Why I HATE Hunters!
Posted by Anonymous on Apr 23, 2007 · Member since Dec 1969 · 11789 posts
Another excuse for a human took a beautiful Amur Leopard's life and brought the species one step closer to extinction. Now there are only 6 females left in the whole world (25-34 total). I hope it was FUN, and that he got a good "buzz" out of watching something die! Now THAT makes me an "Angry Vegan" >:(
I saw this today at the store and thought of you, Dave... ::)
http://www.gardenandgun.com/
I can't WAIT to read the article on upland bird hunting! This is a great time of the year for bird hunting. I like to shoot them knowing that there might be a nest of eggs or some little hatchlings waiting for their Mommy to come back to the nest. Kinda makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. I'll lend it to you guys when I'm done! :P :o
Garden & Gun? There's a reason the south has its rep, despite the many good people who live there.
How the publisher has described the magazine: "Stewards of the land, they love the outdoors and long to conserve all that the favorable environment and climate affords them."
But wait, it gets better! "At the heart of Garden & Gun is a love for the outdoors - upland bird hunting, gardening, fishing, sailing, equestrian sports and conservation."
Watch out Davedrum, "They are as likely to live in... Georgia..."
Watch out Davedrum, "They are as likely to live in... Georgia..."
I guess you already knew that. :(
Dave, I feel the same as you do. I know I am not "supposed to hate" anyone. But people like that Hunter or GW make that VERY hard :-\
What's a GW?
GW is George W. Bush... ;)
ooooh... 01.20.09
Gross gross gross.
I'm sorry, but I really think there is something wrong with people who hunt for sport.
How is killing ANYTHING supposed to be a happy and fun event?
Truly bizzare.
Ok, this made me bawl. I am an animal lover, as we all are, but I am especially a cat lover. We will lose the most beautiful and graceful animals on the plant because of what? Entertainment? So f**k**g sick. I feel nauseous.
on a somewhat related note...
not that i wish anyone harm, but i have to admit i did find this story kind of interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6570723.stm
i heard they're having to ship in food and supplies to the seal bashers. what happened to the natural selection argument now, eh?
man, i wish people would just stop playing with guns. no good ever comes of it.
some people are monsters, its ok to hate them and wish them harm
i wish this one all the harm in the world
I was going to just "back away" from this topic, yet I truly believe that there needs to be another perspective.
First, let me preface this by saying that the so called "hunters" that this post was started over are despicable human beings, something I think we can all agree on. However, you cannot generalize this behavior to all hunters. I personally know several hunters (yeah, I'm from the south, go figure) that are anything but monsters who deserve harm to them.
For one, these hunters only take what they will eat or give to charities such as "hunters for the hungry". Granted they are not veg but lets face it, no one can be perfect. Also, most of these people DO care a lot about the land and spend countless hours planting and managing land for wildlife, including those that they are not hunting. This creates new habitats to allow for an enormous diversity of taxa.
Everyone here seems to speak of compassion towards animals and such yet fail to realize the implications of not hunting. Without some means of population control, which is unfortunately needed when we as humans continue to destroy THEIR habitat through construction and the like, many animal populations become so dense that many of these animals end up with nutrient deficiencies and/or starve to death. How is this compassion? Also, when we continue to invade their habitats and population densities rise, what happens on the road? Cars vs Deer doesn't make a pretty situation for either the car and human driving it, or the deer that more than likely will suffer much more than at the hands of a skilled sportsman. Where is the compassion in this situation? Until there is a better alternative to control these populations in a humane and sustainable manner, hunting seems to be the only option in many, if not most, cases.
You can choose to do what you will and I can guarantee there will not be many of those on the this message board, if any at all, sitting out in the woods, but don't call them monsters. And don't make generalizations which are unfounded and inappropriate.
Oh, and last time I checked, people where animals and I thought one of the premises of veg*ism is compassion to ALL animals (including those that you don't necessarily agree with).
Everyone here seems to speak of compassion towards animals and such yet fail to realize the implications of not hunting. Without some means of population control, which is unfortunately needed when we as humans continue to destroy THEIR habitat through construction and the like, many animal populations become so dense that many of these animals end up with nutrient deficiencies and/or starve to death. How is this compassion? Also, when we continue to invade their habitats and population densities rise, what happens on the road? Cars vs Deer doesn't make a pretty situation for either the car and human driving it, or the deer that more than likely will suffer much more than at the hands of a skilled sportsman. Where is the compassion in this situation? Until there is a better alternative to control these populations in a humane and sustainable manner, hunting seems to be the only option in many, if not most, cases.
I have a feeling there are a lot of people here on vegweb who can argue against your case far more eloquently than I can, and armed with many more facts than I possess. But I must give my two (or three) visceral cents...
What I'm hearing you say is that because humans invade and destroy the habitats of animals, it is not only acceptable to shoot them, but in doing so, it is a desirable and compassionate act toward them. (And it is much better to be shot, than to be starving or run over by a car.)
Huh?
If invading and destroying the habitats of animals is the root of the problem, perhaps that is what humans need to work on fixing pronto, instead of making excuses, and putting a band aid on the problem, by causing further harm, death, and extinction through hunting. I can guarantee you that there are more vegetarians working on the problem of improving the habitats of animals than hunters.
You say that vegetarians/vegans go against their premise or beliefs by expressing anger toward hunters; that since humans are animals too, we should show compassion toward them. First of all, vegetarians do NO violence toward ANY animals, including humans. You do not see us wielding guns toward ANY animal. We are angry, but we're not the ones doing the killing. I'm rather tired of people confusing anger and violence, as if they are on a similar level. They are two separate incredibly different things. Let's get this straight: Hunters KILL. We are ANGRY. GUNS/KILLING vs. THOUGHTS/WORDS. Hmmm...
And though humans are animals, humans are different in that we are sentient creatures that can make decisions for ourselves. When a human shoots an animal, he or she is making a very conscious decision to do so. It is NOT a necessity for humans to kill animals. Humans no longer have to question whether or not it is necessary to kill and eat an animal to survive. I am living proof. I am alive and healthy and do not eat meat or animal products. Humans have the ABILITY like no other creature on this planet to actually make a conscious decision to live in harmony with nature. I've never seen a coyote stop in its tracks, scratch its head, and say, "Hmmm...I feel bad for that bunny rabbit that I'm chasing...I think I'd rather eat some grass over there in that field than to cause pain to that innocent little bunny." Not only do humans have the ability to CHOOSE not to harm animals, they can actually make the lives of animals better and more beautiful.
So if some vegetarians have compassion for animals whereas they do not have compassion for hunters, remember this: Human hunters (and that goes for ALL hunters) make a choice to kill, other animals do not and cannot. (That sort of seems obvious, but I felt I had to state it clearly for the record.)
those were some good cents, bunny... i'll leave it at that.
I was going to just "back away" from this topic, yet I truly believe that there needs to be another perspective.
Everyone here seems to speak of compassion towards animals and such yet fail to realize the implications of not hunting. Without some means of population control, which is unfortunately needed when we as humans continue to destroy THEIR habitat through construction and the like, many animal populations become so dense that many of these animals end up with nutrient deficiencies and/or starve to death. How is this compassion? Also, when we continue to invade their habitats and population densities rise, what happens on the road? Cars vs Deer doesn't make a pretty situation for either the car and human driving it, or the deer that more than likely will suffer much more than at the hands of a skilled sportsman. Where is the compassion in this situation? Until there is a better alternative to control these populations in a humane and sustainable manner, hunting seems to be the only option in many, if not most, cases.
Hi Khpruitt,
Since you decided to join this topic, I thought I'd give you my point of view on "hunting as a means of population control." You wrote about us humans continuing to invade their (meaning wildlife) habitats. That is very true. I too am currently residing in the South, and thank "fill in the space with whatever you believe in" that I am surrounded by the National Forest and the Appeals Court recently shut down the Bush plan to allow logging and new logging roads to be built (to protect the forest...sheeeeeesh)! The new subdivisions going in non stop to the south of where I live can not, and do not, allow hunting. Though I personally think if they wanted to hunt in some of those subdivisions it should be every man, woman, and child for themselves (just like the deer, turkey, and bunnies). I see no difference.... if you want to hunt something....heck...humans make easy prey, do they not? (kidding here folks...). A mammal is a mammal in my eyes, but then again I don't hunt. Call me crazy, but I enjoy watching living things....breath! Seeing their eyes blink is better then not....
The way to "control" wildlife populations is to re-release the "top" of the predator food chain into many areas of the country. Those areas that have had wolves reintroduced have seen a remarkable improvement. You can't take away the top predators (through years of hunting...even government bounties) and then justify MORE HUNTING as a means to control the rest of the wildlife population.
"The areas of the country that have reintroduced wolves have had a remarkable success. The whole natural ecosystem of those areas has been "balanced" by putting the top predator in the food chain back where it belongs. Here are some of the results of what has happened in Yellowstone:
Wolves--being large predators--are essential components of the ecosystems they inhabit. The reason why deer are so fast, moose so powerful, and bighorn sheep so agile is the continuous pressure of predators upon their prey. The wolf is the primary predator of animals such as elk and bison, both extremely abundant in Yellowstone National Park. Wolves are having a positive effect on these animals in Yellowstone by keeping their numbers in balance. In fact, the return of wolves has had a ripple effect that has touched almost all organisms in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Coyotes, which had become overabundant are being displaced from their former territories by the reintroduced wolves. Coyote numbers have dropped and allowed small predators, such as foxes to flourish once again. The reduction in elk and bison numbers has allowed willow and aspen trees to regenerate and regain their place in an ecosystem which had been overgrazed. "
-From: Defenders of Wildlife
Not only has it balanced out the food chain without relying on hunting by humans, it has started to turn the forest and plains back to their natural state. I also want to add that many hunters "aim" for the biggest and strongest....which is highly un-natural. Predators will seek out the weakest animals, therefore creating "a stronger and healthier" population. Hunters can not, and do not, distinguish which animals are the slowest and weakest. They don't chase a herd of deer on foot and go after the slowest, weakest, smallest one. There is no doubt that the herds are healthier that are kept in check by large predators. And that goes all the way down the food chain.
There is no argument one can make to justify hunting as a means to "control" an animal population.....there's a lot of places that have way too many humans...some that even get hit by cars!...should we say it's OK to hunt some of them to"control the population"....?
-dave
forgive me if im being flippant but i think the idiot who joined this post and used it to try and justify murder has already had appropriate answers from far more eloquent people than i, so all i have to add is this, i would hunt if the scum that destroy this planet and the lives of every animal group on the planet were....drum rollllll.....HUMANS!
kill the humans, and their culture
kill the humans, kill them all
kill the humans, watch them perish
kill the humans, in their millions
KILL THE HUMANS, jefferson dies, we kill his eyes
kill the humans, we'lll give our boy, a nice suprise
encourage children, to kill the humans
so the young ones, they may learn
and tradition, shall be passed on
through the slaughter, of the humans
kill the humans, gobble their hearts, and other parts
kill the humans, then we'll all laugh, and share a bath
ok so now you all think im a psyco, look at my face, am i bothered? you see this song is from
a television programme and is a satirical look at how a ficticious race of aliens see humans, i see it as pretty much exactly how hunters pass on their "sporting tradition" to their own vulnerable spawn, thus breeding yet another arsehole that thinks its ok to kill and is misguided enough to actually believe we are superior to other animals, hunters, wake up and smell the coffee, you are bullies, and i hope one day you all get to feel the fear you install in these poor creatures, you simply suck and i wish you no good, at all, ever!
;)
“If invading and destroying the habitats of animals is the root of the problem, perhaps that is what humans need to work on fixing”
I completely agree. But if you haven’t noticed yet, every day I see more land destroyed for a upscale apartment complex or a new shopping center. And with this construction comes habitat destruction. Unless we can STOP this building what do we do? I never said hunting was the MOST desirable method but what happens in the mean time? Close our eyes and let the density get so high that they do starve to death or have the rate of car vs deer accidents sky rocket?
”First of all, vegetarians do NO violence toward ANY animals, including humans. You do not see us wielding guns toward ANY animal. We are angry, but we're not the ones doing the killing. I'm rather tired of people confusing anger and violence, as if they are on a similar level. They are two separate incredibly different things. Let's get this straight: Hunters KILL. We are ANGRY. GUNS/KILLING vs. THOUGHTS/WORDS. Hmmm...”
Maybe you missed the post directly before mine and that of the last post to which I think deserves no response.
“some people are monsters, its ok to hate them and wish them harm
i wish this one all the harm in the world”
So is it okay to just wish them harm and not do it so that you can wash your hands of it and go to sleep at night? Seems might hypocritical to me. Yet, no one seemed to argue that point. What if that post had read, “some lions are monsters, its ok to hate them and wish harm to them. I wish this one (say one that killed a pet) all the harm in the world.” I have a feeling this statement would not have gone over so well on the board yet if humans are the target, nobody seemed to care.
I also agree that it is not a necessity for humans to kill and eat animals to survive. I am ALSO living proof of this. Yet, a lot of the world’s population still consumes meat and animal products, does this make everyone else monsters? I seriously don’t think so. Would the world be a lot better off if everyone was a veg*n? Absolutely. But lets face reality, just because others don’t express the same concerns as you and me does not make them monsters or less of a human, or bad people, or anything. I don’t hear anyone calling the omni parents of other members on hear bad people. Rather, I hear encouragement in trying to help them understand why WE choose to abstain from animal products. I would also guess that at one time, most of the people on this board did eat meat. And yes, I’ll stand by hunting as a more humane way of meat production any day compared to a factory farm.
On to the next response…
With regard to re-releasing the top of the predator food chain I must point out that I agree that works great in truly natural ecosystems such as Yellowstone. However, what happens when you re-release wolves into a subdivision? Pets start disappearing, children go missing, and then there is the public outcry. Look at Colorado where hunting wolves became illegal. In places where the human population was high, the population of wolves grew to the point where they were in everyone’s back yard and unfortunately people were adopting the motto of “shoot, shovel, and shut the hell up” with regard to these top predators. Maybe I am different here but I know for a fact that if it came down to a child of mine or a wolf, the wolf is of little concern to me.
Let me say again, that I DON’T think that hunting is the BEST option. It just happens to be the viable at this point in time. With more work from those that care about wildlife and the like, hopefully one day this will not be a problem. You won’t see me out there but if someone who is morally okay with hunting (just like those who find it morally okay to consume meat) chooses to hunt lawfully and skillfully, and in turn keeps population densities within their means, I’m okay with that.
DODO...I don't mind the personal attacks. Everyone else's responses were well intentioned, your's, counter-productive. One question I must ask you is what is the true difference between a hunter and someone who eats meat? Though the meat-eater does not usually personally kill the animal, by them choosing to consume the product they are condoning the act and in essence taking the easy road out by relying on the work of those who do what they won't, and I personally don't see too much of a difference.
Pages