Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fluke!moriarty
From: moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Flame Broiled Veal -- Clarifying a few points.
Message-ID: <248@vax2.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Jan-85 17:45:49 EST
Article-I.D.: vax2.248
Posted: Tue Jan 15 17:45:49 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 01:35:52 EST
References: <139@gcc-opus.ARPA> <878@ihuxx.UUCP> <168@harvard.ARPA> <384@mhuxt.UUCP> <503@tpvax.fluke.UUCP>
Reply-To: moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime)
Organization: The Twilight Zone
Lines: 105

Now, boys...

I don't particularly want to get mixed up in this... so far, it seems to be
a discussion of "just how repugnant is hunting to YOU?" (as much as
*anything* on net.flame can be called a "discussion" :-) ).  The idea of
hunting down an animal is repugnant to ME... but I have relatives to who it
is not, and I don't think they fit the stereotype of the "New Jersey hunter"
(as we used to call them in Greeneville, Maine -- and we did see plenty of
those fellows).  However, I just wanted to correct a few small points...

In article <503@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> nxs@fluke.UUCP (Bruce Golub) writes:
>  There are few reasons why hunters hunt these days. About 1% really hunt to
>  suppliment their diet. (Another 30% may eat the meat they kill but it is
>  not cost effective.) The majority to it for sport.

I think that it's somewhat higher... I'd give closer to 45% who hunt to
supplement their diet.  And to these people, it really *is* cost effective.
In many of the backwoods areas where the majority of us don't get to, jobs
have ALWAYS been a rarity, and the purchase of a rifle and shotgun shells
have been a necessity.  These people do NOT sit around drinking beer during
hunts, and I believe the majority do not get thrills out of it (you would be
surprised at the number of budding, non-degreed ecologists these areas
breed; they are extremely close to the land they live off of, and have one
hell of a lot of respect for it)

Also, I think the reason most of us see the "New Jersey hunters" (my
apologies to any New Jersey hunters who this does not fit) is due to the
fact that 1) they are flamboyant, and 2) they generally live in the same
places we do.  You are not liable to see a rural hunter unless you actually
head out to the backwoods.  And a hunter who hunts for food doesn't display
his kill (often, cleaning of the meat is done before heading home).

Still, these "sportsmen" do exist; I remember my mother singing loudly when
walking in the Maine woods on weekends, in the hope that most of the NJ
hunters would realize that, by George, deer don't sing.  And orange coats
are also a necessity.

I'm afraid your brother, as a hunting guide, would be dealing mostly with
these cruder examples of hunter; most of the "professional" hunters I know
tend to know what they're doing, and are not in need of a guide (however,
most of these people grew up, and still live, in very rural communities
(i.e. "very rural" means even Cliff Robertson has no idea where they are :-)
)).

In summary, just remember to count in the "silent" group of rural hunters
into your calculations -- you don't usually see them, but they are there, in
great number; and I think you'll find that they do not kill for sport.

>  Like I said, it is not unprocessed food that is annoying, it is the
>  flagrant killing of an animal for SPORT.

Agreed, if there is no benefit from the hunting other than the sport.

>Why, you ask, is it all right to kill animals who have been raised for food
>bu not wild animals? This question is almost to ridiculous to answer.
>Because one is raised for food and the other is not. Really now, you can
>raise crops in your own backyard and reap the harvast, but you can not go
>into a National Forest or wilderness area and start cutting down trees or
>wild plants for your cupboards. Yet they (the National Parks Dept.) allow
>hunters to parade around with lethal weapons, plucking up every moving and
>breathing life-form and they call it sport.
>
>Bruce Golub 

Poor metaphor, B'wana.  The Forest Service, the National Parks Dept., and
the Fish and Wildlife service seperate wilderness areas into different
sections.  Federal (and most state, I imagine) wildlife preserves allow no
hunting whatsoever... that's what game wardens are for.  And as to the Parks
and forests, hunting season is opened only for animals which are suffering
from overpopulation, due to lack of natural predators (thanks to man hunting
down most of the latter); man takes their place.  Game wardens also check
(as much as they can) the number of animals taken by each hunter, so that
the season can be closed and/or extended, due on the take.  One could think
of this as controlled harvesting, I imagine (I know a vegetarian pal who can
see no difference between hunting meat and butchering it... the method seems
insignificant to him from his point of view, and (being a fairly honest
meat-eater), I have to agree).  I would, however, like to know who opened
season on bears... I believe that these are considered protected about
everywhere (i.e. no hunting allowed), so it's quite possible that the person
posting the original article saw a group of poachers on the highway.

It would be very nice to have a rule saying, "only those who are going to
hunt these animals for meat can hunt them", but determining fitness would be
a nightmare, and the various state and federal organizations are stretched
to the bone, anyway (thanks to the current administration -- if you thought
James Watt was a problem, wait till you see Hodel in action... the man is a
cancer).  I'll settle for just keeping as many animals unendangered from
extinction as possible, thank you, and leave it at that (for now, anyway).

Yes, these "sportsmen" are ugly, and many of them are cretins; but so are
Nazis and Klu Klux Klansmen (to a much greater degree), and we let them
exist in this country (as long as they don't break the law) due to the
freedom we possess.  You should point them out to your children and say,
"this is wrong"... but practice tolerance.  It is a commodity that few
countries on earth seem to stockpile, and even our supply is dwindling.

    "If you tell the truth, you must smile.  Otherwise, people will kill you."

					Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
					John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
UUCP:
 {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \
    {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty
ARPA:
	fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA