Errors-to: "Chris A. Sloffer" <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>
X-VMS-To: POLITICS
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 10:00:00 EST
From:         "Chris A. Sloffer" <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>
Subject:      Hunting et al.

I think there are a couple of points that some (fred, in particular) alluded
to earlier, but which I feel compelled to mention explicitly.

First, I must say that I am a long-time hunter/target shooter/gun owner.  I
have been around guns and hunting as long as I can remember.  So, if you want
to consider this a bias, then at least I am giving you that before I start.
Now, onward...

People do not hunt for the benefits to the wildlife.  It is true that there
are some benefits to the wildlife, but those who will argue that people hunt
for this reason aren't being honest.  People hunt because of the complete
experience for themselves.  I enjoy the hunt itself, and the killing at
end is sort of
anticlimatic.  But secondly, no hunter can deny that the killing is a part of
the hunting.  I think that most hunters would say that they don't hunt just
for the killing. But when hunters claim that they huunt for the benefit of
the wildlife, they just give ammunition to those who want to outlaw hunting.
Which leads me to..........

I grew up in a rural Indiana town.  Hunting was commonplace, and many of us
hunted together in high school and after.  Most (but not all, unfortunately)
of the people with whom I have hunted were very responsible in their
endeavor.  They abhorred poaching.  They did not kill more than what was
reasonable to eat.  They did not wander through the woods shooting at
anything that moved.  However, I soon went to college.  There I met people
from various places, some of whom had hunted, some that had not.  A few times
I went hunting with some people, and invited a few who had not been hunting
before.  These people (mostly city-raised people, I'm afraid) were the ones
who were likely to do some of the above things that I feel are not reasonable
behavior:  the killing of too much game, the shooting at everything.  The
point I'm trying to make is that most hunters are responsible sportsmen who
don't like the abuse of wildlife any more (indeed, probably less) than most
of the anti-hunting groups.  The difference is the direction each group
takes.  Anti-hunting groups seek to outlaw the hunting altogether, while
responsible hunters seek to punish those who abuse the wildlife.

That reminds me of a short story, if you'll indulge me a bit further.  A
friend of a friend in high-school was caught shining deer (hunting at night.
If a deer is caught in a bright light at night, they freeze, making
themselves an easy target.  Illegal, too, BTW).  As a punishment, the
authorities confiscated his rifle (which by itself is illegal for deer
hunting in Indiana), his spot light, and his truck.  He was also fined a
large amount of cash (can't remember how much, but it seems in the 000's
range).  Now, this seems a high punishment ($10000, when all values are
totalled), but I don't know of too many hunters who felt too bad abount it.

My whole point here (yes, I had one) is to dispell the image of hunters a
blood-thirsty killers who want nothing more that to blow away anything that
moves for no reason other than the "thrill" of the kill (oops, didn't mean
for that to rhyme).  There are people like that, we must admit, but they are
not liked by hunters any more than they are by the naturalist groups.  There
is a responsible way to hunt, just like there is a responsible way to do
anything.  There is an irresponsible way to hunt, just like there is an
irresponsible way to do anything.

Chris Sloffer

From: SLOFFER CHRIS A               (ENGVAX::GA82428)

To:   VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE            (IN::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet")
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU