HUNTING: The Cruel Sport of Depravity

[strongvoicesforward]

What person can say hunting is a sport? It is a viscious game of murder where animals do not have much of a chance.

There is no need for hunting for food anymore (except in some very remote regions of the world) and therefore it should cease to exist as an activity sanctioned by the government or even be permitted on private game reserves.

Culling to control populations also is a ridiculous argument. But, I am more than happy to entertain that discussion with debate for those who think hunting is needed for that, or any other reason.

 

[Frank D. White]

Not So Simple.

Here in Maine, away from the bigger cities and towns, many people depend on hunting and fishing to eat. There are cases where over-population leads to disease and starvation, especially with deer. Some animals seem to thrive on controled hunting. Our moose population in Maine has increased in size and become more healthy since hunting season was opened on them several years ago. The hunting and fishing here in Maine helps pay for many wildlife programs and polution control programs and provides money to set aside land to be kept wild and open to the public.I will admit, I don't hunt anymore, but hunting does have some good points and would cause a lot of problems if done away with here.

Frank

 

[CC1]

You are right..hunting is not a sport, but a way of life!

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Here in Maine, away from the bigger cities and towns, many people depend on hunting and fishing to eat. ...

Frank

Frank, I doubt they depend on them to survive. I would suggest they hunt to supplement their food. Now, if they are so rural as to where there is no grocery store within driving distance, then maybe I would accept that, but I would be willing to bet that there is some kind of stores, albeit small ones, that are near enough to shop at.

In the day before the automobile, then I could imagine that distances to grocery stores would not be feasible to cover. But, not now. If someone doesn`t want to get in their car and drive an hour or two once or twice a week to stock up, well, then, it is a question of being lazy, not of necessity.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

...

1) There are cases where over-population leads to disease

2)... and starvation, especially with deer. Some animals seem to thrive on controled hunting.

Frank

1) What disease is a result of overpopulation?

2) Starvation is the result of the problems brought about by hunters who have destroyed the natural predators. Starvation in and of itself is not so bad for creating healthy numbers for what a land area can support. A population crash would allow for the species to come into balance with the fauna. Animals also have a self regulatory mechanism of fetal abortion and uterus absorption when food is not enough to support them in.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Some animals seem to thrive on controled hunting.

Frank

Well, I`m glad you saw fit to qualify it with "seem." With that, you can grudgingly cede that you don`t know for sure.

Here is the logic you want us to swallow, "We are killing you for your own good."

Now, does that sound right to you? To me it doesn`t. IF that were the best answer to handle overpopulation problems, then there are 6 billion of us crowding this planet that should be elgible for some action for "our own good."

The more healthier route for the ecosystem would be for predators to be reintroduced. But, the hunters and farmers are opposed to that because they get the profits from exploitation. Less wolves, mountain lions, and coyotes killing deer means larger herds for hunting.

The fact is, hunters like the overpopulation problem. They have manipulated the ecosystem just so that would happen so that then they can scream how necessary they are since the wolves are no longer around to do their job in the system. If they didn`t like the overpopulationn problem, and still didn`t want to reintroduce the wolf, then why not let the population crash to a sustainable number that cycles naturally every few years?

Perhaps the wildlife agencies, hunting groups, NRA, and hunting paraphanalia retailors and all their lobbyists wouldn`t like it because it would mean large losses in revenue -- not so much that families in Maine going hungry.

 

[ullvarg]

I'm not a hunter, nor have I ever been out hunting, but i woud rather eat meat from a deer that's been shot in the woods than a cow that's been transported to a slawterhose and tormented befor it's killed.
Sure there's a chanse that a hunter may not make a perfect hit everytime and the animal will have to suffer a bit befor dieing, but atleast it hade the chanse to live a free life up untill it's death.

 

[No-name]

Hunting can definitely be a part of wildlife management. I live in a forrest that is managed- most of the natural predators are gone, the natural range is limited, there are roads and houses up here, and garbage that these animals feed on- and definite cycles of limits and overpopulation.

 

[Frank D. White]

What I Ment Was.....

many people in northern Maine are very poor and don't have resources such as food banks or welfare to help them out. Many won't accept handouts. They would rather work for their food by hunting it. All you answers are fine in a book world, but will never hold water in the world of reality. "If this" & "if that" as quick & easy solutions usually don't happen in the real world; maybe they could "if" people were perfect and did the "right" thing. That rearely seems to happen in our imperfect world.

Frank

 

[No-name]

I don't really have problems with hunting or hunters- as long as they buy tags and follow the rules which most of them do. I don't want my house or dog being shot by mistake. Ideally I want them to eat what they kill and use as much as possible.

 

[No-name]

Also re introduction of predators would solve the population control problem, but create a host of others. Our forrest is high use, high traffic, semi-urban-- far too close to too many people for wolves or grizzlys. Even the black bears, big cats and coyotes who live up here have problems. We're tightly encircled by cities and the desert and such a program would present too significant a danger to attempt.

I don't hunt, I'm just a bit too nearsighted for anything but paintball...but in this case our deer are one step from being domesticated. They are protected, counted, fostered and eventually culled when the human managers decide there are too many. It is one step away from ranching them.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

1. I'm not a hunter, nor have I ever been out hunting, but i woud rather eat meat from a deer that's been shot in the woods than a cow that's been transported to a slawterhose and tormented befor it's killed.

2. Sure there's a chanse that a hunter may not make a perfect hit everytime and the animal will have to suffer a bit befor dieing, but atleast it hade the chanse to live a free life up untill it's death.

1. Both are unnecessary and therefore one should not feel it is an "either or" proposition one is face with. I would not like to have to entertain thoughts on my murder either through forced drowning or asphyxiation.

2. And it could have lived longer had a hunter not put a shot in its gut allowing it to get away and die a slow painful death. It is wrong to assume that your use of the word "chance" somehow means that these animals that are injured and die slowly and or never recovered are a very small percentage of the total.

Oh, and don`t forget, nearly 50 to 100 people are killed each year due to hunting accidents in the U.S alone -- not to mention the the other deaths that occur due to hunting paraphanalia that is left carelously around the house for kids to find or that which is used when someone is in a fit of rage at a spouse or decides to use for suicidal purposes.

So, do we say, all those deaths which are from industry related products directly involved with hunting or of the deaths that occur while hunting are just lives sacrificed for the joy of hunting by a small part of the population? Why do you think those lives lost are justified so that a few can enjoy going into the woods and kill things that often they are too fat and out of shape to even chase after and recover after it has been wounded?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hunting can definitely be a part of wildlife management. I live in a forrest that is managed- most of the natural predators are gone

Hunting need not be a part of wildlife management. It is not necessary. Birth control techniques can also be employed. There have been some successes in showing that salt licks can be laced with birth control chemicals to prevent ovulation.

But, even if that were not feasible, natural population crashes regulate species quite well without hunting. Again, though, through that process the exploitative industries of state and private ventures will not gain to profit.

That is one of the reasons why these businesses and agencies don`t really want to see an introduction of predators to do the job they want to keep on doing. I mean, if wolves controlled the deer, the hunters would have no reason to kill deer. Well, they would, but then they would have to admit their main reason is that they just enjoy killing things. But, that would unmask them. With the predators gone, they can smugly assert they are loving nature by helping nature by killing off parts of her. It is an absurd lie.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

...and garbage that these animals feed on- and definite cycles of limits and overpopulation.

Oh, yes! Those hunters sure do know how to stalk and find those black bears to kill. Nothing more difficult than finding a garbage pit in the forest or near a small town and just sit behind a tree downwind from it and wait for an unsuspecting bear to come eat human waste material.

Lots of skill involved in that, and it surely must be a site to see a beer coming for breakfast because it is hungry to only be met with some lead entering through parts of its body.

I guess that is the mighty brave hunter, killing a garbage pit bear and then returning to his sofa to snap open a beer for a football game and some bragging rights to his buds. I don`t think they would like it much if when the Dominos pizza man rings the door bell and the delivery boy "bags" the man who answers the door. "Surprise, surprise, surprise, you unsuspecting man coming in search of your dinner."

 

[strongvoicesforward]

...many people in northern Maine are very poor and don't have resources such as food banks or welfare to help them out. Many won't accept handouts. They would rather work for their food by hunting it.

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.

Again, I would really like to see some government report that shows us how many people whose survival depends on hunting. I am talking about their survival. I am not talking about a choice to remain somewhere and therefore they hunt to augment their food -- I am talking about a real need and necessity to hunt in order to live. Do you have something like that you can direct me to?

I would guess if those people in the Western Nations exist, then they are an anomaly. However, I am not talking about anomalies, like them, or like people in the Amazon or the arctic circle. I am talking about the majority of hunters. They and their "sport of hobby and pleasure" are unneeded and should be phased out. They should be made extinct through laws and regulation.

 

[No-name]

Strongvoicesforward- everything you say is correct- Hunting need not be a part of wildlife management and we could ban hunting. We could employ birth control or let animals be culled by disease or starvation. (A joke about putting little deer condoms on came to mind...) And we could re introduce the natural predators. But there are a large number of people who do enjoy hunting- who like the guns, who take the risk, who don't have a bambi complex. The truth is that we don't live among a pristine wilderness- that some of these weekend killers seek a deeper connection with the land, with the past and with traditions. They hunt for sport, for fun, for the skill involved and for the meat. Most americans eat meat- we kill and eat animals daily- but we usually have someone else raise, kill and clean our food. We also enjoy guns and accept a few hundred casualties for some kind of manly primal drive. You are not going to take their guns away and you are not going to keep them from gunning down otherwise defenseless fauna on some bloody weekend outing.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

All you answers are fine in a book world, but will never hold water in the world of reality. "If this" & "if that" as quick & easy solutions usually don't happen in the real world; maybe they could "if" people were perfect and did the "right" thing. That rearely seems to happen in our imperfect world.

Frank, do you see the logic you are putting forth here? It is one of apathy and futilism. You seem to say that it is just too hard so not lets even try. However, you do admit that the answers are "fine." You think that just because people are not perfect then the answers that are fine or that should be found in a perfect world are therefore out of reach for us to attempt implementing.

The same arguments against ending slavery were put forth:
Free black people in a perfect world would be fine, but this world is not perfect therefore it can't happen.

Now, does that sound right to you? Don`t be bogged down by the contents of the formula -- look at the logic of it -- the tracks on which the argument sits upon.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I don't really have problems with hunting or hunters-

I have a problem with exploitation, causing fear, pain, misery, and death. I have a problem with frustrated hunters shooting up "no tresspassing signs," leaving litter in the forest, shooting pets, taking pot shots at livestock, using lands supported by taxes from the majority of the population who for the most part are not hunting supporters.

...as long as they buy tags and follow the rules which most of them do.

I wouldn`t be so quick to pronounce most of them following the rules. That would require a familiarity with the majority of them which I suspect you do not enjoy.

I don't want my house or dog being shot by mistake. Ideally I want them to eat what they kill and use as much as possible.

And, I would suggest that during hunting seasons many dogs are killed by hunters. I am confidant that many rural town veterinarians report a large increase of gunshot injured animals during hunting season.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Also re introduction of predators would solve the population control problem, but create a host of others. Our forrest is high use, high traffic, semi-urban-- far too close to too many people for wolves or grizzlys. Even the black bears, big cats and coyotes who live up here have problems. We're tightly encircled by cities and the desert and such a program would present too significant a danger to attempt.

Yes, it would solve the problem and it makes no sense to live off the idea of accepting the dangers associated with hunting over those associated with predators nearby.

The list of human deaths directly related to hunters and hunting and their paraphanalia far outstrips deaths of humans as a result of predator attacks.

You could easily count 50 to 1000 deaths a year based on hunting and hunting paraphanalia. Go back a hundred years and do the math and see how many deaths that adds up to. Now, go back a hundred years and see how many deaths have been caused by coyotes or wolves. You may find one or two. For mountain lions you may find 5 to 10. For bears you may find 20. Now, what pales in relationship to each other?

Wolves by nature are weary and for the most part flee at man's approach. Mountain lions by and large are the same. Coyotes, too. Bears, while after being habituated to garbage and gut piles may confront man, they, too for the most part will try to avoid encounters.

Sure, reintroduction could possibly lead to some isolated incidences, but those by and large are much fewer than the kind emanating from a barrel.

Barring reintroduction of predators, if safety is the concern, which you put forth, then hunting should be banned since they cause more deaths than predators and prey animals can control their own populations through crashes, abortions, and uteran absorption.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

... our deer are one step from being domesticated. They are protected, counted, fostered and eventually culled when the human managers decide there are too many. It is one step away from ranching them.

Yes, it is. But, it need not be.
Taking the value of life, empathy, and ethics into account, hunting need not be continued and could be banned.

I think it will be a while, but voices calling for its end are becoming more numerous. It will not end overnight, but those against it are becoming stronger and are getting bolder in pushing for its end. That said, it will definitely become more expensive to continue it and politicians and agencies will face more criticism as they open hunting seasons on animals. There will come a time when a trend away from hunting will begin to gain momentum.