Sorry for the strange characters in my last post. I typed it in MS Word and pasted it and got some wierdness in the translation.
It was supposed to read:
I’d be glad to take you hunting this fall 
Nope…sorry.
First I don’t think it is BS but rather a legitimate issue and have shown its significant size with cites.
Second, while it may not be considered proper hunting by you or others on this board canned hunting does fall under the purview of hunting in general…it doesn’t fit anywhere else.
Third, while I have no problem with animals being slaughtered for meat at a slaughterhouse I do have a problem with animals being slaughtered for nothing more than the fun of the ‘hunter’ and so he can get a head to hang on a wall.
I keep coming back to it because to me it displays a flaw in the arguments being made on this message board to support hunting. That it isn’t about the killing. That it isn’t about trophies. That the animal is put to good use. That the animal has an excellent chance to avoid the hunter. That hunting helps manage a species. ALL of these things go down the tubes in canned hunting yet the hunters here have come nowhere near condeming its practice. A few suggested it was distasteful to them and that they might support an effort to outlaw it in their state if someone else bothers to get it started (belying the notion of what committed conservationists you all are). Amazingly some have even defended it.
Can you see where it seems to me that you (not you specifically…‘you’ in general as hunters) seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here?
Fair enough. But we can argue about whether it falls under the heading of ``sport hunting’’, which is what the OP is about. Not subsistence hunting. Not market hunting. Not canned hunts. If you want to start your own GD thread about whether anyone can support canned hunting, you might get relatively few people answering `yes’. Either way, that’s a different debate, methinks.
Again, we probably agree with you. But if you are arguing that it is in fact the case that those partaking in canned hunts or any other type of activity solely for one reason or another, you’ll have to convince us that that is in fact the case, using something more than your armchair-quaterback impressions.
And what, exactly, does canned hunting have to do with conservation? Pretty much by definition it isn’t depleting a wild population. Granted the fences might affect wild animal movement, etc., but less so than highways and subdivisions.
So on what basis ought we be opposed to canned hunts? Certainly not on conservation grounds, as it does not affect wild populations.
I’ll argue that on animal welfare grounds, it is comparable to agriculture. While the moment of death might be drawn out over half a minute, rather than half a second, the life of the animal is probably less constrained. Further, one of the major stressors in agriculture is the transport, handling and social mixing just before slaughter; with on-farm slaughter or a canned hunt, this is all avoided.
So the main basis for opposition that I see is that it isn’t very sporting. I’ll grant that it isn’t. Neither is agriculture, where the animal has zero chance of escaping. But should that mean that canned hunts should be legislated against? I’m not convinced. Certainly not convinced enough to take a leadership position in arguing for it.
Yes we can argue about it. I think canned hunts falls under ‘sport’ hunting. By definition ‘sport’ means to amuse oneself. I don’t think people are paying big bucks in a canned hunt because they are having a bad time. If they want the trophy without the hunt they could likely just buy that. Instead they are engaging in something they find fun…a sport.
While I cannot climb into anyone’s mind I can use logic to deduce reasonable assumptions. In a canned hunt the thrill of the chase is gone. The hunter is spending a LOT of money to hunt something you could hunt cheaply so it is highly doubtful they are doing it for meat. The animals are captive so this is not in any way helping manage a species. What is really left here? If you have reasonable alternatives to why someone would participate in a canned hunt I’d be glad to hear them.
As I mentioned above the hunters here have put forward some high-minded ideals to support hunting as a respectful activity to engage in. I detailed in my last post how canned hunting undoes just about every decent argument you guys have put forward:
- That hunting isn’t about the killing.
- That hunting isn’t about trophies.
- That the animal you kill is put to good use.
- That the animal has an excellent chance to avoid the hunter.
- That hunting helps manage a species.
I don’t see how canned hunting meets a single one of those ideals.
If you want to toss all those ideals out the window and rest on a humans are mightier than animals and we can do with them as we please argument that is your call but I believe you guys abide by your words and do indeed adhere to the ideals you have espoused thus far.
By one definition, yes. By another definition, it represents ideals of fair play, knowing and following the rules whether there’s a referee there to enforce them or not. E.g. The deer had a sporting chance at escape. He was a sporting fellow. The entire concept of sportsman-like conduct.
Unfortunately, logically deduced reasonable assumptions are a good starting point, not the end goal. They have been known to be wrong, you know.
**
You claim this is not the case in canned hunts. We have yet to hear from anyone actually engaging in such things about why they do it.
**
These I’ll agree don’t apply to canned hunts.
**
I’d say the jury is out on three of the five.
Look, I’m not saying canned hunts are necessarily a great thing. I don’t see myself participating. But I also don’t know what the extent of variation in terms of what’s covered by the term is. I’m sure there exist canned hunts with no redeeming value catering to rich bastards who get a rush outta shootin’ stuff just so they can mount the head on the wall and delude themselves into thinking this proves their manliness. And if those do exist, I don’t think anyone here could defend that, but I don’t think most of us would consider it sport hunting. But there may well exist scenarios that have many of the same attributes (specifically, a fence surrounding a property on which you pay money to hunt), but that are far less objectionable. So I’m not willing to argue that all canned hunts are evil, because there’s a possibility some are not. And I’m certainly not going to make guesses about others’ motivations and judge them based not on them, but on my guesses about them.
Whack:
What exactly are you talking about when you talk about a “canned hunt?” and what exactly is your objection to them?
I’m getting the idea that you are picturing a deer or an elk tied up to a tree and a guy pays down his money, walks out and shoots it.
Personally I’ve never heard of such a thing (but I suppose it could exist.)
A canned hunt is like a stocked pond. You know that there’s game there because it’s private ground that has been purposefully stocked and tended for that purpose.
Alternately, in some deer hunts, you may select a deer, and have it released into a preserve of varying size. Then it’s the hunters’ job to go out and get it.
Most of the time it’s a pretty decent simulation of hunting in the wild.
The first three are somewhat weak. It wouldn’t surprise me if many people go to canned hunts for the same reason they go on normal hunts, are not concerned with getting a trophy, and want to take the meat and other useful pieces home. Why go on a “canned” hunt, then, instead of a “real” hunt? Well, you’re much more likely to find your prey in a 100 acre plot you know is stocked with animals, than wandering around the woods. The chance of success is much greater. Personally, I’d still rather go on a “regular” hunt, since for a canned hunt I think I would feel like the sense of accomplishment and nature is reduced. That would be worth the reduction in my chances of succeeding, IMO.
The last two certainly apply to canned hunts. But they also apply to slaughterhouses…
Why go on a “canned” hunt, then, instead of a “real” hunt?
Another reason that I mentioned about two pages ago is that not everyone who wants to hunt has a place they can hunt at. I am fortunate in that not only do I won land, I am also tight with people who have several farms for me to hunt on as well.
Not everyone is this lucky and as such is limited to overhunted “public hunting” areas, “canned” hunts or leased hunting ground.
It isn’t as bad as you think Whack. Do a search for ethical hunting texas and see what you find. Hundereds of places who pride themselves on offering ethical hunts, not animals tied to a tree.
By the way, here is a LINK to your org that you suggested at the local, Texas level. Be sure to read the parts about ethics, board of inquiry, etc. Once again, the groups you would like to see are alive and kicking at the “think gloabally, act locally” level.
I must admit that the extreme animal rights enthusiasts’ ideas are cute, although rather invalid in my eyes. I so tire of the “animal rights” advocates who live such hypocritical lives. If someone truly values animal lives the way they claim, then they need to do the following before I can recognize them as non-hypocrites and grant their ideas validity:
Be a strict vegan. Consumption of any animal products: meat, fish, dairy, eggs, fish, poultry is not tolerable. This also includes leathers, furs, and a number of various industrial products. Basically, anything that involves an animal product is forbidden.
Do not eat commercially farmed vegetarian products. Have you any idea how many wild animals are killed by farm machinery? Think of all the field mice, insects, earthworms, etc. This goes on and on! They use insecticides, after all.
Did you know that sugarcane fields are set on fire before the harvest?! Good grief! Millions of rats, “vermin”, reptiles, and others are killed by fire and smoke just so you can have a cup of coffee that’s sweet,… and you were so self-righteous about that non-dairy creamer! (Don’t even get me started about the animal-unfriendly practices of the coffee plantations!)
Also, let’s not forget about all the wildlife that has been displaced by farmland. Surely, that is a cruel practice in which we eaters of agricultural products participate.
Be sure not to visit a dentist or a physician; so many have practiced on animals during their training. If they have not, surely many of their techniques and procedures were developed by the exploitation of animals. If you are so cruel as to perpetuate animal cruelty by visiting a doctor, be sure not to take any medications, procedures, or surgeries one might prescribe for the same reasons.
In fact… come to think of it… do not use anything that is transported by truck, car, train, plane or ship, nor ever travel in such cruel devices yourself. The brids, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and insects that are cruelly splattered, especially during lovebug season, is atrocious. Also, the way petroleum is distributed and the way roads are made is animal-unfriendly, so don’t encourage their use or construction by using either.
I guess I can only respect the animal rights advocates who walk everywhere they go while being extremely careful where they step and avoiding any paved roads, since they were surely put down in and unkind manner.
Never swat a mosquito or even deny her a drink of your blood. After all, she only needs a tiny bit and you have so much to share! Never use insecticides or pest control or go anywhere that does.
Anyway… we all see where this is going. Basically, if you want me to respect you as a non-hypocritical animal rights advocate and recognize your drivel as valid, you need to live isolated on your own little patch of land, growing all your food “naturally”, being very, very careful about how you plant and harvest your crops and make your own clothes out of very carefully selected and harvested grass, leaves, tree bark, or whatever. You can’t travel or use anything or any service at all that the rest of us use, since they are made, produced, developed, or invented in ways that exploit animals or their habitat. Live a silent, miserable, brief, and impossible life. Do that, then I’ll respect your views. (Of course, I’ll never see or hear them, since you won’t be online, in a public forum, or anywhere I am likely to ever meet you… Oh, well.) Until then, you are a hypocrite in my eyes.
I love animals, too. I own one. (Yes,… he is my PROPERTY.) He has no rights. I take care of him, and we like one another. We are friends, and he has a great life compared with his feral fellows. Domestication is very beneficial. (He doesn’t know it yet, but castration looms on the horizon for huim, though, and he gets no say in the decision.)
I believe that animals should not be purposefully treated cruelly, and I think there are humane slaughter laws that proscribe practices to help ensure that.
While I am not a hunter, I have no “issue” with the practice. I just don’t enjoy the idea of getting up so early in the morning to go into the cold woods to wait silent and motionless for hours hoping a deer will not notice me so I can get a shot that I will likely miss anyway, but that’s just me! To each, his or her own. Reading these discussion groups would be boring to many people, too, I assume.
Peace! Have fun. I’m going to eat some animal parts tomorrow for my birthday. After all… I love animals,… they’re delicious. If we weren’t meant to eat them, then why are they made out of meat?