HUNTING: The Cruel Sport of Depravity

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

Sabro, enjoyment is moote. It is not logical. A portion of the population enjoys dog fighting as well. That is a sport that ends in death, too. Bullfighting is another bloodsport.

Blood sports are barbaric and do not rest on logic. Enjoyment is not a foundation to rest logic on.

It is not about having a "bambi" complex. It is about not wanting to cause harm to a creature that has done you know harm and you not having any valid reason to cause that harm. Again, enjoyment is not a valid reason.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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. ... some of these weekend killers seek a deeper connection with the land, with the past and with traditions.

Why should the "past" or "tradition" be a point to consider when it comes to committing unnecessary violence and causing pain? Many Africans get enjoyment knowing they are keeping their tradition of clitoral circumcision alive while they force it upon 12 year old girls. Many Pakistanis and Indians defend their traditions of honor killing for disobedient wives and children.

"Connection" Ponnections! Traditions are no reason to keep and propell anything associated with exploitation, misery, and death. They all beget themselves and which ever species performs it on another or amongst themselves is irrelevant. An animal, be it human or nonhuman, wants to not be a target for unnecessary pain because of someone's warped sense of enjoyment or desire to protect some baseless tradition.

 

[No-name]

Like I said, hunting could be banned, but it won't. Not only do some find enjoyment in it, but it is part of their history and culture. It won't happen today or anytime soon. (You can make a reasonable case that we need not eat any meat- and it would lead to more sustainable agriculture, but I just had seafood gumbo and turkey for Christmas dinner...and I definitely would not be for it.)

Hunters are up in the mountain all the time. We have not had a fatal accident in my memory- at least for the last few decades. They don't tend to shoot up people or domestic pets or our signage...and for the most part they clean up after themselves when they leave. I have concerns whenever high powered rifles are within hitting distance of my house. We have a significantly higher fatality rate with the traffic driving up and down the mountain, with the ski resorts, and even with hikers. And alcohol and guns don't mix either. So far, they have never ever bothered me. (There was a fire started at Manzanita flats from illegal ammunition a few years ago, but that person wasn't hunting.) They probably have less impact than the off highway vehicle crowd, mountain bikers, or other recreational users who do shoot up signs and leave trash.

You miss the point with predators. Predators won't and can't live in large enough numbers in the forrest where I live. We have bears, coyotes, mountain lions, foxes and bobcats- none of which poses any kind of threat to human life, but also none of which can exist in sufficient numbers to control our deer population. There isn't the room- the range that the grizzlies and wolves require. Too many people, too many cars and too much of a threat to the animals.

Lastly when you discuss "the value of life, empathy and ethics" I am almost certain you are ascribing human values- anthropomorphising these animals. The truth is that we don't value human life and animal life equally. We don't have the same empathy and sympathy, nor do we have the same respect for the life of a squirrel as for the life of any random human. We don't stop traffic and investigate the death of a squirrel or a coyote. We don't mourn the death of thousands of insects in our radiators. Nor do we intervene in the murder of millions of rats and other "vermin." Most people consider humans and animals to be of a differing and a lesser value.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

They hunt for sport, for fun, for the skill involved and for the meat.

Oh, I didn`t know there was fun in extinguishing life, not to mention causing it to suffer before hand -- or knowing that a fawn is left motherless to die from starvation because it can`t nurse anymore. Oh, yes, all that seems fun.

Very few hunters stalk their kill. Most sit in a tree stand by a corn field or stream or some place they have put out salt licks for a few weeks to habituate an animal to coming there. Many cover themselves in deer musk and blow the mating calls of animals to lure them to them. Sure must be a lot of skill in getting those "love" calls down so that an animal interested in some companion ship can be surprised with a high velocity projectile instead. Imagine those animals' surprise at the skill of those ambushing hunters.

Sure...lots of skill in all that. I would say Michael Jordon, or any kid shooting ball works on skill in developing a great hook shot while physically exhausted. Only an elite few can do that. An overweight guy, with battery warming socks, covered in deer piss bleeting a love call, too fat to climb down quickly enough from his stand to track an animal without getting winded after 100 yards, is errrr... well....errrr.... not very skillful.

Or perhaps in the mind of the hunter he is. After all, when they do get their kills, they do get that great shot smiling shot of them holding the head up in a life standing position for a pose so that the rack can be seen in all its glory.

Those photographers sure are skillful, aren`t they?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

We also enjoy guns and accept a few hundred casualties for some kind of manly primal drive.

Enjoyment is not valid for satisfying a primal drive when that is one which is inherantly dangerous and causes violence and helps support the paraphanalia of an industry whose products are often used to cause violence.

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.

You are right, Sabro, it will take a long time. It is a battle. But, I think it will happen gradually. The trend has always been from one of prevalent hunting to less hunting. Less regulation to more regulation. Less banning to more banning. Time is on our side, not the hunters.

As more and more young people who have been quite receptive to animal rights move more and more into social positions of judges and legislators, you will see the hunting industry decided against and squeezed more and more and more.

Even they see this. That is why they have desperately been trying to get more and more young people involved with hunting. But, while they do get some young people hooked on it, they are not getting the majority. And those young people who are indoctrinated into the hunting culture, are by and large, those young people who do not go on to college and take up decision making posts.

It is just a matter of time before the hunter goes the way of the passenger pigion, which they themselves drove to extinction. A dieing breed indeed. The world will be better without them.

 

[No-name]

I don't hunt, so I am not the best one to stick up for hunters. In California- they don't sell too many doe tags, so bambi might be fatherless, but probably not motherless. And anyway he would be no less motherless if mom were smacked on the highway by a Peterbuilt. I don't really know if the deer feel sad or suffer when we extinguish their lives... I pretty sure they probably don't like it. but I don't ascribe to them human emotions, motivations and value. I do go fishing- although it has been years... and I never worry about all the little Nemo's I orphaned. Most would not consider the killing of an animal an act of violence. After all, here in California you can kill your pets if you want, you just have to do it humanely.

I probably run over half a dozen squirrels in the course of a year. I probably left lots of little squirrellings starving and orphaned. Although I try to avoid them, I won't flip my car over it. Nor will I trade my life for theirs... Its a value judgement. Human life is more valuable than animal life. If I can't avoid them...ka-thump...and little thought or sympathy afterwards. (Except the one I hit on my motorcycle...ewwwww.)

As to how much skill it takes to bring down a fourteen point buck... I couldn't really tell you that either. Those guys who do it feel a certain amount of pleasure and satisfaction. What you described takes skill and at least patience. I certainly wouldn't want to spend hours freezing in a blind to get one shot at a moving target some yardage away. (I'm quite nearsighted...I probably wouldn't hit it anyway.) And some do stalk and some only hunt with compound bows...I would have to go on a hunt to tell you how much skill it does or doesn't take or what the whole urge to kill an animal is all about. I don't judge their choice here- they are not hunting endagered species, nor are they doing anything illegal.

The only hunting I ever do is out on the paintball field. My quarry is equally armed and there entirely voluntarily and everyone goes home alive at the end of the day.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Like I said, hunting could be banned, but it won't. Not only do some find enjoyment in it, but it is part of their history and culture. It won't happen today or anytime soon.

History and culture is irrelevant for deciding something should be continued. Clitoral circumcision, slavery, honour killing, bride burning, are all examples of culture/traditional icons that were supported for much of the same reasons you are saying hunting should continue. Culture and traditions are not reasons based on reasoning. They are based on emtions.

I can`t predict when it will be banned or when it will just fade away. But, it will.

 

[No-name]

History and culture is irrelevant for deciding something should be continued. Clitoral circumcision, slavery, honour killing, bride burning, are all examples of culture/traditional icons that were supported for much of the same reasons you are saying hunting should continue. Culture and traditions are not reasons based on reasoning. They are based on emtions.

I can`t predict when it will be banned or when it will just fade away. But, it will.

You seem to be equating human life and animal life and society as well as our laws does not treat them equally.

Those practices you mentioned- clitoral circumcision, slavery, honor killing, and bride burning all have humans targeted for pain, suffering and death. Three of four were never part of our history or culture. There are practices allowable on animals that would be entirely unacceptable if used on humans. We crop ears and dock tails without Fido's consent. We spay, neuter and euthanize. We turn them into burgers, belts and coats. All acceptable to most americans and legal under the law. I don't see it changing any time soon.

 

[ullvarg]

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?

I don't know about the US situation, but here in Sweden there's usualy around 10 death's due to hunting each year, and to be alowed to hunt you need to take a clase and a serie of tests. The hunter's are not alowed to keep their rifle at home in 1 peice, thei got to pick it to peices and and stor the peices in diffrent places of the house, and there's a limit to how much amonition 1 is alowed to have in the house, so it ain't that easy for a kid to use it, think that just happens ones every other year here, but im not sure.
About the hole suicade use of a weapon, I'm all for suicade so i don't think that's a valid argument, but that's a hole difrent discution.

People wount stop eating meat, I myself don't eat massive amounts of meat but I do eat it, when i eat meet i prefer to eat something that's been hunted in the wood, because atleast here in sweden the farmanimals are raised at one end of the country and then they are transported to the other end to be slautered just because it's cheaper.

And I don't look apon hunting as a sport, I look apon it as a good alternative to slautering farmanimal to put food on the tabel, because lets face it all the people on this planet wount stop eating meet, meet consumption have stagered the last couple of years here in Sweden.

I do like to eat vegiterian alternatives, but i don't think ill ever stop eating meet entierly.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

In California- they don't sell too many doe tags, so bambi might be fatherless, but probably not motherless.

So, I am wondering about does which are accidentally killed by hunters who mistakenly have taken a shot at them (or actually did so on purpose) and those animals were killed and recoverable by the hunter. It isn`t hard to imagine and I am confidant it occurs. Being cold in a stand, bored, lots of brush and trees between the hunter and the animal, a clean view is not wholly possible and therefore neither is a clean shot, but a shot is indeed taken.

Now, what does a hunter do with a doe when he has not been issued a tag to take a doe? Does he leave it there knowing he will be fined? Does he butcher it there and just take the meat out? Hunting tags as a means to limit/control the killing is a joke.

Tags are issued for deer that are brought out. There is no limit on how many one is permitted to injure.

And anyway he would be no less motherless if mom were smacked on the highway by a Peterbuilt.

Arguing from futility leads one to accept apathy. Both are diseases of the mind. Besides, if games just serve to jerk the topic away from the main point -- which is that hunting (i.e. not highways or vehicles) should be banned.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I don't really know if the deer feel sad or suffer when we extinguish their lives... I pretty sure they probably don't like it.

If they don`t like it like you said, then that must mean they feel something other than joy. Now, what would that be? I would call that sadness and fear. To deny that animals do not share some base emotions which we do, then one is going against a large volume of data and personal observations. Most dog owners can attest to observing feelings of sadness in their dogs. I know I can.

but I don't ascribe to them human emotions, motivations and value.

Emotions need not be qualified as human. We do not have a monopoly on emotions. Sure, we can get more philosophical and muse on our emotions, but that is different from actually experiencing emotions. The ability to suffer and experience pain is the crucial question. Just because a being cannot give verbal communication to their suffering does not mean it should be dismissed.

A mentally retarded person may never develope the ability to communicate their emotions, but we still accept that their ability to suffer is something to be respected. That is what is important and should be considered -- the ability to suffer.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I do go fishing- although it has been years... and I never worry about all the little Nemo's I orphaned.

Of course you can`t because you are unable to pierce the species barrier. You aren`t alone in company, though, when it comes to being unable to pierce the barrier of another group. Whites had a hard time feeling empathy towards black. Men had a hard time for feeling empathy toward women. Christians for Jews.

It really is just the human desire to protect his/her status quo and only when a group makes demands, or a group on behalf of another group makes demands, that empathy and eventually rights are extended. It is happening with animals now and it will eventually come to realization.

Most would not consider the killing of an animal an act of violence.

Sure, The Movement is still small now. But, not thinking killing an animal is an act of violence is only held to by those who are not witnessing it. Most city people would never consider going to a slaughter house for a date or entertainment because the idea of an evening of bleating and gargleing blood would be a pretty violent scene to behold.

Furthermore, I know many pre-schools and kindergartens take kids on apple picking, orange picking, or potato digging excursions, but I have never heard of a preschool loading the kids up in a van to go see the stick pit at a slaughterhouse or a canned hunt killing. I guess there is an ingrained sense and a reality of knowlegde that it IS in fact violence and most people do not want to witness real violence.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Human life is more valuable than animal life.

Oh, this old argument being brought out and shakened off -- ad nausium.

It is not about one being more important than the other. It is about equal consideration of interests and respect of all life. We do not have the right to visit tyranny on other animals. That is what this hunting issue and others such as factory farming and animal experiments is about. It is not about forfeiting your life in your car by swerving so that an animal can live instead of you. It is about not choosing to target an animal for harm.

From a Universal perspective, you are no more deserving of being able to move about freely than a deer. What in the Universe makes you believe you are more important than a deer or squirrel? Where is your proof? Of course, you have none. Yours is just one based on selfish desire for your wants, not based on a universal truth.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

As to how much skill it takes to bring down a fourteen point buck... I couldn't really tell you that either. Those guys who do it feel a certain amount of pleasure and satisfaction. What you described takes skill and at least patience.

Well, at least we are being honest about it -- that these people are doing it for pleasure.

High velocity weapon with mounted site, bathed in deer piss, sitting in a stand, having a thermos of hot chocolate (or a beer or two), hmmmm... I am wondering about skill. Many first time hunters are successful with bagging a kill. Skill -- sure, setting up an ambush could be considered skill -- I geuss. I would consider it a skill in a combat zone where lead would becoming back once I`ve compromised my position, but calling an ambush a skill when downing an animal, well, it is just that -- an ambush -- wrapped around selfish desire for pleasing the ego which wants to feel powerful by taking life.

Patience? A skill? Sure, I guess so. A guess a man asking his girlfriend for ten years to marry him and getting rejected but remaining patient for her to finally fall at his feet is also a skill. It is a skill of non-action. A kind of verbal/mental masturbation.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

...and some only hunt with compound bows...

The bow: the weapon that causes more injured unrecovered animals as a percentage of the weapon used is an instrument which is as inhumane as anyone can get.

State agencies which allow this weapon of choice give them up for caring nothing about the welfare of any animal. Their point is to get as much money from hunting season as possible and worrying about an animal that scrambles away with an arrow in their gut -- oh well, tough luck for the animal.

It, too, shows us the ineffectiveness of the "tag system." Why can`t when issueing tags or a bow license a simple test of marksmanship can`t be performed? Say, placing 8 of 10 arrows in a paper plate size target at 30 yards with a few branches between line of site? Then a 200 meter timed run over hilly terrain with a time limit?

Oh, sure that would be inconceivable! It would widdle the hunters down. It would mean less license fees. It would mean less bow paraphanalia from the hunting stores bought. Why, it would mean less exploitation! Can`t have that. Exploitation has more value than a deer dieing painlessly. Commodity is championed over life. That sounds backwards to me. Why doesn`t it you?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I don't judge their choice here- they are not hunting endagered species, nor are they doing anything illegal.

I judge it. And, so do many others. So many, in fact, that hunting shows can never be aired regularly on main network outlets because it would result in a barage of mail to stations and sponsors calling for its cancellation. In fact, hunting orgs know this and would never really like to try and get their dirty little hobbies of death on national tv because they know the backlash would be quick and detrimental. Best to stay to satelite or cable subscription shows.

Fishing shows can only continue because fish don`t vocalize their pain. But, if they could scream, believe me, they, too, would not last long on tv.

Causing pain and suffering is separate from the endangered species category. Humans aren`t endagered but I wouldn`t think that hunting them should be oked. But why not? They are the most dangerous animal on the planet and surely overpopulated. Let`s keep logic pure rather than pervert it through prejudices.

That`s right, nothing is being done illegally in a general sense, but that doesn`t mean it is right. Beating your wife wasn`t illegal at one time either. Neither was owning a slave. Hindsight is always 20/20. Just imagine 100 years from now. I am happy to know that I will be viewed in respect to history with the side that championed the rights for animals that will be taken for granted by people then.

Sure, you will say it may never happen. And you may be right. But, it was laughable to even suggest 300 years ago blacks would be free with rights, or women for that matter. Again, hindsight is always 20/20. That is the site of followers. Foresight on the other hand takes the quality of bravery to embrace the ideas of change before they have ever even been fought for.

 

[cheryl.ak]

I come from a big hunting family..and I have grown to love the taste of venison. Now, I practice archery, but just as a sport. I know I could never go out and kill an animal. I have humanized them way too much. But, since the beginning man's existence, meat was essential for survival. We are carnivores..you know, with those little canine teeth and everything. True, today we have more options and of course living as a vegetarian is possible. I don't see a problem this, it's just how you choose to live. Most of us are fortunate enough to be able to have this choice, it's almost like a luxury. I live in Wisconsin though.. and their are no natural predators around to keep the deer population in control... so deer are running out in front of cars, causing accidents, eating crops like mad. I swear, I see a dead deer on the road almost every day now..poor things. So! I am glad for hunters.
But OK! That's my 2 cents!..
:relief:

 

[No-name]

strongvoiceforward- thank you for the time you have put into your responses. However even as a non-hunter, I can't really see your point.

Again, I don't see the point in equating human life with animal life. I don't think you will see it happen in your lifetime or in a dozen lifetimes. Animal life does not equal human life. Legally and socially, they are not given the same value. We as a society eat animals and use animal products and I don't see that ending in your lifetime either. It seems like humanizing animals has it definite limits- rats and mice in your pantry probably don't have too many "rights." And does this respect for life extend only to the fuzzy and cute animals, or down to insects, like spiders, lice and bed bugs?

And hunting has little to do with wife beating or slavery. I would not be in favor of giving my pets the same rights as humans... although I know my dog would have never voted for Bush...and as a matter of practicality it does nothing to increase a person's appreaciation or values of human life. I'm sure lots of hunters are decent family loving folk and I'm certain there are animal rights people who are not. I'm off to consume more animal products without caring whether or not my sashimi would, could, or should vocalize pain.

 

[No-name]

Depravity!
Take the survey:
http://www.depravityscale.org/phase_b/phase2_index.php

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The above link looks like an email harvesting site to me. They are tricky. Beware with the info you are giving to those kiinds of places. If it were from a respected university or government site I would be more prone to take the survey. But, to each your own.

Did you take it Sabro?