Hunting: your opinion.

ok I'm sorry.

I just couldn't resist, the OP was far too ridiculous. :hat:

 

Read through the thread and try to counter my points. Lets see what you can muster up.

 

So to you, hunting is like playing baseball. It is recreational time with your child. Shooting an animal is casual and comparable to playing sports? I think teaching a child how to use firearms is quite different from gathering firewood. This is what I'm arguing against, killing for fun. Most social activities can be viewed as a bonding situation, you've mentioned a few in your post already. We can find recreation in activities that don't require us to take a life.


Reading through this thread, I'm not seeing very many well thought out attempts to refute my argument. A lot prove my point, ironically.

 

don't oversimplify my argument, it makes you look foolish. if you're incapable of understanding outside your own suburban interaction with nature, that's fine. that's your history. but don't expect everyone else to limit their activities because it gives you a tummy ache and makes you cry.

 

KC, don't bother, it's attitudes like his that're the reason we have a monocultural agricultural system, which does far more harm to the natural world by way of chemical pollution, ecosystem destruction, and environmental depredation than hunting has. Who's going to hold the vegetarians to account for that? Unfair standard? precisely. Not all hunters, or all meat eaters even, should be held to the standard of 'beer swilling, arse scratching, cousin humping butchers who want a trophy' as I've once heard us described.

When someone regards 'all' hunting as 'sport', then there's no convincing them otherwise, no matter how well thought our or eloquent the argument. Instead the best and brightest statements are pushed aside as abberations, exceptions to the rule, while the most inflammatory and agitating are taken as the norm, which only incites more drama and more bs.

If someone wants to take an inflammatory statment from me, then let it be this

'I'm sure, that had they a mind to think, or a way to communicate to us that they do, a vegetable would most certainly protest to being 'harvested' and eaten. Those who believe that they don't kill simply because they're vegetarian, or vegan, are deluding themselves. You're killing plants that have yet to come from that fruit, or you're uprooting a plant and eating it whole. There's nothing any more holy about eating a carrot than a steak. You still had to end a life. To think otherwise just shows the sheer lengths that people will go to in their exercise to be 'holier than thou' and superior to their fellow man in their delusion. A cow may have thoughts, may have feelings...can anyone speak definitively for an onion? All living things have life, and until you're pulling your food directly from sun, water and minerals, you're a murderer, same as the rest of us.'

Under those circumstances, almost any discussion becomes trollbait, and we don't wanna attract any of those...they come in and stink up the place with their hairy feet.

 

i blame walt disney and suburban living.

 

I blame a societal disconnection from our food sources, and the movement away from sustainable smallholder farms and to cities, leaving our food choices in the hands of corporate giants and industrialized cruelty, be it to forcefed animals or to vegetable plants grown in sterile soil and forced to produce by heavy doses of fertilizers, pesticides and unsustainable cropping methods.

Hunting is my rejection and rebellion against that, to as great a degree as I can manage at the moment. Me saying 'I CAN live without the factory farms, bagged lettuce, grey meat, and all the crap that comes with'

 

"hunting is a bonding situation, whether you like it or not. it's like taking your child out for firewood, going fishing or playing baseball."

You compare the family bonding aspects of hunting to Baseball and gathering firewood. You say hunting gives the same effects as your three examples in this regard. Is this not a fair interpretation of your post?

I understand but just because generations before have done something doesn't mean we must follow. Hunting today and hunting many generations ago are not the same. When you get right down to it you are invading a place and killing some of its inhabitants. To do this out of survival is expected, but to do it for a fun social time? People take joy in this and I find it a bit discomforting yet not surprising. Again, looking at it in today's context.

So tradition justifies it? Just because something requires skill and effort does not justify the action either.

 

Ironically you get the award of "non sequitur of the week".

I hunt. Not with a gun but with a compoung bow. I fish, shrimp and crab too. I don't eat pork and VERY rarely eat beef. The meat in stores is full of hormones and other compounds that I don't want in my body. I don't hunt for trophy or as you would say "fun". That shit is foul. My family has yearly hunts and we eat THE ENTIRE animal. Even the eyes, as nasty as it may sound. It's like liquid protein.

Your whole taking a life argument is not valid. Maybe you don't realize, but the salads we eat, those plants were living. When you see a combine in a field harvesting, that's mass murder. Just because plants don't communicate in ways audible to humans doesn't allow us to say "it's ok".

You're trying to take bonding/family tradition and call it "killing for fun". Fucking stupid. As many times as I've been hunting, I, not once, have said " man I can't wait to kill that deer/hog/turkey...sure will be fun". So that stereotype won't work either.

If anything, the meat in stores is "wrong" since those animals are raised by humans to be killed by humans. There's nothing wrong with teaching a child how to use firearms. Especially with US law enforcement. When there's seconds between life and death, the law is only minutes away.

For all these gadgets and concepts, we're nothing more than relatively clever apes. What makes us to good to hunt? We have been hunitng since the dawn of predation and more recently, the emergence of omnivores and humans. Other animals hunt also, we're animals.

Now, hunting for trophy is sick. Ridiculous. But don't try to take that and put every hunter under that umbrella.

 

Exactly. There's nothing like being in the woods before dawn, just to experience the sun rising over the horizon. But the best part (at least for me because I use a bow so I have to be VERY close to the animals) is the intamacy and teh silence. Oh the silence........when you're stalking and you finally see the animal, you can feel the silence. You can hear it. IT's almost like the universe is nothing but an illusion made of smoke and it will disperse of you do so much as exhale to hard or if your aim isn't true when taking your shot.

 

Read the thread completely before you post please. I have stated that hunting out of necessity is acceptable, it is when the activity becomes recreational I have a problem. In today's American society the common man hunts out of recreation. I don't believe most hunters share your view, I find it hard to swallow. Many of these hunters still shop at grocery stores and purchase these 'tainted' products. The majority of people in our society (hunters included) support this very industry you are against.
Your views are considered radical in our society. I think most people know the meat they purchase came from a tortured beast. People know the sanitation isn't there but they purchase it anyways. They don't care, its convenient.

Do you not accept this to be truth?

This is a non-issue. I have not protested against the consumption of meat. Again, read the thread before you post. People in this thread claim to hunt out of necessity and whether they do or not is irreverent to the discussion. The argument here is should hunting be viewed as a recreational bonding time and if the majority view it so.

This is not a "Vegetarian vs Carnavore" discussion.

I don't think you've read through this thread at all. Honestly, I don't.

 

I was begining to wonder if you'd bother to respond to my postings. Do I believe that all hunters share my point of view? no. Do you believe that everyone shares your point of view? I certainly hope not.

I am capable of reading, and that you assume I haven't, because I disagree with you, and include something that you believe is irrelevant, is insulting.

I've watched you, during this discussion, backpedal and sidestep. First all hunting was done for sport and for fun, then some hunting's ok, but not with bows, guns or tools, but then if we hunt bare handed, we're barbarians, and not fit to be in your sight. What is your clear and direct opinion on the matter, so we can address that directly and stop this foolish tap-dancing?

Because, from what I've read, you seem to suffer from a huge case of 'moral superiority' over your decision that hunting is somehow an uncivilized activity. If you'd like to see cut and paste, I can put together a pastiche of your own words that would damn you from your own mouth.

Cut and paste, taken out of context, as you have done with several pieces of my postings above, is very sketchy, and that you think I didn't take the time to actually type out my responses to you shows not only the depths of your ignorance, but also your alluded to 'holier than thou' arrogance.

Who are you to dismiss 'necessity'? Who made you the arbiter of morality? Have you ever met a recreational hunter? I have. I loathe and despise them, however, you seem to be willing to paint EVERYONE that hunts with the same broad black brush.

Have you ever eaten meat? Ever? Then you've done so for pleasure, not necessity, at least according to the logic that you're displaying in this thread. You're taking a huge leap in saying that because you do not believe it to be necessary for outright survival, then it is a recreational activity.

Obviously, you're the one that needs to do a bit of reading, but I highly suggest that you first open your mind a bit, and discuss this in an open manner without your veiled insults. If you wish to call me an obnoxious prat, then do so, otherwise, don't allude to the idea that I am incapable of reading or having a single creative or pertinant thought. You have an astounding talent for excluding evidence that doesn't correspond to your point of view.

If you're going to open a topic for disccusion, please do the courtesy of being willing to discuss it openly and assess ALL opinions that come in, especially when asked for. Otherwise this thread belongs in the garbage bin of the forum known as 'the whiners' where you can complain all you like about horrific it is that 'the poor animals are being slaughtered'.

Now, to repeat my earlier stance. 'This is my experince, my morals, and my opinion' Perhaps YOU missed reading that portion of things, neh?

 

Don't make too much out of it dude.
I don't disagree with your description, in fact I like the part about the illusion of smoke.
I've been there, and yes it feels cool, but I believe it's just an activation of the predator mind.
That wears off after awhile and hunting
(big game anyway) becomes a pain in the ass.

I would rather support someone who raises natural beef with no antibiotics or hormones and finished on grass instead of corn.(GMO's have contaminated most corn crops)
If people would add up all the costs of hunting every year(not to mention calories exerted)they would probably find that they could just as well have bought a side of beef and be done with it.
WTF is civilization for anyway.....?

 

^^^ Exactly right. It's nothing but our predatory instincts. But that's what I like about it. I can sit here and say that I'm no different from the animals that we call "savage beasts", but I like to feel it. I like getting my own food.

And you're right, it can become a pain in the ass. Especially the dressing part. It's not necessarily nasty, just messy to clean up. That's why I don't hunt dear anymore. Hogs and Turkey are easier to transport. But with the exception of minor costs, I really don't pay that much.

 

what this seems to have boiled down to is a discussion of man's inner desire to be 'civilized' with the OP's discussion and (judging by his first page of postings) disgust with such an 'uncivilized' idea.

OP, here's where we're going to get into a huge difference of opinion. You're looking at the complete polar opposite. I am an animal. Call me a barbarian, if you like. I've seen, and developed an intense distaste for the 'sterility' of civilized living, to the point of avoiding commercial food altogether when I can. If it comes to survival, yeah, I'll go hunt the grocery store, IF it's closer and more available.

If the OP represents humanity's drive and desire for civilization, I certainly represent the 'Ursprünglicher Mensch' The primitive human, as opposed to the 'über Mensch' The super human, the 'highly evolved man'. The Id, the dark half.

The point I'm attempting to make is the leap of logic that takes an activity that may not be needed for immediate survival and subsumes it completely into the categorization of 'done for pleasure'. This is a highly misleading thread of logic, as I could argue that one's next breath, or next meal, since it exists in the future, is not needed for immediate survival, and therefore, done simply for pleasure. If this is the criteria indeed being espoused, then yes, all hunting is done for sport, but so then is every other activity.

There is, yes, something primal about hunting. Many do engage in the 'hunt' but use a camera. There are some that do, yes, abuse this for the pleasure of a trophy, but hunting is an activity one cannot rationally understand from reading and contemplating.

If you've never hunted, it's too easy to assume that everyone that does it does so for pleasure. It could be just as easy to assume that because some white people are born mentally defective, they all are, or that while some black people aren't terribly bright, they all are. That kind of logic, applying a broad basis on all cases based on only a few, is very definitely a flawed line of reasoning. Thus the question of 'have you hunted, for any reason?' does become VERY relevant.

As does the so called 'anecdotal knowledge'. You're calling for empiricism in an opinion-oriented environment (by the nature of you requesting opinions). That is my claim of your 'moral superiority', in that you are taking the skeptical standpoint of 'extraordinary claims (in this case, most hunting is NOT done for pleasure being the extraordinary claim to your shown mindset) demanding extraordinary proof' (in this case, some proof that most hunters don't kill specifically for the joy of killing)

As someone who has had occasion to kill, I find the activity distasteful, as have most people that I know that have hunted. Is this going to fulfill your requirements for empirical proof? not in this situation, as the only way for you to have empirical proof would be for you to understand the activity firsthand, through experiencing it, through interacting with hunters, rather than standing back and pointing an accusatory finger from the realm of 'the civilized don't do these things' standpoint.

If you made it this far, I congratulate you, and will post more if you reply.

 

I wish we had wild hogs around here... oh wait, we do.... they are called bears..hahaha.
Tough to hunt, they are pretty shy....and sometimes they hunt you!

 

You accuse me of quite a bit in this paragraph. I never made the claim that all hunting was for sport. Your reference to my 2nd post in this thread was in reply to Elijah who compared man's hunting to animals' hunting. You've said I have no clear direct opinion on this matter and that I have backpedaled and sidestepped. If you take a look here -

Code:

1st post:
"My half-joking aside, lets hear some opinions on the matter! What do you guys think about hunting?"

2nd post: 
"I am not saying hunting is wrong. If done out of necessity and in moderation it can be perfectly acceptable. It is when hunting becomes a "sport" or something you do for fun and as experience I feel it becomes wrong."

 3rd post:
"I am saying those who hunt for sport and fun should reevaluate why claiming an unsuspecting life brings them joy. If you kill for food due to financial reasons- then by all means, do what you feel you must to survive."

4th post:
"I was referring to hunting today, which is by and large regarded as a sport. Those who hunt out of necessity are greatly in the minority."

5th post:
 "I am against hunting for recreational sport" 

6th post:
"The majority I am referring to isn't the type to post on an internet message board, let alone a hippie forum."

7th post:
"It is recreation, it is an escape, it is something they enjoy. They are not doing it out of necessity, not the majority."

8th post:
"Read through the thread and try to counter my points."

9th post:
"This is what I'm arguing against, killing for fun."

10th post:
"To do this out of survival is expected, but to do it for a fun social time?"

11th post:
"...hunting out of necessity is acceptable, it is when the activity becomes recreational I have a problem."

I took every post I've made in this thread and quoted myself. You'll see that I have kept to my same stance the entire time. With the exception of post #8, I have mentioned my belief in every post.

.

You misinterpret. This is hyperbole. I have not suggested that meat is not necessary for survival, and therefore all hunting is recreational. Hunting today in the common man's eye is viewed as recreation. How you as an individual or anyone else on these forums practice hunting is all but irrelevant while discussing the general consensus. I am not attacking your beliefs on what hunting "should" be, I am merely pointing out that I believe your views are greatly in the minority.

I made mention of one earlier in this thread.... I am willing to believe that you've read through it since you took such offense at my suggesting otherwise, but maybe you only gave it a quick skim and glance? Also, theres more hyperbole in suggesting that I label EVERYONE that hunts a "recreational hunter." I never said this. I mentioned to somebody else earlier in the thread that those of us posting at the hippie forums are a niche group. Our beliefs on this subject would likely differ from that of the common man.

Okay, I will expect the same in return from the other side. Thank you for your time.

edit-- Missed some replies since I didn't refresh when I came back to comp. I'll reply in a new post here. Nice well thought out post btw, Born25YearsTooLate.

 

Ok, I'll grant that the interpretations of your posts have been skewed. However, a few questions:

Where is the line between 'necessity' and 'recreation'?

Who dictates this boundary?

If you don't associate with hunters, then how do you know what the majority viewpoint of it is? Those of us who do associate with hunters, our knowledge of the subject has been dismissed as irrelevant, which seems to rather defeat the purpose of saying 'well, how does the majority view it?' We can give reports of the majority in our areas, and build a composite. granted, with a margin of error involved and included, but a composite nonetheless.

I think there's some confusion about the term 'recreational hunter' or 'sporting hunter' as well. When used in a media context (such as hunting magazines) it is usually used to apply to someone who does so in a non-professional capacity. Much like a weekend fisherman is a 'sport' fisherman.

How about we agree on some terms to make this easier for us to understand?

Recreational/sport hunter - a non professional
Professional hunter - usually a game guide
trophy hunter - one who kills almost exclusively for trophies.
poacher- one who trespasses on another's land to steal game, or to take trophies and or meat out of season

Would anyone here argue with those definitions as they stand? If so, please, let us know. English is enough of a pain to make this matter difficult enough as is.

given this, even I've made some mistakes, so I'll clarify what I personally know from myself and the group of hunters I know in this area (the local majority)

Trophy hunters are equated with poachers here, and are disliked. Hated even. They wreck the landscape, they brutalize the animals, they leave meat and pelts to rot, and have little or no respect for property rights, where their stray shots (and there are usually many) go, or who might be injured. Most of the hunters I've known, even the most casual 'once a season' hunters, tend to agree there should be an open season on trophy hunters.

The average hunter, in this area, is white, male, aged 35, married, hunts singly, sometimes in a group of roughly 3. He hunts with a bolt action rifle and scope, usual ammo is 30-30 or 30.06, he spends 4-6 weekends hunting a year, may have one trophy, and may or may not use all his tags. He's going to have 3-5 kills a year, of which more than half goes to family and friends, the rest stocks his freezer. He is, on average, a PTA member, and a blue collar worker. Most young men in this area don't start hunting (if they take up at all) until the age of 18+, (a rare few start younger) but have been taught to shoot since they were old enough to be trusted with which way to point the firearm.

This man certainly wouldn't regard himself in the same category as the poachers and trophy hunters, which seems to be the main thrust of your argument. However, if you would like to find out about the common hunter and what he thinks, you would do well to ask him. I believe you asked us what 'our' opinions were on this, however. Correct me if I'm wrong?

 

I've hunted since I was 9. I've killed 3 deer, 2 ducks and 1 rabbit over time. We ate them all. Did I NEED to hunt to survive? No. They taste goodand don't have chemicals in the meat that fuck me up.

Every shot I took was studied for a clean shot, 7.62x54mm through the heart.. They do not suffer.


But. hmm meat is not needed for survival? hmm why do we have these canine teeth then? To have a health deit without eating meat you'd have to take all kinds of suplements ect. Were you gonna get those? from the store that keeps thousands of animals caged up then bases them in the head with a hammer???


Lol, I don't know were this guy gets he's info of "Most is for sport"

Look... I lived in Kentucky, Ohio, Floirda, Nevada, and Michigan. I've been to the shooting ranges.. the ammunition dealer.. I never met one hunter that shot for only the trohpy.

I belive he's living in this foggy world that the goverment has made for him. I suggest you go out... and imbrace life.. true life as we were created to live.. and see nature for what it is.

 

It is a rare occasion in todays world where hunting is a "necessity". Just because I dont "have" to hunt does not make me a trophy hunter or one who is just out for the kill. I have never taken any animal without it becomming food for my family and friends.

I agree with born the hunters in this area of the US view "trophy" hunters in the same catagory as poachers or even lower.

Humans do many things that are not "necessary" for survival, many of them that ACTUALLY have negative effects on the world and enviroment. Many of which the OP has probably partaken in. I mean is it necessary for you to be on these forums, running the computer, consuming electricity, provided by a generating company who is polluting the world?

Give me a break. Like born said:
Where is the line between 'necessity' and 'recreation'?
Who dictates this boundary?