Killing for food and clothing is okay. So is killing for fun.

[barts]

It fascinates me the lengths to which some people will go to characterize hunting as something almost pathological and sadistically sick. It is a normal and completely wholesome past time. But people have a prejudice against the killing of deer, even when the deer are over-populated and starving. To let an animal starve, rather than just use a rifle to put it out of its misery, I think that's kind of sick. I guess these people mean well, but it's just wrong headed. I blame the movie Bambi.

In my view, being creative is preferable to being destructive. Perhaps you don't agree.

As for putting a deer who is starving out of its misery and offering this as a moral rational seems odd. Would you do this service for all animals who are starving: squirrels, badgers, frogs, snakes, raccoons, etc. Why do only deer warrant your compassion?

It's worth noting that all animals (including human animals) die of starvation, disease, or accident. Why you'd single out deer for special consideration to be euthanized by you for compassion makes little sense, except to defend the indefensible.

As for over-population, the only animal on this planet that is over-populated is human beings. Our notions of animals being over-populated have no ecological basis; such notions are entirely social. There are not too many deer ecologically, there are simply more deer than we would like. The use of the term "over-population" is mere propaganda.

[ruksak]

Interesting aside. Do you go from one store to another, stocking up out of spite? Everyone needs a hobby.

Grandpa h.

No. The price of ammunition shot up like crazy almost overnight. .22 rounds were actually out of stock everywhere I went. So I bought hordes of rounds. Just being economical. With Obama as Pres, who knows if the price will quadruple.

[Ender]

Killing without using the animal is senseless in my view. Now, I have no problem with people who enjoy hunting. I don't think they are sociopaths are anything. But in my view, if you do not use the animal you kill, and you kill merely for the sport, you are being disrespectful.

[ruksak]

I think this debate is more trouble than it's worth. Still, the average hunter strikes me as the liar sort, and for one simple reason: They usually argue that human beings must keep the animal population down. I don't think that's true at all, at least in most cases. In fact, I believe human beings are far more destructive than the average hunted animal species. But hunters are looking for further justification for what they do.
Grandpa h.

It's an ancillary benefit of a human instinct. Myself, I'm honest about it. I love to hunt. I get a thrill like nothing else from the hunt, the kill and the processing.

Anyone can kill an animal. Not so many folks know what to do with the body. Hunting requires intestinal fortitude. You must both murder and carve up a corpse, exposing yourself to the sights, sounds and odors of processing.

[barts]

Killing without using the animal is senseless in my view. Now, I have no problem with people who enjoy hunting. I don't think they are sociopaths are anything. But in my view, if you do not use the animal you kill, and you kill merely for the sport, you are being disrespectful.

This may seem odd given my previous posts, but I would prefer in choosing the lesser of evils that those who kill for amusement would leave the victims of their sport in situ rather than "use the animal [they] kill". Killing a deer or any other animal and leaving it where it was killed leaves that animal available for other living things in the ecosystem. Removing it further diminishes the ecosystem.

[ruksak]

This may seem odd given my previous posts, but I would prefer in choosing the lesser of evils that those who kill for amusement would leave the victims of their sport in situ rather than "use the animal [they] kill". Killing a deer or any other animal and leaving it where it was killed leaves that animal available for other living things in the ecosystem. Removing it further diminishes the ecosystem.

I'm sure you're aware but I'll mention it just for posterity. Wanton waste of an animal is among the most grievous of hunting offenses, and is punishable with hefty fines.

However, I had a debate with a hunting buddy about the morality of leaving an animal on the forest floor. I don't do it because it's kinda lame, but mostly because it's illegal and I don't want to run the risk (I'm speaking toward small game really. The thought would never cross my mind with big game). Those pesky DNR officers have a habit of creeping around when you have no idea. Something will eat it, probably within 24 hours. Technically, it will not be wasted unless you pick it up and either throw it in the garbage or burn it with gasoline. So you're correct, it feeds the ecology of the land.

What I would like to speak to is the attitude I read often that attempts to paint all hunters as pathetic men that get off on murdering animals. That we hunt because it makes us feel tough, cool or mightier than these beasts.

I can't speak for all hunters, only for myself. I hunt because I enjoy it. I was compelled into this pursuit because I really enjoy all aspects of hunting. It is ingrained in me and I truly enjoy it on a very deep, almost spiritual level. I don't feel like a black-ops killa for hiding in a tree and murdering a deer. There are no delusions of grandeur. I just fuckin like it. The cold air, the snow storms. The tracking. The scouting. The moment of truth. Hunting is a way for man to engage in the most primal of acts and a connection with a foregone era, an instinct that has been deemed by many as obsolete.

It is not machismo that compels me. It is a sense of romance for the entire act.

[seyorni]

No. The price of ammunition shot up like crazy almost overnight. .22 rounds were actually out of stock everywhere I went. So I bought hordes of rounds. Just being economical. With Obama as Pres, who knows if the price will quadruple.

But wasn't this because of the rumor that the government was about to take away your guns and ammo?
There'd be a run on any commodity if there were a rumor it was about to become unavailable, as well as unscrupulous vendors running up the price.

[barts]

I can't speak for all hunters, only for myself. I hunt because I enjoy it. I was compelled into this pursuit because I really enjoy all aspects of hunting. It is ingrained in me and I truly enjoy it on a very deep, almost spiritual level. I don't feel like a black-ops killa for hiding in a tree and murdering a deer. There are no delusions of grandeur. I just fuckin like it. The cold air, the snow storms. The tracking. The scouting. The moment of truth. Hunting is a way for man to engage in the most primal of acts and a connection with a foregone era, an instinct that has been deemed by many as obsolete.

It is not machismo that compels me. It is a sense of romance for the entire act.

I appreciate all you say. I wonder, wouldn't a more interesting hunt be hunters, like you, hunting each other? I, in fact, don't mean to be flippant. But, it seems to me, that hunting something that poses little, and usually no, threat might be less than fully compelling. Surely, hunting something that posed a genuine threat such that grave injury or death was a real possibility might be more exciting. We do see something approaching this kind of hunt in Spanish bull fighting where frequently matadors are gravely, even mortally, injured. Of course, the bull never survives the fight even if he kills the matador.

[barts]

I've just posted an article about sport hunting "myths" by artist/naturalist Barry Kent MacKay. It's a thoughtful critique about the notions that sport hunters employ to justify their activities. Few people are as knowledgeable about ecology and wildlife than MacKay.

I'd like to post a comparable essay by a sport or trophy hunter. However, a fairly extensive search produced nothing except diatribes against "antis", usually with attacks on PETA. If any one knows of a thoughtful, well-reasoned essay in support of trophy and sport hunting, please let me know, and I'll post it on the home page and in Specials & Invitations if I can get permission to publish it.

[ruksak]

But wasn't this because of the rumor that the government was about to take away your guns and ammo?
There'd be a run on any commodity if there were a rumor it was about to become unavailable, as well as unscrupulous vendors running up the price.

I don't give two shits why, really. All I know is that the price went up dramatically. So when it trended downward, I stocked up. Seemed the smart thing to do, was it not?

[ruksak]

I appreciate all you say. I wonder, wouldn't a more interesting hunt be hunters, like you, hunting each other? I, in fact, don't mean to be flippant. But, it seems to me, that hunting something that poses little, and usually no, threat might be less than fully compelling. Surely, hunting something that posed a genuine threat such that grave injury or death was a real possibility might be more exciting. We do see something approaching this kind of hunt in Spanish bull fighting where frequently matadors are gravely, even mortally, injured. Of course, the bull never survives the fight even if he kills the matador.

Why should I desire to expose myself to danger? That seems counter-intuitive.

Again, most serious hunters aren't engaging in this activity because it reinforces notions of machismo. That is a myth perpetrated by PETA to paint hunters as selfish men that think they're awesome cool black-ops killas. If I wanted to hunt people, I would join the military.

[Zeebadee]

I think that it is ethically justifiable to kill animals, not only for food and clothing, but also for fun and sport.

Do your thoughts about killing for food and clothing extend to the disadvantaged segment of society that are homeless and living from day-to-day? Is it justifiable for a bag lady to kill in order to get a square meal??