Why hunt? To kill is a thrill if you're mentally ill

[Legion Troll]

When you spend multiple pages on multiple threads describing hunters as barbaric, sadistic or bloodthirsty, your views on hunting are pretty obvious.

So you say.

Have you watched the videos? How would you describe the actions of the people in them?

When people list the good things about hunting, such as the funds for conservation, the health of the herds, and the donations of meat, and you try to argue or ridicule every single one, your views on hunting are quite obvious.

I have honestly and rationally supplied a corollary activity to each benefit you listed.

You said I am an idiot.

Now you continue to make claims about me that are unsupported by any evidence.

And considering the HUGE leaps you have taken when quoting the words of others, you have no room to claim immunity simply because you did not say it in so many words.

List these "huge leaps", with citations, will you please? Thanks!

But then, in this thread, like so many of yours, you carefully avoid stating your own views. You only ridicule those who take a specific side. That also makes your views on hunting quite clear.

So you say.

Why do keep avoiding the question?

 

[WinterBorn]

So you say.

Have you watched the videos? How would you describe the actions of the people in them?

That is part of the problem. I have never said there are no bad hunters or sadistic hunters. But to try and use YouTube videos as a basis for blanket statements about 12.7 million people is ridiculous.

And no, I did not call you a name.

 

[Legion Troll]

That is part of the problem. I have never said there are no bad hunters or sadistic hunters. But to try and use YouTube videos as a basis for blanket statements about 12.7 million people is ridiculous.

What "blanket statements?

And no, I did not call you a name.

you are an idiot.

 

[WinterBorn]

What "blanket statements?

You might want to use the entire quote. What I said was, " If you think eliminating hunting would eliminate the need for a conservation department at a state level, you are an idiot.".

My statement is clear. The "If" is a critical part of that statement. Now, to clarify, do you believe that eliminating hunting would eliminate the need for a conservation dept at the state level?

 

[WinterBorn]

Now, to clarify, do you believe that eliminating hunting would eliminate the need for a conservation dept at the state level?

 

[Legion Troll]

Since all the "joys" of hunting - except the thrill of the kill - can be had by other means, what's the attraction?

 

[WinterBorn]

Since all the "joys" of hunting - except the thrill of the kill - can be had by other means, what's the attraction?

No. I have answered your questions over and over.

You have repeatedly claimed that I called you an idiot. So lets get this settled, shall we?

Do you believe that eliminating hunting will eliminate the need for a conservation dept at the state level? It is a simple yes or no answer.

 

[WinterBorn]

Since all the "joys" of hunting - except the thrill of the kill - can be had by other means, what's the attraction?

Enjoying the meat from a hunt cannot be had by other means.
Enjoying the joy that people show when they receive a gift of meat cannot be had by other means.
Enjoying knowing that I have helped maintain the ecosystem and the health of the herd cannot be had by other means.
Enjoying knowing that I have helped local farmers not have their crops destroyed by an over population of animals cannot be had by other means.
Being part of the only population control for game animals cannot be had by other means.

Now, can you answer my question? Do you believe that eliminating hunting will eliminate the need for a conservation dept at the state level?

I understand if you can't. Since it would involve admitting that I did not call you an idiot.

 

[Legion Troll]

Enjoying the meat from a hunt cannot be had by other means.

Are you saying that venison and other exotic meats are unobtainable commercially, or is it that you feel a special thrill from knowing that you personally brought death to your victim as you rip and grind it's flesh with your teeth?

http://www.venisonsteaks.com/

Enjoying the joy that people show when they receive a gift of meat cannot be had by other means.

Take some steaks from the grocery store to the homeless shelter.

You seem to think that knowing that you killed an animal imparts a unique frisson to receiving meat.

I think you'll find that most people prefer beef and don't care who killed the meat they eat, or if they enjoyed the act of slaughter.

Enjoying knowing that I have helped maintain the ecosystem and the health of the herd cannot be had by other means.

Try a donation to the WWF. Of course, if that wouldn't be the same as personally dealing death to a defenseless animal, I understand.

Enjoying knowing that I have helped local farmers not have their crops destroyed by an over population of animals cannot be had by other means.

Volunteer to help a farmer with their chores if your true desire is to perform charitable agrarian services. But that wouldn't involve killing wild animals.

Being part of the only population control for game animals cannot be had by other means.

Predator species (the ones that remain after the depredations of human hunters) and natural selection should restore the balance in short order without your assistance, won't it?

You can always watch the animals starve if that's will make you happy.

So, since all the "joys" of hunting - except the thrill of the kill - can be had by other means, what's the attraction?

 

[Jarod]

You have to kill to know that?

TO truly understand it, one should experience doing it oneself. I think if people experienced it once, they would be more mindful of what it takes to get meat to the table and be more respectful of it. To simply live, requires that other living creatures don't. Hiding the reality of that fact from people does not do society any favors.

We would have more vegetarians and more simi-vegetarians, and a lot less waste.

 

[WinterBorn]

Are you saying that venison and other exotic meats are unobtainable commercially, or is it that you feel a special thrill from knowing that you personally brought death to your victim as you rip and grind it's flesh with your teeth?

http://www.venisonsteaks.com/

I did not say that at all.

Take some steaks from the grocery store to the homeless shelter.

You seem to think that knowing that you killed an animal imparts a unique frisson to receiving meat.

I think you'll find that most people prefer beef and don't care who killed the meat they eat, or if they enjoyed the act of slaughter.

You are wrong. Many of the people I give meat to can afford beef if they want. But they prefer the flavor of venison. At $3 a pound, the expense is more than I am willing to do. And it goes hand in hand with the other reasons, such as the conservation.

Try a donation to the WWF. Of course, if that wouldn't be the same as personally dealing death to a defenseless animal, I understand.

The WWF is not going to remove roughly 1/3 of the deer population. So my conservation work does something they cannot.

Volunteer to help a farmer with their chores if your true desire is to perform charitable agrarian services. But that wouldn't involve killing wild animals.

Which farmer? By hunting I remove the pressures of an over population of wildlife. Chores do not do that.

Predator species (the ones that remain after the depredations of human hunters) and natural selection should restore the balance in short order without your assistance, won't it?

You can always watch the animals starve if that's will make you happy.

There is no possible way to introduce enough predators to curb the population of whitetail deer. In Alabama alone the deer population is an estimated 1.5 million animals. In order to maintain the current population, roughly 1/3 of that population must be removed (culled, slaughtered, murdered, you pick the word). A large predator might take 2 deer a week. A pack of healthy wolves might take 3 a week. To accomplish what hunters accomplish would require introducing almost 5,000 large predators or over 3,000 healthy packs of wolves in Alabama alone. That is not even close to feasible. Not to mention the potential for deaths of people (especially children) from predation by animals who find them easier to hunt than a whitetail deer.

So, since all the "joys" of hunting - except the thrill of the kill - can be had by other means, what's the attraction?

Your question has been answered. Now answer mine? Do you believe that eliminating hunting will eliminate the need for a conservation dept at the state level?

 

[WinterBorn]

TO truly understand it, one should experience doing it oneself. I think if people experienced it once, they would be more mindful of what it takes to get meat to the table and be more respectful of it. To simply live, requires that other living creatures don't. Hiding the reality of that fact from people does not do society any favors.

We would have more vegetarians and more simi-vegetarians, and a lot less waste.

Well said.

 

[Jarod]

Maybe they fear facing up to the fact that they enjoy killing for fun.

Don't most mass murders torture and kill animals?

If you eat meat, are you not making choices that support killing animals?

Do you enjoy causing an animal to be killed by eating meat? Do you think you are somehow better than the hunter who eats his prey because you pay someone to kill the animal for you?

 

[WinterBorn]

Another thing about your suggestion that Publix provides meat with the customer having to kill it. The meat that is commonly consumed in the US is full of antibiotics.

from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/meat-antibiotics_b_656414.html

"According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, only about 30 percent of the antibiotics used in the U.S. are administered to people to treat diseases. The other 70 percent, the vast majority, are administered to U.S. livestock, primarily to compensate for the unnatural and unhealthy conditions of factory farming. "Industrial livestock systems," the organization concludes, "are hog heaven for resistant bacteria.""

 

[Jarod]

Venison is a much more environmentally friendly form of meat than beef.

Personally I believe its more ethical form of meat consumption because you are not supporting bringing a cow into existence who is going to have a miserable life until it ends up at the slaughter house.

 

[WinterBorn]

Venison is a much more environmentally friendly form of meat than beef.

Personally I believe its more ethical form of meat consumption because you are not supporting bringing a cow into existence who is going to have a miserable life until it ends up at the slaughter house.

The way factory farms treat meat animals is appalling. And everyone who buys their product is supporting the methods.

 

[Jarod]

I do not support hunting endangered species or animals that are not good to eat or healthy for consumption, but in many areas deer and other wildlife are existing in healthy numbers and need a predator to maintain a healthy herd.

The girl in your video is despicable, but not even close to a representative of Hunters.

 

[Jarod]

The way factory farms treat meat animals is appalling. And everyone who buys their product is supporting the methods.

Yup, and I do buy their products, but I am making strides to change that. AS you can imagine, especially in South Florida, other options are more difficult and expensive to come by.

I try to limit my meat to wild, non-farm raised fish from a species whose population is not threatened.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yup, and I do buy their products, but I am making strides to change that. AS you can imagine, especially in South Florida, other options are more difficult and expensive to come by.

I try to limit my meat to wild, non-farm raised fish from a species whose population is not threatened.

I do as well. We have found a source for meat that does not involve steroids or antibiotics. But it is more expensive. We can't always get what we want, so we also buy the factory farm meats on occasion.

 

[Legion Troll]

TO truly understand it, one should experience doing it oneself. I think if people experienced it once, they would be more mindful of what it takes to get meat to the table and be more respectful of it. To simply live, requires that other living creatures don't. Hiding the reality of that fact from people does not do society any favors. We would have more vegetarians and more simi-vegetarians, and a lot less waste.

Absurd.

Do you maintain that people should grow their own trees, log them, and manufacture their own toilet paper to be mindful of it, experience the reality and truly understand it?

Then there are all the other substances consumers use daily whose production must be experienced and understood?

Better get busy.