Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Your thoughts on hunting


  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#26 Fawkes

Fawkes
  • Team ASS

  • 202 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 09:10 AM

Honestly, I don't care about hunting. I couldn't hurt an animal, but if I were stranded on an island or in the woods (like in Hatchet) it would be a skill I'd like to have.  I understand why people hunt - some find it fun (hence the trophies), some people actually eat the meat they catch, others make crafts out of the antlers (etc...), and here in Kentucky we kind of need hunting to scale the deer population down since it tends to get too high very quickly.

 

It's not a bad thing - unless you're a vegan.



#27 Cass

Cass
  • Stronteigenwijs

  • 1,560 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 09:17 AM

 

 

We are biologically similar to which animal? I can't think of any similarities between us and what we would typically hunt minus that we're both mammals.

 

And no, not because we have superior intelligence, but because less than 1% of all species (probably, I'm pulling that number out of my arse) kill others of the same species, and even then, it's for the greater good. I think even the insects that devour their mating partners do it for a reason?

 

 

 

 

- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. (source)

Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)

Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)

- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)

- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).

- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)

http://www.eupedia.c...ans-and-animals

 

Very large percentage of animals are 'built' from the same principles; we may have varying ratios, but skeletal structures usually have the same bones, we all have muscles, blood, eyes, ears, brains et cetera. We need food, water, oxygen to breath... seems to me we're extremely similar to other animals.

 

Dolphins have been proven to kill for fun, too. And they kill baby dolphins to bring female dolphins in heat. I wish I could provide you with an English source, but here's my link, should you use Google Translate. Note, the article is written with some sarcasm and exaggeration.



#28 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 09:19 AM

Aren't we like 60% genetically the same as snails and 50% the same as daffodils

#29 Cass

Cass
  • Stronteigenwijs

  • 1,560 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 09:20 AM

Aren't we like 60% genetically the same as snails and 50% the same as daffodils

Pretty much



#30 Lily

Lily
  • 279 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 09:21 AM

http://www.mirror.co...bananas-2482139

^

All animals are actually pretty biologically similar...hell, we share 50% of our DNA with bananas.



#31 Ali

Ali
  • Wielder of the Spork

  • 3,202 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 09:21 AM

But cow leather is completely fine by me, because cows are very efficient animals. Milk, meat, gelatine, leather and there are some other products that are harvested from cows (my fiancee could recall them but he's not here now, so I don't know exactly. Sorry lol :p ). Wearing bear hide for fashion just doesn't really seem necessary to me :/

Pretty rare you're getting all that from the one herd of cows though. Dairy farm cows are different from the ones being bred for you to eat as steak and they're often different from the ones being used to make your shoes. Theoretically they're very efficient in that we can do a lot with them, but in commercial farming you aren't getting everything from the one animal. They're bred for the highest yields and the quality of each individual element and doing so messes up the quality of the others.



#32 Fawkes

Fawkes
  • Team ASS

  • 202 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 09:31 AM

Woops, I was saving your first post for after I responded.

 

I'm for conservational hunting for both pest and animal control reasons, but also for food and crafts.

I DISLIKE recreational hunting, mostly because a lot of people who take joy in killing/torchering animals for fun usually end up being the psychopathic serial killers we see today.  NOT ALL OF THEM (I'm not trying to rustle anyone's feathers here).  I think it's kind of sick to kill for fun - UNLESS IT'S A VIDEO GAME!!!



#33 Cass

Cass
  • Stronteigenwijs

  • 1,560 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 09:45 AM

Pretty rare you're getting all that from the one herd of cows though. Dairy farm cows are different from the ones being bred for you to eat as steak and they're often different from the ones being used to make your shoes. Theoretically they're very efficient in that we can do a lot with them, but in commercial farming you aren't getting everything from the one animal. They're bred for the highest yields and the quality of each individual element.

I'll admit that's true, different herds are bred for different reasons and the one herd isn't as suitable for hides as the other. But generally, of both dairy and meat cows, the waste goes to products like Filet Americain, the infamous 'frikandel' and other grinded meats.

 

I'm trying to look up some statistics on leather farms in the Netherlands to see if and how much leather farms there are and how much leather is farmed from dairy- and meatcows, but the word for 'leather' and 'learning' are the same in Dutch so it's taking me a while xD There are some American blogs that state most leather is harvested from dairy- and meatcows, though they don't provide me with a source so I can't make a conclusion on it.


I'm for conservational hunting for both pest and animal control reasons, but also for food and crafts.

I DISLIKE recreational hunting, mostly because a lot of people who take joy in killing/torchering animals for fun usually end up being the psychopathic serial killers we see today.  NOT ALL OF THEM (I'm not trying to rustle anyone's feathers here).  I think it's kind of sick to kill for fun - UNLESS IT'S A VIDEO GAME!!!

Well the weird thing is, although I'm morally against reacreational killing (again, if it serves a purpose and there aren't better alternatives, I'm all for it), I think I would probably enjoy it if I did go hunting. It's kind of in our genes. Plus, for years big civilizations have killed fellow humans for sports, with the best example being the gladiator games. We enjoy violent movies, we flick out a smartphone to film street fights. I think we'll all have to admit we (secretly) enjoy seeing pain. He who hasn't broken their ribs laughing at people falling on Funniest Home Videos troweth the first stone :p

 

But being the intelligent humans we are now with access to so many harmless alternatives (like games or artificial targets or other sports), I simply don't get why people don't use that instead.



#34 Fawkes

Fawkes
  • Team ASS

  • 202 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 09:54 AM

I'll admit that's true, different herds are bred for different reasons and the one herd isn't as suitable for hides as the other. But generally, of both dairy and meat cows, the waste goes to products like Filet Americain, the infamous 'frikandel' and other grinded meats.

 

I'm trying to look up some statistics on leather farms in the Netherlands to see if and how much leather farms there are and how much leather is farmed from dairy- and meatcows, but the word for 'leather' and 'learning' are the same in Dutch so it's taking me a while xD There are some American blogs that state most leather is harvested from dairy- and meatcows, though they don't provide me with a source so I can't make a conclusion on it.


Well the weird thing is, although I'm morally against reacreational killing (again, if it serves a purpose and there aren't better alternatives, I'm all for it), I think I would probably enjoy it if I did go hunting. It's kind of in our genes. Plus, for years big civilizations have killed fellow humans for sports, with the best example being the gladiator games. We enjoy violent movies, we flick out a smartphone to film street fights. I think we'll all have to admit we (secretly) enjoy seeing pain. He who hasn't broken their ribs laughing at people falling on Funniest Home Videos troweth the first stone :p

 

But being the intelligent humans we are now with access to so many harmless alternatives (like games or artificial targets or other sports), I simply don't get why people don't use that instead.

 

It isn't recreational hunting if it serves a purpose (the purpose usually being to limit/control the population).  If it has a purpose, it's conservational hunting, which I'm fine with.  Conservational, to me, is purposeful hunting (e.g. for food, limit/control, craft, etc...).  Recreational is just crazy to me.  Like was stated earlier people could instead go skeet shooting, paintballing, play a video game or play laser tag I DUNNO.



#35 Cannabis

Cannabis
  • yungamerican


  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 10:30 AM

Ok this girl goes to the same University I go to, not that it matters, but just wanted to point that out. I have no problem with Hunting, first of all she paid a ton of money to hunt these animals, and they wouldn't allow her to go on a safari if it wasn't acceptable to go hunt. It is seriously so annoying how everyone is freaking out over this, she gave the meat to an under privileged city in wherever she killed them in Africa. I was born and raised in Texas and have a ranch, and go hunting multiple times a year. Whenever we kill an animal we literally use every single part of the animal! We make all kinds of deer meat goodies (which are fucking delicious) I can only image what Elephant or Lion tastes like, I bet it tastes like chicken. Regardless the fact of the matter is, is that she is doing what she likes to do. Nobody is going to stop her people that hunt (like me) don't care about the minuscule opinions of PETA and wild life enthusiasts. If she was hunting for conversational reasons their is probably a reason why she was allowed to hunt them! Who knows if these animals were killing citizens or destroying crop. Everyone needs to loosen up I get that everyone is an animal lover but in the end is it really affecting you?



#36 tmack1337

tmack1337
  • 22 posts

Posted 01 July 2014 - 02:26 PM

The one thing about "recreational" hunting that some of you might not understand though...when it's done legally, the meat is NOT wasted. Usually the person who hunted the animal gives the meat to local villages so it doesn't go to waste. And for cases like this where the animal in question is at the end of their life and is taking resources from the rest of the herd/group, it makes more sense in my opinion to raise money for conservation to do what mother nature was going to do anyway. Because that old rhino was going to eventually die of old age, why not raise money trying to conserve the younger animals that can help save their species? I would much rather a legal hunter tag that animal than a poacher, at least the legal hunter is paying money that helps conservation of that species.



#37 Kate

Kate
  • 🐟🐳


  • 7,373 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 02:59 PM

Hunting for recreation and then preparing, cooking and eating the meat is absolutely fine in my book. In fact it's something I'd quite like to try at some point. 

^ Exactly!

Hunting is a huge part of where I grew up, we do it recreationally but the game we kill is eaten. One moose can save you so much money on meat and honestly, what is the difference between hunting an animal to eat yourself vs buying meat from a store knowing the animal was likely harvested in a slaughter house of some sort? 



#38 Dan

Dan
  • Resident Know-It-All

  • 6,321 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 03:12 PM

Conservational, to me, is purposeful hunting (e.g. for food, limit/control, craft, etc...).  Recreational is just crazy to me.  Like was stated earlier people could instead go skeet shooting, paintballing, play a video game or play laser tag I DUNNO.

 
No, conservation hunting is not "for food" or "craft", it's the process of curbing animal population to conserve other resources.

#39 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 05:22 PM

^ Exactly!

Hunting is a huge part of where I grew up, we do it recreationally but the game we kill is eaten. One moose can save you so much money on meat and honestly, what is the difference between hunting an animal to eat yourself vs buying meat from a store knowing the animal was likely harvested in a slaughter house of some sort?


Probably because slaughterhouse animals are systematically killed regardless. Hunting will just lead to another defenceless animal dying.

Yes I'm sure the food is eaten and pelt used, still doesn't take away people hunt because they have a basic psychopathic/animalistic need to curb.

#40 tmack1337

tmack1337
  • 22 posts

Posted 01 July 2014 - 05:48 PM

Yes I'm sure the food is eaten and pelt used, still doesn't take away people hunt because they have a basic psychopathic/animalistic need to curb.

 

I've never understood this viewpoint...why is someone a "psychopath" for wanting to provide their own food or eat in a more natural way? I think more people should hunt or raise their own food since you can save a lot of money that way! If you aren't a vegan, what exactly do you think makes you different by buying meat in a store? Because at the end of the day, both you and a hunter at the end of the day are killing an animal for food. :ohwell:



#41 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 05:51 PM

Because healthy and cheap food is easily accessible without spending the whole day gathering equipment, hunting, skinning and eating an animal.

It isn't the end product that's desired, humane food is quite easily bought (except in extreme circumstances), it's the thrill of the hunt and killing something.

#42 Mizk

Mizk
  • 137 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 06:50 PM

I'm mostly against hunting, but I don't hate the people who do it.

Hunting is currently about as far away from "natural" hunting as you can get. Once upon a time, my friend had (I'm not 100% sure on the name) a deer-lease?, where they would go and sit in a tree that had a feeder on it, while waiting for deer to come, and when a deer finally showed up they killed it. I think that's absolutely horrible and is a lot more like shooting fish in a barrel than it is "hunting".

Like I said though, I have nothing against the people who do it. I've never done it, but I imagine it's just as much about going and doing a collective activity with friends/loved ones as it is the actually hunting.

Now, if you want to go into the woods and cover yourself with actual mud/shrubbery/urine and actually fight an animal with a knife or similar handheld, non projectile weapon -- I actually support that. Chances are if you do that, you *definitely* earned it, and it's a lot more intimate than killing something with a gun; you can feel the hit and "feel" the animal's reaction. I support hunting via exhaustion running too, because you are actually killing the animal, and you shared the journey with it. If you can find/make an atlatl, I support that too.

 

Guns involved = not real hunting, imo. It's simply too easy to kill something with a gun, and (having never done it, mind you) I think it becomes a very "removed" activity on the hunter's part if you throw a gun into the mix. I'm on the fence about bows, but I think using a bow is much more "honorable" than using a gun

tl;dr: guns are too ezmode



#43 Magical

Magical
  • Banned from trading - Do not trade with this member!

  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 09:10 PM

Hey @cassiopeiic, great topic for discussion, especially given the recent 'uproar'/social media coverage.

 

I have quite a firm/strong viewpoint on this matter. And please keep in mind that I am an animal-lover, so my opinion here is going to be quite black and white :p

 

I support hunting animals for their resources - provided both skin and meat are put to use. I do support the hunting of endangered species, provided the aforementioned requisites and that that particular animal is part of the respective culture's diet (ie. Aboriginals hunting crocodiles). As long as the animal is humanely dealt with and suffering is brought to a minimum, then we need to respect the decisions of those who choose to hunt within moral and rational principals.

 

I do not support hunting for sport. Simply put, it sickens me. A waste of a life. It's a clear indication of a persons inability to rationalise and understand consequences of their actions. I find that, often, such people are driven by a sense of pride, adrenaline and ego. At that, they are willing to sacrifice life - all in vain. It shows a deep disrespect for the Animal Kingdom, and mars our purpose.

 

I do not support hunting conservational hunting. This form of hunting has practical and logic substansiation. However, being the animal lover that I am, I do find it heart-breaking to know that even 'pests' are being killed, in vain (in my mind, however). It's probably a more sentimental view on my part.

It's people like Melissa Bachman, that make my blood boil. That type of ignorance and insolence is a disgrace and shame to all humans. Law or not. Such bloodshed needs to be brought to justice.



#44 tmack1337

tmack1337
  • 22 posts

Posted 01 July 2014 - 10:44 PM

Because healthy and cheap food is easily accessible without spending the whole day gathering equipment, hunting, skinning and eating an animal.

It isn't the end product that's desired, humane food is quite easily bought (except in extreme circumstances), it's the thrill of the hunt and killing something.

 

Oh really? Food is "easily accessible?" Tell that to people in rural areas where the nearest store may very well be a few hours drive away. Especially so for people in REALLY rural areas like certain parts of Alaska where you simply don't have food if you do not hunt it! Not everyone lives in a city with a walmart on every corner you know.

 

 

Now, if you want to go into the woods and cover yourself with actual mud/shrubbery/urine and actually fight an animal with a knife or similar handheld, non projectile weapon -- I actually support that. Chances are if you do that, you *definitely* earned it, and it's a lot more intimate than killing something with a gun; you can feel the hit and "feel" the animal's reaction. I support hunting via exhaustion running too, because you are actually killing the animal, and you shared the journey with it. If you can find/make an atlatl, I support that too.

 

Guns involved = not real hunting, imo. It's simply too easy to kill something with a gun, and (having never done it, mind you) I think it becomes a very "removed" activity on the hunter's part if you throw a gun into the mix. I'm on the fence about bows, but I think using a bow is much more "honorable" than using a gun

tl;dr: guns are too ezmode

 

You've admitted to never doing it, but automatically assume it's too easy? Someone still has to spend the time to follow the animal and wait for a safe shot, (which very well can take a few hours all together!) and things like using animal calls if needed. In both of your alternatives, the animal does NOT die instantly...especially with a knife or "similar handheld" as you put it, they can sit there on the floor bleeding out for a while before dying! People should always use guns so the animal doesn't suffer.


Edited by tmack1337, 01 July 2014 - 10:51 PM.


#45 Tetiel

Tetiel
  • 11,532 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 11:11 PM

I would never hunt myself. I don't need to as I don't eat large quantities of meat and I don't think I could kill an animal unless I felt I absolutely had to. That being said, there is an overpopulation of deer in the eastern united states to the point where it's become dangerous in some areas. I used to live in an area of Maryland where a deer would be hit on my road at least once a week. Due to the lack of natural predators, they kept breeding and breeding. If someone decided to utilize those deer as a healthy food source alternative to corn-finished cows, by all means, I don't have a problem with it. Venison is by far more nutritionally dense and lower in fat and calories than most beef on the market. While we actually have plenty of beef readily available, it's really not nearly as healthy as a wild deer. The reason being is that a wild animal will eat a wider variety of foods which get distributed in their bodies allowing for more trace minerals as well as less fat. Domesticated animals eat what they are fed and it's not often the best food due to grain costs - they are also often much higher in fat content. There's an increased demand for grass fed beef to combat this, but not everybody can afford to feed their families with those prices. So no. I don't have a problem with hunting for food with wild duck and venison or going fishing for rainbow trout or perch. That's your own prerogative.

While I don't really support hunting for sport, I'm going to play the devil's advocate. Funds from hunting licenses, taxes from supplies, and general efforts to have areas to hunt actually promote conservation of non-hunted wildlife due to the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. Many of our national parks are funded primarily from hunting and therefore it has actually expanded the ranges of some animals like black bears and elk that we'd almost never see in most human populated areas.

Hunting can be dangerous to your health, primarily when you hunt scavenger animals such as foxes or coyotes. Many are infected with parasites which can jump ship into your body through accidental transmission of eggs after touching the corpse. Echinococcosis is a good example of this - it's a tapeworm that forms protective cysts in your organs after infection and can live there for decades causing liver damage. And oh yeah, the only way to be sure they're gone is to have two years of chemo after the tumors that result are removed. Cancer-like parasite? No thanks. I'll keep the hell away from foxes.



#46 Mizk

Mizk
  • 137 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 July 2014 - 11:49 PM

You've admitted to never doing it, but automatically assume it's too easy? Someone still has to spend the time to follow the animal and wait for a safe shot, (which very well can take a few hours all together!) and things like using animal calls if needed. In both of your alternatives, the animal does NOT die instantly...especially with a knife or "similar handheld" as you put it, they can sit there on the floor bleeding out for a while before dying! People should always use guns so the animal doesn't suffer.

(To be clear, I'm speaking purely on hunting for sport; if you need to hunt (or do like the indians, and use every single part of the animal) then do whatever you've got to)

My issue with using guns is that the animal has no chance of winning, not how humanely the animal is killed. You can shoot the animal from very, very far away, and then that's it; it's dead. The best case scenario for the animal is that it doesn't ever allow itself to be seen by you. In my opinion, that's (like the Walker Texas Ranger joke) more like going killing than going hunting; it's only a matter of time until you kill something, not whether or not you are able to. And like I said before, I think that a gun would sorta remove the hunter from the act of killing. I don't think you can really feel the gravity of what is being done if all you did was pull a trigger from 100ft away

Whereas with a handheld weapon, the animal has a chance. It's not just a matter of time; you might actually lose. The animal has a chance to fuck your shit up. And with an atlatl, you're using your actual body to throw the spear; it's not just press a button and kill something. 

I dunno. I know people take pics with their kills as trophies, but I see no honor in it. I do not see it as a trophy. Now, if you wrestled a wild boar into submission, slit its throat, and came out of the encounter with some battle wounds -- that's worthy of calling it a trophy, and I imagine it's a lot more "sport" feeling for the hunter

LIke I said, I've got nothing against the people who do hunt for sport, and one of my closer friends in high school hunted, but I'm just calling it how I see it.



#47 Cass

Cass
  • Stronteigenwijs

  • 1,560 posts


Users Awards

Posted 02 July 2014 - 01:22 AM

 

Ok this girl goes to the same University I go to, not that it matters, but just wanted to point that out. 

Well, to be fair I think it does matter since you would be able to give us more personal insight in her stand/motives :)

 

I have no problem with Hunting, first of all she paid a ton of money to hunt these animals, and they wouldn't allow her to go on a safari if it wasn't acceptable to go hunt.

Honestly I don't think paying a lot of money justifies killing endangered animals, even if it's allowed over there. Let's not forget that a lot of African countries are pretty corrupt. And it isn't her "fault" that they allow the hunting of endangered species, but she could at least reconsider it morally.

 

If she was hunting for conversational reasons their is probably a reason why she was allowed to hunt them! Who knows if these animals were killing citizens or destroying crop.

I acknowledged in my first post that she stated to be a conservational huntress and that I have no problem with conservational hunting. Although some of the pictures on her Facebook lead me to believe it's just an excuse, but okay. The problem I have is the trophy photos; it conveys the wrong message. I do my research and am really open to the other side of the story and I'm already questioning the morality of it, what about the people that don't even bother to dig deeper? Her photos don't exactly scream "I love animals so freaking much and I help villages in need".

 

Everyone needs to loosen up I get that everyone is an animal lover but in the end is it really affecting you?

Am I not allowed an opinion because I'm not directly affected by a dead elephant? Should I just stop fighting for things like equal rights in race and sexual preference because I'm part of the majority so it doesn't affect me? (to be fair I'm actually bisexual, but just to illustrate my point).

 

Hey @cassiopeiic, great topic for discussion, especially given the recent 'uproar'/social media coverage.

Thanks, it was the gazillionth time I saw desperate pleads to ban so and so from hunting on my Facebook feed (oh I'd like to add that whatever your stance in hunting is, the way those people are treated and insulted and recieving death threats is absolutely despicable, so no, I do NOT support those actions) so I thought it'd be a good idea to spark a debate in here :p

Oh really? Food is "easily accessible?" Tell that to people in rural areas where the nearest store may very well be a few hours drive away. Especially so for people in REALLY rural areas like certain parts of Alaska where you simply don't have food if you do not hunt it! Not everyone lives in a city with a walmart on every corner you know.

I'm pretty sure he stated "except in extreme circumstances". If you need to hunt for survival I'm all for it like most people in here are. But you can hardly call it 'recreational' hunting if you need it for survival, that kinda defeats the definition of 'recreational'. Once again, I've stated earlier that I support the fact that the animal does not go to waste, but if it wasn't necessary to go hunt in the first place with enough alternatives both in food and in entertainment; why do it in the first place, even if you put it to good use?

 

 

While we actually have plenty of beef readily available, it's really not nearly as healthy as a wild deer. The reason being is that a wild animal will eat a wider variety of foods which get distributed in their bodies allowing for more trace minerals as well as less fat. Domesticated animals eat what they are fed and it's not often the best food due to grain costs - they are also often much higher in fat content. There's an increased demand for grass fed beef to combat this, but not everybody can afford to feed their families with those prices. So no. I don't have a problem with hunting for food with wild duck and venison or going fishing for rainbow trout or perch. That's your own prerogative.

That's a pretty good point. Pigs (I'm not sure about the cows) get absolute garbage to eat, mainly because pigs really eat (much like humans) absolutely EVERYTHING. If there's a failed batch of food or drinks, and this could be absolutely anything - bread, meat, even cola, no joke - it goes to the pigs. They then calculate what nutrients that batch had and what the pigs still need and they give them extra supplements and nutrients. (Mind you that failed batches of food are mostly beauty errors that will cause consumers to not buy them (loads of people just leave a dented loaf of bread) or if the taste is just a bit off because of a mix up in the ingredient ratios. They don't get poisoned food or anything (well, actually everything could be considered poison but that's a whole other discussion)).

 

While I don't really support hunting for sport, I'm going to play the devil's advocate. Funds from hunting licenses, taxes from supplies, and general efforts to have areas to hunt actually promote conservation of non-hunted wildlife due to the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. Many of our national parks are funded primarily from hunting and therefore it has actually expanded the ranges of some animals like black bears and elk that we'd almost never see in most human populated areas.

That is a really good point that I had only thought about a little bit, thank you for that.



#48 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 02 July 2014 - 02:28 AM

Oh really? Food is "easily accessible?" Tell that to people in rural areas where the nearest store may very well be a few hours drive away. Especially so for people in REALLY rural areas like certain parts of Alaska where you simply don't have food if you do not hunt it! Not everyone lives in a city with a walmart on every corner you know.



You've admitted to never doing it, but automatically assume it's too easy? Someone still has to spend the time to follow the animal and wait for a safe shot, (which very well can take a few hours all together!) and things like using animal calls if needed. In both of your alternatives, the animal does NOT die instantly...especially with a knife or "similar handheld" as you put it, they can sit there on the floor bleeding out for a while before dying! People should always use guns so the animal doesn't suffer.


Don't move to Alaska or some place in the wilderness or stock up on food. Eat other foods that don't require the necessity of shooting animals. It seems quite American to assume you have a right to shoot something and eat it because you can.

Let's not try and play the whole "hunting is a skill/sport" thing. It isn't. Just like shooting up a school isn't difficult, shooting an animal in the face isn't difficult either (oooh but you have to spend a few hours in the woods). Could have drove to walmart in those few hours.

Plus there's the whole fact of skimming the animal and just letting it bleed to death after it runs off.

#49 Dazz

Dazz
  • Mhmm

  • 3,216 posts


Users Awards

Posted 02 July 2014 - 03:04 AM

The whole would you hunt humans if it was legal thing already exists, just sign up as a frontline soldier or to one of the foreign legions. I'm sure a lot of the Taliban were hunting our troops to provide for their families, and vice versa too.



#50 Speedracer

Speedracer
  • The Triforce of Herp

  • 771 posts


Users Awards

Posted 02 July 2014 - 04:21 AM

The one of the goals of the vast majority of recreational hunting is conservation, it is used as a tool to keep animal populations at a healthy level not to kill animals pointlessly.

At least in the states hunting is very tightly regulated (http://www.ncwildlif...egulations.aspx) bag limits and game seasons are adjusted to the animal population.

Recreational hunting doesn't sound to me like the purpose is to eat the animal. Sure, people may do it afterwards, and I support that because that means the death won't have been in vain. But we don't need to hunt to survive. We have the ability to grow crops and herd cattle. If you like the taste of deer, why not buy it? Is it that hard to come by in America? (honest question, because it's pretty easy to get in the Netherlands/Germany). If you like using a gun, why not skeet shooting instead? Or paint ball even?

 

Now I know (at least, I'm assuming) it's not the goal of pro-hunters to hurt/torture the animals they hunt, but realistically, animals don't always die right away when they are shot and thus suffer a lot before dying. Why not leave the food-supplies to professional businesses and replace animals with artificial targets for the recreational part of shooting?

All the hunters I know or have met before eat the animals they kill or give it to someone who will and I live in an area where hunting is very popular (same place as Talbs) A lot of hunters to it for the food as a supplement, I challenge you to find somewhere to buy 50+ of organic meat you get for as little as it cost to hunt. Even if venison was sold here (I assuming you mean farm raised deer) it will never have the same flavor as a wild animal. For instance wild turkey tastes different than farm raised turkey.

 

Recreational hunting and recreational shooting are very different. There is a whole experience that goes along with hunting that I'm not really sure how to convey. People that enjoy hunting, enjoy going out to hunt whether or not they end up bagging any animals that day. 

 

I would also like to add, that when people recreationally shoot bears or lions and coyotes, more often than not they don't eat it. Bears mostly for the reason they're downright nasty (or so I've read) and coyotes and similar animals are full of parasites. What justifies them being shot then, if it's not to bring the shooter out of immediate danger or conservation? Note that there are parks that allow shooting the mentioned animals, so it isn't even illegal in my example.

Bear isn't bad if cooked properly the meat is just kind of greasy so it can be a little rough if you don't know what you are doing.

Coyotes and other predators are typically killed for population control or protection of livestock

 

People that kill random cats, dogs, birds etc in the streets are technically following those rules, assuming they make use of an animal, they're strays and it's legal in that specific county (as far as I'm aware of killing animals - and even bestiality - isn't illegal in the Netherlands, for example). I know a lot of those people don't make use of the animals they kill in the streets, but some do decide to eat the stray cats at home. There was even an 'artist' in the Netherlands who skinned her own cat to make a purse out of it, as a political statement. So, assuming a stray pet-like animal was killed following those rules, is that still morally acceptable?

There are cultures in parts of the world that view cats or other 'pet' animals as a food source. I don't think that eating a cat vs. eating a cow is really very different once you take away people personal attachments to pets so I don't see any moral difference. 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users