HUNTING: The Cruel Sport of Depravity

[strongvoicesforward]

Hunting is a natural part of life. Almost every carnivore or omnivore on the planet does it.

It is not a natural part of our lives now. We are a species which through ethical and moral thought on issues can choose to not cause suffering. We are a species who are naturally endowed with the ability to supress our urges. Why not honor THAT natural ability? Surely, it is there and has come about for a reason. The ability to suppress that which causes suffering is surely more noble and worthy of nurturing than the ability to cause suffering. I think so. Why don`t you?

Humans for the most part live outside of nature -- not within it. We do not live a natural life span. We do not live amongst the animals and forests giving back daily biomass to the area we have taken life to consume.

Hunting is no longer needed. And surely hunting for sport to derive pleasure was never a natural part of life.

[Mycernius]

Dude, could you please stick to a sensible sized font. It looks as if you are shouting at everyone.

Be careful, Sabro, you are starting to understand the concept of logic -- values in a construct do not matter, only the logic of the construct does. But, I find it strange you want to utilize that concept of logic now when you think it forwards your argument but deny logic when it is presented to you to address or admit.

Be careful who you accuse of this. I can find your logic twisted and warped. You had a go at sabro for insults and now you seem to want to go down to the same level. Keep it pleasant, people.

[strongvoicesforward]

Dude, could you please stick to a sensible sized font. It looks as if you are shouting at everyone.

Dude, which posts are you referring to with me and a not "sensible" sized font? All my posts are 3 point sized in Times New Roman. From my browser, they appear as the same height and width as the default font or perhaps just one milimeter larger (if that), which (i.e. the defalt font) appears to be Arial.

There was one post only: A "Flash" about a news story on an 8 year old girl that I posted in point 5 size. One post. Hardly worth scolding for "keeping" my font size down.

Just to test things, why don`t you write a short sentence in 3 point size under New Roman Times font and see what it looks like. I`d appreciate it to see what it comes up from your end on my end.

Thanks. Looking forward to seeing the test.

[strongvoicesforward]

Be careful who you accuse of this. I can find your logic twisted and warped. You had a go at sabro for insults and now you seem to want to go down to the same level. Keep it pleasant, people.)

My hit on Sabro a few pages back was based on what I could see was a slide headed into expletives which can turn very ugly. It usually starts out small and then snow balls into the four letter variety type. I wanted to avoid that and felt it prudent to point it out at the very first hint of an onset of it (i.e. nipping it in the bud, if you will). I`m not implying that Sabro himself would have graduated to that level of insults, but if onlookers saw it who were not as disciplined as Sabro seems t be, then they may be emboldened to take it a little further with their exclamations.

It is quite fine to point out lapses of logic in a debate and to ask an opponent why he/she seems to use it in one instance but not another. That is what I had done.

Mycernius, you are more than welcome to explain with logic why you find my logic to be off, as you stated with "twisted and warped." Remember, though, logic is consistant. Use it and compare it with the backdrop of history and I don`t think you will be able to press that opinion with logic as your prosecuting tool to do so.

[Reiku]

Sorry to hear you are in such need of humor at the moment, Reiku. Hope you are not in some kind of deep depressive funk.

Oh no, it's nothing like that--but I'm spending new years by myself, and it's just not a party without some good laughs.

A lot of the things you wrote about have in fact been addressed by me in the thread already. I am guessing you have not taken the time to catch up.

I don't mind backtracking over some material, although I would prefer not to and have you do the catching up with some reading, but, before I did, it would be nice to know you are going to hang around and keep coming back before I started doing that.

Believe me, I understand someone not wanting to read almost 200 posts in order to get informed of and up to speed of the arguments, which is for the most part being carried by myself and Sabro.

First off, let me say that I really appreciate the civility. I let myself be a bit less than polite in my earlier post, because I didn't expect a serious debate, but rather a flame war--and I'm both pleasantly suprised and a bit embarassed.

I guess I gave up hope of finding a logical debate on an internet forum a little too soon.

I have read some of the posts--and can go back over them on my own. I enjoy reading, I just prefer to be sure it's something worth reading before I commmit my time to it--now that I see you are not the typical "state a strong opinion and then flame the hell out of anyone who dissagrees with it" poster, I will be happy to go back and pursue the rest of your arguments.

I noticed from one of the posts you made after mine--and I thought I had detected this sentiment in your previous statements--that you believe people have progressed past the need for hunting and that there are ethical and/or moral reasons why such a practice should be abandoned when it is possible to do so.

This is one area on which I must disagree with you.

I should make a few things clear about myself first--I wasn't always such a cynical, harshly pragmatic man.

In fact, when I was younger I supported many causes for animal rights and the environment. I believed that good and kindness was favorable in all things, and that as creatures living outside of nature it was man's duty to promote those goals even for those unfortunate animals who could not break out of the natural system as we had.

After many years of reflection, however, I have come to realize that I was wrong about this.

First off, humans are not outside of nature--that's not even possible.

While we may--and I emphasize the word may--use tools and technology to a level that no other animal does, that does not place us outside of the natural system.

I could cite numerous examples of animals--insects primarily--that build cities, farm with both plants and livestock, and do many other things humans often consider to be soley their creation, but that would be missing the point.

The point is that we were created by nature, and because of the way nature works, everything that we do is also a part of that system.

We change the environment--so do other animals. We would not even be able to exist if it weren't for the plants that drasticly raised the oxygen levels in our atmosphere--causing the extinction of many life forms in the process.

There are few substances more corrosive than oxygen--it is in fact quite dangerous. But as you see, nature adapted to thrive in the presence of this once deadly pollutant.

It will do the same thing with the "pollution" we cause.

Humans hunt animals to extinction--but other species have done this too throughout history.

Which brings me to my central point:

Good and kindness is bad for all forms of life.

You see, the way nature works is by constantly adapting life to the hardships it faces--then throwing in a new set of hardships for it to deal with.

How many dogs could match a wolf's ability to survive in the wild?

As you see, our "kindness" to animals makes them completely dependant on us.

But when we threaten an animal's survival?

Well, it's safe to say salmon never knew how to throw a hook before they met fishermen. But we placed them in danger--"endangered" them--and they learned from it and adapted.

As a martial artist I understand this: I was at my best when I was a child on the streets of Sacramento, defending myself from bullies and gang members. Now that I am an adult living on the central coast, my skills and level of physical fitness has decreased shockingly.

At eight years old, it took four adults to bring me down...

...if I faced those four right now, I don't know if I would survive.

It is the same with animals--by hunting them we force them to grow stronger, more intelligent, to find some way of surviving. By pampering and "caring" for them, we strip away their ability to survive.

Eventually, deer may hunt humans--and when that happnens, dogs will be threatened with extinction because we'll be too busy dodging antlers to feed them.

[strongvoicesforward]

First off, let me say that I really appreciate the civility. I let myself be a bit less than polite in my earlier post, because I didn't expect a serious debate, but rather a flame war--and I'm both pleasantly suprised and a bit embarassed.

I think the thread has been fairly free of flaming. Reiku, actually, I, too, am pretty impressed with this whole forum. I haven`t seen the flaming troll behaviour that exists on some boards. Maybe there is some here, but I am new, so I haven`t really seen it yet.

I guess I gave up hope of finding a logical debate on an internet forum a little too soon.

I have read some of the posts--and can go back over them on my own. I enjoy reading, I just prefer to be sure it's something worth reading before I commmit my time to it--now that I see you are not the typical "state a strong opinion and then flame the hell out of anyone who dissagrees with it" poster, I will be happy to go back and pursue the rest of your arguments.

Great. Welcome and look forward to seeing your perspective and welcome your opinions/arguments against mine. In all probability you will have more forum members on your side than mine, so because of that I tend to get burried and behind. Be patient if it looks like it is taking me a little time to catch up in addressing your posts.

[strongvoicesforward]

Reiku: I noticed from one of the posts you made after mine--and I thought I had detected this sentiment in your previous statements--that you believe people have progressed past the need for hunting and that there are ethical and/or moral reasons why such a practice should be abandoned when it is possible to do so.

Yes, that is my stance. You succinctly put forth my views on it.

This is one area on which I must disagree with you.

Disagreement is welcome. I and others looking in may get a new perspective.

I should make a few things clear about myself first--I wasn't always such a cynical, harshly pragmatic man.

To me, "cynisism and harsh pragmatism" is something we have to fight as we grow older. It is a disease of the spirit. Why go gently into the world of being "jaded"? Surrendering to those thoughts are the easier and less noble I would suggest.

Here, look at this: It may be harshly pragmatic for me get myself off a mountain because I am healthy and can do so. But, my 12-old year son who I had took mountaineering with me has sustained an injury and with the approaching storm I cannot carry him. I have another 3 kids who would benefit from having a father to raise them should I come back healthy and alive. I figure, if I stay with my son on the mountain and try to weather through the storm until it has past and then try to get down to bring back a rescue team, I have a 70% chance to die with my son on the mountain and only a 30% chance to succeed with my other plan of rescue. If however, I choose to go now the harsh storm of the weather would probably cause undue stress on my son and that could add to his worsening situation. But, if I choose to go now, my survival is almost guaranteed, but his is maybe less than 50% with the approaching weather. Harsh pragmatics would lead me to leave my son. However, the wish to comfort him, even if I knew he were dying and staying would probably also seal my fate -- that urge to comfort my son would lead me to stay by his side.

Please, abandon harsh pragmatics. There is something beautiful about growing older and still retaining some of that inner child of idealism in us, rather than killing it off as we make cold calculations on what profit mosts from our own selfish perspective.

In fact, when I was younger I supported many causes for animal rights and the environment. I believed that good and kindness was favorable in all things, and that as creatures living outside of nature it was man's duty to promote those goals even for those unfortunate animals who could not break out of the natural system as we had.

After many years of reflection, however, I have come to realize that I was wrong about this.

You weren`t wrong. You were right.

I don`t know how certain you are about your realization, but I hope this thread will lead you to reflectioin once again. I do think, though, in order to return to your ideas of your youth, it is important to give up "harsh pragmatics and cynicism." I think that that outlook on life is a yolk to carry around -- a very heavy one indeed for our spirits

[No-name]

Thank you Reiku for lending your voice to this...discussion. If I am going in circles it is nice to hear a different voice during this lap. It makes the journey feel for the moment as if it is going somewhere.

Wikipedia need not be mocked. It's error rate was found consistent with Encarta and Britanica by an independent study. Consulting it would have kept you from using fallacious and misattributed quotes. It also has an extensive list of logical fallacies.

"Do not say a little in many words but a great deal in a few."
--PYTHAGORAS

The quote you mentioned does not say that the Sons of Liberty fooled anyone into thinking they were indians, nor does it indicate that was the purpose for the dress up- although it may have been. The Wikipedia article you maligned indicates that they actually revealed themselves to the crew of the ship and made no attempt at passing themselves off.

I don't really have the time to go through your arguments point by point- suffice it to say that we are clearly off topic and run the risk of entering the boring zone. You have spent an inordinate amount of words justifying terrorists who inflict suffering and financial loss on others while maintaining that hunting is wrong. I maintain that the ends does not justify the means- that no goal short of human survival and imminent threat to human life, no matter how noble (or delusional) justifies such tactics.

Happy new year.
(Do animals have the capacity to experience imagined terror? Happy new year to them anyway, too.)

[Reiku]

Well, if these people are living day to day as in the "old days" of survival, then they should think about joining the 21st century by marching out of their backwoods delapidated shacks and buses on cement blocks to the urban centers in search of a job.

That's what people in Appellatia do -- they come down from the hills to Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, or Louisville.

Aw ****. You know, I was really trying to give you the benifit of the doubt--but you've just proved my initial assumption true:

Like most activists--including myself back when I still was one--you are bigoted, spoiled, and horribly misinformed.

"Marching out of their backwoods dillapidated shacks" indeed--what part of "poor" did you not understand?

Not everyone is blessed with enough money to live in the 21st century--frankly it's a miracle I manage to get by, and there are plenty of people out there who are poorer than me.

Not everyone can afford homes, or even rent for that matter--I myself benefit from living in a state with a housing assistance program that pays the majority of my rent, or I would still be living in a tent.

I say "still" living because I was homeless for a time--the only apartment I could find in my price range had major plumbing problems, and was condemned--forcing me to move out with no where I could afford to go.

For the same reason, I don't own a car. Not everyone has the luxury of driving you spoiled, pompus, ass!

I've never owned a car--my parents had one for a while, but it was old and after breaking down several times it finally got to the point where the repairs cost more than they could afford, so for most of my life I have not had access to a car.

This is exactly whats wrong with the idea of animal rights activism--you sit in comfort and luxury with no idea what it is like to struggle to survive, and then decide that because you can do without something, everybody else should too!

You claim to want to help animals, but you simply DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

What disease is caused by overpopulation?
ALL OF THEM!

Overpopulation makes diseases pass like wildfire though a group of animals, and increases the chances of them getting diseases in the first place because the stress and malnutrition weakens their immune systems.

How can hunting an animal increase it's population?

BECAUSE THE ANIMALS BIRTH RATES NATURALLY INCREASE TO COMPENSATE!

Humans are one of the natural predators of deer and other game animals--and those animals have a myriad of defenses built in to respond and work with being hunted. When you remove these natural pressures, you disrupt the balance of nature and harm the animals you claim you want to protect.

I say "claim" because of this gem:

You said you would rather an animal die of starvation that be shot to death.

Obviously you have never gone hungy.

I have--and would have gladly had a double barreled shotgun rammed up my ass and fired than continue to experience the agony of my own stomach EATING ITSELF ALIVE!

And as if all of this wasn't enough to prove you to be an ignorant, faschist bigot...

They should be made extinct through laws and regulation.

Humans are animals too, and here you--a self proclaimed "animal rights activist"--are calling for the govenment enforced extinction of a group of animals because you don't like the things they do.

What about a human animal's rights?

Even if we did all have the money to own a house and a car and drive to the grocery store and buy expensive, animal free products--we have the right not to!

YOU ARE NOT AN ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVIST!

YOU ARE AN IGNORANT, SPOILED, HITLER WANNABE!

I hope a pack of wild animals eats you alive, you disgusting waste.

[edit] Sorry for taking my voice out of the "debate" Sabro, but debating with people like this is pointless. Also, if I get banned for this post, I want everyone to know it was ******* worth it! [/edit]

[No-name]

Thank you Reiku. I think you have articulated something that needs to be said from a unique corner that gives it validation.

Here I am sitting trying to defend against the use terrorism...and against the theoretical boy kicking the zombie rabbit...and what his mother would be likely to say...and if animals can imagine...and if a carrot has the same rights as a cricket...what "The Principle of the Equal Consideration of Interests" is...and if the universe was made for the benifit of mankind...when all someone had to do was to say what you said. Your voice is greatly appreciated.

My gratitude Reiku- domo arigato gozaimasu...

So hunters that go and burn the houses, cars, and veggie lasagna pans of 850,000 PETA members are hereby justified because their cause is ancient and noble and they are in fact only damaging property. It will also give PETA a chance to correct the attribution of its quotes.

[Reiku]

No problem Sabro.

Everything in this world is covered in so many layers of bull****, sometimes you just have to stand up and call it that to be able to see clearly again.

Usually no one is willing to do that--they say "The first one over the hill gets shot"...

...but more and more, I feel like leading the charge.

[ArmandV]

While I have never hunted and could not bring myself to actually shoot an animal for sport, I do understand the reasons for hunting and support it.

Since man has upset the balance of nature, with natural predators killed off, hunting's purpose is to thin out animal populations (i.e. deer, etc.) so that they don't overpopulate and exhaust the food supply. As it was mentioned earlier, allowing an animal to starve to death is more cruel.

As civilization has encroached on habitats, animals often find themselves in front of a motor vehicle or electrocuted to death by climbing on telephone and power poles.

[No-name]

I live in the San Bernardino Mountains. We are surrounded by urban development and freeways- and although this is forrest- it is not some pristine virgin ecosystem. The area was settled by man hundreds of years ago- and about a hundred years ago, the last known grizzly was killed in the valley that it gaveits name to: Big Bear. The trees were clear cut and replaced with non native varieties. Donkeys, pigs, goats, possums and dogs were introduced. Black bears replaced the grizzlies and homes sprung up in communities across the mountain.

I've been up here for 13 years. We have had two major droughts in that time. The last one lasted six years. Early on deer began raiding garden and coming into town. It was great for tourists to see, and great for the local body shop. A highway patrol friend of mine would go out and collect the deer carcasses in the morning- often shooting the dying animal with the rifle kept in the cruisers trunk. He would clean and cure the meat in milk, whiskey and soy sauce...and share it with friends. (How's that for hunting?)

I have seen the carcasses of many of our native animals, including deer and black bears..flattened , torn, or rotting by the side of the highway.

There were three major fires and a massive tree die off- the bark beetles had no problem with our drought weakened, fungus infected, monoculture of trees. The squirrels, coyote, deer, mountain sheep, foxes, bobcats, mountain lions, racoons also suffered- death by human contact, by fire, and overwhelmingly by starvation. I would say that in my conversations with friends in forrest management- that the hunting that was allowed- although limited and rather ineffective- actually helped to mitigate this disaster. The deer population was managed- and areas were always kept off limits. Hunting was banned for two seasons...After just one year of normal rainfall the population is up and a minimal number of tags were issued this year (including doe tags...).

I am not a forrest manager, nor am I a hunter. But it does seem as if in our area it performs a certain necessary function. I would have to leave it to the good judgement of the forresters as to whether we should continue to let people hunt around here. In this context, hunting seemed neither cruel or depraved.

[strongvoicesforward]

YOU ARE NOT AN ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVIST!

YOU ARE AN IGNORANT, SPOILED, HITLER WANNABE!

I hope a pack of wild animals eats you alive, you disgusting waste.

Wow, Reiku! I guess your hope for civility in discussion is a one way street, huh? I was looking forward to addressing your comments and thought you wanted them addressed. Looks like you were just in the mood for a rant, though. So, I will let your comments lay where they are.

I don`t know, but if you ever reconsider and would like to hear some replies to your comments, let me know by creating another post with them utilizing some self control and I will oblige you. However, I am guessing that may be a little beyond you since you came to this way of replying only after 3 posts in this thread.

[strongvoicesforward]

"Do not say a little in many words but a great deal in a few."
--PYTHAGORAS

Funny you should quote Pythagoras in a thread like this. He was a strict vegetarian.

[strongvoicesforward]

The Wikipedia article you maligned indicates that they actually revealed themselves to the crew of the ship and made no attempt at passing themselves off.

The central point is they were not acting "noble" (as you seem to be using the word) by concealing their identities and breaking the law. They were acting in a manner similar to ARists who take direct action -- i.e. not revealing themselves and breaking laws of property protection.

Why they chose to do so made up as Indians, I, too, am not sure. Technically, I would agree that they weren`t really trying to frame Indians, for common sense tells us that that would not be believed by any who encountered them, especially as they boarded the ships and did their deed. Perhaps they chose to disguise themselves as Indians because they were acing in a lawless way and viewed Indians as lawless. Either way, kind of insulting to Indians.

[strongvoicesforward]

I don't really have the time to go through your arguments point by point- suffice it to say that we are clearly off topic and run the risk of entering the boring zone. You have spent an inordinate amount of words justifying terrorists who inflict suffering and financial loss on others while maintaining that hunting is wrong. I maintain that the ends does not justify the means- that no goal short of human survival and imminent threat to human life, no matter how noble (or delusional) justifies such tactics.

Sabro, of course you won`t address my points. You`ve skipped over many of them and pointed questions I`ve addressed to you and pointed out problems with your logic or lack of it. You always retreat to the "I value human life more than animal life stance," which I have explained to you is not the point of the argument or a justification. You have never responded to that.

I guess I am spending more time than I should when it is obvious you won`t address specific comments other than with your indignation that animals should not be given rights.

I never said the ends justifies the means. I have said that the means of history in all conflicts fighting to relieve oppression have in some ways been adopted by ARists, and that to condemn them as they use them, would mean one would have to condemn a lot of historical action. You just want to paint some ends resulting from the same means as noble because you are still sitting on top of the ashes from those struggles that give you your benefits in the status quo now.

You still have not addressed historical backdrops in relation to logic. You tried once, but it backfired. And believe me, your writings find me fighting back yawns also -- seeing that you won`t stand still to reciprocate the courtesy in a Q&A exchange.

I guess my replies could be as short as yours are if I, too, decided to just not address specific points and make declarations with nothing to back them up. It`s a nice short cut to brevity which you seem to value for it releases you from addressing points and explaining.

[strongvoicesforward]

Though, Sabro, I do have to give you credit for not getting so overly frustrated and indignant as Reiku has (and only after 3 posts) and staying disciplined to not go off on a flaming rant like his. But, seeing your discipline to not do so, it is strange to see you kind of thanking him and cogratulating him for doing so.

Do you think that will really add to the tone of the discussion in anything other than more flaming? I know we don`t agree with each other, but if I were you, I wouldn`t encourage that kind of personal bashing posting behaviour.

Even if someone entered this forum on my side and did the same to you, I wouldn`t encourage it or congratulate it. I would have the honesty to say that style isn`t welcome in this thread, and it shouldn`t be tolerated by the forum admin. I wouldn`t let my view on the topic dictate on what is acceptable behaviour whether the poster was my allye or opponent.

After sparring with you these few days and getting a pretty good feel that you are pretty upright, kind of surprised you didn`t take the lead in saying that kind of post is not appreciated.

[No-name]

ArmandV- thank you also for your post. I appreciate your voice. I appreciate Reiku's energy and frankness. Sometimes a lack of civility can jar the prissy niceness out of arguement and make it real.

I'm glad Pythagorus was a vegetarian. He is better known as the father of geometry...and he is still dead. There are several advantages to vegetarianism which include health benefits and a better long term ecological and economic survivability and I would not argue against it. I am not however a vegetarian, nor do I believe that it is the "right" thing or the only way of eating. I definitely don't want it imposed on me.

Although you believe I have not responded to your "points" I feel that they have been adequately addressed and I am not certain which of your comments or questions you feel need to be answered.

I certainly don't feel that animals deserve equal rights. Even your camel eating analogy and the fact that you indicate animals like bugs with rudimentary nervous systems deserve less consideration seems to indicate some spectrum of value- not a system of equals. I place humans at one far end. In effect because of our ability to reason, to think and to manage- it kind of leaves us responsible and in charge. The fact that this fits the religious, cultural and traditional roles assigned to humanity seems to confirm this- although this is not a logical construct nor is it proof of our assigned supremecy of nature. As a practical matter- the forrest that I live can only be managed by the same humans who have already upset and impacted the natural balance of this ecosystem- certainly the coyotes, bears, and deer can't do it.

[No-name]

The only frustration that I have is the continued abuse of "historical backdrops" you have provided. It is the same kind of rhetoric that every extremist group uses to justify the unjustifiable. (Hence the dookie reference.) I actually gave you an enumerated argumentas to why your use was inappropriate and illogical and to why it did not support your arguments. I could repeat what I have previously written- but if it incited yawns and a lack of direct reply the first time- repeating it would be a waste of space. I am just glad you did not throw in some reference to Mother Theresa, Jesus, and Albert Schweitzwer. (any of whom or all of whom may or may not have been vegetarians.)

[Reiku]

As I warned you Sabro--such people really can't be debated with.

They will ignore or refute any fact you provide which runs counter to their arguments--as they are not really interested in debate as much as beating you over the head with thier opinions until you either submit or leave. Regular forum trolls are bad, but at least they are easily recognizable--by far the worst is the sort who refuses to listen and espouses illogial and bigoted opinions, all while wearing a mask of politeness to lure you in.

One's only options are to either ignore them and withdraw quietly from the debate, or simply speak the truth and leave.

As you can see, I prefer to use the "nuclear option" in such situations.

It is a good, cathartic release--and if they aren't going to listen to what you have to say, why concern yourself with making your words non-offensive?

Frankly, I find showing false politeness to be far more insulting than honestly telling someone off.

[strongvoicesforward]

Here is some �gfun�h hunting described by Jack O�fConnor, formerly �ggun editor�h of Outdoor Life:

"A shot through the body cavity behind the diaphragm made an animal sick and miserable. Animals shot in the liver seem to be in great pain. They are reluctant to move and generally die before long, as the liver is full of blood vessels and they bleed heavily . But the animal wounded only in the abdominal cavity can, if pushed, travel a long way and is often very difficult ot recomver. On two occassions I have seen animals lose everything back of their diaphragms and yet travel. A big buck mule deer I shot dragged his stomach and intestines along the ground behind him for about 100 yards before he fell. He was dead when I got to him.

A desert bighorn ram shot by a friend I was hunting with had his abdomen laid open by a .300 Savage bullet as he ran directly away from the hunter down a canyon. He ran out on a flat and when he jumped a barrel cactus the protruding stomach caught in the thorns and was jerked out. The ram ran between a quarter and a half mile before he fell dead."


Oh, what �gfun�h! Don`t think it was very fun for the animal. Wonder what it feels like to have your stomach ripped out. Obviously, Jack, seems to think it is very painful.

[Reiku]

I imagine it's roughly equivalent to starving--shock sets in and shuts off pain receptors after a certain point.

If anything this all just proves my point: Deer, rams, and the like are hunted by humans and other animals, and look how strong they have become. I doubt you could find a single papmered housecat that could run for half a mile with it's stomach ripped out--I doubt a human could do it either...

...that is, assuming any of this is true, and not just sensationalistic lies intended to incite shock, horror, and revulsion against hunters by manipulating the reader's emotions.

Frankly, I have my doubts--particularly due tho the vaugeness of the information and lack of any corroborating evidence.

Even if we assume that this "Jack O�fConnor" is real, that he is actually a hunter, and that he actually said these things--none of which we have any evidence of--how do we know he wasn't lying?

Hunters and fishermen are known for giving sensationalistic tales of their expoits designed to entertain, but not in any way intended to be realistic or accurate.

For the record, I'm not changing my decision to cease debating with strongvoicesforward--nor has he regained my respect--but as I think it would be unfair to leave the other thread readers without an equaly strong voice for the other side of the argument, I will contine to post here.

Since I am now directing my coments at the other thread readers, who I currently have no particular reason to show either respect or disrespect, I will endevor to keep my tone civil and respectful.

I point this out only to be clear that I am not contradicting any of my previously stated beliefs, since doing so would rightly call into question my commitment to any other opinions I might state here.

[strongvoicesforward]

Let`s also take a look at John James Audubon, founder of the Audubon Society. Not content with just shooting an animal, his sport of hunting at times meant sicking the dogs on an animal trying to escape. Here:

�gWe were anxious to procure as much sport as possible, and having observed one of the Bears, which from its size we conjectured to be the mother, we ordered the negroes to cut down a tree on which it was perched, when it was intended the dogs should have have a tug with it, while we should support them, and assist them preventing the bear from escaping by wounding it in one of the hind-legs. The surrounding woods now echoed to the blows of the ax-men. ... and in a short time it came crashing to the ground, in so awful a manner that Bruin must doubtless have felt the shock as severe as we should feel ...

The dogs rushed to charge and harrassed the Bear on all sides. We had remounted and now surrounded the poor animal. ... a cur had daringly ventured to seize the bear by the snout, and was seen hanging on to it, covered with blood, whilst a dozen or more scrambled over its back.�h


James and the good ol�f boys just having fun hunting bears in the woods. Just a bunch of good ol�f folks. I guess hunters can`t hunt bears like that anymore cuz they aint got some exploited human in a lesser social status to order to cut trees down for them.

Wonder what it feels like to be terrified with a dog hanging on my face and others crawling on my back ripping at it. Doesn`t sound very fun to me. Sounds painful, sick, and depraved.

[Reiku]

I wonder how it feels to go after an animal that can rip a camper open like a sardine can?

To engage in mortal combat with a creature whose every breathing moment has been a fight for survival?

Frankly, I think the hunters were taking quite a risk--if the bear had chosen to attack them head on, a few dogs and bullets wouldn't have been enough to stop it before it had time to kill at least a few of the hunters. Bears are nototious for their ability to withstand damage.

As for bringing up the use of slaves--it's totally irrelavent to the issue of hunting. Slaves were also used to farm vegetables and cotton--does that make it wrong to eat carrots or wear a t-shirt today?

Of course not.

This is one of the more common ploys: Bringing up an issue that has no bearing on the argument, and presenting it as "evidence" for your case.

Slavery has as much to do with hunting as 9/11.

And you'll notice that he still isn't providing any proof of the authenticity of these quotes.

It sounds like something written back when the Audubon Society society was founded--but then, I'm writing a hardboiled detective story that has dialouge that sounds like it's from the 50's.

I don't even know for a fact that the Audubon Society was named after a person--and I was a member at one time.

If you want a piece of evidence to be taken seriously, one should provide independant verification--otherwise I could simply claim God just told me hunting was okay.