is hunting right? (a survey)
Question:
= in response to Jonathan Spencer: = = >> >Since this question is one of the *morality* of hunting, rather than the = >> >*ethics* of a particular technique etc, isn’t the question outside the = >> >group’s charter? [...] = >If a youngster asks if it’s "right" in this forum for whatever reason (and the = > reason = >in this particular thread seems like a good one), then perhaps it affords us = the = >opportunity to reflect ourselves on hunting, and to articulate what it means to = >us. To convey that with enthusiasm, emotion and deep sense of respect, will = >undoubtebly leave a STRONG impression on the child, and those who read his = > paper. = = >If such is not the case, what have we lost? A little time? Sounds like your = >classic "win-win" to me. = = Tim, the problem is that the group charter specifically forbids discussion of = the morality of hunting. Jonathan’s right, and the Moderator should kill = these posts, regardless of the viewpoint presented. = = I suggest that anyone who wants to enlighten this kid–and you are right, it’s = a good opportunity–should do it off-net. But to do it here opens a major can = of worms and we may end up getting a bunch of anti-hunting posts…which would = NOT improve the tone of the group. Both sides if this discussion make good points. On the one hand, I’ve enjoyed what of the thread I’ve been able to follow and Tim makes an excellent point about the opportunity such queries give us. On the other, Jonathan’s and Tom’s points are right on target wrt the groups charter and the can of worms that can be opened. How about this as a possible way to handle such requests in future –assuming, of course, that it is technically possible and reasonable in terms of the amount of work it creates for our much appreciated moderators: Since the moderators will read such requests before forwarding them to the group, how about continuing to forward them unless they are blatantly antihunting but sending them to the group with followups redirected to poster. Is that possible in a moderated group? That way the query reaches us and we have the option of replying or not but, whether we "R"eply or "F"ollowup, the message goes to the person who made the query instead of to the group. While it won’t generate the interaction that we’ve seen in this thread, at least the question reaches us and, one hopes, valid responses will reach the person asking. What do y’all think? — Best, Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby "I’m the NRA!"
Response:
>writes: in response to Jonathan Spencer: > >Since this question is one of the *morality* of hunting, rather than the > >*ethics* of a particular technique etc, isn’t the question outside the > >group’s charter? >Please, with all due respect (I know I’m new to this forum), it seems >that if we as hunters have the chance to positively relect on hunting >to a younger generation, we should do it.
Some threads must be borderline as to whether the issue under discussion is an ethic or a moral. There is no confusion here: the question is one of morality. The charter states that issues of morality shall not be discussed in this newsgroup. The message my original question was intended to convey, but I didn’t want to cause offence by being so blunt, is that the thread should not have been started and, by permitting the thread to start (never mind continue), the moderators are not doing their duty properly. It is, therefore, *immaterial* whether the thread is ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ hunting: the question of the morality of hunting the *by definition* off charter and should not be permitted in this newsgroup. Certainly, we should help put forward the positive wherever and howsoever possible, for example, discussing it via email, by pointing him to useful web sites (eg the British Field Sports Society web site at http://www.bfss.org/) and so forth. But **this** newsgroup is, by its own charter, prohibited from duscussing the issue of morality. Ethics yes, morality no. There is another angle to this side-issue: by allowing a ‘pro’ thread to continue whilst blocking ‘anti’ threads, can the moderators be said to be undertaking their duty with impartiality? Clearly not. –Jonathan Spencer Keith Borer Consultants – forensic scientists Mountjoy Research Centre, Durham, England, DH1 3UR tel: +44 191 386 6107 fax: +191 191 383 086
Response:
in response to Jonathan Spencer: > >Since this question is one of the *morality* of hunting, rather than the > >*ethics* of a particular technique etc, isn’t the question outside the > >group’s charter? >Please, with all due respect (I know I’m new to this forum), it seems that if
we>as hunters have the chance to positively relect on hunting to a younger > generation, >we should do it. >If a youngster asks if it’s "right" in this forum for whatever reason (and the > reason >in this particular thread seems like a good one), then perhaps it affords us the >opportunity to reflect ourselves on hunting, and to articulate what it means to >us. To convey that with enthusiasm, emotion and deep sense of respect, will >undoubtebly leave a STRONG impression on the child, and those who read his > paper. >If such is not the case, what have we lost? A little time? Sounds like your >classic "win-win" to me.
Tim, the problem is that the group charter specifically forbids discussion of the morality of hunting. Jonathan’s right, and the Moderator should kill these posts, regardless of the viewpoint presented. I suggest that anyone who wants to enlighten this kid–and you are right, it’s a good opportunity–should do it off-net. But to do it here opens a major can of worms and we may end up getting a bunch of anti-hunting posts…which would NOT improve the tone of the group. I ask the two Moderators to kill this thread ASAP. It’s off-charter by definition. The Elitist
Response:
> >Since this question is one of the *morality* of hunting, rather than the >*ethics* of a particular technique etc, isn’t the question outside the >group’s charter? >–Jonathan >Jonathan Spencer > Johnathan, > I agree. This started out with some kid wanting someone on rec.hunting > to do a term paper for him. > Woody Williams
Please, with all due respect (I know I’m new to this forum), it seems that if we as hunters have the chance to positively relect on hunting to a younger generation, we should do it. The problem modern hunting faces (among many), is our inability to positively portray this activity to a generation whose parents are too busy working and worrying about child safety helmets, to take their OWN kids hunting. If a youngster asks if it’s "right" in this forum for whatever reason (and the reason in this particular thread seems like a good one), then perhaps it affords us the opportunity to reflect ourselves on hunting, and to articulate what it means to us. To convey that with enthusiasm, emotion and deep sense of respect, will undoubtebly leave a STRONG impression on the child, and those who read his paper. If such is not the case, what have we lost? A little time? Sounds like your classic "win-win" to me. Thanks for listening. Tim
Response:
Since this question is one of the *morality* of hunting, rather than the *ethics* of a particular technique etc, isn’t the question outside the group’s charter? –Jonathan Jonathan Spencer <posting from home>
Response:
>Since this question is one of the *morality* of hunting, rather than the >*ethics* of a particular technique etc, isn’t the question outside the >group’s charter? >–Jonathan >Jonathan Spencer
Johnathan, I agree. This started out with some kid wanting someone on rec.hunting to do a term paper for him. Woody Williams If you’re too busy to hunt, you’re too busy.
Response:
= > = > Hello, my name is Robert Iver and I’m from St. Charles, MO. For my = > English class, we have to write a persuasive paper on a topic of our = > choice. I chose hunting and whether or not it is right. I would like = > your opinion on this subject. Please tell whether it is right or wrong = > and give a reason for your answer. Thanks in advance! = [...] = 3.) We have removed most or all of the native predators from the ecosystem. = There are relatively few places in this country now where wolves and bear roam = extensively compared to say 100 years ago. Mountain lion populations are also = more sequestered. In many areas of our country, the large predators that used = to help keep big game numbers in check are no longer present. This allows = big game numbers to grow relatively unchecked. Small game, such as rabbits = and birds, is still suseptible to smaller predators, such as coyote, fox, = skunk, raccoon, dogs, and cats. A small point of clarification. I don’t imagine that Rob means "We" hunters but I’m concerned that the casual reader may interpret it that way. The "We" in the quoted paragraph is "We" as a people, hunters and nonhunters alike. Ranchers, farmers, government agents, etc. In general, when a species is intentionally wiped out, it is not done by sport hunters. Sport hunters want to maintain the species that they hunt, not in small numbers in some isolated mini- environment, but huntable populations everywhere possible. How else can we continue to hunt? Usually, when a species is wiped out it is for some "practical" reason such as the fact that its continued existence is "inconvenient" as in the case of the wolf. Ranchers and farmers don’t like to share their livestock with wolves so… And, of course, the kind of habitat that remains when land is cleared for large-scale farming may not be suitable for some species so they may be forced to other regions with out a shot being fired or a poison bait placed. Well, just wanted to make sure that anyone following this thread realizes that it isn’t sport hunting that has largely eliminated large predators. It is more practical pursuits. — Best, Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby "I’m the NRA!"
Response:
> A small point of clarification. I don’t imagine that Rob means > "We" hunters but I’m concerned that the casual reader may interpret > it that way. The "We" in the quoted paragraph is "We" as a people, > hunters and nonhunters alike. Ranchers, farmers, government agents, > etc.
That is correct. I did mean we as in society. Sometimes the removal of the large predators doesn’t happen because we have purposely removed them, although that has been the case many times, but because the new habitat we create for them is inconsistent with their lifestyles. Wide ranging wolves may have some small problems with fenced yards and the perils of the interstate. — "Please don’t remember me for anything I may have said."
Response:
Hello, my name is Robert Iver and I’m from St. Charles, MO. For my English class, we have to write a persuasive paper on a topic of our choice. I chose hunting and whether or not it is right. I would like your opinion on this subject. Please tell whether it is right or wrong and give a reason for your answer. Thanks in advance!
Response:
> Hello, my name is Robert Iver and I’m from St. Charles, MO. For my > English class, we have to write a persuasive paper on a topic of our > choice. I chose hunting and whether or not it is right. I would like > your opinion on this subject. Please tell whether it is right or wrong > and give a reason for your answer. Thanks in advance!
I don’t think its a question of whether or not it is "right", but a question of necessity. As we have expanded across this country, using vast tracts of land for farming and "urban" uses, we have affected the environment in three important ways. 1.) We have removed or changed large amounts of habitat in ways that it is no longer usable by native wildlife. This effectively reduces the amount of wildlife that can be safely supported within an ecosystem. We have changed the courses of rivers, paved over fields, and tamed or destroyed woodlands. Many of the animals have adapted to these changes by being able to live in close proximity to humans. 2.) We have provided wildlife with large amounts of easily accessible, high energy foods. Our cornfields, wheat fields, urban gardens, and lawns can provide an energy rich diet for many species of wildlife. It might be noted that these food sources are much less suseptible to the vagaries of nature. In other words, even in a drought, the farmers raise crops and we keep our lawns green. These food sources remain relatively constant, providing a constant food source for the wildlife. When food is plentifull, many species of wildlife produce more young (rabbits have additional litters, more deer have twins, etc) This creates an increased population in the previously discussed decreased habitat. 3.) We have removed most or all of the native predators from the ecosystem. There are relatively few places in this country now where wolves and bear roam extensively compared to say 100 years ago. Mountain lion populations are also more sequestered. In many areas of our country, the large predators that used to help keep big game numbers in check are no longer present. This allows big game numbers to grow relatively unchecked. Small game, such as rabbits and birds, is still suseptible to smaller predators, such as coyote, fox, skunk, raccoon, dogs, and cats. In essence, hunting attempts to replace the natural predators with human ones. This helps keep the numbers in control, at a level that the ecosystem can support. Without this kind of control, the number of deer/ car run ins increases, the amount of crops lost to depredation increases, and the number of suburban gardens eaten increases. Now, the garden arguement may not seem like much, but when the gardens are being eaten, the people who planted that garden want "the government" to do something about it. Lots of alternatives have been tried (transplanting, sterilizing, etc) but the cheapest (remember, this garden planters are tax payers) and most effective has been hunting. In addition, the increased amounts of wildlife is detrimental to the native ecosystem. It can lead to overgrazing, and when the numbers of creatures get to high (the population density), disease spreads much more quickly. I have an example about overgrazing. In Nebraska, south of Omaha adjacent to the town of Bellevue, there is a virgin forrested area called Fontenelle Forest. It was given in trust to the city of Bellevue many years ago with the stipulation that it act as a nature preserve, no hunting and all. This tract of land sits between the Missouri River to the East, and the Cities of Omaha and Bellevue on the other sides. There has always been a goodly number of deer in this area, and those numbers have been steadily increasing over the years. As the numbers have increased, more deer have ventured out of the woods and into peoples yards and on the streets. Car/deer mishaps have increased. But the most disturbing thing thats happened is that the deer, who would rather stay in the protection of the trees, have overgrazed the forest. There is no secondary growth in these woods. There are no young trees growing to replace the older trees when they die. There are no green leaves on these trees less than 6 or 8 feet from the ground. These deer have eaten the next generation of trees, and as the present generation dies, there are no trees to replace them. If this continues, within a generation or two, the Fontonelle Forrest will cease to exist. After debating for a couple of years over alternatives (there were many who didn’t want anyone shooting those cute little animals), a limited bow hunt was authorized. I believe that 1996 will be the first year that this will take place. Well, I’ve rambled enough. I’m sure you will get plenty of response about the "right to hunt" and the amount of money hunting and fishing contributes to protecting habitat. You may also hear there the number of whitetail deer in this country is now at its highest point ever, due to our conservation efforts. A large aspect of those conservation efforts is in controlled harvesting this resource to ensure that the ecosystems that we have affected can support the number of creatures living on it. — "Please don’t remember me for anything I may have said."
