Hey Dragonfly98!
Just thought you should know.
First that is a governmental organization. As such they will apply the laws of the state. Further, they do not answer to hunters directly but rather to the state legislature.
Second, that only applies to the state of Pennsylvania. While each state might have a similar entity the rules and regulations can vary dramatically from place to place.
An organization such as I am thinking of would be national. ALL hunters would get their licenses through this organization (which would charge fees for those licenses based on the state in which you want to hunt). You’d probably have to pay a little more for the license to account for their handling everything but I doubt it would be much and you get other benefits for that extra money.
Benefits might include a single voice to act as a PR outlet for your sport. You’d get a single place to submit grievances to be resolved if they come-up. You get a single place for discussion among the entire group. Hunter’s strengthen their lobbying clout in Washington and the states to protect their rights (ala the NRA). A code of ethics could be established, voted on by the membership after discussion, that all hunters must abide by and decide as a group what punishments for violating that code are appropriate. Hunting regulations from state-to-state can become more homogenous (e.g. one rule regarding canned hunting anywhere in the US).
If most hunters, as is claimed here, are upstanding and ethical people that approach the sport with something akin to reverance then such an organization should be no problem. If there is a large enough contingent of yahoos then piling all you into one boat might be a bit…say unstable. Still, if the vast majority of hunters are good people who respect the sport than there should be no problem swamping out the few bad apples (which is partly the point anyway as I doubt good hunters are much more tolerant of ‘bad’ hunters anymore than the non-hunting public is).
Deciding to live means deciding to kill. Once we accept that, we can get on with the business of killing as efficiently and humanely as possible.
Furthermore, I am convinced that a natural life in the wild ending in a sudden, violent death is preferable to a life of nothing but penned-up misery ending in a not-so-sudden violent death. Hunters who eat their kill are reducing the demand for the misery-meat that most people (myself included) enjoy.
Hmmm well, ok… but in the interest of ‘fairness’ I think we need to fit all deer’s legs with at least 5 pound weights to prevent them from running away and jumping at super-human speeds. No unfair advantage to them. Oh, and they need some kind of means to muffle their senses of smell and hearing, both far superior to mans. Not much we can do about them being born in the woods and all, it being their home… I KNOW! We’ll just drop a deer and hunter armed with a knife in the middle of an ocean! Even ground, all’s fair there.
Get the idea that talk about what is ‘fair’ is a bit ignorant? We use guns because they kill quickly and humanely, they are the product of our human brains which is really the ONLY advantage we have as hunters.
The NRA doesn’t support armor piercing bullets for hunters. They would be quite wasted in that capacity.
If you ARE interested in hunters who DO use primitive weapons to hunt, I know some guys who hunt boar and bison armed only with spears… they’re supposed to take on a bear this fall.
And as I mentioned, in Iowa the DNR fits the exact bill as you describe. Link
In most states, hunting is a legal activity practiced by many. Mole, either you have a problem with the ethics of hunting or the legalty of same. The state DNR, Game Commisions, etc are responsible for the licensing of hunters and enforcing the laws on the books. I am unsure of what you would want the ideal organization that you describe to do that the states do not currently.
The very idea of an all nationwide-empowered hunting group reeks of bueracracy, red tape and inefficiencies. Each state today monitors and has the power to grant licenses to hunters. They are responsible for the enfocement of laws, which are usually based on ethics.
So which is it? The ethics that need oversight or the laws? I feel that the laws are being enforced just fine. As far as the ethics, only the ethical believe in ethics and therefore are not the problem are they? So exactly where is the problem?
Put that way sure but not all cattle live in penned-up misery and most don’t die slow deaths…we’ve been through this here already.
This does bring back to a point made earlier that an animal being shot by a rifle (or arrow) is almost always a quick death. Initially I took those of you at your word for it (allowing for occasional non-lethal shots to the flank for instance that was also said to be rare). However, the videos of the lions being shot I linked to earlier belies this notion. The lions took multiple shots to kill (12 for one lion) with hunters using rifles from maybe 30 feet away. If the rifle is so devastating to a shot animal why didn’t the lion go down on one shot and die in seconds (I think 5 seconds was the number given) as was previously suggested was the case? Is it that a lion is bigger than a deer? If so what does that mean for Buffalo, Moose, Bears and other large animals? Basically I am having a problem accepting that the deaths of hunted animals is anywhere near as quick and painless (the majority of the time) as has been suggested.
I’ll try again.
LAWS do not cover everything in this country that might be considered improper behavior. As such organizations exist to police their own members and apply guidelines on their membership to clear up gray areas…areas the membership wouldn’t want to see legislation. There are things a doctor can do that will never get them sent to jail or even so much as see the inside of a courthouse but will lose them their medical license.
As I mentioned before canned hunts are legal in some places and illegal in others. Does that make sense? If it is an ok thing to participate in it should be legal everywhere. If it is not an ok thing to participate in it should be illegal everywhere. Clearly government institutions are all over the map. What is wrong with an organization, composed of hunters, who among themselves see something like canned hunting, debate among themselves, and then come out with a position covering that issue? The alternative is to let flaky legislatures pass who knows what bill that may either be overly restrictive or a panacea to placate a different group. The DNR cannot make laws and can’t impose sanctions at their whim…they have to apply the laws on the books. A national hunters organization can do what the DNR can’t.
What gets me most of all is the resistance you and others show to such an entity. An organization composed of hunters and separate from government regulation. An organization that can avoid government regulation because it handles matter important to it on their own. It’s be no more a bueracracy than what you deal with now in getting licenses and might even be more amenable to smoothing red-tape entaglements than trying to get the state to be efficient. The organization is answerable to the HUNTERS here…if they bitch about some ridiculous procedure this organization can look for new methods or apply pressure to states to smooth processes (the DNR won’t do this for you either). Except for maybe adding $10/year to your hunting costs I have a hard time seeing the downside here.
Mole, I think the bottom line is that you have found a solution, for a problem that many do not feel exists.
More later, I’m taking the kids to the state fair…
I just wanted to thank Scylla for the most eloquent phrasing of why I intend to be a neophyte hunter in about 6 weeks when the season opens, assuming I can get my marksmanship up to an acceptable standard by then.
Whack-a-Mole I think the reason why hunting regulations are provincial/ state level is that there is so much variation in topography, ecosystems, and species hunted, that the regs should take that into account. That said, there is the Canadian Wildlife Service which has a national voice here, but they collaborate with, rather than rule over, the provincial bodies.
*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole *
If you care to take the time, and if it still exists, Scylla and I had a very long, drawn out, and brutal debate on this subject several years ago. I feel completely confident in assuming that his basic views on the subject remain unchanged. He was completely unsuccessful in convincing me that there is anything mystically wonderful about killing animals, no matter how much comraderie, sunsets, mastery over scary nature and early morning dew one throws into it. I believe you can have all those things without the blood and suffering and death. Matter of fact, 'tis my own view that the blood and suffering and death pretty much * ruin * all the rest of it.
And that said, I reiterate: people who think there is pleasure, fun, amusement, or other reward in being the agent of the (pretty much unavoidable, no one is a perfect shot) suffering and death of other living things, and make sport of it, are people who have a world view so fundamentally and radically different from my own that I can see no basis for a social relationship.
I’m actually a pretty good bowshot, but I’ll talk a little bit more about bow versus rifle hunting.
A bowhunter is much more likely to wound his prey than a rifle hunter. An arrow with a broadhead has a pretty narrow range and target area that will produce quick kill.
Anything outside of this produces a horrific wound that leads to suffering as it festers if not death over a period of several days to several months.
A bullet from a hunting gun kills because it basically explodes whatever it hits. Shock and shrapnel from the impact and the ensuing hamburger does a pretty efficient job of bringing down a deer very fast.
Even a wounding shot isn’t that bad, because it will tend to incapacitate the deer. Hit it in the butt, and you shatter its hip. It can’t move, and it’s easy to finish it.
An arrow on the other hand kills in a different way. At up to 25-30 yards, a razor tipped broadhead propelled by a medium sized hunting bow has enough oomph behind it that it’s pretty much guarranteed to penetrate the ribcage.
A very rare perfect shot will go right clean through both sides of a deer taking out the lungs and the heart, dropping the deer pretty much instantly.
More often, what happens is the arrow penetrates the ribcage. As the deer runs away, the movement of the arrow against the brush and the movement of the lungs will cause the broadhead to shred the lungs and artery.
Most deer will run 20-50 yards sit down and expire within a few minutes from such a shot.
Anything else leaves a wounded deer to suffer and/or die.
So, it’s a lot harder to be a responsible deer hunter with a bow. While I can hit a pie plate every time at a hundred yards with my bow, I wouldn’t shoot at a deer unless I was within 25 yards.
Contrary to what else has been said, I find it a lot harder than riflehunting.
I am pretty much guarranteed a deer on opening day by noon if I use a rifle. I’ve learned from some good hunters, and I can pick some nice high ground overlooking a lot of territory. I’ve taken shots at groundhogs at 250 yards with confidence. I’d shoot at a deer at 4-500 yards if I was confident in wind elevation and range and my shot was clear, and I’d feel comfortable in getting a kill.
With the bow, you have to get pretty personal with the deer. You have to hunt a specific deer. You need to read the sign, know his territory, how he travels, where he rubs and when. Then, you have to get there ahead of him without leaving a trace of your presence, and you have to remain undetected.
This is extraordinarily hard. Deer are very sensitive to smell and sound and motion.
A couple of times every bow season, I’ll be in my stand, complimenting myself on my cleverness and stealth only to catch a glimpse of the buck I’ve been after staring at me from a safe distance. This probably happens a lot more except that I never see the deer.
Bowhunting is several orders of magnitude more difficult than riflehunting, IMO.
I’m actually a pretty good bowshot, but I’ll talk a little bit more about bow versus rifle hunting.
A bowhunter is much more likely to wound his prey than a rifle hunter. An arrow with a broadhead has a pretty narrow range and target area that will produce quick kill.
Anything outside of this produces a horrific wound that leads to suffering as it festers if not death over a period of several days to several months.
A bullet from a hunting gun kills because it basically explodes whatever it hits. Shock and shrapnel from the impact and the ensuing hamburger does a pretty efficient job of bringing down a deer very fast.
Even a wounding shot isn’t that bad, because it will tend to incapacitate the deer. Hit it in the butt, and you shatter its hip. It can’t move, and it’s easy to finish it.
An arrow on the other hand kills in a different way. At up to 25-30 yards, a razor tipped broadhead propelled by a medium sized hunting bow has enough oomph behind it that it’s pretty much guarranteed to penetrate the ribcage.
A very rare perfect shot will go right clean through both sides of a deer taking out the lungs and the heart, dropping the deer pretty much instantly.
More often, what happens is the arrow penetrates the ribcage. As the deer runs away, the movement of the arrow against the brush and the movement of the lungs will cause the broadhead to shred the lungs and artery.
Most deer will run 20-50 yards sit down and expire within a few minutes from such a shot.
Anything else leaves a wounded deer to suffer and/or die.
So, it’s a lot harder to be a responsible deer hunter with a bow. While I can hit a pie plate every time at a hundred yards with my bow, I wouldn’t shoot at a deer unless I was within 25 yards.
Contrary to what else has been said, I find it a lot harder than riflehunting.
I am pretty much guarranteed a deer on opening day by noon if I use a rifle. I’ve learned from some good hunters, and I can pick some nice high ground overlooking a lot of territory. I’ve taken shots at groundhogs at 250 yards with confidence. I’d shoot at a deer at 4-500 yards if I was confident in wind elevation and range and my shot was clear, and I’d feel comfortable in getting a kill.
With the bow, you have to get pretty personal with the deer. You have to hunt a specific deer. You need to read the sign, know his territory, how he travels, where he rubs and when. Then, you have to get there ahead of him without leaving a trace of your presence, and you have to remain undetected.
This is extraordinarily hard. Deer are very sensitive to smell and sound and motion.
A couple of times every bow season, I’ll be in my stand, complimenting myself on my cleverness and stealth only to catch a glimpse of the buck I’ve been after staring at me from a safe distance. This probably happens a lot more except that I never see the deer.
Bowhunting is several orders of magnitude more difficult than riflehunting, IMO.
Like I said earlier. This national org that Mole suggests really appears to be a solution looking for a problem. Ethics are only important to those who are ethical. Canned hunts aren’t that big of a deal.
My friend owns a 400 acre farm where he lets people pay him to hunt. He stocks phesants on the farm every year. He doesn’t have an electric 10 foot fence around the place as the birds would just fly over it. He has a nice business that is helping him pay for a farm that he would otherwise be unable to afford. Whats the big deal?
Another friend owns a 10,000 acre ranch in Wyoming. He charges clients for guided hunts on his land. He does have barbed wire fence surrounding most of his ranch though. Again, whats the problem?
Ae these canned hunts? Both have a no kill no pay policy, but niether chain animals up to trees or anything. They just manage their places effectively so that shots are easy and accessible for all. One of their biggest customer groups are handicapped hunters FWIW.
Each state is currently taking care of its own in regards to those hunts that some find objectionable. My first thought is to let the market decide what type of hunting is acceptable. My second thought is to let the people who live in the state decide if they will allow certain types of hunting or not. That has worked fine for years, there is no reason it can’t continue that way.
Whack:
There are things that I find offensive that other people find acceptable or even desirable. I try not to judge them because I don’t understand their terms and contexts. More importantly, I realize that my personal preference and beliefs in things and what I find offensive or don’t are simply my opinions. I don’t know them or their motivations, and I try not to criticize things I don’t know about, as I think that’s an intrinsically bad stance to take.
What particular aspect of a canned hunt do you find so morally offensive that you beleive they should be outlawed?
Why is a canned hunt any different from picking a lobster out of a tank at Red Lobster? Why is this different from me buying live crabs to cook them at home?
What is the specific ethical problem with a canned hunt that makes it so odious that it should be disallowed?
You’ve changed the issue. I am saying bad hunters do not reflect on the hunting. You have responded that bad cops reflect on police and bad doctors reflect on Doctors.
I agree.
But, I don’t think that Bad Doctor’s reflect on the concept of medecine. Nor do I think Bad Cops reflect on the desirabilitly of law enforcement.
See the diff?
Oh. Of course. I apologize for challenging your right to be wrong. I didn’t mean to say that you couldn’t feel that way as a matter of right. I meant to say that you couldn’t feel that way and be logical and correct. And, I reserve the right to point out your errors where I see them, and attempt to change your mind while running the risk of you doing the same to me.
In this case I feel pretty comfortable. You are making a general criticism from a position of ignorance. If you don’t fully understand it, how can you logically and ethically dismiss it or criticize it?
Yeah, but changing my oil also helps me understand my place in the world and my relation and connection to the parts of my life. The only difference I see is that a life is taken when I hunt successfully. To you this obviously some how changes the equation, but I don’t honestly understand why.
What is intrinsically bad about purposefully taking the life of another living creature? Why do you percieve that this is a bad thing to be avoided?
I really see this as major logical and ethical problem for your viewpoint. You seem to me (and correct me if I’m wrong,) to be operating under the assumption or belief that my fellow living creatures have a right to life, and that it is bad for me to purposefully deny them of that right.
The two ethical problems with this stance is that if you grant our fellow creatures this right, than why is destroying it accidently ok?
Even more troubling is that if they are granted this right, why is it ok to kill our fellow animals by proxy?
You seem to understand that you are a killer by proxy. You seem to understand that your very existence, eating, breathing, clothing, literally everything that you do is accomplished through the death of fellow animals.
Once you understand and accept that, it seems to me that unless you choose to immediately kill yourself, you are a knowing and willing accomplice to all the murders that occur on your behalf.
What is the moral distinction between being an knowing and willing accomplice to a murder and pulling the trigger yourself?
Personally, I believe the higher ethic exists in doing for yourself rather than having others do your dirty work.
If you grant animals this right to existence than how do you reconcile the fact that you are an accomplice to their murder simply through living your life?
I’ll give you an example. If you tell me to go get a human heart, and you know that to do that, I will have to kill a human being, and I do this thing for you and bring you the heart, and you accept it with both for and postknowledge of how it was done how are you any better than me?
How do you feel that this seperates you from the act of murder?
Or, do you think that Pontius Pilate took a correct moral stance?
Conversely, if you do not grant animals this right to existance, and you do believe that it is proper and appropriate that animals die for your benefit, what possible issue can you have with someone else who feels exactly the same way, yet chooses to do the job themselves on occasion?
Hunters do this too, and quite a bit better than the members of the SDMB, IMO. The SDMB still has the occasional does it not?
Do you expect hunters as a group to be perfect in their self-policing?
Unless you are granting rights to these animals I don’t see why “having a chance” is important. If you are granting rights, then we have all the moral conundrums we discussed earlier.
Rifle hunting for deer isn’t exactly easy, you know? Try it some time. Go read some books, get a rifle and a license and try deer hunting. I got $20.00 that says you can’t get a deer on your own without help in the wilderness, and I’ll give you all hunting season to do it.
If you accomplish it, I’ll simply take your word for it and send you a 20.
You may get very lucky, but I seriously doubt it. It’s a pretty damn hard thing to do.
BTW. that offer’s for you only, not for anybody else. You seem to be the honorable sort, so I’ll take your word.
Please, explain it to me, oh wise preadator.
That’s pretty intense melodrama. I know a lot of hunters, and I don’t think you’d find they’re so dramatically different from yourself. You sound as though you think they run around drooling and lusting after death and can think of little else.
It is beyond credibility to think that hunters’ attitude towards game is the centerpiece and defining basis of their “worldviews.” People are not that one-dimensional.
I would add to that that
``people who think there is pleasure, fun, amusement, or other reward in being the agent of the (pretty much unavoidable, no one is a perfect shot) suffering and death of other living things’’
is not a very accurate description of many hunters. The only numerical study I know of would be by Kempton, summarised in a book called ``Environmental values in American culture’’ (LCCN GE150.K46 1995 at your favourite library), but it’s been long enough since I read that that I’d be unable to quote any numbers. Still, I’ve read everything about hunting I can get my hands on over the past 6 months or so, and almost everyone talks about hunters feeling sadness, regret and guilt over the act of killing itself, rather than pleasure, fun or amusement.
There are other aspects to the hunt that are enjoyable, but the hunter ``kills in order to have hunted, rather than hunting in order to kill’’. And there is some satisfaction in being the direct agent of death, rather than being an indirect, unexamining and naive agent of an equivalent death, not in the killing itself.
Subtle points, and I am probably not doing them justice. Read Beyond Fair Chase'', by Jim Posewitz (799.2 P85b, but I think that's some wierd non-standard call number scheme used by the public library...), Blacktail deer hunting adventures’’ by Wesley Murphey (799.2 M978b) and a bunch of other stuff in the same section of the library if you want to try to understand the mentality in more detail.
Scylla said:
“You don’t know what hunters like or don’t like.”
I’m sorry that I seemed to be assuming what they do and don’t like. I’m not a mind reader, so I realize that I really don’t truly know for sure. I meant that hunters enjoying killing is what it appears to be to me, because their arguments about nature walks, family bonding, etc. don’t hold up because that can be accomplished without killing.
And I must mention knowing a good many hunters that do enjoy the killing, it gives them a sense of power, and they have outright admitted that to me. I’m not saying you are like that, or even that this represents the majority of hunters, but maybe a lot of them.
“You are not privy to their motivations.”
Very true. And even though you are a hunter, you must admit that not all hunters have the same motivations as you do.
“You’re insistence that it is bloodlust is nothing more than your own prejudice.”
I never used that word, and I’m sorry if I gave that impression. I was referring to those who enjoy the killing to give them a sense of power, and in your post to Whack even you admitted that such people exist:
“Of course there are those obnoxious competitive hunters as well. There’s quite a few of those. Those are the guys looking for trophies or affirmations of their own power, control or manhood.”
“The fact is that I do not enjoy killing. I am simply untroubled by the aspect of killing within the context of hunting.”
When I said “enjoy”, I didn’t mean along the lines of getting a sadistic sense of gratification accompanied by maniacal laughter. I meant that you must like it on some level, not that it just doesn’t bother you or that it doesn’t trouble you, because you actively seek it out. Maybe your argument just confuses me because I don’t voluntarily go out of my way to do things that I am “untroubled” by; I voluntarily take the time to do things I like and enjoy. Maybe you can explain to me what you mean by “untroubled…within the context of hunting?”
“I think a lot of hunters feel the way I do, even if they don’t intellectualize. They may describe it as getting back to basics, or just say it feels good.”
If a hunter says it makes them “feel good”, then is it such a jump for me to assume they “enjoy” it?
“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?”
No I don’t. I believe people drive cars because they have to. But those who want to save money and the environment take the bus, subway, or walk. Do you have to hunt? You have the money to buy food, so I don’t see the necessity. I would still complain if a person was wasting gas by driving around in circles, though not as much because nothing had to die for that to happen.
I guess my basic disagreement comes down to hunting as a sport or recreational activity, as opposed to something necessary for survival. And I believe Whack-a-Mole also said something along these lines in the OP. If you need it to live, then fine. But if you go hunting for sport or fun or just to bond with your buddies, then I have a problem. (and by “you” I don’t mean you specifically Scylla).
“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.”
Ok, I think I see what you’re trying to say here. And I respect this approach to hunting, as opposed to those who just think the animals are there to die for their entertainment.
I have a question though: Do you utilize every part of the animal? When you hunt, do you eat all of the meat? Or are there parts that go to waste? I don’t see a problem in doing it for yourself, as you put it, as long as you aren’t wasteful in the process. And if you aren’t, then good on you!
“We moved. The dog did not adapt. It became aggressive and dangerous. I put it to sleep for my benefit.”
Can you elaborate on what happened? I’m just curious on why the dog would start to behave aggressively just because you moved. Did the dog have a history of aggression?
“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.”
Ok, glad we got that cleared up. I must have mistaken you for one of the hunters arguing that the deer would’ve been hit by cars anyway, etc. so hunting was good for them.
“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 think to me the key phrase here is “once in a while”, and I fear that many hunters over do it.
“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 have never dismissed your position. I have admitted that I don’t understand it, but I’m trying. 
I do however ‘dismiss’ those who only hunt for fun.
“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 disagree that someone must participate in the killing. I think that just being a witness to one is enough for most people to not take the animals we use for granted.
“I see no moral superiority in choosing to have another do it for you.“
No one is claiming that it is morally superior to have someone do your ‘dirty work’, if you are going to use the whole animal. I would argue however that the responsible hunter that only takes what he needs is morally superior to those who hunt simply for sport and fun.
“::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.”
I understood you, but perhaps I should have included an additional example in my post. I still don’t think taking a life is necessary. I know that animals die for me to eat and wear clothing. I know that my life causes suffering to them. I know this, and I don’t take them for granted. And I didn’t have to take a life to realize it. Though some people could probably benefit from a trip to a slaughterhouse in their lifetime, so they can witness it and appreciate the animal’s sacrifice.
~Eris~
Originally posted by JXJohns:
“In my mind a hunter is one who takes what he needs and leaves the rest for another day.”
I’m not religious, but AMEN.
That should be a “good hunter”, anyways.
~Eris~
Lokij said:
“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?)”
I wish that too. I know the hunters that I know are not representative of all hunters, but there are a good many out there like the ones I described… And most likely the types of hunters that would be posting to this type of board in the first place are more like you anyway. My hunter ‘friends’ wouldn’t come near here.
“Second, why do I hunt and kill instead of hike and photograph. Well, for one I can’t EAT a photograph.”
Which is a good point, but only if your sole motivation in hunting is to get food. If the experience itself takes precedence to the need for food, then I don’t see how this applies.
“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.”
Nor does the sport of hunting, using that analogy. You don’t use just your brain and body to stalk and kill prey animals. You use a GUN. And you didn’t evolve 3 million years with a gun attached to your hand. It is a recent development, and one that deer have no major defense for. Now if you were running out there and ripping the dear apart with your teeth or your bare hands, then you’d really have an argument. hehe 
“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”
I’ve often seen this argument as well. Humans are animals, that’s a fact, but I don’t think that means we should deny ourselves our basic needs. But I don’t consider taking an animal’s life for pleasure or fun a “need.” Food and clothing is however. So I guess it depends on why the hunter is hunting, for food or for fun?
“We should respect our brother animal but divorce ourselves from our place in the world AS animals.”
I don’t understand what you mean by this (“divorce”), but that may be because I am a Biology Pre-Med major, so I recognize the human homo sapiens as an animal. A very intelligent animal, yes, but an animal. Because of our “superior” (I use this term lightly) intelligence, it is up to us to be sure we don’t exploit the animal resources on our planet. And given the number of endangered and extinct species, we don’t have that great of a track record…
“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.”
So do you mean a human must kill another human, and a dog must kill another dog, in order to be considered “pathological?” If you do, then what about those humans that harm animals of another species for enjoyment/fun/pleasure?
“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.”
I know that hunters did a great deal of nature conservation, and I’m grateful to them for it. Though it can be argued that they wanted conservation for “selfish” reasons, good did come of it. My only problem is with those people who think it was exclusively hunters who did it, and those who will try to argue that because hunters saved the animals, it should be ok for them to kill them now.
About my pedophile analogy, I admit it wasn’t a good one, but the only one I could think of at the time… 
They often coach little league teams or volunteer in other areas where children are involved for the selfish reason of accessibility to the kids. Just because they are a helpful volunteer doesn’t mean they can abuse the kids. And just because hunters conserve areas of wildlife doesn’t mean they have the right to then kill them when they choose. That’s what I was getting at.
~Eris~