I pit people who can't appreciate wildlife unless they can kill it

[Miller]

@Rubystreak

Fish and Wildlife Services issued the ban on killing the ones in Montana, per my cite. I guess those people are “experts.” Like I said, you may not agree with their reasons, but if it became state law, there must be a number people who think they are worth protecting. Are they all ignorant idiots who are full of shit? Maybe, I guess you’d say so. That’s fine, that’s your prerogative.

CarnalK’s point was that we don’t know their reasons, so we can’t actually say if we agree with them or not. It’s entirely possible, for example, that caretakers in a particular area might be aware that the ecologically sound thing to do is cull an albino deer from the population, but have decided not to out of economic or political considerations. We don’t even know if these restrictions were passed by actual conservationists or ecologists, or if they were fluff legislation made by a politician trying to pimp up his enviromentalist credentials.

Despite all that protection, if the albino deers’ genetic defect is a real problem, they would still die before reaching maturity, so all the protection in the world isn’t going to help an animal that isn’t viable.

That’s really a very simplistic and largely inaccurate understanding of evolution. From an evolutionary stand-point, sterility is a huge problem, for the obvious reasons, but it doesn’t prevent a sterile animal from living a long and healthy life. There are plenty of other conditions (including albinism) that can be a “real” problem, even if it isn’t necessarily a death sentence for the afflicted animal.

[amarone]

@Ivorybill

There *are * many enjoyable aspects to hunting. The challenge is enjoyable. Getting into the woods (or marsh or fields) is enjoyable. Ditto spending time with friends before and after the hunt. The traditions and the multi-generational aspects. The dogs. Learning about the seasons and the critters in a way that you do not, can not, learn by hiking or backpacking. Providing food for your family.

I do nearly all these things but without hunting. I really don’t see why it is impossible to learn about seasons and critters by hiking and backpacking - assuming you are prepared to take the time to wait and watch. The only thing I miss out on is aiming and pulling the trigger. I don’t see how I am missing some lesson about nature - I already know that animals bleed.

The act of killing is not enjoyable, for me at least. I’m sure that it is for some - - guys I hunted with referred to that class as killers. Again, based on my personal experiences, the act of killing wasn’t what was enjoyable or what served as the primary motivation for the other hunters I have known.

It probably seems like splitting hairs - - that one can parse out the ultimate objective of hunting as an unpleasant necessity while enjoying the process.

True - see my final paragraph. To me the answer seems obvious - if you don’t enjoy the final bit, don’t do it. I believe that I get just as much pleasure out of being outdoors and taking in nature as the hunters I know, and I can do that without killing anything. Killing would marr the experience for me.

A much more elegant treatment of this viewpoint can be found in the book Deep Enough for Ivorybills by Jim Kilgo.

Maybe I will get the book (I’ve put it on my Amazon wish list - that should make my in-laws fall off their chairs if they see it, seeing how they constitute a good number of the hunters I know). However, I am not averse to reading different opinions - heck, I have even read several Creationist books. There are certainly some aspects to hunting (not all mentioned in this thread) where I utterly fail to see the other point of view - it just doesn’t compute.

[Rubystreak]

@Miller

That’s really a very simplistic and largely inaccurate understanding of evolution. From an evolutionary stand-point, sterility is a huge problem, for the obvious reasons, but it doesn’t prevent a sterile animal from living a long and healthy life. There are plenty of other conditions (including albinism) that can be a “real” problem, even if it isn’t necessarily a death sentence for the afflicted animal.

I’m not trying to make an evolutionary argument here. As Colibri pointed out, an evolutionary argument would not focus on one specific animal. You keep giving reasons why it was a good idea for this deer to be killed; I can’t quite get behind any of them. But my interest is not promoting the best possible gene pool for deer, as yours and Colibri’s seems to be. I don’t think the goal here is to breed a race of uberdeer. My feeling is, live and let live. Or let die, if that’s what happens in the natural course of things. If you’re justifying trophy hunting by saying the hunter’s actions are good for deerkind, I think you’re missing my point. Which I don’t seem to be able to make no matter how hard I try, and I bet you’d agree that the conversation is getting rather tedious at this point anyway.

[Miller]

@Rubystreak

I’m not trying to make an evolutionary argument here. As Colibri pointed out, an evolutionary argument would not focus on one specific animal. You keep giving reasons why it was a good idea for this deer to be killed; I can’t quite get behind any of them. But my interest is not promoting the best possible gene pool for deer, as yours and Colibri’s seems to be. I don’t think the goal here is to breed a race of uberdeer. My feeling is, live and let live. Or let die, if that’s what happens in the natural course of things. If you’re justifying trophy hunting by saying the hunter’s actions are good for deerkind, I think you’re missing my point. Which I don’t seem to be able to make no matter how hard I try, and I bet you’d agree that the conversation is getting rather tedious at this point anyway.

As I said earlier, I don’t think trophy hunting needs justifiying, any more than eating a steak needs justifying. They’re both examples of people enjoying themselves at the expense of an animal’s life, and I don’t see where one can make a legitimate moral distinction between the two. This particular case was used as an example of particularly bad trophy hunting, as if the stag’s color made it a more inappropriate target. The entire point of bringing in the evolutionary argument was to demonstrate that this is actually a less egregious case of trophy hunting, because all else being equal, at least a defective deer was removed from the population, instead of a deer that was more fit to survive. If you want to argue that trophy hunting is a bad thing in general, you don’t need to use this particular deer to make your case: any animal would fit the bill, regardless of coloration.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

@Miller

As I said earlier, I don’t think trophy hunting needs justifiying, any more than eating a steak needs justifying.

Eating a power-killed ribeye at Friday’s is a far way from chasing an animal you wounded through the woods only to find out it can punch like a motherfuck. Deer can fight.

[Rubystreak]

@Miller

As I said earlier, I don’t think trophy hunting needs justifiying, any more than eating a steak needs justifying. They’re both examples of people enjoying themselves at the expense of an animal’s life, and I don’t see where one can make a legitimate moral distinction between the two.

I don’t particularly make one either. That’s why I don’t eat steak. I’m not an orthodox vegan or anything, but it’s just because I lack willpower and live with a person who is an avid eater of animal products. I do feel free to be disgusted by trophy hunting. I’m also disgusted by factory farming. Both need justifying and neither can be.

This particular case was used as an example of particularly bad trophy hunting, as if the stag’s color made it a more inappropriate target.

Don’t you see that what’s inappropriate was the amount of bragging and posturing, which was because the animal was rare. The coloring didn’t make it a more or less appropriate target, and I don’t think anyone here is saying it did (though it is illegal in lots of places, if you care about breaking the law). What was inappropriate was the celebration around killing a rare animal, as if that’s worthy of congratulations. I don’t think it is.

The entire point of bringing in the evolutionary argument was to demonstrate that this is actually a less egregious case of trophy hunting,

No, it’s still more egregious because the albinism made it a more celebrated trophy. Whether it was good for the species seems like justification to me, no matter how many times you say it wasn’t.

because all else being equal, at least a defective deer was removed from the population, instead of a deer that was more fit to survive.

That is absolutely a rationalization-- “at least it was…” No, sorry. If it doesn’t need justification, don’t make any.

If you want to argue that trophy hunting is a bad thing in general, you don’t need to use this particular deer to make your case: any animal would fit the bill, regardless of coloration.

I do think it’s bad in general, but it’s worse in this case because it was on the news and this woman was treated like she did something special.

[Ivorybill]

@amarone

To me the answer seems obvious - if you don’t enjoy the final bit, don’t do it.

If you read Kilgo, you’ll see that the killing part isn’t the final bit. Recovering the game, cleaning the game, respecting the animals and the responsibility of the successful hunt, and sharing the story of the hunt with your colleagues happen after.

[Miller]

@Rubystreak

Don’t you see that what’s inappropriate was the amount of bragging and posturing, which was because the animal was rare. The coloring didn’t make it a more or less appropriate target, and I don’t think anyone here is saying it did (though it is illegal in lots of places, if you care about breaking the law). What was inappropriate was the celebration around killing a rare animal, as if that’s worthy of congratulations. I don’t think it is.

Well, yes, but you don’t think killing any animal is worthy of congratulations, right? Your basic values are opposed to the idea of killing an animal for sport. Presumably, any bragging about killing an animal is inappropriate. But if your values aren’t opposed to killing animals, then of course you’ll brag about killing a rare animal, because you’ve just done something that very few other people have done. You can’t really chastize this woman for bragging without bringing up the entire issue of wether or not humans should kill animals at all, because all she’s doing is reacting how you’d expect anyone who doesn’t share your precise values on this subject to react.

Now, sure, the animal was rare. But “rare” isn’t always the same as “good.” This is where the evolutionary angle comes in. This deer was rare specifically because it had a disadvantageous mutation. Even if we take as granted that hunting is bad, it’s a less bad thing for her to have killed this particular deer, as opposed to a normal deer, because at least this way a potentially harmful gene has been removed from the gene pool.

No, it’s still more egregious because the albinism made it a more celebrated trophy. Whether it was good for the species seems like justification to me, no matter how many times you say it wasn’t.

It’s not a justification, it’s a mitigation. I’m not saying this deer deserved to die because it’s an albino, I’m saying, at least it was an albino and not a regular deer. That doesn’t make it okay, because wether or not it’s okay to trophy hunt is an argument that doesn’t change with the color of the trophy. If hunting is wrong, then it’s just as wrong to hunt a brown deer as it is to hunt a white deer, and it’s just as wrong to brag about it.

I do think it’s bad in general, but it’s worse in this case because it was on the news and this woman was treated like she did something special.

Okay, so the problem isn’t really that the deer was albino, or that the woman bragged about it, but that the unusual circumstance is giving a platform for a message (“It’s a good thing to kill animals!”) you disagree with. Which is a fair position, but I think McDonalds commercials are doing far more harm to it than the media interest in this hooved rat.

[Rubystreak]

@Miller

Well, yes, but you don’t think killing any animal is worthy of congratulations, right?

Nope. Even less worthy of a human interest spot on the damned news.

But if your values aren’t opposed to killing animals, then of course you’ll brag about killing a rare animal, because you’ve just done something that very few other people have done.

Yeah, and I guess this is the same rationalization that’s used when bagging a black rhino. Also, how great is she? She killed a blindingly white animal that probably had shit wrong with it. What a hero! What a mighty huntress! You know what I mean? It seems idiotic. More idiotic of the news station for publicizing it.

You can’t really chastize this woman for bragging without bringing up the entire issue of wether or not humans should kill animals at all, because all she’s doing is reacting how you’d expect anyone who doesn’t share your precise values on this subject to react.

Oh, sure I can. I don’t think the people in this thread who agree with me, including the OP, have my “precise values.” There are even people who hunt who have posted to say that this woman is worthy of chastisement.

Now, sure, the animal was rare. But “rare” isn’t always the same as “good.”

Oh, whatever “good” is. Is evolutionary value the only “good” here? What about it being beautiful? What about the fact that some people’s religion reveres it? Those things might not be something your precise values treasure, but that doesn’t make them not “good.”

It’s not a justification, it’s a mitigation.

Potato, potahto.

Okay, so the problem isn’t really that the deer was albino,

The problem was never that deer was albino. That just made it newsworthy.

or that the woman bragged about it,

No, that is a problem IMO.

but that the unusual circumstance is giving a platform for a message (“It’s a good thing to kill animals!”) you disagree with. Which is a fair position, but I think McDonalds commercials are doing far more harm to it than the media interest in this hooved rat.

No, the message was “it’s good to kill animals, esp. if they’re rare, just for fun, even if there’s no more space on your trophy wall.” That’s a shitty message. That ain’t McDonald’s message, which is at least about food, in a warped, twisted way. I’m not a fan of McDonald’s in any way, but then again, this thread isn’t about McDonald’s. You can criticize Mighty Hunter Bitch and McDonald’s, you don’t have to restrict yourself to one.

Hooved rat. Heh. Nice. I think they’re beautiful. There’s a buck, a doe, and her fawn that live on my property. I watched the fawn grow up. They’re in their winter color now, which we call their UPS browns. I don’t feed them or anything, I don’t want to domesticate them, but I do like watching them and seeing the baby grow up. I don’t think they’re vermin. They’ve been turned into vermin by our poor management of their predator species, but they are lovely animals.