U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Hobbies and Recreation > Guns and Hunting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-17-2018, 09:37 AM
 
687 posts, read 263,309 times
Reputation: 688

Advertisements

Recently an Idaho fish and game commissioner had to resign because he was sport hunting in Africa.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/idaho-fish...201504954.html

How hypocritical is that? What is it with twitter mobs going after these hunters who travel to Africa?Remember the outrage over the lion hunting dentist? These animals kill their own young and each other. It's the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen. Ferocious beasts. They should visit a slaughter house sometime. A vegetarian could easily JUDGE you the same way you are judging the lion hunter. And the non hunter could just as easily judge the hunter who "eats what they hunt". From an animal rights perspective, I don't think the animal cares what your motivation for killing it is. At the end of the day, you are killing an animal. It's getting a bullet and bleeding out.

None of the meat is wasted from these sport hunters in Africa and there are strict bag limits to prevent species extermination just the way you have limits for fish or any type of game. I also find it ridiculous that they call hunting a lion as "cowardly". So shooting a squirrel or a deer requires tremendous balls? Makes zero sense.

"I eat what I hunt"


I hear this nonsense all the time from hunters. Does anyone else find this justification absurd? You don't NEED meat to survive. Many studies have shown a properly balanced vegetarian diet is healthier than your typical meat eating american diet. You're not an aboriginal in the 8th century. You eat meat because it tastes good. Just get real. You hunt because you enjoy the thrill of the hunt. You like being out in nature and getting your prize. It's like saying people ONLY fish because they want some trout to eat. Yeah like someone is going to spend 12 hours on a boat instead of going to the grocery store. They enjoy fishing. The actual act of catching a fish.There was such outrage over sport fishing for sharks(non endangered with proper licenses) on tv that they had to shut it down. Just ridiculous. Why the need to justify your hunting or fishing?

I'm just calling out the ridiculous hypocrisy. I respect someone who's a vegetarian and doesn't force their personal beliefs on others. If someone makes a personal decision to not eat meat because they don't want to hurt animals then that's fine. I have zero respect for these hypocritical twitter mobs going after legal sport hunters, while eating KFC at their computer. If you eat meat, you're no better than a legal sport hunter. Get over yourself. You get "high" off eating meat, while the sports hunter enjoys travelling to new lands, having an African adventure and searching for a trophy he can bring back while giving all the meat to dirt poor Africans and giving money to the locals who in many cases can't even pay for medicine. Even more disturbing is calling for the execution of these hunters. When did animals become more important than people? "Dogs are better than people". Sick stuff. The Nazi's valued dogs over Jews.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2018, 09:50 AM
Status: "Just crying wolf" (set 9 days ago)
 
5,285 posts, read 1,324,609 times
Reputation: 804
If me justifying shooting a deer is not enough to justify me shooting said deer, would it be better for said deer to starve to death, get CWD related to overpopulation, or to run out on the road and cause an accident killing a young family?

Would it be better for said deer to die when a mountain lion or bear devours it?

Fact is, I do like being in nature. I enjoy sitting 20 feet up in a tree, watching squirrels and birds, while waiting for Bambi to stroll by. I gain satisfaction out of processing my own meat, and then getting a bag of venison from the freezer, or a jar from the shelf that I personally canned. It is rewarding to me.

And bottom line is, this is 'merica! If you don't like what I do, don't watch. We hear that all the time in regards to liberal pet causes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2018, 12:55 PM
 
2,923 posts, read 1,707,193 times
Reputation: 1894
its the senseless killing that outrages people.

people could understand if you hunt and eat it but hunting just for the sake of hunting?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2018, 01:16 PM
 
5,146 posts, read 2,992,030 times
Reputation: 17594
All that angry energy would be better used in preventing the killing of people. My thought.

The rest of it? Carrying the burden of reading the news and judging those who appear there eventually gets burdensome. Why not get out and do some volunteering if you're that sincere about an issue?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2018, 01:31 PM
Status: "Rocktober...well that was fast. :-(" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
10,285 posts, read 10,442,913 times
Reputation: 13239
Quote:
Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas View Post
its the senseless killing that outrages people.

people could understand if you hunt and eat it but hunting just for the sake of hunting?
But a lot of those safari "sport" hunts are not senseless. They are often the local jurisdiction's way of maintaining population control, drawing revenues that go to other conservation efforts, and as mentioned already feed locals who are living in poverty. Try telling the outraged this. Good luck getting them to understand the stories behind those images. They see what they want to see and refuse to even let another POV be heard. They see a "privileged westerner" posing with a trophy and won't even consider the factors that lead to that not only being licensed by the local government but healthy for local populations (human and animal).


I don't think there is any jurisdiction out there that licenses "hunting just for the sake of hunting." Even non-game species like crows or feral dogs are hunted legally as nuisance species.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2018, 02:51 PM
 
687 posts, read 263,309 times
Reputation: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas View Post
its the senseless killing that outrages people.

people could understand if you hunt and eat it but hunting just for the sake of hunting?
I'm sorry, but I see no moral difference between hunting and eating your kill vs just hunting and donating the meat to the villagers. You do realize hunters who eat their kill also take "trophy's" right? That's what a deer rack on the wall is all about.

So If he eats the lion, it's ok? Well I guess these trophy hunter's should just start eating their kills and then everything is ok? This is my big point I was trying to make. People taking some fake moral high ground because they kill the animal for food instead of for sport. From an animal right's perspective, I'd rather be taken by a sport hunter than be raised in factory farming and slaughtered. Also, if you're talking about killing a lion, you have to understand that within a few years at most on average another male lion will come in and kill the old leader of the pride and then kill all his young. The sport hunter is actually giving the lion a much more humane death with a high powered rifle instead of being eaten alive by a pack of hyena's after being nearly beaten to death by the new male lion. Nature is absolutely brutal.

Who decides what's "senseless"? The hunter gets enjoyment out of trophy hunting. The thrill of the hunt, being outdoors in the wild, spending all day day searching for your prey, seeing how big of a trophy you can get. In the case of lion hunting, it's an animal that even with a gun you can quickly become the prey unlike hunting for ungulates like deer. In some cases the hunting can actually help control populations of certain animals so they don't starve to death

It's no different than someone sport fishing and seeing how big of a fish they get. It's not just about killing. Also, the meat IS not wasted. Even if the sport hunter dumped it in the sarangetti, it would quickly become consumed by scavengers. This is not interior Alaska where it will rot.

Does the animal your killing care what your motivation is? I could careless if a lion killed ME for fun or for food. And yes lions kill things for "fun". That's what instincts are. A reward in their brain for killing or for sex. They get a "rush" out of it. That's the same reason they mate. You can see they're in heaven when they mate. They're clearly having a orgasm. A liongasm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2018, 07:09 AM
 
17,884 posts, read 9,831,212 times
Reputation: 17371
I'm all for proper husbandry of natural resources so that my grandchildren can enjoy the same pleasures of the outdoors that I enjoyed--pretty much in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt.

That will involve a certain degree of manual thinning of some animal populations because some species do wildly well by man's habitation.

Deer, for instance, will overpopulate if not manually thinned. Same with fricking feral pigs.

(But, no, "they're overpopulated because we needlessly destroyed their habitat" doesn't count.)

I don't know how it is with regard to lions in Africa--I haven't done the research.

But I get the feeling that elephants are critically endangered, and God is going to call us to account for pushing elephants into extinction. I think He's pleased with Himself for having created elephants.

Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 10-18-2018 at 07:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2018, 07:19 AM
 
Location: USA
13,228 posts, read 7,277,975 times
Reputation: 9572
Quote:
Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas View Post
its the senseless killing that outrages people.

people could understand if you hunt and eat it but hunting just for the sake of hunting?
Often the purpose of hunting is to humanely, and responsibly cull the heard to avoid over population, and starvation which is cruel. In many areas there are no longer natural predators, or fewer predators to game animals like deer.

That being said, I eat any game I hunt, and kill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2018, 01:48 PM
 
687 posts, read 263,309 times
Reputation: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Often the purpose of hunting is to humanely, and responsibly cull the heard to avoid over population, and starvation which is cruel. In many areas there are no longer natural predators, or fewer predators to game animals like deer.

That being said, I eat any game I hunt, and kill.
So then should hunting of ungulates and all other animals be banned in areas where natural predator/prey ratio of populations have come back like cougars/wolves/ elk out west?

Or should they hunt the predators like cougars to allow extra elk to be available for hunters? In Roosevelt's day, you'd hunt the predators and reduce their populations which reduces man's conflict with dangerous animals and provides for higher populations of game species. If you don't hunt a large predator, they will not fear man.

Because in many instances if we are being honest, predator prey relationships will go back to average with zero hunting by man.

Let's just be honest. If you were to reintroduce the cougar into the east, white tail populations would plummet. And then there'd be no reason for a hunt of white tail deer. And of course some cougars would kill people/children and their livestock like they do in B.C. where their numbers are high.

While it IS true that in many instances hunting helps stop animals from starving in certain areas(but not others), it really is just another justification rather than a hunter just admitting he likes hunting. Because you could easily control wild deer populations by reintroducing cougars, which were wiped out a century ago. Is there something wrong with just saying you like to hunt even if it has no benefit on wild populations?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2018, 02:39 PM
 
17,884 posts, read 9,831,212 times
Reputation: 17371
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeyondtheHorizon View Post
So then should hunting of ungulates and all other animals be banned in areas where natural predator/prey ratio of populations have come back like cougars/wolves/ elk out west?

Or should they hunt the predators like cougars to allow extra elk to be available for hunters? In Roosevelt's day, you'd hunt the predators and reduce their populations which reduces man's conflict with dangerous animals and provides for higher populations of game species. If you don't hunt a large predator, they will not fear man.

Because in many instances if we are being honest, predator prey relationships will go back to average with zero hunting by man.

Let's just be honest. If you were to reintroduce the cougar into the east, white tail populations would plummet. And then there'd be no reason for a hunt of white tail deer. And of course some cougars would kill people/children and their livestock like they do in B.C. where their numbers are high.

While it IS true that in many instances hunting helps stop animals from starving in certain areas(but not others), it really is just another justification rather than a hunter just admitting he likes hunting. Because you could easily control wild deer populations by reintroducing cougars, which were wiped out a century ago. Is there something wrong with just saying you like to hunt even if it has no benefit on wild populations?
I like to hunt. So there you go.

I limit my hunting to feral pigs, which satisfies my desire to hunt, can be pretty sporting at times (by "sporting" I mean "hair raising" and by "hair raising" I mean "dangerous"), and helps prevent additional environmental damage.

If there was no way to hunt without driving the population to extinction, I wouldn't hunt. And I'm satisfied to limit my hunting desire to species that don't bear that danger.

If you are trying to make me feel bad about that...sorry.

But you may not realize that hunters are what keep wildlife areas in the US in existence. People who don't actually get into the outdoors, in practice, aren't willing to pay the money to preserve them.

So you're either ignorant of that fact, or you're the real hypocrite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Hobbies and Recreation > Guns and Hunting
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top