WTFs dating hunters in Nebraska (because nobody cares about the Nashville Predators)
-
You said that I called game wardens scientists.
No I said mott555 did. What was that about comprehension and shoulder aliens?
I have read the conversation. I've only "dipped in" to contribute. One thing you should keep in mind: sometimes people mis-speak and modify their statements to clarify what they initially meant to say. I take @mott555's initial statement that game wardens are scientists to be one of those cases, given his more recent statements that the game wardens work with the scientists. Especially since he has repeated the latter version, and not the former version.
Well indeed and fair enough. I would rather mott555 provided the evidence and didn't expect me to go sourcing it for him and we'll not bother the scientists (real or otherwise) with our queries. It sounds awfully anecdotal to me.
-
Forgive us weak, pathetic humans, for unblessed as ye, we do not receive the absolute reason of Almighty Gaia in the silences of our feeble minds. It is not for us lesser beings to deny thy enlightened words, backed with all the most true and holy power of the universe!
No please forgive me for daring to venture an opinion and question other people's assumptions. Obviously everyone here has access to this Book of Indisputable Facts. I'm sorry I wasn't given a copy.
-
But I have not said that. Shoulder aliens again. I said: I don't buy the excuses and gave reasons for that (none of it is "I am right you are wrong". If there's a flaw in my logic point it out but don't give me arguments from authority or straw men or other such crap.)
Let's break down what you've said:
- You like to eat meat.
- Hunting is cruel.
- Hunting should only be done when necessary.
- Hunting is not necessary because we can buy meat at the store.
- Hunters are really in it for the killing.
- Hunting is immoral because of 2-5
Several here have said they hunt for the meat.
Now, taking the above, let's break down what @boomzilla said:
"I want those things hunters say interest them about hunting, but I hate the thought of killing an animal, and they are really in it for the killing, so hunting is morally wrong."
I want those things hunters say interest them about hunting
Well hunters want the meat, and you like meat, so on the surface this is true. You prefer to get your meat from the store instead of hunting. We'll call this half true.
but I hate the thought of killing an animal
This does jive pretty well whit several of your statements. We'll go with true.
and they are really in it for the killing
See #5 above. Definitely true.
so hunting is morally wrong
See #6 above. However, since this statement only links it to the killing part, we'll call this 80% true.
Overall, I'd say that @bomzilla's summation of how you're coming across is about 83% true. I'd say it's pretty accurate.
-
Ye need not touch that detestable tome, oh ye mightiest of the mighty! Thy words flow like precious oil which invigorates body and mind! Thy great wisdom illuminates all this dark land, and gives guidance to those poor souls who sojourn herein!
-
so hunting is morally wrong
Only if the hunting is not for food (or even some other good reason). That is what I dispute - the reasons they are giving. I have explained that quite clearly. So that is putting words into my mouth: removing the where clause.
-
Only if the hunting is not for food
But I've already said I hunt for food and you called me a liar and let your shoulder aliens tell you I'm somehow only in it because I have a sadistic need to kill things.
I'm not a trophy hunter, I don't care if it's a buck or doe or how big the antlers are. In fact I've never even shot a buck, does usually taste better.
-
For a challengeProblem: There are so many enjoyable past-times that are challenging that don't involve killing things. The killing bit of the hobby is the bit that isn't challenging. The stalking or ambushing surely is and is fun but you can shoot the animal with a camera for an identical challenge. Lining up the shot and pulling the trigger is easy Hit/miss ratios not withstanding: a child could do it (and some do).
Let me counter this one: who are you to dictate what kind of challenges another person enjoys? One person may enjoys rock climbing, another person might completely hate it. Someone might get a thrill out of designing a kick ass computer game, someone else might rather play that
Further, just because something is a challenge to one person does not make it a challenge to another person. I might find it a challenge to jog 5 miles, but there are plenty of people out there who regularly run marathons.
My point is, you don't have the right to decide what someone else can call a challenge.
Am I missing one?
Some hunters I've talked to like the way that hunting makes them feel a bit more like they are part of nature. They feel like they are part of the chain of life. If you were to remove any aspect of hunting, they would miss that feeling.
-
Well indeed and fair enough. I would rather mott555 provided the evidence and didn't expect me to go sourcing it for him and we'll not bother the scientists (real or otherwise) with our queries. It sounds awfully anecdotal to me.
I'm pointing you where to get that stuff. You've already called me a liar so why should I provide the evidence? I'm sure you'll find some nonsensical manner of dismissing it if I do so I'm not even going to bother.
-
But in more details
You like to eat meat: Yes
Hunting is cruel: Depends on how its done and whether it's necessary. More accurately: the people who do it for fun (without necessity) are cruel - sadists in fact.
Hunting should only be done when necessary: Yes
Hunting is not necessary because we can buy meat at the store: Mostly true. I suspect in the case of the OP. Completely true.
Hunters are really in it for the killing. Some are yes. Probably most amateurs. Not all perhaps. See above. If there's no necessity then it is the inescapable conclusion because the same can be achieved without.
Hunting is immoral because of 2-5: If it is not necessary. Yes
[/quote]I really think I have been quite clear on that from the beginning. If people expect they are talking to a vegan or a Trappist monk then they should stop doing that and actually listen to what the person is saying.
-
Only if the hunting is not for food (or even some other good reason). That is what I dispute - the reasons they are giving. I have explained that quite clearly. So that is putting words into my mouth: removing the where clause.
You've said that hunting for food is morally wrong, because hunting for food is not necessary. I covered that in my post:
4. Hunting is not necessary because we can buy meat at the store.
...
6. Hunting is immoral because of 2-5
-
You've said that hunting for food is morally wrong, because hunting for food is not necessary.
IF the food is available in the store then it obviously is not the necessity of the hunt. I wonder what is.
-
Depends on how its done
You never did answer my question about how to humanely (according to you) bring down an elk or deer.
-
IF the food is available in the store then it obviously is not the necessity of the hunt. I wonder what is.
The meat obtainable by hunting is not generally available in a store.
-
But I have not said that. Shoulder aliens again. I said: I don't buy the excuses and gave reasons for that (none of it is "I am right you are wrong". If there's a flaw in my logic point it out but don't give me arguments from authority or straw men or other such crap.)
You said that you don't buy their excuses, so all that's left is that they like killing. Also, your dismissals aren't convincing as dismissals. It all relies on your assumption that killing wild animals is bad. That seems to be driving everything. Some people, in addition to you, believe that to be the case. It flies in the face of observations and common sense.
You're confusing a moral argument for a scientific one. And many people have looked at the science and determined that your moral argument leads to bad results, which actually makes it immoral when viewed in total, as opposed to a simple analysis of "killing = bad."
Additionally, we know that modern hunting has done a lot to make the process less cruel (and that's been explained above), so falling back to a default of, "these guys like to be cruel to animals" fails the Occam's Razor test.
All I am hearing back is "you're wrong".
Then you're skipping reading a lot, I guess?
Scientists (not really) say so and you don't know until you've tried it.
I'm not sure what the deal is with the emphasis on "scientists" in this thread.
-
Oregon watches Idaho experience as wolves reduce elk population
Idaho elk numbers have fallen from 125,000 to 103,000 since about 1997 to the dismay of hunters, professional big game outfitters and small businesses that depend on seasonal revenues from hunters.
http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/deer/deermanagementprogram.asp
http://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/Hunt_Trap/deer/deer_management/deerhuntastool.asp
**Why aren't deer numbers naturally controlled by nature?** Today, in Maryland, man — an integral part of nature and the food chain — is the only remaining effective deer predator. Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto documented the use of venison and deer hides by Native Americans in southeastern North America during the early 1500s. In 1634, Roman Catholic priest Father Andrew White, an early settler in Maryland, wrote that the bountiful white-tailed deer were "...rather an annoyance than an advantage."
Native Americans hunted deer year round across Maryland, using fires to drive deer which ultimately helped provide excellent habitat. When Europeans arrived on North America's shores, they learned to hunt deer from the Native Americans. Early colonists used the venison to feed their families and the hides for clothing. As the settlers' populations increased, the demand for white-tailed deer rose above its reproductive potential and the habitat's carrying capacity. The science of conservation with hunting seasons and bag limits did not exist. Man also destroyed much of the white-tailed deer's habitat through the removal of trees when wood products were required for homes and heat sources. At that time, new trees were not planted to replace those harvested as practiced in modern forestry science. Interestingly enough, most humans can be classified as predators or scavengers through their food habits. When people purchase meat at a grocery store, they function ecologically as scavengers; someone else has taken and processed a live animal. When an individual fishes for rockfish or crabs in the Chesapeake Bay, or hunts for deer in Maryland's woodlands, he or she is functioning ecologically as a predator.</blockquote>
-
You never did answer my question about how to humanely (according to you) bring down an elk or deer.
With a head-shot obviously: just don't miss.
-
It all relies on your assumption that killing wild animals is bad.
No it doesn't. It relies on my assumption that many (if not all) of the hobby hunters do it for the pleasure of killing for the reasons I have given.
-
You've demonstrated time and time again that you have no knowledge of proper hunting techniques, no knowledge of how actual hunters hunt, no knowledge of firearm capabilities, etc. You are not qualified to tell hunters what they need to do.
I'm going to go find a Haskell forum to crap on because I wouldn't recognize Haskell code if someone slapped me in the face with a ream of source code printouts. Clearly I must be a Haskell expert.
Or perhaps a race car forum. I drove a car once, so I can clearly go tell the NASCAR people what they're doing wrong.
-
I drove a car once, so I can clearly go tell the NASCAR people what they're doing wrong.
-
This is just switching the issue. My point is and has always been your motivation for it. I don't have to drive a Nascar to know why they do (money and thrill in that order). I don't have to go hunting to see all the possible reasons people might have (you have said them yourself and they weren't a surprise).
Your strongest arguments for a motive other than "I enjoy killing" are Food and Conservation (the day out in the country and it's a challenge hold no water because killing isn't required there. I trust that that is not in dispute any more.) but as food is in plentiful supply for you anyway then it isn't a necessity for you and I maintain your hobby hunting is not required for conservation and want proof of it if you insist it is. I'm no going to accept it on authority because I don't trust your motives in this argument now with insane scenarios and other shite you've spouted. Those are the excuses I'm hearing and why I don't buy them. I really would prefer to believe that you're not a sadist but every flippant "you don't know nothing about this" is doing the exact opposite. I'm sure you'll say you don't care but then I wonder why you're posting at all. (If this is amusing to you then that is sad.)
Your claims that the deaths are quick and painless I call bullshit on. Some may be but many will not be. Nobody's that good (except possibly a very experienced professional). All textbook theory passed off as reality. I know that is not how it works. Do you need me to find the videos of animals dying slowly for you? I've not looked but I'm sure there are plenty. If minimizing suffering is at all your objective then all you have to do is not shoot it at all. That you do pull the trigger shows that it is not really a consideration for you considering that you do not otherwise need to.
-
I'm done. I think I have a better chance at a reasonable argument with a bale of hay. Your reading comprehension is 0, your self-awareness of that is 0, your experience is 0, your domain knowledge is 0, your theoretical knowledge is 0, your practical knowledge is 0, your knowledge of what hunters actually do is 0, and your arrogance is 100%. And this seems to be clear to everyone participating in this topic except you.
You should run for Senator sometime. I think you've got all the requirements!
-
Why aren't deer numbers naturally controlled by nature?
Fascinating glimpse into history and obvious point about how we are still predators (for food). I don't see it talking about now (except about much fewer there are now because of destroyed habitats) or what predation has to do with killing for pleasure even if you do eat the animal afterwords.
You do realise that population numbers are controlled by more than just predation? Food supply for example. Ask your scientist friends about it, they'll tell you.
-
I'm done. I think I have a better chance at a reasonable argument with a bale of hay. Your reading comprehension is 0, your self-awareness of that is 0, your experience is 0, your domain knowledge is 0, your theoretical knowledge is 0, your practical knowledge is 0, your knowledge of what hunters actually do is 0, and your arrogance is 100%. And this seems to be clear to everyone participating in this topic except you.
You should run for Senator sometime. I think you've got all the requirements!
I think the same thing about you. Not a single reasoned argument. Just deviation, ignoring anything inconvenient and repeated "NO NO NO"
-
You do realise that population numbers are controlled by more than just predation? Food supply for example. Ask your scientist friends about it, they'll tell you.
Well I guess I lied about being done. I'm too easily suckered into responding.
I have, and I posted long earlier about it, but I guess it already slipped out of that leaky brain of yours. More wildlife die due to natural causes than due to hunting. The ones who get hunted are the lucky ones as far as relative duration and quickness of death. However often not enough die and hunting takes up the slack, which is why permit count changes from year to year.
-
I have, and I posted long earlier about it, but I guess it already slipped out of that leaky brain of yours. More wildlife die due to natural causes than due to hunting. The ones who get hunted are the lucky ones as far as relative duration and quickness of death.
I remember that but I am talking about your excuses. Remember? About whether you really are required to kill for some good? So you do realise you are not?
-
I have
:D no you asked the wardens remember? Lets not get back on to that (that abarker assures me you did not really mean)
-
About whether you really are required to kill for some good? So you do realise you are not?
I have like 45 links above saying it is required. Maybe not me personally, but someone must do it.
-
Hunting is not necessary because we can buy meat at the store: Mostly true. I suspect in the case of the OP. Completely true.
Except there are conservation reasons to hunt in addition to food. You waved your hands about No True Scientist or something and think this isn't a concern. No one understands why you did this.
Saying that there are alternate sources isn't the argument you think it is (see my comment about McDonald's above). If you kept it to the first person, I don't think anyone here would have a problem.
But you're projecting onto other people and it just makes you look silly.
No it doesn't. It relies on my assumption that many (if not all) of the hobby hunters do it for the pleasure of killing for the reasons I have given.
Let's assume hunters are people who do it for the cruelty. I obviously disagree, but let's run with it. We're giving these guys a way to be cruel without harming people. There's a plus. They're providing a useful service by keeping the populations in check.
OK, the outlet is debatable and possibly counterproductive, but they are providing a valuable service. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Still, we're better off because they do it.
My point is and has always been your motivation for it.
Except you keep insisting it's other than what he says.
You do realise that population numbers are controlled by more than just predation? Food supply for example. Ask your scientist friends about it, they'll tell you.
I can't see why anyone would want to make animals starve. You must be in it for the cruelty. It's not necessary to make the animals starve to keep their populations down, so this is the only reason.
-
I have like 45 links above saying it is required. Maybe not me personally, but someone must do it.
Won't someone think of @LurkerAbove's conscience‽
-
no you asked the wardens remember? Lets not get back on to that (that abarker assures me you did not really mean)
Erm, no? Shoulder aliens again? I'm not sure I've ever discussed these topics with a game warden. With other people in the know, yes, but not wardens. They're too busy
being dickspolicing public grounds.
-
I can't see why anyone would want to make animals starve. You must be in it for the cruelty. It's not necessary to make the animals starve to keep their populations down, so this is the only reason.
One has suspicious motives the other one doesn't. That animals will die is of course a given.
Edit: How is that a reply to mott
-
This post is deleted!
-
-
One has suspicious motives the other one doesn't.
I don't see anyone here having suspicious motives. Your assertions about why they are suspicious are fallacious and contrary to observations of actual hunters.
-
I'm happy to agree to disagree and very tired of this.
You're probably not a sadist. Your hunting might perform a valuable service. I'm not convinced but heh. I think volunteering to spend that time to clean rivers might be even more valuable. I'm sure you take every effort to make it humane but I don't think it truly is. But it really isn't that big a deal. I'm just quite glad WTF websites make it harder for you. Maybe you'll give up and take a camera instead of a gun and then be even more humane and do without your venison chops.
-
With a head-shot obviously: just don't miss.
That's a pretty small target. Especially if the target is moving.
-
-
my assumption that many (if not all) of the hobby hunters do it for the pleasure of killing
That's a pretty dumb-ass assumption.
but as food is in plentiful supply for you anyway then it isn't a necessity for you
Do you do everything out of necessity? Obviously not, because you are posting here. One of the reasons people hunt is because it is a valid method for obtaining food. Are there other methods for obtaining food? Yes. Does that make hunting any less valid as a method for obtaining food? No.
-
You do realise that population numbers are controlled by more than just predation? Food supply for example. Ask your scientist friends about it, they'll tell you.
True. But did you know that experience in Yellowstone over the past 20 years has shown that out of control deer populations can actually have a negative impact on deer habitat?
When wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone 20 years ago, they started eating the sick and injured deer and elk. This had 2 immediate effects. First, the deer and elk herds were smaller and healthier. Second, the herds started avoiding valleys and canyons where the wolves could easily trap them.
As a result, the fields in Yellowstone were no longer overgrazed. The bushes and woodlands started growing back. Within 10 years, the trees in some areas doubled in height. Because of rebounding vegetation, the banks of rivers stabilized. The more stable rivers saw a surge in beaver populations. The new beaver dams created environments for fish, river otters, and more.
The wolves also preyed on the coyotes that had crept into Yellowstone. This caused the mouse and rabbit populations. Also, since coyotes will eat carrion, there was more carrion around the park now that the coyotes were gone. The increase in mice, rabbits, and carrion brought back many carnivorous birds.
The rebounding vegetation also proved beneficial for the bears in the park. More berries were growing, which meant the bears were better able to prepare for hibernation.
tl;dr: The wolves preying on the deer and elk helped to significantly improve the habitat for numerous animals, including the deer and elk. Currently models indicate that similar effects are maintained (not created) by hunters.
Edit: Some sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
Oregon State University
Oregon State University delivers exceptional, accessible education and problem-solving innovation as Oregon's largest and statewide public research university.
Wolf Restoration - Yellowstone National Park (U.S. National Park Service)
The first wolves in the restoration arrived in Yellowstone National Park in 1995.
-
One of the reasons people hunt is because it is a valid method for obtaining food. Are there other methods for obtaining food? Yes.
Indeed and, oh god here we go again, then what is the motivation though really? The hunt is the motivation then surely!? The food is secondary. I don't see why that isn't an obvious truth.
Does that make hunting any less valid as a method for obtaining food? No.
That depends why they're doing it. I still do not swallow the "it's for conservation". I think that's a lie. Even if it does help conserve, I do not think that is why many if not most hobby hunters do it. I also do not think it is for food because, if it were just that and not fun, they would not do it. Killing for pleasure (even if you eat the thing afterwards or there's some other fortuitous benefit from doing that - that doesn't change the motive): is sick. Now, if there are positive side effects, as boomzilla points out, then that's good but it doesn't change the fact that it is sick (if that is their real motive). So, I wonder what hobby hunters' motivations really are (and I see what people have been saying as poor excuses). Some will be good. Some will be not so good. But without a real necessity for them to kill then they're all below a line.
That the majority here (that can be arsed to type about it) think I'm wrong is no sample of any significance and establishing truth is not a matter of democracy in any case.
-
I also do not think it is for food because, if it were just that and not fun, they would not do it.
Then you don't understand hunters.
I still do not swallow the "it's for conservation". I think that's a lie.
Read my post about the Yellowstone experience.
-
But did you know that experience in Yellowstone over the past 20 years has shown that out of control deer populations can actually have a negative impact on deer habitat?
No (and it's interesting thank you) but there are plenty of other examples of the chaotic nature of ecosystems and that is why (as I have said before and explained how I understand that) I do not trust for one moment the 'reasoning' that goes into the quotas they give out (maybe some carefully plot them but I doubt many do) that hunters give as their badge of "this is doing good". They probably are aware and consider that there will be complicated ramifications but I doubt they understand them so all it boils down to is "there are too many, lets kill some" or "there are too few, stop killing them".
With the story of the ecosystem in Yellowstone Park, should not that make them step back and think that messing with this stuff is just random? How can the X-hundred quota this year be thought of as anything else with a probable effect of increasing the population of something else in an unwanted way? I don't trust the people that come up with those figures? I expect most people here that say that they do would be curiously unwilling to accept other figures from different government departments (like minimum wage, tax, spending, etc.). It seems they accept government figures when it suits them. (I'm no surprised at that before anyone mocks me.)
-
With the story of the ecosystem in Yellowstone Park, should not that make them step back and think that messing with this stuff is just random?
In most places, there are also primary reasons for culling the animals (hazard to cars, eating all the vegetation, etc).
How can the X-hundred quota this year be thought of as anything else with a probable effect of increasing the population of something else in an unwanted way?
Perhaps you should look into the field and see what people have found out? It seems clear that you are not aware of mainstream conservation biological thought or practice.
-
Then you don't understand hunters.
They don't enjoy it? They do it just for food? Really?! If so then I obviously don't but then perhaps we're talking about different hunters here. But if so, then it is fine by me.
-
Perhaps you should look into the field and see what people have found out? It seems clear that you are not aware of mainstream conservation biological thought or practice.
I'm not ignorant if this. That I doubt it's efficacy is not evidence of ignorance. I think perhaps you should question the given stats and whether the methods employed are really the best ways. There is money involved here and various vested interests. Everything should be suspect. That methods are being employed to control a chaotic system and they are called mainstream thoughts and practice. Is it anything like mainstream economics thought and practice that can't predict a crisis?
-
I think perhaps you should question the given stats and whether the methods employed are really the best ways.
The problem with your argument is that you do not provide any substitute data streams, nor do you provide a fleshed-out alternative solution. As a result, you fall back to emotional appeals that simply do not work when the other side presents hard data.
There is money involved here and various vested interests. Everything should be suspect.
Paranoia leaves you without a leg to stand on.
-
They are competing against another human being with the same tools: that's the challenge obviously
Should you have to use a spear at a fishing competition instead of a rod, bait, and lure? Obviously the spear is more
challenging
-
I'm not ignorant if this. That I doubt it's efficacy is not evidence of ignorance.
Fair enough, but that wasn't the impression you gave before.
I think perhaps you should question the given stats and whether the methods employed are really the best ways.
What questions should I ask? What are better ways? Do you know of evidence that normal population management techniques are causing problems?
That methods are being employed to control a chaotic system and they are called mainstream thoughts and practice.
I certainly don't think they can fine tune anything perfectly, but can't think of a better way to do it. Admittedly I don't have the moral qualms that you do, so I'm not motivated to fix something that doesn't look broken to me.
-
Should you have to use a spear at a fishing competition instead of a rod, bait, and lure? Obviously the spear is more
challengingThe challenge is the competition with other people. That they all use the same equipment is what makes it a sport. What that equipment is, is up to them and no concern of mine.
Please do continue with crap as simple as that to dismiss as irrelevant, it detracts from boomzilla (and to a lesser extent abarker) who is giving me a much more difficult time by thinking about what he's saying.
-
One is a necessity, the other isn't. You don't do it for food. The food is an added bonus.
lolwut
Also, now remove the word 'competition' from my previous sentence. Same response?
White-tailed Deer Illinois
