Tree huggers vs hunters

[lovinglinux]

This discussion started on another thread, but I didn't want to hijack it. So here it is.


OMG, I hate hunters.


why? they are just people. you shouldnt hate someone for a cultural difference.

I have a strong feeling about this. You can call cultural difference, but in my opinion, killing an animal for fun is a selfish behavior, characteristic of a species that thinks it owns the planet and that everything on it is there to serve its needs. It could be argued that the deer will be eaten, but what drives hunters are ultimately the thrill of the killing.

We are essentially a self-centered destructive species, no matter how creative, technological advanced and culturally rich we can be.

Yes, I'm a "tree hugger", but I gave up on trying to help saving the environment a long time ago, because I think people will never change, at least not soon enough to mitigate all the damage we have been causing in the last 500 hundred years. I decided to let the nature follow it's course, which I'm sure will end with our own extinction.

[aesis05401]

I felt the same way as you until I lived in the northeast kingdom for a while.

Most hunters out there don't use 'modern' weapons, and they rarely actually try to kill anything.

In fact, many hunters I met don't even take weapons out anymore, as they just like sitting in a tree stand or blind for a couple hours out of the house. Suburban guys probably use their garage workshops in much the same way old-school hunters use their tree-stands - as a plausible excuse to get out of the house for a while.

Now you want to talk about poaching? A solid hunter will get fired up about out of season killing faster than a preacher will pick your pocket... so they are good from that perspective as well.

As for the old-school weapons... the reason you go to bow-hunting or even primitive tool hunting is beyond my ability to explain, but I know that causing an animal to suffer by delivering a non-fatal or not immediately fatal blow is considered a serious mistake by those guys moreso than regular rifle hunters.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Although I love deer and the like, I've grown a lot more comfortable with people who hunt. I don't do it myself - never could bring myself to it - but I know many modern farms treat their animals in incredibly inhumane ways. They basically degrade them to walking bags of meat to the point that they've created a species of slaves within a few generations. Look at the giant pig farms, for example, or the chicken farms, where they keep the guys in small cages with machines feeding them, surrounded by dirt and waste. These farms are so woefully unnatural that they generate craters of dead vegetation, literally sickeningly bad smells and broken water supplies. It's not cool.
Sorry if you were eating something.

Here, we make a strong point of eating eggs from free range chicken, "happy pigs" and the like. We try to stick with stuff farmed locally, because it tends to be from smaller, more respectable outfits. (Unfortunately the local government decided, in an act of sheer brilliance, to rewrite the regulations so that local outfits must send their animals to centralized slaughter houses that are really far away, which is bad for the animal, the farms and the environment... but we try).
I know that humans, by nature, eat quite a lot of meat. The unfortunately cliche-ified "native" North Americans have a lot to say on the topic having been strictly a hunting culture not too many generations ago. Their cultures (granted, not all, but the ones I have learned about) typically valued respecting the animals they hunt in lots of cool ways.
The Haida having a spiritual culture focused around animals says a lot to that idea.

Now, on to hunting. This is basically free range, "happy" meat to its best extreme. The hunters I am acquainted with usually treat the animals decently, all things considered, and make use of most of what they get from them. (I'm sure having hunted the animal oneself, on a more individual basis, really helps on both counts. Corporations don't have the same depth of feeling, even if loads of hunters do try to put on macho faces).
The animals live real lives, as themselves. They are not caged, enslaved or tricked into cannibalism. They are not packed into tiny trucks and shipped away to cramped, blood-stained slaughter houses. Humans hunt them, being predators just like many other species, and they get eaten in probably the most humane way meat could be eaten until we figure out how to produce meat in labs.

[chucky chuckaluck]

in a lot of states, the money that pays for the majority of conservation efforts comes from hunters and fishermen. when i worked for the north carolina wildlife federation, most of my fellow workers had been hunting and fishing their whole lives. they were also the most knowledgeable about the problems facing wildlife in the state, having seen a lot of those problems up close.

the deer population, especially in states like NC that are experiencing rapid growth, is running out of habitat. in order for the species to survive, their numbers have to be kept down. not only are they running out of habitat, their natural preditors have all been killed. our ever increasing population is doing more to damage wildlife than a couple of fools with guns.

on the subject of weaponry: if you're going to hunt, use something that will guarantee the greatest chance of a 'kill shot', thereby limiting the animal's suffering. (i'd probably use an RPG.)

[SLEEPER_V]

This discussion started on another thread, but I didn't want to hijack it. So here it is.







I have a strong feeling about this. You can call cultural difference, but in my opinion, killing an animal for fun is a selfish behavior, characteristic of a species that thinks it owns the planet and that everything on it is there to serve its needs. It could be argued that the deer will be eaten, but what drives hunters are ultimately the thrill of the killing.

We are essentially a self-centered destructive species, no matter how creative, technological advanced and culturally rich we can be.

Yes, I'm a "tree hugger", but I gave up on trying to help saving the environment a long time ago, because I think people will never change, at least not soon enough to mitigate all the damage we have been causing in the last 500 hundred years. I decided to let the nature follow it's course, which I'm sure will end with our own extinction.

First, your opinions are fine in my book, if a little pessimistic. I'm not offended nor bothered by someone having a differing opinion. Second, for the most part, the people that I know that hunt, family members and a few friends, use nearly every aspect of the deer in some way. Granted the bones have little use, but they share the meat with those in the community, and for the most part hunt because they enjoy nature, like the taste of the meat and feel more connected to their family structure. They feel that they fill the role of provider more closely to our forefathers and their forefathers.

Honestly, they enjoy being in nature, provide food for the majority of the deer in the area, and maintain their hunting land in as natural a way as possible. All of them understand that you have to respect nature and not harm it if at all possible. Killing an animal is part of the deal.

[Wra!th]

Killing for fun is dumb and often inhuman (in my country we have a lot of that...even had "official" hunting grounds until some photos leeked and they shut them down).
But I can't really say I'm on the "tree hugger" side either. I've met a few environmentalists in my life and tbh they had no ideea what they were talking about. If you're gonna come at me, atleast have some solid arguments. Acting like a hippy on "ice" is not really enough to make me love all kinds animals to a point where I stop eating all kinds of meats. Like it or not, I'd rather have my health than a "pure conscience".There are proteins that come from meat and meat alone. I want them. Plus, I love the taste. Hunting is not the real problem, how you hunt/kill and what your reasons are is. As a previous poster said..if you're gonna kill, do it right, and do it fast. Hunters exist on this Earth sincethe begining, I'm not going to allow a damn hippy tell me it's wrong. There are some areas where hunting is actually necessary (where some species have procreated more than they should...). Some balance is needed otherwise you get other species go "kaput"

[dmizer]

I don't think this conversation falls under the "lighthearted" and/or "enjoyable" category.

Edit:
By request and through the agreement of the staff, this thread will be reopend on the condition that the discussion remains civil and refrains from personal attacks.

[SLEEPER_V]

I don't think this conversation falls under the "lighthearted" and/or "enjoyable" category.

Edit:
By request and through the agreement of the staff, this thread will be reopend on the condition that the discussion remains civil and refrains from personal attacks.

Thank you, and we will try to live up to the standard of the CoC.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is an emotional topic, but lets be respectful of other's perspectives.

[PuddingKnife]

Is it ok to be both?

[SLEEPER_V]

I would think that is preferable. Alot of hunters I know really work hard at preserving the land they use.

[swoll1980]

Hunters FTW. All animals kill. We are animals too. We are no more selfish than any other animal on earth.

[PuddingKnife]

We are no more selfish than any other animal on earth.


[citation needed]

[Mighty_Joe]

It could be argued that the deer will be eaten, but what drives hunters are ultimately the thrill of the killing.


I don't hunt, but I know several hunters (brothers-in-law, cousins). I don't remember any of them saying anything about being thrilled about killing. Thrilled about putting food on the table, maybe. What brought you to this conclusion?
I'm all for killing deer. In my neck of the woods there's so many they are in danger of starving. I'd hug a tree, but the deer ATE the last one I planted!

[balloooza]

Just for fun, here is a drawing I made, I guess it is mine, so uh.. (c) Mark Amber 2009, but if I could figure out creative commons, I would use it, I am no pro, in fact this drawing was made in algebre 1, and continued in english, and finished i life science. It realy dose not reflect my opinions on anything, it is just a response to a funny channel one news thing. (A school news show, distributed to schools for free, with ads targeting the watchers.)
click for bigger

It provides a different side to the story of environmental protection, What if the trees enjoyed their cutting, I mean, they enjoyed brining a new use than standing their, if the environmentalist want to save the natural forests, come up with a resonable alternitive to everything we get from nature, and you have yourself a deal, I do not dissaggree with green efforts, but I like a solid house, and a nice hamburger, when that is possible, while helping the environent , I will do it.

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/1848/cutusnow.jpg (http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/7186/cutusnowq.jpg)

[0per4t0r]

I'm a hunter myself, and me and my relatives eat all the meat we get. But, it's still a sport that's for fun, and we do it for the thrill of the kill, and for food. But, some people, like on TV hunting shows, probably don't eat the meat, and I don't like them. I think most tree-huggers are okay, but sometimes they go too far with pushing their views.

[forrestcupp]

I have a strong feeling about this. You can call cultural difference, but in my opinion, killing an animal for fun is a selfish behavior, characteristic of a species that thinks it owns the planet and that everything on it is there to serve its needs.There aren't very many real hunters around where I'm from who actually hunt just because they like killing animals. Most hunters enjoy eating wild game that you can't just go to the grocery store and buy. Some hunters even almost depend on killing a deer to stock their freezer, and they would be hard pressed if they had to buy the meat they would have gotten from hunting. Of course, you're never guaranteed a deer.

I would say, it's a very low percentage of hunters who hunt just because they like killing animals.



As for the old-school weapons... the reason you go to bow-hunting or even primitive tool hunting is beyond my ability to explain, but I know that causing an animal to suffer by delivering a non-fatal or not immediately fatal blow is considered a serious mistake by those guys moreso than regular rifle hunters.Bow season is actually a mercy to the deer, just like musket season. The whole purpose of those is that it's more challenging, and it takes longer to prepare your ammo, especially for a second shot if you miss.

Bow/muzzle loader season is not inhumane; it was designed to give deer more of a chance to live.

[bp1509]

d

[forrestcupp]

I'll say this and I'll let it drop, but I'm of the opinion that every so called suburban or urban "tree hugger" who still eats meat should have to do 2 things in their life. A) Visit a factory farm. and B) kill an animal, skin in, cook it and eat it. People have this huge detachment about what hunting is and where their food comes from, they get to be arm chair environmentalists who sit justified b/c they pay for recycling and have a love for their animals, but have no clue about reality and nature and the true economic disasters that go on to support their lifestyles of comfort and convenience.

Exactly! Hunting for meat is no less humane than pinning animals up for their entire lives only to be slaughtered to provide meat for the grocery store.

Now if you're a vegan, that's a completely different discussion. Just don't expect me to be a vegan.

[estyles]

I know this is rehashing some of what's been said already, but I feel the need to share my opinion. Sorry... =)

I don't hunt myself. However, my next door neighbor does hunt and shares some of his venison with me. I also frequent a small wild-game butcher when I get the chance, and have enjoyed tasting things like elk, lion, ostrich, and goat.

Wild game is better for you, nutritionally, than eating cows that have been fattened for their entire lives on corn that they are not biologically evolved to digest. Grass-fed meat is higher in Omega-2's - cultures which eat mostly corn-fed meat (virtually the entire US, and I'm sure many other areas) are drastically deficient in Omega-2's from their diet. Also, wild game tends to be less fatty.

Hunting animals rather than raising them in factory-farms is also better for the animals. The animals live much longer on average, and are able to live naturally - eating the foods they were evolved to eat, and roaming in wide-open spaces. Cows raised in feed-lots are fed a chemical cocktail that includes mega-doses of antibiotics and hormones that allow them to digest corn. They also almost invariably suffer from indigestion caused by their unnatural food (which increases methane emissions). Chickens are often raised in cages not much larger than they are. Even "free-range" chickens are generally raised indoors for their entire lives. For the first several weeks, they are shut off from the outdoors, and then the farm will open a gate leading outdoors, which the chickens never take advantage of because they are already used to being inside - that is all it takes to be called "free-range".

Even trophy hunters, who mount the heads of their kills (something I don't entirely understand, but to each his own), still tend to make use of the meat - either eating it or selling it to a butcher. Additionally, the hunters I've met tend to be more environmentally aware than the average non-hunter, because they depend on the habitat of their game remaining relatively pure.

There's always been a divide between hunters and environmentalists, but I don't think there has to be, because they have a lot of common interests.

Vegetarians, on the other hand, have other issues, but they shouldn't have any more antipathy for hunters than they do for someone who just eats at McDonald's...

[gn2]

In my neck of the woods there's so many they are in danger of starving.

Probably because man changed the balance of the ecosystem by wiping out their natural predators.
Nothing wrong with a bit of hunting to keep the numbers in check.

[SerenityKill3r]

I have heard you can get biodegradable shotgun shells :P

[swoll1980]

Probably because man changed the balance of the ecosystem by wiping out their natural predators.
Nothing wrong with a bit of hunting to keep the numbers in check.

Exactly. We destroyed the bear, wolf, and coyote population. If we don't kill the deer, they will spread like wild fire. Wild hogs are a huge problem now too. It's only reasonable that we hunt these animals, or they will destroy our food supply.

[sim-value]

i'm sure will end with our own extinction.
ymmd :)

[Amilo1718]

live & let live

[swoll1980]

People need to understand that nature created us, so everything we do is natural. If a bird eats a seed, and poops it out 500 miles away, we call that nature. If a human brings a hog from Europe, and introduces it to America, it's called man interfering with nature. Nature will deal with us the same way it deals with everything else. We are not above the laws of nature.

[Wiebelhaus]

That's fine , to each their own and you may not agree but the law of our land and our traditions are thousands of years old.

Genesis 1:26


Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth on the earth."

[swoll1980]

That's fine , to each their own and you may not agree but the law of our land and our traditions are thousands of years old.

Genesis 1:26

Why did you have to go, and turn this into a religious argument? Edit that post please so the thread doesn't get locked, and I will edit this quote so it never happened.

[Amilo1718]

there's nature & there's culture
nature is dying... culture is thriving

[Wiebelhaus]

Why did you have to go, and turn this into a religious argument? Edit that post please so the thread doesn't get locked, and I will edit this quote so it never happened.

Religious or not , these are the laws and traditions of the land in this period of time on earth , I was simply trying to point out that the OP's complaint about "Hunting" is a few thousand of year old tradition , it's ingrained deep within our minds and our traditions and our society.

[swoll1980]

Religious or not , these are the laws and traditions of the land in this period of time on earth , I was simply trying to point out that the OP's complaint about "Hunting" is a few thousand of year old tradition , it's ingrained deep within our minds and our traditions and our society.

Religion can't be used to win an argument on your point though. People have different religions, and it's not relevant.

[starcannon]

I like to eat just about everything myself. So hunting and fishing are just part of the cornucopia, along with gardening and drilling wells for fresh water. I have never put together why hunting has been put in the same status as clear cut logging, or why hunters are perceived as not caring about the environment, or not caring about the animals who live in it. Hunters and Fishermen care very much about the game they collect, their well being, their beauty, and also of course how they taste.

Hunting and Fishing is a very dynamic lifestyle, it would be unfair to think that the only reason people go hunting and fishing is to kill something, indeed "killing" is at least in my experience not that enjoyable, eating afterwards is the reward for taking responsibility for personally gathering the bounty for oneself.

Indeed, I have never quite understood why its perfectly acceptable to buy meat from the supermarket and not go get it oneself; the same thing is happening, only not nearly as natural. Commercial meat comes from animals who have been fattened in very brutal environments, injected full of things that literally melt the latex gloves off the workers doing the injecting, and then are all rounded up and killed in a brutal, fear filled environment; but somehow there is a perception that hunting, taking an animal in a natural, and more peaceful way is wrong in comparison.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life...

[gn2]

I was simply trying to point out that the OP's complaint about "Hunting" is a few thousand of year old tradition , it's ingrained deep within our minds and our traditions and our society.

You chose a poor example then, because that text is very new in real terms.
Cave paintings of hunting scenes are much older.

[Wiebelhaus]

Religion can't be used to win an argument on your point though. People have different religions, and it's not relevant.

Actually it is , because all major (Top Two) world religious (In this time period) steam from a few relativity similar texts. This is about education not opinion.


1 Christianity: 2.1 billion
2 Islam: 1.5 billion
3 Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Religion can't be used to win an argument on your point though. People have different religions, and it's not relevant.

It's not religious if you're simply quoting a famous piece of literature. It's just a quote; an expression of opinion with a reminder that other people share that opinion ;)

[gn2]

Hunting predates current organised religion, so if you want this thread to be allowed to continue it may be wise to just drop the religious angle.
(which is entirely irrelevant imo)

[forrestcupp]

Hunting predates current organised religion, so if you want this thread to be allowed to continue it may be wise to just drop the religious angle.
(which is entirely irrelevant imo)

If this thread doesn't continue, it's not that big of a deal. Most opinions from both sides have already been stated. What more is there to say?

I guess we could talk about the gun safety side of hunting.

[Wiebelhaus]

Hunting predates current organised religion, so if you want this thread to be allowed to continue it may be wise to just drop the religious angle.
(which is entirely irrelevant imo)

I'm simply saying it's relevant to the law of the land in this period in time.

[gn2]

I don't see that at all.

AFAIK the law of the land you live in isn't created by a religious body.

[Wiebelhaus]

nm , it's a waste of time.

[estyles]

Actually it is , because all major (Top Two) world religious (In this time period) steam from a few relativity similar texts. This is about education not opinion.

All major religions = Top Two??? Depends where you get your stats from. Wikipedia has Christianity at 1.5-2 billion, Islam at .5-1.3 billion, and Hinduism at .65-.9 billion (higher lower bound than Islam, lower upper bound), so saying that there are only 2 major world religions is a bit misguided. Buddhism at .25-.5 billion is certainly major as well, and Judaism, while not major in terms of population of adherents at about 20 million, can still be considered major in terms of influence (though it could be lumped in with your other 2 "major" religions as far as similar texts go).

[lovinglinux]

I'm almost regretting starting this thread and was kind of happy when it was closed :)

I have to admit that I mixed some arguments in the first post, making it look like a real "tree hugger" whining, with almost none credibility. I guest I was uncomfortable with the video posted (removed by moderator by request of other users) and wanted to vent a little bit.

I won't reply to all messages, but I will try to clarify my point of view. My English is not so good and it's hard to express my self about such a complex topic. So please give me some slack ;)

I was an environmentalist and worked directly with marine species conservation, not wildlife. But as I said, I gave up and became very pessimist about the future of our planet.

I'm not against eating meat or hunting for food and I don't think deer must be spared of being hunted because they are cute. Meat is meat, no matter the species, and we are omnivorous. We need protein. The real environmental problem is when a specific species is targeted by selective hunting/fishing and when they are at risk of extinction. I'm sure it is not the case with the deer. Additionally, recreational hunting can and is used on several places to control the population of some species when it grows above the capacity of the environment to sustain it.

We cannot compare the damage caused by controlled hunting on specific hunting areas with the commercial exploitation of live animals, like fishing vessels that drag huge nets across the oceans, taking everything the find on their way. These are the real villains. They are all motivated by greed and won't stop until there is nothing left, they waste most of their catch because what has no commercial value is simple thrown out of the vessel and don't survive.

I don't like to use the "humane" to describe the way an animal is killed, because by definition, humane is something that implies compassion and at the same time is related to humans:



From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane

Humane in early use meant civil, courteous or obliging towards humans and animals. In modern times it is characterized by sympathy with or consideration, compassion and benevolence for others, especially for the suffering or distressed.

Etymology


From http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=humane

humane
c.1450, variant of human, used interchangeably with it until early 18c., when it began to be a distinct word with sense of "having qualities befitting human beings." But inhuman still can be the opposite of humane. The Royal Humane Society (founded 1774) was originally to rescue drowning persons.

So humane means "having qualities befitting human beings", but I don't believe that we, as a species, are essentially compassionate, sympathetic and benevolent. We are bloody greedy killers. We destroy the environment without thinking about consequences, we pollute our own home with garbage, toxic/nuclear waste, we exploit the planet above the limit it can take, only motivated by greed and are capable of doing things to animals that are indescribable.

That being said, I do agree that killing a deer with a rifle or bow is much more compassionate than what the food industry do with live stock (as already mentioned on this thread). What I don't like is doing it for recreational purposes. What is the fun about killing an animal and taking pictures with the corps? I understand that hunting and exhibitionism is imprinted on our DNA and it has been done since our ancestors started to manipulate materials to create tools. Males have a necessity to show their power of hunting and thus guarantee an nice and healthy female to procreate and pass on his genes. But what about the intellect and the evolution of society? Do we really need to hunt to feel connected to the nature and our ancestors? Can't we simply appreciate the nature with our eyes and help to preserve it?

I don't think we should kill wildlife unless there is no other way, but I also don't agree with the commercial farmings. The less destructive and more compassionate method of obtaining meat are small farms that provide food to local communities. But expecting this type of production to be the standard is naive an utopic. There are currently more than 6 billion humans in this planet and they all need food. What we need is to stop reproducing like rabbits and stop being greedy materialistic people. Unfortunately, this won't happen.

Sorry if this post was boring, I just wanted to let you know that I'm not an environmental fanatic and to explain why I don't agree with wildlife hunting. There are far more variables that affect the environmental health than we could discuss here, but I have to admit that controlled deer hunting is not a menace if it is done the right way.

[Amilo1718]

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life...
so what do you think about altruism?

[cariboo]

Thanks for bring the thread back on topic. Personally I don't hunt, but I see no reason why other people can't go out and put food on the table. Because of environmentalist, there is now a huge over population of deer in my area, over the last 10-15 years the allowable deer hunt has been cut back to the point where it is dangerous it is dangerous to drive after dark because of all the deer. Another reason for the overpopulation is the bounty on predators, almost all of the predators have been hunted to extinction, because the ranchers in the area won the right to kill any wolf, cougar, bear and other predators that wandered on to thier land.

I used to drive a tow truck, I used to love deer season, I usually attended 3-4 accident scenes a day where someone either ran into a deer, or ended up in the ditch trying to avoid them. There are so many deer that I had a passenger count the number of deer on the side of the road on a 35Km tow, he stopped counting at 300.

[sisco311]

What I don't like is doing it for recreational purposes. What is the fun about killing an animal and taking pictures with the corps? I understand that hunting and exhibitionism is imprinted on our DNA and it has been done since our ancestors started to manipulate materials to create tools. Males have a necessity to show their power of hunting and thus guarantee an nice and healthy female to procreate and pass on his genes. But what about the intellect and the evolution of society? Do we really need to hunt to feel connected to the nature and our ancestors? Can't we simply appreciate the nature with our eyes and help to preserve it?


do you like cats?

[Amilo1718]

so what would you do about the ants?
cuz imho that's a bigger problem...

[lovinglinux]

do you like cats?

Yes I like cats and dogs. I have 6 dogs and 1 cat. They were all adopted from the streets.

[Wiebelhaus]

Thanks for bring the thread back on topic. Personally I don't hunt, but I see no reason why other people can't go out and put food on the table. Because of environmentalist, there is now a huge over population of deer in my area, over the last 10-15 years the allowable deer hunt has been cut back to the point where it is dangerous it is dangerous to drive after dark because of all the deer. Another reason for the overpopulation is the bounty on predators, almost all of the predators have been hunted to extinction, because the ranchers in the area won the right to kill any wolf, cougar, bear and other predators that wandered on to thier land.

I used to drive a tow truck, I used to love deer season, I usually attended 3-4 accident scenes a day where someone either ran into a deer, or ended up in the ditch trying to avoid them. There are so many deer that I had a passenger count the number of deer on the side of the road on a 35Km tow, he stopped counting at 300.

Are you in Eastern Washington State?

[lovinglinux]

Because of environmentalist, there is now a huge over population of deer in my area, over the last 10-15 years the allowable deer hunt has been cut back to the point where it is dangerous it is dangerous to drive after dark because of all the deer. Another reason for the overpopulation is the bounty on predators, almost all of the predators have been hunted to extinction, because the ranchers in the area won the right to kill any wolf, cougar, bear and other predators that wandered on to thier land.

The environmentalist are not the culprits. They simply need to take drastic measures to allow the population to recover. The real problem lies in other types of interaction between humans and the environment, like you said, causing reduction on their habitat and the number of their predators. Either way, we are responsible for messing with the balance. Hunting is necessary in this situation to control the deer population, but don't think it hasn't been part of the problem before the environmentalist actions.

[sisco311]

Yes I like cats and dogs. I have 6 dogs and 1 cat. They were all adopted from the streets.
but cats are predators.

[starcannon]

so what do you think about altruism?

I personally do not think altruism exists. I do nice things for others, with no expectation of them giving me anything in return; sounds like I'm contradicting myself at this point right? But in reality, I receive a "good feeling" by doing things for others. So am I being altruistic, or am I motivated by the "good feeling". I sound a bit cynical, but I truly believe all actions have motives.

[Grant A.]

I'm perfectly fine with hunting. In my opinion, a quick, and painless death is much better than what corporations do with animals that we have, basically, turned into walking digestive systems. Hunted animals have good lives, and sometimes it's necessary to hunt to keep some populations down. I rather like the point one poster made when they said that hunted animals are the ultimate free range cattle. It's also 100% natural for Humans to eat meat, as we have been doing so for the whole two million years our species has been on this planet, and we even did it before then, as Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Habilis, et cetera. When a person hunts, they simply help to fill the predator and prey niche in nature. Just because we're human doesn't mean we shouldn't hunt. We're animals, too, and we have the right to feed on meat. In fact, if a vegan lifestyle isn't done properly, the person can end up very sick, due to a lack of proteins and amino acids that come from meat.

One could easily argue that being vegan is more unnatural to humans than hunting.

Personally, I don't support hunting and just scrapping the body. Where I come from, if something is being hunted, almost every edible part of it that tastes good is eaten. There are times, however, when the body must be scrapped, such as in the instance of a bullet hitting the stomach, which spoils the meat by letting out harmful stomach and gastric acids into the abdomen.

I do not support the hunting/eating of intelligent animals, though. If an animal is intelligent enough to have self-recognition of some sort, be it visual, olfactory, or auditory, then I don't really believe that it should be eaten. I prefer to eat the animals that are pretty much automatons, and don't even know that they themselves exist.

That being said, I have no problem (I could have said beef here, but I deemed it to be too much of a pun) with vegans or vegetarians. If they wish to not eat meat or such, then that's perfectly fine. If they try to push propaganda on me, or call me wrong for eating what humans have been eating for millions of years, then I do have a problem, however.

[lovinglinux]

but cats are predators.

Yes, they are :)

[estyles]

but cats are predators.

So are dogs. I had to yell at my brother to stop feeding his dog vegetables - those aren't good for them at all. I think it's funny that humans don't realize that most animals aren't omnivores.

[Grant A.]

So are dogs. I had to yell at my brother to stop feeding his dog vegetables - those aren't good for them at all. I think it's funny that humans don't realize that most animals aren't omnivores.

Dogs are omnivores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogs#Diet



Despite its descent from wolves, the domestic dog is an omnivore,[2] though it is classified in the order Carnivora.

[lovinglinux]

I personally do not think altruism exists. I do nice things for others, with no expectation of them giving me anything in return; sounds like I'm contradicting myself at this point right? But in reality, I receive a "good feeling" by doing things for others. So am I being altruistic, or am I motivated by the "good feeling". I sound a bit cynical, but I truly believe all actions have motives.

Exactly.

[Amilo1718]

I truly believe all actions have motives.
but motives doens't always include personal gain... right?

edit: emphasis on "personal"

[forrestcupp]

so what would you do about the ants?
cuz imho that's a bigger problem...

Lol.

That reminds me of PETA attacking Obama for killing a fly during an interview. North Korea is getting ready to send a long range missile toward Hawaii, and they're concerned about Obama killing a fly.

[estyles]

Dogs are omnivores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogs#Diet

wikipedia is not consistent even with itself:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore
List of extant carnivores
Mammals

* Most caniforms, such as the dogs, wolves, foxes, ferrets, bears, seals and walruses




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore
Species considered omnivorous:
Various mammals are omnivorous by nature such as bears; coatis; hedgehogs; opossums; pigs; some primates including chimpanzees and humans; raccoons; some rodents including chipmunks[5], mice[6], rats[7], and squirrels[8]; skunks; sloths.


Sorry, for the off-topic. I am willing to concede that dogs *can* eat and digest some vegetables, but they're still primarily carnivorous...

[Grant A.]

Lol.

That reminds me of PETA attacking Obama for killing a fly during an interview. North Korea is getting ready to send a long range missile toward Hawaii, and they're concerned about Obama killing a fly.

It was a fly that was working for the North Korean government, obviously. 8-[

[Grant A.]

wikipedia is not consistent even with itself:





Sorry, for the off-topic. I am willing to concede that dogs *can* eat and digest some vegetables, but they're still primarily carnivorous...

Please note that the line from the article I quoted has a citation, the carnivore one you posted, however, does not. Thus making my quote more reputable.

You can be a carnivore and an omnivore at the same time. Being a carnivore is part of being an omnivore, as is being an herbivore, because if you eat only meat or plants, then you are not an omnivore, since the very word omnivore means that you are able to eat both plants and animals.

[starcannon]

but motives doens't always include personal gain... right?

edit: emphasis on "personal"

My opinion is that all human motivation includes some form of personal gain; whether it is emotional gain (good feelings), or worldly gain (money, property etc...), or any of the plethora of other things humans seem to value. All human action is motivated by self interest; even if its nothing more than the "I'd hope someone would do the same for me", there is still the expectation of some reciprocal event.

[Tamlynmac]

I've hunted for years and both my sons enjoy the sport. I've taught them from childhood to respect the animal and if you aren't going to eat it - don't kill it. Many times we enjoyed sitting in a duck blind interacting with each other and have even missed the opportunity to take shots, because we were involved in a conversation that had our undivided attention. Both my boys took pride in this bonding experience and to this day they share fond memories of the time spent together.

Most hunters (I know) are big time environmentalist, they protect the land and the species they hunt. Their licensing fees support many environmental programs and they detest the individuals who are simply there to kill and take no pleasure in the hunt. They actually spend significant resources in the pursuit of their sport. Employing many - I believe some would be surprise as to the number of jobs created by hunters & fishermen / fisher persons.

When put in perspective hunting and fishing are sports enjoyed by many Americans that willingly pay out of pocket to participate. Many of the conservation programs are extensively supported by these groups and doubt non-hunters would wish to increase their tax base to cover this cost.

Most so-called "Tree Huggers" (don't care for labels, as many don't fit a specific profile) I've met are realistic and share the hunter's/fisherman's (or fisher persons) respect for our environment. I found it amazing how many beliefs and fundamental ideals they share. Sometimes, I think only the radicals on both sides create the illusion of a distorted reality. Both sides of the isle often agree on solutions to complex issues in animal management and share the same venue.

Perhaps it really isn't an issue between the hunters & tree huggers, but inherently based in the perception of how the media and others project their relationship.

The next time you see a flock of ducks or geese flying by remember that their habitat is protected and increases in size, largely based upon the fees paid by the individuals participating in the sport of waterfowl hunting. Many hunters also participate in other organization (Ducks Unlimited, etc.) whose primary purpose is to expand the habitat and assure survival of the species they enjoy hunting.

The over population of certain animals is directly related to man and how we have eliminated predators or provided the animal with a protected environment that has substantial food resources (including human trash). Numerous auto accidents occur regularity in my region of the country that are directly related to over population of a species. Deer are the first to come to mind and both man and animal suffer for the encounter. Will hunting completely eliminate these encounters - of course not. But it does reduce the number of occurrences.

As mankind encroaches more and more into the realm of nature, we will negatively impact the environment. We indiscriminately destroy their homes & food resources and when they attack humans we often label them killers or terminate them to protect human life.

The true hunter leaves little to no footprint on the environment they hunt in and respects the animal they kill. If they kill it they eat it and many (including myself) prefer the taste of wild game to the flavor of domestically raised animals in a restricted environment - fed hormones and slaughter in mass. If you've never tasted a wild turkey (no, not the drink) I think you might find the experience quite enjoyable. Their flavor is outstanding and the act of perusing, cleaning and cooking your dinner can be shared by the entire family. It places a value on the animal your eating and not just a price tag.

As we consider the future of hunting in the US, I believe we should keep in mind the history associated with hunting and teach our youth the values and disciplines inherited from our forefathers. I'm proud to say that I'm a hunter and the individuals I hunt with are upstanding people, that come from all walks of life and races. Should we argue over protecting the environment or join together in an effort to assure all can enjoy and experience nature. Investing our combined resources in assuring that animals have a value and place in the future, rather than arguing over differences in philosophy. We should all seek to respect and defend the rights and opinions of others, resolving issues by endeavoring to create solutions acceptable to both sides. Perhaps, the answer lies in believing that both sides have the ability to negotiate in the best interest of nature.

Just my $0.02 and hope I haven't offended anyone.

[starcannon]

+1 #62 (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7480758&postcount=62) Tamlynmac (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=672530)

I wish I could have stated it this clearly, and eloquently. What you said, sums it up pretty nicely for me as well. Thanks

[lovinglinux]

I do not support the hunting/eating of intelligent animals, though. If an animal is intelligent enough to have self-recognition of some sort, be it visual, olfactory, or auditory, then I don't really believe that it should be eaten. I prefer to eat the animals that are pretty much automatons, and don't even know that they themselves exist

How do you know they are not aware of their existence? How do you measure intelligence? Why an intelligent animal deserves to live and others don't? What about their role in the equilibrium of the environment?

Let me introduce another issue. I was an aquarium enthusiast for many ears in my youth, until I studied biological sciences. Do you believe that is right to harvest corals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral) to put on aquariums? Do you know that takes years for a simple animal like a coral to grow and that they have a huge role in the maintenance of fish stocks? Do you know they protect the shores against tsunamis and other destructive maritime phenomena?

[ice60]

i don't hunt, but i support hunters over tree-huggers everytime, even the baby seal killers in canada.

everytime i've ever heard the arguments from both sides the hunters sound like they know what they're talking about whereas the treehuggers sound like a bunch of loonies.

[Grant A.]

How do you know they are not aware of their existence? How do you measure intelligence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Plus, you can tell when an animal is truly sentient if you live with one for long enough.



Why an intelligent animal deserves to live and others don't?

Because non-intelligent animals are nothing else but automatons of nature. For example, Crabs and Lobsters do not have centralized nervous systems, meaning that they feel no pain when they die.



What about their role in the equilibrium of the environment?


You forget that too many animals is bad, as well. If there are too many of a species, then they will soon exhaust their food source, scarring the ecosystem as a whole for many years.



Let me introduce another issue. I was an aquarium enthusiast for many ears in my youth, until I studied biological sciences. Do you believe that is right to harvest corals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral) to put on aquariums? Do you know that takes years for a simple animal like a coral to grow and that they have a huge role in the maintenance of fish stocks? Do you know they protect the shores against tsunamis and other destructive maritime phenomena?

Coral are not edible. In fact, they sting when you pick alive ones up. Quit throwing red herrings around.

[Cowchip7]

I like hamburgers! \\:D/

[Amilo1718]

everytime i've ever heard the arguments from both sides the hunters sound like they know what they're talking about whereas the treehuggers sound like a bunch of loonies.
if communications skills are your manner to ordeal people :(

[lovinglinux]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test#Criticism_of_the_mirror_test

So, if the animal does not have a clue about who is he, then you can wipe them out?


Because non-intelligent animals are nothing else but automatons of nature. For example, Crabs and Lobsters do not have centralized nervous systems, meaning that they feel no pain when they die.

That is not correct. They do have a central nervous system, a brain and lots of sensory organs, including complex eyes, connected by big nerves. Do you like those restaurants that serve lobsters still moving on the table?

[gymophett]

Hmm. Hard topic for me, as EVERYONE almost where I live deer hunt, duck hunt, and such.
For me, I love animals, but then at the same time, I like me some chicken strips. :)
I never will hunt, I've tried to become a vegetarian, but I can't. :(
But for some reason, I don't have a problem eating animals who aren't very smart.
But I will not eat a pig, they are so nice and smart.
As for a chicken or cow, I'll eat them.
But only from an organic place where they are raised nicely.
I watched this Youtube video called Meet Your Meat, It'll make you reconsider.

[gymophett]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test#Criticism_of_the_mirror_test



My dogs don't think anything when they see themselves in the mirror, they know it's themselves.
But maybe an Afghan dog will think it's something else, because I believe they are the dogs with the lowest IQ.
I have a Jack Russell, and two dachsunds.

[Grant A.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test#Criticism_of_the_mirror_test

So, if the animal does not have a clue about who is he, then you can wipe them out?

It's more ethical to eat them. And on top of that, I never said that we could wipe them out. Quit putting words in my mouth.

Also, vegetables do not know that they exist, what makes them so much more ethical to eat? Can you wipe them out?

Humans are intelligent animals, but why don't we eat them?

I too, mia amiko, can throw around red herrings.

By the way - It's not a perfect test, but it, along with that urine test for olfactory-oriented animals, is all that we really have.




That is not correct. They do have a central nervous system, a brain and lots of sensory organs, including complex eyes, connected by big nerves. Do you like those restaurants that serve lobsters still moving on the table?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster#Capacity_for_pain

It's debatable, but there is certainly evidence that they do not feel pain. And yes, they are scrumptious.

Either way, why are you dead set on deciding what I can and cannot eat? I am my own person, and not yours.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

I've hunted for years......

Very well said.

I can not suggest any improvements on what you said.

I learned a lot from my father, grandfather, and my grandmother.

[tazz4vr]

Having been married to a man who is an avid hunter, the decision to let the kids participate was very difficult for me as I am highly against guns and hunting.

However, as children and guns do not mix, the responsibility to insure their knowledge and maintain their safety of what a gun can do outside of a cartoon or a movie fell on both the ex-husband and myself, despite my views.

With the adamant requirements from me, they are not allowed to shoot for sport, if an animal is wounded they will take every measure to find it and what is killed gets eaten. Basically knowing that children are curious and will have an interest as to what a parent may or may not be doing , I couldn't expect them not to want to go when dad is all decked out in his camo's and loading up the trucks, even if I really did not want them there.

Although they were not thrown out there just because, it wasn't until they expressed an interest in the hunting, then we made sure they were given as much information as possible and allowed to decide for themselves if hunting was for them. Out of 4 kids, there are only 2 that continue to this day. My son 16 years old and my daughter 13 yrs old.

Hunting to me can be one of two things, a means for dinner on the table or an idiots game of the day when they just go to shoot whatever moves.

[Tamlynmac]

(http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=242952)starcannon (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=242952)
I wish I could have stated it this clearly, and eloquently. What you said, sums it up pretty nicely for me as well. Thanks



Old_Gray_Wolf (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=376436)
Very well said.

I can not suggest any improvements on what you said.

I learned a lot from my father, grandfather, and my grandmother.


Thank You Both.

I too learned a lot about life from my family. Especially, from my grandparents who lived through the depression and shared the experiences. Seems food was a number one priority and I recall my grandmother telling us stories of eating squirrels and rabbits that my grandfather would hunt. She thought they had done extremely well during the depression, as they always has something to eat.

Amazing how simple it used to be and how complex it is now.

[WatchingThePain]

The only Hunters we have in the UK is Fox Hunting.
Obviously that's called a Sport by some so many consider it wrong.

People are also natural Hunters and Gatherers.
Because of this I wouldn't say it's wrong to Hunt if it's your only way to get food or Protein.

A lot of global Tribes who Hunt kill in a way which is very instant and they show respect for the Animals.

There are people who call themselves Hunters because they want to test out a new rifle.
Or maybe hone their skills for the supposed oncoming post Apocalypse anarchy.
There are other proper sports which do not involve killing.
If they were logical then a bow and arrow is a better survival tool than a gun.

Seal Bashers really **** me off even though local people say they need the income from that to survive. They could move to a city.

I think at present a lot of people in the world do not need to Hunt as we now have other options, some poorer countries probably need to.

I have friends who are Veggies and Vegans and they all look healthier than Meat Eaters.
I go Hunting sometimes....for the Firm Tofu.

[gn2]

The only Hunters we have in the UK is Fox Hunting.

That's pest control, not hunting.

In the UK there are a variety of hunting opportunities.

[WatchingThePain]

Sorry folks, I'm from the City and it's news to me about all the Hunting Opportunities.

I just think that Foxes are dogs really and we don't shoot stray dogs and chase them (finally ripping them apart).

Dogs are natural scavengers and I can appreciate that people in the Country do have problems from them.

We have some in London and one nearly ran off with my cat.
It actually had the cat in it's mouth but then struggled to climb the fence and dropped it. (The Cat's ok).

Could they not be rounded up or controlled in other ways?.

Also it's such a ritual that people enjoy.
Most pest controllers wear an overall.

I wouldn't for example dress up in a tux and hat and then go to shoot some Rats at the Dump.

[gn2]

Foxes are not dogs.

There are alternative effective means of fox control.
Charging across the countryside on horseback after a pack of hounds was never an effective means of controlling foxes.

Foxes are no longer "ripped apart" in the UK since hunting with dogs was banned.

[etnlIcarus]

Not a hunter, though I had killed a couple of animals in my youth (though that may fall more under sadism than hunting).

Frankly, don't have a huge problem with hunting. Seems like a pretty reasonable outlet for certain primal desires. There are obviously limits (hunting to extinction/intentional cruelty) but I'll not likely judge someone ill just for catching their own dinner or protecting their stock.

And to echo Cowchip7, I, too enjoy hamburgers.

[tjwoosta]

I hunt, but I dont kill animals just for fun like many people seem to think its about. When I hunt, I eat what I kill, thats the way it should be. Sure hunting is fun, but you dont usually do it just to kill something, you do it because it puts good food on the table. Hunting is no more inhumane then buying food at the butcher shop. In reality its more humane because at least when hunting your giving the animals a chance to escape and live, where if you go to the butcher shop those animals never stood a chance, they were raised in captivity and destined to be butchered.

Of course there are exceptions to this, as some people just enjoy killing things for pleasure, but if you ask me those people are mentally disturbed and do not represent hunters as a whole.

[WatchingThePain]

That's it.
If you kill to eat it's justified.
We get a lot of bushcraft stuff on TV but also lot's of "survival" programs.
Like I said, Man is a Hunter gatherer, that's why we still exist.
Hunting is fine IMO if you know what you are doing and you are doing it because you need food.

Humans are one of the smallest Mammals so we never survived due to our physical strength. We survived this far due to being smart and learning to use tools.

I say this in a moral and global sense.
Of course the laws in different countries may vary.

[forrestcupp]

It was a fly that was working for the North Korean government, obviously. 8-[No. If it was a fly working for the North Korean government, Obama would have just tried to talk to it. ;)



I do not support the hunting/eating of intelligent animals, though. If an animal is intelligent enough to have self-recognition of some sort, be it visual, olfactory, or auditory, then I don't really believe that it should be eaten. I prefer to eat the animals that are pretty much automatons, and don't even know that they themselves exist.Pigs are considered one of the most intelligent animals (http://mammals.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_intelligent_pig), maybe even smarter than a 3 year old human child. But look at all of the pork that is sold in the grocery store and eaten. I don't really want to give up my barbecued pork loins, but to each his own.



Hunting is fine IMO if you know what you are doing and you are doing it because you need food.
In my opinion, it's fine even if you don't need the food, but you love the taste of wild game. It's another choice, just like buying beef or chicken because we like the taste of it.

[Stitz]

I love hiking, camping, fishing and hunting. If you spend enough time in the wilderness, enjoying "mother nature", you will soon realize that killing is just as natural as living. All predatory animals must kill other animals for their own survival. I agree that we as humans don't need to hunt to get our food, and we don't necessarily have to eat meat at all...but we do have to manage the wildlife population in order to keep a healthy ecosystem. Every year, the governments of many countries (US, and some African countries, I know for a fact) will slaughter thousands of animals in the wild for population control. I personally have taken part in the killing of hundreds of coyotes in my area, because if they are left unchecked they will overpopulate, decimate the food supply and then starve to death. Which is worse? Allowing the animals to starve, or shoot them?

The Conservation Department here in the US watches the deer population very closely and issues the proper number of hunting tags to keep the population at healthy levels...by my killing and eating a deer, I am helping the rest of the deer population to be healthier, not to mention providing myself with a cheap meal that is full of the nutrients that I need.

It's easy to say that shooting and eating animals is cruel or savage, but it is cruel to do nothing and allow these animals to starve to death and let the meat go to waste. That is just wrong in my book.

[WatchingThePain]

No. If it was a fly working for the North Korean government, Obama would have just tried to talk to it. ;)

Pigs are considered one of the most intelligent animals (http://mammals.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_intelligent_pig), maybe even smarter than a 3 year old human child. But look at all of the pork that is sold in the grocery store and eaten. I don't really want to give up my barbecued pork loins, but to each his own.


In my opinion, it's fine even if you don't need the food, but you love the taste of wild game. It's another choice, just like buying beef or chicken because we like the taste of it.

I'm sure taste wise it is far superior.
I would indulge if there was no guilt factor.

Strangely I don't see fishing as hunting.
A fresh Trout is indescribably tasty.

[forrestcupp]

I'm sure taste wise it is far superior.
I would indulge if there was no guilt factor.

It really depends on how you cook it. Like with deer, the meat can be really strong and gamey tasting. Some people like that, but I don't. But if you soak the meat in lukewarm water first and make sure to get all the blood out, it's pretty darn good.

Rabbit, squirrel, etc., are a different story. Some people really like them, and others don't.

But on the other hand, my sister hates beef steak, but she likes pork loins. It's all a matter of taste.

[WatchingThePain]

It really depends on how you cook it. Like with deer, the meat can be really strong and gamey tasting. Some people like that, but I don't. But if you soak the meat in lukewarm water first and make sure to get all the blood out, it's pretty darn good.

Rabbit, squirrel, etc., are a different story. Some people really like them, and others don't.

But on the other hand, my sister hates beef steak, but she likes pork loins. It's all a matter of taste.

Ok I admit something. I tried Venison and it's the best ever. I'm sorry.
Bambi wait..it's not my fault.
Especially barbequed.
Damn and I love smoked Beef Jerky.

Fishing I like..does that make me a bad person?. I do Eat what I catch or my friends do.

I am disgusted with my self.

End of Confession.

[etnlIcarus]

For the record: I don't care how intelligent pigs are, I'm not going to give up one of the few meats I enjoy eating.

[MikeTheC]

Hunting occurs all the time in nature. I don't see why it's frowned upon when humans practice it.

Besides, in a sense, all acquisition of food requires some form of termination of life, even if it's only botanical life. Why people insist upon being "up in arms" about this is really just beyond me.

Now, to the point that's been raised here and elsewhere about the propriety of "Earth is man's for the taking"...

This could be discussed in any of a number of different ways, most of which would probably violate some or all of UF's rules, so I will try to only discuss it in a "clean" and practical way.

Humankind cannot successfully exist on this planet without some degree of modification or usurpation. That's a fact. It doesn't mean that any such act is necessarily equal to murder/mayhem/evil, and I really believe that's where a number of people out there tend to make a bit of a mis-step.

The Earth is ours for our use and survival, along with everything on it. It follows that if we are good stewards, this will not be a problem, and if we are poor stewards, we are all of us diminished or destroyed. What we should be more focused on, in my opinion, is how we can be good stewards, and not "how do we not do anything at all" since that's not practical, productive or truly preferable.

[handy]

The documentary Earthlings (see my sig') is of superb quality, it exposes much of what is hidden regarding the relationship between humanity & animals, in the areas of food, clothing, science, cosmetics, pets.

The movie is not for those with a weak stomach.