Non-hunters hunting experience and commentary

[Curmudgeon]

I tend to look at the UK press fairly often. I like an external view on American politics. Occasionally, I find something else of interest. The commentary below is from a filmmaker. He decided to shoot a deer to act on his belief that reducing the red deer population was the right thing to do.  He had not hunted previously. 

His comments are thoughtful. They are worth a read if you have a desire to understand people who oppose hunting. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/19/wildlife-killing-deer-diversity-resources-environment

If you haven't read Michael Pollan, he also took up hunting as part of his research into food. The Omnivores Dilemma is the book that documents his hunting experience. I credit it with getting a lot of young foodies to pick up a gun or bow.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Curmudgeon

[fasteddie]

Interesting article ! 

[Five Seasons]

can't believe you got me to click on a link to the guardian haha. I read a little bit, but it's not a new idea or concept. I do applaud him for executing the idea though. In skimming the last few paragraphs though I didn't see him bring up anything about the fact that he could or did eat the animal he killed. I understand the scope of the article is about population reduction but it seems like a glaring omission. 

[Curmudgeon]

Belo,

I looked at some information on the documentary he produced. It was all about the industrial meat industry. So, maybe he didn't eat the deer. It's still quite a leap for someone like that to shoot a deer, and publicly defend it.

I was in Ireland last summer. I was reading about the deer culls in Killarney NP. I never did see anything on the disposition of the meat.

BTW - I detest the industrial meat industry. I shoot it, raise it or barter for it.   

[squirrelwhisperer]

37 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said:

 I detest the industrial meat industry. I shoot it, raise it or barter for it.   

You never buy a steak...hardcore! 

I agree with Eddy, interesting article. 

Also agree with Belo, what happened to the meat? I don't kill anything I;m not going to eat. I tell my sons we are hunters, not a murderers.

Wow, I guess I agree with everybody. That's a first lol. Nothing but love today. hahaha

Edited February 19, 2020 by squirrelwhisperer

[left field]

Another interesting read along the same lines is Tovar Cerulli's journey from a vegan to a hunter. 

[Rattler]

21 hours ago, Curmudgeon said:

 I detest the industrial meat industry. I shoot it, raise it or barter for it.   

I suppose you think it would be possible for all of the citizens of America to do the same, or is this just bumptious virtue signaling?

[Rattler]

If you want to understand the ideology of anti-hunters, this is all you need to know:

"Between these poles – kill nothing and kill almost everything – lies the pragmatic aim of maximizing the diversity and abundance of non-human life on Earth, while securing our own survival. But this doesn’t answer the activist’s central and important point. If it’s acceptable to kill wild animals to alleviate environmental damage, why is it not acceptable to kill humans? In other words, why might we see another animal’s right to life as negotiable, but the human right to life as absolute?

Because if we did otherwise, society would fall apart. The powerful would decide that the powerless must die for the greater good, as they have done many times before. Our relations would be characterized by extreme distrust and perpetual violence. We could not work together for any purpose, including environmental protection.

Yes, I am a speciesist. Not because I believe human beings are innately superior to other animals, but because I believe we cannot live together (or even alone) without privileging our own existence. We don’t have to see ourselves as the divinely appointed stewards of creation to recognize that we bear responsibility for restoring the magnificent living systems we have harmed. And we don’t have to deny our bias towards ourselves to defend the lives of other beings."

Pay attention to the lines in bold print.  They illustrate the mindset of the anti-hunter.  Since the dawn of time, man has been a predator, and that predatory instinct is what caused humans to evolve into the intelligent beings they are today.  To deny that, is a sign of emotional immaturity.  Human beings need food.  Managing animal populations, be they domestic or wild, for the benefit of human being's consumptive needs, is necessary to human survival.  To minimize those needs in defense of animal rights, is to harm humans.  Human life and health on this planet must be our priority.  Unless our management of flora and fauna proves to be detrimental to our own existence, our management of both is not only justified, but imperative.

[Robhuntandfish]

i thought this was interesting - saw it the other day .  Although he is obviously against hunting - at least understands "one" aspect of its merits.  

 

[Rattler]

I don't see animal protectionists offering to pony up the hundreds of millions of dollars trophy hunting contributes to conservation in Africa, to make trophy hunting unnecessary.  They prefer to spend their money attacking hunters and legal hunting.

[squirrelwhisperer]

23 minutes ago, Rattler said:

If you want to understand the ideology of anti-hunters, this is all you need to know:

"Between these poles – kill nothing and kill almost everything – lies the pragmatic aim of maximizing the diversity and abundance of non-human life on Earth, while securing our own survival. But this doesn’t answer the activist’s central and important point. If it’s acceptable to kill wild animals to alleviate environmental damage, why is it not acceptable to kill humans? In other words, why might we see another animal’s right to life as negotiable, but the human right to life as absolute?

Because if we did otherwise, society would fall apart. The powerful would decide that the powerless must die for the greater good, as they have done many times before. Our relations would be characterized by extreme distrust and perpetual violence. We could not work together for any purpose, including environmental protection.

Yes, I am a speciesist. Not because I believe human beings are innately superior to other animals, but because I believe we cannot live together (or even alone) without privileging our own existence. We don’t have to see ourselves as the divinely appointed stewards of creation to recognize that we bear responsibility for restoring the magnificent living systems we have harmed. And we don’t have to deny our bias towards ourselves to defend the lives of other beings."

Pay attention to the lines in bold print.  They illustrate the mindset of the anti-hunter.  Since the dawn of time, man has been a predator, and that predatory instinct is what caused humans to evolve into the intelligent beings they are today.  To deny that, is a sign of emotional immaturity.  Human beings need food.  Managing animal populations, be they domestic or wild, for the benefit of human being's consumptive needs, is necessary to human survival.  To minimize those needs in defense of animal rights, is to harm humans.  Human life and health on this planet must be our priority.  Unless our management of flora and fauna proves to be detrimental to our own existence, our management of both is not only justified, but imperative.

I say we hunt, kill and eat the antis and developers. lol This will help "alleviate the environmental damage" caused by certain groups that don't understand certain things like carrying capacity and habitat. I hate when I see new condo complexes going up...I always feel bad for the now homeless deer and other critters. 

Edited February 20, 2020 by squirrelwhisperer

[fasteddie]

Those "contraceptive darts" sting when you get hit with one !