Hunting Debate

[Matt]

Quote by: ParaTed2k 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.

Its wrong because we are the only species that can reason it out and realize we don't need to hunt to live. Cougars and wolves can't.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy 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. And when the problem being addressed is one of overpopulation, fewer deer being killed is not necessarily a good thing. Obviously it is working, since we're not overrun by the animals which have so far been subject to organised culls. 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. The deer aren't currently overpopulated. They will become overpopulated if humans don't continue to intervene in some way.

Most hunters go for the biggest bucks with the nicest antlers, its well known.

The natural predators will keep the deer in check, aslong as we don't keep killing the predators and ruining their habitat. It may not be instant, but it will eventually work, if people are patient.

Then please tell me how people all across the USA are complaining about overpopulations of deer? The hunting culls haven't worked that well, and they wont in the long run since eventually people will become more civilized and wont hunt. We need to think of a long term solution.

BTW, what do you consider overpopulation?

[Gods_Mercenary]

I personally don't really hunt, I usually might go out with some buddys, but I usually just observe wildlife and enjoy creeping up on an animal until I couldn't possibly miss. I don't need to validate my skills by killing an animal who is in no way equipped to defend itself and who I don't really want to kill. People who have a need to prove their manliness should pick up an m16 and go to any number of places where the prey shoot back. Having said this, man has hunted since he first put a rock on a stick and put it in a deer's gut, it is what spawned the creation of tools. Plus, I also subscribe to most the arguments above.

As to why we aren't overpopulated and deer become so, deer haven't developed a more effective way to get food than eating the neighborhoods gardens.

as a side note, wolves do often have a gruesome way of killing, imagine being eaten alive, bowels first.

[Matt]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Let's try this again... You either: 1) believe in evolution, in which case my point above about humans evolving intelligence as a tool for, among other things, hunting, is correct = you lose. 2) Are, as you said, a creationist Christian. The part of the Bible about animals being created "for" humans is an integral part of the story of creation. Animals are for humans, eating them is ok = you lose. You said yourself you do not believe in evolution because you are "the C word". That puts you in option 2. If you don't believe what it "says" about animals (i.e. the story of creation) and you don't believe evolution (making you, among other things, clueless), what is it?

Ok, hopefully I can make this clear for you...

The Bible was written by MEN, not God. Back then, animals were considered 'property' and for us to use. Back then, peoeple were quite sexist, men, men, men, men....blah blah blah. That was hundreds of years ago, and in the Bible people wrote that way because thats what was 'common sense' back then.

Back then, we had to eat animals to live. We now don't have to. I think God would like us change with the times.

Question: Would you rely on a 100 yo book on how to set up an aquarium? My best guess is you would say no, since many things have changed in the aquarium world since then. The sucky thing is, the Bible wont get updated. Its stuck back then, and we can't rely on it for every thought or opinion we create.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Isn't it still common sense in this era that when you're equipped to eat the walking source of protein in your friendly neighborhood woods, and it happens to taste good and get you off while your at it, that you do so?

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Matt Its wrong because we are the only species that can reason it out and realize we don't need to hunt to live. Cougars and wolves can't.

So somehow it's more "moral" to buy meat than to take it ourselves? That's just warped in itself. My ability to reason tells me that it's more natural for me to eat an animal I've killed than to go buy parts of one kille by someone else. Neither are wrong... just one is more natural.

I wonder if any species of animal are as self loathing as many humans?

Most hunters go for the biggest bucks with the nicest antlers, its well known.

This is just a stereotype. I prefer smaller bucks myself. The meat is much more tender and tasty. The only hunters I know who would pass up a 4 or 6 pnt buck are trophy hunters... which not all of us are.

The natural predators will keep the deer in check, aslong as we don't keep killing the predators and ruining their habitat. It may not be instant, but it will eventually work, if people are patient.

Man is a natural predator to deer.

[Matt]

Quote by: ParaTed2k So somehow it's more "moral" to buy meat than to take it ourselves? That's just warped in itself. My ability to reason tells me that it's more natural for me to eat an animal I've killed than to go buy parts of one kille by someone else. Neither are wrong... just one is more natural. I wonder if any species of animal are as self loathing as many humans? This is just a stereotype. I prefer smaller bucks myself. The meat is much more tender and tasty. The only hunters I know who would pass up a 4 or 6 pnt buck are trophy hunters... which not all of us are. Man is a natural predator to deer.

Did I ever say it was moral to eat meat buyed at the supermarket? No, I didn't. I don't want to turn this into another vegetarian thread. The topic is about hunting.

Well, where I live, people do go after the biggest bucks.

No, not in North America. Deer were here long before man.

[another day]

Quote by: Matt Did I ever say it was moral to eat meat buyed at the supermarket? No, I didn't. I don't want to turn this into another vegetarian thread. The topic is about hunting. Well, where I live, people do go after the biggest bucks. No, not in North America. Deer were here long before man.

No it's not really about hunting. Once again your just trying to push the message that it's wrong for people to eat meat. But if you are questioning whether hunting or raising and slaughtering farm animals is more humane, there is no debate, hunting is a more humane way of getting meat.

The animals get to live their natural lives in the wild until they get killed by a predator (man)... That's a perfectly natural life for a wild animal..On the other hand you have animals that are raised from birth to death in cramped cages, for the sole purpose of being slaughtered for meat. You honestly don't see how hunting is much more natural and humane?

As for "no animal exists to feed you"... that is ridiculous. Everything exists to nurture everything else. For you to live, something else must die, whether it be a plant or an animal. There is nothing wrong with killing something else to survive. It's the law of nature.

The problem here lies in the perverse detachment from nature that these so-called animal lovers and "nature lovers" have. They have become so detached from nature and so firmly within their human society that they personalize and humanize WILD animals... they see nature not as something they are living in, but as an outside world that you "go to"... the forest for example. They don't live with nature, they live in a world outside it, and see nature as something detached from themselves. They would be the first ones to die in a survival situation because they would be too squeamish and sentimental to kill and eat other animals to survive. It's really a form of neurosis, stemming from the modern man's corrupted mind.

As for your "man is not a natural predator" garbage, it's the same misunderstood version of reality your spewing. Man is a natural predator by the very virtue that we hunt and kill things. There can be no such thing as "unnatural" if it exists in reality.

Our only responsibility is to be prudent in ensuring the future of all species that we hunt, by limiting the numbers killed. I also think we should ban the waste of meat from hunting, so "trophy" hunting would be outlawed.

Could we survive without eating meat? Probably.
But 1.) You would have to outlaw not only hunting, but raising and farming animals, as well as selling or consuming meat. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that would be? A war on drugs times a million.

2.) Why should we? Animals taste good and nurture our bodies with much needed protein, iron and other nutrients. The fact that you liek to attach emotional feelings to wild animals as a result of watching too many Disney movies with talking deer, doesn't mean it's virtuous to reject the way of nature. There is no sentimentality in nature. Lions eat buffalo alive, chewing on their legs and backs while the animal is still completely alive. Sure we should as humans try to make their deaths as painless as possible, but you still haven't presented a case for WHY we should reject eating meat.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Most hunters go for the biggest bucks with the nicest antlers, its well known.

So again we go from "hunters" to "most hunters".

And like I said, if we want to curb the deer population, killing off the larger bucks who are likely to mate more wouldn't be a bad idea.

Quote by: Matt The natural predators will keep the deer in check, aslong as we don't keep killing the predators and ruining their habitat. It may not be instant, but it will eventually work, if people are patient.

And it will only happen if we go to the trouble of introducing, monitoring and protecting the predator species in question. Why bother with all that when we can have fun killing the deer ourselves?

Quote by: Matt Then please tell me how people all across the USA are complaining about overpopulations of deer?

If that's the case, then we're obviously not killing enough of them...the deer, that is; not the people.

Quote by: Matt The hunting culls haven't worked that well, and they wont in the long run since eventually people will become more civilized and wont hunt. We need to think of a long term solution.

Only if society progresses towards your own particular concept of civilization. I see no reason to believe that it will.

Quote by: Matt BTW, what do you consider overpopulation?

An ecological definition would be the point at which the population of an organism exceeds its habitat's ability to provide sufficient resources. Another definition would be the point at which the population of an organism is large enough for it to cause problems to humans. Either definition is acceptable to me.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Matt Ok, hopefully I can make this clear for you... The Bible was written by MEN, not God. Back then, animals were considered 'property' and for us to use. Back then, peoeple were quite sexist, men, men, men, men....blah blah blah. That was hundreds of years ago, and in the Bible people wrote that way because thats what was 'common sense' back then. Back then, we had to eat animals to live. We now don't have to. I think God would like us change with the times. Question: Would you rely on a 100 yo book on how to set up an aquarium? My best guess is you would say no, since many things have changed in the aquarium world since then. The sucky thing is, the Bible wont get updated. Its stuck back then, and we can't rely on it for every thought or opinion we create.

So you believe in evolution then? I don't get it.

You can't accept the story of creation and simultaneously deny that in the VERY SAME VERSE God tells man that animals are for us.

[Matt]

Quote by: another day No it's not really about hunting. Once again your just trying to push the message that it's wrong for people to eat meat. But if you are questioning whether hunting or raising and slaughtering farm animals is more humane, there is no debate, hunting is a more humane way of getting meat. The animals get to live their natural lives in the wild until they get killed by a predator (man)... That's a perfectly natural life for a wild animal..On the other hand you have animals that are raised from birth to death in cramped cages, for the sole purpose of being slaughtered for meat. You honestly don't see how hunting is much more natural and humane? As for "no animal exists to feed you"... that is ridiculous. Everything exists to nurture everything else. For you to live, something else must die, whether it be a plant or an animal. There is nothing wrong with killing something else to survive. It's the law of nature. The problem here lies in the perverse detachment from nature that these so-called animal lovers and "nature lovers" have. They have become so detached from nature and so firmly within their human society that they personalize and humanize WILD animals... they see nature not as something they are living in, but as an outside world that you "go to"... the forest for example. They don't live with nature, they live in a world outside it, and see nature as something detached from themselves. They would be the first ones to die in a survival situation because they would be too squeamish and sentimental to kill and eat other animals to survive. It's really a form of neurosis, stemming from the modern man's corrupted mind. As for your "man is not a natural predator" garbage, it's the same misunderstood version of reality your spewing. Man is a natural predator by the very virtue that we hunt and kill things. There can be no such thing as "unnatural" if it exists in reality. Our only responsibility is to be prudent in ensuring the future of all species that we hunt, by limiting the numbers killed. I also think we should ban the waste of meat from hunting, so "trophy" hunting would be outlawed. Could we survive without eating meat? Probably. But 1.) You would have to outlaw not only hunting, but raising and farming animals, as well as selling or consuming meat. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that would be? A war on drugs times a million. 2.) Why should we? Animals taste good and nurture our bodies with much needed protein, iron and other nutrients. The fact that you liek to attach emotional feelings to wild animals as a result of watching too many Disney movies with talking deer, doesn't mean it's virtuous to reject the way of nature. There is no sentimentality in nature. Lions eat buffalo alive, chewing on their legs and backs while the animal is still completely alive. Sure we should as humans try to make their deaths as painless as possible, but you still haven't presented a case for WHY we should reject eating meat.

This is not a debate where we are justifying hunting because it is more humane then factory farms. This debate is about hunting, not comparing it to anything else, and not turning it into a vegetarian debate.

By saying that 'no animal exsists to feed you' means that it may end up on your dinner plate, sure, but its life purpose is NOT to feed you.

I am an animal lover, I do not live in the suburbs or the city, I live in the woods. I live with nature, I watch it and live with it every day. I realize that an animal isn't replaceable, that it has its own personality. I don't have a corrupted mind at all, I learn from the real animals, not from the Disney ones

This is not a debate about why people should reject eating meat, if you want me to go into I can, but not in this thread. This thread is about hunting.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy So again we go from "hunters" to "most hunters". And like I said, if we want to curb the deer population, killing off the larger bucks who are likely to mate more wouldn't be a bad idea. And it will only happen if we go to the trouble of introducing, monitoring and protecting the predator species in question. Why bother with all that when we can have fun killing the deer ourselves? If that's the case, then we're obviously not killing enough of them...the deer, that is; not the people. Only if society progresses towards your own particular concept of civilization. I see no reason to believe that it will. An ecological definition would be the point at which the population of an organism exceeds its habitat's ability to provide sufficient resources. Another definition would be the point at which the population of an organism is large enough for it to cause problems to humans. Either definition is acceptable to me.

Well, hunters here go after the biggest ones, sorry to assume other hunters do accross the country.

It will progress that way...it is just a matter of time. Past history shows you that. 100 years ago there would be very few of me, now there are many more. Look at the difference between how we treat dogs now and how we did 50 years ago. Look at how people are caring about animals enough to donate to SPCAs, hardly ever happened back when. Look at the swing to vegetarinism...becoming much more popular. Look at the animal abuse laws now....and a 100 years ago. The ones in Canada are just being updated now. Less people are hunting now then 100 years ago.

The trend shows you people are becoming more compassionate and caring towards animals.

The population of humans is large enough to cause problems to all other creatures.

Reasons to hunt: Its fun murdering innocent animals, and you get some meat you never needed. It also keeps the popualtions down of deer...yeah right. Better reasons?

Its been said that men that hunt are compensating for something else ....

[Michaela]

Let me ask every one of you just one question. Who has a pet? It doesn't matter what kind, but how has an animal that they can call a friend?

[Matt]

Quote by: tivodan1116 So you believe in evolution then? I don't get it. You can't accept the story of creation and simultaneously deny that in the VERY SAME VERSE God tells man that animals are for us.

And what was God's perfect world? Eden. In Eden everything was vegetarian, including humans. Nothing hunted each other.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt It will progress that way...it is just a matter of time. Past history shows you that. 100 years ago there would be very few of me, now there are many more. Look at the difference between how we treat dogs now and how we did 50 years ago. Look at how people are caring about animals enough to donate to SPCAs, hardly ever happened back when. Look at the swing to vegetarinism...becoming much more popular. Look at the animal abuse laws now....and a 100 years ago. The ones in Canada are just being updated now. Less people are hunting now then 100 years ago.

Not all trends continue indefinitely.

Quote by: Matt The population of humans is large enough to cause problems to all other creatures.

That still doesn't fit the definition of overpopulation.

Quote by: Matt Reasons to hunt: Its fun murdering innocent animals

It's not murder. If you're going to use emotional language, you should at least make sure you're correct.

and you get some meat you never needed. It also keeps the popualtions down of deer...yeah right. Better reasons?

Overpopulation is worse overall for a species than the death of a few members.

Quote by: Matt Its been said that men that hunt are compensating for something else ....

Only by skinny, tofu-eating hippies who cry whenever a tree gets cut down. Absurd prejudices are fun.

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Matt Did I ever say it was moral to eat meat buyed at the supermarket? No, I didn't. I don't want to turn this into another vegetarian thread. The topic is about hunting. Well, where I live, people do go after the biggest bucks. No, not in North America. Deer were here long before man.

The argument has nothing to do with vegatarianism, it has to do with your outlook. You somehow think there is something wrong with hunting because we can go buy meat.

What does the fact that deer were here befor man have anything to do with us being natural predators? There is no logic to your argument.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Not all trends continue indefinitely. That still doesn't fit the definition of overpopulation. It's not murder. If you're going to use emotional language, you should at least make sure you're correct. Overpopulation is worse overall for a species than the death of a few members. Only by skinny, tofu-eating hippies who cry whenever a tree gets cut down. Absurd prejudices are fun.

No, not all trends do. But most non fad things do, and I'm very confident this trend will continue. The only predicter for future behavior is past behavior. Past behavior: In the last hundred years people have been growing more considerate to animals year by year. I think it will be pretty simple to guess if you follow that simple, proved logic to see what happens from here

Definition of overpopulation (found on Dictionary.com):

Main Entry: over·pop·u·la·tion
Pronunciation: "O-v&r-"päp-y&-'lA-sh&n
Function: noun
: the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash —over·pop·u·lat·ed /-'päp-y&-"lAt-&d/ adjective

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

The population of an environment by a particular species in excess of the environment's carrying capacity. The effects of overpopulation can include the depletion of resources, environmental deterioration, and the prevalence of famine and disease.


The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

overpopulation

noun
too much population

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Well, we humans are casuing enviromental deterioration, some of resources are running lower and its just a matter of time until a couple them go all together, and alot of people around the world are experiencing famines and diseases. So please explain how we aren't experiencing an overpopulation please?

Lets see...if we re-introduced a sustainable predator who will want to hunt deer in a 100 years from now, we wont have an overpopulation. Though some people are just too greedy to do that....they want to hunt and feel all 'masculine'.

I would like to ask you a question, what do you think about the hunting of moose, bears, cougars, and wolves which do not have an overpopulation?

Quote by: ParaTed2k The argument has nothing to do with vegatarianism, it has to do with your outlook. You somehow think there is something wrong with hunting because we can go buy meat. What does the fact that deer were here befor man have anything to do with us being natural predators? There is no logic to your argument.

Wow, you are becoming an excellent word maker upper. I never said hunting is wrong because we could go buy meat. Could you show me where you think I said that?

If we could or could not buy meat, I would still be thinking hunting is wrong either way. Again, like I say before, not needed.

Ok...look at it this way. In Hawaii there are many species of birds, and when boats started to come to Hawaii, along came rats. Do we call the rats natural predators? No, we don't. Since they were there long after the birds were first put there.

Deer were put in North America long before the first humans arrived. So if we consider rats and cats unnatural predators in Hawaii, we must do the same with people in North America.



And to Michaela, yes, I have a dog and a cat, who I would call my friends.

[ParaTed2k]

Wow, you are becoming an excellent word maker upper. I never said hunting is wrong because we could go buy meat. Could you show me where you think I said that? If we could or could not buy meat, I would still be thinking hunting is wrong either way. Again, like I say before, not needed. Ok...look at it this way. In Hawaii there are many species of birds, and when boats started to come to Hawaii, along came rats. Do we call the rats natural predators? No, we don't. Since they were there long after the birds were first put there. Deer were put in North America long before the first humans arrived. So if we consider rats and cats unnatural predators in Hawaii, we must do the same with people in North America. And to Michaela, yes, I have a dog and a cat, who I would call my friends.

Ok, then call me confused. You aren't arguing for vegetarianism, or for buying meat vs. hunting it. If we didn't buy meat, and didn't hunt, we would be vegetarians... right?

So other than hunting or buying meat, how do you propose we get meat?

[another day]

Lol, look mate you can't avoid questions by saying this is a "hunting only" debate. All the topics I mentioned are inevitably intertwined... If you are saying "hunting=bad" then you must be saying it is more humane and appropriate to get meat from farmed animals. Either that or you are saying that all meat eating is bad. Regardless of which your position is, you must state it and defend it. You can't sidestep questions by just saying "we can't talk about that in this thread". You keep saying we aren't here to talk about vegetarianism or farmed animals and yet you yourself have been making many comments regarding the two things.

Why don't you just state your position that you believe humans should stop eating meat because it's "not needed". Instead you have tried to make a new thread with a narrow focus specifically on hunting to avoid the broader topics that attack your worldwide vegetarianism proposition.

[Matt]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Ok, then call me confused. You aren't arguing for vegetarianism, or for buying meat vs. hunting it. If we didn't buy meat, and didn't hunt, we would be vegetarians... right? So other than hunting or buying meat, how do you propose we get meat?

Sheesh...please read topic name. We don't need meat to live, if its from a super market or from hunting, but this is not about why we shouldn't eat meat, this is about hunting. Do you get it now?

Quote by: another day Lol, look mate you can't avoid questions by saying this is a "hunting only" debate. All the topics I mentioned are inevitably intertwined... If you are saying "hunting=bad" then you must be saying it is more humane and appropriate to get meat from farmed animals. Either that or you are saying that all meat eating is bad. Regardless of which your position is, you must state it and defend it. You can't sidestep questions by just saying "we can't talk about that in this thread". You keep saying we aren't here to talk about vegetarianism or farmed animals and yet you yourself have been making many comments regarding the two things. Why don't you just state your position that you believe humans should stop eating meat because it's "not needed". Instead you have tried to make a new thread with a narrow focus specifically on hunting to avoid the broader topics that attack your worldwide vegetarianism proposition.

Oh come on...get real. If you want to turn this into a 'why we shouldn't eat meat' thread, be my guest. But the original intent was to talk about hunting, not eating meat.

If you say one thing is bad (eg. hunting) it doesn't mean the other is better or more humane (eg. factory farms).

I thought if people wanted to talk about not eating meat, they could go to the vegertarian thread. Guess some people can't find that. I was focussing on a topic, hunting. I don't understand how people can think if I say hunting is bad then I'm saying factory farms are better. Please explain.


I love it how people try to swing the topic to make it suit them better Won't work in the long run, sorry.

*Matt hopes when he comes back online he isn't still talking to a brick wall*

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Matt Sheesh...please read topic name. We don't need meat to live, if its from a super market or from hunting, but this is not about why we shouldn't eat meat, this is about hunting. Do you get it now?

So now you are the judge and jury about what we should and shouldn't be doing, based solely on "need"?

Yeah, I understand now. This thread has nothing to do with why I choose to hunt, but why you think I'm wrong for doing it.

Sorry, but I don't look at my perception of "need" to decide whether some one else should be doing things, simply because I don't think they should.