I DESPISE game hunters [Archive]

indie

6 Mar 2005, 02:05 AM

Nature is nature. Lions and tigers kill deer too, so is it bad when humans do it?

YES, when humans are doing it to a degree that disrupts a NATURAL BALANCE. Lions and tigers do not have the capability to eradicate all deer. PEOPLE DO.

Dman posted this in his "Environment/Pollution" thread, but it hits a particular nerve with me, so it's now a rant.

Most hunters -- where I used to live, in Utah -- *claim* that they hunt deer/elk for the meat. It's an inexpensive way to feed the family, they claim.

Oh Really?!

Let's examine the typical hunter's expenditures for this "inexpensive" means of feeding his family:

$200-$2000+ for game rifle (http://www.hunting-rifles.com)
$20+ for bullets for the hunting rifle (http://www.nosler.com/cgi-bin/VirtualCatalog/CatalogMgr.pl?cartID=b-7662&template=Htx/sample6.htx&SearchField=category&SearchFor=Ballistic+Tip+Hunting&hdr=Ballistic+Tip+Hunting&displayNumber=25)
$35 resident $208 non-resident per year for deer tag fee per year (Utah) (http://www.outdoorsman.com/prodpgs/Middle_Ridge_Outfitters_Mule_Deer_Hunt__Northern_Utah_11001.asp)
$50+ for Day-Glo Orange Hunting Clothes (http://saltlakecity.about.com/library/weekly/02art/aa100102a.htm) required by law
$6-18 for hunter safety school (http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/huntereducation), also required by law

. . . and so on. Of course, that cost estimate also ignores the miscellaneous expenses, such as cost of gasoline to drive out to BFE, the requisite beer, the maintenance/cleaning of the gun, and other things I'm probably not even aware of because I'm not a hunter.

There are also intangible costs (to society at large). For example, cost of loss of productivity from lost sleep created by getting up at 4 am to stand in line to get deer tag, cost of loss of productivity from people missing work to go deer hunting, and, of course, the cost of hunting accidents . . .

It pisses me off when hunters use this flimsy excuse of "a cheap way to feed the family." The most conservative estimate for the cost of deer hunting, based upon the above example, is $366, for a resident deer hunter. . . and of course, that is only a conservative estimate, based upon the bare necessities for a deer hunter. I'm almost positive the *typical* game hunter spends much more on the higer-tech hunting and camping equipment. The more extravagant and non-resident and hunters certainly do.

But there's yet another flimsy excuse *other* hunters use: We need to control the deer population, it's getting out of control. The deer are too populous, they say. There are too many, and when there are too many deer, they come down from the mountains and into the valleys and get hit by cars, killing people.

Oh Really?!

Though I seriously doubt this is the case, if it *were* the case, you already screwed that one up, deer hunters. Nature has a way of evening out things like "overpopulation," but since you already hunted to practical EXTINCTION the natural predators of the deer, the mountain lion and bobcat, nature can't do much about that.

And, finally, my last rant point. Sure, deer/elk hunters may claim that they hunt for the meat, or that they hunt to control the deer population, but anyone who has half a brain knows that the real reason deer and elk hunters hunt is to reduce the very being of a noble, wild creature to some trophy on a wall.

If hunters hunted for the meat, they would not CARE how many "points" were on the rack of a magestic deer or elk's horns. . . If hunters hunted to "control the deer population," they would not CARE how many "points" were on the rack of a majestic deer or elk's horns. But at the end of the hunt weekend, when the hunters are having a brewsky at their favorite watering hole, what do they brag about? "Yeah, me and Smitty bagged a 6-pointer up on Fischer's Flat."

Deer and elk hunters hunt because they want to bring home the "trophy," the "big one" to make themselves feel superior to nature.

So, in conclusion, I would like to state: I DESPISE game hunters. I hope that they end up in some place where the deer or elk are the meat eaters and have the guns and that the game hunters are naked and vulnerable vegetarians, just so they can get a "taste" of what it's like on the other side.

Division56

6 Mar 2005, 02:10 AM

Grrrrr...

Hunters tresspass on my property, and tell people I told them they could hunt here. I am in one of the most pristine areas of my state, too.

I posted no tresspassing signs, and I will call the police if I see them again. And if they ever accidentally shoot me, they had better hope to god I never get up. 'Cause their ass is grass.

Division56

6 Mar 2005, 02:12 AM

And I forgot to mention the oh so noble poachers, with their pickups and spotlights.

Fucking white trash...

Claverhouse

6 Mar 2005, 02:16 AM

Fine post.

But as I don't like any killing of animals for any reason, you might expect that to be my view... :)

Claverhouse :ph34r:

CreativeChaos

6 Mar 2005, 02:18 AM

And I forgot to mention the oh so noble poachers, with their pickups and spotlights.

Fucking white trash...

Yeah, but face it Divi. You REALLY need to repent. I personally know of a least 50 sins you have committed since first recieving you into my private domain. :smooch:

Division56

6 Mar 2005, 02:25 AM

Yeah, but face it Divi. You REALLY need to repent. I personally know of a least 50 sins you have committed since first recieving you into my private domain. :smooch:

*doesn't know what CC means, but is scared by the thought of CC making him repent*

*envisions a riding crop and heavy restraint*

misutii

6 Mar 2005, 02:27 AM

i felt sorry for the british nobles not allowed to practice their fox hunting pastime... if i was one of them id go into an elitist homocidal rage and hunt the dastardly burgeois bastards responsible instead

CreativeChaos

6 Mar 2005, 02:31 AM

*doesn't know what CC means, but is scared by the thought of CC making him repent*

*envisions a riding crop and heavy restraint*

Haa! Whatever you want DEAR :devil: (Damn you gay guys!!!! Why do you have to be more fun!!!!)

Sir Isaac Lime

6 Mar 2005, 03:25 AM

At least don't call it "game". If it was a game the odds would be more even

coffeezombie

6 Mar 2005, 03:28 AM

Yeah, hunting is not inexpensive, but I don't have a problem with people doing that and being somewhat self-sufficient. I actually prefer it to the slaughterhouses that exist today. No, I don't hunt, though.

CoHo

6 Mar 2005, 03:30 AM

I don't see the difference between shooting a deer and eating a cow. If you eat meat I don't think you have room to argue about game hunting.

Hypnos

6 Mar 2005, 03:55 AM

I don't see the difference between shooting a deer and eating a cow. If you eat meat I don't think you have room to argue about game hunting.
Meat tastes good, and hunting is fun. What's the problem?

Eileen

6 Mar 2005, 04:20 AM

I despise game hunters too; it's... gross, in a way, to me. But I'm a vegetarian and this is to be expected. ;)

CoHo

6 Mar 2005, 05:31 AM

What's the problem?

I didn't say there was one, I was just saying that meat eaters are on shaky ground if they are complaining about game hunters.

Hypnos

6 Mar 2005, 05:41 AM

I didn't say there was one, I was just saying that meat eaters are on shaky ground if they are complaining about game hunters.
Dude, I was backing you up. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

CoHo

6 Mar 2005, 05:43 AM

* $200-$2000+ for game rifle
* $20+ for bullets for the hunting rifle
* $35 resident $208 non-resident per year for deer tag fee per year (Utah)
* $50+ for Day-Glo Orange Hunting Clothes required by law
* $6-18 for hunter safety school, also required by law

Okay, say $750 (gun) + $50 (suit) + $18 (school) = $818 (one time cost)
While, $35 + $20 = $55 (variable cost)

That is to say, your very first deer killed will have cost you $873 bucks, each deer after that will cost between $0 and $55.

According to the internet:

Because waste can vary between deer, we suggest using the "realistic" figure as a gauge. In the above example, the buck's realistic meat yield would range form 58 to 68 pounds. A 10-pound difference doesn't seem like much when dealing with a large deer , but it's noticeable when the deer is a fawn or yearling.

http://www.butcher-packer.com/newsarticle.asp?id=24

That means your first deer will yield something like 60 pounds of meat. At an initial investment of $873 that is $14.55 a pound of meat. Yes that is pretty expensive.

But don’t forget the $818 is a 1 time cost. If you kill 3 deer a year (180 pounds) over the course of five years you will have spent $1093 ($818 + the yearly variable costs) and gained 900 pounds of meat. Suddenly the price drops down to $1.21 a pound. Not a bad price.

Buffalo are completely different though. They yield about 800 pounds of meat each but you can only carry 100 pounds back to your wagon!

CoHo

6 Mar 2005, 05:47 AM

I despise game hunters too; it's... gross, in a way, to me. But I'm a vegetarian and this is to be expected.

Would you say you despise them more then slaughterhouse owners? Or those crazy old guys that whack sick turkeys to death weeks before thanksgiving?

jimkopelli

6 Mar 2005, 05:50 AM

I loved playing Oregon Trail... the first one, way back on greenscreen. Hunting little pixellated animals... missing most of the time... starving to death.

I think that there is a difference between eating a dead domesticated animal and going out and killing a live wild one. I'm not sure which is better/worse, or if there is a better/worse, but I'm still thinking about it.

jimkopelli

6 Mar 2005, 05:51 AM

But I don't like the hunters around here... bloody rednecks.

Google Monster

6 Mar 2005, 08:35 AM

I hunt for moose every year. The only type of red meat that goes through my system. Moose meat is low in fat and good for strenth when lifting weights.
But my gun only cost 150.00 CDN (used and unregistered) and bullets for 20.00 CDN and gas for truck 30.00 CDN and then you bag the moose and have meat for the whole winter. Get more than one moose and you feed family and elders also.
So after 200.00 CDN for one moose it cost 30.00 CDN for each moose after until your out of ammo. Moose averages around 900+ pounds of meat.

DevNull

6 Mar 2005, 09:45 AM

$20+ for bullets for the hunting rifle

Where are you buying your bullets? Even my most expensive handgun bullets are only $14 for a box of 50.

I do not like killing things personally, but I sure love eating them.

I do not have a segway to this one but to swipe some humor from "All in the Family": Would it make you feel any better if dey was pushed out of windows instead of shot before people ate them?

Geoff

6 Mar 2005, 12:22 PM

I would be perfectly happy to kill an animal for food.

I see absolutely no problem with hunting in a controlled environment so that it is managing wild populations and entertaining humans.

I absolutely have a problem when crimes are committed - cruelty to the animal, trespasssing, poaching.

-Geoff

Hypnos

6 Mar 2005, 12:52 PM

I absolutely have a problem when crimes are committed - cruelty to the animal, [...]
How would you define cruelty? That is, what actions on what animal? For example, is it cruelty if I throw a live lobster into a boiling pot?

PonderBee

6 Mar 2005, 01:35 PM

This has been a banner hunting season in the US. Two incidents that immediately spring to mind are the lone hunter in Minnesota that shot and killed 5 or 6 hunters that confronted him with rifles drawn and racial slurs flying for using their tree stand ("Give that sharpshooter a gold star!"); and a young pregnant woman who was sitting in her car, in her driveway in a suburban neighborhood in Pennsylvania that took a hunter's stray bullet to the head. In my view hunting to cull the herd has its place - if it is strictly controlled and governed intelligently. Hunting in a game reserve is an embarrassment.

indie

6 Mar 2005, 04:04 PM

Ahem. . .

I despise hunters who CLAIM they do it for the meat or to "control" the population, but will only shoot the animals with the horns so they can have a trophy for their wall.

RTFP!

coffeezombie

6 Mar 2005, 04:39 PM

Yeah, the display of "hunting trophies" as a sign of vanity is pretty stupid. It's not like it's difficult to kill a deer with a gun. I also find it disturbing the reason that deer need to be hunted so much is because we killed off most of the wolves to begin with. I live in a state that helped greatly to kill off millions of passenger pigeons to extinction and I find it disturbing how indiscriminately many people will kill animals. I don't have a problem will hunting for self-sufficiency by I start to have problems when people do any kind of "mass killing," or hunt for stupid, vain reasons like to acquire fur, ivory or tiger testicles.

indie

6 Mar 2005, 04:45 PM

Tiger testicles, really? I've not heard about that one.

Geoff

6 Mar 2005, 04:59 PM

How would you define cruelty? That is, what actions on what animal? For example, is it cruelty if I throw a live lobster into a boiling pot?

I expect it is, I am not particularly knowledgeable on lobster physiology, so I do not know how quickly they die and whether they feel pain. The screaming noise is the shell, I believe, and not some squeaks of the creature concerned.
So I am undecided on this one.

-Geoff

Geoff

6 Mar 2005, 05:00 PM

Eileen

6 Mar 2005, 05:16 PM

I must say that even as a vegetarian, I am not opposed to the idea to feed one's family, and if someone were to pursue a self-sufficient lifestyle in which they hunted for food and grew their own food, I'd give them my Eileen seal of approval--because I think that the predator-prey relationship is natural and necessary, and I also think that if people are going to eat meat, they should be able to live with killing it themselves. However, most of the time, hunting is for amusement and not self-sufficiency, and I can't say that I really respect that.

Boneca

6 Mar 2005, 07:10 PM

Tiger testicles, really? I've not heard about that one.Chinese traditional medicine...it's supposed to be an aphrodisiac, I think.

As for the original topic, I don't really have a problem with hunting as such. In a way it is better than the meat industry, because the animals at least have a natural life until they are shot.
What I do have a problem with however, is when people start to manage wildlife populations to suit the hunters instead of the local eco-system. Such as introducing new species only for the thrill of hunting them (and this goes for sport fishing too!), or exterminating carnivores simply because they compete about the game. Some hunters seem to think that the forest is their personal playground.

And this trophy-collecting is slightly disturbing, yes.

CoHo

6 Mar 2005, 08:33 PM

Two incidents that immediately spring to mind are the lone hunter in Minnesota that shot and killed 5 or 6 hunters that confronted him with rifles drawn and racial slurs flying for using their tree stand ("Give that sharpshooter a gold star!");

Yeah, that story really really bothers me

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/10298942.htm
Basically the guy shot and killed six people, some of the people he shot in the back as they were running away, others he chased down.

I have family in Wisconsin, one older family member made the comment "I wish the Hmongs would just go back to where they came from.". I can't fucking stand when a tragedy is turned into a race issue.

The killer could have easily been one of those crazy white people that perch up on bell towers. Since the killer is Hmong people feel they have an object to direct hate at. The race of the killer doesn’t make this crime understandable, and it doesn’t make it more tragic.

I wouldn’t lump this in as a normal hunting story.

booyalab

6 Mar 2005, 08:50 PM

prometheusdestroyed

6 Mar 2005, 09:12 PM

Ahem. . .

I despise hunters who CLAIM they do it for the meat or to "control" the population, but will only shoot the animals with the horns so they can have a trophy for their wall.

RTFP!

I guess they are forced to claim that they are doing it only for food to justify it. I think this whole attempt by societies to try and iron out blips like the desire to kill is very unnatural and egotistical, as though everything we do and feel should be somehow governable. The desire to assert superiority is natural and I hope the fox-hunters in England manage to get the law over-turned. Hunters should be able to come right out and say that they do it for fun, but that probably doesn't go down very well with 'right-minded' people.

Arcades

6 Mar 2005, 09:58 PM

forgive the spelling and grammer. see "Im the best snowboarder in the world".

I have hunted all my life. mostly big game hunting. ie. deer/moose/elk/reindeer.

there is 3 points to a hunt.
stalk
kill
aftermath

the stalk if done from a stand or a truck is still a stalk. i do it from the ground on foot. i like walking on a hunt. think of it as a stupid outdated hick thing because that seems to be what you in your narowmindness has decided. it puts me in the home of the prey. not in a tree stand with sents and bait and high powerd scopes and all the other stupid things people buy to try and fool deer and such. the time i spend tracking my prey is almost like medatation and sex at the same time. i am so keyed upand intude with myself and my enviroment that there is no room for the other things that living in sociaty today forces on you. by your statments i guess im deluiding my self this entire time. im just out there blasting away hoping i get to see some stupid four leged anmail so i can blow its cute little head off.

next comes the kill. i have felt sad and almost wanted to cry every time i have killed an anamial. if i do not kill with my first shot and within seconds i have felt bad for days afterword. if i ever see someone hurting an anmail be it a dog or a cat or even a pest like a mouse i will start a fight with that person. i cannot stand to see anmails in pain. it hurts more than i could possably explane. the kill is the nessasasy part between the stalk and the aftermath. nothing in the killing gives me pleasure.

the aftermath. i kill gut and porsess everything i hunt. i eat as much of it as i can and give/donate the excess to friends famlie andpeople in need. im probebly the most giving person to the local needy shelters in my area. NO meat is wasted if i can help it. i have no anmails on my walls except pictures and paintings and i have never killed any prime males. i have killes males. but none of the prime ones. normly i kill the females and 1 or 2 year old males. just like wolves would. i also kill the old. but normly winter dose that for me.

i know that natrule preditors should be keeping the balance. but there mostly gon. bobcats are to small to kill deer. cept maby black tail deer but they live in 2 diffrent places. you have treated this subject very badly and should feel badly about making asumptions about a whole group when you have only part of the information.

im going back to bed now. the drugs are catching up again.

Geoff

6 Mar 2005, 10:05 PM

And then there are some Hmong people who have implied that this guy was justified in killing these men because he claimed that they were being racist towards him. (in fact his own justification was that they were being racist) Whites dont have a monopoly on cross-cultural abuse.

Of course, we arent talking about the evils of hunting here, we are talking about the evils of a disturbed individual. I dont think we can blame hunting for these sort of incidents (symptoms not causes).

My father in law hunts for a living in Nova Scotia, he traps furs of various sorts, and also when he takes something like a bear he sells virtually every scrap of the animal (things like the gall bladder go to China for example).

The hunting is controlled - licensing and so on, and it seems to work fairly well as a system. I dont think I could see myself doing it, but at least it *is* his livelihood.

-Geoff

booyalab

6 Mar 2005, 10:19 PM

Of course, we arent talking about the evils of hunting here, we are talking about the evils of a disturbed individual. I dont think we can blame hunting for these sort of incidents (symptoms not causes).

-Geoff

I know my post had nothing to do with the subject of the thread, I just wanted to give the other side of the issue in CorporateWhore's post.

I'm not much of an animal's rights activist, because I think rights are established by an authority and since we're in control of animals..we decide their rights..they aren't intrinsic. So I leave discussions of the alleged 'morality' of hunting to those who care. As far as the usefulness of hunting, I think the extent to which it's useful has been described enough, so I dont think I have anything to add there either.

coffeezombie

6 Mar 2005, 10:44 PM

I'm not much of an animal's rights activist, because I think rights are established by an authority and since we're in control of animals..we decide their rights..they aren't intrinsic.

The last I knew, we were not in control of most animals. One could argue that we could control any animal we wanted to, but can't other humans be controlled too through such means as slavery? Does that mean enslaved humans should be able to be killed on human whim as well? I eat meat myself but I just found this argument about "control" being an excuse to exert will over life and death to be a bit specious.

booyalab

6 Mar 2005, 10:58 PM

The last I knew, we were not in control of most animals. One could argue that we could control any animal we wanted to, but can't other humans be controlled too through such means as slavery? Does that mean enslaved humans should be able to be killed on human whim as well? I eat meat myself but I just found this argument about "control" being an excuse to exert will over life and death to be a bit specious.

I'm saying that "rights" , strictly defined, are what an authority decides them to be. So a black person who is a slave and considered nothing by the gov't, has no rights...that would be correct.
Likewise, animals have the rights that we decide they should have. Anything moralistic outside of the realm of 'rights' is EXTREMELY subjective in nature...because 'rights' tend to have some useful basis (like minimizing chaos). There is some usefulness in limiting hunting of animals, but that usefulness does not generally coincide with aspects of killing animals when the defense is "animal should have rights", because animals aren't forming mobs and trying to defend themselves. I'm kind of tired so you'll have to excuse how long it's taking me to make my point, blah, and i'm not sure i make sense at all. But anyways, when the morality surrounding the animal rights issue is based on assumptions or projections of 'personality' onto the animals...'animal rights' is used as the defense. When it is useful to limit animal rights, usefulness is used as the defense. Animal rights are not very logical.

Geoff

6 Mar 2005, 11:02 PM

I suppose it is logical for a free thinking society to attribute to an animal a basic level of cruelty-protection *from humans* that is reasonable to the animal itself. If an animal suffers unduly, then although it does not have intellect as we view it, it clearly is suffering and that they are living creatures. Most humans would not want to see an animal flayed alive piece by piece, but many are unconcerned about human 'for meat' killings.
Animal rights that set where the balance sits between those two extremes does have a part to play in a society that seeks to abolish unjustified pain and suffering.
Now that is different from activists and their stupid extremist attitudes, of course.

-Geoff

Hypnos

6 Mar 2005, 11:07 PM

booyalab

6 Mar 2005, 11:28 PM

Booyalab, well stated. However, there is one flaw in your argument: slave revolts were quite rare, and most reasonable people would say they *should* have rights.

Your remark on the subjectivity of assigning rights, but one cannot ignore empathy as a political force, so it is a standard "usefulness." There are animal cruelty laws because of it. The best you can do is ask people to proscribe their emotions by reality: perhaps cruelty protection should only be extended to self-aware animals? If it's legal to eat pork, why is it illegal to eat dog in most states?

Well, you're right that slave revolts were rare, but I was referring more to the equality that came as a result from the 60s than the freedom of slaves. (sorry, my phrasing was pretty crappy...I know) BTW, 1. Slavery became less and less useful for our increasingly industrialized nation in the mid-late 19th century and 2. if you think the civil war was started because of slavery (even though it was given as a reason and because of the outcome, slaves were freed) you'd be wrong.

I dont think that kindness to anything that i'm going to eat is logical, sorry...and remember that I'm making a clear distinction between usefulness of helping animals and kindness in helping them. The kindness that I'm referring to is defended with animals having rights. This is circular reasoning. I know I already said this but I felt i didnt articulate myself well the first time.

I am not going to go out of my way to hurt an animal, though, I'm not saying it's any more logical to kill at random.

As for the pain argument, plants feel pain too.

Kindness to animals is alogical, as long as you dont try to argue for it *meaningful look*

Hypnos

6 Mar 2005, 11:50 PM

Well, you're right that slave revolts were rare, but I was referring more to the equality that came as a result from the 60s than the freedom of slaves. (sorry, my phrasing was pretty crappy...I know) BTW, 1. Slavery became less and less useful for our increasingly industrialized nation in the mid-late 19th century and 2. if you think the civil war was started because of slavery (even though it was given as a reason and because of the outcome, slaves were freed) you'd be wrong.
Are you claiming that slaves were granted right because blacks became more valuable as workers/consumers than slave labor?

I dont think that kindness to anything that i'm going to eat is logical, sorry...and remember that I'm making a clear distinction between usefulness of helping animals and kindness in helping them. The kindness that I'm referring to is defended with animals having rights. This is circular reasoning. I know I already said this but I felt i didnt articulate myself well the first time.
Well, it's no longer circular if you state clearly, "animals have feelings, I empathize with them, let's give them rights so people have a disincentive to hurt them."

As for the pain argument, plants feel pain too.
Pain is different from suffering, I'd say.

Kindness to animals is alogical, as long as you dont try to argue for it *meaningful look*
All feelings, like kindness, are beyond logic.

booyalab

7 Mar 2005, 12:00 AM

Are you claiming that slaves were granted right because blacks became more valuable as workers/consumers than slave labor?

Well, it's no longer circular if you state clearly, "animals have feelings, I empathize with them, let's give them rights."

Pain is different from suffering, I'd say.

All feelings, like kindness, are beyond logic.

1. One reason, yeah.
2. Well if you stated that: When someone has feelings they should have rights. Animals have feelings. Let's give them rights. Right, that isn't circular. Though the assumptions are arguable. But animal rights activists use the fact that they have rights as support for the argument that animals should be treated equally.
3. Well all suffering is accompanied by pain but not all pain is suffering. But it's so hard to say where pain stops and suffering begins, especially when that which is feeling it can't tell you. I can empathize with a human more than an animal (I'm not an animal and I dont know how they think), so it's easier for me to distinguish between the two with humans than animals and especially plants. Plus, animals tend to view us as either food or inconsequential....why do we think there's some magic bond between us?(animals and humans)..like we have with each other.(humans and humans) I think it has more to do with personification of the animal than some inhererent entitlement of the animal
4. You're right, but "rights" aren't the same as "feelings"

CoHo

7 Mar 2005, 12:05 AM

All feelings, like kindness, are beyond logic.

Why do you say that?

Feelings are just responses. You are taught what to love, what to hate, what to like and dislike. They follow very clear logical paths.

Google Monster

7 Mar 2005, 07:07 AM

Truth is the game with horns are most likely to be less tender than the ones without horns. So it has nothing to do with which animal has horns when I hunt.

Hypnos

7 Mar 2005, 07:23 AM

2. Well if you stated that: When someone has feelings they should have rights. Animals have feelings. Let's give them rights. Right, that isn't circular. Though the assumptions are arguable. But animal rights activists use the fact that they have rights as support for the argument that animals should be treated equally.
Well, forget the animal activists :)

3. Well all suffering is accompanied by pain but not all pain is suffering. But it's so hard to say where pain stops and suffering begins, especially when that which is feeling it can't tell you. I can empathize with a human more than an animal (I'm not an animal and I dont know how they think), so it's easier for me to distinguish between the two with humans than animals and especially plants. Plus, animals tend to view us as either food or inconsequential....why do we think there's some magic bond between us?(animals and humans)..like we have with each other.(humans and humans) I think it has more to do with personification of the animal than some inhererent entitlement of the animal
All agreed. Pet owners would vehemently disagree ;)

4. You're right, but "rights" aren't the same as "feelings"
No, of course not. But, as I have argued, empathy can sway politics.

Hypnos

7 Mar 2005, 07:30 AM

Feelings are just responses.
OK.

You are taught what to love, what to hate, what to like and dislike.
I think this is mostly wrong. We are as much innate as much as trained -- we've all come to these forums, no?

They follow very clear logical paths.
Sure -- this is how you can predict happiness/sadness with a given course of action.

Just to be clear, by "beyond logic" I don't mean that emotions are devoid of rhyme or reason. Rather, that you act to satisfy your desires/feelings, rather than feel to to justify some action. Actions are "what" and "how," not "why" or "for what purpose."

Shai Gar

7 Mar 2005, 08:15 AM

i just had to add my 16 cents, i hunt myself, i hunt kangeroos. the meat tastes great and my rifles were all given to me from my grandma so the exercise in bagging 4 or 5 big eastern greys costs me only the petrol to go to one of the properties and hunt.

of course i also believe very firmly in one shot one kill, and the animal must die immediately with no cruelty. and yeah.

but those american hunters when i meet them and they talk about their hunting trips i just want to smash a schooner into their faces. most are bastards

Edmond Zedo

7 Mar 2005, 08:46 AM

Shai Gar

7 Mar 2005, 09:35 AM

screw the remington.

buy yourself a compound. they are more fun

MacGuffin

7 Mar 2005, 02:39 PM

But there's yet another flimsy excuse *other* hunters use: We need to control the deer population, it's getting out of control. The deer are too populous, they say. There are too many, and when there are too many deer, they come down from the mountains and into the valleys and get hit by cars, killing people.

Oh Really?!

Though I seriously doubt this is the case, if it *were* the case, you already screwed that one up, deer hunters. Nature has a way of evening out things like "overpopulation," but since you already hunted to practical EXTINCTION the natural predators of the deer, the mountain lion and bobcat, nature can't do much about that. Yes, but since the natural predators don't exist any more, we need the hunters. The horse is already out of the barn on that one.

And as far as lobsters go, right now studies suggest they don't feel pain:

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/ap_lobster_pain_050214.html

crule81

7 Mar 2005, 03:46 PM

I would never hunt myself, but I recognize that it is often necessary to control populations of certain animals. For example, where I grew up there is an overpopulation of deer because there are no natural predators. This causes problems when the deer jump in front of cars causing injuries. I know dozens of people who have crashed into deer and one cannot drive a mile without seeing a dead deer on the side of the road.

jyakulis

7 Mar 2005, 04:23 PM

Buffalo are completely different though. They yield about 800 pounds of meat each but you can only carry 100 pounds back to your wagon!

:rofl:

booyalab

7 Mar 2005, 04:48 PM

from http://www.bwmanh.org/

Facts about Deer

Deer can live up to 11 years.
Food types include grasses, shrubs, leaves, needles and "mast" from oak, beech and apple trees.
In areas of overpopulation, deer can cause an "over browsing" affect which destroys most plant species up to six feet, destroying the forest renewal process. Gardens, plants, and shrubs can also be destroyed.
Deer establish a territory and will not leave it.
Deer are known to starve or drown rather than leave their domain.
Two deer without predation can produce up to a herd of up to 35 in just 7 years.
Deer require 10-12 pounds of food each day most of the year.
In late winter their diet is supplemented by stored fat.
When deer run out of stored fat and available browse they start to metabolize their bone marrow and starvation is eminent.

The US whitetail population is out of control. Not only are deer starving by the thousands, they’re laying waste to entire ecosystems. No species in North America has been more mismanaged than deer.

MacGuffin

7 Mar 2005, 04:51 PM

Death to Bambi!

prometheusdestroyed

7 Mar 2005, 07:05 PM

Screw it. I didn't even notice we were in rants and raves. On reconsidering the point I think that those who are sadistic enough to hunt and pretend that it's for a practical reason should be stripped naked and beaten whith canes to make them run into the paths of an army of charging deer

booyalab

7 Mar 2005, 07:07 PM

I dont hunt or "pretend" that it's for a practical reason....*wipes brow* phew

songbird36

7 Mar 2005, 07:11 PM

from http://www.bwmanh.org/

Deer are a huge pest here - they cause deforestation and erosion. The more that are hunted, the better.

Pigs are also hunted here and again good job I say. They snuffle around and destroy native mosses and ferns and tender young shoots of native trees.

Hypnos

7 Mar 2005, 07:13 PM

Dman

7 Mar 2005, 08:36 PM

I don't see the difference between shooting a deer and eating a cow.

Cause cows have a fighting chance. You know, mad-cow disease, E.Coli…

I don't hunt, never have; I don't see the value in it either given my current place in society (meaning I'm not up against any shortage of affordable food).

As for eating meat, I love meat, but I love vegetarian dishes as well. I could survive on a vegetarian diet, I think. On second thought, don't think I could ever give up pork...bacon, pancetta, spiral ham, boneless pork loin roast, BBQ'd pork tenderloin, mmmmm.....

I guess my rationalization for eating meat is that the animals I consume have been breed specifically to be food. We pretty much have to kill something in order to eat; may as well farm it out. For the vegetarians here, would it be Ok in your minds if we bred cows and other livestock that were brain-dead, genetically born in a vegetative state? Wouldn’t that be the same as eating grass or salad or something?

As for hunters, the few hunters that I know would pretty much reiterate what

But when it really comes down to it, seems to me it’s all about a power trip more than anything else. It’s not because you’re hungry, it’s not because you can’t afford to eat good food; you can leave the population control up to the proper authorities; it’s not much sport when you have a far superior weapon like a gun or bow (if you want the thrill of the hunt, go play paint-ball or join the army). So it’s about power. Does that make it Ok?

Hypnos

7 Mar 2005, 08:40 PM

So it’s about power. Does that make it Ok?
It's only about power tangentially. It's a sport in the same sense as riding a motorcycle, hiking or water skiing -- fun, exhilirating, and artful.

Eileen

7 Mar 2005, 11:35 PM

Remington 700 in .308: $500
50 Cartridges: $15
Hunting License: $50
The Eileen Seal of Approval: Worthless.

Ahh, fuck off.

Geoff

7 Mar 2005, 11:40 PM

Ahh, fuck off.

The Eileen retort? : Priceless.

-Geoff

indie

21 Oct 2006, 04:23 AM

Yes, but since the natural predators don't exist any more, we need the hunters. The horse is already out of the barn on that one.

So you're suggesting that humans with guns are a drop-in natural predator to the species?

Sometimes I think it would be much more efficient for idiot humans to hunt to extinction other idiot humans.

Hypnos

21 Oct 2006, 05:03 AM

Sometimes I think it would be much more efficient for idiot humans to hunt to extinction other idiot humans.
A capital idea -- Mac, start running.

Zero Angel

21 Oct 2006, 05:09 AM

Zero Angel

21 Oct 2006, 05:24 AM

So you're suggesting that humans with guns are a drop-in natural predator to the species?

Sometimes I think it would be much more efficient for idiot humans to hunt to extinction other idiot humans.
Well, population of deer and similar creatures restabilizes itself, if not through hunting than through natural predation. And I personally don't mind the deer on my reserve and the nearby valley highways from being hunted because I know a few people who have totaled their cars from hitting them. Deer may seem majestic from a naturalistic viewpoint but that doesnt stop them from playing the dangerous game of chicken with the cars.

The hunters I know eat their meat or give it away to someone who needs it. It's not the only way to feed people, but it provides good nutrients for them (as opposed to ie: burgers).

Some of my relatives act as hunting guides though, and they make decent money off of it, but the people they guide are often white people from the 'states. They're loud, reckless, and hunt for trophies, not meat.

indie

21 Oct 2006, 05:44 AM

The hunters I know eat their meat or give it away to someone who needs it. It's not the only way to feed people, but it provides good nutrients for them (as opposed to ie: burgers).

Some of my relatives act as hunting guides though, and they make decent money off of it, but the people they guide are often white people from the 'states. They're loud, reckless, and hunt for trophies, not meat.

You hail from Canada. I have lived in Alaska, and know and understand. . . . I have zero opposition to hunting in order to sustain nutritionally through a cold, arctic climate (such as that you describe in Canada) and for sustenance and without the comforts of modern life. Hunting for meat and fat and fur is necessary in certain situations.

But I strongly oppose monetized hunting, for the purpose of trophy and/or waste. You describe this typical Amerian hunter as "loud, reckless and hunting for trophies". I don't disagree. Tags and such;

Here it's "hunting season" and these people are obsessed. On a whim the other day I mentioned that I'd witnessed an 8-point buck up a nearby canyon. My relatives were all of the sudden attentive to my presence, wanting to know exacting details regarding location of this creature's herd and such.

I lied.

Stoic

21 Oct 2006, 05:46 AM

In the words of Borat: It make you feel like real man to kill animal!

MacGuffin

21 Oct 2006, 05:57 AM

Hypnos

21 Oct 2006, 06:15 AM

Dear piss is one thing, but I refuse to cover my scent with Molson.

MacGuffin

21 Oct 2006, 06:16 AM

Dear piss is one thing, but I refuse to cover my scent with Molson.
The Molson and weed (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15213) are to trick the Canadians!

Shhhh!

Lurker

21 Oct 2006, 06:33 AM

Leftfield

21 Oct 2006, 06:56 AM

My simple responce to game hunters is... who cares?

I don't have a problem with it because it goes to the simple premise of "survival of the fittest" and why we as a speices became the domanint power in the biological race in the first place.

Bow and arrow would be my kind of fun... how else would that Archery credit in high school go to use? Please explain this...

I'm a moderate-libertarian politically so don't give me any conservative talk because I don't really care. If people have the right to do so, then they can do whatever they want in their freetime... the game-hunter haters sound like hippies (see above post) from what I've read... go smoke some pot and ponder on it more.

Ivy

21 Oct 2006, 06:57 AM

Game hunter hater here. The only time it is acceptable is to feed yourself - meaning you are lost in the woods for days. If you can't afford to buy food at a grocery store, go get some goddamn food stamps or something.

Are you vegan? Where do you think the meat in the grocery store comes from? I daresay an animal that lives in the wild and is killed quickly by gunshot experiences less pain than a factory-farmed cow.

Hypnos

21 Oct 2006, 07:04 AM

I think we need an INTP hunting meetup. I prefer bowhunting, to keep out the drunk redneck fatties.

Ivy

21 Oct 2006, 07:07 AM

I hate to break it to you, Hypnos, but that won't keep them all out. My drunk redneck uncle-in-law is a consummate bowhunter. He's not a fatty, though, I guess.

sbw

21 Oct 2006, 01:25 PM

My simple responce to game hunters is... who cares?

exactly--and my aesthetic sensibility is reminded of charles barkley, who said that "the only thing animals are good for is eating and wearing."

Scott

Lurker

21 Oct 2006, 03:29 PM

Are you vegan? Where do you think the meat in the grocery store comes from? I daresay an animal that lives in the wild and is killed quickly by gunshot experiences less pain than a factory-farmed cow.

Game hunters take pleasure in killing for sport.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of killing animals for food, honestly. I experience a constant internal dissonance over the idea - on one hand, I like meat, humans are omnivores, there are ways to minimize pain, some animals are worth more than others (sorry), and so on. On the other hand, why should someone take an active part in the death of another creature when they can avoid it? In the modern world, there is rarely a reason to go out and blow animals away in your spare time. I would rather mine come in nice, neat containers. Yes, I'm a hypocrite. :)

This is one of those issues that I cannot be comfortable with either way, like I said, a source of internal dissonance.

Lurker

21 Oct 2006, 03:32 PM

MacGuffin

21 Oct 2006, 03:56 PM

Game hunting does serve a purpose where the natural predator no longer exists. For deer especially.

Ivy

21 Oct 2006, 04:10 PM

Game hunting does serve a purpose where the natural predator no longer exists. For deer especially.

I agree. There are no wolves left around here, but the deer are plentiful. In the Eastern part of NC they're reintroducing the red wolf, but out this way where there are hundreds of miles of sprawl meaning nearly every square foot is somebody's backyard, it ain't gonna happen.

Lurker, if you're really concerned about how animals are treated but you don't want to kill them humanely yourself, then I'm sure you eat only kosher/humanely farmed meat, right?

LongSilence

21 Oct 2006, 04:44 PM

Game hunters take pleasure in killing for sport.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of killing animals for food, honestly. I experience a constant internal dissonance over the idea - on one hand, I like meat, humans are omnivores, there are ways to minimize pain, some animals are worth more than others (sorry), and so on. On the other hand, why should someone take an active part in the death of another creature when they can avoid it? In the modern world, there is rarely a reason to go out and blow animals away in your spare time. I would rather mine come in nice, neat containers. Yes, I'm a hypocrite. :)

This is one of those issues that I cannot be comfortable with either way, like I said, a source of internal dissonance.

Lurker, do you have a problem with people playing violent videogames too? What about martial arts and boxing? I mean, in the modern world there's no real reason why anyone should press buttons causing images of people to be blown up or practice antiquated obsolete combat skills (unless he's one of the few who uses them for a living).

Moving away from the issues of population control and sustenance hunting is a natural practice that hones the hunter's skills and self-control, not to mention patience. In the end, it gives the prey much more of a chance than an abattoir- if they have sufficient awareness sometimes they can be the 'one that got away'. If anything its beneficial for a species to be hunted as it 'naturally selects' the strong and quick.

Besides, I don't see whats so bad about a human being having the will to kill an animal it wishes to eat. Otherwise we might all become death-phobic pansies who start to delude ourselves into believing that slabs of meat grow on trees.

Randomnity

21 Oct 2006, 04:55 PM

I don't really understand the viewpoint of sport hunters, and I would have a problem with it if it was resulting in animals becoming endangered. This isn't the case with deer though (by far the most popular animal to hunt here).

I don't know what the situation's like in other places, but here deer are FAR too abundant. People get into many serious accidents around here, some proportion of them dying every year (I don't know the stats) as a result of collisions with deer. I'm all in favour of a relatively humane way to lower the population. As a bonus, it's more humane to the animal than slowly starving over the winter.

NoahFence

21 Oct 2006, 06:55 PM

Game hunters take pleasure in killing for sport.

The guys killing cows in the slaughterhouse take pleasure in putting the pneumatic piston against the side of the cow's head and blowing its brains out. They make jokes about it, have "brain splatter contests", and so on. I've seen video of guys torturing chickens before shoving their heads into the big decapitation fan. You have no problem eating their handiwork, though? Or did you think someone who worked in a slaughterhouse for $7.50 an hour to be clinically surgical, professional, concerned for the animal's rights and feelings, and a saint among men?

Out of curiosity, is it wrong of me to take pleasure in hooking a smallmouth bass and dragging it out of its natural environment to be chucked in a cooler until such time as I see fit to club it, disembowel it, and roast it with a nice terriyaki glaze? Or do fish not count?

Is it wrong for me to take pleasure in hunting moths that happen to get into my house? I'm sure not gonna eat the little guys.

rainfall

21 Oct 2006, 07:25 PM

I dunno what the animal rights banter is all about.
Torturing animals always helped me cool off and helped me stay away from doing humans.

Leftfield

21 Oct 2006, 07:48 PM

I'm not a hippie and I don't smoke pot, thanks. Maybe I will just characterize you as a typical capitalist yuppie scumbag. Good?

Everything but the yuppie part, sure... yuppies typically spend almost all their money, I don't...

I wouldn't know if my view is "typical", but I did major in Finance and International Business so my perspective is more unique and global.

Good! Now let's eat that steak I've been wanting, I've got a piece for you if you'd like...

Edit: Lurker; no disrespect but it sounds like your position isn't too accepted after reading the latter responces...

Leftfield

21 Oct 2006, 07:55 PM

exactly--and my aesthetic sensibility is reminded of charles barkley, who said that "the only thing animals are good for is eating and wearing."

Scott

:lol: Charles Barkley is a realist...

I don't wear animal but I'm sure it keeps you plenty warm... if people want to wear fur, then so be it... other people (PETA fuckers) will critize them while I stand there and laugh at the entire encounterment. PETA is so lame...

NoahFence

21 Oct 2006, 09:52 PM

:stop: PETA = New Thread plz

sbw

21 Oct 2006, 10:09 PM

I went to steak and ale last night, and had the mushroom-stuffed filet, medium rare, and it was great.

I'd like to thank whoever killed the bastid for me.

Scott

Hypnos

21 Oct 2006, 11:34 PM

I prefer the filet mignon at Ruth's Chris that's marinated in butter. Rare, of course. (Their Caesar salad is also spectacular.)

FuelShopTech

22 Oct 2006, 01:06 AM

There are two types of hunters I hate:

1. Stupid city-slicker fucks who come to my hometown from New York City, Jersey, Pittsburg, and Philadelphia, then get drunk, and shoot anything that moves. During deer season, folks find the family dog dead in the woods behind their yards. Bullet holes get put in houses. They even shoot each other. Barely a season passes without a tragedy. Look, f you're a stupid greenhorn, and you can't be bothered to glance at a brochure explaining how to hunt properly, STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY TOWN.

2. Assholes who hunt with high-powered rifles equiped laser scopes, and assorted other high-tech equipment. What a bunch of pussies. Why does a human need an arsenal to kill a deer? Is the deer smarter? Native Americans once had to feed entire tribes using pointy sticks.

indie

22 Oct 2006, 02:38 AM

Okay, say $750 (gun) + $50 (suit) + $18 (school) = $818 (one time cost)
While, $35 + $20 = $55 (variable cost)

That is to say, your very first deer killed will have cost you $873 bucks, each deer after that will cost between $0 and $55.

According to the internet:

http://www.butcher-packer.com/newsarticle.asp?id=24

That means your first deer will yield something like 60 pounds of meat. At an initial investment of $873 that is $14.55 a pound of meat. Yes that is pretty expensive.

Hmm. I'm not so sure I agree with your underlying assumptions for the "one-time" and "variable cost(s)" definitions or classifications. In managerial accounting, we call "one-time" costs "sunk costs" . . . they're spent, and they cannot be recouped; they do nothing but depreciate over time. It's a given that they will require maintenance and repair expenses: almost every kind of machine fits into in this category.

Tools, however, don't, especially hand-fashioned tools made from local or natural materials; Hypnos' bow hunting idea, for example. . .

But don’t forget the $818 is a 1 time cost. If you kill 3 deer a year (180 pounds) over the course of five years you will have spent $1093 ($818 + the yearly variable costs) and gained 900 pounds of meat. Suddenly the price drops down to $1.21 a pound. Not a bad price.

Sounds good in theory. But here's the problem:

In 2002, Americans ate 200 pounds of meat per person

Source ( http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS01-06.pdf.)

Your estimates also don't take into consideration one of the most basic principles in econ regarding supply and demand: prices "drop" when supply/abundance increases. If hunters kill off the (dominant) producers, how is their "supply" supposed to increase?

For the record: I'm not vegan or even vegetarian; just rarely do I go out of my way to eat meat. This is partially attributed to the fact that I live alone and prefer to share my culinary skills with friends and family on rare select occasions, but also because I like to be able to afford to let my cat eat the good stuff! Looking at his teeth and claws, I think: "this animal was built to be out killing! But he's not. . .he's keeping my head and toes warm at night." :) And wow, what do you know. . he doesn't even have to be dead to do so.

I try to recognize the entire impact of diet as it relates to economics, agriculture, transportation costs and negative externalities. My answer to the question "Is a vegetarian doing society a great favor by being vegetarian," is entirely dependent upon his or her geographic and cultural environment. Sometimes some things are just not practical.

Zero Angel

22 Oct 2006, 03:16 AM

I personally believe that killing and eating an animal that is free (it lives and dies free) is just as equivalent as raising an animal in captivity just so you can kill and eat it. In the end, regardless of the motivation, eating meat involves the slaughter of animals.

That hunting is fun is irrelevant when the real factors are taken into account. Traditionally, native americans would hunt an animal and use all of its part out of respect for the creator and creation, since nearly every part of an animal had some use. In the modern day, that sense of fun and cameraderie that hunters share is irrelevent if they go about it the right way. People step on nature all of the time even when they don't mean it. I personally don't like to kill things just out of convenience (ie: I usually capture bugs in my house and release them) but I contribute to the senseless deaths of thousands of (breathing, thinking) life forms a year from pollution alone.

My culture promotes praying and giving thanks for all of the life that has been provided for us to benefit from. But that won't stop me from carelessly buying a new couch to replace my old worn out one and driving to work, polluting the atmosphere. After all, it would be less convenient or fun if I had to build a couch out of dead trees and use that.

There are two types of hunters I hate:

1. Stupid city-slicker fucks who come to my hometown from New York City, Jersey, Pittsburg, and Philadelphia, then get drunk, and shoot anything that moves. During deer season, folks find the family dog dead in the woods behind their yards. Bullet holes get put in houses. They even shoot each other. Barely a season passes without a tragedy. Look, f you're a stupid greenhorn, and you can't be bothered to glance at a brochure explaining how to hunt properly, STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY TOWN.

2. Assholes who hunt with high-powered rifles equiped laser scopes, and assorted other high-tech equipment. What a bunch of pussies. Why does a human need an arsenal to kill a deer? Is the deer smarter? Native Americans once had to feed entire tribes using pointy sticks.
Amen to that.

intpgolfer

23 Oct 2006, 12:05 AM

FOR: Trophy hunters may be questionable - but game hunters eat what they catch - and if trophy hunters do the same, then no problem. No different than going to the grocery - except they are brave enough to see the meat in living form - before they eat it.

AGAINST: Nature weeds out the sick and the weak. Hunters always look for the prize buck, sailfish, elephant etc. So hunting is not exactly what nature does. Nature has a bloody way of leaving the best - to reproduce.

Lurker

23 Oct 2006, 04:30 AM

Game hunting does serve a purpose where the natural predator no longer exists. For deer especially.

Ehh, just let nature run its course. Disease, accidents, blah, blah, blah

LongSilence

23 Oct 2006, 04:34 AM

Ehh, just let nature run its course. Disease, accidents, blah, blah, blah

You just don't like the idea of intentional killing at all, do you?

Lurker

23 Oct 2006, 04:38 AM

Lurker, if you're really concerned about how animals are treated but you don't want to kill them humanely yourself, then I'm sure you eat only kosher/humanely farmed meat, right?

You can't call me out on being a hypocrite when I've already admitted to it.

I do eat humanely farmed meat whenever possible, but I can't be sure of the conditions the animals are raised in. There will always be a degree of uncertainty there. What I definitely do not do, however, is eat veal or any other kind of meat that is produced through inhumane methods (again, that I know of). I'm not at all comfortable eating pork. Fish and chicken? No problem.

Lurker

23 Oct 2006, 04:38 AM

You just don't like the idea of intentional killing at all, do you?

No, not really.

Ivy

23 Oct 2006, 04:41 AM

You can't call me out on being a hypocrite when I've already admitted to it.

Sure I can, because belligerent hypocrisy is worse than plain old "I just never thought about those two things at the same time before" hypocrisy. :)

MacGuffin

23 Oct 2006, 04:42 AM

Ehh, just let nature run its course. Disease, accidents, blah, blah, blah
You do realize how bad that can get in certain places?

We are talking massive overpopulation, followed by the annihilation of a lot of vegetation, then followed by mass starvation.

Then repeat...

Lurker

23 Oct 2006, 04:49 AM

Lurker, do you have a problem with people playing violent videogames too? What about martial arts and boxing? I mean, in the modern world there's no real reason why anyone should press buttons causing images of people to be blown up or practice antiquated obsolete combat skills (unless he's one of the few who uses them for a living).

No, because no real blood is being shed. But I'm sure I could have some kind of objection to it if I tried.

Moving away from the issues of population control and sustenance hunting is a natural practice that hones the hunter's skills and self-control, not to mention patience. In the end, it gives the prey much more of a chance than an abattoir- if they have sufficient awareness sometimes they can be the 'one that got away'. If anything its beneficial for a species to be hunted as it 'naturally selects' the strong and quick.

Human beings and natural selection: never the 'twain should meet. We all know the radical extension of this philosophy. Humans do not lead natural lives with technological advancements and such; therefore, we are not qualified to participate in the natural selection process.

Besides, I don't see whats so bad about a human being having the will to kill an animal it wishes to eat. Otherwise we might all become death-phobic pansies who start to delude ourselves into believing that slabs of meat grow on trees.

Well, "death-phobic pansies" is a pretty subjective value judgement on individuals, not too different from my preference not to actively kill animals, really.

To me killing animals for food is a lower-order function...let lower humans do it, but only for food. If a brute gets his rocks off by shooting a deer and eating it rather than go to the grocery store like a more civilized being, I can't stop him. However, I can form a judgement about that person for the choices he makes.

Lurker

23 Oct 2006, 04:54 AM

You do realize how bad that can get in certain places?

We are talking massive overpopulation, followed by the annihilation of a lot of vegetation, then followed by mass starvation.

Then repeat...

Ha. I live near the Foothills of the Smokies. I see populations of deer constantly and I enjoy them. Sure, it can get bad, but why not reintroduce natural predators into the mountains? Several years ago, some moose were released into the National Park and they are doing very well. I'm all for introducing wolves into the park, as well. The new coyotes just won't cut it! Maybe throw in a couple of wolverines. They can be pretty nasty creatures. And cougars, too!

Lurker

23 Oct 2006, 05:00 AM

Sure I can, because belligerent hypocrisy is worse than plain old "I just never thought about those two things at the same time before" hypocrisy. :)

Sorry, I'm just not comfortable when someone deliberately goes out of his way to cause pain to an animal. It takes a certain kind of person to handle that sort of thing - the kind of person I don't care for. Killing is a gruesome business...why on earth would anyone enjoy it and choose to participate when there are other options available? Maybe this is elitist, but hunters seem like primitive humans to me.

Lurker

23 Oct 2006, 05:02 AM

Lurker

23 Oct 2006, 05:07 AM

:stop: PETA = New Thread plz

*scratches head*

Hmmm.....radical animal rights groups....terrorism......and then: disliking hunting.

Sorry, there's no connection. That was lame.

MacGuffin

23 Oct 2006, 05:12 AM

Ha. I live near the Foothills of the Smokies. I see populations of deer constantly and I enjoy them. Sure, it can get bad, but why not reintroduce natural predators into the mountains? Several years ago, some moose were released into the National Park and they are doing very well. I'm all for introducing wolves into the park, as well. The new coyotes just won't cut it! Maybe throw in a couple of wolverines. They can be pretty nasty creatures. And cougars, too!
That is just not really feasible in the vast majority of places.

Lurker

23 Oct 2006, 05:15 AM

That is just not really feasible in the vast majority of places.

Mad scientists could always introduce a deadly virus into the deer population.

MacGuffin

23 Oct 2006, 05:20 AM

Mad scientists could always introduce a deadly virus into the deer population.
Come on, you've seen the movies. Next thing you know, winged deer are descending on NYC shooting lasers out of their eyes and eating people's livers.

Krill

23 Oct 2006, 05:21 AM

Come on, you've seen the movies. Next thing you know, winged deer are descending on NYC shooting lasers out of their eyes and eating people's livers.

Or it mutates and starts turning people into zombies.

but since you already hunted to practical EXTINCTION the natural predators of the deer, the mountain lion and bobcat, nature can't do much about that.

Well, I suppose it's in our hands if nature can't handle it. Might as well clean up our own mess.

LongSilence

23 Oct 2006, 05:25 AM

So, the proxy slaughter of many is humanitarian, but the personal killing of one is barbaric? Thats quite a way to keep one's hands clean... but no way to be any 'higher' than anyone else.

Lurker

23 Oct 2006, 05:32 AM

Come on, you've seen the movies. Next thing you know, winged deer are descending on NYC shooting lasers out of their eyes and eating people's livers.

Why, oh why wasn't there an X-Files episode on deer population control!? So many possibilities...

Lurker

23 Oct 2006, 05:36 AM

So, the proxy slaughter of many is humanitarian, but the personal killing of one is barbaric? Thats quite a way to keep one's hands clean... but no way to be any 'higher' than anyone else.

Well, theoretically, the virus could be swift and relatively painless. Or maybe the virus could simply result in miscarriage for some pregnant does (only the sickly, weak ones, of course...in keeping with natural selection and all)

Arcades

23 Oct 2006, 07:24 AM

Lurker I have been reading your ideas and though I could be wrong your arguments seem poorly thought out or you are deliberately deluding yourself. Please, I am not attacking you I simply am trying to understand your reasoning. I don?t try to attack people I just ask questions till I or they more fully understand what they are thinking.

In you last page of posts you like the idea of genetically engineering a virus to selectively kill deer or produce sterile deer. This is at the end of a train of argument where you say things like people who hunt are "brutes" "of lower order of civilization then yourself" and other ideas that demonize people you already disagree with. In this train of thought you are demonizing hunters who you have classified as a group without variance. This demonizing is exactly what humanity has done from day one before trying to eliminate that group. Take the philosophy of the Germans before WWII, groups of that country made themselves feel more civilized and right in there thinking by demonizing ?other? groups of people they didn?t quite understand. Your contempt of these lesser people allows you to feel right and justified in your observations.

The issue I have with this is that you are quite happy to let these brutes serve you, a much more advanced and civilized human being. You think killing animals for food is a task of ?lower humans? but have no problems eating the results of the labor they provide. Now, you do not link the actions of a hunter to a slaughter house worker? Both are killing animals to feed themselves and there families.

Understand this, beef cows are born and raised in a controlled environ. From the time they are in the womb to the time they are hunted and killed because of a number on a tag in there ear the cow spends its time milling about in a enclosed area where they are more easily located so that they can be fed and injected with drugs and vitamins. These drugs and vitamins include antibiotics and growth hormone designed to produce the largest amount of meat in the shortest amount of time. These drugs are made for cattle not for humans but because we consume there flesh, every bite has at least trace amounts of these drugs. After being hunted by number after a set number of days these cattle are forced into assembly lines that include high pressure washes and electro shock to loosen bladder and bowl control before being lined up next to a hydraulic piston and having their brain liquefied.

Because you are a higher level human you do not do these actions yourself but are quite willing to reap the results. And at the same time look down your nose at those who provided you with the slab of flesh you enjoy. Do you feel that something at birth made you a better human than those people? Such as birth or divine right maybe a series of events in your life that has made you and a segment of humanity worth more than another? These are questions NOT attacks, I am simply trying to understand the reasoning behind your statements as I have understood them.

Arcades

23 Oct 2006, 07:25 AM

There are a large part of people who hunt that do it for reasons of power and prestige. These are the beer toting high priced gear people that have been attacked repeatedly in this thread. I do not defend there actions, they hunt for reasons that are beyond me. I do not look down on all there actions though for a good reason, all the equipment and tags they purchase keep the division of wildlife afloat, there taxes on the things they purchase go to that section of the government. This same branch of the government maintains the countries wildlife as best they can, regulating hunting and reclamation projects. So even the worst of the legal hunters help the environment. This is the same in all major countries in the world that I know of.

Now I offer my views and opportunity for you to ask questions of my thinking. I like hunting “not killing” as much or more than people like most hobbies or even drugs. I feel more alive and in tune with myself than at any other time. Like other sports it increases my blood flow and happy chemicals in my body, I become extremely focused, and though my body feels on fire I am forced to be very clam. These sensations and a personal mental thing attract me to the stalk. You can almost think of it when you see some one across the bar for the first time and your body and mind sing to you that you must be with that person.

The kill is an ending to the stalk on a hunt “though I do stalk all year, the season is rather short” the inevitable conclusion to the days events. The prey has made itself vulnerable after a long time to an attack that will end as quickly and painlessly as I can make it. With a little luck the prey’s pain is limited to no more than 20 or 30 seconds and it ends. I am quite wiling to say that I am saddened at the end and wish the animal away and thank it for the last few hours we had spent together. After that point it is all business, dressing and possessing an animal is a dirty and stinky affair. Lots of sweat and time are involved in the process.

The meat that is left is consumed by me and my family, then excess is given to friends, then the excess is sent to food pantries. I waste as little as I can. I hunt 95% of the time doe or 1-2 year old buck. The young buck taste good and will not be part of the breeding population for 3 or more years. I have in three occasions taken “trophy” animals, all of them old creatures that had just seen there last mating season and had spent so much time and energy that they didn’t have the reserves to survive the winter. I feel no remorse at doing this, if you have ever seen a creature starve to death it is one of the worst things imanagible.

I defend MY actions from your generalizations; I dislike beef for the reasons above. I also as stated feel more alive at no other time. You could consider if you like, that hunting for me is a hobby that unlike most has a measurable return for time and money spent. I live in the forest when I can and know many things about many creatures other then the ones I consider a food source. If I was allowed I would hunt for all my meat and supply myself with fruit and veggies from the local farmers market. I dislike food that ever touches anything resembling an assembly line, let alone a fast food counter. Can you tell me one personal thing about anything you have ever eaten? I look on people who treat food as just something to push past there teeth as people who are missing so very much. Civilization is a strange beast, the people who are with the beast consider themselves above all, and are willing to crush all others in pursuit of increasing the greatness of that beast.