To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 6222
6221  |  6223
Subject: 
Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:32:02 GMT
Viewed: 
2185 times
  
OK, I think I'll step in now and rant a bit.  This has nothing to do with
nutritional value, or anything like that, just my overall view.  This'll be a
long one...

I hunt.  Deer, rabbit, squirrel, and pheasant.  Deer for the most part.  Now,
I've been raised around hunting, and very much enjoy it.  I enjoy going out in
the timber, or walking through a field, and just "soaking it all in."  When
you go out and actually act the predatory role out, you really get back to
your primal senses.  You see sharper, you hear clearer, you can even smell
things stronger.  I don't know if it really happens, or is just a state of
mind, but anyone who's ever hunted knows the feeling too.  It's just great to
be out there, middle of nowhere, getting back to being a part of nature
instead of spending all your time trying to separate yourself from it.  Now,
that said, I DO NOT enjoy torturing animals, or anything to that affect.
Hunting is about pride, commitment, and above all else, respect and
responsibility.  It's the unresponsible, unrespectful, triggerhappy idiots who
go out that gives it all a bad wrap.  Sometimes I see firsthand the things
they do (walking through a timber and see a deer decapitated, just for the
rack) that makes me wish the DNR would open a season on them.
But, for the responsible hunter, the whole experience is great.  Probably the
worst moment in the hunt is when you shoot the animal.  Now, I shoot to kill,
and if by some chance the first shot doesn't kill it, and it falls, or
whatever, that's when you walk up, check to see if the animal's alive, and if
it is, you shoot it in the head at point blank range, then slit it's throat to
bleed it out so the meat doesn't get tainted by what's called "dead blood."  I
don't take pleasure in the actual kill as much as I do the hunt.  It's very
fun, and recreational.  Sure, it's not fun for the animal, granted.  BUT, for
the state of Iowa, anyways, the deer population would be huge if it weren't
for hunters.  I don't poach; I only take one per year (if I'm lucky), and each
responsible hunter does the same, and keeps the population trimmed down to
reasonable numbers.

Overall, I hunt because I enjoy it, and choose to.  I don't expect anyone else
to if they don't want to, but I really don't like it when people label
responsible hunters as "slaughterers of innocent little fuzzy animals" and the
like.  You all get my point.  For one, those animals ARE NOT defenseless; we
hunt them where they live every day.  They know everything about the land
around them, and blend in very well.  That's their defense mechanisms, and
that makes them "not defenseless."  Hunters used to be looked on as the
original conservationists, and I, along with every other responsible hunter,
try to keep it that way.

OK, I'm done now.  Just my opinions, and I think all the hunters out there
would agree with me.
-Chris



Message has 4 Replies:
  Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
 
(...) <snip> (...) And some of the non-hunters as well. I personally don't hunt, don't personally care for it, but I think it's a good skill to have. And I wish all hunters were as thoughtful as Chris. Hunters indeed were the first conservationists. (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
 
I guess this was in response to me, though I'm not exactly sure how. I hate to risk trying to connect it to the topic before which was based on rights and responsibilites since that doesn't seem to be the main point. So I'll take an approach (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
 
(...) Just out of curiosity Chris, if you don't like the actual killing part, why not hunt with a camera instead? The actual hunt part should be just the same, but instead of killing the creature you get as good and close a pic as you can manage. (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
 
(...) I'm not sure on the deer populations for where you live, but in many areas of the eastern US, hunters should be taking at least four dear to keep the pops to reasonable numbers. (...) While hunter's have fostered several great conservation (...) (24 years ago, 1-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?"
 
(...) do (...) are (...) I didn't contradict that. Note above that in my attempt to show what you were saying, I state that eating is a need. So it is what you said...right? (...) I agree with this for the most part. Many predatory fish will eat the (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

149 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR