Hunting

[BillyB]

Have a look at this video, then tell me how "humane" animal slaughterhouses are.

So what do you propose? If a cow can't walk to the slaughterhouse and you're against a fork lift picking them up, should we just let them sit on the ground starving and dying slowly? Some dog owners will take their dog, who isn't able to walk anymore, and humanely shoot them instead of letting them be cripple the rest of their life. Horses will be put to death if they can't stand anymore.

I can find unpleasant things in every industry. Medical, auto, law, food, etc.... So do we just shut everything down because of a few things we don't like?

At the end of the video the humane society announces it wants you to help end factory farming. Send them some money if they are successful, we'll just have to hunt cows with bows and guns instead.

In today's day and age, it's easy to be a vegetarian and put down meat eaters. It's easy to say "I have a conscience and care about the welfare of animals more than you meat eaters" Today vegetarians can say that but their ancestors who struggled for almost every meal didn't have that luxury. They speared animals and scared animals off cliffs to kill them. Evil? Unethical? Inhumane? Uncivilized? No, just simple normal human actions in an effort to prepare their next meal. Men who were good hunters were very attractive to females since those men were more likely to feed her and the kids. Those guys kept us from going extinct yet some of you want everyone to believe hunters and butchers are the bad guys now.

[Gator]

Billy,

Interesting video of the attacking lion.  At the 38-sec mark it appears that one hunter in the foreground misses the lion and shoots another hunter.  Is that mentioned in any narrative?

[Boethius]

I'm not "proposing" anything.  Just pointing out the fallacy in your assertion.

[Gator]

 You people are too serious.  Lighten up. Read this.

                WARNING

The Forest Service has issued a BEAR WARNING in the national forests for this summer. They're urging everyone to protect themselves by wearing bells and carrying pepper spray.

Campers should be alert for signs of fresh bear activity, and they should be able to tell the difference between Black Bear feces and that of the dangerous Grizzly Bear.

Black Bear feces is rather small and round. Sometimes you can see fruit seeds, leaves and/or squirrel fur in it.

Grizzly Bear $hit has bells in it, and smells like pepper spray.

 

Actually, pepper spray  and bells are sold for hiking in wilderness areas.

http://www.macecanada.com/canada/product/bearbells.htm

[BillyB]

Billy,

Interesting video of the attacking lion.  At the 38-sec mark it appears that one hunter in the foreground misses the lion and shoots another hunter.  Is that mentioned in any narrative?

There are a bunch of the same video out there on the internet and I once seen one where the narrative said none of the hunters were injured. If you watch again the video, you will only see one hunter falling to the ground after the lion jumps him but he quickly gets up and  holds his rifle to get ready to take aim at the fleeing lion. One hunter close to the falling hunter falls on a knee but he quickly gets up too so that leads me to believe none of the hunters were shot. One hunter seems to fall down by the recoil of his high powered rifle since it looks like the shot hit the ground and not him being hit. One thing I learned from the video is that you don't go hunting for lion alone. Unlike deer, they will not run away after taking one bullet.

[facetrock]

  Hows this for a killer instinct. Growing up in a small farming community in Iowa we always had an abundance of English Sparrows. Nasty little invasive species. In the fall they would roost in small maple trees that still had their leaves. Me and a few of my buddys would get together and tape flashlights to the end of our BB guns and climb up in the trees. The sparrows wouldnt move and you could shoot them one at a time from about one foot away. In four or five years we had to have killed thousands of them.
  The people who owned the trees loved us for it. No more sparrow sh1t everywhere. They would go out the next morning and actually use rakes to pile them up. We didnt have to worry about cripples either. My trusty dachshound Herman would finish any that hit the ground still alive. Ah, the good old days.
  If you want I can tell you how me and my brother killed over a thousand European starlings in a day.

[Gator]

 If you want I can tell you how me and my brother killed over a thousand European starlings in a day.

I wish you had killed a million, no 5 million.  Starlings - an example of introducing a non-native species which outcompetes the desirable native species.

[Gator]

One hunter seems to fall down by the recoil of his high powered rifle since it looks like the shot hit the ground and not him being hit.

He was propelled to the ground as if he were shot.  And it would not surprise me because it was a crossfire situation.

[GoodOlBoy]

He was propelled to the ground as if he were shot.  And it would not surprise me because it was a crossfire situation.

Maybe something like these idiots?



GOB

[GQBlues]

Maybe something like these idiots?

LOL.

a great video of a typical American predator hunter.

[BillyB]

He was propelled to the ground as if he were shot.  And it would not surprise me because it was a crossfire situation.

After further review, I think the guy shot at the lion, his round hit the ground and he purposely jumped backwards since the lion got up and looked like it was headed his way. There's only two guys that could've shot him. One guy was completely on the ground and lost his rifle and just picked it up and never took another shot after the lion jumped and the other guy who fell on his knee couldn't have shot him because I didn't see or hear him manually pull back on the bolt to do that between the time his fellow hunter fell on the ground and when he took his last shot. If he shot his buddy, he wouldn't have been able to shoot one last time at the lion without having to pull back the bolt, clearing the spent shell and allowing a new round into the chamber.

[tim 360]

I wish you had killed a million, no 5 million.  Starlings - an example of introducing a non-native species which outcompetes the desirable native species.

Gonna need some hunters in FL for those Burmese amd African Pythons replicating like bunnies.

[Gator]

Billy,

I believe you are correct; however, he sure went to the ground (fainted).

I admire how the two on the left stood their ground, even if they could not shoot straight.   It would have been more impressive if he hit the lion's jaw with the rifle butt in an uppercut.  Maybe a bayonet next time.  

[facetrock]

Tim, it will be hard to get rid of the pythons in the glades. The best bet is some cold weather.
 
  I honestly dont think primitive man had any effect on the extinction of any megafauna in North America, especially mammoths. Mammoths were huge with lawnmower like seven foot tusks. The natives in Africa never figured out how to down elephants and in fact avoided them. Theres the old arguement that the mammoths had no fear of man when he first arrived in North America. Probably true and you might get away with poking a few with your spear.
  The problem is elephants are smart and in a short period of time they will understand when man is around they inflict pain. Game over, you will be run down and killed next time. Besides that you would be this 140 pound dude trying to get within twenty feet of a twelve ton mammoth to throw a spear with a rock tip so it could maybe penetrate the wool and tough skin to hit a vital organ,very unlikely. Another problem you would have to deal with is the elephants great sense of smell and its protective nature. If they can run off lions that slow moving two legged thingy would be a piece of cake. There are some supposed kill sites but I would bet these animals were already sick or crippled and far away from the herd.
 
  Theres a reason why people in Africa dont try to mingle with elephants. First they will smell you and wont run away, then they will see you, then you will die. They will run you down in seconds. There is no reason to think mammoths acted any different from their African cousins. Spear chucking natives intentionaly trying to hunt twelve ton mammoths would have been suicide.

[tim 360]

Yeah and those pythons just keep eating and getting pregnant.  A pregnant female will lay over 50 eggs and with no natural predators...maybe some chef will come up with a tasty python recipe.

Our ancestors definitely did find the Mammoth tasty despite of how dangerous the job was to bring one down.  But humans get very clever and brave when they get hungry.  Also by 14,000 years ago we were already into this interglacial and the heat was too much for the wooly Mammoths who thrived in colder weather.  As they continued to lose their habitat their #'s dwindled down.  Humans were there to help them along down the path to extinction.  Perhaps they only killed 50 per year-- but year after year that took its toll on the Mammoths.  

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080331223843.htm

link below gives you an idea of how much the climate change of the interglacial affected the Mammoths and Megafauna:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817211052.htm

[Gator]

Our ancestors definitely did find the Mammoth tasty despite of how dangerous the job was to bring one down.  

One RWD member informed me that he has eaten mammoth in Russia.

[tim 360]

One RWD member informed me that he has eaten mammoth in Russia.

I hope not beyond it's expiration date.  Many Siberians have had frozen Mammoth meat since many were frozen intact naturally.  Not bad I've heard for 10,000 year old meat--if you cook it properly.

[GQBlues]

One RWD member informed me that he has eaten mammoth in Russia.

ONE?!??? Just 'one'? Wow! The MOB is really taking a serious hit lately, huh? 

[Jumper]

So the plow or hoe, came before the sharp stick or spear to be a better pretador/omnivore?
and brain development din't make homo sapiens the most feared and successful  overall omnivore on the planet currently ?
 
hmm, interesting..

(GQ you might want to brush up on just how recent real agriculture is ,in the course of mankinds history.
 Granted it was a big change for mankind,but it is ,in context , quite recent.)


I love the idealism here that one animal ,like bambi , rights to humane treatment are somehow more important and conjure sadness or even anger at his slaughter ,
 while the cows big eyes with longer lashes do not.

or the farm raised salmon,  is somehow less important than the wild one.

Much less the moles or gohpers exterminated that they  might have a good clean putt.

It's a great social study over the last few centurioes..

The more mankind is removed from the animals he lives on daily , the more unrealistic he gets.
and it is increasing exponentially,
That is not becoming more civilized, its becomeing more unattached.


The packaged meat at the store , din't moo or cluck in his yard this morning , he dint name it,, or interact with it,
and he paid someone else to kill it.So while he is "wolfing" down that meal,, he has little  to no thought or remorse.
certainly no anger..

It really would be a puzzle if it wasn't so simple ,
convineince

It's uncomfortable to actually think about each meal ,so they do not.
and  when buying something at the market all packaged up-
 most talk agood talk, but ultimately they would not care if it was from a farm , a commercial hunter or fisherman or a slaughter house.


Bambi or thiumper evoke anger at the thought of them being killed..

yet a dish of rabbitt at a french restaurant, or a steak is just fine ..even tasty. very little if any sadness.,cerrtainly no anger.

why?

because in thier minds they intentionally differentiate the two, and distance themselves from the victims.
no interaction.. and certainly do not want any ! oh no! That's messy, and  that reality would be..
 well....
 uncomfortable.


Unrealistic ideals, and an intentional and calculated  mental unattachment and distancing from the victim are common traits of many  serial killers. :evil:


 

[GQBlues]

So the plow or hoe, came before the sharp stick or spear to be a better pretador/omnivore?

AJ-
That's either selective reading on your part or your comprehension is a bit lacking. I'll chalk it up that you simply glossed over the threads. No one here said that, including me.

The lowered neolithic fossil findings suggest that farming and agriculture took place relatively much later in man's stone age period, 6000-9000 BC. Stone age, IINM is a period between 2.5 million years ago to a few thousand sunsets ago. Learning the ability to farm animals and cultivate/irrigate lands led to an even shorter period of technological leap. It led to the establishments of communities...cities...civilization, eBay, Russianwomendiscussion.com...Obamacare.

Ok, the latter is a great leap backwards, give or take a few millions years...but so what, man is not perfect unless you live in Los Angeles.

..and brain development din't make homo sapiens the most feared and successful overall omnivore on the planet currently ?

Feared? LOL. Subjective. e.g. Tell that to that great white shark off the coast of Vandenberg Airport who bit off a chunk off that Sta Barbara student surfer's leg recently, or the mountain lions that attack So. Cal joggers off the ranges of the sierras...or the grizzlies who made an entre off Timothy Threadwell and his loyal girlfriend.

But successful? Yes, in the context we've evolved, as social animals - strength in numbers - to rationalize/communicate, adapt and innovate and further preserve our own species/kind.

(GQ you might want to brush up on just how recent real agriculture is ,in the course of mankinds history. Granted it was a big change for mankind,but it is ,in context , quite recent.)

See above.

* The context of the thread was not about morality but rather about if hunters hunt today because of 'meat/food' or because they find enjoyment in doing so. It has nothing to do with California's happy cows, Bambi, Barbies, Olga, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Nanci Pelosi, or Captain America.

Just like Darwin's Theory of Evolution, it is then as it is now - still a theory as far as I know. The history of man, i.e predator or prey, just like the learnings and teachings of the origins of the dinosaurs - remember Jurrasic Park (LOL); Is it a bird? No, it's a reptile...no, wait a minute, it's a , it's a... - had been more than challenged and still continues today by the perpetual fossils findings of scientists with nothing to do but wallow in ancient dirt piles. i.e. Tbilisi 2006.

If you bank every foundation of your understanding and knowledge - FULLY - on theories without regard to other viable conclusions due to direct challenges and perpetual new-found evidence/s, then I submit we can agree to disagree and I'll joyfully whistle at the Happy Cows of California and the some of you can bang your golden mallet down and declare yourselves the Mighty Thor, the God of Lighting - son of Odin! Guardians of Russian women.

[Daveman]

...and the some of you can bang your golden mallet down and declare yourselves the Mighty Thor, the God of Lighting - son of Odin! Guardians of Russian women.

I am Phuck... of the Mountain!

(the Mountain people are quite conversant with the Georgian theory of Carlinism  )

[JR]

* The context of the thread was not about morality but rather about if hunters hunt today because of 'meat/food' or because they find enjoyment in doing so.

This works with shooting starlings in a tree, hunting deer in the woods or stalking FSUW for younger, easier meat. The mixture of reasons/justifications will be as individual as the individuals themselves. If honest with ourselves there will be elements of the thrill of the hunt and the euphoria of the kill mixed in there somewhere.

[GQBlues]

(the Mountain people are quite conversant with the Georgian theory of Carlinism  )

Quite (b)right.

Unfortunately, they're a bit stuck with the greatest mysteries of all; a) Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?, and b) If it's 'hot', why is it called 'Chili'?

Then like lobbyist-trained politicians, a band of scientists started dirt digging searching for clues...

[Jumper]

If you bank every foundation of your understanding and knowledge - FULLY - on theories without regard to other viable conclusions due to direct challenges and perpetual new-found evidence/s, then I submit we can agree to disagree and I'll joyfully whistle at the Happy Cows of California and the some of you can bang your golden mallet down and declare yourselves the Mighty Thor, the God of Lighting - son of Odin! Guardians of Russian women.

Guardian of Russian women?
lol GQ- I divorced a RW, you are coming way out of left field with that...
 

other viable conclusions ?
I'm certainly fine with those ,
some of them here seem based on mere personal prejudice and conjecture..than scientific study.
 


You making omniscient God like declarations , of what a group of other people think, and what  motivates them, based on your own speculation,prejudices and beliefs ,  is what seems to have spun this thread off to it's current side bar..
might have been time to lay the golden hammer to the side , a few pages ago.  

I wouldn't  make any conclusive declarations on why someone enjoys golf..
What primal force would really  motivate someone to go hit a small ball , in to a good location to hit it again..  hit it again, ,and then into a hole/cup. repeat.

  i might have a theory, but I wouldn't actually know what motivates them,
it might even be a different driving force  with each round... :evil:

It could be the personal satisfaction of doing something difficult ,well.
it might be getting out of the house and away from their troubles.(or wife)
It might be simply enjoying time with their wife, because she likes to golf.
It could be an enjoyment of being out in nature where the actual game is merely secondary.

There are many possible motivations ,and they might change over time for any golfer, or group of golfers..

It would seem  silly to give them as a group *one* underlying motivation.
Like *hunter/ gatherer*,  or anything else..




I'm certainly open to new theories, and enjoy the study of them.
They are seldom truly conclusive, if theory though.?

You seemed to be  bringing up the evolution of the Homo sapiens brain as if it where geared to agriculture ,than hunting.You then can't ignore that gathering animals together ,breeding them intentionally for slaughter is likely the most efficient way of hunting.(look at the big brain on THAT hunter thor! he caught a few rabbits and started breeding them so he dint have to chase very far )

I'm certainly open to the idea that mankind has adapted and changed,
Or that thor was gathering verses hunting..
I'm not convinced you really can theorize accurately mans primal driving forces changed,
or that you then somehow miraculously know from your theory, what a specific groups motivations or feelings are.

You take exception to the word *feared* in the general context of mankind, and all other animals on the planet?

Would *aversion* to mankind suit you better ?
You will now list specific cases that some species actually enjoy mans company?
I have a dog and cat..
Would it change the point that man is also a top predator and feared?
If you want to base all your understanding on evolution, then you can't ignore that longer teeth or stronger claws just quite apparently wern't the best answer, a larger brain was.

If you want to point out that big (and small ) predators can be dangerous,
you expect more than a  *Really GQ? they are?*  reply?
Every predator is dangerous, particularly man.

Most species on earth including big predators generally have a fear and generally aversion to  man.I would have been eaten long ago if that were not true.
You point out specific outliers to show a general situation  on the planet ,
regarding your belief that mankind is no longer predatory at it's primal base?

I'm open to the theory....that he might not be..
 
I just don't find a shark biting and spitting out  a human because of mistaken identity ,
(the human dressed up to look as much like a seal as he possibly could)
or a nut case that lived in a pup tent next to where  grizzly bears came when very hungry  for a few years
as a strong case for it.
(he was eaten buy what most scientist and biologist feel was likely an older or sick bear,no longer able to gather salmon as efficiently and likely starving)
Most mountain lions avoid hikers,if they see or sense one is near,
 rare is the case of an attack. When they could be quite often, without fear or aversion.

 In any event the outlier cases seem irrelevant to mankinds primal traits.



Mostly human's can't seem to get along,, this thread is a good example.
They most all are omnivores ,but debate the primal reasons for it ,
or debate what possible difference how their meal, became a meal , even makes..
 

[Son of Clyde]

One of our most famous hunters. The book is a great read.
http://www.amazon.com/Wilderness-Warrior-Theodore-Roosevelt-Crusade/dp/0060565284