People who enjoy hunting intelligent mammals...

[hso]

Declare victory and withdraw from the field?

You've neglected the point that there are still people that don't lead a comfy suburban existence who actually still hunt to put meat on the table.

 

[WSM MAGNUM]

Problem solved?

And if you still just HAAAVE to have that meat, obviously they sell it at the market.

I think I just won this argument. No?

No, you did`nt win the argument. You only reflected emotions that humans feel towards animals. Animals do not have the intelligence like humans do. I don`t care what scientists think or some animal rights activists think.

You say to buy the meat from the meat market. Well, how do you think the meat market got it? Hunters had to kill the animal in order for the meat market to sell it.

Hunting is an important way to stabilize wildlife. It says in the bible that animals were put here for humans to use. It is not the sole purpose, but they were put here for humans to hunt. If you don`t believe me ask someone that knows the bible to look it up for you. I don`t remember what section it was in.

 

[auschip]

So is having sex or reading or knitting or remodeling the kitchen a sport?

None of those have rules that must be followed. If my wife is knitting a sweater and the pattern says K2P4 and she K4P2 she can't get a ticket. If I remodel my kitchen and decide I want to use 18 different colors of granite, I won't get a fine. If I hunt and break the rules (either state or Fed), I can go to jail, get fined, loose my license, etc.

With regard to the OP, you assume facts not in evidence. You are projecting feelings on the animals that haven't been proven exist. How do you know that these animals are experiencing the feelings you are attributing to them? What makes you sure that the spider you so callously smashed wasn't heading out to the web in the kitchen to hang with some of his buddies and chase a little silky tail, when you judged him as unfeeling? You can't be certain that a bear has feelings of joy, or that a fish has a worthless life. This negates the entire premise of your arguement.

Of course, the biggest hypocrisy in the thread, was that you can still buy the meat in stores. The fact that it is available, and people don't buy it effectively proves you are wrong. Looking at it on a purely economic level, it would be much cheaper to purchase the meat and then sit in front of the computer all day. Instead, people choose to go out and experience everything that comes with hunting.

While you believe this shows that we hunters "Like killing", it would only be true if we killed everything we saw with no regard to quality of animal, age, sex, etc. This however isn't the case. We don't indiscriminately kill each animal we see. In fact, if you talk to hunters regularly, you would note that many if not most are very selective about what they do kill. Slaughterhouses, on the other hand, are not. Therefore, following your logic, you actively support indiscriminate killing, since you purchase meat from the store.

Hyperbole aside, you can see that once we follow your logic completely, we see that it doesn't hold.

 

[holepuncher]

Whether its sport or not, or to put food on the table or if you can get a ticket for breaking the rules I think its clear that some like the kill immensely. There are clearly many examples of this on this site. I'll bet in the last year you can find 100 or more posts of someone pointing a gun at an animal for the fun of it and killing it for no reason.

 

[JWarren]

OPP,

I actually did read your entire post-- along with every response on this thread.

Just a couple comments beyond my rebuttal....

I think I just won this argument. No?

Wrong. On many levels. As HSO pointed out, you have chosen to declare yourself victor. Classic arrogance. That clearly shows that you are not interested in trying to re-think your own position. Perhaps you think that you will bring your superior enlightenment to the unthinking masses....

Perhaps you do. But it insinuates that you have a firmly established albeit ignorant position and are seeking to engage us as an effort to sway us to your immovable position.

I don't work well with persons that rapid fire their points AT me and then declare themselves a victor. That manner of arrogance puts you one step away from the distinction of being the first person that I've ever put on my "Ignore List" on THR.

Problem solved?

My friend, I only see ONE person on this thread that seems to have a problem with the topic at hand.




-- John

 

[JohnBT]

"I think I just won this argument. No?"

No. I'm sorry, but that's just about the funniest bunch of "logic" I've seen in many a year.

I suggest taking an introductory logic class at the local college or community college.

John

 

[wheelgunslinger]

I like your writing style as well.

As a hunter, I would have to make a couple of points you may have not considered.

Many hunters, including myself, engage in hunting for the spiritual and emotional benefit of engaging in a task that involves their primal self. There is no substitute for it, including using a camera. The stakes are high and the instincts only seem to activate during a genuine experience that can't be had from behind a camera shutter.
Sure, people have a good time in blinds, over bait piles or scents, and overlooking food plots. But, I would argue it's not the same as what I experience with an archery hunt on the ground and slipping into a spot on the food chain.
To make a reference to your own life, it's like the difference between online and real poker. Sure, you can play online, upload a cool avatar, post on boards, make a big haul, and generally rule the virtual roost. But, playing in person, you are immersed in the entirety of the experience.
I can go buy meat in the grocery store, and you can play poker with your mother for chex-mix or to see who does the dishes.

I think that what you are lacking in this argument is the component of life that comes with experience. Doing the quick math, I figure you're about 21 or 22 now.
By 22 years of age, there are men who have fought in wars, done prison time, gotten a PhD, traversed the world, and accomplished various other great things. Experience out there gives you a well rounded perspective and makes the difference between thinking you've got it all figured out and realizing you don't know jack.
If you want to understand life, go play some poker in person and get to know yourself through the people you meet.
You are a sharp young guy and you have too much potential to spend it behind a monitor making fake wins and posting poor arguments.

 

[armoredman]

I see only one thing - the ultimate goal of Walt Disney, to "humanize" animals with the singing dancing talking animals of his movies, to the point that people actually waste time worrying about the hunted animal's emotions! Also, the OP makes several global statements which easily disprovable, such as buy meat at the market. There are families in the United States who get meat through hunting only, and cannot afford to shop at the "market". Piggly Wiggly is not everywhere. In many other places in the world, this is far more true. To tell these people to "consider the animals' feelings" is pure rubbish. They consider the needs of thier family, and starving your children so you can watch the deer frolic is insane.
I am not a successful hunter, been skunked every time I went, and I do my hunting at the supermarket. I can afford it at this time. I support hunting as both method of providing meat, and as a method of controlling animal populations, as over population can be caused by the removal of many predators from the food chain. It is a highly skilled sport in it's purest form, and a productive one. It is both relaxation, and production of a natural resource.
Protect the singing dancing talking animals all you want - nature is not cuddly cute furry types wanting to be your friend. Nature is tooth and claw, blood and death - how many deer die of old age, do you suppose?

 

[Bud Tugly]

I went through a slaughterhouse many years ago. I've been to large commercial feed lots for hogs and beef cattle. I've also been through a commercial poultry egg farm where 5 chickens were kept in each tiny cage for their entire lives.

IMO the way we raise most animals for meat is designed for efficiency but treats the animals as if they were a cog in a machine rather than a living entity. The animals have no chance for anything approaching a "normal" life, seldom even see the sun or breathe fresh air, and are totally doomed to their fate.

Compare that to game animals in the wild. They live free, and if they are smart and wily enough they will live out their entire existence as nature intended. I'd rather live as a deer running free than a steer in a feedlot.

We are omnivores and were designed to have meat as part of our diets. IMO eating meat from a supermarket is FAR less ethical than hunting game in the wild.

 

[pbearperry]

Everyone is not meant to hunt.We are all different.I have hunted whitetail deer for many years.I have only killed one black bear and I did it mainly because while deer hunting it ran into me and scared me so I shot it.I tried eating it and I thought it tasted horrible so I would never shoot another one on purpose.I have shot many deer and I must tell you they all get eaten.Lately,the last few times I have approached the dead deer,I have felt some remorse and there very well may come a time I will drop the gun for a camera.Bye the way,when I shot the bear ,they were also in season and I tagged it.

 

[JWarren]

pbearperry,

The greatest difference between what you just wrote in post #60 and the Original Post is that it seems that you would be considering an individual and personal decision without attempting to impose that view on others or export value judgements. Nor are you making asinine and flawed arguements to support what would be a personal choice for you.

I can live with that.


-- John

 

[ImARugerFan]

Longest troll post ever.

 

[Vibe]

There are lots of things in this world that are "necessary" in order to be successful, or even prepared. Taking the life of another life form is one of those things. I don't particularly like that part of hunting -as in taking pleasure in it. I have learned to like the quest though - the end necessity helps me through some of the more unpleasant parts. Taking game for meat, is good experience for staying alive. Should the situation arise when you HAVE to resort to that method with no other options - being prepared and practiced will definitely help. Being unprepared can be fatal. The "smarter" the game the better the practice for the (hopefully never going to happen) disaster situation when you find yourself as the hunted and it's either you or the other guy.
So if and when the disaster situation arises - who are you going to seek out in order to help you remain alive? The hunter, or the vegetarian photographer who faints at the sight of blood?

 

[Bud Tugly]

I wouldn't consider the OP a troll. Rather smug and arrogant about his opinions (which I disagree with), but nothing like some trolls I've encountered on other boards.

The universe of gun owners includes hunters, sporting shooters (clay, paper, etc.), self-defense, and collectors. Many of us may fit into all those categories, but others fit into only 1 or 2.

As long as our discussions remain respectful, there certainly should be room for differing opinions.

 

[Justin]

I stopped reading when you claimed that deer are intelligent.

 

[32winspl]

I hunt. Why? Must be the whole thing, the woods, the comeraderie, the meat, and probably even at some level, the killing. Deer, rabbits, doves. I've never gotten emotional after killing birds, rabbits, squirrels, but have always teared up after killing a deer.
The last several years, I've hunted less and less. It's not the killing that has begun to keep me from pulling the trigger, it's the certain knowledge that If I take the shot, I'm going to have to gut it. For whatever reason, the older I get, the more that grosses me out. The last 2 years, that thought alone kept me from dropping the hammer. Had a really nice buck shown up these last couple hunts, I'd probably have shot him, but mostly I see and have taken does.
I am all for hunters and hunting. Oddly enough, I'd still like to go on a moose and bison hunt. That'd be a freezer full. Maybe I'm just getting burned-out on deer.

 

[JWarren]

On second thought, I think you indeed have made my "Ignore List."

From Profile:

What I do for the RKBA and other civil liberties:

Officially, nothing, but I have always been very "pro gun" despite not being a redneck, lol

You really are full of opinions, aren't you?


-- John

 

[joop]

op:

Here's my rebuttal:
- If you really cared about the animal's welfare, you wouldn't eat meat AT ALL, not even farmed meat.
- Animals in nature die from starvation, predators, and diseases. An old deer dying from a single shot now seems to be more humane rather than starving slowly or being eaten alive, doesn't it?
- Don't forget that humans are also predators, we are not separate from nature, as much as corporations, government, and religion would have you believe.
- And yes, it seems like deer really are overpopulated. I know around Washington the stupid morons at the WDFW were laying out hay for the deer in order to prevent starvation (instead of letting us hunt more!).

 

[ArmedBear]

That's an awfully long post, all to come to the same conclusion as everyone seems to, if he feels uncomfortable with facing where his meat comes from.

And if you still just HAAAVE to have that meat, obviously they sell it at the market.

Actually, that's a pretty silly reason not to hunt. Don't hunt if you don't want to, but that's hardly an "argument" for or against anything.

What I came around to, since I bought meat at the market but was unwilling to kill it myself, was that I was a weak-minded individual who wouldn't face the reality of what I was eating.

Now, I face that reality. Is it "fun"? That's not the best word, really.

My dogs seem to think that anything that exercises their primal urges and instincts is "fun". Hunting is about like that. I was less truly human when I was unwilling to hunt -- no other species with hunting in its evolutionary makeup has these "issues" BTW. I got a degree in Ecology, Behavior and Evolution, but for a while I wouldn't face what I learned about nature and myself. It's a common thing, especially among people whose only jungle is made of concrete.

Furthermore, birds and fish are pretty similar in terms of their levels of consciousness (provided you don't hunt African Grey Parrots or something).

So you're just talking about "big game" like deer, elk, buffalo, etc.? How are these animals different from cows? They're really not.

If you want to buy "meat from the store", it isn't because you can somehow justify slaughtering a cow more than a deer, it's because you're too weak to face the reality of your existence as a carnivore. You're happy to live in denial, and to let some poor illegal alien kill your meat for you until he's thrown out into the street because he chopped his arm off. Sounds morally superior to me...

"Fast Food Nation" made me start hunting. No ****.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

And if you still just HAAAVE to have that meat, obviously they sell it at the market.

What about all of the "intelligent" animals like pigs (smart as dogs, right?) crowded into filthy pens 24/7 their entire life, then herded off to be slaughtered with no chance of escape?

I'd rather take an "intelligent" animal that lived a natural life in the natural world, and had plenty of opportunity to escape me. I am a predator, they are prey. It's the natural order of things. It has been for hundreds of millions of years and will be for hundreds of millions more.

That said, I eat store-bought meat and I'm very glad that it's available. My point is that the notion that hunting is "wrong" and agriculture is "right" just doesn't jive. You've never read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, have you?

I think I just won this argument. No?

No. I absolutely, unequivocally, unarguably, completely, dominated this argument.

See? I can do it, too.

do however have a problem with calling hunting a sport. Sport is competition

I hate this argument. From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:


Main Entry:
2sport
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century

1 a: a source of diversion : recreation b: sexual play c
(1): physical activity engaged in for pleasure
(2): a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in2 a: pleasantry, jest b: often mean-spirited jesting : mockery, derision3 a: something tossed or driven about in or as if in play b: laughingstock4 a: sportsman b: a person considered with respect to living up to the ideals of sportsmanship <a good sport> <a poor sport> c: a companionable person5: an individual exhibiting a sudden deviation from type beyond the normal limits of individual variation usually as a result of mutation especially of somatic tissue

Nothing in there about competition. The notion of "sport" as two teams competing at a game is very modern. "Sport" is any activity engaged in for recreation. Hunting is a sport. (Off topic: And NASCAR is a sport too, by the definition of the word)

 

[waverace]

Fairly well written and thought out version of YOUR opinion , we must all realise that this is HIS opinion and thats fine in my book , just as anyone who says that they enjoy hunting has the right to their opinion .
I personally dont like the act of killing , Ive taken several ground squirrells ,rabbits and raccoons and it makes me sad .
I have a chance to go on a coyote hunt at some stage and although it will be fun to go out with my buddies , I'm not sure if I will enjoy the killing part .
I love venison and elk steaks but I also enjoy seeing them alive in the wild , so I probably wont ever go and kill one .
My main concern as far as the animals are concerned is that many hunters are not good shots and quite often wound the animal (pain they can feel) and they die a slow and painfull death on the other hand a well placed shot that drops the animal on the spot I have no problems with.
Something I have considered doing is taking an empty rifle out on the hunt , that way I get the thrill of the hunt , the stalking , the tracking and finally taking a bead on the animal when I then pull the trigger I will know in my own mind IF it would have been a good shot without the chance that it would not have been .
final thought in MY opinion if its legal and the animal is used , a pest or a danger then its fine by me .

 

[conw]

You posited your argument fairly well...but...here are the problems with it.

a) You are projecting exclusively human notions onto a process that's millions or billions of years old, the consumption of one life form by another for energy. There IS no moral code in nature. Get that in your head.

b) Where did you get the idea that animals have "emotions" in the same way as humans? Read "Cesar's Way," by dog lover/expert Cesar Milan. He will hammer it into your head that dogs don't have "emotions" or "personalities."

c) Arguably, your "I don't relish the thought of meat animals like cows dying for my sustenance so it's okay" argument is TOTAL BS. Think of it this way. Does it make it ok that someone who murders humans (or orders it, like Hitler perhaps) "Didn't enjoy the thought of killing?" Obviously I've established that animals are not humans, but as a moral argument that one falls stunningly flat.

d) The life of an animal is much more important than the way it dies. Hate to break it to you, but there ain't no hospice in nature. Most animals don't die of old age, or even if they do it's painful and ugly. Thus, both the domesticated cow and the wild deer will die violent deaths at the hands of humans, but which one had a better life? Arguably it is much more moral to kill an animal in the wild for food than to go get one in the grocery store.

 

[conw]

The missing detail is the fact that you clearly ENJOY THE ACT OF KILLING THE ANIMAL.

In nature the acts of killing and eating are not divorced. If you enjoy eating, you enjoy killing - you just don't know it.

(deep breath...) One of the reasons hunters enjoy hunting is because it puts them back in the primal cycle of life that doesn't have exigencies like morals or rules (in the usual sense). They enjoy it for the same reason that you enjoy eating a cheeseburger for the most part...they are just (trust me on this) MORE IN TOUCH WITH NATURE...

 

[mbt2001]

This argument was a waste of time. You cannot say that you made logical points on hunting animals with emotions... WTH difference do emotions make? I also like the way that you can easily justify taking the life of a black widow because you have deemed it's life as worthless. Quick study. Do black widows "defend" themselves by biting? Yes. Then they clearly recognize that they are alive and want to stay that way. Do fish fight to get away from the fisherman? Yes, then again they clearly recognize that they are alive. You certainly cannot say one way or the other what fish think, feel, experience.

Even if animals do have feelings, emotion, et cetera; why should I give a hoot about it? If they do not die so that I can eat, then I will die.

Further to all the other so called points you made, hunting is clearly one of the most natural and demonstrable processes on earth. So Lions can do it, but I cannot do it unless I admit I am a "killer". Ok, then I am. And so are you. We HAVE TO KILL TO EAT. THAT IS THE SYSTEM. HIGH MINDED ARGUMENTS WILL NOT EXTEND OUR RAPIDLY FADING LIVES ESPECIALLY IF WE STARVE TO DEATH MAKING THEM. You are a killer... You drive on roads that were animal habitat, living in a house that was animal habitat, with Orkin coming and killing insects and vermin, eating meat that was killed, eating dead plants........ et cetera et cetera.

Boil it down to the below and try to refute either option one or two, as it applies to you.

1.) if we evolved, and there is no god and so on... Then might makes right, **** I am higher up on the chain I have a right to do this.

2.) There is a God, we didn't evolve; we were given dominion over the earth; in which case I, likewise have a right to do it.

Edit - There are versions of point 2, but basically they all add up to:

____ scriptures said it was OK and since _____ is God or a God or has the authority to impose obligations in some manner, then we are (at least) free (if not duty bound) to comply with said action and other implied actions.

"conservation" / "responsibility" / "stewarship" arguments; Presume them to apply.

 

[online poker player]

Well,

I just woke up about 20 minutes ago, and have been reading all the replies that have built up here.

I have to eat breakfast (which will contain some meat by the way, lol, but I'll touch more on that AFTER breakfast when I have the time) so I won't post my replies to the counter-arguments that a lot of you guys put up, until after I eat.

But then I will, because I actually do have answers to a lot of your counter-arguments/counter-questions.

As for my original post, I agree that I should not have put in that little annoying line of "I don't see how I can be wrong here... right?" or whatever it was I said like that near the end, but it was 4am, and I didn't use my best judgement. I agree that that part was out of line.

Anyway, I'm going to eat breakfast, and then I will address some of the counter-arguments that a lot of you guys came up with (a couple of which I will flat out say "YOU ARE CORRECT" about, but many of which I will have my own counter-arguments and alternate opinions on.

Okay brb.....