Aerial Hunting: What the ****?!

[Steerpike]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=aerial+hunting&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

There's a smorgasboard of info on this just on the front page of Google.

For those two lazy to click on the link(s), let me sum it up. Aerial hunting is the practice of firing on wolves and bears from low-flying small aircraft for sport. It's mostly an Alaskan thing right now since the winters make it impossible for the animals to find anywhere to run or hide.

There's an on-going campaign to have this practice banned. Thoughts?

[Babble]

This issue is too specific, I feel.

We need to define our ethics on hunting before we can make ethical decision on a specific issue.

Why is shooting an animal from an airplane different from shooting it from the ground? The entire idea of hunting is that the animal has so little chance of survival that it's easy enough for a more or less untrained imbecile to pick up a gun and put on some camouflage and kill something.

[Steerpike]

Well, if we want to get general, sport hunting is conceptually stupid. It's not a sport, it's a juvenile power fantasy for people who are either terminally retarded or criminally insane. To be perfectly honest, I would support putting a ban on shooting anything you have no intention of eating.

The reason I'm getting specific with aerial hunting is because it poses a new set of issues.

The primary targets here are wolves and bears, which actually can cause more ecological damage because it removes the natural predators from an environment, meaning everything else can multiply unchecked. Because of the nature of hunting from the air, it's also possible to take out entire clusters of animals. Aerial hunters made headlines when they slaughtered an entire wolf pack, then landed, found the den, and shot the pups as well.

Ecology aside, Sarah Palin wanted to introduce a law awarding a $150 to hunters who brought in the severed forelimbs of wolves. The people who hunt wolves in Alaska are mostly aerial hunters, who are all rich because the practice costs hundreds of dollars for a single flight. Giving these people the bounty would simply allow them to take a hunting trip that pays for itself. And that bounty would come from, where else, tax money.

The whole thing is a massive circle jerk of bloodthirsty insanity.

[808]

Well, if we want to get general, sport hunting is conceptually stupid. It's not a sport, it's a juvenile power fantasy for people who are either terminally retarded or criminally insane. To be perfectly honest, I would support putting a ban on shooting anything you have no intention of eating.

The reason I'm getting specific with aerial hunting is because it poses a new set of issues.

The primary targets here are wolves and bears, which actually can cause more ecological damage because it removes the natural predators from an environment, meaning everything else can multiply unchecked. Because of the nature of hunting from the air, it's also possible to take out entire clusters of animals. Aerial hunters made headlines when they slaughtered an entire wolf pack, then landed, found the den, and shot the pups as well.

Ecology aside, Sarah Palin wanted to introduce a law awarding a $150 to hunters who brought in the severed forelimbs of wolves. The people who hunt wolves in Alaska are mostly aerial hunters, who are all rich because the practice costs hundreds of dollars for a single flight. Giving these people the bounty would simply allow them to take a hunting trip that pays for itself. And that bounty would come from, where else, tax money.

The whole thing is a massive circle jerk of bloodthirsty insanity.

Agreed.

[Jude]

Sport hunting in general should be banned unless there's an overpopulation problem

[Babble]

It wouldn't be hard to argue that point.

I don't think it's possible to justify sport hunting without removing any value from animal life, including possibly any ecological and shared-experience value (sort of broader golden rule ethos).

If we can justify killing one for sport, we can probably justify killing an entire pack, since to kill one we'd more or less be claiming that the life of such an animal has a value less than pure entertainment.

Does the life of such an animal have less value than that of a self-hunted food source? Maybe. Probably, even, because that's the way of nature.

[Avalanche.]

I shoot and kill pest and nuisance animals humanely, but I think it is wrong to kill apex predators or any animal of that nature in large groups or clusters.

[Babble]

I don't think it's a huge leap of faith to say that the life of an insect has less value than human convenience and comfort (whether or not you like the wording, that's the case) as long as it doesn't disrupt the ecological cycle (because human comfort is not in my view more valuable than human comfort).

Why is it wrong to kill an animal or group of animals just because of the number or nature of the predator, assuming that it will not disrupt the ecological cycle?

More than likely, the best answer is shared experience, which is completely valid in my opinion. The value of preserving shared experience exceeds the value of pure entertainment. There are other ways to entertain oneself.

[Sunshine]

Sport hunting in general should be banned unless there's an overpopulation problem

Yesss.

[Jude]

Now if you eat everything you kill then hunting is awesome, don't get me wrong

Way more humane way of feeding a family than buying meat off cows that lived their life in a box

[Sunshine]

's what I was agreeing with most.
Hunting is fine if you're going to use the damn animal.
But shooting **** for kicks is entirely unnecessary.

[Already_Taken]

Now if you eat everything you kill then hunting is awesome, don't get me wrong

Way more humane way of feeding a family than buying meat off cows that lived their life in a box

it's better that way, the muscles stay more tender and accumulate better marbling.

[Sunshine]

And it's more natural!!

[Jude]

Last year I lived in a house with 9 other people (was awesome) and one of them shot a deer and it fed us for like a month it was awesome

except I was on semester abroad for half of that month but still same thing

that semester was ****ing awesome I lived in the West Bank for 3 weeks

[Mr. Ron]

instances were trophy hunters don't eat what they kill or donate it to some organization or family is incredibly rare and hardly EVER happens. This is getting blown out of proportion.


I don't agree with this aerial hunting, but I don't think there's anything wrong with hunting for, say, a trophy deer just because its a trophy deer and eating its meat later on.

[Otherside]

no ron your wrong all guns should be illegal

[AyatollahKhomeini]

More than likely, the best answer is shared experience, which is completely valid in my opinion. The value of preserving shared experience exceeds the value of pure entertainment. There are other ways to entertain oneself.

wait- what is shared experience?

don't these kind of hunters enjoy hunting because they feel a "shared expereice" between themselves and natural predators?

[Mr. Ron]

no ron your wrong all guns should be illegal

my eyes have been opened. @_@

[Babble]

I think empathy was the word I was looking for last night.

And no, I don't believe hunters empathize with the animals they hunt.

[Jude]

instances were trophy hunters don't eat what they kill or donate it to some organization or family is incredibly rare and hardly EVER happens. This is getting blown out of proportion.


I don't agree with this aerial hunting, but I don't think there's anything wrong with hunting for, say, a trophy deer just because its a trophy deer and eating its meat later on.

Well of course

but you have to keep in mind that the thing allowing it to be legal is eating it and not it being a trophy deer

[Mr. Ron]

I think empathy was the word I was looking for last night.

And no, I don't believe hunters empathize with the animals they hunt.

I felt really bad but at the same time satisfied after I shot my first deer when I was 16.

I personally don't hunt anymore because I don't need to. Plus it just doesn't interest me anymore.

[Babble]

Well, I would simply argue that the value of the sport/food outweighed the value of the empathy. Maybe that's a more appropriate way for me to think of it.

[Mr. Ron]

I shot it because my father told me to, tbh. Looking back I feel bad for doing it. inb4sensitivefag

[Avalanche.]

I think most hunters somewhat empathize with the animal - There is a lot of focus put on delivering a single lethal blow

P.S. sensitivefag ^^^

[Jude]

As long as you ate it there's nothing to feel that bad about

then again I've never killed a mammal so idk I guess their cute eyes might make it harder

[Mr. Ron]

thats nothing. looking at the eyes while you slice open its chest cavity is worse haha

[Already_Taken]

i ran over a squirrel once. i always joked that i could never hit them and i would secretly try, then one day i randomly ran it over on accident. a squrreal moment for sure.

[Against Miik!]

As long as you eat what you kill, I have no problem with any kind of hunting. I mean, even if you buy meat in the store, it had to be killed to at some point, but not before the thing was pumped full of steroids and forced to live in a cage. So if you eat what you kill, its actually more humane than buying it from a store.

I have a freezer full of venison at the moment.

[Already_Taken]

when i was younger my neighbor down the street hunted my cat. =|

[Steerpike]

instances were trophy hunters don't eat what they kill or donate it to some organization or family is incredibly rare and hardly EVER happens. This is getting blown out of proportion.

Which brings up the fact that the primary targets for aerial hunting are wolves and bears. Not a huge demand for the meat of either. Please, correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but I don't know about anyone who enjoys wolf steaks.

[Mr. Ron]

Well yeah, thats why I disagree with this kind of hunting.

Although bear is sometimes consumed by natives.

[Pastorius]

How do you prove that someone has eaten what they've killed?

[Mr. Ron]

How do you prove that someone has eaten what they've killed?

I usually consult astrologers tbh

[Pastorius]

It seems pointless proposing a law that says "It's legal to kill it if you eat it" when people could just kill it and say "Yes I ate it"

[Mr. Ron]

You have to understand the hunting community. Its just common practice that they eat it. Idk what else to tell you.

[Pastorius]

But the law people are saying should exist would make no difference whatsoever is my point, regardless of what common practice is already.

[808]

People should be required to tape the kill and themselves eating the meat, and post it up on YouTube.

[TBrown87]

As long as you eat what you kill, I have no problem with any kind of hunting. I mean, even if you buy meat in the store, it had to be killed to at some point, but not before the thing was pumped full of steroids and forced to live in a cage. So if you eat what you kill, its actually more humane than buying it from a store.

I have a freezer full of venison at the moment.

This exactly.

Aerial hunting is wrong though. Plain and simple.

[ringworm]

There's an on-going campaign to have this practice banned. Thoughts?

hunters in general annoy me, extremely

lets bait the woods with corn, then sit in our cozy shed 2 miles away, and shoot some animals with our high powered skoped rifles

then lets take lots of pictures and prove what men we are

nevermind ariel hunting

[Mr. Ron]

hunters in general annoy me, extremely

lets bait the woods with corn, then sit in our cozy shed 2 miles away, and shoot some animals with our high powered skoped rifles

then lets take lots of pictures and prove what men we are

nevermind ariel hunting

that would be annoying if that were the case for most hunters, but its not.

[ringworm]

i live so far out in the sticks, i can tell you what game is in season by the report, so i feel inclined to say i have a pretty fair knowledge, i dont really know any non hunters

a hunter doesnt need a guide, a treestand, or a scope that can spot a tick on his targets ear :)

[Mr. Ron]

i live so far out in the sticks, i can tell you what game is in season by the report, so i feel inclined to say i have a pretty fair knowledge, i dont really know any non hunters

a hunter doesnt need a guide, a treestand, or a scope that can spot a tick on his targets ear :)

Why not?

[Smokey D]

I see no great moral distinction between hunting aerially and hunting on the ground. Perhaps an argument might be made that aerial shooting is potentially more damaging to the ecology of a region because it allows for total wipeout, although I'm not sure this is necessarily a problem. First, the whole point of hunting is to cull excess population, in which case wipeout is the point. Secondly, animals like bears live away from each other anyway.

It seems to me that the potential evils of aerial hunting (damage to the eco system or what have you) can be made right by corollary legislation. This preserves the efficiencies of aerial hunting. Which is to say, if there is a risk that excess hunting will unduly depress predator populations, institute a licensing system that limits each hunter to a certain number of kills or implement some other law which prohibits total wipeout or whatever.

[Aaron]

I think aerial shooting highlights how lazy people are. If you're going to hunt a bear at least get off your arse, seriously.

/thinks hunting is stupid unless it's for food

[Smokey D]

Given how big Alaska is and how rugged its terrain is, I don't think that's practical.

Maybe if you're going all Deer Hunter and getting in touch with your inner man or whatever, then yeah. But there are plenty of motives for hunting that make it unpractical. Like I said, a if not the major motive for hunting is culling excess populations. This is especially true in New Zealand where deer that inhabit the Southern Alps have no natural predators and are extremely damaging to the local ecology. Since they live in such mountainous terrain, helicopter hunting (and poisoning) is the only efficient way of killing significant numbers.

[okay]

but arent they hunting wolves and such in alaska, who if im right are endangered?

[Aaron]

^^^^

[Smokey D]

but arent they hunting wolves and such in alaska, who if im right are endangered?

Okay yeah that's stupid.

But that's stupid whether it's aerial or terrestrial. The point of concern is not the mode of killing, it's the fact that they're killing them at all.

[okay]

indeed.


also, i think aerial hunting is stupid anyways. if you're going to hunt put some ****in effort into it.

[Smokey D]

Okay didn't you see where I said that's not always practical and would quite often inhibit if not prevent achieving the goal of the hunt?

[okay]

maybe

[Pop music sucks]

but arent they hunting wolves and such in alaska, who if im right are endangered?Brown Bear status: Lower Risk/Least Concern
http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/41688/summ

Gray Wolf status: Least Concern
http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/3746/summ

There seems to be an assumption that this sort of predatory control is subject to the whole state. There are specific Units that are open to aerial predatory control, and within some Units, areas within the Unit are completely off boundary, as they are either Park Land or Preserve land. Considering that roughly 11% of Alaska land falls under either, that's about 63,735 mi² of land closed to hunting, which is the size of Georgia (and 5829 mi² out of 63.735mi² left over).

These are the areas currently open to 'predatory management'.
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/regulations/pdfs/predator_control.pdf

However, aerial hunting is hardly a 'clean' kill. It is mostly utilized with hunting shotguns in hopes that the buckshot will strike a part of the body that will be further hinder its movement so another pass will cause more blood loss by further maiming hits. Futhermore, there are no 'bag limit' on bears or wolves in predator control. The only stipulation in some instances are no cow with cubs, with cub being definition of a bear that is one year old or less. Participating sportshunters with bad sportsmanship.

Nonetheless, there is a conundrum with Alaska's sustained yield and the usage of aerial control. Sustained yield means that game are managed in ways to promote opportunities of subsistence hunting. Considering the elusive gray wolf is extremely hard with on-foot based hunting and a decline in surplus of ungulate species. Many of those that live in rural villages depend upon subsistance living to feed their families. Hunting wolf on foot would be extremely hard as they are intelligent animals. Hunting bears on foot is easier, as they are far easily trackable and easier to stalk on foot.

Personally I'm not in favor of hunting while still in flight, it's hardly the clean kill that subsistence hunters strive for. However, taken into consideration the problematic method of 'traditional' (onfoot) hunting of wolves, aerial hunting is feasible, although in a barbaric fashion. Lastly, I think hunting for pure sport is abhorrent. But considering that harvesting the meat of the wolf is more than likely ruined due to bursting the lower intestine while still inside the body. It is said to taste similar to chicken, although really hard to chew as they exercise their muscles, rather than stand in a corral and lead sedentary lives, being injected with steroids to further enlarge harvest per capita.

I also believe that these sorts of predatory control management should be conducted by those of the Department of Fish & Game after thorough scientific process if this sort of program will be effective.

[Iscariot]

hippies are annoying

who cares if hunters kill something when there is an abundance of it/it's an over populated animal

"WHAAAAT THAT GUY SHOT A DEER AND HE ONLY AT THE HAUUUUUNCHES ?! THAT RETARD!!!!"

yeah it's a big deal because deer are endangered right

[Aaron]

It's a waste, that's why people [not just hippies] frown at it. Do you buy a bag of cereal, have a few mouthfuls and then pour it on the ground? No. It's silly to waste any foodstuff, especially when it takes it's life in the process which means it's not productive [ie breeding].

[Iscariot]

i don't care it's one animal out of a billion

whining about waste is an endless stance

i really doubt you bitch about how much of the cow was wasted when you're eating a double whopper with extra cheese

[Iscariot]

oh and in case that wasn't clear enough and you think you still have room to argue - my point is this

every time you eat store bought meat, processed meat, anything immediately available to you that you didn't hunt yourself, you're eating a select part of the animal

you might be able to find cow tongue, or liver on the shelf at your local grocery store, but what do you think happens to the rest of the animal?

the hide goes to leather products and the rest is scrap

anyone who eats meat is in no position to judge because they're just as wasteful as the hunters they try to put down

if you want to prove what a waste free person you are, let's see you eat the kidneys, heart, liver, lungs, intestines, brain, eyes, tongue, penis, testicles, tail, etc.. of an animal, and then utilize the stomach for a canteen, turn the hide into clothing, and use the bones for tools

if you don't do this every time you eat a hamburger then stfu you hypocrite

[Aaron]

What? I choose not to eat tongue and liver because I don't like the taste following trying it. I get my meat from the abbatoir direct because it's healthier [ie not trucked around everywhere for a few days] and it supports local business. I don't hunt myself, not am I a farmer, so I can't control what is wasted. Trawl harder, dude.

[gregulus]

oh and in case that wasn't clear enough and you think you still have room to argue - my point is this

every time you eat store bought meat, processed meat, anything immediately available to you that you didn't hunt yourself, you're eating a select part of the animal

you might be able to find cow tongue, or liver on the shelf at your local grocery store, but what do you think happens to the rest of the animal?

the hide goes to leather products and the rest is scrap

anyone who eats meat is in no position to judge because they're just as wasteful as the hunters they try to put down

if you want to prove what a waste free person you are, let's see you eat the kidneys, heart, liver, lungs, intestines, brain, eyes, tongue, penis, testicles, tail, etc.. of an animal, and then utilize the stomach for a canteen, turn the hide into clothing, and use the bones for tools

if you don't do this every time you eat a hamburger then stfu you hypocrite
Eating one portion of meat out of several that a butcher cut from an animal and subsequently selling that animals hide is hardly comparable to riddling the animal with buckshot, rendering both hide and meat completely unusable, and then cutting off the head to hang on a wall. In fact, I would say that readily eating a select portion when an even larger portion has undoubtedly been cut up into similar portions as the one you're eating is quite responsible. It's not like a butcher gets one steak from a cow and disregards the rest.

[mph4ever]

hunting is just a throw back to when we needed it so survive, should be abolished

and anyway, its all to do with sex, didn't you know, hunters usually are compensating for something that might be lacking in their lives

http://www.academicarmageddon.co.uk/library/hunt.PDF

[Steerpike]

who cares if hunters kill something when there is an abundance of it/it's an over populated animal

Please point me to the ecological study that says the gray wolf is about ot replace humans as the dominant species on earth.

[Reaganista]

i dont understand why hunting to eat it is more acceptable than hunting to turn it into a rug or just bragging rights
niether is necessary and the animal doesnt care either way

[Steerpike]

niether is necessary and the animal doesnt care either way

Actually, there are places where subsistence hunting is still necessary.

And it feels less wasteful when you actually eat what you kill, which is sort of the point of being omnivorous. Killing a bear to make a rug falls under the category of thinking you have something to prove.

[EaterOfUterus]

I don't mind eating meat but bloodthirsty killing is just psychotic.

[Reaganista]

Actually, there are places where subsistence hunting is still necessary.

it's unecessary to live in those places if anyone actually does

im talking about americans here if a mongolian who doesn't realize that electricity has been invented still needs to hunt then fine but that's not relevant to americans

And it feels less wasteful when you actually eat what you kill,
that's your opinion

[Orange Piggy]

Hunting under the false pretense that it proves your masculinity makes you look like a douche, but it doesn't make you an unacceptably cruel person unless you induce significant suffering upon the animal.


However, aerial hunting is hardly a 'clean' kill. It is mostly utilized with hunting shotguns in hopes that the buckshot will strike a part of the body that will be further hinder its movement so another pass will cause more blood loss by further maiming hits.
That's a bit different to what I've heard. Helicopter fire is directed into thick bush, which scares wolves into the open. They are chased down to the point of exhaustion, when they are shot at point blank range. Its easier to aerial hunt in winter, but its also when bears hibernate, which is partly why wolves are focused on with this technique.

Nonetheless, there is a conundrum with Alaska's sustained yield and the usage of aerial control. Sustained yield means that game are managed in ways to promote opportunities of subsistence hunting. Considering the elusive gray wolf is extremely hard with on-foot based hunting and a decline in surplus of ungulate species. Many of those that live in rural villages depend upon subsistance living to feed their families. Hunting wolf on foot would be extremely hard as they are intelligent animals. Hunting bears on foot is easier, as they are far easily trackable and easier to stalk on foot.


Makes sense in the case of wolves, but I don't think it applies to brown bears; they don't really devestate caribou and moose populations. Their diet focuses on salmon and vegetables. There's plenty of caribou and moose about anyway. The bears are attracted to human settlements though, because they scavange through garbage. People understandably freak out when they see a bear wandering around the neighbourhood, and so bust out those guns.

[Reaganista]

who cares if an animals suffers it's an animal it cant value not suffering

[Pop music sucks]

That's a bit different to what I've heard. Helicopter fire is directed into thick bush, which scares wolves into the open. They are chased down to the point of exhaustion, when they are shot at point blank range. Its easier to aerial hunt in winter, but its also when bears hibernate, which is partly why wolves are focused on with this technique.Well, a SuperCub is hardly a helicopter now is it:p

Makes sense in the case of wolves, but I don't think it applies to brown bears; they don't really devestate caribou and moose populations. Their diet focuses on salmon and vegetables. There's plenty of caribou and moose about anyway. The bears are attracted to human settlements though, because they scavange through garbage. People understandably freak out when they see a bear wandering around the neighbourhood, and so bust out those guns.Exactly. But at least with the 'predatory control'/hunting of brown bear, the meat is far more harvestable. Although it really depends on the time of year. But, you must take into consideration that the areas open to 'predatory control' are extremely remote.

[sweboy]

who cares if an animals suffers it's an animal it cant value not suffering

it prefers not suffering to suffering

[Orange Piggy]

Wow, they use planes? No wonder they miss.

[Reaganista]

it prefers not suffering to suffering

while suffering it cant imagine not suffering so how could it prefer it

[sweboy]

while suffering it cant imagine not suffering so how could it prefer it

Being able to imagine not suffering is not necessary for wanting the suffering to stop - all animals want suffering to stop, that's why suffering exists. And after getting a shock from an electric fence, an animal will prefer not touching the fence to touching the fence.

[DBoons Ghost]

I love how everyone is so judgemental in this thread as if your morals are better then anyone else's morals. Duality of man with who he hunts. What's the difference? Animals evolve over time and the dominant species likes to provide examples of his dominence. For a while we humans were eaten by all manner of creature. What's wrong with a little payback? Ok so that might be troll bait but when it comes to how man treats animals people expect us to become some morally benelovant being who cares about anything or anyone but ourselves. I love the new age way of thinking but it doesn't suit everyone. Man is not this way.

I love meat and I hunted a few times but it wasn't for me. I killed a rabbit and watched some bowhunters kill a wild boar. It screamed like a little girl and it was horrid to be honest. However, it was probably among the tastiest pigs I ever ate. I did eat the rabbit too over a bed of spinach and it was awesome. When I was a kid my nana would get live goats and chickens and turkeys and kill them in the backyard. She didn't hunt them or raise them but how is that to be judged? Back home in Italy they raised livestock simply to eat. Is that somehow different?


It matters not how we choose to treat those beneath us. There should be no moral distinction between raising cattle domestically with every intention of killing them or hanging out a plan window killing wolves for kicks.

[Reaganista]

Being able to imagine not suffering is not necessary for wanting the suffering to stop
you can't want anything you cant imagine
they behave in a way that will get them away from whatever is hurting them because instinct dictates that they do so

[ringworm]

Why not?

eh, its just my take on it

wanting to bring home some food is fine by me, you'll never see me in opposition to hunting on most levels, but i just get tickled at how manly and skillfull people think they are when they bag a wild beast like a deer, boar or fowl :lol:

dont get me started on the people who hunt dangerous critters, my opinion of them is even worse

let them bag a bear, big cat or other large animal with a spear and a knife, then i'll upgrade their ego :thumb:

I think aerial shooting highlights how lazy people are. If you're going to hunt a bear at least get off your arse, seriously.

exactly

i had a co-worker who often went to kill big bears, i asked him one time after a long story of their trek through the back country with a guide and a good kill of a really big bear

i asked him why he needed a guide, he said, ****, i aint walking around out their without a professional, he didnt understand the look on my face was trying to say, well, then ****, should you be out there at all then you %$#&@?

[Iscariot]

i Love How Everyone Is So Judgemental In This Thread As If Your Morals Are Better Then Anyone Else's Morals. Duality Of Man With Who He Hunts. What's The Difference? Animals Evolve Over Time And The Dominant Species Likes To Provide Examples Of His Dominence. For A While We Humans Were Eaten By All Manner Of Creature. What's Wrong With A Little Payback? Ok So That Might Be Troll Bait But When It Comes To How Man Treats Animals People Expect Us To Become Some Morally Benelovant Being Who Cares About Anything Or Anyone But Ourselves. I Love The New Age Way Of Thinking But It Doesn't Suit Everyone. Man Is Not This Way.

I Love Meat And I Hunted A Few Times But It Wasn't For Me. I Killed A Rabbit And Watched Some Bowhunters Kill A Wild Boar. It Screamed Like A Little Girl And It Was Horrid To Be Honest. However, It Was Probably Among The Tastiest Pigs I Ever Ate. I Did Eat The Rabbit Too Over A Bed Of Spinach And It Was Awesome. When I Was A Kid My Nana Would Get Live Goats And Chickens And Turkeys And Kill Them In The Backyard. She Didn't Hunt Them Or Raise Them But How Is That To Be Judged? Back Home In Italy They Raised Livestock Simply To Eat. Is That Somehow Different?


It Matters Not How We Choose To Treat Those Beneath Us. There Should Be No Moral Distinction Between Raising Cattle Domestically With Every Intention Of Killing Them Or Hanging Out A Plan Window Killing Wolves For Kicks.

123

[Iscariot]

let them bag a bear, big cat or other large animal with a spear and a knife, then i'll upgrade their ego :thumb:

you make it sound like it's not dangerous to hunt a cougar with a gun which tbh doesn't make you sound smart it shows how inexperienced you are

[spitfirejunky]

i dont understand why hunting to eat it is more acceptable than hunting to turn it into a rug or just bragging rights
niether is necessary and the animal doesnt care either way

Because eating meat is a ton healthier than not eating meat (barring pescatarianism). It's not really a justification but it's a huge incentive.

[Reaganista]

the meat tasting good and population control arent justifications for recreational hunting since you could have have professional ventures licensed to provide the same service without encouraging redneck behavior and presumably with less hunting accidents just sayin

Because eating meat is a ton healthier than not eating meat (barring pescatarianism). It's not really a justification but it's a huge incentive.
that's debatable but i wont debate it because it's a stupid debate
regardless there's other ways to acquire meat without hunting

[mph4ever]

its no wonder all the buffalo got wiped out, you americans are a bunch of trigger happy nutbags. why don't you'all hang out of a 'copter and shoot terrorists in afghanistan. will i tell you why, because they shoot back

[Reaganista]

huh americans are shooting terrorists from helicopters in afghanistan like right now that doesnt make sense

[Iscariot]

quit being a moron

the buffalo didn't all get wiped out buffalo meat is almost as popular as beef

and the ones that did die off were killed intentionally to drive the native americans off of their hunting grounds and closer to the reservations

unless you're just trolling in which case you won't care about facts

not @ tway

[mph4ever]

trolling is not for me

not being a moron, just trying to understand. where i live, guns are practically banned for everyone. its becaue they were all terrorists here at one stage and so restrictions are tight, understandably.

and anyway, for one so informed you should corrected me, there are no buffalo in north america, they are bison, right? i had read that the bison were hunted close to extinction once white man got to grips. rebounded now but it was trigger happy times back then. wrong?

[EaterOfUterus]

Buffalo meat is actually some of the best and healthiest meat there is, more so than beef. (It's lower in cholesterol)

[808]

The best meat is no meat.

[DBoons Ghost]

The best meat is no meat.

If humans had not started eating meat we'd not be this way.

So early man ate meat so you can evolve into who you are now and if you choose to evolve back into a brainless retard drooling and grunting, please move you and yours into a secluded area and breed accordingly.

Thanks.

[Iscariot]

trolling is not for me

hm

not being a moron, just trying to understand. where i live, guns are practically banned for everyone. its becaue they were all terrorists here at one stage and so restrictions are tight, understandably.

where do you live

and anyway, for one so informed you should corrected me, there are no buffalo in north america, they are bison, right?

well yeah it's bison but everyone calls it buffalo

i had read that the bison were hunted close to extinction once white man got to grips. rebounded now but it was trigger happy times back then. wrong?

it wasn't because people were trigger happy

there was a high demand during that era for buffalo furs and tongues and a strong desire to drive the native americans from their hunting grounds so the land could be colonized

between the demand for trade and the fight for land, the bison almost became extinct

it wasn't due to americans just going out and shooting something because yee-haw we love watchin' them shiny bullets fly

[808]

I'm not sure how that devolution would occur, but alright.

[Shell]

if you want to prove what a waste free person you are, let's see you eat the kidneys, heart, liver, lungs, intestines, brain, eyes, tongue, penis, testicles, tail, etc.. of an animal

that's simple, it's called a hot dog :)

[Iscariot]

I'm not sure how that devolution would occur, but alright.

basically you start out like this:

http://www.internationalbasketball.com/riksmitspic.jpg

and end up like this:

http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/HappyCow.jpg

[808]

If I had to choose between being a cow or Rik Smits, I'd pick cow.

Cows don't get blocked by Charlie Ward.

[DBoons Ghost]

I'm not sure how that devolution would occur, but alright.

It sounded better in my head.

[Already_Taken]

if i didnt eat meat i'
d always be hungry

[VomitStainedCretin]

its no wonder all the buffalo got wiped out, you americans are a bunch of trigger happy nutbags. why don't you'all hang out of a 'copter and shoot terrorists in afghanistan. will i tell you why, because they shoot backPassenger pigeons are a better example since they are the paragon of American game management.

Generally big game hunting purely for the sake of killing/trophies to me smacks of massive and pathetic compensation, particularly when technology or drugs are utilised in order that any threat the target poses is thoroughly negated.

[Avalanche.]

i dont know about you guys but i love hunting and the rewarding taste of my kill

i freeze my *** off out there over the course of several months to get the biggest animal possible with one lethal blow - it takes patience and persistence to be out there on a daily basis but it is worth it when you can come home with 200+ pounds of meat and a trophy head to commemorate all your hard work

i dont understand whats so barbaric or gutless about that

[ringworm]

you make it sound like it's not dangerous to hunt a cougar with a gun which tbh doesn't make you sound smart it shows how inexperienced you are

:lol: you're an idiot

first of all, why do we need to hunt a cougar?

second of all, i will always be on the side of the cougar, nothing makes me happier than seeing 5 or 6 grown men being raped by some poor animal that was doing nothing more than what it does on an average day until us superior beings come along to challenge ourselves at it's expense

i love nature that bites back

thirdly, you meathead, to call me inexperienced at being an ignorant savage is funny considering i live in the sesspool of people that i am referring to

but continue trying to portray an armed platoon of men with high powered rifles and usually accompanied by a pack of dogs hunting a big cat to be the ones risking the most :lol:

[Aaron]

i dont understand whats so gutless about that
Hunt with a hand weapon rather than a gun, then we'll talk.

[Smokey D]

I don't get why you need to fit some arbitrary definition of brave to hunt.

[Aaron]

You don't, I was doing the opposite. I was trying to illustrate that we've got a huge advantage over animals which is why we need to be mature in how we approach our impact on the ecosystem, not justifying it by it being brave and hard work.

[Smokey D]

Oh okay.

Well, other people were saying that you need to go mano y mano with a bear or something.

[Aaron]

Poor use of sarcasm on my part, but I couldn't resist.

[Avalanche.]

Hunt with a hand weapon rather than a gun, then we'll talk.

hunting with a knife would be less humane than with a gun, why do you want the animal to suffer?

and yes Mr. Smokey, you do have to have some sort of determination and persistence to get your butt out there in freezing weather for hours at a time, perhaps not manliness, but patience and perseverance

[Aaron]

Your definition of inhumane, not mine... and you failed to recognise my unsubtle sarcasm use.

[Avalanche.]

i think you are very ill informed if you think I should hunt with a knife in order to not be gutless. I think prolonging an animals death is one of the most gutless things you can do in the sport of hunting

I dont understand - Do you think hunting with a firearm/bow (I do both) takes little to no skill?

[ringworm]

i think the term hunting is used a little loosely myself

[Aaron]

I think hunting should be better controlled by external forces to the hunters and that you've completely missed the sarcasm in my post, nor read my subsequent ones. It's inhumane to kill an animal when it's not required.

[Avalanche.]

I think hunting should be better controlled by external forces to the hunters and that you've completely missed the sarcasm in my post, nor read my subsequent ones. It's inhumane to kill an animal when it's not required.

Well in my case it is required, as deer are ridiculously overpopulated in Illinois

Hunting is very well regulated in my state, DNR officers are abundant and have enough power to make any hunter who is not following regulations very afraid

i truly believe i am helping the ecosystem by harvesting deer

[ringworm]

the ecosystem is being damaged by wildlife trying to cope with us encroaching on their natural habitat? :)

wow

[808]

Humans are overpopulated all over the world.

Does this mean I can hunt them?

[Mr. Ron]

Humans are overpopulated all over the world.

Does this mean I can hunt them?

Only the ones in Africa.

[Avalanche.]

Humans are overpopulated all over the world.

Does this mean I can hunt them?

1 Human life = 1 Animal life

You are a beacon of knowledge.

Someone go alert the press - They need to know of the ongoing massacre at the local butchery!

[Aaron]

How are you qualified to make the distinction?

[Avalanche.]

I am the top of the food chain

[Aaron]

That doesn't answer my question.

[Avalanche.]

Sorry, I feel it does

[Aaron]

...and that's why hunters shouldn't be the ones making decisions.

[Avalanche.]

Well Aaron, what gives you the right to make the distinction?

Also, exactly what decision am I making?

[Smokey D]

and yes Mr. Smokey, you do have to have some sort of determination and persistence to get your butt out there in freezing weather for hours at a time, perhaps not manliness, but patience and perseverance

My point is that if you can kill things humanely and efficiently from the air, then we shouldn't judge people who make use of these advantages to do so. Being a hunter doesn't entail being man-against-savagery. The point of hunting is often to kill things as effectively as possible and not to prove ones manhood or whatever, and in such cases it is retarded to judge people using helicopters or whatever. Sure if the point is to be sporting than it's not exactly fair but that's not always the goal.

[808]

Why is it OK to control the population of certain animals but not humans?

[Aaron]

Avanlanche, I don't have the right and actually recognise that, because I don't understand the full effect on the environment of hunting on an ecological level. Those who do [ie people with qualifications and training] are best suited to. Not you or I.

[Smokey D]

Because humans being humans have rights that no animal except maybe the great apes and certain species of dolphin could possibly have.

[Smokey D]

Avanlanche, I don't have the right and actually recognise that, because I don't understand the full effect on the environment of hunting on an ecological level. Those who do [ie people with qualifications and training] are best suited to. Not you or I.

Surely teh people issuing permits are in such a position.

[808]

Those rights aren't real, though.

[Smokey D]

Those rights aren't real, though.

Then there's nothing right or wrong about me killing an animal either.

[Aaron]

Surely teh people issuing permits are in such a position.
You'd hope so, but I'm not sure that it's the scientific community that is facilitating it, rather people with a vested interest obtaining the neccesary qualifications.. Subjecture, however.

[Smokey D]

You'd hope so, but I'm not sure that it's the scientific community that is facilitating it, rather people with a vested interest obtaining the neccesary qualifications.. Subjecture, however.

In cases where hunting puts pressure on threatened species, it should be restricted. But in most cases it is morally pretty neutral, so long as undue stress isn't caused.

[Avalanche.]

My point is that if you can kill things humanely and efficiently from the air, then we shouldn't judge people who make use of these advantages to do so. Being a hunter doesn't entail being man-against-savagery. The point of hunting is often to kill things as effectively as possible and not to prove ones manhood or whatever, and in such cases it is retarded to judge people using helicopters or whatever. Sure if the point is to be sporting than it's not exactly fair but that's not always the goal.
To be honest, I was only going off the TS description of aerial hunting, in which I gathered that a shot is taken from a helicopter/airplane and is often less than lethal. Apparently this assumption was incorrect and I see your point.

Why is it OK to control the population of certain animals but not humans?
Because they're animals..? Do you believe the life of a deer is as valuable as a humans?

Avanlanche, I don't have the right and actually recognise that, because I don't understand the full effect on the environment of hunting on an ecological level. Those who do [ie people with qualifications and training] are best suited to. Not you or I.
Deer will kill lots of motorists and become overpopulated if a portion of the population is not harvested on a yearly basis. I feel I am qualified to say that.

[808]

Then there's nothing right or wrong about me killing an animal either.

That's fine. You can hunt animals as long as I'm allowed to hunt humans.

[Smokey D]

Deer do heaps of damage to local ecologies if they're allowed to over populate an area, and often they end up starving themselves. This is especially true where there are no natural predators (like in New Zealand) or where predators are shot by farmers or otherwise depressed by human activity..

[Smokey D]

That's fine. You can hunt animals as long as I'm allowed to hunt humans.

But there's laws against killing humans. So you can kill them or whatever and there's no moral impetus not to, but there are legal ones.

I mean, if there's no morality then there's nothing to say that laws preventing you from killing humans are right or wrong either.

[Aaron]

Deer will kill lots of motorists and become overpopulated if a portion of the population is not harvested on a yearly basis. I am qualified to say that.
You've got a perspective on the subject, not qualifications. You're failing to recognise that I keep using the word in an effort to underline that I feel training is required to make these decisions. If done appropriately and based on decisions made by the appropriate person, culling is fine, and if this is done in the form of hunting so be it. But some local with a gut-feeling from wandering round in the forest for years and a skewed perspective is hardly the right person to make those decisions, in my opinion.

[Iscariot]

:lol: you're an idiot

:lol: hey look when i use this i look smart right

first of all, why do we need to hunt a cougar?

because cougar tastes good

second of all, i will always be on the side of the cougar, nothing makes me happier than seeing 5 or 6 grown men being raped by some poor animal that was doing nothing more than what it does on an average day until us superior beings come along to challenge ourselves at it's expense

quick someone call the waambulance

chickens and cows are just hanging out doing what they do every day before they get slaughtered and turned into your friday night dinner who cares

i love nature that bites back

i love it when you try to sound like you're on some elevated moral platform when you either knowingly or unknowingly fully partake in the direct result of hunting/the slaughter of animals every time you slap together a turkey sandwich

thirdly, you meathead

is that supposed to be a pun or something given the nature of the discussion or are you just trying to sound like a tough guy

to call me inexperienced at being an ignorant savage

well you certainly are experienced at being ignorant and the use of the term savage that you freely toss at anyone who hunts their own food just cements that idea

is funny considering i live in the sesspool of people that i am referring to

oh so you're one of those kids with the bad haircut who tries really hard to be different or something it makes sense now

but continue trying to portray an armed platoon of men with high powered rifles and usually accompanied by a pack of dogs hunting a big cat to be the ones risking the most :lol:

i don't think you could sound anymore over dramatic than you do right now

[mph4ever]

hm

i know that tune

where do you live

d'ireland

well yeah it's bison but everyone calls it buffalo

suppose, you could really expect to eat bison wings

it wasn't because people were trigger happy

there was a high demand during that era for buffalo furs and tongues and a strong desire to drive the native americans from their hunting grounds so the land could be colonized

between the demand for trade and the fight for land, the bison almost became extinct

it wasn't due to americans just going out and shooting something because yee-haw we love watchin' them shiny bullets fly
no, but as is shown elsewhere, when they were on their last legs the big game hunters arrived, like they do in africa now, to bag one of them before there were none left

Passenger pigeons are a better example since they are the paragon of American game management.

Generally big game hunting purely for the sake of killing/trophies to me smacks of massive and pathetic compensation, particularly when technology or drugs are utilised in order that any threat the target poses is thoroughly negated.
i have never experienced killing something like that. i am not sure i could. at the same time, i have caught record size fish for stripers, conger and ray, and i have to say that was all a rush.

[Avalanche.]

You've got a perspective on the subject, not qualifications. You're failing to recognise that I keep using the word in an effort to underline that I feel training is required to make these decisions. If done appropriately and based on decisions made by the appropriate person, culling is fine, and if this is done in the form of hunting so be it. But some local with a gut-feeling from wandering round in the forest for years and a skewed perspective is hardly the right person to make those decisions, in my opinion.

Hunters don't make the decisions - DNR does. They decide if you can hunt (15 hour class within itself just to get the license), what you can hunt, when you can hunt etc..

I think its pretty uncontested that those people are qualified

[ringworm]

i love it when you try to sound like you're on some elevated moral platform
at least we understand each other now
but honestly, i dont think you'll ever get what i really mean


i dont want to restrict someones right to hunt

but what right do we really have killing animals like a grizzly or lion or other big game? try showing our intelligence by using it is my motto

am i a hypocrite for going to the grocery store and buying pack of steaks? afterall, i have been to a slaughterhouse, i didnt eat meat for 2 years, but it hardly compares with someone saying their bullet is for the animals best interest, when after all, we are the reason their population needs to be regulated

[Steerpike]

There should be no moral distinction between raising cattle domestically with every intention of killing them or hanging out a plan window killing wolves for kicks.

It's an ecological issue. Slaughtering all the natural predators in a region for entertainment has a little more of a significant impact on the environment than decapitating a chicken you were keeping on your ranch for the specific purpose of food.

I would think that would be obvious by now.

And this is entirely personal, but I'm naturally disinclined to trust anyone who thinks killing something in cold blood is fun.

[DBoons Ghost]

It's an ecological issue. Slaughtering all the natural predators in a region for entertainment has a little more of a significant impact on the environment than decapitating a chicken you were keeping on your ranch for the specific purpose of food.

I would think that would be obvious by now.

And this is entirely personal, but I'm naturally disinclined to trust anyone who thinks killing something in cold blood is fun.

It's very obvious. Your language though.. I mean "all of the natural predators" versus "a small amount of them" are different. I don't think they want to kill all the wolves. I don't know though. I'm not up on the wolf population in Alaska. It's not something I care about.

I respect your opinion there but as for me, I am no one to judge who does what for fun. I can't be sure how killing wild scavengers would negatively affect the ecological make up of a specific place. I guess if you killed all the wolves there would be a lot more carcasses left to rot in the wilderness? People would sleep better due to lack of howling at the moon?

I got this from http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/policy_and_legislation/aerial_hunting_q_and_a.pdf.

"Since 2003, 671 wolves have been killed by aerial hunting in Alaska".

I would take a guess that's not all of them.

[ringworm]

to drastically reduce wolf populations by up to 80 percent in some areas.
that's quite a bit?

[stevensonmat2]

Areas with like 6 wolves have lost 80 percent for all we know. Not that bad.

[Pastorius]

Impossible

[Steerpike]

I don't think they want to kill all the wolves.

I don't think it's so much that they want to kill all the wolves (that would be Ron Gillette and the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition). It's that they don't care if they do.

I can't be sure how killing wild scavengers would negatively affect the ecological make up of a specific place. I guess if you killed all the wolves there would be a lot more carcasses left to rot in the wilderness? People would sleep better due to lack of howling at the moon?

Wolves aren't carrion feeders like vultures though. They'll eat a carcass if its there, but they're primarily hunters.

The problem is that grazing animals can dramatically reduce the vegetation in an area if there are no predators to keep their numbers in check.

As the natural order goes in a nutshell, when a population becomes over-abundant their natural predators start picking them off. If the predators force the numbers low enough that hunting becomes too difficult, they migrate to a different area. In the absence of the predators, the prey starts to multiply again and the cycle repeats itself. The system is self-regulating.

However unrestricted hunting of apex predators disrupts that balance.

The problem with having an overabundance of animals like caribou is that they have to eat, too. Do you remember the stories of settlers in the American West? How cattle ranchers and shepherds were at odds with one another? The sheep would completely strip all vegetation from the land they were on, resulting in less land for all the other ranchers.

That's the inherent problem. If regulations on hunting are relaxed enough to allow a cull of natural predators in an area, then other species in the area will grow dramatically, and since most of the prey of these apex predators are herbivores, they'll put a significant dent in the vegetation of the region, affecting everything else.

What people like Sarah Palin and the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition either refuse to believe or remain willfully ignorant of is that every action carries consequences, and the more drastic the action the more drastic the reaction.

I'm a conversationist. I do believe that problems can arise from surplus populations of certain species and that we should find solutions to those problems. But what I'm arguing is that we should cease practices that can end up causing those problems in the first place. The old cliche about taking your hand off of a burning stove.

[DBoons Ghost]

I guess you meant conservationist as opposed to conversationist. I like conversation too! I respect conservation and preservation of ecology but you talked about wolves being necesarry to control caribou.. or maybe you meant to tie wolves into hunting caribou so the plant life is kept in check which will keep feeding caribou so the caribou get fat so they keep feeding wolves.. ?

Wolves are animals like us. Right? We're animals. Albeit a little more intelligent. I understand wolves maybe don't kill for fun or protection of their litters.. or maybe they do. I don't know a lot about the behavioral patterns of wolves. Why is it ok for wolves to kill caribous but we can't kill wolves? They make nice trophies and if they exact their dominance over the caribou then we as the superior species should be able to exact dominance over just about anything we want. I don't think some of the wolves bitch to the other wolves about touchy feely cold blooded killer crap. Ok so I'm trying to make light of this but I just don't get what the beef is. No one is forcing you to kill animals. No one is forcing you to watch. I am sure they would never kil off all the wolves so what's the big deal?

[GUTS]

I guess you meant conservationist as opposed to conversationist. I like conversation too! I respect conservation and preservation of ecology but you talked about wolves being necesarry to control caribou.. or maybe you meant to tie wolves into hunting caribou so the plant life is kept in check which will keep feeding caribou so the caribou get fat so they keep feeding wolves.. ?

Wolves are animals like us. Right? We're animals. Albeit a little more intelligent. I understand wolves maybe don't kill for fun or protection of their litters.. or maybe they do. I don't know a lot about the behavioral patterns of wolves. Why is it ok for wolves to kill caribous but we can't kill wolves? They make nice trophies and if they exact their dominance over the caribou then we as the superior species should be able to exact dominance over just about anything we want. I don't think some of the wolves bitch to the other wolves about touchy feely cold blooded killer crap. Ok so I'm trying to make light of this but I just don't get what the beef is. No one is forcing you to kill animals. No one is forcing you to watch. I am sure they would never kil off all the wolves so what's the big deal?


good post. except for this : I am sure they would never kil off all the wolves so what's the big deal

humans endangering and/or exterminating a species??? never heard of that!

[Reaganista]

even if they do kill all the wolves we got em in zoos and **** it's not the end of the world
or the wolves

[Smokey D]

The point is that removing apex predators damages the whole ecosystem.

[Reaganista]

damage is a loaded term it'll change the ecosystem

[Steerpike]

Why is it ok for wolves to kill caribous but we can't kill wolves?

Wolves kill to survive. How many times a week do you eat wolf meat?

They make nice trophies and if they exact their dominance over the caribou then we as the superior species should be able to exact dominance over just about anything we want.

That's the thing. It's not about some bullshit concept of dominance. It's about ecology. If you want to talk about dominating another lifeform, put out a personals ad for someone into BDSM.

And honestly, if you need to exterminate a living thing to reaffirm your percieved sense of superiority, then I would not trust you to hold a door open for me.

I am sure they would never kil off all the wolves so what's the big deal?

That's the thing. A lot of the people who are for these exotic methods of hunting don't seem to care if they drive a species to extinction. They possess no concept of conservation.

Humans have hunted multiple species to extinction because of ignorance or apathy. And there are people in this world still who don't understand that. They're willfully ignorant of science.

Even if we're not talking about complete extinction, there are still problems with over-hunting any species. Is it really worth it to create long-term environmental damage for short-term gratification?

[Smokey D]

damage is a loaded term it'll change the ecosystem

Removing the wolves is damage in itself.

But more importantly if prey species are not held in check by predators, their populations increase to a level that the ecosystem cannot support causing damage. If you want to contest the definition of damage, maybe you could say that it's only change but that seems pretty trite.

[Reaganista]

Removing the wolves is damage in itself.
unless it's an improvement from a human perspective

But more importantly if prey species are not held in check by predators, their populations increase to a level that the ecosystem cannot support causing damage
what if we want to eat them instead of wolves
or we could want the effects caused by "overpopulation" of prey species for whatever reason

[Smokey D]

unless it's an improvement from a human perspective

Not really.

And there's no improvement to be had either. Alaska's farms aren't under threat of wolves.

what if we want to eat them instead of wolves
or we could want the effects caused by "overpopulation" of prey species for whatever reason

We can and do. But that's difficult and costly, and stupid.

[DBoons Ghost]

I just want to point out I don't hunt and I would never kill another animal to exert my dominance over it, but I try to understand and respect why people enjoy that sort of thing.

Thanks for the discussion.

[mph4ever]

“All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering, the animals are our equals.” - Peter Singer

[Smokey D]

In every other relevant aspect they aren't so that's a pretty empty point.

[Avalanche.]

I don't really know anybody who kills an animal to demonstrate their dominance over it?

Who does that? It certainly isn't any hunters around here

[Iscariot]

pacifistic extremists like to say that's the sole purpose behind hunting because it's the only thing they can say to validate their ideas

[mph4ever]

In every other relevant aspect they aren't so that's a pretty empty point.


take it up with peter singer

[Der Übermensch]

I have a lot of things to take up with Peter Singer... I enjoyed reading OneWorld, but goddamn do his ideas have no basis in the reality of the world...


And to be on topic, Aerial Hunting - and the mere use of aircraft as an aid (scouting out in the morning, or having an aerial spotter for someone on the ground) - is banned in Maine I know. Alaskans are ****ing lame :(

[Smokey D]

That's coz Maine is the size of a postage stamp.

I really don't see the moral difference between shooting things on the ground and from aircraft.

[Iscariot]

it's more sporting to hunt on the ground because the animal actually has a chance to not die and then you as the hunter can sit back and think, "well damn i got bested"

if you're hunting from a plane what chance does the animal have

[Smokey D]

I don't think the animal cares about people being sporting.

And if the goal isn't to be sporting (ie when efficiency is the main concern), then it's not a concern for the humans either.

[Iscariot]

the interest of fairness cares about people being sporting

i would never go into a situation except for maybe bird hunting where i knew that i was unequivocally guaranteed a kill because there's nothing fair or just about that

hunting is about earning a kill and earning your food on the animal's turf where they have a natural advantage in that terrain

efficiency is only half of it and that's where practice/training comes in

being able to kill something in one shot when you do get an open sight on it is what makes hunting humane

shooting an animal from the air with a minimal chance of killing it in less than 5 or 6 shots is cruel

[Smokey D]

An animal doesn't care about fairness. That's a purely human concern.

Hunting isn't about earning a kill. Certain types of hutning might be, but it's not all of it.

[Iscariot]

smokey have you ever shot anything

i'm pretty sure, and correct me if i'm wrong here, but i'm pretty sure that your forte is politics and not the mentality involved in hunting

[Smokey D]

I'm pretty sure your reasons for shooting things are not the only reasons a person could have for shooting things.

The Department of Conservation doesn't care about boning with nature, giving the animal a sporting chance and over coming adversity or whatever other reason you might have for shooting an animal. They want to limit animal populations in hte least costly manner. In certain regions (like Alaska and NEw Zealand's Fiordland) that feasibly involves aerial shootings.

[Aaron]

There's a difference between sanctioned culling and hunting.

[Der Übermensch]

An animal doesn't care about fairness. That's a purely human concern.

It's more about being sporting for the hunters, as such means would only be available to a very very small number of them.

[Aaron]

Why don't they just go play paintball.

[Smokey D]

There's a difference between sanctioned culling and hunting.

A minor one.

And hunters can be used in sanctioned culls. That's what hunting licenses are for.

It's more about being sporting for the hunters, as such means would only be available to a very very small number of them.

If the goal is to get the animal population under control then that is also irrelevant.

[Der Übermensch]

If the goal is to get the animal population under control then that is also irrelevant.
Only about 10% of licensees will get a deer in a given season (fluctuates depending on conditions obviously), so yes, it is relevant. If the few lucky enough to find one are disproportionately those with the wealth to go to extreme measures to find their prey, it causes an extreme disadvantage to the overall hunting population.

[Babble]

Hunting should be one of the last issues of equality that we are concerned with.

[Der Übermensch]

I assume you don't have a hunting license.

[Mr. Ron]

I renew mine every year to humor my dad.

[Babble]

I assume you don't have a hunting license.

No, but I have a disabled mother.

[McP3000]

I renew mine every year to humor my dad.
I renew my hunting license so i can kill things and eat them

[Iscariot]

i want to go deer hunting now

venison is delicious

[McP3000]

Meat is delicious

i cant stand vegetarians...the pretentious ****s

[Iscariot]

i still have yet to try bear meat

i've heard it's the same texture as venison but a slightly different flavor and i'm mega curious

[Avalanche.]

its good if the person who is cooking it knows what they're doing - I tried bear quesadilla last Feb and it was phenomenal

[Avalanche.]

There's a difference between sanctioned culling and hunting.

Licensed hunters are a form of sanctioned culling

[ringworm]

the interest of fairness cares about people being sporting

i would never go into a situation except for maybe bird hunting where i knew that i was unequivocally guaranteed a kill because there's nothing fair or just about that

hunting is about earning a kill and earning your food on the animal's turf where they have a natural advantage in that terrain

efficiency is only half of it and that's where practice/training comes in

being able to kill something in one shot when you do get an open sight on it is what makes hunting humane

shooting an animal from the air with a minimal chance of killing it in less than 5 or 6 shots is cruel

ok, see, i can agree with you

[Avalanche.]

Okay can somebody confirm whether aerial hunting consists of actually taking several shots with a rifle or shotgun from high in the air or exhausting the animal and taking an instantly lethal shot at point blank range?

It wont make a difference in my opinion, but I'm kind of curious.

[Der Übermensch]

No, but I have a disabled mother.

ok?

[Aaron]

I think he's implying that we should worry about social injustice first, and the animals second [based on his earlier posts].

[Der Übermensch]

Well HHS can worry about his poor sick mother and lets let IFW do it's job... I don't see there being much overlap in their areas of responsibility.

[Steerpike]

If the goal is to get the animal population under control then that is also irrelevant.

The issue here is that aerial hunting in Alaska is not done with the intent of controlling wolf popluations. It's being advertised as a recreational activity.

What does that accomplish?

[Smokey D]

Only about 10% of licensees will get a deer in a given season (fluctuates depending on conditions obviously), so yes, it is relevant. If the few lucky enough to find one are disproportionately those with the wealth to go to extreme measures to find their prey, it causes an extreme disadvantage to the overall hunting population.

No it's not relevant.

If hunting licenses are issued to people who cannot get to the areas where the population in question is in need of control, there is no reason to issue those licenses. Treating hunters equally is not the concern. Killing the animals is.

If the question is purely on of leisure, maybe. But in many cases it's not.


The issue here is that aerial hunting in Alaska is not done with the intent of controlling wolf popluations. It's being advertised as a recreational activity.

In which case it is the hunting of wolves in itself which is stupid, not the method used to kill them. It doesn't matter if I'm standing on the ground or am in a helicopter when I shoot a wolf, it's still dead and that's the point of concern.

So a better title to the thread might have been 'Hunting endangered animals for purely recreational purposes: what the ****?'

[Der Übermensch]

Treating hunters equally is not the concern. Killing the animals is.
The law should (and in most states other than Alaska does) balance between both. Not only do hunters need to be given an equal footing with the law, but the game itself also needs to be given the opportunity for fair chase, and allowing airborne hunting violates both ideas equally.

[Smokey D]

The law should (and in most states other than Alaska does) balance between both. Not only do hunters need to be given an equal footing with the law, but the game itself also needs to be given the opportunity for fair chase, and allowing airborne hunting violates both ideas equally.

You don't want the animal to get away if you need to kill them.

There is a complete difference between hunting for sport and hunting in order to cull.

And all hunters are equal before the law. They'd only be being treated differently if permits were restricted to helicopter owners, which isn't what's happening. But nonetheless, there might be cases where you want the hunters to have easy access to places which are impossible or at least difficult to reach by foot or vehicle. In those cases, it's perfectly permissible to encourage aerial hunting.

In New Zealand, helicopter hunting was turned into an adventure tourist package.

[Charlie Daniels]

For once I actually agree with Smokey D.

[Steerpike]

In which case it is the hunting of wolves in itself which is stupid, not the method used to kill them. It doesn't matter if I'm standing on the ground or am in a helicopter when I shoot a wolf, it's still dead and that's the point of concern.

So a better title to the thread might have been 'Hunting endangered animals for purely recreational purposes: what the ****?'

Aha, but the insanity is only heightened by the fact that aerial hunting entails using methods that practically guarantee a kill on apex predators that are otherwise very difficult to track.

In other words, sport hunters are performing what is effectively a gratuitous cull that threatens to cause massive damage in a short amount of time.

This is why I'm targeting aerial hunting so specifically: because it goes after apex predators, and it makes killing so much easier. It increases the ability for those willfully ignorant of or apathetic toward the ecology of the region to create problems.

[mph4ever]

i am going to laugh the next time i hear that a hunter got mauled by a sneaky bear or got torn apart by a pack of mad wolves

gary larson would have some crack with this thread

[Pop music sucks]

So a better title to the thread might have been 'Hunting endangered animals for purely recreational purposes: what the ****?'Considering that the Grey Wolf is not endangered, the thread would be improperly named.

Although the grey wolf still faces some threats, its relatively widespread range and stable population trend mean that the species does not meet, or nearly meet, any of the criteria for the threatened categories. Therefore, it is assessed as Least Concern.

Source: http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/3746/all

Conservation Status rankings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_status

[ringworm]

There is a complete difference between hunting for sport and hunting in order to cull
couldn't a wolf say we are the ones that need to be culled :)

afterall, we are the ones infringing on almost every other species on this planet

[808]

It's true.

[Charlie Daniels]

couldn't a wolf say we are the ones that need to be culled :)

afterall, we are the ones infringing on almost every other species on this planet

Wolves can't speak, so they actually can't say anything at all.

[Aaron]

Sure they can; "Awoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!"

[Angmar]

Yeah I'm a hunter and I think this is pretty retarded, takes away all the spirit involved in hunting, all the hard work and actual physical movement that is involved. It takes it all down to a lower pathetic level, there is nothing honorable about shooting a wolf from a helicopter, no work or anything required, just pointing and shooting at an animal that doesn't even really get a chance to run away.

[Iscariot]

Considering that the Grey Wolf is not endangered, the thread would be improperly named.



Source: http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/3746/all

Conservation Status rankings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_status

most will ignore this because it's a thread ending post

[Angmar]

Whether or not the species of wolf is endangered is irrelevant to the fact that aerial hunting is ****ing stupid.

[Iscariot]

i never argued with that statement

[Smokey D]

It's possible, although I'm not sure, that killing an apex predator regionally will still have dire ecological effects even if the popluation will survive generally.


Aha, but the insanity is only heightened by the fact that aerial hunting entails using methods that practically guarantee a kill on apex predators that are otherwise very difficult to track.

I dunno. It seems pretty arbitrary to distinguish shooting things on the basis of how efficiently you do it.

[Charlie Daniels]

Yeah I'm a hunter and I think this is pretty retarded, takes away all the spirit involved in hunting, all the hard work and actual physical movement that is involved. It takes it all down to a lower pathetic level, there is nothing honorable about shooting a wolf from a helicopter, no work or anything required, just pointing and shooting at an animal that doesn't even really get a chance to run away.

Well, all the helicopter does is make hunting over impassable terrain possible and gives an elevation advantage. Two big advantages, but the lack of stability in the helicopter makes lining up (and then making) the shot a lot more difficult.

Hmm and it's harder to sneak up to something in a helicopter.

[Charlie Daniels]

Which looks more difficult:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6tHXznZLlQ&feature=related

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFQC-WBgbqk&feature=related

hmmm

[hismajestythepope]

i feel its overdue for me to say BAN THE ****ING **** OUT OF IT

[Shadius]

oh and in case that wasn't clear enough and you think you still have room to argue - my point is this

every time you eat store bought meat, processed meat, anything immediately available to you that you didn't hunt yourself, you're eating a select part of the animal

you might be able to find cow tongue, or liver on the shelf at your local grocery store, but what do you think happens to the rest of the animal?

the hide goes to leather products and the rest is scrap

anyone who eats meat is in no position to judge because they're just as wasteful as the hunters they try to put down

if you want to prove what a waste free person you are, let's see you eat the kidneys, heart, liver, lungs, intestines, brain, eyes, tongue, penis, testicles, tail, etc.. of an animal, and then utilize the stomach for a canteen, turn the hide into clothing, and use the bones for tools

if you don't do this every time you eat a hamburger then stfu you hypocrite

Just because you eat meat doesn't mean you have no right to complain about the processes used. You're being illogical.

Just because I may or may not have eaten an animal that had an unethical death doesn't mean I can't be of the opinion that animals should be killed more ethically with less waste.

On the topic of control, I'd say it's all about balance in ecosystems, too many predators is bad, as is too few. Humans should strive to make sure no animal is endangered because we shouldn't want to deprive the world of this animals existance and limit future generations experience.

To the guy who dosn't care about killing one animal; you're totally fine with dragging out with death of a living thing for pleasure? Just because it's one animal it dosn't matter how much suffering they endure?

[hismajestythepope]

so how about you do some research and boycott the companies that treat animals unethically?

[Shadius]

so how about you do some research and boycott the companies that treat animals unethically?

I do for the mostpart. I havn't researched every damn company/restaurant/pub in the UK though.

I was simply stating that this idea that 'once you cross a line you have no right to better yourself' is retarded.

[ringworm]

I was simply stating that this idea that 'once you cross a line you have no right to better yourself' is retarded.

agreed, fully

[hismajestythepope]

I do for the mostpart. I havn't researched every damn company/restaurant/pub in the UK though.

I was simply stating that this idea that 'once you cross a line you have no right to better yourself' is retarded.

well its true

you cant go on about treating animals ethically and then throw monetary support to companies that DONT treat animals ethically

[Smokey D]

Yes you can.

You're invoking a perfectionist fallacy.

[hismajestythepope]

okay, you CAN but its really ****ing fake

[Smokey D]

No it's not.

I can say the prison system mistreats prisoners without saying I want criminals out on the streets.

[hismajestythepope]

boycotting companies based on ethics isnt comparible to prison systems in any way?

[Smokey D]

Sure it is.

I can say the food industry mistreats cattle but it doesn't mean I don't want to eat beef.

[hismajestythepope]

yes but you can boycott the companies that do mistreat their cattle and still eat beef

its still pretty ****ed up but its at least SLIGHTLY more ethical

[Smokey D]

Hypocrisy and ethics aren't intrinsically related.

Boycotting is a method of provoking change, but it's not an essential part of disagreeing with a company.

[hismajestythepope]

yes but the people who say they want change but then dont even make an effort to support the change are just self-righteous asses who want to sound cool

[Smokey D]

No. Saying you want change in itself builds momentum for change.

Boycotting something without any organisation or groundswell support for the boycott is just inefficient and ineffective.

[hismajestythepope]

bahh

[Charlie Daniels]

Which looks more difficult:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6tHXznZLlQ&feature=related

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFQC-WBgbqk&feature=related

hmmm

No ones going to comment?

I mean, there's been so many comments saying that from a helicopter is much esier and takes less skill than shooting not having a helicopter.

[mph4ever]

beastiality snuff movies ftw

[Der Übermensch]

No ones going to comment?

I mean, there's been so many comments saying that from a helicopter is much esier and takes less skill than shooting not having a helicopter.

It's certainly a harder shot, but it is far out weighed by the ease of tracking.

[Charlie Daniels]

It's certainly a harder shot, but it is far out weighed by the ease of tracking.

Not really, that second video (if you watched) you would have seen that they just waited at the watering hole and blasted the pigs throughout the day when they came for a drink.

[Der Übermensch]

Hunting pigs? laaaame...

I'm talking about proper game. Deer and Elk and such.

[hismajestythepope]

beastiality snuff movies ftw

**** you

[Smokey D]

Not really, that second video (if you watched) you would have seen that they just waited at the watering hole and blasted the pigs throughout the day when they came for a drink.

It depends what you're hunting and where you're hunting them.