Hunting

Remove all ads!

I'm was only quoting it from somewhere else, it's not mine. As for hunting elks in Finland, well, mother nature takes care of the thinning, humans needn't do anything.

 

It would be nice for you Sarevok to post a link to the place you take your quotes from.

Susipaisti really said what I think, hunting without taking any of the meat is somewhat stupid and just plain useless unless we're talking about hunting animals that are harmful to the nature and humans. The EU has been bitching to Finland about our habit of hunting wolves that bother the herd animals in northern Finland. The hunting is kept well within its limits and the species is really not in danger anymore around here so it's just an example of how the EU buorocracy can sometimes seriously distance itself from the reality.

Claiming that we must kill animals with bow and arrow is just ridicolous, it's like asking snakes to stop using their poison. Hunting with bow and arrow are bound to cause more damage to the animal and cause a lot more suffering than a well aimed guns shot. Also a bad shot might anger the animal and I choose a dead animal over a dead human allways and forever.

Well we could do it the way Britain did it. That is cut all our woods so there'll be no enviroment for the elks to wander in, but I prefer the solution we have currently. As I said earlier a dead elk by a gun is much better than somebody's child, father or mother dying while crashing to one with a car.

That would work the moment we stopped polluting, expanding and just plain destroying the nature in many parts of the world. Unfortunaetly I don't see that happening, so we just have to accept the past mistakes and do our best to fix the situation ourselves.

 

If you want to pick 200+ pellets out of a deer, be my guest.
And if you are in a stand in a tree, the deer can't attack you. Plus, the deer gets scared before angry, and takes off. A deer would not charge a human trying to kill it, trust me.

 

I'm curious...those of you who can condone bow hunting (or what about muzzleloaders?) and condemn rifle or shotgun hunting because it's "too easy"...how many of you have actually succeeded in hunting and killing an animal with a rifle or shotgun to know how easy it is? And I don't mean plugging a fat crow off a powerline with a BB gun.

Most State Fish and Game departments issue far more hunting licenses than kill tags used...by a huge margin. These revenues are directly responsible for herd and population control and environmental studies to preserve the health and well being of indiginous wildlife.

Without the efforts of animal control officers and Fish and Game agents, we wouldn't even know which animals are endangered and might need a protected habitat.

The wallets of hunters and fishermen have more direct influence on the success of animal conservation than any other governmental agency (eg: Highway use and gasoline taxes are a drop in the bucket compared to the cost to build and maintain roads). The fact that sportsmen are willing to pay for the right to hunt and fish can be directly connected to a non-hunters ability to see healthy, well preserved herds in the same locations the sportsmen make a kill...and even places where hunting isn't allowed.

And they're animals.

 

Agreed, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

@Hack:
I didn't say it was easy to kill something with a gun, just that guns are easy to use. It's a whole other thing to hit a moving and aware target (in the right place, no less) than to hit a motionless one, but humans still have a hefty advantage. Bows and arrows would help settle that advantage; as would more dangerous prey.

Now, I was with you right up until "And they're animals." But if you're going to take that tack, then this debate is going to get real old, real fast. So in the immortal words of a cherub from South Park, Colorado:

 

I agree with Rally on this. Take a look at this, but only if you don't feel like eating afterwards:

Nevertheless, don't let me get started on Ted Nugent. The guy did too many drugs back in the 60s...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525632/site/newsweek/

 

Saervok, as someone who doesn't hunt, but likes to eat Moose and Deer meat, I must tell you that your generalizations about hunters are highly inaccurate. They are not a bunch of liquored up rednecks with small penises. Many of them actually want the meat from the animal that they kill. It's not about a moose rack on the wall, but about a freezer full of meat for the winter.

 

I don't need a big gun to make up for other things

 

I oppose to illegal hunting for ethical reasons. I also understand that trying to kill something either with a gun or a bow it is not easy (i've hunted a couple of times). But i really dislike people who go to hunt with no obvious need of finding food, loaded up to the neck with bullets.
Here in Greece in the not so past days, hunters used to go out only with three or four bullets for two reasons
1) bullets cost money and money is hard to find.
2) they only needed to find something to bring back for dinner/lunch. They did not hunt recklessly since they knew that excess game would be a waste.
Now our society with the pluralism of everything, can really help one hunter to go out with as many bullets as he wishes and furthermore with no need to find something to eat (even that special treat of a game can be easily found in a supermarket).
I really dislike these fat guys who think that having a suit, a gun, hundreds of bullets, cars with powerfull headlights, whistles that emulate various calls, cbs and every other technology advance that may "help" them in their cause, qualifies them as hunters. Talking about getting in touch with nature most of them can't even bear the thought of spenting a night in a tent or standing still for hours in a cold hole with bugs all over them just to get one prey. Pathetic people that can not do even a simulation of old lifestyle well.
As for the nature balance and our part in it:
We have really messed up the natural balance so hard that if we stay idle now and watch, in 15 years from now entire ecosystems will dissappear or change forever. Some are already beyond salvation, many are really on the edge.
So standing idle is not quite an option if we want to have some respect to nature.
My personal thoughts and feelings on the subject

 

I agree with my main man Sarevok .
Hunting for sport is barbaric and there's no need for it in todays modern world.

 

What's with all this "I don't agree with that type of hunting, but..." Hunting, is hunting, is hunting. Make up your god damned mind, you either oppose it, or you don't, basically.

 

Well, I suppose hunting for food is acceptable in certain circumstances, but hunting for the fun and sport of it is just well out.

 

I like hunting for a number of reasons. I prefer the bow, but that's just personal and nothing against hunting with a rifle. As for all the ethics:
1.) All life is dependant on the death of others. No living creature can claim to survive entirely seperate of the deaths of others, or at least, none we know of.
2.) Of all the deaths a wild animal is likely to suffer, being shot with a gun or bow is (usually) among the least painful and quickest.
3.) Hunting for sport, pure entertainment, or hunting endangered animals is just plain wrong. Humans are supposed to be stuards of the Earth and all in it. Like gardeners, there's nothing wrong with trimming here and there for our own desires, but recklessly tearing out entire species, or hacking at nature just because you're bored is just plain stupid.
4.) That said, there's nothing wrong with hunting for food, pelts, or other materials as long as there is plenty of the target species.
5.) Most of the animals hunters actually hit or kill are not the 'top of the line' or in the absolute prime of their lives. You have NO IDEA how many 'it was this big' stories I hear. Those hunters didn't kill their targets for a reason, and it wasn't conservation.

Now, if you want a real challenge, go hunting with a spear!

 

NOG, one word: Absolutely.

Sarevok•: There *are* different kinds of hunting. What do you think the bushmen in Africa ought to eat, spam?

 

I don't support the notion of hunting "as a sport". There can be perfectly reasonable grounds to go out and kill animals - but that isn't one of them. I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree with hunting for food (well, maybe vegetarians or vegans might). Shooting pests is also okay in my book; I see it as an extension of self-defence, and having seen the damage that foxes can cause to native wildlife populations (mostly small marsupials), or what dingo packs or other wild dogs can do to a herd, I support it completely.

Overpopulation is, I think, a case-by-case proposition. Over here, we occasionally have kangaroo culls when the population becomes too large to be sustainable. I would prefer they were shot than starved to death; I have misgivings about both courses of action but see the former as less cruel. There are also commensurate benefits for the meat industry - kangaroo meat is much like beef, only leaner and slightly darker. I don't agree with giving people a license to slaughter, but it's a better deal all-round... unless you're a kangaroo in someone's sights.

Of course, someone's inevitably going to throw the "it happens in nature" line at me. Well, that's true; I just feel that a bullet is more merciful than a slow death (especially in outback Australia, where the logic of "predators killing the weak" seldom applies and they're more likely to die of dehydration). Enough will die of snakebite or similar circumstances to support carrion feeders, anyway.

 

Okay Saervok, I agree with hunting, but poaching I oppose. Poaching is any form of hunting that violates the rules under which hunting is legally permitted. There are restrictions on the firearms to be used. Outside those limits is poaching. In Ontario, you require a liscence to hunt. This requires you to prove that you can use your weapons safely and identify your targets properly. This also requires you to know the laws around hunting and responsible hunting practices. There is a limit placed on how much you can hunt, limiting the number and type of animals yu may shoot (by the issuing of tags). If you shoot the wrong animal (male moose when you had a tag for a female moose) and get caught (the areas are well patroled) they can confiscate your guns, gear and even your vehicle, ban you from owning a firearm for 5 years, and there are then hefty fines, and possible incarceration beyond that. There are limits on what times of the year you may hunt. Outside that time of year is illegal.

Further, If you hunt and kill an animal, you are morally obligated to use it for food if possible. While I don't expect you to eat a racoon that's been plaguing your livestock, or a skunk that's taken up residence in an area that you need regular access to, but if you shoot a deer, moose, elk or wild turkey, then that's good eating for a while.

Basically, Saervok, I ask you to specify whether you still condemn hunting or just poaching...

 

I personally dislike hunting, but to a certain extent I am not against it. As long as a few conditions are met, I see no harm in it (same applies with fishing), although would never do it myself (unless forced to):

-> The hunted population must be at a sustainable level, and the amount taken must be of a small enough number that the population can regenerate - and in some cases, expand.
-> All products that come from the hunted animal must be used. The skin, the meat, the antlers, the tusks. What ever.
-> The hunted speices must be a species that, if unhunted, would have negative effects on the eco-system. As a local example, possums. One more peopel would prehaps be fimilar with, the rabbits in Aussie.
-> Some type of property rights are issued in order to control the hunting levels; and those caught over hunting are punished. Punished harshly.

[Edit]
And just for what it's worth, from my knowledge, a kill with a bow is no slower than a kill with a gun, if done properly.

 

I forgot about them, the damnably cute little bastards! Plus, unless they've got myx, they're good eating too...

EDIT: Someone can correct me if I'm wrong - but weren't rabbits introduced in Australia primarily so they could be hunted?

 

That's exactly right, Nonsequitur. As were possums. Silly humans

 

If any of you who are against hunting could explain to me the difference between harvesting from nature or harvesting from a farm, maybe I would stop hunting (unfortunately, none of you will be able to do that). Unless you are of the opinion that the human race should stop eating meat whatsoever, you agree that the life of wild animals is worth more than the life of the average cow, pig or chicken. While the wild animals live perfectly natural lives, farm animals have been bred for a specific purpose and generally have no other function than to reproduce and/or become food. I am perfectly aware that hunting laws are different in other countries (and that those laws may be the reason behind this thread), but in Norway the laws are made to give the hunted an advantage. Examples:

• when hunting roe deer you are not allowed to use dogs who are tall enough to run as fast as the roe deer itself
• you are not allowed to use any kind of motorized vehicles
• you are not allowed to use bait in order to attract the animals you hunt
• no automatic or semi-automatic weapons allowed

These were just a few examples, but it's laws like these which make hunting difficult and give animals a chance. Farm animals however does not have any chance at all, but I guess we're just being nice when we end their unnatural, miserable lives.