Subject:
|
Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:04:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2331 times
|
| |
|
|
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 somewhat between that and just ignoring it. Comments are mixed in
below. (And you knew I'd have something to say, right :-)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Maddison writes:
> OK, I think I'll step in now and rant a bit.
Actually it doesn't seem to be much of a rant. More like a reasoned editorial
- but not clearly in response to anything.
> This has nothing to do with nutritional value, or anything like that...
I guess this is what confuses me. Who is your intended audience? What is your
goal?
> 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 understand that's common.
> I enjoy going out in
> the timber, or walking through a field, and just "soaking it all in."
Me too. I went camping last week a few miles from the Appalachian Trail and
did some good short hiking.
> 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.
Yup. I've gotten that playing paintball war games. It's a blast. Kind of
like doing very mild recreational drugs.
> 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.
I don't spend any time trying to seperate myself from it. I have gone to great
effort to surround myself (as much as possible in New Jersey) with a
naturalistic surrounding.
> that said, I DO NOT enjoy torturing animals, or anything to that affect.
Would it be OK if I disagreed?
> Hunting is about pride, commitment, and above all else, respect and
> responsibility.
No, above all, it's about leaving your home, going to the home of a creature
much less inteligent than yourself, tracking it down (or just hanging out and
waiting for one to wander by, more likely) and killing it. You might take
pride in your ability and commitment, and you might respect the deer for dying
like a scared wild animal, and you might actually believe the nonsense about
being responsible and it being for the good of the species. But above all of
that, it's about killing.
> 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.
My paragraph above notwithstanding, I do wildly prefer people like you to
people like them. Also, I have a tremendous respect for those who hunt for
their meat over those you just buy packs of pink goo at the meat market. Do
you process your own kills or take them to a processing plant?
> But, for the responsible hunter, the whole experience is great.
Sure. Having read about the psychology of rapists, I understand the experience
is great for them too.
> Probably the worst moment in the hunt is when you shoot the animal.
Because it's all over and you have to go home?
> 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."
This is somewhat morbid, but what happens if you don't? I mean what is the
result of the taint? Is it poisoned, or just not as tasty? Also, do you have
to hoist the carcas up to let it drain, or just leave it lying there?
> I don't take pleasure in the actual kill as much as I do the hunt.
If I were to send you a camera, would you leave your rifle home? ;-)
> It's very
> fun, and recreational. Sure, it's not fun for the animal, granted.
The implication in this statement is "but who cares" tacked onto the end. Is
that your intent?
> BUT, for
> the state of Iowa, anyways, the deer population would be huge if it weren't
> for hunters.
Might I point out that there wouldn't be any overpopulation issues if not for
the presense of people?
> I don't poach;
Well, you certainly wouldn't offend _me_ if you did. That's just breaking a
law.
> 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.
Reasonable as determined by what method?
> Overall, I hunt because I enjoy it, and choose to.
You do everything because you 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.
Why not? What did the deer do to you? I can live with the fact that you'll
keep hunting, but I'd at least like you to acknowledge that you are in fact
a "slaughterer of innocent little fuzzy animals."
> You all get my point.
Not all of us. Actually, what is your point?
> For one, those animals ARE NOT defenseless; we
> hunt them where they live every day.
True. But if their defense are so awesome, how is it that you manage to bag
them? But defenseless wasn't your claim above, it was innocence. They are
innocent of committing any wrongs against you...at least I assume so.
> They know everything about the land around them, and blend in very well.
Well, they may be familiar with their surroundings, if that's what you mean.
> That's their defense mechanisms, and that makes them "not defenseless."
OTOH, it doesn't seem to be much of a defense if you're getting them anyway.
> Hunters used to be looked on as the original conservationists, and
> I, along with every other responsible hunter, try to keep it that way.
I buy that. I'm just not sure that conservation is applied correctly.
> OK, I'm done now. Just my opinions, and I think all the hunters out there
> would agree with me.
Probably so. The ones who prey on humans would too, I'm sure.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
