Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hou2g!jan
From: jan@hou2g.UUCP (J.NAGEL)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Hunting is *NOT* Slaughter
Message-ID: <293@hou2g.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Jul-84 13:58:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou2g.293
Posted: Thu Jul 26 13:58:29 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 20:44:59 EDT
References: <302@homxa.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 42

Subject: Murder is *NOT* Slaughter

People (and other animals) breed too rapidly for natural predation to
limit their numbers. Without the forces of nature controlling their
population, there is more competition for resources: food and space. Such
competition weakens the entire population, and many of the weaker humans starve
to death. There are two choices for governments: they can either feed the
humans using welfare and such like, or they can permit murderers to kill
off the excess numbers.  Both of these approaches have drawbacks.

When you feed a population of humans, the result is that all survive, and
there are even greater numbers of them in subsequent years. When you do
this, you insure that they will always have to be fed, and in greater and
greater numbers as the population increases. In addition, the humans come to
rely on the feeding, and rather than attempting to fend for themselves, they
learn to depend on the government. The result is a less and less  capable
human, one who is continually less able to deal with his environment.

Murder, while it may seem to be a cruel alternative for limiting human 
populations, is for the most part conducted humanely, and is only permitted
during explicit seasons. By limiting the numbers of licenses sold, and by
limiting the numbers of humans that each licensee can take, the department
of population management (or what ever they may be called in your state) can
pretty accurately keep the population to the number that is optimum in
each area. The drawbacks to murder, of course, are that many people
see it as a "sport", which it definitely isn't, at least according to the
people who I know who murder. Those who murder for "sport" are likely to be
those who do it drunk, and frequently leave the humans they kill. I would
agree that such murderers are properly characterised as participating in a
slaughter. They are the minority, however.

The concientous murderer views what he does not as a
"slaughter" or "blood sport", but as a way to insure a healthy
population, despite encroachments on the environment which have caused
the whole plight anyway. In this light, the murderer is making a contribution
that those who go around ill-informed, yelling "slaughter" just seem to
refuse to understand.

I suggest that if *you* feel uninformed about the realities of murder,
get some information from your state's department of population
management, before you go off half-cocked, spewing venomous words on a topic
you apparently have failed to investigate, much less tried to understand.