Can anyone support sport hunting?

Great Debates
61

Oh where to begin. Hmmmm

First off I wish you knew a better class of people to hang around with if the hunters you talk about are representative of them. I know ALOT of hunters and can’t think of a single one who do the things you describe. (Stuffing rabbits? Collecting squirrel “trophies”? what the heck is up with that?)

Second, why do I hunt and kill instead of hike and photograph. Well, for one I can’t EAT a photograph. Another reason is I believe that I was not BORN a photographer… I was however born a predator. I have 3 million years of genes equipping me to use my brain and body to stalk and kill prey animals. I don’t think the art of photography really compares.

It’s an odd thing… alot of folks who are against hunting and really love animals support the idea that human beings are no better than animals… that we all deserve the same rights. At the same time they want to deny the HUMAN animal the fundamental rights, pleasures and instincts that wild animals enjoy daily. It presents a sort of strange contradiction. We should respect our brother animal but divorce ourselves from our place in the world AS animals. You ask something as bizarre as what seperates an otherwise kind and gentle man (such as say, my deceased hunter of a father) from a sadistic murderer because they both 'take a living creature’s life" and enjoy it. I honestly don’t know how to answer such a question if it’s not readily apparent to you. I could only suggest (if for no other reason that you would understand) that the difference is that any animal that kills it’s own kind for no other reason than pleasure is pathological, no matter the species.
And lastly a note on history. Were it not for hunters (who formed the BULK of early conservationists) such as Theodore Roosevelt later organizations such as the Nature Conservancy would have found themselves with a much different world able to save too little, too late. In fact the link between early conservation efforts and hunting predates president Roosevelt by at least 60 years in the US. In 1846 prominent Rhode Island sportsmen petitioned the legislature to pass the first seasonal hunting regulation for waterfowl. In 1871 a sportsman’s association established the nations first incorporated game preserve in PA. For over a century hunters and fishermen have been among the first of those who have fought and paid to have our wilderness lands protected. It’s just common sense and I resent being compared to the likes of pedophiles who ‘pay their taxes’.

62

I’ve been AFK for a couple days.

Great fucking post, Scylla. That sums up lots of my feelings on hunting quite nicely.

I do want to address some things directly asked of me reading down the thread:

I don’t think this question can be answered. I can’t say on a scale of 1-10 a 7 is ok but an 8 is too much. This really can’t be quantified.

I can say that two things are for certain though:

  1. Some aninmal suffering for the good of man is ok.

Animals suffer for testing the products we all use. Animals suffer for the meat on our dinner tables. Animals suffer so that Scylla’s children don’t have to play next to a wasps nest.

  1. All responsible hunters (the vast majority IMO) attempt to minimize suffering of the animals to the best of their ability.

I must call foul on this. In the OP you brought the subject up. You claimed that hunting was probably not economical. It’s fair game for us to challenge this assumption.

However, although hunting could be economical for me I must admit that it’s not. My credit card reciepts at LLBean and Cabelas prove that. I like my toys. I’m single and make a good salary. So, I tend to buy lots of hunting gear which drives up my “price per pound.” It’s still much cheaper than my snowboarding habit which costs me a lot and fetches me no meat.

The point is, I hunt because I enjoy it, not because of the meat. However, the meat is a nice benefit. I do eat it all year long and enjoy it very much.

My only point here is that man’s impact on the animals is huge with or without hunting. Because of our impact on them in so many ways it doesn’t make sense to have a “let nature take care of itself” attitude towards animal populations.

Yes, but you made the claim. The onus is on you to prove it.

I never said it doesn’t exist. I just noticed that so much of your postings where guesswork and speculation. I wanted a cite from you about shooting animals in cages. We still haven’t seen one. I think the term “cage hunting” and the way that you originally described it are dishonest.

Shooting an animal in an enclosure isn’t in the spirit of hunting, IMHO. However, that doesn’t mean that shooting an animal in a 1,000 acre preserve is equivilent to shooting an animal in a cage.

63

:smiley:

Point well taken.

I never thought of you as a PETA type. It does seem that dragonfly is either a vegan or a hypocrite. The views of these extreme animal lovers are at least logically consistent. From what I can tell animals have as much of a right to life as we do.

The part I don’t understand is how they make it through life being honest to this belief. Even wheat and veggies come at the cost of animal lives onto the dinnerplate. Most products don’t make you go blind or cause your hair to fall out because of animal testing. What does a vegan do when a wasp nest is in the backyard where the children play?

64

I’m sure they commune with the wasps and ask them nicely to only sting the children once.

65

Don’t be silly, JXJohns. I’m sure they just sell the house and move. :wink:

66

I dunno, that strikes me as something similar to “Bowlers must really love inflicting damage on bowling pins” or “Gardeners must really get off on destroying lettuce plants.” There are plenty of sports/pasttimes where there is a destructive end to the process. That doesn’t mean the destruction is what the hobbyist loves. For some sports, you certainly could change the process so the end isn’t destructive and still retain a lot of the sports’ appeal. The question is, is hunting one of them?

Here’s where the differences of opinion start.

Yes, you could take the gun out of the hunter’s hands and tell him to go enjoy the stalking and the outdoors anyway, and give him a camera or something else that requires quick aim to measure success. But I think for many hunters it wouldn’t be the same. I think people have already discussed the appeal to doing something “traditional” and getting back in touch with our hunting forebears and possibly putting food on the table that, for a change, you’d caught, killed, and processed yourself.

I still say that doesn’t mean all hunters must get off on taking life, watching animals die, and seeing blood.

67

No problem…challenge away. My point in bringing it up was to head-off the notion that while you can buy meat at a market it would be cheaper to hunt it yourself. Sufficiently cheaper as to allow itself as a reason to say hunting is a needed thing and not a recreational choice. I think I showed that while you might be able to get a lower proce per pound by hunting (depending on what you hunt and how you go about it) the price differential is not very large if it even exists at all.

Fine…then let forest/park rangers decide on what species need control and specify the animals (e.g. no females, no young males, etc.) allowed to be culled from the herd and let them do it or at the very least organize local hunters for an extremely limited scope for getting the species where they want it to be. I know this is already done to some degree but if the contention is that hunting is for the benefit of the animals as a whole then it should be restricted to ONLY those instances where experts feel it is necessary.

Wonderful…the supposition will only be proven once the damage is done. Maybe some day in the future a hideous disease will ravage deer populations because as a species they have been hobbled by hunters culling the strongest animals out of the herd and leaving the weaker ones to breed.

I think we all know by now that nature has a means for survival of the fittest that encourages the strong to survive while culling out the weak. This benefits the species as a whole. Simple logic would suggest that taking the stongest and healthiest animals does not help the species in any fashion.

I’ll allow that it may be entirely possible that hunters do not take enough of the strong, fit deer to seriously weaken the overall species. I simply don’t know but I think there is enough evidence from what we know of the natural order to at least be thinking of this.

Well…you said, “I have seen no evidence that this practice exists anywhere but in your mind.” To me that sounds like you are saying it doesn’t exist but I thought it was a fair inference to make.

Anyway, others here have stipulated to its existence (other hunters). For your benefit however I will revisit it. It is clear that the issue is not over 1,000+ acre preserves but caged animals or at the most (for what I’m talking about) a paddock all of a few hundred square yards in size. I think the defining point is the animal cannot escape…not even a little bit in a 1,000 acre enclosure (which to me is still rather small but I don’t want to get into quibbling over what size is ‘permissable’…plenty of meat [no pun intended] at the clearly bad end of this particular issue).

The second part I quoted is to answer those who say it is practically a non-issue even if it does exist. 637 ranches totaling a $100 million business seems to me to be somewhat more than an isolated instance.

More evidence that this isn’t ‘isolated’ but actual big business.

It would seem the shooting the animal in the cage is rare but the reality is hardly any better. Search around yourself…this is big business. The animals have ZERO chance of escape. If the enclosures are up to a thousand acres (almost none of which are close to that big) it is to provide the illusion to the ‘hunter’ that they are on a proper hunt. The animals are drugged, the animals are fed routinely so they have no fear and will sit waiting thinking dinner is coming instead of a bullet, some animals are so tame they will lick the hand of the hunter before they are shot…it goes on and on. Further, most of these cases are for trophy hunts…not food. Trophy hunts which hunters here say is extremely rare. As such the hunters don’t want to spoil their trophy and the animals are killed in particularly brutal fashion. If you like I can provide a video of a lion being shot six times at which point the video stops saying the hunters had to shoot it six more times as they didn’t want to ruin the head for a trophy (the lion was down after two shots and the hunters were VERY close to it). I can provide another video of a lioness in an enclosure shot multiple times bouncing off of a fence trying to get away. This doesn’t encourage me to think that body shots are as fatal as they have been made out to be here either. (I may as well provide the cite…go to http://www.bearcreeksanctuary.com/Education%20Section/canned_hunts.htm and view clip 2 and 5 to see what I’m talking about…requires Quicktime to view).

It seems fellow hunters would not agree with you:

68

Personally I am not opposed to flaming a wasp nest that poses a threat to humans (nor am I opposed to getting rid of any animal that poses a threat…I wouldn’t tolerate a cougar or timber wolf in my backyard any more than a wasp nest).

That said, and I don’t know if it is different for wasps, I know that you can get rid of bees without blowing them all away. My brother had a bee infestation in his house in Arizona…and by in his house I do mean IN his house. There were a frightening amount of bees tooling about the place. He called a bee keeper to come and get rid of them. Apparently this is common for bee keepers and good business. My brother had to swear, threaten, cajole, and bribe the bee keeper to come in a day rather than the week the keeper initially told him it’d take before he could make it (in the end I think the keeper acceded to my brother’s wishes because the bees were in the house and not outside).

Anyway, the keeper came out in his protective gear, found the nest and removed the queen. After that the rest of the bees packed it in and left almost immediately (within a day).

The upshot is that if you really want to go to the effort and pay whatever it costs (I don’t remember) it is possible to get rid of bees (and I assume wasps) without annihilating them.

For my money however I’d opt for a can of Raid.

69

autz

There are far too many morally deficient human beings on this board, all showing off their supreme lack of common sense, foresight and compassion.

You appear to be one of those.

This is a Stroke Festival and nothing more.

You appear to be insane.

70

My company in Idaho wanted to give us all a treat of fresh pheasant. We went down to a farm in Paul and bought 30, or so, birds. The proprietors killed and dressed the birds for us and we all went home with good eats.

Sound awful? Maybe. I just know that meat doesn’t grow in the fridge down at Von’s.

What really happened was this, though. The birds we bought were released at dawn hours before our arrival. It was January and about 8" of old snow on sugar beet fields. The fields were punctuated by unplowed breaks of native growth.

We hunted around all day and got about half of the birds, getting a couple of native birds in the process. We dressed them out and had a terrific dinner of pheasant breast ramaki.

Was this a caged hunt? I don’t think so. I know where meat comes from. I don’t mind doing the killing if I also do the eating.

71

That is exactly what the State DNR (Department of Natural Resources) do every year. I live in Iowa so forests and parks are few and far between, but through conservation efforts over the last 50 years, there are now White Tailed Deer and Turkeys in ABUNDANCE soley by the actions of the DNR and responsible hunters/sportsmen.

When my Dad grew up, it was a rarity to see a Deer or even a Canadian Goose. Now we have deer looking through my window at work, and Canadian Geese out in the pond. Before someone blames urban sprawl for this situation, let me tell you that this land has been developed for over 30 years, and is located well within the heart of the city.

I’m not sure why you feel that hunting should be managed through an “extemely limited scope”. Without attempting to insult you, this is most likely a lack of knowledge on your part. Every year, 85-90% of the rooster pheasants are taken by hunters in Iowa. Somehow, their numbers continue to rise year after year? The DNR is responsible for setting the hunting seasons and bag limits for every animal that is hunted in the state. (The key word here is STATE, not neighborhood of park district.) This includes deer, pheasants, squirrels, etc. The Iowa DNR works with the Feds to determine the same for waterfowl (ducks, geese, etc.) This is a cooperative effort that promotes ethical hunting while preserving entire species of animals.

Were it not for the efforts of the DNR in this state and others, doing exactly what you suggested, it is entirely possible that there would be few if any species left to hunt or take pictures.

72

Whack a Mole

Errrr, i must say nice duck and run. :frowning:

Please describe in detail what is and what isn’t required, in your mind anyway to be a proud intelligent card carry member of PETA?

Or better yet, as far as PETA status is concerned, which of these following statements qualifies at the guilty offender?

Is it this one:

It gives certain people the satisfaction of pretending they are a homocidal maniac… without having to go to jail.

Or is it this one:

i believe that zero pain and suffering is the call of the day. Xtians are supposed to espouse various flavors of brotherly love, not point guns at harmless caged animals. Even if one is not a Xtian, i think it is an extremely rare case where children are raised being taught to mercilessly torture amd murder other beings, in this case other animals. Plus you could never know how much pain and suffering an animal is actually enduring, unless you yourself endured a fairy equal amount of said unnecessary torture.

Or maybe perhaps this eye-opening statement:

You asked:
Can anyone support sport hunting?
i answered:

i sure can’t.

You can never be sure.

73

I stipulated that I know the DNR and other such agencies do this. My distiction was a hunt where the rangers mandate that ONLY unhealthy animals (with some guidelines to determine that) are allowed to be killed. See a nice, studly eight point buck? Leave it alone. See a scrawny, limping animal? Go ahead and take that one.

As near as I can tell hunting is only restricted inasmuch as it takes to leave a viable population to reproduce and maintain a minimum number. I was speculating that this method alone might be cause for concern by culling the strongest from a population rather than, as nature would do it, the weakest that you wouldn’t want reproducing anyway.

dragonfly98:
You’re a wild eyed lunatic in respect to this discussion.

If you are not a vegan and rail as strongly as you do against the absolute immoralty of hunting you are a first class hypocrite. Where do you suppose the leather in your Nikes came from? The meat in the Big Mac you may have eaten recently?

If you are a vegan then fine. They have an argument to make and can and do make it in a lucid fashion. What you are doing is anything but lucid. So you answered the OP with one line…great. From there ever think about trying to back up your assertions? You made a lot of statements about how hunting equals torture and no good Xtian would do such a thing and so on. All well and good but you haven’t made your case with ANY logical argument to suggest that if you accept X then Y must follow and this is why.

In case it has escaped your notice I am a person who is not thrilled with hunting. If anything I would expect I would gravitate to your side of the argument yet you’ve thoroughly alienated me from your perspective. Do you want to encourage others to your point of view or do you just want to rant?

As for PETA I think the organization started with noble intentions and has since gone completely off their nut. I LOVE animals and even I can’t abide their extremist positions. One of my favorites was their insistance that the Green Bay Packers change their name as it was an offense to animals. I also like their notion that I don’t own my dog. :rolleyes:

74

dragonfly

Wack and I have been the ones questioning the morality and psychology of hunting.

I’m not sure why you have taken it on yourself to insult us. If you want to give coherant arguments please do so.

If you want to start a thread about the immorality in general of eating meat or killing any animals, feel free.

Your current goal seems to be to make everyone think you’re a crazy guy who we shouldn’t listen to. Not a great way to change hearts and minds.

75

I would say that if game numbers were limited to the “minimum” number in order to survive into the next season, and if only genetic weaklings were left over from hunting seasons, all it would take is a bad winter or two to completely decimate entire species. This has not happened in recent history as far as I know.

Instead, game thrives in many areas where a short time ago, there was nothing. I understand your point as far as managing herds of deer by killing off the weaklings, but you are missing the point. In most areas around here, and many other Midwestern states, deer were rarely encountered at all some years back. It has been through managed conservation efforts (a majority of which was paid for by hunters btw) that the deer are around in the first place. To suddenly start culling animals based on supposed genetic weaknesses would seem to be a step backwards to proven wildlife management practice for the last 50+ years.

On another point, you seem to keep coming back to deer hunting as you main objection. Is that truly the case? Many other species are hunted in numbers far larger than deer. Most of these can be used as classic examples of proper wildlife management. Were it not for managed conservation, of which hunting is a MAJOR part, we would not be able to enjoy many of the species that we currently see.

76

Sorry I wasn’t more clear on this. I meant ‘minimum’ to mean whatever the rangers thought was a healthy lower limit. I did not mean ‘minimum’ to imply the barest amount that a species could continue on such that one unforseen problem knocked them all off the planet.

Maybe it’s just me but working to conserve an animal so you can go out and kill it seems…odd somehow. Maybe it’s just me though.

Fair enough and a good point to suggest that deer are more than healthy as a species wiht no real problems in this regard. I still think hunters gather the cream and not the sour milk so their position that they are helping the herds is suspect but given a large enough population this may not ultimately matter as far as deer in the US are concerned.

Funny you should mention this as I have been thinking all along that the hunters here were over-focusing on deer. If you look back at my previous posts I do go on about bears and buffalo and other animals. Partly I did this as I think a bear is much more likely to be a ‘trophy’ hunt than a hunt for a thousand pounds of bear meat. Also, my stuff on ‘canned hunting’ concerns more exotic game than deer. Indeed I didn’t see one thing about deer in the canned hunt stuff I looked up. It would seem if someone is going to engage in a canned hunt it will be for rare or otherwise dificult to get species.

And while you say managed conservation resulting from hunters contributions may be true there are MANY species who have been or are hunted to nearly the point of extinction. Take buffalo…they came within a whisker of disappearing from the US due to overhunting. If you like I’ll get a laundry list of animals nearly wiped out if not outright gone because of hunting. In short, left to themselves without restrictions, hunters have shown time and time again their ability to decimate a species.

77

Managed conservation began out of many of the examples you could most likely find. Bison, Passenger Pigeons, etc. were all hunted to the edge of extinction soley because there were no limits on consumption at the time. Modern wildlife mangement was years away, and both/most species were killed as nuisances or for entertainment more often than for food.

In my mind a hunter is one who takes what he needs and leaves the rest for another day. I find it difficult at best to equate my hunting practices with the buffalo hunters of the “old west”. However it was one hunter by the name of “Buffalo Jones” that many give credit to for saving the American Bison. FWIW

78

**

Not to be rude, but I can’t tell you how much this kind of insistent ignorance makes me mad.

It’s a fallacy on so many levels that it’s ridiculous.

You don’t know what hunters like or don’t like. You are not privy to their motivations. You’re insistence that it is bloodlust is nothing more than your own prejudice.

I am a hunter. I do not do it because I enjoy killing. No hunter I know does it for this reason.

You have no veiwpoint or perspective from which to falsely attribute motivations to others. Please don’t do it. You truly don’t know what you are talking about.

The fact is that I do not enjoy killing. I am simply untroubled by the aspect of killing within the context of hunting.

Your logic is false. Do you believe that people that drive cars like to burn gas? Do you beleive that’s why they do it?

**

Yes it does. It just appears you didn’t understand it.

It applies from the standpoint of responsibility, from being involved in the things in your life, in doing for yourself.

Animals die for my behalf all the time. It is important for me to recognize this and do for myself what is being done on my behalf.

I do not seek to hide from the death my existance causes. I take part in it with my eyes open, and I participate in it. I do not seek to have others do my dirty work. I have no objection to doing it myself.

**

In point of fact, the dog was perfectly healthy. It was put to sleep for my benefit and the benefit of my family.

We moved. The dog did not adapt. It became aggressive and dangerous. I put it to sleep for my benefit.

I put the dog to sleep for my benefit not the dogs’. I kill a deer for my benefit, not the deers’.

You are missing the point of my previous post. I am not hunting for anybody’s interest but my own.

I do it because it benefits me. It is the same feeling I get when I change the oil in my car, or redo a floor or do anything else that is difficult and that I could have others do, yet I do for myself.

It is good for me to hunt for my own meat for once in a while and remind myself of my connections and place in the world.

I realize that I am ultimately a taker, as are we all. I recognize this and try to be a good taker.

I find virtue in recognizing this and facing it, and taking pleasure in my place in the world.

I find those who would have a moral objection to such a thing distasteful and ignorant. I find them hypocritical, not for their refusal to participate in the killing that their life necessitates (it’s a personal choice,) but for their arrogance in dismissing the moral position of others who choose differently.

I think my choice is better. I think everybody that eats a steak, or wears leather, or uses an animal product would benefit from taking an animal’s life firsthand.

I see no moral superiority in choosing to have another do it for you. In fact, I think it’s intrinsically better to do for yourself.

I’m not adding more suffering. Everything that lives suffers and dies. Most of my actions cause suffering and death.

My hunting is a recognition and acceptance of this fact, of my role in the world as a taker. Hopefully it is an admonition for me to be a good taker.

**

::sigh:: This is not about recognizing that life has pain and death. This is about recognizing that my life causes suffering and death. As does yours. This you don’t seem to recognize.

79

All of the hunters participating in this thread so far have taken essentially the same view. FWIW I believe all of you. Knowing the caliber of people who frequent this board my gut thinks you’re all telling the truth.

However, I do not have the same faith in other hunters you do to adhere to the ideals of hunting. That people here don’t know any personally is hardly surprising and not necessarily an indication that ALL hunters (with rare exceptions) behave as well as you all do. It only stands to reason that anyone tends to hang-out with people they get along with so there is no reason to suppose the hunters here would hob-knob with the less savory bunch.

Given that Texas alone has a $100 million canned hunt industry and clearly other states have them as well belies the notion that most hunters adhere to a noble code of hunting. Some here have sneered at the notion of trophy hunters but again there is strong evidence to suggest trophy hunting is alive and well.

I won’t say XX% of hunters are ‘bad’ hunters but I will say they seem to exist in significant numbers and not as the rare loose cannon suggested earlier in this thread.

Scylla’s post still has me thining hard on the whole notion and while I just don’t think it is for me I am leaning towards the notion that hunting can be an acceptable and worthwhile practice for some. Unfortunately I do not believe, as of now, that a great many hunters abide by such philosophical notions. If it was just a few I could ignore those people but I think it is more than a few. Given that I still wonder if allowing the ‘noble’ hunters to continue at the price of leaving the ‘bad’ hunters out there as well is a price worth paying (from a philosophical viewpoint…I don’t pretend that I can stop any of it regardless of how I feel).

80

**

I know for a fact that there are assholes who hunt. I know for a fact that there are people who hunt for reasons that I think are very poor.

I’m sure some people do it for a feeling of power, or because they like to kill things.

The world is full of people who do things for bad reasons. I don’t see how that reflects on the things themselves or enables one to generalize about them.

FWIW, I’d guess that about 60-70% of people who hunt do it for reasons similar to mine.

While it’s not really my bag, I have no trouble with canned hunts or those that hunt for trophy’s provided they do so safely and responsibly.

I don’t know what each person’s particular reasons are, so how can you or I judge them?

That there are bad hunters reflects not at all on hunting in general.

With all due respect, who are you to judge each hunters’ philosophical merits?

I would also take issue with the idea that my hunting is noble. Is changing oil noble?

The issue really has nothing to do with hunting. A person of quality who hunts will do so well and try to get out of it all that the experience has to offer. An asshole will be an asshole when he hunts.

Same thing goes for nonhunters. Assholes are pretty much assholes no matter what activity they are engaged in. What does this have to do with hunting?
I’ll share something else. If I were to rate myself as a hunter, I’d say I was “good.”

If I was to make further classifications above mine, I’d say there was “above average,” “very good,” “superior” and “excellent.” Somwhere past “excellent” is a level that I would call “trancendent.”

I think I’ve known two hunters who were “transcendent” in the skill.

To watch or learn from such a person is truly an amazing thing. It is to watch someone become one with the world, the wilderness, to be an active part of it.

In such an instance one is not an observer or a visitor. One is a part of everything.

Back to bad hunters. Just a thought for you. Most of the bad hunters that I’ve seen are fairly new at it, or not too serious about it.

The funny thing is, if you do it for a while, and you do it well, it tends to make you a better person.

I’ll give you another interesting fact. Around here bowhunting is almost more popular than rifle hunting. A “lot” of people hunt with the bow, including myself.

Do you have any idea how incredibly difficult it is to take a deer with a bow?

This will be my seventh year, and I have yet to do it.

My success is typical.

Why do hundreds of thousands of people bowhunt then, if they are bad hunters doing it for the wrong reasons?

Why not stick with the gun?

I offer that as evidence that most hunters tend to be like me in their reasons.

I hunt for the exact same reasons I fish. I love to do it. The attraction isn’t the murder of fish, and it isn’t eating fish. It’s the process itself.

How many fisherman do you know that are out there to make fish suffer?

Fishing is hunting.

Why do you think a game hunter is any different?