sport hunting

[birch]

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Fishing--Hunting/Hunting/FallacyofSportHunting.htm

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

http://ezinearticles.com/?Sport-Hunting-Should-Not-Be-Banned&id=1578067

In fact, 78% of Americans support legal hunting,[11] but relatively few Americans actually hunt. At the beginning of the 21st century, 6% of Americans hunted. Southerners in states along the eastern seaboard hunted at a rate slightly below the national average (5%), and while hunting was more common in other parts of the South (9%), these rates did not surpass those of the Plains states, where 12% of Midwesterners hunted. Hunting in other areas of the country fell below the national average.[12] Overall in the 1996–2006 period, the number of hunters over the age of 16 declined by 10%, a drop attributable to a number of factors including habitat loss and changes in recreation habits.[13]

Every year, hunters kill more than 130 million animals in the United States. Except for a few aboriginal cultures that still hunt for food, most hunters in the U.S. hunt for "recreation" -- for the apparent pleasure of stalking and killing. Sport hunters kill animals for trophies in the form of pelts, heads, antlers, and other body parts. Commonly hunted species include deer, bears, mountain lions, wolves, foxes, coyotes, raccoons, opossums, badgers, skunks, boar, moose, pronghorn antelopes, bobcats, ducks, turkeys, woodcocks, mourning doves, geese, grouse, swans, rabbits, hares, and squirrels. Below are some of the myths and common arguments used to justify sport hunting.

This type of hunting also provides excitement and a chance for a relaxing connection with nature. During a hunt, the hunter is often sitting in silence and connecting with nature. This opportunity allows for the hunter to take in his surrounding and learn the area around him. Knowing the vegetation and the growth rate of the area crops is an important step to being a good hunter. This knowledge comes through conservation of the land being managed for hunting. Through this land management, the plant life and animal life become more abundant and prosperous

yes, i'm sure animals enjoy being stalked knowing they are in danger of being killed.

why is hunting considered okay in western culture? why is sport hunting considered okay? in some cases, owner's dogs are used to track and corner animals.

i've seen hunters use bow and arrow to hunt deer. this is painful for deer and they don't die right away.

if they have a gun, shouldn't they blow it's brains out so it won't suffer?

where is the morals or outrage over nonpet animals?

 

[AJRelic]

Hunting is to simply satisfy our instincts. Just as the article stated, there's pleasure in stalking and killing prey. Of course, this may sound like a poor reason, prompting the need to come up with less genuine excuses to our behavior, but it's a valid one nonetheless.

If there wasn't any pleasure involved in hunting, then how would omnivores such as ourselves have made it this far without livestock? Personally I don't like to hunt, I hate hurting animals, but just because I don't share their reasoning doesn't make it any less valid. I do a bunch of things I probably shouldn't just because it makes me feel better.

I believe most of the outrage over abused pets comes from the understanding these are domesticated animals that neither know how, or feel the need to defend themselves against a threat. We can hardly say the same of wildlife. Although I'm a firm believer that you should always eat what you kill...if not they should at least give away the meat, it would be such a poor waste otherwise.

 

[WillNever]

Deer can defend themselves? Think again. All they can do is try to run away. Furthermore, there is hardly anything "instinctual" about using a rifle you bought at k-mart to shoot and kill animals that have no chance of retaliating. Most people only want to hunt defenseless animals instead of dangerous ones. That is because they are cowards at heart.

 

[cosmictraveler]

where is the morals or outrage over nonpet animals?

Outrage over what? That they are hunted by people that , in many cases, EAT THEM? If you are only wanting outrage over sport hunting where the game is killed ONLY for the thrill of it then I'm with you however many times the animals that are killed are given to people who want to eat them as well. There are a few, not the majority, that only hunt to watch animals die from their weapons. They are few in number and really do not take that many animals away from the total amount around. The bigger problem is poachers who only kill for profit, they are the very lowest form of human life there is.

 

[WillNever]

Agree with the above. Killing and using the meat is okay. Killing for self-amusement is rather depraved.

 

[birch]

Outrage over what? That they are hunted by people that , in many cases, EAT THEM? If you are only wanting outrage over sport hunting where the game is killed ONLY for the thrill of it then I'm with you however many times the animals that are killed are given to people who want to eat them as well. There are a few, not the majority, that only hunt to watch animals die from their weapons. They are few in number and really do not take that many animals away from the total amount around. The bigger problem is poachers who only kill for profit, they are the very lowest form of human life there is.

uh, please give me a break. i've run into plenty of hunters in my lifetime and just about all of them hunt more for the pleasure of it rather than a hankering for venison or what have you. it's the thrill of the chase and feeling empowered. and how are poachers morally worse? for us or animals? so it's okay to you if someone kills you for sport because there are plenty of people around? that is basically your moral logic. that has nothing to do with morals actually. that is typical western reasonin and in this case is faulty, it's about practicality or saving a species and not about ethics.

you are trying to justify hunting when it's not even necessary. is a person's pleasure more important than the suffering and killing of an animal? do you think animals like to be stalked which causes stress and fear? of course not.

i just question the moral hypocrisy of it. also, most people keep carnivorous animals as pets that have been domesticated but all concerned about their innocence.

 

[AJRelic]

Deer can defend themselves? Think again. All they can do is try to run away. Furthermore, there is hardly anything "instinctual" about using a rifle you bought at k-mart to shoot and kill animals that have no chance of retaliating. Most people only want to hunt defenseless animals instead of dangerous ones. That is because they are cowards at heart.

The act of running way is certainly defensive, is it not? Point a gun at house dog and it'll probably lick the nozzle. Ever been bit by a deer? I'm sure it's pretty nasty.

As I said in my previous post...the instincts are of stalking and killing a prey, where does Kmart come into all this? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not going to find animals to stalk at my local convenience store.

So what if they are cowards? I think their goal is to satisfy themselves, not you.

 

[birch]

The act of running way is certainly defensive, is it not?

faulty justification.

the point is hunting is still aggression. how do you justify killing some animals because they can run away or know to run away? ridiculous.

so if you know to run away form someone coming after you with a gun, it justifies the aggression? lol

 

[AJRelic]

is a person's pleasure more important than the suffering and killing of an animal? do you think animals like to be stalked which causes stress and fear? of course not.

Well...to the person hunting of course it is. Otherwise why would they do it? Are you just stating the obvious?

 

[AJRelic]

faulty justification.

the point is hunting is still aggression. how do you justify killing some animals because they can run away or know to run away? ridiculous.

so if you know to run away form someone coming after you with a gun, it justifies the aggression? lol

? I wasn't trying to justify anything to you...I was explaining to WillNever that running away is in fact a defensive act. Hence attempting to explain the difference between domesticated and wildlife.

I already explained to you why I think people hunt...please refer to original post if you missed it.

 

[birch]

Well...to the person hunting of course it is. Otherwise why would they do it? Are you just stating the obvious?

no, it just doesn't make sense that some animals are considered okay to hunt for sport and not others. it's not even based on intelligence or level of consciousness either.

? I wasn't trying to justify anything to you...I was explaining to WillNever that running away is in fact a defensive act.

I already explained to you why I think people hunt...please refer to original post if you missed it.

i didn't miss the point. you were implying that it's okay because if they are not domesticated and can defend themselves or know to defend themselves.

it doesn't address that it's still aggression. it would be different if the animal were coming after you and one had to defend themselves. if someone were to break into your house, you would know to defend yourself but that doesn't justify the person breaking in.

Well...to the person hunting of course it is. Otherwise why would they do it? Are you just stating the obvious?

i think society has instilled that it's okay that some animals are 'not one of our tribe' so therefore okay but that's not about morals but find some contrived excuse which they label as moral. another strange tangent tact on often is that meat should not be wasted and if it's eaten, it's somehow more moral.

i don't think the victim cares what you do after as much as what happens to it. this type of moral reasoning has nothing to do with the concern for the plight of the animal but it's all tossed together as if it's the same. the moral reasoning is that it's assumed the animal was not killed just out of gratuitous violence or pleasure but for survival. okay, but still that hardly has any concern for the victim or animal and that should be clear. lol

if that was all, that would be more honest but they go further and use false and pseudo moralizing and that somehow cats and dogs are more sacred because they trust people as if that's some justification to use, even abuse and predate on other animals.

heh, that's like saying it's okay for stranger to randomly target you for predation because you are not their personal friend even if you are minding your own business.

 

[AJRelic]

no, it just doesn't make sense that some animals are considered okay to hunt for sport and not others. it's not even based on intelligence or level of consciousness either.



i didn't miss the point. you were implying that it's okay because if they are not domesticated and can defend themselves or know to defend themselves.

Please show me where in my post I implied that. I was answering your quesion where is the morals or outrage over nonpet animals? and attempted to explain why most people are outraged over the abuse of domestic animals versus the hunting of wildlife. If you continue reading, you will see that I personally do not like to hunt and would not condone the harm of any animal, but I can understand why they feel the need to do it.

it doesn't address that it's still aggression. it would be different if the animal were coming after you and one had to defend themselves. if someone were to break into your house, you would know to defend yourself but that doesn't justify the person breaking in.

Yes it is aggression. As I said, hunting is the means to satisfying our instinctual nature.

i think society has instilled that it's okay that some animals are 'not one of our tribe' so therefore okay.

I think that as a species, it was important to derive pleasure from stalking and killing prey. It's how we were motivated to obtain food when we did not have livestock. Just because society has evolved to the point where hunting is no longer necessary does not get rid of the pure pleasure of actually stalking and killing.

if that was all, that would be more honest but they go further and use false and pseudo moralizing and that somehow cats and dogs are more sacred because they trust people as if that's some justification to use, even abuse and predate on other animals.

I agree. I stated why I think this is the case above.

heh, that's like saying it's okay for stranger to randomly target you for predation because you are not their personal friend even if you are minding your own business.

An animal is an animal. We have more altruism towards our own than other species but in the end...what's keeping me from killing a stranger other than the consequences brought upon by our laws? As we know, laws aren't enough to stop some people. Technically we already do stalk and kill each other...it's called war.

Three.

 

[WillNever]

The act of running way is certainly defensive, is it not? Point a gun at house dog and it'll probably lick the nozzle. Ever been bit by a deer? I'm sure it's pretty nasty.

Defensive would be fighting back. Exactly how does one get bitten by a deer? Deer run away from humans. They do not charge toward them. The people who are hunting are fighting defenseless animals who have no weapons to fight back with.

As I said in my previous post...the instincts are of stalking and killing a prey, where does Kmart come into all this? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not going to find animals to stalk at my local convenience store.

But that's where you get the weapons from. Almost no one actually uses weapons they made themselves. And what instincts...? Whose instincts...? Most people have no interest in killing animals for no real reason. Most do not enjoy it. Could there be something wrong with ye who do? I think so.

So what if they are cowards? I think their goal is to satisfy themselves, not you.

Their need to self-satisfy in this way should probably be addressed by professionals.

 

[AJRelic]

Defensive would be fighting back. Exactly how does one get bitten by a deer? Deer run away from humans. They do not charge toward them. The people who are hunting are fighting defenseless animals who have no weapons to fight back with.

Are you serious? Of course running away is defensive...what logic are you incorporating to think it isn't? Simply stating otherwise isn't proving a point...

Fighting back is retaliating...and yes deer do bite. While running away may be their initial response; Just like any animal backed into a corner they will fight for their lives. A quick google search should clear up any confusions you may have. Honestly 5 minutes of research will do you good

But that's where you get the weapons from. Almost no one actually uses weapons they made themselves. And what instincts...? Whose instincts...? Most people have no interest in killing animals for no real reason. Most do not enjoy it. Could there be something wrong with ye who do? I think so.

Almost no one does not include everyone. I've already explained by what instincts I'm referring to at least three times in this thread. Feel free to read my other replies.

While most may not be interested in killing animals they have no problem eating them. To actually become involved in hunting is an extensive process that most people are not willing to do especially when they can get a slab of meat at the store. I personally do not like to hunt, but I'd have no problem doing so if I had to. I'd imagine it'd even be somewhat satisfying to fend for myself and know that I could.

Their need to self-satisfy in this way should probably be addressed by professionals.

Well it's a good thing the world doesn't need to answer to you. Can you imagine every person being seen by "professionals" because they disagree with you? What a terrible place to live.

 

[WillNever]

Fighting back is retaliating...and yes deer do bite. While running away may be their initial response; Just like any animal backed into a corner they will fight for their lives. A quick google search should clear up any confusions you may have. Honestly 5 minutes of research will do you good

I'm wondering what environment you live in, that you think hunters back deer into such corners that the deer has nowhere to go and therefore will actually come *torward* a hunter to bite him. To put it another way, how likely is it that a deer will actually get an opportunity to bite a hunter before it's killed by his projectile from dozens of yards away? What mad skills. In the meantime, let's stick with reality, okay..?

Almost no one does not include everyone. I've already explained by what instincts I'm referring to at least three times in this thread. Feel free to read my other replies.

Exceptions do not invalidate the rule. That is why they are called "exceptions." As well, your other replies are vague, ethereal tangents that no one except yourself could possibly appreciate.

While most may not be interested in killing animals they have no problem eating them. To actually become involved in hunting is an extensive process that most people are not willing to do especially when they can get a slab of meat at the store. I personally do not like to hunt, but I'd have no problem doing so if I had to. I'd imagine it'd even be somewhat satisfying to fend for myself and know that I could.

Eating isn't killing and people don't hunt because it's boring. Either the instincts that you have a hard-on for are too subdued to be worth factoring into the equation, or they don't actually exist. Sorry.

Well it's a good thing the world doesn't need to answer to you. Can you imagine every person being seen by "professionals" because they disagree with you? What a terrible place to live.

21.1% of Americans aged 18 and older suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder. I can imagine most or all people who hunt (6% of Americans) falling within that much larger pool of people. Now, I'm wondering if you are one of them too.

 

[AJRelic]

I'm wondering what environment you live in, that you think hunters back deer into such corners that the deer has nowhere to go and therefore will actually come *torward* a hunter to bite him. To put it another way, how likely is it that a deer will actually get an opportunity to bite a hunter before it's killed by his projectile from dozens of yards away? What mad skills. In the meantime, let's stick with reality, okay..?

Instead of trying so hard to discredit me why not try to think about it for a second? A hunter wounds the deer, approaches it to finish the job with say a knife and happens to get bit in the process. It might be hard for you to believe, but yes people have gotten bitten by deer. Again...please google it helps.

Exceptions do not invalidate the rule. That is why they are called "exceptions." As well, your other replies are vague, ethereal tangents that no one except yourself could possibly appreciate.

What rule is that? That "Almost no one uses uses weapons they made themselves"? I'm sorry I didn't realize that was a rule. I think it might be better to say "Almost everyone uses weapons made by someone else".

Anyways let me reiterate upon my point. We humans are motivated by a thing called pleasure. Generally speaking, we pursue things that make us feel better. Before there was livestock we had to hunt and part of what motivated us to do so was the thrill of stalking and killing a prey. This is instinctual and just because society has advanced to the point that we no longer need to hunt (through markets) the instincts still persist. If some part of hunting didn't make the person feel good, then why we they do it? I hope I simplified it enough for you this time.

Eating isn't killing and people don't hunt because it's boring. Either the instincts that you have a hard-on for are too subdued to be worth factoring into the equation, or they don't actually exist. Sorry.

Such an elegant statement. "People don't hunt because it's boring". How'd you come to that conclusion? Or are you assuming everyone else shares your view on the matter?

Clearly you have no idea just how hard hunting is. It may come as a surprise but there's more involved than just pointing a gun and shooting. Many people are simply not capable of hunting.

21.1% of Americans aged 18 and older suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder. I can imagine most or all people who hunt (6% of Americans) falling within that much larger pool of people. Now, I'm wondering if you are one of them too.

Well, if it means that I don't share your narrow and arrogant view of the world, I will be more than happy to be that 21%.

Edit: If you don't wish to actually address the points I've made this time, don't expect a reply by me. You may actually make sense if you try to prove me wrong rather than attempt to discredit me.

 

[cosmictraveler]

It may come as surprise but there's more involved than just pointing a gun and shooting.

Well, today it really is just about that simple. Take a 4x4 out into the savanah and pick what you want to kill.

 

[AJRelic]

Well, today it really is just about that simple. Take a 4x4 out into the savanah and pick what you want to kill.

Fair enough. Although in my defense the guy should have some knowledge about the prey he's going for, proper maintenance of his gun, safety procedures to avoid injuries, proper firing positions as well as the ability to calibrate his rifle. He may know how to track as well. He should know this though, in all fairness, he may not.

Edit: Allow me to rephrase. "Proper" hunting involves more than just pointing a gun and shooting.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Fair enough. Although in my defense the guy should have some knowledge about the prey he's going for, proper maintenance of his gun, safety procedures to avoid injuries, proper firing positions as well as the ability to calibrate his rifle. He may know how to track as well. He should know this though, in all fairness, he may not.

Safaris everywhere do everything for the hunter today. You just need money to go to a place that you can afford and they will provide you with everything, even the game you want.

 

[Orleander]

How is sport fishing different than sport hunting?