View Full Version : Hunting animals or not

February 16, 2007, 12:40 AM
I first wrote this as a answer in the thread of " Animals you have never wanted to hunt" but have decided to start a thread with it.

This may be outta place but I have been wondering.

Why in the world are guys that don't wanna hunt stuff reading hunting threads in a gun forum? I don't get it, are you in reality tree hugger types, green people or read to much of that sort of propaganda, or just extremely selective in the creatures you think it is OK to shoot or kill? If a critter is a song bird or a eagle or endangered or something very special about it I understand, but if not then why not? I mean if it upset me to shoot/kill things I wouldn't do it. I have shot stuff that was no big deal, to stuff I throughly enjoyed, to it didn't really matter, to things that did maybe make you think about it. I have shot things I won't again but I don't lose sleep over it.

From a raging bull elephant to a mouse whats the real difference?

First deer I killed was a thrill so was the first elk and the one this last year with a black powder was a big thrill. I understand the older thing someone mentioned as I am in my late 50's. I no longer get much thrill killing a regular deer but I still enjoy it and love eating them and each year it is more memories with friends or family I will never forget. Blowing ground squirrels away is still fun, maybe not what it once was, and I don't as much as once, but its still fun. I have tried to be a good hunter since I was a kid too. I would leave the house with only 3 bullets when I had plenty, and try to come home with three rabbits to help increase my skills and the challenge..

If I didn't care for something I wouldn't be wanting to read much about it.
Why are you here reading a hunting thread if you don't want to hunt and kill stuff??? Threads that don't interest me I don't read.
Not wanting to make ya all mad or upset just real curious.

I guess I must confess I am a hunter always have been and plan on always being. I like it, and make no apologies for that.

Fat White Boy
February 16, 2007, 01:12 AM
The reason I hunt? My dad started taking me with him when I was about 5 years old. I could keep up with him and understood the importance of staying out of the way...My favorite memories of my dad are the hunting and fishing trips I went on with him. I started my son at the same age. We hunt and fish together whenever we can. We learned how to handle ourselves out in the woods, to respect firearms and to respect nature. It is in our blood now and we are all the better for it...

February 16, 2007, 05:42 AM
EXACTLY! rem33

My opinion to a tee!

Art Eatman
February 16, 2007, 12:30 PM
rem, I imagine some non-hunters come here to try to figure out why we do what we do. Some come from a vague interest that came about from shooting paper, and no outdoor background; they're curious.

Some folks were raised to be squeamish; they can't help their reactions.

There's always that few who are against something and want to raise a ruckus about it. Control freaks, generally: "If I don't like it, nobody else should! If they do, they're stupid/evil/weird!" My ex-wife was like that...


February 16, 2007, 02:10 PM
If you hunt it eat it or donate it to cause that can use the food or if its a predator or pest causing some form of problem for the farmer or rancher. If the animal is a danger to others then it could be hunted.

February 16, 2007, 02:47 PM
"From a raging bull elephant to a mouse whats the real difference?"

Based on that logic there would be no difference between killing a mouse or a human. You're saying, in essence, a life is a life, an animal is an animal. Your thinking is flawed, otherwise you're saying it's ok to hunt humans. The argument you made about elephants and mice is a bad one. I'm not saying I'm against hunting, I grew up hunting, but you really need a more logical and grounded argument if you expect to convince people you have a valid point.

February 16, 2007, 03:09 PM
Based on that logic there would be no difference between killing a mouse or a human

Mossy00. Please go back and read the entire post.

If a critter is a song bird or a eagle or endangered or something very special about it I understand, but if not then why not? I mean if it upset me to shoot/kill things I wouldn't do it.

It would upset me very much to shoot another human even if it was self defense.
People hunt people in war, for criminal reasons etc. But to hunt humans for the sake of hunting? I am sorry sir, you and I both know that is not right, or that I or any other hunter feels that way.
All human life is very special my good man.

February 16, 2007, 03:34 PM
rem 33, I don't think that anyone on the thread that you are talking about really said that they wouldn't shoot any animal. There are hunters out there, myself included, that for some reason or another don't have any desire to hunt certain animals. This can be caused by a feeling of respect for the animal, admiration, honor, or any other of the myriad of reasons. I'm not saying that you are wrong in your mindset, as a matter of fact I really envy your ability to take any animal with no reservations. I don't feel the urge to hunt some species while I'll take my limit in others any day, once again it's just personal preference. I hope you understand that while we may not have your beliefs toward the animals you hunt, we are all, in fact, still hunters and have a right to post our beliefs on this forum. I really enjoyed that thread and the posts left on it. It was definitely a chance to see another side of the impact hunting has on our lives.

roy reali
February 16, 2007, 04:40 PM
Several years ago I was listening to a local radio talk show. The debate was about eating meat. Several "vegans" called to express their opnions. Normally I don't give them a second thought. But one woman was thought provoking.

She claimed to be a bambi-loving, full blown vegan. However, she said that she had more respect for meat eating hunters then nonhunters. They at least do the dirty work themselves and understand what it takes to go from live animal to roast or steak. Buying meat at the store is like hiring a hit man.

I always thought this was a different view.

February 16, 2007, 05:14 PM
The way hunters kill an animal is MUCH more humane than the way most animals die in a slaughter house. A significant percentage of cows that are killed in a slaughter house are still alive as they go down the line.

February 16, 2007, 05:54 PM
I see what Rem was trying to say. And I agree with him. I'm a hunter. If someone started a thread on here about vegetarian recipes there is no way I'm gonna open that thread, let alone take the time to post in it. Why do non-hunters even bother to open threads concerning hunting and then post their anti-hunting feelings?

IMHO, if they just open and read the posts they are trying to learn. If they take the time to post they are just expressing their belief that they are superior and are generally just picking a fight. Even if they don't know it.

Lets face it, if I were to open the fictional thread about "Vegetarian Recipes" and post a response like "I'm a predator and therefore I like meat" what would be my reasoning? I would only be doing it to be an ass even if I don't know it. It's the same thing as them posting on threads concerning hunting.

And there is a dang big difference between a man and a mouse. Again, IMHO, if you don't know the difference you need to get to church more often.


February 16, 2007, 06:02 PM
Like all things in life, each person has his own likes and dislikes.
Most hunters are nutured by their father, grandfather etc at an early age to hunt specific game. A lot of that preference is determined by geographics.

I grew up in Northern Indiana, where you hunt rabbit, squirrel, deer and ocassionaly duck or goose. I moved to Minnesota hunted Pheasant, Deer, Bear, Duck and Geese. I moved to Texas hunted dove. Moved to California I hunted pheasant, bobcat, jack rabbit. I moved to Illinois hunt almost exclusively Geese. When I lived in PA and Southern Ohio I hunted Turkey and Deer, but with bow instead of rifle.

I am now 50 ish and Deer no longer give me thrill they did when I was 30.
I can still hunt rabbit everyday all day. I no longer like Duck and Goose simply because I am too darn old to sit in a cold hard blind all day.

I still hunt squirrel regularly and bear still gives me the fever.

Now imagine a urban dweller or suburban dweller who may have never been hunting or had a bad experience the 1 or 2 times they may have gone hunting.

It is not hard to imagine why they can't understand why we hunt.

The solution is in the youth. It is imperitive that we nuture and introduce kids to joys of hunting, fishing that we were priviledged to enjoy.

We here may have another 20 years on this earth to secure that future for our kids and grandkids.

February 16, 2007, 06:34 PM
I have been hunting for about 35 years now. My father taught me how to hunt at a young age. I hunt because I enjoy the outdoors and the challenge of the hunt. I truely believe it is necessary to prevent needless suffering and over population of animals. It is a check and balance system. Real hunters do not harm the environment or the population of animals. I eat almost all of the animals that I harvest other than the varmits and predators. There is a point where I draw the line beacause I don't eat crow and bobcat. I only shoot animals for a reason, its either for food or varmit control. I believe hunting is my right such as playing golf is someone else's right. I don't play golf but I don't bad mouth it just because I don't. If you don't agree with hunting, don't try to mess it up for me. Some people like to shoot guns and target practice, but dislike hunting. I like to target shoot too because it hones my firearms skills, helping me make better humane shots on animals. I know without a doubt if SHTF I will have no problem going to the outdoors to harvest game animals for food if necessary. I can catch those mountain trout to eat also.

February 16, 2007, 06:50 PM
My wife loves venison, I am not much of a meat eater although some of the best back strap and sausage I ever ate was venison. I don't hunt 'em any more but If I see one down in our bottoms, bingo !!! I know how to skin and dress deer. I used to hunt doves but not particularly fond of eating them, quail and pheasants taste better to me. I don't hunt them any more. fire ants have been hard on quail and I see very few, I wont shoot quail unless they make a comeback. Rabbits? Fire ants have made them scarce, haven't seen a jackrabbit in a long timem very few cottontails. "Dillers", Coyotes, Wolves, and feral hawgs, in a New York minute !!! Fact is, I am trying to be conservative in hunting edible game animals until they hopefully make a comeback. So now its beans & taters until hunting gets better. If tree huggers and environmentalists were barbeque fodder I would lock and load and go a hunting tham !!!

February 16, 2007, 06:59 PM
I'm getting an impression that my earlier post in the "what animal you'd never hunt' thread is what inspired this thread. I see alot of refrence to "non hunters" in it. I'd like to clairify that I am infact a hunter. I do enjoy it, despite having feelings of sadness.. 'hunters remorse' after every kill. Regardless of the species, there is no joy in watching something die.
The popular trend today seems to be the 300 mag for deer hunting. I do 75% of my hunting with a .50 cal CVA side lock muzzle loader. On ocasion i'll take out my 30.30, but its more of a range gun to me. I hunt thick brush and most of my kills have been made within 10 yards of me. The closest was a mere 4 feet. Watching a deer panic as they see you raise the gun, and seeing the the fear in their eyes as they try to escape while theyre bleeding on the ground will take alot out of ya if you have a sympathetic heart. Even if i had the opportunity, and the rifle to do it, I'd never want to make 200 and 300 yard kills. it removes you from the action, and makes it less personal. Even though it pains me to kill deer, I still love to hunt. For me its just part of the package.

I've never in my life taken a full year's bag limit of deer. I only kill enough for me to eat, and thats 1 or 2 a year for me. (6 is the bag limit here) A big rack of antlers is something nice to have, but its not really important to me. I cant eat them. More often than not, i just kill a doe.

Unlike most of you, I cant associate hunting with "good times spent with dear old dad" because my dad doesnt really hunt much. Besides, i'm from a place where 95% of all the deer hunting is done with hounds, while the hunters sit on the tailgate of their trucks and wait for the exausted deer to try escaping across the road. There is no sport in that, and I have no respect for people that hunt that way. I kid you not, some of the member's of my hunting club actually think its funny i prefer to hunt from a stand insted of letting a dog do the work for me.

The feelings i have about hunting have nothing to do with being squeamish either. I eat quite a bit of my red meat nearly raw. I dress and clean all of my own deer. I worked my way through college as a butcher at a grocery store. The smell of blood doesnt bother me at all. To be honest, I love it. In my openion, there isnt a perfume in the world that smells better than fresh blood. There have been times when dressing a deer I've felt a 'high' just from the smell.

I said in the other thead that killing horses is next to murder for me. I have alot of admiration and respect for them, and I consider them to be the most noble and beautiful animal in the world. Killing one is senseless, in my openion. Many of you would no doubt feel the same way about somone who killed songbirds for sport.

When I mentioned African big game, I meant BIG game. the stuff in the 1000+ lbs range. Elephant, Rhino, etc. Hunting them to me is senseless, since all you really get out of it is a head for your wall, and a story to tell. Go shoot antelope till your heart is content. I just hope you plan on eating them when youre done.

I also stand by my word choice, saying "kill" rather than "harvest". If you choose to say harvest, I have no bones to pick with you. Its your choice. Personally, i consider that just an attempt at making hunting sound PC. I call it killing because that is what you do when you hunt. Youre taking a life. Not a human life, but life none the less. I dont harvest deer, I kill them. I do eat them afterwards.

I hope that clarifies things a bit. Anyway, take it easy and good hunting.

February 16, 2007, 10:59 PM
A significant percentage of cows that are killed in a slaughter house are still alive as they go down the line.Only if you have a very liberal definition of "alive".

They may still be twitching, but their brains are scrambled good and proper, trust me on this one...

February 17, 2007, 11:04 AM
Liberal definition of alive? Are you serious? It's called a scientific definition of alive. This information comes from a published journal article my old ethics professor wrote and had us read a few years ago-I guess you know more than him on the subject:rolleyes:

Art Eatman
February 17, 2007, 03:48 PM
On hunting great big game in Africa: None of the meat is wasted. Just because it's not eaten by the hunter, hey, that's unimportant. The locals cheerfully dispose of a buffalo or elephant; in a few hours the meat is butchered and toted home. The native African diet out in the boonie villages tends to be low in protein. They pretty much appreciate any successful efforts of hunters.

roy reali: A few years back, the Atlanta Constitution published my letter to the effect that only hunters and gardeners were true do-it-yourselfers in providing food. All others are hiring the scut work to be done for them. :)

I was raised around farming and ranching. One of my duties as a little guy was to catch the chicken for Sunday dinner. Maybe 65 years ago, now. So, for all that one should feed and water their animals, and not beat on them and suchlike foolishness, they're still just animals. Sorry, but all this philosophising that people do is much akin to the old monks worrying about pinheaded angels dancing among the points.

:), Art

February 17, 2007, 04:54 PM
You do realize that people are also just animals, right?

February 17, 2007, 06:46 PM
I seldom hunt any more, but that's only because I'm not the spring chicken I used to be. I did, however, have many good days duck and upland game hunting.

Although I might not be hunting, I'll staunchly defend the rights of those who choose to do so. I have no patience for vegans. :barf:

February 17, 2007, 06:54 PM
Mossy my good man, (I assume your a man) I do believe you have came to this forum with an agenda and have done your job to a certain extent. But to me it has become pretty easy to read between the lines of what you have posted.
You have stated about your university and it;s professors so this give us a idea of your age. Then you say you used to hunt but stopped 8 or 9 years ago. That would have put you at a pretty young age when you quit and so you don't really have much in the way of hunting knowledge.
I don't think some of what I and others have discussed here is within your grasp as the ethics, philosophies etc we have been discussing take what I would call a hands on or personal learning experience and cannot be taught from a scientific journal or in a classroom.

February 17, 2007, 07:56 PM
Rem 33 I feel your pain but I must say, you are wasting good breath on deaf ears. This guy is obviously here for other reasons and feels like he may be able to use some of his state college big words to make a bunch of ignorant hunting hillbillies look ignorant. He probably shares his comments with the other kids in his dorm. They may even high five when he feels he has made a valid point.

You know what the difference is between right and wrong. You have established the boundaries in your life. You try to live by those standards that you have set for yourself.

If you are happy with your direction, don't let a blowhard try and change your course. He has rocked the boat a little and got a little jolly.

Just press the handle and let him be flushed with his agenda.

Art Eatman
February 17, 2007, 09:46 PM
Mossy00, never think that folks here don't know about philosophy, psychology and sociology. Or that we don't think, much less can't think.

All these questions have been part of discussions for me since I got out of the Army in 1958. All through college, where I completed 155 hours for my degree in Mechanical Engineering. After four years "on the outside", working, I was accepted into grad school for some night courses; entry was predicated on my GRE score. 1440. I'm not "eat up with the terminal stupids", for all that I play games with the grammar.

I'm just one of many halfway-bright folks who post here. I don't see anything special about me or my knowledge, other than I've been doing stuff longer than most folks here. But all it is, is that they're younger than I.

You're welcome to ask questions, and discuss why anybody thinks as they do, as to their reasoning behind their opinions.

But when offering bare opinions without rational thought behind them, rest assured that we truly believe that there are two items in vast supply: Opinions and anal orifices. Many of the former come from the latter.

Best regards,


February 18, 2007, 02:49 AM
Mossy00 = thread troll

February 18, 2007, 10:46 AM
I just think it's amusing that when anyone here presents an educated opinion that someone disagrees with it's always labeled "liberal nonsense".

February 18, 2007, 11:06 AM
It's called a scientific definition of alive. This information comes from a published journal article my old ethics professor wrote and had us read a few years ago-I guess you know more than him on the subject

Come on, Mossy00!!!! What the %&^$ does an ethics professor know about slaughterhouse practices beyond that which he/she WANTS to know in order to prove a point about how "unethical" a slaughterhouse is? If you wanna debate the merits of animal treatment in the food production process, the last person you should reference is a friggin' college professor. Are you kidding me?

Art Eatman
February 18, 2007, 11:09 AM
First off, there's been an absence of any opposing educated opinion. Haven't seen any, yet.

And what's "liberal" got to do with hunting or not hunting? Pray, elucidate upon the connection.


February 18, 2007, 11:21 AM
lol @ robc. Apparently you don't know what a published journal article is- maybe you should do a little research before embarassing yourself.

I stated a scientific fact, and it was labeled a "liberal definition of alive"-which is ridiculous because the issue really isn't a liberal or conservative one.

February 18, 2007, 12:10 PM
lol @ robc.

Yeah... We're laughing at somebody anyway...

Mind telling us what "journal" that "published journal article" was in? I mean, before I "embarass" myself anymore.

February 18, 2007, 02:39 PM
Apparently you don't know what a published journal article is- maybe you should do a little research before embarassing yourself.

You'd be surprised at how many well-educated people there are around here. I myself have published several articles in journals of opthalmology, and dozens of articles in various computer publications. I'm still a registered member of the American Society of Clinical Pathologists.

I tend to vote as something of a liberal whe it comes to social issues, and conservatively when it comes to the issue of gun control.

Before you embarass yourself again, you might want to take a course in manners.

/end of rant/

February 18, 2007, 03:18 PM
Just because an ethics professor gets an article published does not make what is published "fact". What was the topic of the article? And frankly, what does an ethics professor know about scientific definitions of "alive"? He's an ethics professor, right? Not a scientist, nor a medical doctor. Ethics and scientific definitions are not two topics that are usually found in the same discussion.

I could write an article on the mating habits of chimpanzees, after doing lots of reading of articles by people who have actually done the study, but that doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about. It only means I can regurgitate and paraphrase what others who do know what they're talking about have said. Big difference. And getting published doesn't make one an acknowledged authority. Just look at Al Gore for proof of that.

So an ethics professor wrote an article? Big deal. And lest we miss the unspoken point: an ethics professor stating that, as you put it "A significant percentage of cows that are killed in a slaughter house are still alive as they go down the line" leads one to question what his point was. Probably that we shouldn't eat meat at all, or that animals are people, too.

February 18, 2007, 05:18 PM
For being 'well educated people' you're sure having a hard time understanding the difference between just writing an article and having a peer reviewed journal article. Is it really THAT hard to understand?

February 18, 2007, 05:46 PM
For being 'well educated people' you're sure having a hard time understanding the difference between just writing an article and having a peer reviewed journal article. Is it really THAT hard to understand?

Not to kick a dead horse, but some of us do indeed know what it's like to publish a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal. What part of that do you not understand?

February 18, 2007, 05:50 PM
Are you even reading most of the posts in this thread? 75% of the people posting in here are acting like he wrote a paper and handed it out to his students.

I mean honestly, lets look at the facts here.

I posted a statement claiming that since the guy in question had a peer reviwed article posted on the subject, he would clearly know more about it than some random person on a gun forum, which is absolutely correct. I was attacked for taking this position, and somehow I'm the bad guy.

February 18, 2007, 06:35 PM
Even if it is peer reviewed, I dont put much faith in it. How many times have you seen a professional, peer reviewed, and published article in a journal, only to have one that was equally rearched and reviewed, yet claiming the opposite to be true? I've seen it several times.

So it was peer reviewed. All that means it his associates agree with him.

February 18, 2007, 09:50 PM
I love this forum!
Hey MossyOO, don't you think we read the other posts you have written?

You have been regurgitating your philosophy and stirring up discontent and you have been found out.
Tag! Stamp a big red X on your forehead.

Move to the "no longer a registered user" list. Come back with a different username and try again.

Thanks for playing. Now go study for your human relations exam. You need it.

February 18, 2007, 09:56 PM
Liberal definition of alive? Are you serious? It's called a scientific definition of alive. This information comes from a published journal article my old ethics professor wrote and had us read a few years ago-I guess you know more than him on the subjectLiberal in the general sense, not in the political sense. Liberal as in: " not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>"

The first step in the slaughter process is to shoot a 4" captive bolt into the bovine's brain. Now, since that probably doesn't disrupt the cardiovascular system or stop the breathing process, you could claim that the animal is still alive. However, the brain has been ruined and the animal is not "alive" in any but the most liberal (see definition above) sense. It's certainly beyond suffering which was the implication of your post.

Or, if you prefer, it's at least as humane as a head shot on a game animal.

Art Eatman
February 19, 2007, 11:26 AM
Okay, I think I've figured out the problem. Well, problem for me, anyway.

Mossy00, it would help if you would be specific as to whom you're addressing. And if you're gonna holler about scientific evidence and peer review, provide a link or reference to some source besides your own claim. With respect to your professor, we have no way of knowing whether or not you're vying with Baron Munchausen for the title of World's Greatest Liar.

Doesn't matter. There will be no more said about slaughterhouse problems that survives my delete key. Threads are supposed to remain on topic. Some drift is okay, but not a roaring argument in an entirely different arena.

Argue "alive" via PM or email.


February 19, 2007, 07:17 PM
Don't worry about that. At this point it's pretty obvious that in this section of the forum peoples opinions are valued and supported much more than scientific evidence-regardless off how worthless an uneducated opinion may be.

February 19, 2007, 07:50 PM
So far we have not seen one iota of scientific evidence of anything just worthless suggestions to it.

Which by the way has not one thing to do with being a hunter as I opined in the first place.

I must confess I am a hunter always have been and plan on always being. I like it, and make no apologies for that.

Who or why ever anyone that choses to, or not to be selective in what they want to hunt is fine with me, I make no judgment for or against them. I expect the same in return but know fully well that will not happen.

Sad this thread has been hijacked by foolishness and that no good exchange on hunting ideals but was lost in science babel, as personal thoughts was what was wanted.. Not what is written but what is in our/your thoughts and beliefs.

Thanks to all who have voiced in support I appreciate that.

Maybe I am cold blooded, so what, I tried to buy a seal coat, to wear on the bike, back when the world was having a fit about killing seals. I found that the way they are tanned would not be very compatible in this warmer environment. I coulda got one for $800 but learned it would probably rot here.. Before the horse and donkey round up 25 or so years ago was started I would applaud when some one was killing them. Now it is different they are no longer roaming the west in such Numbers that they are forcing native species like the big horn sheep into extinction.
I travel across northern Nevada somewhat often and it is a thrill to see a wild horse heard, I like it bunches. I love knowing they are there but now under control, or at least if I can believe what I read they are. In fact there is a BLM sign 15 or so miles north of me stating there are wild horses in the area. I am armed 95% of the time when there and in no way would shoot one now.

From a raging bull elephant to a mouse whats the real difference?

There are many animals I have no desire to hunt or shoot but unless special as said earlier if you want go for it.

I make no apologies for my feelings or what I believe in and no one else should either, we are all individuals and that is part of what I like about being a American and this forum.

(edit) I am in trouble on the home front over the wild horse's and seal coat. She loves horses and if All I had seen about either was the network news I would feel different too. Propaganda works which is why hunting with hounds or using bait is illegal in many states now. rant over!

Art Eatman
February 19, 2007, 11:04 PM
Allegations of scientific evidence have been offered. No actual scientific evidence has been entered into testimony. :D

And, sadly, won't be.