HUNTERS BEWARE!!!

gordon · Oct 20, 2000

That is past crazy just glad you saw it in time and no one got hurt. It amazes me the lengths that some people will go to prove a useless point---so to speak.

I don't hunt, never found much fun in it I guess. But I do let people that I know hunt my property. To each his own I guess. Even though I don't hunt I don't condem the people that do enjoy it---why? As long as they are hunting in season with a license---who cares---if they want to freeze in a tree stand so be it. People need to leave well enough alone and worry about their own backyard instead of butting into everyone elses business!!! It sure would be a much better world.
Once again glad no one got hurt.
Gordon

glennmac · Oct 20, 2000

Anyone who engages in violence, or theft, or criminal trespass, or damage or threats to another person's life or property deserves punishment. But I'd like to focus on the underlying and more controversial issue.

I think it is noble to be opposed to the unnecessary killing of animals.

My dog is the most noble, virtuous, loving, loyal and spiritual creature I know -- far more so than most humans I have ever known. I find it inconceivable that I could kill my dog "for sport" or to use his fur to make a coat. I find it similarly inconceivable that you could kill your dog for those purposes. Ethically, it is therefore equally inconceivable that I should be able kill your dog or you should be able kill mine. Furthermore, there is no ethical distinction I can make between my dog and your dog, or a wild dog who roams the woods. Nor do I see any ethical difference between the wild dog, the wild rabbit, the wild deer or the wild whale.

Other than as a necessary source of food, I can therefore see no legitimate reason to kill an animal. Even the food rationale diminishes, to me, as I get older and closer to my own death.

If civilization is progessing toward anything noble and spiritual and eternal, we should be evolving away from violent practices of all kinds that are no longer necessary for human survival.

Glenn

ERNIEB · Oct 21, 2000

Glenn, There is little wilderness left, and like it or not, what remains needs to be managed. Hunting is a management tool that is necessary. This is a very involved subject and an emotional one. Most specicies if unencumbered will overpopulate a particular habitat. Once that occurs, sharp drops in populations can be expected due to disease and starvation. This has been proven in study after study. I see no moral high ground in allowing animals to die slowly from starvation.
When it comes to paying for wildlife research, no one has contributed more than hunters. And that includes non game as well as game animals. They do this through license fees, taxes, and orginizations such as Ducks Unlimited. The so called "animal rights" groups talk the talk, but they don't pony up near as much dough.
Although I don't hunt myself, I know many who do. I consider them ethical, and law abiding. Most hunters are.
This is really a short reply to your post, but I'll say this. When it comes to wildlife management, there are no easy answers, but sensible solutions are needed. As the old saying goes, I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Finally. people who commit the types of acts described are nothing more than terrorists, and those who support them are terrorist orginazations. They should be prosecuted accordingly.
ErnieB

scruffy · Oct 21, 2000

Ernie, I can agree in your assessment of hunters. I haven't game hunted in the past 31 years, not since I returned from RVN. That is my personal thing, and nothing to do with game animals or the hunting thereof. Elk or Deer venison is good eating in anyones books.
I am firmly against the type of things that Von related. It is as you stated a terrorist attack and the party/parties involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of State AND Federal Laws. To top it off, the guilty parties set the bomb up on PRIVATE property with no thought/care to whom may be injured or worse, killed. No Mercy should be shown such individuals.

Anonymous Poster · Oct 21, 2000

Glenn,
You chose to address this "controversial" issue.
With great reservations about my judgement, I will join you in looking at it for a moment.

I think that this site has one of the most congenial groups on the web. I am sure there are many diverse faiths, backgrounds, and philosophies represented here, and so topics other than the common ones (tractors, etc.) that draw us all to this site are potentially divisive, rather than unifying. Because of this likelyhood, I will attempt to limit my comments on this subject to this one posting...and will not engage in a continuing exchange about this issue, on this forum.

Many minds on both sides of this issue are "closed", and "arguments", however logical,are wasted on someone disinclined to REALLY HEAR anything said in support of an opposing viewpoint.

With this fact very-much-in-mind, I offer a few points for your consideration:

(First I would like to set-aside the special case of the "trophy hunter" whose self-image and ego needs are often so transparent as to be laughable/pathetic. For this type I recommend the time proven compensatory-remedies of a bigger gun (!), more expensive sportscar (tractor?), blonder girlfriend, etc.)

Instead, in what follows, I address the case of the typical 'hunter/sportsman"(in the best sense of the term), and "hunting" as traditionally practised.

------------------------------------------------------------

My guess is that your dog is not a vegetarian. the "wild" dog you mention surely isn't. Nor are a great many whales.

You, yourself, may have chosen to be. If that is the case, I will ignore the fact that you, the deer, and the rabbit, survive by consuming other living things, assuming that plant "life" is not as precious to you as animal life (thank you Walt Disney!).

If, however, you are not a vegetarian, and wear leather shoes, belt, etc., and fail to carefully select only things that are animal-product-free to use yourself, AND to feed your doggy friend, then I suppose that you categorize the deaths of the animals whose parts you DO use as "necessary"... as opposed to the "unnecessary" deaths you decry.

The "necessary" death of the animal who is conveniently killed FOR YOU by someone else, and whose parts are made more acceptable to your troubled conscience by being packaged in metal cans or plastic wrap, and are presented as "groceries", or "pet food", is still, unavoidably, LIFE TAKEN, that yours may continue.

To judge as less "spiritually evolved", etc., those who are still in-touch enough with the basic scheme of life to face and accept their OWN responsibility as they participate in this "scheme", is presumptuous and condescending.

Someone who accepts the reality of, and deliberately participates "hands-on", so to speak, in this life-exchange,
could be said to be a "part" of the picture that whomsoever created this world set in motion.

I'm not quite sure WHAT should be said of those who are so appalled by the fact that "violence" is an element of Nature's plan, that they choose to pretend that THEY are above any participation in such a scenario, and with smug superiority, place upon their own heads a crown of noble aloofness... somehow "above" all this "nasty business".

Re. evolving-spirituality in humankind-- I believe evidence of this can be found in efforts made to minimize the suffering attendant to the death elements of life.
The killing done by a respectful hunter who makes every effort to "take" his game animal as humanely (interesting term) as possible, without waste, and contributing, when possible, to the well-being of the hunted-species while it lives, is several "spiritual evolutionary" steps above the often both-cruel-and-wasteful killing that occurs in "Nature", which seems quite acceptable to most "protesters", for the very reason that it IS natural.

When you find a means of sustenance (yogic "breath" perhaps?) that does not derive from the utilization of other "life-forms", share it with the misguided among us, and we can all escape this "brutal" necessity.

Until then, I find nothing "noble" in the denial-trip to the local supermarket to pick up some "food", followed by condemnation of those who chose a more direct involvement in life-as-it-is, rather than life-as-it-is-pretended-to-be.

A preference for the wild environment, and an acceptance of a role in the overall plan, to me is a valid option. And despite the proclaimed "concern" of those who prey on plastic wrapped "food", rather than "animals", I think an animal living a free life in the wild until it is ended cleanly, has it much better than one which is penned or pastured, chemically altered, castrated, etc., etc., untill the appointed day on which it is to be magically transformed into a "food-product" for someone without the "stomach" to face, personally, a fundamental fact... life feeds on life!

------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to balance the tone of this " viewpoint" by saying that philisophical differences should, in my opinion, be subordinate to underlying good-will... and close with some words by one more "noble" than myself:

"Across whatever gulf may exist between what you are and what I am,
over tripstones of fear, and through clouds of misunderstanding,
I extend the hand of my spirit, the care of my heart,....
and wish you well." (White Raven)

Larry

jimmoore · Oct 21, 2000

Do animals have rights? YES. Caged or confined animals have the right to food, water, protection from the elements and humane treatment until they are cleanly dispatched for their meat, fur or hide. I was raised in the hills of arkansas. Wild game was a major staple in my diet when I was growing up. Fried rabbit or squirrel, a big skillet of Moms gravy and a platter full of cathead biscuits was great eating! Am I a sportsman? Yes. While you fellas are loading your high dollar boats, guns, dogs, decoys, etc. drive for miles, sit in a cold duck blind, waiting for daylight and a few scrawny ducks to fly over, I will be home in my bed, snuggled up to mamas big warm behind! Thats the kind of sportsman I am. I don't hunt now, but I have no problem with those who do. jimmoore

gordon · Oct 21, 2000

Yes this is quite a frying pan subject but I must say this---Great post Guess it boils down to Do as I say not as I do for alot of people---enuf said. I think you get my point.
Gordon

gerard · Oct 21, 2000

I am not a hunter. Personal choice, (maybe I’m trying to make up for all the frogs I killed with a BB gun when I was a kid, who knows.....) I just don’t enjoy killing things. That said I have absolutely NO ill will or negative feelings on people who do enjoy hunting. I recognize the necessity of keeping nature in balance and since humans in the past have done such a good job of killing off the natural predators the “prey” animals will proliferate excessively if left unchecked. Heck I wish NYS would issue MORE deer permits and we would have MORE hunters! (Probably just a matter of time until my car reduces the NYS deer population by one anyway!) Glenmac I think your argument falls down in the transition between domestic animals that are pets and wild animals which are just that, the logic doesn’t follow there-fore the conclusion is also faulty. Re: you’re aspiration for humankind to one of greater spiritualness as an argument against hunting, Thats fine for strictly phiosophical discussion and maybe a worthy goal for humans in a few thousand years (if we don’t exterminate ourselves long before then.) However we are SO far from that goal (have you read a newspaper lately, many humans place no value on other human life. I think we should address that concern before we start worrying about the ethical implications of hunting wild animals!) I eat meat, venison included, don’t hunt, and don’t mind those that do (as long as they stay off my land, . when uninvited hunters walk onto my land then the gloves come off but that is a trespass issue, not a hunting issue.)

RobertN · Oct 21, 2000

LHSmith,
I could not agree with you more; I was going to respond in the same vein, but you put things into perspective so well!

I do respect the views of others, such as Glen.

I have helped with slaughtering on the ranch, and getting things done at the butcher. I have hunted various animals also.

Unless someone has seen that whole process, I don't think they can clearly take a educated stand on this issue. I do think, as another poster mentioned, that the wild game taken for consupmtion has probably led a better life, and will pass without as mauch pain as those living through the slaughterhouse.

I think a wild animal that is shot without knowing what was coming had it's life taken in a much nicer fashion than one which is rounded up, forced down a shoot in a panic, into a building where the smell of death permeates, and whacked on the head and hung to bleed out.

My six year old son has not been hunting. However, every day at the dinner table I try to teach him respect for the animals that have died to be on our table.

The only time I accept a position against hunting is for a true vegetarian.

I do, however respect the opinions of others, even if i do not agree with them. That's what makes us so diverse and interesting.

RobertN in Shingle Springs Calif