My dad, hunting, and life

[The Straight Story]

Growing up in the 30's and 40's Grandma often had dad go out back and kill some chickens or rabbits. Grandma kept chickens for the eggs and meat, she went to the general store for milk/butter/bread/etc - things she could not handle at home. She lived on a small lot in a very tiny house in Byesville, Ohio. Dad's dad died when he was young (he died at home in that house).

Fast forward to this century. Dad still hunts sometimes, mainly deer. If he gets one he eats it (cleans it, freezes the meat, etc).

BUT after mom died, one thing dad won't do is bow hunt. He does not care if others do, and he gave his bow to my nephew who likes to hunt. But dad told me he could not stand to see an animal suffer like mom did in the hospital. Over two months mom fought for her life before finally passing on, dad never leaving her side except to come home for a shower.

He still has no problem with hunting and killing for food, it is how he grew up. And while he does not like bow hunting because it is a slow death (compared to how he used to quickly kill the chickens and such) he is able to differentiate his feelings from what others do - to wit, if you want to bow hunt, go for it. He does not want to, but he also does not want to restrict your rights or any one else's based on his personal feelings (after all, bow hunting has been around for a long time).

Dad's view is that animals supply food for us, and for each other. Wolves, etc kill and eat other animals to sustain themselves. We fish, we hunt, other animals also fish (ala eagles/etc) and hunt. He just does not see the need for them to suffer in this food chain.

So I side with the animal rights' activist who want to see things done humanely and I also side with those who want to hunt and feed their families.

It is about balance and freedom. Many years ago people killed animals quickly for food, the problem is not the people but the corporations who have turned food into a business - and kudos to those who fight against the poor treatment of animals by companies.

I am pro-meat and pro-hunting/fishing for food. I am against the people however that want to mistreat our food sources.

It is all about balance and respect.

[derby378]

1. Well said

:hi:

[yardwork]

2. You've had such a remarkable life.

Such experiences. It's amazing how one person could have experienced so many different things, known so many different people, from so many walks of life. It's almost as if you are more than one person!

[The Straight Story]

3. My 42 years of life have been wild and crazy

Someday I hope it all settles down :)

The last few years have been really insane. The last 10 would make a great movie.

In the end, all I want is to just have a 'normal' life and chill. From my X wife and my boys to present day life I have been on a merry go 'round where some points were heaven and some were hell.

I looked back on it all the other night (while having a few drinks I might add) and thought to myself 'WTF, where did it all go weird?'

But hey, the sex life is great so I suppose that makes up for it all :rofl:

[LostinVA]

23. Why do you bring up sex with your wife regardless of the topic at hand?

I can't imagine any woman being happy about that.

[The Straight Story]

24. Why is that the only thing you are focusing on in my post

:)

I was just trying to make a funny in it all, what is your real issue????

[LostinVA]

25. Oh brother

[The Straight Story]

27. great reply

really goes over it all.... :rofl:

[The Straight Story]

28. PS - out of over 13,000 posts

I have brought up sex w/wife how many times?

[The Straight Story]

29. I am still waiting for you to discuss the topic at hand

without trying to bring other posts into it....or is that possible?

[LostinVA]

32. Nice redirection

[The Straight Story]

33. ROFL

is that the best you got???

Seriously, what is eating you???

[LostinVA]

42. Run along and write your next story

[IndianaJones]

12. I'm bad? nt.

[yardwork]

15. You are SO bad.

I'm just an amateur.

[IndianaJones]

17. Your Tiger Woods...I'm trying to make the cut. nt.

[LostinVA]

21. OMFG

:spray:

[AlCzervik]

22. yes.

i had the same reaction, a ind of "Wait Wut! wish i said that!"

[yardwork]

26. What?

O8)

[King Coal]

4. I agree about bow hunting. Many bow hunters think it is admirable

to give the deer/elk/game a better chance to survive. That's ridiculous. What that means is that you get a lot of arrow-stuck animals that not only die slowly and painfully, but they are wasted simply because many of them are never found. "I stuck him pretty good, but not good enough." Come on!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Balance and respect

My stepdad was raised on a farm during the Depression and also learned at an early age to hunt for food. When he went hunting later in life, he still went for food, and he cleaned it and butchered it himself. He never went for a "trophy" buck, that wasn't what he was after. But he respected those who hunted differently than he did.

My Choctaw and Lakota friends always pray before a hunt, thanking the animals they get for their sacrifice. They honor the animals, and I understand this way of looking at things.

Like you said, the whole thing is about balance and respect.

[Critters2]

37. I'm sure the animals appreciate it.

:eyes:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

47. You are coming from a different viewpoint and mindset

than the Lakota and Choctaw people.

I have respect for your viewpoint that killing animals is wrong. I would like to discuss it a bit more, in a respectful manner. Do you think that killing animals is wrong because they have a higher form of conscious awareness than, say, plants? Or is your opinion based upon the fact that you can observe suffering in animals that are being killed or wounded? Or is it some other factor?

I ask because I am curious about your belief system on this. The Lakota and Choctaw I know who practice ceremony see us as all interconnected--and that the spirits of animals go on living in other forms, as we do as well. They go beyond this to also thanking the plant spirits and the spirits of the land and of the rocks in the sweat lodge. They see life and forms of consciousness in everything. I wanted to add this so that you would realize that the Native people I know would also thank the plants who gave up their lives so they could eat; that they thank the rocks who give up their existence so that they can be heated and used in a sweat lodge ceremony.

[Critters2]

50. My view point is based on a combination of compassion

and science. And my irritation with people who will find any rationalization for their inflicting of pain on other creatures.

Animals feel pain. They have central nervous systems, they run to avoid injury. They suffer. Plants do not. They possess no central nervous system, which is the vehicle through which the sensation of pain is carried from one cell to another in a sentient organism. There is nothing respectful in equating the "suffering" of plants with the very real suffering of animals. It is simply rationalization.

I have no idea whether our spirits go on in other forms after death. Neither do your Lakota friends. That is simply more rationalization. No one knows what happens after death--not to animals, not to humans. It's just one more excuse for causing suffering and death. More rationalization, more denial.

My purpose is to cause as little suffering as I can. It is the right thing to do. I will not enter into worldviews which allow for suffering and death based on spurious arguments about what happens after death.

My hope is that the world will become a more compassionate place. I won't achieve that goal by inflicting suffering on other creatures. And then pretending they somehow were grateful for the opportunity to die to be my supper. Far from respecting animals, the idea that they want to be sacrificed for humans is completely anthropocentric. It repeats the myth that animals were placed here for us. They were not. Each animal has its own integrity and purpose, not in relation to humans, but simply because they are.

You want to respect animals? Work to end their suffering and protect their habitat.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

51. Thank you for your reply

Your world view is different than others, that is all I can say. But I can respect it.

But it does become difficult--there are trade-offs. Are you in favor of euthenising animals (or people, for that matter) who are in pain with no hope of recovery? Or should their right to life be respected no matter what? And what of a rabid animal who comes into a community?

I assume you are vegan, and wear no animal products. Do you consider it humane to sheer sheep for wool? I'm being serious here-I've heard of some animal rights people who say that is cruel to the animal. What substitutes for leather, for example, do you consider to be environmentally friendly?

[Critters2]

52. I am in favor of euthanizing animals who have begun the process of dying,

and are suffering. Again, ending suffering is my priority. I've had to euthanize three companion animals in my lifetime. They had all begun the process of dying. One cat was in full liver failure, the other in full kidney failure. They had lived all of life that they would have. All that was left was suffering, and I loved them too much for that. My dog was dying of lung cancer, which had metastasized from a testicular tumor. His lungs were completely full of tumors and he could no longer breathe.

As to a rabid animal, it, too, has begun the process of dying. Rabies is a fatal disease. And animals with it are suffering. I don't see any reason not to end such a life, and the suffering that goes with it.

I am vegan in my home, vegetarian when eating outside of my home (vegan whenever possible). And no, I wear no animal products. Shearing of sheep is cruel. I've seen it done. The animals are terrified and suffering. It is not necessary, when good quality warm clothing can be made of cotton.

I worry some about the use of synthetics made from petroleum, but for now wearing them is a compromise I make when necessary. I wear canvas and hemp shoes when I can. I'm also concerned about treatment of workers, so I wear synthetics made in the US, Canada, or the EU. My ethical considerations mean that some compromises are occasionally necessary. Right now, I'm wearing synthetic New Balance made in the US. I am convinced that non-petroleum polymers are possible, but not being used because industry still functions as if oil will always be plentiful. This has begun to change. The sandals I wore all summer are made with at least 15% recycled PVC. Plastics made from plant sources are being explored for many uses.

I do my best to live an ethical life. I don't look for ways to rationalize cruelty.

[madeline_con]

54. "And then pretending they somehow were grateful ...

... for the opportunity to die to be my supper."

Hi. I followed the link from the other thread where you were asking advice on how to reply in this one. Anyway, haven't you gotten this backward?

It's not the animal that is grateful, but the person who has killed it for consumption. It is recognition of the death and gratitude to the earth, Great Spirit, God, or whatever for the opportunity for nourishment.

Just my two cents.

[Critters2]

55. The post to which I replied does not mention gratitude

to the Great Spirit, but to the animal. As if the animal willing gave up its life. It did not. Animals run from hunters. If they wanted to die, they'd just stand there and be shot. It is naive to think hunting is something other than violent. And cruel.

[madeline_con]

56. I didn't say it wasn't violent.

I'm not trying to change your P.O.V But you really should repsect what people have been doing for millennia to eat. The intent is not to inflict cruelty. It is to provide food.

I respect your p.o.v even if I don't agree with it. You have very legitimate reasons and every right not to eat meat or use animal products.

[slackmaster]

6. My stepfather hunted for food in the 1920s and 30s

He was the second-youngest of seven children, born in Georgia in 1919.

His family, then subsistence farmers, migrated to Southern California in the early 1920s. By 1927 they had homesteaded in the mountains of San Diego County.

Times were tough for them. To keep this brief, I'll just say that he hunted to help feed the family as early as age eight. One of his favorite recurring stories was about hunting jackrabbits while his father was away working for a railroad company.

His mom would hand him a .22 Winchester rifle and three rounds of ammunition, and tell him not to come home until he had two jackrabbits. He usually came home with three.

When he was a little older and could handle a 30/30 rifle he hunted for mule deer, which were plentiful at the time and are still hunted here.

In 1934 while working for the California Conservation Corps for $1.50 per day, he fell ill with rheumatic fever and was treated in the old Balboa Naval Hospital in San Diego. He said the food served there was the most consistently good he'd ever had in his life, so he resolved to join the Navy as soon as possible. His mom wrote a letter falsely giving the year of his birth as 1918 (the minimim age to enlist was 16). He re-enlisted in 1938 for a second four-year term, which he intended to be his last.

His timing could not have been worse, of course. He served as a Radioman during the war, made the rank of Chief Petty Officer, and decided to stay in a while longer. After the war he taught Radioman school and also served as a Basic Rifle instructor.

He taught my brother and me how to safely handle and use firearms when we were kids. Both of us have the rules of firearm safety so thoroughly drilled into our brains that we avoid pointing things like broom handles at people. Neither of us has ever had a firearm accident. We've both missed targets plenty of times, but never done any unintended damage. My brother is a Commander in the Navy BTW. He's done a bit of hunting. I have not.

[IndianaJones]

7. bow hunting is no different than firearms hunting. it is no less or more cruel. nt.

[The Straight Story]

8. Define Cruel (nt)

[IndianaJones]

9. I've hunted with both. I exclusively bow hunt now...

the time it takes the animal to expire varies. A well placed double lung with a broadhead will kill a deer quickly. A bad firearms shot will result in suffering and a lost animal. There is no comparison.

[The Straight Story]

10. I have never hunted

So I will take your word for it. I think dad's main point is that there is a better chance of killing a deer quickly with a gun than a bow. If you are really good with a bow, maybe that is quicker, but overall he feels a gun will take one down quicker.

Whether or not dad is correct, he went by his conscious and made a choice he felt right for him - and did not try to push that choice on others based on his own feelings.

I guess that is why they call it 'choice' :)

[IndianaJones]

11. Your dad has a point to a degree. The skill it takes to bow hunt tends to weed...

out those that are not capable of making good decisions on when to take a shot. I will not take a shot at anything over 30 yards at all, even though I can keep a tight group at 40+ yards. The use of firearms tends to make people take long difficult shots that very often result in bad hits and lost deer.

[The Straight Story]

14. While that makes sense

I can see where dad sees himself better with a gun than a bow, and why he made his choice.

[IndianaJones]

16. Your dad sounds like a responsible hunter. nt.

[Paladin]

39. You Know, Back When Mastering Archery Was Really Difficult....

....a truely life-changing experience, like becoming fluent in French or mastering the clarinet, back when a Fred Bear recurve was state-of-the-art equipment, this whole notion of "weeding out those that are not capable of making good decisions" was probably true. But with the advent of the easy-shooting, high-tech compound bows that everybody uses now, all sorts of ill-prepared assholes are venturing into the woods to see what they can sink arrows into.

How do I know this? Decades of on-and-off involvement in archery. That, and the experiences of several acquaintances who own ranches in Texas on which they lease the hunting rights. To a man, they have forbidden any further bow hunting on their places. They're tired of all the Ted Nugent wannabes that have come on their lands---if by some small chance these jerks have the skill to hit and wound a deer, they sure as hell don't have the tracking skills needed to find the animal once it's down. After you've found a few broadhead-pierced deer carcasses rotting in the brush, your opinion of bow hunters tends to go down considerably. Deer are noble creatures; they deserve the most humane means of dispatching that we have available to us.....

[Mojorabbit]

18. My husband bow hunts

and is a great shot. He drops his animal almost in it's tracks. It depends on the skill level and husband practices every day on his targets to be as good a shot as he is. He only uses his rifle for turkey hunting.

[Sanctified]

20. Same here, I am a bow hunter all the way now and never rifle hunt anymore.

His dad probably hunted back in the day with a stick bow which never had the accuracy of todays modern compound bows.

[Paladin]

34. But A Well-Placed Bullet.....

...will kill a deer a lot quicker than a well-placed arrow.

[Sanctified]

36. Have you ever seen the size of the hole a broadhead makes in an animal

and the well placed arrow will go clean through the animal.

[msmcghee]

41. I suspect that some bow hunters will take shots that are out of range . .

. . which could be maybe 30 yards for a deer. I know gun hunters do exactly the same thing at 200 yards. I'm guessing there are more assholes with rifles though because it generally takes more patience and skill to get within 20 yards of a deer than it does to get within 100 yards. I'm guessing though because I have only bird hunted on the wing with a shotgun and a dog. But I'm not sure a non-lethal shot from either is more or less humane. It seems like way too many variables. I'd be interested in your opinion on that - or any other big game hunters here.

[Paladin]

35. That's Not True (n/t)

[Odin2005]

13. I'm a hunter and angler and I totally agree with your old man.

Sadly, too many of my fellow hunters can be total assholes.

[H2O Man]

19. My nearest neighbor

and his father hunt. They provide venison for a lot of elderly folks in our neighborhood. They also plow driveways and do a lot of other good works for people, free of charge.

I've been involved in environmental work for decades. Hunters and fishermen have always been among the most environmentally conscious people that been able to count on for local support.

[Pavulon]

30. Low Error Tolerance and patience.

are critical to bow hunting. When my job had me working more out of the country I had more time to bow hunt in my down time. Good bow hunters know the limits of the technology and do not make shots that lead to lost game. I would not take a 700yd rifle shot or a 60yd bow shot. It can be difficult not to push the limits with a bow.

The rifle allows for much greater error while providing the intended outcome.

[Redneck Socialist]

31. How dare you...

write a sensible post about hunting? That's completely against the spirit of GD!

[Critters2]

38. My dad grew up on a farm in the 30's and 40's

and is now an avid animal advocate. Has never hunted in the time that I've known him. Hasn't touched a gun since he finished his service commitment.

I'm not sure why growing up on a farm = wanting to kill animals for sport.

[msmcghee]

40. Noble thoughts. However, the part about . .

. . "It is about balance and freedom. Many years ago people killed animals quickly for food, the problem is not the people but the corporations who have turned food into a business - and kudos to those who fight against the poor treatment of animals by companies." . . is not true at all. Although poor treatment of animals is never OK.

Long ago Native Americans ran herds of grazing animals like bison off of cliffs where many died a slow death in agony. Later, white men shot bison from trains as they traveled out west- and left them there, injured or dead - to rot. Millions were eventually killed for their skins - the meat usually rotting.

Before guns, all animals were killed by spears, arrows, rocks, cliff stampedes, setting brush fires, etc. which probably caused far more lingering injuries than quick deaths. Eskimos would coil a sharp fish bone in fat and let it freeze. A bear would swallow it so that it would pop open when the fat melted piercing the stomach or intestines causing a slow and very painful death.

Another thing - cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc. are very successful from an evolutionary standpoint and many billions of them have lived lives that would not have - because they were able to be domesticated by humans. They help us and we help them. Like them we will all die someday too, so we don't have any particular advantage over them in that sense. We do what evolution designed us for and they do what evolution designed them for. They eat grass, die and become food for predators. We eat cattle and grass and die and become food for predators - very small predators called micro-organisms.

Death in a modern cattle operation is probably more humane on average than all the old methods. I have worked on a turkey operation when I was a kid and it seemed like a pretty instantaneous death when that electric knife was laid against the neck.

Killing any animal is not a pleasant thing - and most hunters I know really hate to injure. We want it over quickly. But man is a hunter and an animal protein eater. We can get over the unpleasantness and become very skilled at it. It's in our genes. I think every person could benefit from experiencing what it means to hunt, stalk, kill, clean and prepare their food and take our place in that food chain - at least once in their life.

I think I am fortunate because I have done that.

[Thothmes]

48. Bravo

[shireen]

43. excellent position -- i agree 100% nt

edited to add: ... but i'm too squeamish to hunt for my meat, or reel in my fish dinner. I'll stick to supermarket fare ... I buy meat from Whole Foods. They have a policy of using companies that treat the livestock humanely.

[Skittles]

44. not a single hunter I know HAS to hunt

they hunt because THEY ENJOY KILLING. There is nothing balanced or respectful about that - NOTHING.

[laylah]

45. Skittles, while I respect

your position, I know many hunters (nephews, mostly, as my dad is gone) that hunt to supplement food on the table for their families. They do not stuff the animal for display, nor cut heads off to hang on the wall. They feed their families and fill their freezers. I was raised hunting. I cannot do it anymore because I don't like killing living things, either, but I sure will eat them. I still have my grand-dad's Winchester bolt-action squirrel gun. With the way things are going, I may have to take up hunting again so that I can eat.

[Skittles]

46. I don't care if they eat the f***ing animal

if they enjoy the hunt and the kill THEY MAKE ME SICK

[laylah]

53. Once again,

I respect your opinion but correct me if I am wrong. You never had to fill the plates of 6 - 8 kids, doing it in the only way you knew how when your income was less than sufficient? Did you, or yours, ever have to worry how the family was going to eat during a 6, 8, 12 week strike in the middle of winter? (always seemed to happen right before Thanksgiving and end around the New Year). Survival. That is what is was called in my world and I am grateful that my Dad knew how to take care of business.

[cali]

49. I actually do know a couple of people who do need to hunt.

Granted they've made their choices. One is a guy who's been living off the grid and out of the loop for over 30 years in a log cabin he built with no running water and no electricity. He's a wood carver and earns enough on that to just get by. He hunts every fall, and always gets a deer. He keeps the meat in a neighbor's freezer half a mile down the road. A couple of other people I know are just poor and supplement their diet with venison and birds.

[madeline_con]

57. Some people hunt because they like

the taste of whatever it is they're hunting. I personally don't care fo venison, but the tenderloin of a wild boar is a feast not to be missed.

[Jacobin]

58. I'm omniverous, but I pay other people to kill things for me to eat.

[Zookeeper]

60. I like how you put that....

it drives me nuts when people are judgmental about hunting or fishing, but have no problem with eating critters if someone else kills it for them.

[Zookeeper]

59. I used to be very reactionary when it came to hunting...

and thought it was just awful.

However, after living for a couple of decades in a state with a hunting tradition, I have a better understanding.

Sure, there are jerks who hunt because they like to kill and get drunk. But, none of the hunters I have met, fit that description at all. A couple of families I have met through my children, have fathers who deer hunt once a year. One of them goes up north alone with a handgun, waits, and if he gets a deer, he dresses it himself and it goes into his freezer for the winter. Another father goes up north with his extended family members and when they bag a deer, a local butcher dresses it for them. That family also eats venison all winter. Both of these families are middle-class and don't have to hunt for food, but the meat that they are harvesting is undoubtedly much healthier for them and the environment than buying a slab of corporate beef. Some hunters also donate venison to food shelves.

Something that folks in the more urbanized areas of the country may not realize, is that an uncontrolled deer population is a real safety hazard. I can't tell you how many times in the last few years I've come close to accidents when deer ran in front of my car. (There IS something to be said for being hyper-alert! ;) )

Finally, a dear relative of mine admitted that when he goes "hunting" he usually doesn't even take a gun with him anymore. He just likes to walk in the woods, be with his old friends, and hit the local bars. :D

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jacobin]

62. But, what about the poor unborn chicks?

Murderer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LWolf]

63. Well said, thank you. n/t