Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I'm with you on this one, Charles. I must add that after much reading
    I refuse to eat veal. The treatment given veal calfs is barbaric and
    inhumane.
    
    Kate 

    re .0 Charles, I'm in your boat - I hunt and fish also, but
    deplore mistreatment of animals. The question of raising food
    for pets leaves the question of the morality of 'pets' alone.
    Is it OK to keep 'pets'? I have some doubts about this,
    because I believe animals deserve freedom. Is this consistent
    with hunting and fishing ? Not sure. I do have an enormous
    respect for animals, based on years of pursuing them in their
    natural habitat. The notion of making pets of them seems 
    disrespectful to me. Some animals are well suited to the
    role, having become domesticated over centuries,  eg. cats & dogs.
    The sight of a caged bird or squirrel makes me angry. 'Tame'
    deer are not deer at all, IMO. Just sad. Much sadder, to me,
    than a deer which has lived its life free and died quickly from
    a well-placed shot.
    
    If it is OK to keep pets, then providing for those 
    pets is an imperative. If those pets require live food, 
    then providing same is imperative. Is it OK to keep predators
    for pets ? Those who require live food ? Again, I'm not sure.
    The idea of caging predators bothers me. (Domestic cats bother 
    me for this reason - they don't need the food, but kill from 
    instinct. Should we feed cats ?)
    
    This is very complicated. Could I take two years off and think about
    it ?
    
    Dana  
    
    PS like .1, I don't eat veal either, for the same reasons.

    re .2, indoor cats don't kill anything from instinct, so they do need
    to be fed.  They also enjoy the love and companionship of humans, as do
    dogs.
    
    I agree with Maggie in that I would find it extremely distasteful to
    have to feed a pet live animals.  I like rats, gerbils, etc, more than
    I do snakes so my personal choice would be to let the snakes starve and
    let the rats, gerbils, etc. live.  I'm really not concerned with
    whether it's ethical or not.  If I were in charge of the situation
    that's just the way it would be and that's that.
    
    I find all reptiles, other than turtles, repulsive anyway, so would
    never want one as a pet.
    
    I am not a vegetarian although I tried to be for a year or two when I
    was younger.  I also don't eat veal.  I eat only cows, pigs, turkeys,
    chickens and sea food.  If I had to slaughter the animals myself I
    would only do it if I were starving and there was nothing else to eat.
    Otherwise, I would put the effort into being a vegetarian.  If it came
    down to it, I would kill other animals to keep my cats from starving
    but only because I love my cats so much I would do almost anything I
    could to keep them from dying.  But, as long as Digital keeps giving me
    the money for 9 Lives and the stores keep stocking it, it will never
    come to that.
    
    I do not believe in hunting for sport and I do not believe in killing
    animals for fur.  The main thing that bothers me about hunting is that
    people who hunt have actually chosen to take a live for reasons other
    than not having any other way to get food, and that they enjoy this.  I
    cannot comprehend anyone wanting to take the life of another living
    being, and I am appalled that so many take it so lightly.  
    
    I've thought a lot about this in my life and if others find some of my
    views inconsistent, then I consider that to be their problem.  I'm
    quite comfortable with my beliefs.
    
    Lorna
    

    Interesting anecdote, which I will try to relate to the topic :-)
    
    My senior year of high school, we had an AFS student from India live
    with us for the year.  Rita was a vegetarian, but got *very* curious
    about our culture's meat-eating habits.  So we included in our
    activities that year a visit to a mid-western farm where they raised
    beef cattle, and a poultry farm (I think - the 2nd trip is a little
    hazy).  Her reaction to the visits was interesting - the animals she
    saw in those settings had no 'soul', no personality like she was used
    to sensing in cows and chickens back in India.  Our eating of animals
    'like that' became much more understandable to her.
    
    Whenever someone questions me about eating meat, I think of Rita, and
    her conclusion that modern American farming methods really produce a
    'product', and not a 'personality', and I gain some ease-of-mind.
    
    Alison

    I agree with everything Lorna said, except:
    
    I don't think reptiles are repulsive, exactly. 
    
    I've never tried to be a vegetarian.  I will pay more money for meat
    that has been raised on farms where the animals are not caged (can't
    remember the name for this type of farm).
    
    I think most cats -- indoor or otherwise -- would be more than happy to
    kill for themselves if given opportunity. 
    
    I've decided that I've bought all the cosmetics I'm ever going to buy
    in my lifetime.  I'll just have to use what I have until it runs out. 
    I hardly every use them anyway, and I don't think my adornment with the
    color of the month is worth the suffering inflicted on animals to test
    the safety of what I'm adorning myself with.  (I made my mind up on
    this a year or so BEFORE the Doonesbury cartoons, for the cynics out
    there!)  
    
    I try to buy household cleaning products that say "cruelty free".  You
    can find them in health food stores usually -- near Boston, the Bread
    and Circus chain carries them.  
    
    I had an interesting discussion with two friends about whether or not
    we could slaughter a cow.  One friend and I maintained we could do it
    only with great difficulty and if the alternative was to starve. 
    Another friend said he could do it with no problem at all.  He said
    that the cow had been raised to be slaughtered and therefore was just
    meat that happened to be walking around.  I do have problems with my
    choice to eat meat sometimes; I just like the taste of it and think
    that if I'm an omnivore I should eat omnivorically.  
    
    Pam

    For "cruelty free" cosmetics, look for a branch of the store called
    "The Body Shop" in a mall near you.  Here in southern NH there is one
    in the Pheasant Lane mall and in the Mall of NH in Manchester.
    
    Absolutely everything in the store is not tested on animals.  It is
    also very good stuff.  Not exactly cheap.  We (my wife and I) now
    buy all our shampoo, soap, skin cream, and such stuff there.  And
    we are going to use their gift baskets at christmas.
    
    Great posters in the windows, lots of brochures about animal testing.
    The entire organization was started (in England, by a woman) to
    distribute cruelty free products.
    
    We are looking forward to Elvira's (Mistress of the Dark) new cologne,
    called "Evil".  ("Live" spelled backwards)  No animal testing, and a
    share of the profits go to PETA.  (People for the Ethical Treatment
    of Animals.)
    
    - Paul

    re: .6  Paul
    
    Thanks for the info!
    
    Pam

I think we have to seperate "squeamishness" from "ethics"...

F'rinstance, if I found myself in the position of having to kill animals myself
to eat, I would probably have to be on the verge of starvation to do it, like
Lorna.  But this is my squeamishness about killing animals, not because I
am ethically *against* the killing of animals.  I wouldn't think it was
*wrong*, just "icky".

When I was first talking to my friends about adopting "Slitha", she hadn't
eaten since they got her in October, and since some time before that.  We
talked about all the things they had tried and hadn't, and we determined that
one thing that would have to be tried was putting in a *dead* rodent for
consumption.  Most snakes prefer live food but some will only eat recent
"kill".  I couldn't do it.  And before I said I would accept the snake, I
made sure I had someone who would be willing to make the kill for me.
I don't think such killing is ethically wrong, I am just too squeamish to
do it. (Fortunately, the snake has eaten since then, and is not on the
verge of starvation, so we probably won't have to do this.)

In fact, I think such killing, if it is the only way to get the snake to
eat, is a moral necessity.  We (meaning people, not me and my friend)
captured this snake in the wild (as I said, ball pythons are almost impossible
to breed) and forced it into a cage.  We are morally responsible to get it
to eat.  In general, I do *not* support capturing wild animals for use as
pets.  I don't think I would buy a bird or snake that had been captured.
However, at this point, we couldn't release Slitha, and she needs someone
to take care of her, so given that something unethical has already happened,
we have to make the best of it.  (For some reason I find capturing wild
birds to be more unethical than capturing wild snakes - partially because
I think birds are smarter, and therefore notice their freedom, or lack 
thereof, more, but I suppose some of it is due to the fact that I don't like
pet birds and I do like pet snakes, so it is easy to say that no one should
catch birds.)

I think, like parents to their children, owners are obligated to provide
for their pets in whatever way is required by the pets, whether that means
buying pre-killed stuff (like Nine Lives), live food, or even killing the
food themselves.  I think the moral responsibilty to feed a captured
animal supercedes the moral responsibility (if there is one) not to kill
a bred animal.

(FWIW, when I got my first snake, feeding was hard.  I *liked* rodents,
had kept many as pets.  But I also liked the snake, so I did it.  It is
the order of things.)

D!

    re .8, to me, the fact that you do kill for sport is taking both life
    and killing lightly.  You mention thinning out the coyote population
    and then there is the old starving deer argument, but that is not
    the only time you hunt.  You, and many other hunters, also hunt just
    for the sheer fun of it, and I still find it appalling that you can
    have fun in taking a life.  If someone were to kill me, it really
    wouldn't matter much to me if they had respected me or not.  What good
    does respect do to a murdered human or animal????  I'm really not
    convinced that you and other hunters have a true respect for animal
    life.  You may respect the need to keep some forests and some species
    alive for your hunting pleasure, but that seems to me to be the extent
    of it.
    
    Lorna
    

    Question Lorna,
    
    Do you swat a mosquito when it is biting you?
    or do you gently persuade it to go elsewhere....

    Pet ethics is hard for me since I can't have what most people call
    "real pets" due to allergies.
    
    However, I will soon be getting a pet rat (naming her Isolde...Izzy
    for short) after watching a friend of mine and her pet.  If you
    get them whne they are pups, rats are friendly, smart pets who can
    be given a fair amount of lee way when you're around.  If you keep
    them on a vegetarian diet, they don't remember that they're
    omnivores...
    
    and now that I know where some pet store rats end up, I feel even
    better about me choice!
    
    daniel

    I would not kill another being without thinking about it long and hard
    and/or being in a position that I would have to make that decision
    quickly to save a life or resource more valuable then the life I would
    have to take.  
    
    I have no problem with hunters or fishermen that eat and enjoy the meat
    they hunt or the fish they catch.
    
    But like Lorna I cannot understand hunting with the sole purpose of 
    killing...why not just target shoot or use clay pigeons?
    
    

	I am somewhat
    of a dog fanatic (less now than I used to be) and am especially
    interested in working dogs; dogs bred specifically to do some work
    that is useful to man.  In particular I like spaniels.  When I got
    a field bred dog that is of a breed normally bred for pets and show
    in this country, I basically had to convince the breeder that she
    would be trained and used for hunting.  One thing I will say about
    working dogs, is that they are happiest when they are working. 
    As much as she is a pet, and loves to sit on your lap and be petted,
    her reaction can not be compared to her excitement when she knows
    we are going hunting.  So part of what led me into hunting was love
    of this dog, much as the snake owners are willing to kill for their
    pet.  

        The other thing was that I feel it is very hypocritical for
    people to be opposed to hunting and yet to eat meat.  You may not
    have killed the animal, but it was killed on your behalf.  I wanted
    to confront this in myself, and figured either hunting wouldn't
    bother me and I would continue to do it, or I would become a vegeterian
    once I was faced with what slaughtering an animal involves.  (Neither
    of these things happened.  I am not hunting this year, and I am
    still eating meat.)  I enjoyed hunting, for several reasons.  One
    was the understanding that developed between me and the dog.  A
    second thing was the excitement of the hunt.  I have to admit that
    I have some basic prey drive that is satisfied by hunting, similar
    to the excitement of a nibble on your fishing line.  The third is
    that hunting is kind of like gardening.  Sure it is cheaper and
    less work to go to a grocery store and buy food, but there is something
    satisfying about procuring it yourself, like primitive people did.
    There was nothing in the hunting that felt like target practice
    to me.

       	The reason I am not hunting this year is because I have confronted
    some of the difficulties in my own life in the past year, and I
    identify too much with the fear that the animal feels as you are
    closing in (even though wild animals are chased and escape probably 
    hundreds of times in their lives, and each time feel that same fear).  
    The other reason is that kills are not always clean and, when they are 
    not, there is suffering involved (but probably not any worse than
    livestock animals experience, and in any case wild animals don't
    die of old age).  Like another noter said about stunning mice, it's
    not that I think it is wrong, but that I myself can't do it.

       	My idea about animal rights is that it is true that we have 
    exploited animals by domesticating them but it was done hundreds
    of years ago, and the only way to undo it would be to let all domestic
    animals become extinct, since most of them would either not survive
    if "returned" to the wild, or would become a serious nuisance to
    man.  We should find more humane ways to keep and to kill these
    animals, and make sure that they are used, through consumer insistence 
    and by prosecution of the violaters, rather than by monitoring by 
    some government body.  I feel like there is some ethical lassitude
    in this position, but don't care enough to do anything about it
    at this time.
    
    	I like the idea of vegeterianism, and would like to someday
    try it, but it is hard to give up foods you have been eating all
    of your life.  Like everything else, livestock breeders try to cut
    costs to increase profits.  Genetic engineering and selective breeding
    are used to create animals that have multiple births (sheep), mature
    super fast (pigs?), and have oddly proportioned bodies (cows). 
    I would be willing to pay more and would accept a less plump chicken
    to roast if it meant the animal had a better life.  But not enough
    people feel that way yet to make a difference.
		Linda

    re .11, Al,
    
    I use insect repellent.  I wish I did have the ability to "gently
    persuade" annoying creatures "to go elsewhere"....  (it would have come
    in handy in this file more than once) :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Here is a good reason to stop eating meat:  Cattle are such inefficient
    processors of grain that the food value of eating the cow is
    considerably less than if you ate the grain yourself instead of feeding
    it to the cow.  If we reduced our consumption of red meat by 10%, that
    would free up enough grain to feed all the starving people in the world.
    
    Singer k.d. lang is doing some TV spots for PETA in which she
    encourages people not to eat meat.  Considering the popularity of
    country music in the meat-growing parts of the USA and Canada, she has
    gotten some considerable flak for this stand.

    Re .10: Lorna, this statement of yours raised some hackles for me:
    
    >>I'm really not
    >>convinced that you and other hunters have a true respect for animal
    >>life.  
    
    While I can intellectually accept it as your opinion, it still comes
    across (to me) as an accusation of dishonesty... That is, it sounds as
    if you don't believe me when I say that I have respect for the animals
    I kill. Maybe it's just that my definition of respect is not
    incompatible with the taking of a life, or perhaps that I don't
    consider death to be necessarily the worst thing that can happen - to
    animals or to people... Whatever, when I say I have respect for the
    lives of animals, even when I choose to kill them, I'd like to be
    believed.
    
    Don't know if it matters, but hunting and fishing are not favorite
    hobbies of mine, though I've done both on occasion. I don't find the
    deaths of animals or fish pleasurable, but if the mission produces food
    I find pleasure in the success of the mission - and am suitably
    grateful to the animal that will now feed me. [Oddly enough, I find it
    easier to be "respectful" of the lives of animals that I have killed
    myself, or have seen killed, than of the vast majority of beasts which
    we only see shrink-wrapped in a grocer's case. Is it a worse crime to
    seek out and kill a wild creature - with a soul? - than to create
    breeds of soulless cattle such that we can devour them without regard
    or respect?]
    
    -b

    re .16, Linda, I think that if I said that I don't believe in hunting
    for sport, and then ate venison from a deer that a friend had shot,
    *then* I would be a hippocrite.  But, to my knowledge, I have never
    eaten meat or fowl that had been killed by a hunter.  I do eat steer,
    pigs, chickens, and turkeys, but I have not said that I don't
    believe in raising these animals to be slaughtered for food, therefore
    I don't consider myself to be a hippocrite.  I think of it as sort of a
    necessary evil (like the death penalty or abortion).
    
    Lorna
    

    re .19, Beth, well, sorry I raised your hackles but I guess it can't be
    helped.  I disagree with your idea of what constitutes respect.  If
    it's any consolation, it raises my hackles quite a bit to think of you
    and other noters hunting and killing animals.
    
    Lorna
    

    OK, I can deal with mutual hackle-raising; just wouldn't want to have
    my feelings (oh, what's the term) de-valued... ;-)
    
    -b

    
    I am not a vegetarian, and I would have no issue with killing an animal
    for food.  I take no pleasure in killing, and when I have had to kill
    (and keeping reptiles has made this a necessity in the past) I have
    thanked the animal and the Goddess for its life as I have done it.  I
    feel strongly that if I were not willing to kill for my food then I
    would ethically need to be a vegetarian.  And since I feel that plant
    life is sacred, too, I'm not at all sure this would be a real solution
    :-)
    
    I don't necessarily understand hunting for pleasure (tracking for
    pleasure is a different matter, but one could always "shoot" what one
    has tracked with a camera) but there were times in my childhood when
    hunting for food meant that we filled our freezer and did not go hungry
    for the winter.  I have no issue with hunting and fishing for food; in
    some sense I find it more ethical than buying one's meat/fish in a
    supermarket and letting someone else do your "dirty work".  Trapping is
    another issue altogether.  There is no legitimate reason to trap (other
    than using "live catch" traps to relocate animals) and I feel that it
    is cruel, unethical, and inhumane.  I am strongly opposed to trapping.
    
    With that out of the way, let me get on to the pet issue.  As many of
    you know, I maintain quite a zoo - I have or have had birds of all
    sorts, various types of reptiles, rodents, rabbits, fish and
    invertebrates, spiders, and the more normal cats and dogs.  I feel some
    obligation to speak up on my position on keeping some of these animals
    as pets.
    
    I doubt that I need to argue that pets such as reptiles and birds (and
    this is what I will address, since I don't see anyone having much issue
    with "domestic" animals such as dogs/cats/gerbils, etc.) give their
    owners a great deal of pleasure.  They do, you'll just have to take my
    word on it!  
    
    I have some very mixed feelings about captured wild animals as pets,
    birds in particular.  In many cases, the parrots that are imported
    would otherwise be slaughtered wholesale, as they tend to be serious
    pests, especially on the African West Coast and in Australia. 
    Australia forbids the export of any of its birds, and as a consequence,
    massive numbers of cockatoos are being slaughtered by farmers.  There
    are several organizations that are attempting to convince the
    Australian government to permit these birds to be exported as pets
    instead of killing them.
    
    With that said, I will say that I find the conditions under which many
    wild-caught birds are shipped to be DEPLORABLE!  Many birds are lost,
    and the conditions are inhumane for the ones that survive.
    
    I will also say that while some wild-caught parrots adapt to their
    situations and seem plenty happy in captivity, that is merely an
    indication of the adaptability of some large, intelligent psitticines.
    
    Far better for both pet owner and pet is to acquire a domestic bred,
    hand-raised specimen.  These birds have created their primary bond with
    people, and are extremely happy in a household.  They are, in
    personality and behavior, not unlike a young (2-3year old) child, and
    must be treated as such.  My birds are very much household members, and
    even eat (albeit a bit messily) at the dinner table with us.  They are
    highly intelligent, and should absolutely not spend their lives
    confined to a cage.  My birds treat their cages as "retreats" and
    places to play, and spend a large part of each day in freedom.  (If you
    have any doubts, check the chew-marks on the woodwork :-)
    
    Recognizing that people will desire these creatures as companions, I 
    feel that I have an obligation to do more than simply owning them as
    pets.  I have an obligation to breed what I can to help meet the demand
    for pets with domestically bred animals, thus reducing/eliminating the
    need for imports.
    
    There are some CITES listed birds who are being pulled back from the
    brink of extinction by breeders who gained interest and knowledge
    through keeping pet birds.  FWIW, I believe that one should *never*
    keep a bird that is rare or endangered unless one is prepared to breed
    it.
    
    BTW, D!, it is not nearly as impossible as you have heard to breed Ball
    Pythons in captivity.  There are many people who have had success with
    this, and I strongly encourage you to breed yours.  The more domestic
    speciments we can get, the lower the import demand will be.  Try the
    New England Herpotological (sp?) Society for more information - they're
    good folks.
    
    And, Maggie, if your snake-feeding experience was with a King snake, no
    wonder you're squeamish about snake-feeding.  Constrictors are very
    humane when they take their prey - it is fast and painless for the
    prey, who usually don't even know what is about to happen.
    
    King snakes, rat snakes, and corn snakes all swallow their prey live,
    and it is *not* very humane.  I'm a little squeamish about that myself,
    and consequently do not keep those kinds of snakes.
    
    Also, on a sad note, the little ball python that we rescued yesterday
    ate, but was too far into starvation to digest her food - we lost her
    during the night.  I wish we had known about her a week earlier...
    
    Sign me sad,		
    
    					/Rita
    
    
                                       

re: <<< Note 251.18 by KOBAL::DICKSON >>>

What does PETA stand for?

Kathy

    My only problem with hunting for "sport" is that, in my eyes, a
    scope-sighted rifle is hardly sporting.
    
    "Look, a deer!"
    
    Deer looks up.  Deer dead.  I dunno, maybe I'm missing it, but that
    just doesn't sound "sporting" to me.
    
    I'd like to suggest a compromise:  in the issue of fair play, how
    about taking on the animal in it's own way?  If you can catch the
    deer on foot, it's yours!  Best a grizzly bear?  All yours, my friend!
    
    Now that's hunting for the sport of it...
    
    To be fair, if you eat and use what you kill, I don't have any
    problems.  I've run into only a few who do it "juts for the sport"
    but man, they confuse me...
    
    daniel

    RE .25 Daniel, have you ever shot a high-power rifle ? Have you
    ever tried to *find* a deer ? One who'll stand still while you
    aim and shoot ? Not as easy as it sounds. Try sitting still for
    several hours in the November wind in Vermont. Try determining 
    just where an animal with a range of several square miles is
    going to be at any time. Try sitting at a rifle range and having
    your shoulder slammed by a rifle, while you strive for accuracy.
    Then try to translate that skill when you're cold, tired, excited,
    the light is wrong, the target is moving, range is uncertain.
    
    TV makes it look so d*mn easy. Try it.
    

    .26
    
    So it's hard. So it's "sport." So what? Why do you have to kill it?
    
    D.

    Re .24: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
    
    -b

    I expanded PETA in .6.  It is an educational and lobbying organization
    called "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals".  They can be
    very confrontational.  They have a major campaign to completely wipe
    out the fur industry, for example, and are well on the way to
    accomplishing it  (fur stores are going out of business all over the
    place).  You may have seen their picketing covered on TV.  The
    advertising slogan for that campaign is "Fur is Dead".
    
    They also oppose the use of animals in lab tests, mistreatment of
    animals in zoos and circuses, confined raising of veal calves, etc
    etc.  They have a campaign encouraging vegetarianism too.  ("Eat Beans,
    not Beings" is one of the slogans for that one.)
    
    Besides Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) and k.d.lang, another celebrity
    that comes to mind associated with PETA is Rue Maclanahan (Golden
    Girls).  You may have seen some TV spots she did.

    re: .17 Lorna
    Um... I am not sure if you read me correctly, but Ill try and explain
    what I was getting at..soze not to start up another you ment what I
    thought you ment when you ment it battle.....
    
    I was trying to show that each person has a spacific level of tolerance
    when it comes to "killing innocent animals".  A mosquito, however
    annoying, is indeed an animal, functioning in its own right.
    
    Now, killing a mosquito, or gnat, or even a large rodent (see mice in
    house etal) I have no problem with.  However, I am not the "bambi
    killing" type.  Yes, I have firearms, yes I "hunt" but I do not kill
    animals for sport.  
    
    Can you see what I was getting at?  maybe I should have explained it
    better in the first place, for that I am sorry.
    
    another idea I have is the dominance theory.  This theory of mine deals
    with the idea of going out, tracking, locating and wasting the
    objective...a sort of dominance over the wilderness kinda thing.....
    
    I have met a few PEOPLE that fit one or both of the above.
    
    AL

    I eat meat. My grandfather and uncles made their living raising beef
    cattle. I do think that everyone who eats meat should see and learn to
    know the animals that they eat. Children should be taken on school
    field trips that cover the raising of meat, the feedlot, and the
    slaughter house. They should understand that a living being died so that
    they might eat. It would give them a better prespective.

    All meat animals should have certain rights. They should be raised and
    killed humanely. Veal is an atrocity and should be outlawed. The
    current trend towards leaner beef has had a good effect in that
    feedlots (which are horrid) are used less often.

    If I had to kill animals on my own to eat I would (though I am ill
    prepared for it having never done it). And I would thank their spirit
    as the Zuni's do, as I do when I eat meat. Perhaps I look at it
    differently having helped raise animals which I've then had for dinner.

    I think hunting has it's place, especially when herds are too large to
    survive on the range they have available. I think trophy hunting is
    immoral. liesl

    re .30, I don't understand what you're getting at with this dominance
    business (but I don't think I like it....)
    
    Al, I think it's wrong to hunt animals, such as deer, lynx, fox, etc,
    for sport.  I do not think it's wrong to swat a mosquito.  Mosquitos
    are a much lower life form than mammals.  
    
    Lorna
      

    .32, "dominance over wilderness"...
    
    Lorna, I definitely second that!
    
    Dorian

    sheez....I need a punctuation mark to indicate tongue-in-cheek!
    
    daniel
    

    p.s.  I *have* found deer that sit nice and still for my telephoto
    	  lens
    
    	  I *have* sat still for several hours in the November wind
          in Northern New Hampshire...contemplating.  
    
    	  I usually let the animals worry about where they're going
          to be over a range of several square miles.
    
    	  While I have never had a rifle slam into my shoulder, I have
          had an 8x4 stock platform land on my back while I was bolting it
          to a stud wall.
    
    oh well...different lives!
    
    daniel

    I have raised my own beef, lamb and pork in my back yard.  Every cow,
    lamb and pig was raised with TLC.  I have been asked how could I eat
    something that had names and walked around in my yard. It's very easy,
    I know what it was fed and how it was cared for. My pork is so lean
    that I have to spray the pan with PAM when I cook sausage so that it
    dosen't stick.  My bacon was cured low salt and low nitrite, just
    enough to meet minimun government specs. to be called bacon. I have a
    real difficult time eating commercial beef. It gives me the runs, I
    have never had any trouble with my own.
    
    We have also had as many as 5 dogs, 7 horses, 14 cats, 35 rats, 2
    skunks, 2 ferrets, a 5' rat snake, an iguana, several rabbits, several
    guinea pigs and a chicken. Living around them and their needs has been
    a lot less difficult than living with some of the human animals I have
    lived with.  I have no problem giving a rat snake a rat for a meal.
    That is what nature has designed. 
    
    Don't be fooled into thing that because an animal lives in captivity
    that it won't do things nature intended.  I have three cats who live in
    the house and never go out, but it is not unusual to come home to
    "gifts" on the dining room rug. That is how I found out that there was
    a family of snakes living under the back of my house :-) :-). Also the
    field mice keep making the mistake of looking for shelter in my house.
    I won't even begin to tell you about the surprises the barn cats leave
    in the barn. 
    
    Nature has a pretty good system of checks and balances in the animal
    world, but man keeps screwing it up.

    of course if we didn't louse up the environment by cutting off natural
    ranges and destroying local predators, the population controls would
    happen naturally.......
    
    *sigh* no, I don't know exactly WHAT I am advocating, but I thought
    the counterpoint needed to be said.
    
    daniel

    
    Some might say there are too many humans around too. Should we start
    picking them off with rifles?
    
    To me, the phrase "get a deer" says it all...
    
    D.

    
    Oh Lorna, I agree.
    
    I think it's soooo much more humane to let deer *starve* to death
    and have their carcasses rot the *natural* way because their
    population has grown too numberous for a given area to support them
    than to have nasty people like <gasp> Mark Levesque and Dana
    Charbonneau shooting (with firearms!! I mean how positively *gross*
    can you get?) and killing those pooooooor, innocent, *cute* lil critters!
    
    Yeeeewwww!  How icky, you guys!
    

    Ellen
    
    and to let those starving deer eat all the plants in the area
    down to the dirt and have all the other squirrels etc starve
    too.
    
    Bonnie

    There's a difference between understanding that something needs to be
    done and understanding how someone can find *enjoyment* in doing it.
    
    I understand that because humans have a concept of property and have a
    thing called fences that deer populations get too large and must be
    culled.
    
    I do not understand the mind of someone who goes out to do the culling
    and has fun doing so.
    
    I think of what it must be like:  you (all this is "you-generic") pack
    up, drive out, hike through the woods with a rifle and binoculars.  You
    find a good place and wait.  You see a deer.  You look at it through
    your sights.  You pick out a good place for the shot.  You squeeze the
    trigger -- and by that action, you make a living thing into a dead
    thing.  And you feel happy and excited and pleased and fulfilled.
    
    I can understand doing all this if it needs to be done.  What I can't
    understand personally is how this can be *fun*.  How this can give you
    a rush of happiness.  How you can feel anticipation at getting to do
    this for a hobby.  How taking a life makes you feel good.
    
    I just don't get it -- how killing the deer satisfies something that
    taking a picture of it doesn't.  
    
    Pam

    re .pam, yes, thank you, that's it exactly.  Hunters use many excuses
    but the real issue to me is that they enjoy taking a life.
    
    re .Steve, it doesn't seem to me that you've put any effort into
    understanding Pam's or my view either.
    
    Re .Ellen, I can't help but wonder if you have ever tried or managed to
    express a differing opinion without the benefit of sarcasm.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re:.42
    well put!
    

ok Diana, you've succeeded in drawing me out of my shell with an almost
personal challenge-- how can you not love my birds?  :-)

The importing of tropical birds is a complicated moral issue. 
Take, for instance, the Australian policies which restrict the export
of native fauna.  On the one hand this serves to (among other things) protect 
the ecological balance in Australia's delicate environment.  On the other hand 
the market for Australian birds is already well established, which leads to 
illegal and *very* cruel smuggling practices.  BUT, does this obligate the
Australian government to possibly open a pandora's box in order to curtail
smuggling?  Is there precedent for this?  Add to this the fact that Australian
farmers routinely destroy many of these birds as pests, while we pay
thousands of dollars for the few that are allowed in this country.  This
practice lends absolutely no justifiable weight to the free export advocates,
but it does serve to fuel the fire on an emotional level.  (The killing of
some of these birds is environmentally "safe" in the context that it is done.)

The smuggling techniques used for birds are inarguably gruesome.
Though I wish that Australia would find a way to manage its interior and
allow limited export, I don't believe that is the only way to undermine
the smugglers.  If your imported bird has come through quarantine, you can
almost guarantee that it got here in a safe, humane way.  So don't buy birds
without the proper tags and papers, no matter how good the deal or how sorry
you feel for the bird in question, if you want to help the species in the
long term.

Fine, so you've obtained your bird through the proper quarantine channels,
from a country that allows exports.  What you still have are birds that were
plucked from their nests and transplanted to a flightless environment.  There
you've got me in a moral corner, because even though I have a problem with
that on an intellectual level, I am very attached to my birds on an emotional
level.  For that matter, they are very attached to me as well.  So I justify 
it by giving them the best care I can, and using them to sensitize others to
the interesting and worthwhile wildlife that are being destroyed along with
their environments.  I understand many would consider that a weak justification.


As for you, D!, my birds are smarter, prettier, more affectionate, more loyal,
and funnier than Slitha.  so there, nyah!  ;-)

ok, now back to my shell...

--bob

    RE: all
    
                 While reading this note I promised myself I would not
    reply here because of the difficulty of the question.  All I can do is
    relate an experience.  Im 34 years old and going on my first deer hunt.
    Im excited, yes Lorna excited...I wanted to KILL one of them buggers.
    Men are supposed to kill, at least "real" men do.  So here I am in the
    woods, cold, hungry and tired, waiting for my first shot at a real
    deer.  After six hours of this horrible waiting, I see "my" deer. The 
    most beautiful creature God ever put on this earth.  Could I shoot this
    creature so humble and defenseless?  No...I couldn't, and discovered
    that "MEN" understand the value of life and if they "have" to take it,
    their reason should be pure , and not just for the "sport" of it.
    
              Im 38 years old now and I have not since carried a rifle into
    the woods with the intent of killing an animal of such grace and
    beauty.  We humans have *intruded* on nature and have abused her for
    our own pleasures.  Most hunters I have known have an great respect
    for nature and indeed they are responsible for much of the land set
    aside for reserves.  Should it be this way?  I say no, it shouldn't.
    So, Lorna, I give you a challange...raise the kind of money its going
    to take to "chase" these hunters out of the woods and I'll support you,
    but until then I have to thank God that there are people that have this
    money and *ARE* helping to save the enviornment.....Most of them are
    hunters!
    
    
    Dave

Sorry to keep taking this discussion away from the direction set
in .0, but this could not go unsaid.
    
There is a seriously mistaken tendency among non-hunters to 
dismiss hunting as "killing animals for fun." 

This is so simplistic and beside-the-point that I must reply.

Hunting is a combination of the following : study of animals,
their habits, and their environment; mastery of one or several
weapons, such as rifle, handgun, bow, shotgun, muzzle-loader;
(I hunt with all of the above); studying new hunting methods;
learning woodscraft; planning the hunt; cleaning and repairing
equipment; traveling to new places; being in deer camp with old 
friends; sharing stories of hunts past; sitting for hours waiting 
patiently for an animal; studying misses and other failures. Then, 
every once in a while, the hunter actually gets a deer. I have 
expended approximately 500 hours per year for twelve years in all
these activities. In that time I have killed five animals. That
works out to 1200 hours per animal killed. Do you seriously
think that 'killing for fun' could possibly be worth 1200 hours
of my time ? Even if 'killing an animal' were ten times as much
fun as making love, (and let me assure you, it's not), I wouldn't
spend 1200 hours of my time if that were all I got out of it.

Actually killing an animal is really a very small part of the 
whole hunting experience. Why kill the animal instead of taking
its picture ? Because I enjoy the meat. Because killing makes
it serious, and not mere 'fun'. There's no 'fun' in watching
a beautiful animal die. There's no 'fun' in knowing you've
caused that death. If all I wanted was 'fun' I'd go to nightclubs
and use cocaine. 

To those of you who equate hunting with 'killing for fun', I ask
that you stop putting down a vast experience of which you know
nothing. 

Dana

 
    re Lorna,   
    
>    Re .Ellen, I can't help but wonder if you have ever tried or managed to
>    express a differing opinion without the benefit of sarcasm.
    
    And I can't help but wonder, Lorna, if you'll ever come down from
    your nice comfy, righteous pedestal.  It'd be real welcome.
    

    Please gyns,
    
    Lets us try and discuss this without sarcasm. It is a very sensitive
    subject for many people.
    
    Deer hunting is necessary for the health of the herds. We have killed
    off the predators because we can't live with the numbers of wolves
    and cougars and coyotes that would be needed to keep the deer herds
    in natural balance.
    
    But deer are genetically wired to breed as if they were subject to
    a particular level of predation. So in the absence of natural controls
    they breed to the 'carrying capacity of the range' and over it. At this
    point they begin to die in large numbers by starvation and disease.
    
    The damage to the habitat by over grazing affects the future carrying
    capacity of the area, which becomes much reduced. Further, other 
    herbivorous animals (rabbits, squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits, birds etc 
    etc) suffer as well, since their food supply is gone.
    
    Hunting is the only current way to keep the deer population at a level
    that doesn't stress the environment, or the health of the herd.
    
    Those who object strongly to hunting could perhaps put funds into
    a program (if it exists) to develop some sort of deer birth control.
    
    We have, like +pat+ raised our own animals for meat. We've raised
    chickens, ducks, geese, rabbits, goats (mostly for milk but they
    have to breed each year to continue to give milk) and sheep.
    
    It is never easy to kill an animal you've raised (or wasn't for us)
    and we always said a thankyou for the life of the animal before
    we killed it.
    
    The hardest time I've ever had with killing any animal was my first
    goat. She developed an arthritic condition of her knees and during
    her last pregnancy was unable to stand. I had to drag her out on
    a tarp to graze and keep applying lotion to prevent 'bed sores'. After
    her babies were born she still could not get up, so we had to shoot
    her. It just about killed me to do so! I cried and had nightmares about
    it!
    
    (the condition is infectious and incurable btw)
    
    Bonnie

	This whole discussion is similar to what happened when Yellowstone
	burned a few years ago or to when Mt St. Helens exploded even longer
	ago.

	We - humans - do not trust nature enough to let her recover as
	she sees fit, so we decide what will be the best thing to do to
	fix the problem.  Usually all we - humans - do is make it worse
	by getting in the way of natural cycles.  Recently I saw a special
	on PBS about Yellowstone and it's recovery - with out interference
	by us - and it is different but the area is still beautiful, the
	same with other areas that have had to recover from natural and
	human caused upheavels.

	If there is an over population of deer maybe we should stop killing
	their predators instead of killing the deer.  Yes it is a shame
	that deer starve and over feed the area - but guess what - if we
	humans would stop playing GOD and let the natural cycles return
	this would not be such a problem (though I am not sure that it really
	is now except to human population not deer population).

	The human need to control the environment is nothing more than
	an attempt to play GOD - to be GOD.  Which is the most disruptive
	activity possible.  It is much safer to acknowledge the goddess
	within all things and hold all things with respect and treat all
	things accordingly.

	There is nothing wrong with hunting - for food, for clothing.  BUT
	to day that it is to "thin the herd" or some such thing then I will
	bring up what someone else has already mentioned.  There are way
	to many humans on this planet, and many are dying of starvation
	due to over feeding in a certain area - maybe we should "thin the
	herd" or is that what some actions by the industrial nations are
	really aimed at?

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Humans are not first on the list of the goddess
			She has not list.

    Dana, I don't buy it that you don't enjoy it, sorry.  I'd rather you
    were going to nightclubs and using cocaine.  At least you wouldn't be
    deliberately harming others that way.
    
    Dave Dawson, you would back me up *if* I managed to raise the money? 
    My aren't you the revolutionary?  If you basically agree with me
    why don't you raise the money yourself.  Then, I'll back you up.  
    
    Also, Dana, in regard to all the planning and preparation that goes
    into killing just one deer, I suppose there are murderers, such as
    Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Richard Speck, Sirhan Sirhan or Charles
    Stuart who have felt that they also put a great deal of planning into
    the murders they've committed.  Perhaps they also feel that the public
    should realize the effort that actually went into planning one death.
    
    People say that deer should be hunted to keep the population down so
    the deer won't starve.  I'm not convinced that Dana, Steve Thompson,
    Mark, Ellen, etc., are broken-hearted at the thought of starving deer. 
    I think you just use it as an excuse because you enjoy killing them. 
    Society won't allow you to hunt other people so you hunt animals, and
    most people don't care, so you get away with it.  I think it's wrong.
    
    When people were starving in Ethiopia, (are they still?  I don't know,
    I haven't read anything about it for awhile)  why didn't wealthy
    countries like the U.S. go over there on hunting trips.  After all
    wouldn't it have been better to put them out of their misery by a clean
    kill than seeing all those miserable photos in Time magazine, etc., of
    them starving to death?  No?  What's the difference?  That they're
    human?  What if I think that the life of any mammal is just as
    important as a human life?  Then, that distinction doesn't matter to
    me.
    
    What if it were announced that there would not be enough food in the
    coming year for all the people in the U.S. to have enough to eat to
    keep from starving to death, and it were predicted that a certain
    number would not survive the winter?  Which would you rather have
    happen?  Would you volunteer to be shot so you wouldn't have to worry
    about trying to survive the winter on your own, or would you rather be
    allowed to have a chance to live?  I know which I'd pick.  
    
    Dave, why don't I start a campaign?  I don't have the energy, the
    brains or the guts, but I don't think that means I can't state my
    opinion in this notesfile.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .51 Where there is hunting, for meat and hides, no 'thinning 
    of herds' is needed. Where there is *no* hunting for meat, thinning 
    of herds becomes necessary. See, for example, Quabbin Reservoir in 
    Massachusetts, where 'No Hunting' has produced an area which must 
    now be hunted to 'thin the herds'. Not simply for the deer's sake,
    but to protect the watershed which supplies millions with drinking
    water. 
    
    To speak of 'thinning the herd' re. humans is, IMO, obscene. 

>    To speak of 'thinning the herd' re. humans is, IMO, obscene. 

	To some of us to speak of "thining the herd" of any type
	of creature is obscene.

	_peggy

    Re .53, well, I think it's obscene to speak of "thinning the herd" in
    regard to deer.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
      How do you see someone killing a cow for you to eat as any different
    than a hunter killing a deer for himself to eat?  Also, why is an
    act any worse because someone gets satisfaction out of it?  (I don't
    think hunters enjoy killing in the sense that you mean enjoy).
    	Linda

>As for you, D!, my birds are smarter, prettier, more affectionate, more loyal,
>and funnier than Slitha.  so there, nyah!  ;-)

And LOUDER!!!  And messier and dustier and more time consuming and more
space consuming and more expensive to feed.  And more skitterish.

*HISS*

D!

    re .57, Mark, you think that extremist positions result in no
    communication because you can't change my mind and make me say you're
    right.  But, I could say the same thing in regard to you and your
    extremist position.   Often people seem to think that communication
    only results when they've managed to change somebody's mind.  But,
    let's face it, if you changed your mind you wouldn't be able to play
    with your second favorite toys, guns.  I'm assuming that fishing poles
    are your first favorite.  There are certain issues such as abortion
    rights, gun control, and whether or not there's a God that people are
    always going to be divided on.  Hunting is another of them.
    
    Lorna
    

    My personal opinion is that we can't tolerate the numbers of
    predators in areas where people live that would keep down the
    numbers of deer to a level that the habitat could comfortably
    support.
    
    I live in a fairly rural area of Mass, but I have pets and have
    had live stock. Predators are basically lazy and would (and have)
    raid hen houses, attack dairy animals, kill house hold pets (like
    cats and dogs), and even go after small children. All of which
    are easier to attack than their natural prey. (The example of
    foxes introduced in Australia to control the rabbits, and which
    went after the easier to catch native marsupials comes to mind.)
    
    I seriously doubt that those who dwell in places like I do would
    willingly trade off the loss of pets and livestock inorder to
    provide the level of predation needed to keep the deer herds in
    balance.
    
    For better or for worse we live in prime deer habitat. By clearing
    forests and building houses and growing crops we creat the sort
    of mixed woods and meadows environment that is perfect for deer.
    As a result the deer herds are growing in areas where predators
    will not be tolerated by the human residents.
    
    I will also point out that to the deer, being attacked by a wolf or
    a cougar is no more humane a death than being shot by a hunter.
    
    My feeling is that when we as humans have, by living in an area, upset
    the balance of nature we need to redress the balance if we can. I 
    personally think that killing some number of deer x is far more humane
    than allowing much larger numbers of deer to die of starvation and
    disease. Further the second course endangers the habitat and causes
    suffering for large numbers of other kinds of animals. I come down
    on the side of it being more obscene to let the animals starve to death
    by inaction.
    
    Bonnie

    re .56, I think it's different because the cows were bred to be used
    for meat.  They wouldn't have been able to have any life at all
    otherwise.  But, deer are wild creatures who are living free lives out
    in the open and I think they should be respected and left alone.  
    
    Also, the way I see it, if we have to have some animals killed for meat
    then we should at least try to limit it as much as possible.  I think
    it's bad enough that cows and pigs have to be killed.  I think it's
    even worse to spread the killing to even more creatures.  We try to
    limit the killing of humans as much as possible by making murder a
    crime.  Some humans still get murdered, but at least we try to limit it
    as much as possible.  I think the killing of animals should be limited
    as much as possible also.
    
    Lorna
      

    Lorna
    
    if you want to limit animal *deaths* rather than *killing* by people
    then limited hunting causes far,  far fewer animals deaths than
    not hunting does.
    
    Bonnie

    So, having already bred cattle for meat, we owe them no further
    respect ? Did we have the right to breed them for meat in the first
    place ? And, BTW, cattle do live in the wild.

    <flaming_soapbox>(on)
    Well,
    
    I find it real hard to lighten up on this subject;  I cannot understand
    why it is so hard for some people to realize that we are all one
    on this earth, linked together in ways that are too vast to completely
    understand.  Annihilate one species, another will die shortly
    thereafter.  Why is "man" considered to be the "superior" species
    by so many people?  The homo sapien is no more nor no less than any
    other specie on this earth BUT it is different in that we humans
    have evolved the most, and with this evolution, we have the abilities
    to speak and reason.  And with these abilities of speech and reason,
    comes another great obligation:  responsibility.  Because we are more
    powerful than our lesser species, *does not* give us the right to
    destroy, manipulate, or exploit them; because we are more powerful,
    we have the *responsiblity* to take care of them, protect them.
    
    When the dodo became extinct, no one cared.  Only later did the
    realize that the trees that housed these birds began to die, and
    now that tree is extinct too. ( I can get name/specifics if anyone
    cares to know more.)  
    
    Even if you (generic) don't believe in the morality of saving our
    lesser species, you must begin to consider the overall environmental
    picture.  Kill them and eventually,  you kill  yourself.
    
    maia
    
<flaming_soapbox>(off)

    Well, I can't stay out of this any longer.
    
    Lorna, et al....
    
    As Delta Burke said on Designing Women a few weeks ago....
    
    
    This mink coat is wrong, but a mink-burger (if raised for food only) is
    okay?? (badly paraphrased, I know).
    
    
    
    
    
    
    The systematic destruction and use of other living creatures is called
    life.  The food chain is what it is all about.  I certainly agree that
    there are should be limits to our destruction, and that nothing should
    ever be treated cruelly, but this doesn't mean I don't support hunters,
    and fur ranchers.  I don't believe that trapping animals is humane.  I
    do believe that raising minks for the pelts is as humane as raising
    chickens in breed houses to be turned out as dinner by the time they
    are 4-6 months old.  And certainly more humane that raising veal cows.
    
    And back to the mink burger argument.  Is it okay to raise cows for
    their beef/hide but not okay to raise fur bearing animals for their
    hide (not enough to them for meat, really)?  Because, like the cows or
    the chickens, if not born into the ranch, they wouldn't be born at all.
    
    Sue

    Re: .52 (Lorna)
    
                    I don't believe I said you couldn't state your opinion.
    I was trying to point out that like 99% of all questions, the answer is
    not "black or white".  I will ask you one question though....If hunters
    enjoyed just "killing" then why don't they leave the meat in the woods?
    If all they wanted was something to hang on the wall, they could just
    cut the head off.
    
                   Lorna, I believe in saving the enviornment and I figure
    that help from any place is help I wouldn't have gotten otherwise.  NRA
    is the single largest contributator (other than the US government) to
    these enviornmental groups.  If you take the easy way out and stop
    "culling" herds or almost any animal group, you run the risk of losing 
    that animal all together.  Its sad, yes, but its also reality.
    
    
    Dave  

    re .60, Bonnie, I grew up in a very rural area.  (At least it *was*
    very rural in the 50's and 60's.)  There were miles of woods behind
    our house.  Every fall when deer season rolled around that meant we had
    to stay out of the woods for fear of our lives.  My parents told us
    from the time we were toddlers that going in the woods during deer
    season is risking our lives.  I can't count the number of cats that
    disapeared during hunting season, when I was a kid.  Our Chow dog was
    found shot to death in a nearby field one year during deer season.  He
    was 12 yrs. old at the time.  (Chow dogs and deer look so much alike,
    you know?) :-(   I have seen hunters shoot at pheasants out of their
    car windows.  My parents owned 5 acres of land and had no hunting signs
    posted all around it.  I have seen a hunter holding a gun face my
    mother in her own yard, and try to push past her to shoot a pheasant
    even though she asked him to leave.  I remember him yelling at her,
    "You don't own this land!"  And her shouting back at him, "I most
    certainly do.  Now get out!"  He hesitated for one minute, and I
    remember thinking, "My god, what if he shoots her?"  But, he finally
    got in his car and left after yelling, "You *u**ing bitch!" at her.  If
    any animal herds really do need to be "thinned out" because mankind has
    already upset the balance so badly, then I think it should be done by
    scientists.  I don't think we need to have every gun-happy idiot and
    his brother unleashed on country dwellers every fall.  Thinning the
    herd is still *no excuse* for sport hunting, in my opinion.  I've spent
    most of my life in the country and I have come to dread deer season,
    the time when I can't walk in the woods for fear of my life.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    
    I entirely admit that I also hate hunting season for the same small
    handful of jerks that you talk about. Each hunting season I'd have
    to be sure my ponies and goats were penned up near the house and
    we'd have to stay out of the woods. I've had hunters walk across
    my land without so much as a by your leave as well.
    
    Fortunately in Mass the hunting season is only 2 weeks long.
    
    The problem with having scientists control the herd sizes is one
    of logistics. Where do they get the money and the person power.
    Hunters by their licenses are a major contribution to wild life
    management and to maintaining wet lands for water fowl fly ways.
    Do you think we can find the tax moneys to not only replace what
    would be lost by banning hunting and to further pay the salaries
    and expenses of those who would be maintaining herd size?
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    Well, Lorna, there is no account for crazy people.
    
    But I clearly remember being in upstate Michigan many years ago when
    the starving deer were invading the town.  I cried myself to sleep
    listening to them try to forage for food.  They make a very plaintiff
    cry.  And me and Grandad went out each morning and marked the location
    of carcasses that froze to death the night before, then he and the DPW
    guys would go out with a chainfall and cart them off.  
    
    Three weeks after I left, the sheriff department issued permits to most
    of the members of the local gun club for wolves and coyotes.  They had
    followed the deer into the town and were attacking pets, small
    livestocks and there was concern for the people of the town.
    
    All of this happened because they repealled deer season for several
    years.  They next year, they reinstated the season and now, (according
    to gram) they herds are at safer levels (no starving deer on the lawn)
    and the predators are gone.
    
    Sue

    re: last couple
    
    Nice point, Lorna!
    
    During the past three years, I have lived mostly in the Upper Valley
    in New Hampshire.  While the Hanover area is relatively yuppified,
    the surrounding land is very rural, and many of the residents hunt.
     They hunt for food and hide and don't waste a blessed thing.  For
    them , driving all the way to the nearest supermarket (just down
    the highway, you know) is often a waste of time and money.
    
    What I can't stand (and what they can't stand either!) are the urban
    "sportsmen" who invade the forests every hunting season with no
    regard for the land or the people that try to live off of it. They
    may be a minority, but they are loud and obnoxious and generally
    seem to have no "useful" reason for hunting other than their enjoyment
    of gunpowder.
    
    daniel

    re .71, well, then, I guess you don't think I'm respectable.
    
    It's impossible for an honest person to get complete approval for
    every aspect of their lives, from every person on earth.
    
    BTW, I never said anything about not wanting cute animals killed.  I
    happen to think cows and pigs are cute.  All I said was I liked the
    idea of limiting the killing, and only killing cows and pigs is
    limiting the killing.  I selected cows and pigs because those are the
    two animals that are most commonly raised for food in the U.S.
    
    I think it *is* worse to raise animals for fur because that doesn't
    even have the justification of people needing the meat in order to
    survive.  It only serves the incredible vanity of some women and the
    also incredible material greed of some men.  The type of vanity that a
    woman displays by wearing a fur that another creature had to die for
    sickens me more than I could ever convey with words.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    it occurs to me that we shouldn't hunt, not for the deer's sake,
    but for our own.
    

    re .75
    
    Others share that opinion.  One of the part of the Noble Eightfold Path
    described by Buddha is that one should not have an occupation that is
    at odds with one's attempts to improve spiritually.  Working in a
    slaughterhouse was specifically called out as being an occupation that
    isn't good for you.

    Does anyone else think that we, as humans, are a part of the "big
    picture"?  I mean, maybe we are naturally the predator of these other
    animals....  You know, like a rodent snatches an egg from a ducks nest?
    
    Honest question her....  this is how I look at it for the most part...
    
    

    To promote true sportsmanship, and to `thin the herds' of both
    species, I propose (but not seriously) that anyone may hunt bucks
    at any time.  One may use hounds to corner the deer, but the
    only weapon you may use on the deer (other than your hands or a
    rock weighing up to one kilo) is a knife.
    
    The result should be similar to the result of bandersnachi hunting
    described by Larry Niven.  You know what they [used to] say:
    
    		After the boar, the leech;
    		After the stag, the bier.
    
    							Ann B.

    Why is it that no one has discussed fishing durring this topic?  I get
    the feeling that fishing is not frowned upon by too many people and may
    result in some confusion.  An example is a person with whom I had a
    discussion about killing animals and they found it 'bad', 'ugly',
    'perverted - (that the 'killer' enjoyed it), etc...  Then we discussed
    fishing only to find out that this pro-animal rightest was an avid
    fisher...  ?????????????
    
    blew me away...
    
    jim
    

    re .78, that was swift, Ann.
    
    DougO

    re .79:
    
    Easy - fish aren't "cute" enough to get anyone so bent out of
    shape over it.
    

    As I read through these notes that have been entered since this morning
    I wondered when someone might mention that we are predators and have
    been since time began.  Al did in the last one I read.  Although we can
    exist on vegetables there are several indications in our organs and our 
    teeth that we were designed to consume meat.
    
    But a lot of things that were put in our bodies for a variety of
    purposes are no longer necessary nor do they have a function.  
    
    What I see in this never ending argument is an evolution process.  And
    again I wish to point out that some of these things that we do are
    instinctive.  The description Dana pointed out of how he hunts seems to 
    suggest as he compares that activity to others that he is not really
    sure why he does it, but he does it well.
    
    I can see Lorna farther into the evolution process.  She has had some
    real negative experiences with hunters.  The killing of a pet dog by an
    irresponsible hunter would certainly turn me against hunting let alone
    seeing a hunter read to shoot in my own back yard. 
    
    Will we ever become vegetarians...I doubt that it is in The Plan.  But if 
    we should engineer and change our eating habits significantly I think we
    will see a demise of meat producing animals.  As Bonnie says they will
    overproduce and kill themselves off.  I do feel that we will come to a 
    point where we will do what we have to do in a humane way.  I do feel that 
    cruelty will not be a accepted part of our life.  
    

>    To promote true sportsmanship, and to `thin the herds' of both
>    species, I propose (but not seriously) that anyone may hunt bucks
>    at any time.  One may use hounds to corner the deer, but the
>    only weapon you may use on the deer (other than your hands or a
>    rock weighing up to one kilo) is a knife.

The downside of this kind of proposal is that it would result in some badly 
mutilated (but not killed) deer. If you want to view homo sapiens as "top of the
food chain", then the "natural" approach would be with no weapons at all that
aren't genetically derived. In other words, you could try to choke the deer to
death, or maybe bore it to death discussing morality.

Ultimately (and probably reasonably soon) our species will disappear from the
planet. Depending on how that transpires, we may take a lot of other species
with us. But it's all part of the natural processes, and new species will adapt
and replace us. We're no different from the dodo (some are a lot more similar 
than they'd like to admit).

Evolution can't be frozen at some instant in time, and it's ludicrous to think
that we aren't elements of the evolutionary processes. The only significant
difference between our species and others is the (limited) awareness we have of
the extent of influence of our actions. How we respond to this awareness will
largely determine how early or late the events of the previous paragraph take
place.

I'll admit to not being overly concerned with a species like the snail darter
which occupies an extremely limited area (one river or whatever); one way or the
other, it's headed for extinction if its capacity for adaptation is so limited.
On the other hand, I do support efforts to save the whatever-spotted owl in the
West ... because I don't want to see loggers whose foresight extends no farther
than their noses cutting old-growth trees. I like old trees. (Selfish motives
abound in these arguments.)

>mutilated (but not killed) deer. If you want to view homo sapiens as "top of the
>food chain", then the "natural" approach would be with no weapons at all that
>aren't genetically derived. 

Our intelligence is genetically derived, as is our tool-building and using
ability, so this contention that weapons are "unnatural" is silly.  Our
using weapons is as unnatural as otters using rocks to break open shellfish
or chimps using blades of grass to scoop up insects.  It is out *intelligence*
that puts us at the top of the food chain, and *not* using it would be akin
to a cheetah *walking* after it's food.

Anyway, my view on hunting is this: it *is* unsportsman like.  because while
it may be *difficult* to "get a deer", maybe most times it doesn't happen,
but sometimes it does, and the only thing the hunter risks is his time.  The
deer risks his life.

I am not morally opposed to hunting, but I think if the true joy of the
hunt comes not from the killing, but the outwitting (I've heard so many
hunters say it's tracking them down, learning their environment, etc, not
the killing itself) they ought to find something harder to outwit than a
*deer*.  I mean, deer are *stupid*!!

I propose: hunters should hunt hunters.  Really!  I read a science fiction
story once that had an idea like this and I thought it was great.  People
are issued a liscense to kill a *person*, one person, a *particular* person.
Talk about difficult prey - s/he is as intelligent as you (as a species, 
although you or s/he may in actually be more intelligent).  That is a sport
truly based in quick-wittedness, survival skills, tracking, understanding
the environment, etc.  And, that person can kill *you*!  And for every
liscense to kill you are issued, you must become the prey once.  And you
have a sporting chance...you can kill your hunter in self-defense.

So, you may only hunt if you are willing to be hunted.  Meanwhile, if you
kill anyone *other* than your intended prey (or your hunter) it is
considered murder in the classic sense, whether you did it intentionally
or not.

I think hunting deer as a sport not a challenge.  After all, eventually
you will get a deer, and all it costs you is time.  Now, if the deer could
fight *back*, that would be something different...

D!

    D! it isn't true that eventually you will get a deer.  Many people
    hunt for years without getting one.  Man may have the superior
    intelligence that allowed us to create weapons, but deer have a
    better sense of hearing and smell, and move faster, and are hunted
    in their (not man's) natural habitat.
    	Linda

    Lorna, 
    	I don't buy it that it is less wrong (cruel) to kill a cow than
    a deer because the cow was bred for food.  A cow feels the same pain
    that a deer does, and who are we to decide whether the quality of
    life makes it worth living for a cow.  But then I am assuming
    that animal rights should be decided based on what the animal
    experiences, not based on human's ideas about what it means to see
    a deer in the wild.  If your goal is to minimize the killing of
    animals, it would be *much* more effective to argue for vegetarianism
    than against hunting.  The average hunter kills less than one deer
    a year, while most of us probably eat the equivalent of maybe 5
    chickens, 2 cows and 10 pigs (I'm guessing here).  Far, far more
    livestock animals are slaughtered each year than are animals killed
    by hunters.
    	Linda

.62 Lorna

> the cows were bred to be used for meat.  They wouldn't have been able 
> to have any life at all otherwise.  

I've agreed with and applauded almost everything you've said up to now.

Quality of life applies to *all* animals, just as humanists claim it 
applies to *all* humans.  Are you really doing a cow a huge favor by 
birthing it into cramped captivity so it can live miserably in dirty
mud, fed unnatural food, and have nothing more to anticipate than a
slaughterhouse?  If I was a cow I'd rather be freely roaming a Swiss 
field eating real grass.  That would be quality.  Otherwise I think
I'd rather skip this planetarial experience.

While the fur dispute was going on in Aspen, Barbi Benton (someone we
should all <ahem> heed) made the same argument about minks, that they 
(the minks) should be *grateful* for the life we humans allowed them.  
Never mind that they're kept in dirty cages, all natural instincts 
tortured during that life.  They, and seemingly all non-human species, 
should be *grateful* that humans allow them to take a few breaths on 
this planet of ours that equally belongs to everything that walks, 
crawls, slithers, grows, swims, and lives on it.  (Except maybe for 
slugs.)  And I suppose these same animals should be *grateful* for a
violent human-induced death too.  After all, it is at the hands of the
greatest and most intelligent species ever to grace this planet.

Unfortunately, the species that's hell-bent on controlling every aspect 
of natural (and unnatural) earthly life is the very species that will 
end up destroying every delicate and intricate facet of our wonderful 
globe.

Carla

    re Linda, but the cows, chickens, pigs, raised to be slaughtered serve
    the practical purpose of feeding the American public.  And, our society
    is so geared to everyone's eating meat,that it is a major pain in the
    ass to try to be a vegetarian.  (go to someone's house for dinner, they
    serve meat, go to a restaurant, most meals are meat)  The deer that are
    killed by hunters are killed for a baser motive (fun) than the cows,
    pigs,etc.  So, I guess we just happen to disagree on that one.
    
    Ellen, I think some fish are very cute.  It's just that fish are not
    mammals and have a much lower intelligence and (usually) life span
    anyway, and often kill and eat each other from what I've heard, so
    sport fishing doesn't seem to make as much difference to their normal
    life style.  (besides Mark has to have some fun...)
    
    Lorna
    
    

    re .87, Carla, I agree with you.  Of course, I wish the conditions the
    cows, etc., lived under were more humane, and I wish people didn't have
    to kill any animals in order to eat.
    
    Lorna
    

    for a diet without killing any animals, may I suggest:
    
    The Moosewood Cookbook
    The Enchanted Broccoli Forest
    Still Life With Menu
    
    All by Molly Katzen of the Moosewood restaraunt in Ithica, NY
    
    They make veggie life much more palatable than your standard fare.
    
    daniel

    People don't _have_ to kill any animals to eat.  It is an inconvenience
    to be a vegetarian though.  I am friends with a couple that are
    complete veggies (no milk or eggs either), and when cooking for
    them I am totally clueless about what to make as a main course.
    We were at a barbeque and they brought there own grill because they
    wouldn't eat soy-dogs cooked on a grill that had had meat cooked
    on it.  Almost like an orthodox religion.  The point is that it
    is possible to eat a well-balanced completely vegetarian diet. 
    I would really like to try it at some time.  In a way I wish that
    I were never raised to eat meat because it is hard to give up, sort
    of what quitting smoking must be like for smokers.  I don't eat
    that much meat as it is, but I love cured meats and poultry.
    And there is no way I could do without milk and cheese,
    which requires that a certain number of male calves grow up to be
    slaughtered.  Maybe they will come up with a technique for sex
    selection in cows.
    	Linda

    Even if I were to become a vegetarian, I am not opposed to other
    people hunting.  I think like Al (?) said that it is the way of the animal
    world, and we are animals.  On the other hand, as someone else said,
    I don't like what killing does to me as the killer.  It means I
    have caused a living, breathing thing to be dead where it wasn't
    before.  I don't like exercizing that power.  But I think that in eating 
    meat I have done this by proxy.
    	Linda

    eagle,
      that is the second part of my "plan".  We should return at least
    50% of the world back into wilderness, distributed over all the
    different continents.  It struck me recently that the trend of women 
    having babies later in life is beneficial because it slows down the 
    time in which the population doubles, triples, etc....
    	Linda

    re .91, Steve, do you realize you called me "over emotional" several
    times in your diatribe?  Do you realize how stereotypical that is? 
    It's really priceless, almost had me rolling on the floor in laughter. 
    However, you're .91 is not emotional at all, is it?  No, just a man
    stating the facts!  :-)  How amusing can life get.
    
    You also referred to "we men" and called me a feminist several times. 
    Aren't you aware that both Ellen and Linda are not only women, but
    feminists as well?
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,  :-)
    
    I'm a woman and a feminist also ;-)
    
    BJ

    re .Bonnie, oops, sorry, forgot to add your name to the list! :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    I realize that everybody has their own opinion, but *I* can not see *any*
    difference (as far as the animal is concerned) weather it is killed by
    a farmer or a hunter.  Animals can't spell, dead is dead.
    
    I don't hunt, though I know many who do, and I enjoy the harvest, as it
    were.  It was mentioned by some that cows and pigs, etc, are 'ok' to
    kill as they were 'raise' for that purpose.  My brother *hunts* pigs, and
    my sister has *raised* 'wild' animals for slaughter.  I'm confused.
    
    As for the line that hunters 'enjoy' killing...?????  Like I said, I
    don't hunt.  However, I do fish -- and I LOVE IT!!!!  It's great! 
    Also, I am not derranged, psycotic or whatever.  I do *NOT* like
    killing, but I do like fishing.  But think about (again, I bring up the
    interesting note that fishing is, all but, ignored in this topic) the
    fact that a deer is (hopefully) downed and killed instantly where-as a
    fish is caught via a barbed hook torn through its mouth and frantically
    fights as the fisherman rips it from its natural habitat only to have
    a lingering death hanging off a loop of wire with other fish (or, if
    they are of the wrong variety, the hook removed and the injured fish
    tossed back in...)
    
    Even so, fishing seems to be acceptable, hunting is not.  I'm confused.
    One comment I recall, a few notes back (paraphrased...): "Mark has to
    have some fun..." (at least I think the name was Mark)  Fun?  So,
    fishing is ok, and fishing being fun is ok.  Hunting is bad and having
    fun hunting is sick (or something similar).
    
    whoa BOY! am I confused...
    jim
    

    I dunno, Mark...how about a *REALLY* big Have a Heart trap?
    
    My position on this issue is hard to define...I don't have trouble
    with hunting for food...this includes fishing.
    I *really* despise trophy hunting and fishing...to me, it seems
    to be bragging about killing a creature as wonderful as a deer or
    a merlin.  If it has to die, I'd prefer that it went to some use.
    
    Yes, I'm sure that many hunters who cut of the head and mount it,
    eat the rest of the animal, but in a very subjective, emotional
    and irrational way, the trophy part makes me angry.
    
    There's a "hunter's trophy room" at the Museum of Science in Boston.
     When I was little, I always ended up crying whenever my parents
    took me even *near* that room.
    
    might have been a mamalianologist if it hadn't been for allergies,
    
    daniel

re: .95 Linda Saisi

> that is the second part of my "plan".  We should return at least
> 50% of the world back into wilderness, distributed over all the
> different continents.

Now that would be heaven!  I recently drove what seemed like a million
miles through virtually untouched wilderness in Wyoming and Montana.
It's not the first time I've done this, but it was the first time I
allowed myself to become completely absorbed by the expansive beauty.

I cannot express the awesome high I felt in fully appreciating hills, 
mountains, streams, lakes, plains, and animals virtually untouched by 
humans, for hundreds and hundreds of miles in this mostly-uninhabited 
part of the country.  The west is where I've always lived and my roots
are in Montana, but this experience grounded me like never before.  I
guess I've had too much urbanism lately.

It was a reality check, reminding me that teeming cities and control-
freak humans are just temporary incidentals, that Earth does just fine 
without human intervention, and that she will peacefully continue to 
do so once there are no more humans.

But while I'm still here, I wonder if a person can still homestead in 
Montana...  =8-)

Carla

    *groan* pun potential through a mispelling...ai yai yai...
    
    Yeah, I can understand the tribute idea, but like i said, the fact
    that it gives me the willies is my own little emotional, irrational
    inclination.
    
    Even where I usually live (upper valley), there aren't very many
    opportunities to see animals in the wild.  I guess I just prefer
    to think that they'll stay there.
    
    It also occurs to me that we've only discussed a very narrow angle
    of teh animal rights debate -- what about product testing and medical
    research?  Those seem to be harder ones to approach because from
    one side, that research markedly improves our lives, but on the
    other hand, we're often talking about large scale commercial mutilation
    of animals for our own "convenience."
    
    I'm not sure where I stand on that.
    
    daniel

    re .106 Some folks here have said that they value animals as much
    as they value people. I honestly don't. I value people more.
    If testing products on animals saves people, I'm for it. 
    *However*, animal testing is very over-used. If product A has
    been tested, and product B has been tested, does it make sense
    to test product C, when C is a mixture of A and B ? I'd say
    no to that, but that's how the testing is done. And if you make
    a new product, D, by combining A, B, and E, which has also been
    tested, you have to test the new product *all over again*.
    I think that's ridiculous. 

    One of the ways The Body Shop products avoid testing is they only use
    ingredients already known to be safe.  Mostly natural ones.  Its all
    explained in one of their brochures.
    
    There are also alternatives to testing on animals.  Recently tissue
    cultures have been developed that respond similarly to the skin of
    a human being to various cosmetics, etc.
    
    More and more companies are stopping animal testing, due to intense
    pressure from groups like PETA.   The really big-name companies are
    the ones who keep doing it.  Gillette and Mary Kay for example.

    No mention, or have I just forgotten, about medical research using
    animals (as opposed to cosmetics or other common-use commercial
    products testing).  I have a daughter who was born with a neural tube
    defect.  I have never educated myself the use of animals in medical 
    research of such conditions, but if such animal research *has* been 
    conducted I regret the necessity while being more grateful than words 
    can express for the knowledge and expertise of the doctors which
    resulted in the good outcome of the various tests and surgeries my 
    daughter has undergone.
    
    Shoot, even if no animal research has occurred I'm grateful!  :)
    
    aq
    

    re:.107
    
    Yes, it makes sense to test C when C is just a mixture of A+B.
    Chemical compounds mixed together can produce effects that are
    different from the combined effects of the chemicals tested
    separately.
    
    --- jerry

    re .110 (wrt .107)
    
    >Yes, it makes sense to test C when C is just a mixture of A+B.
    >Chemical compounds mixed together can produce effects that are
    >different from the combined effects of the chemicals tested
    >separately.
    
    Simple case in point: Neither nitric acid nor sulfuric acid affects
    gold, normally a chemically inert substance.  However, a 3 to 1 ratio
    of the two produces a mixture called Aqua Regia, which does dissolve
    gold.
    
    (As far as I know, no animal testing was done with this product;
    however, since this occured in Medieval Europe, I honestly don't 
    know.)
    
    					andrew

    Am I the only one reading this topic who is a vegetarian?  Daniel,
    it sounds like you are?
    
    There comes a time when you have to start living your convictions.
    I do not nor have I ever owned a fur.  I have always protested hunting.
    I did eat meat, however.  That has changed.  And no, it is not
    difficult to be a vegetarian today and be a social creature.  Pasta
    and salads are readily available at restaurants and when at home,
    you can be sure to combine foods to get a complete protein.
    
    I never had to give up smoking but mean is not an addiction so it
    is much easier to become a vegetarian, especially if you are dedicated
    in your heart.
    
    Another source for "cruelty free" products is Crabtree & Evelyn.
    
    Susan
    

    
    The subject of animal rights really touches me deeply and
    I hope I can put my feelings into words without offending
    anyone.
    
    I've always had pets and have spent hundreds upon hundreds to
    keep them healthy and (hopefully) happy.  Although I understand,
    to a point, why animals are used for medical research, I cannot
    understand why these experiments are performed over and over again.
    I have seen a few shows on television which were produced by
    various anti-vivsection organizations and the redundancy of these
    experiments are shameful.  Yes, there has been some breakthroughs
    in the medical world by utilizing these animals and that's
    wonderful.  But, in this day and age with all the progress mankind
    has made, and all the alternatives available for testing, why
    are we still experimenting on animals?
    
    I am a meat eater, however I've never eaten anything that has
    been hunted (as a sport).  To me, there is a difference between
    eating meat that has been raised to be slaughtered, and eating
    something that was in the wild, minding its own business, and
    killed.  I also can't understand the logic of people who refuse
    to eat veal because of the way it's raised, yet these same people
    will eat chicken.  Recently there was a report printed in various
    papers (and I think forwarded around the network) about the Perdue
    chicken farms and the inhumane way these chickens are raised and
    killed.  It was absolutely awful.  I have a feeling (a purely
    uninformed one) that if we knew the way any of the animals we
    eat were slaughtered in mass quantities, we'd all be vegetarians.
    It just so happens that veal has gotten the most publicity to-date.
    
    I commend the author of .112 for the decision to become a 
    vegetarian for life, it is certainly something to consider when
    you see what is going on around us today.
    
    Cherie                                                    

I can only hope that no one reads judgement of others into what I write here, 
because it's just not.

First, so that all will know that I make no claim to the moral high-ground in
this discussion:  I eat some meat and fowl, some of my shoes are made of 
leather, and I once owned arctic gear that would cloth me from head-to-toe
in the skins of dead animals [mostly white wolf, wolverine and ugruk].

Second, so that those who care to know my tastes will have an inkling:  I do
not hunt, I am not good with guns, it's just the way I am.  I tend to wonder
why one person would need fifty guns; but then the woman I'm thinking of
wonders why I need more than one set of dishes.

When I look at the consumption of meat from a moral standpoint, I tend to
believe that I should take up hunting if I wish to eat meat.  Somehow
bringing a life into the world for the express purpose of slaughtering it seems
much less humane.  I rather doubt that a turkey raised on a turkey farm feels
any less attachment to life than a turkey in the wild; but the wild turkey
has a fighting/fleeing chance.  Still less humane seems the practice of 
creating a life for the express purpose of torturing it for a brief time in
the pursuit of better flavour or texture.

For myself, I live in a personal state of tension.  The last remaining piece
of fur I own was a road-kill [honest] and I have no wish to acquire more.  I eat
meat with apology as well as thanksgiving to the life the is ended.  I endeavour
to avoid animal-tested products, yet I harbour an unwillingness to just cut to
first-round testing of medicines upon live human beings.

  Annie

re: .81, .79 (Ellen et al)

I just came back from vacation, and the question on fishing is pertinent (and
by the way, happy belated birthday Ellen Gugel; Marty Jack - mark this down;
yesterday was her birthday).

Joe actually caught a fish while we were on vacation. I was there. It was a
flounder. It was not cute. But it was alive. I made sure they wanted to eat it
(they didn't end up wanting to, so we ended up throwing it back; do you have to
scratch flounders' bellies to get them to breathe properly after being in still
water?). 

Joe gave me the same sort of grief for feeling the way I did as some folks give
here (note: he loves me. therefore, I know his intentions are fairly kind, and
I believe most people's here are as well). But it was really creepy to have
that sort of life and death control over another living thing, and to be doing
it for sport or fun or some such.
	Mez

    re .115 A book I read long ago, "The Boy in the Model T" had a 
    line that I've never forgotten. The scene was a hunt, the boy
    had just killed a deer, and subsequently become ill. His grandfather
    said to him, "Always look at what you eat before it's dead; it 
    will make you humble."
    
    There's something very sobering about standing over a dead animal,
    when you have exercised enough power to take its life. My
    partner shot a deer this fall. I congratulated him, shook his hand,
    we both whooped a bit. But in reflection, we spoke a bit loud,
    a bit of forced bravado. Maybe trying to fend off the heavy
    seriousness of the moment ? That's something you simply don't
    become aware of when you buy a steak in its neat little plastic
    tray.

    Dana

    Dana, I follow your enjoyment of hunting up until the last moment, and
    then you lose me a bit.  (The fascination of tracking, the
    companionship in the lodge, the preparations, the feeling of being in
    nature all makes sense -- where you lose me is the moment of pulling
    the trigger...wanting to pull the trigger and being able to pull the
    trigger, for a hobby).  But your words about the seriousness of the
    moment of the kill make me understand it a little better.  Thank you.
    
    Culling needs to be done, given our current situation.  I just don't
    like the fact that people WANT to do it *for fun*.  Lorna's stories
    make it clear that there *are* hunters who just get a thrill from
    killing.  
    
    I have NO problems with people who hunt for food, to survive.  
    
    I do wrestle with my decision to eat meat.  It's not an easy moral
    place to be, hating the killing of animals for human purposes, but
    acknowledging that we are designed to eat meat and acknowledging that,
    frankly, I like the taste.  My objection to hunting is objection to
    killing for sport; my OKing of slaughterhouses is bowing to the idea
    that if we must kill, it's better to do it baldly and flatly to get
    food.  Then I read a description of a slaughterhouse and I am revolted
    ... like I said, I wrestle hard with this one.  I'll probably just
    slowly evolve into being mostly or all vegetarian ... 
    
    Leather is OK to me, because if we're going to kill a cow anyway, I
    want us to use every part of it so its death serves as many purposes as
    possible.  
    
    I figured Frank Perdue must be doing something extreme to get SUCH fat
    chickens, so I stopped buying his products a long time ago.  Similarly,
    I figured Almay must be doing a LOT of extra testing to get
    "hypo-allergenic" claims legally justified, so I stopped buying their
    products.  I wish "ethical treatment of animals" groups would advertise
    like Perdue and Almay do -- but publicizing where to go to get humanely
    raised animal meat, etc.  The more public awareness, the more money to
    buy products, and the less they have to depend on charity contributions
    ... and it would all snowball.
    
    Pam

    re .116, maybe that sobering, powerful feeling you have after taking a
    life is something that some people would rather not ever feel.
    
    Lorna
    

 
    re .118 >maybe that...feeling...is something that some people
    	    >would rather not ever feel.
    
    And rather than feel it, we support an industry where bulls
    are made into steers, penned, fed unbalanced diets, given hormones
    and antibiotics to stimulate growth, then killed by professionals,
    with no hope of outwitting their killers. Next time you pick up
    a steak, think of that, and consider what you feel then. I feel
    no shame in killing my own food. I feel no pride in buying meat
    at a store.
    
    Dana

    re .119, I don't buy steak.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .112
    
    Susan...I'm not a vegetarian, but I have been eating vegetarian meals
    more and more frequently mainly because of Mollie Katzen's books!
    
    I've almost removed red meat from my diet because it just doesn't taste
    so good anymore.  My stomach handles poultry and fish with much greater
    enthusiasm.
    
    I may enventually gravitate toward vegetarian, but I'll prabably never
    go the full nine yards...I have too much of a weakness for seafood!
    However, it is fun to watch the faces of my cooking group, who are all
    devoted carnivores, when I serve them vegetable strudel!
    
    oh, it is to laugh...
    
    daniel

    I would like to second what Dana said that at least wild animals
    hunted for food have a good life up until the time of their death
    compared to the miserable lives that many agricultural animals live.
    Also wild animal meat is organically grown.  I don't know where
    the expression "sport" hunting came from.  What categories of hunting
    does this refer to?  The hunting I have done has been strictly for
    eating purposes.  When I think of hunting it brings to mind pheasant
    stroganoff, which was my favorite dish that fall, and which I shared
    with family and friends.
    	Linda

    re .122, if you were a pioneer in the 1700's you would have had to go
    hunting and kill animals in order to eat and feed your family.  You do
    not *have* to go into the woods and kill animals in order to eat today. 
    You have your choice of many, huge, variety filled supermarkets, as
    well as all sorts of restaurants and fast food places.  Therefore, in
    my opinion, if you still *choose* to go into the woods and kill animals
    you are, in fact, doing it for *sport.*
    
    Lorna
    

    Oh, I was thinking that the term was redundant, at least in the
    U.S., but there probably are people here who still rely on hunting as
    their primary source of meat.
    	Linda

    
    Re .123
    
    This is exactly why I feel it is unnecessary for people to
    hunt for food.  There is currently a wide variety of meat
    which is available at markets.  I cannot justify, in my mind,
    going out and hunting down wild animals for the sport of it,
    regardless of whether the person plans to eat the meat or just
    mount the head of the animal on their den wall.   There is
    already a huge amount of animals being raised for food whose
    ultimate destination will be someone's dinner table, why 
    kill even more?
    
    Cherie
    

    re .125 Why kill even more ?
    
    If we're going to consume X pounds of meat, and if we shoot 
    deer for a portion of that meat, doesn't it stand to reason 
    that less beeves will die ?

    The only argument I've seen against hunting, when you get rid of
    the untruths and misconceptions, is that hunters *enjoy* their
    hunting. This speaks to me of a certain meanness of spirit in 
    those who oppose hunting. Heaven forbid we should enjoy putting
    meat on the table, I mean, that would be like enjoying our jobs.
    
    Just my opinion, of course.
    
    Dana

    Too bad the animals can't shoot back!  You wouldn't be having this war!

    re: .126  Dana
    
    Dana, I'm kind of surprised at this reply -- I think it's unfair.
    
    You think we begrudge you the enjoyment of the process of hunting.
    You think we begrudge you the satisfaction of providing your own meat.
    
    But you don't see that when you talk of hunting and I talk of hunting
    we are only tangentally talking about the same thing.  You think of
    hunting as a process, as a means for getting your own meat, as a means
    of getting to the core of nature and our place on this earth.  I
    believe that's what you get out of it.  However, I cannot help but
    reduce hunting in my mind to an activity whose ultimate goal and
    purpose is to chase and kill another living creature. I understand the
    *process* of hunting as being fun; I just don't think I could ever pull
    the trigger at the end.  Different aspects of "hunting" are important
    to us.
    
    Furthermore, you and others in this file are a single type of hunter --
    the kind that shoots deer, etc., for meat.  There are many other types
    of hunters.  Those who "bag" trophies.  Those who shoot lions just to
    have shot a lion and have a neato rug.  Those who shoot elephants just
    to get the tusks, and leave the carcass rotting.  Those who shoot chow
    dogs because the dog moved and it was a challenge to see if they could
    get the shot off.  Just because you and your friends see hunting as a
    deeply meaningful activity that brings you close to nature doesn't mean
    that all hunters do.
    
    So just because I don't think of hunting as you do, and just because I
    don't like or approve of all things other humans do doesn't give you
    the right to call me mean-spirited.  Sounds pretty touchy or defensive
    to me.
    
    Pam

    A little American child was visiting Greece with his family.  They
    attended a village festival where the child saw a lamb roasting on a
    spit.  Perplexed, the child asked his parents what it was.  They
    explained that it was a lamb, a roasting lamb.  For the first time the
    child made the connection between the sweet little lamb of the story
    books and the lamb that he consumed on Sunday.  The child vomited.

    None of the Greek children were sickened, perhaps because they all
    raised lambs.  Our way of life tends to disconnect us from certain
    realities and make us sentimental.  By buying a packaged piece of meat
    one can ignore that it is a portion of a dead animal.

    We are part of Nature, and Nature's Way can be austere.  Nature
    invented death.  Nature invented hunting.  

    My ancestors were great hunters, and all life was sacred to them.  They
    believed that the animals which fed them and provided skins for their
    clothes and their lodges were gods who willingly sacrificed themselves
    for the People.  Dances and rituals were performed to honor them and to
    resurrect them.  Of course, my ancestors were ignorant savages.

    Cheryl

    re .129, yes, many of our ancestors *were* ignorant savages.  It is my
    hope that the human race is continually evolving to become more
    civilized to each other, as well as animals.
    
    Also, re .129, one of my closest friends grew up in Greece.  He knows
    many of my opinions on animal rights, and sometimes teases me about how
    disgusted I would be to see Greek people roasting lambs or goats.  But,
    he teases me in a good-natured manner and he seems to respect my right
    to feel offended by roasting lambs.  
    
    re Dana,  I agree with Pam.  *You* think *I'm* "mean-spirited" because
    I don't like to have wild animals killed for sport?  Gee, how ironic,
    and here I was thinking that you were mean spirited for wanting to kill
    the animals in the first place!  I guess we're even.
    
    Lorna
      

    No Lorna, I object to being labeled a killer because I enjoy
    hunting my own food, by people who hire others to kill for them.
    There is no moral difference between an assassin and the person
    who hires him. However, animals are not people, and murder is an
    irrelevant concept in this discussion, IMO.
    
    There is one difference between me and the guy in the slaughterhouse 
    killing *your* food - I enjoy what I do. I don't hear him being 
    called a murderer, maybe because he doesn't *enjoy* what he does ? 
    Does joylessness make him morally superior ? *All* he does is kill 
    animals with *no* chance to live free or evade death, yet because 
    he doesn't *enjoy* himself, he isn't condemned. I can only conclude 
    that my *enjoyment* is the real target here, and IMO those who 
    oppose human joy are indeed mean-spirited. Sorry, but that's the
    way I feel.
    
    Dana
    

    Furthermore, those hunters who were your ancestors and mine may
    have been ignorant savages by your standards, but they lived
    *in* nature, didn't bulldoze habitat to build condos and malls,
    took only what they needed, wasted nothing, respected the earth.
    They didn't produce in a year the amount of trash that the Burger 
    King down the street puts out in a week.

    Dana, I do not hire anyone to kill my food for me.  If I had to put
    my own money up front in order to have someone kill a pig or a steer I
    would not do it.  The people who own the slaughterhouses pay the
    workers there, and I would say that those workers' defense would be
    that they are doing a job in order to get money to live.  It isn't just
    a hobby for them, and people do have to work.
    
    The key issue we seem to disagree on is the importance of *motive* when
    killing.  I will never accept *enjoyment* as an acceptable motive for
    killing any living creature.  It is your motive that I object to.  I
    think your motive in killing animals - your self-admitted own enjoyment
    - is mean spirited.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re: .129.  Thank you, Cheryl.  Beautifully said.
    
    

    Lorna, I _was_ being ironic when I quoted Chief Seattle to describe 
    my ancestors as ignorant savages.  You see, in general, I think the 
    Indian Way much more sane and civilized than the white.   Sure, they
    killed to live, but there were no grocery stores.  There weren't any
    slums either.  Children weren't sold for sexual purposes in order to
    buy dope.  
    
    But what do I know, descendent of savages that I am.
    

Fifteen years or so ago, I raised chickens. It really shook me
up the first time I killed some. I found that experience to be
very humbling. For the first time in my life, I was very aware what
it meant to be a meat-eater. Even though I grew up on a farm, that
was the first time I had killed anything myself.

I spent the next week not eating any meat while I thought about
whether to become a vegetarian. I decided to continue eating meat,
and I continued killing chickens for the next couple of years. (I
killed other animals for meat as well.)

The main realization I came to was that if I feel I am unable
to kill the animal then I have no right to eat meat.

I'm back to buying my meat at the grocery store, but I know I could
raise chickens (or geese, or ducks, or rabbits, or pigs, or cows)
for meat again.

As for deer and other wild animals.... They're beautiful. It's
exciting as all getout to walk in the woods and see them. But
I do eat venison. It's delicious, and it's healthier than the meat
we buy in the stores. I also think it's more humane to let the animals
we consume live in their natural environment until they're killed than
it is to raise cattle in stockyards. (It may be easier for us
to think of eating the cattle raised in stockyards, though, because
we're better able to "de-animalize" them and think of them as inventory
rather than cows with brown eyes.)

I don't delight in the killing. In fact, I may well decide someday
to become a vegetarian because of my discomfort with it. But till
then, I'm sure not going to condemn a meat-eater for killing the
meat they eat. At least they're fully in touch with the consequences
of their dietary lifestyle.  

Kathy

    re .135, I don't recall ever condeming the "Indian Way" or suggesting
    that children should be sold for sexual purposes.
    
    re Kathy, .136, well, your conscience is clear.  So is mine.
    
    Lorna
    
    

    re .133 >I do not hire anyone to kill my food for me.

    >The people who own the slaughter houses pay the workers there...
    
    You pay the grocer, who pays the meat wholesaler, who pays the 
    slaughterhouse owner, who pays the worker. Whether there is
    one transaction or ten between you and that worker is irrelevant.
    Whether your money is paid up front or after the fact is also
    irrelevant. 
    
    Analogy: I want someone's legs broken. I hire a man myself. I'm
    guilty. I talk to my buddy with 'connections', he calls in a 
    favor, somebody else gets a call, it's done. Difference ? None.
    I pay the guy before the job. I pay the guy after the job.
    Difference ? None. You cannot remove yourself from the result of
    your actions, rationalize however you will.

    Dana

    
    
    I agree that we modern humans are trashing our planet -- wrapping our
    trash in plastic, creating wastes that will remain toxic for centuries,
    slaughtering animals in a way that's wasteful.
    
    I can also appreciate the idea that the hunter who protects the environment
    s/he hunts in and honors the animals s/he hunts is actually more 
    respectful of living things than many of us who just reap the "benefits" 
    of modern society.  But the idea of actually killing a living thing so 
    that I can eat it makes me squirm.  Our modern system of food production 
    and distribution protects me from having to see creatures die.  And that 
    may have a lot do with why the idea of it makes me uncomfortable.  But 
    because it makes me uncomfortable and because I'm as likely as anyone is 
    to fall into the trap of thinking that everyone is (or ought to be!) just 
    like me, it's hard for me to understand why someone would enjoy hunting.  
    That doesn't mean I would work to outlaw it; I just wouldn't want to do 
    it, and because of my own narrow mindedness, it's hard for me to 
    understand (I mean, really understand) why anyone would want to do it. I 
    imagine that if I ever went to a slaughter house, I would give up meat 
    once and for all.  The packages in the store don't remind me of any living 
    thing.  Maybe hunting upsets me, because it does make me feel guilty about 
    my own complicity in the killing of animals.  
    
    This discussion has certainly made me think about my own values, but
    it upsets me to see us trading insults and accusations.
    I don't think we should call each other murderers or mean-spirited.
    It certainly is hard for me to see myself called on my own hypocrisy
    as a meat eater who opposes hunting, but it is easier for me to look
    at that issue if I feel that someone recognizes that my discomfort with
    hunting is as genuine as her/his respect for and enjoyment in hunting.
    That respect for each other's authenticity is the most important part
    of valuing differences to me.  As a member of this community I'd
    like to see us try to do more of that and try to assume that everyone
    is trying to do more of that.
      
    Justine

    Well,
    I don't know; I simply can't equate today's 'hunting' as a way of
    providing meat (flesh) for the table.  Perhaps there are those who
    truly hunt for food but frankly, I think they are the minority of
    hunters.
    
    The hunters I know hunt for the pleasure of the chase, the conquest,
    the power.  The power over the lesser species.  Also, they hunt 
    as a 'group'; that is, the comraderie, the male bonding bit.
    
    Those of you who actually kill your own meat for your own consumption--
    do you still go to the market and buy your meat, or do you rely only
    on what you yourself kill?
    
    Maia
    
    

    re .139, thank you, Justine, my discomfort with hunting *is* genuine. 
    My discomfort with eating meet *is* also genuine.  I have chosen to be
    honest in this discussion/argument and admit that I do on occasion eat
    meat.  However, I so rarely do actually eat meat, sticking mostly to
    seafood and chicken or turkey, that Dana's accusations of my being
    responsible for the animal slaughtering industry in the U.S. seems
    unfair.  I, along with many other people, have been struggling with my
    conflicting feelings between hating animals to be killed and treated
    cruelly, and my own desire to eat.  
    
    Lorna
    

This perhaps belongs in the Rathole topic but ...

I have *never* understood why people don't consider the flesh of fish and 
poultry to be meat. If it's not meat, what on Earth is it?

There's no essential difference between killing a chicken, a fish, a turkey,
a deer, or a cow; there's a slight difference between the above and killing a
person (same species and all that) and a slightly greater difference with
killing an asparagus (the asparagus has a lot more trouble getting out of the
way, and the asparagus has less in the way of consciousness than a cow - it's
closer to a lawyer in that regard).

Lunchtime - off to eat some gravel...	

	Paul

    Well after 141 replies I thought I'd put something in. I took NRA
    hunter safety at 14, was given a shotgun by my father and started
    hunting. I never saw a game animal in season and have never shot one. I
    don't think I could. When I became a father I gave up my guns and sold
    them. I've only shot at people and that was because they were shooting
    at me. Da** drunken hunters anyway. At 15 I started working at Benson's
    Wild Animal Farm in Hudson, N.H. I keep thinking back and realizing
    that if you've ever held a fawn that was abandoned by it's mother and
    bottled fed it, it's almost as good as a baby. If you've ever had moose
    actually recognize you and come to fence to be hand fed apples and do
    this day after day for you and only you, if you've ever helped capture
    some escaped lions (a story in itself) and seen how magnificent they
    were, then you should not be able to bring yourself to kill them and
    must do all you can to protect them and all other species of wildlife
    on this planet. 
    
    Even after all of this, I found that I still ate meat, especially red
    meat with gusto. I loved the stuff. I still do. Now, though, after my
    bout with high blood pressure and making lifestyle changes particularly
    around my eating habits, I find I can do without the red meat and only
    have white meat (turkey, chicken , fish) every 2 weeks or so. I weaning
    myself off of that  and went cold turkey (pun very intended) on the
    red.
    
    I find myself wondering how I could ever have eaten so much red meat
    and put up with the slaughter of helpless animals. I want to do all I
    can short of illegal acts to save them. I support the Nat'l Wildlife
    Fund and other organizations and try to make monetary contributions to
    them. I support animal protection bills and urge my representatives to
    vote for them. I'm not sure how much more I can do but I'll keep
    trying.
    
    In the midst of this meandering, let me just say that I believe that
    everyone should take a firearms safety course (isn't that better than
    Hunter Safety) and learn good gun habits. I will not support gun
    control, because if I ever had to, I'd like to be able to get my hands
    on a gun to protect my family or myself and not be put in jail or fined
    for having a gun. That just seems to me to be another way for "Big
    Brother" to control you. I do want my kids to take these courses, no
    matter what they're called and I hope they'll refrain from hunting in
    their lives. If they choose not too, I'll understand and support them
    while trying to change their minds. 
    
    I just wanted to get my feelings off my chest.
    
    Thanks for listening.
    
    Phil

    re .141 >I so rarely do actually eat meat, sticking mostly to 
    >seafood and chicken or turkey

    Are seafood and poultry vegetables ? fruit ? Gimme a break from
    the rationalizations, please.
    
    You can extend all of my previous comments to include the poultry
    industry and the commercial fisheries. Please visit a turkey farm
    sometime. Take a hard look at the mile-long nets that trap and
    kill dolphins by the hundreds. And please don't try to convince
    me that there's some difference between cows and chickens that
    makes one better than the other, except maybe in nutritional terms.
    
    Dana
    
    I never claimed you and you alone were 'responsible for the animal
    slaughtering industry' but if there is guily involved you own
    a piece of it. 

  Re: .142 by Paul Beck

  When chicken/fish eaters say they don't eat meat, they mean they don't
  eat "red" meat, which is the flesh of animals in the Class of Mammals.
  Clearly the term "meat" is overloaded because it also means any sort
  of flesh ("animal tissue used as food" according to my Webster's
  New Collegiate).

  Thus some people tie their willingness to eat a particular type of
  flesh with the, um, evolutionary distance between eater and the eaten.
  Note that there may even be a survival trait hidden somewhere in here.
  Many people find the thought of cannibalism repugnant and it is
  certainly true that eating human flesh can cause disease (kuru for
  example).  It has also been suggested that AIDS originally came from
  the carcasses of diseased green monkeys.  Not sure that this 
  survival trait, if that's what it is, can be applied outside of Order
  of Primates.

  Now back to our regularly scheduled diatribes.

  JP

    
    just so we're clear here, i think the folk that work in
    slaughterhouses, like hunters, *are* killers. the 'justification'
    is that it is for food. i do think it's better that they do it for
    this mechanical reason than to do it because they 'enjoy' it.
    
    and how is it that killing can be 'justified'? is killing wrong
    or isn't it? if it only 'depends', then (borrowed from another,
    not totally unrelated, context) who decides?
    

    Dana, as a couple of others have already said, when I said I rarely eat
    meat, I was referring to the meat of other mammals.  To me there is a
    difference between mammals, fish and birds.  Human beings are mammals,
    too.
    
    Who are *you* to point out the cruelties of any other people towards
    animals - whether it be commercial fisherman, Frank Perdue, or
    slaughterhouse workers - when you kill animals yourself?  If there is
    any cruelty to animals going on in the world, I think you own a much
    bigger part of it than I do.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna, my apologies for the "leap."  I tend to see the connectedness of
    things.  When you wrote that you'd rather someone use drugs than hunt,
    I thought of the innocents harmed by the drug use of others, including 
    the Indios for whom coca is a harmless food supplement now forbidden
    them. 
    
    Also, I never suggested that you condemned the Indian Way with or
    without quotes.  Why _did_ you use quotes?
    
    Please, I add this note for clarity only.  I apologise if my remarks
    have seemed critical or insensitive.          

    re .147 Have to disagree again. I don't kill cruelly. I don't
    pen animals, or destroy other creatures in the process. I don't
    kill wantonly. The animals I kill (few and far between) aren't
    mistreated. I don't kill animals for fur or ivory, leaving the meat
    to rot. The money I spend on licenses, and a portion of what I
    spend on hunting and fishing gear, goes to preserve wildlife from
    such abuse. 
    
    >Who are *you to point out the cruelties of any other people towards
    >animals...
    
    I'm just a guy whose money is where his mouth (and heart) is.
 
    Dana    

    re .148, I used quotes around Indian Way because you had used the term
    the Indian Way and I was quoting you.  I was under the impression that
    it's no longer considered right to call Native American's Indians, so I
    was unsure of using the word Indian, so I put quotes around it.
    
    I don't know.  Do people of Native American descent now consider it
    offensive to be called Indians?  That was the impression I had received
    so I was unsure whether I should use the word Indian.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .149, oh, but you don't consider *killing* an animal to be
    mistreating it?  I do.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .148 For the record, Lorna's statement re. drug use vs. hunting
    was in reply to my use of the comparison, wherein I asked which
    was preferable. She didn't bring it up or suggest it, just answered
    my question.

    Dana

    Dunno, I hear it both ways.  A friend of my prefers Native American to
    American Indian, because the Indian part is a misnomer going back to
    Columbus' boo boo thinking he'd reached India.  Still, America is named
    after Amerigo Vespucci, so I question the P.C.ness of NA, too.  :-)
    
    Actually, Indians in their own tongues call themselves the Human Beings
    or the People (as tribal names) and refer to people in general as 
    two-legged ones as opposed to animals which were called four-legged. 
    Animals are considered cousins.  So are streams, the wind, rocks..
    

    re .151 >but you don't consider *killing* an animal to be 
            >mistreating it ? I do.
    
    I do believe there is mistreatment possible in the *process*
    of killing, which mistreatment I try to minimize. But a clean
    kill for food ? No. 

    Trying it again...
    
    IF there is already-dead animal flesh (meat) available in the
    market, how does one justify killing a still alive animal for food?
    Sorry, I don't buy the argument...food/meat is just too plentiful
    in this country to justify 'killing your own for food.'  
    I mean, if the kids want a hamburger for dinner, do they have to
    wait for you to kill a deer?  Or do you go to McDonald's?
    Maia
    

    
    I'd be curious to know...if those who enjoy killing animals, are
    conscious of any other emotion besides enjoyment when they do so, 
    or perhaps are conscious of suppressing some other emotion. I'm assuming 
    that those who don't enjoy/do it, have some kind of emotion about it, 
    i.e. they'd feel bad about doing it.
    
    In other words, is a "clean kill" a purely rational, objective thing?
    
    D.

I don't hunt (though I have reaised animals for food, as I said in
an earlier note). But....

There's a lot of focus on the "enjoyment" of the kill. This puzzles
me a little. For those of you who eat meat and who think it is
wrong to enjoy hunting, do you enjoy the meat when you eat it?

Kathy

    re .156 see.116  Yes, many writers have spoken of the mixed
    emotions when the game is down. The 'triumph' and 'pride'
    are not unmixed with reverence and sorrow. It's a price we
    pay, but a price we face up to for ourselves. I think if I
    worked in a slaughterhouse I'd become desensitized to it.
    Don't want the job.

    Dana

    Not entirely sure where I stand on this one... but! as far as I know,
    all animals (not just mammals) and some (few) plants must ingest living 
    things to survive.  Of those ingested, some are animals and some are 
    plants.  If I could graze our lawn and thereby survive, it would still 
    be at the expense of the vegetation, which is alive. 
    
    I believe it was in the young people's book, _Meet the Austins_, by 
    Madeline L'Engle: one of her characters remarked that there are times 
    when we just have to disapprove of nature.
    
    I've gotten some mileage out of my remark, when asked why I don't eat
    lobster, crabs, shrimp, oysters, clams:  "They aren't evolved far enough
    for me to eat."  On that argument I suppose I should be a cannibal, but
    the thought sickens.  In any case, evolution has nothing to do with it;
    I just don't care for them.  :)
    
    aq
    
    
    
    
    
    
     

Bravo .160 !!!!

The difference between going to the market and hunting for the meat
is RESPONSIBILITY. I hunt because I enjoy being in the woods, and owning the 
responsibility of my own actions when I take an animal. This does not mean I
enjoy killing, I do not!

Many would find the killing experience in the slaughterhouse unbearable to 
witness, yet they continue to support it by shopping at Market Basket, et al.

Most of us continue to shop at the market, I do, but I know what it is like 
to be the one who owns the responsibilty for his actions.

    re:.145
    
    Yes, the "evolutionary distance" argument is one that is often
    used. Or, as a vegetarian friend of mine puts it: "The closer
    it is to me, the less I like it."
    
    --- jerry

    in re .136
    
    Thanks Kathy, you expressed my feelings on meat eating very closely,
    especially the part about raising ones own animals for meat.
    
    Bonnie

    What originally prompted me to start this topic was the discussion on
    feeding snakes. A number of people expressed squeamishness about feeding
    live animals to snakes. This started me musing about that (since I share
    the squeamishness even though I keep (kept) a snake). I wondered whether
    it was just the "liveness" (though I eat live oysters and prefer my
    fish *very* fresh - about as fresh as my snake preferred rats...) or
    whether is was the mammalian nature of the food (though I eat mammals
    occasionally) or if it was the closeness of the act of killing to the
    act of eating.
    
    I think I'm bothered in a visceral way by the act of killing and
    eating, even though intellectually I accept it. I think a large part of
    it is cultral - I'm a city boy and I haven't lived with the daily
    exposure to life and death that a farm boy would. I bet if I had been
    raised on a farm I would think this discussion pretty silly. (Even it
    had been a small organic farm/commune in Taos. :-)
    
    So, I eat meat, I find hunting vaguely disturbing, and I find the fact
    that I'm disturbed disturbing. Hunting, however, seems to be only one
    aspect of this situation, and one that's particularly emotional. How
    about some of the other things I tried to raise. If feeding live rats
    to snakes is bad, how about feeding canned dog food to dogs? How about
    letting your cats catch live rats themselves? Are any of these "moral"?
    I think so. Cats and dogs are carnivores, it would be (in my opinion)
    immoral or at least cruel to NOT feed them meat.
    
    I'm unsurprised but saddened that when some people have said why THEY
    eat meat but don't hunt that some of our hunters have tried to "rebut".
    I'm just as sad that when some of our hunters have said how they
    reconcile hunting with a love of animals that some of our non-hunters
    have needed to "rebut" in turn. As far as I can tell, the only "pure"
    and completely defensible positions are the pure vegetarian position -
    which I respect, and the pure "mankind has dominion" position - which I
    don't understand and am afraid of. Anyone in between has drawn a
    personal line. I'm happy to hear why someone has drawn their line where
    they have, and I'm sometimes curious as to how they answer some of the
    moral dilemmas that I still struggle with. I don't like hearing people
    tell each other that their lines are in the wrong place, or that they
    are bad for having drawn their line a little closer to one end or the
    other. If you feel that need, please instead tell me why you don't draw
    your line in that place, rather than why I shouldn't.
    
    	-- Charles

    This note contains some relatively graphic descriptions of snake care
    and feeding following the form feed. I'm going to explain how and why I
    fed my snake, and try to justify why. I will also try to clear up some
    misconceptions people seem to have about large snakes and their feeding.
    
    	-- Charles
    
    You probably don't want to read this near mealtime...
    
    I recently raised a Red Tailed Boa from about 18" long till she was around
    seven feet long. About two years ago she escaped and I'm still sad. She
    was a beautiful snake, quiet and affectionate though not very smart. I
    still miss her.
    
    Anyway, snakes generally prefer live or very freshly dead food. Garter
    snakes, for example, will live on goldfish. Boas eat mice when small,
    rats when larger, and rabbits and or chickens when large. (A full grown
    boa can reach 12 feet long or more.) My snake ("Boa George") was eating
    three or four rats every few weeks. I bought these rats from a local
    pet supply store.
    
    I killed them immediately before feeding them to her, the process was
    quick and (I believe) painless. I killed them because large rats are
    actually quite capable of defending themselves, and, while she would
    have quickly killed them 1) I could kill them more "humanely" and 2)
    they would often bite or scratch her in obvious terror before dying. It
    seems clear to me that my killing the rats was much better for her, for
    me, and ultimately for the rats as well.
    
    	Misconception #1: Dying by constriction is long and painful and so
    	is cruel.
    
    Dispite what I've said above, she was quite quick about killing the
    rats. Until she struck, the rats would wander happily around her cage.
    Once she struck it was a matter of seconds - less than a minute, before
    they died (of asphyxiation) unfortunately 5 seconds is plenty of time
    for rat to bite, and even 5 seconds of mortal terror is hideous. So I
    killed the rats by striking them at the base of the skull with a large
    stick. This killed them instantly as far as I can tell, and she would
    still gladly eat them.
    
    	Misconception #2: Buying a rat as a pet saves it from being sold as
    	food.
    
    Rats raised as food are raised something like commercial chickens or
    cattle are raised. They are kept in large cages with other mother and
    baby rats until they are weaned, then they are kept in uncrowded cages
    with other rats of the same sex until they are sold. They have plenty
    of food and water and room to run around in, but they are not handled
    at all and have only other rats for company. They have more room than
    most rats kept as pets, but less "human company". The similarity to
    animals raised as "people food" is exact.
    
    Rats raise as pets, on the other hand, are kept "out front" in similar
    cages, but they are handled and given attention from when they are
    small. They are generally purebred with softer coats and more
    attractive coloring. They are friendly and intelligent, and I've
    enjoyed playing with my friend's pet rats in the past.
    
    Rats raised as food are never sold as pets, and vice versa (in any of
    the responsible pet stores I've dealt with. Given that horrors like
    puppy and kitten farms exist I won't claim that rat abuses never
    happen, however I do not condone it nor support it.)
    
    How could I deliberately kill a rat just to feed my obviously unnecessary
    snake? Well... that's a hard question and one I'm not entirely sure I
    know how to answer. Let me put it another way, I enjoyed the company of
    my snake, and she (I think) enjoyed my company. I also have two cats,
    and I can't see any difference. Animals died to feed my snake, animals die
    to feed my cats. The only difference was that I killed the rats myself,
    but the blood of the chickens, turkeys, cows and what all that my cats
    eat are just as surely on my hands. Unless you claim that keeping any
    (meat eating) pet is immoral, I can't see any moral distinction between
    a cat and a snake in this respect.
    
    Enough heavy stuff. When I still had George, I would occasionally buy
    more rats than she wanted to eat at that feeding (evidently snakes have
    varying appetites too...) which would sometimes leave me with a
    cage full of quite lively rats, and a somnolent snake. What to do? I
    didn't want to try to raise rats, she wouldn't be hungry again for
    weeks, and my little travel cage wasn't suitable for keeping rats in
    long term, even if I had wanted to. Further, I would probably get
    attached to the little boogers.
    
    WARNING. If you are even a little squeamish - like you find hairballs
    on the carpet nauseating, or little "presents" on the porch disgusting.
    STOP NOW.
    
    I finally came to the attitude that the rats were "food" and I treated
    them like that. If you don't feel that way, you might not want to read
    further.
    
    Well, you were warned.
    
    What I would do is kill them (see above) and put them in the freezer.
    Right next to the strawberries, popsicles, orange juice, and the other
    leftovers. When she next got hungry, I would get one out, microwave it
    (five minutes on high), and feed her. George was a very tolerant snake,
    the only boa I know of that would eat warmed up leftovers.
    
    Having frozen rats in the house freezer would occasionally result in some
    pretty funny scenes. Like friends would come over and sometimes want
    ice cream. I usually told them to just go into the freezer and help
    themselves. This was usually not a problem, but sometimes we would have
    conversations like:
    
    	Guest:	"Hey Charles! What's that?" (Pointing to ZipLoc with vague
    		white shapes inside.)
    	Me:	"Rats."
    	Guest:	"What?"
    	Me:	"Dead rats. They're for the snake."
    	Guest:	"You're kidding!" (I'm infamous for deadpan absurd replies to
    		questions, so this was a reasonable response.)
    	Me:	"No really. I heat them up in the microwave."
    	Guest:	"I don't think I want any ice cream."
    	Me:	"Ok."
    
    Sometimes, with a fiendish grin (to friends who were into Monty Python).
    
    	Me:	"How about some with a little less 'rat' in it?"
    
    Just in case I've offended someone with my treating killing rats
    lightly, I also joke about *my* food, and I have a rubber chicken in my
    office. Is that different? It's not that I was cavalier, on the contrary,
    I knew (and know) better than most people that animals died so that my
    pet (and I) could live. I knew WHICH animals died, and I watched them
    die. I killed them. Still, I am able to joke about it. Does that make
    me a cold unfeeling monster? I think not. If any of you have friends who
    are doctors, nurses, or other medical personnel, and you're good enough
    friends with them, ask them to tell you some of the jokes they tell
    each other. It's not making fun, it's a way of coping.
    
    	-- Charles

    in re Charles
    
    The attitude expressed in your notes is very similar to the one
    that I and my family acquired while raising goats and chickens
    and ducks and geese and sheep, thank you for entering it.
    
    Bonnie

    Charles -
    
    This is undoubtedly a rathole, for which I apologize, but it reminded
    me of an event in my life :-)
    
    My sister had a pair of gerbils as pets.  About January of my sophmore
    year in college, one of the gerbils died.  Mom carefully wrapped Marvin
    up and stuck him in the freezer for burial once the ground thawed.
    
    My fiance and I came home for the weekend, and he went to the freezer
    for something.  Saw the wrapped "thing" and asked what it was.  "Oh,
    that's Marvin" sez Mom.  I simply accepted it, figuring out immediately
    what the purpose and reasoning was.  My fiance, however, turned a
    couple of shades of green, swallowed hard, and never did follow up on
    whatever it was he wanted to eat.  I don't think he ever quite trusted
    my mom after that, either.  The incident put her clearly in the
    category of "flake".
    
    But you aren't alone in keeping livestock in the freezer and having 
    weird reactions to it.
    
    We now return to the regularly scheduled discussion :-)
    
    Alison

    Alison,
    
    We have also put dead pets in the freezer to save for burial once
    the ground thawed, and gotten similar responses from people.
    
    Bonnie

    responses to various earlier replies
    
    Interesting that folks refuse to eat red meat because it comes from
    mammals, that is, too close to Us and therefore revolting.  When I was
    a kid we ate lots of red meat, and I still love it. (Cold roastbeef and
    pickles - great snack! :)  And we ate chicken and turkey.  But as a
    child I would not even sit at the same table as someone eating fish or
    seafood, or eat it myself (made for some interesting school lunchroom
    battles), or touch it either cooked or raw.  My reason - it is ALIEN
    FLESH if it is not a mammal or bird!  I have since overcome this
    aversion, and have even cooked scallops and fish (fillets and steaks)
    and cracked my own lobsters.
    
    one of the silliest arguments IMO that has been advanced in this string
    is that if it's available for $ in the markets, it's wrong to procure
    it yourself.  I refuse to give up my garden.  BTW I have no argument
    with responsible hunters either.
    
    I agree with the Indian Way as described here (and in the model
    topic?).  All life is one.  Maybe even the earth is part of it.  It
    sustains itself on itself.  It was made that way, it's supposed to work
    that way.  Paraphrasing Frank Herbert, "Life enhances the ability of a
    system to support life", and all life must eat.

    
    
    I'm never having any pets ever!  And I'm never going to look inside
    anyone else's freezer either.
    
    
    should have paid attention to those form feeds
    
    Justine

    re: .155 (GEMVAX::BUEHLER) and others...
    
    First, I don't feel that anyone has to justify hunting any more than
    one has to justify gardening or landscaping...  Also, when my niece
    wants a burger they *do* have to go out to kill a deer to get the meat, as
    beef (aka: cow meat or cow flesh - let's not soften the terms here) is
    much too expensive and not readily available in alaska.
    
    And shooting deer is *not* enough.  They also hunt *many* other wild
    animals, fish, fowl, etc.  Because they desire variety just like
    anybody else.  I myself am not a hunter, yet I am facinated with many
    of the comments made in this note.  
    
    lookin' forward to more...
    
    jim
    

So, I still find myself at a loss for how someone could enjoy hunting,
and no one has yet explained it.  I could enjoy the pre killing part of
hunting, but the killing would *more* the outweigh any pleasure from
the pre-killing activities.  How is it that you hunters can kill so
easily?  (You say it isn't easy.  But do you have nightmares about it?
Do you vomit?  If not, then it was easy.)

I had my first experience killing an animal last night (not including
insects.)  It was "necessary" (to some degree.)  I did not enjoy it.
I *could* not enjoy it. It was an amazingly negative experience for me.
I was sick to my stomach.  I had nightmares.  I cried.  I have been
thinking about it all day and I keep seeing it dieing in my mind's eye.
And it was only a mouse. Had it been a creature higher on the evolutionary
scale my experience would have been worse, I just know it.

I still don't know if I could do it again, however necessary.

I can't understand, for the life of me, how anyone could have a
reaction different than my own.  I guess I can see how someone working
in a slaughterhouse could become desensitized to it after awhile, but
hunters couldn't become desensitized - they [the ones here] have said
themselves that kills are actually very rare.  So the killing, while
it may not be the *point* of the hunting, must be either a neutral
experience for them, or a negative one that isn't *very* negative
(or a positive one, but they keep saying it isn't so I believe them)
or else it wouldn't be worth it, even for the pleasure of the pre-kill
activities.

I took one life to save another.  It was disgusting to me, but I felt it
was necessary.  In some sense you might say I "enjoyed" saving my snake's
life, and perhaps that "enjoyment" exceeded to displeasure of the
killing, or else I wouldn't have done it.  Is that how hunters see
hunting?  The pre-kill activies are so pleasureable that it outweighs
the horror of the killing?  If so than either there must be a
*tremendous* unbelieveable ecstacy in the pre-kill activities that
I don't understand, or hunters' horror at killing is not as great as
mine.  I suspect it is the latter, and I suspect that that is the
source of Lorna and others saying that hunters kill "easily" or have
little respect for the life of the animals they kill.

D!

[I make no moral judgements. I don't think killing animals is necessarily
"wrong".  I eat meat.  But I don't understand the mindset of someone for
whom killing is not a horrible experience.  I don't think that is hypocrisy,
I don't think it is hypocrisy to reap the benefits of something wouldn't
do, not out of moral conviction but out of preference.]

    re .173 D! Are you using your own emotional reactions as
    the benchmark for judging others ? 
    
    >(You say it isn't easy. But do you have nightmares about it?
    >Do you vomit ? If not, then it was easy.)
    
    If a person was arrested on false charges, and didn't have nightmares, 
    or vomit, would that mean the experience was 'easy' ? 
    

>    >(You say it isn't easy. But do you have nightmares about it?
>    >Do you vomit ? If not, then it was easy.)
    
>    If a person was arrested on false charges, and didn't have nightmares, 
>    or vomit, would that mean the experience was 'easy' ? 
    
I was giving those as particular examples of an extreme emotional
reaction.  They don't have to be *those* particular reactions.  If
you got radically depressed, or got an ulcer, or all your hair fell
out, or you were crying uncontrollably, or any other sort of extreme
emotional response, then that would be the same.

i thought I was clear - the whole rest of the note discussed why
I think it must be "easy" for hunters to kill, because if it were
really emotionally difficult, then the pleasure of pre-killing
activities wouldn't outweight the negativeness of the kill.

re: arrested on false charges.  Sorry, I must not have been clear
again.  When I said "easy" what I really meant was "not producing
a severe negative emotional state."  The particular emotional state in
question was depression/sadness/regret etc.  Most people would
react very differently to being arrested falsely ie: fear and anger
rather than sadness and regret, therefore the manifestations of
those feelings would be very different.  I was asuming (perhaps
falsely) that you don't feel *fear* or *anger* when you kill an animal,
and that if you had any negative emotional reaction, that it would be
in the sadness/regret area.

And to answer the question, yes, if someone arrested on false charges
did not experience an extreme negative mental state (which might
be exhibited by vomitting, or more likely, internal anger or outright
yelling and screaming) then yes, I would say the experience was easy.

D!

    >When I said "easy" what I meant was "not producing a severe negative
    >emotional negative state."

    That's a pretty loaded definition. Just because the reaction is
    not severely negative doesn't mean it's "easy". Give me an objective
    standard/scale of easy-difficult-impossible. I'll say that it's
    somewhat difficult _for me_ to deal with killing an animal. For
    you it's somewhere between difficult and impossible. For some
    it's genuinly impossible, for those who are totally inured to
    it, (eg. the aforementioned slaughterhouse workers) it is plain
    easy. 
    
    Dana
    
    PS I don't assign ethical values to *any* point on this scale.

    Next unseen those who don't want details.
    
    The first time I took my dog to hunting lessons (for her), and a 
    bird was shot over her the bird was not killed, flew up
    to a tree, and its blood was dropping onto the snow.  The trainer
    killed it immediately with a follow up shot as soon as we located
    it.  I felt really nauseous, which lasted for several days and thought 
    about not going back.  Once when hunting, my dog recovered a bird that 
    was wounded (by some other hunter), but was very strong and did not die
    easily when I completed the kill by hand.  That day stayed with me a 
    long time, and at the time I thought I would never hunt again.  It was 
    truly disgusting.  But when the animal dies almost instantly I would say
    that you do get desensitized to it, possibly because you don't observe
    its pain.
    	Linda

    
    Another reason for hunting and fishing that I haven't seen mentioned
    is that the animal one may hunt is not readily available in grocery
    stores.  And if the hunter really likes that sort of meat, why not
    hunt for it?  I was fascinated by a hunting coworker one day a few
    years ago who had eider (a type of duck) for lunch that day.  Try finding
    *that* in a grocery store!  The meat and fish are also guaranteed to be
    as fresh as possible.
    

    My freshman year at college we desected mice in biology lab. Though I
    hated doing it I thought that when the instructor made us kill our own
    specimen that it was one of the best things college could have taught
    me. Some things may be necessary and you may have to do them but you
    should always be aware of what you are doing and what it really means.
    Every time we eat meat some living thing died to provide that meat.
    When animals are delivered in plastic wrap you lose perspective on
    this. liesl

    re .179, Liesl, I hear what you're saying, (as the expression goes),
    but I really don't think that I need to actually kill something in
    order to realize what a serious thing it is to take a life.  I think I
    already know that without having to actually kill something.  
    
    It seems that many people here, whether hunters themselves or not, have
    said that killing an animal makes them respect and appreciate life
    more.  I wonder if some men who have fought in war, and actually had to
    take human lives feel that they respect human life more because they
    have actually had to kill?  
    
    I think it's a strange concept.  I resent having people tell me that I
    don't respect or understand what's involved in killing unless I kill
    something.  I think I do understand and that I choose not to do it.
    
    Lorna
    

    liesl, you have it exactly: "every time we eat meat some living thing
    died to provide that meat.  When animals are delivered in plastic wrap
    you lose perspective on this."
    
    the refusal to _at_least_ allow the
    legitimacy of what others do, on our behalf -- that is, kill animals
    either in a slaughterhouse, or while hunting -- even in principle, is
    well within my definition of hypocrisy.
    
    more succinctly, if you eat meat from the supermarket, don't complain
    about hunters.  Your distance from  the act does not divorce you from
    the responsibility.  Or me, either.

re .174                      

>    re .173 D! Are you using your own emotional reactions as
>    the benchmark for judging others ? 
    
Why shouldn't she?

I'm really intrigued by how emotions keep getting short shrift around here. 
As if the Great God Reason were, or should be, what guides our every actions.

I don't buy it,

Dorian               

re .178

Of course, if the prospect of hunting bothered one enough, one might not be able
to keep eider down. Though I don't suppose that thought's much of a comforter.

Re: enjoyment

When I raised animals for food, I didn't enjoy the killing (though
it was less difficult after the first few times); I did enjoy the
satisfaction that comes from producing your own food. 

Kathy

re .183  OH NO!, Not again!

    Re: .186
    
    Eagles, she didn't say you were bad, she said she didn't understand. I
    don't see a hidden agenda, I see an honest explaination of HER feelings
    having just killed a mouse on purpose. If YOU don't understand her feelings
    that's ok - but please say that instead of putting her down (that's what
    your note sounded like to me).
    
    Can you explain why you like hunting instead of why we should? I know its
    easier to not talk about one's own feelings and instead to criticize
    someone else's (that way you don't have to admit how you feel or why,
    instead people can try to make inferences) but *I'd* be interested in
    hearing what you LIKE about hunting, and how you reconcile it with a love
    for nature and the animals you hunt. (I am assuming that you do
    actually and honestly love nature, and that you do respect the animals
    that you kill.) I think you will admint that on the surface there is a
    conflict between supporting animal rights / loving and respecting
    animals, and killing them. I know I have that conflict just because I
    eat meat. It would seem to me the conflict would be that much sharper
    for someone who hunted. How do *you* reconcile it in your own mind?
    
    	-- Charles
    
    P.S. I found your phrase "what _is_ this pre-occupation among some
    women" sexist and offensive personally. I believe *I* show that same
    preoccupation, no?

    re .182 re .174 I sort of resent the logic that says, in effect,
    "I feel X and anybody who doesn't feel X is insensitive." That's
    like saying, "Anything less than ten is no greater than two."
    
    I'm *not* giving emotions zero value, but no one person's emotions
    are the standard.

Here's the reasons I have chosen not to eat meat (chicken, red meat,
of fish).

  o  Health reasons.  From what I have read, eating meat is generally
     bad for your health.  The reasons are high saturated fat
     content, high hormone and drug content, and high toxin content
     (especially in fish).  More and more diseases have been shown to
     be related to high fat, cholesterol, and protein diets.  It is my
     belief that eating only plant products will improve both the
     quantity and quality of life.  

  o  Environmental reasons.  The way livestock is raised today is very
     enviromentally draining.  Half the corn in the USA goes to
     cattle.  If is has eated directly, we could probally feed half
     the world.  The higher up on the food chain that you eat, the
     more resource intentesive it is.  Associated with the land use
     are extreme problems of topsoil erosion and poisoning by toxins
     found in pesticides.  Eating meat is the enviromental equivalent
     of driving of Cadillac.  We in the USA are using 1/2 or the
     worlds resources at 1/10 of the population.  Much of this comes
     from the way we eat.

  o  Ethical reasons.  Animals raised for human consumption are
     generally raised in a cruel and inhumane fashion.  Chickens are
     stuffed  8 to cage with absolutley no room.  Since they are
     territorial, they basically go crazy so there beaks are cut off
     (so they don't kill each other before a profit can be made off
     their flesh or eggs)  
     and they are pumped full of antibiotics to try and stem the tide
     of diseases caused by being raised in such an environmemt.
     Livestock is also jammed into small cages with no exercise.
     Cattle are hung on hooks by their legs  before they are killed.
     I think we all know how veal are raised.

     One wonders what the meat is like when an animal is killed in
     such a fashion.  In the quest for profits, no amount of cruelty
     seems to be unacceptable to the big corparations that control
     most of the food production.  Smaller farmers forced to "modernize"
     to stay competitive.  Pigs are raised in small cages on top of
     each other and the ones on the bottom get the urine and feces
     from the ones on top.  Pigs basically go crazy in this inhumane
     environment and eat other tails and go cannibalistic.  They are
     fed garbage and excrement.

     It is my belief that animals feel pain and suffering that is
     unlike that of plants.  However, when eating plants, I also try
     to do so in awareness that the plant has basically given up its
     existence for my benefit.


Hunting and fishing are a good question.  Many of the reasons I choose
to eat meat have to do with the way livestock is raised in the USA
today.  But many of the reasons I have chosen not to eat meat to do
not relate just to this issue.  If we were living in balance in
Nature, I might see hunting and fishing in another light.  However,
this is not the case.

john

For references, see Diet For A New America, John Robbins
                    The New Laurel's Kitchen
                    Jane Brody's Good Nutrition Cookbook


  

    Has anyone seen the movie, "Roger and Me"?  It's a true life
    documentary on what happened in Flint, Mich. when GM moved out.
    
    At any rate, they interview a young woman who raises rabbits for
    pets and *food*.  She's obviously not well to do and this is how
    she makes her money and literally, eats. Anyway,  at one point,
    she was holding and stroking a huge, golden brown rabbit while talking.
    The interviewer asked what she was going to do with this rabbit;
    well, 'eat it.'  Then they showed her, I think, clubbing it, and
    skinning it, (fur in all  one piece); I had to fast forward after
    that because it hurt too much to watch.  At the end of the movie,
    the voiceover said she would be pursuing a career as a vetrinarian,
    since she felt she wanted to help animals, or something like that.
    Lots of mixed feelings watching this, but how she could stroke and
    then club that rabbit, I will never be able to understand.  I'm
    not saying she did a morally wrong thing (although I think she did :-))
    but I just don't know how she could have done it.
    
    FWIW.
    Maia
    

    RE: .187
    
    Ditto, Charles!  Well said!
    
    
    ~--d--~ Poets *really* wish people would actually read what was said
    	    instead of what they would like to respond to.

    Charles and John, good notes, thank you.  
    
    re .190, I saw the movie "Roger and Me."  Luckily, I had read a review
    that mentioned the rabbit incident, so I knew when to cover my eyes and
    the friend I saw it with told me when I could safely look again.  When
    the woman said that she wanted to be a vet, a lot of the people in the
    theater laughed.  So, I guess that, even if they did think it was funny
    (which I didn't), that they did think it was a contradiction.  (I know
    I did.)
    
    re Eagle, if you are going to criticize D!, you could at least pay more
    attention to her notes.  You make fun of people for not wanting to kill
    cute, furry animals, and then say nobody cares about snakes.  The
    reason she killed the mouse in the first place was to feed her pet
    snake!  
    
    It's a shame when people are criticized for have an "over-developed
    sense of empathy."  I imagine it would be a better world to live in if
    more people had an "over-developed sense of empathy."
    
    Lorna
    

re. Note 251.187                      
    OXNARD::HAYNES 
 
    >I think you will admint that on the surface there is a
    >conflict between supporting animal rights / loving and respecting
    >animals, and killing them.     

    Charles, I read your basenote as questioning whether animals *have*
    rights. I don't believe so. I have enormous respect for animals,
    but I don't think they have rights. (This has been discussed in
    the Philosophy conference. In brief, I don't think the concept of
    rights applies to animals at all.) If you believe animals have rights,
    *then* there is a conflict. One can love and respect animals, and
    kill them for food. I abhor wanton waste of animals, abuse of them,
    needless suffering (the one-shot, quick kill philosophy of the hunter),
    poaching for ivory/horn/gall bladders fercrissakes. I don't cage
    animals for pets. (Keeping snakes, cats and other natural hunters
    bothers me. Cage 'em and kill *for* 'em. Sheesh. As for raptors,
    well, that is a real atrocity IMO.) 

    I come from the old school that maintains that animals are just
    that, animals, *not people*, dammit, and should be respected
    as animals, but not as people. What's the word for the logical 
    error of attributing human characteristics to animals ? Animals
    are first class animals, not second class humans. I treat animals
    as I do out of respect for them, and out of respect for myself,
    but not out of respect for their _rights_. 
    
    Dana (who can kill a deer with pride but would feel demeaned by killing to
    feed an animal who should be free and wild.)
    

    What are people if not animals?  Animals with special abilities, of
    course, but still animals.
    
    Every living creature on earth has rights. IMHO of course.
    
    Maia
    

My *ethical* stance (my last note was questioning emotions and made no
(Eagle, please note) ethical conclusions at all)...

I believe that it is more ethical to kill an animal in the wild than
to raise in animal in the horrible and inhumane conditions of commerical
livestock farms, and then kill it.

The logical outcome of this is that it is more ethical to eat meat
killed in the wild than to eat meat raised on commercial farms.

(This assumes and initial premise that there is a scale of ethicalness
rather than, as some people believe, some things are "ethical", some
things are "unethical" and there is nothing in between.)

If I had the ability to kill my food from the wild (which I don't for
reasons discussed yesterday) or to raise it myself in a more humane
manner, I would.

(Which also means if any of you hunters have excess wild meat you want
to get rid of, I'd be happy to take it.  :-)

D!

[PS: On an entirely different note, don't you hunters worry about eating
wild meat?  I mean, with all the toxic chemicals around out there, etc,
as well as diseases and stuff, how do you know that the meat is safe?
I would never feed my snake a wild mouse because they are prone to carrying
infections, parasites and other nasties.]

A side note:

A prof of mine at MIT pointed out that philosophy discussed humans as "animals
who can think". The advent of the computer brings discussion of humans a
"computors who can have emotions".
	Mez

    In the grand scheme of things, I think that if you're going to eat meat
    then hunting it yourself is probably significantly more humane than
    buying it in a supermarket.  Its not just the animals raised in
    captivity who suffer, either.  Ever think about the people who work
    in the slaughterhouses?  And how much repetitive word goes on in
    cutting up the same pieces over and over again with sharp knives? 
    There's a lot of cases coming out now about the butchers getting Carpal
    Tunnel syndrome resulting from the repetitiveness and pace of the work.
    
    Yet one deer (or whatever) could probably feed that same family for
    quite some time and the animal probably lived in better conditions than
    the cows, pigs etc.

    
    Yes, but if everyone took to the woods to get their meat, we'd have
    a *much* longer list of endangered species than we do now.  Provided
    that people insist on eating meat, then we're going to have to have
    some animals raised on farms whose express purpose is for human
    consumption (like we do), so that we can avoid putting a much more
    severe burden on the ecological system than we already do.
    

    So many have a problem with hunting for food?  My Grandmother, a
    native North American (Canada) hunted for her family.  She was widowed
    when my Mother was 2 yrs old.  Mostly trapping I've heard, and she
    managed to raise 3 young children by herself - and provided for them.
    
    I have not (to date) had any experience myself with hunting, but would
    like to learn.  If I ever became a homeless, jobless person I'd prefer
    to hunt for food vs. eating out of some human's garbage can.
    
    I do respect and love animals, except rats.  I kill mosquitos for
    pleasure, but I don't have a seal fur coat.  I believe in protecting
    our endangered species.  Many children have never even seen a picture
    of a Siberien Tiger.  We also need to keep herds of deer healthy.
    
    I didn't always feel this way towards hunting, and since I knew so
    little about it, decided to learn. i.e., attend Worc Cty League
    meetings in several different sporting clubs.  Here various State
    Wildlife agencies gave reports on coyote problems, stocking of ponds, 
    etc., etc. for hunters.  Learned a lot about what goes on right across
    my street - in the woods....
    
    So, before some of you so actively condone something, try to understand
    it with active listening.
    
                                   Carol

I'm wondering, do you hunters clean and butcher the deer or bird after 
you've killed it?

Carla

    re .200 I clean, or field-dress my deer, but have it butchered
    by a commercial meat-cutter. (I'm sort of clumsy with knives,
    also lack bandsaw and grinder.)
    
    dana

re.200 Carla

  I have never been on a hunt where field dressing didn't occur immediately.
After all, if it didn't the meat wouldn't be terribly edible.  However, in
the absence of adequate sanitary facilities it is usually best to left the
game as much in it's original packaging as possible for ease of transport.

In general:

  I have never myself killed in the wild and my on-the-farm tally is exactly
one chicken -- a clean broken neck, but the hair on my neck still rises when
I think on it.  However, I have been a full participant in the processing of
February hog-kills, cleaning turkeys and carving up venison.  I hated it.

  I tend to purchase what meat I do eat in the skinned, boned, neatly packaged
form.  This is probably ultimately unhealthy as I tend to eat more flesh when
not confronted with the immediate reminder of it's animate form.

endangered species:

  Another dilemma.  I certainly do not wish for species to die out.  However,
Australipithicus is no more; ditto the pteradactyl and numerous thousands of
species once present.  How to balance the inevitable march of evolution with
the all-too-human resistance to change ...

  Annie

    I too kill mosquitoes as often as possible, and have considered mass
    murder of the species in my area (my nextdoor neighbor has a pretty but
    pretty stagnant pond in his front yard, and the back half of my acre is
    swamp).  Our mosquitoes are fierce.  I kill deer flies too, and black
    flies.  And no-see-ums.
    
    I don't allow ground-dwelling yellow jackets' nests to live in my yard. 
    I drown 'em out, with a hose let to run overnight.
    
    On paper wasps, if they are on the swingset or the garage door, I use
    the poison you spray from 12 feet away.  I'm cowardly about wasps.  But
    if I find one indoors, I'll catch it in a glass jar and let them go
    outside.
    
    Ticks.  I HATE HATE HATE ticks.  I don't suffer them to live.  They are
    extremely hard to kill, however; I pull them off the dog with tweezers
    and burn them in a candle flame.  It doesn't take finding too many
    ticks on your couch or kids to learn to kill them without compunction.
    
    The crows that wake me up by having arguments right outside my open
    bedroom windows at 5:00 a.m. -- I'd throw rocks at them if it wasn't so
    much trouble to get out of bed.
    
    I tried to kill the woodchuck that mowed my broccoli, cauliflower,
    tomato, squash, and bean plants, all in 2 nights, one year.  I tried
    bombing it out.  It was discouraged, not killed.  I put up a wire
    fence, 3 ft high and 1 ft under the sod in the meantime.  That worked. 
    If I'd had a 22 I'd'a shot the sucker.
    
    But, I don't try to hurt the robins that love my strawberries.  I feed
    the birds all winter.  I have saved a sparrow hawk that got caught in
    the attic of a house, and a starling that had got tangled in some pea
    fence in the garden once.  The birds can be a pain tho, since they
    transport seeds of deadly nightshade (and other weeds) into the garden.
    
    I pick up worms from the sidewalk after a rain, and put them on the grass.
    
    We patched up the hole in the concrete foundation where the mice got in.
    I don't really want them dead, just out of my house walls.  I might
    reconsider though, if they still get in somehow.
    
    I have saved turtles from getting squashed on the road, a painted
    turtle once (released him after a couple of days' observation by my
    kids), and once risked my limbs to save a big snapper.
    

    Carla,
      Yes I butcher the birds I hunt.  Once you get rid of the head
    and the intestines (which come out in one piece) it is just like
    cutting up a chicken for frying.
    	Linda

    In are the rabbit, we caressed or gentled all of our animals,
    rabbits and chickens before we slaughtered them. They sense that
    something is wrong before you actually kill them, so gentling
    them is more humane.
    
    In general my husband did the killing and I skinned and dressed
    out the carcass, both rabbits, chickens and ducks.
    
    The larger animals (goats and sheep) and later the birds (because
    of the problem of removing feathers) we took to a professional
    small slaughter house, which did the butchering and defeathering
    for us.
    
    We never enjoyed killing the animals, but felt it was a rather solemn
    moment, but also a necessary step in converting an animal we'd raised
    for meat into meat.
    
    Bonnie

    
    re .205. Sara:
    
    I followed you right along up until the starling.  You should've
    killed it.  They're not native, they have no natural enemies
    on this continent, they're agressive and numerous, and they
    steal other native birds' (bluebird decline is *directly*
    related to starling increase!) nests.
    
    Sounds kinda like humans, eh?
    

    .208, Ellen - yes, but starlings are one of only two predators of
    another well-intentioned but stupid import, gypsy moth catepillars.
    (The other is a wasp that parasitizes them.)  Starlings don't eat a lot
    of the critters, but they eat some.
    
    

    Right, let's just kill all those pesky, ugly things that don't
    look right in our yards, or eat all those wonderful vegetables in
    or gardens that we would die without.  Yes, I'm sarcastic.  Does
    anyone else believe that 'nature will take care of its own?'
    That all life is linked in some way to each other?  I will not
    buy the idea that homo sapiens must 'take charge' to control
    nature.  It's not our role on earth, and it's not our obligation.
    
    enough said.
    Maia
    

    re .210, well, I agree with you, but I don't know if anyone else does.
    
    Lorna
    

    I do, I do!  :-)
    
    Pam

    ref .210	I haven't responded in this notesfile but there is
    something in this response that I had to reply to.  I was down
    in Mass. yesterday on business and usually I stay at my Mom's
    instead of a hotel, at any rate, when I got there she was next
    door at my brother's house getting one of his shotguns.  Why
    on earth does she want a shotgun?  My mother is retired, she
    lives on a fixed income, she was raised on a farm and she is
    not wealthy.  One of the ways that she helps herself is to have
    a garden, she freezes and cans what she grows so that she doesn't
    have to buy them in a store.  It appears she has had a visitor
    of late and she lost 80% of her broccoli (I haven't seen her 
    this angry in a long time) and she didn't want to loose her
    beet greens and swischchard (sp) or anything more.  Her answer;
    I'm going to shoot that son of ...... before he cleans me out.
    	IMHO that woodchuck's life is not even close to being as
    valuable as my Mom's comfort.  I've put many hours over the years
    in gardens, both my own and my Mom's, and I've also killed a number
    of woodchucks that have raided those gardens.  I never "enjoyed"
    killing them, but then I didn't feel to bad about either.  My only
    point is that some people make calls based on their values and
    sometimes animals die.  Someday I'll retire and you can rest 
    assured that I will have a garden, who and what I allow to destroy
    that garden will depend a lot on my financial situation at the
    time and the impact on me and mine.
    
    thanx for reading
    
    bob 

    re .210:
    
    I'm not sure if you were responding to my previous note, but it
    kind of sounded like you were, so here's my 'rebuttal':
    
    Starlings - in the first decade of this century, starlings arrived
    by boat from Europe - brought here by human beings *on purpose*.
    Given that homo sapiens have already messed things up so utterly by
    this *one* act, killing them is a good thing, not a bad thing because
    it is bringing nature back into balance, albeit in just my tiny corner
    of the world.
    

    
	Dr. Edwin A. Locke, Chicago Tribune April 21, 1988.

    
    "A new attack on individual rights is spreading like cancer through the
    world. This attack does not come from kings, or dictators, or the
    Master Race. It comes from animal-rights advocates. 
    
    "Contrary to popular belief, they are arguing for much more than the
    prevention of cruelty to animals. They maintain that it is immoral for
    man to intervene at all in the lives of animals. They oppose everything
    from commercial fishing to the owning of pets. But the immediate goal
    of the movement is to stop the use of live animals for scientific
    research. 
    
    "In their efforts to halt medical research, animal-rights advocates
    have stolen or released experimental animals, vandalized laboratories,
    threatened researchers and disrupted scientific meetings. They have
    pushed for legislation that would restrict or even prohibit the use of
    animals in research. Experiments and even entire laboratories have been
    shut down, due to the skyrocketing research costs of meeting security
    needs and government regulations. 
    
    "The premise behind the animal-rights movement is that it is all right
    for man to suffer and die, as long as animals are protected. 
    
    "There *is* an ''endangered species'' involved in the animal-rights
    movement: it is man. For what is being jeopardized is one of man's
    chief means of sustaining, improving and extending his life: medical
    research. 
    
    "From the treatment of rabies in the 19th century to the development of
    anti-cancer drugs and experimental AIDS vaccines, animals have played
    and must continue to play a crucial role in the growth of medical
    knowledge and medical technology. Millions of human beings will die
    unnecessarily if animal research is stopped. There are no practical
    alternatives to the use of live animals. But the facts about medical
    research are simply denied by many animal-rights advocates and rejected
    by others as irrelevant. Animals, they claim, have rights regardless of
    the medical benefits to man. 
    
    "The fact is that animals have no rights at all. Rights are not based
    on the capacity to feel pain, but on the capacity to think. Rights are
    a form of ethical principle and therefore apply only to beings capable
    of reason and volition. Animals are not ethical beings. The role of
    ethics is to guide man's actions in order to further his life and
    well-being. Rights are moral principles needed to protect the
    individual's mind -- his freedom of thought and thus of action --
    against the initiation of force by other men. 
    
    "The concept of individual rights is therefore strictly human; it is a
    repudiation of the creed of self-sacrifice; it derives from the idea
    that man -- every man -- is an end in himself, not a means to the ends
    of others (as in all forms of statism). Rights grant to man, not the
    sub-human, freedom to act on his own judgement and to promote his own
    interest, provided he does not violate the rights of other men. 
    
    "If man has rights, this includes the right to use animals for his own
    ends, including food, clothing and medical research. If in contrast,
    animals have ''rights,'' then the concept is obliterated. 
    
    "The above view cannot be refuted by specious arguments to the effect
    that we grant rights to infants and the cognitively impaired, none of
    whom are fully rational. We do so because they are still forms of
    humanity. The concept of rights, like all philosophic principles, is
    derived from the essential nature of human beings, not from borderline
    cases. 
    
    "Howard University professor Charles Griswold identified the key
    principle: ''It's a question of saving or not saving us -- not just in
    the sense of self-preservation, but in our understanding of what it
    means to be human. The thesis that there is no moral difference between
    man and a rat amounts to the ethical and moral debasement of man.''" 
    

    
    a true concept of morality would not be limited to "individual rights"?
    
    D.

    Who else is there ?

    .215, the article.
    
    poppycock, horsefeathers, b*llsh*t.
    
    

>    "A new attack on individual rights is spreading like cancer through the
    world. 
    
In my humble opinion, of course, this is a hysterical article--note
the use of the word "cancer" which scares most of us with its 
serious implications.  So the tone of the article is set.
        
>    "The premise behind the animal-rights movement is that it is all right
    for man to suffer and die, as long as animals are protected. 
 
I repeat, poppycock, horsefeathers, b*llsh*t.  WHOSE premise is he
stating here?  Where does it say and who says that "it is all right for man to
suffer and die, as long as animals are protected."

   
>    "There *is* an ''endangered species'' involved in the animal-rights
    movement: it is man. For what is being jeopardized is one of man's
    chief means of sustaining, improving and extending his life: medical
    research. 

"Man" is far from being an endangered species.  In fact, *every* problem
that is facing the environment and the earth today is caused by over
population.  Rain forests being slashed and burned?  To give "man" a
place to live.  The ozone layer depleted?  Caused by the tons of CFCs
thrown in the air by not only industries but mostly automobiles.  The problem
is caused not only by CFCs, but by the huge amount, directly related
to the overpopulation of the earth.  Any environmental science course
will reveal that the problem is not what "man" has done to the earth,
but the rate of speed at which it is being done, and at the amount of what is 
being done.  
    
>    "The fact is that animals have no rights at all. Rights are not based
    on the capacity to feel pain, but on the capacity to think. Rights are
    a form of ethical principle and therefore apply only to beings capable
    of reason and volition. Animals are not ethical beings. The role of
    ethics is to guide man's actions in order to further his life and
    well-being. 
    
Who made him God?  His thought process scares me to death.  Ethics?
Am I to understand that the only reason there is *other* life on earth
is to maintain and improve my life on earth?  This statement is stupid,
if not completely dangerous and insane.  "Man" cannot live on earth
without other living things--from the lowliest phytoplankton to the
mightiest "Trump", we all depend on one another for life.

    
>    "If man has rights, this includes the right to use animals for his own
    ends, including food, clothing and medical research. If in contrast,
    animals have ''rights,'' then the concept is obliterated. 
 
Good question.  Does "man" have rights?  Does "man" have the right to kill,
endanger other species of life "for his own ends."


Maia   

Re .215
    
    >	Dr. Edwin A. Locke, Chicago Tribune April 21, 1988.
    >   .....
    >    "The fact is that animals have no rights at all. Rights are not based
    >   on the capacity to feel pain, but on the capacity to think. 
    
    It would be interesting to see Dr Locke's definition of "think", and a
    proof that a "capacity to think" is exhibited by all humans and no
    animals.

	Re: .221 Maia (?)

	BRAVO!  I was so angered by that article that I couldn't get rational
enough to say what you said so well.  

	What incredible, egocentric, hubris!

Tracey

    
    As you may know, LYNX is a charity dedicated to eliminating the 
    killing of animals for their fur and the use of fur in human clothing.
    They have been tremendously successful here in the UK and Europe, and have
    had a significant inpact on our fur trade. They are now coming
    to the U.S..
    
    I daresay you will see a lot about them in the press - they use
    powerful, emotive images in their publicity which invariably cause
    an outcry. As a group they have become "mainstream" here - they
    are not regarded broadly as "loony animal-activists" - and they
    have a string of shops selling merchandise to raise money for their
    cause. Their merchandise (jewellery, clothes, posters etc.) is
    superb - their T-shirts legendary, and widely sought in Europe.
    
    The following is reproduced without permission from the LYNX members
    magazine.
    
    
    				LYNX IN THE U.S.
    
    "LYNX IS PROUD TO ANNOUNCE THE OPENING OF ITS OFFICE IN THE U.S..
    The office address is Suite 155, 10573 W. Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles,
    CA 90064.
    
    The campaign is set to get off to a flying start this Winter with the
    screening in the U.S. during November of a C.B.S. '60 MInutes"
    programme (40 million viewers) on the effect that Lynx has already had
    in Britain and Europe. Extensive press and media cover is anticipated
    but we have to be able to mount an effective poster campaign for this
    to happen...." (Then followed an appeal to UK and European members to
    give donations to support the U.S. launch).
    
    "The fur trade is already on the defensive in the U.S. and the time is
    perfect for LYNX to enter the arena. With vast resources at its
    disposal the industry currently runs advertising and public relations
    campaigns using the same, tired excuses that we have become only too
    familiar with here.
    
    One company is even offering for sale new 'Silk Raincoats' with the
    enticement that they will 'conceal your old fur' - thereby purchasers
    will 'avoid the fur controversy'. Already a number of celebrities have
    agreed to support the campaign and have pledged never to wear fut.
    Long time supporter of the anti-fur campaign, Cassandra Peterson,
    ("Elvira"), was amongst the first to pledge her support. Well-known
    in the L.S. area for her distincitive BAN FUR numberplate, Cassandra's
    view on fur is straightforward: "Once it turned my head, now it
    only turns my stomach"."
    
    LYNX patrons in the UK include:
    Marie Helvin
    Linda McCartney
    Twiggy
    Peter Gabriel
    Sir John Gielgud
    Elton John
    ....and quite a few leading politicians.
    
    'gail
    
    

'gail,

Could you tell me a little about the organization?  Primarily, are they 
proponents of some of the more violent methods of convincing people not to
wear fur?  I am thinking about the people who have gone up to people wearing
fur, and spray painting it.  Do they try to work through education?  Also,
do you know the cost of membership?

E Grace

    
    E Grace...

>Could you tell me a little about the organization?  
    
    I can tell you my view, though I guess they may undertake different
    actions or take a different "slant" in the U.S.....I'm sure that
    their new office will soon be getting them into your local media
    with a very clear message of what they're about.
    
    >Primarily, are they proponents of some of the more violent methods of 
    >convincing people not to wear fur?  I am thinking about the people who 
   > have gone up to people wearing
   >fur, and spray painting it.  
    
    Their methods are often emotionally violent, but not necessarily of
    the spray-painting school. I think they used to do that but came to
    realise that a violent approach doesn't support the non-violence
    they're advocating towards animals. Also, they got a lot of
    law suits against them that they couldn't afford to fight (being
    self-funding).
    
    They will use heavy emotional blackmail however, trying to induce guilt
    and shame into those who perpetuate the industry. They sell little
    cards for supporters to give out to those wearing fur that say
    "Yuck! Your disgusting fur coat", and they have some very powerful
    visuals (on posters, videos etc.) showing animals in distress.
    They made an anti-fur video here which showed a fashion show with
    models displaying furs - it turned into a nightmare sequence where
    the models became blood-spattered and beaten, using a slogan
    of "Rich bitch (coat-wearer) - Poor bitch (clubbed animal)".
    It caused a huge outcry here.
    However, the fur departments of many of our major stores (Harrods
    included) have been forced to close as a direct result of
    that campaign.
    
    >Do they try to work through education?  
    
    Certainly. They are pro-active in approaching (courteously) any fur
    users. Right now they're talking to the academic world about the
    fur trimmings on academic gowns and for mayoral office regalia...
    They talk in schools, in the press, in any forum they can find...
    And they run terrific fashion shows with top designers who show
    fur-free fashion to show that you can look terrific/glamorous/rich
    without wearing the stuff.
    
    >do you know the cost of membership?

    Over here it cost equivalent to about $25 for the year last year.
    
    'gail         
    

    Regarding note .221 - BRAVO!! I couldn't have said it better!!
    
    Also, as far as scientific research goes, I've read in PETA that
    some scientists perform their tests on these animals just to
    use up funds coming in.  In other words, they don't necessarily
    have further medical tests to do so the test just for the h*** of
    it!!  I'd like to see that scientist tied to a table and disected!

    	I thought of this topic when I heard of a group called
    	the "Terminally Ill for Animal Testing".  They are
    	(as their name indicates) terminally ill people who lobby
    	(or pay others to lobby for them?) congress against bans
    	on testing with animals.   I believe I heard this description
    	in the radio.
    
    						nancy b.
    

    set tone= "hopefully inoffensive tongue-in-cheek humor, please attempt
    to NOT take offense...."
    
    
    I'm so *sad* every time I put on my calf-length winter coat, now about
    8 years old.  I think of all those tiny, furry SYNTHS that had to die
    to make the collar so many years ago - their little polyethylene eyes
    tearing up and welling out down their polystyrene cheeks as they
    whimpered with a sound something like nylon running......        ;)
    
    Boy, it's cold out there, huh?
    
    -Jody

    ...but if we could get the baby Naugas to *hide*, they wouldn't be
    caught...
    
    
    
    <chortle>
    

	A woman I used to work for had a red nauga in her office.


						--D

    In view of a)the fact that fur is a far more renewable resource 
    than oil b) they both have the same source, separated principly
    by time, c)the oil/plastic/synthetic industries are far more
    damaging to the ecosystem, I fail to see how anybody can choose
    to wear synthetics over fur or leather. (Mind you, I love polyester
    pile and nylon and Polarguard -TM- and Gore-Tex -TM- but I can't
    claim it's superior to fur or leather. Except functionally.)

    re .234 Oil doesn't feel pain, but what of the critters that
    die in oil slicks when tankers rupture? When oil fields wipe
    out pristine areas ? When chemical companies dump or bury waste
    material ? Makes the slaughterhouse seem positively humane
    by comparison.

    
    re .235, I don't think any of the things you mention are humane.
    
    You made the comment that you can't understand why anyone would choose
    to wear synthetics instead of fur.  I personally choose not to wear
    fur because I don't believe in killing animals (taking a life) merely
    for profit when it isn't necessary for food.  I think it seems cruel,
    it upsets me and I'd be very unhappy walking around in a fur coat.  So,
    I'm just telling you why I'd rather wear a synthetic.  I can't make you
    understand or agree, but I wish you would respect my belief.  
    
    I don't want to walk around with dead animals hanging off of me.
    
    The difference is in how we view the value of animal life.  I consider
    it to be almost as sacred as human life, and you don't.  It's a belief,
    like religion.  I just think as few animals should be killed as
    possible and there is no reason why people in our culture need fur
    coats in order to survive.  (I said our culture - I'm not talkling
    about Eskimos or whatever.)
    
    I wish you hadn't brought this up.  You seem like such a nice person
    except for your attitudes towards hunting, etc.  *sigh*  (desperate
    attempt at humor-I don't feel like being angry about anything right
    now).
    
    Lorna
       

    >>I don't want to walk around with dead animals hanging off of me.
    
    
    BRAVA!!!!!!  Well said, Lorna!
    
    E Grace

    Actually, Doctah, now that you mention it, my coat *is* wool!  It says
    so right on the tag!  100%
    
    BTW, I think you should shear sheep next fall instead of deer hunting.
    :-)  Don't you think that would make a nice hobby for you?  Much more
    humane than some of your present ones, *IMHO*.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    but if you shear the sheep in the fall the poor dear things will get
    nasty chills...
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    Hey, can we all agree on cotton instead?
    

        Cotton is nice, but don't they kill boll weevils in order
        to grow more of it?
        
        Dan

    
    RE: Lorna
    
    >Much more humane than some of your present ones
              
    Sometimes shooting a deer is the most humane thing you can do for it.
    Taking into account the overpopulation of deer in some areas,
    starvation is a real factor for these animals.  Starvation is a very
    slow, very agonizing death.  
    
    Until such factors as viable population control and adequate feeding of
    these animals is addressed (and practiced effectively) by many of the
    "anti-hunting" contingent, I'll continue to believe that hunting deer
    (and other overpopulated wildlife) is the most "humane" thing we can do
    for them.  
    
    I would rather see their pain be brief and their meat be beneficial to
    our survival (the food chain syndrome) than to see them agonizing and
    dying needlessly (and uselessly).
    
    kathy
    

    Lorna, my point is that any oil-based synthetic fabric is the
    equivalent of 'wearing dead animals'. Everything dies. The side
    effects of the petro-chemical industry are, IMO, more destructive
    of life and ecosystems *at all levels* than the fur and leather
    industries. Just not as simple and direct.

    re .243, this is a well-known argument, but I disagree with it.
    
    re .244, we use oil for many other things besides synthetic fabrics. 
    Animals that are killed for fur are killed for no other reason than
    profit and the desire for status clothing on the part of some wealthy
    humans.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    
    I take it you are not including rabbits in this, since they are also
    eaten?
    
    Meg

    re .247, I don't eat rabbits.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    .246>>-< Ah, the casustry of the hypocrite! >-
    
    Considering your note was addressed to me, I'll assume that the title
    was not intended to refer to me as a hypocrite?  Is that a safe
    assumption?  BTW, it's "casuistry." (Just thought I would pick your
    nit.  If you're going to insult me, you might as well spell it right).
    
    >We're willing to force human animals to die in unspeakably extended
    >agony, hooked to machines as we deny them the right to die quickly, yet
    >we want to kill nonhuman animals humanely?
    >Give me a break.
    
    I support euthanasia.  I would indeed be a hypocrite if I didn't.  But
    since I do, I suppose I don't need to "give you a break."  (I find
    those to be ugly fighting words, btw). Interestingly enough, I don't
    think you really know what I feel inside (unless you're psychic), so
    I'd prefer it if you didn't attempt to read my mind anymore.
    
    >Stop f---ing with the ecology 
    
    -d, dear.  We, as humans, ARE part of the "ecology."  Your entire
    tirade is moot because I never have NOR NEVER WILL support total
    annilation of a species of animals.  I support maintaining a healthy
    balance which is NOT happening right now with some species of animals.
    
    Have you seen starving animals out west?  Have you seen grasslands
    chewed to the bare bones thus destroying the habitats of other animals?
    
    
    Sort of off the subject, but.....do you sincerely expect me to respond
    civilly when you refer to me as a hypocrite, when you tell me what I
    should do (and should think) and tell me it's going to be my fault if
    it happens?  
    
    Do the "I feel..." rules of this conference don't apply to you?  Or,
    since you're agreeing with the majority, is it "okay" for you to write
    that way?
    
    <sigh>
    
    kath

RE:  Hunting as an answer to overpopulation of animals.

I think the problem is the overpopulation of another species.  

    Possibly, but unless you are living in the wild, with no clothing,
    eating only what you can forage or scavenge, you are part of the
    problem.  Habitat destruction, something we humans are quite good at
    doing to other animals is what causes the animal overpopulation
    problem.  
    
    Since I live in a home, drive a car on paved roads, wear clothing,
    shoes, buy some food in supermarkets, and garden, I have also
    contributed to habitat destruction.  However, due to licensing fees,
    surtaxes on ammunition, rifles, fishing gear etc, I probably contribute
    over $100 dollars to habitat preservation, over and above what I donate
    to wildlife funds directly.  Many people who hunt contribute far more.  
    
    If you really want to stop hunting, I have a few ideas for you.  Take a
    hunter safety course.  You will learn alot about habitat, as well as
    hunting ethics, and gun safety.  Then apply for all the limited
    licenses you can afford each year.  Buy the federal and state
    duckstamps, and game conservation stamps, and then don't hunt.  Donate
    to your local and to national wildlife funds and the nature
    conservancy.  
    
    Also, work on seriously reducing your impact on the environment.  If
    you have a yard put some of it into habitat, even if it is just a
    birdbath and feeder and fruit bushes.  Don't use chemical pesticides,
    recycle everything you can.  Carpool, turn your thermostat down. 
    Reduce your use of nonrecyclable plastics, and start a compost heap and
    garden.  Don't build or live in semi-wild areas, as then you are
    contributing to the further destruction of habitat.  Encourage
    greenbelts and wild life throughways to avoid island environments,
    which encourage inbreeding and overpopulation of wildlife.
    
    Meg

    One of the definitions of life we learned in Bio was that all,
    repeat all, living organisms alter their environment. Some 
    more than others. Some much more. The human species is over-
    evolved in this respect. Our conceptual, rational faculty gives
    us the power to not only alter but cripple and even destroy
    entire ecosystems. This in turn gives us the ability to not 
    only sustain our numbers but to increase our population. Which,
    in turn, causes other elements in the system to suffer. Ultimately,
    the system will stop supporting _us_. When it does, the human 
    suffering will make today look like paradise. 
    
    You can't reverse human evolution. You can't stop people from
    wanting more and better food, shelter, etc. for themselves and
    for their children. You can't stop them from *having* children.
    Historically, the only factor to cause a decrease in population
    growth has been an increase in standard of living. Attempting
    to increase the standard of living by decreasing the population
    growth fails exactly as putting the cart before the horse does.
    Lower birthrates, in humans, follows prosperity, rather than
    causing it. How to increase prosperity ? Unfortunately, more
    and more exploitation of resources. The question is, can we
    find and use resources outside our ecosystem ? (Space exploration
    buffs know the answer to this one.)
    
    Until we can provide plenty for all with minimum disruption of 
    our environment we are stuck in the 'f***ing with the ecosystem'
    mode. 
    
    Dana
    
    PS I just came back from a course studying the ecology of coral
    reefs. Overfishing by natives for food is causing major damage
    to the reefs by removing fish which glean algae from the coral.
    The result is a severe drop in the amount of healthy coral,
    drop in the number of predatory fish, drop in the general health
    of a delicately balanced system. But try to convince people in a
    third-world country to stop eating.

    
    
    RE: -d
    
    >My real beef is with the mindset that makes humanity the only species
    >that doesn't play by the rules.  Nonhuman aniumals of Species A do not
    >kill animals of Species B for the pure pleasure of the tracking and
    >killing or to obtain objects and materials for personal adornment or to
    >hang on the walls of their dwellings
    
    I have no idea where you ever got the idea that what I said in my note
    had ANYTHING to do with this mindset.
    
    *ALL* of the hunters I know hunt, not only for the sport of it, but
    because they enjoy eating "wild game" meat (and it is an alternative to
    processed beef you buy in the stores).
    
    You would be surprised how many mouths a person can feed off one deer's
    meat.  Are you a strict vegitarian? (IE, do you eat beef?)
    
    I feel that your response as so clouded any of the issues that I
    presented, that I really don't find your response accurate addressing
    any of the issues that I brought up at all.  
    
    I don't endorse senseless killings of animals (for pure pleasure) and
    dumping their carcass, nor do I advocate annilation of entire species.
    Yet, I feel your response to me characterizes me as advocating both.
    
    kathy

    re: .255
    
    -d:
    
    Ummm, actually, I believe that you are mistaken when you say that only
    humans kill for "pleasure".  Certain predators do indeed stalk and kill
    for the pure pleasure and enjoyment of it...  for example, housecats
    will stalk, "play with", and kill prey such as mice and birds even
    though they've never learned that such prey are "food", and seem to
    get great enjoyment out of this activity.
    
    In a somewhat similar vein, troops of chimpanzees have been known to 
    make "war" on other troops -- so man is not the only creature to kill
    members of it's own species.
    
    		-Todd
    

    re .255
    >deer starve
    >...such is the way God built this world
    
    Some people enjoy hunting for all the reasons you mention and more.
    Isn't that (to use your words) part of the way God built this world,
    also ?
    
    Do you object to me following _my_ nature ? I may not need the meat, 
    but time has taught me that I surely need to hunt.
    
    Dana
    
    PS personal hot button: those who, out of touch with their own
    predatory nature, condemn mine.

    By the way, for the deer to starve in large numbers, is not, as
    I've said in many previous notes, the 'natural' way. Deer are
    'wired' to breed to the limits of predator pressure. In the
    absence of predators they over breed their enviroment. This
    casues severe damage to the entire ecosystem, both the vegetation
    and the other herbivorous mammals. Maintaining a deer herd at
    the carrying level of the ecosystem is far more humane and beneficial
    to the entire ecosystem, than letting them breed to the point where
    they strip all the vegetation and starve in large numbers.
    
    Bonnie

    re .262, great reply.  I agree completely.
    
    Lorna (proud to be out of touch with my "predatory nature" -
            I left it back with some distant ancestor who didn't
            live close to a grocery store & I will always condemn
            the actions of those who enjoy killing regardless of
            anyone's hot button)
    

    I'm pro-choice on this issue.  We need clothes to keep warm; it's a
    survival issue.  Where we get them from is a matter of personal choice.
    I dislike it when I hear someone say its immoral to kill animals for
    clothing because animal life is sacred and should be valued.  I feel
    the same way about people telling me its immoral to murder an unborn
    fetus.  I wish people would stop trying to judge what is moral for
    others.
    
    -Mary
    

    Re: oil
    
    Is oil the product of dead animals?  I thought it was dead plants same
    as coal and peat.
    
    Re: wapiti
    
    Only someone from Bozeman would use a word like that :-)
    
    Re: hypocrites
    
    I personally have never met anyone who was not a hypocrite.  Except
    for myself, of course :-)
    
    -Mary
    

    re .264, in regard to your wishing that people would stop trying to
    judge what is moral for others, don't you think this is always done in
    society?  We are told that it is morally wrong to kill, morally wrong
    to steal, morally wrong to rape, morally wrong to burn houses down. 
    The difference is that most people agree on these things so they became
    laws.  There are a few people who resent having these morals forced on
    them and continue to murder, rape, and steal.  The rest of us consider
    these people to be criminals.
    
    The difference in regard to animal life or unborn babies is that there
    are less people who consider killing them to be immoral, so a lot of
    arguments occur.  However, most people do not just decide, for the heck of
    it, to judge what is moral for others.  Most of us really *believe*
    what we are saying is true.  I really believe that killing animals for
    sport is immoral.  You may not like hearing me say it, but it is still
    what I believe and I am not going to stop saying what I believe.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re: Lorna (.266)
    
    Isn't it enlightening how all those moral wrongs, i.e. killing,
    stealing, raping, burning houses, are glorified and measured in
    'wartime'?
    
    In one setting, it's wrong.  In another, it's a sign of strength
    and victory.
    
    Carla
    

    re .268, what would make me expect that after knowing you?
    
    Lorna
    

Back on the animal rights topic . . .

I don't know how I feel about this.  Is it more wrong to kill an animal
so I can wear its fur than it is to kill it so I can roast its rump?  
Does it make a difference if the animal is raised on a ranch (like mink 
or cattle) as opposed to wild (like cheetah or deer)?  If I use the whole
animal, from making shoes from its hide to making glue from its bones,
is that better? 

I can see the argument that eating an animal satisfies a real need, while
fur coats satisfy only vanity.  But where does that leave lining the hood
of a winter coat with wolverine fur, which doesn't catch frost and helps
prevent frostbite if you have to be out in severe weather? 

--bonnie

    I think it is very easy to gloss over a lot of war-time
    atrocities (like rape) with a glib "Well that's war for you" when it
    doesn't *have* to be.  
    
    I think that statements like "War is an unfortunate necessity, and {x}
    is just part of war" are dangerous, because they allow us to justify 
    the unjustifiable.   I think when we say that, we should stop and
    *think* about what we are saying:  if war is a necessity, and rape is
    an inherent part of war, then rape is a necessity.  What we are really
    saying here is that there are horrible things that are necessary, and I
    am not so sure this is true.
    
    War might or might not be necessary.  I don't pretend to know.  But I
    can't believe that some of the things, such as rape, done in the name
    of war are necessary....therefore, either war itself is not a
    necessity, or those things don't have to go along with war.
    
    I think the note by Mark Twain that Jody entered elsewhere describes
    very well what I am saying.  War implies lots of things that aren't
    directly *in* the word.  I think this is am important point to remember
    when discussing war and it's associated atrocities.
    
    -----------------
    
    More on topic (animal rights discussion) I just wanted to point out
    that it isn't the same to say that you think something is wrong and
    that it should be illegal.
    
    Lorna said that she believes killing is wrong, but I think (if I
    remember correctly) that in previous discussions, she has said that she
    is *not* saying it should be illegal.
    
    So the analogy about making abotion illegal really doesn't work,
    because we aren't suggesting that hunting be illegal.
    
    D!
    

    Bonnie,
    
    If you can catch and skin a wolverine then you deserve to wear its
    coat.  Mean little critters.
    
    Mary

    >If you can catch and skin a wolverine then you deserve to wear its
    >coat.  Mean little critters.

    Mary,

    I've been to Ann Arbor several times, and I've never found University
    of Michigan students to be either particularly mean or particularly
    little.  I'm not sure why you feel this way about Wolverines.

    I do concur with what the Jeff Goldblum character said in the "Big
    Chill", however:  ugliest football helmets in the world.

    -- Mike

    re: .266
    
    > in regard to your wishing that people would stop trying to
    > judge what is moral for others, don't you think this is always done in
    > society?
    
    You're right, Lorna, I agree that its done a lot and I don't seriously
    believe that it will ever stop.  It's just a wish.
    
    > You may not like hearing me say it, but it is still
    > what I believe and I am not going to stop saying what I believe.
    
    Okay, but I hope you didn't think that I was asking you to stop saying it
    because that was not my intention.
    
    Please notice that in .264 I did not state my own personal choice, but
    that I support each person's right to their own choice.  For all you
    know I may be a "dyed in the wool" :-) animal lover who would never
    consider using animal products.  Truth is, I don't wear fur, never
    have.  Leather, well, that's a different story.  I wear shoes and
    belts.  And I do love animals.
    
    Mary

    Re: .271
    
    > So the analogy about making abotion illegal really doesn't work,
    > because we aren't suggesting that hunting be illegal.
    
    Is this referring to what I said in .264 where I made an analogy?
    If so, I think there may be some miscommunication.  I didn't say
    anything about legality at all.  I did say that I feel the same
    way about the two issues, so the analogy works for me, if not for you.
    
    I also didn't say that the statements I dislike were made by people
    noting here.  So don't anyone confess if you're not guilty :-)
    
    Mary

    Mary

    I appreciate your being willing to disagree without rancor.

    Personally I dislike hunting. I don't like people walking
    on my property without permission, or, in the past, endangering
    my livestock.

    However, I appreciate that many people enjoy hunting, and I 
    am very aware as an ecologist that the alternatives are :

    1. bringing back sufficient predators to control herd size
    2. finding a way to some how inject birth control drugs into
       female deer
    3. tolerating wild scale starvation and invasion of farm lands
       by over bred deer herd and the concomitant habitat destruction
       and loss of water shed and large numbers of small animals when
       deer out breed their environmental holding capacity.

    Of the above the first is totally impracticable, the second is
    not currently biologically feasible and the third causes more
    animal suffering and on a much broader scale and more environmental
    damage than hunting does.

    So I take hunting as the lessor of several evils.

    Further, hunters license fees are largely responsible for providing
    the budget for our wild life programs. I rather doubt that our
    tax payers would take on this burden if hunters were banned.

    So I support hunting as the best possible solution among many
    less than optimum solutions.

    Bonnie

        re 251.282,
        
>>    1. bringing back sufficient predators to control herd size
        
        Humans can be predators.  So introduce enough of them to
        control the herd size.
        
        Dan

    
    Dan
    
    that is why I support hunting, despite my distaste for it....
    
    wolves and coyotes aren't an option in civilized areas
    
    
    Bonnie J
    

        re 251.285,
        
>>    If we're going to call humans predators, and we have done so here, what
>>    say we put things on a fair footing.  Naked, unarmed human against
>>    naked, unarmed deer.
        
        Why stop there?  Why not require that only naked, unarmed
        human harvest naked, unarmed wheat?
        
        Dan

    
    
	This is a re-write of the original .270.  Hopefully this will
    clarify my intent.    
    
    >Isn't it enlightening how all those moral wrongs, i.e. killing,
    >    stealing, raping, burning houses, are glorified and measured in
    >    'wartime'?
    
    I know precious few people (especially here in the US) that "glorify"
    any of the things your list.
    
    While I support what's going on in the Middle East right now, I still
    cringe and cry for those who die, for those that are raped, for those
    who lose their loved ones and their homes.....,  If there was any other
    way to prevent such things from happening, I would GLADLY support and
    encourage it.  
    
    Understanding that sometimes we need to fight to support our beliefs, 
    never justifies or "glorifies" the fact that we have to do it.
    
    >In one setting, it's wrong.  In another, it's a sign of strength
    
    The way I see it is this......It will ALWAYS be wrong, but sometimes
    death and destruction are a necessity....and sometimes that neccessity
    outweighs the immorality of the deed.
    
    kath

    Deer, elk, and buffalo are farmed, as well as wild, at least out here
    in the uncivilized west.  There is quite a large elk ranch outside of
    Gunnison, and Center, Colorado has a buffalo farm.  These animals are
    raised much as beef is in a very controlled environment.
    
    Regarding wild deer, elk, etc., there is an extreme impact to habitat
    for all animals in the food chain when one animal overpopulates.  It
    doesn't matter whether it is herbivore or carnivore.  In southwestern
    Colorado Springs, there is currently a problem which originated with
    people building in semi-wild areas.  Hunting is banned there and deer
    are starting to boom.  Well along with the damage done to landscaping
    from deer, their natural preditors are moving into "civilized" areas
    and are encountering people and their pets.  The pets generally lose
    and people scream for the blood of the local preditors.  Hey, a fenced
    dog is a lot slower and easier to run down, than a deer who can leap 8
    foot fences and run quickly.  
    
    Another problem with wild critters and people interactions is that the
    animals become "habituated."  They can begin to associate people with
    food.  Here the predator will also lose, but people may also lose
    first.  The solution here has been to drug and transport the problem
    cougars.  This isn't helping the deer population problem a bit. 
    Transporting problem animals also poses a major risk to the animal.  40
    to 80% mortality of transportees is not unusual.  This is because of
    drug reactions, and the fact that the animal is dropped into an area
    where it has no knowlege of cover, feed or water locations.  It's also
    moving a problem from one backyard to another.  In the case of deer and
    elk in this state the population is running near carrying capacity of
    the available habitat on average, and over the carrying capacity in
    several areas on the front range.  I don't like seeing deer in poor
    condition, as it affects the health of the entire ecosystem.
    
    Like most people who hunt ethically, I like the animals that I hunt. 
    If I am to hunt them effectively I need to know as much about them as I
    can.  This includes knowing what their daily habits are, what they are
    feeding on at given times of the year, and the locations of what they
    are feeding on.  I make it a point to get to know the area I will be
    hunting in, and the property boundries so that I don't blunder onto
    someones' private land without their permission.  I spend many hours
    perfecting my weapon of choice, so that I don't need to live every
    hunters' nightmare of wounding without killing an animal and having it
    suffer.  I don't waste meat, as that is one of the reasons for hunting
    and I like venison.
    
    I have also found that since I started hunting, that I am far more
    aware of the wildlife around me, and I get more enjoyment looking over
    a meadow trying to figure out what lives there and wondering what I
    will spot.  I have also gotten in the habit of walking with a plastic
    bag, and improving the general habitat by cleaning up the trash from
    less aware humans.  
    
    Meg
    
    

    
>    As for eating cattle instead of deer, domestic cattle are MANUFACTURED
>    under the virtually complete control of humans.  They exist for the
>    specific purpose of being eaten and made into leather and glue and so
>    forth.  They are maintained the same as farm crops, for the same
>    reasons.  Wild animals are not so maintained.  There is no parallel.
 
	Reading the previous notes, I was getting a little confused, this 
	probably explains why.

	We "farm" deer, the estate is estimated on how many deer it can support,
 	and then has a licence to cull the amount over this number. The deer are
	well looked after and fed.
	Venison is fairly widely available in the UK for this reason.
	Farmers are also allowed to shoot deer if they can proove that they are 
	doing damage to the crops.
	There is some deer-hunting ie horseback and hounds - but this is in the
	minority.   

	There are also licences to shoot Canada Geese, which are a particular
	problem in this area, and we also have the grouse-shoots.

	Heather	

What if there happened to be another species on earth with greater
weaponry than our own (hard to imagine I know) and they decided
without asking us that we  had suffered enough, people were starving,
fighting, we were destroying the earth from overpopulation and
conscicuous comsumption of the earth's resource.

Would you support the killing of human beings to save them from
their own problems and save the earth from destruction?

john

    re .291 ever hear of the Four Horsemen ?

	OKAY, let me get this straight, they have better weaponry, they think
	we are destroying the environment, and thus threatening their survival?


	You think they'd ask us?


	Heather

>> .291   Would you support the killing of human beings to save them from
>>        their own problems and save the earth from destruction?
        
        Ummmm...do I get to pick who?
        
        Anyway, now you see why the populace should be armed.
        
        Dan

The following is an excerpt from an article in The Economist
10-16 Nov 1990 (without permission).  WARNING! It contains
descriptions of violence against animals which may be upsetting
to some.  NEXT UNSEEN as you wish.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------
The film rolls in slow motion.  The quivering victim waits.  The
climax matches anything by Sam Peckinpah:  an arrow, moving as
languidly as through water, slashes into the deer, cutting
completely through the stunned, doomed animal.
 
Films such as this, dubbed "whack 'em and stack'em" videos, are
suddenly hot sellers.  They depict a succession of animals --
deer, usually, although squirrels, pigs and goats too are fair
game -- being pierced by arrows (and sometimes bullets, although
they play less satisfactorily in slow motion).  One video, called
"The Kill", shows 40 animals slain in the course of an hour. 
Another,  "Down for the Count", leeringly informs prospective
viewers that they will see "eight explicit kills".
 
"The Kill" and its kin have also become a weapon used by a
growing anti-blood-sports lobby.  Mr Wayne Pacell, director of
the Fund for Animals, based in Silver Spring, Maryland, contends
that the videos put to flight the myth of America's hunters: 
that they are rugged outdoorsmen for whom actually killing an
animal is but a small part of the pleasure.  Nonsense says Mr
Pacell:  "the kill is the highlight of the hunt."
 
Mr Pacell's voice is being heard.  Protesters against blood
sports have been frequent guests in America's woods this autumn. 
The "antis" follow hunters through the forests, hoping to make
just enough commotion to warn off unwary prey.  In so doing they
often flout the "hunter-harrasment laws," which the hunting lobby
has helped establish in 38 states.  These prohibit people from
following or speaking to hunters, even on public land.
 
. . .
    

    
    Well the UK has been civilized for so long that they've become
    too sqeamish to come to terms with the taking of animals' lives..
    
    Not so sqeamish as to close down their own beef industry, however..
    
    I'd post some squirrel recipes but the local drought has made the
    flesh of the wild critters too gamey to eat...
    

    Re: -.1
    
    Taking animals lives is one thing, but watching it happen on slo-mo
    video for your entertainment seems a bit wacko to me.
    
    I hope this wasn't the kind of stuff you found in The Economist to be
    better than sex.  :-)
    

    
    actually, no. the best parts are where they present complex economic
    theory for edification of the masses,,

        Stop ratholing the topic. :-)
        
        Dan

    re .295 graphic warning
    
    I've shot several animals with a bow and arrows. Let me assure
    you that 'stunned' is one non-applicable adjective. The animal
    feels a slight stinging sensation and immedietely runs away
    at top speed, startled as much by the noise as the pain. A
    modern hunting broadhead is razor sharp, to ensure clean kills.
    Ever cut yourself with a very sharp blade, so clean you don't
    feel the cut, and suddenly notice you're bleeding ? Arrows
    kill by hemmorhage (sp?), bleeding both internal and external.
    The animal slips into unconsciousness from lack of oxygen to
    the brain, and dies.

    re .303, I agree with you.  However, it should be obvious to us by now
    that many people don't think it matters how animals are treated.
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, I object to the term "rathole".  I think it is demeaning to
    rats and I find it offensive and rude.  Please don't use that term,
    especially not in the animal rights string.  :-)
    
    Mary

    Mary
    
    Rats make very complex net works in the ground, that branch all
    over the place. So when you think you've gotten poisen down all
    the holes for example they show up 100 yards away and start digging
    again.
    
    So the way we use 'rathole' in notes is actually a pretty fair
    derivation of the reality.
    
    ;-) X 100
    
    Bonnie

    re .303 Your anthropomorphism is touching. Really. 

    Um, Dana, -d, Lorna, please?
    
    I *know* you all have different opinions on hunting etc. and we've
    been over them and over them in here..
    
    can we all agree to cool it, please
    
    Bonnie

    
    Chrissie Hynde and k.d. lang were on David Letterman's show
    last week to plug a new album/CD to benefit animal's rights
    and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).  k.d.
    sang backup for Chrissie.  Lucky Chrissie.
    
    PETA has stopped animal testing at Avon, Estee Lauder, Jafra,
    Gillette, and elsewhere, I just don't remember where.
    
    Carla (PETA member)
    

    Uh, Carla?  Are you *sure* about Gillette?
    
    (Mods, is this something that would have to be discussed off-line?)
    
    E Grace

    > So when you think you've gotten poisen down all the holes for example
    > they show up 100 yards away and start digging again.
    
    Oh no, Bonnie!  Poisoning poor defenseless rats, I hope you haven't got
    this on video tape. :-)
    
    But seriously, rats as a species are to be admired.  For thousands of
    years humankind has systematically tried to wipe out the species and
    yet they survive.  The more they are oppressed the more they adapt.
    And when we say nasty things like "You dirty rat", they ignore us,
    take no offense, and merrily go about the business of being a rat.
    
    Mary

    
    E, I'm fairly sure Jafra is a subsidiary of Gillette, but I'll
    doublecheck the pamphlet when I go home for lunch.
    
    Carla
    

>    But seriously, rats as a species are to be admired.  For thousands of
>    years humankind has systematically tried to wipe out the species and
>    yet they survive.  The more they are oppressed the more they adapt.


	Cockroaches too.

... don't forget politicians ...

    Actually, white lab rats make excellant pets. We had a pair of them
    for almost two years. They combine the high intelligence of about
    the smartest of the rodents with generations of inbreeding to make
    them friendly with people.
    
    However, the wild brown/black rat I dislike far far worse than mice.
    They tunnel into the dirt in hen houses and animal shelters, they
    eat grain that I've bought for my live stock, they steal eggs, they
    bite young animals and eat baby chicks, and they carry disease!
    
    I still remember when one of my cats, hardly much more than a kitten
    brought in a rat that was as big as he was, and we had to help
    him finish it off, they were fighting under the dining room table,
    (but the kitten never let go!). Burrr! I *don't like wild rats!
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,
    
    You had to help him finish it off!  When I read that I thought
    you meant help him finish eating it!
    
    Mary

    no! bleh! ich! yuck!
    
    I meant kill it..
    
    then I took it by the tail with the cat following and put it
    back out side!
    
    ish!
    
    BJ

    
    To clarify, it's not Gillette itself, but its subsidiary, Jafra.
    Did I mention PETA stopped Revlon's animal testing too?
    
    Carla
    

    
    Carla - 
    
    Where can a list of the companies that do NOT use animal testing be
    found?
    
    Which side of the issue is CLinique/Este Lauder on?
    
    Thx 
    =jamd

    
    I don't know about Clinique, but Estee Lauder products are
    no longer tested on animals.
    
    As to an entire list, I'll call PETA tomorrow and see what
    they can provide.
    
    Carla
    

    heard on the radio on the way home, about animal actors in the movie
    "Dances With Wolves":
    
    one of the buffalos was persuaded to run where and when cued by bribery
    with Oreo cookies.  (I can't blame him either!)
    
    the Quarter Horse that played Cisco, DWW's faithful horse, won the
    animal-actor-oscar equivalent, whatever that is.
    
    *I* thought that was cool!
    
    Sara

    re .321, that horse was *beautiful*!  (and I'm not normally a big fan
    of horses-they look good but they're too big)
    
    Lorna
    

    > horses-they look good but they're too big)
    
    Ummmmm....Lorna.  Too big for what? :-) :-) :-)
    
    Mary

    re .323, *Mary*!!!!!!!  You *shock* me!  :-)  :-)
    
    Too big to *ride* of course!  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Too big to.....naaaahhhhh I think I'd better leave this one alone!
    
    (*8
    
    E Grace

    Yeah, Lorna.  Too big to ride.  That's what I thought you meant!
    
    :-) :-) :-)