Apr 23, 2012 -- 3:48PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Learn to discuss things like an adult.

Actually, I believe that admonition applies to you.  Condescension is not convincing.  And calling someone else's well-formed philosophy "stupid ideas" is just proof of the lesson you need to "learn".  What's your philosophy for entrapping and killing animals for entertainment, anyway, besides the claim that "man" is the "apex predator". You and your fellow hunters certainly do not possess biological adaptations that make you the "apex predator"; instead you have to hide behind bushes or trap an unsuspecting animal to hold it until you get around to killing it.  You don't do it with your bare hands, or your teeth, or your braun, now do you?  

What you take for granted as "adult" is just what you personally take for granted.

Apr 23, 2012 -- 3:48PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I know the philosophy differs from mine. I don't take issue with that.

But, there has yet to be an intelligent, fact-based argument explaining why that philisophy should be applied.

Just having a different idea does not give it merit, by the mere virtue of being different. 

One can personally oppose hunting for ethical reasons all day long. But trying to argue that nobody else should be able hunt either -- is a whole other animal (no pun intended.)

What are you so worried about that it causes such bitter defensiveness?   Nobody's going to take your form of entertainment away from you or your fellow hunters, and you know it.  People who think it is wrong are allowed to at least say so, even though they can't stop it, wouldn't you agree?   I guess not.

Apr 23, 2012 -- 4:25PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Also, I've never said people can't oppose hunting in general, and the hunting of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone area in particular. By all means, speak out.

But, when you meet somebody -- such as me -- who actually lives here, and knows the issue, then  you have got to be prepared to back it up. 

Simply resorting to strawmen about pathological killing for entertainment doesn't cut it. 

That's not a strawman.   It doesn't "cut it" for you, because you see nothing wrong with it.  Those who think that unnecessarily killing an animal for entertainment, or killing an animal for food that one doesn't need is immoral is enough of a reason to "cut it". 

I grew up in area where a lot of people took their "right" to kill animals as a god-given right, and went out of their way to show off the creatures they killed while hiding behind bushes.  Even dated a few of them, given where I am from.  I've heard all the same assertions about the righteousness of hunting that you bring to this forum, and I reject them, flat out.  What hunters never do is address the morality or lack of it as it pertains to their god-given "right" to kill animals for entertainment.   They just clobber those who question their antics.  And you are right, hunters ARE their worst enemies.   People are against hunting because they think it's wrong, period.   That is more than enough to "cut it".

Apr 23, 2012 -- 5:38PM, rabello wrote:

Apr 23, 2012 -- 4:25PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Also, I've never said people can't oppose hunting in general, and the hunting of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone area in particular. By all means, speak out.

But, when you meet somebody -- such as me -- who actually lives here, and knows the issue, then  you have got to be prepared to back it up. 

Simply resorting to strawmen about pathological killing for entertainment doesn't cut it. 

That's not a strawman.   It doesn't "cut it" for you, because you see nothing wrong with it.  Those who think that unnecessarily killing an animal for entertainment, or killing an animal for food that one doesn't need is immoral is enough of a reason to "cut it". 

I grew up in area where a lot of people took their "right" to kill animals as a god-given right, and went out of their way to show off the creatures they killed while hiding behind bushes.  Even dated a few of them, given where I am from.  I've heard all the same assertions about the righteousness of hunting that you bring to this forum, and I reject them, flat out.  What hunters never do is address the morality or lack of it as it pertains to their god-given "right" to kill animals for entertainment.   They just clobber those who question their antics.  And you are right, hunters ARE their worst enemies.   People are against hunting because they think it's wrong, period.   That is more than enough to "cut it".

Yes. You dislike hunting, and have some very negative stereotypes and biases about it, perhaps couched in some bad personal experiences. You've made that abundantly clear.

But, you've yet to show any decent knowledge of it, or the issue of wolf reintroduction and managmnent.  

Apr 23, 2012 -- 6:37PM, solfeggio wrote:

Rabello -

I was curious about just how many Americans are hunters, and the answers were easy enough to find:

www.fws.gov/hunting/huntstat.html

What is telling here is the way that the Wildlife Service describes the 12 million hunters as having 'enjoyed' what they were doing. 

In other words, going out and deliberately taking the life - for fun - of an animal that poses no danger to you and whose flesh you really do not need to keep you from starvation, is thought of as not just a satisfactory experience, but a highly pleasurable one as well.

On the other hand, 12 million people out of a population of over 300 million means that the hunters are (relatively) few in number, which is good news.

Also, it is true that at least some of those people who started out as hunters, perhaps after being taken out by their father when young, would become disgusted with the whole business and give it up later on.

I've never thought of hunting as a harmless cultural tradition, but rather as a glorification of killing.  Instead of teaching children to kill, parents should instead be teaching them compassion, mercy and living in harmony with nature.

 

"In harmony with nature."

I love that statement.

Solf, in nature, things stalk, kill and eat one another all the time. Death and killing are woven deeply into nature.

On the other hand, compassion is worse than useless for wild animals. 

What is telling here is the way that the Wildlife Service describes the 12 million hunters as having 'enjoyed' what they were doing.

In other words, going out and deliberately taking the life - for fun - of an animal that poses no danger to you and whose flesh you really do not need to keep you from starvation, is thought of as not just a satisfactory experience, but a highly pleasurable one as well.

On the other hand, 12 million people out of a population of over 300 million means that the hunters are (relatively) few in number, which is good news.

Unfortunately, Solfeggio, we are still a tiny minority in regards to the acceptance of hunting as a "sport" and source of entertainment. 

 The king of Spain just went to Africa on a safary to kill blood thirty, ferocious elephants.  I didn't know they are still doing that. There you have, the representative of a civilized country posing with a dead elephant, feeling so proud of the feet of pulling the trigger of an automatic weapon and getting rid of this menace to civilization, from a safe distance and  surrounded by guards. Nothing to do with feeding the family.

There are hundreds of farms and areas in South America and Africa stocked with game to shoot at, with all the comforts (including the booze) of the modern way of life.  Places full of antlers hanging from the walls, stuffed fowl  and pictures of satisfied customers with  smily faces.

 Truly pathetic to see this level of consciousness prevailing in the world.