This news story broke my heart ! !

Post Reply New Topic

Yeeesh, that animal had a horrible death. The animals we eat die quick and painlessly.

No animal should ever have to be shot eight times over the course of three hours. A good hunter will easily kill an animal very quickly with one well-aimed shot using an appropriate weapon.

I acknowledge that another animal died for me: but its energy and matter will live on in me, and my crap. And when I die I will return to earth, or maybe alll except for my brain. That is the infinite struggle of life.

Esperanza , that was a bit uncalled for I think ! !

I am against KILLING animals for FUN!! !! !




I wrote:

"I just don't understand why people KILL innocent , harmless creatures for FUN ???????

I JUST DON'T GET IT ! !! ! "


Then YOU wrote ...

"I hunt. I do not do it for fun. I do it for meat.

If you're not a vegetarian, then shut up."


No need for animosity dude ! !

In my opinion that poor reaction to my fairly rational comment maybe highlights the differences between hunters and animal lovers ! !!

Gee, I'm sorry, does the truth hurt?

That was pretty harsh of you.



As a matter of fact, so do I. My friends and family look embarrassed when I do it, and tell me it's disgusting.



I think this last post of yours highlights your inability to consider the possibility that you might be the unreasonable one.


And, I get the impression you're not a vegetarian. Are you? Do you support the way industrial farms treat animals, by buying their products?

Or, do you pretend it doesn't happen, and buy your meat neatly pre-killed and pre-packaged, and turn a blind eye to the fact that it used to be a living, breathing, warm-blooded creature with feelings, and then turn around and attack "hunting of ALL types" as if you're the ultimate moral being?

Yet WHEN WE EAT PACKAGED MEATS, THE ANIMALS ARENT CHASED FOR THREE HOURS WITH A LOW POWERED GUN. Whoops cap lock.

I had started a thread on this subject before. My outrage is not anti-hunting based. I just felt if this animal was really the largest wild hog it seemed a waste to kill him. Could been a great attraction for a zoo. And been worth alot of money.

yep.

--->

What the boy did was reprehensible. It disgusts me that he probably thinks he's accomplished something commendable.

The gun actually wasn't low-powered, but it was a handgun, which is very difficult to aim and is not accurate from a distance. It is best used only at close range. High-powered handguns like that are often used for self-defense and people who work in grizzly territory sometimes carry that kind of thing. It certainly was not an appropriate weapon of choice for a person to hunt with- especially not someone so young. A gun like that kicks back very hard and he probably didn't even have the strength to hold it steady.

I agree with TM1; it does seem tragic that such a remarkable animal met its end in such a crass, miserable and painful way. I'm not sure I would have been glad to see it in a zoo though. Sometimes I think most zoos are a fate worse than death for any animal.

Yeah that thought occurred to me but then I remember the movie "Anaconda" and how I was routing for the bad guy to get that million dollar snake

I don't eat meat.
I don't have an issue with hunting if it is done in the way the Native American peoples used to...ie, it is quick, everything is used, nothing is wasted and the animal's sacrifice is respected.
Packaged meat is produced in a wasteful, and often barbaric manner.

I don't understand the attitude of people wanting to kill animals with as small a gun as possible. I remember reading an article several years ago about a man who killed a grizzly bear with a .38 or something else ridiculously small. It took about 17 shots or something.

I think if you are going to hunt, you should do it with an appropriate weapon; one that will kill the animal painlessly with one shot.

Ok , so maybe I got a bit defensive ! !! LOL

Although, in my defence, I was told to "shut up" ! ! - For saying the following ......


"I just don't understand why people KILL innocent , harmless creatures for FUN ???????

I JUST DON'T GET IT ! !! ! "



ANYWAYS ! !! !


I still stand by what I ORIGINALLY said though ...... Hunting for FUN is SICK ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !

This is an illogical conclusion based on a few remarks from a couple of people. and that's taking a huge leap to accept your comment as "fairly rational". You are also denying the possibility that a hunter may also be an animal lover.
I"m from a hunting family. It's illogical to deny hunting isn't fun for hunters. It's a thrill they get. However, just because you don't enjoy it doesn't mean others "are sick". Hunting has been with us for millenia, and now people want to just declare it immoral?

Declaring an entire sport is immoral or sick based on the actions of a specific hunting party is also illogical. Would you declare soccer immoral or sick if one team cheats or injures other teams during a game? Honestly, I don't agree with the adults' actions here either, especially as they had more appropriate weapons at their disposal. But that doesn't negate the ethical hunters that exist, nor does it argue against the act of hunting.

I also disagree with the concept that "all hunting is wrong but how the Indians did it". There is nothing that claims Indians are any more authentic than any other race or society of people. They are just as capable of outfishing, outhunting and outusing any living thing as nonIndians. The image of naked Indians sitting around hardly impacting the Earth is a racist, imperialist view and historically inaccurate.

We could attack the actions of this child and his hunting party, but one should remember which actions we are criticizing.
1)killing something in a needlessly slow manner (definitely)
2)killing something that may have had a better use alive (arguable)

I've read a few things that make me suspect that hog was not as big as the articles claim. The kid in the picture who supposedly shot the hog could be knelt down several feet behind the hog to make the hog look bigger in the pic.
The handgun used was supposedly a .500 S&W magnum. It's a REAL handful. Trust me about that.
It's fairly common to hunt wild hogs with big bore magnum handguns but the more I think about it the more I have a hard time believing that any 11 year old could handle a .500 magnum.

As Kimj says, hunting is not a bad thing or immoral. The way some so called hunters do it is but they do not represent the majority. Also, shooting songbirds just for sh!tz-n-giggles is not hunting and neither is poaching. I do some hunting but not very much. Where I live there’s not much in the way of game or places to hunt left do to overdevelopment.

Like it or not, hunting is part of all of our heritage as human beings from tens of thousands of years past up until more recent century or two. These days we pay someone else to do the killing and cutting and we get it all packaged up nice and neat in plasic and styrofoam. No fur, no eyes, just a peice of meat with a bar code and price tag. From that sterile standpoint it's easy to sit on our moral highhorse and condem others who do it the old fashioned way. When you do it the "old fashioned way" you've earned it. You know about the animal and where it's from and what it took to get it to the table. Your skin is briar scracthed and bug bitten (or frost bitten) and your boots are muddy.
With all that you appreciate it more.

Hunting is regulated. Closed seasons, methods of taking game, limits of how many of a certain species can be taken, legal shooting hours, areas you can and cannot hunt, and so on. It’s not a free for all. Money from the sale of hunting licenses DOES go toward preservation and management of habitat for wildlife.
Hunting based private organizations like Ducks Unlimited and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, to name a few, have made huge contributions to the welfare of the animals. D.U. has contributed immensely to the preservation of waterfowl across North America. RMEF has been instrumental in reintroducing elk to eastern states where they’ve been non-existent since the early 19th century. Yes, once the herd size in these re-established areas gets large enough, limited quota hunting will be allowed. So what. We will still have elk back in their former habitat. If it weren’t for organizations like that we would not. Not to mention what they do for elk in the western states.

If it weren’t for hunting you’d see a lot more dead animals on the road, especially deer and hogs. A lot more would starve to death, some would have to be exterminated and wasted by methods much more cruel than shooting with a rifle or shotgun.

Hunters typically are animal lovers. Some of you think that's BS. I haven’t known many that weren’t but like everything else there are some exceptions. Some hunters are even veterinarians.

Don’t believe me, though. Do some honest indepth research on this and see for yourselves..

Raptor

Ok , ok - sorry if I have offended a few of you out there !



Hunting for food has gone on since time began and it is obviously completely justified ! !


Basically I DISAGREE with hunting for FUN as I have repeatedly said ...... ! !!

Everybody happy ??