Forums > Social Discussion > Hunting, wrong or right
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
member
87 posts
Location: New South Wales
member
87 posts
Location: New South Wales
Posted:
is hunting wrong or right?
First off, i am a hunter using both, firearms and bows.
i beleave it is ok if it does not impact on the enviroment in a negative.
What are your thoughts on this topic
is hunting wrong or right?
First off, i am a hunter using both, firearms and bows.
i beleave it is ok if it does not impact on the enviroment in a negative.
What are your thoughts on this topic
BRONZE Member
member
85 posts
Location: Scotland (UK)
member
85 posts
Location: Scotland (UK)
Posted:
I totally agree with you. I am a country liver and my dad is a hunter who uses firearms and dogs to hunt deer, rabbits, foxes and dome birds.
All of these he shoots he has a record especially of the deer as he pretty much has taken it on himself to regulate the numbers of deer in a large piece of land indivdually so that they don't end up killing themselves off due to degredation of bark and food that they rapidly get through.
Is hunting wrong or right? RIGHt
I totally agree with you. I am a country liver and my dad is a hunter who uses firearms and dogs to hunt deer, rabbits, foxes and dome birds.
All of these he shoots he has a record especially of the deer as he pretty much has taken it on himself to regulate the numbers of deer in a large piece of land indivdually so that they don't end up killing themselves off due to degredation of bark and food that they rapidly get through.
Is hunting wrong or right? RIGHt
SILVER Member
travelling without moving
1,286 posts
Location: Maghull, Liverpool, United Kingdom
travelling without moving
1,286 posts
Location: Maghull, Liverpool, United Kingdom
Posted:
i totally agree that hunting is right, i too am a countryside guy, the waterloo cup used to be held just minutes away from my home. I dont disagree with all that the anti's say, but if they only understood why the hunts go on. All they see is killing animals, they do not see the regulation of numbers, and the fact that alot of game, especially birds, are bred by the hunters for release to be hunted. anyway, i dont have time for a rant now, that's my tuppence worth for now!
i totally agree that hunting is right, i too am a countryside guy, the waterloo cup used to be held just minutes away from my home. I dont disagree with all that the anti's say, but if they only understood why the hunts go on. All they see is killing animals, they do not see the regulation of numbers, and the fact that alot of game, especially birds, are bred by the hunters for release to be hunted. anyway, i dont have time for a rant now, that's my tuppence worth for now!
Heilige Scheiße, Batman kommt!
Reality is just a state of mind which occurs through a lack of lsd
XxX owned by devilsarmy XxX
O.B.E.S.E.
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
My personal feeling is that hunting should be for survival, not for pleasure. Most hunters I've met could afford to spend some of the money they spend on guns and ammo on store bought steak.
Although, I do think it would make for an interesting reality tv program to drop a bunch of unarmed hunters into the savanah.
My personal feeling is that hunting should be for survival, not for pleasure. Most hunters I've met could afford to spend some of the money they spend on guns and ammo on store bought steak.
Although, I do think it would make for an interesting reality tv program to drop a bunch of unarmed hunters into the savanah.
GOLD Member
organic creation
246 posts
Location: earth, Wales (UK)
organic creation
246 posts
Location: earth, Wales (UK)
Posted:
i'm not a hunter and i don't see how killing could bring joy to anyone, but i think that hunting for food is much better than buying meat from the store or especially from a fast food restaurant. at least you know where your food comes from when you hunt. hunting doesn't bother me compared to the torture and slaughtering that goes on at factory farms and by corporate farmers.
when defending my choice not to eat meat i have heard more than one person say to me that the reason that cows exist is for humans to eat them. i would laugh at this response if it wasn't so disturbing.
i'm not a hunter and i don't see how killing could bring joy to anyone, but i think that hunting for food is much better than buying meat from the store or especially from a fast food restaurant. at least you know where your food comes from when you hunt. hunting doesn't bother me compared to the torture and slaughtering that goes on at factory farms and by corporate farmers.
when defending my choice not to eat meat i have heard more than one person say to me that the reason that cows exist is for humans to eat them. i would laugh at this response if it wasn't so disturbing.
GOLD Member
HoP's Barman. Trapped aged 6 months
4,437 posts
Location: Staines, United Kingdom
HoP's Barman. Trapped aged 6 months
4,437 posts
Location: Staines, United Kingdom
Posted:
If you don't hunt for survival why do you hunt, simple its fun right, thats why i don't get why people like doing it, I don't see how its fun to take life from another creature
If you don't hunt for survival why do you hunt, simple its fun right, thats why i don't get why people like doing it, I don't see how its fun to take life from another creature
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind
Give a man a fish and he'll eat 4 a day hit a man with a brick and you can have all his fish and his wife
"Will's to pretty for prison" - Simian
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Hunting is not so cut and dry.
People hunt for sport and do not do anything with what they kill, or they take it illegally. That is poaching and I think poaching is wrong.
There are control hunters. These are the ones who hunt over populations down to a manageable level so that the animals are not starving to death.
There are those who hunt for the pure joy. They treat it like a social event. They enjoy spending the day out. They enjoy the tracking and then they use what they kill. They eat the meat, the bones and the skins.
My father and his hunting group are in the latter two. He is actually an amazing hunter with a great deal of empathy for animals. He never takes more than we can use. He works in cooperation with game control on over population issues and turns the bodies over to the state for study. He gets permission for every property he hunts on, and treats it with the utmost respect. He is teaching my son to hunt and I can not think of anyone I would rather have teach him.
Is hunting right or wrong? That's a subjective question depending on what perspective you are looking at it from.
Hunting is not so cut and dry.
People hunt for sport and do not do anything with what they kill, or they take it illegally. That is poaching and I think poaching is wrong.
There are control hunters. These are the ones who hunt over populations down to a manageable level so that the animals are not starving to death.
There are those who hunt for the pure joy. They treat it like a social event. They enjoy spending the day out. They enjoy the tracking and then they use what they kill. They eat the meat, the bones and the skins.
My father and his hunting group are in the latter two. He is actually an amazing hunter with a great deal of empathy for animals. He never takes more than we can use. He works in cooperation with game control on over population issues and turns the bodies over to the state for study. He gets permission for every property he hunts on, and treats it with the utmost respect. He is teaching my son to hunt and I can not think of anyone I would rather have teach him.
Is hunting right or wrong? That's a subjective question depending on what perspective you are looking at it from.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
SILVER Member
member
48 posts
Location: United Kingdom
member
48 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
I'm anti-Hunting...unless it is for survival...
I just don't see why you have decided you have the right to kill things for fun:-S....
My opinion was massively influenced by seeing a bear eat a buman on one of those horrid faces of death dvds...and though how horrible that must be for the human..then figured how horrible it must be for an animal to be killed...and therefore unless it is nesscary for survival..decided that killing things is wrong....
each to their own though
I'm anti-Hunting...unless it is for survival...
I just don't see why you have decided you have the right to kill things for fun:-S....
My opinion was massively influenced by seeing a bear eat a buman on one of those horrid faces of death dvds...and though how horrible that must be for the human..then figured how horrible it must be for an animal to be killed...and therefore unless it is nesscary for survival..decided that killing things is wrong....
each to their own though
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
For whose survival are you speaking?
The animal? Would you rather a hunter kill them or starvation due to over population? Watching starving animals stumble around is heart breaking and horrifying.
Survival of humans? Well. Then it comes down to, would you rather they be hunted in a fair fight, or where the animal can protect itself (in the case of bears, lions, etc) or on a meat farm. The world will not be going vegetarian any time soon, so it is not an option.
I'd rather have a good hunt and eat the meat than hit up the local butcher but we don't need to hunt for survival anymore. Mass market has pretty much eliminated that, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose.
For whose survival are you speaking?
The animal? Would you rather a hunter kill them or starvation due to over population? Watching starving animals stumble around is heart breaking and horrifying.
Survival of humans? Well. Then it comes down to, would you rather they be hunted in a fair fight, or where the animal can protect itself (in the case of bears, lions, etc) or on a meat farm. The world will not be going vegetarian any time soon, so it is not an option.
I'd rather have a good hunt and eat the meat than hit up the local butcher but we don't need to hunt for survival anymore. Mass market has pretty much eliminated that, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
Diamond In The Rough
459 posts
Location: Richmond, Virginia
459 posts
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Posted:
I realize hunting is a necessary aspect of nature. All carnivores hunt for food. With the exception of man, I'm fairly certain none of them hunt for pleasure. But I also recognize the need to keep animal populations under control. This is another responsibility of nature which we have adopted as our own. And considering how much ground we've covered in asphalt, rightly so. So if you ask if hunting is right or wrong, you need only examine the motivation.
However, if you're going to hunt for sport, I do believe it should be more fair, more 'sporting.' Hiding in an artificial chair, mounted on a tree branch, sipping Folgers while you wait for something to amble by and then shooting it from a hundred feet away is not hunting. Yes, it takes skill to kill with a rifle, but the same could be said for a carrotstick.
I think the essence or the spirit of the hunt is lost amid the technology modern hunters have become accustomed to. High-powered rifles, infa-red range-finders, chemically-formulated scents, all seem to go beyond the natural advantage our intelligence provides. I think making a simple bow, a sling, or sharpening a blade is a strong enough advantage on it's own.
Tracking an animal, stalking it, staying upwind, getting within a few feet and using only a knife for the kill, that's hunting.
I realize hunting is a necessary aspect of nature. All carnivores hunt for food. With the exception of man, I'm fairly certain none of them hunt for pleasure. But I also recognize the need to keep animal populations under control. This is another responsibility of nature which we have adopted as our own. And considering how much ground we've covered in asphalt, rightly so. So if you ask if hunting is right or wrong, you need only examine the motivation.
However, if you're going to hunt for sport, I do believe it should be more fair, more 'sporting.' Hiding in an artificial chair, mounted on a tree branch, sipping Folgers while you wait for something to amble by and then shooting it from a hundred feet away is not hunting. Yes, it takes skill to kill with a rifle, but the same could be said for a carrotstick.
I think the essence or the spirit of the hunt is lost amid the technology modern hunters have become accustomed to. High-powered rifles, infa-red range-finders, chemically-formulated scents, all seem to go beyond the natural advantage our intelligence provides. I think making a simple bow, a sling, or sharpening a blade is a strong enough advantage on it's own.
Tracking an animal, stalking it, staying upwind, getting within a few feet and using only a knife for the kill, that's hunting.
Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.
Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.
enthusiast
255 posts
Location: Melbourne - home of pirates
255 posts
Location: Melbourne - home of pirates
Posted:
In Australia, we have considerable amounts of feral animals, and hunting is one of many ways that this population can be controlled. Taking a truck with a spotlight into bushland and shooting rabbits is better than letting them destroy that bushland.
However, when you start talking about hunting native animals (such as ducks) I have more concerns. While there are strict legal controls on what animals can be hunted, duck shooters often make mistakes and shoot the wrong birds, causing danger to endangered species.
I find it somewhat aesthetically amiss to hunt using high-tech devices... I like the idea of bow hunting for big game, it brings it all back to a more primal level, which is what IMO hunting brings the hunter towards.
That being said, i think a crossbow would be pretty much useless shooting rabbits.
In Australia, we have considerable amounts of feral animals, and hunting is one of many ways that this population can be controlled. Taking a truck with a spotlight into bushland and shooting rabbits is better than letting them destroy that bushland.
However, when you start talking about hunting native animals (such as ducks) I have more concerns. While there are strict legal controls on what animals can be hunted, duck shooters often make mistakes and shoot the wrong birds, causing danger to endangered species.
Written by: Prometheus
I think the essence or the spirit of the hunt is lost amid the technology modern hunters have become accustomed to. High-powered rifles, infa-red range-finders, chemically-formulated scents, all seem to go beyond the natural advantage our intelligence provides. I think making a simple bow, a sling, or sharpening a blade is a strong enough advantage on it's own.
I find it somewhat aesthetically amiss to hunt using high-tech devices... I like the idea of bow hunting for big game, it brings it all back to a more primal level, which is what IMO hunting brings the hunter towards.
That being said, i think a crossbow would be pretty much useless shooting rabbits.
"You've gone from Loey the Wonder Lesbian to everyone wondering if you are a lesbian." - Shadowman
Yesterday is yesterday. If we try to recapture it, we will only lose tomorrow.
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Hey love, actually, this statement is not correct.
The most ruthless hunter in nature is actually the small cat, ie: household cat. They hunt for pleasure and do not always kill what they hunt, just torture it.
Not only has this been presented on Animal Planet and Discovery Channel several times, I have seen it in my own cats, especially when they capture moles.
Completely off topic, I need to call you. Sorry for the delay.
Written by: Prometheus
I realize hunting is a necessary aspect of nature. All carnivores hunt for food. With the exception of man, I'm fairly certain none of them hunt for pleasure. But I also recognize the need to keep animal populations under control. This is another responsibility of nature which we have adopted as our own. And considering how much ground we've covered in asphalt, rightly so. So if you ask if hunting is right or wrong, you need only examine the motivation.
Hey love, actually, this statement is not correct.
The most ruthless hunter in nature is actually the small cat, ie: household cat. They hunt for pleasure and do not always kill what they hunt, just torture it.
Not only has this been presented on Animal Planet and Discovery Channel several times, I have seen it in my own cats, especially when they capture moles.
Completely off topic, I need to call you. Sorry for the delay.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
I was about to point that out Pele, I've seen my own cat catch many, many animals when it had a bowl full of food sitting in the kitchen.
in defence, the life of a cat is probably so boring that the only way to get excitement would be to bat a mouse around for a good half hour before deciding not to touch it ...
That, or dragging it into the house and onto the stairs for people to step on
Off-topicness aside, I dislike hunting. But then I dislike humanity in general. There are many kinds of hunting, ranging from "Because I can" to "This animal is a threat to other people" to "I need the food".
I don't buy the "But they'll starve otherwise" argument, sorry. Natural selection is at work in the world, andmuch as we don't want to admit it, it's survival of the fittest. If you starve, you die. It's that easy. Shooting an extra 10% of the population just because they're running out of food is just another example of us interfering with the natural cycle, which we've already done enough of, IMO.
Besides, what if you'd found a sweet bit of food in the middle of a famine and then got shot by god as one of the 10% he was killing to prevent further starvation? I know I'd be rather upset. Actually, that's a lie. I'd be very dead.
I was about to point that out Pele, I've seen my own cat catch many, many animals when it had a bowl full of food sitting in the kitchen.
in defence, the life of a cat is probably so boring that the only way to get excitement would be to bat a mouse around for a good half hour before deciding not to touch it
...That, or dragging it into the house and onto the stairs for people to step on
Off-topicness aside, I dislike hunting. But then I dislike humanity in general. There are many kinds of hunting, ranging from "Because I can" to "This animal is a threat to other people" to "I need the food".
I don't buy the "But they'll starve otherwise" argument, sorry. Natural selection is at work in the world, andmuch as we don't want to admit it, it's survival of the fittest. If you starve, you die. It's that easy. Shooting an extra 10% of the population just because they're running out of food is just another example of us interfering with the natural cycle, which we've already done enough of, IMO.
Besides, what if you'd found a sweet bit of food in the middle of a famine and then got shot by god as one of the 10% he was killing to prevent further starvation? I know I'd be rather upset. Actually, that's a lie. I'd be very dead.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Sethis, population control hunters do so only after evidence of starvation is present, not pre-emptively.
Sethis, population control hunters do so only after evidence of starvation is present, not pre-emptively.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
SILVER Member
addict
667 posts
Location: Cannock, staffordshire, United Kingdom
addict
667 posts
Location: Cannock, staffordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
for once im agreeing with what sethis has said
hes pretty much summed it up
as for hunting and eating what you kill
what about fox hunting, you dont eat fox, and is there such thing as sheep or cow hunting?
not in the uk there isnt
another thing on this is, mass market produce is usually from farms for the meat industry and the safety in it is the fact you know what your getting to eat as the animals are vet checked so you know there isnt no nasty disease on the animals ( and i wasnt talking about processed foods with crap added i was on about plain meats)
i dont eat meat but i can understand why there is farms that mass produce meats for the safety of foods.
killing foxes i dont understand, killing for fun is just wrong. now we as humans may not be completely different to animals but we are different in ways that we can make decisions and we do a lot of things animals do for survival just for our own pleasure.
for once im agreeing with what sethis has said
hes pretty much summed it up
as for hunting and eating what you kill
what about fox hunting, you dont eat fox, and is there such thing as sheep or cow hunting?
not in the uk there isnt
another thing on this is, mass market produce is usually from farms for the meat industry and the safety in it is the fact you know what your getting to eat as the animals are vet checked so you know there isnt no nasty disease on the animals ( and i wasnt talking about processed foods with crap added i was on about plain meats)
i dont eat meat but i can understand why there is farms that mass produce meats for the safety of foods.
killing foxes i dont understand, killing for fun is just wrong. now we as humans may not be completely different to animals but we are different in ways that we can make decisions and we do a lot of things animals do for survival just for our own pleasure.
enticed, entrapped, entombed.
intoxicated, impaled, ingested.
bewitched, beaten, broken.
enter the love realm...
insert ur token
o jej, ale bym ci wylizal ten pepek
stepped up promotions
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
In regards to wildlife management, why not reintroduce natural predators? There are still a few out there that haven't been totally hunted down and eradicated.
I've done what Prometheus suggests is hunting, but without the knife. Getting so close to the deer that you can touch it. But then I startled it at the last moment. It nearly ran over me.
My worry then was that the deer would break a leg in the underbrush from running. Then it would starve...
In regards to wildlife management, why not reintroduce natural predators? There are still a few out there that haven't been totally hunted down and eradicated.
I've done what Prometheus suggests is hunting, but without the knife. Getting so close to the deer that you can touch it. But then I startled it at the last moment. It nearly ran over me.
My worry then was that the deer would break a leg in the underbrush from running. Then it would starve...
SILVER Member
member
80 posts
Location: Derby UK
member
80 posts
Location: Derby UK
Posted:
Fox hunting here in the UK was a good way of keeping the fox population healthy and under control, only those foxes who were sick or old got caught and killed, now that it is only leagal to hunt (i say this in the most loose of ways) is to flush out any fox into the path of a shotgun, which has more chance of just wounding the fox and having it suffer in pain until it slowly dies, there have also been studies (cant find the web link at the mo, in the middle of an asssignment) that show more foxes are being killed and not just those that are sick or old.
thats just my view
Fox hunting here in the UK was a good way of keeping the fox population healthy and under control, only those foxes who were sick or old got caught and killed, now that it is only leagal to hunt (i say this in the most loose of ways) is to flush out any fox into the path of a shotgun, which has more chance of just wounding the fox and having it suffer in pain until it slowly dies, there have also been studies (cant find the web link at the mo, in the middle of an asssignment) that show more foxes are being killed and not just those that are sick or old.
thats just my view
I am a sig virus place me in you sig so that i can continue to replicate
Rgds Drofkcah
member
37 posts
37 posts
Posted:
having grown up in the country, and hearing on a regular basis about people killed or injured in traffic accidents involveing deer, I tend to think its less a question of right or wrong, and more a question of if it needs to be done or not.
Fact is, we create vast expanses of new growth forest through our activitys on this planet, and we managed to kill of all the deers predators, so the populations can grow ridiciously large really quickly, in new growth forests where they thrive without any form of predation. they are very weak genetically and full of disease, and negativly effect the rest of the ecology, for example moose are nearly extinct here because deer carry a parasite which drives moose insane and kills them. In newfoundland canada moose arent native and are over populated like deer are here, and if you think hitting a deer with your car is scary, imagine something that stands taller then a rhino and is just as physically imposeing, an is about half it,s weight. Oh yeah, and they charge cars just like rhinos do.
So, to me the question is rather we let the populations go ape crap crazy, and deal with loseing friends and family members on a regular basis because the roads are completly unsafe, or we bandage up our bleeding hearts and accept that we have to take some responsibility for the unnatural ecology we have created. Or we could just withdraw completly from most of the planets surface which is the choice I would go for, but I dont think many other people would.
oh yeah, and hunters are pretty much the only people who really offer the funds and man power to conserve various animal species like deer and moose. So, if you ban hunting and all of a sudden have a vast, sick population of deer threatening your life everytime you take a drive, I hope you find someone else to cough up the money to take care of the population.
In the end, either sportsmen are going to kill the deer, or squads with machine guns flying around in helicopers with IR scopes will shoot the deer, and from what ive seen of culls done that style in documentary, such as what was done with wolves in parts of russia, the animals carcass goes to complete waste.
Id rather someone gets some entertainment, some deer hide and meat, then a bunch of government employee,s controlling the population systematicly.
Oh yeah, theirs the third option which is reintroduceing and nutureing wolf and similar species. but as soon as a few sheep and dozens of cats and dogs are killed by the wolves.. somehow I suspect we will repeat the mistakes of the past and kill them off again.
EDITED_BY: astar2 (1151494957)
having grown up in the country, and hearing on a regular basis about people killed or injured in traffic accidents involveing deer, I tend to think its less a question of right or wrong, and more a question of if it needs to be done or not.
Fact is, we create vast expanses of new growth forest through our activitys on this planet, and we managed to kill of all the deers predators, so the populations can grow ridiciously large really quickly, in new growth forests where they thrive without any form of predation. they are very weak genetically and full of disease, and negativly effect the rest of the ecology, for example moose are nearly extinct here because deer carry a parasite which drives moose insane and kills them. In newfoundland canada moose arent native and are over populated like deer are here, and if you think hitting a deer with your car is scary, imagine something that stands taller then a rhino and is just as physically imposeing, an is about half it,s weight. Oh yeah, and they charge cars just like rhinos do.
So, to me the question is rather we let the populations go ape crap crazy, and deal with loseing friends and family members on a regular basis because the roads are completly unsafe, or we bandage up our bleeding hearts and accept that we have to take some responsibility for the unnatural ecology we have created. Or we could just withdraw completly from most of the planets surface which is the choice I would go for, but I dont think many other people would.
oh yeah, and hunters are pretty much the only people who really offer the funds and man power to conserve various animal species like deer and moose. So, if you ban hunting and all of a sudden have a vast, sick population of deer threatening your life everytime you take a drive, I hope you find someone else to cough up the money to take care of the population.
In the end, either sportsmen are going to kill the deer, or squads with machine guns flying around in helicopers with IR scopes will shoot the deer, and from what ive seen of culls done that style in documentary, such as what was done with wolves in parts of russia, the animals carcass goes to complete waste.
Id rather someone gets some entertainment, some deer hide and meat, then a bunch of government employee,s controlling the population systematicly.
Oh yeah, theirs the third option which is reintroduceing and nutureing wolf and similar species. but as soon as a few sheep and dozens of cats and dogs are killed by the wolves.. somehow I suspect we will repeat the mistakes of the past and kill them off again.
EDITED_BY: astar2 (1151494957)
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Pele: my point about being in the middle of a famine, finding yourself some food, then getting shot in the head still stands. How would you feel? (Apart from that rigor mortis setting in)
Think about it this way, we have caused population problems with animals because of the way we're messing around with the environment where we live. Seems to me that messing around with it further isn't the best way to solve it.
Bring back wolves for the Win!
Pele: my point about being in the middle of a famine, finding yourself some food, then getting shot in the head still stands. How would you feel? (Apart from that rigor mortis setting in
)Think about it this way, we have caused population problems with animals because of the way we're messing around with the environment where we live. Seems to me that messing around with it further isn't the best way to solve it.
Bring back wolves for the Win!
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
Sorry to derail the conversation.... astar, weren't you banned?
Sorry to derail the conversation.... astar, weren't you banned?
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
The attractive thing about hunting seems to be (a) the satisfaction of killing your own food, and (b) having some food. With that in mind, I’ve come up with an interesting business idea that combines both of these.
I’m going to open up a hunting resort in which we release lots of cows, chickens, turkeys, sheep, goats, and other domesticated animals which are generally cheap to buy and tasty to eat. We will then allow people to hunt these animals, but only with primitive weapons such as bows, spears, knives, clubs, or your teeth.
Not many people could kill a wild deer with a knife, no matter how hungry they were. However, I bet most of us could take down a chicken.
We’d have a butcher right there who would clean and package up anything you managed to kill, and you would be able to take a nice fresh meal home to your family. Plus, than animals would be free range, organically raised without all those hormones and stuff. Rather than cooping them up in pens and force feeding them all their life, they would have been allowed to run free through the woods, avoiding death as long as they could stay away from predators.
In fact, I think all meat should be sold this way. When I’m elected dictator, you will only be allowed to eat meat if you can chase it down and kill it yourself. This will help the population stay fit, as it will force the inactive to be vegetarian.
The attractive thing about hunting seems to be (a) the satisfaction of killing your own food, and (b) having some food. With that in mind, I’ve come up with an interesting business idea that combines both of these.
I’m going to open up a hunting resort in which we release lots of cows, chickens, turkeys, sheep, goats, and other domesticated animals which are generally cheap to buy and tasty to eat. We will then allow people to hunt these animals, but only with primitive weapons such as bows, spears, knives, clubs, or your teeth.
Not many people could kill a wild deer with a knife, no matter how hungry they were. However, I bet most of us could take down a chicken.
We’d have a butcher right there who would clean and package up anything you managed to kill, and you would be able to take a nice fresh meal home to your family. Plus, than animals would be free range, organically raised without all those hormones and stuff. Rather than cooping them up in pens and force feeding them all their life, they would have been allowed to run free through the woods, avoiding death as long as they could stay away from predators.
In fact, I think all meat should be sold this way. When I’m elected dictator, you will only be allowed to eat meat if you can chase it down and kill it yourself. This will help the population stay fit, as it will force the inactive to be vegetarian.
GOLD Member
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
Posted:
I'd be up for that actually...
It'd be cheaper than going to the gym. It'd be your very own Fight Club in that it will let us get in touch with the primitive side of us we've all but forgotten... Except we would probably talk about it...
Make mine a pheasant...
I'd be up for that actually...
It'd be cheaper than going to the gym. It'd be your very own Fight Club in that it will let us get in touch with the primitive side of us we've all but forgotten... Except we would probably talk about it...
Make mine a pheasant...
"I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Oh no, the first Rule of Patriarch Ranch would be that you can't talk about Patriarch Ranch. It would also be the second rule.
If you broke either rule, we would turn you lose in the woods and chase you with flint knives that we had made ourselves that morning.
Oh no, the first Rule of Patriarch Ranch would be that you can't talk about Patriarch Ranch. It would also be the second rule.
If you broke either rule, we would turn you lose in the woods and chase you with flint knives that we had made ourselves that morning.
GOLD Member
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
Posted:
Flint Knives!
Pffft!
What makes you think I can't kill you with my bare hands and my lovely singing voice?
You could be really silly and dress up in formalwear, mount horses and hunt me down with a pack of hunting dogs, announce your arrival with a bugal and have the dogs rip me to shreds after chasing me around the countryside for an hour or two...
Flint Knives!
Pffft!
What makes you think I can't kill you with my bare hands and my lovely singing voice?
You could be really silly and dress up in formalwear, mount horses and hunt me down with a pack of hunting dogs, announce your arrival with a bugal and have the dogs rip me to shreds after chasing me around the countryside for an hour or two...
"I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
In Cambodia, they do the farm animal hunting thing right
For only $500 you can take down ole Bossy the cow (actually it's a water buffalo) with an RPG. Yep, killed, cleaned and cooked in just one go. It's a bit of a scam though. Chances are you're going to miss (however that really depends on your military background). See, the locals are counting on you supplying dinner, so when you do miss you're sort of obligated to take the next option, which is going full auto with an AK47 ( another $100 ). Failing that, you do have the option of lobbing a few hand grenades at it at $25 each.
No worries if you're on a budget, there's always the $20 *chicken and a handgun* option. Beware of hidden charges for bullets.
You too can do your part to help rid the world of military arms and feed the third world, all in one afternoon.
In Cambodia, they do the farm animal hunting thing right
For only $500 you can take down ole Bossy the cow (actually it's a water buffalo) with an RPG. Yep, killed, cleaned and cooked in just one go. It's a bit of a scam though. Chances are you're going to miss (however that really depends on your military background). See, the locals are counting on you supplying dinner, so when you do miss you're sort of obligated to take the next option, which is going full auto with an AK47 ( another $100 ). Failing that, you do have the option of lobbing a few hand grenades at it at $25 each.
No worries if you're on a budget, there's always the $20 *chicken and a handgun* option. Beware of hidden charges for bullets.
You too can do your part to help rid the world of military arms and feed the third world, all in one afternoon.
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
It's a long story but my dad and his friends killed a deer with his bare hands and a river.
And yes Sethis, I would rather someone shoot me, because that little bit of food that wouldn't sustain me would sustain my child. Have you ever seen what overpopulation does? If you have you wouldn't keep making these "little bit of food" arguements. I have seen a deer so thin that I could count it's ribs stumble because it was too weak to move. I have seen throngs and throngs of deer competing for food from the same backyard feeder and the owners of the property frightened to leave their home because the animals attack. It isn't pretty. It happened a few years ago in this area and it was aweful. The incidents of car-animal accidents rose. Animals would drop anywhere so the animal control office was being called out for dead animals in yards and roads.
I have also seen when coyote are reintroduced into the ecosystem, and they get the deer population down and theirs go up. They attack farm animals, farm hands, house pets and one even tried to attack a child in the backyard.
Until you see it and live through it, you really have no idea how devistating or horrific it truly is and if I were those animals I would rather a sudden, painless death from an adept hunter (notice how I said that? I agree that not everyone, unfortunately, is an adept hunter and should not be given a gun nor a license) than a slow, agonizing death from starvation.
Stout, how much of the buffalo is left after a hit with a hand granade? Though, I suppose it definately cuts back on butcher fees. (and yes, I understand, chances of hitting the thing with a grenade are pretty slim...at least with my throwing arm they'd be.)
It's a long story but my dad and his friends killed a deer with his bare hands and a river.
And yes Sethis, I would rather someone shoot me, because that little bit of food that wouldn't sustain me would sustain my child. Have you ever seen what overpopulation does? If you have you wouldn't keep making these "little bit of food" arguements. I have seen a deer so thin that I could count it's ribs stumble because it was too weak to move. I have seen throngs and throngs of deer competing for food from the same backyard feeder and the owners of the property frightened to leave their home because the animals attack. It isn't pretty. It happened a few years ago in this area and it was aweful. The incidents of car-animal accidents rose. Animals would drop anywhere so the animal control office was being called out for dead animals in yards and roads.
I have also seen when coyote are reintroduced into the ecosystem, and they get the deer population down and theirs go up. They attack farm animals, farm hands, house pets and one even tried to attack a child in the backyard.
Until you see it and live through it, you really have no idea how devistating or horrific it truly is and if I were those animals I would rather a sudden, painless death from an adept hunter (notice how I said that? I agree that not everyone, unfortunately, is an adept hunter and should not be given a gun nor a license) than a slow, agonizing death from starvation.
Stout, how much of the buffalo is left after a hit with a hand granade? Though, I suppose it definately cuts back on butcher fees.
(and yes, I understand, chances of hitting the thing with a grenade are pretty slim...at least with my throwing arm they'd be.) Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
Just so you know.... you lob a grenade
Written by: Pele
at least with my throwing arm they'd be.)
Just so you know.... you lob a grenade
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Who wouldn't have anyone to teach him/her what is good to eat and what isn't. Who wouldn't be taught what predators sound like or how to evade them. Who would die very quickly as food for something else because s/he doesn't have a guardian any more. It was just an idle point in the first place, it's not the basis of any argument. I just don't see what justification anyone has to randomly decimate a population because some of them are starving.
My main point of argument (for the third time) is that the vast majority of ecological "problems" are ones that we cause ourselves. Interfering will only cause more, which is why I advocated leaving well enough alone and letting nature take care of its children.
Did your dad pick up the river and hit the deer with it? That would be awesome to see!
(that was a joke by the way, not a dig at you or your dad)
Also, because I remember reading a book (maybe Pratchett?): where a little girl sees an injured animal and is advised to kill it quickly to save it pain and suffering as the "kind" thing to do. She replies with something like: "How do you know what the animal wants? Maybe what it wants most in the world is to keep living, despite the pain and low chances of it surviving. Maybe all it ever wanted was to stay alive. You're considering your own feelings rather than the animals'."
Maybe in a famine, the animals want to live as long as they possibly can, because just maybe there might be some food around the next corner. Just maybe they prefer a life of hardship with hope to a painless death. You saying "if I was an animal..." and "it's heartbreaking to see..." just reminded me of that little girl.
Who are we to say that nature is unduly harsh? I think it has more practice at managing the planet than we do. The rules of nature read: "Sh!t happens. Get a helmet." Meddling with entire populations is a fools errand to my mind.
Written by: Pele
that little bit of food that wouldn't sustain me would sustain my child.
Who wouldn't have anyone to teach him/her what is good to eat and what isn't. Who wouldn't be taught what predators sound like or how to evade them. Who would die very quickly as food for something else because s/he doesn't have a guardian any more. It was just an idle point in the first place, it's not the basis of any argument. I just don't see what justification anyone has to randomly decimate a population because some of them are starving.
My main point of argument (for the third time) is that the vast majority of ecological "problems" are ones that we cause ourselves. Interfering will only cause more, which is why I advocated leaving well enough alone and letting nature take care of its children.
Did your dad pick up the river and hit the deer with it? That would be awesome to see!
(that was a joke by the way, not a dig at you or your dad)Also, because I remember reading a book (maybe Pratchett?): where a little girl sees an injured animal and is advised to kill it quickly to save it pain and suffering as the "kind" thing to do. She replies with something like: "How do you know what the animal wants? Maybe what it wants most in the world is to keep living, despite the pain and low chances of it surviving. Maybe all it ever wanted was to stay alive. You're considering your own feelings rather than the animals'."
Maybe in a famine, the animals want to live as long as they possibly can, because just maybe there might be some food around the next corner. Just maybe they prefer a life of hardship with hope to a painless death. You saying "if I was an animal..." and "it's heartbreaking to see..." just reminded me of that little girl.
Who are we to say that nature is unduly harsh? I think it has more practice at managing the planet than we do. The rules of nature read: "Sh!t happens. Get a helmet." Meddling with entire populations is a fools errand to my mind.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Sethis, hunting is not randomly decimating a population, by any means. It's why it is a controlled and permitted action. So that populations are *not* decimated. Poaching decimates and there is a *HUGE* difference between the two.
And no, dad didn't pick up the river. Long story short, the animal was very damaged but took off running. Dad and his friend tracked it onto property where the owner does not approve of any weapons but she did not want the animal to suffer (and it would have. Have you ever seen an animal suffering from gangrene beyond repair? Not nice). My dad and his friend tracked the deer to a river where they drown it. But then my dad has also tried to give mouth to beak resusitation to a goose too. Don't ask.
And Patrick, if you have ever seen the way I throw...I embarrass girls! I would most likely roll it like a bowling ball rather than lob it, pitch it, toss it or otherwise make it airborn!
Sethis, hunting is not randomly decimating a population, by any means. It's why it is a controlled and permitted action. So that populations are *not* decimated. Poaching decimates and there is a *HUGE* difference between the two.
And no, dad didn't pick up the river.
Long story short, the animal was very damaged but took off running. Dad and his friend tracked it onto property where the owner does not approve of any weapons but she did not want the animal to suffer (and it would have. Have you ever seen an animal suffering from gangrene beyond repair? Not nice). My dad and his friend tracked the deer to a river where they drown it. But then my dad has also tried to give mouth to beak resusitation to a goose too. Don't ask.And Patrick, if you have ever seen the way I throw...I embarrass girls! I would most likely roll it like a bowling ball rather than lob it, pitch it, toss it or otherwise make it airborn!
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
SILVER Member
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Posted:
I don't think it's that cut and dried mate...
I think it's got more to do with the intent behind the action, and the ethics that are associated with that intent.
eg recreational fisherpeople generally fish for food and only take what they need to sustain themselves and their family...
eg hunters who are reducing the feral cat and rabbit population are protecting native animals and food production
and, oh gods, it's not often that I think Patriarch917 has a good idea 
I hunt my own food - but it ends up being mostly fish...now if there was somewhere I could go to hunt a pig and a way that I could turn that pig into bacon (I'd want to do my own butchering though), then i'd be there...
Written by: FIRE_SPINNER
is hunting wrong or right?
I don't think it's that cut and dried mate...
I think it's got more to do with the intent behind the action, and the ethics that are associated with that intent.
eg recreational fisherpeople generally fish for food and only take what they need to sustain themselves and their family...
eg hunters who are reducing the feral cat and rabbit population are protecting native animals and food production
and, oh gods, it's not often that I think Patriarch917 has a good idea
I hunt my own food - but it ends up being mostly fish...now if there was somewhere I could go to hunt a pig and a way that I could turn that pig into bacon (I'd want to do my own butchering though), then i'd be there...
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [hunting wrong right] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Hunting, wrong or right [53 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com