Can anyone support sport hunting?

Great Debates
81

It happens all the time. If people find a loophole in financial laws and bad things happen as a result laws are passed to close that loophole. Many men pay child support responsibly but some men are assholes about it so laws get passed to pull those people into line. Most people abide by financial laws and pay their taxes, most dads pay child support responsibly when their circumstances call for it but you don’t ignore the bad apples because most play by the rules.

You don’t know what a murderer’s reasons are for killing someone but does that mean you can’t judge their actions? In the case of canned hunting I find the practice offensive so people’s reasons for engaging in it don’t concern me. I can find no reason that should allow it. Clearly you don’t find it wrong so then an individual’s reasons may be important to you.

I maintain it does. Bad cops reflect on police in general. Bad doctors reflect on doctors in general. Bad hunters reflect on hunters in general. All of these are groups of people and how that group behaves and orders itself says something about them all.

I’m me. I am more than free to judge whomever I please. You can disagree with me, you can say I have no basis upon which to judge but in the end it is for me to decide how I perceive individuals and/or groups. If you think about it you do to. Do you have opinions on the democratic party? The republican party? President Bush? Al Qaeda? Saddam Hussein? I’d wager you do…if you don’t I wonder how you get on at the voting booth.

Changing oil does not include the taking of life (unless you want to reach and pull in the Iraq war but that’s going a bit far afield for our purposes). If your claim that your hunting is a respectful aspect of finding your place in nature and you honor the animals you do take than I label that as a noble philosophy. You can call it what you like.

What it has to do with hunting is how the activity is perceived overall. Are you a bunch of yahoos blowing away anything that moves? Mostly no but how do you deal with those among you who are? Mostly it seems like a pretty hands off approach and leave each to his own no matter their actions. Many groups impose ethical standards either overtly or through peer pressure. If you have an asshole in the group he/she is ostracized one way or another. Even the SDMB manages this.

One thing I like about bow hunting (compared to hunting with a rifle) from my admittedly outsider perspective is the greater skill it takes to do effectively. To my mind there is something vaguely unsportsmanlike about a scoped rifle taking down animals from 600+ feet when the animal probably doesn’t even know you’re there. Obviously a bow hunter doesn’t want the animal to know he’s there either but having to get within 50 feet or so makes the effort considerably more skillful to my mind not to mention giving the animal a better chance.

82

The aminals need to feel a little pain and fear. Sweetens the meat. :wink:

If I did not think my values were correct, I would not hold them.

83

**

As a hunter I am also a gunowner. (Something many on this board would like to do away with BTW) As a gunowner, I feel no affinity with those who shoot up offices or school houses any more than I as a hunter feel the need to invoke peer pressure on common criminals in the act of poaching, vandalism etc.

Laws are in place to deal with both situations. If I see something that is wrong, I call the TIP (Turn in Poachers) “800” number. I’m not in the habit of getting in the face of those holding guns and causing mischief, whether I am armed or not! One (I) could say that those causing trouble are not hunters, just assholes with guns.

Once again Mole, I do not mean to insult, but this is your lack of knowledge speaking again. A 200 yd shot with a scoped rifle is not easy, but at the same time it is not unethical. I can hit a plate size target with several rifles that own well out to 250-300 yards. I would not attempt a shot any further as my hit% falls off the charts very steeply past 300 yds.

A bowhunter (Of which my brother is) will typically stand in trees or blinds and let the animal come to them. A hunter with a rifle will typically stalk the animal until they are close enough to make a clean kill. Which takes more skill? I say that they are equally demanding, for different reasons. I’ll save the breakdown on both unless you really want to know.

84

For the purposes of this thread we need not get into gun control. Been done here before anyway and it isn’t what this thread is about.

As to hunters policing themselves you need not get in the face of a gun-toting asshole. There are many things a group can do to set limits on its members. Lawyers have the Bar, doctors have medical review boards, football has review boards. Hundreds of choices to choose from. All these groups have written ethical standards that they agreed to amongst themselves. They can impose penalties on their own members for violating those standards. There is no reason hunters as a group couldn’t do the same thing but (AFAIK) they don’t. There may be unwritten rules that the people here adhere to but if some yokel wants to be an ass there isn’t really anything to stop him (unless you turn him in for breaking a law by doing something like poaching).

If you feel hunters couldn’t form a group to effectively police its own then as individuals you could pressure government for more stringent restrictions. If enough hunters did this on their own they likely could see something done.

Granted I have no experience with either (I have shot bows and rifles before but that counts not at all for this purpose). However, Scylla’s post seemed to indicate he was wholly unsuccessful at bow hunting and I assume he was more successful with a gun. His post leads me to believe that while shooting a rifle does take skill bow hunting is noticeably more difficult. I had a sense that bow hunting was more difficult (without having specific knowledge) and Scylla’s comments jibed with my sense of things. Sorry if that was an improper inference to draw.

85

To be more clear about my lst post I realize some laws are in place to regulate hunting. There are likewise laws in place that regulate doctors, lawyers, etc… Groups such as lawyers police themselves more strictly than the law would. It is quite possible for an attorney to do nothing illegal but still have his/her bar card revoked. These groups feel there are higher standards it members should adhere to beyond what the law strictly says.

Nevertheless it isn’t all altruism on thes groups’ part to police themselves. By doing so they head off legislation that affects them. If a problem pops-up and a particular group doesn’t manage it on its own the government very well may. You saw this recently with the accounting scandals surrounding Enron and such. Accountants were falling over themselves trying to convince the government that they would handle it amongst themselves without need for government intervention.

You also get times where an actual problem doesn’t really exist in any significant way but the public gets a jones for the issue and politicians may respond. You can envision some undercover camera recording footage of Bambi getting shot 10 times while squealing in pain. Little kids see it and are horrified and Mothers Against Hunting Bambi (pronounced like ‘mob’) pops-up agitating for an end to this awful thing. At the very least hunters would have to scramble and try and show that this was an isolated occurence but it wouldn’t be the first time some group got legislation passed by ranting the loudest and longest about whatever it is they’re on about regardless if there is a true problem. If hunters had a self-policing group with legitimate power to sanction its own members hunters could say “We’ve taken care of it…the hunter in the video has lost his hunting license for three years” (or whatever…just an example) and the problem goes away overnight.

86

The biggest factor is distance. With a bow a shot is typically 20 or 30 yards away. 40 yards is an extremely long shot.

This season will be my first one bow hunting. I have been practicing but I am still not confident enough in my abilities to shoot at anything farther than 25 yards or so.

It’s extremely difficult to get this close to the deer. The smell, hearing and sight of these animals is formidable. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if I go many years without success in bow hunting.

One of the best benefits of it in my area, BTW is that it extends the hunting season. Instead of the one month of just rifle hunting, I can now hunt for three months with a bow.

In New England, because of the thickness of the forests, it is rare to have a shot that is 100’s of yards. Unless you are specifically looking for fields or clear cuts because that’s your preferred method. Walking around in the woods, one can rarely see more than 50 yards away. However, if I did have a long shot I could take one out to about 200 yards with confidence.

Hunters take these things into consideration before going into the woods. Were not a bunch of yahoo’s tossing beer cans out of pick up trucks on the way to hunt.

My coming moose hunt for instance. I am scouting potential areas to hunt. I am also choosing the right gun. I am looking at the drop of the bullet as it goes out to certain distances - they make ballistics charts. So, depending on what method I choose, I will know the limits of my gun and ability.

For instance, I may take up a stand in a concealed location at the edge of a field on a hill with a treeline above. I and my parter will call for Bull Moose’s (Meece?) up into the treeline. I use my laser rangefinder (driving up the price per pound significantly :wink: ) and determine how close we need to draw the Bull in. I know that if I am using a 30-06 hunting rifle how many inches the bullet will drop at 100, 200, and 300 yards.

These are all careful factors to consider and every hunter I know takes this stuff seriously.

87

One moose = moose
Two ‘mooses’ = moose

So, you will call for Bull Moose be it one or a hundred. That one has always annoyed me too but there it is FWIW.

88

autz

Seems rather inconsistent.

Likewise Whack-o-Moles one-dimensional comments are similarly inconsistent. The problem isn’t that i’m not functionally literate, or whether or not you think so, and believe me i am, or that my views are extremist in any sense of the word, no they are not, no the problem is your pathetic ego-centric grandstanding and of course a pronounced lack of any real insight… and down to earth reasoning abilities. You both throw around buzzwords and, in my case anyway, irrelevant and meaningless insults, if only in a vain and hypocritical attempt to disguise that fact that you have nothing to say. So you find it convenient, no necessary to attack my seemingly harmless and innocent statements. Any reasonable man would wonder why.

Obviously you are not up to the task of engaging in logical debate. You say that i am under-edumacated. If that’s what you really believe then, so be it.

Have fun at Whack-0-Moles canned hunt Stroke Fest.

Sadly, i have better things to do.

FTR:

Q: So what pleasure does [hunting] it give?

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

Q: I have less of a problem if a sport hunter uses the animal they kill for food than if they just want a trophy. The ‘hunters’ that kill caged exotic animals I have absolutely zero tolerance for.

A: So it’s the size of the cage, eh? To me it seems that in both cases the outcome is the same; a person with a deadly weapon, uses it to kill a defenseless innocent animal. i must say for the record, how insane.

Q: How much pain and suffering is ok? Seriously?

A: 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.

i have once again stated my opinion on this matter, with a little pseudo-religious nonsense thrown in for good measure.

Q: Can anyone support sport hunting?

A:** i sure can’t.**

89

Killing for sport is wrong, but if you’re going to eat it’s grand. The only quam I have is the guns, talk about unfair advantage, where’s the sport in that? Doesn’t the NRA says you can have armour piercing bullets if you’re a hunter? Why? How many deer wear a bulletproof vest?

Just doesn’t seem very wholesome and sporting to me. Hunter in bushes with high powered rifle against Bambi. Now if it were hunter in bushes with a knife or his bare hands against Bambi if would be a little bit more fair.
-Jam

90

You clearly have a different definition what constitutes ‘harmless’ and ‘innocent’ statements than I do.

That’s just from your first post where you managed to label hunters as homicidal maniacs, insane, torturers and murderers.

Gee…real compelling. Lots of reasoning. Exceptionally encouraging of others who hold a different view. First rate research and a logic so unimpeachable it should be enshrined forever. :rolleyes:

91

dragonfly98:

One more thing. Everything you have said so far is opinion. While you’re welcome to your opinion as much as the next person this is Great Debates (notice the emphasis on debate). You have yet to support a single assertion you’ve made beyond your say-so for it.

92

**

No they don’t. AP bullets are effective against armor, not the soft hide of deer or people for that matter. Are you trying to be a smartass or actually trying to add to the debate? So far, you’ve failed at both attempts.

I can assure you that hunting is not easy. Uneducated twits may think so, and are usually the ones who drop a couple grand at LL Bean only to go home from the hunt empty handed. Or they are the ones who make idiotic claims about killing Bambi and such.

93

Wow, Groznak, thank you for that. A powerful post - read it again.

Growing up in western Wisconsin, I heard a lot of what Groznak’s posting against (and what’s been said in this very thread) - that animals in the wild lead perfect, happy lives directly in Eden where they could frolic and run as they would, all with happy smiles on their faces. Not so. Watch enough science and nature programming and you’ll learn one thing: an animal’s entire purpose (or yours, for that matter) is to eat, drink, and sleep long enough to reproduce. That’s it. All while dodging hazards, dangers, fights, and diseases. It’s no easy task of lazy days and free running, and only a few make it.

Here’s a serious question for hunters (and I ask only because I truly don’t know, want to find out, and figure the more learned among you might have some answers): Is hunting as a form of population management really working? Are herds really managed effectively? I realize that the human impact on nature (removing natural predators and the like) leaves us with few other alternatives, but the recent record deer populations in WI and MN make me skeptical that humans are doing a good job managing populations. They’ve added extended or additional hunting seasons, and there was even a “mass killing” type thing managed by the DNR to thin the herd last year (that few sportsment/hunters participated in, I’ll add, due to fears of chronic wasting disease and the general manner in which it was carried out). Do these management techniques work well, because there are times that it seems overburdened herds are always facing starvation and disease. I appreciate your responses, as you are all more knowledgeable than I (I’m not a hunter, BTW, but I’m also not against the practice - more ambivalent, I’d say. Definitely interested, however, as hunting pervades the culture in which I grew up).

As I read through, I see some of this has been answered already by previous poster. Thank you - I did not realize that due to management, game is now present where it wasn’t before.

An additional thank you to Scylla. Excellent posts. And you’re right - hunters understand something about life and death that I as a non-hunter never will.

Snicks

94

A simple google search found hundreds of hunting groups committed to promoting ethical hunting. I belong to Phesants Forever and Ducks Unlimited. Both groups have ethical standards for their members to hunt/live by. The problem is that those who choose not to be an ethical hunter don’t belong to any clubs or organizations.

Each year, the State of Iowa prints out the regs for hunting and trapping. These books are magazine sized and are about 30 pages. There are plenty of written rules and regs on the book. Trust me, it takes no effort to find out what you can and can’t do legally while hunting. Just like any other situation however, the majority of participants follow all rules and regs, and few assholes don’t. More likely than not, they choose to break the law in other areas besides hunting.

The laws are stringent enough. More laws wont help in this situation anymore than more laws against terrorism will stop it from reaching our shores again. The bottom line is that we are talking about common criminals who break laws on the books concerning hunting. These laws are no less severe than those governing traffic safety. They still choose to break them however. As mentioned above, there will always be those who follow the law and those who don’t.

Bow hunting is difficult to the non bowhunter. I have a hard time drawing back the string on my brothers bow. Rifle and shotgunning is difficult to the novice as well. Both however are skills that are learned and not genetic or something. If I practiced, I could probably be a good shot with a bow. Right now in my life I have no desire to find out.

95

I see this in no way as an argument for hunting. From nature’s perspective humans fall inthe same category of our entire prupose is to reproduce. What we do in the intervening time nature doesn’t care about as long as it allows us to get to the reproducing part. What you suggest above sounds like you are doing the animals a favor. “Hey, it’s a hard life out there what with dodging predators, finding your next meal, battling for a harem…tell you what, I’ll do you a favor and kill you so all this mess won’t trouble you anymore.”

In short, regardless of how fun or not fun an animal’s life is that cannot be used as an excuse to kill it.

96

Whack-a-mole, there are a number of organizations that hunters belong to that teach hunter safety and ethics. The NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, etc., to name a few.

97

You guys are missing the point. Clearly organizations exist…a lot of them. The goal is to have one over-arching organization to which all hunters are answerable to. None of the organizations you or JXJohns mentioned have any regulatory power over their members (or at least even if they kick a member out it means nothing to his continued hunting).

As mentioned organizations exist in many places that do have control over their membership. As mentioned the Bar Association can revoke a member’s ability to continue to practice law even if that person did not commit a crime. As such a hunter’s organization would need teeth to be able to sanction members (e.g. revoking hunting priviledges for a year, or three or forever or keeping them out of the moose lottery…lots of possibilities). If the hunter continues to hunt without a license they have broken the law and may be punished that way.

With such a hunter’s organization they could address things like canned hunting. Is it a problem? If so how big? If it merits attention what should be done? Instead of having some states that allow it, some states that don’t and some states with weak laws hunters themselves could provide an overarching answer to the issue. Further, the answer would come FROM hunters and not outsiders which is something I think they would prefer to outside intervention.

98

Whack, in response to your OP… I can “support”, if that’s the word, sport hunting of non-endangered species.

I just don’t care to be social with anyone who thinks that’s fun.

99

Fair enough. I would be curious about your take on Scylla’s earlier post (top of this page I think where he waxes philosophical about hunting) and whether that would affect your decision to be social with him (other considerations aside for the moment)?

100

In Pennsylvania, that organization that all hunters are answerable to is the Pennsylvania Game Commission.
Their website is located here if you would like to peruse their rules and regulations.