posted on December 8, 2000 09:59:57 PM
Maybe its the concept of killing period. The thrill of maiming, torturing, ending the life of. Kill. Dead. No more. Kapoot. No matter the method, its still Fini, Ended. Any living thing. A tree. Mown lawn. A cut flower. Squashing a bug. Pulling wings off flies and watching them crawl around. Keeping chickens in coops where they cant move, for their eggs. Eating the eggs, which are embryos. Killing the mink for its fur. Killing the fox for its fur. Killing the cow for the meat and hide for our wallets, our shoes. Whacking the tree for paper, for houses, for fences. Kill kill kill.
I have the flu. Wish I could kill it. Sorry...too sick to make sense and too sick to have an intelligent response.
posted on December 8, 2000 10:02:19 PM
Good Hunters finish the kill. So where is the pain and atrocity in killing something that adds food to your plate, that you usually cannot pick up at the local supermarket?
Ain't Life Grand...
posted on December 8, 2000 10:57:16 PM
From the "Deerhunter"....
more than one shot is pu$$y
If a "hunter" can't make a kill on the first shot, then they are not a "hunter"...a true hunter ALWAYS makes sure of the shot first. We are not out there to maim...often, my most perfect hunts have ended with me taking nothing home (altho I HAVE killed a few cats in my life, and those were COMPLETELY for fun) [sorry Franny].
Some of you just have to imagine sitting in the Hills for hours , watching the sun come up, hearing the calls of the turkeys nearby, trying to stay awake, and yet be alert to the slightest movement....and to be wise enough to be downwind of the quarry...it truly IS a sport (except for cats, they are easy)
JMHO
Keith
I assume full responsibility for my actions, except
the ones that are someone else's fault.
posted on December 8, 2000 11:39:32 PM
Ok, where do I start? Could I kill an animal? Probably - if I were starving, yes. My husband, on the other hand, is a hunter. I do not have a problem with that. The prey in "season" at this time is deer. Our state (NJ) is currently very over populated by deer at this time and the projected "harvest" of 57,000 (Field and Stream) will hardly make a dent in the herd(s). So, I ask you this - Would you prefer that hunters help thin this population by putting food on their families and friends tables, or would you prefer to help thin the population yourself by hitting one with your car and possibly reducing the HUMAN population by however many people happen to be in the car with you (including yourself),(and/or) however many people may be in the car you THEN hit as a result of your swerving to avoid the deer who is in the middle of the highway. Have you ever witnessed deer starve to death because their population exceeds their demand for food? Is that more humane? I am by no means advocating "trophy hunters" who seek "the rack", I am strictly referring to the majority, who do enjoy the sport, and their end results of providing for their families.
The same man I refer to in this response to your original post stops to bury an animal if he sees it on the side of the road (dead) and has brought home a seagull with a broken wing to care for, then set free, rescued a kitten that was hit by a car in a rain storm, a white MOUSE that was let go (as a prank)in the grocery store he manages (by the way, that same mouse has now been a member of our family for over 6 months.) Hell, he even brought home a pheasant someone else shot in the wing. We kept it for as long as we could and then gave it to someone else, who had another he was caring for, and was more knowledgable in it's care. I could go on and on with the list.
After all I have just said, my point is this - Just because a man or woman is a hunter doesn't mean they have no feelings, concience or disregard for another's life.
posted on December 9, 2000 12:14:20 AM
You don't know very much about hunters, Marwin. Most of them do it just to get away from their wives for a while.
posted on December 9, 2000 04:42:34 AM
Most of us would not eat any meat if we had to stand there and watch the animal it came from killed, or worse yet kill it ourselves. If I thought about the cattle standing in line at the slaughter house while I was at the store buying a steak we'd have vegetable lasagna for supper.
posted on December 9, 2000 10:00:24 AM
Marwin, your concept of putting the natural predators back into the environment is not well thought out. Certainly mankind had done a lot to change the ecological balance, but remember that we ARE part of the ecology, and if we surplant other biological species in the course of our existence, should this not be considered the natural course of things?
At what point do "wild creatures" take precedence over mankind? Do we, as you suggest, put wild predatory species back into a heavily populated environment such as New Jersey and simply hope that those predators don't choose simpler prey such as domestic dogs and cats, penned livestock, etc?
And Marwin, have you actually ever checked the statistics about natural predators? Coyotes are predators that need no reintroduction. Their numbers are growing in spite of a century of hunting. They now live on the outskirts of suburbs, living off of garbage dumps, they DO feed on domestic livestock, and DO kill domestic dogs and cats. But, they don't chase down deer, or elk, or bears, or anything else that humans normally hunt. And this occurs from the West Coast to mid-country, and has deep incursions to the south.
Don't get me wrong. The reintroduction of natural predators has worked successfully in some environments, Yellowstone for example, but it will not work in areas with high human population density.
And Marwin, if you think hunting is inhumane, have you ever taken a stroll to a beef-rendering plant? Have you ever seen the feedlots that cattle are penned up in for weeks or months prior to slaughter? Have you ever seen a feedlot filled with dead rotting carcasses after a prolonged blizzard? I have. Have you attended cattle auctions and seen the pathetic condition of some of the animals after having lived in the lots? I have. And if those are bad, poultry processing is a million times worse! What the human race does in the guise of hunting is far better treatment than what we do for everyday food supplies. All of my grandparents were farmers/ranchers, and one was a cattle broker. I've seen all of this from the inside since I was four years old.
I guess what rankles me about your thread is that it really shows no foundation in the reality of ecology. Sympathy for animals is a fine thing, but not when it's based upon bull-s**t ecology and science. The animal world is NOT a nice one, even with humans removed. Certainly we've shown irresponsibility in a lot of areas in the past, but we are still part of the ecology and we still have to allow our species to breed, propogate and populate, eat, and carry on with life in general. And if it DOES come down to us or them, I think "us" should survive".
BTW, I'm not a hunter, and I'm a vegetarian to boot. I love animals and DON'T like hunting, but there are NO ecologically sound reasons not to. In fact, most of the hunters I know are far more knowledgeable about animal life, ecology, and wildlife management than most tree huggers. Sure, there are those redneck folks who go out there and blast away after having consumed a couple of six packs, but they are usually the exception and not the rule.
It would certainly be nice if a fraction of this concern for animals was redirected back toward humanity. We have gang wars, drive-by shootings, drugs in every city, town, and burg. We have unwanted pregnancy and unwanted children. Men that beat women, and women who abuse men. I'm sorry, but I think the problems that Humanity faces are a little bit more concerning and neeed far greater attention than the hunting issue.
posted on December 9, 2000 12:06:41 PM
Does it not trouble you that, with apparent ease, you categorize and label as barbarians a group that doesn't measure up to your personal standard of behavior?
If given some sort of supreme authority over this group, how would they fare?
Has your moral compass ever failed you?
There is a glaze of intellect which masks your sophistry, marwin, but it seems largely untempered by experience or tolerance.
posted on December 9, 2000 12:18:31 PM
Marwin, we ARE barbarians. Although we tend to think more highly of ourselves, regardless of our varying moralities and belief systems from which they arose, when those restraints are removed, we revert to our "natural" selves. Unfortunately, that side is usually totally selfish and is totally driven by gratification and self-preservation. Fortunately, we don't totally give into the base self too often.
We are still part of the ecology. We dominate it, no doubt, but to try to establish a "balance" goes against nature itself. All life forms from microbes on up eventually reach a stage at which they become too numerous and at which they become harmful to other life systems, and the "balance", and ultimately they become harmful to even themselves. Then decline begins. It is a natural course of events and unfortunately humanity's greater intellectual abilities and opposable thumbs can't, or more aptly WON'T reverse the process.
The balance that people seek between humanity and the rest of the ecosystem is a false one. No natural system is in balance. While it may appear so at the surface, if examined closely, we find constant struggles, back and forth between the different players, in our case between what we consider the natural world and "mankind". As teach in cell biology, the only cell that is in balance with it's environment, is a dead cell.
I too wonder about the hunting mindset, as I have no inclinations to hunt at all. But I think your hypothesis is too general and is laden with stereotypes. To use an old axiom, I simply think you're "painting with a very broad brush". Refine it some more, distill it, and then the discussion will get even more interesting.
posted on December 9, 2000 12:32:02 PMmarwin - You said, "By and large, hunting is something people do for pleasure, just like others fly a kite."
Not in our neck of the woods. People here (other than the retired who came with their 'big city' money) hunt wild game to put food on their tables. Many are poor and work at very low paying jobs. If they didn't hunt for their food, a lot of them wouldn't be eating.
lswanson "Sure, there are those Redneck folks who go out there and blast away after having consumed a couple of six packs but they are usually the exception & not the rule?" WHAT? I'm hoping I misunderstood what you said. Nice stereotype. OMG!
Again, the "redneck folks" (as you call them) here hunt for food for their families.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:12:29 PM
i haven't seen anyone mention survival of the fittest. doesn't hunting to "help' prevent starvation interfere with the natural progression of nature? i am talking about shooting large numbers of animals(including relatively healthy ones). someone shooting one deer for food if you live in the mountains is maybe understandable. no one here has yet admitted to shooting animals just for the fun of it or to being trophy hunters. those who claim that one headshot is always fatal are just not being honest. just as there are large numbers of humans walking around after having been shot in the head(some still have bullets in their skull) there must be many thousands of deer, moose etc., which have suffered head injuries but ran away to survive with varying degrees of pain and suffering.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:21:32 PM
Some of those Moose (Meese?) survived to become reknowned artists, award winning authors, and the founders of The Elks Club which performs acts of great and charitable benefit to many impoverished deer.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:37:23 PM
Just one question Marwin. Do you eat meat?
And then of course some thoughts. I don't hunt. I would hunt if it were necessary. I have seen the shows about how cattle are treated on the way to market and have seen the cattle trucks often. They go across country with no water or feed, forced to stand in excrement.(no, they dont like that) Nuff said bout that. Point made.
Have a hamburger.
Fact is, I'd kill and eat a dog if my kids and I were starving, let alone a deer, but it would be a quick kill. Fact is we eat hamburgers and fried chicken. Even tho I know the horrors these animals can go thru.
The ones butchered on the farm (seen it) have it much better than the ones sold n shipped elswhere.
It's not so much the hunters who hurt animals, it's the big corpate farms that hurt so very many....from birth to death is painful. At least the deer ran free for a time.
and Keith (ubedapsyco), I have a feeling you were not kidding about killing cats for fun. Ive seen that in action. Your post makes me sick.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:39:52 PM
If the argument that hunting helps prevent overpopulation of a species and all the resulting problems that occur with that overpopulation, why stop with four legged critters? Why not start hunting the two-legged critters that are currently breeding like-well-rabbits and overpopulating the planet and causing so much destruction?
Anyone remember the story "The Most Dangerous Game"?
