Hunting Animals Just For Sport (not for food): Depraved?

[hookhook]

Originally Posted by marlinspike

I'm not anti-hunting (in fact, perhaps some would say pro-hunting), but I do think hunting for "sport" alone is a depraved act.



Couldn't agree more.

 

[hi-val]

Field & Stream has an interesting and kind of veiled take on the whole thing. You get this vibe that they don't like it, but they won't say it because they don't want to lose all those subscribers who bear hunt. That said, there's a lot of catch & release talked about, and the hunting mostly centers on bucks. The most they say about bears is how to avoid them.

I am pro-hunting but I think it's massively disrespectful to the animal that you just killed to not use as much of it as you can. The Bavarian hunting organizations have a big problem with this kind of thing too, and they've been doing it for a thousand years.

That said, I wholeheartedly endorse bear hunting with spears, which is still done now and then. If you take an ursine behemoth down with a spear, you have earned it.

 

[Karo]

Ugly ones are ok to hunt.

Not ok to hunt domesticated or endangered ones.

What about killing rodents? Would that be considered cruel?

 

[SoCal2NYC]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

I say old chap, that's just not right!

It pisses me off that my Grandfather will spend $30,000 in an auction (granted the $ goes to charity) to buy a deer tag to hunt on The Channel Islands; but, has always rejected my pleas to go hunting in Africa.

 

[marlinspike]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

I say old chap, that's just not right!

Riding an Elephant is pretty darn depraved too, if you know how they train them.

 

[TheFoo]

I'd love to shoot and kill an animal. My guess is that the visceral desire to hunt is built into our genes. Maybe we'd kill fewer people if we killed more other stuff.

 

[globetrotter]

I don't really have a problem at all with hunting. for me, it is a very fine line - huntng for food is the best, I guess. huting a serious sport animal would also e acceptable - for instance, I understand the atraction of going after goats that are only found in very difficult to reach places, so that it is a huge effort and requires skill and determination to get to them. I get a little uncomfortable about how most bear are hunted in north america. and shooting rats at the dump to me is not something that I would do or want to associate with people who do.

 

[crazyquik]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

I say old chap, that's just not right!

African Elephants to be killed to curb overpopulation
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3431369.ece
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010138901
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx...ght__national/

"Since killing elephants was outlawed 14 years ago, the number in South Africa has soared from about 8,000 to more than 20,000. In the Kruger National Park, signs of the continent's most privileged elephant population are only too visible. As they move through one of Africa's biggest and best-managed reserves, the country's highest single population of elephants "” now estimated at 15,000 "” leave a swath of destruction. Trampled thorn trees, bushes and dying roots, dried brittle by the sun, mark their route across a reserve visited by more than one million tourists a year."

Instead of restricted hunting which would bring in about $50,000 USD per elephant killed (and even with the value of the dollar, 50,000 of them still go a long way in Africa), they will have 'managers' go and cull the herds, possibly from helicopter.

There are three ways to manage elephant populations; regulated hunting is the best for all parties involved. The physical environment and African villages aren't destroyed; there is a huge incentive against illegal poaching, and the world-wide rich will come drop $50,000 on one elephant alone.

South Africa could raise over 100 million dollars from 'ole chaps' by selling hunting concessions in Kruger instead of waiting 14 years until there was an overpopulation and decided to cull the herd. Who knows what will happen with the meat and ivory? Will they simply burn it?

 

[Dakota rube]

I was a quite serious waterfowl hunter for many, many years; from my teens until my late 30s when family obligations got in the way.

I don't eat duck; I simply don't like the taste. But every duck I've ever killed has been given to someone else and it ends up as an entree on their table.

I don't know how many here have hunted duck, but where I grew up there are two or three ways in which it is carried out: decoying, pass shooting and jumping. Decoying is pretty self-explanatory; one puts out an array of decoys, secrets oneself into a blind, perhaps uses a duck call to further lure the birds into range, and then shoots. I was taught NEVER to fire at a bird simply passing by my blind; my father wouldn't allow me to pull the trigger until the bird(s) had set their wings to land amongst my decoys.

Pass shooting is just as it sounds: blasting away at ducks flying past your blind. And jump-shooting is more like, perhaps, big game hunting in that one crawls along the ground, sneaking up on feeding birds and shoots them on either the water or a field, or shortly after they've taken flight.

Pass shooting and jumping are not sport to me. I've done nothing to "deserve" the kill; I simply happened onto the duck, or the duck happened onto me.

My father told me from the first time I went into the blind with him that if I hadn't fooled the bird into my gun range "” and if that duck hadn't set his wings to land "” I didn't have a right to kill it.

Looking down the barrel of one's shotgun, waiting for the duck to switch from flight to landing stance is one of the most exciting experiences in a waterfowler's life. When those wings set, when that bird extends his feet to alight, is truly a rush. And when that duck, at the last minute sees, hears or otherwise senses the trap he is about to enter, and aborts his landing, and the hunter takes his finger off the trigger allowing the "smarter" animal to escape unscathed is a lesson in discipline and, frankly, humility.

 

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by Dakota rube

I was a quite serious waterfowl hunter for many, many years; from my teens until my late 30s when family obligations got in the way.

I don't eat duck; I simply don't like the taste. But every duck I've ever killed has been given to someone else and it ends up as an entree on their table.

I don't know how many here have hunted duck, but where I grew up there are two or three ways in which it is carried out: decoying, pass shooting and jumping. Decoying is pretty self-explanatory; one puts out an array of decoys, secrets oneself into a blind, perhaps uses a duck call to further lure the birds into range, and then shoots. I was taught NEVER to fire at a bird simply passing by my blind; my father wouldn't allow me to pull the trigger until the bird(s) had set their wings to land amongst my decoys.

Pass shooting is just as it sounds: blasting away at ducks flying past your blind. And jump-shooting is more like, perhaps, big game hunting in that one crawls along the ground, sneaking up on feeding birds and shoots them on either the water or a field, or shortly after they've taken flight.

Pass shooting and jumping are not sport to me. I've done nothing to "deserve" the kill; I simply happened onto the duck, or the duck happened onto me.

My father told me from the first time I went into the blind with him that if I hadn't fooled the bird into my gun range "” and if that duck hadn't set his wings to land "” I didn't have a right to kill it.

Looking down the barrel of one's shotgun, waiting for the duck to switch from flight to landing stance is one of the most exciting experiences in a waterfowler's life. When those wings set, when that bird extends his feet to alight, is truly a rush. And when that duck, at the last minute sees, hears or otherwise senses the trap he is about to enter, and aborts his landing, and the hunter takes his finger off the trigger allowing the "smarter" animal to escape unscathed is a lesson in discipline and, frankly, humility.


great post, friend

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by SoCal2NYC

It pisses me off that my Grandfather will spend $30,000 in an auction (granted the $ goes to charity) to buy a deer tag to hunt on The Channel Islands; but, has always rejected my pleas to go hunting in Africa.
I believe the image depicts a tiger hunt in India, probably not something you can do these days with any amount of money.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by crazyquik

African Elephants to be killed to curb overpopulation
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3431369.ece
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010138901
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx...ght__national/

"Since killing elephants was outlawed 14 years ago, the number in South Africa has soared from about 8,000 to more than 20,000. In the Kruger National Park, signs of the continent's most privileged elephant population are only too visible. As they move through one of Africa's biggest and best-managed reserves, the country's highest single population of elephants "” now estimated at 15,000 "” leave a swath of destruction. Trampled thorn trees, bushes and dying roots, dried brittle by the sun, mark their route across a reserve visited by more than one million tourists a year."

Instead of restricted hunting which would bring in about $50,000 USD per elephant killed (and even with the value of the dollar, 50,000 of them still go a long way in Africa), they will have 'managers' go and cull the herds, possibly from helicopter.

There are three ways to manage elephant populations; regulated hunting is the best for all parties involved. The physical environment and African villages aren't destroyed; there is a huge incentive against illegal poaching, and the world-wide rich will come drop $50,000 on one elephant alone.

South Africa could raise over 100 million dollars from 'ole chaps' by selling hunting concessions in Kruger instead of waiting 14 years until there was an overpopulation and decided to cull the herd. Who knows what will happen with the meat and ivory? Will they simply burn it?

Oftentimes, the meat, skin and ivory are sold at auction by the associated parks.

 

[hi-val]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

great post, friend

Agreed, +1

 

[tlaxa]

Hmm, it makes me wonder, what if there happened to be a superior species who hunted humans for food?

Could we complain about it, since we do the same?

At the same time, there are serial killers who hunt humans for sport (or to mount a head onto their wall). Can we say they are wrong?

We see human life as precious because we're at the top of the food chain. But if another species managed to get on top of us (like vampires or alien invaders or something weird)...

I wonder if someday, when Earth is conquered by aliens, they will have protestors shouting "Ban human hunting!"

 

[Dakota rube]

See: To Serve Man "The Twilight Zone" Original Air Date: 2 March 1962 (Season 3, Episode 24) Thur. Mar. 13\t1:30 AM\tSCIFI