Killing Animals for "Sport"

[Ridgerunner]

Big game hunters that go after cape buffalo, warthogs, wildebeest, grizzly bears and other so-called “trophy animals” are nothing more than men that are trying to reaffirm their masculinity. As for poachers, most of the hunters I know have personally told my some of the less than friendly ways they would like to do to them.

People who hunt, out in the open, for cape buffalo, warthogs or grizzly bears need not (to me, at least) prove their courage in any other way. While one might question whether, for example, they might be exterminating endangered species, they’re challenging very dangerous animals on near-equal terms even if armed with high-powered rifles. To me, that’s a different thing from someone killing just for the joy of killing; being more akin to attempting Everest “because it’s there”.

 

[JoeJetson]

I live in a fairly economically depressed part of Ohio. The hunters I know hunt quail, deer, squirrels, ducks, rabbits, etc. The idea of shooting a large animal for the sake of shooting it I find distasteful. Big game hunters that go after cape buffalo, warthogs, wildebeest, grizzly bears and other so-called “trophy animals” are nothing more than men that are trying to reaffirm their masculinity. As for poachers, most of the hunters I know have personally told my some of the less than friendly ways they would like to do to them.

I, for the most part, agree with you. Hunting is a way to re-affirm one’s masculinity, or is it? I think women would prefer that you bring home a big paycheck over a dead animal. But the big game hunters are bringing home a big paycheck, and yet they still need the big head on the wall.

 

[JoeJetson]

People who hunt, out in the open, for cape buffalo, warthogs or grizzly bears need not (to me, at least) prove their courage in any other way. While one might question whether, for example, they might be exterminating endangered species, they’re challenging very dangerous animals on near-equal terms even if armed with high-powered rifles. To me, that’s a different thing from someone killing just for the joy of killing; being more akin to attempting Everest “because it’s there”.

So what about guys that DON’T hunt? What about guys that DON’T feel the need? What about guys that live in the city with urban women that are appalled by hunting?

Sounds like you live in Dangerville, an evil animal around every corner. My biggest danger is flying the friendly skies. I’ll go to the zoo if I want to see a giraffe. Don’t need a head on the wall. All the animals can keep their heads on their own necks. I wouldn’t feel more masculine taking somebody else’s head, animal or otherwise.

 

[JoeJetson]

Killing animals for the “sport” or “game” of it. Is this a misnomer?? Sportsmen hunting for “sport” or for the “game” of it? Does the very term “sportsmen” give the wrong impression? Can hunters killing exotic animals in “canned hunts” be grouped with deer hunters culling populations for conservation???

Good question. If you want to play killing games there are plenty of video games, and nothing really dies. I suppose it’s just not the same as hanging a dead head on your wall though.

And I again, don’t buy all that conservation mumbo jumbo. As a species we are smart enough to manage wild life, and anything else for that matter, without resorting to archaic animal slaying.

Wild animal populations are purposefully manipulated **because **guys like to hunt.

 

[4elise]

I’m glad we have cleared that.
It is always good to know what the root of a disagreement is.

Let’s follow that logic…
It is now wrong for a hunter to collect meat for a family that otherwise may not be able to. And that is not a fictional scenario. My wife clearly remembers many times when her family would have gone hungry were it not for the generosity of hunters that brought food when they had more.

Sigh…
If the motivation of the hunter were to collect meat for a family that otherwise may not be able to - who would have gone hungry - then the motivation is something other than ‘sport’ isn’t it?

You would be safe in that conclusion.
It comes down to a question of adding to something what is not really there.
The CCC specifies the word ‘needless’
It does not qualify it any further.
It does not specify the need to be fulfilled, you are.
Likewise it does not specify whose need is fulfilled. Again, you are.

And again, I do not see that I am adding anything to ‘needless’ - and can only surmise that I have a different understanding the word than some?

I just was trying to offer clarity given the CCC’s use of the word ‘needless’ IMHO, so I don’t think it is me adding to it - but rather justifications that add to the word.

 

[4elise]

Big game hunters that go after cape buffalo, warthogs, wildebeest, grizzly bears and other so-called “trophy animals” are nothing more than men that are trying to reaffirm their masculinity.

Well said!

 

[severus68]

Which creation story are you reading?

I have scanned Genesis a few times now and have yet to find anywhere in it what you describe.

Can you please provide chapter and verse?

Genesis 1, Verses 29 and 30.

 

[4elise]

Genesis 1, Verses 29 and 30.

29
God also said: “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;
30
and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food.” And so it happened.

 

[JoeJetson]

Which creation story are you reading?

I have scanned Genesis a few times now and have yet to find anywhere in it what you describe.

Can you please provide chapter and verse?

Somebody must have ripped the pages out of your Bible! Better buy a new one!

 

[CWBetts]

Good question. If you want to play killing games there are plenty of video games, and nothing really dies. I suppose it’s just not the same as hanging a dead head on your wall though.

And I again, don’t buy all that conservation mumbo jumbo. As a species we are smart enough to manage wild life, and anything else for that matter, without resorting to archaic animal slaying.

Wild animal populations are purposefully manipulated **because **guys like to hunt.

Problem: what about animals with no natural predators? In Ohio, there are no predators of deer. Without hunting, there would be no way to keep the numbers under control. Or would you prefer deer to die to disease and starvation, as well as increase the rate of traffic accidents and damage to crops. How do you suppose the population of white-tailed deer be managed without hunting?

 

[TheDoctor]

Problem: what about animals with no natural predators? In Ohio, there are no predators of deer. Without hunting, there would be no way to keep the numbers under control. Or would you prefer deer to die to disease and starvation, as well as increase the rate of traffic accidents and damage to crops. How do you suppose the population of white-tailed deer be managed without hunting?

Excellent question CW and one that most folks will dance around.

What many of the “don’t kill the bambi” crowd don’t or won’t understand is that deer have many predators: Bear, wolf, mountain lion, coyote for the large ones and add large birds, foxes and small wild cats for the younger ones. Why don’t those predators control the population? Because we killed them for sport. Think not? Think again.

You can dress it up any way you want (public safety, livestock control, etc.) but the fact is we killed off the top level predators for no other reason than they were top level predators. Now when we want to do the same thing to the deer it is an issue. Think deer are not a public safety issue? How about 1.5 million driver/deer hits in 2007 and 200 deaths - the majority from deer? (usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-01-03-deer-insure-usat_x.htm).

You have two broad choices: Go “au natural” and re-introduce predators to actually let nature do what she is designed to do or manage the problem without them. And yes, culling herd’s is the most cost effective viable option.

Full disclosure notice: I do not hunt, I have never hunted, I probably will never hunt (unless herds of chocolate candy bars are seen in the neighborhood). I do live in NE Pa. I have hit deer from these huge starving herds. I know friends who have hit deer. I know folks who have been severely injured by deer. I know of folks in the area who have been killed. The issue must be addressed.

 

[4elise]

Full disclosure notice: I do not hunt, I have never hunted, I probably will never hunt (unless herds of chocolate candy bars are seen in the neighborhood). I do live in NE Pa. I have hit deer from these huge starving herds. I know friends who have hit deer. I know folks who have been severely injured by deer. I know of folks in the area who have been killed. The issue must be addressed.

I certainly agree that the issues of deer /vs/ car never end well - Do you have a recommendation for how this should be addressed? Do you agree in the wildlife management toward a specific number of deer hunted each year? Does this seem to be working?

 

[CWBetts]

I certainly agree that the issues of deer /vs/ car never end well - Do you have a recommendation for how this should be addressed? Do you agree in the wildlife management toward a specific number of deer hunted each year? Does this seem to be working?

For years in Ohio it was one per year, but the bag limit keeps being raised because the numbers don’t seem to be getting any smaller.

 

[4elise]

For years in Ohio it was one per year, but the bag limit keeps being raised because the numbers don’t seem to be getting any smaller.

Have there been any other recommendations to address the problem?

 

[CWBetts]

Have there been any other recommendations to address the problem?

As it stands now each license is permitted 4 does and one buck. I think more protected habitat is in order, because lack of habitat is forcing deer into urban areas. There is a movement to increase the limit again, but the push is coming mostly from farmers–crop destruction is an issue

 

[Ridgerunner]

You can dress it up any way you want (public safety, livestock control, etc.) but the fact is we killed off the top level predators for no other reason than they were top level predators. .

I think this is overbroad. Certain top level predators were killed off because they also present a danger to livestock and humans, not in order to increase the population of animals people like to hunt.

 

[Indyann]

I think this is overbroad. Certain top level predators were killed off because they also present a danger to livestock and humans, not in order to increase the population of animals people like to hunt.

And they were killed off or greatly decreased in number long before hunting became a “sport”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sounds like you live in Dangerville, an evil animal around every corner. My biggest danger is flying the friendly skies. I’ll go to the zoo if I want to see a giraffe. Don’t need a head on the wall. All the animals can keep their heads on their own necks. I wouldn’t feel more masculine taking somebody else’s head, animal or otherwise.

I don’t know that I live in “Dangerville”, except to the extent almost all rural areas are “Dangervilles”. Personally, I have no desire for animal trophies. But if one does cross paths with an animal that is dangerous to humans in a populated area, one should do away with that animal. I do believe most cities at least attempt to control things like rats, and for the same reason.

 

[vz71]

Sigh…
If the motivation of the hunter were to collect meat for a family that otherwise may not be able to - who would have gone hungry - then the motivation is something other than ‘sport’ isn’t it?

I never said anything concerning the motivations. Other then the one specific to the trophy. It would appear you are adding to what was said something that was not there. In this case, you are adding in a motivation as their sole purpose was never mentioned.
In fact, it was specificly mentioned that these hunters were generous with what they had when they had more then needed.

And again, I do not see that I am adding anything to ‘needless’ - and can only surmise that I have a different understanding the word than some?
I just was trying to offer clarity given the CCC’s use of the word ‘needless’ IMHO, so I don’t think it is me adding to it - but rather justifications that add to the word.

Give the CCC clarity by adding to it?
You have added qualifications to the word ‘needless’ that are not warranted.
Again, you seem to have fallen into a habit of adding more to what has been written or said.

 

[vz71]

Genesis 1, Verses 29 and 30.

From the Douay-Rheims:

29 And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: 30 And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.

Great.
God provided all of the beasts that we may feed upon them.
Unless you disagree that my understanding is a valid one.