I guess the word “equate” has a very specific meaning that, in the context of this argument, doesn’t quite work for me. We are part of nature, but we have also transcended it in numerous ways that no other creature has even come close to. I think it’s completely fair to consider that. Nature doesn’t have to set up hunting seasons or guidelines, and yet I think even the most ruggedly-independent hunters would agree that we humans do. So I resist the argument that we can restrict our role to that sense of being strictly equated with nature when it suits our purposes. If humanity was just part of nature, full stop, then why bother with conservation at all? You can’t have it both ways.
I’m very fond of wildlife. 
I have no problem with shooting ordinary animals; endangered species are another matter.
Well I agree with your points, too. Again, never said hunting was wrong. Here’s where we may differ: I would argue that, because of the magnitude of humanity’s effects on nature, we can no longer simply include our activities as just another example of “letting nature sort it out.”
He’s just all upset with all the bragging and local media coverage that one lady got when she bought some albino smoked meat slices. Hello? Anyone can do that!
However humans are just a part of nature. We’re just as natural as any other animal on the planet and just as deserving to be here. We do have the ability of self realization, “I am here” and a concept of time passing “If we kill all the deer now there won’t be any more later”. It is with those two things that we set up things like hunting seasons and game enforcement, however it doesn’t make it unnatural.
Nature doesn’t have to have fur and dirt on it to be natural.
Except that it’s not the lack of visibility that tends to turn Bambi into road kill. It’s their tendency to jump out into the road unexpectedly and then freeze at the sight of oncoming headlights. Your braking distance doesn’t decrease just because the deer is white.
But, isn’t a person going out into the woods to get dinner from the wild the closest thing there is to man being a part of that cycle? I mean, really, once the agricultural revolution happened, man stopped being part of nature in the way you’re referring. But your point was that if the hunter didn’t interfere, the albino deer would have lived or died according to what nature allowed. In a case such as one lone hunter being able to find it and kill it, that hunter was acting as a force of nature at that moment.
Would you also ban fishing? Even if you get your fish at the supermarket, a lot of the fish you’re eating is wild-caught. And wild fish are wild animals, too…
Riddle me this, Buttmunch, how is it better letting “nature sort it out” by letting wolves savage a deer by ripping it’s throat, rather than oh, say killing it instantly with a clean shot?
Because that’s what I’m getting from your argument.
Actually, most people have to have some sort of education so they can get a job and earn money so they can go to the store and buy hunks of beef.
I’m pretty sure you could train a chimp to shoot deer.
Not that I’m totally anti-hunting or anything. Just sayin’.
Do you perceive the difference between “sometimes snows” and “an arctic enviroment?”
No, an abnormality that makes it easier to kill is clearly an evolutionary disadvantage.
I was wondering how long it would take before someone confused hunting deer with killing people.
Nope. Wrong again. Try, “Since this was obviously a good outcome, there’s nothing wrong with celebrating it.”
Good point, but I was thinking about it more from a statistical perspective. There aren’t a lot of albino deer, and there are even fewer albino deer that live long enough to be spotted by a hunter, so having an albino deer trophy is a rare accomplishment, even if the actual act of bagging it is not particularly difficult.
What Exit?, I don’t know how much of an advantage white fur would confer in a roadkill situation. If a deer’s standing in the middle of the road at night, I can usually see them perfectly well with my headlights, regardless of what color they are. The problem is when the damned thing jumps out of a bush right in front of you, or is on the other side of a blind curve, and there’s not enough time or room to stop before you hit it. The deer could be glowing neon green, and it wouldn’t help it’s long term health prospects in those situations. Besides which, the coloration was simply the aspect of albinism that most easily illustrated the survival drawbacks of the condition. There’s a host of related health problems that are also evolutionary drawbacks.
I don’t pit hunters, or people who can appreciate wildlife and yet also happen to kill it, even for enjoyment. I’m not a hunter, but I do enjoy fishing, and I fail to see the difference between the two. So please don’t think just because it’s obvious that I’m no hunter that I’m silently placing myself above all of them.
Also notice that I’m not pitting in the name of noble environmental causes; my reasons are entirely selfish: I would love a chance to see an albino deer in the wild. I’ve seen many, many deer in the wild, but never an albino deer. Simply because it’s unusual, it would be special to me; not because I imbue it with any mythical powers. I pit the person who made that opportunity all the more rare because she wanted a white head on her wall. I think that’s even more selfish. Maybe not illegal but certainly inconsiderate. I can hear people saying, “Well I guess hunters should check with you first before shooting?” BS: she knew immediately how rare this encounter was and said as much. And I think it’s in extremely poor taste to celebrate it for that reason.
To the OP:
I agree with the thrust of your OP. The women’s quote rubs me the wrong way too. I’ve never been fond of killing animals and I can’t sympathize with those who get off on it. Yeah, I eat meat along with the best of them. But there’s a difference between enjoying meat and reveling in the slaughter of said meat. I think the latter is weird and disturbing. And I say all this as someone who has killed a lot of animals herself. And not just any animals. I’m talking cats, people!
Hunters will talk about the woes of overpopulation, etc., and these are all valid arguments for hunting, but when it comes down to it, some people get a thrill out of shooting animals. *And that’s why they see nothing wrong with the sentiments you’ve pitted. * That’s the bottom line. You’re not going to be able to argue them out of their positions and they’re not going to argue out of yours.
WTF! Have you ever been deer hunting? It is hard, cold, and takes lots of practice and dedication.
I come from a family of avid deer hunters myself but I have only been three times myself and didn’t even see anything legal let alone kill something. Being perfectly quiet in the woods at 5:00 am in the cold carefully listening and scanning the area is not easy and certainly not my cup of tea.
That is just to get a chance to see a deer. You have obviously never shot a gun in your life because that isn’t easy either and takes lots of practice. Many hunters miss even at close range because they start shaking from nervousness. Long-distance shots of over 100 yards are not easy in the least even with a good scope and a perfectly sighted in rifle. Other hunters even make things much more difficult on themselves by choosing a bow and arrow or a black power waepon.
Humanity is always clean and merciful, and nature is always savage and cruel. Riiight. You and Miller should definitely get together, Gonorrhea, since apparently you both see things in black and white.
I’ve never killed anything larger than a housefly. I don’t think I’d get any particular thrill out of killing an animal. I also don’t get any particular thrill out of watching pro football, but I don’t go around accusing football fans of being weird and disturbing. I can understand (if not agree with) the vegetarian/vegan argument that it’s not ethical to kill an animal at all, but if you’re starting from the position that there’s nothing morally wrong with being a carnivore, I don’t see anything morally wrong with enjoying the entire process of being a carnivore, not just the very last step.
I don’t get a thrill out of shooting animals. I’ve never purposely killed an animal in my life, and certainly can’t imagine every considering it a fun thing to do. In fact, if I did shoot a deer, I would probably cry and have nightmares about it. But that’s me, and it’s an emotional reaction that has nothing to do with whether or not it’s morally and/or ethically OK to do it. I can accept the fact that not everyone is like me, and some people do enjoy it, and I can also accept the fact that I have no basis for believing that it’s wrong to enjoy it.
Show me, please, where I’ve said anything remotely similar to that anywhere in my posts. Just because you can’t hold your own in a debate is no justification for inventing arguments for the other side.
OK, but, again, this isn’t what you said. What you said was:
You don’t know that it was easier to kill. Just like you don’t know that it was very sick. But since it was killed, it must have been both?
Do you perceive the difference between “sometimes an advantage” and “always an advantage”?
I’m not sure all this carnivore talk is germane. It sure sounds like she is planning on either using it as a trophy or selling it to someone else to do same. At the end the newscaster says something like “she’s not sure if she has room for a mounted buck so may be looking to sell it to [cabella’s? some fellas?]”. ISTM that most people would have “room” if she was just keeping the head. She also said at the beginning that she knew that it was in the area and hoped to bag it. Is albino deer particularly nutritious?