NationStates Jolt Archive

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."

You've never heard my brother in law "boast" about getting a deer, then. One of his stories goes something like this: "I was in the stand for about 6 hours, out in the middle of nowhere. I almost couldn't feel my fingers anymore, it was so cold. I got lucky, and spotted him just about the time I was considering climbing down to take a piss. By the time he got within bow range, I thought my bladder was going to burst. I took the shot, hit him right in the vitals, and watched him take off. I climbed down, relieved myself, and started tracking the deer. It took me 20 minutes to find him, as it had started to get dark. When I got there, I made sure he was dead, then proceeded to clean him. Then I had to drag him through the woods for a half a mile, to the truck. By the time I got him back to the truck, I was ready for a beer and an ibuprofen. I was out all day, I'm freezing, and I was exhausted".

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

Raising cattle is far different than hunting.

Shooting a deer in the head isn't something that's encouraged (at least, where I live), since a deer's vitals are a much bigger target than the deer's head, and the deer drops pretty quickly from a shot there (I've seen videos, where the deer drops the second it's hit, not even being able to take a step).

You've never heard my brother in law "boast" about getting a deer, then. One of his stories goes something like this: "I was in the stand for about 6 hours, out in the middle of nowhere. I almost couldn't feel my fingers anymore, it was so cold. I got lucky, and spotted him just about the time I was considering climbing down to take a piss. By the time he got within bow range, I thought my bladder was going to burst. I took the shot, hit him right in the vitals, and watched him take off. I climbed down, relieved myself, and started tracking the deer. It took me 20 minutes to find him, as it had started to get dark. When I got there, I made sure he was dead, then proceeded to clean him. Then I had to drag him through the woods for a half a mile, to the truck. By the time I got him back to the truck, I was ready for a beer and an ibuprofen. I was out all day, I'm freezing, and I was exhausted".

that sounds like most of the hunting stories I have heard.


btw Luporum have you ever seen a cow slaughtered? I guarantee you it's much more violent and messy and scary than shooting a deer. In fact when I saw it done I quit eating meat for about 10 years, it was that traumatic for me.

None of the poll options. If theres a genuine reason for hunting (eg overpopulation), then fine. If it's just for fun, or if it involves a pack of dogs ripping the animal apart then no, I don't agree (I was totally for the fox hunting ban).

btw Luporum have you ever seen a cow slaughtered? I guarantee you it's much more violent and messy and scary than shooting a deer. In fact when I saw it done I quit eating meat for about 10 years, it was that traumatic for me.

You get used to it after a while although to be fair I grew up on a farm so it was always a norm

You get used to it after a while although to be fair I grew up on a farm so it was always a norm

I think part of my problem is that they slaughtered my pet bull, whom I had assumed would be sold to someone in need of a bull. That and the fact that I was only about 8 years old......

I can handle it now, but for a long time, it just seemed......mean.

I would still rather eat fish (that I catch and clean myself) than know that I am eating an animal that I don't know how humanely he was handled.

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

sure. suppose you think that some practice that you benefit from or even engage in ought be collectively stopped and we ought implement even higher standards than certain better practices already in use. what of it?

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


If there is a hazard on the road, and you can't avoid it becauseof your speed, you are "driving too fast for the conditions". 100 mph, or 10 mph - doesn't matter.

If you spin out on ice at 15 mph, are you gonna sit there bitching about how '15 mph isn't even fast'?

I would still rather eat fish (that I catch and clean myself) than know that I am eating an animal that I don't know how humanely he was handled.

I don't think anyone saw it last time, so I'm posting my Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat) link again.

What do you think they do to tuna?
They entangle it in nets and let it suffocate and struggle.

Actually, I believe tuna is fished by long-lining. So really they catch the tuna on a hook a few kilometers behind the boat, and drag it through the water at high velocity.
Plus there's the albatross factor… :(

I'm a bit weirded out by the idea of hunting for pleasure, but I have no issue with hunting for food. Even if someone does it because they enjoy it, I'm not going to complain as long as the meat, etc. isn't going to waste.

I do think the hunters around here who use dogs need to sack up and take responsibility for them. Growing up, I saw more than one hunting dog starve along the side of the road because the drunk-ass hunters couldn't find them when it came time to leave and left them in the woods to die. They were too skittish to come near any of us, and trained not to eat what they found. And every time a law comes up for hunters to be required to register their dogs, they all descend on the capital and bitch until the legislation is taken off the table.

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

It depends on what you're hunting. I've heard (on other forums) that AR-15s in various calibers are used for everything from rodents and small game (groundhogs, rabbits, squirrels, etc), up to deer and feral hogs. It just depends on the hunting laws for the state you're in (in CT, I couldn't use my .223cal/5.56mm rifle for deer hunting, as the caliber is considered too small).

I don't think anyone saw it last time, so I'm posting my Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat) link again.



If it tasted the same that would be tempting

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

It isn't a full auto/select fire rifle. It is semi only.

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

I don't get why not liking the idea of hunting for meat, yet still eating it is hypocrisy. I don't like the idea of farming, but I eat fruit and vegetables.

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

You 'doubt' it tastes better? Not knowing... is your argument?

Ever eaten eggs from totally free-range chickens? (I don't mean some loophole, I mean really free-range).

If you like eggs, there is just no comparison between 'real' free-range eggs, and those insipid, watery, dyed eggs you get in the supermarket.

But, if all you want is the protein, and you don't care about inhumane practises... knock yourself out.

I don't think anyone saw it last time, so I'm posting my Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat) link again.


Ah, the "Beef Vat" - one of the staples of science fiction. :)

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.

That's your opinion.

I see a big difference between killing for need, and killing because it turns me on.

If it tasted the same that would be tempting

If it didn't, you could marinate the hell out of it.

Ah, the "Beef Vat" - one of the staples of science fiction. :)

Actually, they're making pretty good progress. There was a picture in a Scientific American a while back; it looked like boneless chicken.

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.

Which would be... bad?

Actually, they're making pretty good progress. There was a picture in a Scientific American a while back; it looked like boneless chicken.

Not mocking it... it's been one of those things edging over the horizon for a while.

No - my point was, I think, more about how sci-fi (a much denigrated genre) actually drives a lot of our science.

If it didn't, you could marinate the hell out of it.


I suck at cooking so thats my method anyway to try and salvage what I can

Not mocking it... it's been one of those things edging over the horizon for a while.

No - my point was, I think, more about how sci-fi (a much denigrated genre) actually drives a lot of our science.

Ah yes, the 'Arthur C. Clarke' effect.

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?

Agreed. I've been a vegitarian, and didn't much care for it. I've eaten meat and liked it - but I had to reconcile what seemed a moral inconsistency.

I was ill at ease with the idea of meat as part of an animal. I allowed distance from source, to insulate me against the reality of death being fuel for my life. I allowed it being hidden, to shield me from how animals are mass-produced.

So - I made a conscious decision - if I won't kill what I raise, if I won't kill what I eat, if I won't eat what I kill... I will not eat meat.

So - though it made me extremely unusual in the UK... I've raised my food.. from lambing to table. I've killed and eaten. I've delivered baby goats. I've skinned and divided a fresh kill.

To my way of thinking... I didn't 'deserve' to eat meat, until I would do all that.

I agree our meat deserves better respect than a population largely unaware that an animal dies to make it... that an animal existed at all. I think our 'western society' is out of touch with our world.

Ah yes, the 'Arthur C. Clarke' effect.

I call it the Star Trek Effect myself.

My girlfriend's father slit a doe's neck with a combat knife. I can't respect anyone capable of that brutality.

I've done the same, though not to does.

If you stun the animal first, cutting it's throat is about as humane as you can get. It dies before it even regains consciousness.

Regardless of which, a quick slash after a good life, is far more humane than the treatment 99% of the meat commercially available can realistically hope for.

More humane than most of US can hope for, too... come to think of it.

I call it the Star Trek Effect myself.

:mad:

I call it the Star Trek Effect myself.

That too - except that Clarke was doing it decades before Star Trek even existed.

Our modern global communications technology, especially geostationary satellites, owes the hugest debt to Arthur C Clarke, and those who inspired him.

You 'doubt' it tastes better? Not knowing... is your argument?

But, if all you want is the protein, and you don't care about inhumane practises... knock yourself out.

I'm growing Jersey tomatoes on my deck as we speak. They're not going to magically taste better because I grew them, bar any unusual circumstances. Sure I appreciate them more than the stuff I sell at work, but that's about it.

Since my football career is pretty much over I'm done gorging myself on protein. Peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches + a gallon of chocolate milk every night before I went to bed.

I don't eat eggs aside from occasional stop at a diner for breakfast once every year or so. Over easy + toast = god.

I'm growing Jersey tomatoes on my deck as we speak. They're not going to magically taste better because I grew them, bar any unusual circumstances. Sure I appreciate them more than the stuff I sell at work, but that's about it.


Tomatoes on your deck? So... you're feeding them what? Sounds like you're basically making mass-produced goods on a small scale.... the irony is not lost on me.

You should taste-test the eggs... or meat. Even something as humble as a chicken, you might find it hard to believe the difference in taste between 'factory' food, and it's 'natural' alternative.

btw Luporum have you ever seen a cow slaughtered? I guarantee you it's much more violent and messy and scary than shooting a deer. In fact when I saw it done I quit eating meat for about 10 years, it was that traumatic for me.

They're knocked out and then bled to death around here. Can't say cattle is a staple of New Jersey though, and I'm well aware of what happens to most livestock in this country. Sad, but going out and killing a deer hardly remedies that.

Watching a grown man garrote (not slash) a live doe's neck with a serrated knife was pretty bad. He hunted for sport, he gave the carcass to his friend and kept the heads in his garage.

Tomatoes on your deck? So... you're feeding them what? Sounds like you're basically making mass-produced goods on a small scale.... the irony is not lost on me.

Unfortunately the people who previously owned the house decided to bury their trash throughout the yard. Paint cans, oil, etc.

I'm more concerned about the three people in the poll that answered "I hate hunting and would rather see animals poisoned or starve to death to control overpopulation."

Gah! Awful. :upyours: :(

They're knocked out and then bled to death around here. Can't say cattle is a staple of New Jersey though, and I'm well aware of what happens to most livestock in this country. Sad, but going out and killing a deer hardly remedies that.

Watching a grown man garrote (not slash) a live doe's neck with a serrated knife was pretty bad. He hunted for sport, he gave the carcass to his friend and kept the heads in his garage.

First you said he "slit" the throat and now you claim he "garroted" the deer.

Do you understand what either word means?

You should be so lucky as to have your throat slit when it is your time to go, there are many ways to die which are much worse.

How, pray tell, did he get close enough to the deer to bleed it out? Was the deer shot? Sounds to me like he ended its suffering.

:mad:
What?
That too - except that Clarke was doing it decades before Star Trek even existed.

Our modern global communications technology, especially geostationary satellites, owes the hugest debt to Arthur C Clarke, and those who inspired him.
True indeed. I just see Star Trek as the most obvious example of this effect...hence why I've called it the Star Trek effect for such a long time. It was only a couple of years ago that I learned what it was really supposed to be called...even since then I still tend to call it the Star Trek effect just due to habit.

I'm growing Jersey tomatoes on my deck as we speak. They're not going to magically taste better because I grew them, bar any unusual circumstances.

Fresh tomatoes taste much better than the ones you can get at the grocery store, which have been shipped around and preserved, etc. When you get to eat it practically straight of the vine, it's much better.

Killing an animal is something everyone should experience, especially if you expect you will ever be in the position where you have to kill a person.

In the same way that having a girl break your heart teaches you to deal with loss, and helps you cope with the death of a dearly loved one in a way nothing else can, killing an animal prepares you to deal psychologically with other things.

The experience of using your hands to make an animal die should be deeply disturbing - only something with a defective brain can do it at first without remorse - but it forces you to contemplate and come to peace with a lot of the terrible things in the world.

The experience of having your actions cause a living thing to stop moving, forever, changes the way you look at life, and teaches you that you are responsible for what you do in a way that nothing else ever can.

You have not lived a full life if you cannot understand the experience of killing an animal, because there is no substitute for it. You are not a full person until you can come to terms, in your own way, for the guilt of murdering a living animal.

What?

True indeed. I just see Star Trek as the most obvious example of this effect...hence why I've called it the Star Trek effect for such a long time. It was only a couple of years ago that I learned what it was really supposed to be called...even since then I still tend to call it the Star Trek effect just due to habit.

I can't see Star Trek as more obvious. Star Trek's science, although possibly better than Star Wars's science, is still purely fiction. Clarke often explained the mechanics behind his ideas. It wasn't Star Trek that brought us geosynchronous orbits.

*Reviews title of thread* …huh…

First you said he "slit" the throat and now you claim he "garroted" the deer.

Do you understand what either word means?

You should be so lucky as to have your throat slit when it is your time to go, there are many ways to die which are much worse.

How, pray tell, did he get close enough to the deer to bleed it out? Was the deer shot? Sounds to me like he ended its suffering.

He shot it and then followed to where it was on the ground dying. I don't use those two words frequent enough but I tell you it was more of a sawing motion. I didn't feel like getting close enough until I had to help carry it back to his truck. Anyone who can do that without flinching just for a trophy is fucked up.

In the middle of PA slaughtering animals seems to be a fucking past time. In the locker room they would talk about scaring a bunch of birds from a single tree then a group of them would unload on the flock for the hell of it.

The latter were group of some real quality people.

I can't see Star Trek as more obvious. Star Trek's science, although possibly better than Star Wars's science, is still purely fiction. Clarke often explained the mechanics behind his ideas. It wasn't Star Trek that brought us geosynchronous orbits.


That wasn't really Clarke either... the science was established, but not popularised, by theoreticians long before Clarke. His ideas of establishing a network of interconnected geosynch satellites, though, was the communication breakthrough.

Hunting for food is fine. No matter what the twists and turns of their argument, I can't see how anybody who eats meat from a supermarket can possibly consider themself "morally superior". The methods of farming used to produce supermarket meat are well known. If you're not aware of them then I suggest you look it up. Being hunted is a relatively humane and dignified death.
I do dislike fox hunting, though. Morally equivalent to bear-baiting Moronic snobs taking cruel pleasure in animals tearing each other apart on the spurious excuse of pest control. It deserved to be banned.

He shot it and then followed to where it was on the ground dying. I don't use those two words frequent enough but I tell you it was more of a sawing motion. I didn't feel like getting close enough until I had to help carry it back to his truck. Anyone who can do that without flinching just for a trophy is fucked up.

In the middle of PA slaughtering animals seems to be a fucking past time. In the locker room they would talk about scaring a bunch of birds from a single tree then a group of them would unload on the flock for the hell of it.

The latter were group of some real quality people.

OK, well, "garrote" is another word for strangle, so it isn't what he did.

I bet that man cried himself to sleep the first time he cut an animal's throat. He has a perspective on life and death that you don't, because he is older than you and has experienced a great deal more in his life.

Every time he goes into his garage he has to look that deer in the eye, and if you've killed an animal, you'd know what it takes to be able to do that.

I suspect that as a man, he didn't let his emotions show to his daughter and her boyfriend, but you can bet he thought about that deer dying in his hands when he closed his eyes that night.

That wasn't really Clarke either... the science was established, but not popularised, by theoreticians long before Clarke. His ideas of establishing a network of interconnected geosynch satellites, though, was the communication breakthrough.

Well, authors will be authors. ;)
But seriously, we should return to the topic.

Fresh tomatoes taste much better than the ones you can get at the grocery store, which have been shipped around and preserved, etc. When you get to eat it practically straight of the vine, it's much better.

Absolutely. Not sure if it holds true when you grow your goods in commercial composts and stuff, though. But, I can vouch for the quality of ground-grown... for want of a better phrase.

I can't see Star Trek as more obvious. Star Trek's science, although possibly better than Star Wars's science, is still purely fiction. Clarke often explained the mechanics behind his ideas. It wasn't Star Trek that brought us geosynchronous orbits.

*Reviews title of thread* …huh…

I was referring to the effect it had on scientists and society...

You have not lived a full life if you cannot understand the experience of killing an animal, because there is no substitute for it. You are not a full person until you can come to terms, in your own way, for the guilt of murdering a living animal.

Understanding death isn't a hands on experience. I would also say that I would be completely proud of my son if he couldn't kill an animal that wasn't threatening him.

I'd rather teach my children about compassion rather than guilt.

OK, well, "garrote" is another word for strangle, so it isn't what he did.

I bet that man cried himself to sleep the first time he cut an animal's throat. He has a perspective on life and death that you don't, because he is older than you and has experienced a great deal more in his life.

Every time he goes into his garage he has to look that deer in the eye, and if you've killed an animal, you'd know what it takes to be able to do that.

I suspect that as a man, he didn't let his emotions show to his daughter and her boyfriend, but you can bet he thought about that deer dying in his hands when he closed his eyes that night.

He kills multiple animals, not for sport, but for the deep emotional scars it leaves on him? I may call him an emo next time I see him...if he's unarmed.

You are not a full person until you can come to terms, in your own way, for the guilt of murdering a living animal.

Then I am happy not being a full person

He kills multiple animals, not for sport, but for the deep emotional scars it leaves on him? I may call him an emo next time I see him...if he's unarmed.

Just because he didn't cry like a baby when he killed the dear doesn't mean he was cold to the tragedy of what he did.

He didn't kill the animal just to watch it die, he killed the animal so he could take its head and remember it for the rest of his life, an animal that died so that his proud tradition could live on.

That animal gave up its life, but he gives it a place of utmost honor and contemplation for the rest of his life. Men who sit in rooms with trophies on the walls don't ignore them - they put them up as a reminder of the relationship between man the hunter and animal the hunted, and as a reminder of the brutal reality of life and death.

Killing an animal to keep its head is much more a service to it than killing it to chop it up, eat its muscles, throw its guts in the trash and shit it into the sewer. Preserving an animal's head preserves its beauty and dignity forever.

I was referring to the effect it had on scientists and society...

I yield. Certainly, science fiction does create an interest in science, whether it's explained or not.

The only manly thing I ever did was beat the state champion in the last seconds of the wrestling match with a broken collarbone to win regionals. At the end of the day, my wall is littered with gold and pride, his is with fur and regret(?).

Preserving an animal's head preserves its beauty and dignity forever.

It was much more beautiful when it was alive.

It was much more beautiful when it was alive.

So what?

It was much more beautiful when it was alive.

so are cows, chickens, pigs, goats, etc. do you eat them?

I don't know anyone who kills deer, rabbits, squirrel, etc. and does nothing with the meat.

I know a few people who hunt "for sport" and they sell the meat or get it packaged and eat it.

what exactly is your problem with hunting? that people are eating deer? that people put the head of the deer that gets eaten on their wall?

so are cows, chickens, pigs, goats, etc. do you eat them?

what exactly is your problem with hunting? that people are eating deer? that people put the head of the deer that gets eaten on their wall?

I never ate pork, mostly because I had a potbelly pig as a pet for 13 years. The last thing on that list I ate on that list was a hamburger about a month ago. I'm not claiming some deep intellectual journey out of it, I just ate the damn thing. I don't care if people eat the deer, but why glorify killing it if you're supposedly ashamed of it?

In PA I played with a lot of guys who would go out every night and kill something. Rabbit, Squirrel, Deer, Birds, etc. Why? Because they absolutely enjoyed it. They would brag about killing an entire flock of birds. I can't respect someone who gets their jollies on by taking a life, and then claims they're preserving it's beauty by beheading the thing and putting it on their wall as a trophy of their mighty accomplishment.

I never ate pork, mostly because I had a potbelly pig as a pet for 13 years. The last thing on that list I ate on that list was a hamburger about a month ago. I'm not claiming some deep intellectual journey out of it, I just ate the damn thing. I don't care if people eat the deer, but why glorify killing it if you're supposedly ashamed of it?

In PA I played with a lot of guys who would go out every night and kill something. Rabbit, Squirrel, Deer, Birds, etc. Why? Because they absolutely enjoyed it. They would brag about killing an entire flock of birds. I can't respect someone who gets their jollies on by taking a life, and then claims they're preserving it's beauty by beheading the thing and putting it on their wall as a trophy of their mighty accomplishment.

Did the people who killed birds, rabbits, squirrels &c take trophies to put in places of respect and honor in their homes?

If not, you have no business and cannot honestly mention them in the same breath as people who kill a big animal in their arms and take its head.

You may not know or understand it, but somewhere in your family's history, your direct ancestors lived to bear your forebears by killing animals with their hands, and doing the same thing is a communion with that past, honoring both the ancestral hunters and the beasts which had to die for humanity to live.

.

My trophies are accomplishments that I can show my family with a great pride. I bested equals and proved myself. Not walked out into the woods and fired a rifle. Not saying it's easy, but it's not like you went out there and did something incredible.

Killing an animal with a gun is as much an accomplishment as graduating middle school. There's nothing to be proud of, nothing at all. You can take a trophy from the animal if you do something worthy of being remembered, but in most cases it's not. My great grandfather hunted to survive during the depression, he didn't hunt to take their heads, he killed rabbits because he was hungry. Just kill the thing, eat it, and be done with it.

My trophies are accomplishments that I can show my family with a great pride. I bested equals and proved myself. Not walked out into the woods and fired a rifle. Not saying it's easy, but it's not like you went out there and did something incredible.

Killing an animal with a gun is as much an accomplishment as graduating middle school. There's nothing to be proud of, nothing at all. You can take a trophy from the animal if you do something worthy of being remembered, but in most cases it's not. My great grandfather hunted to survive during the depression, he didn't hunt to take their heads, he killed rabbits because he was hungry. Just kill the thing, eat it, and be done with it.

People like you pay other people to kill animals for them to eat now, which does not build character the same way that killing an animal yourself does.

When your grandfather killed the rabbits, he didn't just get food, he learned about life and death, and that was a valuable lesson for him and something that shaped the man he was.

Your whining was about a man cutting a deer's throat and not flinching, now you're talking about shooting animals - which is it? Which are you criticizing more? The two are not the same.

I for one think if you're going to take an animal's head, you should get your hands dirty and kill it up close and personal, and that is what I am defending as a transcendental and important experience which cannot be approximated in other ways.

You beat people at sports, but watching yourself kill an animal and looking in its eyes while it dies is a battle against yourself, against your own revulsion and despair. Having the courage to keep that same animal's head in your home is an every-day battle for the same. It shows that your will can conquer your emotions and that you are capable of enduring what would make weaker people cry or become upset.

There are some hick slobs out there who just think having a deer's head is cool, but there are also the hunters who do what they do for more significant reasons. Being able to cut a deer's neck up close and personal is a sign of the latter, and a sign of strength.

My opinion of what i assumed were nothing but tree huggers on the site has changed dramatically.

Killing an animal is something everyone should experience, especially if you expect you will ever be in the position where you have to kill a person.

In the same way that having a girl break your heart teaches you to deal with loss, and helps you cope with the death of a dearly loved one in a way nothing else can, killing an animal prepares you to deal psychologically with other things.

The experience of using your hands to make an animal die should be deeply disturbing - only something with a defective brain can do it at first without remorse - but it forces you to contemplate and come to peace with a lot of the terrible things in the world.

The experience of having your actions cause a living thing to stop moving, forever, changes the way you look at life, and teaches you that you are responsible for what you do in a way that nothing else ever can.

You have not lived a full life if you cannot understand the experience of killing an animal, because there is no substitute for it. You are not a full person until you can come to terms, in your own way, for the guilt of murdering a living animal.

Does using a 1978 Olds Cutlass Supreme to kill a deer count?

If it doesn't, I guess killing a farm rat with a screwdriver would.

-snip-.

Kill for food, protection, or conservation and I'm fine with it.

But to kill something to learn a life lesson, or "to be a man" is just mind numbingly stupid. That's not hunting, that's sporting.

The idea of killing something for pleasure is just creepy. I can't see how it's hypocritical (OP might note spelling) to eat meat and feel this way. Eating animals for food is natural, normal, and though it's possible today for us to be healthy without meat, it wasn't always.

Animals we raise for food should be kept in clean and comfortable (mentally and physically comfortable) conditions. But most hunters in our society hunt for pleasure. And I'm just one of those people who finds the idea of killing for pleasure, well, disgusting. It's far more efficient to buy a side of beef than to spend all that money on hunting leases, deer corn and all the other assorted crap that a lot of folks feel necessary.

And putting out deer corn? Come on people, that's not a sport, it's farming-lite. Or embrace your inner serial killer and admit you think killing things is KEWL.

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 not having the money to go shop at the grocery store? Because some of my extended family have to have that extra deer in the freezer to feed themselves.

How about farmers who get licenses to shoot a certain number of deer eating their crops -- you know, those veggies you like so much?

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

So it's ok to hunt as long as it's convenient to your purpose.

As it is to those who hunt.

Animals we raise for food should be kept in clean and comfortable (mentally and physically comfortable) conditions.
Except that they're really not.

But most hunters in our society hunt for pleasure. And I'm just one of those people who finds the idea of killing for pleasure, well, disgusting.
Hunting is still more humane than factory farming.

It's far more efficient to buy a side of beef than to spend all that money on hunting leases, deer corn and all the other assorted crap that a lot of folks feel necessary.
Actually, it's more efficient for the environment to have people going out and hunting instead of using up a ton of soil growing crops for cattle, then shipping this food to the cattle, then shipping the cattle to another place to be slaughtered et c. It uses a lot more gas and land than hunting does.

Really?

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

:p

You like going straight to hamburger without the middleman? ;)

I'm growing Jersey tomatoes on my deck as we speak. They're not going to magically taste better because I grew them, bar any unusual circumstances.

Can you honestly say that the ones you grow yourself don't taste better than supermarket tomatoes? Because the ones you grow yourself can be picked when they are at peak sweetness and ripeness, whereas the ones you get in the supermarket are picked before ripeness and are bred to be tougher and less susceptible to damage.

I've had homegrown, and I've had supermarket tomatoes, and I know which ones I prefer.

I don't hunt, nor do I eat meat.

I did go "hunting" with a friend once. As soon as the deer came into sight and he was ready to shoot it, I kicked the binoculars off of the deer stand to scare the deer away. I wasn't asked to ever go hunting again :).

I don't hunt, nor do I eat meat.

I did go "hunting" with a friend once. As soon as the deer came into sight and he was ready to shoot it, I kicked the binoculars off of the deer stand to scare the deer away. I wasn't asked to ever go hunting again :).

I wonder why?

Can you honestly say that the ones you grow yourself don't taste better than supermarket tomatoes? Because the ones you grow yourself can be picked when they are at peak sweetness and ripeness, whereas the ones you get in the supermarket are picked before ripeness and are bred to be tougher and less susceptible to damage.

I've had homegrown, and I've had supermarket tomatoes, and I know which ones I prefer.
Garden tomatoes are definitely the most delicious things ever. Especially if you pick one in the middle of the day when it's been out in the sun and you slice it up and put it right onto some toasted bread with some mayo, light salt and pepper. Best tomato sandwich ever.

I wonder why?

I know, it boggles my mind!

My opinion of what i assumed were nothing but tree huggers on the site has changed dramatically.

why?

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.


As a former Butcher Shop worker, I can tell you (at least in Texas) that venison is not sold in stores because it is not regulated by the FDA (at least I none around here I can find). If it is in stores I'll bet it is expensive as hell.

However, that doesn't stop anyone from taking meat to a butcher shop to have it processed and packed for freezing and later eating. I would venture so far as to say that the government prefers it that way....you control the deer population for them in return for you getting to prepare and eat your own venison.

I don't hunt, nor do I eat meat.

I did go "hunting" with a friend once. As soon as the deer came into sight and he was ready to shoot it, I kicked the binoculars off of the deer stand to scare the deer away. I wasn't asked to ever go hunting again :).

Wow. That's a bit rough.

Not only will you not hunt, but you won't let other people hunt either?

Not only will you not hunt, but you won't let other people hunt either?

seems like that is exactly the right thing to do in a huge number of hunting situations.

Wow. That's a bit rough.

Not only will you not hunt, but you won't let other people hunt either?

I just couldn't stand to see the deer killed. My friend laughed about it afterward and I don't care if people hunt or eat meat, I just didn't want to watch him shoot the deer.

Except that they're really not.


Hunting is still more humane than factory farming.


Actually, it's more efficient for the environment to have people going out and hunting instead of using up a ton of soil growing crops for cattle, then shipping this food to the cattle, then shipping the cattle to another place to be slaughtered et c. It uses a lot more gas and land than hunting does.Never said they were. Which is why I buy free-range and cage free, or from local farmers.

I never said that getting shot in the forest was less humane than being zapped in a slaughterhouse. Your doing a lot of creative reading between the lines. What I said is that I think there is something wrong with getting pleasure out of killing something. Just that.

And individually, not societally, it's a lot more trouble, and frequently more expensive, to go out hunting. So 99% of our hunters now hunt primarily for the pleasure of the kill.

Have I eaten deer? Yep. I was one of the 1% that wouldn't have had meat on the table if my mother didn't have friends who hunted. But most of them hunted for pleasure, an idea I've never gotten used to. So I'm not some pampered suburbanite who never had close contact with the "hunting culture." These were also the same guys who thought cockfighting was cool and attended dog fights.

Hunting for food is acceptable.
Hunting for trophies ain't.
And neither is hunting for the thrill of the kill.

And having to hunt because you've totally overpopulated the forest is the bigger hypocrisy.

And it's hypocrite.

Actually, I believe tuna is fished by long-lining. So really they catch the tuna on a hook a few kilometers behind the boat, and drag it through the water at high velocity.
Plus there's the albatross factor… :(

I was referring to purse seine fishing, which they still do, and which is a danger to dolphins, turtles, and whatever else happens to get snarled in the net.

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

He shot it and then followed to where it was on the ground dying. I don't use those two words frequent enough but I tell you it was more of a sawing motion. I didn't feel like getting close enough until I had to help carry it back to his truck. Anyone who can do that without flinching just for a trophy is fucked up.

In the middle of PA slaughtering animals seems to be a fucking past time. In the locker room they would talk about scaring a bunch of birds from a single tree then a group of them would unload on the flock for the hell of it.

The latter were group of some real quality people.

For information's sake -- garotting is taking a thin piece of something -- wire, rope -- and strangling someone or something to death.

Garden tomatoes are definitely the most delicious things ever. Especially if you pick one in the middle of the day when it's been out in the sun and you slice it up and put it right onto some toasted bread with some mayo, light salt and pepper. Best tomato sandwich ever.

Or, lightly toasted bread sprinkled with olive oil, a thin slice of mozzarella, sliced tomato, more olive oil, and oregano over the top -- then heated gently in a toaster oven or skillet. :)

I am against hunting unless the individual who does the hunting uses all (useable) parts of the organism and does all the skinning/cleaning.

Or if the person is in some sort of survival situation, such as; lost in the middle of the wilderness with no idea how to get out and about to starve.

So it's ok to hunt as long as it's convenient to your purpose.

Jesus fucking christ.

Kill for food, protection, or conservation and I'm fine with it.

But to kill something to learn a life lesson, or "to be a man" is just mind numbingly stupid. That's not hunting, that's sporting

I'm against killing something without necessity.

NECESSITY

Eating would seem to be a necessity.

Eating would seem to be a necessity.

So it wasn't a necessity when my great grandfather did it to survive? It was just convenient.

It still doesn't sit easy with me considering that there are other much more available means of food around, which I'm assuming you can afford. Like I said before hunting has become a hobby rather than a necessity, and if you kill another mammal as a past time: not a job, means of survival, or defense, then we clearly don't see eye to eye.

You like going straight to hamburger without the middleman? ;)

Nah, that's just my target rifle. I don't have a hunting license.

I just couldn't stand to see the deer killed. My friend laughed about it afterward and I don't care if people hunt or eat meat, I just didn't want to watch him shoot the deer.

Then why did you even agree to go?

Then why did you even agree to go?

To save a life. *Think Terminator 2*

How the hell did I reference an ahnold movie twice in this thread. I need to go lie down.

Never said they were. Which is why I buy free-range and cage free, or from local farmers.

I never said that getting shot in the forest was less humane than being zapped in a slaughterhouse. Your doing a lot of creative reading between the lines. What I said is that I think there is something wrong with getting pleasure out of killing something. Just that.

And individually, not societally, it's a lot more trouble, and frequently more expensive, to go out hunting. So 99% of our hunters now hunt primarily for the pleasure of the kill.

Have I eaten deer? Yep. I was one of the 1% that wouldn't have had meat on the table if my mother didn't have friends who hunted. But most of them hunted for pleasure, an idea I've never gotten used to. So I'm not some pampered suburbanite who never had close contact with the "hunting culture." These were also the same guys who thought cockfighting was cool and attended dog fights.

My brother in law must be in that 1% then. He told me that sometimes he goes out there and hopes he doesn't even see the deer. I suspect that is because cleaning a deer is a messy process, and then there's the chore of dragging it back to the truck. I remember one story he told me, where he said he almost fell out of the deer stand while he was in the middle of a really good nap (apparently, it was a somewhat warm day that day). He said it was one of the best days of hunting he'd ever had (except for the part about almost falling out of the deer stand).

Why does he even hunt? Do you really need a reason to go into the woods, climb a tree, and take a nap?

No shit we took walks all the time ... took naps curled up next to trees

And all that without the need to drag gear along or guns or take the rist of people around you with guns (dont get me wrong many sports men are reasonable but I have been on the receiving end of shots whizzing up over a hill cause some idiot was not paying attention ... much safer on our own land without the hunting going on)

Hell they shut down the off road parks up north those weekends for vehicles even though hunting is not allowed in the park

Edit: Either way a day in the woods is all he was apparently after ... there are easier and safer ways to go about it

My brother in law must be in that 1% then. He told me that sometimes he goes out there and hopes he doesn't even see the deer. I suspect that is because cleaning a deer is a messy process, and then there's the chore of dragging it back to the truck. I remember one story he told me, where he said he almost fell out of the deer stand while he was in the middle of a really good nap (apparently, it was a somewhat warm day that day). He said it was one of the best days of hunting he'd ever had (except for the part about almost falling out of the deer stand).

Why does he even hunt? Do you really need a reason to go into the woods, climb a tree, and take a nap?

That actually sounds really nice...

To save a life. *Think Terminator 2*

How the hell did I reference an ahnold movie twice in this thread. I need to go lie down.

I think I'd rather hear Aerou's reason.

Why does he even hunt? Do you really need a reason to go into the woods, climb a tree, and take a nap?

That actually sounds really nice...

He hunts because he has a family (it consists of himself, my sister, and their 4 kids, 3 of which are old enough to eat meat) that likes the taste of venison. And no, you don't need a reason to take a nap in a tree, but I'd assume my brother in law doesn't do that very often.

I just couldn't stand to see the deer killed. My friend laughed about it afterward and I don't care if people hunt or eat meat, I just didn't want to watch him shoot the deer.

OMG AEROUS BACK!!!

OMG AEROUS BACK!!!

Not "back" just thought I would drop in and make sure you were behaving =P

I think I'd rather hear Aerou's reason.

I dunno. Because he was a good friend of mine and asked me to go. I didn't think we would actually shoot anything, haha.

The vast majority of hunters do not use treestands.

What does that have to do with the story? the situation he was talking about specifically referenced a hunter in a tree stand.

Why does he even hunt? Do you really need a reason to go into the woods, climb a tree, and take a nap?

That actually sounds really nice...

The vast majority of hunters do not use treestands.

He seems to be judging an entire hobbiest community on the actions of someone who would be more at home in a deer farm then in the woods.

Not really

The person told a story about a hunter that enjoyed a day falling asleep in a tree stand hunting

The responder asked why do the hunting part of the sleeping in the tree part was what the person enjoyed

Seems absolutely reasonable to me.

What does that have to do with the story? the situation he was talking about specifically referenced a hunter in a tree stand.

He seems to be judging an entire hobbiest community on the actions of someone who would be more at home in a deer farm then in the woods.

You need to come back. I demand it! I INSIST ON IT!

Please?

*considers* But only because its YOU

Not "back" just thought I would drop in and make sure you were behaving =P

You need to come back. I demand it! I INSIST ON IT!

Please?

He seems to be judging an entire hobbiest community on the actions of someone who would be more at home in a deer farm then in the woods.

I didn't use his brother as an example...

The responder asked why do the hunting part of the sleeping in the tree part was what the person enjoyed.

The thing is, I don't believe (from listening to my brother in law's other hunting stories) that he makes a habit of falling asleep in the deer stand.

sure. suppose you think that some practice that you benefit from or even engage in ought be collectively stopped and we ought implement even higher standards than certain better practices already in use. what of it?

Uh... if you thought that a practice you benefit from or engage in should be stopped, one assumes that you don't support it?

That's your opinion.

I see a big difference between killing for need, and killing because it turns me on.

But there is very rarely a need in the first world. Unless you are either so poor hunting provides your only means of sustenance, or you are killing in self defence, there is no situation where you need to kill animals or, specifically, eat meat, as one can derive just as much sustenance, for the same or a lesser price, for a far more efficient use of land, from eating vegetables.

Uh... if you thought that a practice you benefit from or engage in should be stopped, one assumes that you don't support it?

what do you mean by 'support' exactly?

seems like that is exactly the right thing to do in a huge number of hunting situations.

How?

First - as an invited guest, it would be incredibly rude. A better response would have been a polite 'no, thank you'... surely?

Second - fucking around when people are shooting is just never a good idea.

Third - what is the 'right' that allows one person to trump another? If the hunter was 'legal' (legal gun, all the papers, legally allowed to shot), what is sufficient justification for impeding their rights?

I just couldn't stand to see the deer killed. My friend laughed about it afterward and I don't care if people hunt or eat meat, I just didn't want to watch him shoot the deer.

You are lucky to have such understanding friends. Regardless, what you did was both unfair, and not a good idea. You don't play games, when people are shooting.

Luckily, no one got hurt, and your friends tolerated your behaviour.

Regarding the other point - if you 'couldn't stand to see the deer killed'... perhaps going hunting with people that kill deer wasn't a very good idea. Or, if you "didn't want to watch him shoot the deer"... well, our eyes have these little devices on them that enable us to shield our delicate perception.

well, our eyes have these little devices on them that enable us to shield our delicate perception.


That's right, and they are called..... hands!

But there is very rarely a need in the first world. Unless you are either so poor hunting provides your only means of sustenance, or you are killing in self defence, there is no situation where you need to kill animals or, specifically, eat meat, as one can derive just as much sustenance, for the same or a lesser price, for a far more efficient use of land, from eating vegetables.

Actually, in this country, being 'incredibly poor' gives you less need for hunting than a whole middle range just above 'incredibly poor' but below 'able to actually afford anything'.

Aside from that - you seem to be ignoring the fact that most people don't hunt their pets. Talking about 'efficient use of land' is irrelevent when you are hunting animals in the wild, not raised in your garden.

And - of course, especially in cities, not everyone has 'land' to be growing vegetables in.

Perhpas worth pointing out, aslo - if the most efficient way for us to get "just as much sustenance" was from hunting vegetables, we'd be herbivores. Greenstuff is a good addition to a balanced diet, but a pretty poor way to try to create a balanced diet.

Also - salad is what food eats.

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.

QFT, bolded for emphasis. Eww, please tell me you're someone other than who I'm thinking of, 'cuz otherwise agreeing so wholeheartedly with you will give me the creeps.

That's right, and they are called..... hands!

Those will work, too. Simply shutting the eyes is surprisingly effective, though... and then you can use those hands to try to block out the reality that seeks your ears, instead.

QFT, bolded for emphasis. Eww, please tell me you're someone other than who I'm thinking of, 'cuz otherwise agreeing so wholeheartedly with you will give me the creeps.

Lack of remorse for the death of an animal is not the trait of a sociopath. Lack of remorse for anything at all is the trait of a sociopath

Actually, in this country, being 'incredibly poor' gives you less need for hunting than a whole middle range just above 'incredibly poor' but below 'able to actually afford anything'.

Aside from that - you seem to be ignoring the fact that most people don't hunt their pets. Talking about 'efficient use of land' is irrelevent when you are hunting animals in the wild, not raised in your garden.

And - of course, especially in cities, not everyone has 'land' to be growing vegetables in.

Perhpas worth pointing out, aslo - if the most efficient way for us to get "just as much sustenance" was from hunting vegetables, we'd be herbivores. Greenstuff is a good addition to a balanced diet, but a pretty poor way to try to create a balanced diet.

Also - salad is what food eats.

Surely those above incredibly poor will prioritise food to buy with what money they have, making hunting less relevant. Anyway, in the first world, I'd consider anyone unable to afford basic needs of life poor.

I'm not talking about growing one's own vegetables, although that wouldn't be discounted, I'm talking about buying them from stores. I didn't intend to harp on so much about efficient use of land, it was to counter in advance anyone who thought that no meat = less food = starvation.

People who stay in cities permanently won't be hunting either and all their food will be store bought, really.

Assuming the opinion that animals have rights such as to make them undeserving of being killed unnecessarily, surely those rights will not take a back seat to a healthier balanced diet, which is already disputed.

Lack of remorse for the death of an animal is not the trait of a sociopath. Lack of remorse for anything at all is the trait of a sociopathIn that case, lack of remorse for the death of an animal would be one of the many things they lacked remorse for, ergo, it would be a trait of a sociopath.:p

My stance is feet shoulder width apart, bow gripped in my left hand, first two right fingers drawing the bowstring taut. As big a fan of firearms as I am, I consider bow hunting to be more sporting, as well as more all-around enjoyable. I'll save the shells for the next burglar.

Lack of remorse for the death of an animal is not the trait of a sociopath. Lack of remorse for anything at all is the trait of a sociopath

Yet we all know(coz TV and films have told us) that socialpaths start by remorselesly killing cute little puppies before moving up to cute little babies, and then cute little people!

My stance is feet shoulder width apart, bow gripped in my left hand, first two right fingers drawing the bowstring taut. As big a fan of firearms as I am, I consider bow hunting to be more sporting, as well as more all-around enjoyable. I'll save the shells for the next burglar.

Huh shells! Well two things spring to mind here. You must live by the sea!, and why would you give collected shells to a burglar?

Yet we all know(coz TV and films have told us) that socialpaths start by remorselesly killing cute little puppies before moving up to cute little babies, and then cute little people!

o_0

I'll give a burglar some shells, but the prefix will be 'shotgun-' and not 'sea-.' A man's home is his castle, after all.

:sniper:

Surely those above incredibly poor will prioritise food to buy with what money they have, making hunting less relevant. Anyway, in the first world, I'd consider anyone unable to afford basic needs of life poor.


I agree. I consider myself 'poor'. I earn a little too much to get any kind of assistance but, especially with super-hot summers and cold Georgia winters, things like electricity are just way too expensive. It's hard to be a family of five on what I earn, but apparently not hard enough to get any help.

So - yes, 'those above poor' prioritise food. But the electric company will cut off the power if you don't pay them. People have to have a roof over their heads. People need water. Food gets cut to bare essentials. Sometimes, parents go hungry so their kids can eat.

Under those circumstances, hunting can be a very good alternative.


I'm not talking about growing one's own vegetables, although that wouldn't be discounted, I'm talking about buying them from stores. I didn't intend to harp on so much about efficient use of land, it was to counter in advance anyone who thought that no meat = less food = starvation.


Again though... efficient land use is kind of irrelevent.


People who stay in cities permanently won't be hunting either and all their food will be store bought, really.


Because there is a law that says you can't go hunting on weekends?


Assuming the opinion that animals have rights such as to make them undeserving of being killed unnecessarily, surely those rights will not take a back seat to a healthier balanced diet, which is already disputed.

Who said animals have 'rights'? Preaching to the wrong guy, there.. I don't even believe there are such a thing as 'human rights'.

I wouldn't needlessly harm an animal, though. But, that's not a question of rights, it's a question of not wanting to inflict pain on sensitive entities.

Yet we all know(coz TV and films have told us) that socialpaths start by remorselesly killing cute little puppies before moving up to cute little babies, and then cute little people!

I don't feel any remorse if I box with someone. Next thing you know i'll be punching them without gloves and feeling no remorse, then onto stabbing them without remorse, etc, etc

Ahhh but then you are Scottish!:eek:

Irish in fact

(Don't worry i'll let the insult brush by :p )

I'll give a burglar some shells, but the prefix will be 'shotgun-' and not 'sea-.' A man's home is his castle, after all.

:sniper:

Umm what if he lives in a cave? Then isn't it true that this mans home is a cave? I actually live in a tower block, so my home is a umm tower block!

I don't feel any remorse if I box with someone. Next thing you know i'll be punching them without gloves and feeling no remorse, then onto stabbing them without remorse, etc, etc

Ahhh but then you are Scottish!:eek:

I agree. I consider myself 'poor'. I earn a little too much to get any kind of assistance but, especially with super-hot summers and cold Georgia winters, things like electricity are just way too expensive. It's hard to be a family of five on what I earn, but apparently not hard enough to get any help.

So - yes, 'those above poor' prioritise food. But the electric company will cut off the power if you don't pay them. People have to have a roof over their heads. People need water. Food gets cut to bare essentials. Sometimes, parents go hungry so their kids can eat.

Under those circumstances, hunting can be a very good alternative.



Again though... efficient land use is kind of irrelevent.



Because there is a law that says you can't go hunting on weekends?



Who said animals have 'rights'? Preaching to the wrong guy, there.. I don't even believe there are such a thing as 'human rights'.

I wouldn't needlessly harm an animal, though. But, that's not a question of rights, it's a question of not wanting to inflict pain on sensitive entities.

Hmm. There must be some way for one to grow vegetables on weekends.[/straw-grasping]... I shall have to ponder this.

Though, if you lived in the city, would hunting be convenient enough to really be a useful form of sustenance?

All right, I'll rephrase that... you think getting a balanced diet (of which the health benefits are disputed, as opposed to vegetarianism) is more important than not inflicting pain?

I grew up in the American West and hunting and fishing was a way of life and a way of getting food. I grew up on venison. One deer a year was considered sufficient for our needs as we raised other animals for butcher. We were taught good principles and trophy hunting was considered a waste of meat, waste of time and a waste of ammo. Real men and women use all the animal to the last hair, and take no more than the family needs. And god forbid you blow the shot and gut shoot an animal. Clean shot. Quick and merciful. Or face family disgust at your ineptitude and cruelty.

Hunting, done right, is good for the animals concerned. Ever see a deer dying of starvation because of a ban on hunting? It's a slow and agonizing death. It's disgusting to a true animal lover. Deer also destroy plant life and can strip a forest as badly as goats, causing erosion. They bring with them diseases and destruction. Like any overpopulated animal (hmmm a couple of those could apply to humans).

Let the wolves, bears and big cats take care of the deer population as in the old days? Good idea if they existed in the areas where they are needed, but homeowners don't want Fido getting snagged by a cougar. Joggers don't like being used as large cat toys (cougars can't resist the chase, just like Fluffy the Persian kitty). Bears in the hot tub and ranchers losing stock to wolves. Needless to say, large carnivors are not very welcome and so the deer population explodes like bunnies from a lack of predation.

Carefully managed, hunting can keep an area in good balance. The fees can pay for the management of the area and hunter education. Alaska has a great management system (although I still hate the trophy hunters...I guess they provide free and easy meals for bears).

Umm what if he lives in a cave? Then isn't it true that this mans home is a cave? I actually live in a tower block, so my home is a umm tower block!


Surely I don't have to explain the concept of metaphor do I? Regardless of the actual nature of your physical domicile, if someone breaks in, you're prefectly within your rights to blow them back out. Unless you live in Europe, where the criminals have more rights than the citizens.

You are lucky to have such understanding friends. Regardless, what you did was both unfair, and not a good idea. You don't play games, when people are shooting.

Luckily, no one got hurt, and your friends tolerated your behaviour.

Regarding the other point - if you 'couldn't stand to see the deer killed'... perhaps going hunting with people that kill deer wasn't a very good idea. Or, if you "didn't want to watch him shoot the deer"... well, our eyes have these little devices on them that enable us to shield our delicate perception.

Well neither he, nor I, thought it was such a big deal. It was "just a deer" and he ended up getting one later. No games were played, binoculars were kicked off the stand onto the ground. He didn't even notice, the deer on the other hand did. So my work was done. He teased me about it mercilessly afterward and still does to this day.

where the criminals have more rights than the citizens.

Um, yes, yes we err.... they do.


:rolleyes:

Um, yes, yes we err.... they do.


:rolleyes:

Well according to your sig you come from Manchester - so we know you must be a criminal...

Well according to your sig you come from Manchester - so we know you must be a criminal...

Unfortunately we don't anymore of these apparent rights :(

Ahhh Irish, and Scottish whats the differance? *ducks and runs*

Meh thats a poor insult. Comparing the Irish to the English on the other hand .....

Surely I don't have to explain the concept of metaphor do I? Regardless of the actual nature of your physical domicile, if someone breaks in, you're prefectly within your rights to blow them back out. Unless you live in Europe, where the criminals have more rights than the citizens.

Surly I don't have to explain the concept of sarcasm do I?:p Actually yep I live in London, UK and it is a myth that criminals have more rights than citisens

Irish in fact

(Don't worry i'll let the insult brush by :p )

Ahhh Irish, and Scottish whats the differance? *ducks and runs*

Bwahaha I heard a good joke the other day.

A gallup poll has been done in Liverpool about changing our currency, but 99% of Liverpudlians, say they are fine with the giro.

I've got some good jokes about Liverpool but I work with a Liverpudlian so I have to keep quiet about them - in case she nicks them.

Well according to your sig you come from Manchester - so we know you must be a criminal...

Bwahaha I heard a good joke the other day.

A gallup poll has been done in Liverpool about changing our currency, but 99% of Liverpudlians, say they are fine with the giro.

Oi now that's out of order.

Why you just wait until I'm next in Dublin. Your wimmin and your jobs are for it!

Ah but i'm of the Northern variety so you'd have to go after Belfast wimmin and no-one wants them :p

Though, if you lived in the city, would hunting be convenient enough to really be a useful form of sustenance?


Not that impractical. When I lived in a city, we would occassionally head out into a more rural area to buy fresh-killed whole pigs. They freeze pretty good, and feed you a while. It's not like you need a pig a week.


All right, I'll rephrase that... you think getting a balanced diet (of which the health benefits are disputed, as opposed to vegetarianism)


You think the health benefits of a balanced diet are disputed? And.. .those of vegetariansim aren't? Interesting that you also assume that 'balanced diet' and 'vegetarian' aren't immediately reconciled.


...is more important than not inflicting pain?

Minimal pain. None, where possible. Do I think it's more important that I eat, than that Mr Piggy gets to die of old age? Yeah, pretty much. But - as I said, me killing and/or eating them isn't the same as them suffering.

Meh thats a poor insult. Comparing the Irish to the English on the other hand .....

Oi now that's out of order.

Why you just wait until I'm next in Dublin. Your wimmin and your jobs are for it!

Well neither he, nor I, thought it was such a big deal. It was "just a deer" and he ended up getting one later. No games were played, binoculars were kicked off the stand onto the ground. He didn't even notice, the deer on the other hand did. So my work was done. He teased me about it mercilessly afterward and still does to this day.

If it was 'just a deer', why interfere?

You say no 'games' were played, but you admit to deliberately knocking the binoculars to the ground. Whilst standing near to someone with a gun. You say he didn't notice... that's possible, but unlikely. More likely, he just didn't say anything. If they made enough disturbance to spook the deer, they almost certainly made enough disturbance to register with a hunter.

Whether or not he teases you is irrelevent. I wouldn't take you hunting with me (if I were to ever go), based on your testimony, simply because you lack respect for gun safety. On top of that, you think your opinion more important than those of the people you are a guest of...

Whether or not I agree with sport hunting, it is legal. And, if it is legal, it should be safe. Your little 'protest' made it less safe. That is bad.

Surly I don't have to explain the concept of sarcasm do I?:p Actually yep I live in London, UK and it is a myth that criminals have more rights than citisens

I am familiar with the concept of sarcasm, I also know that, as John Knowles stated, 'sarcasm is the protest of people who are weak.' As for the rest, I'm not sure I'd extol the virtues of a society that has managed to disarm it's populace and left them defenseless to face the criminal classes AND outlawed the death penalty.

I am familiar with the concept of sarcasm, I also know that, as John Knowles stated, 'sarcasm is the protest of people who are weak.' As for the rest, I'm not sure I'd extol the virtues of a society that has managed to disarm it's populace and left them defenseless to face the criminal classes AND outlawed the death penalty.

Bwahahaha threadnapping huh!

Well some would say that about sarcasm, I would not though. Extol the virtues? why I don't believe I even attempted that, only a reply to your criminals have more rights than citizens rubbish.

We have never had laws permiting us arms(as far as I know) so we have not been disarmed as such. AND the death penalty is an oxymoron, and complete shit anyway.

But you know I was having a joke with you yeah, y'know larking about, having a bit of fun, and then you went and spoiled it all, by getting all 'culturalist' on me.

Shame, shame on you!:p

**We have never had laws permiting us arms(as far as I know) so we have not been disarmed as such.**

The fact that you feel that permission is necessary for one to possess weaponry is a whole 'nother thread in itself. Regardless (but not irregardless)if you are not 'allowed' to have weapons, you have been disarmed, believe me.

**AND the death penalty is an oxymoron, and complete shit anyway.**

That's also another thread in itself. Seems to be working over here.

**But you know I was having a joke with you yeah, y'know larking about, having a bit of fun,and then you went and spoiled it all, by getting all 'culturalist' on me.**

I'm having fun with this. This argument, and the fact that the cafeteria is serving Mexican for lunch are the only things livening up a dull day. (And those of you who don't think Mexican food is lively have never been in a windowless room for three old men who have been eating beans.)

**Shame, shame on you!**

I'm an American, it's an article of faith among Europeans that we have no shame. ;)

If it was 'just a deer', why interfere?

You say no 'games' were played, but you admit to deliberately knocking the binoculars to the ground. Whilst standing near to someone with a gun. You say he didn't notice... that's possible, but unlikely. More likely, he just didn't say anything. If they made enough disturbance to spook the deer, they almost certainly made enough disturbance to register with a hunter.

Whether or not he teases you is irrelevent. I wouldn't take you hunting with me (if I were to ever go), based on your testimony, simply because you lack respect for gun safety. On top of that, you think your opinion more important than those of the people you are a guest of...

Whether or not I agree with sport hunting, it is legal. And, if it is legal, it should be safe. Your little 'protest' made it less safe. That is bad.


I typed up a reply, but then realized that I would rather just give you

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/loveislikearson/fluffle.gif

instead :)

I typed up a reply, but then realized that I would rather just give you

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/loveislikearson/fluffle.gif

instead :)

That'll work. :)

That'll work. :)

Yay!!!

Make fluffle not debate :)

Huh shells! Well two things spring to mind here. You must live by the sea!, and why would you give collected shells to a burglar?

Shotgun shells, presumably, or more generally, bullets.

We have never had laws permiting us arms(as far as I know) so we have not been disarmed as such. AND the death penalty is an oxymoron, and complete shit anyway.

In feudal England, all able-bodied serfs (which would be virtually everyone) were to practice with the longbow in case of war -- in fact, King Charles I banned all sports except archery on Sundays, so that the male population of England became VERY proficient.

The fact that you feel that permission is necessary for one to possess weaponry is a whole 'nother thread in itself. Regardless (but not irregardless)if you are not 'allowed' to have weapons, you have been disarmed, believe me.

Are you arguing that it is illegal to own a gun in Britain?

That's also another thread in itself. Seems to be working over here.

It does? Ha!

Though as you say, that is a whole 'nother thread. ;)

I haven't the time to read through nearly 400 posts, but here's my two cents...

I think sport hunters ought to be restricted to using only bows and arrows. If your going to call it a "sport" then you certainly ought to make it at least somewhat sporting.

If you are actually planning to hunt for sustenance, get a permit stating that that is the reason for your hunting, and then you can use a gun if you like.

So it wasn't a necessity when my great grandfather did it to survive? It was just convenient.

No, it just seems to be that when it was your grandfather, it was necessary, but you dismiss everyone else as sociopathic, despite several examples given here of people needing it to feed themselves and their community.

Jesus fucking Christ indeed.

My stance is feet shoulder width apart, bow gripped in my left hand, first two right fingers drawing the bowstring taut. As big a fan of firearms as I am, I consider bow hunting to be more sporting, as well as more all-around enjoyable. I'll save the shells for the next burglar.

I could never get good with my bow when I lived at my parents house. I had a hell of a time trying to adjust the sights, the bow's draw (and my arrows) weren't long enough for my long arms (although that was all correctable by buying the correct arrows and bow), and I could never get enough time to practice (I was too busy with splitting wood, picking rocks out of the garden, and other work around the house).

When I moved from my parents house, I suddenly had enough time to practice, but not the space to (my parents house is over 45 minutes away, and I doubt my apartment complex's property manager would be happy with me target shooting behind my apartment building).

I could never get good with my bow when I lived at my parents house. I had a hell of a time trying to adjust the sights, the bow's draw (and my arrows) weren't long enough for my long arms (although that was all correctable by buying the correct arrows and bow), and I could never get enough time to practice (I was too busy with splitting wood, picking rocks out of the garden, and other work around the house).

When I moved from my parents house, I suddenly had enough time to practice, but not the space to (my parents house is over 45 minutes away, and I doubt my apartment complex's property manager would be happy with me target shooting behind my apartment building).

Look into your local national or state parks -- I know Gateway National Park runs several archery ranges for the princely sum of $25 a year.

Look into your local national or state parks -- I know Gateway National Park runs several archery ranges for the princely sum of $25 a year.

Hehe. I would, but I recently sold my bow on eBay*, so I'd need another.


*I forgot to post that in my last post. :(

Agreed. I've been a vegitarian, and didn't much care for it. I've eaten meat and liked it - but I had to reconcile what seemed a moral inconsistency.

I was ill at ease with the idea of meat as part of an animal. I allowed distance from source, to insulate me against the reality of death being fuel for my life. I allowed it being hidden, to shield me from how animals are mass-produced.

So - I made a conscious decision - if I won't kill what I raise, if I won't kill what I eat, if I won't eat what I kill... I will not eat meat.

So - though it made me extremely unusual in the UK... I've raised my food.. from lambing to table. I've killed and eaten. I've delivered baby goats. I've skinned and divided a fresh kill.

To my way of thinking... I didn't 'deserve' to eat meat, until I would do all that.

I agree our meat deserves better respect than a population largely unaware that an animal dies to make it... that an animal existed at all. I think our 'western society' is out of touch with our world.
I agree. It boggles me how severe of a disconnect so many people have from their food sources, and I'm sorry, but I do really see that as a problem. When you don't understand how food is produced, and what it takes to take food from the fields, to the supermarket, to your table, then you don't tend to make decisions with those factors in mind. You don't vote with those factors in mind, and you don't prioritize with those factors in mind. And yet, what resource besides water is more important than food?

You don't need to grow or raise all your own food to have respect for your food source, but you should have some sort of connection beyond your trip to Safeway. For my people, maintaining a STRONG connection with the land is imperative, so that we always keep the needs of our surroundings in the forefront of our minds when making decisions, especially long term decisions. It might be lucrative to deforest an area, sell off the timber and maybe build a shopping mall...but that becomes less of a draw when that means losing a food source you have traditionally depended on, and want to be available to future generations not only for sustenance, but for the continuation of the culture.

Ah, Sin, there you are. I'm going to link you to a post so you can answer it, since I think you missed it:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13116368&postcount=218

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?

Hey sorry, yeah I did miss this.

Hmmm, well really 'experiencing our culture' would mean living with us for a while. Best bet would be to pick a northern community, because they tend to be more traditional. There are a fair amount of volunteer positions open on Reserves or Metis Settlements in Alberta...a friend of mine went to a Settlement as part of some interfaith project with her church, but I doubt that's your bag. Community development or recreation are two other areas that generally will take pretty much anyone willing to relocate for a while. It's really the best way to learn the protocols in order to access the elders.

Other than that, I would really caution against any quick way of getting to know more about us. A lot of the literature out there is either bunk, or very specific and won't give you the bigger picture. You can't just get to know the idealised us...you should be aware of the problems we face as well. Most Universities in Canada have a Native Studies program, that is one legitimate way to really learn, as there is intense community support and access to elders. I suppose it all depends on what you want to learn and what you're willing to do in order to learn it. Also, just keep in mind that there is huge variety among us...First Nations run the gamut from settled coastal fishing villages, to still semi-nomadic northerners, to the plains peoples, the woodlands peoples, the agricultural Iroquois and so on. You can get very specific and learn a LOT about one group, or you can be more generalised. Both have ups and downs.

I understand. Thanks, Sin. I'll be sure to look into my options.

I agree. It boggles me how severe of a disconnect so many people have from their food sources, and I'm sorry, but I do really see that as a problem. When you don't understand how food is produced, and what it takes to take food from the fields, to the supermarket, to your table, then you don't tend to make decisions with those factors in mind. You don't vote with those factors in mind, and you don't prioritize with those factors in mind. And yet, what resource besides water is more important than food?

You don't need to grow or raise all your own food to have respect for your food source, but you should have some sort of connection beyond your trip to Safeway. For my people, maintaining a STRONG connection with the land is imperative, so that we always keep the needs of our surroundings in the forefront of our minds when making decisions, especially long term decisions. It might be lucrative to deforest an area, sell off the timber and maybe build a shopping mall...but that becomes less of a draw when that means losing a food source you have traditionally depended on, and want to be available to future generations not only for sustenance, but for the continuation of the culture.

You and I may not always agree, but this will always be an area I think you've got nailed. We not only don't have a respect for the land, we don't have a respect for what it take in terms of human sacrifices to bring us the food we eat and, really, everything we consume. It's the reason people feel mor comfortable saying things on the internet they'd never say in life, feel comfortable buying things that fell of the truck, but could never shoplift or hold you up, can buy products made with slave labor, etc.

Being anonymous denies us responsibility.

A bit ago on a plane a guy was standing up in the aisle talking to another man while we were in flight. A pregnant woman attempted to get past him several times loudly saying, excuse me. Eventually she basically had to push past him. People talk about how our generation is different than previous generations, but this guy was pretty up there in age. In times past, if he'd treated some woman like that, other people would have seen it, her husband and the community would have found out. He'd have to face up to what he did, take responsibility for it.

The things you talk about, things prevelant throughout our society, are the reason we've lost our sense of responsibility. I wish we would reconnect with where things come from and accept what our lifestyles cost.