Why must we hunt?

Originally posted by iori_komei

Personally I think hunting, unless it is the scenario I originally mentioned,
should be completely illegal, with heavy fines for most animals, and prison
terms for killing endangered or near/sentient animals.

In other words, the screw the poor.

Most hunters in america are rural and working-class. Most vegetarians are well-educated and well-off. But screw the immigrants and truck-drivers, right?

Well, i still got some deer and elk meat in my freezer which a friend of mine gave me after a hunt. He and some other friends go hunting while I prefer target shooting on pieces of paper and such. Everytime they come from their hunting they give me some of the meat.

I do keep my marlin 3030 and my .45 Kimber costume II with me if i explore just in case, alongside some bear peper spray. I do like exploring by myself quite a bit, and some of the wildlife in the mountains I explore can be quite dangerous. The most dangerous of all animals i have encountered are Moose, those can be quite nasty and they are not scared of anything.

I do not hunt myself, and unless i really need to, I wouldn't hunt animals, but in itself there is nothing wrong with it as long as it is done right.

In this area where i live lots of people hunt and of course they eat the meat. Have you ever had elk meat? It is pretty damn good.

If animals like deer and such are not controlled their numbers will grow too large and they would eat all the resources in the area, which then would not be able to sustain the increasing numbers of deer and such and many of them will starve to death. Hence hunting is allowed.

There is nothing wrong with hunting in the least.

[edit on 29-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Poll time, hunters out there?

Do the hunters actually USE the meat, either for their own family, or giving it away to others?

or

Do the hunters kill the animal JUST for the trophy, pelt antlers, head etc and THROW away the meat?

I do believe you'll find most hunters of course use the meat or give it away, either to other families or local shelter etc.

Hunters, chime in please.

Originally posted by Muaddib
If animals like deer and such are not controlled their numbers will grow too large and they would eat all the resources in the area, which then would not be able to sustain the increasing numbers of deer and such and many of them will starve to death. Hence hunting is allowed.

Take a look at Natural Law in this particular instance...
Too many deer consume their food, more deer starve. Deer population is reduced & the rotting carcasses feed more nutrients back into the soil to grow more plants.
Either deer starve from lack of food, or Nature may allow the increase in population of predator species (assuming humans aren't still bounty-hunting the predators or they are actually hunting deer for food, for examples) which also reduces deer population back to within Natural Limits.
If humans hunted more for food than for sport, then this also lowers the chance of humans dying of starvation too.

The balance of an interrelated cycle according to Natural Law. As soon as humanity (on the whole) looses the arrogance to believe that it's above Natural Law, then we'll more quickly learn how to continue to survive on this planet.

[edit on 29-4-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
So, the bounty-hunting of predator species winds up eventually creating a surplus of prey species, who then help lower the population of unobservant humans in their vehicles...Poetic justice or Natural Law? You decide.

I live in the big ol city now, but I used to live in very rural area, and if you think only unobsevant ppl hit deer and die or get injured, well it means you never lived out thar in thar sticks' Imagine driving 50-60 mph along a rural road/hwy at night, when all of sudden a deer runs out in front of your car, the deer gets blinded (like a deer in headlights yes) and stops in the road right in front of your car barreling at 60mph. You can either a) swerve and maybe die hitting a tree. b)swerve and maybe die hitting roadside ditch and flipping bout 1000 times. c) Hit the deer straight on. You have about 1.1 secs to decide.

Thats about the gist of it. Its natural law but across the board, observant people and unobservant people both.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
....................
The balance of an interrelated cycle according to Natural Law. As soon as humanity (on the whole) looses the arrogance to believe that it's above Natural Law, then we'll more quickly learn how to continue to survive on this planet.

Hence there are laws of when and where people can hunt animals. All the friends that I know that hunt, they use the meat, some of the meat they give away to other friends and family members, and although i am not certain probably some people sell some of the meat they hunt to restaurants and such.

Most hunters are not the "evil pouchers" some people make them to be...

BTW, if you really knew anything about "natural law", you would be horrified of what "natural law does to those who are weaker"...

Even among wild animals they are not always "good natured" they have killed each other, they can rape and kill their young etc.

Natural law is not the romanticized version some people have made it out to be....


[edit on 29-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Take a look at Natural Law in this particular instance...
Too many deer consume their food, more deer starve. Deer population is reduced & the rotting carcasses feed more nutrients back into the soil to grow more plants.
Either deer starve from lack of food, or Nature may allow the increase in population of predator species (assuming humans aren't still bounty-hunting the predators or they are actually hunting deer for food, for examples) which also reduces deer population back to within Natural Limits.
If humans hunted more for food than for sport, then this also lowers the chance of humans dying of starvation too.

Thats akin to letting the rivers flood the valley every year or two, causing loss of life, lifestock, farmland instead of building a dam. Agree that this is what nature has done before people were here, but we are here now, and we won't tolerate the loss of life/land when we have the ability to construct engineering plans for a dam.

I argue its more humane to hunt the animals than to do what you say, let the food run out, let the animals starve and have HUGE population swings up and down. Thats just not a good idea. Potential areas of disease and outbreak in that situation when it can b avoided. I think its cruel to let the animals starve, instead have a stable population of animals that have enough food for themselves and their young.

Originally posted by greatlakes
I live in the big ol city now, but I used to live in very rural area, and if you think only unobsevant ppl hit deer and die or get injured, well it means you never lived out thar in thar sticks' Imagine driving 50-60 mph along a rural road/hwy at night, when all of sudden a deer runs out in front of your car, the deer gets blinded (like a deer in headlights yes) and stops in the road right in front of your car barreling at 60mph. You can either a) swerve and maybe die hitting a tree. b)swerve and maybe die hitting roadside ditch and flipping bout 1000 times. c) Hit the deer straight on. You have about 1.1 secs to decide.

I've lived more than 30 years of my life outside of city boundries. The situation that you described has happened to me on numerous occasions but I've never hit any deer nor had any accident that involved a deer getting out in front of me.

That's because I chose option d) Keep my attention on the road, where it should be at all times. Upon seeing a deer anywhere near the road, even as far out as I can see (yes, even at night with only my headlights to light the way), I slow down so that the deer & I could never connect. Yes, even if that involves stopping completely! I can then flash my headlights, honk the horn or whatever to prompt the deer to move out of the way & then proceed slowly until well past the deer.
If, in the first place, there was too much foliage to see clearly along the sides of the road, then I'd slow down anyway...because I realize beforehand that deer may come out in front of me. If I can't see clearly enough to slow down & stop in time, then I'm already going to fast.

[edit on 29-4-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

Good post, muaddib, In addition I would like to add that keeping the deer population in check has another advantage to the deer, disease being the main reason, if populations of deer exceed the carrying capacity of the land they live on, unhealthy deer is the result, which inturn become suseptable to disease from poor diet and unhealthy living conditions.

Some would say that bringing back the deer's natural predators is the answer, but alass we've come to far in modifiying the habitat to reverse the tide, robust agriculture has caused the deer populations to explode at phenominal rates, besides human population growth has made co-habitation with predators risky business and just not the answer. I would not want wolves coming around my house in the country, would you?

I have been a hunter all my life and at the moment have a freezer full of venison from deer I have taken, some off of my own land. I'm a working stiff and the extra meat helps on the grocery bill. sure some people might look at me and say "you dont have to kill animals to eat" " you can just go to the grocery store and buy your meat" but for me it's a matter of cost plus venison is so much more lean than beef, not all of that artery clogging fat. if you've never tried it you dont know what your missing.

[edit on 29-4-2007 by the_sentinal]

Killing and eating animals is bad we should not do it? Why because they are alive? Are they intelligent, sentient beings? How do we differentiate sentience from one creature to the next? Where can we draw the line?



[edit on 29-4-2007 by greatlakes]

I'm looking for hunter demographics right now, to compare them with vegetarians.

In most states I can find studies for (michigan and wyoming), the median income for deer hunters is slightly above the local average---but I cannot find a study where out-of-state hunters are removed from the figures. Of local hunters, who live in the county they hunt, most of them didn't own any land---they were hunting on public land for food.


I can find NO demographics on vegetarians, other than strict vegetarians are about 2% of the pop, while "sometime vegetarians" are 19% or so.

I found this cute little quote though:

Veggie items are more popular at pricey restaurants. Ninety-one percent of restaurants with an average check price of $25 or more offer vegetarian entrees, compared with 72 percent of restaurants with an average check of less than $8. If only the McVeggie burger would catch on!

Source

Originally posted by Muaddib
Even among wild animals they are not always "good natured" they have killed each other, they can rape and kill their young etc.

I am aware of this. One of the Natural Laws is that "life survives by consuming life." Basically, this is the Law that still promotes the Balance by maintaining the continous exchange between matter & energy: Plants feed from the nutrients that their ancestors provide, herbivores consume plants, predators consume herbivores, predators die & help nourish the next generations of plants. Nothing goes to waste, it's and endless cycle.
Animals do what they do because it's how they've adapted to fill their ecological niche on Earth & humanity is no different.

I've seen a documentary that showed a male lion that encountered a pride that had only females & a number of young; The previous male of that pride had died before the new male came along. The new male proceeded to kill the young, but it was to establish his own "right to breed" among the females. He did this to secure his "niche" within the pride.

Humanity has commited more cruelty upon fellow humans than animals have...Much of it for reasons that have nothing to do with survival or to maintain their niche within Nature; Only humanity has killed fellow humans for reasons of greed or power-lust.

As much as Nature may seem brutal or cruel to humanity, why is it so hard to recognize that humans try to "intellectualize away" their own brutalities.

[edit on 29-4-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

Originally posted by hikix
After we polluted our whole earth, decimated the fish population, knocked down our forests, killed everything we've ever encountered... why do people still feel the need to hunt for sport??? havent we done enough to ruin this planet?

To answer you question dead on. Hunting for sport is not really needed these days. We have companys that raise animals to later on be killed, packaged, and shipped to places where people can buy meat.

Hunting for sport is a something people do as a pass time. It's something that has come from our past as humans. Humans at one point in time were not at the top of the food chain. We had to work our way up. We did this by coming up with ways to defend ourselfs. Over a period of time we did those so well that we found ourselves from somewhere in the middle of the food chain to the top.

Today people hunt to show their skills. If there was a time where we needed to hunt for food these skills would be vary important. Those who were unable to hunt would also be likely to not be able to protect themselves. Humans for the most part are vary weak. It's only the things humans are able to make that bring them to the top of the food chain.

Is it right? Who knows? Im just happy we are able to do it.

Styki

How about this, why dont you hunt? I'm guessing the answer to the question is that you believe it inhumane or you dont want to. My answer to you of why people hunt( I have been a few times with family that do, but its not my thing, I prefer fishing) is that they like to do it. Whats wrong with them doing it if its legal and they have their license to do it and all of that? This is what I dont like, when someone takes their ideals, (and I know you didnt say it but I get the feeling its what you want), and project them on others who dont share them. You dont want to hunt, fine dont, but dont bother those who enjoy it as a pastime and hobby. Just like when PETA protests bassmaster tournaments, they dont like fishing, then dont do it, plain and simple. You have that FREEDOM in this country.

First of all, great thread.

Second of all, rule of thumb is, "hunt or be hunted."

If someone is genuinely hunting for food, and has that as his priority, I can support that. But, seeking out trophies, and killing the biggest, most robust animals in a herd is harmful to the gene pool. Wolves take the old, sick, weak, slow, and young ones, which strengthens the herd's gene pool. That is helpful. Mounting a big head on a wall, and trying to get a bigger one than your neighbor has is just egotism, imho. That seems to me like someone who needs outside possessions to validate their worth. And the actual means of killing has gotten so high-tech, it is hardly a challenge, relative to the past. The firearms today are so powerful and can have such good scopes that the sport is greatly diminished. The deer hasn't a chance.
A crossbow would be more acceptable a tool to me, and would require more skill to be successful.
Of course, a knife would be much more fair still.
I only hope we don't eliminate all the wild animals, as seems to be possible.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
[Hmmm...Perhaps hunting for "population control" would not be too much of a problem if certain predator species had not been sanctioned for bounty (such as wolves) for so many years; This is just one example to make my point. Perhaps even the predator species that haven't been bounty hunted wouldn't be much of a problem

Personally, I used to hunt for bounty on predatory animals to make money while I was in high school. In the area of Texas I grew up in (and to this day) coyotes are in a population boom. Bounties are generally set up by county, and not that high. Instead, I worked for individual ranchers for a much higher price than the county bounty. I generally made about $25 a head. Yes, I profited from killing an animal that I didn't intend to eat afterwards, but in killing that animal, I insured that beef cattle were protected until the time they ended up as food in the grocery store. This insured a larger amount of beef to be sold and lower average prices for consumers.

Although I made a profit at hunting coyotes, I wouldn't call it trophy hunting. I made no attempt to keep the animals I killed (other than to hand them over to the ranchers the next morning). Simply, I was protecting other animals that were being raised for the food they provided.

Now, I hunt mostly for food, but also on occasion I'll take out my rifle and remove some varmints off my father-in-laws land to protect his cattle and his watermelon patches (which are also routinely ravaged by coyotes).

When my son is old enough, I intend to take him hunting with me

[edit on 4/29/2007 by PapaHomer]

PapaHomer, even though it did protect livestock, that type of hunting did have a big impact, as did other practices of over-eager fire-prevention.

www.bluemountainpeakranch.com...

I'm not opposed to hunting at all, I'm just saying that heedlessly hunting as much as a person can hunt for a buck may come back to haunt your descendants.

This is my two cents. Humans are predators. Just like Chimpanzees but much more sophisticated and evolved. Chimps in the wild have been known to make rudimentary spears and go hunting sometimes in groups.
Its their nature.

Its our Nature as well. It is Natural for us to hunt. That is Natural Law for you. It is in our very being our DNA to hunt as it is in any Predator. Were not pure Carnivores, but neither are Bears and Chimps.

So should we just outlaw Natural Law? "NO Mr Bear you cant eat any Deer anymore. No Mr Wolf you cant eat Rabbits. No Mr Human you cant eat anything. "

Humans hunt around the world. Mostly for food. Where I grew up at Most people hunted for the meat and nothing else. These same people often fished alot as well.

Lastly, I just want to point out Humans arnt the only ones that hunt for sport. Cats, especially Tigers, and Foxes do it as well. Im not advocating hunting for sport, but that may be Natural as well.

Hunting for sport, in my opinion, seems to be mostly an American thing. And then it is still the vast minority. Nowhere else in the world are you likely to find people killing animals and then letting the meat go to waste. And most "sport" anglers are catch-and-release, so there is no harm done there either.

In most hunting and fishing tournaments, they give the meat away to charity. Shark tournaments can often feed an entire town.

As an example of what happens if you disallow hunting, there is a provincial park near me (where hunting is illegal) that is actually overrun with deer, so much so that they are starving because there isn't enough vegetation to feed them all. Some of the deer end up having to stand by the side of the road to eat, because that's the only place where any vegetation is left, and often get hit by cars. So they ended up having to have a controlled hunt to thin out their population.

So what is more humane? Letting animal populations explode to the point that the habitat can no longer support them and end up starving themselves to death slowly, or killing them in a relatively humane manner and putting them to good use?

[edit on 29-4-2007 by Yarcofin]