Recreational hunting and DMGD - A new hypothesis

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

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

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.

 

remind remind's picture

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.

 

remind remind's picture

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

martin dufresne

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.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

martin dufresne wrote:

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.

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?

 

yarg

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.

Fidel

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.

martin dufresne

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

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

martin dufresne wrote:

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.

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.

Fidel

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.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Fidel wrote:

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.

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.

Fidel

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.

Bookish Agrarian

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.

Fidel

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. 

KenS

Unionist wrote:
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?

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?

George Victor

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. 

KenS

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.

KenS

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

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

Fidel

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.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Fidel wrote:

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.

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 ;)

 

Stargazer

remind wrote:

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.

 

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

Fidel

radiorahim wrote:
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!

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.

 

canuquetoo

martin dufresne wrote:

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

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.

yarg

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!

Unionist

KenS wrote:

And do you know of any timeless activity that has not become at least somewhat alientated from its roots in modern life?

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.

Quote:
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?

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.

 

RANGER

Stargazer wrote:

remind wrote:

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

 

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

 

 

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

KenS

Unionist wrote:
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.

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:

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

KenS wrote:
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?

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.

Unionist

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.

 

KenS

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?

Ghislaine

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.

Unionist

KenS wrote:

Do you think that the process by which meat is put on most people's table is humane? or even reasonably humane?

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.

Quote:
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?

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.

Ghislaine wrote:
unionist, I agree with you about killing animals just for sport - ie to get a "trophy".

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.

 

KenS

Unionist wrote:
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.

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.

Bookish Agrarian

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

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
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.

 

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??

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

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...).
Well, that is what I am talking about. If they are not eating what they kill - than it is for sport, or recreation or whatever you want to call it (whether they keep a "trophy" or not).

Unionist wrote:
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.
 

Well I guess we do move in very different circles then. And I don't think it makes a difference whether they absolutely cannot afford food without it. As I mentioned with my roomate, she could have taken out a larger student loan to buy more store-bought food.
Everyone I know that hunts, hunts for food. And, yes they do enjoy it. It is often a family or community event and children are brought along.
I find it very strange that all of your co-workers go hunting just to hunt and don't eat what they kill.

Snert Snert's picture

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.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

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

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?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
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.

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:
Unionist wrote:

I find it very strange that all of your co-workers go hunting just to hunt and don't eat what they kill.

Ghislaine, either you know I never said that (in which case, please be more truthful), or you don't know, in which case, please read my posts more carefully. Of course they eat what they kill (not always, but much of the time). All I said was that they don't hunt for the same reason that they go to the grocery store. And no, they don't always get drunk either.

 

Unionist

Timebandit wrote:

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

I told you I oppose hunting for fun, and have no problem hunting for food. So you can "infer" what you like, but why not deal with what people say as well?

Quote:
It's regrettable that you're acquainted with idiots, but please don't judge the rest of us by your misfortune.

I'm not judging anyone. I told you about the workers I know and like and respect. And I never once said they got drunk before hunting. What's your problem with just reading and commenting on what I say? My point is they hunt not because of a taste for moose or deer meat primarily, nor because (like Ghislaine's friend) they can't afford to go shopping like the rest of us, but for all kinds of other motives - recreation, male bonding, party-time. If this comes as a shock to you, then I guess we live in different worlds.

Quote:
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?

Not sure why it's a bad thing. Since I'm the only one expressing a concern about killing animals for enjoyment in this thread, did you read what I said:

Quote:
I'm NOT talking about culling wildlife.

So if hunters want an assignment to cull wildlife as determined by the proper authorities, I'd say: "Well, there's an excellent and socially useful way for them to practise the pastime they enjoy while doing something positive for the natural environment."

I'm having trouble keeping up with "inferences" as opposed to what I said and what I meant.

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

Ghislaine, either you know I never said that (in which case, please be more truthful), or you don't know, in which case, please read my posts more carefully. Of course they eat what they kill (not always, but much of the time). All I said was that they don't hunt for the same reason that they go to the grocery store. And no, they don't always get drunk either.

 

If they are eating what they kill, than it is not sport or recreation hunting. It is hunting for food - which is something else entirely. I had not noticed in your post that you had said that they ate what they killed. You had written a few above that they hunted ONLY for enjoyment.

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

If they are eating what they kill, than it is not sport or recreation hunting. It is hunting for food - which is something else entirely. I had not noticed in your post that you had said that they ate what they killed. You had written a few above that they hunted ONLY for enjoyment.

I'll try again. Their motivation for hunting is enjoyment - not a taste for venison. Yes, they eat what they kill. BUT they would go hunting even if a friend said, "Hey, stay home, I'll bring you back all the deer meat you can eat, for free!"

I'm trying really hard to make myself clear. They hunt for pleasure. Not for food. I think that's true for many hunters in this country. In my limited experience of what someone above called "idiots" (they're not - they're good and virtuous and flawed like all the rest of us), almost all of them hunt for pleasure. I've never met one single person who hunts "because venison is too expensive".

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Unionist, if you're not talking about culling wildlife, then you're not talking about hunting.  At least not in my province.  It's all based on the cull, and the revenues taken from hunting licenses go toward conservation.  Culling is how the number of licenses available is calculated, and poaching - which taking more than need to be culled is classed as - is a criminal offense.

The other thing is that you're focusing on one part of the hunting experience to the exclusion of the rest.  As remind and others have also pointed out, it isn't strictly about the kill, any more than berry picking is about the moment you pull the berry from the bush or gardening is the moment you pull a carrot out of the ground.

My inference was made this way:  You have no problem hunting for food out of need.  However, in our current situation, there is no need to hunt for food (and the fact that licenses and gas and the rest of the costs of hunting add up).  Therefore, all hunting is bad/wrong/unjustified.  If I've misinterpreted what you've said, please set me straight.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Unionist, re the "idiots" comment:  From your post, it sounded like the booze and guns were concurrent activities.  If that's not the case, then my bad.  I still maintain, however, that anyone who lays a finger on a firearm after even one drink is a total moron.

Unionist

Timebandit wrote:

Unionist, if you're not talking about culling wildlife, then you're not talking about hunting.

I'm talking about the motivation of the hunters - not the provincial formula for licenses. Please don't tell me that hunters' motivation is ecological. Please.

Quote:
The other thing is that you're focusing on one part of the hunting experience to the exclusion of the rest.

That's right. Otherwise, why not have hunters go out and do everything except hurt the animals? The camaraderie, the tromping through the woods, the jollies afterward - and shoot blanks! I understand that animals die in order to feed human beings. But why should they die because of our social-cultural-recreational needs!? That's my point here. How about animal sacrifices? Jews used to do that. It's in the Bible. Is that ok???

Quote:
My inference was made this way:  You have no problem hunting for food out of need.  However, in our current situation, there is no need to hunt for food (and the fact that licenses and gas and the rest of the costs of hunting add up).  Therefore, all hunting is bad/wrong/unjustified.  If I've misinterpreted what you've said, please set me straight.

Hunting for food (based on need), hunting by Aboriginal peoples, hunting to cull, are all fine (for different reasons) in my book. Absent those, I simply wanted to express my small personal moral discomfort with killing (and maiming) animals as part of some social or cultural or recreational activity. I do NOT lecture fellow workers who enjoy hunting. I do, however, personally hope that people will come to see that killing of animals when it isn't really necessary should become a thing of the past.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

But it is necessary - see my explanation of the cull.  Would it be okay to cull as long as nobody enjoyed it?  (If so, that sounds a lot like Joey the Rat talking about sex...)

As I've mentioned, in my later teens I switched to cameras.  And yes, much of the pleasure is still there.  I've also pointed out the foodgathering and part of the cultural nature of this.  BTW, as someone who has descended from pioneers, I find that hunting background is very much a part of my culture, or sub-culture, even though I am not First Nations.  We follow the rules and take only what is allowable and necessary.  What difference does it make that we're not First Nations?

Unionist

Timebandit wrote:

But it is necessary - see my explanation of the cull.  Would it be okay to cull as long as nobody enjoyed it?

I said hunters aren't motivated by ecological aims. How about dealing with that point. And I've never heard of hunters being given marching orders as to where to hunt, how many they must kill, what dates to go out. They aren't hired to cull.

 

Quote:
What difference does it make that we're not First Nations?

What is wrong with READING MY POSTS??? I said they were sovereign, and it wasn't my place to preach to them any more than (say) Greenlanders. Sovereignty. I preach to my own people, and I respect the traditions and hereditary rights of others.

Snert Snert's picture

But what if, when FN hunters are hunting, they enjoy it??

I would agree that it's not your or my place to stop them but do you feel obligated to respect them? 

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Unionist wrote:

 

 

I said hunters aren't motivated by ecological aims. How about dealing with that point. And I've never heard of hunters being given marching orders as to where to hunt, how many they must kill, what dates to go out. They aren't hired to cull.

 

That's done through licensing and regulations around where and when you can hunt certain animals. For instance with the moose hunt in parts of Ontario there's only a specific number of licences available and specfic number for male, female, youth etc. There's even regulations about specific areas.   The numbers can change every year.  Same thing for a lot of fishing licenses as well.   And just for infos sake at least in eastern ontario the licensing numbers for moose are managed in partnership with many of the FN's communities that have their own yearly moose hunt. They work on a license regime as well.

 

 

Bookish Agrarian

Unionist wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

But it is necessary - see my explanation of the cull.  Would it be okay to cull as long as nobody enjoyed it?

I said hunters aren't motivated by ecological aims. How about dealing with that point. And I've never heard of hunters being given marching orders as to where to hunt, how many they must kill, what dates to go out. They aren't hired to cull.

 

Quote:
What difference does it make that we're not First Nations?

What is wrong with READING MY POSTS??? I said they were sovereign, and it wasn't my place to preach to them any more than (say) Greenlanders. Sovereignty. I preach to my own people, and I respect the traditions and hereditary rights of others.

So how's about admitting you don't understand the reality or rythem of rural people's lives and leave it at that, instead of insisting hunters are nothing more than blood thirsty thrill killers.

I asked nicely for a definition of sports hunting.  You have yet to do that.  Most of the people in this thread - who actually have hunted - say you are wrong in what you are asserting - so how about just saying sorry, I guess I have something to learn and stand down.

As well I have said as a farmer, who rarely if ever hunts game any more - most of my hunting is for predators who kill livestock for what has to be pleasure because they do not eat most, if any of them.  Coyotees are becoming a dangerous nuisance animal in my area that attack pets, livestock and are being found closer and closer to homes.  If you eat meat in any way shape or form chances are some of it has been protected by a rifle.

Pages

Topic locked