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