Hunting Debate

[Matt]

Quote by: Domino I think I'd rather be shot and eaten. Ya know, wolves, cats, etc. don't always kill before they eat. As long as the critter isn't trying to get away, it's meal time.

Haha, very funny

All cats would kill before they eat. Wolves I think most times.

[Matt]

"Perhaps by your subjective standards.


Right, so a wolf killing an animal can be done efficiently and putting a bullet in an animal can be done efficiently. The difference is that one method is enjoyable to a lot of people.

Also, not all hunting is done with guns."

The difference between a wolf killing an animal and a human killing an animal: A) One needs the food, and one doesn't B) One is actually hunting, while the other hops out of the back of a truck and shoots an animal with a non natural, non 'fair' item.

Most is done with guns.




"What difference does that make? The animal being killed doesn't care what the killer's motivation is. If you do care about the animals and not simply about judging people who enjoy things which you find distasteful, then motivation shouldn't matter to you."

Yes, one is needed (wolf killing prey), and one is not (human killing animal). When killing (I will refrain from the word murdering) is not needed, why do it? Just for some enjoyment...not a good enough reason.


"And so would introducing wolves and cougars to control animal populations. What's the difference?"

Again, one needs to kill to live, and one doesn't.

"People with mental disabilities have a constitutionally protected right to life, they're not causing an overpopulation problem and they're likely to have relatives who would suffer as a result of their death."

Humans are causing an overpopulation, so why not kill the ones who can't argue about being killed? Wolves, bears, cougars, ect. don't have an overpopulation, cougars and wolves were almost killed off of most of the USA.

If a mother deer was killed, the baby would suffer and be scared and lonely. If a member of a pack of wolves died, the pack would be howling trying to find where their buddy is, and when they couldn't find him/her, they would be suffering.

[The Dunedan]

Cows exist for me to eat them. If you'd ever seen the utter idiocy (inconveniently and dangerously combined with great size) of a cow at close range, you'd understand this. Likewise sheep, which are even dumber, although thankfully much smaller. Chickens, Guineas, etc...all fall at about the same level, with domestic Turkeys being so abysmally stupid that they can drown in a rainstorm. No animal remotely approaching that level of idiocy would survive to reproductive age in the wild, where a great many things -still- don't, despite being smarter. Cats, dogs, horses, etc...are somewhat more intelligent, although I've met a few Irish Setters too dumb to find their way out of a phone booth. Added to this, they perform useful functions for us (hunting mice, gaurding the house, pulling things etc) and make lousy meat, so we keep them as companions rather than food. This suits me just fine, since I can't imagine dog tastes very good in any language other than Korean, and cats seem too stringy to be worth the effort. Horse is good, properly prepared, but is easy to get wrong.

As for hunting, this is what we call reality: humans are an evolutionary pressure, just like any other sort of predation. We're a part of nature, just like the animals are, and our nature is omnivorism tilted sharply to carnivorism. I hunt because I can spend $.75 on a bullet, or $75+ for the same amount of dead animal at the grocery store. I'm a human, the animals aren't. I'm at the top of the food chain, they're not. My ancestors evolved for 5 million years to get up here, theirs didn't.

As for wolves killing before they eat...you might wanna read up on that. Wolves commonly eviscerate and consume their prey alive.
\http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/0....01footet.html

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Matt Haha, very funny All cats would kill before they eat. Wolves I think most times.

If you eat a living plant are you sure it is dead before you bite into it? Did you know that plants are aware of what is happening?

But good news, most mise and other veggie eating animals that hawks, snakes, and cats eat have a built in system where they will faint when captured and become unconscious, sometimes mice have heart attacks due to the shock of being captured by a preditor. Same with many small birds. So it is not always as gruesome as it looks.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Matt The difference between a wolf killing an animal and a human killing an animal: A) One needs the food, and one doesn't

False. Wolves are pretty much as capable of metabolizing nutrients through plants as we are. What you mean is that they have evolved into meat-eating animals. And on that point...

B) One is actually hunting, while the other hops out of the back of a truck and shoots an animal with a non natural, non 'fair' item.

This is the argument that always annoys me the most, usually because the people that make it claim to be some kind of nature lovers yet are woefully ignorant of how nature and biology have worked over millions of years...

Ok, I'm going to explain this very carefully:

• All animals have evolved.
• Human beings are just one particular species of animal.
• Animals evolve traits that allow them to survive.
• The human trait that has allowed us to survive is INTELLIGENCE.
• Through our intelligence, we learn to make TOOLS.
• We use those tools to accomplish survival.
• Humans using their intelligence to create a gun to shoot an animal is NO DIFFERENT than a wolf using its strength, sense of smell, and sharp teeth to hunt an animal. We evolved certain traits, they evolved others.

Get it?

Quote by: The Dunedan Cows exist for me to eat them. If you'd ever seen the utter idiocy (inconveniently and dangerously combined with great size) of a cow at close range, you'd understand this. Likewise sheep, which are even dumber, although thankfully much smaller. Chickens, Guineas, etc...all fall at about the same level, with domestic Turkeys being so abysmally stupid that they can drown in a rainstorm. No animal remotely approaching that level of idiocy would survive to reproductive age in the wild, where a great many things -still- don't, despite being smarter. Cats, dogs, horses, etc...are somewhat more intelligent, although I've met a few Irish Setters too dumb to find their way out of a phone booth. Added to this, they perform useful functions for us (hunting mice, gaurding the house, pulling things etc) and make lousy meat, so we keep them as companions rather than food. This suits me just fine, since I can't imagine dog tastes very good in any language other than Korean, and cats seem too stringy to be worth the effort. Horse is good, properly prepared, but is easy to get wrong. As for hunting, this is what we call reality: humans are an evolutionary pressure, just like any other sort of predation. We're a part of nature, just like the animals are, and our nature is omnivorism tilted sharply to carnivorism. I hunt because I can spend $.75 on a bullet, or $75+ for the same amount of dead animal at the grocery store. I'm a human, the animals aren't. I'm at the top of the food chain, they're not. My ancestors evolved for 5 million years to get up here, theirs didn't.

Well said. You're obviously someone who, unlike our OPer, understands and appreciates where our food comes from and the true role that human beings play.

[Domino]

Both canines and felines like to play with their prey.

[JaneDoe321]

"Non-Fair" item??

Yeah, I'm sure the significantly more powerful jaws, teeth, legs, etc. of the wolf/fox/whatever compared to the rabbit are "fair".

It's not a duel of honor. lol

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt The difference between a wolf killing an animal and a human killing an animal: A) One needs the food, and one doesn't B) One is actually hunting, while the other hops out of the back of a truck and shoots an animal with a non natural, non 'fair' item.

Again, that makes no difference to the animal being killed. You're pretty much confirming my suspicion that anti-hunting advocates are not animal rights activists, but intolerant, moralising fascists.

Quote by: Matt Most is done with guns.

Right, so most is done with guns and some of the hunting done with guns may be done in a cruel fashion. That's a long way from convincing me that all hunting should be banned.

Quote by: Matt Yes, one is needed (wolf killing prey), and one is not (human killing animal). When killing (I will refrain from the word murdering) is not needed, why do it? Just for some enjoyment...not a good enough reason.

Like you yourself said, to deal with overpopulation problems.

Quote by: Matt I will refrain from the word murdering

Good, because you would be incorrect in using it.

Quote by: Matt Again, one needs to kill to live, and one doesn't.

What difference does this make to the animal being killed? It seems like this has nothing to do with protecting animals from suffering and everything to do with your subjective notions of what humans should and should not find enjoyable.

Quote by: Matt Humans are causing an overpopulation,

North America doesn't suffer from overpopulation.

Quote by: Matt so why not kill the ones who can't argue about being killed?

The three reasons previously stated.

Quote by: Matt If a mother deer was killed, the baby would suffer

No more than it would when the exploding deer populaton consumes all the resources and it starves to death.

Quote by: Matt Wolves, bears, cougars, ect. don't have an overpopulation, cougars and wolves were almost killed off of most of the USA.

No one is talking about hunting wolves and cougars.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Dunedan Cows exist for me to eat them. If you'd ever seen the utter idiocy (inconveniently and dangerously combined with great size) of a cow at close range, you'd understand this. Likewise sheep, which are even dumber, although thankfully much smaller. Chickens, Guineas, etc...all fall at about the same level, with domestic Turkeys being so abysmally stupid that they can drown in a rainstorm. No animal remotely approaching that level of idiocy would survive to reproductive age in the wild, where a great many things -still- don't, despite being smarter. Cats, dogs, horses, etc...are somewhat more intelligent, although I've met a few Irish Setters too dumb to find their way out of a phone booth. Added to this, they perform useful functions for us (hunting mice, gaurding the house, pulling things etc) and make lousy meat, so we keep them as companions rather than food. This suits me just fine, since I can't imagine dog tastes very good in any language other than Korean, and cats seem too stringy to be worth the effort. Horse is good, properly prepared, but is easy to get wrong. As for hunting, this is what we call reality: humans are an evolutionary pressure, just like any other sort of predation. We're a part of nature, just like the animals are, and our nature is omnivorism tilted sharply to carnivorism. I hunt because I can spend $.75 on a bullet, or $75+ for the same amount of dead animal at the grocery store. I'm a human, the animals aren't. I'm at the top of the food chain, they're not. My ancestors evolved for 5 million years to get up here, theirs didn't. As for wolves killing before they eat...you might wanna read up on that. Wolves commonly eviscerate and consume their prey alive. \http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/0....01footet.html

NO animal exsists to feed you. They may be destined to the dinner plate, but they exsist for their own reasons.

No mention of a pig, eh? They are quite smart.

You are correct, none would survive in the wild. Because with hundreds of years of humans making cows, chickens, pigs, ect. more domesticated, of course they couldn't survive in the wild. Pigs came from other wild boars/pigs, and cows came (the North American ones) from something that is now extinct I think.

My point is we did have to huny in the past to live, not now...so why do it? There is no good reason to IMO. We now realize (most of us), that sexist and racist views are wrong. Most of us also view murder wrong. But it wouldn't have been called murder before, it would have been 'pressure' to keep territory or some more meat. Thousands of years ago, killing a person wasn't really a bad thing to do, and it happened often. Also, racist and sexist viewas are finally starting to go the way of the doe-doe bird, with most people. And I'm sure as every year passes more people will stop hunting, and more people will view it as wrong. Its what I call civilized evolution

I'm not a member of the nytimes so I can't see it. See my flag?

Quote by: tivodan1116 False. Wolves are pretty much as capable of metabolizing nutrients through plants as we are. What you mean is that they have evolved into meat-eating animals. And on that point... This is the argument that always annoys me the most, usually because the people that make it claim to be some kind of nature lovers yet are woefully ignorant of how nature and biology have worked over millions of years... Ok, I'm going to explain this very carefully: All animals have evolved. Human beings are just one particular species of animal. Animals evolve traits that allow them to survive. The human trait that has allowed us to survive is INTELLIGENCE. Through our intelligence, we learn to make TOOLS. We use those tools to accomplish survival. Humans using their intelligence to create a gun to shoot an animal is NO DIFFERENT than a wolf using its strength, sense of smell, and sharp teeth to hunt an animal. We evolved certain traits, they evolved others. Get it? Well said. You're obviously someone who, unlike our OPer, understands and appreciates where our food comes from and the true role that human beings play.

No, because I don't believe in any of that evolved stuff, I'm the C word. Get it?

With our intelligence, we have the thought capabilities to reason that killing things we don't need is wrong (a few of us can, some can't though). Wolves don't. Our intellignce comes with responsibilities. Thats why some of us have reasoned hunting is bad, and no wolves have. They don't have the thinking powers we do to think out of the instinct box.

Role that some humans play: Ignorant, ego and instinct filled creatures who are harming the earth and one day the earth will be no more.





Again, that makes no difference to the animal being killed. You're pretty much confirming my suspicion that anti-hunting advocates are not animal rights activists, but intolerant, moralising fascists.

Would you rather die for something that needed you to live, or some fat pot bellied guy who will mount your head on the wall? Think about it. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, the difference is one needs it and the other doesn't. Why let the one who doesn't need it kill more then needed (needed=0)?

And you have confirmed my suspicion that you are a ignorant, instinct driven person.


Right, so most is done with guns and some of the hunting done with guns may be done in a cruel fashion. That's a long way from convincing me that all hunting should be banned.


Like you yourself said, to deal with overpopulation problems.


Good, because you would be incorrect in using it.


What difference does this make to the animal being killed? It seems like this has nothing to do with protecting animals from suffering and everything to do with your subjective notions of what humans should and should not find enjoyable.


North America doesn't suffer from overpopulation.


The three reasons previously stated.


No more than it would when the exploding deer populaton consumes all the resources and it starves to death.


No one is talking about hunting wolves and cougars.

Some humans still have an instinct, and they find killing stuff fun. Can't wait till that gene wares off...but soon it will...with civilized evolution.

Yes, North America (most the USA) does suffer from an overpopulation. Look at how few wild places there are....humans have taken over completely.

Humans cause problems, they try to bandage them up. In this case, humans killed offf most of the natural predators, so they are trying to be the predators. Won't work.

[Anmon]

we should be allowed to hunt species that are out of control, like kangaroos and rabbits etc, culling is sometimes necessary, I don't believe in killing for sport, unless its fish, and even then certain species must be left alone sometimes if numbers low, and always throw undersized back in, not just bait them up.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Would you rather die for something that needed you to live, or some fat pot bellied guy who will mount your head on the wall?

I imagine that, were I a deer, it would make very little difference to me.

Quote by: Matt Think about it. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, the difference is one needs it and the other doesn't. Why let the one who doesn't need it kill more then needed (needed=0)?

But this isn't an issue of hunters killing the deer which would otherwise be killed by all the wild wolves and cougars we have running around. Wolves won't need to eat the prey if we don't introduce the wolves in the first place. Here's the situation:

We need to control the population of certain animals. We can either do this by introducing wolves and cougars or we can do it in a way which many people will find enjoyable i.e. through hunting. The answer seems fairly obvious to me.

Quote by: Matt And you have confirmed my suspicion that you are a ignorant, instinct driven person.

Instinct driven? Don't assume, simply because I oppose forcing people to conform to some arbitrary standard of civility, that I am myself a hunter.

Quote by: Matt Some humans still have an instinct, and they find killing stuff fun. Can't wait till that gene wares off...but soon it will...with civilized evolution.

Right, so while we're all eagerly waiting for that to happen, what is the objection to letting these uncivilised brutes have their fun?

Quote by: Matt Yes, North America (most the USA) does suffer from an overpopulation. Look at how few wild places there are....humans have taken over completely.

A place not containing enough wild places for Matt's liking doesn't qualify as overpopulated. Overpopulation is when the population exceeds the habitat's ability to provide resources. North America generally doesn't suffer from food, water or land shortages.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Matt No, because I don't believe in any of that evolved stuff, I'm the C word. Get it?

Ah, I see, then you believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

Then you agree with Genesis 1 wherein God gives dominion over all living things to humans and says they are food.

You cannot have it both ways. You either believe in evolution, and my point above regarding that is correct, or you are a creationist, in which case the story of creation includes the animals being made "for us", in which your argument is still wrong. So either I'm right, or you're wrong.

pwned. /thread.

[ParaTed2k]

Why do you consider bears, wolves and other predators "ok", but question man's place as a natural predator?

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I imagine that, were I a deer, it would make very little difference to me. But this isn't an issue of hunters killing the deer which would otherwise be killed by all the wild wolves and cougars we have running around. Wolves won't need to eat the prey if we don't introduce the wolves in the first place. Here's the situation: We need to control the population of certain animals. We can either do this by introducing wolves and cougars or we can do it in a way which many people will find enjoyable i.e. through hunting. The answer seems fairly obvious to me. Instinct driven? Don't assume, simply because I oppose forcing people to conform to some arbitrary standard of civility, that I am myself a hunter. Right, so while we're all eagerly waiting for that to happen, what is the objection to letting these uncivilised brutes have their fun? A place not containing enough wild places for Matt's liking doesn't qualify as overpopulated. Overpopulation is when the population exceeds the habitat's ability to provide resources. North America generally doesn't suffer from food, water or land shortages.

No, if a deer wasn't killed by a human, it wouldn't then always be killed by a real predator. It may live out its life, it may get eaten by a wolf, who knows. Either way it would have liven a longer life and if it was eaten, the meat helped another creature survive.

The answer doesn't seem obvious to me. Let nature come back, and restore itself, and not let some people go kill some animals when the product of that animal is NOT neededm and it could be consumed me soemthing that needed it OR it could live out its life.

The objection is they are ruining lives.

We do have an overpopulation. We have no natural predators. We are ruining the earth, that is what I consider overpopulation.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Ah, I see, then you believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Then you agree with Genesis 1 wherein God gives dominion over all living things to humans and says they are food. You cannot have it both ways. You either believe in evolution, and my point above regarding that is correct, or you are a creationist, in which case the story of creation includes the animals being made "for us", in which your argument is still wrong. So either I'm right, or you're wrong. pwned. /thread.

I hope you are smart enough to realize not all Christians believe or agree with what the Bible says. I don't agree with what it says about animals, and men did write the Bible...not God.

[Matt]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Why do you consider bears, wolves and other predators "ok", but question man's place as a natural predator?

Because they are natural predators, humans are not (in North America at least). Also, they are using their body to catch and kill another animal, while humans use guns, not their body. I would like to see a human jump on the back of a deer and try to take it down.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt No, if a deer wasn't killed by a human, it wouldn't then always be killed by a real predator.

If hunting were replaced with "natural" predators, the deer most certainly would be killed. That would be the whole point of introducing the predators: to keep the deer population under control.

Quote by: Matt It may live out its life, it may get eaten by a wolf, who knows. Either way it would have liven a longer life and if it was eaten, the meat helped another creature survive.

Again you ignore the point. The other creature wouldn't need to kill the deer to survive if it wasn't introduced back into the ecosystem by humans. Lowering deer populations is going to require some form of human intervention, whether it is by killing the deer ourselves or by introducing wolves to to the job for us. Either way, we humans have intervened. The question now is simply which manner of human intervention is preferable; one which creates and enjoyable passtime for many people, or one which will take years of time and effort.

The answer doesn't seem obvious to me. Let nature come back, and restore itself,

Humans are a part of nature. Anything we do is, by definition, natural.

Quote by: Matt and not let some people go kill some animals when the product of that animal is NOT neededm and it could be consumed me soemthing that needed it

The predators which you argue need the meat from the deer are hypothetical predators. They don't exist yet and the only way they will exist is if we humans go to a lot of effort to introduce these predators into the wild. Why should we do this when we can simply kill the deer ourselves in an enjoyable fashion?

Quote by: Matt OR it could live out its life.

In which case the species becomes overpopulated and dies of starvation, as well as destroying parts of its ecosystem.

Quote by: Matt The objection is they are ruining lives.

And you would also be ruining the same lives by introducing wolves and cougars into the ecosystem.

Quote by: Matt We do have an overpopulation. We have no natural predators. We are ruining the earth, that is what I consider overpopulation.

Right, well you're wrong. Not much more I can say on that.

[Matt]

If hunting were replaced with "natural" predators, the deer most certainly would be killed. That would be the whole point of introducing the predators: to keep the deer population under control.

Again you ignore the point. The other creature wouldn't need to kill the deer to survive if it wasn't introduced back into the ecosystem by humans. Lowering deer populations is going to require some form of human intervention, whether it is by killing the deer ourselves or by introducing wolves to to the job for us. Either way, we humans have intervened. The question now is simply which manner of human intervention is preferable; one which creates and enjoyable passtime for many people, or one which will take years of time and effort.

The weakest deer would be killed, since those are the ones that predators go after. Humans though go after the biggest, healthiest bucks in most cases.

Wolves aren't as greedy as humans, they would only kill what they need to survive with. I'm sure if you let a pack of wolves kill as many deer as they wanted over a month, and let hunters be allowed to kill as many deer as they wanted over a month, the wolves would have killed much fewer deer.

We caused the problem, and if we try to fix it, I'm pretty sure it wont work, it's basically trying to fix a human caused problem with humans

Humans are a part of nature. Anything we do is, by definition, natural.


The predators which you argue need the meat from the deer are hypothetical predators. They don't exist yet and the only way they will exist is if we humans go to a lot of effort to introduce these predators into the wild. Why should we do this when we can simply kill the deer ourselves in an enjoyable fashion?


In which case the species becomes overpopulated and dies of starvation, as well as destroying parts of its ecosystem.


And you would also be ruining the same lives by introducing wolves and cougars into the ecosystem.


Right, well you're wrong. Not much more I can say on that.

If we are a part of nature, we are very out of touch with it.

Like I said, fixing human caused problems with humans most likely wont work.

Example of a re-introduction of a predator:

The Sea Otter went extinct in parts North America (Pacific coast) and it caused an overpopulation of sea urchines and other crustaceans which, at their hightened population, ate alot more of the kelp then they would normally. With out alot of the kelp, the baby fish didn't have many places to hide and their populations went down. Fisheries were getting mad. People re-introduced the Sea Otter in the parts in where they went extinct and now the Sea Otter is thriving and the population of the sea urchines and other crustaceans are in check, and the ecosystem is running smoothly again.

Could you then explain how deer have an overpopulation, but we don't?

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Matt Because they are natural predators, humans are not (in North America at least). Also, they are using their body to catch and kill another animal, while humans use guns, not their body. I would like to see a human jump on the back of a deer and try to take it down.

Humans are natural predators. Every species equipped to digest meat is a natural predator. Not all animals are taken with guns... just those bigger than ourselves. All predators use their cunning, agility, senses and abilities to hunt. The ONLY difference is, you somehow think it's wrong for us to kill animals but it's ok for animals to kill animals.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt The weakest deer would be killed, since those are the ones that predators go after. Humans though go after the biggest, healthiest bucks in most cases.

Then it's an even more efficient way of keeping the numbers down. Besides, the deer which the hunter chooses to shoot depends entirely on the hunter.

Quote by: Matt Wolves aren't as greedy as humans, they would only kill what they need to survive with. I'm sure if you let a pack of wolves kill as many deer as they wanted over a month, and let hunters be allowed to kill as many deer as they wanted over a month, the wolves would have killed much fewer deer.

And when the problem being addressed is one of overpopulation, fewer deer being killed is not necessarily a good thing.

Quote by: Matt We caused the problem, and if we try to fix it, I'm pretty sure it wont work, it's basically trying to fix a human caused problem with humans

Obviously it is working, since we're not overrun by the animals which have so far been subject to organised culls.

The Sea Otter went extinct in parts North America (Pacific coast) and it caused an overpopulation of sea urchines and other crustaceans which, at their hightened population, ate alot more of the kelp then they would normally. With out alot of the kelp, the baby fish didn't have many places to hide and their populations went down. Fisheries were getting mad. People re-introduced the Sea Otter in the parts in where they went extinct and now the Sea Otter is thriving and the population of the sea urchines and other crustaceans are in check, and the ecosystem is running smoothly again.

I never denied that reintroduction of a predator is a viable way of dealing with population problems. My argument is that hunting is also a viable way of doing so and, as such, there is no reason to ban it.

Quote by: Matt Could you then explain how deer have an overpopulation, but we don't?

The deer aren't currently overpopulated. They will become overpopulated if humans don't continue to intervene in some way.