Fair, unfair, ethical, unethical, barbaric, civilized? Take your pick.

This thread is being brought to you by the committee for the protection of members too lazy to open offshoot threads themselves. You know who you are.

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! :thumb:

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 :
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. 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.

We hunted the predators near extinction, so it's only logical that the prey wouldn't be getting killed as quickly anymore.True. A big mistake was made.

But the answer is not more ill-conceived hunting; nature will balance itself out if we just leave it the f*** alone!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?

Bow and arrow hunting only, no guns. :thumb: 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. :p on him.)

how is hunting different from killing cows or chickens for meat? Farmers make no pretense about their intentions, hunters do. (I hate phonies.)

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. 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.

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'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. :D

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.

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.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.

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

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. 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.

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 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.

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

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. 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. :p )

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.

I'm was only quoting it from somewhere else, it's not mine. As for hunting elks in Finland, well, mother nature takes care of the thinning, humans needn't do anything.

It would be nice for you Sarevok to post a link to the place you take your quotes from.

Susipaisti really said what I think, hunting without taking any of the meat is somewhat stupid and just plain useless unless we're talking about hunting animals that are harmful to the nature and humans. The EU has been *****ing to Finland about our habit of hunting wolves that bother the herd animals in northern Finland. The hunting is kept well within its limits and the species is really not in danger anymore around here so it's just an example of how the EU buorocracy can sometimes seriously distance itself from the reality.

Claiming that we must kill animals with bow and arrow is just ridicolous, it's like asking snakes to stop using their poison. Hunting with bow and arrow are bound to cause more damage to the animal and cause a lot more suffering than a well aimed guns shot. Also a bad shot might anger the animal and I choose a dead animal over a dead human allways and forever.

As for hunting elks in Finland, well, mother nature takes care of the thinning, humans needn't do anything. Well we could do it the way Britain did it. That is cut all our woods so there'll be no enviroment for the elks to wander in, but I prefer the solution we have currently. As I said earlier a dead elk by a gun is much better than somebody's child, father or mother dying while crashing to one with a car.

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! That would work the moment we stopped polluting, expanding and just plain destroying the nature in many parts of the world. Unfortunaetly I don't see that happening, so we just have to accept the past mistakes and do our best to fix the situation ourselves.

Claiming that we must kill animals with bow and arrow is just ridicolous, it's like asking snakes to stop using their poison. Hunting with bow and arrow are bound to cause more damage to the animal and cause a lot more suffering than a well aimed guns shot. Also a bad shot might anger the animal and I choose a dead animal over a dead human allways and forever If you want to pick 200+ pellets out of a deer, be my guest.
And if you are in a stand in a tree, the deer can't attack you. Plus, the deer gets scared before angry, and takes off. A deer would not charge a human trying to kill it, trust me.

I'm curious...those of you who can condone bow hunting (or what about muzzleloaders?) and condemn rifle or shotgun hunting because it's "too easy"...how many of you have actually succeeded in hunting and killing an animal with a rifle or shotgun to know how easy it is? And I don't mean plugging a fat crow off a powerline with a BB gun.

Most State Fish and Game departments issue far more hunting licenses than kill tags used...by a huge margin. These revenues are directly responsible for herd and population control and environmental studies to preserve the health and well being of indiginous wildlife.

Without the efforts of animal control officers and Fish and Game agents, we wouldn't even know which animals are endangered and might need a protected habitat.

The wallets of hunters and fishermen have more direct influence on the success of animal conservation than any other governmental agency (eg: Highway use and gasoline taxes are a drop in the bucket compared to the cost to build and maintain roads). The fact that sportsmen are willing to pay for the right to hunt and fish can be directly connected to a non-hunters ability to see healthy, well preserved herds in the same locations the sportsmen make a kill...and even places where hunting isn't allowed.

And they're animals.

That would work the moment we stopped polluting, expanding and just plain destroying the nature in many parts of the world. Unfortunaetly I don't see that happening, so we just have to accept the past mistakes and do our best to fix the situation ourselves. Agreed, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. ;)

@Hack:
I didn't say it was easy to kill something with a gun, just that guns are easy to use. It's a whole other thing to hit a moving and aware target (in the right place, no less) than to hit a motionless one, but humans still have a hefty advantage. Bows and arrows would help settle that advantage; as would more dangerous prey. :evil:

Now, I was with you right up until "And they're animals." But if you're going to take that tack, then this debate is going to get real old, real fast. So in the immortal words of a cherub from South Park, Colorado:
Screw you guys, I'm a-goin' home. - Eric Cartman

I agree with Rally on this. Take a look at this, but only if you don't feel like eating afterwards:

The disturbing facts about industrial farming by the $125 billion-a-year livestock industry—the pain-inflicting confinements and mutilations—have economic reasons. Ameliorating them would impose production costs that consumers would pay. But to glimpse what consumers would be paying to stop, visit factoryfarming.com/gallery.htm. Or read Scully on the miseries inflicted on billions of creatures ''for our convenience and pleasure":

"... 400- to 500-pound mammals trapped without relief inside iron crates seven feet long and 22 inches wide. They chew maniacally on bars and chains, as foraging animals will do when denied straw... The pigs know the feel only of concrete and metal. They lie covered in their own urine and excrement, with broken legs from trying to escape or just to turn ..." Animal suffering on a vast scale should, he says, be a serious issue of public policy. He does not want to take away your BLT; he does not propose to end livestock farming. He does propose a Humane Farming Act to apply to corporate farmers the elementary standards of animal husbandry and veterinary ethics: "We cannot just take from these creatures, we must give them something in return. We owe them a merciful death, and we owe them a merciful life."Nevertheless, don't let me get started on Ted Nugent. The guy did too many drugs back in the 60s...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525632/site/newsweek/

Saervok, as someone who doesn't hunt, but likes to eat Moose and Deer meat, I must tell you that your generalizations about hunters are highly inaccurate. They are not a bunch of liquored up rednecks with small penises. Many of them actually want the meat from the animal that they kill. It's not about a moose rack on the wall, but about a freezer full of meat for the winter.

I don't need a big gun to make up for other things :D

I oppose to illegal hunting for ethical reasons. I also understand that trying to kill something either with a gun or a bow it is not easy (i've hunted a couple of times). But i really dislike people who go to hunt with no obvious need of finding food, loaded up to the neck with bullets.
Here in Greece in the not so past days, hunters used to go out only with three or four bullets for two reasons
1) bullets cost money and money is hard to find.
2) they only needed to find something to bring back for dinner/lunch. They did not hunt recklessly since they knew that excess game would be a waste.
Now our society with the pluralism of everything, can really help one hunter to go out with as many bullets as he wishes and furthermore with no need to find something to eat (even that special treat of a game can be easily found in a supermarket).
I really dislike these fat guys who think that having a suit, a gun, hundreds of bullets, cars with powerfull headlights, whistles that emulate various calls, cbs and every other technology advance that may "help" them :nono: in their cause, qualifies them as hunters. Talking about getting in touch with nature :rolleyes: most of them can't even bear the thought of spenting a night in a tent or standing still for hours in a cold hole with bugs all over them just to get one prey. Pathetic people that can not do even a simulation of old lifestyle well.
As for the nature balance and our part in it:
We have really messed up the natural balance so hard that if we stay idle now and watch, in 15 years from now entire ecosystems will dissappear or change forever. Some are already beyond salvation, many are really on the edge.
So standing idle is not quite an option if we want to have some respect to nature.
My personal thoughts and feelings on the subject

I agree with my main man Sarevok :thumb: .
Hunting for sport is barbaric and there's no need for it in todays modern world.

What's with all this "I don't agree with that type of hunting, but..." Hunting, is hunting, is hunting. Make up your god damned mind, you either oppose it, or you don't, basically.

Well, I suppose hunting for food is acceptable in certain circumstances, but hunting for the fun and sport of it is just well out.

I like hunting for a number of reasons. I prefer the bow, but that's just personal and nothing against hunting with a rifle. As for all the ethics:
1.) All life is dependant on the death of others. No living creature can claim to survive entirely seperate of the deaths of others, or at least, none we know of. :alien:
2.) Of all the deaths a wild animal is likely to suffer, being shot with a gun or bow is (usually) among the least painful and quickest.
3.) Hunting for sport, pure entertainment, or hunting endangered animals is just plain wrong. Humans are supposed to be stuards of the Earth and all in it. Like gardeners, there's nothing wrong with trimming here and there for our own desires, but recklessly tearing out entire species, or hacking at nature just because you're bored is just plain stupid.
4.) That said, there's nothing wrong with hunting for food, pelts, or other materials as long as there is plenty of the target species.
5.) Most of the animals hunters actually hit or kill are not the 'top of the line' or in the absolute prime of their lives. You have NO IDEA how many 'it was this big' stories I hear. Those hunters didn't kill their targets for a reason, and it wasn't conservation.

Now, if you want a real challenge, go hunting with a spear! :grin:

NOG, one word: Absolutely.

Sarevok•: There *are* different kinds of hunting. What do you think the bushmen in Africa ought to eat, spam?

I don't support the notion of hunting "as a sport". There can be perfectly reasonable grounds to go out and kill animals - but that isn't one of them. I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree with hunting for food (well, maybe vegetarians or vegans might). Shooting pests is also okay in my book; I see it as an extension of self-defence, and having seen the damage that foxes can cause to native wildlife populations (mostly small marsupials), or what dingo packs or other wild dogs can do to a herd, I support it completely.

Overpopulation is, I think, a case-by-case proposition. Over here, we occasionally have kangaroo culls when the population becomes too large to be sustainable. I would prefer they were shot than starved to death; I have misgivings about both courses of action but see the former as less cruel. There are also commensurate benefits for the meat industry - kangaroo meat is much like beef, only leaner and slightly darker. I don't agree with giving people a license to slaughter, but it's a better deal all-round... unless you're a kangaroo in someone's sights.

Of course, someone's inevitably going to throw the "it happens in nature" line at me. Well, that's true; I just feel that a bullet is more merciful than a slow death (especially in outback Australia, where the logic of "predators killing the weak" seldom applies and they're more likely to die of dehydration). Enough will die of snakebite or similar circumstances to support carrion feeders, anyway.

Okay Saervok, I agree with hunting, but poaching I oppose. Poaching is any form of hunting that violates the rules under which hunting is legally permitted. There are restrictions on the firearms to be used. Outside those limits is poaching. In Ontario, you require a liscence to hunt. This requires you to prove that you can use your weapons safely and identify your targets properly. This also requires you to know the laws around hunting and responsible hunting practices. There is a limit placed on how much you can hunt, limiting the number and type of animals yu may shoot (by the issuing of tags). If you shoot the wrong animal (male moose when you had a tag for a female moose) and get caught (the areas are well patroled) they can confiscate your guns, gear and even your vehicle, ban you from owning a firearm for 5 years, and there are then hefty fines, and possible incarceration beyond that. There are limits on what times of the year you may hunt. Outside that time of year is illegal.

Further, If you hunt and kill an animal, you are morally obligated to use it for food if possible. While I don't expect you to eat a racoon that's been plaguing your livestock, or a skunk that's taken up residence in an area that you need regular access to, but if you shoot a deer, moose, elk or wild turkey, then that's good eating for a while.

Basically, Saervok, I ask you to specify whether you still condemn hunting or just poaching...

I personally dislike hunting, but to a certain extent I am not against it. As long as a few conditions are met, I see no harm in it (same applies with fishing), although would never do it myself (unless forced to):

-> The hunted population must be at a sustainable level, and the amount taken must be of a small enough number that the population can regenerate - and in some cases, expand.
-> All products that come from the hunted animal must be used. The skin, the meat, the antlers, the tusks. What ever.
-> The hunted speices must be a species that, if unhunted, would have negative effects on the eco-system. As a local example, possums. One more peopel would prehaps be fimilar with, the rabbits in Aussie.
-> Some type of property rights are issued in order to control the hunting levels; and those caught over hunting are punished. Punished harshly.

[Edit]
And just for what it's worth, from my knowledge, a kill with a bow is no slower than a kill with a gun, if done properly.

The hunted speices must be a species that, if unhunted, would have negative effects on the eco-system. As a local example, possums. One more peopel would prehaps be fimilar with, the rabbits in Aussie.I forgot about them, the damnably cute little bastards! Plus, unless they've got myx, they're good eating too...

EDIT: Someone can correct me if I'm wrong - but weren't rabbits introduced in Australia primarily so they could be hunted?

That's exactly right, Nonsequitur. As were possums. Silly humans :rolleyes:

If any of you who are against hunting could explain to me the difference between harvesting from nature or harvesting from a farm, maybe I would stop hunting (unfortunately, none of you will be able to do that). Unless you are of the opinion that the human race should stop eating meat whatsoever, you agree that the life of wild animals is worth more than the life of the average cow, pig or chicken. While the wild animals live perfectly natural lives, farm animals have been bred for a specific purpose and generally have no other function than to reproduce and/or become food. I am perfectly aware that hunting laws are different in other countries (and that those laws may be the reason behind this thread), but in Norway the laws are made to give the hunted an advantage. Examples:

when hunting roe deer you are not allowed to use dogs who are tall enough to run as fast as the roe deer itself you are not allowed to use any kind of motorized vehicles you are not allowed to use bait in order to attract the animals you hunt no automatic or semi-automatic weapons allowed
These were just a few examples, but it's laws like these which make hunting difficult and give animals a chance. Farm animals however does not have any chance at all, but I guess we're just being nice when we end their unnatural, miserable lives.

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

If any of you who are against hunting could explain to me the difference between harvesting from nature or harvesting from a farm, maybe I would stop hunting (unfortunately, none of you will be able to do that). As if anything could be said or done by those opposing hunting to stop individuals that get off on killing... :rolleyes:

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.

While the wild animals live perfectly natural lives, farm animals have been bred for a specific purpose and generally have no other function than to reproduce and/or become food. A perfect reason to leave wild animals alone. But no, they too are destined to be killed by some of us.

Farm animals however does not have any chance at all, but I guess we're just being nice when we end their unnatural, miserable lives.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.

People think that shooting animals is cruel but they don't know what it’s like to face down a charging grizzlyIf 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.

Protesters shouldn't protest something that they are clueless about ... While certainly logical on the surface, that's complete :bs: 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.

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. 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).

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. 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. :shake: 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 (http://www.animalsaustralia.org/default2.asp?idL1=1272&idL2=1283) or not (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1358149.htm)).

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.

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).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.

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.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.

we don’t have to eat the junk farms put out.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.

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. 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.

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. 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. :rolleyes: ) 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. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051020/news_7m20deer.html) 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! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101038.html)

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?

State and local authorities said this was the first deadly deer encounter or deer attack in San Diego County in memory. 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 :rolleyes:

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

Wow Dendri! Selective quoting can be fun! Yay! Can I try? On Sept. 29, a deer pinned a man against his house in Covelo, in Mendocino County. His wife hit the animal with a piece of firewood and it turned on her, biting a chunk out of her arm. On Oct. 11, a deer killed a dog in a yard in Orinda and attacked three others in the neighborhood.

State and local authorities said this was the first deadly deer encounter or deer attack in San Diego County in memory. Here's another good one where I won't tell the whole story, same article, I'm sure you'll appreciate this:
A deer killed a 5-year-old boyFun 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?"

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?" :hmm: 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.

Quote selectively to your heart's content, Arte. Whatever good it will do your position.

The slight difference there is that your quotes merely say what happened; whereas the one I chose says something about the frequency of these accidents. Perspective, you know? Overrated, I suppose...

You do understand which one is more important when discussing the validity of hunting on this particular basis.

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. Okay. These deer (or whatever species you wish to drag into a murderous light) are being hunted. Regrettably that 73 years old person still died. Teaches a lesson of the effectiveness of hunting, yes? And this leaves out the fact that its to me nothing but a red herring anyway.

You ask for a balanced population of deer? Two things:

1) Hunters should stop increasing their numbers by providing them with additional food, like, during the winter. 2) Allow natural predators back into the forests.

Both isnt what happens, coz with a thinning deer population what convenient apology for the hunter's bloodsport would there be?

Why shouldnt 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.Perhaps they should do the sensible thing and pressure the proper industries into a change of their standards? If that direct approach is too much hassle, remember their influence as a consumer and purchase meat from sources that dont use these hormones. (That is, if there even are such sources for healthy food in the US or Canada – in Europe we are lucky to still have that freedom of choice. Oh, isnt there a trade war going on between the US and the EU over hormone-infested beef, btw? ;) The US wants to shove that stuff down our throats as well...)
Anyway, a change of standards would benefit both the consumer and the animals in the end.

And yeah. As if this hunting business had anything to do with anyones care for their health... How does that cigaret taste whilst they disembowel the prize of hunting?

Of course their motives are alien to me, Arte.
But then tell me: What are their motives? What can it be other than killing when their little ventures into nature end with the death of animals? Or is that nothing but a most unfortunate byproduct? :aww:

And please dont bring on the rare women who like to hunt. I am pretty sure I was right on with what I said.

Knock of the personal flaming guys. You can make your points without taking shots at each other (sorry, couldn't resist the pun).

Do you guys who are so vitrolicly opposed to hunting, feel the same way about fishing as well?

Dendri, I mentioned your quote because it claims to only recognize one incident, when the previous paragraph mentions 5 casualties in 3 different incidents, and the article does not claim to be exhaustive of every county of California, or every state in the country. But that's beside the point.

But then tell me: What are their motives?Male bonding? Family gatherings? Birthday parties? Hunter orange is, "in?" Why are you asking me? I've never even touched a gun.

As if this hunting business had anything to do with anyones care for their health... How does that cigaret taste whilst they disembowel the prize of hunting?See this illustrates my point. You have a preconcieved notion of what goes on in any and all hunting expeditions (or whatever), when clearly you've never done anything of the kind. Yeah, sure, all hunters smoke, its easy to say, but kind of hard to prove, don't you think?

It has a use and a function, and beyond that the motive of individual hunters is all but speculation. Male rituals, animal cruelty, delicacy or anything else aside.

And please dont bring on the rare women who like to hunt.But I MUST! (http://www.womenhunters.com/meet-the-ladies.html) ohhhh maaaaan. :lol: And yes, they use bows! Er... I'm positive I had more to say on this, but after digging up that site, I can't remember what it was...

EDIT! Breaking news! After looking around on that site for a while, I concede any and all points. These people are insane and just really like to shoot things! Aaaaaaahhhghhg! :lol:

Point Dendri, game, set, match!

[ November 04, 2005, 21:12: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

Male bonding? Family gatherings? Birthday parties? Hunter orange is, "in?" Why are you asking me? I've never even touched a gun.
So we both do not know what these mysterious men in the vast wilderness experience. ;) We do know, however, that it evolves around killing animals. Whatever higher spheres they want others to recognize in this I dont care. They can do their frolicking amongst the trees without shooting. If that is not possible, than killing is indeed their main goal.
Shooting animals doesnt seem that great an opportunity to transcend relations between people to me. Forgive my ignorance.

See this illustrates my point. You have a preconcieved notion of what goes on in any and all hunting expeditions (or whatever), when clearly you've never done anything of the kind. Yeah, sure, all hunters smoke, its easy to say, but kind of hard to prove, don't you think?

It has a use and a function, and beyond that the motive of individual hunters is all but speculation. Male rituals, animal cruelty, delicacy or anything else aside.
There is no preconception on my part. I was having a humorous moment there when I heard they do it to help themselves to some healthy meat.

They can be wifebeating rednecks or actually nice guys who kinda have a weak spot for nature. They can smoke or drink or be totally ascetic in their approach to life - it matters none to me. They kill when there is no need to.

All I need to know, really.

Good day to you. :)

Do you guys who are so vitrolicly opposed to hunting, feel the same way about fishing as well?I'd like hear the answer to this too.

How do you people feel about the people working in the meat industry? Namely, butchers? Are they too murderers who should be locked away?

No. All I am saying is that I would never be able to go hunting and watch some animal die at my hands. Maybe I'm just soft.

Hey, guys, I've known women hunters. Some people just like to hunt.

[ November 06, 2005, 20:25: Message edited by: Nakia ]

I think we have consumed a lot of nature; far more than is good for her or us. We continue to every day. Some nations more than others.
A little self-constraint would be nice for a change. Or the next generations will hate/pity us for our carelessness.

Self-constraint and respect is what I would like to see applied to all involvement with nature. Species dont need to be on any red list of near-extinction for me to want them left alone and cherished.

That much for "fishing for recreational purposes".

And yes, I feel a bit isolated with my point of view. :( But when I look at how things are currently going I see no other way for myself... cause I am somewhat pissed.

Are butchers murderers? :rolleyes: Does it really matter to you what others think about that? Will it make a difference to you? It wont stop anyway. But just think of where butchers and their handimen stand in the hierarchy of society. Should answer your question what people think of them. Nevermind the hypocrisy of it all... but that we - I include myself here - are good with anyway.

The bottom line is that most people eat meat, and that meat comes from the killing of animals. It ultimately doesn't matter whether it's a domestic pig or cow or whether it's a wild moose or deer, as long as it's not wasted.

I am totally opposed to hunting for sport and/or trophies. Hunting wolves in the wilds of Alaska by helicopter for example.
One of the most disturbing programs I watched recently was about the Taxidermy World Championships (held every two years). Whilst it was obviously set up to paint the taxidermists as weird folks anyway, there was one guy who set out to kill a Leopard, and in the process butchered about 500 gazelles and 200 monkeys (including live ones dragged behind their vehicle. He didn't have time to stuff the leopard for the event, but turned up with a necklace of monkey and chimp fingers, ears and testicles which he jokingly claimed were of his African guides for not working hard enough.

The most disturbing image, however, was of the young girl of about 8 who believed that God had put the deer in the woods for her to shoot and mount. At one point she could be seen holding the dead heart of the deer she had shot and poking her finger through the bullet hole.

That aside, I won't condemn hunting when required for living (for instance the Inuit) or for population control - particulary of introduced species which destroy the habitat and threaten the population of native species. Examples being the Grey Squirel and muntjak deer in Britain, and after my recent trip, Possums, Rabbits, Deer and Weasels in New Zealand (Though I think they have over-looked the humble hedgehog which is also known to eat eggs.)

I realize that this post seems to have died over a week ago, but since I've been away for a short time, you'll have to excuse my lateness in posting my opinion.

I am not a hunter. I'm not keen on killing anything except my brother-in-law. That said, the efforts made by some to paint hunters as psychopathic killers boosting their fragile egos and attempting to destroy the eco-system as we know it is a tad extreme.

Many people hunt for food. You can argue that they should just get a better job and use the money they get from that to buy food at the local supermarket, but either way animals die, and so the route that is taken to get the food is immaterial. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a hunter may appreciate the value of the meat he has killed more because he put more effort and time into obtaining it.

Up until the past century or so, many people relied on hunting to survive. Obtaining a game animal was cause for celebration, so things like pictures with the animals came into being, as well as the practice of stuffing trophies. Modern urbanites such as yours truly celebrate our accomplishments -- why is it we feel the way others celebrate theirs is so horrendous?

Whatever method a hunter uses is fine with me as long as he obeys the law of the land while hunting -- that means no shooting more animals than you have tags for. I'd rather they used the biggest guns and best equipment possible so as to cut down on the suffering of the animals they kill.

It comes down to a lifestyle choice, and despite efforts to prove the contrary, modern law abiding hunters are not likely to deplete any species soon, as we have learned from our past mistakes. Beyond that, I don't like the idea of forcing people to live the same as me when their actions are not catastrophic to the rest of us.

dendri, i am a hunter and belong to farmers and hunters feeding the hungry. i have personally donated almost 500 lbs of game this year and collectively we as a group have donated over 50000 lbs of game to homeless shelters and food banks. nationally hunters donate well over a million lbs of meat a year. I hunt not to prove my "manhood" but to get in touch with who we are at heart (that is a predator plain and simple). Until you have to gut and clean your own food you can distance yourself and stand in judgement of anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint.Unless you are a total vegetarion, your just being hypocritical.We use animal products in every facet of or daily lives.I personally hunt using a bow , muzzleloader , pistol , rifle & shotgun. I have even went bear hunting with a group that used only longbows and chipped rock arrowheads. all of the game taken on 80% of the trips go to feed the homeless. You may try to cast hunters in as negative a light as you wish but we do more to help feed the homeless than just about any group in the usa. Can't speak for the rest of the world but all the hunters i know are very into conservation and helping others understand & appreciate nature(which includes the cycle of life & death). Until you have seen almost 100 deer in one herd slowly starving to death ,because they are on land that can only support a herd of 35 - 45 and you can't thin the herd ,because the animal rights liberals keep filing lawsuits to prevent the local government from instituting a special population control hunt, you just dont realize that they dont care about the animals just their ability to try to claim that they are better than the barbaric bambi killers.

I think this list shows all the organizations that utilize game meat to feed the hungry. There's an extensive network that's supported by the Sportsmens Club of America, The Safari Club and...umm...Ted Nugent along with many others. The various "Hunters" and "Farmers" against hunger groups have done an incredible work at getting quality meat products to shelters and the needy.

http://www.conservativeposts.us/hunting/huntersagainsthunger.php

Of course. Hunters as champions of the less fortunate. You guys really have a flair for the romantic.
Hopefully not only for so long as it serves as an excuse for your thrill, but also extended to assist the poor permanently? The whole free fish vs. fishing poles bid.

What if there were not such a large number of US citizens living in abject poverty (in the greatest and richest of all nations), or they were cared for like we do it over here in Europe? No more hunting?

Thought so.

Btw, what else to do with all that meat you have no use for. Leaving it in the woods to rot would make it too plain to see what your "sport" really is, perhaps even to yourself.

Send in the starving crowds. Great PR it is.

I hunt not to prove my "manhood" but to get in touch with who we are at heart (that is a predator plain and simple). We are of one and the same species. Yet I dont feel much like a predator. Isnt it all rather about what you make yourself out to be? We are, after all, to some extend in control of ourselves. Or is it that I am just further up that evolutionary ladder of ours...

Until you have seen almost 100 deer in one herd slowly starving to death ,because they are on land that can only support a herd of 35 - 45 and you can't thin the herd ,because the animal rights liberals keep filing lawsuits to prevent the local government from instituting a special population control hunt, you just dont realize that they dont care about the animals just their ability to try to claim that they are better than the barbaric bambi killers.I have seen a lot of gruesome things in my time. Among them: People claiming sympathy with animals that, what an odd incident, make for a nice hunt and trophies. If you would feel for animals your efforts would be directed elsewhere, like fighting industrial farming, preservation of environment, whatever.
To me your bloodsport is all about enjoyment, and little beside that.

I will pass the hypocrite tag on to you folks, I think. It ought to be worn by those most deservant of it.

@ dendri, so you are telling my there are no poor or homeless in europe? :rolleyes: Yeah... right, and i have a bridge in new york to sell you. Actually ,if i was being 100% into the life/death cycle, i WOULD leave most of my kill in the wild ,just like every other predator does, to support the smaller predators and scavengers that live in that area.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hunt not to prove my "manhood" but to get in touch with who we are at heart (that is a predator plain and simple).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
We are of one and the same species. Yet I dont feel much like a predator. Isnt it all rather about what you make yourself out to be? We are, after all, to some extend in control of ourselves. Or is it that I am just further up that evolutionary ladder of ours...
-----------------------------------------------
kind of funny that the only way you can respond to my post is by trying to insult me.

remember , those who can't support their views typically raise their voice and try to smear their opposition. :o so sad

Oh, by the way , i have no trophies(other than clothing items) of any of the animals that i have hunted other than a necklace of bearclaws & the 2 scars on my left leg and torso from getting to close to a boar(ouch!! ouch!! ouch!! never EVER get close to a pissed off 300+ lb pig)

For some reason anti-hunters ,and please note that i am not including none hunters in this group, seem to want to vilify us , even though more than 50% of all money spent on wildlife & wilderness conservation comes from hunter fees and permits. On a side note: Sure, safari in africa will cost you $900-$1800/day + $500-$5000/permit tag(depending on species and country)& most require a minimum of 2-3 weeks. the typical anti-hunter response is why don't you just take a picture? well, the truth is that the income from the hunts is the only thing that is keeping most of these species viable. ask any representative what would happen if they could not make money from hunters. as an offical in botswana said "without the money from hunters we would have to charge the tourists several hundred dollars for every picture they wanted to take of our wildlife". also less money coming into the country from hunting means you have to produce more of your own food , so you have to clear more land which necessitates killing more game.
do you realize how much an elephant eats in one day? put up fences? nope ! elephants regularly
push over trees! unless you want to build very high ,very thick concrete walls around all of the fields. then , when the herbivores leave do to lack of food what do you think the carnivores eat?
yep , africans!
sorry , simple economics , without the income from hunting most african countries have to make the simple choose between africans and african wildlife , guess which one most will choose?
Yes i do enjoy the thrill of the hunt , whether i make a kill or not. Personally , i don't hunt from a stand or still hunt(staying in one spot and waiting for the animal to come to you) just not my style but no recriminations against those who do or prefer it. Same goes for dog hunting(just way to noisy !! :D I prefer to track my prey whether this takes an hour or (if i have the time) a week.
I just don't get your hypocrite commit at the end of your post . I thinf that i plainly stated what i think most would say .That if you are not a 100% dyed in the wool(oops! no wool for these guys) vegetarion , than you have to honestly look at your view as being a bit(just a tad!) off. You eat meat from a grocery store or go out to a restaurant but you think it is wrong to hunt for your own food? You wear products made from animal products but you think it is wrong to hunt and use the animal parts in just the same way? Buckskin shirt and leggings , wonderful bear skin winter outer boots and mitts , supper supple deerskin gloves and moccasins(da*n gloves took forever to get them right!) , nice boar leather pack , you get my point. How can we be hypocrites for trying to provide for ourselves( and yes i grow about 3/4 of an acre of vegetables in the spring and summer. just gotta love those potatoes and carrots!) Still can't grow a decent tomato to save my life !!! Anyway ,cant wait to hear your thoughts on our discussion.

Alright, enough of this before it goes any further. If you think hunting is barbaric and cruel in general, then by all means you're welcome to say so. But the rules draw the line against throwing insults, labels and such toward other posters in this thread. Overly sensitive responses in the vice versa direction also tend to cross the line. Keep it civil everyone. Please ...

@ dendri, so you are telling my there are no poor or homeless in europe? Yeah... right, and i have a bridge in new york to sell you. Actually ,if i was being 100% into the life/death cycle, i WOULD leave most of my kill in the wild ,just like every other predator does, to support the smaller predators and scavengers that live in that area.Do you mind pointing out where I claimed there are no poor and even homeless in old Europe? I said they are being cared for around here, namely by govermental operations and NGOs. Now, I dont know to what extend that is true for the US, too, but it cant be much if they are in need of the contribution of your hunting, as you would have us believe.

And that they need to rely on it I doubt very much. Which makes your argument rather absurd.

Btw, better keep your bridges. I hear your infrastructure isnt in the best of shapes as it is. :p

"Like every other predator does..." :xx: Ok.
Anyway, most predatory beasts I know of rather secret their kill away then leaving it graciously behind for scavengers to feed on. Then again its perhaps not my call to lecture you on the predators ways.

kind of funny that the only way you can respond to my post is by trying to insult me.

remember , those who can't support their views typically raise their voice and try to smear their opposition. so sadI admit that was not exactly appropriate. My apologies. Still, I feel you have debased yourself far more by playing this 'I am a predator inside' card. Emphazising animalistic instincts all the time?

Oh, by the way , i have no trophies(other than clothing items) of any of the animals that i have hunted other than a necklace of bearclaws & the 2 scars on my left leg and torso from getting to close to a boar(ouch!! ouch!! ouch!! never EVER get close to a pissed off 300+ lb pig)I dont intend to. Your body would be whole had you left that beast alone. As you should have. What was gained by that confrontation? Absolutely nothing.
But I am sure the women love them and your tales of vanquishing the vile creature. Or something. :rolleyes:

For some reason anti-hunters ,and please note that i am not including none hunters in this group, seem to want to vilify us , even though more than 50% of all money spent on wildlife & wilderness conservation comes from hunter fees and permits. [...] the typical anti-hunter response is why don't you just take a picture? well, the truth is that the income from the hunts is the only thing that is keeping most of these species viable. [...]"without the money from hunters we would have to charge the tourists several hundred dollars for every picture they wanted to take of our wildlife". [...] sorry , simple economics , without the income from hunting most african countries [...] I challenge your claim that it is hunting and not tourism (photo safaris) that keeps the African nations interested in the well-being of their wild-life. If you think that a bunch of hunters keep the National Parks running, and that the millions of tourists dont contribute the gros of required budgets, you have something coming, martaug. I just hope no one buys this nonsense, sorry.

Yes i do enjoy the thrill of the hunt , whether i make a kill or not. Yes, you enjoy the thrill. Were that any different would you still hunt just to thin out those "starving deer herds" we hear so much about? Would you hunt simply to, as you claim, help keeping up National Parks? Help sustain species through your fees, as you proclaim is the case?
Or to put it this way: Would you stop huntig were there no fees used to maintain whatever you want to think is maintained by those funds?
I suppose the answer to that is: No.

It's all about your personal amusement. What is being done with your money is secondary at best. Be it that it's used to run preservation programs for endangered species (and doubt that quite a bit!) - or to buff up the population of your favourite prey with additional food (which I personally suspect is the case). And I wont accept this particular justification for huntig with that being so,

But if it works for your conscience, well... have it your way.
I just don't get your hypocrite commit at the end of your post . I thinf that i plainly stated what i think most would say .That if you are not a 100% dyed in the wool(oops! no wool for these guys) vegetarion , than you have to honestly look at your view as being a bit(just a tad!) off. You eat meat from a grocery store or go out to a restaurant but you think it is wrong to hunt for your own food? You wear products made from animal products but you think it is wrong to hunt and use the animal parts in just the same way? Puh. Yes, I do eat meat. I used to live a couple of years by a strict vegetarian diet, and gave it up for a reason. But that is beside the point. Although... actually it has some relevance for this topic, sort of, but my post is becoming already too long for my liking.

Anyhow, the quantity of meat I eat in a year equals what others eat in a month, I would wager. Also, I am careful about where that meat (or eggs etc) comes from. For the sake of my personal health, but far more for the sake of the animals. I make a conscious decision there, and keep in mind that we have eaten meat at all times, even before we turned human - well, most of us turned human that is. My problem with the product from domesticated animals isnt so much the killing. Though anyone who feels the killing part is something to shrug off just like that is, in my humble opinion, total scum. Those anmials make a sacrifice for us. We owe them.
Far more I am against the conditions those animals have to live in. Death to them is a mercy too often, as it means an end to suffering.
Why I oppose hunting of wild animals you ask? I will not tire to repeat myself: We have all we need with the domesticated animals. Since killing is nothing I deem an exciting pasttime, I want at least the wild animals untouched. These day their death serves no purpose whatsoever - no matter how much you want to have the times returned when we needed them to survive.

How can we be hypocrites for trying to provide for ourselves( and yes i grow about 3/4 of an acre of vegetables in the spring and summer. You are not hypocrites, in my opinion, because you feel like it's necessary to be self-reliant. That, to me, is nothing but a romantic notion meaning death for animals for no good reason. You are hypocrites when you claim you shoot animals for any given reason other than your personal thrill.

Anyway ,cant wait to hear your thoughts on our discussion. I hope I did not disappoint you.

As Beren has already warned...personal comments need to be left out of this thread.

Now, as to the economic impact of hunting, this document (http://www.iafwa.org/Attachments/Hunting%20Economic%20Impact%202001.pdf) may have pictures that bother you...but the tables are irrefutable. It was put together by the National Association of State Game and Fish Organizations...not a partisan group like the NRA.

Now that we've established the validity of the claims of the economic impact of hunting (mind you, fishing wasn't even a part of this), it all boils down to a persons reasons to hunt...and those reasons are personal and different for each and every hunter. The only person with the moral highground to condemn hunting as brutality to animals is someone who abstains from all meat and animal products.

Just look upon it as the hunter exercising his or her Right to Choose. ;)

Hmmm...could there be a fundamental disparity between the anti-hunters stance on two different issues of "choice"? :rolleyes:

An interesting thought popped into my head at 2:30 am this morning -- many people would vociforously(sic) defend the rights of Native American people to hunt -- it is their culture and heritage, and they are all pure "noble savages" (as the term used to be used) who are capable of bonding with the land. Should any horrid European dare to criticize or even discuss the matter, he is of course, evil incarnate. HOWEVER . . .

If a European descent person hunts, he is evil -- he is totally incapable of "bonding with the land" or otherwise respecting nature. This is racism of the highest degree, but I've seen it . . .

Dendri, I'm curious -- you seem to arguee that all hunters are liars, hypocrites, fools, and otherwise just plain stupid. I get the feeling that you have had some sort of negative interaction with hunters which explains your extreme (and I would say, with all due respect) vitriolic hatred of hunters. Care to elaborate? It would help me to understand where exactly you're coming from.

Now, as to the economic impact of hunting, this document may have pictures that bother you...but the tables are irrefutable. It was put together by the National Association of State Game and Fish Organizations...not a partisan group like the NRA.

Now that we've established the validity of the claims of the economic impact of hunting (mind you, fishing wasn't even a part of this...Sure it has an impact on the economy, as has prostitution. :p No one disputed that. Most of what is required to stalk through the woods doesnt grow on trees. The question is whether the sales figures of companies in the business of guns, munition, or whatever hunting gear, has a positive impact on the fauna. Otherwise I fail to understand how this is relevant for those arguing that hunting is actually favourable for sustaining the ecosphere. This is how that point came up.

it all boils down to a persons reasons to hunt...and those reasons are personal and different for each and every hunter. The only person with the moral highground to condemn hunting as brutality to animals is someone who abstains from all meat and animal products.
I dont think so. Anyone not indifferent towards the fate of the animal that is part of the menu is entitled to get involved. This isnt about brutality against animals, or denying that we are omnivorous, but about needless killing, and whether that is acceptable.
The valid motives are missing here: Hunger or need of clothing. Excitement of shooting living, feeling creatures for sports, no matter how disguised or explained, will mean little to those arguing on behalf of the wild animals.

Edit:
@ LKD Nono, I always try my best not to build up hatred for... whatever. It will solve little, is not that healthy and makes you go to extremes that should be avoided. But you feel I am extreme in my opinion?
And no, I havent had any kind of key experience to make me opposing hunters so much. Other than what we can all see on TV. I guess I have just taken a closer look at what happens to animals? Or it bothers me more me than... others?

If you dont know where I am coming from after following this discussion there is little hope of me successfully transporting my views and feelings. It would be useless to try, just as my efforts in this entire thread are for naught.

Also, you will have noticed there are others opposed to hunting. They just dont go to the length of explaining why.

[ December 05, 2005, 22:12: Message edited by: Dendri ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, as to the economic impact of hunting, this document may have pictures that bother you...but the tables are irrefutable. It was put together by the National Association of State Game and Fish Organizations...not a partisan group like the NRA.

Now that we've established the validity of the claims of the economic impact of hunting (mind you, fishing wasn't even a part of this...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure it has an impact on the economy, as has prostitution. No one disputed that. Most of what is required to stalk through the woods doesnt grow on trees. The question is whether the sales figures of companies in the business of guns, munition, or whatever hunting gear, has a positive impact on the fauna. Otherwise I fail to understand how this is relevant for those arguing that hunting is actually favourable for sustaining the ecosphere. This is how that point came up. umm, maybe you missed this part?


for fiscal year 2002 , this program delivered more than $481 million dollars to the states and territories of the U.S. , with more than $292 million of it for sport fish restoration and more than $188 million of it for wildlife restoration. Together , hunters and anglers may very well be the most important source of conservation funding in the U.S. please read that again, the most important source of conservation funding.

Oh, about the boar , i wasn't hunting him i just stumbled upon him as he was romancing a sow and was mighty peeved when she ran off after catching my scent. I didn't even know he was there until he exploded out of the thickets and sent my flying about 10' through the air. I probably looked like a jr high football player getting hit by an nfl linebacker! . Seriously , i have never been hit that hard by anything.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes i do enjoy the thrill of the hunt , whether i make a kill or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, you enjoy the thrill. Were that any different would you still hunt just to thin out those "starving deer herds" we hear so much about? Would you hunt simply to, as you claim, help keeping up National Parks? Help sustain species through your fees, as you proclaim is the case?
Or to put it this way: Would you stop huntig were there no fees used to maintain whatever you want to think is maintained by those funds?
I suppose the answer to that is: No I choose to hunt on public game land and pay all the fees and permits even though i have access to private & native american land where i would not have to pay any fees. I also volunteer to be on any hunts to help put down wounded &/or diseased animals. You may not know it but we have a very bad disease going around the deer and related species called chronic wasting disease(CWD). It is far kinder to put them down than allow them to slowly wither away.
Also, game meat is just so much more healthy for you. The percentage of fat is very ,very low and the flavor is exquisite. I don't know if it is the same where you live but in the state where i reside it is not legal to sell game meat only farm raised , which kind of defeats the purpose as these animals are feed the same as regular livestock and dont have the same low fat content or taste of game meat.
no , you did not disappoint me as to your personal beliefs and opipionns. We just are on very different sides of this issue(which is many related issues really).
@ tal , thanks for the pm. don't know how i missed that. :o

martaug, umm, in fact I skipped the site there. I figured it would probably not be worth reading. Opened it, saw some proud fellow in a hunter's gear, loyal dog at his side... then scrolled down a bit to find something like: "Hunting is good for body and soul"... and suspected what was to come would be somewhat biased. Closed the page after that.
I know, not particularly open-minded of me, but a more subtle site would not have driven me off so quickly.

I will not start linking to sites reporting about the less sunny facettes of hunting in order to balance Hacken's site out though.
On the one hand I dont want to dig through that grizzly material, and also one cant base one's opinion on hunting on what the situation in the US is like. Which, btw, is not what some want to make believe. Funny how those hunters prefer titels to their clubs like 'Conservation of this and that'. It's all in a name, yes? ;)
No. For those interested in the machinations behind the scenes of funds raised by hunters & anglers to conserve nature... Facts and Myths (http://www.bigcatrescue.org/hunting_facts_and_myths.htm)

Quite the different picture, overall.

On the other hand I havent got an interest in this game of links brought up to refute the opposite side, to and fro, back and forth. It will then quickly become nit-picking. I said what, from my perspective, is to be said about hunting.
I will admit that many of you guys (and gals) probably do some good here and there for mother nature when laying aside your guns, or bows... or traps - but there is a price to it.

I am outta here. :wave:

Using tree stands - more 'waiting' around than actual 'hunting'

Paved paths for the disabled - not exactly the wild outdoors is it?

Disabled people using pistols - sounds like cheating to me

Bright Orange hunting suits - not exactly blending in with nature

Men only hunting lodges

Using devices to scare out deer

I know that each area has its own rules and regulations, but I was not too impressed with hunting outside of Pittsburgh.

Bright Orange hunting suits - not exactly blending in with nature You're actually required by law to wear the bright orange suits. It's a safety issue. Most animals are color blind, so it's not like you need camoflauge, and by wearing bright orange it's less likely that some other hunter will mistake you for an animal and try and shoot you.

I liked your last point, Dendri -- I can totally understand disliking hunting, but to paint every hunter with the same brush (they're all selfish, savage, unenlightened idiots) seems to me to be a knee jerk reaction that does not have sufficient understanding or fairness. Your last point proved that you are not painting with that brush, and that's cool.

For the record, I don't like blood, I dislike watching anything die, and thus I am not a hunter. But I don't think that that means everyone else should live my way -- I respect the fact that they have other interests than I do.

More interesting news from the hunters side. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/12/13/ivorybilled.woodpecker.reut/index.html)

This one from CNN, so nobody need stop reading before they're done with the article. ;)

but to paint every hunter with the same brush (they're all selfish, savage, unenlightened idiots) seems to me to be a knee jerk reaction that does not have sufficient understanding or fairness. Yes, please don't generalize. The four hunters that are allowed to hunt on my dad's property are not selfish, savage, nor are they unenlightened. In fact, they care very much for animals, and will not shoot a deer unless they have a killing shot. And after killing the deer, they do not waste it.

And, our land is overpopulated with deer... some of them need to go.

However, I am absolutely against poaching. Just because people think they have the priveledge to hunt doesn't mean that they do. In fact, in Massachusetts, if you are caught poaching, the deer is taken away, your truck (and everything in it) is taken and resold. The best part is, the game warden doesn't even need a conviction, he just needs a valid report from the landowner. And the reason that the poachers can't do anything to combat the punishment is because hunting is a privledge, not a right.