NationStates Jolt Archive

Hunting is widespread in America and I am currious how much goes on in other places.

My stance? One foot in front of the other, rifle snug, but not taut, against my right shoulder, sights locked on other armed hunters. Yup. I prefer a sport where both sides are equal.









NOTE: The preceding post was meant as a sarcastic musing. The poster does not advocate the shooting of rednecks unless it is absolutely necessary.

I have no problem with it, and I think banning fox hunting was fucking stupid.

My stance? One foot in front of the other, rifle snug, but not taut, against my right shoulder, sights locked on other armed hunters. Yup. I prefer a sport where both sides are equal.









NOTE: The preceding post was meant as a sarcastic musing. The poster does not advocate the shooting of rednecks unless it is absolutely necessary.

I do not refer to hunting as a sport and think that stace is dumb. I hunt for natural organic meat. Venison is not sold in our stores for some stupid reason and it is the only way to get it.

Your poll is flawed. I am not an avid hunter, but I support people owning weapons and hunting.

I do not refer to hunting as a sport and think that stace is dumb. I hunt for natural organic meat. Venison is not sold in our stores for some stupid reason and it is the only way to get it.

Well, sorry there, pal, but I chose to reply TO dumb WITH dumb.




ROTTEN POLL.

Poll fails. Apart from its bias, no option for people who don't hunt but are not against it?

What a balanced poll. :/

I chose I eat meat, but hate the idea of hunting for it. Why? There is a difference between sending armed men into the woods to shoot for fun and "food" when it is not necessary for survival, killing animals native to that environment, and raising animals to be eaten for that specific purpose.

Your poll is flawed. I am not an avid hunter, but I support people owning weapons and hunting.

seconded

i dont hunt but i support hunting as long as its done properly.

Since animals kill people all of the time I say why not fight back. + animals eat us so why not eat them.

What a balanced poll. :/

I chose I eat meat, but hate the idea of hunting for it. Why? There is a difference between sending armed men into the woods to shoot for fun and "food" when it is not necessary for survival, killing animals native to that environment, and raising animals to be eaten for that specific purpose.

But it's alright to raise animals in a place worse then a fucking prison, only to be slaughtered and shoved into a burger at McDonald's?

My people have always hunted for sustenance, and I have no problem with continuing to do so today. We respect the animals we kill for food, and our indigenous laws are very strict as to which animals, and at what times they may be taken. I still primarily eat wild game as opposed to farmed beef or chicken, and that is not about to change. I also believe that if you couldn't bring yourself ever to hunt it, and slaughter it, then you aren't really showing respect to the food you are eating. That's right. So go stalk a carrot!

The idea of sport-hunting fills me with rage.

I don't hunt but I don't mind it. One of my freinds is an advid hunter with her father.

I think hunting is fine when properly regulated. It costs a bit to get a license here to shoot one deer, doesn't matter if you don't get a chance to shoot one, you have to pay for the license anyway, and after you shoot that one, you can't shoot another, even if you wanna.

Same for foul and such.

I have no problem with it.

I don't currently hunt, but I have in the past. Right now I fish. I catch tons of fish (okay enough for dinner about once a week) I think that's okay too.

Hunting is widespread in America and I am currious how much goes on in other places.

It's a rather upper-class sport in Germany. I don't mind it, as long as it's well regulated and doesn't endanger any of the hunted species.

I don't have an option in that poll.

We respect the animals we kill for food

Yeah I know what you meant, but that dose sound kind of funny.


The idea of sport-hunting fills me with rage.

I don't really see the difference ethically, one is hunting from tradition (you don't need to to survive), you could say hunting for sport is a part of American cultural heritage as well, and an even bigger traditional part in British upper class culture.

I do not refer to hunting as a sport and think that stace is dumb. I hunt for natural organic meat. Venison is not sold in our stores for some stupid reason and it is the only way to get it.

See, that's the good thing about the German system : Since mostly posh people with too much free time go hunting, they ususally don't kill enough. Germany doesn't currently have any wild predators, so the population of deer and boars etc needs to be kept down by humans. Foerster are the people responsible for this (I think the closest US equivalent would be the ranger maybe, not sure), and they sell the meat on. So it's available, if a bit pricey.

i vote none of the above. i don't mind hunting as long as the prey is eaten, hunting purely for sport however is rather distasteful to me. i myself do not hunt but my godmother enjoys hunting and i've eaten what she's shot on occasion.

Hunting have many benefits. Stuff like deer easily gets too overpopulated in an area if you don't do something about them. The environment can only sustain so much deers before they overpopulate themselves and destroy the very place they live in. Every overpopulated deer you hunt and eat is saving another animal (say a cow) from becoming your next meal. You are also keeping the roads safer by hunting the excess deers that the ecosystem can no longer sustain.

With regulation and a close watch at the population count, hunting is more than a sport. It helps the economy, it helps sustain the environment, it brings good quality meat, and it help keeps the road safe.

I follow certain maxims.

Never aim a gun at something you don't intend to kill.

Never kill an animal you don't intend to eat.

Stuffed heads on a wall are like sports cars.......they are simply penis extensions, compensating for certain "lackings" in the proud displayer.

:sniper::mp5::eek::)

Click Stand;13113488']Since animals kill people all of the time I say why not fight back. + animals eat us so why not eat them.

"All of the time?" Proof, please. Also for your second assertion.

I don't hunt, and I don't plan to hunt since I can get all the food I want at the nearest grocery store.

I think that shooting animals just for the hell of it, especially ones that can't even fight back is just stupid.

If my food supply was cut off however, then it would be a different story.

Yeah I know what you meant, but that dose sound kind of funny.

"I really respect the way you frolic in the wild, my rabbit cousin.' *snap*



I don't really see the difference ethically, one is hunting from tradition (you don't need to to survive), you could say hunting for sport is a part of American cultural heritage as well, and an even bigger traditional part in British upper class culture.

It's not about tradition, it's about respect, and the ideological approaches are completely different. We believe that humans have a responsibility as stewards to ensure the well being of the earth and all it's inhabitants. One way of keeping that connection is by retaining our connection to the land. The judeo-Christian philosophy puts humans on the top of (forgive me) 'the totem pole' and tells them to go out and be masters of all they see. We do, in fact, need to continue to hunt in order to ensure our cultural survival. That isn't to say that we all hunt.

However, we hunt for food, and we use all parts of the animal. Hunting merely to kill something...is repugnant.

I have no problem with people hunting for meat, if they need to do so to survive. Infact it is my opinion that the preferable state of humanity is to lead such a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. However unfortunately I can't live like that (as of yet), so I take the next best option; to detach myself as much as I can from the whole sickening industry of death that is modern food production by being a vegetarian.

EDIT: not with a gun, mind. Hunting with a gun is almost as bad as farming. Even bows and arrows are a comparatively recent invention. I'm talking hunting as human beings evolved to do. With flint tipped spears.

It's not about tradition, it's about respect, and the ideological approaches are completely different. We believe that humans have a responsibility as stewards to ensure the well being of the earth and all it's inhabitants. One way of keeping that connection is by retaining our connection to the land. The judeo-Christian philosophy puts humans on the top of (forgive me) 'the totem pole' and tells them to go out and be masters of all they see.

The bold, is actually identical to judeo-christian philosophy, but admittedly its not really in the mainstream anymore. But whatever, I don't give a shit anyway, I just felt like being pedantic.


We do, in fact, need to continue to hunt in order to ensure our cultural survival.

Why is this?

Poll fails. Apart from its bias, no option for people who don't hunt but are not against it?


That is where I am. I'm a pro second amendment American who was taught how to properly own firearms, including how to clean them, by my maternal grandfather at an early age. This issue has a lot of pooible variations in terms of ones personal position. At the least "other" should have been an option. At least then, those of us who would ave chosen it could have elaborated in a post as I have here.

The bold, is actually identical to judeo-christian philosophy, but admittedly its not really in the mainstream anymore. But whatever, I don't give a shit anyway, I just felt like being pedantic. Yeaaaaah....no.

Sorry. Not as it has developed. And perhaps you took the view from that bolded part that because we are 'stewards' that this makes us somehow more important than other animals, sort of the boss of the animals. Absolutely not our approach in any way. There is no hierarchy within the animal world that puts us on top. In our view.



Why is this? Because much of our culture is based on our relationship with the land, and with the animals. "All our relations" refers to the fact that we do not see ourselves set apart from animals, but rather related to them in a certain way. We each have our role to play, and hunting, continuing to gather sacred plants, continuing to give our respect to the earth, maintains that link. The idea of starting to see food as something you simply purchase from a store, is really disturbing. This kind of viewpoint makes it easy to discount the impact we humans have our environment, and it causes us to take for granted a resource that we absolutely can not live without.

Our culture is so interwoven with the land, that ceasing forever to hunt, and simply shopping at Safeway...would essentially mean consigning our history to the shadows.

Hunting is widespread in America and I am currious how much goes on in other places.

Your poll is bum.

I have hunted. If I need the meat, I will hunt.

My problem with 'hunting' as a 'recreation', is that it makes killing into a game - death is just a way to find a quick thrill.

(By the way, all these comments about controlling populations... the question would be a lot less relevent if we didn't make a habit of destroying all the predators, too...)

why do we need to continue to hunt as we've hunted many species to extintion our stewrdship hasn't been very good . Even the national bird of the Usa is in trouble . Recently we had a golden Eagle poisened near me to keep up grouse shooting which i find abhorant ." grouse are bred for shooting here so why not just slaughter them humanly"

Not talking about you, sorry.

Plus, use the fucking spell check on your browser pleasethanx.

"I really respect the way you frolic in the wild, my rabbit cousin.' *snap*



It's not about tradition, it's about respect, and the ideological approaches are completely different. We believe that humans have a responsibility as stewards to ensure the well being of the earth and all it's inhabitants. One way of keeping that connection is by retaining our connection to the land. The judeo-Christian philosophy puts humans on the top of (forgive me) 'the totem pole' and tells them to go out and be masters of all they see. We do, in fact, need to continue to hunt in order to ensure our cultural survival. That isn't to say that we all hunt.

However, we hunt for food, and we use all parts of the animal. Hunting merely to kill something...is repugnant.
why do we need to continue to hunt as we've hunted many species to extintion our stewrdship hasn't been very good . Even the national bird of the Usa is in trouble . Recently we had a golden Eagle poisened near me to keep up grouse shooting which i find abhorant ." grouse are bred for shooting here so why not just slaughter them humanly"

I'm talking hunting as human beings evolved to do. With flint tipped spears.

Surely we 'evolved' to kill with our hands, etc?

Surely we 'evolved' to kill with our hands, etc?

Our most immediate ancestor species all used flint tools and weapons as well, so it's something homo sapiens is basically "designed"* to do. It's not that I'm against any technology being used to hunt, just post-paleolithic technology :p

*maybe not the best choice of words, but you know what I mean :rolleyes:

Yeaaaaah....no.

Sorry. Not as it has developed. And perhaps you took the view from that bolded part that because we are 'stewards' that this makes us somehow more important than other animals, sort of the boss of the animals. Absolutely not our approach in any way. There is no hierarchy within the animal world that puts us on top. In our view.


Maybe not as it has developed, but this is a known biblical philosophy, mainly present in genesis with the garden of Eden. I actually had to do exams in this stuff.


Because much of our culture is based on our relationship with the land, and with the animals. "All our relations" refers to the fact that we do not see ourselves set apart from animals, but rather related to them in a certain way. We each have our role to play, and hunting, continuing to gather sacred plants, continuing to give our respect to the earth, maintains that link. The idea of starting to see food as something you simply purchase from a store, is really disturbing. This kind of viewpoint makes it easy to discount the impact we humans have our environment, and it causes us to take for granted a resource that we absolutely can not live without.

Our culture is so interwoven with the land, that ceasing forever to hunt, and simply shopping at Safeway...would essentially mean consigning our history to the shadows.

Ok, I understand.

Surely we 'evolved' to kill with our hands, etc?

Hehehehe.

I love the 'it's not really hunting unless you...' lines.

I also love it when people tell aboriginals that we should only be hunting with 'traditional' (re: frozen in time at a specific moment) implements.

Fuck that. You don't go hunting with a rocket launcher, because you'd have nothing left to eat. We choose the weapon that is most effecient...why? Because it's not a game. There is always danger, always...but the odds are, the human is going to kill the animal. Our focus is on this process being imbued with a deep respect. That means, as part of our ancient laws, we don't hunt pregnant animals, or animals at certain times. Conservation is built into our beliefs and our laws as a matter of respect and common sense. There is no need to confine ourselves to hunting with spears, or arrows...or our fucking bare hands.

my options (as usual) doesn't seem to exist in the poll. number one is almost close except that i don't own a gun, nor other means of doing so. (and i don't entirely trust humans having guns. spears and arrows and even phasers might be ok though!)

my "stance on hunting" can be summed up quite litterally and accurately by the phrase "you kill it, you eat it!"

in nature there are creatures that eat other creatures. i know that hunter and hunted are both self awaire beings, and all that implies. having to eat to live and all THAT implies is something i recognize too, however.

indiginous societies reconciled this apearant paradox by thanking the spirits of their prey for making their own continued existence possible. to me this makes excellent sense.

killing anything for any other reason then to eat it does not. thus hunting seasons don't entirely either. nor this nonsense of viewing hunting as a 'sport', nor doing so for THAT purpose.

=^^=
.../\...

Maybe not as it has developed, but this is a known biblical philosophy, mainly present in genesis with the garden of Eden. I actually had to do exams in this stuff. That's very nice. It doesn't really matter though, when in practice, judeo-Christian belief has man on top, and all the world below him. Saddam's Iraq was officially a Socialist state. Doesn't mean that there was any sort of socialism being practiced.



Ok, I understand.
Glad I was able to clarify.

Hunting is perfectly sensible, especially in cases like Colorado where it's necessary to keep the deer and elk populations to sustainable levels, since we've taken out the natural predator--the wolf--that used to do that. Hunting animals provides us with a large variety of foods that are excellent fat and protein sources and thus good for our bodies, and it's also quite natural when it comes to life itself.

I've never hunted though.

ok to control overpopulation, but with strict rules.

"All of the time?" Proof, please. Also for your second assertion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKm-HSNyb4M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsavo_maneaters

I rest my case. Goats are first on my list of immediate execution.

That's very nice. It doesn't really matter though, when in practice, judeo-Christian belief has man on top, and all the world below him. Saddam's Iraq was officially a Socialist state. Doesn't mean that there was any sort of socialism being practiced.


Not always, but I digress.

Our most immediate ancestor species all used flint tools and weapons as well, so it's something homo sapiens is basically "designed"* to do. It's not that I'm against any technology being used to hunt, just post-paleolithic technology :p

*maybe not the best choice of words, but you know what I mean :rolleyes:

No - we are basically designed to kill - weapons optional.

I find your 'flint' hunting arbitrary and bizarre. If you want to do what we 'evolved' to do, use your bare hands and bite the throat out. Any other anachronism is mere fetish.

Since my option is missing:

I've hunted before, do not enjoy it much, could do it if I needed to, and am a meat eater.

Yeah, efficiency is definitely important. I'd never hunt with a bow unless I absolutely had to. I'd use a rifle, and I'd be amazed at anyone who didn't.

Jesus, the sheer ignorance and stereotypical bigoted opinions about aboriginals really pisses me off. :mad:

Hehehehe.

I love the 'it's not really hunting unless you...' lines.

I also love it when people tell aboriginals that we should only be hunting with 'traditional' (re: frozen in time at a specific moment) implements.

Fuck that. You don't go hunting with a rocket launcher, because you'd have nothing left to eat. We choose the weapon that is most effecient...why? Because it's not a game. There is always danger, always...but the odds are, the human is going to kill the animal. Our focus is on this process being imbued with a deep respect. That means, as part of our ancient laws, we don't hunt pregnant animals, or animals at certain times. Conservation is built into our beliefs and our laws as a matter of respect and common sense. There is no need to confine ourselves to hunting with spears, or arrows...or our fucking bare hands.

When I have been a predator, I have conventionally used a gun, or a knife.

My reasoning is nothing to do with "'it's not really hunting unless..." but to do with clean kills. I don't want to leave an animal wounded but 'escaped'. It is unfair on the prey, and it means I have to start over.

I find the other poster's idea about flint weapons bizarre, non-constructive, inhumane, and abitrarily anachronistic. I'm certainly not endorsing it.

When I have been a predator, I have conventionally used a gun, or a knife.

My reasoning is nothing to do with "'it's not really hunting unless..." but to do with clean kills. I don't want to leave an animal wounded but 'escaped'. It is unfair on the prey, and it means I have to start over.

I find the other poster's idea about flint weapons bizarre, non-constructive, inhumane, and abitrarily anachronistic. I'm certainly not endorsing it.

Oh, I realise that. I was simply adding to your comment, not directing it TO you.

I follow certain maxims.

Never aim a gun at something you don't intend to kill.

Never kill an animal you don't intend to eat.

Stuffed heads on a wall are like sports cars.......they are simply penis extensions, compensating for certain "lackings" in the proud displayer.

:sniper::mp5::eek::)

My brother in law hunts, and eats what he kills (although that's not very often), but he does have a deer head on the wall. It came with the house, and the house was willed to him when a very close family friend died (she had no children, and my brother in law was the closest thing she had to a son).

I realize now that i should have put other as an option sorry for making a bunk poll. That asside i do enjoy reading the responses and seeing how various cultures view hunting. A large % of the liscence fees go to conservation efforts here in the USA, because if there are no animals then there is no hunting.

Surely we 'evolved' to kill with our hands, etc?

No. We did evolve to use tools. That's why intelligence continued to grow the further down the evolutionary chain you move from the ancestral primate to homo sapiens. Intelligence was key in developing better and better tools.

Which is why his comments were rather idiotic...yes, we came up with flint tipped spears and so on, but we have come up with even better tools for hunting now, so why would we use a lesser tool?

Oh, I realise that. I was simply adding to your comment, not directing it TO you.

Just making it clear. My position on this issue is far closer to yours, than to the flinty-hunter platform. I have to make sure people know my 'bare hands' comment was a response to the 'evolved to' argument, not a statement of intent. :D

What a balanced poll. :/

I chose I eat meat, but hate the idea of hunting for it. Why? There is a difference between sending armed men into the woods to shoot for fun and "food" when it is not necessary for survival, killing animals native to that environment, and raising animals to be eaten for that specific purpose.

Well, some meat can't be bought in stores such as venison and squirrel. I never shoot anything I wouldn’t eat, unless it was attacking me.

I am against hunting by people who don't need to be doing so. Obviously I am not going to judge an Inuit in Alaska and an upper-class American stock broker as doing the same thing.

I don't mind that humans use animals, what I do mind is the large factory farms, the destruction of the Earth, and people treating life as property. I don't use any animal products because I don't need them. There are some people who do need them, and I don't criticize those people at all for wanting to survive. I do have a huge problem with how animals are treated in the industrial world, and am generally totally against hunting in this nation.

And the overpopulation argument doesn't fly with me. Nature provides ways to control it. Humans themselves are dangerously overpopulated, start controlling that first, worry about the animal population either.

I am against hunting by people who don't need to be doing so. Obviously I am not going to judge an Inuit in Alaska and an upper-class American stock broker as doing the same thing.

Just a question...at what point do I become too 'upper class' to hunt?

And the overpopulation argument doesn't fly with me. Nature provides ways to control it. Humans themselves are dangerously overpopulated, start controlling that first, worry about the animal population either.

Sorry, but that doesn't work. Ecological niches and ecologies in specific areas are fragile systems indeed. One animal extinct, one species gone, and the whole thing could completely collapse without intervention. Such is the case with Colorado...having slaughtered the wolves that inhabited the area, the natural predators preventing the deer and elk from overfeeding are gone. Nature does not just "provide" a way to keep them under control, because Nature is not a sentient being or a guiding force. Something did evolve into the niche to take care of that, but that creature no longer exists, and without it, the deer and elk could easily overpopulate. They would destroy the vegetation almost completely, and then starve, destroying the entire ecosystem.

That's why hunting is so important here...without it, we wouldn't be able to keep things going. Colorado depends upon its vegetation for a hell of a lot of things, and we can't afford to lose it. We made this mess, so we're fixing it.

And yeah, humans are overpopulating. There's a way to fix that too...we might not have figured it out yet, but there is a way.

There's a later post that expands on it a little more.... somewhere.

We 'evolved' to kill without weapons... or with weapons. We can kill with our bare hands, and our evolutionary path favours it. We are also tool-users, and our evolutionary path favours that, too.

We certainly didn't 'evolve' to use flint-tipped spears. Like I said, arbitrarily anachronistic.

If the argument is purely about our evolution, weapons are cheating. We have predator eyes and predator teeth, get out there and bite bunnies. If it's about our evolution as tool-users - as you say - we do not live in isolation. So - if you need a rifle, use the rifle.

This seems pretty speculative. Is there any hard science on this?

It seems stupid to me the idea that we were evolved to kill with our bear hands, since we would be rubbish at that. We're not strong or fast enough, and our teeth are not sharp or big enough. Do you know anyone who can kill a cow with his bare hands?

No. We did evolve to use tools. That's why intelligence continued to grow the further down the evolutionary chain you move from the ancestral primate to homo sapiens. Intelligence was key in developing better and better tools.

Which is why his comments were rather idiotic...yes, we came up with flint tipped spears and so on, but we have come up with even better tools for hunting now, so why would we use a lesser tool?

There's a later post that expands on it a little more.... somewhere.

We 'evolved' to kill without weapons... or with weapons. We can kill with our bare hands, and our evolutionary path favours it. We are also tool-users, and our evolutionary path favours that, too.

We certainly didn't 'evolve' to use flint-tipped spears. Like I said, arbitrarily anachronistic.

If the argument is purely about our evolution, weapons are cheating. We have predator eyes and predator teeth, get out there and bite bunnies. If it's about our evolution as tool-users - as you say - we do not live in isolation. So - if you need a rifle, use the rifle.

Totally barbaric, along with fishing. I believe that unless you actually hunt to survive, there is no reason for it. It's sick that people get pleasure out of hurting or killing animals. How would you feel if someone was chasing you down in a forrest with a gun? Pretty damn scared.

There's a later post that expands on it a little more.... somewhere.

We 'evolved' to kill without weapons... or with weapons. We can kill with our bare hands, and our evolutionary path favours it. We are also tool-users, and our evolutionary path favours that, too.

We certainly didn't 'evolve' to use flint-tipped spears. Like I said, arbitrarily anachronistic.

If the argument is purely about our evolution, weapons are cheating. We have predator eyes and predator teeth, get out there and bite bunnies. If it's about our evolution as tool-users - as you say - we do not live in isolation. So - if you need a rifle, use the rifle.

I'm not so certain about that. I can't really think of an animal we could really catch and kill with our bare hands without serious risk. Rabbits, for instance, are too fast. We could try to catch deer, but they tend to have antlers, which I presume are pretty damned painful.

No...if it was about evolution for hunting with bare hands, claws, ect we'd not have evolved the intelligence we have. We wouldn't start using tools.

Totally barbaric, along with fishing. I believe that unless you actually hunt to survive, there is no reason for it. It's sick that people get pleasure out of hurting or killing animals. How would you feel if someone was chasing you down in a forrest with a gun? Pretty damn scared.

Yes, because I take a sadistic glee in killing. That's exactly why I do it. Just to feel like a big hunter.

Or...perhaps I hunt because:

1) the meat is healthier and better tasting
2) it is an integral part of my culture
3) it cements the respect I have for nature

Na. Can't be.

I don't hunt often myself (not patient enough, don't like getting up early, and it's fucking cold out there), but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Plus, venison is very tasty.

I think my main point in these discussions is that not all hunters are the same. There are plenty of white hunters who share the same basic philosophy with aboriginal people. In Canada, I'd say many whites from the East coast are like that, as well as many rural whites. (sorry, in Canada, especially in the rural areas it is still very much just cowboys and indians)

I don't care what your background is if you hunt with respect. However, the fact is, in my territory, we should take precedence when it comes to hunting. If no more animals can be taken, respectful or not, tough luck. This is our land, and it has been for tens of thousands of years. I welcome many into it, into this Nehiyaw Askiy, but that's the way we see it.

This seems pretty speculative. Is there any hard science on this?

It seems stupid to me the idea that we were evolved to kill with our bear hands, since we would be rubbish at that. We're not strong or fast enough, and our not sharp and big enough. Do you know anyone who can kill a cow with his bare hands?

Why would we be hunting a cow, if we can't kill it?

A man can kill another man with his bare hands, right? Anyone who has ever 'necked a chicken' will be aware that they aren't much of a conquest. And the same is true of a lot of the smaller prey. Even the young of larger prey animals would be fairly easy to kill, and much easier to catch than their mature relatives.

Looking at our physical traits, we are more likely to be scavengers, or opportunist carnivores, than higher-order predators.

Totally barbaric, along with fishing. I believe that unless you actually hunt to survive, there is no reason for it. It's sick that people get pleasure out of hurting or killing animals. How would you feel if someone was chasing you down in a forrest with a gun? Pretty damn scared.

What about someone like my brother in law? Besides him and my sister, they have 4 children, and my sister's currently out of work (she just gave birth to my newest niece Sept 3). Hunting puts meat in the freezer, so they can spend their income on other things that are needed.

Plus, venison is very tasty.

I'd say that it depends on how it's prepared/cooked. I had venison once that tasted worse than 3 year old, freezer burned beef. I've also had venison that tasted better than most of the steaks that I've ever had at restaurants.

I'd say that it depends on how it's prepared/cooked. I had venison once that tasted worse than 3 year old, freezer burned beef. I've also had venison that tasted better than most of the steaks that I've ever had at restaurants.

You COOK your venison?:confused:

:D

You COOK your venison?:confused:

:D

GASP! You savage barbarian! :eek:

Well traveled: Your poll is crap.



Aside from that-

Considering how easy it is for me to come across deer, hunters seem like a ridiculous bunch to me. Seriously, covering your self in urine and whatever? Whatever turns you on, I guess. But it certainly looks from the outside like you think too highly of who you are and what you're doing. Kinda goofy, really.

But whatever. There are bigger things to worry about that as long as the impact overall is mitigated it's not worth bothering with. Go ahead and play pretend, everyone has to have a hobby.

Hunting for sport seems a bit pointless to me. Killing something to eat it, fair enough, but just leaving something to rot lacks a real reason other than mild sadism.

Depends on what you hunt and how you do it. Hunting endangered species is a very bad thing but hunting species that are straining the ecosystem because there are too many of them or that would do that if they weren't hunted is a good thing.

I bet it is less painful for a doe to get shot to death then to get killed by a pack of wolves, starve to death due to herbivore overpopulation or die from a disease. Whoever objects to hunting should go after predators that use more painful methods first like wolves and cats.

But some methods are very cruel and unacceptable. On the TV news today they talked about a method for hunting bear illegally because bears have an unpopular habit of tearing livestock apart. They put inwards pointing spikes along the edges of buckets, spread out the buckets in the forest and put food in the buckets. When bears find the buckets and eat the food the inwards spikes makes it impossible for the bears to get their heads out of the buckets so they starve to death.

I'm not a hunter, but I certainly have no problem with it. I love venison and getting it occasionally from friends and family.

I am against hunting by people who don't need to be doing so. Obviously I am not going to judge an Inuit in Alaska and an upper-class American stock broker as doing the same thing.

Just a question...at what point do I become too 'upper class' to hunt?

Seriously. As long as the stock broker uses all of the animal, why should his job matter as to why he can and can't hunt?

I hate the assholes who take the head and hide and leave the meat rot. But if he wants to have venison roasts, venison ground meat, venison sausage, and venison stew, why shouldn't he?

I don't have a problem with the concept of it. However how its done in many or most places bothers me. It seems its done mainly by men with small penises that feel they have to kill something to make them more of a man. I could respect someone who goes into the wilderness with only a knife and can come away with a kill. however I have absolutely no respect for someone who picks off a deer with a gun 300 yards out. Or "can" "hunts" where guys pay to kill animals basically in a cage.

Hunting should only be legal if you intend to consume what you hunt. Overpopulation my ass, humans are overpopulating.

Hunting should only be legal if you intend to consume what you hunt. Overpopulation my ass, humans are overpopulating.I have a cunning plan....

If anyone has ever lived in upstate New York, then you'd see how many deer are dead on the highways instead of killed by hunters the forests.

Seriously, Hunting needs less restrictions (at least for deer) because the population of the deer has increased due to less hunters.

Anyways, I don't hunt, but I do fish. :)

Hunting is widespread in America and I am currious how much goes on in other places.

Hunting is for idiots. They should play paintball. Much more fun against human opponents.

Click Stand;13113488']Since animals kill people all of the time I say why not fight back. + animals eat us so why not eat them.

yes. those murderous deer attacking and eating our brothers and sisters!

hunting is barbaric and disgusting.

you know why deer overpopulate? because we hunted their natural predators into extinction. screw hunting. reintroduce wolves and bears.

Hunting for sport seems a bit pointless to me. Killing something to eat it, fair enough, but just leaving something to rot lacks a real reason other than mild sadism.

exactly what i was going to say, without the sadism part cause i just woke up and cant think that intelligently right now. If your going to waste your time stalking and killing the animal, you may as well eat the poor thing. Its just respect. Also as long as the hunting doesn't endanger the species I don't have a problem with it.

yes. those murderous deer attacking and eating our brothers and sisters!

hunting is barbaric and disgusting.

you know why deer overpopulate? because we hunted their natural predators into extinction. screw hunting. reintroduce wolves and bears.

You cannot "reintroduce" that which is extinct. Humans have replaced them in their ecological niche.

Yeah, efficiency is definitely important. I'd never hunt with a bow unless I absolutely had to. I'd use a rifle, and I'd be amazed at anyone who didn't.

Jesus, the sheer ignorance and stereotypical bigoted opinions about aboriginals really pisses me off. :mad:

Hunting with a bow is actually kind of fun. Of course, it requires far greater skill than hunting with a rifle, but it's not too bad. An arrow can easily kill an animal if the archer is accurate shooter. Now hunting with a spear or a stone point would be hard. But of course, I agree that there's no reason to make people hunt with old weapons, I just think it's more stylish.

As for my opinion on hunting, I think it's fine, but you better use most of the animal, and you can't kill too much. I don't want overpopulation or extinction.

Hunting is widespread in America and I am currious how much goes on in other places.

The only hunting I can condone is that of humans. Imagine, hunting convicted rapists.

WOO-HOO! Git that there rascal!

I don't hunt, but I have no problem with people who do hunt.

Trappers on the other hand..

My people have always hunted for sustenance, and I have no problem with continuing to do so today. We respect the animals we kill for food, and our indigenous laws are very strict as to which animals, and at what times they may be taken. I still primarily eat wild game as opposed to farmed beef or chicken, and that is not about to change. I also believe that if you couldn't bring yourself ever to hunt it, and slaughter it, then you aren't really showing respect to the food you are eating. That's right. So go stalk a carrot!

The idea of sport-hunting fills me with rage.



It's not about tradition, it's about respect, and the ideological approaches are completely different. We believe that humans have a responsibility as stewards to ensure the well being of the earth and all it's inhabitants. One way of keeping that connection is by retaining our connection to the land. The judeo-Christian philosophy puts humans on the top of (forgive me) 'the totem pole' and tells them to go out and be masters of all they see. We do, in fact, need to continue to hunt in order to ensure our cultural survival. That isn't to say that we all hunt.

However, we hunt for food, and we use all parts of the animal. Hunting merely to kill something...is repugnant.



I also love it when people tell aboriginals that we should only be hunting with 'traditional' (re: frozen in time at a specific moment) implements.

Fuck that. You don't go hunting with a rocket launcher, because you'd have nothing left to eat. We choose the weapon that is most effecient...why? Because it's not a game. There is always danger, always...but the odds are, the human is going to kill the animal. Our focus is on this process being imbued with a deep respect. That means, as part of our ancient laws, we don't hunt pregnant animals, or animals at certain times. Conservation is built into our beliefs and our laws as a matter of respect and common sense. There is no need to confine ourselves to hunting with spears, or arrows...or our fucking bare hands.



Quoted for truths.


I am against hunting by people who don't need to be doing so. Obviously I am not going to judge an Inuit in Alaska and an upper-class American stock broker as doing the same thing.



Just a question...at what point do I become too 'upper class' to hunt?



Seriously. As long as the stock broker uses all of the animal, why should his job matter as to why he can and can't hunt?


My own impression (developed by studying the past and contemporary politics of the Inuit of Nunavut) is that the problem with Free Socialist Allies' position is that it strongly implies that eventually indigenous peoples will achieve a level of economic development upon which they will be required to give up their traditional cultural practices, including hunting.

Thus, Free Socialist Allies, your statement is going to be interpreted by these peoples as something along the lines of "you have our permission to continue to hunt, so long as you stay poor." Of course, there are all kinds of problems with such an attitude:

Your permission is entirely irrelevant
Your position creates and enforces economic class differentiation, with some classes more privileged than others (the rich may dictate to the not rich when they may or may not hunt...)
Thus, your position is based in economic and political elitism


Considering one's nation name ("Free Socialist Allies") and the adherence to a political ideology that it implies ("socialism"), the economic and political elitism evident in one's stated position (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13113689#post13113689) is especially ironic and hypocritical. The socialist aims to eliminate discrimination based on economic status, not to further divide or differentiate people according to said status.

Of course, indigenous peoples have been, and continue to be, subjected to the hypocritical whim of economic and political authorities forced upon them without their consent. I would think that a socialist would also be driven to prevent and correct such gross injustice.

I don't hunt, and I don't think I ever will. I mean, why in the world would I want to slog around in the backwoods in late November, when it's freezing cold out, and quite probably wet? Not my cup of tea. I like to get my food from the dry, comfortable supermarket.

The only time I get cold in the supermarket is when the AC is turned up a titch too high.

The only hunting I can condone is that of humans. Imagine, hunting convicted rapists.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=482894&

Let me explain my position better. I am against killing animals, and using animals in general. I think it is fundamentally wrong. I'm saying I can understand people who hunt and fish to survive.

Agreed.

Let me explain my position better. I am against killing animals, and using animals in general. I think it is fundamentally wrong. I'm saying I can understand people who hunt and fish to survive.

I live in Michigan. The year revolves around hunting. I guess you could call us sport hunters. We don't need to hunt for our food, that's what Meijer's is for.

That being said, all of the hunters I know try to use as much of the animal as possible. Obviously, it's tough to use some of the parts (bladder, brain etc), but we use all the meat (rump is the best) and most of the bones. Honestly, I don't think there's much of a difference between me going out and getting my meat, and just buying it from the grocery store.

Let me explain my position better. I am against killing animals, and using animals in general. I think it is fundamentally wrong. I'm saying I can understand people who hunt and fish to survive.

This is simply a restatement of the same position, not a further explanation. That hunting provides sustenance and survival is a tangential issue (thus, emphasizing it serves only as a red herring/smoke screen).

The real issue is that all sorts of people hunt because the activity is an integral part of their tradition and cultural identity; it is not simply a matter of physical "survival," but rather it is who they are. What your position demands is that these people give up their tradition and cultural identity, who they are, once they cross the arbitrary line of economic class (by entering an economic class wherein hunting is no longer necessary for "survival.") Of course, your position is bogus because the practice of tradition and cultural identity should not be allowed or restricted based on membership in any economic class.

By what authority do you claim the right to assert your values (killing and "using" animals is fundamentally wrong) above, or as superior to, those of others (traditional practice and cultural identity) according to the arbitrary lines of economic class?

The only hunting I can condone is that of humans. Imagine, hunting convicted rapists.

You know... I might actually be able to get behind that idea...

You know... I might actually be able to get behind that idea...

Just so. The Government opens-up centers and lets the dough roll-in.

I live in Michigan. The year revolves around hunting. I guess you could call us sport hunters. We don't need to hunt for our food, that's what Meijer's is for.

That being said, all of the hunters I know try to use as much of the animal as possible. Obviously, it's tough to use some of the parts (bladder, brain etc), but we use all the meat (rump is the best) and most of the bones. Honestly, I don't think there's much of a difference between me going out and getting my meat, and just buying it from the grocery store.

Agreed. That is pretty muc how it works here in Canada. I've never met a person who hunts for "sport" and leaves a rotting carcass. But many of my friends, co-workers and myself hunt for sport (yes it is a sport) and try to use and pack as much of the animal out of the woods as they can.

If I had the chance I would go hunting. I don't have anything against it and I love meat.

I've never heard a compelling argument against hunting, it's true; however, living as I do in the suburbs, I haven't ever gotten around to actually going hunting myself, beyond a few times as a kid. It's not the most practical hobby for me. :p

If anyone has ever lived in upstate New York, then you'd see how many deer are dead on the highways instead of killed by hunters the forests.

Seriously, Hunting needs less restrictions (at least for deer) because the population of the deer has increased due to less hunters.

Roads shouldn't be a reason to kill deer. Build a fence a long the road.

That said I'm a vegatarian and I am an avid apple hunter. As long as hunting/fishing is done humanly and only for food I'm okay with it. If there is an over-population problem and you feel you need to kill the rabbits, deer anything really, kill it and eat it.
Although it must be well regulated.

You cannot "reintroduce" that which is extinct. Humans have replaced them in their ecological niche.

They are not extinct they are present in other places, and clearly as there are over-population issues humans have not replaced them.

Your poll doesn't include my specific stance or an 'other' option. Therefore it is lame.

Anyway, in my mind, hunting is okay as long as both of these two things are true:

1) You intend to eat the meat of the animal. No sense in killing and simply wasting all that food.
2) The species is not endangered or threatened.

Roads shouldn't be a reason to kill deer. Build a fence a long the road.


That's alot of pretty high fences to put up and mantain. Deer are freaking everywhere up in the north. I myself have hit 3 deer in my 4 years of driving.

They are not extinct they are present in other places, and clearly as there are over-population issues humans have not replaced them.

Indeed. If humans had replaced them then there would not be a prey overpopulation problem.

That's alot of pretty high fences to put up and mantain. Deer are freaking everywhere up in the north. I myself have hit 3 deer in my 4 years of driving.

The problem, then, is surely that we drive too fast?

The problem, then, is surely that we drive too fast?

Not really. Deer are really stupid. They always seem to jump right out of the bushes far enough away so you hit them, but close enough that you can't stop. I believe I was going fairly slowly during my deerstrikes, probably between 20 and 30 MPH.

I've hunted in the past but I haven't in awhile. The last hunt I went on netted me enough meat to last for several years, so I didn't need to go again (I got a bison from a herd on private land). Those several years of eating bison meat were the healthiest I've ever been. After the meat was gone, Life™ interfered and I couldn't go again for awhile.

So after the multi-year hiatus and a move from a hunter-unfriendly state to a hunter-friendly state, I'm getting my old archery equipment out and swotting up to go again next year. I'm looking forward to going back to completely organic/free range/grass-fed meat!

I think anti-hunters should get a life and set their sites on other environmental factors that endanger animals, like human expansion/overpopulation, Chinese apothecary poaching and factory agricultural practices. Hunters protect wildlife habitat. Everyone agrees we need more forests and clean rivers, right? What if A.L.F. joined some game wardens' posses and nabbed poachers instead of blowing up equestrian centres?

That's alot of pretty high fences to put up and mantain. Deer are freaking everywhere up in the north.
As I'm Canadian I can assure you I understand, there is a family of them in my backyard as I type. :)
I myself have hit 3 deer in my 4 years of driving.
Neither of my parents or relatives (16 of them living in Ontario that have a drivers licinse) have hit any deer in the past 5 years, maybe you should drive slower and make sure that you are wide awake when you drive.

As I'm Canadian I can assure you I understand, there is a family of them in my backyard as I type. :)

*sigh* I miss home.


Neither of my parents or relatives (16 of them living in Ontario that have a drivers licinse) have hit any deer in the past 5 years, maybe you should drive slower and make sure that you are wide awake when you drive.

Oh, I am. These were in broad daylight. They, quite litterally, jumped right out in front of me. Perhaps Michigan deer are just dumber then Colorado deer?

Although I think there might be more Deer in Michigan then Colorado.

Not really. Deer are really stupid. They always seem to jump right out of the bushes far enough away so you hit them, but close enough that you can't stop. I believe I was going fairly slowly during my deerstrikes, probably between 20 and 30 MPH.

Apparently, that was still too fast.

I've hit one, despite almost leaving the road to dodge it. I've also been hit by one, that ran into the side of my car. Yes - deer are stupid. But then - the 'road' issue is only an issue because of our reliance on fast autos.

Apparently, that was still too fast.

I've hit one, despite almost leaving the road to dodge it. I've also been hit by one, that ran into the side of my car. Yes - deer are stupid. But then - the 'road' issue is only an issue because of our reliance on fast autos.

20MPH is not fast. It was simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It's not like I hurt the deer or my car during these incidents. The most damage I've ever suffered is a broken headlight.

Been said before, but I'll say it again.
Average poll.

Personally, I've been hunting a few times and really enjoyed it. Will hopefully go again some time soon.

Contrary to my "hick" up bringing I just do not have the urge to hunt regularly. Yeah I have been hunting and I do not have a problem for those that do wish to do so I just do not find it nearly as pleasurable as many do.

Former vegetarian, now I'm what one might call a pescetarian. Don't eat chicken/red meat, but I'll eat fish (have developed a fondness for sushi).

I've always wanted to go fishing, but never had the opportunity to do so.

Can't say I'd ever hunt, can't say I care that others do.

reintroduce wolves and bears.

We tried that. Didn't help.

Former vegetarian, now I'm what one might call a pescetarian. Don't eat chicken/red meat, but I'll eat fish (have developed a fondness for sushi).

I've always wanted to go fishing, but never had the opportunity to do so.

Can't say I'd ever hunt, can't say I care that others do.

Well if you come up here I have a lake to go fishing on ...

Not a crazy fishermen myself but Ill get out a few times a year

Well if you come up here I have a lake to go fishing on ...

Not a crazy fishermen myself but Ill get out a few times a year

That sounds fun. There isn't much opportunity for fishing in suburban Jersey, regrettably.

One thing that should go noted:
In North America, every state and province has implemented "wanton waste" laws in regards to hunting. If you take the head and the hide and leave the rest to rot, they yank your license and fine you lots 'n lots 'n lots 'n lots of money. The laws specifically state, all usable parts of the carcass must be salvaged.

So if you see a carcass in the woods with only the head and skin removed, it is *not* due to licensed hunters. Get out of there fast because there are poachers about, and they're not above killing witnesses. Get out of there and beat a path to the nearest Dept. of Fish & Wildlife or rangers' station.

So I'm a vegetarian, but I don't really object to hunting (so long as it's done humanely) in fact, I think that if one is going to eat meat, that's how one should do it.

I've never seen a gun.

Neither of my parents or relatives (16 of them living in Ontario that have a drivers licinse) have hit any deer in the past 5 years, maybe you should drive slower and make sure that you are wide awake when you drive.

I drive very often out along rural highways, usually with heavy bush alongside them. I have avoided many accidents with deer and moose by paying extreme attention to movement alongside the road. Also knowing that a deer or moose is just as likely to jump in FRONT of you as away from you when you approach, even honking, keeps me doubly wary. However, it's pretty much inevitable that I will hit one at some point. I can't be driving 80 klicks an hour in the hopes that this will help, because it won't.

Thus, Free Socialist Allies, your statement is going to be interpreted by these peoples as something along the lines of "you have our permission to continue to hunt, so long as you stay poor." Of course, there are all kinds of problems with such an attitude:

Your permission is entirely irrelevant
Your position creates and enforces economic class differentiation, with some classes more privileged than others (the rich may dictate to the not rich when they may or may not hunt...)
Thus, your position is based in economic and political elitism



Kinana'skomitin, well said.

The idea that at some point, we will be too affluent to be allowed to hunt, essentially imposes cultural assumptions about our current state, and misunderstands our relationship with the land.

Not really. Deer are really stupid. They always seem to jump right out of the bushes far enough away so you hit them, but close enough that you can't stop. I believe I was going fairly slowly during my deerstrikes, probably between 20 and 30 MPH.

you know, we don't have that problem in chicago despite our absolutely immense concentration of deer in cook county, but it certainly is true in both michigan and wisconsin. i think the deer back home have actually evolved to understand roads.

Kinana'skomitin, well said.

The idea that at some point, we will be too affluent to be allowed to hunt, essentially imposes cultural assumptions about our current state, and misunderstands our relationship with the land.

don't you have a rain dance to be performing or something?

don't you have a rain dance to be performing or something?
No, this is the scalping season, moniyaw.

That sounds fun. There isn't much opportunity for fishing in suburban Jersey, regrettably.
The farm and my parents house are both on lakes ... in fact one of the lakes name is the same as my last name ;)

you know, we don't have that problem in chicago despite our absolutely immense concentration of deer in cook county, but it certainly is true in both michigan and wisconsin. i think the deer back home have actually evolved to understand roads.

Natural selection at it's finest.

We have a small problem here in Oz. Well, actually, it's a big problem, to wit: the Kangaroo population.

Roos breed fast - VERY fast. And they have no natural predator once full grown. That's not human influence, either, by the way - at least, not colonial influence. The Aborigines may well have had something to do with the demise of the Megafauna when they arrived 40 000 years ago, but the situation hasn't changed since Europeans arrived.

The "natural" cycle for Roos is to Boom and Bust. They populate until there's no food left, then die off in the millions. Which the Roos seem to be fine with, but it's very hard on everything else, including sheep and cattle, which are the backbone of the Australian agricultural economy along with wheat (which Roos will eat quite happily, thank you).

Our response has been population control. Kangaroo Shooters are licensed by the government to eliminate a quota of Roos every year. The Shooters are also allowed to take the skins for selling on to leatherworking concerns - Kangaroo skin is extremely useful, making a fine, flexible leather or an absolutely superb felt.

Unfortunately, wild Kangaroo cannot be used for meat, due to the presence of a very nasty parasitic worm. It's very hardy, creates galls, and can often survive cooking - and finds humans equally appetizing. Kangaroo meat is very good, but you should only use store-bought meat, which is farmed and guaranteed worm-free.

So, we have a lot of Roos being killed, and the meat left to rot. But what else can we do?

No, this is the scalping season, moniyaw.

you know, this brings up an interesting issue with my position that hunting is only ok for those that believe and act as if the things hunted are directly morally considerable...

If you're a hunter, you're a pussy. It's completely unnecessary and such a pathetic grasp at true strength.

It's completely unnecessary and such a pathetic grasp at true strength.
Do you eat meat?

Rarely, but meat is usually obtained through cattle. Not hunting DEER with a rifle and then boasting about blowing its brains out.

I went to college in the middle of PA so this is the kind of shit I'd hear all day long.

"Yeah I went to this place where they pen the deer up and then let them graze around while ya shoot em."

How is buying meat meat from a store different then going out and getting it yourself?

Do you eat meat?

Rarely, but meat is usually obtained through cattle. Not hunting DEER with a rifle and then boasting about blowing its brains out.

I went to college in the middle of PA so this is the kind of shit I'd hear all day long.

"Yeah I went to this place where they pen the deer up and then let them graze around while ya shoot em."

If you're a hunter, you're a pussy. It's completely unnecessary and such a pathetic grasp at true strength.

I have a pussy. I don't consider myself to be the sum of my pussy though.

It's nice that you've thought this through, that you've taken the time to read my posts on the subject (ha) and that you've refrained from making blanket statements. Much appreciated.

Now please explain something to me. When I shoot a moose, cut off the hide, and butcher the carcass, then (with help, I'm not a freaking juice-monkey) haul it out of the woods and take the meat home...when I take a portion to the elders and single mothers of my community, as is our tradition, when I gift the hide to an elder to have it smoked and cured and turned into moccasins, or leggings...when I cut the antlers so that they can be used as buttons and adornments, when I render the fat to be mixed with pouded dry meat and berries...when I can feed my family on that meat for a year...tell me please how you, who has no connection to the food you eat, who simply purchases pre-slaughtered and packaged meat in the supermarket...tell me how you are so much better than me. Thanks.

How is buying meat meat from a store different then going out and getting it yourself?

I don't shoot a doe in the face and then brag about it.

Raising cattle is far different than hunting.

Rarely, but meat is usually obtained through cattle. Not hunting DEER with a rifle and then boasting about blowing its brains out.
How is killing a deer worse than killing a cow? Hunting and eating wild deer is more sustainable and more humane than killing domestic cattle en masse.

Besides, if you're willing to eat meat, you should be willing to kill the meat that you're going to eat.

you know, this brings up an interesting issue with my position that hunting is only ok for those that believe and act as if the things hunted are directly morally considerable...

I agree. I know I cannot fully make any of you understand that the concept of 'all my relations' is so much more than just some hokey 'being one with nature' neo-pagan shite. We give thanks and prayers, and we follow very specific protocols when we hunt, or when we gather plants. I had a thread on it a while back, but we also believe that the earth itself has agency.

I have a pussy. I don't consider myself to be the sum of my pussy though.

I think it was pretty clear I was referring to musket jocks, but whatever. If you feel the knee jerk reaction to defend something directed at someone entirely different, then go ahead.

I think it was pretty clear I was referring to musket jocks, but whatever. If you feel the knee jerk reaction to defend something directed at someone entirely different, then go ahead.

Yes, it is patently ridiculous of me to assume that you intended a certain class of people to be left out of your blanket statement. Damn me, and my inability to read what isn't there!

How is killing a deer worse than killing a cow? Hunting and eating wild deer is more sustainable and more humane than killing domestic cattle en masse.

Yeah, but after eating a hamburger you don't stand up and shout: "YEAH FUCK THAT COW! I KICKED IT'S ASS!"

I just despise the mentality musket jock hunting.

Yeah, but after eating a hamburger you don't stand up and shout: "YEAH FUCK THAT COW! I KICKED IT'S ASS!"
Yeah, because you're a pussy who lets everyone else do the dirty work. At any rate, I don't think that people who hunt confined animals for sport are taking the right approach either. I also doubt that these people are the majority of hunters. I've known people who have built little stands in trees and perched there for hours waiting for a deer to come within range.

Yeah, but after eating a hamburger you don't stand up and shout: "YEAH FUCK THAT COW! I KICKED IT'S ASS!"



No...but I just might start!

That was totally not there. Glad you noticed that it wasn't there (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13115749&postcount=126).

But anyway, since you live in such a nomadic society, where the fuck did you get the internet?

Awwww....you're cute when you act like an ignorant racist. *pats head*

No, I'm the pussy training to hunt other humans. You know, the ones that can fight back.
Yeah, unarmed people can really fight back when you shoot them from a distance.

Yes, it is patently ridiculous of me to assume that you intended a certain class of people to be left out of your blanket statement. Damn me, and my inability to read what isn't there!

"Yeah I went to this place where they pen the deer up and then let them graze around while ya shoot em."

That was totally not there.

But anyway, since you live in such a nomadic society, where the fuck did you get the internet?

Yeah, because you're a pussy who lets everyone else do the dirty work.

No, I'm the pussy training to hunt other humans. You know, the ones that can fight back.

No...but I just might start!

That would actually be pretty funny. :D

Yeah, unarmed people can really fight back when you shoot them from a distance.

Going out on a limb there eh?

Going out on a limb there eh?
So you'll be hunting people by picking fights with them hand to hand?

So you'll be hunting people by picking fights with them hand to hand?

That's exactly what the U.S. Marshals do.

Anyone who draws any kind of pleasure from hunting is a sociopath, or developing into one. Only people in the most dire of situations must survive off hunting. Usually people in the previous example don't have access to the internet. So I'm safe to assume that anyone here hunts for sport to a certain degree. If that's the case, I resent you with every fiber of my body.

I think it is generally unsavory to kill animals and not eat them, but also believe that in some cases, like fox hunting, the grand old tradition outweighs the wrong in killing an animal for sport.

Also, people should not be permitted to hunt animals to the brink of extinction, in any case.

That's exactly what the U.S. Marshals do.

My ass they do. I worked in a federal courthouse for a year. Take a guess on what the Marshall's there were armed with. I'll give you a hint. It wasn't their bare hands.

That's exactly what the U.S. Marshals do.

Anyone who draws any kind of pleasure from hunting is a sociopath, or developing into one. Only people in the most dire of situations must survive off hunting. Usually people in the previous example don't have access to the internet. So I'm safe to assume that anyone here hunts for sport to a certain degree. If that's the case, I resent you with every fiber of my body.

I’d like to direct your attention to the following posts:

#1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13114321&postcount=81)

#2 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13114384&postcount=87)

I’d also like to redirect your attention to my previous post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13115749&postcount=126), that you did not really respond to. See…you ignored my question, and made a crack about my people being nomadic…then you pretended you didn’t mean to include me in your blanket statement…and now you are once again saying that you are.

So I’d like you to answer my question. What the fuck makes you so much better than me, that you feel justified in ‘resenting me with every fibre of your being’?

Because you equate not living as a nomad with sport hunting. Do you even see the disgusting cultural assumptions, based entirely in ignorance, that you are making here? Only the poor, and internetless can be forgiven for hunting?

Bullshit. I don’t care if I make over 100K a year. My cultural connection to hunting is not going to change, not going to become any less respectful, and not going to become a sport. I don't need to survive off hunting any more than you need to survive off buying butchered cow meat at the supermarket. That, frankly, is not the point.

Anyone who draws any kind of pleasure from hunting is a sociopath, or developing into one. Only people in the most dire of situations must survive off hunting. Usually people in the previous example don't have access to the internet. So I'm safe to assume that anyone here hunts for sport to a certain degree. If that's the case, I resent you with every fiber of my body.
Dude, I'm not saying that a person should love killing animals, but if you're going to eat meat then you're doing the same damn thing, except indirectly. At least people who hunt an animal, clean it and use every part of it are a) not creating unnecessary suffering (domesticated cows, pigs etc endure a hell of a lot before they end up on the chopping block) and b) are being much better for the environment. Usually they're also providing an essential service because humans have destroyed predator populations so the prey end up multiplying to the point where they end up starving to death.

Also, I don't hunt, but then I don't eat meat. You're just being a hypocrite.

Sarcasm is sarcastic. They go around picking fights with their bare hands.

US Marshalls go around picking fights with people? really?

Depends on the situation, but that aside, how often is lethal force used?

When it is necessary. How is this of any relevance?

Oh lawdy de dubba post

Anyone who draws any kind of pleasure from hunting is a sociopath, or developing into one. Only people in the most dire of situations must survive off hunting. Usually people in the previous example don't have access to the internet. So I'm safe to assume that anyone here hunts for sport to a certain degree. If that's the case, I resent you with every fiber of my body.

I assume you are a vegetarian.

I think it is generally unsavory to kill animals and not eat them, but also believe that in some cases, like fox hunting, the grand old tradition outweighs the wrong in killing an animal for sport.
wtf? How is tradition a good reason to kill something?

wtf? How is tradition a good reason to kill something?

I think it's just as good a reason and "I like how it tastes"

My ass they do. I worked in a federal courthouse for a year. Take a guess on what the Marshall's there were armed with. I'll give you a hint. It wasn't their bare hands.

Sarcasm is sarcastic. They go around picking fights with their bare hands.

Depends on the situation, but that aside, how often is lethal force used?

I think it's just as good a reason and "I like how it tastes"
But people aren't eating the foxes, they're just killing them. Maybe using their fur, but that's not an efficient use of the whole animal.

But people aren't eating the foxes, they're just killing them. Maybe using their fur, but that's not an efficient use of the whole animal.

perhaps, but again, that's not exactly the same thing. If your tradition involves the killing and eating of it, I have no particular problem. I do not, on the other hand, enjoy killing for sport.

perhaps, but again, that's not exactly the same thing. If your tradition involves the killing and eating of it, I have no particular problem. I do not, on the other hand, enjoy killing for sport.
Ok. Well, a poster just stated that the fox hunt was fine because it was tradition. I stated that tradition isn't a good reason to kill something for sport. And yeah, if you're going to kill because of a tradition, you should eat it.

I'm not sure how we started disagreeing here... :S

wtf? How is tradition a good reason to kill something?

Fox hunting wasn't actually banned, only hunting with dogs. It has had terrible consequences in rural England for a variety of reasons.

One of the most perverse outcomes has been a reduction in the fox population.

I only eat meat when it's served to me at a family dinner. Otherwise I just stick to tuna and peanut butter for protein.
What about the poor tuna? Are you fishing that for yourself?

On a serious note, if you're relying mostly on peanut butter and occasional fish for protein this probably isn't the best course of action. Invest in some tofu or learn to cook with dried beans. You need complete protein to live and peanut butter simply doesn't have it.

Otherwise I just stick to tuna

You know, this is a very interesting little statement here. Cows, pigs, sheep, all the other meats are generally gained from farms. Which is to say that the animals are rounded up and slaughtered in a slaughter house.

While there may be fish hatcheries, not really so much farms for tuna, they tend to be too big. Rather fish are caught by nets. So you know that tuna you eat? Yeah...it was hunted.

I'm disgusting for thinking one's cultural background is an outdated practice? Sorry.


No, you're a hypocrite because you believe yourself morally superior for accessing a food source in a different way than I do.

I’d like to direct your attention to the following posts:

I'm disgusting for thinking one's cultural background is an outdated practice? Sorry.

US Marshalls go around picking fights with people? really?

You weren't aware!? You're really behind.

When it is necessary. How is this of any relevance?

See below for relevant post.

Yeah, unarmed people can really fight back when you shoot them from a distance.

Also, I don't hunt, but then I don't eat meat. You're just being a hypocrite.

I only eat meat when it's served to me at a family dinner. Otherwise I just stick to tuna and peanut butter for protein.

What a balanced poll. :/

I chose I eat meat, but hate the idea of hunting for it. Why? There is a difference between sending armed men into the woods to shoot for fun and "food" when it is not necessary for survival, killing animals native to that environment, and raising animals to be eaten for that specific purpose.

not only that but 'hunt' outside the USA does not always mean with a gun. Here in the UK hunting usually refers to using dogs to chase an animal and then to kill it. It is not being used for food but just for fun. In Russia it is more likely to refer to shooting animals for their fur. And then there is the famous haggis hunt - that does not involve guns at all.

A poll entitled "is it OK to shoot animals for food" - would be better.

While there may be fish hatcheries, not really so much farms for tuna, they tend to be too big. Rather fish are caught by nets. So you know that tuna you eat? Yeah...it was hunted.
And it died horribly. As did many other fish that were discarded due to inedibility.

The 'it's in my cultural background' defense is something Oprah used to defend Michael Vick. That worked out very well.

If you just want to shoot an animal just say so.

I don't directly take life, and then try to defend myself for it.

and yet, if you didn't eat the animals you do, less would die. So you directly choose for an animal to be hunted.

So much for your moral superiority.

No, you're a hypocrite because you believe yourself morally superior for accessing a food source in a different way than I do.

I do feel morally superior actually. I don't directly take life, and then try to defend myself for it.

I fully support hunting with bows and arrows, traps and snares etc. -- everything except firearms, which, of course, should be seized and destroyed the world over until no one (including police forces and armies of all countries) should be allowed to possess.

and yet, if you didn't eat the animals you do, less would die. So you directly choose for an animal to be hunted.

So much for your moral superiority.

Actually the little can of tuna I eat once in a blue moon would just get thrown out, or purchased by someone else.

Your definition of directly is about as accurate as someone spelling 'Vowel'-'Voul".

Actually the little can of tuna I eat once in a blue moon would just get thrown out, or purchased by someone else.


Eh. You know that when you take something off the shelf at a store, the store's management sees that (it's called an "inventory," done regularly) and orders more, yes? :p

Anyway, I'm usually on the side of the hunter, even though I don't often hunt myself. It's a good way, like fishing, to recreate, spend time with family, and escape the stress of the work week. Also, there are a whole range of meats the local market just doesn't sell, which can only be found by hunting (or paying some inflated price through special order). So I say, kudos to the ethical hunter. :)

I do feel morally superior actually. I don't directly take life, and then try to defend myself for it.

Funny. So because you don't actually kill the animal, or butcher it, you aren't responsible for its death, and its consumption is fine. I like how you wiggle your way out of culpability there.

Frankly, if you are not willing to kill an animal, and get your hands dirty as you process the meat...then I do not think you truly understand what it means to eat meat. Eating meat means an animal has been killed. You seem to be doing all you can to avoid that fact.

So tell me. Who has more respect for the animal?

Oh come on. Give them a chance. Let them use simple Swiss Army knifes.

The funny thing is, that back in the days when hunting was done with spears, animals would be herded into a confined area through beating the forest with tools, then slaughtered en masse with those spears. Not exactly sporting. :p Of course, in those days famine was a real possibility, and sport wasn't the object, understandably.

Not with a gun, mind. Hunting with a gun is almost as bad as farming. Even bows and arrows are a comparatively recent invention. I'm talking hunting as human beings evolved to do. With flint tipped spears.

Oh come on. Give them a chance. Let them use simple Swiss Army knifes.

Oh come on. Give them a chance. Let them use simple Swiss Army knifes.

Edged tools are instruments of evil science, use the thumbs evolution/god gave you.

Eh. You know that when you take something off the shelf at a store, the store's management sees that (it's called an "inventory," done regularly) and orders more, yes? :p

I work in a grocery store right now, you're preaching to the poor bastard who takes inventory. Thankfully I work in produce so my work load is fairly small.

Regardless. My .00001% of shares is hardly equal to hunting and gutting the fish itself. I've seen what hunters and fishermen do to what they catch and all I can say is that it's sadistic and immoral. My girlfriend's father slit a doe's neck with a combat knife. I can't respect anyone capable of that brutality.

Regardless. My .00001% of shares is hardly equal to hunting and gutting the fish itself. I've seen what hunters and fishermen do to what they catch and all I can say is that it's sadistic and immoral. My girlfriend's father slit a doe's neck with a combat knife. I can't respect anyone capable of that brutality.
And the way they slaughter cattle is so much better?

How deluded are you?

Also, on the 'only hunt with blah blah blah'...let me quote again:

Hehehehe.

I love the 'it's not really hunting unless you...' lines.

I also love it when people tell aboriginals that we should only be hunting with 'traditional' (re: frozen in time at a specific moment) implements.

Fuck that. You don't go hunting with a rocket launcher, because you'd have nothing left to eat. We choose the weapon that is most effecient...why? Because it's not a game. There is always danger, always...but the odds are, the human is going to kill the animal. Our focus is on this process being imbued with a deep respect. That means, as part of our ancient laws, we don't hunt pregnant animals, or animals at certain times. Conservation is built into our beliefs and our laws as a matter of respect and common sense. There is no need to confine ourselves to hunting with spears, or arrows...or our fucking bare hands.

Funny. So because you don't actually kill the animal, or butcher it, you aren't responsible for its death, and its consumption is fine. I like how you wiggle your way out of culpability there.

I'll accept I'm an accessory to multiple animal deaths, but I've never been directly responsible for causing one. That's hardly wiggling my way out.

I respect animals because I can kill them.

Your logic is sound.

How is killing a deer worse than killing a cow? Hunting and eating wild deer is more sustainable and more humane than killing domestic cattle en masse.

Well, sustainable so long as only a few do it. If six billion people suddenly decide they want to go hunt, there's a problem.

Besides, if you're willing to eat meat, you should be willing to kill the meat that you're going to eat.

Don't worry, that's why we have Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat)!

And the way they slaughter cattle is so much better?

How deluded are you?

I don't slaughter cattle. Not because I feel for the cows, but because I think it tastes like crap and is genuinely bad for you. Although with all the artificial junk I eat...

I don't agree with humans who lack compassion.
If you can directly kill an animal without need, you lack compassion.

That's my logic and I'm sticking to it dammit.

Also, on the 'only hunt with blah blah blah'...let me quote again:

My mom says that a lot and even I think it's borderline, nay, full blown stupid.

"I'z gunna kill dis buck with my knife!"
...
"Oh noez I'm ded, damn those completely defenseless animals."

My mom says that a lot and even I think it's borderline, nay, full blown stupid.

"I'z gunna kill dis buck with my knife!"
...
"Oh noez I'm ded, damn those completely defenseless animals."

Yes, because anyone advocating, say, hunting down a moose with a spear, is being serious.

Edit: Don't hunt a moose with a canoe, either.

Yes, because anyone advocating, say, hunting down a moose with a spear, is being serious.

Edit: Don't hunt a moose with a canoe, either.

A lot of people think animals are utterly incapable of defending themselves. My mom, for instance, believes hunting a deer with anything other than a knife is unfair.

A lot of people think animals are utterly incapable of defending themselves. My mom, for instance, believes hunting a deer with anything other than a knife is unfair.

She would have you slit Bambi?
But there are limits. I saw a documentary about wolf control (somewhere in the States), and a ranger was shooting the selected wolf with a rifle… from a helicopter!
Door guns, people! That's what they're there for!

She would have you slit Bambi?
But there are limits. I saw a documentary about wolf control (somewhere in the States), and a ranger was shooting the selected wolf with a rifle… from a helicopter!

She would slit me if I tried, damn Rambo mom.

Wolf control is the biggest load of horse shit in existence. Kill an already endangered species to 'protect' your livestock. I forgot how hard it was to build an adequate fence.

She would slit me if I tried, damn Rambo mom.

Wolf control is the biggest load of horse shit in existence. Kill an already endangered species to 'protect' your livestock. I forgot how hard it was to build an adequate fence.

If wolves necessitate helicopters, I don't think that fences will stop them.

Also: Hippocrit? Horse critic? Yeah, horses have some faults. I guess I'm one of those.

wtf? How is tradition a good reason to kill something?

It is as good a reason as killing an animal to eat it, when you don't really want for food.

I think it is bad when an animal is killed for no good reason, but I think that some high cultural activities like British fox hunting are a sufficient reason to kill an animal now and then, at least an animal which isn't rare or endangered.

Falling victim to a fox hunt is a pretty classy way to go out for a fox.

I killed a bird with a sword once- I could have used a hatchet or a rock, or a shovel, but I thought a sword was a little more decent of a way to do the poor bird in, culturally and historically speaking.

Hunting is for idiots. They should play paintball. Much more fun against human opponents.

While I agree that paintball is fun (while played against people of approximately the same skill level as yourself), many hunters (like my brother in law) don't hunt for the fun of it. They hunt because they have a family, and that family likes venison (it's also a great way to supplement the food that they buy at the store, since they're back to 1 income for 2 adults and 4 kids).

One thing that should go noted:
In North America, every state and province has implemented "wanton waste" laws in regards to hunting. If you take the head and the hide and leave the rest to rot, they yank your license and fine you lots 'n lots 'n lots 'n lots of money. The laws specifically state, all usable parts of the carcass must be salvaged.

So if you see a carcass in the woods with only the head and skin removed, it is *not* due to licensed hunters. Get out of there fast because there are poachers about, and they're not above killing witnesses. Get out of there and beat a path to the nearest Dept. of Fish & Wildlife or rangers' station.

Unfortuately, the time I saw the carcass sans head, it was on a street corner in Brooklyn NY. Someone had brought the whole thing back and dumped it on a city street.

I don't shoot a doe in the face and then brag about it.

Raising cattle is far different than hunting.

Why? Because they haul it up still alive by the back legs, hit it in the face with a pneumatic sledgehammer, and slit its throat while it's still alive and struggling?

That's exactly what the U.S. Marshals do.

Anyone who draws any kind of pleasure from hunting is a sociopath, or developing into one. Only people in the most dire of situations must survive off hunting. Usually people in the previous example don't have access to the internet. So I'm safe to assume that anyone here hunts for sport to a certain degree. If that's the case, I resent you with every fiber of my body.

And you don't think that there's a problem with a testosterone induced rant against hunters while announcing one's intention to hunt people?

Boy, talk about hypocrisy.

Roads shouldn't be a reason to kill deer. Build a fence a long the road.

That said I'm a vegatarian and I am an avid apple hunter. As long as hunting/fishing is done humanly and only for food I'm okay with it. If there is an over-population problem and you feel you need to kill the rabbits, deer anything really, kill it and eat it.
Although it must be well regulated.



They are not extinct they are present in other places, and clearly as there are over-population issues humans have not replaced them.

Do you know how high a deer can jump? On level ground, a deer can clear a 6-8 foot fence, and on sloped ground (towards the fence), upwards of 11 feet. It's also not just deer dead on the side of the road, it's deer starving due to not enough food, and deer dying of disease. There was a problem in Groton, CT with a deer overpopulation. There was a study out, that found that between the amount of property damage (vehicles, fences etc), ecological damage (decimating their food source), and disease spread (such as Lymes disease), the costs were staggering. The state ended up having to allow a certain number of hunters (out of season) hunt a specific number of deer to bring the numbers to a more manageable number (and I believe the hunters were picked through a lottery system).

I work in a grocery store right now, you're preaching to the poor bastard who takes inventory. Thankfully I work in produce so my work load is fairly small.

Regardless. My .00001% of shares is hardly equal to hunting and gutting the fish itself. I've seen what hunters and fishermen do to what they catch and all I can say is that it's sadistic and immoral. My girlfriend's father slit a doe's neck with a combat knife. I can't respect anyone capable of that brutality.

What do you think they do to tuna?
They entangle it in nets and let it suffocate and struggle. Then they slit the belly and rip out the guts. Then they behead it and take off the scales (not so well, because you occasionally get some in your can).

Just because you choose to get your meat canned or conveniently packed in styrofoam or plastic does not make you morally superior.

Neither does hating jocks or whatever this is coming from.

Neither does hating jocks or whatever this is coming from.

I'm a big self hating jock who is against hunting animals for sport, but hunts humans instead. My words <--- context.

I actually believe if you go out of your way to kill something, there is a gear missing from your thinking process. I'm not talking about the farmer who makes a living from livestock, or the person who trades furs for a living. I'm talking about the person who goes out on the weekend to kill. Not for any purpose but to satisfy some pre-modern tradition.

I'm well aware of happens to Tuna. I'm not some bright eyed optimist who vomits sunshine and craps pure joy. I don't picture little blocks of white meat floating around in the ocean that are just scoped up and canned without any kind of process in between. I'm also not someone who enjoys killing animals in any shape or form.

You can go ahead and defend that buck mounted on your wall by calling me a hypocrite because I eat fucking tuna, but if I didn't I'm sure someone who start rambling on about the horrific life of the peanut.

The fact is being able to kill an animal, without any necessary purpose other than sport or pleasure, is the function of a sociopath.

I'm a big self hating jock who is against hunting animals for sport, but hunts humans instead. My words <--- context.

I actually believe if you go out of your way to kill something, there is a gear missing from your thinking process. I'm not talking about the farmer who makes a living from livestock, or the person who trades furs for a living. I'm talking about the person who goes out on the weekend to kill. Not for any purpose but to satisfy some pre-modern tradition.

I'm well aware of happens to Tuna. I'm not some bright eyed optimist who vomits sunshine and craps pure joy. I don't picture little blocks of white meat floating around in the ocean that are just scoped up and canned without any kind of process in between. I'm also not someone who enjoys killing animals in any shape or form.

You can go ahead and defend that buck mounted on your wall by calling me a hypocrite because I eat fucking tuna, but if I didn't I'm sure someone who start rambling on about the horrific life of the peanut.

The fact is being able to kill an animal, without any necessary purpose other than sport or pleasure, is the function of a sociopath.

And setting out, in your own words, to hunt people isn't?
I don't have any bucks on my wall, thanks for the assumption, by the way. If you actually spent time reading what I wrote, you'd know what I said about that.

It was a general statement to the people who defend hunting so vehemently I can only assume they took some offense to my belief that killing animals for sport is for cold blooded sociopaths.

Heh I make you right. By all means hunt for food, but hunting for the sake of it, naaaa I don't get that.

And setting out, in your own words, to hunt people isn't?

Tracking down and arresting criminals is just a tad better than shooting an animal me thinks. This isn't the Running Man...*Insert obligatory ahnold quote

I don't have any bucks on my wall, thanks for the assumption, by the way. If you actually spent time reading what I wrote, you'd know what I said about that.

It was a general statement to the people who defend hunting so vehemently I can only assume they took some offense to my belief that killing animals for sport is for cold blooded sociopaths.

Tracking down and arresting criminals is just a tad better than shooting an animal me thinks. This isn't the Running Man...*Insert obligatory ahnold quote



It was a general statement to the people who defend hunting so vehemently I can only assume they took some offense to my belief that killing animals for sport is for cold blooded sociopaths.

And we can only assume that people who talk about US Marshals PICKING FIGHTS have no interest in defending the law but in finding a sanctioned way to get out their sociopathic tendencies.

Ah, I am a hypocrite...I eat meat but I hate the idea of hunting for it. ;)

More specifically, I hate the idea of hunting for sport when we already have all these other methods of raising animals for food. Of course, I don't much like that either. I guess I'd be fine with hunting if we really needed to do it for food, and that's probably the best way to do things too, but that's not how it works anymore so that's how I feel about it.

The 'it's in my cultural background' defense is something Oprah used to defend Michael Vick. That worked out very well.

If you just want to shoot an animal just say so.

WHOOPS!!! Except she didn't say that, did she?
Go ahead and source it.

And we can only assume that people who talk about US Marshals PICKING FIGHTS have no interest in defending the law but in finding a sanctioned way to get out their sociopathic tendencies.

It's pretty hard to miss the four words right before that Kat.

Sarcastic post is sarcastic.

I'm not sure what lengths I have to go to get the fact I was joking across online, but you think that would have done it. My first post was a knee jerk reaction to anyone who claims hunting is justified through culture or tradition. Mistake, very much a yes. But, I've spent my time clarifying my position since. Now I'm just dodging attacks on my character through things taken completely out of context.

I have no problem with it, and I think banning fox hunting was fucking stupid.

Seconded.

It's pretty hard to miss the four words right before that Kat.



I'm not sure what lengths I have to go to get the fact I was joking across online, but you think that would have done it. My first post was a knee jerk reaction to anyone who claims hunting is justified through culture or tradition. Mistake, very much a yes. But, I've spent my time clarifying my position since. Now I'm just dodging attacks on my character through things taken completely out of context.

Hmm, let's see...
You attack the character of everyone who says they don't have a problem with hunting, saying that those people are sociopaths...

You liken all hunters to "musket jocks" who kill penned in animals...

You call yourself superior because you eat canned or slaughtered meat, which is fundamentally no different...

You denigrate Neesika, who feeds her family and community on the animals she brings down, and make nasty comments about her background...

You make the statement that you're the pussy who is training to hunt people... and make several further statements in support of that...

And then say you were just being sarcastic and are dodging character attacks?

Um, no. You're being called on the logical inconsistency in the ridiculous statements that you've made.

link (http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2007/09/the-view-gets-a.html)

Trying to justify killing animals because it's part of your culture is about as strong an argument as bringing voodoo into modern medicinal practice.

OH MY GOD!!! WHEN DID OPRAH CHANGE HER NAME AND GET PLASTIC SURGERY? BECAUSE THAT LOOKS JUST LIKE WHOOPI GOLDBERG TO ME!

"where he comes from" — by which she meant the South — dogfighting is part of the culture, so perhaps he didn't grasp the magnitude of what he was doing."

link (http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2007/09/the-view-gets-a.html)

Trying to justify killing animals because it's part of your culture is about as strong an argument as bringing voodoo into modern medicinal practice.

Regardless of whatever logical inconsistencies I possess, and whatever celebrities I accidently mix up. (Oprah is trying to stem Vick's sentence, Whoopi said something stupid.) I'm typing this as I'm getting ready for class, so sue me.

How does any of that relate to my arguement?

Killing for sport is the trait of a sociopath.

Right, and making outright nonsense statements repeatedly, mixing up your facts and not bothering to correct them (really, there is a world of difference between Oprah and Whoopi unless all you see is black woman celebrity), and backtracking when you don't like the responses is what?

OH MY GOD!!! WHEN DID OPRAH CHANGE HER NAME AND GET PLASTIC SURGERY? BECAUSE THAT LOOKS JUST LIKE WHOOPI GOLDBERG TO ME!

Regardless of whatever logical inconsistencies I possess, and whatever celebrities I accidently mix up. (Oprah is trying to stem Vick's sentence, Whoopi said something stupid.) I'm typing this as I'm getting ready for class, so sue me.

How does any of that relate to my arguement?

Killing for sport is the trait of a sociopath.

Being overly thirsty is the characteristic of uncontrolled diabetes but that doesn't mean that someone who is thirsty is diabetic. It has to be taken into account with many other factors

Umm like what I wonder? How much they enjoy it? The amount of bloodlust produced? What other factors are we talking here?

Regardless of whatever logical inconsistencies I possess, and whatever celebrities I accidently mix up. (Oprah is trying to stem Vick's sentence, Whoopi said something stupid.) I'm typing this as I'm getting ready for class, so sue me.

How does any of that relate to my arguement?

Killing for sport is the trait of a sociopath.

Being overly thirsty is the characteristic of uncontrolled diabetes but that doesn't mean that someone who is thirsty is diabetic. It has to be taken into account with many other factors

Even if killing for pleasure is one of the characteristics of a sociopath it isn't enough to call someone sociopathic

Being from England when someone says hunting I think of a bunch of elitist upper class tossers, with the collective IQ slightly less than that of a day old ham sandwich, charging around on horseback after a fox that they have no intention of eating. In the US I am sure this is not what people think of, so perhaps hunting for food is more common.

I don't hunt but I do eat meat (though I was a vegetarian for nearly 15 years). This is partly because I live in a city and frankly the only animal I commonly see that aren't pets are squirrels. But beyond the practical aspect, if I needed to kill animals to eat them it would take me quite a while to get used to (though my grandparents kept and killed animals for food it is not something I was brought up with). That said if I had no other choice I am sure I would do this rather than slowly starve to death.

However, I do not really understand people who hunt for pleasure. If you need to shoot a tranquilised bear in a small enclosure to make you feel like a man, then in my view you are pretty much a piss poor excuse for a human being.

I do think the OP is linking together gun control and hunting for a specific reason - let's just say I have seen less biased polls.

Overall, if someone wants to hunt that is their business, though if it is simply for 'sport' I will consider them to be an asshole.

Its from wikipedia but I couldn't be bothered finding other sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Heh Google is truly your freind.

Yes you are absolutly right.

Umm like what I wonder? How much they enjoy it? The amount of bloodlust produced? What other factors are we talking here?

1. Superficial charm and/or average intelligence.
2. Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking.
3. Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations.
4. Unreliability.
5. Untruthfulness and insincerity.
6. Lack of remorse or shame.
7. Antisocial behavior without apparent compunction.
8. Poor judgment and failure to learn from experience.
9. Pathological egocentricity and incapacity to love.
10. General poverty in major affective reactions.
11. Specific loss of insight.
12. Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations.
13. Fantastic and uninviting behavior with drink, and sometimes without.
14. Suicide threats rarely carried out.
15. Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated.
16. Failure to follow any life plan.

Sociopathy
The difference between sociopathy and psychopathy, according to Hare, may "reflect the user's views on the origins and determinates of the disorder."[37] Most sociologists, criminologists and even some psychologists believe the disorder is caused by social conflicts, and thus prefer the term 'sociopath.' Those who believe as Hare does, that a combination of psychological, biological, genetic and environmental factors all contribute to the disorder are more likely to use the term 'psychopath'.
[32]

Its from wikipedia but I couldn't be bothered finding other sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Animals have rights.

To ketchup and mustard.

Being a liberal I also believe animals have a right to garlic sauce.

Animals have rights.

To ketchup and mustard.

Being a liberal I also believe animals have a right to garlic sauce.

Bwhahahahah! very funny. Altough you have hit on an important distinction, and one that I will not hijack here but start a new thread on......

Being from England when someone says hunting I think of a bunch of elitist upper class tossers, with the collective IQ slightly less than that of a day old ham sandwich, charging around on horseback after a fox that they have no intention of eating. In the US I am sure this is not what people think of, so perhaps hunting for food is more common.

I don't hunt but I do eat meat (though I was a vegetarian for nearly 15 years). This is partly because I live in a city and frankly the only animal I commonly see that aren't pets are squirrels. But beyond the practical aspect, if I needed to kill animals to eat them it would take me quite a while to get used to (though my grandparents kept and killed animals for food it is not something I was brought up with). That said if I had no other choice I am sure I would do this rather than slowly starve to death.

However, I do not really understand people who hunt for pleasure. If you need to shoot a tranquilised bear in a small enclosure to make you feel like a man, then in my view you are pretty much a piss poor excuse for a human being.

I do think the OP is linking together gun control and hunting for a specific reason - let's just say I have seen less biased polls.

Overall, if someone wants to hunt that is their business, though if it is simply for 'sport' I will consider them to be an asshole.

Does this rabid and hypocritical piece of inverted snobbery involve assuming an equally silly stace upon fishing? Surely fishing qualifies as killing for sport? Or is it wholly more acceptable because it is not an upper class tradition?

In the US I am sure this is not what people think of, so perhaps hunting for food is more common.

Look. In this day and age, nobody needs to hunt for food except for maybe some very poor people. Hunting is done for entertainment. We don't NEED to kill any of the animals we hunt, we can just restrain ourselves to cows or even a purely vegetarian diet.

This said, I don't believe in animal rights at all. I don't see anything wrong with hunting for enjoyment.

I generally regard it as non-sporting for a human armed with a gun to hunt an unarmed herbivore or avian. For this reason I have little respect for "sport hunters."

We don't NEED to kill any of the animals we hunt, we can just restrain ourselves to cows or even a purely vegetarian diet.


Indeed? See my post on page 8.

Indeed? See my post on page 8.

Page 8? This thread has six pages for me.

Being from England when someone says hunting I think of a bunch of elitist upper class tossers, with the collective IQ slightly less than that of a day old ham sandwich, charging around on horseback after a fox that they have no intention of eating. In the US I am sure this is not what people think of, so perhaps hunting for food is more common.



Generally in the US hunting is associated with a group that is defined as lower middle class or mid-middle class and of rural extraction. The primary target is almost universally deer, because of the massive deer overpopulation problem that exists in many states. Hunting said deer usually entails parking your truck (enter stereotype) in the woods in late November, then taking off and slogging around in the muck and mud for hours, while freezing your bum off. Finally, seeing a deer, shooting at it and missing. Cursing, going back to your truck, once again through freezing cold mud and muck, and eating a cold ham sandwich and drinking a can of bud light before driving home.

Page 8? This thread has six pages for me.

Really? I've got fifteen.


Duuuuuuuude. That's like...duuuuuuuuuuude.

I generally regard it as non-sporting for a human armed with a gun to hunt an unarmed herbivore or avian. For this reason I have little respect for "sport hunters."

I don't consider it particularly wise to allow the white tail deer population to so overburden our natural resources that they promptly exterminate all their competitors through overconsumption, and then move on to dying out themselves.

The culling of the herds is necessary in many states.

I don't consider it particularly wise to allow the white tail deer population to so overburden our natural resources that they promptly exterminate all their competitors through overconsumption, and then move on to dying out themselves.

The culling of the herds is necessary in many states.
*Shrug* Okay. It's still not sporting, so doesn't really have anything to do with what I was talking about.

SINUHUE!

Reading this thread has given me more insight into your culture, and I am finding that I respect it more and more with each little bit of information I learn. While I might disagree with certain elements--the spiritual parts, but that's me being my skeptical atheistic self--the main bevy of it, with the respect and community cooperation and way of life...it's beautiful and so deeply respectable that I honestly fail to understand why anyone would ever consider your culture savage or barbaric. Far to the contrary...I'd call you a hell of a lot more civilized.

I find myself really wanting to experience your culture first hand...but how would I go about doing that?

Eh, my ethics are kind of whacked, but here goes.

I wouldn't mind going hunting, I've played paintball and the like and it's a thrill. I wonder if it's the same for hunting? People can eat the meat, mount it, or leave it there for other animals to have a meal before they die of starvation. The thing is, you can never waste meat. If you shoot a deer, and just choose to leave it there, it's a minor obstruction until birds of prey pick it clean, or it decomposes into the soil for more healthy plants. That's probably what I'd end up doing. Touching a bloody carcass doesn't appeal to me very much.

Also,
:sniper:

Right, and making outright nonsense statements repeatedly, mixing up your facts and not bothering to correct them (really, there is a world of difference between Oprah and Whoopi unless all you see is black woman celebrity), and backtracking when you don't like the responses is what?

With no sleep in 37 hour period I'll say some off the wall shit, granted. I admitted coming into this thread off a very bad knee jerk reaction. However, I still stand my point that hunting for sport is barbaric and downright pointless. If you want to counter that go ahead, but nit picking at my screwups in between isn't really what this thread is about. Sure it's fun and I made a lot of them but it's pretty irrelevent if my point still stands.

So far I'm a hypocrital, sociopathic, self hating racist who hunts humans for sport. A new best. :D

I think I'm opening an ugly can of worms here, but personally, I don't think that anyone who eats meat has the right to criticise the killing of animals for any reason, provided that it's no less humane (or no more inhumane?) than the methods by which your meat is procured.

Eh, my ethics are kind of whacked, but here goes.

I wouldn't mind going hunting, I've played paintball and the like and it's a thrill. I wonder if it's the same for hunting? People can eat the meat, mount it, or leave it there for other animals to have a meal before they die of starvation. The thing is, you can never waste meat. If you shoot a deer, and just choose to leave it there, it's a minor obstruction until birds of prey pick it clean, or it decomposes into the soil for more healthy plants. That's probably what I'd end up doing. Touching a bloody carcass doesn't appeal to me very much.

Also,
:sniper:

Sorry, but if you do that you'd lose your hunting license. One of the laws regarding hunting licenses is that you MUST take all of the meat home. You cannot waste any of it.

I think I'm opening an ugly can of worms here, but personally, I don't think that anyone who eats meat has the right to criticise the killing of animals for any reason, provided that it's no less humane (or no more inhumane?) than the methods by which your meat is procured.

It's not even the method in which it's done. It's the purpose for which it is obtained.

You're hungry you go buy food, or you hunt it down.

The latter being a rather gruesome and difficult task regardless of what animal you're hunting. So there's definately another motivation behind 'well I'm hungry.'

Generally in the US hunting is associated with a group that is defined as lower middle class or mid-middle class and of rural extraction. The primary target is almost universally deer, because of the massive deer overpopulation problem that exists in many states. Hunting said deer usually entails parking your truck (enter stereotype) in the woods in late November, then taking off and slogging around in the muck and mud for hours, while freezing your bum off. Finally, seeing a deer, shooting at it and missing. Cursing, going back to your truck, once again through freezing cold mud and muck, and eating a cold ham sandwich and drinking a can of bud light before driving home.

I thought it would be seen as a less elitist pursuit. Certainly doesn't sound like fun to me though...
Deer culling is necessary and carried in the UK as well - carried out by someone who knows what they are doing certainly seems preferable to me than allowing animals to starve to death.

How about 'I think it tastes better than farmed animals'

It's still a pain in the ass, and considering not all sold meats are the products of farm animals.

So there's definately another motivation behind 'well I'm hungry.'

How about 'I think it tastes better than farmed animals'

It's still a pain in the ass, and considering not all sold meats are the products of farm animals.

Ah, I see.

Wait, no I don't. You think less of people because they spend more work to obtain their food?

It's still a pain in the ass, and considering not all sold meats are the products of farm animals.

Things can taste better when you've worked for them. I find vegetables I grow taste a lot better and I suspect a large part of that is because I grew them.\

I've never had my local tescos sell deer that wasn't farmed

It's not even the method in which it's done. It's the purpose for which it is obtained.

You're hungry you go buy food, or you hunt it down.

The latter being a rather gruesome and difficult task regardless of what animal you're hunting. So there's definately another motivation behind 'well I'm hungry.'

how about "I'm hungry and broke"? I know many people I see out fishing just don't have money to buy any meat. (well, any meat that's healthy). They have lures and poles, they can catch some fish for dinner.....for free.

A LOT of people that I know that hunt rabbit and such on their own land, do so because it's cheap food.

Ah, I see.

Wait, no I don't. You think less of people because they spend more work to obtain their food?

I think less of people who would kill an animal without a good cause. Everyone works to obtain their food, minus welfare and what have you.

Things can taste better when you've worked for them. I find vegetables I grow taste a lot better and I suspect a large part of that is because I grew them.\

I've never had my local tescos sell deer that wasn't farmed

I doubt they actually taste better, but you appreciate it much more than something bought out of a supermarket.

how about "I'm hungry and broke"? I know many people I see out fishing just don't have money to buy any meat. (well, any meat that's healthy). They have lures and poles, they can catch some fish for dinner.....for free.

A LOT of people that I know that hunt rabbit and such on their own land, do so because it's cheap food.

I'm fine with necessity*, but doing it because it tastes better doesn't sit well with me. If you're going to take something's life than there should be a good reason behind it.

*My great grandfather survive the depression by hunting rabbits off his property.

Your poll is flawed.

Yep. I can't hunt, because the first (and last) time I went I cried when I killed an animal. But I eat meat, because there's just something so....euphoric in biting into something that's dumber than me.

I doubt they actually taste better, but you appreciate it much more than something bought out of a supermarket.

Yes that's my point. They seem to taste better because of that

I'm fine with necessity*, but doing it because it tastes better doesn't sit well with me. If you're going to take something's life than there should be a good reason behind it.

*My great grandfather survive the depression by hunting rabbits off his property.

But either way someone will be taking the animals life if I eat meat. Why shouldn't I do it if it tastes better?

But either way someone will be taking the animals life if I eat meat. Why shouldn’t I do it if it tastes better?
Personally, it seems more ethical to hunt, kill, clean and cook an animal yourself, rather than buying one from a supermarket. Not always possible of course, unfortunately.

As we are meat-eaters, I think giving animals the respect due to them, killing them responsibly and using as much of the animal as we can, is quite defensible.

Hunting for hunting’s sake, however, seems less morally correct. I don’t see how the case can be made for unnecessary killing.

why not?

Do you consider Hannibal Lecter to be more moral than a murderer who kills for fun?

When vegetables and crops are much more efficient than meat, I don't see how eating what you kill somehow makes everything all right.

I don't think that anyone who eats meat has the right to criticise the killing of animals for any reason, provided that it's no less humane (or no more inhumane?) than the methods by which your meat is procured.

why not?

Hunting for hunting’s sake, however, seems less morally correct. I don’t see how the case can be made for unnecessary killing.

You won't find me arguing with this but Luporum was making a distinction between hunting for meat to eat and simply buying it from the shops

Do you consider Hannibal Lecter to be more moral than a murderer who kills for fun?

When vegetables and crops are much more efficient than meat, I don't see how eating what you kill somehow makes everything all right.

of course, mere eating what you kill doesn't make everything all right. not by itself anyways.

i'm still wondering why i can't criticize the killing of various animals despite the fact that i also eat the occasional burger that almost certainly came from animals living in horrendous conditions that wastefully destroyed a local ecosystem, etc.

I do feel morally superior actually. I don't directly take life, and then try to defend myself for it.
So that makes me even more morally superior since I don't eat meat or fish or anything that requires an animal give up its life? I don't think so.
Also, like I said, if you're going to eat meat you should catch it yourself because this is better for both the animals and the environment, not to mention the fact that everyone should have some idea of where their food comes from. Like, do you have any idea how much the cattle that went to make your burger suffered before they were lead to slaughter? This isn't even getting into the unpleasantness that is the actual process of being slaughtered.

of course, mere eating what you kill doesn't make everything all right. not by itself anyways.

i'm still wondering why i can't criticize the killing of various animals despite the fact that i also eat the occasional burger that almost certainly came from animals living in horrendous conditions that wastefully destroyed a local ecosystem, etc.

err.. isn't it self-explanatory?

If eating dead animals doesn't make the killing of the animals any better, surely eating said burger is no better than other killings of animals.

Unless you say that it's all right because you didn't personally kill the animal, but you're profiting from and supporting the system that allows the deaths of more animals, which still makes you a hypocrite.

Regardless. My .00001% of shares is hardly equal to hunting and gutting the fish itself. I've seen what hunters and fishermen do to what they catch and all I can say is that it's sadistic and immoral. My girlfriend's father slit a doe's neck with a combat knife. I can't respect anyone capable of that brutality.
What the hell do you think happens to the meat you eat?

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/55448

Well, sustainable so long as only a few do it. If six billion people suddenly decide they want to go hunt, there's a problem.
If 6 billion people had to hunt their meat instead of going to the grocery store it wouldn't be so much of a problem, meat would be something that's rarely eaten, as it should be.

If eating dead animals doesn't make the killing of the animals any better, surely eating said burger is no better than other killings of animals.

no, but it could be worse.

If 6 billion people had to hunt their meat instead of going to the grocery store it wouldn't be so much of a problem, meat would be something that's rarely eaten, as it should be.

Meat is already rarely eaten, though, in terms of the entire world.

no, but it could be worse.

Wait, so it's acceptable to criticise killings of animals which are better than those you support yourself?

I've never seen a gun.

Really?

Here's mine: http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1135/1000045ur3.jpg

:p

The farm and my parents house are both on lakes ... in fact one of the lakes name is the same as my last name ;)

Thrust lake?

:D

Really?

Here's mine: http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1135/1000045ur3.jpg

:p
Um...I don't think that qualifies as a hunting rifle...

Um...I don't think that qualifies as a hunting rifle...

I don't know much about guns but I assume it can be set to single shot

Meat is already rarely eaten, though, in terms of the entire world.
This is true. North americans seem to eat it in excess though (I'm not sure if it's as excessive in Europe too, I've only been to one country on the whole continent and I went almost 8 years ago).