Rights to hunt or not be hunted

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dagny

New member
Okay, some posters are determined to discuss hunters' God-given or natural "right" to use whatever superior force necessary to kill anything, whenever, whereever and however we want. We have all seen and experienced hunters from both ends of this argument. Some try their best to humanely take game and then to use as much of the animal as possible to feed and clothe their families. Others think nothing of using a helicopter to kill as many reindeer, wolves, or other critters as possible or to use explosives to "fish".

Okay, let the arguments begin. (but let's be civil and not make it into no-win personal attacks where both sides dig their heels in and refuse to read what others have written or, worse, read into others' posts what was not there). Like religion and politics, some subject can not be rationally discussed. In that case, I ask the moderator to kill this thread.
 
And I'd like to leave subsistence hunters out of the argument. If I can only feed my family from my hunt, ethics disappear. I would still consider waste unethical--it's contra-survival.

So: What you described in your "helicopter" comment has nothing whatsoever in common with any part of my life; I don't honor those folks as "hunters".

I also take issue with the concept of "...kill anything, whenever, whereever and however we want." No. There are quite valid reasons for seasons and bag limits. There are valid reasons for limiting the "wherever" for safety reasons (e.g., too close to a road).

We must always remember that a hunter has a stronger vested interest in "the environment" than the non-hunter ever will. We can only take from a surplus over whatever numbers provide a stable population. A birder can be thrilled at the mere sight of the final member of an almost-extinct species. Thus, seasons and bag limits are intended to ensure the long-term health of a game species.

As has been stated before, for us "sport" hunters, one aspect of the ethics of the hunt is the matter of a clean kill. It is not humane to cause undue suffering. Various laws attempt to deal with this, speaking to caliber of cartridges or muzzle energy. These would not be needed if every hunter had the knowledge or the sense of ethics, but law-makers are stuck with "one size fits all". Not every person knows why one should not shoot grizzlies with a .22 rimfire. :)

I see no moral difference between a cow and a deer. If I can eat a cow, I can eat a deer. Our system provides that I can "hire" others to kill, butcher, and wrap a steak from a cow. I must become a do-it-yourselfer if I would eat a piece of Bambi. I note that juries tend to be harsher on the one who hires a murderer, over the actual murderer. I submit that an ethical hunter is inherently more moral than one who buys a piece of cow from a Safeway.

Lessee: Method. I can use any of several methods to be able to eat Bambi. I can try to run him down, catch him and bite out his throat, or choke him. Well, I ain't no Tarahumara, and at age 66, fergit all that. I'm left with knife (same problem) or spear. Spear? Once again, clean kill. Bow and arrow? Sure, in appropriate country, and from a stand or "hide". Pistol or rifle extends my range, and for me the rifle is the most practical.

Well, an Aught-six has done me well for 50 years, so why change now?

:), Art

[This message has been edited by Art Eatman (edited August 15, 2000).]
 
That was Art - he's nice. If we get personal - I'm nasty.

FWIW - heliocopter shooting has it's place. Just have to understand that the closer the angle of the shot is to the 90 degree line of the A/C, the more compensation you have to adjust for - and it's behind, not in front of the target. Dual vectors at play - foreward speed of the A/C and the usual bullet drop..

Giz
 
I am getting to the point, no I am at the point, where I am resolved to the fact that I will hunt and own guns no matter what public opinion may be.

I will support various organizations and vote my conscious in every election from dog catcher to president. I will purpose to live by example and not by word of mouth. I no longer jump at the chance to debate someone over hunting. Instead I chose my verbal battles wisely and always stand my ground.

That having been said, I owe no one on this forum or any other human an explanation on why I shoot or hunt. God gave us dominion over animals and as such we are to be good stewards of His bounty. That is enough for me.

Thank you.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
Good thread,so far, keeping fingers crossed.

First, the Hebrew for that phrase means more like "made stewards of" rather than " Have dominion over". We are caretakers, not overlords. We should not use power just because we can.

Power w/o responsibility is tyranny.
Power w/o knowledge is chaos.
Power w/o control is useless.

Second,as the most successful large predator ever evolved, we have the exclusive advantage of being able to think and plan.
This means we can determine what animals are overpopulated, and then plan to and take those animals in need of trimming. For me, that's Whitetails,mostly does, on the Eastern Shore of Md.

As to why I hunt, it's my job!! Yours, too.
Millions of years of evolution have molded us into social predators like wolves, lions and orcas. creatures with solid bonds between members of the group,that communicate and co- operate.Being short of some predator qualities like great strength,blinding speed, and sharp teeth and claws, we devised substitutes and learned to talk so we could integrate our efforts during a hunt.

Watch small boys of ANY culture playing hunting games,those of chase and ambush, Cops and Robbers, Hide and seek, and so on. It's etched on their DNA, just like a kitten a thousand generations removed from the jungle pouncing on a string dragged slowly along the floor.

I need make no apologies for hunting. Some folks may need to apologize for the WAY they hunt, using illegal/unethical means or pursuing rare critters, or just plain being pig-greedy.

And, killing is to hunting like sex is to marriage,an intregal part but not the Raison D'Etre.
 
This is one of those topics that I can really sink my teeth into. There are so many facets and tangents to deal with, but it all boils down to this: animals have no rights.

Man may kill animals wherever, whenever, and however he wishes and it is not wrong to do so. That is not to say that any and all killing is wise management nor is it to say that we should kill just because we can. It is simply stating that a human killing an animal is not immoral. It can be unethical, such as when a hunter becomes irresponsible and does something that does not facilitate a quick clean kill or violates laws or another persons rights in his pursuit. It is possible to reach a moral end with unethical means.

Now as to what constitutes hunting...I leave that up to the individual. To me, hunting does not involve pouring out a bag full of bait or shooting from a helicopter, but to many people it does. To each his own. I do think that at a minimum hunting should be defined as a pursuit of wild animals in their natural habitat.

That brings up one of those tangents: the so called "canned hunts". Neither I nor most people who call themselves a hunter consider this hunting. Now the guy who pays X-amount of money to shoot a de-clawed black panther as it steps out of its cage somewhere in Texas might want to tell his buddies that he went hunting, but that is his little ego-driven fantasy. The real problem is that those who wish to end hunting (and all uses of animals, for that matter) will jump up and scream that that is what hunting is (despite the objections of most hunters) and that hunting must therefore be outlawed.

We, the overwhelming majority of hunters (who are ethical and interested in wise management of natural resources), must police our own ranks to weed out the poachers and slobs, because they unwittingly aid the animal rights movement.

Okay, I'll shut up now.

Jack

[This message has been edited by Jack Straw (edited August 16, 2000).]
 
Will Beararms, Quote:
"I owe no one on this forum or any other human an explanation on why I shoot or hunt."

Amen......and thank you, Sir! :)

------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
 
>>>>Others think nothing of using a helicopter to kill as many reindeer, wolves, or other critters as possible or to use explosives to "fish".<<<<<

These are ridiculous statements. The examples you use are illegal and just don't happen except in the most isolated circumstances.
About five years ago, an othopedic surgeon named "Jack Frost" (no ****) used a light plane to shoot some wolves here in Alaska. That incident cost Dr. Frost his plane and over a million dollars in fines. That one incident is used as a truism that people are flying all over the country machine-gunning every living thing in the north.
It doesn't happen. Nobody risks a half million dollar airplane to get a wolf pelt they can legally buy in downtown Anchorage for $350.
If you have some fact-based hunting commentary instead of this stuff you get off PETA bumper stickers, then post it for commentary. Until then quit wasting our time.




------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
Keith,
The examples I used were explained as being the extreme. Go back and read the opening post. Jack, Dave and Art had points that added to the thread. Let's have more of such rather than...
 
WillBeararms: True, you don't OWE any explanation. I have a bit of a different angle on all this "explanation" stuff.

Now, I started hunting around age six or seven. To me, it's just part of "what I do", along with being a bookworm or a sportycar racer or whatever.

Too many people in today's US of A have no more idea than Hogan's goat as to where their food comes from, much less their water and electricity. Many seem to believe that meat comes cut and wrapped from a grocery, water is made by that faucet at the sink, and electricity is made by the switch on the wall. We don't need feed lots or generating stations or reservoirs...

It's the same with hunting. I try to make it clear to the uninitiated that as a hunter, I'm a do-it-yourselfer for food. I feel a connection to hundreds of generations of forebears. The chase is a natural part of my biological heritage; the kill is no longer such a necessity but it is indeed soul-satisfying. And the companionship around a campfire is one of the better social situations I know of.

It's not that I feel I owe anybody anything. I "merely" try to make folks think about their own lives, their own morals and ethics. I know that's cruel, but I do like to make folks think. In part, I'm laughing, because my life is fuller, richer, than theirs...

Damfino, Art
 
Art Eatman,
If I touched a nerve by my post then I apologize, I have nothing but respect for you and a lot of other people here on TFL.
I guess in my old age I've grown weary of trying to explain anything to anybody, anymore.
I try never to cause anyone any grief...however if someone is uncomfortable with my politics or the fact that I'm a hunter, shooter and collector....then "Frankly Scarlet"....... ;)
That was what I was trying to say......I'm just tired of explaining.
Take care. :)


------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
 
Thanks guys!
Now you've got me to do some hard thinking. NOT that animals have human-like "rights" with regard to being hunted or not hunted, but with regard to humans if we were in the same position as prey. This is not far-fetched because many human groups have regarded others as "animals" and hunted them just as we do coyotes now. We could also conceive of humanity as a whole being subject to the depradations of a "predator". Would we then have "rights"? I doubt it. We would have the same "rights" as deer, squirrels, orca, and eagles have now. Again, this is NOT to say we should extend human "rights" to animals, but it does give me pause for tought regarding my being the prey of either some self-regarded "superior" race of humans or some "superior" species. Perhaps this should be over on the political forum - but it does predominantly entail hunting rather than 2nd amendment.
 
DorGunR,
I understand "growing tired" of explaining t he obvious. Often I yearn to just retreat to some mountain fastness and leave the buggers stew in their own juices. But unfortunately for us, their actions impose restraints or worse on us. Recently some states have passed popular state amendments that banned or severely restricted trapping. Others have, in the past, banned hunting (such as New Jersey did). What they reaped was a population explosion of the unhunted animals which resulted in a collapse through starvation. They refuse to see the essential role of hunters and trappers.
 
Dagny,

The deal is, you're playing their game! They take an isolated incident of some criminal activity and then parade it around for years and years until it becomes a "truth" or "typical" hunting behavior.
Sure some hunters break the law, and some ball players use leaded bats or throw spitballs - but thats not what hunting or baseball is about. Those are rare exceptions.
Humans are an integral part of the natural world. The animals we know in North America came across the Bering Straits with man and quickly replaced the earlier native creatures - creatures that had developed without human hunting pressure.
These animals have developed their fecundity as a direct response to human hunting pressure. Remove that element and they die off.
Theres a 40 year study of the relationship between wolves and moose on Isle Royale, Michigan by L. David Mech. An artificial environment because hunting is banned and only wolves ("natural" predators) are present to control populations. What they've documented since the 1950's is a starvation cycle. The moose grow in population (along with the wolves) until they overrun the feed and then starve off, followed by the wolves starving off.
On the Ontario coast adjacent to this island no such starvation cycle is seen. Man, as the "apex predator" takes both wolves and moose and keep the animals in a rough balance with the environment.

Obviously, in the world today this requires oversight - game regulations and quota's based on BIOLOGICAL considerations.

We have wildlife because of hunting, not in spite of it.



------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
Keith, you automatically went into a defensive posture and regard ANY criticizm of hunting as an attack by the anti's. Even those who have been hunters since they first shot a bird at age 6 are attacked if they so much as question "why" did I blow away that bird - target practice?. This risks pushing people who are on our side, and even some hunters, over into the ex-hunter or anti-hunter camp.

That said.

I am very familiar with the natural predator/prey relationship. You're preaching to one of the choir here. You can spout a dozen references and likely I've read them all. I've seen what hunting bans have done. I also have seen what the laziness of hunters have done - essentially the same. Why? Because their road hunting doesn't harvest enough deer to cut the population enough. Hunting is essential now that we've decimated the natural predator population. Now I'm doing the same thing - preaching to the choir (but probably because some here don't believe I belong in the choir).

Man is NOT like any other natural predator. We have the unique ability to hunt any other species into extinction because we don't rely on that species. If we did rely on it, then as its numbers dropped, we'd be hard pressed to hunt more and our numbers would drop. But that doesn't happen. So we try to regulate our effect by monitoring populations and health thereof and then "harvesting" an appropriate amount. Yes, hunters as a group are the most responsible and effective conservationists around.

Now where were we?
 
Keith, where did I say or imply that such activity was "typical"? Please go back and READ what I wrote. I thought I've made it plain where I am coming from!
 
Keith, I'm sorry I jumped on you. As has been said before: we need to stick together. We also need to polish up our arguments and methods of delivering them - lest we alienate those whose votes we need. Sheesh! Do I sound like a politician? :confused:
 
Dagny: With over 50 years of reading science fiction behind me, the concept of "Earthlings as Prey" is in no wise new to me.

Leaving morals out of it for a moment and looking at the history of homo sap: Might does indeed make right, insofar as who gets the opportunity to write the history books. or the right to write, if you will. :)

So, if any sort of elite group from whatever source shows up and starts hunting us, I imagine there will be a two-way street until the will to resist is broken. If it's homo sap who yields, I could only hope that the new Topdogs institute game laws...Endangered Species Acts...

:), Art
 
Art, yep! What would be the minimum caliber or delivered energy? Maybe plugs in shotguns for no more than three shots. No pistol clips with more than ten rounds. Hi cap assault rifles might be illegal.

We could benefit from bag limits and other regs too. Would young bucks and does be off limits? Maybe special licenses for "game" between age 12 and 18. Maybe open season on bucks but restricted permits for does (unless the herd needs drastic thinning). Thre couild be a census every ten years. Might there be a no hunting zone around schools - maybe at 500 yards. I wonder what the "season" would be.

What would qualify as a world class "trophy"? No doubt taxidermists would be mounting the best specimens and heads.

Sheese! Is this morbid or what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top