I'm curious about what people's thoughts are on hunting, whether it be for sport, fun, or for a living.
It may sound hypocritical for me to admit, but I don't like hunting, especially if it's being done for any other reason except for survival. It could be because I've never done it, but I just don't like the thought of killing animals. I do like meat, like steak, hamburger meat, venison, etc. So I guess that's the part that sounds hypocritical. Even though I eat meat, I also get angry when I hear stories about animals being abused or tortured in the places that use those animals for human consumption.
As far as hunting goes, I just hate when folks talk about killing animals for target practice, or for sport. Why kill doves or rabbits, or any other animal if you don't have a reason to do it? If an animal is just in his natural habitat going about his life, why would you bother it if you have no reason to disturb the environment?
I recently had a conversation with somebody about hunting, and that's what made me think if this subject. I live in Texas, and folks here love their sports, guns, and hunting. And truthfully, if you speak against any of those, well, you're made to feel unwelcome.
I'm curious to know what everybody's view is on hunting. Everybody has a right to an opinion, so please keep this a hate-free zone.
It's part of human nature. In some cases hunting is a good means of population control and disease prevention. Specifically CWD in deer. I've done it many times but find it boring. I'd rather fish anyday- I can have some beers and stay safe.
here we have wild hogs that are not only aggressive, but also very destructive to farmland. florida has an event to hunt pythons because they are destroying the ecosystem of the everglades. people tend to eat what they kill anyway, and a lot of times the meat is better tasting and healthier than what's sold in stores
I'm pro hunting for meat only. Take what you need and nothing more. Leave nothing to spoil, quick death by gun only. Using a bow makes it a slow, torturous death. I can't stand mounting as trophies.
I feed deer in my backyard and I use my caller to turn herds away from hunters here in the city (illegal and sanctioned alike. Mostly illegal). The most I've turned and called to my yard was 37. People need to leave my lawn ornaments alone.
I think hunting is great, I went through a hunting & safety course a while back to go out and shoot pheasants and ducks with my dad. I don't think people need to go out hunting things like elephants, giraffes, and rhinos and stuff like that though. I don't believe in hunting animals that are on the edge of becoming endangered, that something I don't agree with.
I was homeless at one point... I got a job working for REI from a higher up I met at a random concert one day. I started working for REI and my boss asked if I wanted to go on a company retreat in some woods in Washington, which I did. Anyway, long story short, I turned out to be the prey and I had to kill them off one by one using Rambo-style tactics to survive. Paddled a kayak twenty four miles to get back to civilization.
As long as the quotas are scientifically based I don't really have an issue with it. The exception might be for highly intelligent / social species like apes, dolphins, elephants, etc. I'm not sure it's possible to harvest them without causing a high level of suffering.
> Maybe most importantly, it's a significant revenue generator for governments around
> the world.
I would think that's really the debate. There is zero science that the elephant population, for example, needs to be controlled through hunting. The only argument that can be made is that the revenue from hunting will be used to assure the species can continue to be hunted into the future. Really that's it. They don't care about protecting the species, there are other ways of doing that that don't involve hunting. The only motivation for protecting the species is to protect the revenue that can be gained from the continued hunting of that species. That certainly is a benefit, but by itself, I don't think that is a justifiable reason to allow hunting. There are enough species where there is a scientific justification; population control, evasive removal, etc. This desire to kill "just because we can" seems like it could be treated as a form of mental illness.
Not for species that don't have healthy and stable population or another scientific justification. It's a lot like how fishing licences are already handled in Wisconsin, and I'd assume other places as well. It's quite scientific with slot size limits, seasons that protect spawning, etc. I think you could also make the argument that shifting our fishing away from some of the over-fished ocean species would have a scientific benefit.
EDIT: I should be clear, I don't have any issue with hunting, nor disagree that there is a huge economic benefit from hunting. I just don't think that should be the determining factor used when choosing which species should be hunted.
We kill tens of billions of animals a year for food alone so I don't care much from the "Animal lives matter!" front but I still think it's a little strange if you kill things purely for fun (knock yourself out if you're hunting for food). I grew up in the suburbs of NY though, so I don't understand hill people hobbies.
> Honest question, as I'm curious. Those of you who are pro hunting for food only,
> do you mean as long as you eat the meat, you're ok with it? Or are you only ok with
> it if you hunt out of necessity?
I think there is a "sport" aspect to hunting and fishing, however I do have more respect for the participant when they don't just let the meat go to waste. It doesn't matter to me if it's out of necessity or not. When done in that manor it's often far better then the environment then raising cattle. What I'm more against would be trophy hunting, again, especially when there is no scientific reason to cull that species.
PS: Just before the start of this recent gun/deer season someone shot a buck, cut off it's head, and left the rest of the body out there to rot. That's the mentality that I really dislike.
The deer was a ten pointer shot on the land of some people I know near me. I have a decent size buck on the land behind my house too. Not sure if anyone got him this year. I go out most years and find his sheds in the spring.
I hunt for meat. All the benefits are listed above as well as typically it's cleaner food. I don't see the difference between me shooting an animal and someone buying a pack of meat at the grocery store. An animal still has to die for that to happen. I appreciate a good trophy animal, but I've passed nice bucks up to get the fat doe he was chasing. They taste better.
I don't bow hunt anymore, but in my experience, they drop as fast as if I used a gun. It's about shot placement and preparation. I only take 1or 2 a year, but usually just one. I don't have time for more.
I had an aunt that had a farm, so I'm not really a stranger to seeing pigs, chickens, rabbits and cattle being butchered. It's the circle of life, even if it can get unpleasant. Seriously, don't look up how to kill a rabbit if you don't normally have the stomach for that sort if thing (notched board method).
I guess my recent thoughts on hunting came after a conversation with a coworker. He mentioned some hunting experiences, which I don't judge, because hunting is extremely popular here. But he did mention that they occasionally shoot rabbits, for example. Just an example of some of the conversation, it sounded like there was no reason for it, other than practice.
As mentioned before by many people, if you need/want the food or the fur, I guess it's fair game as long as you're killing the animal clean and painlessly. I just cannot agree with the killing of animals if you don't require food, self defense, or shelter/clothing. I mean, just listening to some of the stories that local people tell, that's what makes me dislike the hunting business. I've heard too many stories that just sound unethical.
I don't really mind when people shoot rabbits either and that's because where I grew up they were an invasive species. My Mom, for example, has to kill rabbits that enter their property because otherwise they'll destroy her garden and any other vegetation. They repopulate so quickly that you really can't wipe them out.
I didn't read all of the posts, but replying to OP...
I kill animals for two reasons: to eat, or to remove a pest/danger.
I love venison. In fact I'm going hunting next week. I don't care about it being a buck or a doe, I don't care about it's horns or how big they are. I care about the meat, and I want to make the kill as quick and painless as possible. Sport hunting to me is moronic.
Things like rabbits, squirrels, skunks, snakes, raccoons, wild pigs, etc. I have no problem eliminating them if they're causing problems or creating a threat. I recently thinned the rabbits out around my house because they were coming up in my yard and doing hundreds of dollars worth of damage to my wife's flower gardens as well as my lawn. There's a squirrel that keeps breaking our bird feeders that someday I'll get him too. Snakes, if venomous, have to go.
We had a skunk the other day eating our dog food, it was a small one, didn't cause any problems and didn't seem rabid, so I let it go on it's way.
It's a case by case basis. I can understand being empathetic to animals, I don't like them to suffer, but it's all part of nature. The smartest/strongest of them avoid humans, and they continue on.
I always find it eye-opening who brings in wildlife to my clinic: it's usually a hunter who has found an injured animal. In most cases those guys have the most sincere compassion for injured animals. They have really good "hearts."
> I don't see the difference between me shooting an animal and someone buying
> a pack of meat at the grocery store.
I would say there are differences. In order for you to be able to buy meat from a grocery store, tens of thousands of the same animal had to be subjected to the same fate, whereas if you shoot an animal, it's just that one animal that gets shot.
Also, the shot animal lived its entire life in the wild whereas the meat animal lived its entire life in captivity.
> Which part? If you mean that destruction is human nature sure but it sure as fudge
> isn't the part where our teeth evolved to breakdown grains and vegetation that's
> for fudging sure.
The enamel on our teeth is far too thin to be considered evolutionary vegetarians because the dirt and rocks from root vegetables would wear our teeth out in just a few years if that were the case. We were built to be omnivores.
I was going off of the widely believed idea that humans were hunters and gatherers for 90% of our existence as a species. Certain rings of thought even label humans as apex predators.
Hunting is just something we needed to do- the fact that the drive seems to still be there is support that hunting is likely an instinctual or natural human activity- it's certainly not supported by Darwinism since we aren't really hunters and gatherers now.
>> Our punishments aren't harsh enough. They need to lock him up in a room with the
>> fathers of those girls, anything goes.
> God you sound like my father's old co-workers when they started shooting their mouth
> and the sales rep they said this to backs away slowly and starts walking away really
I don't care what I sound like, I'm being serious. I bet if we started letting people know what might happen to them maybe they'd think twice about doing some crap like that. We live in a pussified pc society though so that'll never happen, but it should.
> |>> Our punishments aren't harsh enough. They need to lock him up in a room with
> |>> fathers of those girls, anything goes.
>> God you sound like my father's old co-workers when they started shooting their
>> and the sales rep they said this to backs away slowly and starts walking away
> I don't care what I sound like, I'm being serious. I bet if we started letting people
> know what might happen to them maybe they'd think twice about doing some crap like
> that. We live in a pussified pc society though so that'll never happen, but it should.
I agree with this to a certain degree. It's similar to the case for torture: is it unethical to know we can learn something that saves thousands by torturing one person but refuse to do so on ethical grounds? I say absolutely yes it is unethical no to torture in certain situations. This is just clear reasoning
A good point. Some of the criminals end up better off when they get punished. I've had conversations with people about how easy things were living incarcerated. Not a stance I'd be inclined to take but are punishments too lenient. At times no doubt.
The answer to that, unfortunately, is that the criminal justice system in the US is a huge circle jerk. Prisoners provided by law enforcement and supported by US taxpayers as the govt subsidizes groups to keep them incarcerated.
There are real criminals don't misunderstand me: then there are potheads and candy thieves.
>> |>> I don't see the difference between me shooting an animal and someone buying
>> |>> a pack of meat at the grocery store.
> |>> I would say there are differences. In order for you to be able to buy meat from
> |>> grocery store, tens of thousands of the same animal had to be subjected to the
> |>> fate, whereas if you shoot an animal, it's just that one animal that gets shot.
> |>> Also, the shot animal lived its entire life in the wild whereas the meat animal
> |>> its entire life in captivity.
>> I agree.
> Then again, cows no longer exist in the wild as their descendants, Bos Taurus, are
> extinct so there is quite literally no other way to get cow meat than to buy it in
> the store or from a rancher.
Yeah but what does it matter? Most people go through life not eating rabbit meat, deer meat, dog meat etc. What difference does it make if they never taste cow meat, as they could still survive without it.