Dad shoots son....thought he was a Turkey? Sad..son died.

[yo mama]

I'm allowed two rooms in the house, my study, and my billiards / tv room. The study has two shoulder mounts and two European mounts. The billiards / tv room upstairs (my man cave) has wall to wall autographed spamshirts footballs, and helmets. The rest my wife has 95% say on the decor.

I'm impressed your wife gives you a 5% say on the rest the house. I'm jealous.

[Seattle LawDawg]

I grew up in a family of hunters. My old man was an NRA and IHEA instructor for years and in NoDak, opening day was enough reason to close the school. I've done some hunting (much more bird hunting than big game) and I know I'll do more, but I have never been into it as much as the rest of my family. Somehow I got the fishing genes instead. Nevertheless, I have looked through the scope, saw the eyes and pulled the trigger. I guarantee that the majority of people that do that respect the animal more than the people who won't think twice about picking it off the shelf at a grocery store. If you eat it, it was killed for that purpose. The fact that you're more willing to have other people kill for you seems worse in my opinion.

 

We could talk all day long about the carrying capacity of a specific region and the need to maintain numbers that can be supported by the local environment but for some reason, those facts seem to usually fall on deaf ears. There's no doubt that there are yahoos out there who give hunting a bad name, but please don't group all hunters into that group. In my experience, for every irresponsible hunter, there are 50 true sportsman who respect the animals, understand conservation, and practice safe techniques. Try bragging about taking an irresponsibly long shot at an animal on any hunting forum and see how quickly it gets ugly.

[Grits and Shins]

Calling somebody who shoots a buck and leaves the meat to rot in the field so he can mount a trophy a hunter is silly ... they aren't hunters.

 

Saying that it is wrong of hunters to kill and eat wild animals because they get some enjoyment out of the process while condoning the wholesale slaughter of livestock is incongruous.

 

In many areas wild life would starve without being hunted. And it is an absolute certainity that most wild life has a better quality of life before the time of their death than does live stock raised for slaughter.

[whoopazz]

I typically harvest two or three whitetail does early in the season to fill the freezer. After that, I am not ashamed to admit that I "hunt horns". Of course, I have a personal rule not to shoot a buck unless it is bigger than the last one and pass up more deer every year than most average hunters see in several. (To be completely honest, I did break my own rule this past season to harves my first buck with my replica Hawkens muzzleloader. )

 

This is where it hunting gets wierd for me. I'm not anti hunting and have killed plenty of deer (20 years ago), but this is what I don't understand. You've stocked the freezer and now you set out to slay the most magnificant specimen in the herd because its fun, and you want to put antlers on your wall. I don't get it. Wouldn't you just rather watch him for a while and let him pass along the genes ?

 

Also, I saw this guy on TV recently hunting "long distance". I'm talkin' high tech long range marksmenship equipment, and killing big bucks half mile away just for fun. Couldn't he just use a target? It's just wierd to me.

[yo mama]

Saying that it is wrong of hunters to kill and eat wild animals because they get some enjoyment out of the process while condoning the wholesale slaughter of livestock is incongruous.

I disagree. It just means we place a greater intrinsic value on wildlife than we do domesticated livestock. One is "nature," which should be protected and enjoyed in all its glory. The other is akin to a crop, the only purpose of which is to be harvested.

 

I get the overpopulation thing.

[detlef]

Saying that it is wrong of hunters to kill and eat wild animals because they get some enjoyment out of the process while condoning the wholesale slaughter of livestock is incongruous.

 

In many areas wild life would starve without being hunted. And it is an absolute certainity that most wild life has a better quality of life before the time of their death than does live stock raised for slaughter.

While I said above that I can completely understand why people enjoy hunting (once again, we tend to get satisfaction out of challenging things), I can understand why people can condone the slaughter of livestock and not the enjoyment of hunting. After all, one might enjoy the taste of meat and merely look at the fact that something had to die for that meal as a required evil. That is a big difference from actually deriving pleasure from the specific act of killing something.

[Grits and Shins]

I disagree. It just means we place a greater intrinsic value on wildlife than we do domesticated livestock. One is "nature," which should be protected and enjoyed in all its glory. The other is akin to a crop, the only purpose of which is to be harvested.

 

I get the overpopulation thing.

 

Cows were once wild life too ... until man dometicated them and made them a livestock. So are you saying you would find it acceptable for hunters to kill deer if they were raised specifically to be hunted on ranches? Ranches like this do exist by the way. Taking a deer out of the wild and putting on a hunting ranch suddenly changes the intrinsic value of its life? I find your argument as valid as those that hold the lives of celebrities in higher regard than those of normal people.

 

 

While I said above that I can completely understand why people enjoy hunting (once again, we tend to get satisfaction out of challenging things), I can understand why people can condone the slaughter of livestock and not the enjoyment of hunting. After all, one might enjoy the taste of meat and merely look at the fact that something had to die for that meal as a required evil. That is a big difference from actually deriving pleasure from the specific act of killing something.

 

I don't derive satisfaction from cooking for other people ... does that mean that those people who do are wrong? If you eat meat you are condoning the slaughter of livestock ... bottom line is an animal had to die to put that meat on your table. And you want to quibble about animals who are shot in the wild versus those that take a stake to their brains in a slaughter house? That is ludicrous. The fact that you didn't actually drive the spike into the cow's brain that sourced your steak doesn't make you any less culpable for its death.

 

I guess the person that hires a hitman to kill somebody is less guilty than the person that kils a person directly?

[untateve]

Calling somebody who shoots a buck and leaves the meat to rot in the field so he can mount a trophy a hunter is silly ... they aren't hunters.

 

Saying that it is wrong of hunters to kill and eat wild animals because they get some enjoyment out of the process while condoning the wholesale slaughter of livestock is incongruous.

 

In many areas wild life would starve without being hunted. And it is an absolute certainity that most wild life has a better quality of life before the time of their death than does live stock raised for slaughter.

 

 

Cows were once wild life too ... until man dometicated them and made them a livestock. So are you saying you would find it acceptable for hunters to kill deer if they were raised specifically to be hunted on ranches? Ranches like this do exist by the way. Taking a deer out of the wild and putting on a hunting ranch suddenly changes the intrinsic value of its life? I find your argument as valid as those that hold the lives of celebrities in higher regard than those of normal people.

 

 

I don't derive satisfaction from cooking for other people ... does that mean that those people who do are wrong? If you eat meat you are condoning the slaughter of livestock ... bottom line is an animal had to die to put that meat on your table. And you want to quibble about animals who are shot in the wild versus those that take a stake to their brains in a slaughter house? That is ludicrous. The fact that you didn't actually drive the spike into the cow's brain that sourced your steak doesn't make you any less culpable for its death.

 

I guess the person that hires a hitman to kill somebody is less guilty than the person that kils a person directly?

 

Methinks Blitz has been reading his dictionary.

[yo mama]

Cows were once wild life too ... until man dometicated them and made them a livestock. So are you saying you would find it acceptable for hunters to kill deer if they were raised specifically to be hunted on ranches? Ranches like this do exist by the way. Taking a deer out of the wild and putting on a hunting ranch suddenly changes the intrinsic value of its life? I find your argument as valid as those that hold the lives of celebrities in higher regard than those of normal people.

A domesticated animal is a domesticated animal. It makes no difference if it is a cow or a deer. But taking a deer out of the wild and dumping on a ranch does not "domesticate" that animal. Therefore, your logic (or lack thereof) is fatal flawed. Because I'd have exactly the same problem with shooting wild cows (if there are such a thing). I'm not sure why you're trying to blur the issue with celebrity comparison.

[Grits and Shins]

A domesticated animal is a domesticated animal. It makes no difference if it is a cow or a deer. But taking a deer out of the wild and dumping on a ranch does not "domesticate" that animal. Therefore, your logic (or lack thereof) is fatal flawed. Because I'd have exactly the same problem with shooting wild cows (if there are such a thing). I'm not sure why you're trying to blur the issue with celebrity comparison.

 

When animals on these ranches are fed and tended by the owners of the ranch they indeed become domesticated. Have you ever visited one of these ranches? I have.

 

For some odd reason people tend to place more intrinsic value on the lives of celebrities than they do the lives of normal everyday people. So when Burt Lancaster dies people exclaim what a great loss it is ... but when the guy down the street dies they don't give him a passing thought. Hell people still mourn the death of Elvis though they never met or knew the man.

 

You are doing the same thing with animals who live in the wild versus those who are raised to be killed and eaten. For some reason you find the life of the celebrity (wild animal) to have more value than the life of the ordinary (cow). There is no logic in that stance.

[detlef]

I don't derive satisfaction from cooking for other people ... does thatmean that those people who do are wrong? If you eat meat you are condoning the slaughter of livestock ... bottom line is an animal had to die to put that meat on your table. And you want to quibble about animals who are shot in the wild versus those that take a stake to their brains in a slaughter house? That is ludicrous. The fact that you didn't actually drive the spike into the cow's brain that sourced your steak doesn't make you any less culpable for its death.

 

I guess the person that hires a hitman to kill somebody is less guilty than the person that kils a person directly?

Hey dickweed, try reading what someone freaking says before you argue against it. For starters, I think I've made it very clear that I'm not bagging on hunters. Like I said, I can freaking understand why they enjoy it! How many times do I have to say it?

 

I could really care less if you think cooking for people is satisfying. That's not the point. Let me break it down for you, really freaking slowly. Nobody is trying to karmicly remove themselves from the fact that something died for their meal. Rather they are saying that it is not the part of eating meat that they enjoy. They enjoy eating meat and have come to grips with the fact that somebody had to kill it. That's as far as they want to take it. They enjoy steak but not because it used to be walking around, rather because steak tastes good.

 

Thus, they don't understand why somebody enjoys hunting, specifically not only likes the steak but enjoys the process of killing the steak. What is so hard to understand about that? Now, slow down and try really hard to understand that everything isn't black and white.

 

So, you have two options, you can actually read what I have said and respond to it or you can just rephrase the exact same freaking thing you've been saying over and over and hope that this time it actually addresses a point that it, unfortunately, does not.

Edited April 24, 2008 by detlef

[whoopazz]

Methinks Blitz has been reading his dictionary.

Wait, he can read?

[yo mama]

When animals on these ranches are fed and tended by the owners of the ranch they indeed become domesticated. Have you ever visited one of these ranches? I have.

 

For some odd reason people tend to place more intrinsic value on the lives of celebrities than they do the lives of normal everyday people. So when Burt Lancaster dies people exclaim what a great loss it is ... but when the guy down the street dies they don't give him a passing thought. Hell people still mourn the death of Elvis though they never met or knew the man.

 

You are doing the same thing with animals who live in the wild versus those who are raised to be killed and eaten. For some reason you find the life of the celebrity (wild animal) to have more value than the life of the ordinary (cow). There is no logic in that stance.

Yes, I do place more intrinsic value on wild animals than domestic because wild animals are part of the natural beauty that is mother earth, and I'm a white collar hippie. But if you want to shoot celebrities instead, be my guest. Just eat what you kill, is all I'm saying.

Edited April 24, 2008 by yo mama

[Grits and Shins]

Hey dickweed, try reading what someone freaking says before you argue against it. For starters, I think I've made it very clear that I'm not bagging on hunters. Like I said, I can freaking understand why they enjoy it! How many times do I have to say it?

 

I could really care less if you think cooking for people is satisfying. That's not the point. Let me break it down for you, really freaking slowly. Nobody is trying to karmicly remove themselves from the fact that something died for their meal. Rather they are saying that it is not the part of eating meat that they enjoy. They enjoy eating meat and have come to grips with the fact that somebody had to kill it. That's as far as they want to take it. They enjoy steak but not because it used to be walking around, rather because steak tastes good.

 

Thus, they don't understand why somebody enjoys hunting, specifically not only likes the steak but enjoys the process of killing the steak. What is so hard to understand about that? Now, slow down and try really hard to understand that everything isn't black and white.

 

So, you have two options, you can actually read what I have said and respond to it or you can just rephrase the exact same freaking thing you've been saying over and over and hope that this time it actually addresses a point that it, unfortunately, does not.

 

Yes ... I can see how name calling strengthens your argument.

 

You are making a moral judgement about people who enjoy hunting. For some reason you believe you are morally superior because you don't actually kill the cow you are eating. For some reason you believe that your purchase of meat has nothing to do with the inhumane slaughter house conditions and inhumane conditions that most live stock animals have to endure ... the fact that you didn't physically drive the stake into the cow's brain absolves you of his death and makes you a better person that the hunter. If you close your eyes the world doesn't actually disappear ... it is still there.

[Brewer]

I hunt. I fish. I take my kids hunting and fishing. I eat every thing that I harvest. I obey all game laws. I find ted nugent offensive. If you have an issue with what I do, get our elected officials to change the game laws. Until then, don't try to pass moral judgments on me or my kids.

 

Have a nice evening and enjoy your strip steak, burger or grilled chicken wrap.

[bushwacked]

I hunt. I fish. I take my kids hunting and fishing. I eat every thing that I harvest. I obey all game laws. I find ted nugent offensive. If you have an issue with what I do, get our elected officials to change the game laws. Until then, don't try to pass moral judgments on me or my kids.

 

Have a nice evening and enjoy your strip steak, burger or grilled chicken wrap.

 

Word. Bow hunting mule deer and elk is one of the most challenging and enlightening experiences I've ever been involved with. It's my version of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." Frankly, a lot of you guys making "Blasting away Bambi for the fun of it" generalizations, are as spot on as moneymakers on politics.

[untateve]

I'm not against hunting if one eats what one kills. However, I would never waterboard an elk. That's very wrong, IMO.

[TheShiznit]

I envisioned this thread going differently in my head. LOL

[Azazello1313]

Calling somebody who shoots a buck and leaves the meat to rot in the field so he can mount a trophy a hunter is silly ... they aren't hunters.

 

Saying that it is wrong of hunters to kill and eat wild animals because they get some enjoyment out of the process while condoning the wholesale slaughter of livestock is incongruous.

 

In many areas wild life would starve without being hunted. And it is an absolute certainity that most wild life has a better quality of life before the time of their death than does live stock raised for slaughter.

 

I'm not sure how I can make this any simpler or more clear. my argument has nothing to do with the feelings or rights of the animal, or valuing one kind of animal over another. my argument only deals with the mindset of the person doing the killing. if they kill because they are hungry, or they pay someone else to kill because they are hungry, or they kill because the animal is eating their flowers, or whatever, in most cases I don't have a problem. I am simply saying that killing things because you find killing them to be enjoyable is kind of sick, and not something I can relate to.

[The Holy Roller]

I still feel sorry for the boy's family.

[detlef]

Yes ... I can see how name calling strengthens your argument.

 

You are making a moral judgement about people who enjoy hunting. For some reason you believe you are morally superior because you don't actually kill the cow you are eating. For some reason you believe that your purchase of meat has nothing to do with the inhumane slaughter house conditions and inhumane conditions that most live stock animals have to endure ... the fact that you didn't physically drive the stake into the cow's brain absolves you of his death and makes you a better person that the hunter. If you close your eyes the world doesn't actually disappear ... it is still there.

How to "win" an argument by Grits and Shins:

 

Step 1- Pretend the person you're arguing with is saying something he isn't. Ideally it should be something you can easily argue against. Then just keeping banging that point again and again and again despite the fact that it has no bearing on what they're saying. Then hi-five the half-wit in the bunk above you and yell "boo-yah!"

 

Well, that's pretty much it.

 

I'm not going to bother to explain my stance yet again. I'm just going to allow this little episode be another reminder of why I shouldn't ever bother reading anything you have to say.

Edited April 24, 2008 by detlef

[detlef]

I'm not sure how I can make this any simpler or more clear. my argument has nothing to do with the feelings or rights of the animal, or valuing one kind of animal over another. my argument only deals with the mindset of the person doing the killing. if they kill because they are hungry, or they pay someone else to kill because they are hungry, or they kill because the animal is eating their flowers, or whatever, in most cases I don't have a problem. I am simply saying that killing things because you find killing them to be enjoyable is kind of sick, and not something I can relate to.

You can't make it any more clear. That's the unfortunate part. It's just much easier to just pretend that you want to distance yourself from the fact that you are eating an animal and harp on that.

[Grits and Shins]

How to "win" an argument by Grits and Shins:

 

Step 1- Pretend the person you're arguing with is saying something he isn't. Ideally it should be something you can easily argue against. Then just keeping banging that point again and again and again despite the fact that it has no bearing on what they're saying. Then hi-five the half-wit in the bunk above you and yell "boo-yah!"

 

Well, that's pretty much it.

 

I'm not going to bother to explain my stance yet again. I'm just going to allow this little episode be another reminder of why I shouldn't ever bother reading anything you have to say.

 

I see your eyes are closed ... the world is still here.

[Hat Trick]

I hunt. I fish. I take my kids hunting and fishing. I eat every thing that I harvest. I obey all game laws. I find ted nugent offensive. If you have an issue with what I do, get our elected officials to change the game laws. Until then, don't try to pass moral judgments on me or my kids.

 

Have a nice evening and enjoy your strip steak, burger or grilled chicken wrap.

 

[Hat Trick]

I envisioned this thread going differently in my head. LOL

 

Well it did untilt he likes of TimC came along and started calling all hunters dumbasses