Sunday 30 December 2007

Taking Aim At Hunters

Another on an ongoing series of concurrent posts concerning the differing views of the ideological left and the right by Cody of It Is What It Is and I. We have decide to put forward our opposing views on hunting.

Back in the days before supermarkets or corner shops, man had to undertake the hunter gatherer adventure in order to survive. Regrettably, some members of society have not cottoned onto this concept as they continue the unnecessary, premeditated and cold-blooded killing of defenceless animals.
Hunters argue that it is not just about killing. They claim that the camaraderie, nature appreciation and exercise are just as important a part of the hunt as the actual killing, or attempted killing, of the target animal.
The overwhelming majority of the planets population can appreciate and learn about nature and also contribute to nature conservation efforts without having to kill things, a camera proves to be an excellent invention for this purpose.
The banning of fox hunting in the UK reflected modern society's abhorrence of cruelty to wild animals which has, for too long, been veiled in the cloak of tradition. Some traditions deserve to die and chasing animals for miles across fields before allowing your dog pack to rip the beautiful animal apart or taking aim at a grazing deer with a high powered rifle is one that deserves to whither and die.
Hunting has contributed to the extinction and near extinction of countless animal species all over the world with almost 16,000 mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish on the endangered list of threatened species and many more hunted out of existence.
By far the most bizarre justification some hunters put forward to try and justify their blood lust is that the kill is quick, painless and prevents the animal suffering an even worse death by disease or being eaten alive by predators.
Using the same logic a serial killer is actually doing his victims a huge favour just in case they went on to develop heart disease or cancer.
Future generations will look back on some things in disbelief, just as we look back in disbelief at cock fighting, bear baiting and badger digging. One of the things on which they will wonder is why, at the beginning of the third millennium we were still debating whether it was right and proper to allow people to kill animals for fun.

Cody's pro-hunting posting is here

16 comments:

Paula said...

I don't have a problem with the idea of a responsible, sober hunter expertly taking down a goose or deer with one shot and feeding his family with the meat. But I have to wonder how much of it is really like that. Every year you hear that some drunk slob shot another hunter. And then there's the inexcusable stuff--the fox-torturing (I refuse to call that "hunting"), the killing of endangered animals to sell parts on the black market, trapping of dophins in tuna nets, etc.

Anyway, I'm not a vegetarian, but I'd happily pay higher prices for meat in order to ensure better treatment and humane killing of the animals.

Anonymous said...

You are a city dweller lucy and as such you show your ignorance of life outside of your own cosy environment.

Stephen K said...

Hunting for sustenance I have no problem with. Hunting for sport or for profit, however, is revolting.

RaeJane said...

Anonymous is a jerk.
Probably kicks puppies for fun.
Calls it sport.

Hunting to feed your family is one thing.. hunting just to kill is another.
I grew up in the south. There was a lot of hunting.. and most of it was just to brag about what they killed.

Anonymous said...

Disclaimers for the benefit of an emotionally charged environment: I have never hunted, do not want to, don't have a gun, and find gratuitous hunting like the fox hunt or anything you won't eat deplorable. I eat meat and love it.


Anonymous did not make the point well at all, yet I have to say that the point s/he tries to make is valid.

Want to turn on the TV and see a constant stream of violence, hardship, cold-blooded murder, prejudice, lack of sympathy for all, even kith and kin, not to mention the loose sex, even incest? Try Animal Planet.

When you learn about nature, you cannot deny that for all its beauty, it's really a bitch. It's not just cold, damp, and inconvenient. It's cruel and it's dangerous, and offers no comforting death in any circumstance.

We humans used to live there, in fact. We don't anymore because we don't HAVE TO. If it had been a safe place to live, why go through the hassle of changing? Even Grizzly Adams built a frigging cabin. Why? To keep nature OUT. And that guy could make friends with bears, for crying out loud.

I really have to wonder if our modern-farmed meat is truly the more humane source. Naturally, it's necessary for modern market demands, but is it better to live in a small INDOOR pen your entire life, build muscle tone from hormone injections rather than exercise, and then be lined up and slaughtered en masse than it is to live free and fall prey to a predator of any sort? And is a bullet in the chest truly crueler than a mountain lion on the windpipe, or a pack of wolves coming from all directions? I know which death would terrify ME more as it happened.

These are questions that objectivity and knowledge of nature force you to ask. The fact is "premeditated and cold-blooded killing of defenceless(SVB*) animals", as Lucy puts it, is exactly what the supermarkets she offers as an alternative provide. The deer at least has a chance to get away. I've never come home from shopping with a story about the rump roast that bolted just as I was about to put it in the cart. And until they have vets and hospice care as well as food stamps in the forest, I'd have to question the serial killer analogy as well. That deer is NOT going to die peacefully in bed of old age with family and friends gathered around in any circumstance, like the person might. It simply doesn't have the option.

Finally, I have to argue the highly hyperbolic issue of extinction. Yes, people have in the past hunted animals to or near extinction. Yes, we have endangered species in other ways as well, such as with pesticides.

However, it is a FACT that many species find themselves in that pot without any help from us at all. The vast majority of species that have reached extinction did so BEFORE WE EVEN SHOWED UP. I would bet that the number of species driven to extinction BY HUMANS would be far less than 1% of the total. Modern hunters, unlike the buffalo hunters of the 19th century who really just wanted to kill the native tribes indirectly by eliminating a staple food, do not want to eliminate the objects of their hunts. Then they'd have to either find a new hobby or stay home with their wives. If, for example, the white-tailed deer becomes extinct it will be because of housing developments more than the NRA. And we can't lay all the blame on developers because we all want to live in houses, don't we?

* Spelling Very British

Falling on a bruise said...

The comment anon makes about i having no valid point to make because i live in the city is the usual thing spouted by people who do not like having their practises critcised. It doesn't matter if i lived on a sand dune on Brighton beach, i would still think killing animals for fun or sport is wrong.

As a vegetarian, i choose not to eat meat but that is my personal choice and i leave it up to others to make their own decisions about the ethics or morals of their diet. It is not for me to try and argue the benfits to a meat free diet so buying meat from a supermarket is up to the individual, what i object to and what this post was aimed at, was hunters who kill for sport or fun.
I tried to take some of the commonest defences put up by those who hunt and basically, try and say that it was a load of hooey.
The serial killer analogy was i taking something that was mentioned here on another post as a justification for hunting and applying it to another similar scenario.
To say that you are actually doing an animal a favour by ending its life prematurely because in future it may die an even more unpleasant death is just weak. I guarantee that if you were able to ask them, every single animal would prefer to take its chances with its own future rather than have it decided by some hunter.

Anonymous said...

I never said anything about it being a favor. I pointed out - very well, I might add- that it is not any worse than what it will get in nature, and that it will not contribute to extinction as stated in your highly hyperbolic argument. Anti-hunting folks like to pretend that nature is all kind and loving like in a cartoon, conveniently forgetting that Bambi had plenty of reason to run fast on occasion. I mean, really - everything dies and things in the wild don't frequently get old, we KNOW that, so what do YOU choose, Lucy, when these are your ONLY choices - having a wolf tear your throat out and bleeding to death while it starts to eat you, dying slowly of an untreated disease, getting hurt in an accident and suffering until you either starve or something comes along to kill and eat you, or a quick bullet that you didn't even know was coming?

I'm not saying that all these animals should be shot for their own good. I'm saying that your belief that death by hunter is cruel compared to any other natural death is erroneous.

This mischaracterization of nature as a living environment is the essence of Anonymous' comment as I interpreted it. People who don't spend time in nature tend not to realize how utterly cold and cruel it can be.

"I tried to take some of the commonest defences put up by those who hunt and basically, try and say that it was a load of hooey."

Anything can be a load of hooey to those who refuse to see it objectively. What you've done is apply spin, I'm afraid. You didn't address my points, and remember, I'm not a hunter, yet I can see the facts as they are. The type of hunting that Cody speaks of is parsecs away from those fox hunts.

And I'm sure that if you asked them, all those animals would ALSO like to avoid their other natural predators as well. They'd probably also like to live in a house and eat from a plate.

Like I said, human housing does far more damage to the environment and to available habitat than hunting does. Cody is right in saying that most hunters are pro-environment. That's where they spend their leisure time. They're one of the smallest parts of the problem. You and I, as people who live in modern housing, are part and parcel of the much larger problem.

Falling on a bruise said...

Natute is nature Joe, cruel and beautiful at the same time and like us humans way back in time, we killed to survive just as a mountain lion will kill to survive.
Whether the lion would kill when it had a den stacked full of other dead deer is debatable, but us more civilised and intelligent humans certainly do it which is where i come in stamping my little feet and saying hold on, why do you need to kill that deer/fox/bear/lion/. You are not going to starve to death otherwise so why not pop down to the local supermarket and buy an already dead and packaged animal instead?
The issue here is killing animals for fun or sport and for those who do, can they justify it.
The only justification here so far has been the terminally weak 'it is better to be killed by a high powered rifle than have your throat ripped out by a mountain lion' which misses the point of did that hunter kill it for fun, for a sport or because he would of starved to death otherwise because there is nothing else for him to eat?
It certainly isn't the third so what other conclusion is there to reach?

Anonymous said...

I have to truly doubt that you are even bothering to read what I have written. I truly, TRULY doubt it because your responses do not indicate it at all.

"deer/fox/bear/lion/"

I think that both Cody and I were extremely clear about the latter three of the four. We only have sympathy for hunters who kill GAME and eat it. WHY, several days later, are you still speaking to me as if I were in full support of the fox hunt?

Furthermore, my arguments above are OBVIOUSLY not an argument FOR hunting to anyone who bothers to actually READ them, Lucy. What I am doing is pointing out that your points in opposition to it are flawed, like the absolutely RIDICULOUS idea that the meat in the store that you recommend is gained by kinder means than venison gained by hunting. DO some research, if the points I made aren't lucid enough for you. Your point about game hunters contributing to extinction is so ludicrous it almost isn't worth addressing as I did. Is pointing out that the realities of this situation don't exactly fit your statements (and I did grow up in the country, among a LOT of hunters, who were also farmers)the same as supporting ALL forms of hunting? I'd expect that kind of twist from You-Know-Who.

You're against hunting? Fine. I'M NOT A HUNTER. But if you are going to oppose it so vehemently, try opposing it with FACTS, which you are NOT currently doing. Doesn't Blogovia have enough people supporting their claims with weak assertions and ignoring any point made to counter them?

Oh, and we KNOW that large predators will kill when they aren't hungry. Do you think that tiger in San Francisco was starving in the zoo? We also KNOW that if the deer population gets too high in an area, some will STARVE. The people who live in the country aren't going to tear their houses down and move to the city so the deer can have their habitat back. Is this starvation, which is NOT hypothetical but is an established FACT, a kinder demise? See how this isn't as simple as you want to pretend it is? Why ignore what I said about the effect of housing? Is it because that particular threat includes you? If you are truly concerned about the plight of the animals, doesn't it make sense to look at the whole picture objectively? It seems you've decided that hunters are the problem, and aren't willing to hear any objections.

It also seems this is too emotional an issue for you to look at intellectually or objectively, so I'll give it a rest now. It doesn't look like Cody is too interested in his half of this anyway.

Falling on a bruise said...

Nobody else to disagree with Joe so who else am i suppossed to debate with? Technopop seems to be taking the fifth on this one who i expected to chip in, he hasn't so just leaves you i'm afraid taking the stand and getting a little worked up over it as well if you don't mind me saying.

I didn't want to expand the point past the rather narrow framework of the rights and wrongs of hunting for pleasure because we then get into other territory that i don't really want to go, eating meat and vegetarianism.

I thought you were avoiding answering my questions and you accuse me of the same so a stalemate because i sense from your emotional and bad tempered tone that you are beyond rational debate on this one anymore which i admit, i find quite remarkable for someone usually so together.

Anonymous said...

Why are you even arguing with a man who calls it ludicrous that hunting and animals becoming extinct are not related. You should know that you cannot debate with people with such an irrational grip on reality Lucy.

Cody Bones said...

Sorry I didn't pop in sooner, but I figured my post was self evident. Lucy, I still don't see the moral difference between hunting and eating meat from a grocery store, or wearing leather. An animal must die, do people feel better about it if they don't do the actual killing? The demand for these products are what kills animals, I really don't see the difference. I'm going to have to take Joe's side (obviously)

Falling on a bruise said...

Picture a hunter Cody, gun poised and a deer in his sights. Imagine then tapping the guy on the shoulder and saying "Why are you shooting that deer". That is the moment i pictured in my mind for this post. The hunter then turns to me and tries to justify his decision to kill it. I do not want to open it up into a debate about the rights and wrongs of eating meat, that is another topic for another day and i delibretly never mentioned it in the original post, i wanted to discuss that moment when the hunter turns to me and says, 'i am killing that animal because...'.
I tried to include some of the justifications that i have heard over the years, and my replies to these, in the post and maybe that is where i went wrong and did not make it clear enough the situation i was focusing on.

Cody Bones said...

Lucy, it looks like we just didn't get the turnout like last time. Lets try gain soon.

Falling on a bruise said...

Anytime cody, i know this was not a topic you felt that strongly about to start with so thank you for attempting it anyway.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Sacramento - show me a fucking link between hunting and extinction that relies on facts, not opinion or guesswork. I'm waiting for evidence that deer, elk, rabbits, and game birds are going extinct as a direct result of hunting. Either produce, or shut the FUCK up about your uninformed opinion on my grip on reality. You don't know a god damn thing about me.

Lucy - are you saying that your hyperbolic arguments and the way you are weaving around my points is NOT emotional? Are you saying that your original assertions are based on verifiable FACT, and not just your opinion? Instead of responding to my actual arguments, you're going to be simply dismissive of my TONE?

Frankly, that's what I would expect from Mark and his friends.