Post Reply
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Bear Hunter Pays Ultimate Price
3 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2011 - 2:43PM #21
Yavanna
Posts: 3,149

Sep 19, 2011 -- 9:49AM, DotNotInOz wrote:


While I don't share the intensity of Solfeggio's conviction, she does have a point that hunters go after game largely for the thrill of the chase and the kill.


If they didn't find it pleasurable, why else would they do it?


It's not as if much of anyone in the U.S. needs to bag their own game to put food on the table, although I'll make exceptions for those in the Appalachian Mountains, for example, who subsist at poverty level. 


 





Most hunters I've met are no different than fishermen. It's about the experience of being "out there" and together with friends.


I've never met a single hunter who started acting like a drug addict and needed their fix by slaughtering bambi.

The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

For ancient king and elvish lord
There many a gloaming golden hoard
They shaped and wrought, and light they caught
To hide in gems on hilt of sword.
- J.R.R. Tolkien
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2011 - 3:03PM #22
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,832

Sep 19, 2011 -- 2:43PM, Yavanna wrote:


Sep 19, 2011 -- 9:49AM, DotNotInOz wrote:


While I don't share the intensity of Solfeggio's conviction, she does have a point that hunters go after game largely for the thrill of the chase and the kill.


If they didn't find it pleasurable, why else would they do it?


It's not as if much of anyone in the U.S. needs to bag their own game to put food on the table, although I'll make exceptions for those in the Appalachian Mountains, for example, who subsist at poverty level. 


 





Most hunters I've met are no different than fishermen. It's about the experience of being "out there" and together with friends.


I've never met a single hunter who started acting like a drug addict and needed their fix by slaughtering bambi.




Then, go camping, hiking, motorcycling, biking, whatever else with the guys that doesn't involve killing something.


It's one thing if "going hunting" means an excuse to get away from the wife and kids for a few hours to go sit around in a deerstand or duckblind, male bonding and downing some brews. Do they really need to kill deer or ducks, too?


(And no, I'm not being deliberately sexist. I've known women hunters and fishers, too. Most of the people I know fond of these sports are men, a good many for the reasons I indicated.)

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2011 - 3:06PM #23
TemplarS
Posts: 6,250

Once we start digging into this, there are some questions which we may prefer not to think too hard about.


For example: how come we allow humans to kill animals for "sport", yet make it illegal for other animals to kill animals for "sport" (dog-fighting, for example)?


Or, for those who oppose humans killing animals for "sport"- yet still enjoy a nice steak- why is the slaughterhouse somehow more tolerable than the forest?


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2011 - 3:10PM #24
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,832

Sep 19, 2011 -- 3:06PM, TemplarS wrote:


Once we start digging into this, there are some questions which we may prefer not to think too hard about.


For example: how come we allow humans to kill animals for "sport", yet make it illegal for other animals to kill animals for "sport" (dog-fighting, for example)?


Or, for those who oppose humans killing animals for "sport"- yet still enjoy a nice steak- why is the slaughterhouse somehow more tolerable than the forest?


 


 




Ulp! Very good questions, Templar.


Put that way, a slaughterhouse isn't more virtuous or humane than hunting...at least a wild animal has an opportunity to evade the hunter altogether. Mega-ULP!


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2011 - 4:19PM #25
Stardove
Posts: 14,565

As anyone who has ever read my posts already knows I am a vegetarian.  Enough said.


I also grew up with a father who hunts.  At 89 he went "hunting" last year, but I don't believe he killed any deer, although he brought home meat from the ranch where he has hunted for many decades.  If he hadn't recently broken his left femur, he would be going hunting this deer season.  Dad is a WWII veteran and certainly is no stranger to guns either.


I know I could never kill an animal unless the killing was for pure survival with the exception of rats and mice who would want to live indoors with me.  This doesn't make me a bad person, but rats carry disease and do not belong inside a home.  IMHO.


I do believe in the USA hunting is necessary to control the population of certain animals.  It is also necessary for some animals to be on the endangered list and are not to be hunted or killed.


The men in the OP did not use the common sense we are all endowed with...well most people have.

Beliefnet Community Wide Moderator ~ Peace Love Stardove
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community

Anger cannot occur unless you believe that you have been attacked, that your attack is justified in return, and that you are in no way responsible for it. ACIM

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2011 - 4:28PM #26
TemplarS
Posts: 6,250

See, I am not ethically opposed to hunting, though I would never do it myself, and do not consider it in any way at all a "sport."


We choose to kill animals for many reasons.  For food.  Because they have become nuisances. For health reasons.  To protect our investments.  To be brutally honest, for fun.  Some of these reasons to me are much more valid than others, but so long as I support some of these I do not feel qualified to judge others overly much.  Though, for my nickel, where I live the hunters are just as much of a nuisance as the animals they hunt. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2011 - 5:13PM #27
solfeggio
Posts: 8,529

Templar -


You make a lot of good points, with most of which I agree.  You point about people having no problem with humans killing animals, but then turning around and criticising people who support dog fights or cock fights or bull fights, is well taken.  It just shows how much doublethink is out there where humans are concerned.  One thing you have to say about nonhumans is that what you see is what you get.  They don't obfuscate the way humans do.


However, when you say you have no right to judge people who kill nonhuman animals, then I think you're wrong.  We all have the right to judge anybody or anything we please, for whatever reasons.  So, go for it.  Your opinion is just as valid as anybody else's.


It's part of being human.  And it's part of posting in these threads, which are here almost for the express purpose of letting people air their grievances and even point the finger at people if that is what we choose.


Whilst I have to agree that there are reasons why humans might be forced to end the lives of nonhumans - or other humans, for that matter - and some of those reasons are valid, others are bogus in the extreme.  And we have the right to say so in this forum.


Killing anything or anybody strictly for pleasure is morally reprehensible.  And if that qualifies as judging the 'sport' hunters, then so be it.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2011 - 5:16PM #28
Girlchristian
Posts: 10,732

Sep 19, 2011 -- 2:43PM, Yavanna wrote:


Sep 19, 2011 -- 9:49AM, DotNotInOz wrote:


While I don't share the intensity of Solfeggio's conviction, she does have a point that hunters go after game largely for the thrill of the chase and the kill.


If they didn't find it pleasurable, why else would they do it?


It's not as if much of anyone in the U.S. needs to bag their own game to put food on the table, although I'll make exceptions for those in the Appalachian Mountains, for example, who subsist at poverty level. 


 





Most hunters I've met are no different than fishermen. It's about the experience of being "out there" and together with friends.


I've never met a single hunter who started acting like a drug addict and needed their fix by slaughtering bambi.





I live in the Midwest, all the hunters I know eat what they kill and share any 'excess' with their families.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2011 - 6:13PM #29
Erey
Posts: 17,351

I personally would not support hunting for no purpose.  Like there are some exotic game ranches not too far from me where a person for a fee might shoot a girafee or a zebra or even a lion (not sure what animals these exotic ranches have).   That is against my morals.


But to hunt for meat, you actually eat is not.  And yes I guess it is a thrill otherwise why would people do it?  Most of your hunters eating their prey are really eating meat at like 100 dollars a pound.  Hunting is not typically a cheap sport.  Although some people are able to make it sort of backwoods cheap.  You can go to your super market and buy some meat much, much more cheaply.  Now fishing, esp fishing for something like catfish can be very cheap. 


Yeah, I guess it is a thrill, big deal!?  You can't tell me people don't get THRILLED about going to a fancy restaurant with georgeous ambiance with good friends, wearing cute clothing and enjoying a glass of something lovely along with a plate of steak or seafood.  That is my kind of thrill!  I am decidely less adventurous than a hunter. 


Having a thrill or having fun does not equal low morality or sin - let's keep our puritan ancestory in check.  Food as much as sex or anything else should be thrilling on occasion.  Why should hunting not be thrilling? 


I have fished before which can be rather boring.  But when I was reeling in a fish it was a thrill.   When my devlish dog killed a squirrel in my backyard a few months ago the little bastard looked absolutely thrilled!  No I did not let him eat the squirell for meat. 


 


And I am not sure what makes an animal sentinent or nonsentinent - I can guess that a gorilla is sentinent but I don't think a mouse is.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2011 - 7:58PM #30
arielg
Posts: 9,108

Having a thrill or having fun does not equal low morality or sin - let's keep our puritan ancestory in check.  Food as much as sex or anything else should be thrilling on occasion.  Why should hunting not be thrilling? 


There are no arguments that will convince anyone who doesn't feel empathy for living things. It is as simple as that. If it isn't there, it isn't there. Empathy is not of the mind.  It comes from a deeper level. Arguments and justifications just stay in the rational mind.


Having a thrill or fun and  finding killing "thrilling" is certainly of low morality.  Let's not kid ourselves by attempting  to ignore what it is and put everything on the same level.  Morality is nothing but respect for life.   That is where the concept comes from.  Morality is not a theory.   Why does everybody wants to be moral, no matter what they do? They must recognize some truth in it.


A search for thrills is usually a sign of  a boring life.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook