Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site homxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!homxa!dcs
From: dcs@homxa.UUCP (D.SIMEN)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Hunting is *NOT* Slaughter
Message-ID: <302@homxa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Jul-84 10:43:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: homxa.302
Posted: Thu Jul 26 10:43:23 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 20:06:21 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 22

Although I can't fault anyone for hunting for food (assuming he has a license
and is hunting within the limits and in season), I also can't accept the
"hunters are solving nature's problems" theory.  If hunters always killed the
weakest and sickest animals, then they *would* be saving these animals from
starvation, since these are the ones who will die when food is scarce.  But
hunters tend to go for the big, strong animals -- that bull moose whose horns
will look so good over the mantelpiece (or mounted on the den wall, or ...), or
the big bear whose glossy hide will make such a nice rug.  Oh, yes, the hunter
and his family will eat the carcass -- so it's all right, right?

The predators that mankind has hounded to near extinction -- e.g., wolves and
cougars in North America -- eat the weaker animals, letting the stronger ones
go and thus maintaining their food sources.  (Of course they don't do this
because they're trying to manage resources!  Rather, it's a lot harder to bring
down a large, strong animal than a small, weak one.)  When hunters do the job
of these predators and thus strengthen the prey stock for the future, I'll
believe that they do some good.  Until then, they're interfering with natural
selection, for the sake of a "good time".  Isn't it fun to make things bleed?
(Let's go to MacDonald's and see!)

						David Simen
						...houxm!homxa!dcs