Hunting

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 16:54:46 MDT

  • Next message: Andrew Clough: "Re: Apergers and Genius"

    Greg Jordan wrote:
    > Sterilization disrupts herd social patterns? More than violent
    > deaths? please.
    > And since you gave no reason to oppose feeding, I assume there was no
    > reason...
    >

    ### From an economic point of view, hunting is obviously superior to
    sterilization - it is cheaper, provides its practitioners with pleasant
    experiences, and tasty meats. It is also much more humane than the
    alternatives, since death of these non-sentient creatures at the hands of
    hunters is quick and relatively painless, in contrast to the death by
    starvation or sickness, maximized by the other methods. If the proponents of
    feeding (which IMO is indeed a very, very unwise idea) and sterilization
    were willing to pay for them out of their own pockets, and remunerate
    hunters for loss of a hobby, all of it would be still acceptable,
    unfortunately, both the hunters and anti-hunters usually prefer to approach
    the issue as an ideological exercise, with feelings of moral outrage,
    arrogance, self-righteousness, and hostility, quite unbecoming of civilized
    humans.

    As a result of the Supreme Court decision of 1896 (that was the year, I
    think), most wild animals in the US are owned by the state, opening their
    management to the political process and ideological warfare, with
    deleterious effects for all creatures involved (including animals, forests,
    landowners, and car drivers).

    Rafal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 01 2003 - 14:04:54 MDT