The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

FirstFreedom · June 13, 2007, 04:20 PM

I respect that point of view of P.P about hunting. It's not a "sport", depending upon how one defines sport. But to most people's definition of sport, hunting is not a sport, because it's not an even playing field.

Nevertheless, sport or not, it is a "pastime" - whether it's an enjoyable/worthy/ethical pastime is debatable, and depends on the person's individual values. For me, it IS an ethical and enjoyable pastime (both) - ethical to help control populations, and enjoyable because it's fun and it puts meat in the freezer. But no, it's not a sport. And certainly not necessary for existence. It would not even be necessary for controlling out-of-control populations IF this were still the old days when more people hunted, and a balance was struck. Now, the health of the herd is dependent in part upon hunting, with some species. I kinda doubt that I would hunt deer if it weren't for the need for population control, for all the many reasons for that. As for birds, I'd probably still hunt quail, pheasant, & turkey occasionally even if it wasn't necessary for population control - and in fact, it's not necessary to the health of the "flock" to hunt quail, I don't think. Now hockey is a sport - my team can lose on any given game day, no matter how hard I try. I suppose you can "lose" the hunt, and I often do, but still that's not the key factor to it being a sport - sport is mano a mano, where both parties are equally equipped.

In any event, we should probably let this silly thread die. There is no bigfoot of course, but if there were, no I wouldn't shoot it because obviously it'd be an endangered species.

June 13, 2007, 04:20 PM	#63
FirstFreedom Junior member Join Date: May 31, 2004 Location: The Toll Road State, U.S.A. Posts: 12,451	I respect that point of view of P.P about hunting. It's not a "sport", depending upon how one defines sport. But to most people's definition of sport, hunting is not a sport, because it's not an even playing field. Nevertheless, sport or not, it is a "pastime" - whether it's an enjoyable/worthy/ethical pastime is debatable, and depends on the person's individual values. For me, it IS an ethical and enjoyable pastime (both) - ethical to help control populations, and enjoyable because it's fun and it puts meat in the freezer. But no, it's not a sport. And certainly not necessary for existence. It would not even be necessary for controlling out-of-control populations IF this were still the old days when more people hunted, and a balance was struck. Now, the health of the herd is dependent in part upon hunting, with some species. I kinda doubt that I would hunt deer if it weren't for the need for population control, for all the many reasons for that. As for birds, I'd probably still hunt quail, pheasant, & turkey occasionally even if it wasn't necessary for population control - and in fact, it's not necessary to the health of the "flock" to hunt quail, I don't think. Now hockey is a sport - my team can lose on any given game day, no matter how hard I try. I suppose you can "lose" the hunt, and I often do, but still that's not the key factor to it being a sport - sport is mano a mano, where both parties are equally equipped. In any event, we should probably let this silly thread die. There is no bigfoot of course, but if there were, no I wouldn't shoot it because obviously it'd be an endangered species.