Hunters: Live by the gun, die by the gun.

[chelee]

I think birth control is a very good idea, but I'm a little nervous about the ingestible version (seeing as how feeding deer is now illegal in wisconsin) but it might be worth looking into if CWD can be brought under control again.

 

[jamaesi]

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to think of war. In a perfect world.

NEWSFLASH

This is not a perfect world.

 

[huajiro]

NEWSFLASH

This is not a perfect world.

Only because people like you have accepted that

 

[lilithu]

Only because people like you have accepted that

So if we all refused to accept death it would just go away? What about accidents? Acts of nature like earthquakes and tornadoes? Would they go away? Would the lion lie down with the lamb if we just refused to accept the imperfection of our world?

 

[jamaesi]

In a perfect world people would not back up their crap with pointless and meaningless statements.

I've accepted the fact it's not a perfect world because IT ISN'T ONE. It doesnt mean people who accept that aren't trying to fix things, it means we keep a basis in the real world.

 

[lilithu]

In a perfect world, we would be more compassionate towards each other and our differences of opinion.

 

[painted wolf]

The feeding would be done by the state fish and game authorities. It would most likely still be illigal for indiviuals to feed deer themselves. The feeding is the only logistical way to provide enough deer with the contraceptive to be useful. I agree that CWD needs to be taken care of as quicly as possible both for the deers health and for ours. Thankfully CWD has not made it into NH as of yet, I can only hope that it never makes it up here, but unfortuatly I know better.

wa:do

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I know here in NH we are trying to develop a 'birth control' drug for our deer population. Is Australia still using thier virsion of this to help keep the kangaroo population in check? I know it seemed a promicing step over there a while ago.
Considering the chaos that the introduced animals are having in Australia, I'm all for the culling of thier rabbit and other non-native animal populations.

wa:do

The thing with Kangaroos is that they have their own inbuilt birth control. They can hold the embryo in a state of suspended animation, so because of the drought the numbers haven't climbed so much in areas where there isn't much food. This doesn't help the existing animals have something to eat when the food runs out, however, just stops there being more animals to die horribly when it all runs out. Seven years with bugger all rain and they're going to die one way or the other. The only question is whether its a quick bullet to the head or slow starvation. I can see how you could argue that hunting is less humane than that.
There's currently some talk of trying to resurrect some of the aboriginal animal management practices, as population densities of several species of Australian native animals have actually increased in the last 200 years since European settlement and the decline of the traditional aboriginal way of life. Of course, that would involve the dirty 'H' word as well, but in a country with very limited natural predators what can you do.
When I spoke of biological controls, however, I was refering to disease. I've shot rabbits, and I've seen them dying from myxomatosis. Were I in the same situation, I'd much prefer a bullet. Either way they don't know what's hit them, but in the second instance it's 12-20 days of blindness and skin lesions ending in a painful death of slow asphyxiation from a secondary lung infection.

You never reconsider your stance on anything? Really? So I guess you've never been wrong about anything then?

 

[huajiro]

So if we all refused to accept death it would just go away? What about accidents? Acts of nature like earthquakes and tornadoes? Would they go away? Would the lion lie down with the lamb if we just refused to accept the imperfection of our world?

I think I was talking about war.

 

[huajiro]

In a perfect world people would not back up their crap with pointless and meaningless statements.

I've accepted the fact it's not a perfect world because IT ISN'T ONE. It doesnt mean people who accept that aren't trying to fix things, it means we keep a basis in the real world.

My world is close to perfect because I make it that way. You might get up off your butt and do something about your life, it seems like you need to. As for meaningless statements, I don't think that my statements are meaningless at all. A basis in a real world doesn't mean you need to be negative about everything.

 

[lilithu]

I think I was talking about war.

Yes, you interjected the idea of war into a thread on violence against animals. Given the context of the thread, I assumed that you meant that in a perfect world, there would be no violence.

If I was wrong in my assumption, I apologize. But then please explain how war relates to the argument at hand.

 

[huajiro]

Yes, you interjected the idea of war into a thread on violence against animals. Given the context of the thread, I assumed that you meant that in a perfect world, there would be no violence.

If I was wrong in my assumption, I apologize. But then please explain how war relates to the argument at hand.

I didn't mean it in the rude way. What I meant to say is that all our efforts towards wars should be directed toward helping save lives. You are probably on the right track as I am a little infantile in my beliefs....I really do think it is that easy...if we try.

 

[lilithu]

I didn't mean it in the rude way. What I meant to say is that all our efforts towards wars should be directed toward helping save lives. You are probably on the right track as I am a little infantile in my beliefs....I really do think it is that easy...if we try.

We are in agreement about the waste of war. And I wouldn't say that I am more right than you, even tho I've been arguing with you. I tend to focus on reason, analyzing the situation from a more detatched view in order to get a bigger picture. Taken to the extreme, reflection without action is worthless. You seem to focus on emotion; your compassion for suffering compells you to do something about it. Taken to the extreme, action without reflection can do more harm than good. Ultimately, we need a balance between us, so it takes both of us.

To get back to the thread, we are not going to agree on the merits/demerits of hunting, because we don't agree on whether hunting causes more or less suffering for the animals. But we do both agree that suffering should be reduced where ever and whenever we can. So instead of arguing about hunting, I propose that we all ACT on something which I think we can all agree - the evils of factory farming. Surely you agree with me that raising animals in crowded, filthy conditions, and then slaughtering them with more regard to 'efficiency" than pain causes far more senseless suffering on a daily basis than hunting does.

As I recently wrote in another forum:
Factory farms and meat processing plants are harmful to the environment, to the animals, and to the people who work in them. All in the name of bringing meat to our local megalomart for us to buy at rockbottom prices. Meat is now cheaper than veggies! - even tho it is more environmentally expensive to produce. There's just something wrong with that picture. The money that we save is paid for by the suffering of the environment, the animals and the people who process them. It's blood money.

 

[huajiro]

We are in agreement about the waste of war. And I wouldn't say that I am more right than you, even tho I've been arguing with you. I tend to focus on reason, analyzing the situation from a more detatched view in order to get a bigger picture. Taken to the extreme, reflection without action is worthless. You seem to focus on emotion; your compassion for suffering compells you to do something about it. Taken to the extreme, action without reflection can do more harm than good. Ultimately, we need a balance between us, so it takes both of us.

To get back to the thread, we are not going to agree on the merits/demerits of hunting, because we don't agree on whether hunting causes more or less suffering for the animals. But we do both agree that suffering should be reduced where ever and whenever we can. So instead of arguing about hunting, I propose that we all ACT on something which I think we can all agree - the evils of factory farming. Surely you agree with me that raising animals in crowded, filthy conditions, and then slaughtering them with more regard to 'efficiency" than pain causes far more senseless suffering on a daily basis than hunting does.

As I recently wrote in another forum:
Factory farms and meat processing plants are harmful to the environment, to the animals, and to the people who work in them. All in the name of bringing meat to our local megalomart for us to buy at rockbottom prices. Meat is now cheaper than veggies! - even tho it is more environmentally expensive to produce. There's just something wrong with that picture. The money that we save is paid for by the suffering of the environment, the animals and the people who process them. It's blood money.

You have my vote!!:jam:

 

[painted wolf]

I agree about factory farms, which is why I pay the extra to support local family farms. Small farms that raise thier animals free range and antibiotic free. Only by supporting the alternitives can you take power away from the factory farms, that goes for meat as well as veggies.

wa:do

 

[retrorich]

Hunters: Live by the gun, die by the gun.
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica]
I feel sorry for the families of the six victims and the family of the alleged perpetrator.

But I have zero sympathy for the victims or the perpetrator. They (the hunters) enjoyed pumping bullets into innocent animals. I wonder if they enjoyed being on the receiving end. [/font]

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica]
[/font]

This thread seems to have gotten a bit off topic. That is not bad, of course, since many interesting subjects have been discussed (animal population control, people who need to hunt to feed their families, vegetarianism, etc.).

I would, however, be interested in hearing more opinions about people who hunt for the sheer PLEASURE of killing animals. These do not include people who are forced to hunt because they cannot afford to buy meat. I believe PLEASURE HUNTERS tend to spend more money on fancy hunting clothes, rifles, ammunition, bows and arrows, gasoline, etc., than they would have to spend to buy their meat in a store.

I doubt that many PLEASURE HUNTERS sincerely care about controlling animal populations. The more animals around, the more opportunities PLEASURE HUNTERS have to kIll them. And I doubt that many PLEASURE HUNTERS actually prefer the taste of venison, squirrel and rabbit to beef, pork and chicken.

I'm talking about PLEASURE HUNTERS--who actually get a THRILL from hitting animals with bullets or arrows and watching them stagger and fall to the ground.

It's easy enough to make rationalizations and excuses for one's actions--but I'm concerned here with the REAL motivations.

What do YOU I think about PLEASURE HUNTING?

What do you think?

 

[robtex]

I think PLEASURE HUNTERS are mentally, morally and spiritualy ill.

What do you think?

I am going to assume you mean ill as in not healthy or not spirtually good. Let me know if I missed the flavor of your question. It is a complicated question. Man is programmed to have a predatorial tick to his soul essenence whatever you want to call it. It is a theory but that predatorial aspect to a man (moreso than a woman's) structure may be a survival mechanism. Today that predatorial urge is usually quelled by human to human contact sports. Men as a species are much more likly to commit murder, rape and assult than woman. It could be said that it is in our nature to "hunt" or be predatorial. Free will is the variable that lets us channel our predatorial nature into thigs that are harmful or healthy. Pleasure hunting is a good way to phrase it cause those that hunt, even if it is for food, are motivated in our modern age by pleasure. It would certainly be easier to go to the grocery store and buy a slab of meat than spend a day hunting for it. Some of the posters on this thread have pointed out that there is an overpopulation of deer in MN and that it is neccessary which may be true but in the cases where it is not (to make the motive stronger for pleasure), it is a survivial mechanism being used in a time when it is not neccessary. Because of that I would have to disagree that it is menatally ill ...I am buying into the survival mechanism theory at this time....but spirtually and morally given that the context is non-surivival and if (definetly contingent on this) it is non neccessary I see it as distrubing for someone to kill for sheer pleasure and sometimes wonder how far the boundry is from killing an animal and fantasy of killing a man?

 

[Ceridwen018]

I think it's safe to assume that there are some real jerks out there who hunt simply for the pleasure of killing, but I don't think it's fair to group all pleasure hunters in this category.

There are different kinds of pleasure derived from hunting--the actual killing part, which I feel is morbid and wrong, and the part about being out in the woods all day with your buddies, getting in touch with nature, etc. I have cousins who hunt, and they are very respectful of the it. They go out a couple of times a year--sometimes even taking road trips to different states, or up to Canada or something. For them, it's not about the killing, but about the comeraderie. They always eat what they kill, and they always find someplace other than a trashcan for the hide and bones, etc.

 

[retrorich]

I think it's safe to assume that there are some real jerks out there who hunt simply for the pleasure of killing, but I don't think it's fair to group all pleasure hunters in this category.

There are different kinds of pleasure derived from hunting--the actual killing part, which I feel is morbid and wrong, and the part about being out in the woods all day with your buddies, getting in touch with nature, etc. I have cousins who hunt, and they are very respectful of the it. They go out a couple of times a year--sometimes even taking road trips to different states, or up to Canada or something. For them, it's not about the killing, but about the comeraderie. They always eat what they kill, and they always find someplace other than a trashcan for the hide and bones, etc.

No matter how hard I try, I cannot seem to make my meaning clear. :banghead3

My thread is based ENTIRELY on hunters who HUNT PRIMARILY FOR THE PLEASURE OF KILLING ANIMALS. I am not saying that ALL hunters hunt for the pleasure of killing animals--but I believe that ALMOST ALL DO. Therefore, I think is it very likely that the hunters in the quoted new story fall into that category. If a hunter enjoys killing animals, then I am not concerned with the hunter's SECONDARY motivations. And I couldn't care less whether or not that hunter eats the animal he/she kills. (There has been at least one infamous serial killer who ate the people he killed. Does that excuse the fact that he murdered them?)

Also: Surely it is possible for people to enjoy comaraderie without killing something.

 

[robtex]

Ceridwen018 I would like to go out on a limb and say that your cousins choose hunting as their median for comeraderie over say, a game of basketball, because they see more pleasure in hunting than in shooting hoops. Is that a true (cause I am guessing from over here) or untrue statement? I am guessing the comeraderie is a very large componet...or else they would just go alone, but that they prefer hunting to other meathods of male bonding. If this is true is about the hunt (preferred activity) I am going to further stipulate that they gain more pleasure when the do well or succeed at this activity. Successful hunting means one has killed the target creature.

It might be more fair to say your cousins do hunt for pleaure but that they are more intune and respectful in nature instead of disregard for it by their meathods for obtaining food.