[Tweeters] My last response to the hunting issue.

Clarence C. Lupo Gos at tds.net
Sat Dec 29 11:05:26 PST 2007


Margaret,
On behalf of those millions of hunters who paid fees, taxes and personal
donations amounting to over 3.5 Million dollars per day (just over 1 Billion
through the Pittman-Robertson Act since 1937) to the cause of conservation
to establish protection of wildlife lands, and reclaiming lands for wildlife
so everyone can enjoy the legacy of wildlife in their own way; Apology
Accepted.

As far as posting hunting in a positive light being somehow a negative
thing. How can you possibly deny the positive works of hunting groups like
Ducks Unlimited, The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, North
American Falconry Association, and the list goes on and on all the way down
to the farmer who leaves some grain crops unharvested for migrating
waterfowl, or the school kids who make wood duck boxes in shop class from a
NRA Hunting Handbook?

Instead I'm sent emails quoting statics designed to draw parallels between
child abusers and murderers to higher populations of hunters! How Utterly
Absurd! You get bent out of shape when someone even mentions the positive
aspects of largest group of conservationists (Hunters and Anglers) have on
wildlife and wildlife lands, yet defend your right to defile them in the
worst possible light at your pleasure.

Exercising your freedom of speech (which was bought and paid for by all
peoples of this country) while telling differing opinions to "shut up" is
not participating in an open enlightened forum, but practicing cultural
bigotry against those who's lifestyles differ from yours. I can only
imagine how much distain you would have against the Native American
population if their hunter/gatherer culture were still here today and not
destroyed by the whites.

I do not expect to change the mind of a bigot with one email, nor will I
argue with one further. I'm here to learn about all our birds from the most
knowledgeable group of people I could find. I do and will support your
right to live as you please and voice your opinions openly. I only ask you
consider extending that courtesy to others and consider the possibility that
their voices have a place in our society too and should be allowed to be
heard.

Clarence
Onalaska, WA.






----- Original Message -----
From: "Margaret Parkinson" <margparkie at comcast.net>
To: "'Scott Downes'" <downess at charter.net>; <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 10:42 PM
Subject: [Tweeters] My last response to the hunting issue.


Hi Tweeters:

OK, I promise not to bring up hunting again PROVIDED others also refrain
from introducing it in a positive or neutral way into their posts. If I
respect the rights of others not to be confronted with the ethical issues
related to hunting, I think it is reasonable that I (and others of a similar
ethical standard) have the right not be to suddenly come across material
that is equally, for different reasons, upsetting to us. Deal?

I will respond briefly here to the emails I have received both off and on
the list and then I will leave it alone within the boundaries I expressed
above.

I concede the term "cowardly". I should have had more sense than to use
that word in the context I did. I should have known that that would press
some buttons and upset folks. I withdraw that opinion from this forum.

Thank you to all of you who wrote rationally about this issue including
points ranging from culling the goose population and thus preventing geese
from starving to death to the considerable funding hunters give to
wilderness and conservation causes. I understand, and appreciate those
points. However, for me, they are issues of compromise and excuse and do
not change my ethical positions.

I understand that hunters put a lot of money into the environment that
support their hobby and I am sorry that birders and animal rights and
non-hunter conservationists and other folks who appreciate natural areas
have let this happen. I do what I can. The majority of my charitable
giving goes to conservation, animal welfare and animal rights causes. This
is NOT to say I don't think human charities are worthy or support. I do and
I give to them too, but I make the conscious choice to give more to help
non-human species since I believe that fewer people do that. The fact that
hunters give more than non-hunters does not make hunting ethical, it means
the non-hunters are not doing their part sufficiently well.

I also understand the issue of increasing populations. I do not claim to be
an expert but my position based on what I do know, what I have read, and
what my ethics tell me, is that it is USUALLY better to allow nature to
follow natural courses without human intervention. Humans with guns does
not spell "natural" to me. I agree, nature--even life itself--is not
necessarily fair and is not necessarily kind. I do not expect it do be.
However, as a "superior" species with a lot more rational choices available
to us than other species I always hope we will take the high road and avoid
inflicting suffering whenever we can. Non-human animals of a carnivore type
do not have the choice not to harm and kill other species--humans do have
that choice and I therefore hold us to a higher moral standard.

That's it. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you for responding, those
of you who did it in a respectful way. Those of you who told me how to feel
and how to think, I do not thank.

Oh, and by the way, yes I am a vegetarian--vegan actually--and no, my cats
do not go outside.

Good wishes,

Margaret Parkinson
University District, Seattle.

-----Original Message-----
From: tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu
[mailto:tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu] On Behalf Of Scott
Downes
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:19 PM
To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
Subject: [Tweeters] RE: Is it legal to kill crows?

Every person has their own opinions on what is right and wrong, but can we
please leave conjecture like how "wrong" or "cowardly" killing is? Again as
I've posted before I'm speaking as a conservationist and a biologist, but
the latest poster mentioned hunting as cowardly or that it pains people to
see a bird shot. Do I enjoy seeing it, of course not. Do I hunt? Actually
no, because I couldn't bring myself to shoot a bird, however please don't
call names to hunters. Here is a brutal reality. I may get flamed, but it
needs to be said. Humans have altered the environment so badly that there
are no longer natural control methods in place. If there wasn't a hunting
season for ducks, geese, deer etc.. then these populations would expand to
eventually destroying their habitat by overgrazing and then these animals
would starve. Please before anyone remarks on how wrong something ask
yourself this: would you rather an animal be shot and a relatively quick
death or many animals starve a very slow death and affect the environment
greatly by destroying it because they are exceeding their role due to lack
of predation. I am not pro or anti-hunting, but hunting is a useful wildlife
management tool to keep populations of animals healthy since we've removed
many of the predators already. As I've stated before in posts, to not manage
is actually managing.
Many birds are beautiful, but I ask everyone to remain objective. Fact is
all animals eventually die one way or another. While they are not a natural
predator, the fact is humans are a necessary predator in today's environment
(since humans have removed many of the natural predators). All predators
kill things, and to be an effective predator you must "hide cowardly" to
stalk your prey. If people really care about all animals, can they try to
see these points instead of being delusional that nothing ever gets killed?
Finally many people choose to view as to opposite sides, bird lovers vs.
hunters. It might surprise people to know that quite a few biologists and
birders are hunters and I know personally that they love wildlife and birds
just as much as those that don't hunt. Yes there are hunters who don't care
about birds at all, but please don't lump somebody into this callous
category simply because they see hunting as a viable management tool. Those
that are grouping hunters into the category of "how could a human do that"
would be good to remember that we are actually all on the same page as far
as trying to conserve nature. Rather than dividing ourselves, lets see
common ground and pool resources to fight forces much more of a threat to
wildlife like development and loss of habitat.

Thanks for listening.

Scott Downes
downess at charter.net
Yakima WA

_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters




More information about the Tweeters mailing list