[Ironsight]

Well, I hear alot of moaning and groaning about how hunting is about the same as killing and torture to some people. I'm wondering what you guys think about it.

[TheEnglishman]

I'm not sure. It does seem cruel to hunt animals if you don't need to, but I wouldn't say it was wrong.

[Ironsight]

Hunters are actualy benificial to the wild. They keep over-population away.

[Someone Else]

So... that means that we should give like, deers guns and let them hunt humans to keep them from over-populating, too.

[Folcon]

No, but then again, deer don't have trigger fingers, or thumbs for that matter, so they couldn't shoot a gun anyway. And hunting ain't wrong, as long as you only shoot what you can take home and not just kill a bunch of deer or what ever animal for the hell of it and leave the corse to rot. Then I think its wrong. Shoot a deer because you need the meat, not just so you can sktick a set of antlers on the wall.

[Someone Else]

Voicing escouts opinion in my own words since I feel the same way.

I think that hunting for the sport, if not morally wrong, is still extremely wasteful.

[Folcon]

Exactly. Like with the slaughter of the Buffalo. They were often massacred by the hundreds and left to rot. It was sport to just shoot them from passing trains. It makes me sick just thinking about the wanton waste of it all.

[Aquamarine]

Hunting is something that I loathe, abhor and detest most in this world. This is one of the many reasons I hate the human race as a whole. Look here... People kill chickens, cows, goats, pigs, turkeys and many other animals for their meat. It's that bot so bad by me, because we need meat too, and those animals were bred for that purpose. So why the ****ing hell do ****ing humans have to kill wild animals too?! Why do they have to eat deer meat when they've got the flesh of so many other animals at their disposal?

Wind Dude, on Oct 20 2007, 09:17 PM, said:

So... that means that we should give like, deers guns and let them hunt humans to keep them from over-populating, too.

I LOVE this sentence! I really do! Dude, if I could, I would kiss you right now. Seriously. This is the wisest and cleverest and smartest thing anyone has ever said on these forums. I have a ****load more respect for you now.

Anyhow, as for people who hunt for sport, especially people who kill endangered species for whatever reason... I so truly wish I could do to them what they do to those animals. I honestly do.

[Ironsight]

Your mixing up The Hunter and The Poacher. Hunters hunt for sport. Poachers hunt for money. And I lke deer meat, had it once. Would you feel the same way about the caveman who hunted the Mammoth?

[Eugine]

I agree Aqua, WD that quote pwned >>

Anyway, I have no problem with hunting, but I do have one with overhunting.

[R-dog]

I dislike hunting for sport because habitat destruction is killing enough wild animals already.

And the reasons that other people mentioned, too.

[Ironsight]

So, you guys would have no problem outlawing fishing, just because it kills the fish?

EDIT: Poll added

[Eugine]

Wait... what hunting are we talking about?

Hunting as a sport. You know... the **** Cheney type. OR, hunting for FOOD?

[Ironsight]

Lets just sum it up to the act of shooting a wild animal

[Eugine]

Well, I disagree with hunting for enjoyment... but hunting for food is OK.

[Ironsight]

DS' dad says: Hunting fufills the primortial insticnt in most MEN to be able to provide for them selves and their offspring. Any noodle can go to the store and buy a frozen chicken. its differrant to go out in the woods and Hunt your dinner. Hunting isnt for everyone, but don't knock and judge those that do. I dont believe in safaris or hunting domesticated animals on a private ranch wich ocaassionally happens, but I have no problem with getting deer tag and hunting one.


Back to DS
Now, before you say "How low to get your dad in here", I only mentioned this topic on the off-hand. He wanted to have his say, so I let him type. So STFU

[Aquamarine]

If he wants to fulfill the "primordial instinct"(your dad spells like you: completely wrong), then how about he loses the gun and actually gives the animal a chance to run away/defend itself! I suggest he has a fair fight with the deer, in other words attack it with his own two hands, instead of standing to the side where it's safe and just attack from a distance.

People are so cowardly and pathetic.

[Folcon]

Sometime I think guns make hunting too easy. Depending on the game, one should use a bow and arrow. Anyone can say they shot a deer, but it take more skill to use the bow and arrow. But in the flip side, if hunting more dangerous game, like bears, a gun makes it a lot safer. And guns often make a quick, cleaner kill, so the animal does not have to suffer.

[Golden Legacy]

Wind Dude, on Oct 20 2007, 03:17 PM, said:

So... that means that we should give like, deers guns and let them hunt humans to keep them from over-populating, too.

Brilliant.

I agree that hunting is wasteful. I don't see what kind of "sport" or "recreational activity" involves shooting and killing innocent creatures.

I'll admit that I am a slight hypocrite here in that I do eat meat, but that's it - never for leisure, I can't imagine how taking a life can be pleasurable, or worse yet, used on a competitive basis.

[Folcon]

But then, depending on where you live, hunting might be necasary. If you live in an area where you don't have ready access to a supermarket, and it aint a farm, hunting is the only real sorce of meat. And would you feel bad about hunting if you were somehow stranded in the wilderness and had to hunt to eat?

[I'm Always BROKE]

Aquamarine, on Oct 21 2007, 12:54 PM, said:

If he wants to fulfill the "primordial instinct"(your dad spells like you: completely wrong), then how about he loses the gun and actually gives the animal a chance to run away/defend itself! I suggest he has a fair fight with the deer, in other words attack it with his own two hands, instead of standing to the side where it's safe and just attack from a distance.

People are so cowardly and pathetic.

Totally agreed there! Humans are a weak race. Any normal man would surely lose that fight with the deer if not for weapons. If not for tools like guns, spears, and what not humans would live like veggies cause most animals people usually eat are either too fast (rabbits, birds ect.) or too strong (cows, deers and horses) to hunt on... Except for the chicken and the pig. =P

With all respect to your dad DS, but any noodle can go and grab a gun and to go out in the woods and hunt his/her "dinner". All you need is a bullet and be silent. And there you have it. No need to fight against the animal with your own 2 hands... Which I honestly doubt the human race ever really did in their years on this planet. <.< Goddaymn dinosaurs were badass.

I'm against hunting for sport and enjoyment but I can atleast accept if it is for overpopulation cause the animals themself suffer from that aswell. But ofcoarse if your stuck in the wilderness and there's absolutely nothing else to eat then I can understand, I'd probably do the same.

Then again, I do eat meat so it's not like I'm an ultra veterarian hippie of sorts. =P

[Ironsight]

DiddyKong, on Oct 21 2007, 01:29 PM, said:

With all respect to your dad DS, but any noodle can go and grab a gun and to go out in the woods and hunt his/her "dinner". All you need is a bullet and be silent. And there you have it. No need to fight against the animal with your own 2 hands... Which I honestly doubt the human race ever really

Agreed, but it takes a certain amount of skill to stand still for hours at a time, and then accurately hit your target.
And that whole business with hunting being unfair because we use weapons? THATS why WE are the dominant race on this planet. Because we had the brain-power to create tools. And those animals that are being killed by deforestation would die anyways from a sparce food supply. Its actually more humane to kill them quickly, rather than let them starve to death.

[Wiflewood]

I've got a stuffed Gopher in my room which I shot whilst on holiday in Canada.

[Platinum Sun]

All of you who say that having a gun makes hunting too easy and that just anyone can go out and shoot a deer have never been hunting. You don't just walk outside and shoot a deer. There's hours of tracking and terrain sweeping to do. There's even party organization and strategy to go through. (Finally a practical use for all those hours I've put into MMORPGs.) A hunting party of eight can go on a six-hour trip without even seeing a deer. I've seen it happen.

Those of you whose hunting experience is limited to watching the outdoor channel please note that those are the highlights of week-long expeditions, and dozens of hours of footage ends up on the cutting room floor. It seems like cheating, but we really need that edge. Deer have just gotten so darn good at staying alive!

Golden Legacy, on Oct 21 2007, 01:59 PM, said:

I'll admit that I am a slight hypocrite here in that I do eat meat, but that's it - never for leisure, I can't imagine how taking a life can be pleasurable, or worse yet, used on a competitive basis.

Hey, if eating meat that was bludgeoned to death by someone else helps you sleep at night, fine by me, but acknowledge that there must be death in order there to be life. *Queues up Lion King music*

[I'm Always BROKE]

Yeah but it's still too easy. Yeah you track the animal down but after that it's all just aim, shoot and kill. Sure you need some skill to track the deer down but the animal is pretty much defenseless once you do.

Seriously I've no respect for people who shoot innocent animals just for fun or to become better at it.

[Folcon]

And what about for food diddy? Is that wrong? If what you're saying is true, then the native americans were wrong to hunt deer for food.

[Platinum Sun]

Just because a deer can't block bullets doesn't make it defenseless. They seem to have this running thing down pat. They can run at 30 MPH for three miles before they have to rest. Even the most powerful (reasonable) hunting rifles max out at 200-250 yards. A deer can run that in a few seconds, and even champion marksmen will tell you that shootiong at a running deer is a waste of time. And if you think that they can't hear, see, or smell you at that distance you've got another thing coming.

The fact is that if they were that easy to kill, they'd all have been wiped out by now. I mean, look at what happened to the buffalo. They were as easy to kill as you describe. Heck, people were shooting them from their seats as they rode by in trains. That's why there's only a few hundred left. Deer have no such population trouble because they're elusive and cunning. (How they lose all that when they come in contact with cars I'll never know...)

[Caael]

Aquamarine, on Oct 21 2007, 11:54 AM, said:

If he wants to fulfill the "primordial instinct"(your dad spells like you: completely wrong), then how about he loses the gun and actually gives the animal a chance to run away/defend itself! I suggest he has a fair fight with the deer, in other words attack it with his own two hands, instead of standing to the side where it's safe and just attack from a distance.

People are so cowardly and pathetic.

You realise that fist fight with a deer would be a lot more stressful and painful for the animal, causing it a lot more discomfort than shooting it.

Being primative is what people do- ever read lord of the flies? Hunting is part of human instinct, and you cant just block it out of people's lives because it's wrong. If people had thought like that back in the stone age, would we have evolved very far if we just ate meat? Back in those days when there were no meat substitutes, no soya. All there would have been to eat were berries and fruit, and anybody who has studied biology should know that you cant live on just 1 type of food. Hunting is why we're here today, and although I do disagree with some methods of hunting, it's essential for living. Maybe not so much now, but we'd not be here without it.

Hunting is as much of a sport as fishing; it both envolves trapping an animal of some kind. The problem with this is hunting actually involves killing ( fishing does as well, but only for food- this is sport i'm talking about) If hunters rode about on horses, chased down the animal, tackled it to the ground and let it go, then it's fine- Man gets thrill out of hunt, animal goes away with maybe a few bruises.

But this doesn't cover the aspect of over population- species like deer and rabbits do reproduce fast and often, creating large families of animals. If we were to let these keep growing, then they would eventually be everywhere, and we wouldn't allow it. Hunting in moderation to keep numbers down is fine- anything else aside from food is wrong.

A year or two ago, we watched this video of a deer hunt in class. It was horrible, there were about 30 people who drove this limping stag into a river, where it tried to get away, but more hunters blocked it off. They all closed in and shot it's legs to keep it running away, and then beat it to death with the rifle butts. People were in tears after watching it. The savagery of it, the brutality was horrible- it makes me wonder if some people were actually born without morals; none of these hunters seemed to be feeling sorry for the stag, they were all shouting and laughing as it died. That, to me, is the ultimate disrespect.

On that same video, it showed a park ranger who's job was to keep numbers of deer down. He would lie down silently on the hill, and use a rifle with a scope to take down the deer. Quick and painless, and totally justified.

So i'm totally against sport hunting, as seeing what it is like first hand is horrible, yet hunting to keep numbers down is fine.

[Ironsight]

Not all hunters are as sadistic as that. And your right. Not only would fighting an animal with your bare hands be painfull for the Deer, it would also be dangerouse for you. A Deer isnt as defensless and Harmless as eveyone thinks. If you were fighting say...A BEAR, would you use your hands? No. You would use traps and tools.

[Caael]

It's not cowardice, it's intelligece. Anybody can talk about fighting a deer with their hands to make it fair, but would they actually do it? Hell no!

[Folcon]

The closest someone would come to killing a deer with their hands is to use a good size hunting knife.

[Caael]

Those anti-hunting extremists are just so biased that they cant see what's infront of them. I saw a news report today on a culling of badgers carrying disease, and anti-hunting campaigners were protesting against it. ' Cruel and unhumane' they called it. I hardly think a bullet through the head and dying instantly is cruel and inhumane, rather than leaving it to die slowly of illness.

[Ironsight]

Exactly. They see Hunters, and Animals dying, so they automaticaly go to the "Animal Cruelty" thing. It's incredibly annoying just watching it.

[Golden Legacy]

It depends on how you're approaching it - you're bringing up a very specific case where hunting is being used to suppress a negative, which while arguable, has at least some reasoning behind it.

What we're arguing against is hunting for the sake of hunting - no disease, no animals dying of illness or anything, just a person picking up a weapon and shooting/killing an animal for the sake of leisure.

[Folcon]

Well in that case, yes it is wrong to just go out and shoot a deer for no other reason then that you are bored or want to kill something. (makes me think of the episodes of South Park where Stan's uncle Jimbo take them hunting with bazookas and rocket launchers. It makes real hunters look bad. "It's coming right for us!" *BOOM!!!*)

[Ironsight]

If we were just talking about Hunters that simply get up and shooting something for no reason at all, then this wouldnt be a debate topic. You are bringing up a very specific case yourself.

[Someone Else]

Hunting in general. Is it wrong? I'd say yes, when you could just go to a grocery store and buy meat. No need to buy rifles or ammunition when you could just buy a steak, it'd probably be cheaper.

We live in what's called an ecosystem. The ecosystem is veeerry delicate, absolutely everything is dependent on each other. Biology class should have taught you this, you have producers (plants) consumers (animals) and decomposers (dead things that can be eaten by plants and also animals).

So what? Too many humans, and hunting could threaten this. If you kill lots of game in an area everything could collapse in that ecosystem. Lets say there's a popular spot for hunting deer, but bears also reside in the area. If you hunt a lot of deer, what would the bears eat? The bears would then die. There goes a decomposer, thankyaverymuch.

Maybe that's an extreme example, but you get the point. Lets also say that instead of hunting deer, everyone instead hunted the big game, the bear. With the bears gone, the deer could reproduce like heck, causing hundreds of deer to populate the area. This area is on a slope, and their hoofed feet damage the ground and cause it to be loose, which, when the rain comes around, causes mudslides. There goes another ecosystem.

What I'm saying is, if EVERYBODY thought hunting was okay, these sorts of things could happen. And I'm sure they do sometimes.

[My Best Wishes]

Hunting for sport is wrong. Plus I just couldn't personally bring myself to stalk something, then shoot it. Boring and 'immoral'.
People who are 'culling' groups of animals can hardly be classed as hunters.

!~2000~!

[Platinum Sun]

Wind Dude, on Oct 24 2007, 12:52 AM, said:

If you hunt a lot of deer, what would the bears eat? The bears would then die. There goes a decomposer, thankyaverymuch.

First of all, deer and bears are consumers, not decomposers, and bears don't eat deer, wolves do. And second, this is why we have hunting regulations, the number, age, and gender of deer in the county are closely monitored, and the number of deer tags issued each season is adjusted accordingly. And I wouldn't say that the carnivorous population is suffering because of hunting. If anything they benefit from it. When you field-dress a deer, you leave all the guts in a pile on the ground. Those piles never stick around for more than a few days, the wolves get to them in short order.

[Ironsight]

Platinum Sun, on Oct 24 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

First of all, deer and bears are consumers, not decomposers, and bears don't eat deer, wolves do. And second, this is why we have hunting regulations, the number, age, and gender of deer in the county are closely monitored, and the number of deer tags issued each season is adjusted accordingly. And I wouldn't say that the carnivorous population is suffering because of hunting. If anything they benefit from it. When you field-dress a deer, you leave all the guts in a pile on the ground. Those piles never stick around for more than a few days, the wolves get to them in short order.

Exactly what I was going to say.

[Eugine]

Apart from WD (understandable?) errors, I have to agree with him. For clarification

Quote

decomposers (dead things that can be eaten by plants and also animals)

Decomposers aren't dead. They consume dead plants an animals.

Quote

If you hunt a lot of deer, what would the bears eat? The bears would then die. There goes a decomposer, thankyaverymuch.

Both of them aren't decomposers. Deers are herbivores and bears are omnivores. I think you meant by eating the deers, they 'remove' the organism from the ground?

I agree with everything else.

The perfect example with the dangers of hunting would be the wolf. Taking from Planet In Peril.

I'm not sure when, but about two decades ago in the USA the wolf was purposely hunted as we all know the dangers wolf possess to humans and because most citizens thought it was a nuisance. For a few years this seemed like the best thing to do. Eradicate the wolfs... They were blatently wrong.
As we know, the wolf is the natural predator of the deer. With the wolf gone, deer population exploded. Apart from the scarce bears, the deers had no competition.
This created overgrazing. Birds and insects had no where to live because the deers ate everything. After all, the beers had all the rights to do so now. No one could challenge them.
Beavers now had no where to build their homes, or purify the water. Fishes suffered. Aquatic organisms suffered on a whole. There were more illeffects I think. I strongly suggest watching Planet in Peril to find more information. It aired yesterday on CNN.

Eventually, wildlife scientists were called to investigate and they suggested reintroducing the wolfs. This one specie transformed the ecosystem in Yellowstone so beautifully, you'll never want to hunt wolfs again.
With the natural predators of the beers reintroduced once again. Overgrazing stopped. No longer were they allowed to eat all they want since the beers kept them alert. Also the population of deers decreased to its rightful size. Double positive there.
Decomposers were allowed to decompose the dead carcuses, and flies and insects were able to eat the remains wolfs left.
With the deer population in check, birds were able to nest and reproduce their endangered species. Beavers were able to build their homes, and purify the water. Aquatic life once again flourished.

Hunting is terrible. One specie has a tremendous effect on an ecosystem, and we humans need to realise this.

[Ironsight]

Again. Hunting is regulated and watched carefully. Poachers (Who are not to be confused with the Hunter) are arrested when caught. We have wildlife specialists who constantly monitor this stuff.

[Folcon]

^ I guess it would help if I had seen the program, but how exactly are the bevers prevented from building their homes? The trees wern't affected.

I still think hunting is okay, but only limited hunting. Something like one or two deer a season. And I am fairly sure that there are only a certin number of hunting permits issued each season and they need to be renewed ever season or so. That at least puts some constraints on the hunting.

But let me ask this, if deer were domesticated like cows and pigs are, would you guys still complian about them being killed?

And I will be honest, although I have no intrest in going out and hunting deer myself, I don't think I could handle the whole cleaning the carcuss part, I have had venision before and it is pretty good. Almost as good as beef, just a little dryer due to less marbling.

[Ironsight]

I had Deer sausage once. It was loaded with spices though, so I probobly wasnt tasting the actual Deer.

[Eugine]

I have no problem with regulated hunting.

The beavers were prevented from building their homes because the deers trampled their homes and over drank the water in the ponds.

[Someone Else]

Eh, I was tired when I wrote that. Still, I think my point came across.