Hunting for sport.

[ccharles000]

Should hunting for sport be made illegal?

[MercutioATC]

1. Let's get one thing straight...it's not a "sport" unless both sides know they're playing.

That said, I fully support the practice of hunting.

My only gripe is with the terminology, not the practice.

[Withywindle]

77. And, at least theoretically, both sides have a fair shot.

Hunting deer with guns is not a "sport."


Hunting grizzly bears with a sword, one on one, might be.


Don't assume I'll always root for the humans.

[endthewar]

101. When my Redskins give the rest of the NFL their smackdown this year, is football no longer a sport?

Seeing how the Redskins are going to win it all this year? :evilgrin:

[Withywindle]

102. Dunno. Is Obama vs. McCain a sport? n/t

[dlovato]

108. Is eating a big mac a sport?

OK - so if you eat a big mac/happy meal, are you being "fair"? Are you a killer?, Are you a hunter?

Lets use reality here - if you eat meat you are a "hunter" - or "killer" if you want to put it in the worst light possible.

Just because you buy your "meat" at Burger King or the local grocery store, doesn't mean something wasn't killed.

Hunters just prefer to do the "messy part" themselves - vs paying someone else to do it for them.

Current "civilization" is just becoming more and more removed from the land/environment. Humans are meat eaters (at least most of us). We have cannine teeth just for this purpose (ripping meat).

- Darryl

[dlovato]

109. It's not that "easy"

As a hunter, I can assure you that getting meat for my family via hunting wild game, is 100 times harder to do than going to the store to do so.

Wild game is 100% natural, no hormones, much leaner than "farmed" meat, and better for the environment.

- Darryl

[FloridaJudy]

2. I'd have to vote yes

With the proviso that subsistence hunting does not constitute "sport".

[greenvpi]

3. If you kill only for the sick pleasure of it, it is murder!

Killing to eat is wrong, but killing just because you're sick and insane is worse.

[MercutioATC]

5. What about fishing?

Should fishing be banned?

[LWolf]

51. Do you eat what you catch? nt

[MercutioATC]

53. "Sport fishing"...Marlin and such.

I don't know what they do with the meat, but the primary goal is a trophy.

[LWolf]

64. Killing is for food or defense.

In my opinion, of course.

[MercutioATC]

68. How about swatting a fly or setting any traps?

Neither is necessary for survival.

Both involve killing things to make our lives more enjoyable.


My point is that one can be justifiably indignant about killing things as long as they don't just object to killing "cute" things. It's valid to set individual moral boundaries, but do you really want us to legislate them?

[LWolf]

70. That's defense

against the germs carried and spread by vermin.

At least, if you are trapping rodents who've infested your house or outbuildings.

If you are trapping for fur, find an alternative.

[MercutioATC]

71. Ants spread germs now?

I wasn't aware.

We all kill things just to make our lives more pleasant. I'm just suggesting that we admit it and stop treating this as a crusade.

[LWolf]

73. Ants steal food, sting, and kill plants in my area.

What are you doing to the ants? Swatting them, or trapping them?

Generally I just use a home-made version of "tanglefoot," and create barriers that they won't cross over when they become an issue. My 6 acres has numerous large mounds of red ants, and I've yet to swat or trap one yet.

[riverdeep]

74. There are differences between ants and, say, bears.

A universal policy that doesn't take these differences into account is doomed. An argument that doesn't take these differences into account is likewise doomed.

[slackmaster]

118. I know what they do with the meat of marlins you catch off Cabo San Lucas, Mexico

That little eatery across the street from the taxidermist sells wonderful marlin tacos and fresh hot sauces dirt cheap.

In 1986 my friends and I ate our lunch there almost every day for a week. We could fill ourselves up for less than $3 each including beers.

[WA98296]

134. Fishing is suicide (according to a 5 year old friend)

[MadHound]

99. Why is killing to eat wrong?

What, we should all starve? Sorry to tell you this, but humanity has evolved as omnivores, and while vegetarianism is a fine choice for some, it isn't for all of us. Thus, we eat meat. It is no more wrong that a wolf dragging down a deer or a lion dragging down a gazelle. It isn't wrong, it's nature.

[WA98296]

135. Most people aren't killing to eat, most are killing to be killing and still buy at the store.

[fishwax]

139. I don't know any hunter who doesn't eat what they kill

[MadHound]

145. Funny, the overwhelming number of hunters that I've known

Are killing to put meat on the family table. About the only ones I know who were pure sport hunters were the very well off. That's maybe one or two hunters I know out of a long lifetime of being around hunters.

In fact there are many hunters in my state who take any excess deer that they don't need, and give them to charity so that others can eat, including the poor.

But pure sport hunters, nah, they are a really rare bird.

[old mark]

4. No. nt

[El Pinko]

6. I despise hunting and do not consider it a proper "sport", HOWEVER, it should not be banned.

I can't fathom the idea of killing animals to get jollies, but the fact is that sometimes herds need to be thinned and recreational hunters do a service by thinning. It's important that hunts be regulated so that populations stay healthy, but there is a time and place for hunting. I just personally have no interest in being a part of it.

[kwolf68]

7. My view is

I don't like hunting, but it can be used for effective population control.

Trouble is, IT NEVER IS. The reason we have hunting laws and 'population control' is to increase the hunting opportunities for hunters, it's that simple.

These people could give a rats ass about real science or about conservation, they just want to kill shit.

That said, if we could construct legitimate laws to control overpopulation I would not necessarily be against it.

One of the most obvious things is white tail deer. Bucks and Does should be hunted in the same numbers, but they never are are they? Doe seasons are shorter and there are never restrictions on bucks. My knowledge of experience says that an equal number (as much as possible) of bucks and does should be taken, instead of these obscene mis-proportions that are now taken. This mis-proportion PERPETUATES over-population.

Now is hunting a sport? Absolutely not. One side is armed, the other is unarmed and doesn't even know there is a game going on? Canned hunting, cb radios, dogs, trucks, gangs, baiting? NO, many hunters are nothing more than hoodlums with guns.

Thank goodness I did hunt when I was younger, I grew up around it and my dad was serious business with his hunting, but one thing he always stressed was respect for the animal and fairness. I grew out of hunting (interestingly enough my dad did too, he claimed he didn't like the cold, but I believe he was a feeling man and lost his taste for blood) and really am appaled I ever did it, but my experience at least allows me to maybe understand a bit more than someone who never did hunt.

[alarimer]

20. You are so completely wrong about this.

Wildlife management IS a science and every decision is based on real science. My MS is wildlife and fisheries sciences. I do know what I am talking about, although my area of expertise is in fisheries, not in wildlife. The basic principles are the same, though every species is different.

And you are completely wrong about deer. Sex ratios are not even, nor should they be. There should be more does than bucks. Because the bucks compete for females and many bucks never actually get to reproduce. They cull so-called spikes (those bucks that will never be fit enough to reproduce). Here in Texas they usually allow more does to be killed than bucks.

[michreject]

8. No

Varmint control is necessary.

[riverdeep]

78. The earth might consider us 'varmints'. n/t

[michreject]

82. It hasn't told me that

Did it tell you something?

[riverdeep]

85. I don't pretend to speak to the earth.

But we aren't the most successful species on earth, not by a longshot. Some other species might see us as open game.

[michreject]

88. Then how can you speak for the earth?

[riverdeep]

91. I don't.

But when someone labels something a 'varmint', it brings up the idea that 'varmint' is subjective, is it not?

edit: Would polar bears, who have seen their habitat become decimated, see us as 'something that would be considered a nuisance'. I think so.

[michreject]

92. Prairie dogs are varmints

They make holes that cattle step in and break their legs.

[riverdeep]

94. Hey, I hear you.

When nature conspires against you, especially your livelihood, it's got to be brutal. However, what I'm standing against is the thought of 'kill it first and ask questions later'.

We are still part of the same environment and prairie dogs and such may have their place and there may be other ways of dealing with them that the 'kill it first' mentality may not ever discover. It's this same mentality that caused pioneers and sportsmen to kill buffalo from trains, till they were decimated.

Hope your yield is a good one.

[michreject]

100. No pleasure killin for me

I went deer hunting once and didn't like it but that is my personal decision.

[DailyGrind51]

9. It should only be legal for Native Americans.

[realisticphish]

24. why? nt

[DailyGrind51]

32. Because they hunt for sustenance, not sport.

[realisticphish]

34. so do a lot of non NA hunters

and i assure you, a LOT of NA hunters hunt for sport, too

[MercutioATC]

54. Riiiiight....because their teepees don't have refrigerators...

:eyes:

You DO realize that it's 2008, not 1808, right? Native Americans generally get their food the same place the rest of us do...at the grocery store.

[DailyGrind51]

75. You must think ALL Indian tribes own gambling casinos?

[G_j]

25. who traditionally do not hunt for "sport"

but for survival

:shrug:

[DailyGrind51]

33. Exactly, thank you!

[realisticphish]

95. so did my people!

so did everyone's people! any group that hasn't had agriculture from the moment of existence, which is to say, pretty much all of them, at one point hunted for sustenance. They just did it slightly more recently, and honestly not even then. early white settlers hunted/farmed at about the same ratio as most eastern NA tribes (perhaps not the plains tribes, but we're speaking of NA as a group)

[Fluffdaddy]

10. Seems the left are a bunch of non- Hunters.

I never understood the the trill people got out of killing things.

My bother moved to WV 15 years ago and he tells be hunting is like a religion there, 60% of the males in his mid-size town hunt.

[MercutioATC]

55. I'm a "non-hunter" too, but I don't want to prevent other people from doing it.

I don't hunt. I just have no interest in it. Getting up at 4:30 in the morning to sit in a tree and wait for something to walk by is not my idea of fun.

However, it's a tradition and a family bonding experience for many people. As long as endangered animals are off-limits, I have no problem with hunting...and I fail to see why others do.

[cobalt1999]

11. Why should it be made illegal?

It's ALREADY illegal to hunt protected species, so that reason is covered.

I hope no one is advocating legislating a personal moral standard onto others. That's what fundamentalists do.

[Fluffdaddy]

12. In my world ALL hunting would end, but that would be REAL bad politics

Slowly turn around and step away from this issue :hide:

[cobalt1999]

18. If you don't agree with hunting, don't hunt.

If you don't agree with eating meat, don't eat meat.
If you don't agree with abortions, don't have an abortion.
If you don't agree with same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

These are all personal moral choices. When people talk of legislating their moral standards onto everyone is where I object.

[Fluffdaddy]

38. If you don't agree with slavery, don't have slaves?

Some moral choices you have to make a stand.

[The Straight Story]

40. so you are saying slavery is the same as hunting?

Or were you comparing two totally different things?

[Fluffdaddy]

45. I'm saying on some things you can not agree to disagree

Of course human slavery is not the same as killing animals for fun

[cobalt1999]

47. So, your saying hunting is something that can't be allowed

We can't agree to disagree on hunting?

Good god, why?

Is it hurting anyone?
Is it infringing on another's rights?

Sorry, but hunting is a great agree to disagree topic. Same as abortion.

[Fluffdaddy]

57. Chill man !! I said if I was king for a day I would end sport hunting.

I'm will never be King and Hunting would never be made illegal, so don't sweat my personal biases.


Edit to answer: Is it hurting anyone?....................Yes, the hunted

[riverdeep]

81. "Is it hurting anyone?"

Uh, it's hurting the animal, at least. Just for honesty's sake, I thought I'd point that out.

[The Straight Story]

48. well I suppose on this we can agree to disagree

;)

[alarimer]

22. the anti-hunting and fishing lunatics DO want to impose their moral standards on others.

They have no knowledge of how species are actually managed and of the science behind it all. It should be based on science, not on some "touchy-feely" bullshit about how it is "wrong" to kill animals. It is NOT wrong. It is only wrong to not use what you take or to not follow the laws. Most hunters I know are very careful about what they do. They are not blood-thirsty morons, something that is often lost on the anti-hunting people.

[riverdeep]

83. FYI, Christ was 'touchy-feely'.

Whoever receives one little child
like this in My name receives Me.

Matt 18:1-4

Of course, this is an agnostic speaking.

[pleah]

13. My father was a hunter and he NEVER hunted for sport! It was to put food on the table.

Hunting for sport should be illegal in my opinion.

[slackmaster]

29. You've drawn a distinction between subsistence hunting and sport hunting

How about sport hunting of non-endangered animals, in which you eat what you kill?

I see no problem with that.

BTW my stepfather engaged in subsistence hunting when he was young as well.

[pleah]

37. If you eat what you hunt, I have no problem with that. I meant that if you

are just hunting to kill something, that should be illegal.

[jmowreader]

130. That already IS illegal in every state I'm aware of

Every state that has big game hunting requires the hunter, when a kill is made, to remove the carcass from the forest. And there are generally huge penalties for discarding it in a dumpster or something. Small game is sometimes different--stuff like weasels, they don't make you take the carcasses because weasel tastes like shit and other animals will eat weasel carcasses.

[alarimer]

14. There is nothing wrong with hunting.

As long as it is managed effectively, it should have little impact on populations of animals. All wildlife management is based on the theory of surplus production (animals produce more offspring than they need to replace themselves). In some cases it is necessary (with deer, especially) because there are far too many of them and many would starve due to overpopulation.

[LWolf]

66. That's not the issue.

The issue is this: is killing for sport okay?

[aikoaiko]

15. Dead is dead.

:shrug:

[dlovato]

110. I assume you only eat plants...

In that case, you killed the plant that made your tofu, salad, etc. Dead is dead.

At least hunters "do it themselves" vs paying someone else to do it for them.

Good grief. I can't believe the disconnect between people that "eat" - plants, animals, etc and where that food comes from.

The other thing that I can't believe from the posts I've read so far is that the "anti" hunting group doesn't know what the Pittman/Robinson act does:

* A tax on sporting goods (rifles, etc) that provides the VAST majority of all wildlife preservation funding....

Get rid of hunting, you get rid of most of the wildlife preservation funding. i.e. No money to save spotted owls, etc.

- Darryl

[aikoaiko]

143. You assume wrong Darryl,

I don't know what you read into my post, but my reply to the OP was Dead is Dead as in it doesn't matter to me whether you shoot an animal to put on the wall or eat or both.

And I'm fine with hunting.

Welcome to DU, Darryl. :hi:

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

16. I view sport hunting how I view cops.

Take away the gun and special equipment, make it a level playing field, and then you can have your 'fun'.

Of course, it's different if your hunting for survival.

[zanne]

17. If the animals had guns, it'd make me AND the NRA happy. nt

[michreject]

86. How would they shoot them?

[zanne]

103. The NRA would provide them with thumbs. nt

[Fumesucker]

19. I voted other..

You didn't put in an option for "fuck no".

An excellent way to put Republicans in the majority for the foreseeable future.

And I'm not a hunter, except with a camera.

[scrinmaster]

21. Nope.

There's nothing at all wrong with hunting, or shooting varmints or pests.

[cboy4]

23. This will make some people unbelievably irate, but I just

can't help but feel deep down inside that people who hunt for "sport" have psychological issues.

Having seen lots of wild animals up close in the wild, I always ask myself, "what kind of sick fuck could kill this majestic wild animal?"

So fishing, pheasant hunting, etc., for food ... I can go with that.

But to knock down a buck just to kill.....outrageous.

[G_j]

26. think Ted Nugent nt

[cboy4]

27. Yea, he should be in a mental hospital, strapped down in a

straight jacket.

He's an extreme example, although these are the kinds of nuts I'm talking about.

[G_j]

31. Buffalo Hunters

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/we-buffalohunters.html

<snip>

The Indians watched in dismay as buffalo hunting took on an almost a carnival atmosphere when railroads began to advertise “hunting by rail.” This occurred when trains sometimes encountered large herds of buffalo crossing the tracks. Seeing a way to capitalize on the problem, the advertising flooded the newspapers and in no time, sporting men with rifles were shooting buffalo by the hundreds just for fun. Those animals shot from the train were simply left where they died.


As the slaughter continued, the Indians became increasingly angry and resentful as they watched their main source of sustenance dwindle at the hands of the white man. This led to more and more Indian attacks which resulted in U.S. Army retaliation at the height of the Indian Wars. It was also at this time that the U.S. Government desired to separate the Indians from the rest of “civilization” by placing them on reservations. In order to do this, the U.S. Army aggressively pursued a policy to eradicate the buffalo, intentionally extinguishing the Indians' sustenance, which would force then onto reservations.

In fact, when the Texas Legislature was discussing a bill to protect the buffalo, General Philip Sheridan defended the buffalo hunters and opposed the bill by saying:

”These men have done more in the last two years, and will do more in the next year, to settle the vexed Indian question, than the entire regular army has done in the last forty years. They are destroying the Indians' commissary. And it is a well known fact that an army losing its base of supplies is placed at a great disadvantage. Send them powder and lead, if you will; but for a lasting peace, let them kill, skin, and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated. Then your prairies can be covered with speckled cattle.”

By 1884 the great era of the buffalo ended and nothing remained of the massive buffalo herds but piles of bones. At that time there were only some 1,200-2,000 surviving buffalo left in the United States.

<snip>

[dlovato]

122. So I suppose you are a vegetarian...

If so - fine - but you are killing plants. Ted Nugent is certainly willing to state his opinions - and they are "contriversial" - but he's consistent, and I'd like to hear what part of his "platform" isn't correct.

- Darryl

[dlovato]

113. People that don't know where their food come from have intelligence issues

Quote:
----------
can't help but feel deep down inside that people who hunt for "sport" have psychological issues.
Having seen lots of wild animals up close in the wild, I always ask myself, "what kind of sick fuck could kill this majestic wild animal?"
So fishing, pheasant hunting, etc., for food ... I can go with that.
But to knock down a buck just to kill.....outrageous.
----------

You are a nut-job. Do you eat meat? if so - you killed what was a pretty cute, brown-eyed "calf", what was a nice little "minnow" that became a big "fish", or a cute "chick" that became a "chicken".

If you are a vegetarian, then you KILLED MANY lettuce plants - a living organism - a wonderful "live/living" thing.

The fact that you cant see where your food comes from, because our are too displaced by the insulation of grocery stores or fast food doesn't bode well for your intelligence.

- Darryl

[yewberry]

128. Might want to brush up on those comprehension skills.

The poster that you're replying to--in fact whose words you're quoting--says he is okay with hunting for food.

Here again, for the slow-witted: the poster says that hunting for food=fine.

Please stop ignoring the fact that this thread is not about hunting for food. It's about killing for fun or for trophies.

[slackmaster]

28. Hunting WHAT for sport?

Endangered birds and mammals? Yes.

Predators? Yes.

Deer? Elk? Moose? Pigs? Antelope? Doves? Quail? Turkeys? Exotics like Chukkars? Coyotes? Absolutely not!

Does the OP intend for this to apply to fishing as well?

Does the OP mean "sport hunting" as in killing what you eat, but you are otherwise able to acquire all the food you need by other means; or is the OP talking about TROPHY hunting, i.e. killing for its own sake without making full use of the game?

:shrug:

[Edweird]

30. Good grief. How about you live your life and let others live theirs?

[cobalt1999]

36. It's still amazing to me the hypocrisy displayed.

Do any of the "yes" voters agree to making same-sex marriage illegal?
Do any of the "yes" voters agree to making abortion illegal?

But let a chance come along to make something they don't like illegal and they vote "yes"!?!

For you "yes" voters, if something violates your moral code, DON'T do it. You are emulating the fundamentalists behavior.

[The Straight Story]

41. Just like smoking, et al, around here

There are some people who want to preach to you how to live and then make laws to enforce it, instead of just living their own lives.

But try to ban something they like and suddenly it is fascism, trying to control someone Else's body, etc.

[G_j]

44. do any of these things involve killing for fun?

just askin'
:shrug:

[MercutioATC]

58. They're animals.

If you've ever swatted a fly or pulled a dandelion out of your lawn or worn leather, you've killed a living thing for your own convenience...not survival or necessity, but convenience.

[riverdeep]

87. Do you distinguish between willing participants and unwilling participants

in your moral code? Because there is a difference. Just thought you might want to know.

[Ex Lurker]

141. there are as many authoritarians on the left as on the right

which is why I'm uncomfortable with either side gaining a decisive majority.

[XOKCowboy]

65. Thank you.. Finally some sense in this thread

[WindRiverMan]

35. Just a FYI, Hunting for SPORT IS ILLEGAL in most states

True "trophy" hunting where just the head and horns are collect while legal in Africa is pretty much unheard of in the United States. Almost everything must have the meat salvaged and processed for human consumption. If not, you get a hefy fine and license revoked. There are some exceptions like varmits which most states treat as vermin, but your ungulates must be salvaged and eaten or you get in trouble.

[G_j]

63. it looks like half the DU responders here would change that!

:shrug:

[ThomWV]

39. Sure, just as soon as Football, Baseball, Basketball, and other idiotic passtimes are outlawed too

Who in hell are you or I to say who may hunt and who may not?

[tammywammy]

42. No, it should not be made illegal.

[baldguy]

43. We've removed all the predators from our environment

but have kept all the tasty animals.

[flvegan]

46. It's not "hunting" but rather shooting and killing.

I think anyone that kills for fun is a sick fuck. Should it be banned? Slippery slope, that.

[dlovato]

111. Really? Have you ever tried to hunt for your own meat?

If you've never done it, you have no idea what is involved, the economic and wildlife benefits of hunters seems to be "missed" by your emotional response.

- darryl

[flvegan]

116. Did you read the op?

Hunting for sport. What's missed is the point by you, darryl.

[dlovato]

121. It's really not a "sport" - it's a way of getting meat...

I know a TON of hunters, ALL of them eat what they "kill". It's a much better way of providing food than buying it at a store.

You should hope I get a deer this year:

* the deer will be saved a much more "gruesome" death than it would probably end up getting
- being torn apart, while it's still alive by a wolf/coyote/bear/mtn lion
- being hit by a car
- starving to death

* My licensing fees, and Pittman Robinson act funds support not just the preservation/conservation of the game I'm taking (deer in this example), but also non-game species (spotted owls, salamanders, etc).

* I'll be saving a "cow" from a much worse life, zero chance of living through a trip to a slaughter house
- and the much worse environmental impact of "cattle" vs "deer".

I could go on, but this should be enough -you either get it or you don't.

- Darryl

[flvegan]

126. I'll try again.

I know that with 11 posts you may not get it yet. The OP was about hunting for sport or trophy hunting. That's what I responded to. You've obviously got a chip on your shoulder a mile wide, so feel free to take it elsewhere or to at least head to Clues R Us and buy one.

Now, had this been a "hunting for food" poll, you may have had a point.

[dlovato]

129. OK - see my trophy "reply"

See my reply about "Trophy hunting" for my thought on that....

As far as hunting as a "sport"...

Is going to the supermarket to buy a t-bone steak, chicken breast, or can of tuna fish a sport? If hunting is a sport, then I suppose "gathering" is as well - even gathering meat that someone else killed for you. Does paying someone else to kill for you any more or less a sport than doing it yourself?

I suppose if someone else does the dirty work, it's OK - if you do it yourself, then it's evil. Is that the Democratic position?

Or is the Democratic party now against all meat eaters? Only vegetarians "welcome"?

You can't be against killing animals, and not inadvertently exclude all meat eaters from the party.

- Darryl

[krabigirl]

49. Yes, absolutely. If you aren't going to eat the meat, you shouldn't kill the animal.

But I acknowledge that I have an extreme view on this. I've also never been around a hunting culture.

[L0oniX]

50. Give the animals guns and it will be a sport, maybe even poison tipped antlers.

[dlovato]

112. Give the cows, chickens, fish, etc that you eat the same thing...

For those of you who who eat meat (of any kind) and say that "hunting" is "immoral" - you need to take a good look at what how nuts your argument sounds.

All you are doing is attacking people who are closer to nature than you are, and would rather acquire their "meat" themselves vs paying someone to do it for them. If you eat meat, something has died to do so. Get real.

- Darryl

[LWolf]

52. Killing is not a sport

among civilized creatures.

A sport, of course, requires two teams, or opponents, to play. Unless you invite your opponent to the game, and they agree and step into play, that's not "sport," either.

Perhaps it should be legal for "sport" hunters to only hunt other "sport" hunters.

[lonestarnot]

56. Yes it should be made illegal along with canned hunts!

[dlovato]

114. While your at it...

Ban eating all meat in the United States... Something was killed. Ban it - while you are at it, ban harvesting corn, lettuce, soy-beans (tofu) and any other living thing.

After all it's all killing. I'd love to see this become the main platform of the democrats :-)

Hmm... Citizens will have the choice of "eating" or -not-.

- Darryl

[texasleo]

59. wow

[misanthrope]

60. There's one vital difference between natural selection and hunting...

...Think of an animal population as a circle. At the center are the most robust, those most selected for fitness. On the outside are the old, the young, the weak, the infirmed.

Natural selection culls from the outside in, keeping health insured, selecting for fitness and insuring viability of the species.

Modern hunters--using technology most couldn't manufacture for themselves, i.e., using means outside their skill set--cull from the inside out. They go for the most robust. They aren't like a pack of wolves, studying the herd, selecting the surest kill with the least risk of injury involved.

[rucky]

61. Regulated. alot. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. It's a pastime for those who've graduated from pulling wings off flies.

Or, blowing up frogs.

[dlovato]

117. OK....

Quote: It's a pastime for those who've graduated from pulling wings off flies.

Or those who understand that wild game has no hormone injections, generally lead a lot better life than the alternative source of meat.

At least wild game has a chance - the "hunter/human" success rate for cows going into the slaughter house is 100% - those cows get killed - none get out alive. No chance at all. Deer/Elk etc in almost all states have much better chance of surviving "human" hunters - About 70% of the legal bucks each year don't become meat for hunters. In fact hunters only take 10% or so of all deer/elk. Most are kill in much less politically "incorrect" ways - being torn apart/eaten while alive by Coyotes/Mtn Lions/Bears, or die a slow painful death from starvation/disease/etc - or hit by cars, etc..

If I where a deer, I'd rather be shot by a hunter than my "alternatives".

- Darryl

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

127. I doubt that most deer would agee with you.

I suppose you would prefer somebody blowing your guts out with a gun rather than dying of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, a car wreck, or falling down the stairs?

And, don't forget the joy of having your head mounted on his wall so he can impress his friends and neighbors with stories of his manliness.

[dlovato]

132. Actually - yes.

>I suppose you would prefer somebody blowing your guts out with a gun rather than dying of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, a car wreck, or falling down the stairs?
>And, don't forget the joy of having your head mounted on his wall so he can impress his friends and neighbors with stories of his manliness.

Having seen what a Mtn Lion does to a deer, yes, I would rather be shot and die quickly than eaten alive. I've also seen a deer die a slow death from getting hit by a car. Again, I'd rather be shot. I've also seen a deer in the process of dying from starvation - yes, once again, I'd rather go quickly with a shot from a hunter.

After the animal is dead, it doesn't "know" if it was "mounted or not". Honestly, the human "tradition" of putting up tombstones over grave sites isn't much different than a hunter mounting a head on a wall - it's simply a way to preserve a memory. The cows killed in slaughter houses don't get half the respect that hunter's give the game they take.

Mostly people not only forget about the "cows/chickens/pigs/etc" they ate, but don't put 2 & 2 together to remember that it was once a "cute little calf/piglet/chick" at one point. If you are a meat eater - how many cows have you killed? Do you remember any of them, did you even SEE any of them prior to their death necessary to feed you? Did you spend any money trying to preserve their memory - perhaps putting a mount of their likeness on your wall where you would see it frequently to remember them, the experience they provided you and your kids, or the food they provided you? Probably not.

- Darryl

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

138. How many workers in abattoirs take pleasure in their work?

My guess is, not many. Nor, are they likely to mount the heads of the victims on their walls for the joy of their kids.

BTW - the OP was about "sport" hunting, which denotes to me a certain pleasure in the "sport" of killing defenseless animals.

[LostInAnomie]

67. Hunting for trophies is disgusting.

And so are the people that do it.

[dlovato]

125. Trophy Hunting - disgusting really?

>Original Message
Hunting for trophies is disgusting.
And so are the people that do it.

OK - I would consider myself a "trophy" hunter - in that I'll pass up "easy shots" at younger deer during the deer season, to take a more mature, bigger, older deer. i.e. I'm more "selective" and put additional "requirements" on what I shoot and don't shoot on myself - over and above local fish/game requirements to keep the deer population in check.

Does adding these additional personal requirements on what I kill (AND EAT) make me more "evil"? Sometimes I go a season without getting meat (i..e Killing) because of these extra personal requirements.

If all hunters where "trophy hunters" - less deer would get killed each year by hunters - but that would mean that more would get killed in less "humane" ways - hit by cars, torn apart while still alive by predators, starve to death due to lack of food (mostly from human encroachment/development on their wintering grounds, etc.

Before you "attack" a choice/label (in this case "trophy hunter") - going after older bucks vs younger ones, you should educate yourself on what the difference between the two are - and the implications of each.

I can't believe the amount of lack of knowledge the anti-hunters have of game management, sources of human food, benefits of hunting, hunter's contribution to wildlife preservation, etc

- Darryl

[yewberry]

69. I voted no.

As revolting, self-centered, and immoral as "sport hunting" is, I had to vote no. You can't legislate people into good sense.

[Thothmes]

72. Do not think it should be illegal

I have no objection to hunting if the hunter is going to eat the meat, or in some cases donate it to charitable feeding organizations. I do dispise trophy hunting with bo intention of using the meat.

[Sewsojm]

79. If your not eating the meat

its called hunting for sport/trophy, this crap needs to be out lawed!!

[riverdeep]

76. Sport?

Please. These days, the human may go home disappointed, or even hungry, but until they face being skinned, and having their entrails being displaced if they don't succeed in their endeavour, it's not a 'sport'. A hobby maybe, a sport, no.

[LaurenG]

80. No, hunting for sport is gastly IMO. n/t

[Kajsa]

84. The day when animals are equally equipped with weapons

they can use in an attack and in self defense,

then it can be called a sport.

Absurd?- that's my point!

[Withywindle]

89. In the current political climate, no.

But I'll continue to find people who actually enjoy killing the helpless to be creepy and contemptible.

Maybe in a few generations social disgust will accomplish what laws can't.

[Lyric]

90. I have no problem with hunting, so long as the meat isn't wasted.

There are organizations that take donations of game meat to distribute to hungry families who've fallen through the social services cracks. If you hunt for "sport," you have a moral obligation to make sure the meat goes to someone who's going to use it--whether your own family, or someone else's family. Otherwise it's just wasteful selfishness.

I especially loathe hunters who cut off trophy heads and leave the rest to rot. The sheer wasteful arrogance and laziness of that is just infuriating.

Don't get me wrong--my family hunts. I have no problem with rifle and shotgun ownership--I encourage it, in fact, and I intend on purchasing a rifle myself when we can afford it. What I object to is WASTE--especially of deer meat. Deer is a hell of a lot healthier than beef, and tasty too. Deer sausage is so good, you'd never want greasy pork sausage again if you tried it. My family is poor; there have been plenty of times when deer meat in the freezer saved our asses. There are others out there like us, and every deer carcass left to rot is one less deer whose death could have fed a needy family.

[DutchLiberal]

93. Yes. How is killing defenseless animals a 'sport'?

[depakid]

96. It's not. So called "sport" hunting is a sick and twisted act

But you'll never get the libertarian contingent to agree that people shouldn't be allowed to be as sick and twisted as they want.

[greguganus]

97. I'd support hunting for sport if they hunt only with their bare hands. n/t

[renie408]

98. BAN HUNTING!! We can just run over all the deer with our cars. That's WAY better.

I live in a used-to-be rural area of upstate SC. In the spring and Fall, you will see at least two or three dead deer every few days on the side of the road between here and the nearest town, about ten miles. The deer population here is not hurting. I do not hunt, my husband doesn't hunt. We catch spiders to put them out of the house. We don't own guns. But the fact that I don't enjoy hunting does not mean that other people are either wrong to enjoy it or that it should be banned. I honestly don't understand the hunter mentality. But I am not interested in outlawing everything I don't understand. Hunting does thin herd numbers. It may be barbaric, but it serves a purpose. I am sure that the deer don't much care whether or not they get killed by a rifle or by a car. Either way, they are dead.

[kwyjibo]

104. Who will we choose to determine the difference between hunting for sport and hunting for food?

Shouldn't the latter be legal? I think so. How can we prove that a person is hunting for sport and not for food? Do we have to have video or a witness to make sure they eat the meat?

[Booster]

105. I think hunting with your bare hands is ok, but with a gun - that's

just plain chickenshit.

[slackmaster]

120. There is nothing chickenshit about using all of our capabilities to advantage

Deer can't make flak jackets? Too bad for them.

[dlovato]

137. Re:There is nothing chickenshit about using all of our capabilities to advantage

Agreed 100%

Additionally I'd like to point out that Mtn Lions have claws and teeth, should they not use them when killing deer? They generally "ambush" their pray, and will take fawns (i.e. Bambi) if given a chance... where hunters are limited to adults only per restrictions from Fish & Game departments, etc.

Humans have intelligence, not using that to provide for ourselves and offspring is just as silly.

It's not like deer don't have advantages... It's not as one-sided as you make it sound.

* Hunters have to hunt them in "their territory" - they know every qt foot of woods they live in - they have home field advantage
- There are limits on the time of year, times of day, etc that humans can hunt
* Deer have MUCH better senses than humans - sight/smell/etc
* Deer are much faster

In California - the hunter success rate is something like 20% - that means a average hunter will only get a deer every 5 years. It's not as easy as it sounds to be successful getting meat from hunting.

So is hunting a "sport"? Perhaps - the challenge for a human hunter is similar to a mtn lion's challenge (and the deer's challenge to escape the one trying to kill it) - the only difference is that humans now (in the last few hundred years) have the fall back plan of going to the grocery store for meat.

- Darryl

[atjrpsych]

106. I am sorry but how can anyone consider killing a living creature a sport?

[benEzra]

107. I'm a nonhunter, and if I hunted, I'd eat what I killed. BUT,

I think a country that outlaws everything I personally choose not to do is not the kind of country I want to live in.

[Sanctified]

115. I enjoy hunting but would not consider it a sport.

Golf is a sport, tennis is a sport, hell even now eating 52 hotdogs is a sport. Hunting is a method of ensuring that you have food for nourishment.

[Avalux]

119. I think you need to define "sport".

I grew up in a hunting family in Central PA. I was raised eating venison from the deer my dad killed. I see nothing wrong with this, since the animal is used for food and we were not very well off at the time.

Hunting animals without this intent is wrong, IMHO.

[LeftyMom]

123. people who kill for fun need psychological treatment

:shrug:

[Blue-Jay]

124. If you're going to eat it, it's not "sport".

Killing animals for sport is (in my opinion) nasty business, but hunting for food is fine with me.

[LanternWaste]

131. I imagine there is a particular demographic

I imagine there is a particular demographic that gets enjoyment from consciously killing animals-- but I'm glad I don't know any of them personally...

[JitterbugPerfume]

133. although I find it repugnant

if you use what you kill to feed your family it is ok

if you respect what you kill it is ok


if you do it just to dominate something weak and defenseless, them it is sick and repulsive

[mudesi]

136. If you eat steak, you can't vote no

Let's attempt to not be completely hypocritical about this.

[dlovato]

140. One other factoid for the uninformed

Did you know that mtn Lions, wolves etc sometimes kill prey (deer/elk/etc) and don't "eat them"?

It's part of their nature.

Is that killing "for sport"?

I know of one report from a fish & game warden I spoke to that even investigated a mtn lion that was evidently "teaching" it's cubs how to hunt that wiped out a dozen domestic goats - didn't eat a single one. Just killed them (they where in a penned area - although that wouldn't have made a difference).

Did you know that mtn lions, wolves etc rarely make a "quick" kill. They could care less if the animal they are in the process of eating is still alive or "screaming" the whole time...

Is that more humane than a human shooting an arrow or bullet through their lungs? Generally they die very quickly - and I don't know of a single hunter who won't use a follow up shot if necessary to "end it" as quickly as possible. Certainly no human that I know would consider cutting off the meat of a still-alive deer.

- Darryl

[dlovato]

142. Economic benefits of hunting...

Here's some facts to ponder if you are going to "make a stand" against hunting...

Rassumsen <www.rasmussenreports.com> lists the following states as current "toss ups" in the presidential election in their electoral college tracking...

Colorado, Nevada and Virginia -- are pure toss-ups. So lets look at them in detail...

But first, here's the National economic contribution made by sportsmen (Anglers & Hunters)...

* If the $76 BILLION that sportsmen spend on hunting and fishing where the Gross domestic product of a country, sportsmen as a nation would rank 57 out of 181 countries. (do the dem's really want to eliminate that much gross domestic product from the US?)

* That accounts for 1.6 MILLION jobs (do the dem's really want to eliminate that many jobs?) Which accounts for $60 BILLION in salaries and wages AND 25.6 BILLION in Federal/State and Local taxes (do the dems want to eliminate that?)

OK - now just looking at the 3 "pure tossups"...

COLORADO
---------
• Sportsmen support more jobs in Colorado than Colorado Springs-based Allstate Insurance Co. (20,000 jobs vs. 17,286).
• Annual spending by Colorado sportsmen is two and a half times more than the combined revenues of the Colorado Rockies and Denver Broncos and Nuggets
($1.2 billion vs. $463 million).
• Annual spending by Colorado sportsmen is more than the cash receipts from dairy, greenhouse/nursery, corn and hay combined ($1.2 billion vs. $1.18 billion).
• Colorado sportsmen outnumber the population of Denver (593,000 vs. 558,000).

NEVADA
-------
• Sportsmen support as many jobs in Nevada as the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police (5,000 jobs).
• Annual spending by Nevada sportsmen is more than the revenues of Henderson based Zappos.com, one of the fastest growing companies in the state ($417 million vs. $381 million).
• Nevada sportsmen annually spend more than the cash receipts from cattle, hay, dairy, onions and potatoes, the state’s top five agricultural commodities ($417 million vs. $406 million).
• More people hunt and fish in Nevada than get married in Las Vegas (182,000 vs. 110,000).

VIRGINIA
-------
• Sportsmen support more jobs in Virginia than Northrop Grumman in Newport News and Virginia Tech University combined (24,000 jobs vs. 23,000).
• Annual spending by Virginia sportsmen is more than the combined revenues of Southside Oil, Uppy's Convenience Stores, Apex Systems, and Lumber Liquidators - the state's four fastest growing companies grossing over $100 million ($1.3 billion vs. $932 million).
• Sportsmen spend more in Virginia than the combined cash receipts from broilers, cattle and dairy products - the state's top three agricultural commodities ($1.3 billion vs. $1.2 billion).
• Virginia sportsmen annually spend $175 million on outboard boats and engines to get out on the water and around the marshes for fishing and hunting.
• Virginia sportsmen could fill both Richmond International Raceway and Martinsville Speedway nearly 5 times (857,000 vs. 177,000).

Now... Do you really want to make hunting illegal? Do you want to impose ANY additional restrictions on hunting?

McCain just solidified the votes of many hunters with his VP pick - pulling hunters who are democrats, undecided, and solidified the republican hunter base. Sorry to say, but it was a brilliant move on his part. Dems can go "ani-hunting more than usual, but that will only make things worse...

- Darryl

[XOKCowboy]

144. Take away hunting and it will kill many small towns in CO, WY, MT

who depend on the income from hunters to make it through the year. Towns like Montrose, Pinedale and Big Hole are off the beaten path get a few tourists who'll buy a tank of gas and a soda during the summer but depend on hunters who come in and spend thousands of dollars and stay weeks at a time during hunting season to make it through the winter.

Once again it's not PETA that's funding the state wildlife agencies either. It's hunters and fishermen buying licenses and gear that pays for it most wildlife programs. If PETA had put up just 1/1000th of the money that Ducks Unlimited has raised and spent for the conservation of critical wetlands for migrating waterfowl I'd have more respect for them.