Xref: utzoo rec.birds:3994 rec.pets.dogs:4012 rec.hunting:317
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zazen!doug.cae.wisc.edu!osnome.che.wisc.edu!hunting
From: riacmt@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (Carol Miller-Tutzauer)
Newsgroups: rec.birds,rec.pets.dogs,rec.hunting
Subject: Re: An apology for any offence
Message-ID: <1991May20.084224.9949@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
Date: 20 May 91 13:42:23 GMT
References: <1991May18.084530.29048@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 22
Approved: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu
Originator: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu


In article <1991May18.084530.29048@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes...
>In r.p.d Richard Wexler (wex@edu.umd.wam) recently said:
> 
>>Please bear in mind that Mr. Spencer is the same gentleman who
>>treated us to an elegaic description last February of his hawks
>>tearing apart pheasants and rabbits.  He probably also goes in
>>for that game Afghanis play on horseback with the headless
>>carcass of a goat.
> 

I was not offended, in part because (since I don't own a hawk or
falcon) I did not read the post.  However, as a pet rabbit owner,
I am not offended.  As Stephen Jay Gould has said, "There is no
morality in nature."   And since hawks are indeed preditors, eat 
mice, pheasants, and rabbits, I do not find their normal means 
of survival offensive.  Although, perhaps the author should have
toned down any graphic descriptions.  But yet, I don't know if
it was too graphic since I didn't read the original post.  I 
think that any misunderstanding can be avoided by making such
posts' subject matter obvious in the headlines.  Just putting
something like "FALCONING" is enough for me to know that I
(and my bunny) would not be interested in reading the message.

Carol