Most things go...some holds barred...say what's on your mind (to an extent).
Forum rules
This forum is a "Free-for-all" type forum, but without all the freedom. Religious or political discussions will not be tolerated, nor will personal attacks. The forum will be policed offending posts will be removed, and offending posters will be warned and/or disciplined.
Globetrotter wrote:I never compared a hunter to a serial killer. Harming small animals is a trait that several serial killers had as young children.
I think the difference is the joy that is attached to the kill. I think that the conditions in animal processing are horrible, but I doubt the guy stands with the rod gun aimed at the cows head and derives excitement from it. Well I hope not. Thats the difference to me. And the fact that hunting is unneccessary now because we have countless other options available. If I had to kill the cows we would all be vegetarians though.
The options are not only let them starve to death or let people hunt them for sport. There are certainly other options. I think that argument is more for the hunters conscience.
Maybe we should start hunting starving homeless people like in Ice T's surviving the game. (This is a joke I understand the difference between humans and deer)
I believe there is a fundamental difference in your statement, as a hunter I enjoy the hunt or outsmarting the quarry along with bagging game, where the serial killer takes pleasure in killing only. I do not believe that serial killers "harm" anything, they kill to watch something die to torture it and make it suffer for whatever reasons they have.
As far as furry animals in your backyard, the animal world is different as it gets further from civilization. Wild game becomes more wary and is no longer conditioned to people and it is not like shooting the animals in your backyard and on that level human beings are at a disadvantage unless equipped with modern weapons(modern being bow and arrow or firearms).
Team Falcon Around
The Falcon formerly known as oaklane2
Globetrotter wrote:
The options are not only let them starve to death or let people hunt them for sport. There are certainly other options. I think that argument is more for the hunters conscience.
I'm really curious as to what these other options are.
I love people who can laugh at themselves. It saves me the effort.
Im no environmental scientist or zoologist but it certainly doesn't take much imaginiation to come up with other options. Sterilization and transferral come to mind though. Both might cost more but are certainly more humane.
Globetrotter wrote:Im no environmental scientist or zoologist but it certainly doesn't take much imaginiation to come up with other options. Sterilization and transferral come to mind though. Both might cost more but are certainly more humane.
It's more humane to capture a deer, chop its balls off, and then release it back into the wild than it is to kill it?
Pain and Suffering
Many animals suffer prolonged, painful deaths when they are injured but not killed by hunters. A member of the Maine Bowhunters Alliance estimates that 50 percent of animals who are shot with crossbows are wounded but not killed.(7) A study of 80 radio-collared white-tailed deer found that of the 22 deer who had been shot with “traditional archery equipment,” 11 were wounded but not recovered by hunters.(8) Twenty percent of foxes who have been wounded by hunters are shot again; 10 percent manage to escape, but “starvation is a likely fate” for them, according to one veterinarian.(9) A South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks biologist estimates that more than 3 million wounded ducks go “unretrieved” every year.(10) A British study of deer hunting found that 11 percent of deer who’d been killed by hunters died only after being shot two or more times and that some wounded deer suffered for more than 15 minutes before dying.(11)
GT...I think I have an easier time with the hunting thing because I grew up with it a bit...my dad hunted for a few years. My dad was kind of a spaz, so I don't know that he ever managed to shoot anything. On my wife's side of the family, her dad and brother bow hunted together for years. My wife has always wanted to give it a try and my daughter...at the age of five...expressed a desire to kill a deer and eat it. In preschool she listed her future occupation as "Warrior"...I think I better sleep with one eye open when that kid hits those difficult teenage years.
It's not the fall that hurts...it's when you hit the ground.
Flipper wrote:GT...I think I have an easier time with the hunting thing because I grew up with it a bit...my dad hunted for a few years. My dad was kind of a spaz, so I don't know that he ever managed to shoot anything. On my wife's side of the family, her dad and brother bow hunted together for years. My wife has always wanted to give it a try and my daughter...at the age of five...expressed a desire to kill a deer and eat it. In preschool she listed her future occupation as "Warrior"...I think I better sleep with one eye open when that kid hits those difficult teenage years.
Just adding my 2 cents here. I have been hunting for awhile, mostly for small game but deer as well. One thing I have learned from my experience hunting is respect for nature. My wife is a naturalist and a bow hunter. Together we like to go out and hunt. We only kill what we need, nothing more. This goes for many hunters as well. Yes you have those hunters that kill just for the kill but thats because its more of a sport too them like nascar is to others. This is not due to them being crazy in anymeans although I wouldnt say they are all sain. It is the media, society in general. Look at all the hunting shows on TV, the different hunting leagues that award the winner with a trophy. This in turn effects people who watch it and then may pass this down to their children.
So glob if what your saying is that hunting is wrong no matter if its for food or pleasure then are you calling all the native americans in the past that hunted for food morally wrong for doing so?
If you want to look at hunting that was morally wrong you can look at the settlers who migrated west during the late 1800's who killed off most of the buffalo population and just left the meat to waste as they only wanted the hide.
You could also look a hunters who kill elephants in africa for their tusks and many other examples.
Hunters here that like to hunt for game do so in a manner that is respectful (for the most part) towards nature. Deer population can be controled this way as well as small game. Before the spread of settlers to Ohio there were onces wolves and many coyote but now with the wolves gone and the coyote population very low if we didnt control the population with animals such as the rabbit we would possibly run into the same situation that Australia has with rabbits. If your not familiar with this Australia had to put up rabbit proof fences to hold them in a certain area so they werent able to move across the land toward the east coast. Their fence is the longest in the world and streches from north to south from sea to sea in the center/western part of Australia.
LowryFalcon wrote:Just adding my 2 cents here. I have been hunting for awhile, mostly for small game but deer as well. One thing I have learned from my experience hunting is respect for nature. My wife is a naturalist and a bow hunter. Together we like to go out and hunt. We only kill what we need, nothing more. This goes for many hunters as well. Yes you have those hunters that kill just for the kill but thats because its more of a sport too them like nascar is to others. This is not due to them being crazy in anymeans although I wouldnt say they are all sain. It is the media, society in general. Look at all the hunting shows on TV, the different hunting leagues that award the winner with a trophy. This in turn effects people who watch it and then may pass this down to their children.
So glob if what your saying is that hunting is wrong no matter if its for food or pleasure then are you calling all the native americans in the past that hunted for food morally wrong for doing so?
If you want to look at hunting that was morally wrong you can look at the settlers who migrated west during the late 1800's who killed off most of the buffalo population and just left the meat to waste as they only wanted the hide.
You dont kill just what you need. Because you can get what you need without hunting. Native Americans did it for survival.
Well, its nice to know I opened up a can of divisive can of worms here but oh well. All of the hunters I know hunt for the meat. I see no logical explanation hunting down and killing deer or any other game just for antler's or what have you. I will most certainly be hunting for the meat. I certainly don't have serial killer tendencies either nor do the friends I have who hunt.
Religious or political discussions will not be tolerated, nor will personal attacks. The forum will be policed offending posts will be removed, and offending posters will be warned and/or disciplined.
