eliminated.
 
      -----------------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |   President - Bryan/College Station
cbarnes@tamvm1.tamu.edu |         Retriever Club.
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |   "Dedicated to the betterment of
(409) 845-4437 (work)   |               the retrieving breeds"