[Aestivus]

Hi guys I was recently reading a thread here in the den and the issue of hunting came up. Not wanting to hijack said thread I started this one!

Before we continue let me preface this by saying, yes I am a hunter. I realize some of you have extremely strong views on this and ask that you remain civil for the sake of discussion and education. I am interested in your viewpoints and oppinions but I am not interested in starting some huge flame war where no one learns anything but some new swear words.

Some background on me first; I am a conservationist. I do not believe in the killing of animals purerly for sport. I always obey limits, and I am always liscensed. I am an ethical hunter and do everything within my power to minimize the animals suffering, this includes using appropriate caliber and a mastery of my firearms so that my shots go exactly where I want them.

And now a list of the animals I hunt and my justification as well as what parts of the animals I utilize.

I hunt in California.

*Dove - The dove population is monitored at both the state and federal level, and in 20 years the limit has not gone up or down, the populations is sustainable with current hunting pressure. I eat the breast.

*Quail - Once again a well monitored population. Eat everything I can.

*Pig - An introduced species that competes with natives and destroys natural habitiat. Eat the good parts.

*Coyote(hunted 90% on private lands) - In California the coyote population is huge and absolutely devestating to the native Pronghorn Antelope. The ranchers that allow me to hunt on their property mainly let me in because the coyotes cause damage to their herds by eating the young, or attacking the sick. Take only the fur. You may find that appaling but consider that the ranchers would be snaring these animals and letting them sit, possibly to starvation.

OK now for some substance!

Hunting and fishing licenses bring in 1.22 billion for wildlife agencies in the United States. Excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment including motor boat fuel bring in another 616 million dollars, those two figures alone make up 75% of wildlife agency revenue in the U.S.

Now add that to the some 280 million dollars donated annually by dozens of hunting groups around the world in the name of conserving habitat,.

Now lets look at another way hunters help the environment. Monitoring population, as a hunter you are required to keep perfect record of the animals you take and report them to your state wildlife department annually. In some cases you must even submit "samples" of your take, duck wings for instance are studied every year and the samples help scientist keep track of the health of the population as well as their genetic make up (is this a hybrid or purebred duck?).

Furthermore, in PA for instance the states Whitetail Deer population has exploded, so much so that they pose a threat to motorists, much more so than they do say in California. The deer are even being pushed out of their natural habitat and into the suburbs to look for food. Now I will concede that part of this problem is absolutely due to habitat destruction and human encroachment. Sadly that habitat is lost forever so the deer population has to be brought down to proper density.

To quote National Geographic (link to an article on wildlife conservation) "...The irony is that many species might not survive at all were it not for hunters trying to kill them. The nations 12.5 million hunters have become essential partners in wildlife management."

The bottom line - even if you disagree with hunting on a moral ground, one of the best things you can do to help your local wildlife is to buy a hunting license!!


Now onto the moral issues of killing. I do not believe that animals have a right to life, if we disagree here then I am sorry but we may as well not discuss it. I will not be able to convince you otherwise and you will not be able to convince me.

However, I do believe that every hunter has a moral obligation to do everything within their power to minimize any animals suffering. This does not simply mean that you have to make sure you are able to kill instantly. For instance; in California the Coyote is listed as a "varmint" (their term not mine...) which means that there is no limit on how many you can kill and there is a permanent open season. Unfortunately it is virtually impossible to tell a male coyote from a female. The problem with this is that during the spring and early summer a female coyote may have a den full of cubs that can not fend for themselves and rely on their mother for food. Being an ethical hunter I do not hunt coyotes during this time period.


Ok I think I covered everything I wanted to. Comments definitely appreciated as long as they are civil. Please share any hunting stories! Oh and even if you skipped all or most of that, if you are a hunter please list the animals you hunt!

[Feyd]

Morally I believe that hunting is cruel in certain cases. I applaud hunters who hunt for more than the thrill of killing an animal that can't do anything to change the fact that it is going to die simply because somebody else wants to kill it. If you use the meat as food, or use the fur to supplement your current income or to craft something out of it than good for you. For those hunters that simply enjoy killing other animals I have no respect for them.

I realize that no sport or activity could ever quite replicate the experience that hunting gives. It is my uneducated and naive impression that it isn't just being an excellent marksman, otherwise using non-lethal projectiles and incapacitation would suffice. It must be the thrill and adrenaline rush gained through slaying another creature. Not in a cruel or sadistic way, I don't think. Instead I think that most hunters feel a great deal of power and satisfaction from the kill. Being able to bring down an animal four times his own weight with a single shot.

However, I do not believe that hunting simply for "fun" is justified. I don't think that all animals have the right to live. That right is earned, much like respect is earned. You don't get respect without hardwork, you have to fight to survive. But when that animal can't fight back, can't fight back for its right to survive, I find that cruel.

If you hunt an animal that has no defense against you I believe it is totally justified if you are taking its life to improve your own. Population density is a huge problem, and hunting helps in that area. But once again just to reiterate, killing for the sake of killing is cruel, and I have no respect for people that do it.

[marx2k]

[...]Some background on me first; I am a conservationist. I do not believe in the killing of animals purerly for sport. I always obey limits, and I am always liscensed. I am an ethical hunter and do everything within my power to minimize the animals suffering, this includes using appropriate caliber and a mastery of my firearms so that my shots go exactly where I want them.

I'm okay with that. Though I don't hunt and wouldn't care to start, I'm fine with people hunting for food. Works for me.

*Coyote(hunted 90% on private lands) - In California the coyote population is huge and absolutely devestating to the native Pronghorn Antelope. The ranchers that allow me to hunt on their property mainly let me in because the coyotes cause damage to their herds by eating the young, or attacking the sick. Take only the fur. You may find that appaling but consider that the ranchers would be snaring these animals and letting them sit, possibly to starvation.

So what happens to the meat?

OK now for some substance!

Hunting and fishing licenses bring in 1.22 billion for wildlife agencies in the United States. Excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment including motor boat fuel bring in another 616 million dollars, those two figures alone make up 75% of wildlife agency revenue in the U.S.

If you're trying to defend hunting, I wouldn't use economical gain as a selling point since the same argument can be made for any of life's evils. From casinos to state lotteries to really anything. By the way, motor boat fuel is a serious pollutant.

Now add that to the some 280 million dollars donated annually by dozens of hunting groups around the world in the name of conserving habitat,.

Ineterest groups giving money in a self-interest fashion. Is it in the name of conserving the habitat for the sake of conserving the habitat or is it conserving the habitat so they can have a place to hunt. The distinction needs to be made.

Now lets look at another way hunters help the environment. Monitoring population, as a hunter you are required to keep perfect record of the animals you take and report them to your state wildlife department annually. In some cases you must even submit "samples" of your take, duck wings for instance are studied every year and the samples help scientist keep track of the health of the population as well as their genetic make up (is this a hybrid or purebred duck?).

I agree. Hunters help the environment in a number of ways. Here in my state, the deer population is being shattered through Chronic Wasting Disease. The DNR encourages hunters to take down as many deer as they can and was paying them per buck for some time, but even with this incentive, they were not able to curb the CWD herd sizes.

Furthermore, in PA for instance the states Whitetail Deer population has exploded, so much so that they pose a threat to motorists, much more so than they do say in California. The deer are even being pushed out of their natural habitat and into the suburbs to look for food. Now I will concede that part of this problem is absolutely due to habitat destruction and human encroachment. Sadly that habitat is lost forever so the deer population has to be brought down to proper density.

Here's where I'd disagree. I find it very self-centered when people see animals as a problem when they are forced to come out of their habitats mainly through the actions of humans. As more habitat is sadly eroded, the answer will still be to bring down deer density. At what point does that sizable annual hunting club donation begin to curb human population explosion?

To quote National Geographic (link to an article on wildlife conservation) "...The irony is that many species might not survive at all were it not for hunters trying to kill them. The nations 12.5 million hunters have become essential partners in wildlife management."

My reply to that would have to be that the only reason those animals need humans to kill them so their species can survive is directly because of human interaction unbalancing the species ratio in the wild. With the human population explosion, we are constantly destroying ecological webs/food chains. That's why the imbalance. I would say that if humans didn't kill the natural predators of the animals they're not hunting, everything would be as okay as it was before humans came around and started messing with the natural order of things. Hunters have become essential partners in wildlife management, paradoxically, by altering the environment earlier on.

Now onto the moral issues of killing. I do not believe that animals have a right to life, if we disagree here then I am sorry but we may as well not discuss it. I will not be able to convince you otherwise and you will not be able to convince me.

However, I do believe that every hunter has a moral obligation to do everything within their power to minimize any animals suffering. This does not simply mean that you have to make sure you are able to kill instantly. For instance; in California the Coyote is listed as a "varmint" (their term not mine...) which means that there is no limit on how many you can kill and there is a permanent open season. Unfortunately it is virtually impossible to tell a male coyote from a female. The problem with this is that during the spring and early summer a female coyote may have a den full of cubs that can not fend for themselves and rely on their mother for food. Being an ethical hunter I do not hunt coyotes during this time period.

Sounds pretty closed minded to me. You don't believe an animal has a right to life, but you do everything you can to make sure it has a quick death. That seems somewhat ironic. If you care enough about other life forms to not see them suffer, why do you not feel they have as much right as you do to live?

This arrogance against other lifeforms is one of the main reasons hunters are now needed to balance out species that were in a natural balance before their predators were overhunted in the first place.

But before you think that what I'm writing is an attack on you, it's not. I don't mind hunters hunting for food supply. That's fine with me, and people have been doing it since people have been around. I just find a moral opposition to it since in modern society, one no longer needs to actually hunt to eat. And at that point, it becomes a sport, and that's where I find issue with it.

[Dr Dog]

Hunting is fine with me as long as you don't use technology to assist you, Not fair for the animals. That would just be target practice.
Crossbows and shotguns should be about it, people using high powered rifles, heat sensors, and scents to attract animals, is no different than bullying kids at school

Hunters should be forced to get back to the real way of hunting, not track the animals from atop a tree, and call it a sport

[marx2k]

Originally Posted by Feyd

[...] I don't think that all animals have the right to live. That right is earned, much like respect is earned. You don't get respect without hardwork, you have to fight to survive. But when that animal can't fight back, can't fight back for its right to survive , I find that cruel.

You just contradicted yourself

If you hunt an animal that has no defense against you I believe it is totally justified if you are taking its life to improve your own.

You just did it again

Population density is a huge problem, and hunting helps in that area. But once again just to reiterate, killing for the sake of killing is cruel, and I have no respect for people that do it.

I agree. I bet the only reason people feel justified in controlling their environment and attempting population control over another species is that no one has done it to them. Yet.

I think that is why DeNiro had a change of heart at the end of Deer Hunter

[marx2k]

Originally Posted by Dr Dog

Hunting is fine with me as long as you don't use technology to assist you, Not fair for the animals. That would just be target practice.
Crossbows and shotguns should be about it, people using high powered rifles, heat sensors, and scents to attract animals, is no different than bullying kids at school

Hunters should be forced to get back to the real way of hunting, not track the animals from atop a tree, and call it a sport

Word. I agree with that. Hunters with GPS trackers, tree-sitting devices, cell phones, beer coolers, rifle scopes, scents, calls, etc etc... Why not just go to the supermarket and buy some meat or pay someone else to go shoot the damn animal for you.

But then, it's pretty much become that way in every other aspect of life as well. People don't just want to drive to work anymore. They want to be totally immersed in a sensory experience through cell phones, AM/FM/CD/XM/MP3 sound systems, DVD Players, OnStar systems, GPS trackers, tons of expensive safety gear, cup warmers/coolers, seat warmers/coolers, etc etc...

All the crap available to hunters serves only to take them further from the true hunting experience. It's an extension of the current trend in modern life for technology to ensure that the average human being experiences zero personal inconvenience.

In other words, I agree with you.

[stinkyattic]

I don't like the idea of hunting merely for thrill or trophies.

That being said, I've got my degree in wildlife and fisheries conservation and very strongly believe that while humans are on the planet we ARE a part of the ecosystem; we HAVE replaced large carnivores as a top predator, and I'll use white-tailed deer as an example- Here in New England, in many areas deer are so out of control that they are damaging the forest environment by consuming ALL of the undergrowth, whcih is habitat for other species. From a pure forestry perspective, lack of undergrowth is not desirable! From a water-quality perspective, though, it's purely DISASTROUS. Young, fast-growing shrubs and small trees not only provide shelter for birds and small game, but act as a nutrient sink. Overland rainwater runoff is cleaned up before entering a body or surface water, much the same way that a healthy marshland cleans up water seeping back into the underground aquifers. The nitric and sulfuric acids in acid rain contain (obviously) substances that are useful to plants, but can damage aquatic ecosystems when the buffering capacity of the lake in question is used up, and the nutrients contained therein can cause sever algae blooms, including blue-green algae, which are now known to be a mechanism for elemental mercury to become methylated and enter the food chain. Look at the Adirondacks, or at the conservation area surrounding the Quabbin Reservoir in western Massachusetts. They're allowing (I think)2 deer seasons now to control a deer population problem that has stripped the undergrowth BARE and is prone to disease and starvation.

So I know this isn't really a post about hunting, it's about deer population control... but everything is connected.

Anyway. Doesn't hurt that venison is healthy and delicious!

[Aestivus]

Marx: "So what happens to the meat?" - I usually leave the carcass somewhere the rancher wants me to and come back later for the skulls(people buy these as well as the fur)

"Ineterest groups giving money in a self-interest fashion. Is it in the name of conserving the habitat for the sake of conserving the habitat or is it conserving the habitat so they can have a place to hunt. The distinction needs to be made."
- Why does the distinction have to be made? If an interest group is buying habitat for hunting land they are going to want it to be the most pristine environment possible. What I mean is, the answer is both.

"I find it very self-centered when people see animals as a problem when they are forced to come out of their habitats mainly through the actions of humans. As more habitat is sadly eroded, the answer will still be to bring down deer density."
- I agree.

"Sounds pretty closed minded to me. You don't believe an animal has a right to life, but you do everything you can to make sure it has a quick death. That seems somewhat ironic. "
- I am afraid I dont see the logic here, just because I dont think every animal has the right to live does not mean I think I have the right to cause suffering through neglect.

Dog: "...Crossbows and shotguns should be about it, people using high powered rifles, heat sensors, and scents to attract animals, is no different than bullying kids at school

Hunters should be forced to get back to the real way of hunting, not track the animals from atop a tree, and call it a sport"

- In a less extreme way I agree with you, the people that pay thousands of dollars to shoot what is more or a less a tame deer that eats the same place everyday because that is where it is FED are not in my mind hunters. However, I use a 7mm Mauser rifle to kill pigs, anything less is quite frankly inhumane, they are incredibly tough animals. I also use a hand call to bring in coyotes and use a .223(relatively small calibre) to dispatch them. I do not use scents or stands, I stalk pigs and call coyotes from the ground.

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Originally Posted by marx2k

Here's where I'd disagree. I find it very self-centered when people see animals as a problem when they are forced to come out of their habitats mainly through the actions of humans. As more habitat is sadly eroded, the answer will still be to bring down deer density. At what point does that sizable annual hunting club donation begin to curb human population explosion?

Do you live in a building that sits in a spot which was once natural habitat?
Do you drive a car on roads? Do you consume produce from farms?

I find it very hypocritical that people who endorse the erosion of natural habitats byliving a lifestyle where most of your daily activities support habitat eroding conditions, want to challenge the necessity they help perpetuate.

Bottom line is... Given the current state of man's civilization, population control of wild animals is necessary to preserve some of the balance we have upset with our population expansion/ habitat destruction, and the most efficient way to manage those populations is thru hunting.

Environmentally conscious hunters perform a service to both the human and the animal populations.

As far as the rest of it... I have a big problem with ALOT of the practices of sport hunters... Hunting raised animals for fun, for one, along with some of the other things already mentioned are part of the problem, not the solution.

Hunting I have no problems with, some hunters I have big problems with...

[Clarence]

I believe that hunting is fine if you are going to use the animal in all ways possible. By that i mean eat the meat, use the fur/skin for clothes etc, make glue out of the hooves (if they have them etc). I don't believe in killing an animal just for one small part of it like they do for shark fin soup etc. If the animal is on it's way to being extinct then should be left alone. I do believe that if you are going to eat meat you should be fully prepared to hunt your own food, kill and prepare it. I think that there would be a lot more vegetarians on this planet if people had to go back to hunting for themselves. On the other hand it really gets my goat when humans turn on animals for revenge when animals hunt down a human. Lets say a shark attack or a cougar attack. What happens. Humans get pissed off and go on killing frenzies. If we can hunt with no consequences so should all other animals on the planet. What makes us so special? Just coz we can hide behind cowardly weapons, does that make us superior? Anyway that is just MHO.


(apart from rabbits. arghhh. yuck. Flopsy to all of them, vermin)