From: Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu)
Date: Fri May 02 2003 - 08:29:15 MDT
On Thu, 1 May 2003, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> ### 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.
Hunting is a rather expensive hobby, actually, from what I have
heard. Where hunters are hunting, also, land cannot be used by tourists
observing wildlife or just hiking and camping out. That is an economic
loss in the recreational use of land.
Also, whereas natural predators (not being heavily armed) pick off the
weak and inferior, trophy-hunting hunters pick off the largest and
healthiest specimens, a reverse culling that is obviously detrimental to
the herds.
Sterilization, if offered by volunteer veterinarians, is extremely low
cost. Sterilizing agents can even be introduced into food, which is so
cheap and effective it has to be done very carefully to avoid eliminating
a population altogether. It is also painless since it prevents the problem
(animals that will starve) rather than dealing with it after-the-fact
(shooting the said animals after they have been born).
I don't feel any need to remunerate hunters for loss of "hobby", any more
than I would feel the need to remunerate child molestors for depriving
them of the ability to molest children. What recreational hunters do,
killing animals without needing to, is extremely unethical and inhumane,
and has no place in a civilized society, which you obviously equate with a
recreational hunting society. The suggestion that blowing bloody holes in
wild animals can be a "pleasant experience" makes my stomach turn. I am
sure, though, that subjectively this is true. Mass murderers of humans
also probably experience their romps as "pleasant experiences". If the
hunter folks are just after excitement, let them risk their own lives in
the woods, not take those of helpless others. If they want to practice
targeting, let them choose some inanimate targets. Try paintballing. Hey,
hunt other hunters, I would be OK with that. Just get a life...
> 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).
The most deleterious effect on wildlife in the US, IMO, is urban sprawl
and other human encroachments on wild areas. This is how we lose the big
predators, which can lead to the overly big herds, etc. - disruption of
traditional ecosystem balances. The problem is caused by humans, so humans
should solve it - not by blaming animals, shooting them when they are "in
excess" (humans getting to define excess, conveniently enough), etc. If
humans try to densely occupy every square inch of this earth, the
ecological consequences will be upon us shortly enough, along with the
massive aesthetic losses.
gej
resourcesoftheworld.org
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 02 2003 - 08:39:52 MDT