Recreational hunting and DMGD - A new hypothesis

A pretend "scientific" web site registered by Bob Chorush, who seems to be some kind of animal rights kook. And he's claiming that men who like to hunt must have small weeners.

Isn't that HILARIOUS?!!! Small weeners!!! LOLZ!! I bet they smell like dookies!!!!

Bob is evidently 10 years old.

That must be why I used to deer hunt.  Penis envy.  Had nothing at all to do with culture or familial bonding at all. 

Honestly, martin, this is so completely jerky that I wouldn't have even expected it from you.  Thanks for letting me know I can lower my expectations even further.

Challenging recreational hunting by men is a high-risk activity... but I am up to it as long as my Corvette is at the shop.

This 'news' is from March 29, 2005.

C'mon, Martin - that's awfully weak, even coming from you.

You are the one using the word 'news': no mention of that in the OP.

ROFL!  Thanks for this, Martin - you made my day!

Reminds me of that bumper sticker: "Nice Hummer!  Shame about your penis."

he's claiming that men who like to hunt must have small weeners

Shouldn't that read "wieners"? Unless it's really wee.

From the site: Dr. Upchurch reports, "The first step in the treatment of a disorder is to understand its origins. We are pleased to have crossed that important threshold."

Ya, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're not a vegan and you're not an animal-rights activist, but you oppose men hunting on the grounds that it could lead to pride or male bonding or some other "manly" thing too manly to mention.   

Look, there's a Snert out on a limb, quick, take aim...

Huh.  Two shooting "jokes" in one day.  Have you been dreaming of guns lately? 

I started hunting when I was around 10, and yes I had a smaller wiener then, what a revalation, then again i'm all growed up now..I still like to hunt..woe is me.

As an anti hunter, do you ever stop to think that maybe you're the one with some sort of defficiency?  Nah, you're a progressive and a feminist, you couldn't be wrong..perfection must be a terrible burden.

Aaaahhhhhhhhh, just blow it off...huh? Maybe you should spend some time trying to learn how to read and write instead of shootin´your long rifle around

We have entered the intelligence zone...

Even the DMGD site only disparaged deer hunters who did not hunt for meat. This topic quickly derailed into attacking all hunters, even for their spelling.

Another manifestation of the insecurity that lurks just beneath the surface of those who need to stoop to sexual stereotyping in order to appear superior.

All hunters are not assholes, the bad ones just make it appear so.

There  are  very few people in  this  society  who  need to hunt  for  food,  but wild  meat is  just  about  the best  meat  you  can  eat(besides  organic lamb  and  beef  that  is).  Should someone be condemned simply for seeking the most  natural source of  animal fat there is? What does this guy say about fishing?

I think this whole theory is a insult to men born with unusually small penises.  A much more likely connection is to those with deep seated control issues... 

There are men born with unusually small penises? :shocked:

I agree with timebandit, I hunt, always have.

And not because I have an enlarged clitoris. Because I don't.

There's nothing wrong with hunting, as long as it isn't just done "for sport".  Or done in a totally un-sporting manner.  Or done to an endangered species. 

And for those who just enjoy the hunt, I'm sure there are other possible reasons as well.  Some grown men might just prefer spending time out in the woods with their buddies rather than at home with their wives or girlfriends or big screen tvs.  Sport hunters shouldn't be so defensive.... 

The article reads like something from "The Onion". I can't tell whether it's a clever piece of satire, or a genuine but dishonest attempt to get people to believe that there's a link between small penis size and hunting.

Just out of curiosity, I did a google search on "pubis innyus" and got exactly eighteen hits (there at first appear to be lots of pages, but it all ends at the second page). Every hit was either to the article cited, or to pages citing that article. I might also note that "innyus" is not a word in English, Latin, Greek or any other language as far as I know: I suspect it was just made up by the the writer.

I know lots of hunters (from work). Every single one of them does it just for sport. Now, I know there are many hunters (FN, Inuit, etc.) who hunt for food. I'm quite sure they must constitute a tiny minority. I'm not saying that my friends who hunt for sport don't also eat their victims. All I'm saying is that's not why they hunt.

If we eat what we kill we can still make it to heaven, Unionist, even if we do get an atavistic rush out of the chase.  Even the Prince of Peace ate a little lamb now and then, and I'm pretty sure what we do counts for more than what we think.   I learned that one when I accidently cut off a couple Hells Angels...sticks and stones and all that.     

Self defence is ok too I suppose, though I doubt even rural Canada has many lions, tigers and bears left....   :)  

Plese don't say "tiny", Unionist.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with eating what we kill.

What I find non-human is to kill for pleasure.

All I'm saying is that hunting just for trophies or the sheer fun of removing the light from the eyes of one of Nature's creations is wrong.  Killing for food or clothing or economic necessity is...well, sometimes necessary even today.  Need is never greed.

That's exactly the opposite of my experience. Many in the family, including my father, are hunters. For them, it is mainly because of the meat; I always hope they are successful, because I know I'll get a taste of the moose or venison or partridge.

Do they need to hunt? Is it economic necessity? 

No, but they enjoy the outdoors, and the results. And I can tell you that having these people out in the bush keeps the local gravel pits from expanding beyond their boundaries, and the logging companies from stripping too much of the land boarding their operations. Without their eyes, ears, and concern, nature is at much greater risk.

I am not a fan of sport hunting, eat what you kill.

I have a rifle because of an animal that kills for sport.  Coyotees.  In the past few years we have lost calves and several hundred chickens.  The chickens were chased killed and left uneaten.  The calves may have been too, but it was hard to tell with scavengers having found them before me.

Nature is not bucolic.

Most of the hunters I know do it to be closer to their food.  They enjoy the atmosphere, but then I enjoy caring for my cattle.  Does that mean all livestock farmers are evil too.  At some point such arguments just get downright silly.

Just stepping in to remind folks about personal attacks before I start getting complaints...attack the argument, not Martin...you know the drill.

Clarification requsest:  if I made the suggestion that people who support the abolition of prostitution suffer from tiny, tiny genitals, would that be considered some kind of attack?  Or would it just be in keeping with the hilarity of the opening post?

Yes.  Thanks for posting this.  Most of the hunters I know - the ones I grew up around, my uncles both blood and chosen - are ardent conservationists who put a lot of time and money into preserving habitat.  Even preserves they're not allowed to hunt on.  Go figure.

I actually got to use a skill that I learned hunting last fall.  We were shooting footage out near an eco-village and we knew there were deer in the trees.  The cameraman and I both started thinking that it would be nice to see some deer bounding across the foreground with the village in the back, so we set him up in a good spot with a nice panorama, and I looped around behind where the deer were, then "pushed bush" to flush them out in the right place.  Worked beautifully, got a gorgeous shot out of it.

martin, your opening thread premise is also sexist. What would you call women who hunt? My roomate in university in Nfld. hunted one moose per year, which she was kind enough to share with me on a regular basis. We had stews, steaks, bottled moose meat - you name it. It was not an absolute economic necessity (she could have taken out a larger student loan to bought more grocery store meat of lesser nutritional value), and she did enjoy it. She definitely did not have penis envy or wish she were a well-endowned man.

Quite a large percentage of Newfies hunt and fish (and enjoy it) and I don't think they are not known for smaller penis size.

...that's quite the use of the double negative there.

Why do they hunt? Why do you hunt?

I've been a vegetarian for almost 40 years now. I grew up hunting. And one of the many things I have done, was to be a hunting guide.

It is true that when it comes down to it, most people any of us are around do not hunt simply to put meat on the table.

So its fair to call it sport.

But is absolutely reductionist to call it 'killing for pleasure'.

Thanks - I was starting to wonder whether I was imagining things when I said that of the many many hunters I know, not one of them hunts for the main purpose of eating.

Ken, do you think it's humane and proper to kill animals for sport?

My apologies...

One doesn't absolutely "need" to eat a hamburger.   But if you happen to be a meat eater, it's nice to have one every now and then.

Though the thing is, someone else killed that cow...for profit...and usually some mega multinational food processing conglomerate.

If you hunt or fish, you kill the animal you're about to eat yourself.    Also, if a hunter kills something big like a deer or a moose, they usually have more meat than they can consume on their own, and end up sharing it with others.    I tend to think sharing is a good thing.

I've never hunted in my life.  Just not into it.   But, I don't condemn others who engage in the practice...or question their penis size.   As long as hunters act in a safe and responsible way, consume what they kill, don't hunt endangered species, hunt "in season" and play by the rules I have no real problem with it.

Do you think hiking in the wilderness is a sport?

Is it more or less of a sport if it involves carrying a 15 lbs. weight into the bush, and possibly a hundred or more lbs. back out?

From the Greenland video:

Different people have different cultures. We only have the right to pronounce upon our own. That's why nothing I say about hunting, for example, applies to Aboriginal nations and people.

But I hope you'll agree with me that the quote above would not be appropriate for "our" culture. We don't privilege boys, and we don't need to individually kill animals as a right of passage. Do we?

LTJ, I asked my question first. If you answer it, I will readily and happily answer yours.

We are omnivores by nature. I think it's hypocritical to eat meat and condemn those who kill it.

Finally, I think it unfair to accuse all of those who hunt of finding their satisfaction with the sport in the killing itself. I have hunted - rather unsuccessfully - and greatly enjoyed my time in the woods, regardless of having not pulled the trigger on most excursions.

I don't anymore.  No time, for one thing, and I never liked dressing what I kill, so I switched to cameras in my late teens so and tagged along.  And now that my dad is gone, hunting would be a bittersweet experience for me because hunting was a way to spend a day rambling around the countryside with Dad, appreciating nature and doing something together.  Sometimes we didn't even shoot, just watch the wildlife.  Figure out where it was, see the beauty of the landscape.  Drink cocoa out of a thermos and laugh our heads off.  A reason to go down a road you wouldn't otherwise take.  In my current life, I still like to go for a ramble.

For my father and his friends, hunting was something cultural.  Growing up in rural or semi-rural Saskatchewan, it was something that a lot of men did.  Fewer women in their generation, although some women did hunt.  A rarity, though.  Anyway, yes there was some working-class male bonding, but a lot of them came from families who did hunt to eat in the '30s and '40s.  Even into the '50s, some of them.  Food-gathering sort of became ingrained - we picked saskatoon berries in the spring, looked for fiddleheads in the early spring in the valley, too.  Fished in the summer.  There's something satisfying in going out and getting what you put on your table yourself.  The same reason some people garden, I suppose.  We did that, too.

I think the thing that bothers me most about the OP and martin's position is the idea that men who hunt must be losers.  The men I grew up around, that were part of my childhood hunted game, but they also put their efforts into conservation, into raising families on working-class jobs and wages, and still made time to raise money for charity through groups like Kinsmen.  They were good guys. It's pretty shallow to denigrate them as men because they pursue an activity you don't approve of.

Well as long as we are talking about culture - perhaps we can discuss the huge differences between rural and urban culture?

Hunting is most definitely a part of Newfie culture (a lot less so here on the Island). Although I have never heard of it from anyone I know in Canada using it as a "right of passage" for turning boys to men. Most often, it has been used as a way to bond as family and teach useful survival skills. What is it about the culture that takes pleasure in purchasing pre-packaged hormone-laden meat from factory farms that makes them feel superior to other cultural practices within Canada? Is it because they aren't present or taking part in the trigger being pulled when the animal is killed? It is because it is all hidden behind closed doors?

Here on PEI, coyotes are hunted and none at all are eaten. This is for wildlife conservation reasons. Coyotes have no predators here (other than the human-managed cull) and their number would quickly balloon out of control. They are much less likely to attack humans if they have a fear of humans and if they are not fed human food.

They also eat cows and chickens prior to them being ready to be packaged up for grocery stores.  Hunters and trappers here founded and are the member of the local wildlife conservation organization. They are most committed to maintaining a healthy environment and rules around quotas, seasons, etc.

Thanks Timebandit and LTJ.

Still crying over your post Timebandit, brought back some huge memories.

The OP is satire for those who doubted it, and I introduced it with a specific focus on recreational shooting and the specific fixation many males seem to have about it -- a cultural, not biological trait, thankfully.

I too have spent the most luminous moments of my youth enjoying long walks and reveries in the bush... without guns, past the first thrill/sadness of killing a living being. I have also stopped fishing, figuring the fish (and worms) don't need any abuse for me - and I don't really need their meat.

martin, I get that it's satire.  Do you get that it's a shallow criticism of me and mine?

I did not read in your post any identification with the "values" that Streams and Upchurch were lampooning.

That's because Streams and Upchurch lack a basic understanding of what those values are.  They're riffing on a stereotype, and so are you.  I find that offensive.

I can understand the moral imperative of not eating meat because you think it's wrong to kill another living thing, although I don't share it. But unless I misunderstand Unionist, he's objecting to the "thrill" hunters get by shooting and eating their own kill. If you object to that but still think it's okay to eat meat, then you are suffering an ethical disconnect. There is first, of course, the mistake that the thrill comes from killing and not hunting. Second, it is distressing that one would prefer to do our killing in sterilized, commodifed environment rather than one of camaraderie, geographical connection and continuity, where we see the trajectory of animal-carcass-plate. I don't see how buying pork chops that weigh exactly 300g, wrapped in styrofoam and plastic, is somehow more humane. Third, criticizing male homosocial activity simply because  it is male homosocial activity, is petty, small minded and clumsy. I'm all for levelling a robust criticism at hunting and male-bonding, if your argument is rooted in specifics and social theory. As it is, though, the OP is baiting, hostile and without merit.

Sorry LTJ, I'll stick with my question until you answer it: Is it humane to hunt for sport? I eat meat and I do not condemn those who slaughter it. My question is very different. I don't know how to simplify it any further. All I can do is repeat it.

Let me give you my opinion. It is not humane to hunt for sport.

Personally, I have never experienced a "thrill" at hunting. And definitely not when an animal is killed, nor have I been out with anyone who has.

It is about food source, environment, and a way of life.

I have known many women hunters, and do not even see it as a "male" thing.

Around here people go out  to get their  meat supply.

These amounts have increased since the destruction of the forest industry.

We are trying to deal with a situation where many men have bought in to a stereotype, making it reality -- whether we are talking of the "sexiness" of a powerful automobile* or of the thrill of shooting living beings for pleasure. When feeding oneself isn't the issue - I emphasized that the OP was about recreational hunting -  all that is left is the thrill of shooting/killing. If you think the authors lack a basic understanding of those "values", Timebandit, - not those of nature walks, food from nature and inter-generational moments of confidence -, feel free to make that argument. As it is, I fear you are using impeccable human values to cover for... well, jack-asses.

* A bit of good news - Toyota announced yesterday it was pulling out of Formula 1 racing, which will allow it to put 300 million/yr more into the development of hybrid/fuel-economic cars.

It is not hunters fault that metrosexual men are feeling too citified... ;)

Even with auto racing I don't believe it's all about feeding into some kind of "macho stereotype".    The automotive industry has been involved in racing for over a century for a couple of reasons a) advertising and b)having a venue to "test" new automotive technologies that may or may not make it into the consumer market.

There are "races" involving solar powered vehicles.

Are you saying that these solar powered car races are about macho maleness and not about providing a testing ground for solar technology?

Why is it that after millions of years of evolution where humans were undoubtedly hunters all of a sudden it can't be part of our culture? I would say it's much more likely that it is not part of the personal philosophy of the few rather than the many, it is certainly part of mine.  What I can not understand is why the anti hunting crowd is so self assured in their beliefs, consider for a moment that since we are hunters/gatherers by nature you could be just wrong! omg maybe you're wrong!  You eat meat, but hunting is wrong, nothing could be more illogical.

As Remind mentioned for many hunters killing is not thrilling, I enjoy being out there, i attribute it to some ancestral drive, perhaps it's genetic, I spent 5-6 days bird hunting this year, just being out there is enjoyable, but it's more than that, I can't really find the right words. it just feels right to me, and I didn't bring anything home, which im fine with, most hunters I know are, it's not about simple killing.

I can't really explain it, im not sure it can be explained without a common frame of reference that some of you clearly don't share, and thats ok.  The question is, why must something be wrong simply because you choose to believe it so, i say you are wrong, hunting is a large part of true Canadian culture, anti hunters are the mistaken ones. 

Though i also wonder if the desire to marginalize hunters is just another front on the war to destroy anything 'male', this would make a little more sense since the hate on hunting is clearly nonsense, and has been mentioned many women hunt, making the bloodthirsty white male argument moot.  Though no doubt the usual suspects will only claim that we have convinced (coerced) some women that they should hunt..sigh.

What a sad central theme for a thread. I can just imagine First Nations people being told they have small willys for trying to feed their families. And Inuit in the North. And there are northerners who hunt to supplement groceries in winter. Lots of hunters share their meat with needy people in the neighborhood.

Come on Fidel, stuff the hankie, this thread is about recreational hunting, when feeding the hungry is NOT an issue...

Have they bought into that stereotype?  Really?  Because I've never met anyone who has, other than you and others who have no experience of hunting.  Frankly, martin, I think that's utter bullshit and it is far more likely that this kind of a cheap shot is more indicative of, as yarg pointed out, an antipathy to anything that is regarded as stereotypically male.  I don't see any reflection of reality here at all.

Your opinion is that "all that is left is the shooting and killing".  Well, I've already explained that that's not the case and there's no point in hashing it out again.  I've already explained there is a cultural aspect to it.  If I weren't so goddam white, you wouldn't question that.  We'd be talking about diversity of cultures and accomodating worldviews.

The values I've learned from men who hunt include self-reliance, an appreciation of nature - not just the Disneyfied aspects, and a responsibility to the environment.  You don't get it, and that's fine.  But don't shit on my experience because you lack the capacity to to understand it.

Sure, and just so long as it isn't confused with recreational eating and recreational making a living in northern communities for the sake of propping up the Liberals' billion dollar gun registry boondoggle. We know there was a plan to wean Canadians off of old world natural resource exporting economy in the way of old world colonialism. But it seems to have been derailed since about 2005 or so.

No, Fidel, martin's scorn is reserved for the pale of face.  Although class doesn't seem to have anything to do with it.  I guess all white males are just bad, bad, bad.  Unless, of course, they're just like martin.  Then they're okay.  Better align yourself.

Martin should travel north to Matagami, La Sarre, Noranda etc, and ask them if they hunt because the price of groceries rarely if ever goes down. Pale faces and Crees alike will give us an ear-full about price of groceries in the North.

I think I need a definition from martin and unionist by what they mean by sport or recreational hunting.  My experience would suggest that very few hunters would meet that term.  It seems to me much more that you are instead relying on a classist stereotype.  Very few hunters in pratical terms would be what I would call trophy hunters and are only looking for a big rack to display somewhere.  That group is so small, although often very wealthy, as to be almost meaningless for any kind of comparision or analysis of hunters or gun owners.

I think some Canadians must find it offensive that they have to buy an "outdoors card", one for fishing and and another for hunting. And if you just want to camp in a park, there are all kinds of fees and taxes for that activity, too.  What's next, indoors cards for Ontarians? It's getting to be quite the Liberal-fascist bureaucracy in this Northern Panama with a few Polar bears. 

Even as sport I'd call it one hell of a lot more humane- more human [not male human]- than eating meat from the factory line. Talk about lack of fundamental respect for our fellow sentinent beings. And if you happen to be choosy about where your meat comes from- and because of the life the animals lived- its at a minimum clear you are more understanding of people who do not make that choice, than you are of hunters.

Timebandit and maybe others have given good short looks at how its a cultural thing. You don't have to be First Nations to tap into that- and like First Nations people, to continue that link even when like everyone else you are completely tapped into and dependent on the mass economy.

There's a lot to be said for meat eaters killing themselves what they eat. I'd never expect people who didn't grow up with it to be able to do it if you are going to eat meat, but I don't think there is any question that it is more holistic. And what difference is there between raising a sheep and eating it, versus going out to shoot a deer that you eat?

The fact that people don't need to hunt to eat is not the only dimension. Its also true that at least generally speaking, if they didn't eat it, they wouldn't hunt it. There is more to it than sport... no matter how sportlike it becomes.

And do you know of any timeless activity that has not become at least somewhat alientated from its roots in modern life? What's special about hunting- other than the fact you don't do it and feel its perfectly acceptable to look down your nose at it?

People should not hunt if they cannot kill cleanly, or find the game they bring down.  Bowhunters are the worst. Gave up hunting ducks for the above reasons, and never could hunt deer, even though I know they they have to be culled or they take over the fields and roads hereabouts.  I just wish that the licencing of hunters was kept to people who are accurate enough to make clean kills. And I understand that life in rural Canada moves to a different drummer - often demands it.

The hunting of any species under population stress, like ducks, is not the pursuit of sports"men" (or women).

Don't know why more folks can't limit it to targets and clay pigeons. 

I agree with what Bookish Agrarian said. When I said that it was fair enough to call the way most hunters approach it sport- I meant that: 'fair enough', as in notr without truth. But I wouldn't characterise the way most people hunt as sport- and that most probably includes most of the people you know unionist. That's why I came up with the term/concept- hunting has become sportlike.

If it was to be accuracy in labelling the thread title should be:

Recreational hunting and DMGD: some old classist nuggets in new bottles

I think hunting is sometimes more humane than the methods used to slaughter cattle. Or keeping calves in confined spaces raising them for veal, and shooting them full of antibiotics because their immune systems are so weak. That really does amount to torturing an animal for the sake of fat-cat dining.

Excuse thread drift...Hey Fidel...I've been up in that part of the world as well...particularly Matagami and points north along the "Route de la Baie James"...cool!

OK...back to our regularly scheduled activities in this thread ;)

OMG this was the best laugh today!! I am so using that last line remind.

I wasn't that far. Chibougamau to the East, Matagami closer to the Ontario border, La Sarre was as far north in Quebec as I've ever been. Lots of muskeg and tag aldars. I was cutting line then for a mining company then. The most amazing Northern lights I ever saw with swirling reds, blues and greens from one horizon the next. I'd never seen them before and thought something terrible was happening. I was pretty young then.

If regulated under provincial fish and game regulations, (as opposed to indigineous peoples hunting rights) its all recreational hunting. Whether a resident hunter or a non-resident guided hunter, its all recreational.

By law, outfitters must bring out any animal parts fit for human consumption in most provinces and territories and much of this is donated to various individuals.

The recreational part is very relevant when the hunter spends quite a lot of money on their hunting trip. Even rural hunters who hunt close to home still spend more on game meat than buying a side of beef from a farmer for a buck and a quarter a pound.

Funny how tolerance goes out the window when a white mans culture/traditions are at issue.  OK, now someone make a silly argument about bringing back slavery... 1 2 3 go!

Sure - but that's not my concern. My concern is the timeless activities that involve killing animals where the motive is NOT securing food for one's family. If baseball originated with some survival activity, and has now become disconnected from its roots, that doesn't bother me - because it's just baseball.

The fact that it involves killing animals (when it's done properly and they're not just maimed and tortured, that is). That's what's special about hunting.

Let me give you an example. A person roams the neighbourhood shooting and killing feral cats, and neatly disposing of the bodies. When confronted, he says his ancestors have been doing it for years, he finds it fun, and it's a good excuse to go for healthy walks. Are you ok with that? I'm not. Nor am I ok with hunting for sport. Or fishing for sport, for that matter. Hunting and fishing for food are fine in my book.

Not that there's anything wrong with that! I had a good laugh too! 

There's no evidence here that you paid any attention to the question you asked me, and the considered answer I gave.

So I will repeat both the question, and the answer:

Did you think that was some kind of dodge me bringing up the factory production of meat? I can't think of any other explanation for you ignoring what I said.

Let me be very clear: I find it extremely offensive, and exremely disrespectful of sentinent beings. I already said that, so what gives you the audacity to think your concern trumps mine? 

Let alone the rather obvious glass house implications here.

Bottom line:

I don't eat meat. While thats about respect for sentinent beings, I consider my reasons to be essentialy spiritual/metaphysical, and truly personal. Meaning, that it has no implications on what other people do.

I find the process of factory meat production much more offensive than I find hunting- all hunting, warts and all. Despite that, I make no commendation whatsoever of people who eat the meat that comes out of that truly inhumane process, the same as I make no commendation of hunters. 

You on the other hand, point the finger at others while apparently excusing yourself; and to make it worse, drag in the obvious straw person allegory of killing cats for kicks.

Ken, how in God's name this can turn into a subject for personal attacks is beyond me. You're so enamoured of your own arguments that you re-quote them at length, because I didn't sufficiently appreciate their brilliance. I can't believe I'm under attack here for giving my opinion that killing animals primarily for sport (NOT primarily for food) is perhaps a human habit that should be considered as old-fashioned? I'm not going to engage your posts any more until you settle down and cease your ad hominem responses.

Since I'm left to guess, mine is that you understood my argument, but chose to trivialize it and cherry pick a bit for a launch into a straw person.

But we'll leave be the attributions.

You did ask a sincere question, and I answered it sincerely. 

So I'll ask a sincere question.

Do you think that the process by which meat is put on most people's table is humane? or even reasonably humane? And how does that differ from people who were raised with hunting, continuing to do so irregardless of the fact they don't "need" it?

unionist, I agree with you about killing animals just for sport - ie to get a "trophy". However, I have never met anyone that does that in my experience. Anyone I have ever encountered hunts to eat. I don't think it is that prevalent in Canada, aside from quite wealthy people paying to go up North on a guided tour. Most people cannot afford this type of thing.

Now, there are other reasons for hunting other than food and "sport".  Wildlife management is a major one. As I mentioned previously, coyotoes are hunting for culling reasons here on the Island, which is very necessary. Crows are also culled, as are skunks. In other jurisdictions, wolves are culled as otherwise the caribou populations would be decimated.

I'm no expert, but I'm convinced that in many cases it is extremely cruel and at best indifferent to the suffering of animals.

Because what you don't seem to grasp is my point - the difference between killing animals primarily to be used as food, and killing animals primarily because one enjoys hunting.

A separate and extremely important issue is the method by which animals are raised and slaughtered. But it's not my point in this discussion. My point is that I question whether animals should be killed (and often just maimed) as an enjoyable pursuit in this day and age. I would raise the same concern even if hunters learned how to tranquillize and then euthanize their prey in the most heavenly fashion.

The only reason I exclude Aboriginal people from my question is not because they hunt for subsistence, but because they are sovereign and I don't like to preach my morality to sovereign peoples.

No, Ghislaine, with respect, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about my fellow workers. They go out hunting (all males - always), drink tonnes of beer, and have a great time. If you don't know any people like that, then I guess we move in different circles (kind of like this thread at this point...).

To conclude, I'm NOT talking about culling wildlife. I'm talking about hunting for enjoyment. I also must say I've never met anyone who hunts because s/he can't afford to shop.

I think you need to ponder the consistency of this. It makes a difference that the raising of animals where over 95% of meat comes from IS cruel- even casually cruel. And the point has been made numerous times that except for a few trophy hunters, eating the meat is an integral part. There is no neat seperation such as you presume. Just as there's question about how you can serperate away how animals are used by people in their journey to the plate.

I find it interesting that a simple and respectful question of how one defines recreational or sports hunting has been completely ignored. 

So is it hunting for enjoyment if you eat what you hunt, but you also enjoy hunting (not solely killing, mind you, but hunting)?

Or, in other words, would it be fair to say that the only hunting you can support is when the hunter eats what he hunts, AND is also reluctant and miserable about having to??

Just for the record, I like to keep a few tomato plants and a couple of cucumbers in the summer, but it's not because I can't afford to buy vegetables.  And God help me, I LIKE IT.

I hope that doesn't make me some kind of macho nutjob.

I think we can infer from the discussion that all hunting = recreational hunting in the view of those who are against it.

FWIW, Unionist, alcohol was never part of hunting.  After hunting, sure.  And it was usually rye, not beer.  Booze and guns do not mix well - you're more likely to hit another human than any game.  It's regrettable that you're acquainted with idiots, but please don't judge the rest of us by your misfortune.

George, I agree with you on the need for accuracy.  I was not allowed to shoot at anything living until I had proven myself to be a competent markswoman.  Leaving a wounded animal to suffer is unforgivable.

Something I was just thinking about...  Most of the deer licenses are based on population vs habitat.  Out here, there aren't as many predators as there used to be and deer populations are in danger of going out of control.  The danger with that is that you wind up with widespread starvation and disease within the deer populations - this is a much worse way to die than with a bullet.  The argument is that you would have to cull the population anyway.  Why is it a bad thing to let hunters do that rather than conservation officers?

I think the answer is that the hunters might enjoy it.

I think we're a bit late. No more Grizzlies in trigger happy America. And great herds of Buffalo were cleansed a long time ago. It was a most diabolical conspiracy of the US Military and elitists to starve out the Indians a long time ago. Conspiracies are them.

And today there are Innuit reliant on great white hunters paying big money to cull the Polar bear population - the ones that are still able to find the odd ice cube to rest on.

Well, Unionist, I think several posters have already addressed this. I've agreed that I can and do have similar fun without shooting at anything, for example.

One could also argue that a clean kill in open, natural surroundings is inherently much more humane than sending an animal to a feedlot or abattoir.  It's also less humane to allow them to starve, and a cost-effective way to handle the cull.  So no, I'd prefer to agree to disagree on the humane/inhumane point.

Long thread. Insert obvious joke here.