The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-06-2000, 02:20 PM
Turpentine Turpentine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
My friend argues that he can kill a deer and eat it, no problem.

Me, I feel bad about killing any animal- yet I eat meat. I know i am a hypocrite.
The way I see it, we "created" cows and chickens and pigs to cover out carnivorous needs, so why does one think it's necessary to go out and shoot rabbits and deer and the like?

I don't buy the "it's cutting down the surplus population" argument.

My friend says he likes to hunt because his ancestors did.

I still don't think it's fair- a bow and arrow would be more sportsmanlike, or better yet- if you absolutely must prove your manliness, then see if you are clever enough to ambush a deer and wrestle to the groung with your bare hands. That's a REAL man.

I would like to hear arguments on either side on hunting.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 09-06-2000, 03:06 PM
SeatTime SeatTime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by Turpentine
The way I see it, we "created" cows and chickens and pigs to cover out carnivorous needs, so why does one think it's necessary to go out and shoot rabbits and deer and the like?
It's not "necessary", but he considers it an activity, like fishing or bowling. "Not necessary" in the sense that if he doesn't bag Bambi, he will not starve. If he really must have venison, he can buy it somewhere. I'm sure he considers it a challenge to hunt.

Quote:
I don't buy the "it's cutting down the surplus population" argument.
Deer have no natural predator here in MD/VA. Their population grows unchecked. What don't you buy?

Quote:
My friend says he likes to hunt because his ancestors did.
You should encourage him to NOT use that argument.

Quote:
I still don't think it's fair- a bow and arrow would be more sportsmanlike, or better yet- if you absolutely must prove your manliness, then see if you are clever enough to ambush a deer and wrestle to the ground with your bare hands. That's a REAL man.
A REAL man would persuade the deer to come to him, then wrestle it down! I agree, though...a bow is a tad more sporting.

There's no moral issue when a leopard chases down a gazelle. Or, when a bear snags a salmon. Why would there be one here? If you kill it, eat it. I'm not a hunter, nor do I have any desire to be one, but it doesn't seem out of line to me.
__________________
Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick it once, and you suck forever.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-06-2000, 03:27 PM
Turpentine Turpentine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Yes, there's no moral issue about natural predators. But that's because they HAVE to hunt.

Yes, it's a challenge, I just don't think that an animal should die just for sport. The fact that he eats it afterward doesn't justify the sport.

As for the population check thing-

I can't support that very well, I wonder what happened to all the natural predators. But if forest rangers were the ones to keep the population in check, as part of the job, I wouldn't object. I just don't believe that any man or woman who hunts for recreation is doing it for the good of the forest, to keep the population in check.

I think they are doing it for themselves and it's cruel to kill an animal unecessarily (Please leave the cows out of it).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-06-2000, 03:50 PM
Palandine Palandine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
I wouldn't hunt, personally. I get my nature jollies by hiking and seeing the animals do their thing.

However...

I live in Missouri. Last year Missourians killed 180,000 deer during hunting season, and it didn't put a DENT in the population. Most of them kept the venison or donated it to food pantries and homeless shelters. You cannot drive on a major highway without seeing dead deer as roadkill on the sides of the road. I saw three deer during the day (unusual) on a hike last weekend. Many neighborhoods and towns have a serious problem with deer eating crops and landscaping. The Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery in St Louis has a problem with a large deer population that eats the flowers placed on the graves. A St. Louis suburb recently paid thousands of dollars to move a small nuisance deer herd outstate.

Deer are a Missouri success story, going from an endangered species to their prolific numbers in just a decade or so. There are no wolves, and few bears or coyotes. So, it's either up to people to manage the population, or leave it to crueler forces such as starvation or death on the highways.

Furthermore, I knew of many people who hunt to supplement their diet. I had a science teacher who got the limit during turkey and deer season and (with the help of a HUGE freezer) fed his family for most of the year without once having to sidle up to the butcher's counter.

If people choose to hunt, I'd prefer they use a gun. Yes, it's less sporting, but it's also quicker and less painful. Unexperienced bowhunters often must finish off their kills with a handgun.

I eat meat. I was a vegetarian for two years, then decided I could spend my moral outrage elsewhere. From what I hear, the deaths met by chickens, cows, and pigs are often terrible. I guess that's why I have no problem with an animal who's lived its life in the wild being killed quickly and relatively painlessly to put food on someone's table.

Just don't get me started about trophy hunters.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-06-2000, 03:50 PM
mrblue92 mrblue92 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Nope. A REAL man reinforces the grill of his pickup with a steel cage and doesn't hit the brakes when he sees one in the road. (My dad apparently works with someone who did this. Late for work again? Yea, it was a big one.)

Coming from a non-expert, casual hunter, the options seem to be:

1. Re-introduce wolves and/or wild dogs.
Benefits: Wolves are cool, environmentally friendly.
Drawbacks: Tougher on livestock farmers, potentially dangerous to children, may spread rabies and other diseases, may not be effective in more populated areas where scavenging is easier.

2. Let deer roam free.
Benefits: Lots of happy, fuzzy creatures, warm fuzzy feeling. Otherwise drawing a blank on this one.
Drawbacks: Corresponding increase in car/deer fatalities (people do die occasionally), farmers not particularly happy, overcrowding in deer herd, diseases possibly spread to other livestock (ie. bovine TB).

3. Hunting and/or strategic reduction.
Benefits: Increase state revenues (cheaper than rangers-hunters pay the state), still allows for scientific management, excess population used as food which reduces demand (albeit very slightly) for "cruel" factory produced meat.
Drawbacks: Accidental shootings, Lady Macbeth syndrome for some.

My personal observation: If I was animal to be preyed upon, I know I'd rather be a hunted deer than any cow (or veal calf). And I'd rather be shot than hit by a car or ripped apart by wolves.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-06-2000, 04:05 PM
Max Torque Max Torque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Raiderville, TX
Posts: 9,636
Quote:
Originally posted by Turpentine
I still don't think it's fair- a bow and arrow would be more sportsmanlike, or better yet- if you absolutely must prove your manliness, then see if you are clever enough to ambush a deer and wrestle to the groung with your bare hands. That's a REAL man.
Bears have teeth and claws. Deer have excellent muscle structure that enables them to run like...well, like deer.

Humans have opposable thumbs and highly advanced brains, which we use to design, build, and use hunting rifles.

We're just using what nature gave us.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-06-2000, 04:38 PM
Stoid Stoid is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: City of Angels
Posts: 14,217
I don't know about the morality of it, except to say that it depends on the various conditions. But I do know this: I have no respect or affection for anyone who hunts by choice. The very fact that someone finds it pleasing or entertaining to KILL things offends me deeply. My future father-in-law hunts, and it's something I try not to think about.

stoidela
__________________
"I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against." -Malcolm X
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-06-2000, 05:25 PM
Milossarian Milossarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
So many points to address!

Stoidela said:

Quote:
But I do know this: I have no respect or affection for anyone who hunts by choice. The very fact that someone finds it pleasing or entertaining to KILL things offends me deeply.
Maybe there are hunters out there who get off on the bloodlust aspect of hunting, but I think they are by far in the minority. Hunters in general are very respectful of the whole process.

So the proper way to eat that meat is to A. not have a hand in its demise; or B. Feel guilty while you're grilling that hamburger. Take no joy in it, anyway. Huh?

Vegetarians, omnivores, carnivores, one and all: Let's face facts. All animals, insects, etc., cannot exist without causing the suffering and demise of other living creatures. I didn't make the rules; I just have to play by 'em. To believe you are somehow above this fact of nature shows arrogance of the highest order.

Turpentine said:

Quote:
Yes, there's no moral issue about natural predators. But that's because they HAVE to hunt.
And how, exactly, do you survive? Be thankful you live in a day and age that allows you to have such a Pollyanna-ish view of how that food gets on your plate and that leather makes your purse, car seat or coat.

(And before the vegetarians get here: You're causing the suffering and demise of living things, too. The fact that you aren't able to understand pain and suffering on a plant or grain's level, and the fact that it can't express said pain to you in a meaningful way, doesn't mean it ain't the case.)


Quote:
I just don't think that an animal should die just for sport. The fact that he eats it afterward doesn't justify the sport.
Huh? That's a self-contradictory statement. If the animal is eaten, the reason for its being killed is accomplished. And I have never heard of deer hunter whose game was wasted. If they don't eat it, family, friends, local shelters, etc., are happy to take the meat off their hands and use it.

Quote:
As for the population check thing-

I can't support that very well, I wonder what happened to all the natural predators. But if forest rangers were the ones to keep the population in check, as part of the job, I wouldn't object.
You can't support that very well? What does that mean? Sorry; it's a fact. Should we give our towns and farms back to Bambi? If not, something needs to be done to curb the burgeoning deer population.

That deer population is causing millions of dollars in property and crop damage in my state of Michigan, and sustaining a potentially deadly TO HUMANS strain of bovine tuberculosis that is overlapping into our cattle herds. That's causing farmers to lose century-old family farms, slaughtering their entire herds just to bury them in a pit. That's causing a huge economic impact on my state's livestock and agricultural industry. And that could happen in any other state as well.

What do you think Ranger Smith is going to do about this? One of the top men in my state's Department of Natural Resources told me personally that, even if the state wanted to eradicate the deer herd to curb bovine TB, there are too many in too many places to do it. An Army battalion couldn't do it. You'd have to drop an A-bomb.

All you can hope to do is curb the population. That's what hunting does.

Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My friend says he likes to hunt because his ancestors did.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should encourage him to NOT use that argument.
And why is that?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with hunting, morally or otherwise. There is nothing wrong with grandfathers, fathers and sons taking satisfaction in partaking in nature, in the natural process, and in an activity they have enjoyed for generations.

Do you know what happens where I live in the winter? The deer food goes away. It's covered up by something called eight feet of snow. The leaves are gone on the trees; the grass is gone.

Do you know what happens when the deer population is too big to support the meager amount of food that is available? The deer starve to death in the woods. Yes, even the little baby Bambi-looking deer that are so cute.

What's a better, more meaningful death for these deer? Starving to death and rotting in the snow?

Splattered along the side of the road in an accident that might kill, disable or injure people? (I speak from exprience on this one. Were it not for the fortuitous bending of the hood of a car in which I was a passenger several years ago, I may have died, as a 200 lb. deer was hurtling straight for the windshield in front of me after being hit at about 75 mph on Interstate 80 in Iowa.)

Or shot and used as food for family and friends?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-06-2000, 10:43 PM
Silvio Silvio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
The only people that I think can claim that hunting is immoral are people who do not eat any meat whatsoever.

I am not a hunter, and I am not a veggie either. However, I think it would be silly of me to be morally oppossed to hunting after eating my juicy corned beef diner, which was most likely a factory farmed animal grown and killed under fairly inhumane conditions. By contrast, if I had eaten a steak of game deer, I would be eating an animal that had lived its life in the wild, and had died the way almost all animals die, killed by something wanting to eat it. It probably died much more quickly and painlessly than that cow that had to give it up for my diner.

I am speaking only of animals that are non-endangered and hunting under controlled circumstances, and not of hunting with traps or bow and arrow, which is much more inhumane.

I have been around hunters all my life, and I think most of them are not sadistic brutes that just want to kill something. That may be true for game ranches where you can walk up to within a few yards of tame animal in a pen and blast way. The hunters I do know hunt for the skill and challenge and to be out in the wild, with tasty game meat as the reward. Doesn't appeal to me, but as a non-veggie, I don't feel the need to morally chastize them when they offer me some fresh venison sausage.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-06-2000, 10:48 PM
Bear_Nenno Bear_Nenno is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 6,968
Turp, I know people who hunt and eat deer meat, and would NEVER buy beef! They find the beef industry to be more imoral than hunting. Frankly, I tend to agree. People find it easy to forget that the BigMac they are eating actually WAS an animal that was killed by someone. Ok, maybe a BigMac is a bad example, but REAL hamburger meat came from a cow. This cow was slautered. What is so much better about lining up a hundred cows and having a huge blade run across all of their throats??
Personally, I think that if a person wants to hunt his own food, more power to them. Their method is much less painful than a slaughter house's.
I find it ironic that some people will condemn hunting and call hunters evil and morally wrong for killing deer, but these same people eat hamburger meat. HELLO?!? Just because you did not kill the animal personally does not make it ok. No magic meat fairy waived a wand to produce that beef. It came from an animal. If someone wants to get their food the easy way, they can get it at the store. If the people want to hunt, and get much better meat and get a little recreation- so be it!
Why is 'buying' venison at the store better than hunting it? I just dont get it.
Now, I am not going to argue that hunting is a sport and all this other stuff. Frankly, I would not call it a sport, I just call it "hunting". But I do not think that is a reason for people to say "If you want a challenge, why dont you just use a knife, or something?" Oh come on people... would you tell a fisherman to jump in the water and catch the fish bare handed? I actually do know of people who have killed deer with just a knife... I bet that was a real rush, but that does not mean EVERYONE has to hunt like this. Even with all the tree stands and deer piss and everything else to help hunters, it is still rather challenging.
And even if it is arguably too easy, it is still HARDER than going to a grocery store for food.
The method of hunting I guess is not the debate though, is it?
The facts are:
deer meat is much healthier and less fatty than cow meat. If you are going to eat real meat, an animal is going to die somewhere.
There should be nothing wrong with killing your food personally.(ok, that is an opinion... but can you really say that IF eating slaughtered beef is acceptable, hunting deer is not?? I do not believe any person could rationalize that.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-06-2000, 11:54 PM
MysterEcks MysterEcks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Others have already covered most of what I would say, especially Milossarian (very good post, Milo), Silvio, and Bear_Nenno, so I won't rehash it. I will mention that I know someone who won't eat meat unless it was hunted--she considers the meat industry immoral.

Turpentine: If you eat meat, you are responsible for that animal's death--it was done on your behalf. Trying to disclaim responsibility for it is like a mafioso who orders a hit claiming the murder wasn't his fault. Yes, you are a hypocrite. (Though I'll give you credit for admitting it.)

Stoidela: I just wanted to mention that I have hunted deer, squirrels, rabbits, and turkeys, and I've gotten all of the above except for the turkeys. They are all very tasty. Does this make me a bloodthirsty ogre? You think about it over your Big Mac...but I suggest you never go see a slaughterhouse. (I assume you can figure out for yourself how bothered I'm gonna be by your lack of "respect or affection" for me.)

Milossarian said:

Quote:
(And before the vegetarians get here: You're causing the suffering and demise of living things, too. The fact that you aren't able to understand pain and suffering on a plant or grain's level, and the fact that it can't express said pain to you in a meaningful way, doesn't mean it ain't the case.)
You noticed that too, huh? 'Course, it's hard to subsist on a salt-only diet.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-07-2000, 03:46 PM
Phobos Phobos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Is it moral to hunt?

for food -- yes
for sport -- no

I may even extend this to fishing.

With that oversimplification, I guess I could add some further nettles for consideration...
- not moral to hunt endangered species for food
- less moral to hunt with bow/arrow than rifle
- hunting for population control is a brute force treatment of the symptom, not a cure for the problem (human encroachment on wildlife's territory)
- sitting in a tree with a rifle is lame
- walking around shooting everything that moves is lame
- the thrill of hunting can be experienced without having to kill (ever try photographing wildlife?)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-07-2000, 04:33 PM
Landsknecht Landsknecht is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Re: Is it moral to hunt?

Quote:
Originally posted by Phobos
- walking around shooting everything that moves is lame
Not to mention incredibly illegal. I don't know of anyplace in the country that doesn't have a well regulated season for hunting, along with bag limits, weapon/ammunition rules, etc.
I don't hunt, but I don't really have any objection to hunting. I have no illusions where my cheeseburger comes from. I don't hunt because I have no particular interest in sitting in the woods freezing, to maybe see a deer, and maybe get a shot at one.
I think that at some level at least, hunting is about the old man vs. nature argument. Going in to the woods and successfully hunting and killing a deer sort of validates your position in the natural order. Man uses the tools nature gave us, as someone mentioned earlier. We have intelligence, and the ability to make and use advanced tools.
Now, having said that, I do have a problem with people who go hunting just to kill things. Not the people who abide by their local and state laws and go with the intent to eat what they shoot, I'm talking about the people who see a deer while they're driving, pull over, and shoot it from their window. Those are the sort of people who give hunting a bad name. I'm incredibly happy when those people get caught and all their equipment gets confiscated (including their car, by the way).
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-07-2000, 05:26 PM
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 7,983
I think of it this way:

If there is a God, he put animals on Earth for our use. He gave us dominion over them.

If there is no God, that means we evolved above all other creatures, and, via survival of the fittest, have dominion over them. If there is no God why would anyone worry about "morals" anyway?

Either way, it's A-OK to hunt, either for food, sport or trophy.

It's good to be a human, the highest embodiment of nature!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-07-2000, 05:44 PM
wring wring is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Is it moral to hunt?
Not on my property, thank you. And to the "noble hunter" who walked across our "posted no hunting" yard, passing my house, my car and my garage in the process, it's called trespassing, and if the idiot cop in the area weren't an avid hunter himself, you'd have been in real trouble bucko.

Milo - piece of advice - you mention in your posting that you live in Michigan, may I suggest being careful if it happens to be in the area of Michigan generally north of Muskegon? My ex-in-laws live there, ex-bro-in-law spent a year in the county lock up for killing a deer, who turned out sadly, to be a woman chopping down her Christmas tree.

One thing I personally resent is that for several weeks every year, not only do I have to listen to shots all the time, but I have to worry about driving to and from my house, walking from my house to my car, etc. because of the drunken louts out there with guns. Yes, I understand not every hunter out there is drunken, loutish or my ex brother in law's shooting instructor. However, it makes the woods a dangerous place to be around for those of us not prone to liking dead animal parts strewn around the house.

So, you like to hunt. Great. Please don't bother me with your hobby, as I don't bother you with mine. And, if it's not too much trouble, please try and keep your hunting buddies OFF MY PROPERTY and preferably sober when they're busy carrying loaded weapons. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-07-2000, 06:04 PM
justwannano justwannano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Milossarian
Ted Nugent couldn't have said it better.

Turpentine
See if you can find Ted Nugent's "Spirit of the wild "on TV sometime and notice his Intensity and listen to his explanations of what is happening.Many people feel this way but are not as gifted as Nugent in explaining it.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-07-2000, 06:47 PM
oldscratch oldscratch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Hunting is amoral.
case closed. I have spoken.
__________________
now with more chemicals!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-07-2000, 07:51 PM
wevets wevets is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
I'm a pretty enthusiastic conservationist, but I'm certain that hunting can be moral.

If it's done for food, not wastefully, and on land and for species where permitted, and without a dangerous mix of lethal weaponry and alcoholic beverages, I don't see a problem. I do buy the keeping the population down arguement where it is used with evidence of population size to justify it. After all, we've eliminated the wolves and mountain lions from many parts of the country that still support large populations of deer.

Also, hunters can do a lot for conservation. Duck hunters have taken a lot of responsibility in preserving wetlands.

Finally, death by hunting may be more humane than life as livestock and death in a slaughterhouse. The conditions many livestock live under aren't exactly pleasant.
__________________
"Young woman, in this house we obey the LAWS OF PHYSICS." -Homer Simpson
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-07-2000, 09:49 PM
tomas tomas is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Milosarrian-
Excellent Post.
In Indiana , the State parks are overrun with emaciated Bambis. Foliage is sparse at best. The state has lotteries in the parks for hunting liscences. It is starting to have a positive effect on the overpopulation but it is still nescessary to have human intervention. Anyone know of a better Idea?
These hunters aren't drunk, but then again, this ain't Michigan
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-07-2000, 10:51 PM
meek meek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
The degree of disapproval of hunting is directly proportionate to the cuteness of the animal being hunted.

You never see the PETA people picketing an exterminator shop chanting, "Save the Rats!"

Personally, I don't hunt, but I respect the right to hunt for those wishing to do so. But I can't say I approve of trophy hunting. If it goes in the freezer, I think it's ok. If you want to put it up on your wall, take it's picture and hang that up.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-07-2000, 11:17 PM
SeatTime SeatTime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Re: So many points to address!

Milossarian, nice post. I couldn't expend the energy.

Quote:
Turp: My friend says he likes to hunt because his ancestors did.

SeatTime: You should encourage him to NOT use that argument.

Milossarian: And why is that?
Simply because if he's raising that argument with someone that opposes hunting, all kinds of irrelevant crap can be brought up. Ancestors slaughtered the Indians, wouldn't let women vote, etc. It would not help his argument.
__________________
Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick it once, and you suck forever.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-07-2000, 11:21 PM
FarTreker FarTreker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Florida
Posts: 169
I don't hunt, though I fish. I also consume meat and I'm familiar with the slaughtering process. I don't raise animals for food. I leave that to others who have been raised with a different philosophy and to whom killing an animal doesn't bother them.

It bothers me. I have no doubt that, in a pinch, if I have to, I can track and kill animals for food.

The morality of hunting? Well, it is considered a sport, the urge is often part of our genetic makeup, our mouths have teeth designed to rip and tear meat and vestigial fangs (eyeteeth) show that we were designed not just to scavage but to attack and bite into meat to hold it for the kill. Our digestive process can consume almost anything and, actually, we can eat most forms of life on the globe -- though being 'civilized' we tend to keep to just a few.

It is known that we can eat most insects including scorpions (I saw a cooking show where the chef produced frozen scorpions, removed the sting, battered them up and cooked the nasty things), and most animals. (I knew a girl once who told me how the little boy next door, when she was young, showed his admiration of her by bringing her Bluejay sandwiches.)

Unless the critter is obviously thoroughly lethal, like some frogs, we will probably eat it. If the lethality is at one end, like in snakes, spiders and insects, we'll probably eat them.

If a person is hunting to satisfy his/her hunting urge and enjoys it and does not abuse it, I do not consider it immoral. So long as they use their kill and don't just slaughter for fun and leave the carcass to rot, I figure it's fine. If a hunter goes out to kill and to kill and quickly and painlessly as possible, with weapons that give the animal a chance, that's fine. However, if they go out to inflict pain and agony, to enjoy causing and watching an animal die a lingering death, that is not fine.

Good hunters who wound an animal track it and finish it off, bad hunters do not.

Now days I have mixed feelings about trophy hunters, unless they use the meat. Killing a buck because of his rack and leaving the meat to rot is no longer acceptable and, since trophy hunters mainly go after the biggest and the best, they tend to weaken the species in the long run.

I have a real big problem with people who consider non-hunters as weaklings and who 'force' their children into hunting by making fun of them if they decline.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-08-2000, 08:02 AM
mrblue92 mrblue92 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Quote:
hunting for population control is a brute force treatment of the symptom, not a cure for the problem (human encroachment on wildlife's territory)
I was not aware there were specific territories designated for humans and others designated for wildlife other than national and state parks (which are generally not the areas in question; it is typically illegal to hunt in parks). The reality is that to grow enough food to support the human population, we currently need a sizable amount of farmland. This abundance of readily available food out in the open attracts animals. (I was out to my parent's house last weekend, and we had deer watching us play catch from the neighboring field.) To protect their livelihood and your food supply, farmers have to control the animal populations. Ask Scylla about his groundhogs... Building fences is not practical--some animals burrow, others (like deer) can jump 15-20 feet high.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-08-2000, 08:26 AM
Milossarian Milossarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
hunting for population control is a brute force treatment of the symptom, not a cure for the problem (human encroachment on wildlife's territory)
I'll make you a deal: We'll cancel hunting if you go put Norplant in half of the does in Michigan.

Ready .... GO!
__________________
3124
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-08-2000, 08:39 AM
pldennison pldennison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
pkbites:
Quote:
If there is no God, that means we evolved above all other creatures,
Ummm . . . you may wanna let the bacteria know about this. They are older than mammals are (by several million years), can live in more environments, can easily kill us, outnumber us by several orders of magnitude, and will still be around long after we are extinct. Other than that, sure.

Quote:
and, via survival of the fittest, have dominion over them.
Hmmm . . . if you're going to argue both sides, try and understand them both first. "Survival of the fittest" is really a fairly meaningless phrase both within the contraints of a discussion of evolution and concerning our relationship to other creatures.

Quote:
If there is no God why would anyone worry about "morals" anyway?
Egads. Another time, another thread, my friend.

smug:
Quote:
You never see the PETA people picketing an exterminator shop chanting, "Save the Rats!"
Then what exactly is this?

AFAIC, very few regs aren't aware of my feelings on the treatment of animals, although I always concede the basically omnivorous nature of humans. I find hunting for food less onerous than factory farming. I find wasteful trophy hunting reprehensible. I find teenagers shooting groundhogs in the woods for fun repugnant. But, hey, I'm just one guy.
__________________
pld
Odds are you will not survive the coming years and many will perish over the course of what remains of history, so don't delay.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-08-2000, 10:28 AM
Turpentine Turpentine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
I appreciate all you giving me these reasons, not the few posters who seemed mad at me and seemed to imply I was ignorant.

For the population control argument, I always thought that nature usually works out these problems on its own over time and that hunters couldn't kill enough deer to make a significant difference. But I guess i was wrong. Plus, hunters usually want to go for the strongest and healthiest animals which is detrimental. They should pick out the sick ones. But I don't think most hunters are hunting for the good of the environment. They are doing it for themselves, and they use the fact that they are keeping the population in check as justification.

I seem to be arguing against hunting, even though you all have pointed out a number of good reasons for it.
Basically, i was just trying to hear sides of an argument so i could form an opinion.

Maybe i shouldn't have asked "Is it moral to hunt?" I think it is amoral, as Oldscratch said. I just wanted to hear arguments on both sides.

I think the conclusion that I have reached is that there is a difference between grabbing a cheeseburger for lunch and shooting a deer and watching it twitch and blood run from its mouth and from the wound. I was wondering why anyone would enjoy an activity that involves the latter.
Yes, some people really like watching that and I was wondering why. It is not as if the person who eats the cheeseburger demanded to watch the cow be slaughtered.

So my opinion now is that hunting is probably necessary for some places where the deer would overrun and kill themselves off by starvation, but the people who think that this activity is fun are mostly sick scumbags.
They are needed however, just as the world needs loathsome scavengers. Doesn't mean I have to like them.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-08-2000, 01:03 PM
Sledman Sledman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by wring
Is it moral to hunt?
Not on my property, thank you. And to the "noble hunter" who walked across our "posted no hunting" yard, passing my house, my car and my garage in the process, it's called trespassing, and if the idiot cop in the area weren't an avid hunter himself, you'd have been in real trouble bucko.

Milo - piece of advice - you mention in your posting that you live in Michigan, may I suggest being careful if it happens to be in the area of Michigan generally north of Muskegon? My ex-in-laws live there, ex-bro-in-law spent a year in the county lock up for killing a deer, who turned out sadly, to be a woman chopping down her Christmas tree.

One thing I personally resent is that for several weeks every year, not only do I have to listen to shots all the time, but I have to worry about driving to and from my house, walking from my house to my car, etc. because of the drunken louts out there with guns. Yes, I understand not every hunter out there is drunken, loutish or my ex brother in law's shooting instructor. However, it makes the woods a dangerous place to be around for those of us not prone to liking dead animal parts strewn around the house.

So, you like to hunt. Great. Please don't bother me with your hobby, as I don't bother you with mine. And, if it's not too much trouble, please try and keep your hunting buddies OFF MY PROPERTY and preferably sober when they're busy carrying loaded weapons. Thank you.
Wring…got a chip on your shoulder?

As I sat here debating with myself whether I should even bother I re-read your post and the tone of it convinced me to respond.

Was the trespasser wrong. By all means he was. I apologize for his kind. But one bad apple doesn’t have to spoil the lot. As hunters we do not approve of anyone breaking the law in pursuit of game. There is a high degree of ethics involved in our chosen pursuit. When and when not to shoot, respecting the land, respecting our quarry and respecting the privilege to hunt on private land. I will allow that there are individuals with no respect for any of these things. They are the exception and majority of hunters will report them to the local authorities. If your local officer refused to respond to your report of trespasser perhaps you should follow the chain of command. Although smaller in Michigan are these hunter not required to wear a Backtag with a unique license number identifying that individual? Write that down and contact someone who will resolve this person’s trespassing habit.

Although it sounds like the answer would have been no, it was that hunter’s responsibility to knock on your door and request permission to hunt on your land. I have a standing privilege to hunt on a local farmer’s land where I grew up. I still stop every year and make sure that the permission to hunt still stands and I present him and his wife with a LARGE Christmas ham, which makes him very happy. This does not even begin to make for an equal trade. What he grants me is far more valuable than any ham.

Several weeks would be 2 weeks, right. So that leaves you a total of 50 weeks to enjoy the Outdoors outside of Deer Season. So how much do you contribute to the funding for the conservation and maintenance of those areas. Not anywhere near as much as Sportsmen and women do. Maybe we should introduce a bill refusing entry to any state owned lands unless you pay additional taxes on the things you buy and charge you a license to walk or bike through the County, State and National forests.

Hunters are the backbone of the conservation movement.

Yours odds of dying in a car accident are greater than being shot during deer season. Although Michigan is a little lax in regards to the Blaze Orange regulations. If you are in the woods without Blaze Orange on during deer season then you are an idiot. Most (I agree not all) hunters are aware of what they are shooting at and what is behind it. However Blaze Orange makes you more visible. At a distance you go from undetectable to unmissable.

You blame your ex brother-in-laws shooting instructor?? The instructor can not control what he did as an individual. That is an unfair characterization of the instructor. Odds are he/she taught your ex-brother-in-law the proper techniques and safeguards yet he chose to ignore them.

The people I hunt with know what is ethically expected of them or they will not hunt with me again.

And I still can’t believe the pompous tone of your post. I will summarily disregard your last paragraph and its inflammatory nature.

MILO: You Rock!! Great post, as usual.

Regarding the OP, the morality of hunting resides with the individual.

Turpentine:

Not sure how to take your last post?

I enjoy hunting yet I do feel a twinge of regret at the kill.

I know of no hunters that get their rocks off watching their quarry die. They are happy their hunt was successful and are watching to make sure the animal does in fact expire quickly and does not suddenly get up and run away. Do not confuse this with a morbid need to watch an animal die.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-08-2000, 01:03 PM
mrblue92 mrblue92 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Quote:
But I don't think most hunters are hunting for the good of the environment. They are doing it for themselves, and they use the fact that they are keeping the population in check as justification.
Well, it's pretty clear animals don't hunt for the good of the environment either--they do it for food... Yes, I agree that the hunter who shoots a deer "just to watch it bleed" is one sick individual, but I honestly think these types are fewer than you might imagine. I think most hunters probably experience "the thrill of the hunt", but it's closer to the exhilaration a linebacker would have closing in on a quarterback than the sick desperation of a serial killer closing in on his victim.

FTR, I have never had a shot at a deer, as our hunting trips are not particularly serious ones. If I do ever have one in my sights, I don't think I'll have too much of a problem pulling the trigger, but I wouldn't take much joy in it (other than for actually succeeding for once).
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-08-2000, 01:06 PM
Max Torque Max Torque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Raiderville, TX
Posts: 9,636
Well, Turp, here's where I'm coming from: I grew up on the edge of BLM land in New Mexico. Unlike folks who grew up in urban areas, we raised lots of animals, most of which were kept solely for eating purposes. Since childhood, I have helped hatch/birth, raise, feed, water, and kill everything from chickens to rabbits to turkeys to goats.

So, unlike many people who have voiced opinions in this thread, I have held an animal down, slit its throat, and let it bleed to death. You may argue that doing so is immoral. From my perspective, it's just like harvesting a crop.

Further, I argue that you appreciate your food more when you really have to work for it, not just work for the money to buy it. City folks, insulated from the reality of killing animals to eat, are frankly naïve and inexperienced in this respect.

So, where did you grow up?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-08-2000, 01:49 PM
Turpentine Turpentine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
I grew up in a suburb, and witnessed my dad and my uncles and grandfather coming back with deer from their hunting expeditions, hanging it up in the basement and skinning their prize. Always made me ill (ironically i was always a little upset that they never brought me along because I was a girl- I think these contradictory views are why i am vaccilating and trying to form an opinion, seeing both sides of this and feeling torn).

That is different, I think, from living on a farm and killing animals that you grew for the sole purpose of eating.
Yes, for them the eating of the deer was an added bonus, but they were really doing it for recreation.

Then a few posters pointed out that a deer roaming free and then getting shot is more humane than being bred for food and living on a farm. They are right.

Since I can't justify my view anymore, my vague sense that hunting is wrong (The men in my family are not scumbags for hunting- I shouldn't have implied that before-sorry- but i think that their enjoyment of this activiy is loathsome.

I think what you mentioned, about how the hunter usually does not enjoy the actual death but rather the thrill of the hunt, is similar to a person who likes eating meat but doesn't like watching cows die.

Nevertheless, since I still have this feeling or wrongness in my stomach about the idea, it think it would be best if we all were vegetarians. It won't be hard for me, I don't eat much meat anyway.
For protein we could eat bugs. They are so plentiful and they are easy to raise and care for and they take up so little space. Plus their nervous systems are not as complex as a mammal's, so they probably feel much less pain at death.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-08-2000, 02:40 PM
Landsknecht Landsknecht is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
There's an argument going on around where I live about these big walls the city put up along the highway to try to cut down on the noise that homeowners who live along these freeways experience. Some people say it makes the city ugly, but homeowners insist the walls stay for the noise factor. In regard to this, I once heard someone on the radio say something to the effect of being happy to pay anyone who lives along the freeway for their house, as long as they lived there before the higway was up. In other words, you knew what you were getting into when you bought a house along a freeway.
Does the same sort of thing apply to living in a hunting area? I'm certainly not trying to imply that everyone who lives in a rural area should have to afraid of leaving their house because they feel they might get shot, but if the area was well used for hunting before you lived there, can you really complain as much about it? Who was there first?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-08-2000, 02:45 PM
NikonDoggy NikonDoggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
DUH

ok .....ive never been much on things of the lord...but i mean comeon...it states int he bible that the lord places these creatures for us to eat....i mean fuck ppl get some common sense...or maybe your college pot infested minds cant handle it...shit im only 16....and i get this point
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-08-2000, 03:03 PM
wring wring is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by Sledman
Wring…got a chip on your shoulder?
No, I'm personally tired of folks who like to hunt who feel it is necessary for me to applaud and make consessions in MY life for their hobby. as I said, "don't bother me with your hobby and I won't bother you with mine"

Quote:
Was the trespasser wrong. By all means he was. I apologize for his kind. But one bad apple doesn’t have to spoil the lot.


Of course I know he was wrong. I was never able to see his back, only his side as he walked past my bathroom window when I was getting out of the shower. I chose NOT to go running after him. Thanks for your apology on his behalf.

Quote:
As hunters we do not approve of anyone breaking the law in pursuit of game. There is a high degree of ethics involved in our chosen pursuit.


We may disagree on the percentages, though. But, frankly my point isn't if you hunt and are nice about it, it's I personally don't like hunting as a "sport". I don't like football, either, but during football season, my ability to navigate around town and home safely is not generally impeded. However, DURING those 2 weeks of shotgun season, plus the muzzle loading season and the weeks of bow season, plus firearm small game season et al, I have to be acutely aware that armed strangers are lurking around pretty much my entire trek home to the boondocks. Bugs me. My point again is that MY hobbies are not likely to infringe on your day. Yours does.

Quote:
I still stop every year and make sure that the permission to hunt still stands and I present him and his wife with a LARGE Christmas ham, which makes him very happy. This does not even begin to make for an equal trade. What he grants me is far more valuable than any ham.


Good for you, I'm glad. they don't mind you hunting on their property. I mind people hunting on my property. I also am fearful of traveling by the enormous spans of woods that are hunted.

Quote:
So how much do you contribute to the funding for the conservation and maintenance of those areas. Not anywhere near as much as Sportsmen and women do.
and
Quote:
Hunters are the backbone of the conservation movement.
Not the point, in my book. The facts that the State insures that it makes money off of hunters and that hunters do other good works doesn't change anything I've complained about.

Quote:
Your odds of dying in a car accident are greater than being shot during deer season.


off point. My odds of getting shot during hunting season are BECAUSE of your hobby. When I enjoy MY hobbies, you're not in danger of getting shot. (post modified to correct the spelling etc.)

Quote:
If you are in the woods without Blaze Orange on during deer season then you are an idiot.


Funny, that's what brother in law Wally said. The law and I both disagreed. You're pointing a gun and firing it with the intention of killing what you're aiming at. It is completely your responsibility to insure what you're aiming at. Yes, I personally choose NOT to go into the woods during that season, even if I were painted flame orange. But I pay taxes as well, so, why should the woods be safe only for hunters during seasons (and by the way although we've mostly talked about deer, firearm season for other critters goes on quite a bit longer)

Quote:
You blame your ex brother-in-laws shooting instructor??

Of course not. My ex brother in law is a certifiable idiot. I'm sorry, that demeans idiots. Ummmm, there are no appropriate terms for Wally, but this isn't the place for that rant. It appears my sarcasm was not noted. Sorry. Wally was responsible.


Quote:
The people I hunt with know what is ethically expected of them or they will not hunt with me again.

good. Please note, that those who you choose not to hunt with are still probably hunting somewhere, bad ethics and all.

Quote:
and I still can’t believe the pompous tone of your post. I will summarily disregard your last paragraph and its inflammatory nature.


'cuse me? I maintain that it's just ducky that you've found a hobby you enjoy. Why, tho' do "you" (in the generic sense of hunters et al) feel it necessary to foist your hobby on me? For several weeks every year, I have to be concerned about armed strangers wandering around where I live. I don't like that. Yea, so not all of them act like idiots. that doesn't make me feel any better. I'm well aware of the money poured into the economy etc etc.

I just want to be able to:

be able to look out my bathroom window and not see some stranger walking by at 5 am;
be able to safely walk to my car;
be able to enjoy the peace and quiet of my home in the country;
to be able to drive to work without worrying for several weeks that somebody's going to shoot me or my child, some wounded crazed deer would come leaping out (yea, I know they can leap out anytime, but during the season, it's much more frequent);
be able to get my mail and newspaper out of the box without fear of being shot;
be able to exist on my property without some guy dragging some carcass past me.

These are all things I am able to do except during hunting season.

the question was "is this activity moral" and most here have responded to ideas connecting with the "kill animals" concept. I chose to look at the question as "is it moral for one group of people in the society to insist that everyone make allowances and changes in their lives for several weeks every year so that the chosen people can enjoy a pursuit that the others don't like, and infringes on the other's privacy, safety etc." In my book: nope.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-08-2000, 04:17 PM
ElwoodCuse ElwoodCuse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
There's nothing wrong with hunting within the laws of your state. Poaching is another story. And to the people that claim its not fair since the deer don't have guns--humans can't hear, smell, or run anywhere near as well as deer can.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-08-2000, 04:26 PM
Sledman Sledman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Odds of dying courtesy of the National Safety Council.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-08-2000, 04:52 PM
Sledman Sledman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Oh, and who would have thought we would get this far on this issue without being bumped to Great Debates.

I wonder what the over/under on posts was?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-08-2000, 05:20 PM
Milossarian Milossarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Wring - Your problem doesn't seem to be with hunters; it seems to be with trespassers and people who recklessly discharge firearms. Those people happen to be hunters.

And as for worrying about an injured deer leaping out in your path as a motorist -- I see deer along and crossing the road at all times of the year except hunting season. They head for the deep woods and swamps then.

I don't think any hunter is asking for anyone's applause. I have absolutely no problem with people who have personal qualms about hunting. It is kind of brutal, and not for everybody.

But if you eat, you are a partner to brutality. It's part of the natural process. Some people acknowlege that more than others, I guess.

Wring - You asked for a cite as to whether more people die in hunting accidents than car accidents? Are you kidding me? I would be amazed if the numbers aren't several hundred car crash deaths per one accidental shooting during hunting season.

Unless we're going to give our property and the farms that provide us our food back to the bunnies and fawns, something HAS TO be done to curb the deer population. It is beyond debate; it is a fact.
__________________
3124
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-08-2000, 06:07 PM
Ad Noctum Ad Noctum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
MILO--"Wring - Your problem doesn't seem to be with hunters; it seems to be with trespassers and people who recklessly discharge firearms. Those people happen to be hunters."

They are not hunters, they are anti-hunters.
I say ANTI-hunters because they seem to like making people mad at hunters, giving hunters a bad name, and most importantly, breaking many laws while in the process.
I will not say much more, Milossarian seems to have said it better than I could've, and people say I am REALLY long-winded.
and seems that this, like any hunting Q, is right up milo's alley

but I must say that any REAL hunter is a responsible hunter. any irresponsible hunter is a threat to society.
just like drunk drivers, psychopaths, and the military...
whoops, omit that last part.
but seriously, folks, how many people die from car accidents a year?
how many more people die from SMOKING for Christ' sake a year??
the stats are MUCH higher than for hunting.
and WRING-
when you are searching for a car, you will get one with the best safety features for your budget, right?
if ROCK CLIMBING, will you get 100 lb. test carabiners, or 3,000 lb. test carabiners?
if you are doing ANYTHING, will you want yourself protected?
seriously, HOW HARD is it to just put on an ORANGE stocking cap?
or a SWEATSHIRT?
it's not a big deal, and it's not especially out of the way.... I leave you with that.
Good bye
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-08-2000, 06:45 PM
justwannano justwannano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Turpentine,I think you are over reacting.
Sure the guy shouldn't have been in your backyard. He was an insensitive,to your rights,trespasser.
As far as your fear of being shot though the odds are probably nearly as good to be hit by a meteor. Now please don't start giving God hell.
Come the first of november we have a pheasant season. There are literally thousands of armed people shooting birds al over this state,Iowa.You know shotguns have many projectiles and I have never been hit by one.Neither has my car. Neither has my house.
I 'll wager that there are more shotguns fired on opening day of our pheasant season than all of Michigans deer season.Wanna Bet.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-08-2000, 10:31 PM
justwannano justwannano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
oops
That should have been addressed to wring
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 09-09-2000, 10:15 AM
wring wring is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Let me repeat, please. the question is, "is it moral to hunt". Most have focused their attention on the aspects of killing and eating meat.

I mentioned, in passing, certain specific attributes of specific hunters that I found to be reprehensible (the tresspasser, my ex-bro in law-the killer).

But my main objection is that for the duration of hunting season
every other citizen in order to protect their safty must stay out of the woods or buy a garment that might protect them from getting shot, but has virtually no other use (flame orange still isn't a fashion statement). And for those who say "gee it isn't that expensive...." so what? Why should I have to pay anything in order to not get shot by you while you are enjoying your hobby. I repeat. For me to enjoy my hobbies, you are not even aware of what I'm doing, let alone have to curb your interests, change your route or actions, or purchase a piece of clothing.

Look at it this way: You have a community pool. all citizens are allowed access to said pool, except for the summer months when a certain select group of people take it over completely. and these people, while taking over the pool, create a risk around the pool as well. If any of the other citizens wants to safely go around the pool during this season, they need to purchase, at their own expense a pink satin tutu and wear it in a conspicuos place. Now, the pink tutu doesn't cost a whole lot of money, so, really, it isn't any real inconvenience to you to need to buy it and wear it, just so you can safely go to the pool which you tax dollars fund.

I happen to really like the changing leaves. I cannot safely walk in the woods while the leaves are changing because there are armed stangers wandering around shooting at moving objects. And, I believe that it is immoral for one group of people in the state to completely take over public lands for thier own, mutually exclusive purposes.

And Milo, no, I'm not kidding about needing that cite for the stats. I'm aware there are MANY car/deer accidents every year, but I don't believe that they end in fatalities. I've lived in MI all my life, read the papers, annually we have the stats about the hunters who die (most from heart attacks). and, there are often people killed by hunters. And every day, we hear about fatal car accidents with other cars or with a tree etc. I personally don't recall of a single one where a person died when the car hit a deer. I'm not saying that since I don't remember, therefore it couldn't happen or didn't happen. Just that I have CLEAR memories of fatal hunting accidents. none from car/deer crashes.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-09-2000, 11:32 AM
wring wring is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Please also understand that I believe that each of the posters here who have defended hunting are serious about it, take care and concern in what they do. I have nothing PERSONALLY against any of you (and even, frankly my ex-husband, although I wouldn't like to be in the same county as Wally...)

There are MANY, MANY hunters out there. even if most of them are courteous and careful:

A. There's still a significant # who aren't curteous and careful, and you know that there's guys out there drunk or hungover. You might not hunt with them (and I recommend against it) but they're there.

B. EVEN if all of you were really, really careful, the fact that there's bullets and stuff whizzing around all over the woods make them dangerous for others to be there.

C. and, please, think about the fact that you'll be taking over these public lands for a period of time. Yes, you're paying hunting fees, and adding to the economy etc. but it remains that while you collectively are out there, the rest of us probably shouldn't be. and is that, really fair?

I suspect that none of you had considered this, especially when I read comments like "well who was there first?" and "aren't you overreacting, there's really not that much danger in getting shot. " I don't care what the risk factor is, the risk factor is there at all, not because of something that I'm personally doing, but because of a hobby of yours. Shooting at a firing range does NOT diminish my ability to walk in the woods. Fishers are able to fish in the same waterways as other people enjoying the public lakes in different ways. Hunting is the only sport/hobby that I can think of where your enjoyment of your chosen hobby directly and negatively impacts on my life for significant periods of time. (several weeks out of the year is significant. a few moments of a single day isn't).

heck, I'm not even telling you not to hunt etc. It would be a refreshing change for the hunters to say "s'cuse me" - I mean that's what I expect to hear from the person who's pushing past me to get into the theater seat, and that's only a momentary inconvenience.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-09-2000, 11:39 AM
Sledman Sledman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
This is getting deeper and deeper.

1.) The cite for the statistics on being killed hunting(actually of just being accidentally shot) vs odds of dying in your car is posted above. Now unless I'm mistaken, and I don't think I am, the part of your post that asked for that cite has been altered. Anyway here is the cite again.

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

2.)Take over the woods during fall colors???? You're in Michigan right. The colors are done by deer season. Small game hunting is not anywhere near on par with gun deer season for the number of hunters in the woods for a 15 day period. In addition there are many state parks where hunting is not allowed.

3.) We pay for the public lands you don't or you barely do. You said this wasn't the point but your pool example is about a pool everyone paid for. Non-sportsmen pay a fraction of what sportsmen do to keep public lands available and acquire new ones. That is the trade off you make for not paying your fair share to use public lands.

4.) So the majority dictates what is right/moral for all groups?

Don't say that too loud or you'll be elected Governor of Mississippi.

5.) You drive don't you. Well if i want to walk or bike on the road at night I should have a light on my bike, light colored clothing and preferably reflective material on my clothing. Boy that is inconvenient. Hmmm...death vs inconvenience. Wait...Don't tell me.. I know this one...

Blaze in the woods during Gun Deer Season is the LAW for everyone in Wisconsin.


6.) Oh and one more point regarding car deer accidents. The higher than any other time of the year in 2 cycles. October/November and May/June. Neither reason is due to hunters. October/November is when a young bucks thoughts turn to love and they are chasing does. May/June is when does are moving around with their inexperienced young.

Plus the point was car fatalities not just car/deer fatalities.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-09-2000, 11:46 AM
justwannano justwannano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Wring
Would you be agitated if the people in your pool were repairing it? How about removing excess alge or something that if left to itself would destroy the pools usefulness? Thats all that is happening.
Sorry but it cannot be done at a time that is convenient to you.
As far as the pink tutu goes I don't look good in pink but I'll bet you do.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-09-2000, 11:58 AM
Milossarian Milossarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Bringing stats for Wring

First off, Wring, I apologize for misunderstanding your question. I thought you were comparing hunting fatalities to ALL car accidents; not just car-deer accidents. You can see why I thought that was ludicrous, I'm sure.

Even when making comparisons using your parameters (hunting fatalities vs. car-deer accident fatalities) the car collision statistics are clearly higher, particularly when considering number of injuries, where (as I expected) the numbers are several hundred times higher.

For the sake of ease, I looked at only Michigan and Wisconsin, two fairly rural states where deer-hunting is big. The statistics aren't easily laid out for year-to-year comparisons, and there are some missing years in what I was able to find.

In Wisconsin, three people were killed and 805 injured in car-deer crashes in 1996; five were killed and 783 injured in car-deer crashes in 1998.

Deer-hunting shooting accidents resulted in two killed; 15 injured in 1998 and two killed, 28 injured in 1999. (Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)

They aren't including old fogeys who croak out in the woods of heart attacks, and I'm not either. I mean, that could happen anywhere. It isn't necessarily hunting-related.

In Michigan three people were killed and 1,899 injured in car-deer crashes in 1997. (Source: Michigan Network of Employers for Traffic Safety)

Couldn't find injury stats, but no more than three hunters were fatally shot in Michigan from 1992 to 1998, when five were killed, according to the Michigan DNR. It should be noted that in 1998, two of the five killed were hunting at twilight without wearing blaze orange, so there was some Darwinism at work. I'm willing to speculate that there weren't 1,900 hunters shot and injured in any given hunting season. Probably not 1/100th that number.

There were 68,000 car-deer crashes in Michigan in 1996, according to state police crash statistics. Car-deer crashes caused $95 million in car and other property damage in Michigan in 1997, according to the Michigan NETS.

Quote:
But my main objection is that for the duration of hunting season
every other citizen in order to protect their safty must stay out of the woods or buy a garment that might protect them from getting shot, but has virtually no other use (flame orange still isn't a fashion statement).
And society has determined that hunting is necessary to control deer populations; hundreds of thousands of people enjoy the activity; it brings millions and millions of dollars to local economies; it provides essential funding for various wildlife and habitat preservation and other programs. Society has determined that for the aforementioned benefits, it is willing to inconvenience your woodland enjoyment for a couple of weeks in November. Sorry.
__________________
3124
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-09-2000, 12:15 PM
wring wring is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
quickly justwanna know. The people "fixing" the pool isn't a correct analogy. hunters aren't "fixing" the woods. they're enjoying their hobby. Hunters being prominate in the woods make it unsafe for other peoples uses.

Sledman. 1. I saw your cite. It does not answer the issue. my question had to do with deaths of people involved in car/deer accidents. (see below comments)

2. In my part of Michigan, the fall colors can go through November (southern). And, in any event, if I'm just wanting to walk through the woods to admire the bare trees, fine. same arguement. 15 day period only refers to firearm deer season. although that's when the most hunters are out there, firearm small game, bow hunting deer, and muzzle loading deer season still negatively impact my ability to use common land.

3. The fees and so on that the hunters pay in: This consists of your hunting license, right? We both pay tax dollars. My tax dollars are not split out in different ways than the hunters. So you're saying that if you pay your $40 hunting liscense fee (or whatever it is), this allows you and your friends to make the public lands unsafe for me for several weeks? I don't see that. Show me where to sign up and pay $40 so I can exclude great quantities of the tax paying public from public lands for a month.

4. I repeat. It is my opinion that for a segment of the population to conduct themselves in a manner that forces the rest of the people to significantly alter their life for several weeks is immoral.

5. The only reason that I would need to wear Blaze is so you won't shoot me. Now, yea, I'm interested in staying alive. However, to require me to purchase clothing I wouldn't normally want just so I won't get shot, seems, um... gee, what's that word??? Immoral, yea, that's it.

6. the point was, to me, car/deer fatalities. Since it was postulated to me that y'all were protecting me from deer leaping out at my car and potentially killing me, and that I had more chance of that happening than the hunter accidently shooting me.


the driver/biker analogy is closer, not exact, but closer. there, you have two groups each wanting to use public roads, but not to mutual exclusion. of course, the driver isn't intentionally attempting to cause the death of moving objects, whereas the hunter..... See, the hunter is shooting at stuff. you want me to wear orange since it's unlikely that the things you WANT to shoot would be wearing orange, and there fore, hopefully, you'd know I wasn't something to be shot. The cyclist (or pedestrian) would be wearing something light SO THEY COULD BE SEEN, not that they could be seen as humans.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-09-2000, 12:34 PM
wring wring is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
milo, thanks for the cites. I, too, would not include the death by heart attacks. Am suspicious of the stats of dead hunters in MI, since I personally recall at least 2 in the past two years, just in my area. but, won't belabor that point. It does appear that more people die from car/deer accidents than by hunting shot to death. am also suspicious that no data was available about the injuries from the hunting accidents.

As for the financial arguments:

The fact that hunters spend money is not necessarily the best of your points. In the first place MOST of the hunters are local(in state) guys. For this claim about money pouring into the economy to hold true, we would have to speculate that the LOCAL folks who are spending money hunting would otherwise hoard the money and NOT spend it.

In addition, the trade off is massive, IMHO. I live near East Lansing. During football season, massive hoards of fans come onto the campus and hold tailgate parties and so on. and during football season, I tend to pay attention to game days and make MINOR alterations to my life, in order to support the local infusion to the economy. Such alterations include: changing by a few minutes or so the time I go to town, and I may change my route slightly. My son works pt at MSU, and once had to BE at the Breslin (next to the stadium) at 4 pm on game day. We left a bit early and I dropped him off a few blocks away for him to walk the rest of the way. That would be a MINOR inconvenience.

The trade off with hunting season is that DURING hunting season if you're going to be in the woods, you will be sharing the space (finite) with armed people shooting at moving objects. Shots go awry. Shots miss. I don't alongside a shooting range, either. Hunting season lasts several weeks. Much more is expected of me, the non hunter to deal with, and for a longer period of time, the potential down side is bigger (gee, I'm delayed from my destination for 10 mintues vs. gee I'm shot).

I disagree that society has "decided" that hunting is the method for dealing with errant deer population. No one asked the question "do we really want untrained armed people wandering around our public lands to eradicate the errant deer population". I will admit that it's got tradition behind it and therefore would be very difficult to eradicate (much like prohibition). I understand that my POV will not likely become law in the foreseeable future. But, again, the question was, "is hunting moral" and I'm finding, that the more questions that are asked, the more certain I am that hunting definately has immoral aspects to it.

On another note, though - I really appreciate your tone Milo. people can disagree without it becoming ugly.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-09-2000, 12:51 PM
Milossarian Milossarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
The fact that hunters spend money is not necessarily the best of your points. In the first place MOST of the hunters are local(in state) guys. For this claim about money pouring into the economy to hold true, we would have to speculate that the LOCAL folks who are spending money hunting would otherwise hoard the money and NOT spend it.
I urge you to talk to motel, restaurant and hunting supply store-owners in my region of the state, regarding what deer season means to them financially.

Also, talk to the same types of business owners in the Northeastern Lower Peninsula, where the bovine TB epidemic in the wild deer population and cattle is at its worst. Although the human health risk is minimal, people are shying away from hunting there, because who wants to eat an infected deer? It has been devastating to local businesses who rely on the boost hunting brings.

I'll work on scaring up those Michigan deer-hunting shooting injury stats for you.

P.S. As was mentioned earlier, hunting is certainly not immoral, possibly amoral and could be viewed as moral, in that you are participating in the natural process to obtain your meat. The way you get that bacon, hamburger or hot dog would be much easier to prove immoral.

And I think your opposition to having your enjoyment of the forests curtailed for 15 days in November certainly isn't a question of morality; it's a question of policy.
__________________
3124
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-09-2000, 01:09 PM
wring wring is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Milossarian
Quote:
I urge you to talk to motel, restaurant and hunting (snip)It has been devastating to local businesses who rely on the boost hunting brings.

State wide stats on amounts of money spent during the season were mentioned originally. I will concede that in any specific area you will find some people who have learned to benefit from the hunting season. However, I would still maintain that the conclusions you stated originally about the vast quantities of "hunting" money that goes pouring into the economy, while they may be technically accurate, do not necessarily mean that more actual dollars are going in the economy. Fred spends $300 on hunting. If Fred doesn't hunt, Fred would spend that $300 on something else, in all likelihood.

You're in MI, right? you know about the casino's. When they were being suggested, they kept on saying "what money makers these will be" since the casinos in MT. Pleasant do so much business, D-troit will SURELY get scads, too." well the preliminary data is starting to show. There really is a finite amount of disposable income in the state. We can spread it around differently but, it's not really new money.

Quote:
I'll work on scaring up those Michigan deer-hunting shooting injury stats for you.

thanks.

Quote:
P.S. As was mentioned earlier, hunting is certainly not immoral, possibly amoral and could be viewed as moral, in that you are participating in the natural process to obtain your meat. The way you get that bacon, hamburger or hot dog would be much easier to prove immoral.
again, I'm not standing on ground that depends on the meat vs. not meat part of hunting at all, thank you. and, look back, the OP quesion is "IS hunting moral".


Quote:
And I think your opposition to having your enjoyment of the forests curtailed for 15 days in November ...

let me repeat- 15 days firearm deer, plus how many days fire arm small game, plus days of bow hunting deer, plus muzzle shooting deer = much more than 15 days. And frankly, even if it WERE "only " 15 days, my point remains: When you do YOUR hobby, for those 15 days, my enjoyment of life is diminished. When I do MY hobby, you don't even know it.

Quote:
...certainly isn't a question of morality; it's a question of policy.


I agree that hunting is legal (policy). the original posting, (sigh) was "is it moral".
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-09-2000, 01:12 PM
Milossarian Milossarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
am also suspicious that no data was available about the injuries from the hunting accidents.
I just didn't know where to find it. Here's what I've been able to find out since.

According to the Michigan DNR, two were killed and 25 injured in firearm- and deer hunting-related accidents during the 1997 season; one dead and 15 injured in the 1996 deer season.

25 injured and 15 injured are a far cry from the 1,900 injured in car-deer accidents.

OK, I'll leave it alone now. I can't say any more than I've already said.
__________________
3124
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.