So euthanising a pet is any different to shooting a deer to feed yourself? You're still killing the animal, regardless of your intentions.

Well well well... Do I detect some hypocrisy? Should you really be putting the pet down in the first place? After all, "Nature will fix itself if we leave it alone".

It's a pity you don't stir up as much a fuss about humans killing one another over things as petty as oil. OH WAIT, it's alright for humans to go about shooting each other but animals should be completely exempt because they're so cute and fuzzy, amirite?

Just because you want to be fucked by a deer doesn't mean anyone else does.

It's all right for animals to eat each other. We're not so different after all.

Then it's alright for a human to kill an animal to devour it, seeing as we are nothing more than well-developed animals. Problem solved! The only difference is our method of killing the prey. We have no sharp claws or large fangs to sink into the flesh, so we improvise.

Euthanize a pet is the last thing you ever want to do.

Shooting and killing a prey is pretty much the first thing you want to do when hunting.

See my point or should I continue?

No.

No.

Regardless of it being the first or last thing on your mind, it's still killing. Now it is YOU who is trying to justify the killing of animals when you "shouldn't be killing it in the first place." Your intentions don't matter.

You're just pushing your argument deeper into the dirt here.

Animals eat one another. We are animals. Therefore we are going to eat other animals to survive. Hunting is much more humane than battery farming and slaughter houses, unless you'd rather the thought of animals dying en masse behind closed doors.

Then why try to justify your actions by stating that you're saving them from overpopulation?

Overpopulation is one of the reasons hunters may go out to kill animals, I didn't say it was the be-all and end-all (I typed 'in some cases' for a reason). Whether it be pest control, population control or for consumption; People will hunt.

Perhaps it's justified by the fact that humans have been hunting animals since we first walked the earth? Without hunting, how would we honestly survive as a species, really? Vegetation alone cannot sustain mankind, we are omnivorous.

Plants could be considered 'living' too, but foraging for and eating them doesn't seem to warrant justification does it? There isn't public outcry whenever a plant is uprooted and chopped up for salad, or fields cleared of weeds. It's the same with animals. We eat them if they're edible, we kill them when their numbers become a problem. (And at this point you'll probably think 'OMG HOW COULD SHE COMPARE PLANTS TO PRETTY PRETTY ANIMALS!?' - I'm aware that they're nothing like one another. The animals taste better. But the methods are pretty much the same shit, only carried out with weaponry rather than gardening tools.)
Just that some idiots prefer to kill them for fun rather than practical reasons, and they waste the carcass. Like the retard who shot a baboon for the sake of it.

What about Lions and Crocodiles eating innocent humans or human babies? Think that's in anyway just or fair?

They don't give a crap about us, they just see us as food. So I say, give em hell. If we didn't kill any animals, we'd be seen as weak and wild animals are more likely to attack us because they know we won't fight back. Humans are the biggest threat to the top predators and I want to keep it that way. We are at the top of the food chain and we are intelligent enough to rule this world.

The only thing I don't respect is wasteful hunting, such as removal of the Shark Fins, while wasting the rest of the Shark. Extinction is a scary concept as well.

There was a program about black bears on last night. A few people followed the bears around (who seemed quite happy to have them in their presence, and allowed them to measure their heart rate and affix radio collars), studied their behaviour to learn how better to help and understand bears in the wild. Then hunting season started.

Despite giving them brightly coloured collars and putting out a request that out of the thousands of bears living in the forest the hunters spare these fifteen of value to science, half of them were shot anyway. Friendly, trusting bears that the researchers knew personally and loved, it was raw watching their hearts break with each confirmed death of bears that they and their other bears knew and loved, bears that could have taught them so much.

These hunters were scum, there's no other way I can describe them. For trophies, perhaps occasionally meat (and the idea of killing and eating apex predators I find absolutely perverse) they shot these wonderful animals. But the worst thing of all was their modus operandi. They hung chairs from high tree trunks to shoot from, and then put out bait to lure the bears to them. No stalking in the woods, no meeting the bears on ground level where they have the tiniest mote of a chance of escaping or fighting back. No, they construct a high hide and then tempt the bears out with food. Dicks.

I would feel no sorrow were each and every one mauled and eaten by bears.

Everyone says you can't use the food chain argument anymore because Man has mechanised everything, surpassing the abilities of most animals. But our mighty brains is all we have ever had - since we dropped out of the trees, our creation of tools has been our evolutionary niche, allowing us to become top preadator. I'm not endorsing hunting though. I don't really like it, and that's pretty much the only opinion I'm going to give on the subject. I just try to give credit where credit is due.

Well that just proves that the bears weren't protected enough.
Laws and reserves usually help with this kind of thing. Putting a collar on a bear, not so much.

The bears were shot legally. All the researchers could do was follow as many bears as they could around (which makes hunting season the only time the job becomes dangerous) until they denned for winter, and ask that the hunters shoot one of the other several thousand bears that had no fluorescent collar.

I would agree that the hunters in that particular situation are assholes, BM. There is no honour in 'hunting' like that, the cowards. Were I in that situation, I would have heeded what the researchers had said and not shot the tagged bears. AND hunted at ground level for fuck's sake. If those so-called men haven't got the balls to confront an animal, even with a gun, then they shouldn't be hunting at all. Fucking bastards.

Hunting solely for trophy heads is awful too, in my opinion. If you are going to hunt something, let nothing of the animal you kill go to waste. It would be disrespectful. Flesh can be consumed. Any inedible organs can potentially be used to feed other animals. Fur can be fashioned into winter clothing. Bones can be bleached, carved and turned into works of art that will even outlive the hunter if cared for properly.

Why would people shoot bears anyway? And why is that even legal? We don't eat bears...

Sums up my opinions of hunting quite succinctly.

here we go again. what makes you think that slaughterhouses are so inhumane compared to hunting? i agree the word 'slaughter' doesn't help what people perceive of them, but like i mentioned numerous times previously in this same thread; the environment has to be controlled, calm and humane by law. if it is done any other way, it is illegal. there will be some places that will break the law, the same as in any other profession on the planet, but that does not mean it is the right, lawful and proper way to do it.

what makes you think hunters and hunting doesn't have its illegalities? doesn't have its more than fair share of knobs? because believe me, i know it does. and what makes it worse is, you're out in the open, on your own. an inspector isn't going to pop out of a bush and watch you kill an animal to ensure you're doing it right; it depends entirely on that particular hunter. and to me, that's a bit too much power over life for some people. it operates entirely on trust, which as good as it sounds, isn't always the best way.

in a slaughterhouse, the animal is guaranteed to receive a quick, painless and humane death, WILL be put to good use, and is from a sustained source. hunting has the chances of missing the intended target on the animal and causing agony, and also escape, which in turn could mean infection and disease. also, in farming the young are tended and reared by hand. lets say you're deer hunting; are you going to tend and rear the doe's young when you've shot her? you wont even know if she has any. therefore, even if you kill a doe humanely and what have you, and she has young, you're more or less condemning the young ones to starve or become prey for other predators.

also, battery farming is a fucking retarded way of egg farming and is a black stain on the farming industry. i don't condone it in the slightest.

There is no honor in hunting, period.

If you feel honored that you are able to kill a defenseless creature you are a very sick person.

Man this is seriously best topic ever.
I wonder there isn't any big flamewar yet.

Back to topic:

Recently I read on internet article about Chinese proclaming "Killing whales is our tradition". But seriuosly guys, there aren't that many whales to satisfy everyones "tradition" needs. When I read that I was thinking: "There are some certain kind of people on some tropical island. Their tradition is cannibalism. Why we couldn't take some whale-hunters and put them on those certain islands and watch what they will say?"
Btw I'm meateater and I don't care about PETA or something like that, but everything should has it owns bounds (Not really sure about correctness of this sentence).

In that case yes, I'm a sick fuck for wanting to feed myself and not waste the rest of the animal. That would also make our ancestors sick fucks, vets who have to put pets down sick fucks, and everyone who's ever tasted the flesh of an animal a sick fuck for supporting the killing by purchasing the byproduct. Hell, even ANIMALS are sick fucks for killing OTHER defenseless creatures, isn't that glorious?

You seem to think that the animal kingdom is a Disney-esque funland, don't you? They don't prance around with one another all cute and happy, they either rip each other apart to feed or they starve to death.

Defenseless... Yeah, let's see you take on a rabid bear unarmed. See how long it takes for that bear to tear you to shreds, ey? Or any other large mammal for that matter. You'll see how "defenseless" they are then, won't you sunshine? "OH NO BUT I CAN'T KILL TEH BEAR IT ARE DEFENSELESS CREETURZ EVEN THOUGH IT'S MAULING MAH FAYCE OFF OH WOE IS ME HUMANITY IS EVIL"

God you are clueless...

When you have a rifle in your hands, those animals are defenseless, yes. Because they can't defend themselves against a BULLET.

If you want to go and feed yourself, go to the damn supermarket. There you will find meat from animals already killed for you, by an industry who will use the byproducts far more efficient than you ever could.

And are you seriously comparing cavemen who hunt to a modern day society? Are you really that stupid? In those time they NEEDED to hunt to survive. You don't need to hunt to eat. All you have to do is get in your SUV and drive to the nearest McDonald's and stuff a cheeseburger in your face.

And if an animal is attacking you feel free to kill it, I won't blame you. But shooting it in the back is a completely different story.

BTW did you notice how you just tried to use my own arguments against me? Seriously, what are you doing?

I have to go ahead and agree with Havoc by saying that you are being quite obtuse. You seem to be missing the point entirely, and possibly intentionally.

Hurts, don't it?

I have an open-ended question to rev your motors; When is hunting necessary and when isn't it? When does hunting become a sport and not an asset to survival? All societies are at different rungs of the same ladder, and there are whole nations of peoples who need to hunt to survive, whole nations that are on the fence, whole nations that could survive on the food issued by the government but don't want to, and then there's the US - which always seems to put it's self on the top of the ladder and assumes immunity on all issues that ask it to think on ethics.

If it's less expensive for you to hunt, whether that be for clothing or food, then I am one hundred percent behind you. I firmly believe in survival of the fittest. However, if it would be more cost effective for you to go to the supermarket than hunt (hunting is expensive), then it is not necessary.

I can't back legislation that would stop hunters. I'm not out to demonize anyone. I just want people to be honest with themselves. Your typical American hunter is not doing it for the sake of the animal, or out of necessity. They do it because to them it is fun.

Unfortunately, putting restrictions on hunting begins to drift out of animal rights territory and into Gun Control Land where it will only blossom into a thousand more arguments. As it stands, I don't think there's anything in the constitution about animal ethics, and only in the good ol' US would such an issue manage to fall under the umbrella of "rights guaranteed to us by the amendments" .

If you agree with eating meat, you agree with killing the animal, simple. Hunting for food is in my book fine, but hunting just for sport is pure murder.

Here's an idea, Too many people in the world... and not enough food... geddit?. eh? eh?

"We'll chop them up!"

EDIT: Oh and if you guys wanna get stuffy about animal ethics, look up the trailer for The Cove and do a little research on it.

You put my thoughts into words better than I ever could.... But yea.. This is exactly how I feel :)

I don't think I could kill an animal though... As much as I want natural, untempered-with meat I'm too scared and I don't understand the whole killing deal. I guess people hunting for me alright.
I just don't think it's fair to hate on hunters when people themselves eat meat.
But some hunters are hypocritical and don't know what they talk about... Like this one guy said it made him feel one with nature :fuzconf:

Oh no, i eat meat, and i agree with killing the animal. Only as long as it is quick, humane, effective and dignified. But no i don't think i could kill an animal, i'm too much of a wimp :)

That one guy wouldn't happen to be my friend Max, would it?

Well now that you say it... Yes... Yes it is... <.< And I think he's stupid for ever thinking like that.

Max is a nice guy but he's generally an idiot. His arguments regarding anything he does are paper thin. When I found out he hunted I had to do a double-take, it seems to go against his "persona" (or at least the persona he tries to portray to all the girls on the internets with his Sweeney Todd hair-stripe and his listing of Twilight under his "favorite reads" section).

Also

Only idiots (read: hunters in general) try to justify their animal killing with 'honor' and 'population culling'. The few times I've went, always with someone else, the other person would always try to justify what he was doing. Made no sense to me. I had no problem saying I was doing it for the meat. And no, I wasn't "taking" the animal. I was shooting it. I was killing it.

I've only ever went after deer or turkeys. We have plenty of both. And I really love the taste of venison. A lot.

I heard about buffalo hunting in certain, regulated areas. That shit's disturbing.

You have buffalo?

Where do you think all of those buffalo wings came from? I thought you were supposed to be all smart, and shit.

Disillusioned.

and why is he always wincing?

or is that a nervous twitch.

Kind of shady looking, isn't he? Let's keep our eyes on this guy.

OANST, you're the shadiest one here.

It's a good thing that you aren't fat BECAUSE I WOULD TOTALLY MAKE A FAT JOKE IF YOU WERE FAT.