Hunting

I have never gone hunting. However, I don't see anything wrong with it, as long as you use what you kill (I sound like a necromonger ). Killing and leaving dead animals laying around would be pretty pathetic.

 

fine, as long as you use bow and arrows

 

Like Ted Nugent, eh?

In Finland it's beneficial all around to hunt the elks a bit, otherwise there'd be so many of them they'd start starving. And car crashes with them are life threatening to drivers.

 

Coming from a family that hunted for food (at least that's what they claimed) I am not against hunting. However I do think the use of modern high powered weapons is unfair and not a sport.

 

Hunters are killers, plain and simple. Let us not mince words. Hunters try to justify their violent pastime, but whatever they say to the contrary, hunting is the premeditated, cold-blooded killing of innocent animals.
The object of the hunt is to kill animals. Hunters argue that it is not just about killing. They claim that the camaraderie, nature appreciation, exercise, nature education, and so-called conservation benefits are just as important a part of the hunt as the actual killing or attempted killing of the target animal.

But most people can appreciate and learn about nature and also contribute to nature conservation efforts without having to kill animals, and by doing their shooting with a camera instead of a gun or bow.


Do hunters really care?
It is ludicrous to believe that someone who actively sets out to kill a healthy animal for fun, trophy or profit really cares about wild animals specifically or nature in general. Photographs of smiling hunters posing with their dead victims hardly reflect the kind of “caring” that most normal people relate to. If hunters are the “true” conservationists they claim to be, and really do care about animals, they would pursue every humane, non-lethal possibility or means of caring for wild animals and the environment. Instead, their solution to any perceived problem with animals is to reach for the gun. Why is it that hunters, as so-called conservationists, are interested only in those animals that are most attractive as trophies, most enjoyable to eat or most “challenging” to hunt?

Do hunters pay for conservation?
Killing wild animals is big business, and there are lots of people who make a lot of money out of it. Those who encourage and participate in hunting form part of a multi-million Rand industry that will fight to its last breath to stay in business.
Manufacturers and marketers of hunting gear and clothing, guns and ammunition, bows and arrows, camping equipment and much more have a vested interest in promoting hunting as a good, healthy outdoor sport for the whole family. The more hunters out there killing, the more they sell.

Game ranchers and provincial and national conservation authorities generate millions of Rands annually by selling wild animals to private game farmers where hunters pay exorbitant fees to kill them for fun, trophy or meat.

As with every other type of institutionalised animal abuse, hunting will not easily be abolished in spite of relentless pressure from animal rightists. What makes hunting relatively easy to defend is that the hunters have spread a false message that it is they who fund conservation, and that were it not for them, most conservation areas currently in private ownership would convert to agricultural land with the total loss of the wildlife at present on that land. This implies, firstly, that the only justification for maintaining wild animals on the land is to generate funds from hunting, and, secondly, that all land which is not profitable game ranching land must automatically be taken over by environmentally destructive agriculture. This is absolute nonsense.

Conservation and the protection of wild animals must be funded from ethically acceptable sources, including a conservation levy on all profits from the sale of goods or services which have their origin in any natural resource. Wildlife and environment conservation must not be abandoned to an animal-unfriendly system that uses profit to justify the killing of healthy, defenseless animals. By allowing hunters to make the claim that they “pay for conservation”, human society is failing in its responsibility to wildlife. The fate of wild animals has literally been abandoned into the hands of killers.


Do hunters fulfil the role of predator?
Definitely not. Hunters will not miss out on any opportunity to cover themselves in glory, even to the point of claiming the role of natural predator in those areas where natural predators have been eradicated or do not occur.
But as so-called predator, the hunter selects only the finest specimens to kill. This is in direct contradiction of the role of true predators, who hunt the old, disabled and unwary and in so doing maintain the health of the populations. Predators too old, disabled or incompetent are also preyed on, but not by human hunters who only want healthy specimens in the prime of life.

The sustained killing of prime specimens of any population or species leads to debilitation of the gene pool and can hasten the rate at which that population or species becomes endangered or even extinct. No natural predator would act in this manner unless in very unnatural and exceptional circumstances. Natural and balanced predator/prey relationships lead to healthy populations of both the prey and the predator species.


Why hunting is wrong!
Hunting is wrong because for no good reason it violates the most basic right of any living creature – the right to life. According to hunters, they only shoot animals who are surplus or excessive to the carrying capacity of the land or who are old or injured . They claim that their killing is done for humane and practical reasons, and that an untimely death by bullet or arrow is preferable to death from natural causes.
All of this presumes that animals who are killed or wounded by human hunters, endure less fear, stress and pain than those animals dying from natural causes, including predation.

It is a fact that hunters kill for the pleasure, the satisfaction and the boost it gives their fragile egos. This makes killing seem like an honorable pastime that others should strive to emulate. It relegates animals to the status of utility items that exist to pleasure humans, and if that pleasure lies in the killing of an animal, then so be it.

Hunting simply perpetuates the ethically indefensible conception that animals exist for humans. And nothing more emphatically emphasises this misconception than when humans deliberately track down a wild animal and kill it for fun, trophy or profit. This shows an absolute disregard by hunters for the right of wild animals to live out their lives as nature intended, in circumstances which allow them to enjoy the diverse experiences of living in their natural environment. And for as long as hunters are allowed to conduct their bloody war on innocent wild animals with the sanction of civil society, then every human in that society shares in the guilt of the wrongdoing.

Also, when a hunter removes the body of the animal he/she has killed, this in fact robs that ecosystem of the nutrients locked up in that animal’s body. Every animal is composed entirely of elements accumulated within the ecosystem in which that animal has lived. When an animal dies of natural causes, the body is decomposed or consumed within that ecosystem, and the elements which made up the body are released back into that ecosystem and recycled through other plants and animals. When a hunter removes the dead animal from that ecosystem, the elements contained in that body are lost to the ecosystem.

Considering the weapons used by hunters today, it is an understatement to say that a targeted animal has little or no chance of avoiding being killed or wounded. The distance from which a hunter can deliver a fatal shot far exceeds the distance from which a natural predator could successfully attack it’s intended prey. Wild animals have not yet evolved the instinct required to keep modern hunters at a “safe” distance.


Man has always hunted
There is a very clear attempt by hunters to defend their bloody sport by claiming that it is in the human genes to hunt. This is absolutely not true. Hunters are conditioned into hunting by their peers and by an industry, which in various ways encourages people to become hunters by associating it with manhood, adventure and even Divine decree.
What this implies is that humans are incapable of evolving into more civilised, caring and tolerant beings. Fortunately nothing could be further from the truth. There is hope for a future in which animals are respected for their inherent value, and that those laws which now give humans the “right” to own and abuse animals will be replaced by popular laws which protect the rights of all animals, just as they now protect the rights of all humans.


Hunters and criticism
Hunters are notoriously intolerant of anyone who questions their so-called “ethics” or who dares to criticise their violent pastime.
Anyone who opposes the killing of innocent animals by hunters is labeled a “bunny-hugger”, “unrealistic”, “impractical”, “emotional”, “ignorant”, “humaniac”, even a “terrorist” if you happen to be an animal rightist.

Any critics of hunting are so ridiculed that both they and civil society at large are cowed into a state of silent acceptance of hunting as an indispensable, even honorable, component of orthodox conservation policy and practice.

That hunters have to go to ever-greater lengths to defend their actions to an increasingly critical, well-informed public, is encouraging. However, the use of terms such as “sustainable use” and “wise use” have become the everyday language of hunters and are intended to give legitimacy to their killing.

It is also an unfortunate reality that most wildlife-related NGO’s are dominated by people who are themselves hunters or who see no wrong in others killing wild animals for fun, profit or trophy. Most ordinary members of these organisations are quickly indoctrinated into accepting that hunting is a necessary evil that goes hand in hand with so-called “sustainable use”. Those who criticise the hunting aspect of “sustainable use” are ostracised and sidelined within the organisations of which they are members.

^

 

I have posted my view in the previous thread.
@Sarevok•: word!

 

The deer population is waaaaaaaaaaay out of control here - to the point that the deer are no longer healthy. Something has to replace the natural predators that were driven out by the encorachment of civilization.

@Sarevok and Undertaker: I see germs of truth in that long post, but also many germs of hypocrisy. It's a far more complex issue than you're allowing for. As usual, the answer lies somewhere in between the extremes of "no hunting" and "unlimited hunting".

Are you both vegetarians? Ranchers, too, are in the business of killing innocent annimals. It wouldn't take much effort to twist Sarevok's post around to be a diatribe against ranching.

Note that I'm not saying that your position is wrrong, just that I don't think you've picked the best argument to defend it.

 

Sarevok : is this your opinion, or you are quoting?

Anyhow, there are some statements in the above which are kind of funny :

This sort of overlooks the fact that for a long period of time people depended on their ability to hunt for their survival; as recently as a couple hundred of years in the US, I would say.

And what about animal rights? They have the right to live in accordance with their nature (so, for example, I object to the farming practices of livestock companies) but this include dying to support other life. I would say it is more cruel to eat chicken from the supermarket than to eat a deer you hunt.

Of course, there's hunting and hunting. My comment above (bow and arrows) was only half joking; what I meant to imply was that I do not agree with hunting as lazy entertainment; you know, of the sort let's pick a rifle and see what we can kill; but I think some sort of expertise (and appreciation of the issues involved) is needed.

 

I agree with Rallymama.

More: The elk population in Finland is so large that if it didn't get cut down by a yearly hunting quota, the elks would destroy the entire ecosystem they inhabit. They don't have natural enemies, per se, anymore - granted, one reason for this is that the predators were overhunted in the past. But to alleviate the current situation, it's necessary to hunt them. Not doing so would harm not only the elks, but the other animals relying on the same plants for food.

Another thing about the elks in Finland is that quite a lot of car crashes occur with them. The elk is such a large animal that it's not just a hit-and-run roadkill. It will wreck the car and place the driver in mortal danger. Cutting down the population means fewer crashes.

Overall Sarevok•'s post seems to fit poachers and gun-crazy rednecks rather than *all* hunters *everywhere.* Poaching I am against, absolutely. Killing endangered species is a big no, of course. Animals that aren't endangered but not really, really plentiful...still against. Animals with such large populations as with the elks I mentioned: within the boundaries of the law, go for it.

 

The simple truth is that humans have an advantage over animals, and some people feel the need to prove themselves by lording it over those less fortunate. Ergo, hunting. I used to hate people who hunted, almost to Sarevok's level, but now I just pity them for their compulsion.

"It's not a compulsion, it's just fun."

That's even worse; if you're killing an animal just for fun, then perhaps we should organize a hunter/hunted championship. A duel in the wild where only one human emerges the victor; at least then it would be a somewhat fair contest, and everyone involved would be willing.

"But the animals will die of starvation because there's too many of them."

Guess whose fault that is? We hunted the predators near extinction, so it's only logical that the prey wouldn't be getting killed as quickly anymore. But the answer is not more ill-conceived hunting; nature will balance itself out if we just leave it the f*** alone!

 

I live on a farm (or my dad does), and the deer population is pretty much out of control. Certain hunters should be allowed to hunt there, but poachers should not. Bow and arrow hunting only, no guns.


And on a more universal note: how is hunting different from killing cows or chickens for meat? It is helping keep a balance, anyways.

I am pro-bow hunting, and as long as it is controlled, it is fine. As soon as it gets out of control (i.e. too many hunters in a small space, or humans getting killed), restrictions should be placed on it.


Plus, hunting is a living for many people. Fisherman cannot fish as much in the winter, because there aren't as many fish (at least up here in New England), so they go hunting to feed their families.

 

True. A big mistake was made.

Think of rabbits in Australia...they were brought in by people, so yeah, it's the people's fault. But even with everything that has been done since to kill them off, they've multiplied so rapidly they're threatening the rest of the ecosystem and already destroyed parts of it. Just leaving it alone would be the permanent end of marsupials and the eternal rule of the rabbits.

What I'm saying is that if we'd all left nature alone *to begin with*, it would balance itself out. But after one f***up already made, sitting idly by from then on will only make the problem escalate and get much worse.

Edit: Only after Sabers's post did I think of fishing. It's pretty funny how so many people object hunting, yet so few object fishing. Yet it's the exact same thing. I know it sounds cynical and cold, but could it be because slimy fish are not furry and cute? Or do they not resemble humans enough? What is the reason?

 

That would not only help even the playing field, it would then require a certain level of skill. Guns are pathetically easy to use. (My father had me test-shooting in the hope that I might come to like using a gun. on him.)

Farmers make no pretense about their intentions, hunters do. (I hate phonies.)

They're not hunting for sport, they're hunting to survive; kill or die. It's the "sport" hunters that I have a problem with.

@Susipaisti:
Adding a species has a very different effect than subtracting does. A new species can upset the balance, but having less predators is part of the natural cycle. Sure, we've swung the pendulum way to one side with our meddling, but pushing it in the opposite direction will only result in more prolonged swinging.

That's a big part of the reason; fish aren't cute enough for most to care. (I still do, and have never fished, but that's just me.) Another part is that we simply can't take measures on how the fish are doing, except in a localized eco-system. There isn't enough info to make a reasoned objection.

[ October 31, 2005, 17:19: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

I have lived on Long Island, New York, USA. There is a large deer population there, at least in some areas. Somehow I don't see wolves being introduced to control the deer population naturally. Thus some culling needs to be done by humans. The arguement of course is by who and how.

Sarevok• brings up private hunting reserves. I am opposed to these.

 

Come on Sarevok, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

I don't hunt because I have no need for trophies and I greatly dislike the gamey taste of meat from the wild.

But I'm not against hunting. Personally, I don't care about Bambi and hunters can blow Bambi away to their hearts content. I don't even care if they use the meat. I also feel the use on 'only bows' is absolutely ridiculous -- bows wound far too much. In Illinois they use solid load shotgun -- it does the job (the one ounce, or approx 30 gram slug kills quite effectively). A high powered rifle is even better, it offers a much cleaner kill and less suffering.

All this garbage about how 'it's our fault about the deer and others animals encroaching on our space' is a bunch of bunk. The predators were killed off for a reason -- they were also killing us and our children. Now the predators are gone we need to also thin the population of the herding animals or be over run (complete with the diseases those animals carry).

The hunting ranches (where they pin up animals to allow the lazy to blow the critters away) should be illegal. But that's just my opinion.

If anyone is upset about our encroachment on the territory of the animals -- THEN STOP HAVING CHILDREN. As long as our population continues to increase, we as a society will wipe out species of animals.

 

With the rabbit issue my idea was to ask whether you or others approve of hunting those rabbits, or if it would be better to let them run rampant.

One could argue that at the point where the pendulum finally stops swinging of its own volition, the local ecosystem is, for the most part, dead. One species has become so dominant that it has taken all food from the others and finally from each other too. It's a fresh start, of a sort, but in my mind hardly preferable to attempting to adjust the swinging.

I hate phonies too, but not *all* hunters are that. Some are. Many are. But not all.

I don't think there's anything phony in hunting an animal as plentiful as the rabbits and elks I mentioned and eating it. What meat companies do is, first of all, much more cruel to animals; and second, dishonest, in that they distance people from the fact that meat always comes from killing something.

 

I don't really have a problem with hunting. While I agree with Felinoid's post that many populations are over-populated due to the elimination of top-tiered predators by humans, I do not believe that leaving everything alone will allow nature to self-correct itself in any meaningful way. I honestly do think it's better for an animal to be shot and killed than gradually starve to death over a period of a few weeks. I would like to think that while all types of hunting are allowed (small game, bear, turkey, etc) the vast majority of people in the U.S. hunt deer. Deer are so plentiful that killing several thousand a year is no big deal to the population as a whole.

I don't know. I don't hunt, and really don't think about it very much. However, if hunting means I'm less likely to hit a deer with my car on the way to work, and if hunting also is done in a maintainable way to keep a balance in the population, I don't really have a problem with it.

 

Again, that's a completely different situation, and I'd rather leave that to the professionals. Let the DNR (or whatever Nature department you've got) slaughter the little bunnies if they think it's necessary.

I didn't mean to imply that it woud stop swinging (though I admit it does look that way in my last post), just that it should not be swinging so wildly. What do you think will happen if we ever "fix" the overpopulation? People will just keep right on hunting because they like to and "it's their right". and then we'll have an overpopulation of wolves again.

We need to stay out of it so that nature can find its own balance; we've meddled enough already. The balance will of course be worse than it was before we arrived, but screwing with it even more could make it disastrous. The simple fact is that we don't know what the f*** we're doing, so we should just stay out of it as much as possible.

Like I said before, my problem is with "sport" hunters, not sustenance hunters.

100% true, but people are lazy. Not everyone wants to go hunt for their own food, so they accept a moral compromise and try to delude themselves that it's okay. The dishonesty exists on both sides, and it's hard to change the status quo. (One reason why I don't lobby against hunting as much as I used to. And for anyone who wants to turn my words from the past against me and claim that I've given up on humanity, you're damn straight I have; people suck. )

 

I will post again my view on hunting: I hate hunting for pure sport. I have nothing agaist population control. And no, I'm not a vegetarian.