posted on December 8, 2000 06:01:19 AM new
i am not a vegetarian. i eat meat, poultry and seafood. i wear leather shoes and belts. personally, i don't have much of a problem with cows, pigs, fowl and fish being killed for these indulgences. however, i have a big problem with the hunting of deer and the like. something about the joy hunters get from shooting bambi. for some reason i feel that these are wild animals and should only be killed if you are trapped in the wilderness starving or if they are attacking you. what do you guys think? am i being hypocritical? is the necessity to "thin out the herd" real? a related issue is the clubbing of baby seals. sorry Ted Nugent!!!!!
posted on December 8, 2000 06:21:15 AM new
I'm not much of a hunter, it isn't a 'moral' objection I just don't enjoy having to crawl around in the woods for days as opposed to pushing a shopping cart to the meat counter. I do enjoy fishing, and many times it's catch and release. I'd imagine fishing would come under the same category. I guess my favorite hunting would be hunting for ptarmigans, we'd hunt them from snowmachines with .22 pistols, very stupid bird. Shooting a ptarmigan was simple, you put it in the back of the snowmachine and go on with your crusing. Shooting a moose would turn in to some serious labor intensive work. Setting up a butcher shop in the woods fighting off mosquitos and worrying about bears wasn't my idea of a fun time.
The only objection I can voice on hunting is trophy hunting. In nature the weakest is culled from the gene pool, with trophy hunting the biggest and best are culled from the gene pool, it opposes the laws of nature.
posted on December 8, 2000 07:15:18 AM new
I do not hunt, but I do know that the primary reason that hunting is allowed is game management.
The herds of animals proliferate at rates which exceed their ability to sustain themselves from the product of the remaining open lands and they either will periodically starve to death in large numbers or they can be hunted in well regulated numbers.
The dept. of fish and game maintains a continually monitored headcount and issues hunting permits (actually 'tags') allowing hunters to take a certain number of animals per season.
The doing is sport, or it is a means of provision, or it is both, to the hunter.
posted on December 8, 2000 07:29:27 AM new
As a long-time hunter, which includes 30 years as a bowhunter of Whitetail deer, my reply to your mistaken belief is that it is your right to feel as you do about hunting as long as you do not interfere with the rights of those who oppose your views.
However, if you are of the character that bases your judgements and choices upon facts, I suggest you do some research. Over many years, and time and time again, extensive (continuing) research has shown that hunting and the applicable laws have kept much of Northern American wildlife from becoming extinct or endangered.
Controlled hunting is not what is endangering our wildlife, pollution and loss of habitat is taking an incredible toll. Loss of habitat means less food and cover against the elements. Since wildlife is not birth control prone, overpopulation occurs rapidly. Once the loss of a species of wildlife begins to occur due to starvation and exposure, the loss is rapid and large. Recovery is tenuous.
Because of loss of habitat and food, hunting is no longer just a sport, hunting (culling) has become a necessity for certain species.
As for Whitetail and Mule deer, in the 60's it was estimated that the population of deer was many times greater and widespread than anytime before in the history of the presence of the species in North America. The population has steadily increased. Not only are the conservation agencies of the states involved in the control and health of the deer, the private individuals and groups (most are hunters) involved in maintaining healthy populations outnumber the government agencies.
You eat your meat that is filled with fats and all kinds of steroids, hormones, pesticides, feces, rat hair, tainted blood, etc., and I'll eat mine that is not, or at least very minimal due to (some) exposure to foods designed for domestic stock.
Ever see how veal calves are produced and slaughtered? Sickening and sad. I won't eat veal.
posted on December 8, 2000 07:57:55 AM new
sgtmike- i was waiting for your response. i certainly am not the one to participate in any anti-hunting or anti-fur demonstration. i am not sure,however, which of my beliefs is mistaken. i do know,as i am sure you do, that unlike yourself, not all hunters are humanitarians. we both know that many do not care the least about conservation and kill for the joy of the kill. do you think that right before pulling the trigger all hunters consider whether or not the particular game that they have in the crosshairs is healthy and would probably otherwise survive? according to uaru(previous poster) the biggest and best are shot. there have been numerous documented reports of exotic animals being imported for "the kill". your points about pollution and the advantage of "free range" meat are well taken. but is that the reason you hunt or just a rationalization?
posted on December 8, 2000 08:29:22 AM newis the necessity to "thin out the herd" real?
From what I have read and conversations with people involved in this subject, I believe that this is true. sgtmike commented on this, and one more item I would like to add is the general decline in the population of large predators (wolves, bears, etc.), whose presence would normally act as a control on the size of the herd.
i have a big problem with the hunting of deer and the like. something about the joy hunters get from shooting bambi.
Around here, in severe winter conditions, it is not at all uncommon for many deer to starve to death for lack of sufficient food to support the entire herd. Is death by starvation any kinder than death by bullet or arrow?
posted on December 8, 2000 08:36:41 AM new
I'm a woman who hunted a great deal in years past. It never had a thing to do with "the joy of the kill." There is some pleasure in successfully hitting what you're aiming at...no pleasure in gutting, skinning butchering and packaging the meat...just hard work. In my case, there was great joy in filling the freezer with food.
posted on December 8, 2000 09:05:45 AM new
Well, I'll have to write a long one later when I have time.
However, in the short term - Stusi - some of your question about "sport" seems to relate only to the taking of an animal. You seem to be under the impression that we all get a deer/elk/whatever whenever we want.
The fact is, most hunters in any given year are failures. The success rate in California on average mean that a hunter will get a deer once every 2 presidential terms.
In my own personal case, it is the going and the opportunity - not just the expectation of getting anything. I hunted elk in Colorado and deer in California this year - walked dozens of canyons - saw great sights and many animals - never had a chance of a clean shot and never fired my gun - and came home happy. My dad got his first buck in California in the past 9 years of hunting this year.
I am successful enough on average to have not bought beef for many years. (One elk will hold you for a LONG time) I have been an occasional writer for Buckmaster Magazine in the past and have hunted for many years.
If it was just a matter of killing something every time a hunter hits the field - you might have a point. But the people that I associate with enjoy the going - not just the getting.
And yes - to the many people that will write about some hunters being jerks - Yes, some hunter are jerks (some bankers are jerks - some plumbers are jerks - some politicians are jerks - Etc.)
posted on December 8, 2000 09:08:45 AM new
"is death by starvation any kinder than death by bullet or arrow?" not necessarily, but how does one know for sure which particular deer is going to die from starvation? or is it healthy and going to be killed anyway to let another live? i am not totally against mercy killing(as with a mortally wounded animal) but killing a deer that might starve is not quite the same. deciding to shoot this animal with a rifle or bow and arrow is perhaps playing God.
posted on December 8, 2000 09:10:40 AM newAround here, in severe winter conditions, it is not at all uncommon for many deer to starve to death for lack of sufficient food to support the entire herd. Is death by starvation any kinder than death by bullet or arrow?
While nature might be cruel there is one advantage to nature doing the culling as opposed to a hunter. Nature kills the weakest, a hunter when given a choice will choose to kill the biggest and strongest. I'm not opposed to hunting, I just feel that hunting isn't as good a culling a herd as nature.
I'm just as guilty, when I cast my lure out in a stream I wanted that big salmon, not the runt.
posted on December 8, 2000 09:11:00 AM new
Hunting for Sport is much needed as Sgt.Mike, & others have pointed out. Without those that hunt within the laws, The herds of these beautiful creatures would be long gone. The Buffalo & Brown Bear are just the names of many.
It is those that hunt & fish outside the law that provide the negative.
Yes, I'm a hunter, but much different than most. My weapon is now a camera. It is a great feeling to track & beat a creature in its own element any day of the year & not take its life.
posted on December 8, 2000 09:19:38 AM new
When hunting for meat...consider this. The biggest and strongest is also the toughest... Trophy hunting is a whole other thing...never did that.
posted on December 8, 2000 09:26:01 AM new
I've long since given up hunting. The least enjoyable aspect of the whole business was the kill and the subsequent dressing of the game.
I reasoned at the time that one must be willng to eat anything that was hunted. My feeling was that this, in some way, ennobled the endeavor.
I found that I did not at all enjoy eating squirrel, rabbit, pheasant or wild turkey and knew of no needy small game fancier with whom to provide a larder.
I do like venison and my hunting friends provide me with ample quantities each year.
Consequently, I'm bereft of good reasons to hunt. I still, however, enjoy the peripheral pleasures of the sport without actually hunting.
To answer the question: Yes, I do believe it is a sport and I'm pleased to number myself among those who support it.
posted on December 8, 2000 09:26:45 AM new
nutspec- you seem to have such a good time without the killing, maybe next time you should leave the rifles home, particularly if you can afford not to hunt for food. "if it was a matter of killing something every time a hunter hits the field.." if you had the opportunity every time you wouldn't turn it down. toke-somehow i don't have a big problem with someone choosing to live far away from civilization and hunting to feed themself. as i certainly don't have a problem with early native americans hunting for food. maybe we would all be better of being vegetarians, but i am not one, and i am not going to make an issue of it. trophy hunters and those who kill for the pure fun of it, and perhaps even leave carcasses laying around, i personally think are very sick individuals. maybe in the case of bear/big cat attacks could i find some justification for killing these animals.
[ edited by stusi on Dec 8, 2000 09:47 AM ]
posted on December 8, 2000 09:39:17 AM new
Lori...HI!!!
I'm fine...so's Bogie. Now I'm looking for that birdie bread recipe. Sheesh. I even went to MARE...and you'd erased it. I know I used to have a mind. I think I remember having one.
posted on December 8, 2000 09:44:47 AM new
I don't hunt, my husband does. He likes venison and as long as that's his reason for hunting I'm fine with it. I also agree with sgtmike on the veal. I won't touch it. I know how veal calves are raised and it's horrible. My grandfather owned a lot of land and allowed hunting until we found a couple of rotting deer with only the heads gone. When he was young he hunted to keep food on the table, trophy hunting was a crime to him. I feel the same way. Take your stupid trophy but find some family who needs the meat and give them the rest.
posted on December 8, 2000 10:05:12 AM new
Toke, I was just checking that out yesterday since someone else mentioned it to me. I don't think it's erased, just misplaced.
posted on December 8, 2000 11:16:49 AM new
Surely, James, you could hardly object to being culled. New Yorkers are not an endangered species. Your overpopulation dilemma even extends to these boards. While I don't really think he'd find you palatable, he may be in need of more cosmopolitan attire.
posted on December 8, 2000 11:20:12 AM new
I don't eat or wear animal products, but I have no problem with hunters or hunting. And if my family was hungry, I would hunt and fish and eat.
The reason I stopped eating all animal products was when I was extremely ill a few years ago, I got violently ill whenever I tried to eat them.
My mom lived in Chicago for a few years, and she said the anti fur activists weren't too active there, but a lot of people wore leather and fur.
posted on December 8, 2000 12:54:26 PM new
nutspec- hunting without intention of killing? maybe we are just getting caught in semantics, but i thought that those who claim to enjoy the hunt more than the kill still kill the object of the hunt whenever their aim is accurate. what does a guarantee have to do with the issue? maybe you are looking at it like "eating without swallowing"! what's the point? pareau- hello oh peculiar one. your graphics are amazing.
posted on December 8, 2000 01:08:10 PM new
Random thoughts:
A wild animal lives its life peacefully, then one day - blam - a smarter animal kills and eats it. Whether that animal is a cougar or a human doesn't really matter to the prey - I think.
Cows, chickens, etc, shot up with hormones to produce more meat, calves penned up unable to move while being force-fed milk to make them into nice expensive veal - eww, I think that's horrid.
As to thinning out the herd, well, hunters usually go for the trophy, while predators and disease knock off the weakest in the herd, so does hunting really strengthen the herd?
For some reason, the human animal likes to kill; better animals than humans I guess.
We're overgrazing the rainforests so we can have more and cheaper McYukburgers.
We are stewards over this planet. The question might be: Are we doing our job as well as we can?
posted on December 8, 2000 01:15:08 PM new
I know I could not hunt but not because I think I am some morally superior being. I just can't stand looking at dead eyes. After 6 years as an EMT I can't stand blood either.
I can't even eat fish that has been served with the head on anymore.
My dad used to hunt every year. He said he would consider it a sport when the deer started shooting back. To him the thrill was out being in the woods on a crisp clear autumn day and bonding with his buddies. Most times he came back with nothing, when I would register disapointment he would tell me "That's why they call it "hunting" and not "finding" ".
Maybe if you define "sport" it would be an easier question to answer. I don't mean Websters definition but what it means to you.
Most farmers who get thier crop nibbled on by growing herds will tell you it is neccesary.
Sport or not I don't know.
Hunting is what it is. Is it important to you that it fits within the definition of "sport" to be a legitimate pastime?
posted on December 8, 2000 01:33:33 PM new
I believe the same laws of natural selection apply to the hunter/prey equation regardless of the species of those respective beasts. Most hunters do not kill the trophy animal, but rather, the animal that lacks the necessary instinct to avoid humans.
Having spent more than my share of time decked out in camo garb in a carefully concealed blind, I can attest to the uncanny ability of trophy animals to avoid potential danger. Deer that came within bowshot of my position were often younger does and fawns. The alpha males and females of most game species are relatively safe from the average hunter. Most hunters and most bagged game, IMHO, are products of the shallow end of the gene pool.
posted on December 8, 2000 02:11:40 PM new
OK - One more time
I said that hunting is much MORE than just any act of pulling a trigger or releasing an arrow. Your original post focused only on killing aand did not ask about hunting as a whole. No semantic problems that I can see.
I have framed now twice that hunting is more than the "Joy hunters get from shooting bambi" as per your original post. This is the way I am and the way I feel.
I hunt because it part of who I am at the moment. I eat what I take. I enjoy the pursuit - and the skills I must develop to have the POTENTIAL of being successful.
I have said before that although many people seem to think that hunters kill a deer everytime - that it is not the case. There is no guarentee that I will ever get another elk or deer in my lifetime. But, I will try again next year.
Trophy hunting is a whole other thing...never did that.
