HUNTING: The Cruel Sport of Depravity

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Reiku said:
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.
Click to expand...
Funny you should say that. Read the Bible and you'll find animals being slaughtered left, right and centre, especially in the Old Testament. Lots of sacrifices in that.
 
Not satisfied with the brutal killing of the mother bear, the next day finds them at the base of a tree looking up at the cubs who have fled for their lives. Their ?gsport?h continues:

"Day dawned, and we renewed our search. Two of the remaining Bears were soon discovered, lodged in a tree about a hundred yards from the spot where the last one had been overpowered. On approaching them in a circle, we found that they manifested no desire to come down, and we resolved to try smoking. We surrounded the tree with a pile of brushwood and large branches. The flames ascended and caught hold of the dry bark. At length the tree assumed the appearance of a pillar of flame. The Bears mounted to the top branches. When they had reached the uppermost, they were seen to totter, and soon after, the branch cracking and snapping across, they came to the ground, bringing with them a mass of broken twigs. They were cubs, and the dogs soon worried them to death.

The party returned to the house in triumph."

Yes, the brave and great triumphant hunters. Lots of fun and sport in burning some cubs down from a tree so that dogs could tear them to pieces. It would be interesting to observe if any human ever had fun being killed by a pack of dogs from someone so deranged to set them on them.

Oh, yeah. Lots of cruel fun for a depraved sport. I can almost imagine the festive atmosphere around the bonfire while those cubs were looking down on the flames and snarling dogs awaiting their fall.
 
Last edited:
Here is what John Muir, the well respected and influential conservationist(1834-1914) who often traveled for weeks in wilderness areas of the U.S. and Canada alone never carrying a gun, and himself sometimes called ?gThe Father of Our National Parks,?h said:

?gMaking some bird or beast go lame the rest of its life is a sore thing on one?fs conscience, at least nothing to boast of, and it has no religion in it.?h

I`m glad to count myself in the company of a man so respected as this, whose influence is still felt, and one who felt no need or desire to kill for a sport with the blood stained haughtiness of arrogance to impose death on another for fun.
 
John Muir also accompanied hunting parties and measured their qurry: http://www.siskiyous.edu/library/shasta/Literature/jmuir/shasgame.htm He counted among his friends many avid hunters including Teddy Roosevelt. He was among the first to question the ethics of hunting publicly at a time when the practive was signigicantly more wide spread.

Bear hunting seems to have little purpose and burning cubs in a tree even less validity.
 
I couldn't exactly tell you if today's hunters would engage in that type of activity, if it is allowable or acceptable. The hunters I know prefer a clean kill- but that is not a large sample or definitive in any way.
 
John Muir saw it for what it was, or at least what he felt it was:

?hIn nothing does man, with his grand notions of heaven and charity, show forth his innate, lowbred, wild animalism more clearly than in his treatment of his brother beasts. From the shepherd with his lambs to the redhanded hunter, it is the same; no recognition of rights -- only murder in one way or another.?h

Well said. A well respected and admired man. He had some incites that would take decades for many more people to come to agree with. Well ahead of his time like most visionaries.
 
No argument about John Muir. I have wandered some of the same trails- over the passes and by the same lakes...and I am thankful for his contribution to conservation.
 
sabro said:
I couldn't exactly tell you if today's hunters would engage in that type of activity, if it is allowable or acceptable. The hunters I know prefer a clean kill- but that is not a large sample or definitive in any way.
Click to expand...


I agree. I've been to a number of sports shows and talked to quite a number of hunters over the years and they do prefer clean kills and not having the animal ripped to shreds.
 
So funny to see the NRA scaring the hunters (probably not as much animals are when lead is pumped into their gut) with their possible extinction because of the rising opposition to them. Here is one of their past membership drive adverts to get hunters to stampede into their org:


---------------------------------------------------
DADDY, WHAT WAS A HUNTER?

YOU ARE IN DANGER!

Picture yourself sitting in front of a cheerful fire, telling your children or grandchildren about ...the year hunters became extinct.

Make no mistake. It could happen -- because there?fs a huge wave of anti-hunting sentiment building on the horizon, ....?h
-----------------------------------------------------

Hey hunters, ...BOO! (lol. snicker snicker). You guys are seeming a little spooked about us being around. But, it is nice to know that you are taking those who are calling for your sport?fs end seriously and now you are spending recourses because of us.

You guys had better all run into the arms of papa NRA and pay your membership fees so he can see to it that your kind keeps procreating, and in the meantime, keep lobbying and fighting with your membership fees for the rights of citizens to own urban automatic assault weapons so that more Columbines can happen. The NRA is your patron saint, isn?ft he? or is the NRA your papa, --- eeeerrrr.... or your mama?

BANG! Just like the wolf you wiped out in the lower 48 a century ago. You?fre gone! Well, not yet. But the future is against you as more and more turn on you and reject your reasons for your continuance.

But, at least your end will come through tighter and tighter legislation and outright rejection -- not from the end of a barrel which you were so unkind to visit upon other lives. You can take some smug comfort in that.
 
I have just one question after observing this thread since its start.

For strongvoicesforward:

What exactly brought you to a Japan-based forum? I mean, most people who come here, and spend this much time here, have some interest in Japan, which they usually make known. Since hunting is definitely not limited to Japan, I just wonder. Sure, this forum has lots of non-Japanese discussions, but usually members of this Japan-based community partake in some Japan-based discussion as well.

Even though I am definitely NOT a supporter of hunting(despite being around it all my life), this thread almost seems spam-ish, in a way.

It just makes me wonder, is all...
 
Hi Kirei_na_me,

I also enjoy martial arts and study Japanese as well.

Animal rights are a big interest of mine and since I found this forum and saw all the wide variety of topics, not just Japan, I saw it as a great place for expressing opinions and discussing.

I also have a strong interest in religion (de-bunking Xtianity) but just haven`t gotten around to posting on that yet. I would have probably posted in other topics by now had not the hunting thread been so active. I have some things to say about Japan, too. But, animal rights are my main passion. Have no interest in posting on Animal Rights forums because that is no fun when everyone sits around and just agrees with each other. Here everyone has a variety of opinions on animals and it isn`t being very pro-active in outreaching to others if we just talk to everyone who agrees like we do.

I think if I were spamming, I would be making numerous posts all over the place and hijacking threads. Please note that that is not my mode of operati. I respect the rules of the forum/internet ettiquette and post appropriately in the right sections.

I am glad to see you have been following the thread since its beginning. Please don`t misunderstand honest passion for spamming.

Have I satisfied your curiosity?
 
Yes, you have. I thank you very much for sharing

I hope to see you in other threads in the future, I really do.

:wave:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top