Hunters: unless you use a spear, delete this thread

[buycitgo]

yessssireeee.....nothin better than shootin an obnoxious life form with a high powered rifle, especially if you can catch up to its in time to see its eyes at the moment it DIES

what could be more satisfying?

rationalize all you want. what a great way to spend spare time

have fun

[Pithlet]

1. I would have thought, too.

That there are a million hunting websites where pictures like that would not only not offend, but but be appreciated, and you wouldn't have to put a "Don't click on this!!!" warning on it. Seems like it would be more fun that way.

[buycitgo]

9. I didn't even open that thread....pissed me off enough to start this

very glad I didn't

hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=hunting+accident+humor&btnG=Search


seventy five thousand hits

[jpgray]

2. I can't imagine anything more useless than a hunting flamewar

It's fine if you think it's somehow more holy to have animals raised in horrible conditions and then bludgeoned to death rather than shot, but I'm not sure how an argument arises out of this position.

And I have no use for hunting myself.

[buycitgo]

4. uhhhh, I'm a vegetarian

couldn't agree more about industrial animal farming, for those that meet meat

[jpgray]

10. I guessed that, but this thread isn't about all meat-eaters, just hunters

So I assumed that you think there is a value difference between hunting and just eating what's at the grocery store. And that's fine, but I personally think hunting for meat isn't much more malevolent than buying the meat at the store. Again, I don't want to get involved in a hunting flame war--I have never hunted and have no desire to. Hunting for sport doesn't make sense to me, but doing so for the meat does.

[buycitgo]

11. that's EXACTLY why I said 'rationalize' in the header

didn't want to get into your subject, that's all

there's a case to be made in many many cultures for subsistence hunting, even here, depending on circumstances/geography

[flvegan]

3. Define obnoxious life form

My opinion is, of course, that if you need a gun to "make sport" of an animal, you're really just a pussy. Want to take a deer? Fine. You get a pool cue. Want a bear? You can use a baseball bat.

See who wins.

But then, most humans, when it comes to hunting, are nothing more than animal-piss drenched imbeciles with manhood issues.

If my cock is small, I can kill a big animal, in an unfair forum, to feel better. My name is Nugent.

Fuck those that hunt for sport.

[buycitgo]

5. simply a use of words....anything to be killed has to be somehow

made unworthy of life, right?

[Skip Intro]

8. It boils down to the right, or lack thereof, of man to kill

No one has ever been able to explain to me how man has the right to take the life of another animal.

[jdj]

16. I'd say mano a mano is really the only fair way to go.

Okay, I'll give you some Lee press-on nails for the bear, but that's it.

[Skip Intro]

6. I sure as hell don't see how anyone can call it a "sport"

Sneaking into an animals habitat, camoflauged and armed with all forms of bait - including food, and then hiding until the animal cautiously wanders up to the lure, only to shoot it from behind one's cover - sounds like anything other than sport to me.

I have a friend, well, a former co-worker, who I ran into recently. He told me he couldn't talk long because he had to buy hunting supplies. I said something like, "man, lets go shoot some pool instead." He replied that he "had to kill something today."

Whatever it is that powers that urge in some men, and women, I don't know. But to sneak up on an animal, snyper-style, and then blow its brains out - something is wrong. Something is really wrong with that.

[buycitgo]

7. "I shot a bear in Reno, just to watch him die"

summik loik tha'?

[EstimatedProphet]

12. OK then, let's hear your ideas for wildlife management.

How do you deal with a deer population that is out of control in the US and nearing overpopulation without removing animals?

[buycitgo]

13. see header, under rationalizations

doesn't apply to this discussion

obvious answers to that

how bout more wolves, predators?

do you like to kill things, watch them die?

[EstimatedProphet]

22. That's a huge sickening brush you're painting a lot of people with

Do you honestly think that people go hunting because they get some sort of perverted joy out of watching animals die? Talk about a straw man...
I have no problem with predator introduction. As a biologist I would love to see it. There's 2 things that stand in the way of it:
1) it won't solve the problem like you think it will;
2) talk about predator introduction and you run into all sorts of people that are against it. Some of them are not reasonable, like the people that think wolves will come into their house and steal their children. Some of them have a point, like farmers that have to protect their livestock. All of them have a voice.

[buycitgo]

26. welllll,,,,,,, duhhhh!

again, that's why I used the word rationalization

hunters love to use that one

culling the herd

I know enough about that

ever read The Behavioral Sink?

[EstimatedProphet]

35. No I haven't. Ever read any population dynamics texts?

[buycitgo]

37. zzzzzzzzz

let's play one up

cool

see header

see rationalization

this thread is not about population dynamics

should have made it clear I was talking about hunting for "sport"

how bout a "Most Dangerous Game" Reserve for all those manly men and women who have nothing better to do with their spare time

they could go out and put IUDs in all the deer they'd like to kill

or cut the nuts off the males....that'd be LOTS of fun...they'd have to do it in rutting season, though

same thing with rabbits!

they could still SHOOT them with tranks

hahahahahHAHAHAHAAA

but, then, they wouldn't get to SEE THEM DIE!

too bad

[RC]

14. How about the over population of the Human animal

that is crowding out the "wild life" that was there first?

We are such an arrogant species.

[buycitgo]

15. what are you, one of those earth firsters?

how DARE you!!!

[EstimatedProphet]

23. No argument there

Ultimately animal overpopulation has been caused by human activity.
Problem is though, how do we get rid of the extra humans? Are you going to decide who stays and who goes?
Population control is a long-range solution for humans, and a short-term issue for animals.

[Big Kahuna]

27. Good point.

I really don't have a problem with hunting. Every living being is eventually food for some other living being. My problem is with the number of idiots with guns, infesting the woods each fall. I realize there are many decent people who hunt. but there are way too many redneck idiots out there who have no respect for the woods, no respect for the animal they are hunting. They leave beercans and empty shells all over the woods. They shoot at anything that moves, making the woods unsafe for any other use.

Bowhunting is a form of hunting I have much respect for. Shotgun season just seems like state-sponsored social darwinism.

[EstimatedProphet]

36. Won't argue that either.

If you want to talk about the necessity of hunting, OK. But if you want me to tell you that all hunters are fine upstanding citizens, I won't. I've known too many that aren't.

[stupid grin]

17. Gah! Deer schmeer, do you have any idea how large moose are?

~80% of wildlife related car accidents are because of those hefty, blind creatures. That's about 400 accidents yearly, averaging 4 deaths per year.
Sadly, moose aren't naturally prey to any other animal, so there isn't any inherent population control. Without the moose lottery here in Maine, driving on the interstate would be so freaking dangerous, we'd rarely do it.
Would I own a gun? No. But I don't mind skilled, sensible hunters helping to make my roads less moosey.

Imagine a 7½ foot tall, 435 lb animal crashing through the windshield of your car. Unless you drive an assault utility vehicle, you don't stand a chance.

[jdj]

19. Imagine a speeding car crashing into your body.

It's all about point of view.

By the way, there are strips of reflective material they can put on guardrails to reflect and keep deer (and presumably other species) off the roads at night, in the states they have tested these they have lowered the accidents drastically. But not many states want to shell out the dough, so they don't use them.

[stupid grin]

21. It's a tragedy either way.

I adore moose! In fact, I've named the three I see every morning at the end of my driveway. However, the overpopulation of moose in my neck of the woods is a grave reality. You're more likely to hit a moose than anything else. I'm not sure if Maine uses the reflectors you referred to, but I'd be really surprised if they didn't.

[EstimatedProphet]

25. Deer tape, whistles, etc. only solve part of the problem

I agree with using them, but it's not an end in itself. Especially since the largest deer growth populations come from urban areas. Deer love suburbs.

[EstimatedProphet]

24. Unless you drive a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, you don't stand a chance.

You're right-people that haven't seen moose have no idea how big they are. The first one I ever saw was in Alaska, and it was taller than me. It was a yearling.

[jdj]

18. Well, since they overbreed when hunted, you could stop hunting

them.

It would have helped if hunters and ranchers handn't eliminated or decimated the populations of every one of their natural predators, but too late now.

How does one define overpopulation anyway??? Overpopulation to whom?? If you asked the deer, they would say "I wish those @#$% humans would stop over-breeding and over-running all our natural habitats". The "affluent" suburb in my old town, Biltmore Forest, had a controlled hunt done on the deer in that town because the deer were eating their precious shrubbery. (And it is called Biltmore Forest for a reason, because is IS A FOREST, AND THE DEER WERE THERE FIRST.) The Biltmore Estate (largest private residence in U.S.) offered to build a fence between the town of Biltmore Forest and the Vanderbilt properties to contain the deer on the estate grounds so that they would not have to be killed, but the @#$% sorry, pathetic rich-ass, despicable motherfuckers wouldn't agree to the fence because they were concerned about their property values. I hope they all rot in hell.

[Rabrrrrrr]

28. WooooEEEE! You are ALL OVER your knowledge of zoology!

I wish our DNRs around the country would consult with you.

"they overbreed when hunted."

Brilliant of you! I bet not a single biological scientist has been able to come up with that.

Overpopulation is defined as the point in which a population becomes large enough that, just due to sheer numbers, the chance of disease and malnourishment becomes likely. Too many deer in too small a space creates a rampant breeding ground for diseases; diseases which have a tendancy to wipe out entire herds, instead of the few that the hunters and predators will wipe out. Too many also lead to malnourishment, from not enough food to support all the deer.

You are right on one thing - human population is indeed part of the problem. But unless you are willing to give up vegetables and grains, you better get used to idea that deer and other animals need to be weeded out. I, for one, also wish that we'd re-introduce more predators into the system: wolves, bear, etc. Quite honestly, the land is theirs as well, and they also will help keep down the populations for which they are designed to keep the populations down.

But, since we humans need fields to grow our food, and places to live, so long as we're here we're gonna be competing with the animals - and the most humane way to compete with them is to have controlled population thinning, through hunting.

And I know the anti-hunters prefer to be all knee-jerk emotionalistic and not bother to look at the facts or the truth of a situation, preferring instead to think that all deer or "cute" or something saccharine like that, but the truth is this: the states regulate the number of animals killed each year. If the deer populations are high, more deer licenses are allowed. If the population is low, fewer are allowed. Same with all animals, and also the same with fish.

Of all the things that government does, one of the few things it does well is the regulation of hunting and fishing and land management (beyond the obvious bowing to industrial pollutants and shit like that).

Vegetarians are also part of the problem - all that land used to grow veggies, fruits, nuts, grains, soybeans, etc., is land that used to belong to the deer and other animals, which we either clearcut to make fields, or at least plowed down their natural food sources to make fields.

Yes, vegetarians, the need for hunting is also caused by you.

The only other option is let the herds grow large, let many of the deer starve and get sick, then spread their disases to other animals and to humans; and to have the deer and other animals invading our cities in their search for food, also causing disease and mayhem; and having shitloads more deer on the roads getting hit by cars.

Try to understand the full cycle of cause and effects before jumping on some anti-hunting bandwagon.

Unless you are living in a totally energy efficient natural place in a rural location in which you produce all of your food and use no manufactured goods, never use a car, nor use anything that is moved by a car (which means, ironically enough, that you could not be on DU) and make your own clothing and everything else, then you have NO right to bitch about those who hunt.

[buycitgo]

31. try not LYING about vegetarians using more resources for food

production than meat eaters

liar

waddya think cows, chickens, etc eat, liar?

meat?

jesus

get a clue

then try not lying

or are you just ignorant?

combo?

[curse10]

32. Vegetarians are part of the problem?

and where does tasty dead cow people eat comes from?

More land is wasted on a meat diet. Cows need to eat their vegetarian diet somehow. So, instead of one field, you need two. TWICE as much waste to eat a fucking hamburger. Vegetarians are part of the solution.

[buycitgo]

34. the ratio is WAY higher than that

In his book Proteins: Their Chemistry and Politics, Dr. Aaron Altshul notes that in terms of calorie units per acre, a diet of grains, vegetables, and beans will support twenty times more people than a diet of meat. As it stands now, about half the harvested acreage in America is used to feed animals. If the earth's arable land were used primarily for the production of vegetarian foods, the planet could easily support a human population of twenty billion and more.

[Rabrrrrrr]

40. And even then, animal control would be necessary

where are the 20 billion gonna live? Where are the fields gonna be? All on land previously owned by animals.

I totally agree with you that meat production is a terrible waste of resources. But even if the entire world turned vegetarian tomorrow, we'd still have the same problem - we've taken land from the animals, and because of it, their ecology will be forever fucked up and often a threat to us.

Unless we're also willing to truly live in a natural state, and let wild diseases and starvation wipe out huge groups of people like happens to animals herds in nature. if you want that, I can slightly agree with it - it is rather arrogant of us to think thtat we are somehow more "special" that we should be protected from the animals. But on the other hand, if wise animal management can keep huge groups of animals, and huge groups of people, from needlessly dying, then why not go that route?

[Rabrrrrrr]

38. Neither you nor buycitgo bothered to read what I said, did you?

No, you didn't. I never said anything about raising animals for meat. Obviously it takes a lot of resources.

Go back now, put down your knee-jerk "I'll read what I want Rabrrrrrr's post to read" emotionalism, and read my post. No, now. Do it. Please. Then come back.

See? Not a damn thing about raising animals in there, is there? Not a damn thing about meat eaters being better than vegetable eaters, is there? No, there isn't. Don't you both look silly now? Yes, you do.

I stated that vegetarians are part of society. And vegetarians eat vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, etc. And all those are grown on land that used to be used by animals. We all live on land that used to be owned by animals. We all use resources that require things that used to be owned by animals, or that are detrimental to their existence. And because we - vegetarians and meat-eaters, Buddhists and hunters - are all part of the society that requires that land be taken from the animals, and that we disrupt their natural flow of life, we are all culpable and accountable to the need, therefore, to help manage their populations.

Vegetarians have no more or less ethical or moral guilt than non-vegetarians. Unless, as I said, a person lives a life totally devoid of modern technologies, grows all their own food, makes all their own stuff, they are guilty of changing the environment of animals, and are culpable - and therefore also responsible for - the wise management of land and animal resources. And, I will amend that now in this post since I see I was wrong - you can't be growing your own good, you can only for foraging for your food. And even then, you're stealing food from animals.



As to your utterly irrelevant argument about animal farming needing more resources - I totally agree with you. You are right - it does. And it tends to be horrible for both the animals and the environment. But, as I pointed out to you, I never mentioned or brought that issue up in my post.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EstimatedProphet]

33. Want me to define overpopulation for you? OK

Overpopulation happens when a species birth rate grows faster than its death rate. It happens to all species, especially humans.
The reason it's a problem with deer and other ungulates is because they have a tendency to last a long while while starving. Deer typically eat an enormous amount of vegetation. While they are starving, they will eat anything they can find (just like anything would), and they end up with less quality/less sustaining food types, which means they eat more to keep up the necessary caloric intake. This turns into a negative feedback loop, with the result of degraded habitat which cannot sustain a healthy population. Add to this a higher tendency for deer to deliver twins while starving, and rapidly the situation turns into a mess, with rampant disease, starvation, stripped trees and shrubs, and eventual population crashes. When deer are left to overpopulate they ruin their habitat just as much as humans do.
On edit. The idea that animals overpopulate becaus ethey are hunted is like saying that cars get more gas in their tanks by driving them.

[Blue-Jay]

20. What's more rational about using a spear?

Chances are greater that you'll just wound the animal, and it'll get away from you, only to suffer unecessarily for days/weeks until it dies in agony.

Wait. I get it. Hunters suck. Har har har.

/not even a hunter

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Big Kahuna]

30. Well..

Then you have to chase it down for miles, follow the blood trail and finish it off.. duh!

Have you seen many hunters? They could obviously use the exercise. :)

[Moderator]

41. Locking

another gigantic flame fest on this topic.