Hunting

[Jumper]

* 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.

That was GQ's spin off ,it certainly took on some other spins.
i addressed more than one ..

but at its root, that is  making a moral judgment?
why else would anyone care ?

it only matters *why* they are killing,
if a judgment on the action is being passed.
it's putting up the premise that the other group needs to justfy what they are doing ,
*why* they are doing it.

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.

My whole point was that it doesn't matter whether he does it for enjoyment or for food.

and isn't that exactly where the whole moral side of the debate came about?

if he does it for enjoyment he is some how barbaric..

in whose eyes?

Those who only condone slaughtering animals if they are tasty ,make good clothes or shoes, or are in the way of their favorite 18 hole course?

define enjoyment.


One omnivore pointing at another , and saying but.. but .....you enjoy it.
and them both saying ,,,no no , i only need to eat, i'm hungry..

is just comical.

 

[Son of Clyde]

A farmer moves to a new farm and decides to introduce himself to his neighbor. The neighbor is sitting on his porch with a 3 legged pig. The first man says "interesting looking pig you have there." The neighbor says: "very good pig. Last winter the house caught on fire and this pig made such a commotion that he saved the lives of me and my family." A great pig like this you can't eat all at one time."

[GQBlues]

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.  

...GQBlues turns the giant-sized mirror around and said, " Can you read what is in the mirror please.'"....

AJ looks at it and reads...

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.

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 watches with amusement as AJ begins to show sullen realization....'well', GQBlues whispers to himself, 'hhhmmm funny that. Now I hope he now knows what he meant.

Oh and speaking about omniscient God-like declarations....it's noted on the thread how these hunted animals really don't feel a thang...Now that's God-like declaration to me if I ever saw one. 

[Jumper]

GQ ,
It is rather funny you used a *mirror* in reply, as that's exactly what people who feel elevated past the barbaric act of killing daily, need to look into.
They certainly condone it by their actions ,but despise it by their words.
 you may feel you are being witty,
but i certainly understand what i wrote, and what i meant.

If you don't feel that society as a whole has changed it views fairly recently on these topics for many reasons  and that it's certainly a plausible theory that a bit of that has to do with children growing up not even realizing they eat animals from not being in contact daily with agriculture , hunting, fishing or animal husbandry ..
then as before, we will just agree to disagree,but i'd contend several posters  point of view here is living proof of it

Yes I agree part of the quoted text certainly applies to both "parties", or sides, of this silly debate,
which was my point.

Omnivores pointing at each other are overall amusing at best.
and i certainly wasn't one of the ones saying animals din't feel pain.
They do without any doubt.

 If you are going to quote me, then rebuttal with insinuations of "God like declarations" ,your words that i  earlier tossed back your way, at least use something I actually stated, instead of referring to what others have posted?

You made rather derogatory accusations at the motivations of others,clearly showing your prejudice
to those who might enjoy hunting (do i really need to quote  those ?)
 then later say we are *only discussing* whether man hunts for food or for enjoyment.
That's a fairly large waffle ,worthy of a politician.

You made the  bold declarations about  what actually motivates those individuals.
I gave a few examples of why you probably do not actually know for certain.
You certainly have not shown anything since that would make me think you do.


 SOC  gave up eating some animals..
 He is quite uncomfortable or wouldn't have done so.
While i admire him taking action at his convictions ,
it does beg the question why some animals are more or less worthy doesn't it?

Same with eating farm raised salmon.. are they less worthy than the wild one?

I notice no one tackles that point.. too uncomfortable is my guess at the motivations for not doing so,
but i wouldn't know for certain.

I know people may  feel some remorse if a butterfly is on the grill of their car,but if its a  grasshopper, fly or mosquito,not so much.
If running over a skunk, certainly not the same as a deer..
The "why" they feel this way, is at its root, "why" they feel a hunter is somehow wrong to hunt (or to enjoy it)

I would say i'm the same way ,some animals hold more value absolutely.
but i recognize and accept my hypocrisy on that as somehwat unexplainable and oddly biased.


I do think overall it is relevant in a discussion of whether man hunts for food or fun.

does man enjoy killing the mosquito? or the sparrow ?  or is it only out of necessity..
(because then it is ok of course)
 if people wern't trying to make  a moral judgment , it wouldn't matter


I never said that people killing and eating domesticated animals justifies a hunters actions of killing wild game..
I was  pointing at what seems to me  hypocrisy in others, seemingly from their views, expecting  them to do so..

 

[GQBlues]

Ay Caramba AJ.

You're so locked up in your belief that somehow I wanna gun down every hunter I know for fun. Chill...nothing I said here even remotely suggested that. Please start reading with an ounce more clarity...

I could care less if hunters hunted. They must do whatever makes then feel good doing about/with themselves. BUT to suggest they are exclusively doing so for the *sole purpose* of harvesting 'meat' is what I find, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, hypocritical. i.e. Jack's silly 98% campaign - "Hunter's for Meat 2010". Capice?

IF hunting is as exciting as watching paint dry, I SERIOUSLY DOUBT, it will have the same popularity as it does today. You don't agree with that, more power to you, man. Capice?

Man had offset balances in and around natural environment which chiefly caused over-population of certain species, or even destruction, giving way to legal/permitted hunting/fishing/trapping,etc ..Yellowstone, the Amazons, Sea of Cortez, etc...you don't agree with that, more power to you, man.

That is not a BOLD DECLARATION or is it a GOD-LIKE DECLARATION. That is what I believe to be so. You don't believe that to be so, then by golly man...do what makes you feel better about yourself. Capice?

GQ , It is rather funny you used a *mirror* in reply,

Well, it appears some exercises are more productive than others. But I was nonetheless hopeful. You can't blame me for trying. 

[Jumper]

We simply differ with this subject, is all. You are so locked up in the notion hunters do it for food and nature enjoyment. Hunters, AFAIK, do it for cheap thrills and empowerment.

You are just as locked up in your belief of what specifically motivates someone ,
I'm simply more open to the idea that there could be many different motivations for different people.
I know some that fit the motivations you describe ,certainly,and  others i don't believe do.

We likely agree far more than disagree..
I certainly would agree with you that  most do not hunt for the SOLE purpose of food,
but even in a modern world , i do know some that do.That scenario does exist.
 GQ when i hunted , I know my own motivations well,  they were different in many cases and at many times.
So my primary, or even sole motivation, was not the same different years or in different hunting situations.
 I am not in the least bit motivated to hunt now, I simply recognize there are many factors or motivations that can be at play from personal experience.
Either way obviously we will both do,and believe,  whatever makes us feel happy i'm sure.. 

 I hardly suggested you want to kill hunters, Aloe is the one wanting to take their balls off.


but yes i suppose many of my thoughts were more aimed at those with really strong beliefs along that line..
just like some of your replies to me where a bit more aimed at Boethius' thoughts.

[GQBlues]

We likely agree far more than disagree..

Agreed. I'll take that even further to suggest in most other things as well.

In all the years I've known you, you were and always will be tops in my list of 'First Team All-America'. FWIW.

[Jack]

AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, hypocritical. i.e. Jack's silly 98% campaign - "Hunter's for Meat 2010". Capice?

GQ, you have shown to most people here you really do not know what you are talking about when it comes to this subject. 

You wrote,...

Hunters, AFAIK, do it for cheap thrills and empowerment.

Hunters don't do it for food, hunters do it for 'fun'.

Again GQ, 98% of the hunters I know do NOT hunt for cheap thrills.
98% of the hunters I know DO hunt for food.   

AGAIN when you make such quotes as you have it shows you do not know what you are talking about.  You are wrong but as we have all seen, your not man enough to admit it. 

yada, yada, yada, more GQ bs and belittlement by GQ to those who disagree with him.

[Daveman]

Again GQ, 98% of the hunters I know do NOT hunt for cheap thrills.
98% of the hunters I know DO hunt for food.   

I think (and I could be mistaken for sure) is that he found the 98% comment humorous. I do as well just because of the math involved.  You'd have to know a minimum of 50 hunters, 49 of which hunt for food to render a 98% statistic.  For example. if you know only 49 with 48 hunting for food, the percent is 97.9 - rounding of course possible but no longer exact.  I can accept that the majority you know hunt for food, but what was funny to me was popping the 98% label on it. 

[Jack]

Dave, I wrote GQ that over the many years I have known "about" 150 hunters.  The actual figure could be 140, or it could be 160.  These are hunters I have met while hunting or I knew before hunting.

I have hunted all over Texas, Colorado, certain parts of Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Northern Mexico.

Of all the guys I have hunted with, this number somewhere from 140 to 160, ONLY two of these guys did not hunt for the food, hunted for cheap thrills.  2 out of 140-160 Dave.  The figure is probably closer to 99% but thought I would round off and estimate 98% but feel certain it's more than 97%.

Dave, I do not care to associate with the type of hunters who hunt for cheap thrills. These are also the most dangerous type of hunters if you ask me. The guys who hunt for food are the type of hunters who take hunting seriously and the ONLY type I will knowingly hunt with.

[GQBlues]

I think (and I could be mistaken for sure) is that he found the 98% comment humorous. I do as well just because of the math involved.  You'd have to know a minimum of 50 hunters, 49 of which hunt for food to render a 98% statistic.  For example. if you know only 49 with 48 hunting for food, the percent is 97.9 - rounding of course possible but no longer exact.  I can accept that the majority you know hunt for food, but what was funny to me was popping the 98% label on it. 

Oh My!!! There is a G-O-D!

I know English can be pretty tricky sometimes...apparently ESPECIALLY for native speakers the likes of you Jack. So please allow me to re-post what I said before...Yes, I know it was addressed to Tim, but indulge me nonetheless...here it is:

Tim-

I have no doubt there are folks out there who 'kill' for the sake of sustenance, some even for survival. Native Americans had done these for eons. But these are discriminant. Even animals themselves teach their young who, which, and how to kill efficienty.

Folks eat meat, fine. There are ways to domesticate and kill animals humanely. But when folks try and tell you they'll spend thousands of dollars for weaponry under the guise of killing for food and nature enjoyment, that's just silly to me. How much does an average 'hunting trip' cost these days? $ 500.00, maybe $1-2,000.00? Plus the cost of equipment and accessesories...

Do they realize exactly how much 'food' will that buy from their local neigborhood grocery store? Cut-up and cleaned, too. Heck, our society is so kosher these days you will even get selections from different classifications such as, organic, wild, farm-raised, etc... Venison? no problem. Wild venison? no problem.

That said...yes, sport hunters kill for the sake of cheap thrills and self-empowerment.

Jack-

If there were 102 Ukrainian women invited to your social parties and 96 accepted but only 54 showed up and 13 American men paid for their trip. 3 cash, 2 by checks and the rest by credit cards. What is the opportunity-cost ratio differential relative from projection to actual?

Quick...as a business man. I KNOW dealing with numbers should be second nature to you, yes?

[GQBlues]

Of all the guys I have hunted with, this number somewhere from 140 to 160, ONLY two of these guys did not hunt for the food, hunted for cheap thrills.  2 out of 140-160 Dave.  The figure is probably closer to 99% but thought I would round off and estimate 98% but feel certain it's more than 97%.

 

It reminded me of a Star Trek episode where Capt Kirk, Bones and Spock were hiding behind a rock because they were being shot at by a band of Klingons. They only had one phaser and it had only enough power for one, single, solitary blast. So Kirk knew that he needs to 'aim' at an area central to the location of the marauding Klingons hoping that the energy blast will be enough to 'stun' all of them. So he asked Spock the following...

Capt. Kirk: " Spock, quick! Give me an estimate of the distance of their central location from us!".

Spock: "Captain, I estimate that distance to be roughly 33.9170250361097063 meters from us!"

Yeppers...funny that.

[Jack]

I know it was addressed to Tim, but indulge me nonetheless...

Yes GOD GQ, I know you had addressed it to Tim, even though as you mention English can be tricky, but when GOD GQ mentioned me,.....

hypocritical. i.e. Jack's silly 98% campaign - "Hunter's for Meat 2010". Capice?

.....I thought GOD GQ would understand why I might reply.  Apparently not.

[Jack]

:
Capt. Kirk: " Spock, quick! Give me an estimate of the distance of their central location from us!".

Spock: "Captain, I estimate that distance to be roughly 33.9170250361097063 meters from us!"

yada, yada, yada,..More yada from GOD GQ .  ho hum, what else is new.

[GQBlues]

"Eagles don't hunt flies"   :::::sigh:::::

[Gator]

Photos of hunters

[tim 360]

Homo Sapiens were hunter/scavengers/gatherers for 200,000 years.  For the last 40,000 our advanced weapons and tools made our ancestors better hunters and that helped them to survive in a world where one ate what they killed...or one died.

I have a feeling we carry around alot of DNA for those hunting instincts our ancestors had to develop.  Some may say they hunt to put some food on the table--supplement their diet with some venison or some squirrel or wild boar.  Some may do it for the thrill of the hunt and some may do it for what they call sport.  Personally, I think it's their hunters DNA directing them.  Instinct.

Humans have only been farming since maybe 9000BC,  like 11,000 years and I'm sure most guys have more hunters DNA than farming DNA.  Otherwise we'd have more guys out there hoeing during farming season.

[Gator]

Otherwise we'd have more guys out there hoeing during farming season.

I enjoy growing something far more than killing something. 

I grew up in the South and many times brought home rabbits, squirrels and quail to my mother for cooking.  I once killed a deer, and seeing the eyes and last breath did it for me.  The only thing I have shot since then are targets and cottonmouth moccasins.  But that's me.  If you enjoy hunting, as many men do, go for it.  Whatever floats your boat.

[tim 360]

I enjoy growing something far more than killing something. 

I grew up in the South and many times brought home rabbits, squirrels and quail to my mother for cooking.  I once killed a deer, and seeing the eyes and last breath did it for me.  The only thing I have shot since then are targets and cottonmouth moccasins.  But that's me.  If you enjoy hunting, as many men do, go for it.  Whatever floats your boat.

Don't have a hunting need myself.  But I understand why some would and I'm sure if I had to hunt I would have some instincts which I never learned.  I would have no problem shooting a cottonmouth or a skeet.

[facetrock]

 I have never hunted for food. Probably shot hundreds of squirrels, rabbits, pheasants and ducks and hardly ever ate one, but I have never wasted one either. Growing up in a small Iowa town of 500 people it wasnt hard to find older local town folks who were very happy to take your game. To see the appreciation on the faces of some of these people made me proud to help them out.
  Thinking back now I never knew a farmer that hunted. During pheasant season we would always give the farmers who's land we hunted on a few pheasants. It was like free chickens for them and I cant ever remember anyone asking permission to hunt on a farmers land even if you didnt know the farmer personally. No one cared.
  When I got older and graduated to big game I think I ate one deer in my life. Giving a deer away is not hard at all. But I wouldnt give it to someone that hunted. Only someone who was older that couldnt hunt anymore. I know alot of hunters who's only thrill in hunting is to fill the freezer. We call them meat hunters. I do it because I feel the urge to do it and enjoy the chase, stalk etc. etc.
 The reason I dont eat what I shoot is simple. I dont really like wild game. Pheasants is about all I can eat. I shot a few elk in my day too. Couldnt stand them and gave the processed meat away. What I do with game is not uncommon where I come from. What is uncommon is a hunter going out and killing then wasting. Very illegal to shoot something and let it lay.

 Fishing..... Dont even ask I keep all of them

[DKMM]

I wonder if aloe likes cats.  Probably not.

[Aloe]

I wonder if aloe likes cats.  Probably not.

I do like cats and i really really really don't care about this topic. I didn't start it, and mods didn't bother to mention that this is a split topic and my post was taken out of context from the original topic, where it was posted (the original context was somebody saying hi in their ice-breaker and mentioning how they like hunting in the same post. The point of my post, that got split and is now first one in this topic, was to show to that man that maybe mentioning love for hunting in an ice breaker (addressed to women) may not be a good idea, because some women may look down on hunting, and if she already knows a man, then she may come to accept it, but if it's a stranger who proudly writes how he likes hunting in his first ever message, it would be quite disgusting and discourage any contact with him. That was the context and the sole intention of my post. But then people started commenting on my post, and i commented on their post, and everyone brought that topic totally off topic. And the meaning of my post got completely lost.
Hunting to me is a dirty secret you need to keep to yourself until you know a woman well enough for her to accept it. And not something to bravade in your very first post. Of course this isn't a forum for meeting women, but people do come here and discuss how to meet a woman and what not.

[acrzybear]

The purists would rather an animal die like this one likely did  

Actually the bear went hungry that day, and the torn flesh wasn't from the bear but from one of the many hot springs in and around yellowstone.

http://www.krtv.com/news/grizzly-versus-bison-the-rest-of-the-story/

[Jooky]

Hunting to me is a dirty secret you need to keep to yourself until you know a woman well enough for her to accept it.

If it's something you're strongly opposed to, wouldn't you like to know right away instead of after you're already involved?

[Aloe]

If it's something you're strongly opposed to, wouldn't you like to know right away instead of after you're already involved?

I'm not strongly opposed, i'm displeased.