Hunting

Remove all ads!

So long as none of you are hunting anything endangered. That would be difficult to defend.

 

As if anything could be said or done by those opposing hunting to stop individuals that get off on killing...

Anyway... you shouldnt look for differences to discerne what animals can be allowed to live or should rather die. You should think about reasons here. Reasons why killing of animals might be necessary as it serves a purpose, like satisfying demand for meat. Or about the lack of said reasons.

You just dont NEED to go hunting, as industrial farming (a crime against life in itself) provides you with more than enough meat to clog your arteries three times over. Hence I call hunting for sport needless killing - and I will oppose that. Your still doing it is telling a tale about you.

A perfect reason to leave wild animals alone. But no, they too are destined to be killed by some of us.

What has this to do with hunting? Better to have both the enslaved as well as the wild animals killed by us? To make things look more just?!
Or are you truly concerned for their misery? In that case do something to help those pitiful creatures, rather than stalking through a forest to kill what is left of our ecosphere. Funny.

 

The thing is: most people who protest hunting haven't got a clue. Many of them haven’t even been in the real outdoors in their life (real outdoors meaning at least 100 km from any building, highway, or park. You need to get that far away to get in the outdoor survival spirit. People think that shooting animals is cruel but they don't know what it’s like to face down a charging grizzly.

Then again many hunters have never been that far from a hot shower before either. Maybe they should be to tune them in to the natural order of things. In my opinion hunting is not evil, in fact it is more moral then the farm beef and pork crap we eat today. The animals just have more of a chance.

Protesters shouldn't protest something that they are clueless about and those hunters who take forestry roads and drive around in their pickups cowboy shooting everything that moves then driving home with their prize a mere 2 miles away (run on sentence king!) should be kept in a county jail. They have no more right to defend hunting then those who protest it (and don't understand). Hunting is not about the killing of the animals; it’s about the experience of getting out.

Gnarfflinger is totally right. 95% of us hunters are focus on getting the meat on the table so we don’t have to eat the junk farms put out. Saying this, it’s all and good to get meat on the table but a nice rack is always good too. It’s only a bonus however, and hunters are well aware that it’s not #1 on the list of goals.

Pretty much what I’m saying is "if you don't like it then shut up" You may not have to deal with hunting in your life so why do you care. If you’re so against animal cruelty then why do you eat beef? The less people who buy it the less cows will have to live through hell. Your animal conservation is in good hands. We follow the laws, only hunt in moderation, and don't kill those endangered. If you think we are "barbaric" then don’t involve yourself with us. Less of a headache that way.

 

Alas, tipperon, not everyone follows the rules, which is when I get pissed off. I love hunting, but not poaching. People poach on my dad's land, and it pisses me off, because they think they are above the law, and that the animal is theirs. Its our land, and by hunting illegaly on it, they are trespassing and disrupting the order of huinting. Good hunters follow laws and hunt in moderation. Poacher don't give a s***. They are the only 'hunters' that deserve to be put in jail.

If a grizzly is charging, you are dead. You run, they will kill you. You go into a tree, they will knock the tree down or climb it and kill you. A shotgun wont stop them. A rocket launcher or RPG, maybe, but not much else.

 

While certainly logical on the surface, that's complete if you stop to think about it. Any protester who did have a clue about it (i.e. had hunted) would be automatically dismissed as a hypocrite. So either you can't complain because you haven't or you can't complain because you have. Apply the same logic to murders and you can see how ridiculous it is.

My father is a hunter and I can certainly agree with all of that, though I'd put the figure around 92%. Motive is a little different on his part, though, since he grew up on a farm and would certainly not call the cattle he helped raise 'junk'. (I imagine Gnarf may have a problem with that too, since AFAIK he works on a farm.) Instead, my father is just combining food-gathering with something he enjoys (being one with the outdoors).

Been there, done that, hated hunting more because of it; people are too diverse for any one solution to work on everyone. (BTW, after three weeks without a shower or even a clean change of clothes, you can't imagine how much I reeked. And yes, it was on purpose.)

And I'd call hunting "less immoral" rather than "more moral", but that's just somantics; either way, hunting is still better.

 

Re: animal cruelty - Yes, there needs to be a certain basic level of humane treatment of animals kept for food. Rally's and Chandos' information is horrendous but sadly far from false, and those responsible for it should be brought to account - although if you thought that was bad, the live export trade is much, much worse (whether reports are intentionally biased or not).

However, I'm not buying into this "hunting is fairer" argument. Farm animals exist purely to service a need for food or produce; it's qualitatively different from hunting and shooting wild animals. As I've said, I don't see a problem with hunting if it's mainly about putting food on the table. If keeping animals for the purpose of consuming meat offends someone's sensibilities, then IMO they should go vegetarian and attempt to encourage others to do likewise.

That's a fairly exacting standard - as you stated, most "hunters" haven't been in that situation either. Having been there and done that (hell, I live in the most sparsely populated country in the world), I'd say I'm qualified to speak, according to your criteria.

No I don't, but it's because (1) there are no large predators in this country, and (2) I stay the **** away from things that can kill me. Over here, the "survival spirit" is much more about having enough water to drink.

Shooting a charging grizzly is probably not that different from shooting a taipan or fierce snake; they can kill you pretty easily if they get close enough. Of course, I think that no-one in their right mind would (or should) purposefully go looking for something that could kill them unless they absolutely had to. Getting enough food to eat, or to stop a man-eater, qualify as "absolutely have to" situations, IMO.

EDIT: FWIW, Spelly, I don't think I could either, unless it was in self-defence (rare in this country) - or unless it was a spider. Creepy little bastards...

[ November 03, 2005, 05:05: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

Well, my opinion is a very simple one and probably not very popular among this crowd.

To me, hunting is just one thing to me -- killing. It's taking the life from something else...to watch the life drain away from a living thing's eyes. From my own perspective, I wouldn't or couldn't ever do that. I've carried bugs outside, rather than kill them....have driven mice that I've caught in the house to a safe field away from main roads. And before you all jump on me and ask me if I eat meat....yes I do. But *I* don't kill it and never could. It doesn't matter to me that all hunters view that as being 2-faced....my feeling is that if it's already been killed and is available for purchase I'll buy it. But *I* could never be the one pulling the trigger or the bow -- and watch life drain out of a living thing standing before me.

 

Spellbound, I couldn't either, but I like eating the meat. For that reason alone condemning hunting would be hypocritical.

While it's not exactly junk, there's less fat on wild animals than on domestic live stock. And if you cook wild meat wrong, it tastes like ****. I have found that ig you cook it longer and slower than regular beef, deer and moose come out beautifully. Sure they still retain a different flavour, but it's got less fat than domestic beef, and thus is a healthy choice.

 

Good points, Spellbound. I think they apply to me as well, even if I recognise the potential hypocrisy therein.

 

I am a strong suppporter of hunting because wild meat is alot healthier than fat cows that have been force fed chemicals. I also think that rifles are perfectly ethical because it takes alot more skill to kill an animal with a rifle than people think,also hunters just don't walk out into the woods and shoot a deer, it's alot more difficult than that because deer don't just walk out and say shoot me.
Me myself I've hunted for 2 years and only got one deer.

 

I am definitely in favour of hunting if someone needs food to eat or fur to warm himself up. I am definitely against hunting when someone enjoys watching animals die. Controlling the population of species is a good reason as is sniping out those that won't survive on their own. And yes, stuffing farm animals with hormones and chemicals is way more unethical than hunting, I think. I have issues with fox hunting and the like, where the animal isn't eaten, is hunted purely for the pleasure of the chase unless perhaps a score of them is killed to make one fur for someone who won't wear synthetic fur. That I don't like. Whatever methods of hunting cause unnecessary suffering to animals I'm against, as well.

 

I am sorry, but I dont care for your little adventures in the wilderness. Looking desperately for opportunities to get into a grizzly's way and then make it die is hardly my idea of getting in touch with nature. The most superfluous and unnatural concept of survival in my book. If life has become that stale and hollow for you, my suggestion is to not let animals pay the price for it. Go free climbing. A fine chance to prove you skills and finess without shooting bullets at living, unsuspecting creatures from a safe distance and droning on how fair and noble that is of you.

What a counterintuitive notion…
Err… no? You have got it seriously wrong there. If one doesnt like something the logical conclusion is to protest it?

Also, in my opinion it is barbaric, and I wouldnt become involved with individuals who kill for sports if they were burning brightly in front of me. (What a chance for them to show they know their way around with survival. ) I would rather make them stop indulging in their strange urges.

 

I have to agree with what tipperon said about people not actualy knowing what hunting really is. I myself have hunted and when me and my buddies go hunting we go miles into the wilderness and we stay in a cabin and go down the logging roads checking out clearcuts and and picking mushrooms and stuff. Hunting is not about the killing like every non hunter thinks it's all about getting out into the woods for the experince of being out in the wilderness.

 

Well you can taste the experince of being out in the wilderness without killing any animal

 

true, true

 

I would have to say that I agree with Chev(the first post on this page). Everything sounds good to me, and are essentially what I would have said (or already said).


Read his post, I suggest.

 

Ask this mans family what they think of hunting. Poor guy was just picking tomatos.

Hmm, this one is sort of like, "take out" hunting: Wrestle a deer in a steel cage match to the death, in the comfort of your own home!

Hunting in order to thin out populations of animals that do not mingle well with us is a *good thing*.

Even better if the hunters are going to eat them.

Is it really that terrible that hunters actually *see* what they're eating? Human detachment from what they consume is totally bizarre to me.

Its bad to kill a cow to eat it, but its ok if I don't see the cow? Its immoral to eat a wild animal, but not one specifically raised to be eaten? Wierd.

 

Killer deer! Waited for you all these years to strike back! Where, pray tell, have you been?

Oh… right. Deer dont usually prey on humans. How silly of me.

However the occasional attack of a startled/panicked/disoriented/diseased deer will have to do to justify hunting for now. Not that rationality would be a part of this entire affair to begin with.

Why make the trip to a super market to get whatever meat suits your fancy if there are free-living animals left to go after and prove to whoever cares one's still a man in all respects were it doesnt count. What does it matter there are millions and millions of animals enslaved, hauled around and killed for a *specific* reason.
But no, there are still animals roaming free – and we must have one of those. Ah, that thrill of killing…

Yeah, weird all right.

edit -- typos

[ November 04, 2005, 22:27: Message edited by: Dendri ]

 

Wow Dendri! Selective quoting can be fun! Yay! Can I try?

Here's another good one where I won't tell the whole story, same article, I'm sure you'll appreciate this:

Fun isn't it?

There is nothing unreasonable in suggesting that thinning out an unchecked animal population is anything other than a good thing. Animals and people don't play nice, cars and animals don't play nice.

Why shouldn't someone be self-sufficient in supplying their own food? I wouldn't blame anyone for not being entirely dependent on mass produced hormone-stuffed captive animals.

Dendri, how can you speak for the motivation of all hunters? As someone who is obviously against it for any reason whatsoever, completely alien to the idea, how can you even begin to think you know the reason a hunter hunts? All of them? This, "manliness" objection that keeps coming up seems like a fallacy invented by people who simply don't have a better reason that hunting shouldn't happen. What about female hunters? Are they trying to be more, "manly?"

 

Some, perhaps. For example, I heard a tale recently about an eight-year old girl taking down a grizzly. A girl that young out hunting is most likely just trying to impress her father. Either that, or she's just a blood-thirsty little thing who will someday make a great addition to our army.

As for the "manliness fallacy", it's just that we object to those who do hunt for those reasons, as few and far between as they may be. As someone (pro-hunting) put it earlier in the thread, the jackasses who just drive around and shoot stuff because they feel like shooting stuff should be put away. And yet they're not; that's what I object to.