This is a quote from Boreal Tundra:

I didn't want to mess up his RP thread - The Royal Hunt - so I thought I'd post a poll and get a few opinions.

I have a different point of view re: the above quote. I think that at least we raise cattle for eating. I have no problem with people who hunt because they live in a remote area, but if you have a supermarket readily available, why hunt a wild animal? You might kill a mother with young ones, for example. I know BT said "done properly", but not everyone does it properly. There are too many poachers and together the hunters and poachers lessen the amount of animals left to produce further offspring.

I am curious as to why someone would hunt when there's plenty of available meat close by in a store. Is it the thrill of the hunt? The trophy? The bragging rights? Or simply to eat a different type of meat?

*edit*

It would be appreciated that if you vote, please explain your choice. Thanks!

*edit*

A "general" type question - yes or no - no inbetweens, ty! :D

I can't vote, Ess, you need an in between argument too. Like BT said, if done properly, you only kill either an old or young but not too young animal, not a mother with children or a father in his prime. But most people don't do it properly.

I vote for "I am Ok with hunting done properly"!

Lelana

I'm ok with hunting as long as the animal that was hunted doesnt go to waste.Like as long as you dont hunt just to kill,and end up not using the animal for anything.

The reality is that there are too many people who don't do it properly. In a perfect world, sure - it would always be done properly, but this isn't a perfect world, hence a "yes" or "no" choice without an in between choice. :)

Still, there's gotta be an in between -- Liz had a reason for saying yes - "but only if they don't waste the animal," when in reality, a lot of people who hunt probably do waste the animal.

This isn't a yes or no question, IMHO. :P

Do you think stopping the legit hunters will really stop the ones that don't do it right? Thats pretty naive. Poachers are gonna poach whether hunting is legal or not. It is like saying that gun control will stop criminals from using guns. The criminals will always get their hands on guns and use them, and people who hunt in the illegal/immoral ways will continue to do it regardless of the law.

When/where did I ever say that?

Please do not put words in my mouth, ty!


Geez - a general question - yes or no - are you ok with hunting wildlife or not?


And, yes, I already said there is at least one exception - people out in the boonies who do not have access to a supermarket, but "in general" - sorry I didn't put that in my original thread - I vote not in favour.


BCC- lizzie is in favour. She would vote "yes". Simple! :)

Didn't intend to Ess...sorry. Perhaps something lost in translation between Canadian English and South Cackalackie English?

I never was that bright, come to think of it... :P

*smacks Liarg with a rolling pin* :P

No worries! :)


I just wish people would deal with the poll as is and answer some of the questions I posted in my first post.

Thanks!

If you are going to kill it and eat it and or use it for clothing/survival, then I'm ok with it. If you are hunting for the fun of killing, why not enlist in the military and see how much fun killing can really be.

PLEASE NOTE: Second sentence was totally raw sarcasm. Thank you.

I agree with JT's first point. Hunting can be done for legitimate reasons (preferably with legitmate methods: i.e. not with a machine gun) if the animal hunted is honored by the use of its meat, skin, etc. It is for this reason that I am okay with hunting in general. Sport hunting is a different issue to me.

I disagree with JT on the second point. If you want to be involved with killing for fun, you should be appointed to a US cabinet post. I don't think he was sarcastic enough.

I'm not okay with it. No one really "needs" the stuff from the animals that are hunted.

Why should people have private gardens in which they raise vegetables when they could just as easily get them from the store?

Vegetables don't feel pain. Vegetables don't "die" in the same sense an animal does.

Vegetables do die though; they are just less anthropomorphic than animals.

But when they die, they don't feel pain. They aren't aware if they're living or dead.

I don't think we "know" that with any certainty. And by that, I mean that animals do or that vegetables don't.

Isn't that what the electric cattle prod is based on is pain?

If turnips could roam, them I'm sure we'd have an electronic turnip prod.

Wow. . .Day of the Triffids flashback.

But turnips can't roam. I don't think turnips have a nervous system like animals do. Isn't that the part that feels pain?

We don't know if the electrical impulses received by an animal's brain are received as pain. They are electronic impulses that are itnrepreted as a danger.

Although turnips lack brains (which is a prejudice), it is difficult for us to know what or how they perceive the world.

How else could they be interpreted?

And what in a turnip would be used to feel pain?

Not being a turnip I can't know. An eletric impulse may just be a signal that there is something dangerous. I don't know if danger = pain, not being an animal.

But if you dissect a turnip, what could be used as a "nervous system?"

We assume that there must be a nervous system because that's how our bodies work. Could the flow of fluids in plant structures not also carry electrical impulses? I think we judge the world by our own standards, and the more similar an organism is to human, the more liekly we are to judge it as having the capacity for awareness.

But, you are an animal! Just different than all the other animals, just like they are different from each other...

That's because we humans are the most aware of all organisms. At the very least, we're the smartest. (I believe we are more than smart, but that's another discussion.)

True. I am not a beaver, so I don't know how a beaver interprets electrical impulses. I am not a panda bear, so I don't know, etc. I was using the word "animal" to refer to the general class of animals I'm not.

But beaver and pandas have brains not terribly disimilar to ours - generally speaking - so I believe they do feel pain. (Unlike vegetables and fruit, for instance)

Elephants feel the pain of another elephant dying, branded cattle feel the pain of the hot branding iron, etc.

I was researching a little to add to the "do plants feel pain discussion". I found this well written page that answers questions on the subject. I'm not an animal rights person but one could learn a lot from reading this page:

http://www.animal-rights.com/arsec5q.htm

Fascinating.

I have no problem with bow-hunting on foot. Otherwise, I am against it.

Here's my two cents. I grew up in the City, but my dad grew up in the country. He was an avid hunter, had a gun collection, and took me out to the country virtually every weekend. We had access to some land that we used as a shooting range. It was great fun. When I turned 12, I joined a gun club, and became a bronze and silver level marksman. The gun range closed down due to lead contamination at the end of my first year there, before I could achieve my gold level marksman badge.

When I turned 13, my dad took me hunting with him. I'll be honest. I very much enjoyed it. The thrill of the hunt was a real rush. I shot and killed grouse during hunting season, as I had an uncle who loved grouse meat, but could not obtain it at a store. Whatever I killed went to my uncle. I also shot at the occasional rabbit, but never actually succeeded in hitting them. They too would have been given to my uncle.

I loved walking through the bush. It was great fun. Being on the lookout for a certain type of game, stalking it, and then having to react in a split second once you identified your prey was quite enjoyable. It required concentration, perception, tenacity, and a certain level of physical fitness (walking through deep brush with a loaded gun isn't as easy as it sounds).

I regret very little about my hunting exploits. IN my case, what I shot was consumed, and wasn't available in a store (not that this latter fact really matters, IMHO).

However, as I grew older, I came to a few realizations. Walking through the woods is just as enjoyable with a camera than with a gun, and it's a hell of a lot less dangerous. You can also do it year round, and don't need to waste money on licences and ammo. The thrill is still there for me when I walk through the woods, identify game, and photograph it. Heck, even if I don't have a camera, it's still just as much fun.

Just last Saturday, I came within fifteen feet of three dear. There is no greater thrill. Opening fire on them wouldn't have made it any more special, I can tell you that. I did manage to snap a fantastic picture of my ever curious daughter walking towards the mama deer, blissfully unaware that this could scare the dear away. (For some reason. she stopped and watched the deer, and didn't scare her away. but I digress).

I see positives and negatives to the hunt. SOmetimes, due to certain factors, game numbers go out of control. The fact that I killed 182 voles in my yard in three months indicates to me that this population was out of control, and had to be culled. I do not regret having reduced their numbers.

Similarly, the Canada Goose population in Manitoba is growing exponentially, and is damaging habitat of other species, causing problems in Winnipeg, and destroying crops. I have no problem with a purely recreational hunt to bring numbers down. Occasionally, deer populations in Manitoba have exploded, once again providing some justification for hunting on a "cull basis".

My belief is that if natural forces aren't able to keep certain populations under control, or if non-indigeonous species are found in a habitat, a hunt is justified. From experience, I know that hunting just isn't right for me. But in some circumstances, there are good reasons to allow a hunt. Overpopulation and protection of habitats of certain species that are at risk because of such overpopulation in my view are justified.

Subsistance hunting is also justifiable, but that has been addressed elsewhere.

I'll also conclude that I do love go to fishing, and I tend to be a catch and release angler. I guess this is a form of hunting. I enjoy fishing - I don't eat much, mainly because the little creek where I fish doesn't have good "eating" fish. I tend to catch a few fish, examine the health of the fish, teach my son a little something about each species we catch, and release the fish back into the water. I find it relaxing. Is it justifyable? I'm not sure. Amateur biology may not be a proper justification. I do like it though, but wonder if what I do is ethical. I'll have to put more thought in it.

Thanks, bweezy, and all others who took the time to let their feelings be known - and to KD and JG for a most fun debate! ^_^

I'm not going to make polls anymore, I'm going to make "discussion posts"! :D


*starts thinking of next topic...* :P

Well this one certainly was a goody. I've enjoyed reading it all.

Yeah - i love it when there's a deep discussion by some of our deeper thinkers and kd debating anyone is always fun! :D

Did you notice nobody mentioned trapping beaver?

Actually I did mention beaver and I thought you'd have responded to that JT!

ooooooooooooops I must be getting old, I missed it :(

no not old......just ummmm.....something about wine....