From: schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:28:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.121136.4815@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <#=xtkg=@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
>> In article <1992Mar31.154717.4678@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>In article <a9qt_6_@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
>> My point was they can't catch on.  They can't see details, so a stationary
>> hunter is the same thing as the background.  Give them a few million
>> years, and maybe, just maybe, they will grow more advanced eyes.  Otherwise,
>> deer cannot be faulted for not showing fear when as far as they can tell,
>> nothing is there.  It would be like if I were to start picking off your
>> neighbors with an orbiting laser station.  You couldn't see it, couldn't
>> be expected to know when it was or was not there, and if I didn't tell you
>> what it was causing your neighbors to become little charred spots on the 
>> lawn, you'd have no idea what it was you were supposed to be afraid of
>> in the first place.  Your choice would be to stay indoors forever, or
>> just do what you normally do, avoid what dangers you can understand,
>> like cars and men with hockey masks and chainsaws, and just hope "whatever"
>> doesn't vaporize you.
>
>Your analogy doesn't quite hold.  Deer may not be able to see detail, but 
>they can see shapes and movements.  If you move slowly and deliberately, 
>you can get away with almost anything.  One quick, jerky movement though 
>and that deer will be busy seeking out shrubs.
>
They can see large regions of different brightness, but cannot see
stationary shapes.  To see the way a deer sees, at least as far as
optical equipment is concerned, turn off the lights, stare straight
ahead, and try to make out what is on the side of you.  I think the
analogy is valid.  I could screw up and put my satellite where sunlight
glints off it so you can see it.  But to make it closer, say it is a
high-altitude powered glider.  So I can screw up and scare you with the
engine noise too. 

>>>> Humans hunted long before guns.  Some people even today use a composite
>>>> bow.  But people who don't have even those still hunt in some areas.  Run
>>>> them off a cliff, dig a pit for them to fall in, surround them with
>>>> spear-wielding men, ...  There are a lot of ways to hunt besides guns.
>>>> I'm not against hunting, and I love guns, but to say that a gun is not
>>>> an unfair advantage over a deer seems ludicrous to me.  The question 
>>>> to me is whether fairness is really necessary.  I mean, if someone wins,
>>>> obviously something was uneven.   
>>>
>>>Yes, humans hunted long before guns but so what?  A bow is a projectile 
>>>weapon, as is a spear.  I specifically referred to 'a human' so group 
>>>hunting is irrelevant here.
>>>
>> But in no way do you have a 'natural right' to do so.  If you were 
>> trying to live as man was meant to live, you'd hunt in groups.  If
>> you believe justification for hunting is irrelevant, that's another
>> matter.
>
>Did I ever assert that we have a 'natural right'?  Now that you've brought 
>the point up, who is to say whether we do or not?  
>
No, now that you mentioned it, I dont' think you personally ever did
say that.  But other hunters have.  

>Live as man was *meant* to?  Meant to by who, exactly?  How exactly was man 
>*meant* to live?
>
Ask Mike.

>>>So you think a gun is an unfair advantage?  How, exactly, do you describe 
>>>fair?  The kill rate at present is usually between 25 and 33%, depending on 
>>>a number of factors.  Last time I looked the most significant variable 
>>>which affected the success rate was population.  That is, in areas where 
>>>there are more deer, hunters have more opportunities to shoot deer, and are 
>>>more successful.  In areas which have a lower population, hunters see fewer 
>>>deer, have fewer opportunities and so the success rate drops.
>>>
>> What do you suppose the success rate is without a gun?
>
>This question is meaningless.  Do you mean without any weapon at all?  With 
>a bow?  With a shovel and some stakes?  What?
>
With nothing but some good clothing.  You against the deer.  Could you
succeed?  

>>>Why is this?  Because hunting a deer involves much more than simply 
>>>cruising out into the woods and shooting one.  Before you can shoot it, you 
>>>have to find it.  It is the difficulty of locating an animal that 
>>>distinguishes 'hunting' from 'shooting'.  Thus while a modern weapon does 
>>>endow one with the means to kill a deer from a distance, it does not endow 
>>>one with any added ability to *find* a deer to shoot.
>>>
>> What is the ratio of "found" deer to killed deer?  To show that that
>> is fairly high would indicate guns to be fair.
>
>FD/KD being high would imply that one sees many deer in relation to the 
>number of deer one kills.  Ratios for me have been around 8/0, 1/1, 1/0, 
>that first one includes a few deer I saw on the way into my hunting area.  
>If I only included deer I saw while I was actually carrying a rifle, I'd 
>say the ratio was 4/0, 1/1, 1/0.  Shots fired by the way were 1 1 0.  This 
>is for the last three seasons that come to mind.  Looks like a high ratio of
>found deer to killed deer to me.  The experience of others will probably 
>match this.  
>
One indication that guns may not be unfair.  To show that you could do
reasonably without guns would prove it, IMO.
 
>>>An skilled marksman suffering from buck fever will most likely blow even a 
>>>close, easy shot at 50 yards.
>>>
>> You said most shots were at less than 100 yards.  I've never shot
>> a deer but I have shot several people at ranges approaching that.
>> I was using a .60 calibre paint gun, btw.  Marksmanship is not the
>> ability to hit a lucky bullseye on a good day, but to consistently
>> and independently of emotional state, get as close to the bullseye
>> as you normally do.  If an Olympic sharpshooter got too excited
>> and botched a shot, he really wasn't that good.   
>
>You've shot people at ranges of 100 yards with a paintball gun?  I think 
>the gun was a trifle hot.  Given an intial velocity of 300 fps (outdoors) 
>there is a hell of a lot of drop out to 100 yards.
>
I had a considerable advantage of high ground and had to arc the shot in.
It was tuned to 300 fps, as per regulations.  It isn't that hard of a 
shot, even without being able to train the sights on the target, due to
the arc.
  
>Besides, shooting a human with a paintgun just isn't the same.  I've done 
>it too.  Its nothing at all like shooting a deer.  For one thing you don't 
>tremble nearly as much. :-)
>
You have to control the trembling.  I know I got so excited I was shaking
like crazy the first time.  I just regained control, aimed, and took out
two opponents before anyone noticed me.  Maybe for you it wasn't the same,
but for me it might be.  I've never hunted deer, so I don't know for sure. 

>> I'm far from qualifying for the Olympics, though I am one of the best
>> shots I know.  I said a dime because it's a small round thing, and it
>> happened to come to mind.  I usually shoot at a dot the size of a
>> period at 10 meters.  And that is without a scope.  I wouldn't hit
>> anything at much more that 100 yds, since I wouldn't be able to see
>> it.  
>
>That is why we put scopes on our hunting rifles. :-)
>
So the distance comparison is a bit off.  What could you hit without a
scope?

>>>If we tighten up those groups a bit of course the situation changes 
>>>somewhat.  If we were to take my rifle (a Weatherby Mark V) which shoots 
>>>factory ammunition into a 3/4" group at 100 yards.  I can expect a group 
>>>size of 1.5 inches at 200 yards, 2.25 at 300 and 3 inches at 400.  Again, 
>>>this is from a rest.  All of this not withstanding, I will generally not 
>>>attempt any shot at game if I don't use a rest of some kind.
>>>
>> That's good.  But too many hunters shouldn't even be handling a gun
>> with other people around.  You may be one of the more responsible
>> ones, for not shooting when you don't have a good shot, but too many
>> are careless.  If hunting really were a sport, waiting for the perfect
>> shot would be a challenge to be attempted, not an unfair element to
>> avoid. 
>
>It is a challenge.
>
To you.  Just as the worst hunters are not a representative sample, I 
don't think you are either.   

>Actually, most hunters are quite responsible.  Like any group, we have a 
>few who probably qualify as candidates for moron of the year.  To suggest 
>that such people make up a disproportionately large number of hunters is 
>completely ridiculous.
>
Most of the hunters I know are very responsible.  To suggest that a lot of
them are morons is entirely valid.  It may or may not be true, but proving
it is another matter entirely.

>> A lot of the people at my range think that hunting is a lot harder than
>> target shooting.  Then they start out and can't hit the bull at all.
>> So many of them think they know all about how to shoot until they start
>> doing it seriously.  Target shooting is much harder than hunting.
>
>They're right.  It is a lot harder.  Targets stand still all the time.  
>They're easy to find to, and they always present themselves at a right 
>angle to your line of sight.
>
Many of the hunters at my range agree with that.  I'm not talking 
about plinking at cans, but serious competetive target shooting.
The targets stand still, but they are tiny and just hitting them
isn't enough.  They must be hit on center to get a good score.
Even well aligned, the sight alignment, and body position must be
so precise that a difference in target position of an inch or so
at 10 meters can throw the alignment off.  The sights on my pistol
can adjust the shot group as little as 1.5mm at 10m.  
  
>There could be several reasons they can't hit the bull's eye:
>
>1) Rifle and ammo might not be up to it (depends on range, size of bull, 
>caliber, etc.  Such a rifle could still be quite suitable for hunting).
>
We provide Olympic grade equipment.  The shot group at 10m is essentially
one hole.  Couldn't be that. :-)
 
>2) They need practice.
>
Yes, they do.  But hunting isn't practice enough.  Target shooting is
far too precise.  More to your point, the people to whom I refer are
quite familiar with guns and have shot them quite regularly.  They
still have trouble with competetive shooting, because it is quite
difficult, and far more so than (the marksmanship component of) hunting.
 
>3) They generally take running shots on game and are quite good at such 
>shots because they do them instinctively.  Note: The word instinctive is 
>being used to indicate activity that is rapidly becoming associated with 
>right brain activity.
>
Could be.  But I thought targets standing still made it easier. :-)
Besides, if running shots could become instinctive (I think they can),
then stationary targets should be even more so.  The point of that is
that if they take responsible shots on deer, then they should have
far more experience with stationary targets than moving ones.

>> I've never signed loyalty oath to Homo sapiens.  We as a species do a lot
>> of things most members of the species could not do.  Does the fact that
>> we as a species can build fuel air explosives make it fair to drop one
>> in the woods and pick up the deer carcasses later?  
>
>You would equate a weapon of mass destruction with a weapon of precision, 
>like a rifle?  Your argument is fraying.... :-)
>
Equate, no.  Compare, yes.  You said rifles were fair because, even
though Dirk had never built one, some people had.  I could even
build a decent FAE.  So clearly using the whole species' capability
as a criterion for fairness isn't correct.
 
>> To claim that he is using his brain to hunt, as opposed to using it to
>> avoid really having to hunt, would require that he design and build,
>> or at least design and have built, his tools.  I could train my ferrets
>> to carry money to the local gun shop and buy one.
>
>On the contrary.  One's choice of tools in no way means that one no longer 
>thinks.  One still must know the habits of one's quarry.
>
So if all the preliminaries to shooting the quarry are the real challenge,
what justifies the shooting? (Other than saving them from starvation.)
And what makes hunting any more of a challenge than simply walking out
in the woods to _watch_ deer?
  
>> They can't smell what is downwind, they can't hear what does not make
>> sounds loud enough to reach their auditory threshold, and they can't
>> see what doesn't move.  They can detect humans some of the time, but
>> to say that their failure to detect humans is, in all cases, their fault
>> is ludicrous.  They often are given no chance to find the human.  
>
>Let's deal with this one step at a time.
>
>1) They can't smell what is downwind.  This is true, but it isn't a very 
>useful piece of information.  The wind never blows steadily here in 
>November and the direction it blows in is determined by many things.  
>Standing in one spot in the woods for a half an hour is a good way to 
>distribute one's scent all around in a nice big circle.
>
You can smell yourself as you wander in a circle around yourself?
Is this proven fact, or just what seems to make sense to you?

>2) They can't hear what doesn't make sounds loud enough to reach their 
>auditory threshold.  True, but again, not very useful.  That threshold is 
>extreemely low.  Deer have *excellent* hearing.
>
Yes, they have great ears.  But over wind noise, rustling leaves, etc.,
what is the level at which they can detect and distinguish human noise
from harmless sounds like fallen branches, squirrels, and the background
fluctuations?  Quite a bit higher, I'd say.  I mean by this that they
can tell _by sound alone_ that it is something to fear.  If you alert
them and make them look, that means they are not certain if it is an
immediate danger.

>3) They can't see what doesn't move.  Again, basically true, and basically 
>useless.  No human being I know of can be perfectly still.  One should sit 
>on a stand as still as possible as one never knows when a deer is going to 
>be mincing through the woods standing and looking, smelling and listening 
>for about 5-10 minutes for every step it takes.
>
5-10 minutes per step sounds like highly abnormal behavior.  Given their
ranges, they wouldn't have enough time in the day to move as much as they
do.  Sounds to me like they already know you are there, and are just 
trying to figure out exactly where.  I can't prove that, but can you prove 
that isn't the case? 

>You could benefit from some deer hunting I think.  It would probably change 
>your mind about just how difficult it really is. 
>
Would it be any less difficult with a camera?  (Once again, let me point
out that I favor hunting because it prevents starvation.  Hypothetically,
however, should that change, I fail to see any real justification for
hunting with the intent to kill the deer.)
 
>>>Nooooo.  I don't think anything in the above could be construed as 
>>>selecting for traits that are disadvantageous to the deer.  A strong mating 
>>>instinct is part of what gets a deer in trouble in limited habitat in the 
>>>first place.  Pop quiz:  how many deer, expressed as a percentage of total 
>>>population, need to die in a given year for the population to remain about 
>>>the same?
>>>
>> No, overbreeding gets them in trouble.  They will breed no matter how 
>> weak the breeding instinct is.  Population is not a function of breeding
>> just of breeding attempts.  All that weakening the breeding instinct will
>> do is make for sick deer.  If all that was left on the planet were wimps,
>> we'd breed wimps.  I don't think we'd go extinct.
>
>A strong mating instinct is what I would call a significant contributing 
>factor to over population.  You still didn't answer my question.  The 
>answer is 40% or thereabouts.  That is total kill, not just hunting.  
>Hunting in fact makes up a relatively small but very important fraction of 
>that total.  Pop Quiz:  Why is it important?
>
I did, but in a separate post.  I got quite close, you should notice,
not bad considering I took a worst-case scenario, with does at maximum
productivity of 2 fawns per year.

I'd say the most important reason is that it reduces the population at
a very good time.  They are not going to produce more young to replace
the dead right away, and it is right before they would starve if they
were going to.  Is that the reason you were thinking of?

As I said, they would breed to capacity within any reasonable variance
of the mating drive.  You would just get weaker deer from it.
 
>> No, deer have looked in your general direction.  Ask anyone versed in
>> public speaking.  When someone looks in your general direction, you
>> are primed to assume it is at you.  The guy giving his speech who
>> "looks at you" is actually only looking into space near you.  Deer
>> have their eyes on the side of the head.  To stare at you, they
>> would be looking to the side. 
>
>Funny you should say that.  I am well versed in public speaking (public 
>typing too :-)  Generally, when you look at someone in the audience you 
>should try to make eye contact with them, if only briefly.
>
Next time you speak in public, stare at the middle of a large group
of people.  After you are done, ask them if they noticed you were making
eye contact.  Chances are all of them will say yes, even though you 
did not do so with any of them.

It still doesn't alter the fact that deer eyes are mounted sideways,
so to stare at you they would have to use only one eye at a time.

>You are correct, shooting deer was the criterea.  Since one does not go out 
>to the deer pen, stick the muzzle in and pull the trigger I felt it was 
>legitamate to include those risks incurred in finding deer to shoot.  
>Obviously we disagree on this point. :-)
>
Perhaps, but if shooting is the last, easiest part, why is it justified, 
not just in your opinion, but why? 

>True.  Still, it is awfully easy to panic in the woods.  I've come close to 
>it a couple of times and each time I had to conciously make an effort to 
>bring it under control.  Funny thing panic.....
>
Me too, when I was lost in the woods a few times.  Keeping your head isn't
something you should do at the last minute.  Good preparation would keep
you much safer, and reduce the risk tremendously.  Do you keep a map
and compass with you so you don't get lost?
 
>> If you plan well, and go where you are supposed to, there should be no
>> trouble finding you unless you are swept down a river or fall into
>> a hole.  Every beginning swimmer knows of the buddy system.  Getting
>> lost is occasionally due to honest error, like misreading a map, but
>> to say that wandering away without telling anyone where you are going
>> and then getting lost is foolishness.
>
>Or unless you panic and wander off into never never land.
>
Which wouldn't happen if there was someone else watching you, and
you watching them.  Or at least someone fairly nearby, so if you get
in trouble they can come and follow your screams. :-) 

>>>The first is not a personal risk huh?  Around here a 'hunter' mistook a 
>>>dairy cow for a deer and killed it.  Don't ask me what made him think it 
>>>was a deer, I have no idea.  He was required to compensate the dairy farmer 
>>>for his loss.  Sounds like a personal risk to me.
>>>
>> Did the hunter kill him?  Risking money is not a personal risk.
>
Oops, typo.  I meant, did the farmer kill the hunter.  The money he 
lost was not a personal loss.  He did get a lot of meat, didn't he?
 
>Yes.  Let's look at driver's ed courses.  Better yet, let's look at drivers 
>tests, which are what driver's ed courses are designed to get people to 
>pass.  Talk about using trained ferrets......
>
>I drive a motorcycle.  I bought my bike after having driven a car for about 
>10 years.  I had driven a bike a couple of times in traffic prior to this 
>and done a fair bit of dirt biking as a kid.  I drove it around my parking 
>lot a couple times and then had a friend drive it to the examiner's office 
>for me.  I made one mistake (I cut a left hand turn) but other than that I 
>passed the test with flying colors (10 written questions and a short 
>driving test with the examiner watching).  I got my license.  Was I 
>qualified to drive in traffic?  No way.  That's why I took the Canada 
>Saftey Council course.  That taught my how to control a motorcycle in every 
>concievable circumstance, and a few inconcievable ones as well.  One can 
>not blame people for poor trainning and poor certification.  A person with 
>no experience in a given subject area is the last one who is qualified to 
>judge the adequacy of their trainning.
>
You are hardly representative of the average.  One can blame people for
not gettin the training they should.  I took a voluntary Coast Guard
boating course, even though I could have just picked up a boat and
motored out into the Hudson River as is.  I still dislike the idiots
who don't know Marine VHS from a CB radio.  Still, on the river,
you can see which boats have the right equipment and who is an 
idiot.  It is much harder to spot idiots in camoflage hiding in a shrub.
I'm kind of surprised you are not more upset by that.

Do you have any medical training?  Would you say a doctor who prescribes
trephination (opening the skull) for skin cancer is a quack?  I'm not
in any way qualified to judge the exact division between qualified and
unqualified hunters, but the extremes are well within my qualifications.  
Besides, I've had some experience hunting, just without shooting.  And
I've shot quite a bit without hunting.  I don't hunt deer, since they
don't interest me, but have you ever seen wild otters up close?  

>>>While I agree with your comments with regards to saftey, hunter orange is 
>>>not the panacea you suggest.  I was wearing hunter orange last season and 
>>>some asshole took a shot in my direction.  I was wearing a shirt and a cap 
>>>both of which were clearly visible.  This is by no means a common 
>>>occurrance around here, but with province mandated hunter orange, saftey 
>>>courses and the like, the point is that it does still happen occaissionaly 
>>>and it is a risk that hunters face.
>>>
>> So despite everything, it still shows not everyone should be allowed to
>> fire a loaded weapon around other people.
>
>No.  It just shows that some people are inadequately trained.  Or one could 
>argue that it shows that there will always be a small percentage of twits 
>in any activity. Or one could argue....you get the idea.
>
Assuming a small percentage of twits is the problem, should twits be
allowed to hunt?

>>>>> - the risk of being blown to bits by having gotten something stuck in the 
>>>>>barrel of their firearm (dirt, water, ice etc);
>>>> 
>> That may be a legitimate risk of hunting.  Still, if you are careful,
>> it is highly unlikely to happen.
>
>I would strike the word highly from this.  Depends on conditions and what 
>precautions, if any, you take.
>
Avoiding hazardous conditions is a precaution.  And if you are careful,
you take all reasonable precautions.

How many people do you know who were blown up?

>>>>> - the risk of being hurt by booby traps set by AR activists;
>>>> 
>>>> A legitimate, though unlikely, hazzard.  In any event, not directly related
>>>> to the threat posed by the deer hunting itself.  It could be said that
>>>> it is just something to even up the odds.  Most AR activists are opposed to
>>>> that, btw.  Stopping you from hunting successfully is one thing, hurting
>>>> a (human) animal is quite another. 
>>>
>>>All these hazards are legitimate.  Far from being something that might 
>>>'even up the odds' this kind of stuff can be a real problem.  As I outlined 
>>>above with regards to success ratios, the odds are already pretty even.
>>>
>> The odds are even?  30% of hunters die every year?  
>
>This comment show that you don't really understand what you're talking 
>about.  The odds would be even if, on average, hunters killed one deer for 
>every two they saw.  That is, half the time the deer gets away and half the 
>time it doesn't.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the number of 
>hunters who die.  In fact, on average, I suspect that the sight to kill 
>ratio is much higher than two to 1.
>
There are many possible definitions of fairness, even from one specific
point of view.  From a deer's point of view, if it is simply a process,
a 50-50 chance of success may be fair.  Or, fair could be if certain
avoidable mistakes are avoided, you don't die.  Or, if the deer recognize
the relation between humans and culling of the herd, fair could be if
the human bests the deer when they start out even.

I'm not sure what I'd call fair.  I'm not certain if hunting has to be
fair.  I'm kind of surprised hunters get so defensive when it is even
suggested that hunting is unfair.  Could it be that certain aspects of
the accusation ring painfully true?
 
>> They are not all legitimate risks.  And as I said before, most of even
>> the risks that are legitimate are not risks of hunting per se.  
>
>To each his own.
>
What makes hunting risky as opposed to taking pictures?

>>>>> - the risk of surprising a dangerous animal at close quaters and being 
>>>>>maimed or killed while attempting to extracate one's self;
>>>>>
>> Avoid surprise.  Then they will be less dangerous, or will move to a
>> safe distance.  And unless you or someone you know hunts without
>> stalking and never sees deer (I don't mean someone you know who 
>> can't be quiet, but still acts like he's trying to), I'd say my
>> experience wandering among wildlife is still the only evidence
>> you have.  Go slowly and quietly, but steadily, and make sure you
>> deliberately make some noise, like clicking your tongue.  I'd bet 
>> that if you did it, you wouldn't scare much of anything away.  Then
>> you can sit in a tree and hide.
>
>Deer become ultra suspicious during hunting season (who can blame them) so 
>any non-normal noise in the woods is likely to provoke a run first ask 
>questions later approach.
>
Have you or anyone you know ever tried that?  Did it fail?  Did it succeed?
Does nobody know for certain?

>When I surprised a bear in the woods I was going slowly and quietly, but 
>steadily.  I wasn't deliberately making any noise, but I wasn't really 
>hunting either, I was on my way to a different hunting area.
>
And you survived, I'd assume.  See, that fits your experience, too.

>>>>>Of course, after successfully completing the hunt, the hunter has other 
>>>>>risks to consider as well:
>> Once again, it supports the idea that not everyone has the right to 
>> hunt.  
>
>I don't think anyone, except possibly native americans, can be said to have 
>a right to hunt in our current society.  Last time I checked most 
>jurisdictions regard it as a priviledge......
>
Tell that to Mike. :-)

>>>Trigger happy idiots do not fall into the class I define as honest 
>>>citizens.
>>>
>> I wouldn't mind them owning a gun for self defense, provided they kept it in
>> their houses.  But saying "hunting is justified" and shooting wildly, without
>> any real justification for it is another matter entirely.  I question the 
>> wisdom of permitting people who can't even puzzle out a coherent reason
>> for what they are doing besides "I like it" to carry loaded firearms and
>> rely on their judgement as to what's a good target.
>
>Again, your characterization of hunters is completely out of line with 
>reality.  It is a situation in which a few miscreants have a very high 
>profile.  That doesn't mean they are representative of the population as a 
>whole.
>
I'm characterizing trigger happy idiots, not hunters.  As you said, not
everyone has a right to hunt.

E.S.