QuoteIn a disgusting interview, NRA lobbyist Tony Makris defended shooting an elephant in the face and derided critics who called for the cancellation of the NRA sponsored Under Wild Skies.
While on a hunting trip in Botswana, South Africa, Makris shot an elephant in the face for the cameras and then celebrated the act by drinking Champagne.
During an interview on Thursday with NRA talk show host Cam Edwards, Makris branded animal rights activists as the lunatic fringe and explained his reasons for killing the beast. "The short answer is because hungry people eat them and because I'm a hunter. You know, I'm not an elephant hunter. I'm a hunter. I hunt all things. And they go, 'They're so big and kind and gentle and smart.' And I say, 'Okay, let me ask you a question. Should I be able to shoot birds? Well, I guess that's okay. Ducks? Yeah. Pigeons? Oh, they're flying rats, okay. Rabbits? Well, rabbits are cute. But yeah. Squirrels? That's nothing but rat with a tail – a fuzzy tail. And I said 'Well deer eat all my mother's roses in Long Island, so I can shoot all of those but not an elephant?"
He went on to proclaim that activists defending elephant rights were espousing "a very unique form of animal racism."
Responding to the argument (that I believe he only came up with to illustrate just how stupid he considers those activists to be) "But they're so big and special and they're smarter," he couldn't resist saying "You know, Hitler would have said the same thing."
Well, how about this argument, you trigger happy bonehead. You didn't kill that animal for food and you didn't kill it because it was a pest. You killed it just to kill it, and there is something intrinsically wrong with someone who would do such a thing and then toast the act with a glass of bubbly.
I couldn't agree more! I used to hunt and realized it was the thrill of the kill I had been taught because the first time I did I was told to hate the thing I killed, because it was beautiful I couldn't do it. I just wish hunters would admit that is the reason they like it. My brother-in-law argued with me that he only hunts for food, when I was leaving his house I noticed a feather sticking out of his garbage can---there were five dead ducks in the garbage---I brought him outside and asked him if he was going to eat them. :shock: :lol: Solitary
I shot a squirrel once, but have never hunted. Kind of an oddity up here, but my father never hunted either. I'd rather watch the moose eat my garden than go out and cut him up for the freezer.
I wonder how many people he got together to cut the elephant up, preserve the meat, cure the hide, and otherwise make use of it.
I'm guessing the answer is a very round "0" and he's just full of shit.
You'd be surprised. They more than likely cut the elephant up and didn't waste anything. The dude that shot it just took whatever 'trophy' he wanted but the native folks orchestrating the hunt got the rest of the animal not to mention the huge money involved in a hunt like that.
I don't really hunt anymore either but it's not all down side. A lot of the money for maintaining these animals in the wild comes from hunters. It costs a fortune to hunt elephant and other exotic animals. A lot of hunters are conservationists and hate poachers with a passion.
If they completely scavenged the animal and it isn't endangered, I don't really see the problem either.
It just leaves the personal distaste for people who revel in the fact that they've murdered something in a totally unfair fight, but that's just a personal dislike, nothing more.
:-k It can be rationalized all one wants, but the fact is that hunters love to kill. Trophy---take a picture, like to hunt--- take a camera---want to cull the herd use the money for guns, license to hunt (kill), and safaris--- to feed people buy food for them and to create wildlife habitats. That leaves two reasons left to hunt---the thrill of taking a life or protect from man eating animals. :twisted: Solitary
There's a game management reason as well. I'm sure it doesn't come into play much with elephants and such but in the US, there would be some problems managing deer in a lot of places without hunting. Getting run over on the highway or diseased from over population is preferable to being shot by a hunter? There aren't many predators left and a lot of scientists spend a lot of time figuring out how to manage these populations. Hunting is an important part of the management in some areas. There are even hunters paid by the government to help manage game populations. You're not against science are ya?
Quote from: "billhilly"There's a game management reason as well. I'm sure it doesn't come into play much with elephants and such but in the US, there would be some problems managing deer in a lot of places without hunting. Getting run over on the highway or diseased from over population is preferable to being shot by a hunter? There aren't many predators left and a lot of scientists spend a lot of time figuring out how to manage these populations. Hunting is an important part of the management in some areas. There are even hunters paid by the government to help manage game populations. You're not against science are ya?
Science? There are soldiers paid by the government to invade other countries and kill too for good reasons. But that is not what my post is about. It's about hunters not willing to admit they like to kill. And why aren't there many predators left? We have game preserves, why not for deer? If hunting prevents starvation and disease why not hunt people too? Now that has got to be the ultimate hunt and thrill. Back to square one---hunters get a thrill out of killing. I've heard every excuse for hunting and I'm not impressed by the rationalizations' for they don't like to kill. Solitary
Yes, science. People get degrees and study the subject of managing animals. Who'd have thought right?
I'm not making an argument about whether or not hunters like to kill. Feelings are irrelevant to managing deer. There are preserves for deer but the vast majority of deer live outside game preserves. Should they all be eradicated so you don't have to feel bad about some hunter shooting them. I get that it's an emotional thing for you but where do you draw your line? Is it ok to manage populations of any animals? Mice? Mosquitoes?
QuoteSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid is implicated in a breaking scandal, pushing for government funding of the Chinese green energy company ENN Mojave Energy LLC, which is apparently represented by his son. Earlier, Reid was involved in a land swindle that saw him make a reported $700,000. - See Las Vegas Review-Journal, August 3, 2012 and Media Matters, October 18, 2006
Harry Reid is a Democrat. Harry Reid was caught using his position to enrich himself. Therefore, all Democrats use their positions in government to enrich themselves.
One hunter did something which others didn't like. Therefore, all hunters are crazy wacko killers. There is no need to investigate any further, one hunter did something which may be morally wrong in some people's minds, therefore it is only morally right to condemn all hunters. After all, we know what is going through their minds better than they do.
Serial killers usually start off killing and torturing small animals before working their way up to larger and more dangerous game.
Jason78 wrote:
QuoteSerial killers usually start off killing and torturing small animals before working their way up to larger and more dangerous game.
I respectfully disagree. They start off torturing and killing small animals. Doesn't make any sense trying to do it the other way around.
Makris said one thing that's correct - on Long Island, almost all over, deer are currently pests. They're indigenous to the island, and we've paved over most of it, leaving them nowhere to go but our gardens.
And I do have to admit that venison is a good meat.
And herd management is needed in many places in the US.
But killing an animal just for killing? Or for a trophy? I hunted deer as a kid, but the head was considered food, not something to hang on a wall. (If you wanted antlers you waited until the bucks shed them, then picked them up off the ground.) We seen to have a natural urge to hunt - we come from a very long line of hunters - but our ancestors hunted for food or defense, not to decorate their caves.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Jason78 wrote: QuoteSerial killers usually start off killing and torturing small animals before working their way up to larger and more dangerous game.
I respectfully disagree. They start off torturing and killing small animals. Doesn't make any sense trying to do it the other way around.
I wasn't trying to suggest a specific chronological order. If I had, I would have phrased it slightly differently. Had I said "Serial killers usually start off killing and
then torturing small animals", you might have had a point.
Jason78, I'm not sure you got my point. A good hunter strives for a clean kill. Meaning they try to avoid making the animal suffer. Did you ever see the movie "The Deerhunter?" One shot the deer takes one step and drops dead. Generally, a hunter aims for the heart because if they miss a little the lungs are taken out. Ideally they hit the heart which results in a quicker death than the lungs, but taking out the lungs results in a fairly quick death.
The other alternative, used because the animal is facing towards the hunter, is a brain shot. Generally avoided because a slight miss can just give the animal a bad headache. So, when someone shoots an animal "in the face" he is going for a brain shot so the animal dies as quickly as possible.
Obviously, if you want to portray the hunter as a savage want-to-be serial killer, you don't say he killed the animal quickly and cleanly with a brain shot. You say he shot the animal in his face. Sounds more brutal, helping to make your point that all hunters just want to torture animals. Of course, to those who know anything about hunting, someone saying such a thing merely exposes the person's prejudice against hunters.
Had Tony Makris tortured the animal, I would be as outraged as the anti-hunter who wrote the article. But, as he went for clean quick kill, I have no problem with it. Elephants in Africa make the damage deer do in Long Island look like nothing. The locals probably love it when some stupid white man pays big money to shoot the animal tearing up their fields and eating the food for their cattle. That and you get most of the meat from the elephant too. Sweet deal!
Quote from: "billhilly"Yes, science. People get degrees and study the subject of managing animals. Who'd have thought right?
I'm not making an argument about whether or not hunters like to kill. Feelings are irrelevant to managing deer. There are preserves for deer but the vast majority of deer live outside game preserves. Should they all be eradicated so you don't have to feel bad about some hunter shooting them. I get that it's an emotional thing for you but where do you draw your line? Is it ok to manage populations of any animals? Mice? Mosquitoes?
But that's the point I am making the argument that hunters like to kill. Did I say I felt bad, all I said is I'd like for hunters to admit they like to kill instead of all the excuses they use for doing it. It'd not an emotional thing for me, I admit I liked to shoot and kill after I was taught to and I have done it. So hunters hunt for mice, and mosquitoes now? This topic is about hunters liking to kill, show me they don't, and if they don't, show me why they don't.
Rationalizing why they kill isn't going to do it for me even if it is for game management. Also I'm talking about avid hunters not those that do it because it is their job that may. or may not, like it or get a thrill out of it. I draw the line with the likes of Ted Nugent! Solitary
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"QuoteSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid is implicated in a breaking scandal, pushing for government funding of the Chinese green energy company ENN Mojave Energy LLC, which is apparently represented by his son. Earlier, Reid was involved in a land swindle that saw him make a reported $700,000. - See Las Vegas Review-Journal, August 3, 2012 and Media Matters, October 18, 2006
Harry Reid is a Democrat. Harry Reid was caught using his position to enrich himself. Therefore, all Democrats use their positions in government to enrich themselves.
One hunter did something which others didn't like. Therefore, all hunters are crazy wacko killers. There is no need to investigate any further, one hunter did something which may be morally wrong in some people's minds, therefore it is only morally right to condemn all hunters. After all, we know what is going through their minds better than they do.[/q
Just for the record, all I said is that hunters like to kill, I never said they shouldn't or brought up the morality of it, in fact I said I did and enjoyed it. Why would you go out and kill if you didn't like it? You job, your duty? This topic is about one thing only---why don't hunters admit they like to kill? Morality, science, politicians, emotions, and animal husbandry has been brought up about the subject of hunters like to kill. Why, it's irrelevant to the subject "they like to kill?" Solitary
When I was hunting, I never liked to actually make the kill. I enjoyed all the other stuff though. But, you can't convince people who are against hunting, that it is not about making the kill. It is about being in the outdoors, enjoying the technicalities of your weapon, learning about and observing nature, being able to prepare your own food. And keeping calm cool and collected while concentrating on bringing everything you learned together to make the shot. For just a few seconds having a Zen like mind completely devoted to the moment. The actually killing always broke my heart a little.
Not that a anti-hunter would ever understand that. Nor the hunters who do actually enjoy the killing. People think differently about the same things. It is just the way it is.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"When I was hunting, I never liked to actually make the kill. I enjoyed all the other stuff though. But, you can't convince people who are against hunting, that it is not about making the kill. It is about being in the outdoors, enjoying the technicalities of your weapon, learning about and observing nature, being able to prepare your own food. And keeping calm cool and collected while concentrating on bringing everything you learned together to make the shot. For just a few seconds having a Zen like mind completely devoted to the moment. The actually killing always broke my heart a little.
Not that a anti-hunter would ever understand that. Nor the hunters who do actually enjoy the killing. People think differently about the same things. It is just the way it is.
You can't enjoy all of those things without killing? Why do you think I'm anti hunting, the posted article was not made by me but I agree about what it said about that particular hunter. All I said is that hunters like the thrill of killing and to admit it. Also I said I had to learn to like it by making the target a non sentient creature. If it broke your heart why did you keep doing it? Just for all the things you enjoyed that could still be enjoyed without the killing. Wouldn't that have been even more fun to just enjoy nature the way it is without the broken heart? Also feeling bad after the thrill of killing is a normal reaction, but it doesn't change that the kill was thrilling or exciting like shooting a target, what this topic is about and nothing more. Solitary
Solitary wrote in part:
QuoteAll I said is that hunters like the thrill of killing and to admit it.
I am sorry Solitary. I just don't get it. I hunted because I felt it was the responsible thing to do, to help manage animal populations. Also, if I didn't kill the animal, how could I eat it? Preparing and eating the animal I killed was part of the enjoyment of hunting. I felt I was getting in touch with nature and our human history.
Also, I saw myself as helping in the conservation of America, with my hunting license fees and by gladly paying the extra tax on hunting and fishing equipment.
I know it would be easier and cheaper to go to a store and buy my meat already slaughtered and butchered, but that doesn't teach me much. And dealing with a killing something is part of getting in touch with the real world. Not a thrill for me. I would be lying if I said it was. I don't think I am alone in having this view. Sorry you can't admit that there might be something more to something then you can understand. Eating meat only when someone else has slaughtered the animal and then condemning those who do the actual slaughtering is hypocrisy. So, unless you are a vegan, I would say you are a hypocrite.
I am not saying that all hunters are ethical and there are none who don't get a thrill from killing. I am saying not all hunters get a thrill from killing. And an ethical hunter puts down the animal as quickly as they can. Even if that means shooting through the animals face to get a brain shot.
QuoteRationalizing why they kill isn't going to do it for me even if it is for game management.
No arguing with that.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Solitary wrote in part: QuoteAll I said is that hunters like the thrill of killing and to admit it.
I am sorry Solitary. I just don't get it. I hunted because I felt it was the responsible thing to do, to help manage animal populations. Also, if I didn't kill the animal, how could I eat it? Preparing and eating the animal I killed was part of the enjoyment of hunting. I felt I was getting in touch with nature and our human history.
Also, I saw myself as helping in the conservation of America, with my hunting license fees and by gladly paying the extra tax on hunting and fishing equipment.
I know it would be easier and cheaper to go to a store and buy my meat already slaughtered and butchered, but that doesn't teach me much. And dealing with a killing something is part of getting in touch with the real world. Not a thrill for me. I would be lying if I said it was. I don't think I am alone in having this view. Sorry you can't admit that there might be something more to something then you can understand. Eating meat only when someone else has slaughtered the animal and then condemning those who do the actual slaughtering is hypocrisy. So, unless you are a vegan, I would say you are a hypocrite.
I am not saying that all hunters are ethical and there are none who don't get a thrill from killing. I am saying not all hunters get a thrill from killing. And an ethical hunter puts down the animal as quickly as they can. Even if that means shooting through the animals face to get a brain shot.
So now we go out and kill to be taught and be responsible and do the good thing? Killing is a good thing when it prevents disease and starving when all the money spent could do better without killing? Should we do the good thing and kill people for the same reasoning because they are human animals? Again I am not against hunting for food, only people like you that take it off topic with rationalization and won't admit they got excited and a thrill out of shooting a gun or bow and arrow to kill even if they regret it or feel bad after. I never condemned anyone for hunting or killing animals for food, don't put words in my mouth! All I said is that hunters enjoy the excitement and thrill of killing and admit it---why is that a problem for you to admit it? And why do you bring ethics into it when the topic is about the thrill of the kill? Also, I'm not saying all hunters are sadistic either by saying they get a thrill out of killing by a clean shot. I've always wanted to shoot an elephant in the face, what could be more exciting and thrilling knowing I made it quick and painless, and I could feel good by being so considerate after by rationalizing it? :rolleyes: Solitary
I'm pretty sure LikelyToBreak has been explaining how he doesn't enjoy killing anything. Unless you know he feels better than he does himself, you should probably accept that he feels how he feels.
Solitary wrote in part:
QuoteAll I said is that hunters enjoy the excitement and thrill of killing and admit it---why is that a problem for you to admit it?
Because I would be lying. Just because you think I get a thrill out of it, doesn't make it so. And I refuse to lie just to make someone else feel better about themselves. Sorry, but I don't believe that lying leads to a better world.
The rest of what Solitary wrote doesn't make sense to me. It seems Solitary is referring to a slippery slope type of argument. He is also seems to be saying that as long as some hunters get a thrill out of killing, that they all do. Which I tried to show was illogical. If someone used this same type of argument about a race, they would justifiably be called a racist. Why can't Solitary admit that not all hunters are the same?
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Solitary wrote in part: QuoteAll I said is that hunters enjoy the excitement and thrill of killing and admit it---why is that a problem for you to admit it?
Because I would be lying. Just because you think I get a thrill out of it, doesn't make it so. And I refuse to lie just to make someone else feel better about themselves. Sorry, but I don't believe that lying leads to a better world.
The rest of what Solitary wrote doesn't make sense to me. It seems Solitary is referring to a slippery slope type of argument. He is also seems to be saying that as long as some hunters get a thrill out of killing, that they all do. Which I tried to show was illogical. If someone used this same type of argument about a race, they would justifiably be called a racist. Why can't Solitary admit that not all hunters are the same?
And your appeal to the audience fallacy and that saying you don't lie about how you felt at the time of actually doing the act doesn't prove you didn't enjoy it either. Also taking it out of context with a Strawman fallacy by bringing race into it doesn't either. Also, the argument I made was about hunters that get a thrill out of the kill and won't admit it when they do. I never said all hunters are the same only that they get a thrill out of the kill and won't admit it. I admit all hunters are not the same, only the ones that get a thrill out of the kill and don't admit it. Solitary
Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we'll be doing something that we don't want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn't do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible. I never said a person should not hunt, only that they get a thrill out of the kill and won't admit it.
Everyone who watches car races do so because they want to see someone die in a wreck. Anybody who watches car races who doesn't admit to wanting to watch someone die in them is a liar. Does that make sense? Or could it be that some people enjoy watching what technology is capable of? Maybe they are mechanics and enjoy the pitstops more than the race itself. Or let's just go to a broad rationalization and say all car racing fans like to watch people die.
Maybe I am the only hunter ever who didn't get a thrill out of killing an animal. That doesn't make me a liar because I say so. It makes me the one white crow which proves that not all crows are black. Or maybe I am such a good liar that I lie to myself so well that I don't even know it. Could be, after all anything is possible. There might very well be a flying spaghetti monster who rules the universe. Can you prove otherwise?
As far as the slippery slope I referred to, it was because of this sentence Solitary wrote:
QuoteShould we do the good thing and kill people for the same reasoning because they are human animals?
I'll let others decide if that is a slippery slope argument or not.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Everyone who watches car races do so because they want to see someone die in a wreck. Anybody who watches car races who doesn't admit to wanting to watch someone die in them is a liar. Does that make sense? NO! Because some do and some don't, but they do like to see the wrecks. Or could it be that some people enjoy watching what technology is capable of? Maybe they are mechanics and enjoy the pitstops more than the race itself. Again you arguing about why some people enjoy what they watch which has nothing to do with hunters getting pleasure from the kill. Or let's just go to a broad rationalization and say all car racing fans like to watch people die. That is a non sequitur fallacy and not true unless a person is a psychopath. I think people get a thrill out of car wrecks even if they feel bad after if someone got killed, just like people feel bad after they get a thrill while killing and feel bad after if they have any compassion for the animal.
Maybe I am the only hunter ever who didn't get a thrill out of killing an animal. That doesn't make me a liar because I say so. It makes me the one white crow which proves that not all crows are black. No, it only proves you have no idea how you feel at the moment of the kill. I never said you lied, only that you haven't really answered why you can't enjoy all the things you do in nature without the kill. Eat the game, you kill still don't explain why you don't get a thrill or enjoy it at the moment it happens. You keep making it sound like I'm against hunting or don't understand all the reasons to go hunting which has nothing to do with the killing. Or maybe I am such a good liar that I lie to myself so well that I don't even know it. Could be, after all anything is possible. There might very well be a flying spaghetti monster who rules the universe. Can you prove otherwise? No! And I can't prove what are facts with logic either, only give my opinion just like you. But I can prove an argument is not so if the terms are agreed upon as facts if the argument isn't sound.
As far as the slippery slope I referred to, it was because of this sentence Solitary wrote: QuoteShould we do the good thing and kill people for the same reasoning because they are human animals?
I'll let others decide if that is a slippery slope argument or not.
Appeal to the gallery or poisoning the well doesn't help prove you are correct no matter how many people agree with you that are biased hunters. You don't understand it is the same argument you are using to do good by killing animals that aren't human if they will starve to death---again, this is not what the argument is about---using rationalization to justify why you hunt doesn't prove you don't get a thrill out of the kill.
Why would you feel bad after if it didn't effect you emotionally when you did it? Are you only unemotional when you fire a shot at a target or make a clean kill? You are the only hunter I have heard that doesn't get excited by the kill. So maybe you don't, but I doubt it very much you don't feel a rush of adrenalin when you fire your gun or bow and kill. I really didn't mean to get you upset, but when a person celebrates after they kill something I have a problem when they say the kill wasn't a thrill when I have yet to see a hunter that wasn't excited by his hunt only if he succeeded. Solitary
I know there are a number of cat lovers on this forum. Over the years I've seen quite a few cats hunt shrews. A long time ago I also kept chickens and one day my cat was playing with a shrew. I was so impressed with the brave of the shrew that I picked up the cat so the little devil could escape. He ran straight into the chicken yard. It had never occurred to me that chickens might be omnivorous. I'd always assumed they were vegetarian, but no, the first chicken to spot the shrew picked him up in her beak and started running. Every chicken in the yard hot on her tail. She dropped it and a second later another chicken had it and was off.
I should have just let the cat have it. I can only imagine the horror of that shrews last minutes with 15 different chickens fighting over it.
A little off topic, I know, but it makes me laugh to remember that incident. I don't hunt, but a lot of people up here do and it's part of our nature.
QuoteShould we do the good thing and kill people for the same reasoning because they are human animals?
I think we call that "war".
"You know, Hitler would have said the same thing."
"You know, Hitler would have said the same thing."
"You know, Hitler would have said the same thing."
"You know, Hitler would have said the same thing."
"You know, Hitler would have said the same thing."
"You know, Hitler would have said the same thing."
"You know, Hitler would have said the same thing."
"You know, Hitler would have said the same thing."
Best. Quote. Ever.
Yep, hunting is so much fun without the thrill of the kill, and does so much good. Watch the boredom of waiting for a clean shot and no thrill or excitement from shooting an arrow into a dear and watching it struggle for life instead of having to suffer starvation. It's obvious that shooting the dear wasn't a thrill or fun watching it thrash on the ground in agony. What is more fun though than taking a life and make a clean shot so it doesn't suffer starvation. And just think how good venison tastes when it's bled correctly and the good you do giving it to people that need food. Such a noble sport. I think I'll buy a hunting rifle and go buffalo hunting because I love buffalo burgers. I promise I won't get excited and have a thrill killing it. =P~ Solitary.
[youtube:3kqsobuy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZPn3Lep6ho[/youtube:3kqsobuy]
I'm pretty sure there's a logical fallacy for what you're trying to accomplish here.
How many hunters would be willing to give up killing game and accept this?
QuoteI have talked with a great many hunters,`` she said. ``When I talk with them, they end up throwing their hands in the air and saying, `You just don`t understand!` And I agree--I don`t understand how people can kill animals and derive joy out of it.
``The interesting thing is, many hunters don`t fit the stereotype at all. Many of them I have found to be caring people. They tell me that they like to hunt because they enjoy being outdoors having good times with their friends
--and that if an animal comes along, they feel obligated to shoot it. But they tell me that they get no thrill out of doing the actual killing.``
So Diane Pearson thought a lot about it, and she came up with a new plan for hunting. She has committed it to paper, and I will excerpt some of it here.
``Hunters would gather in their comrade packs, as they`ve always done, and prepare for a week`s worth of camping and hunting. They would purchase their hunting licenses, and go out looking for deer.
``Once established in the wilderness, each hunter would stalk his prey and, as he got within range, sight in on the target with an odd-looking rifle. Aiming carefully, he shoots. A sound very much like the sound of a bullet exploding from the rifle cracks the air, and the herd stampedes. Even though no animal has fallen to the ground, the hunter has been successful. A small light on the rifle glows red, indicating a direct kill--and an instant photograph of his target falls to the hunter`s feet.
``Pleased and confident, the hunter makes his way back to the camp with his `kill.` When he arrives at camp, another one of his buddies has also made a kill and is already displaying the photograph. The two hunters compare photographs and establish who made the bigger and better `kill.`
``The others hunters try, over the next few days, to also make their hunting licenses pay off. Soon there are several pictures hanging at the campsite.
``On the day of their scheduled return, the hunters swing by the ranger station to register their kills. A ranger examines the photograph to verify its authenticity, and then directs the hunter to drive around to the back of the station. There the ranger directs that an appropriate deer carcass be tied onto the hunter`s vehicle. The kill is matched according to sex and size of the animal in the photograph as closely as possible.
``Triumphantly, the hunter returns home.``
Ah . . . but now you are asking, where do these deer carcasses come from? Diane Pearson has an answer to that.
``Two weeks before the hunting season officially opens, armed rangers gather at selected spots in the woods. They go out in teams to where herds have been spotted earlier in the day by helicopter. They then kill selected animals: those animals that are old, sick, or obviously small and weak are shot. Then, all except the sick are hauled away in refrigerated trucks and tested for disease, to later be distributed to the successful hunters.
``The result? No hunters are accidentally shot or killed. Farmers can rest easier knowing their cattle are safe. No wounded animals will be left to suffer on their own if the hunter is unable to catch up to them.
``And, most importantly, the deer population is thinned--not by taking the biggest and strongest (those that can best survive a long, cold winter without starving), but by taking those that appear to have the greatest possibility of starving. This `more natural selection` would insure that the larger, stronger animals would be alive to breed in the spring, thus providing a deer population that would be larger, stronger and healthier for generations to come.
``There is only one real change in this method of hunting from the old method: The hunter does not actually kill the animal himself. But, then, no hunter I have ever talked with admitted the killing aspect to be a joy of hunting. The reasons most hunters cite are: saving animals from starving through the winter; hunting for food; getting back to nature; the skill needed in stalking the prey and in the aim required to kill it; an excuse for the
`boys` to get together; and tradition.``
Diane Pearson said that, as much sense as her method makes to her, it will probably never come to pass.
``For all the hunters` protestations,`` she said, ``there are still a lot of people out there who secretly believe that they cannot be real men until they have personally destroyed a life. I guess that`s the sad truth.``
The Thing about hunting is that it wouldn't be Called hunting without the Process of killing an animal! As for the thrill, That comes from the hunt itself! The pure adrenaline rush you get from getting so close to an animal Being at one with nature, is really quite thrilling! Hunting wouldn't be hunting without the killing, it would just be nature watching!
This would really make an interesting study and see how many still liked hunting without the kill. Solitary
When I was 14, I went deer hunting with my great uncle's family in Northern Minnesota. I was excited, as it sounded so cool, into the woods, guns, tracking and stalking and all that. I shot a medium sized buck, and felt so proud as all the older guys patted me on the back, but when I walked up and saw that deer on the ground, dead, I felt sick, as in "why the hell did I just kill an innocent wild animal?" It got even worse when my cousin shot a deer as it was running away from him. It was hit in the ass and fell down. It was literally screaming like a baby until he came up and cut its throat with a knife. I never went hunting again.
Quote from: "Plu"I'm pretty sure there's a logical fallacy for what you're trying to accomplish here.
No there isn't! Maybe the next post will show you. That you are poisoning the well with a fallacy doesn't help your argument or show I'm wrong about hunters like to kill. Would you still hunt if there wasn't a killing involved? If the answer is yes honestly you proved me wrong. So far the killing part has been avoided by issues that have nothing to do with my claim. It's like the killing never happened, even though they feel bad after, to people that claim they didn't like it for the thrill of the kill just the hunt and being out in nature, like feeling bad makes it OK to kill. Solitary
I don't actually hunt at all. Don't want to, either. But that doesn't make posting anecdotes and videos of specific people into an argument. It remains anecdotal evidence.
So I made a informal fallacy. But it does show that these hunters think it is funny to watch a deer suffering and laughing about it. No it doesn't prove or show all hunters do this, but it does make a point that supports my contention, anecdotal or not, (Which is usually describes a funny situation.) that the thrill of killing exists and is evidence for it. And you say: "But that doesn't make posting anecdotes and videos of specific people into an argument." Which is saying what? :P :lol: Solitary
I enjoy canoing, but never bother to take a fishing rod with me. If I'm on a fishing trip with others, I prefer to catch and release. My cousin is an avid hunter, but he always gives his kill to the local homeless shelter. At least that way something good comes out of it.
Quote from: "Plu"If they completely scavenged the animal and it isn't endangered, I don't really see the problem either.
It just leaves the personal distaste for people who revel in the fact that they've murdered something in a totally unfair fight, but that's just a personal dislike, nothing more.
I've always seen more honor in hunting something that can kill you as well. Elephants would qualify, so would wild hogs.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Quote from: "Plu"If they completely scavenged the animal and it isn't endangered, I don't really see the problem either.
It just leaves the personal distaste for people who revel in the fact that they've murdered something in a totally unfair fight, but that's just a personal dislike, nothing more.
I've always seen more honor in hunting something that can kill you as well. Elephants would qualify, so would wild hogs.
My real dad told me when I was around 16 and hunting every day if I thought having a gun and able to kill made me feel like a man. He told me if I really want to feel like a man go out and kill them with my bare hands starting with a badger. I did, and never knew I could run so fast after I grabbed him and he made a sound from hell and I dropped him, as he kept chasing me. What a rush and thrill, better than I ever had from hunting with a rifle. Next thing my dad did was take me where they were skydiving in town and asked me if I thought I was brave enough to do it. I did, and have never since been as scared as the first time, and had such a hard time doing it the second time after have done it before than anything I've done before.
It is without a doubt an ultimate thrill. The only thing that has ever possessed me with every thinking thought Accept automobile racing and alpine skiing. If I could have at the time it is all I would have done being addicted to the rush and being totally relaxed after for months. I miss the life I had when young and able! Speaking of wild hogs. I had a friend take me bow hunting for wild hogs. I was in a path in high grass when I heard snorting and hoof beats coming toward me and all of a sudden this huge hog came right at me with his tusks gleaming. Just by instinct I jumped in the air as he ran under me. When my friend found me all wild eyed he couldn't stop laughing. I didn't think it was funny. They are scary and can really run fast. Solitary
Solitary wrote in part:
QuoteSo I made a informal fallacy. But it does show that these hunters think it is funny to watch a deer suffering and laughing about it.
May I suggest listening to the tape again. Try noticing the hitch in their voices. Also, notice how they are trying to sound manly to each other. The laughter only proves emotion. When I had appendicitis, I laughed all the way to the operating room. The nurses thought I was nuts. But, it isn't manly to cry, so I laughed.
I guess hunting to me isn't the thrill of the kill, it is the thrill of playing Daniel Boone. Which is why it was always important to me to use as much of the animal as I could. Admittedly, I did mess up on things while trying to learn though. Still, I tried to do my best to use what I could and make the meat into a nice meal for my family. I got more satisfaction from seeing my family enjoy the meal then I did in the actual hunt. Yeah, I do get satisfaction from my family eating and enjoying the meals I make even when I didn't kill the animal. But, I feel I am more in touch with how the world really is when I harvested the meat myself. The same as a gardener feels when placing food which they grew on the table.
I enjoy history. I like documentaries as well as books about history. Although I know that the history in historical movies is stretched, I enjoy them as well. Hunting always helped me feel in touch with my ancestors and others who came before me.
Yes, saying it is for the meat is a rationalization for hunting, but who wants to admit they just want to play Daniel Boone? Just because some of them get a thrill out of killing, doesn't mean all hunters are bad. Sending out rangers to do the killing will only increase the cost to the government and make the rangers who do it, numb to killing. They do have some professional ranger hunters, but mostly for pest control because they can't get enough hunters to pay for the privilege of killing pests. But, there are not many because the government can usually just ask hunters to help thin pest populations. Remember when there were bounties on some animals?
Why don't you admit, you just don't like hunters? You see Ted Nugent as the typical hunter and figure we are all raging assholes. Or maybe you just want to take away the "excuse" to have firearms. Either way, I think you are being narrow minded on the subject. There is no one blanket statement about how everyone feels about anything. Accept that people are different. Some are raging assholes and some are just regular assholes. It is the way it is.
I won't admit it anymore than those that won't admit they like to kill that hunt. I was a hunter and would now if I could. All I said is hunters get a thrill and enjoy the kill. How does that show I hate hunters? :roll: Why has this whole subject that hunters enjoy killing keep getting derailed by rationalizations; and not one person has admitted they like to kill that go hunting? Again would any of you that could go hunting without the kill keep doing it? Why the hell does everyone here think I'm making a judgment call that liking to kill is wrong? I'm not, there are good reasons to kill and I've heard them all, but why the denial hunting is enjoyed by the kill as well as every other reason for it?
I have never in my life from any avid hunter admit they like to kill when it is obvious to me that every single one I have known did without acception even though every single one denied it. Why is that so hard to admit to? And why the backlash at me because I do admit I did? There is a big difference from getting excited and a thrill from killing than enjoying the suffering of animals after that don't die instantly. I'm not saying all hunters enjoy that, only that there is a thrill in killing as well as other reasons to enjoy hunting. :roll: Jesus H Christ, now I'm trying to get rid of guns when I have para ordinance 45 loaded with blue tip glazers by saying hunters get a thrill when they kill. What's next, I'm a terrorist that hates the US? Nothing like getting off subject again and poisoning the well! :Hangman: #-o :rolleyes: Solitary
Actually, I do sort of hunt without killing. I call it birdwatching and taking pictures of birds, but it is very much like hunting. I get up early and drive a long ways. It helps to be quiet and still. Target verification is essential and getting the right angle of attack is desired. Knowing your equipment an using it for optimum efficiency is also necessary. Though, it is probably not enough like hunting to satisfy some people that I still hunt without killing.
Since 1963, people have been attacking firearms and hunting. We tend to have a knee-jerk reaction whenever someone brings those subjects up. So, we answer the unspoken questions which we have heard so many times, that they just bounce in our heads. Sorry, about that.
Still, I never actually got a thrill out of killing. It was just something I did to get to where I wanted to go. Though I don't doubt there are hunters who get a thrill from killing out there. I think there are many like me that do what we have to do to get what we want done, done. There have been many shots I could have taken but found a reason not to. Partly because I wanted to be safe, first and foremost, and also because I didn't like the actual kill part of hunting. But, I was taught growing up a man sucks up his emotions and does what a man has to do, regardless if they like it or not.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Actually, I do sort of hunt without killing. I call it birdwatching and taking pictures of birds, but it is very much like hunting. I get up early and drive a long ways. It helps to be quiet and still. Target verification is essential and getting the right angle of attack is desired. Knowing your equipment an using it for optimum efficiency is also necessary. Though, it is probably not enough like hunting to satisfy some people that I still hunt without killing.
Since 1963, people have been attacking firearms and hunting. We tend to have a knee-jerk reaction whenever someone brings those subjects up. So, we answer the unspoken questions which we have heard so many times, that they just bounce in our heads. Sorry, about that.
Still, I never actually got a thrill out of killing. It was just something I did to get to where I wanted to go. Though I don't doubt there are hunters who get a thrill from killing out there. I think there are many like me that do what we have to do to get what we want done, done. There have been many shots I could have taken but found a reason not to. Partly because I wanted to be safe, first and foremost, and also because I didn't like the actual kill part of hunting. But, I was taught growing up a man sucks up his emotions and does what a man has to do, regardless if they like it or not.
:lol: Believe me I know what you mean. You mean just before you made the shot you weren't excited by an emotional rush? I didn't mean to imply that every hunter enjoys killing, just the thrill just before shooting and the act, even if after they don't like what they did after. This is the problem with words they mean so many different things to different people. I'm with you on hunting without the kill and taking pictures as a trophy, enjoying nature, the hunt itself, the eating of game you like oops! a hunter slip! :lol: I honestly don't think most avid hunters would be satisfied hunting without a kill involved. It satisfies a primitive lust we have from too many male hormones when younger. Sorry ladies that like to hunt! 8-[ -------Am I safe now? :rollin: Solitary
Solitary asked:
QuoteYou mean just before you made the shot you weren't excited by an emotional rush?
No, it felt more like concentrate and do it. I have to admit, the rush for me was in finding the animal, then it kind of went downhill from there. Thus, the hesitancy before shooting.