Evidence for God from Science

I have only one problem with hunting. The fact that usually the animal doesn't stand a bleedin' chance! How fair is it for people with high powered rifle to gang up on some animal? What kind of chance does the animal have to get away, is it a fair one?

Now here is the situations where hunting is totally fair;
hunger--a person needs something to eat, if their best option is to hunt then so be it.
sport--only if the animal has a fighting chance, how fair is it for you to shoot a animal with a ranged projectile weapon.

This is my problem, guns make it unfair. If you can creep up on a animal stun it and kill it. That is totally fair! It has a chance of escape and its more sporting than shooting at some animal that has just stopped to drink or whatever.

So either unarmed or some hand to hand combat weapon(would probably damage the meat though)

Imagine the difference...some fat man trying to shoot a deer...or some strong man sneaking upto it and wrapping his arms very tightly around its neck. Now which do you see as fair?

For food source, fine....I do agree that it seems ludicrous to call anything a strategy...

I would love to try and throttle one

Cactus wrote:I would love to try and throttle one

You mean after you sneak up on it? You aren't going to try and strangle it first?

Yes, but you have to admire them for their ingenuity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWU0bfo-bSY

I wonder how many candy bars get ripped off that way, lol.

I'm impressed by the obstacle course!!

zoegirl wrote:I'm impressed by the obstacle course!!

Yes, that little red car thingy was cute, lol.


Real men hunt squirrel.



"Please, Cactus, no, don't throttle me!"

I do get annoyed at the hunting shows when the men are all hushed and crouched down and talking strategy as if this is some sort of equal footing. I mean, dude, shoot it, eat it, be done with it, but let's not make it into some game of chess.

And I can even understand the satidfaction of providing food for one's family, or working to get that food and feeling satisfied that you have worked to get that food. But to derive some sort of fulfillment from a challenge of wits? You place doe pee, clack antlers and essentially fool a dumber animal...

I'm not so sure about the dumber animal part, I've seen more than a few stupid hunters out there.

If the rules of fair chase* are put into play then the sport becomes a different game altogether.
No animal is to be taken if is swimming, caught in a snag, trapped in snow,engaged in a territorial fight, etc.

Most states have a "no baiting" law (putting out food to attract the intended animal) but not all of them.

But here is the rub about the animals themselves;
No biologist would reccommend the banishment of hunting as a tool of management.
It is too important to maintain a given herd size for the relative area and hunting is the best tool for that purpose.

Without hunting, herd, covey, flocks, and gaggles would suffer tremendously-the food supply (natural) would diminish
rapidly, allowing for disease and infestation to decimate these groups of animals.

Throw in the thousands of animals that die each year on our highways, thousands more that are taken illegally and double that to come to the figure of how many animals should be taken in any hunting season and you have the biologists estimate
of how it works.

* T. Roosevelt instituted the rules of fair chase just after his last term, culminating in what is now known as The Sierra Club but the S.C. is not the same as it once was having policies radically different today.

BUt isn't the use of smells like urine or the clacking of antlers to attract them similar to food?

I'm not against hunting, I just don't like the overblown accoutrments that seem to have grown around what should be a basic survval need, not an amusement. It does seem rather sad when the killing borders on joy.

And if they were really interested in maintaing the herd, they wouldn't go after the buck with the best points or the most musclular. Doesn't that seem to defeat the purpose of culling the herd? After all, that was what the original predators were meant to do, grab the ones they could.

zoegirl wrote:BUt isn't the use of smells like urine or the clacking of antlers to attract them similar to food?

Yes it is similar in the way of attracting the intended game, but it isn't in any way a sure fire thing.
If a hunter is fair and uses these methods it's about the same as hunting near a popular feeding area or a known route to a natural feeding place.

I'm not against hunting, I just don't like the overblown accoutrments that seem to have grown around what should be a basic survval need, not an amusement. It does seem rather sad when the killing borders on joy.

Maybe I'm an old softy, but the death of an animal was always the down side of a successful hunt.
I do have to admit money entered into the sport and was more of a negative than it should have been, but there was an industry that was born out of a "sport" and from the resulting monies more habitat was created for the care of animals.
The down side of that is when the slob hunters do anything possible to kill largest the targeted game animal.

And if they were really interested in maintaing the herd, they wouldn't go after the buck with the best points or the most musclular. Doesn't that seem to defeat the purpose of culling the herd? After all, that was what the original predators were meant to do, grab the ones they could.

That is one of the problems with managing herds in modern times, there are far fewer and less effective predators now than a 100 yrs. ago.
I haven't hunted in several years so I don't keep up with the numbers in other states, but, in Ky. the "trophy" bucks have increased according to last years tally (over 200,000). I think that is probably due to better management and more funds on both state and federal levels to help keep a sustainable healthy herd size and, remember, a trophy deer, elk, etc. is old and won't be around long anyway even if a hunter never takes it.
Also our turkey population has been steadily on the increase since the introduction.

zoegirl wrote:BUt isn't the use of smells like urine or the clacking of antlers to attract them similar to food?

Yes it is similar in the way of attracting the intended game, but it isn't in any way a sure fire thing.
If a hunter is fair and uses these methods it's about the same as hunting near a popular feeding area or a known route to a natural feeding place.

I'm not against hunting, I just don't like the overblown accoutrments that seem to have grown around what should be a basic survval need, not an amusement. It does seem rather sad when the killing borders on joy.

Maybe I'm an old softy, but the death of an animal was always the down side of a successful hunt.
I do have to admit money entered into the sport and was more of a negative than it should have been, but there is an industry that was born out of a "sport" and from the resulting monies more habitat was created for the care of animals.
The down side of that is when the slob hunters do anything possible to kill the largest targeted game animal.

And if they were really interested in maintaing the herd, they wouldn't go after the buck with the best points or the most musclular. Doesn't that seem to defeat the purpose of culling the herd? After all, that was what the original predators were meant to do, grab the ones they could.

That is one of the problems with managing herds in modern times, there are far fewer and less effective predators now than a 100 yrs. ago.
I haven't hunted in several years so I don't keep up with the numbers in other states, but, in Ky. the "trophy" bucks have increased according to last years tally (over 200,000 deer legally taken). I think that is probably due to better management and more funds on both state and federal levels to help keep a sustainable healthy herd size and, remember, a trophy deer, elk, etc. is old and won't be around long anyway even if a hunter never takes it.
Also our turkey population has been steadily on the increase since the introduction.

with less or without hunting...normally predatory animals would be able to take on the role of human hunters in limiting animal overpopulation.