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