eikonoklastes said:

as for girlbros silly shit list.....












who cares!

Shorty said:

Well, you care enough to post that you didn't care.

RenHoek said:

Plus you're basically ambushing the poor animal. If it's to be a sport then I say the hunter should make his presence known so the animal can choose to fight or flee.

Fenwick said:

/\

I used to feel the exact same way, but I've gained a different perspective after talking with some avid hunters. In the US a large amount of money for the preservation of nature comes from these groups. Most hunters have a great respect for nature, play by the rules, and honor the strict quota limits set for each species they are hunting.

And as others have mentioned, in many areas hunting is an absolute necessity to conrtol population lest they be taken out by starvation/disease etc...

For the record, I don't own a gun and would/could never shoot an animal. Of course there are the stereotypical trophy hunters that we all abhor. No rules/regulations will be able to do anything about those jackasses.[/quote]


Aren't these animals taken out by starvation/disease because we humans have pretty much demolished their natural habitat? I mean they seemed to be doing alright before we came along.

^ i don't buy any of that , i just think they enjoy killing defenseless animals because it makes them feel powerful

thejason said:

I agree.

If it's for sport, then there's no need to actually kill the animal. Track it, point your [non-working] gun at it & say "BANG! Gotcha!"

If you're eating the animal, then it's okay (assuming it's not man that a person is hunting )

GirlBrother said:

ok..

Dewrede said:

well...I agree...kinda. I do think it makes my husband feel powerful (in a sense) that he can track down and kill an animal to provide food for his family.
it's not easy tracking and actually killing an animal, it actually takes alot of skill....so in that regard, yes I think he get's a great sense of accomplishment out of it...which I guess could be interpreted as "power" but it's not because he killed a defenseless animal. If you think animals are defenseless, you are not giving the animals their due, they are highly sensitive to lots of things, their senses are unbelievable and they are very intelligent also (speaking mostly of deer but not specifically) not to mention fast.

Shorty said:

yes hunting may take skill & I can see the appeal of tracking, but it's the killing part that gets me.
[Edited 4/13/10 12:20pm]

Shorty said:

I've never seen an animal shoot a gun.

NDRU said:

I can totally understand that

GirlBrother said:

doesn't mean they are "defense - less"

Shorty said:

but come on Shorty...you know those animals are getting shot in the head and leg whilst just minding their own beeswax. they don't even see their death coming so it isn't a fair fight to which they could actually "defend" themselves. That's why hunting is such a punk ass sport. These guys have guns with scopes, camoflage clothing, and they are dozens if not a 100 yards away and they just kill the animal then walk up to the carcass like they did something cool. And if they don't eat the meat and wear the skin well that's just wasteful. Some other animal could use that flesh.
[Edited 4/13/10 13:53pm]

Aren't these animals taken out by starvation/disease because we humans have pretty much demolished their natural habitat? I mean they seemed to be doing alright before we came along.[/quote]

/\

Well sure, but what are we going to do about that now? I mean, we're here and so are they so something has to give right? And if we're not going to set quotas on human births, this is just a natural consequence of an ever-expanding human population.

Again, I'm not a hunter and could never kill an animal myself. So when I "take up" for hunting, please remember the context of my position. With every issue there's two sides. Just because I'm not a hunter and don't connect with the mentality of those that can do it, it doesn't mean it's out and out wrong.

To the folks who say this is just an ego trip, yes, I agree there are folks out there that trophy hunt. There is no defense for them.

But I can speak from personal experience having gone on guided tours twice throughout Idaho, and having many friends who are avid hunters in the southwest, MOST hunters play by the rules. My guided tours have been led by nature lovers who hunt, but also have an immense respect for and love of the land, (INCLUDING their fellow animals).

If they are only allowed to "bag" one big horn sheep, that's what they do. If they are only allowed to take 2 deer, that's what they do. Many of the fees/annual dues these folks pay go right back into wildlife preservation and paying for park rangers etc to monitor the health/life cycles of species in certain areas.

If we're going the humane route, what's more humane? Letting a large population of deer starve off until the herd is right sized? Or picking off a select quota to keep the order of their universe in check? These kind of things are VERY closely monitored. That takes time/resources/commitment. And the folks that perform these studies want what's best for the animals.

When I was younger, pardon my French, I thought anyone who hunted was a douche with a capital "D". I can totally understand the face value reaction most people have when "innocent animals are being killed for no reason" because I was one of them. That sounds pretty horrible to me too. Now I've gained a little perspective and view MOST of these folks differently.

DesireeNevermind said:

Not necessarily. Overpopulation of the animals in question will do that, too.

In fact, one of the theories about the incidence of "mad cow" disease in the deer population is that it's due to a lack of copper in the deer's diet. This is a direct result of overpopulation - because there are so many deer, they often cannot find their preferred, copper-rich foods.

i don't understand hunting, i'm against it unless you're going to eat the animal. if it's just to put on your wall, no way.

^ I see what you're saying. It's still highly unfortunate that we're the cause of the problem to begin with (animals starving, losing their natural habitat, humans having to maintain population controls). There will come a day when we are the ones who are starving and it will be because we squandered our natural resources and we have to compete for raw foods with the animals that we used to eat and hunt.

Genesia said:

But that's what I'm getting at. What happened to those copper rich foods? They didn't just up and vanish into thin air. Most of your copper rich foods are seeds and nuts which grow on trees. We humans control the logging and we cut down more trees than we replace thus cutting into the deer's natural diet. It's still our fault isn't it?

DesireeNevermind said:

No, they didn't just up and vanish. The deer ate them. Too many deer.

And deer don't eat trees. At least, not old growth trees.

Genesia said:

Too many for the space left available, at least. There is also a lack of natural predators left in the wild. That's part of why the deer population gets out of control.

I'm definitely not against hunting, especially deer, since there are so many. I don't get killing for fun, but I know a lot of people eat deer, and their population may need some control, too.

The sickest thing to me is hunting "exotic" animals. Why can't you just look at them in their natural splendor without wanting to see them die?

Genesia said:

well yeah, i said they eat the nuts and seeds, e.g. brazil nuts and cashews which grow on trees and are rich in copper, seeds like sunflower and poppy which are also rich in copper. oh well. poor bambi.
I'd rather we hunt the rodents, especially rats. No limits. They could all starve and I wouldn't miss them.

DesireeNevermind said:

Brazil nuts and cashews? In Wisconsin?

Genesia said:

you know i don't know about wisconsin. well heck, what copper rich foods grow in wisconsin? must be something left there that used to satisfy a deer's dietary needs.

DesireeNevermind said:

That's a little idealistic, don't you think? Unless you can outrun the animal, ambush is hunting. Just take a look at the animal kingdom.

The men in my family are avid sportsmen, since father hunted so did my brothers and I. I grew up in the South and the North. In the South as late as the 60's if families wanted meat on their table wild boar (Razorbacks), raccoon, rabbit, and squirrel meat was it. So, hunting is very much apart of Southern culture... rural culture through out the states.


To add to Genesia point, anytime you have an overpopulation of any animal it's an ecological strain on the habitat as a whole... it affects the food chain of all other species. Even so, there are stringent rules, regulations, costly permit fees, and seasons in which animals can be hunted in the U.S. I would also point out for all those who've moved to suburbs have greatly contributed to the problem of animals habitat. Deforestation, drying up wetlands, and digging up farm land to build more communities/highways has been just as destructive to Bambi's and other animals habitat, but I guess that's different.

=====
[Edited 4/14/10 5:29am]

DesireeNevermind said:

you are not giving the animals enough credit. I think you've seen a couple hunting shows on TV and think that what they show is all there is to it. There's a whole lot of editing going on there AND I will say those shows are done on "ranches" which is pretty shitty if ya ask me. they plant fields of clover and other stuff the deer love and they know every inch of the ranch...it's not much for "hunting"..but that's not the reality of hunting.

If deer were so clueless my husband would be coming home with more deer than he does....he spends countless hours hunting and only comes home with 1 maybe 2 deer a season (per year)and sometimes none. he sees many more than that but...they are smart, they are also camouflaged, they can smell from 150 to 200 YARDS away. they can see the slightest movement,their hearing is extremely good, they are on constant alert. They are not defenseless.
It's like saying it's not fair that a lion has sharp claws and big teeth when it takes down a poor defenseless unsuspecting zebra....or that a cheetah has better speed, sharp claws, big teeth...when it takes down an animal...Such is life, some creatures have speed and agility when others have smarts...or ferociousness. tis the way of the world.

I don't feel anything.

I personally couldn't stand to sit in the woods in the freezing cold in hopes of shooting an animal, but if thats your forte' knock yourself out.

I used to like to hunt but I got cured. I joined the ARMY. I do not like the woods or shooting things anymore.

Shorty said:

I do see your point. It just seems that in the animal kingdom there is a "fight" and "struggle" of some sort. With men hunting animals, it's just a bullet and then lights out. By the time the animal (the one targeted) realizes an enemy is near, it's too late. I've gone turkey hunting with inlaws only once and it was enough to turn me off; and I don't even like turkeys.