J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) (05/18/91)
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've exchanged email with Richard and he explained that what he meant by this post was:- >What really bothered me was the utter insensitivity you >manifested in rec.pets, where a great many people had just >contributed to a lengthy thread about their pet rabbits. The assumption being that I had upset some rabbit lovers. Well, if this was indeed the case then I apologise unreservedly to anyone who was upset by my posting for that most certainly not the intention. However, all the responses I received from that post were positive and asking for more of the same. (Three responses from falconers and around ten from, well, non-falconers.) I had no reason to suspect that anyone had been offended otherwise this apology would have been forthcoming sooner. Richard says I received no negative response "because all were too dumbfounded by its blithe callousness." He could be right, I have no way of knowing and I don't see how he does. Never mind. However, as I explained to Richard, I had not read the rabbit thread, it being of no interest to me. At the time of my post (late January/ early February) there was no rec.hunting, just rec.birds & rec.pets so those were the relevant groups. I posted this article because, subsequent to more general postings I had made about hawks and dogs, a number of people had emailed me and asked me to post *detailed* articles about the sport itself, and how the dogs fitted in. Falconry involves hunting wild quarry with trained hawks and that means chasing the quarry with the intention of putting it in the oven. I put 'falconry' in the subject line so that the contents were indicated and so anyone who didn't want to read it could skip it. The start of the article said "We had two very frosty days at an estate in Northumbria flying at pheasant, rabbit, and hare" and so anyone who didn't like the sound of it could have skipped to the next article. Therefore, I feel it a little unfair for Richard to pop up several months after the event and make the inaccurate sort of allegations that he did. Can I ask that if anyone objects to a posting (not just mine), that they contact the author AT THE TIME and, instead of making obscure, unrelated and insulting accusations, they say precisely WHAT THEY MEAN? That way the matter is more likely to be resolved quickly. Apologies once again to anyone who was upset by the article. I shall, of course, be posting more articles on the hawks themselves, their breeding, and the way the hawks, ferrets, and dogs are used in hunting. So if that's going to upset you, don't read anything with 'falconry' in the subject line.
riacmt@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (Carol Miller-Tutzauer) (05/20/91)
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