Something crazy has happened with this post. It seems to have replaced the post from this morning about cat- and cow-eating (complete with retaining the comment from this morning). I'll work on getting the old post back up. Sorry for any confusion.

There stupid animals they have no rights

Some people are just disgusting. My dad and brother both hunt and we're always in arguements about it. They sit there and shoot the first deer that walks past them and then call themselves good hunters. All you need is the ability to be QUIET for about half an hour. It requires no skill at all, it's cruel, and absolutely disgusting. Using dogs for hunting is horrible.

I'm a hunter. I have shot at a scared animal before. It was a doe who knew that I was around somewhere but was confused (because she couldn't see me only smell me) and for a moment or two when she stoped to listen to see where I was I shot her. So does that make me an awful person?
I don't believe in hunting deer with dogs, only small game should be hunted with dogs, not big game. Big game hunting is a sport that should be left up to the brains of a person not another animal.
But come on. Who cares if the deer was terrified when it died? What difference does it make if the deer was jumping around the field in joy when I shot it? It's still shot. So what is the difference?

Hunting big game with dogs takes the sport out of hunting, I agree with that but that logic you are using here doesn't make sense.

I love animals more than anything, and I believe we need to treat them with the up-most respect. They have lives too and we need to respect those lives and we need to respect their home (the environment). So I believe in not abusing animals but hunting and killing them humanely.
But if you can turn around and say that is wrong to shoot a scared animal then you are saying it's wrong to bird hunt. They use dogs to flush the birds up in the air so the hunter can shoot. So are you going to say that's wrong too?
You can't hunt birds otherwise. Hunters can't smell the birds and track them down and then flush them in the air on their own so they need the assistance of dogs. But big game hunters don't.

You have to be careful what logic you are using, because it can come back to bite you. You could be diggin' yourself a hole.

There are always going to be people out there that hunt for the fun of it. Infact, I don't know a hunter that doesn't hunt for the fun of it. It's a fun and exciting sport. It really is. But I don't find killing an animal fun and exciting. The thrill of being out in the woods and having to outsmart these beautiful creatures and having to stalk them. It's a lot of fun being out in the woods, trying to challenge yourself and get a deer.
It's fun.
I eat the meat, and I do it to help control the population of animals so it doesn't get out of control and I do it to connect with nature and have fun.
There is nothing wrong with that. As long as I or anyone else obeys the law there is nothing wrong with that and you can't judge people for doing something just because you don't agree with it. Someone should write and artical about how THAT is messed up.

Most hunters out there do hunt because they love animals and they respect wildlife and do want to protect it. Most hunters do more for the evironment than people that don't hunt. All the money we spend that does to our game tags, our lisences, our gear etc. a major portion if not ALL of it goes to conserving wildlife so how dare you judge us and say "most hunters do it just because they enjoy killing things." That's wrong of you to do.

Quote:

"So does that make me an awful person?"

No Connor, just totally logically and ethically inconsistent when you try to argue:
 "I love animals more than anything, and I believe we need to treat them with the up-most respect." 
You need to clarify the incoherence in your argument. Do you "love" your friends and family in this manner as well? Or is there some implied assumption about the difference in "respect" that you feel no need to defend? I would suggest a defense Connor but there isn't one available.  

Quote:

"They have lives too and we need to respect those lives and we need to respect their home (the environment)."

Doesn't it follow, then, Connor, that these animals whom "you love and respect" ought to be allowed to exist as a being free from the threat of you killing him/her because "It's fun" (as you admit)? Indeed, it seems to follow strongly that quite the opposite conclusion is valid: killing these nonhuman animals because "it's fun" doesn't suggest "respect" for the value of these individual animals but a property status, which is anathema to any real value of a being.    

Isn't the conclusion, in fact, precisely this: "most hunters do it just because they enjoy killing things"? Didn't you just admit this Connor? You may try to encapsulate this conclusion in a veil of "respect." However, in the end, as you admitted, you do it because it is "fun." 
 This argument of yours is quite paradoxical Connor.   

I would conclude, in fact -- as you ought to as well if you are trying to remain consistent with your "I love them" claim --, that all hunting, outside of sustenance hunting, is indefensible as a matter of ethics. You could challenge this by claiming that you do "eat the meat." However, it doesn't follow unless you only eat flesh from these animals, and therefore, you don't eat any meat from farmed animals -- that will keep you consistent.   

I suppose in the end Connor I am "judging" you for believing it's acceptable to kill nonhuman animals whom you admit have lives and therefore value independent of your own judgement because "it's fun." I'm judging you further because the premises you employ to defend this inconsistency are so poorly defended that the whole argument borders on absurdity.  

Quote:

"But come on. Who cares if the deer was terrified when it died? What difference does it make if the deer was jumping around the field in joy when I shot it? It's still shot. So what is the difference?"

Let me help you catch the subtle message of this post Connor: The fear matters because it suggests something rather negative about the human animal causing the fear. Death is a harm for many reasons, however, the harms leading to death are greatly intensified if absolute fear -- of the kind you sociopathically ignore to recognize the substance of -- is one such harm leading to the death.   Human animals who would ignore this fear, then, are morally suspect Connor. Indeed, it is a frightening aspect of their psychological make-up; such a state of mind, in fact, is used to predict future "immoral" acts (e.g., violence against human animals).   

Quote:

"There stupid animals they have no rights."

You are a "stupid animal who has no rights" Rick. I win, you loose! Is this how the game is played? 

Well first off, Alex, animals AREN’T people therefore you can’t compare them.  Today in this world we have created an artificial environment for these animals. So not allowing hunting would cause these animals to severely overpopulate very quickly. It’s important that we allow hunting otherwise these animals would suffer. Humane hunting doesn’t cause any animal to suffer.I’ll give you an example. Three years ago the Rocky Mountain National Park has twice as many elk as they had carrying capacity for. They wanted to open the park to hunters. They would charge a pretty pricey fee and then allow hunters to come in and regulate the population. Well of course animal rights groups in the city of Denver said “No, this is the animal’s home and they are protected here. We can’t just come into their safe place and kill them.” Well because of the uproar the animal rights group caused the park decided not to open up to hunters. Two years later, just last year, the park now has three times the amount of elk they have carrying capacity for, and the animals are becoming infected with Wastings Disease. So instead of opening the park to hunters who would PAY the park and humanly bring down the population, and use the meat from the kill, instead of doing that; the animals are now suffering from a disease that could have been avoided if you had just let hunters in the park.   And no I did not admit hunters do this because they just like “killing things”. We do it because of the challenge. The challenge is the fun part. But the writer of this article acts as if we hunters are murderers and this is not close to the case. Animals aren’t humans, therefore should not be treated as such. They should defiantly have their own rights, but not ones that compare with humans seeing as they don’t have our intelligence.  When I say I have respect for animals I mean that I take the time to practice with my rifle enough that I know, when provided with the opportunity, I can take a shot at that animal and they will die instantly. I trust myself with my weapon enough to be able to not make that animal suffer. I respect that the animal can feel pain (although animals have a MUCH higher pain tolerance than humans) and I don’t want them to hurt. That’s what I mean by respect. Again I don’t respect an animal like a human because animals are not humans.  I can eat meat from what ever animal I so please. And just because I have the money to go to the super market and buy beef or chicken doesn’t mean that I can’t eat deer meat as well. If you are against killing animals in anyway you cannot eat meat of any kind other wise you are being hypocritical. It doesn’t make sense. And the way animal are treated commercially is worse than the way they are treated by hunters. So don’t think that by walking into a grocery store and buying meat that has already been killed you aren’t contributing to the death of that animal. Supply and demand.  Now you say something about fear making a huge difference when hunting an animal. The point I was trying to make and perhaps I didn’t make it very well is why do you imply that it’s okay to kill a happy deer and not a scared deer? It makes no sense. You can’t always guaranty that an animal you shoot will be happy. Sometimes they sense you are there and are a bit weary, you can’t control nor sense an animals emotion.

For all you meat eaters shut the f' up.  Modern society has detached you from the act killing in order to obtain your meat.  I guaranf'ingtee you a hunter has a greater respect for the animal that gave its life for his/her meal than you do for that Big Mac you ate for lunch.

P.S. Stephanie, this article sucks, you need a d.

I'm sorry Connor, but I don't see how killing would ever make an animal happy (or yourself either at the end of the day when you have to live with your conscience).  I do , however, agree with you that by killing and then eating the animal - you are at least willing to take responsibility for the death of another creature for your own pleasure. 

It is true that most people turn a blind eye to the suffering and torture that animals endure in factory farms as they are "raised" for food.  But you do not know if animals have the same feeling as humans, or even in some cases, more acute senses than we do.  We know that many animals have a superior sense of smell and supreior sense of sight in many cases - so we should at least consider the possibility that the feelings, compassion and sentiment of peace-loving animals that you playfully hunt for pleasure might actually be greater than your own.

Regardless, killing and hurting others (ANY others, even animals) only contributes to pain.  All religions teach this, and all humanitarian philosophies as well.  f you would like to have a peaceful and non-violent life - you should not kill, period.  A vegetarian lifestyle is by far the most compassionate and the most life-preserving.  go to http://ecofoodprint.org to find out more.

An animal doesn't really understand life. So it's not like one of these days if I put my gun down while I'm in the feild the animal isn't going to run up and go "Oh my God thank you fro spareing my life."
Again, animals AREN'T people, therefore I don' treat them as such.
It's okay that other people wish to put animals on the same page as people, there is nothing wrong with that. But that doesn't mean that anyone has the right to judge me or publish some article that back talks hunters.

in a case where its either a persons life, or an animals life i do agree that the persons life should be taken care of first.
but in a case where it is just senseless killing, and the killing is not used as food and just for the fulfillment of killing something, well that is the same feeling most of the world's murders have!

People accuse you, Connor, and other hunters of being inconsistent because one cannot kill an animal and respect it simultaneously. You can treat the animal as nice as possible for as long as possible, but if in the end you kill the animal because you enjoy the challenge or you like the taste of its flesh, all respect goes out the window. I absolutely agree that purchasing meat from the grocery store is just as bad-- worse-- than hunting the animal yourself. I think you'll find that many people who frequent this site agree, and thus, we do not purchase meat from the store.

As for treating animals as people, I don't think that argument matters here. To understand that an animal feels pain is enough of a reason not to hurt one. It shouldn't matter how intelligent or unintelligent they are. Actually, the fact that we have a much higher intelligence should be a reason for us to respect life, all of life, and therefore, out of that respect, not kill for the sake of fun or profit.

And yet I like hunters better than I like animal rights activists and believe that hunters are better for the animals than are animal rights activists.  Go figure.

Mark, not everyone is a f'ing meat eater.  I gave up meat 15 years ago because because I decided to practice what I "preached."  That argument of yours gets really old.  I bet you approve of canned hunts also.  What a thrill. 

re:
"There stupid animals they have no rights"
Posted by rick cline

should we take away your rights because you're not smart enough to spell "they're" correctly??

Man.  All the B.S. in this.  ALL animals do understand life.  No one can argue that.  Hunters are murderers, and no not respect animals.  Tell the person that shanks you on the street that he stabbed you because he respected you.

Also I want to add that as a hunter, I dontate 50-100% of the meat that I get from hunting to soup kitchens to feed the homeless. Last year I donated a total of 236 lbs. The meat was what my dad and I got combined.
I also have done charity work and have help raise money for the protection of animals to make sure they don't go exstinct, and to conserve wildlife.
So I still believe hunters do more and appreciate the environment more than the average vegan or vegitarian, or animal rights activist.

Without hunters, a lot of animals would be exstinct right now. A lot of commercial hunters were wiping out a lot of the species we know today back when this country was first being founded and discovered. But non-comercial hunters came up with rules and laws that banned commercial hunting. Then they made rules that made it have to be regulated, a lot of species were saved by the hunters that started those groups. The hunters were one of the first people to start protecting the animals in the first place.

Also without hunting, animals would over populate. Then they will start inhabbiting peoples back yards, and neighborhoods. Then they will be in th streets and more deer will be road kill and it can cause human deaths because hitting a deer could kill people in the car or cause a major accident, also deer would eat all out farm crops, and like the Rocky Mountain National Forest they would get diseases and from eating our crops they could spread the diseases to us. Also the people in Denver voted to ban baiting for hunting, specificaly bear hunting. So you couldn't lay fresh meat out to bring a bear in. SO it made hunting bears a lot more difficult it's only been a couple years since that ban and less bears are killed each year by hunters. The number of bear attacks have really increased in Colorado since then, and people are having problems with bears in their neighborhoods.So actually regulated hunting saves human lives, and the lives of your pets. Because when bears and coyote numbers go up, the more likley your pets are to get mauled and eaten alive by predetors.

Like I said, hunters do a lot for the environment that most people don't relize. 

miguel gomez.
It's not right for you to call me a murderer.
Because that's disrespecting people that have been murdered and it's disrespecting the familys that have family members lost because of murder.
I'm sure they would rather see an animal die than their loved ones. I'm sure the people that died would much rather have seen an animal die than to have had their life taken.
So how dare you catagorize me as a murderer.

Maybe you should meet people who have had family members killed. Why don't you tell that to their face. I'm sure they would love to hear that.

to say hunting is murder is crossing the line. Murder is a serious thing, not just some word you can throw around.

So quit disrespecting people who's lives really have been effected by real murder.

Also for all of you bleeding hearts out there... the Biologists of the world, the very people who work to keep the balance of animals and plants at their finest levels possible... THEY DISSECT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ANIMALS EVERY YEAR. 50% of Biology students drop out... all of those lives are lost in vain. Furthermore... these animals are killed and preserved by companies who would make the food industry look bad... places that do not give one inkling feeling about the wellfare or overall outcome of what they do. Don't feed me bullcrap lines about plants being less significant than animals, they're what make our air not what breaths more of it. For those of you who cry about Darwinism and survival of the fittest... get over it, if these were cavemen times I'd kill you and your family so mine could prosper, I wouldn't respect you either... I'd do it simply for my own well being and my families. I'd eat you if it came down to it, wouldn't give a crap... human lives should not be constantly burdened with the sadness of "murdering" animals or even plants... we can't all coexist without dying. 

Dustin I couldn't agree with you more. I have talked to some preaching vegans and they get on me about killing a deer or bird and then I as them if they have killed a black widow in their house and they say yes but it's different. How's it different? Your killing something!
I don't care that people are for animal rights, ortheir vegan or vegitarian. The person that means the most to me in this world is vegitarian so why would I not respect those veiws, I do.
But all I'm asking is that people respect mine. I'm not a murderer, and I never will be.
THAT is something that isn't debatable.

Dustin? I applaude you.

Thank you kindly Connor, I've gotten in this same debate over a hundred times, a few times in the classroom... every time the professor would give me props for having taken the side of plants, bacteria, and insects. "aww the poor kitty died, eww a spider! ~smack~" My only pet is an 8" Costa Rican Zebra Tarantula... and Tarantulas in petstores are amongst the most neglected and badly treated animals in the trade. I have contacted various animal rights groups... they push the idea of doing anything away. I get so sick of people trying to differentiate the worth of one life or another while talking about the rights of animals, which when it boils down to it... we all are. We're derived from monkeys, the only reason we're not in the primate family scientifically is because we're cocky human beings and came up with our own classification. 

Connor I am a hunter. I do not hunt for sport, but purely for food. I am not an animal rights activist but, about surviving as a person and family. I agree with some points you have and others I don't. Not ALL hunters hunt purely for the fun of it. I hunt only for the meat, and I make sure if an animal is suffering it is IMMEDIATELY put down. I've been on hunts where others have slit throats or stabbed an animal, and I was screaming in their faces (LITERALLY screaming in their faces) to put an end to their suffering and if they didn't I did. I have known hunters that have let meat go to waste and I have ROYALLY chewed their a**.

With that being said, I believe that all living organisms whether they be plant, human, or animal have feelings. In this world it is called the survival of the fittest. Why do you think in some sports (such as bull riding) that riders get hurt? The bull is looking out for himself and making sure that the person doesn't take control. There are bulls that trot around the arena when a rider is bucked off, but when a rider stays on, the bull will try to horn them once they dismount.  I know this has nothing to do with the killing of animals, but I'm sure you get the point.

I probably am the most neutral person on this subject. I just would relook what you are trying to get across. Wording means everything. ( This is coming from a person that has to have her eyes closed when she pulls the trigger, and doesn't disagree with hunting).

Here's a tip, Dustin and Thomas. Calling people idiots, wussies, and half-wits earns you automatic comment deletions. See the comment policy below the comment box. And find a calm, intelligent, respectful way to present your argument if you want to be a part of the conversation.

 I must say I am quite put off by this article as I think it is one that definitely mis-informs and is meant to start conflict. But then again I guess that is what the sole purpose is of many of these articles. It would be nice to read one on the contrary.
 I am personally and animal advocate, I love them. But I like to eat them too!
  I have many a friend and aquaintence that foxhunt in Virginia . For one,it must be an "extreme " hunting club that allows their dogs to trail deer and then all face each other in a large circle and shoot the deer! Amazing!
 But then again, my previous employer in Virginia used to attend private pigeon shoots where they would spin and dis-oriant the bird and then let it take flight just to see who could shoot first. Wow! Now that is some sport too!(dripping with sarcasm..)
 The majority of responsible houndsmen I know discourage their dogs from chasing deer. It is supposed to be illegal. Both in Virginia and in Colorado where I spent most of my life. 
 Once again it is irresponsible articles like these that ruin it for those who do hunt and yet have highest regard for both domestic and wild animals.
 There will always be hunters and gatherers. But then again there will probably aways be extremists as well!
  Let's see both sides of the coin please!
 

As I was reading this I had a wonderful thought - wouldn't it be great if while the hunters are standing in a circle they all shoot and kill each other?

"All you need is the ability to be QUIET for about half an hour."
I would make the world's WORST hunter, then!!!

Pamela said:
"But you do not know if animals have the same feeling as humans, or even in some cases, more acute senses than we do.  We know that many animals have a superior sense of smell and supreior sense of sight in many cases - so we should at least consider the possibility that the feelings, compassion and sentiment of peace-loving animals that you playfully hunt for pleasure might actually be greater than your own."

You really got me thinking... that without all the fog of the human brain to numb instinct, it is easy to imagine that animals would have an easier time feeling certain things to their fullest extent.  Just watching my cat "enjoy" my company leads me to believe that without emotional baggage, social expectations, etc., he can just "be" with me 100%.  I admire him for that...

I always find the circular reasoning of "I hunt to control the animal overpopulation... they'd starve if I didn't" astonishingly ridiculous.  Sorry, Connor, nothing personal.  It's just the party-line rhetoric of hunters everywhere, so I can't fault you for repeating it.  I think it helps keep a hunter's conscience at bay.

Humans clearly create situations of deer overpopulation, etc. by building homes, strip malls and all manner of wilderness-depleting structures on land where non-human animals USED to live.  To "solve" this problem by then killing the animals whose home we've TAKEN just creates another problem.  Heyyyyyyy..... isn't that what the white man did to the natives when he came to America...?!?  I guess we're just continuing a trend.

There are people starving all over the world.  Should we send assassins out to hunt and kill them, too, so they don't have to suffer?  Doesn't seem right, does it?  But then, there's a difference between human animals and non-human animals, right? ;-)

Here's where we (human and non-human animals) are the SAME: we breathe; we are alive; we feel pain; we feel pleasure; we have families; we would rather continue living than be dead...

...oh, and some may not agree, but we have the RIGHT to our lives.

An activity isn't a "sport" unless both sides are aware of the rules and are equally-advantaged.  Therefore, hunting (no matter how much you want it to be) is not a "sport".  As my friend Shari said recently, hunting is "mental illness in action."  I'm inclined to agree.

I'm sorry Keith but I never said that if I didn't kill them they would starve. I'm saying they would suffer of disease because of overpopulation. And that's a fact, and isn't debatable.

So if you have everything all figured out then what is YOUR solution to overpopulation of animals if you don't allow hunting?
uh? I mean if you have it all figured out what's your cost-effective idea.

Animals do have families but I'm sorry but deer aren't like Bambi. They can't talk nor develop a connection between one another like humans. If I shot a deer and her yearling daughter was watching that deer could care less she would just book it away because thats what her instincts tell her.
Animals go off instincts, they don't function like a human.
THEY AREN'T PEOPLE therefore they don't derserve the same rights.

Like I said I love animals, and just because I hunt doesn't mean that I don't. And it doesn't mean that I am cold hearted either.
Animal rights activists need to be careful when it comes to hunting, you can't take my rights away as an American. It's not right I don't care what you believe.

How dare any of you judge me.
Without hunters half the animals we hunt today would be extinct.
Hunters have done more for animals than any animal rights activist ever will because we appreciate the environment in a much different way.

You can think what you want, but that doesn't mean that just because you dissagree you can take my rights away.

Somewhere I read, "Species don't suffer.  Individual animals suffer."

Thomas, one final time, find a way to stick to at least this post's general topic (rather than use it as a forum to generally attack AR advocates--and me) if you want to remain a part of this.

You arrogate to yourself the right to judge the society that you live in and your own species this harshly and then you also have the umitigated gall to act like that when I quite rightly have an honest difference of opinion with you.

There is no way that you can hold your own in an honest debate on a level playing field, which is why you choose to have this kind of discussion in a place where you control who can speak.  You are so dishonest and hypocritical.

I say the above with the full awareness that numerous people in your crowd like to throw gas bombs at the houses of people who disagree with you.

Thomas, get over yourself. The comments from you that have been deleted have not been deleted because they're so intelligent that I don't know how to respond or because they differ from my opinion--my god, take a look at the other comments in this thread! This thread and this blog in general are full of disagreeing comments. Clearly, I'm not deleting all dissenting comments. Yours have been deleted because you are consistently abusive and insulting, and you refuse to remain on-topic.

You deleted my comment because I pointed out your hypocrisy.  As for what you are trying to pass off as some kind of new morality, I've read 1984 and Animal Farm, and a few other things, and my IQ is higher than room temperature.  You have nothing and you are absolutely dependent on the ability to shut down dissent.  A lot of the laws that have been passed supporting your animal rights stuff have been passed because people fear that animal rights activists will set their homes on fire.

I am sick of the fear that people like you take advantage of.  You can't do this on a level playing field.  They weren't able to do it on a level playing field when they bombed laboratories in Great Britain, they weren't able to do it when they beat that guy at Huntingdon Laboratories and left him for dead, or when they dug up that family's grandmother, or when they set Edythe London's house on fire, twice.  You also don't have what it takes to sanitize the reputation of animal rights because you show the same contempt for human rights.  The whole cause is tainted.

Also, your cause kills millions of animals each year.

Let me try to decipher your ramblings here Connor. 

Quote:

"Well first off, Alex, animals AREN’T people therefore you can’t compare them."


You are right Connor, nonhuman animals, by definition, are not human animals. Good addition to the conversation. Accept, equally by definition, human animals are animals, so in the end, you haven't really said anything at all. Indeed, since human animals are merely great apes, isn't my comparison valid making your argument just stupid?   


Quote:

 "And no I did not admit hunters do this because they just like “killing things”. We do it because of the challenge. The challenge is the fun part."


So, by your revised argument, it is the "hunt" that is fun. But couldn't you stalk the animal and stop at the point of the kill. Wouldn't that fulfill your desire for the "challenge"? It seems reasonable to argue "Yes." So we have to ask, why isn't that "challenge" enough? Why must you kill the animal that you "love" seeing that in our society, flesh is in abundant supply, therefore, the flesh from the animal you "love" is superfluous. As it is unnecessary, the only reason for actually killing the animal is because "it's fun." Again, then, I hope you don't love your family in this way.  

 So, again, why isn't the stalking enough? Is there some appeal in the kill itself. If yes, this suggests something about your character, which may demand a judgment. You find joy in killing a being you know -- or else you wouldn't find joy in the act -- can experience the pursuit, fear, and death. That is a sociopathology, analogous to the evolutionary instinct to rape or otherwise employ sexual aggression for some end.    


Quote:


"They should defiantly have their own rights, but not ones that compare with humans seeing as they don’t have our intelligence."


So you base gradations of "respect" on "intelligence." But wait, there are many, many groups of human animals -- i.e., the mentally handicapped, some severely senile -- who are not "intelligent" in any way you attempt to quantify that would exclude all nonhuman animals. What of human babies Connor? Can we assume from the logic of your own argument that these groups of human animals are free "game" for me to, yes, "love" and "respect," but to hunt because the "challenge" is "fun"?

Connor, you really murdered Miguel in your response to his comments. How is he going to recover from that murder? Probably simpler than that cow murdered by human animals because we enjoy the taste of his flesh.    I can tell by your bolded comment that you are very angry with comparisons to human animals. However, strangely, this comes without a defense of your position -- other than, this is X because I say so. I might respond, then, this isn't X because I say so. (I didn't bold that though...but I really mean it.) 


Since this is an animal rights blog, I shouldn't have to remind you that many of us "respect" nonhuman animals enough to be vegans. Therefore, all your statements about "hypocrisy" makes me suspect that I'm talking to an infant Connor. 


Quote:


"An animal doesn't really understand life. So it's not like one of these days if I put my gun down while I'm in the feild the animal isn't going to run up and go "Oh my God thank you fro spareing my life."


That is precisely my defense of killing the mentally retarded because, while I "respect" and "love" them, I don't quite value them enough to allow them to live free from me killing them simply because I get a passing pleasure from it. They are really "intelligent" at all. Indeed, this is why I don't kill pigs, but I do kill human babies. By any quantifiable method, adult hogs are more intelligent and rational than a human infant.   


Quote:


"Like I said, hunters do a lot for the environment that most people don't relize."


Nobody is negating some hunters' aid to the environment. However, could we achieve this end without killing animals because the "challenge" is "fun"? I believe yes. Perhaps human animals ought to reconsider our habits regarding deforestation and overpopulation, or perhaps birth control means absent the murder.    
The point is Connor that you have no point here. You are arguing from a position of "The way it is today...", while we don't deny that -- although the nonhuman animal overpopulation has been challenged effectively --, we are arguing from a position of "It should be this way..."


Quote:


"Dustin I couldn't agree with you more. I have talked to some preaching vegans and they get on me about killing a deer or bird and then I as them if they have killed a black widow in their house and they say yes but it's different. How's it different? Your killing something!"


Most vegans I know would remove the black widow from his/her house because the black widow is dangerous to human animals -- not outright kill. Here's the difference between removing or even killing the black widow and killing the bird that you "respect" and "love" because the "challenge is fun." The bird isn't a threat in any way to you at all, while the spider does represent a threat. Therefore, with the spider, there represents a need, while in the former case, there is a "desire" (even though you "love" the bird). As a moral question, then, "desire" and "need" aren't analogous. As such, your comparison is bogus. 


Indeed, if you were wandering through the woods and a bear were to attack you -- or a vicious duck even --, your defense would be from a position of "self-defense," and therefore, other moral questions arise. But you hunting this same vicious duck merely because, as you admitted, you think "it's fun" ought to be challenged -- as we are doing.  

So we can dispense with Dustin's rebuttal (and Connor's piggy-back). 

Quote:

"...shut down dissent"?


I do feel bad for your oppression Thomas. The AR movement, with its majority status, does represent quite the challenge to minority groups such as anti-animal rights individuals as yourself.

"Without hunters half the animals we hunt today would be extinct.
Hunters have done more for animals than any animal rights activist ever will because we appreciate the environment in a much different way."

I think it's been proven that the overpopulation is due to human development of the land, deforestation & forcing animals into human areas.  The deer (especially) overbreed because humans have killed off the natural predators (bears, wolves, mountain lions), and yes I agree that there is a time & place population control, but much of the overpopulation was caused by humans & hunters in the first place.

Alex, the AR movement suppresses the mainstream voice wherever it can, puts itself in positions of public trust and abuses that trust, turns children against their parents, starts fires in people's homes, kills animals, and argues in bad faith.  In short it does everything that it can to prove the invalidity of its own program.  You have nothing.

Bull.

I'm sorry lisa but that logic makes no sense.

I agree man has created an artificial environment for animals but there is no lack of preditors to kill off deer.
That part isn't true.

The artificial environment has created the overpopulation, hunting has nothing to do with it.

hunting is whats preventing it from happening.

Good answer, Sue.  Can you expand on that?

Also, Connor, they did the black widow thing to rattle your cage.

No need to.

If there is an "over population" problem with deer, elk, etc... why oh why are we "breeding" these animals?  Every state has several deer breeding "farms".  http://www.deerfarms.com/usfarms.shtml
These animals are genetically manipulated, semen is marketed, bucks, does and fawns are sold to be hunted.  The state makes a huge amount of money through licenses.  It's all about the money.  Just like it's all about the money in the meat industry.  

Next time you see a dead deer on the side of the road remember - they are breeding these animals... making more and more - just like they were cows, pigs, pure breed dogs, horses, cats, chickens... etc.  They are "just" commodities like all the rest of the beasts.  Abused and violated for profit and "pleasure".   

Connor-   You said, "Animals do have families but I'm sorry but deer aren't like Bambi. They can't talk nor develop a connection between one another like humans."

It is apparent from this comment that you've never had a pet. Have you ever heard stories of cows crying when their babies are stolen? Or of a family who has two dogs and one dies, causing the other to be depressed?

Just because deer cannot speak English, does not mean we should write them off as having no emotions, no connections to other deer. That is not only insensitive, but completely wrong. Do your research.

I know its difficult when one of your beliefs or actions is attacked. It's called cognitive dissonance. (From Wikipedia:) It is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

You know that killing is wrong, and yet you do it. So, you have the motivational drive to reduce that uncomfortable feeling, in your case, by adopting the belief that animals don't suffer much from the murder. Yeah, murder.

Connor-   You said, "Animals do have families but I'm sorry but deer aren't like Bambi. They can't talk nor develop a connection between one another like humans."

If "talking" is a criteria... what of the many humans born mentally incapactitated?  Or infants?  Or sufferers of strokes/illness who can no longer communicate?  Do we just disregard their rights because they cannot develop "connections"?

And many animals do "connect" with each other and with humans, given the chance... With each other they recognize members in their group, flock, pack or herd.  Many mate for life - Something you can hardly say for human "couples".

Connor, I WISH I were making this stuff up:

http://animalrights.about.com/od/wildlife/a/DeerManagement.htm

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusfd16usc669.htm

Yeah, what Bea said. 

"I am personally and (sic) animal advocate, I love them. But I like to eat them too!" - Mary Allison

Hmmm... so your advocacy ends at your dinner plate?  I guess hunger supercedes working toward helping another creature.  When it's on your plate, it sounds like you just help yourself.

That's like saying "I am an advocate for inmates on Death Row... but I also like to throw the switch!!!"

I'm beginning to believe that eating meat causes insanity.

And Thomas, you sound a li'l paranoid.  If you were having your voice taken away here, I wouldn't be able to make that assessment as I wouldn't have heard anything you've said.Connor, I don't think anyone wants to take your rights away. I just think some of us want to point out that your rights might be wrong.  Remember, laws change.  It wasn't so long ago that people in this country had the right to own other people.
Just because you have the right to do something, that doesn't necessarily make it right.  In some countries, men have the right to stone their wives to death for looking at another man.  Is that "right"?  It's legal, yes, but it sounds a bit extreme, no?I don't have the solution for it all, Connor, nor did I purport to.  I'm just doing what I can to not make the problem bigger.

In case we don't have a deer "overpopulation" problem, that can only be solved by killing them, we're smuggling more in, so more can be killed....



"Why Are Deer Being Smuggled into Texas?"

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1869961,00.html?cnn=yes

Yes, we are free to make choices, especially in a free country there are even more choices. The notorious human "free will" due to "superior intellect" which can rationalize and glorify any action... Yet, are we free from consequences in the long run even if we appear to be? Do we not pay a price, yet subtle it may be in conscience, sub-conscience, sensitivity to others' feelings, compassion...? Are we aware of the price and if yes, perhaps try to ignore or overcompensate?  Do we dare do dig deep enough and find the answers...

"The artificial environment has created the overpopulation, hunting has nothing to do with it." - Connor

Wellllllllllll...... not exactly.

A quick glance at the Time magazine article linked above (thanks, Sue!) shows immediately that hunting is much more than a hobby, pastime or activity.  It is an industry that brings in $20 billion dollars a year, 80% of that focused on deer hunting.  Deer are bred to be hunted and killed, then illegally smuggled from state to state.  Once again, humans - the so-called "superior" species" - is manipulating nature to meet their own greedy, gluttonous ends.

This is not a case of hunters helping nature where nature falls short.  After all, nature is a system of checks and balances and it always takes care of itself.  This is a case of humans profiting in the way they so often do: from the blood of innocents.

Connor, you're being used.  Please, I ask you to put down your weapon, open your eyes and look at how this system is manipulating you and other hunters.  Apparently, even the perpetrators are victims here. 

"This is not a case of hunters helping nature where nature falls short.  After all, nature is a system of checks and balances and it always takes care of itself. "

Keith did you read my comment above with what happend with the Rocky Mountain National Forest? The environment didn't necissarily take care of it self. I would rather see a deer shot by a hunter or me, than suffer to death because of a terrible disease. Sorry butI'd rather see an animal go painlessly if even my my fault, than suffer to death.
 
I don't know what you are talking about people breeding deer for our own benifit. I don't know where you are getting that info. I know it's probably true but, probably not in the context your using it in. But before I take it to heart I'll do my own research about it.

And for your information I hunt because it is my own personal choice. Stop acting like you are holier than thou just because you don't hunt or eat meat. You aren't any better than me so stop acting like it.
Do you know that every penny made from hunting licenses in the US which is more than 20 million I can gurenty you that goes back to conserving wildlife and goes toward helping animals.
This "system" you are talking about is runned by other hunters. Now I'm not sure about some states, but my state has very strict laws, and if you break them you won't ever hunt again. You are personaly attacking me when you say that. I have my own mind and I  make my own choices.
I would rather donate roughly 70lbs. of meat every year to a homeless shelter, and donate $200+ a year to hunting tags that will go towards hunting animals, then be a nonhunter and do nothing for my community and for animals. Sorry but I'll stick with my rights.

"I would rather donate roughly 70lbs. of meat every year to a homeless shelter, and donate $200+ a year to hunting tags that will go towards HELPING* animals, then be a nonhunter and do nothing for my community and for animals. Sorry but I'll stick with my rights."

sorry typo

I also don't mean to say that if you aren't a hunter you do nothing at all for your comunity.
I'm just saying I as a person would rather do what I am doing now because what I'm doing it right in my eyes.

Connor, I'm sorry that you feel attacked.  It's certainly not my intention to attack you in any way, and I apologize if something(s) I've said have made you feel that way.

As for doing your own research, I commend your openmindedness.  You can start, if you'd like, by reading the Time magazine article that the information I posted came from.  Here's the link:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1869961,00.html?cnn=yes

It's nice of you to want to spare a deer the suffering it might feel from a "terrible disease", but you're kinda playing God when you decide who lives and who dies based on what you think might happen if you didn't intervene.  Why not let nature take its course?  And do you do bloodwork on the deer before you shoot them?  Of course not.  So, how do you know you're not killing a perfectly healthy deer that would've lived a perfectly healthy life had it not made the fatal mistake of crossing your path?

Also, if you're killing deer who have the "terrible disease", is that meat ok to eat?!?

I'm not trying to be holier than anyone, by the way.  I live how I live because it works for me and it feels right for me, just like you!

We're prob'ly never gonna agree, Connor, but I am enjoying our debate.

"Also, if you're killing deer who have the "terrible disease", is that meat ok to eat?!?"

It depends on the disease. When you skin the deer and you find odd things under the skin membrane you can go have the deer tested to make sure it's safe to eat.
For the most part even if the deer is sick, you won't get infected through the meat. That's very rarely a problem.
There are aefw diseases in which you will get yourself if you eat the deer and one of those is WAstings Disease. And that disease first started spreading due to under hunted, over populated areas.
Hunters and nonhunters have actually died from this disease because it was being spread to humans.

Yes, the Time magazine article linked above mentions "chronic wasting disease"... have you had the opportunity to read it yet?  It's very informative!

Wow, hunters died from eating infected deer meat...  Guess hunters have to be careful out there.  It's bad enough they sometimes get shot by other hunters.

I read that a hunter was beaten up a bit in Montana last December by a buck he'd "bagged".  I guess that one wasn't happy about being shot.  Here's the story:

http://news.aol.com/weird-news/article/wounded-deer-attacks-hunter/265633

" I would rather see a deer shot by a hunter or me, than suffer to death because of a terrible disease. Sorry butI'd rather see an animal go painlessly if even my my fault, than suffer to death."

Connor,
What if it was you?  I know I would rather die of disease than be murdered.  Nature can be brutal, but people should be compassionate.  Of course, most hunters don't aim for the sickly animals.  They go for the trophies.

"Stop acting like you are holier than thou just because you don't hunt or eat meat. You aren't any better than me so stop acting like it."

Actually, you're wrong about that, at least as it pertains to killing and eating, and I'm not ashamed to say it. 

"Do you know that every penny made from hunting licenses in the US which is more than 20 million I can gurenty you that goes back to conserving wildlife and goes toward helping animals." 

There's nothing generous or charitable about it.  They're just paying dues to preserve their "sport."

"I would rather donate roughly 70lbs. of meat every year to a homeless shelter..."

I hope I never have to eat at a shelter because I would rather starve than eat meat, and I don't imagine there are many vegetarian options.  It's hard enought to get a vegetarian meal at a restaurant.  Maybe you could plant some vegetables and donate those instead. 

Yeah I heard about that. It's really unfortunate that, that happend. But it's really amazing how strong some deer are! If they are really determined they will beat you down lol. But that's a risk you take when being out there, at least he wasn't badly injured.
There was one guy who wanted to dauce himself in doe in heat urine and hunt a buck to see what would happen. Well on the bottle of those urine bottles it says specificaly not to do that because it makes bucks agressive and would provoke and attack and he got the snot beaten out of him by a deer.  And it wasn't a very large deer either, he was a pretty puny buck, but this guy still got owned lol Now that stupidity is karma, I'm not going to lie.
These animals are smarter and stronger than we are, so hunters take that risk.
My uncle even got charged by a buck once. He's just lucky it didn't get him in the rear lol

I havent read it yet but I will

On being "holier" because of not killing animals...
"Actually, you're wrong about that, at least as it pertains to killing and eating, and I'm not ashamed to say it. " 

I'm not ashamed either... I'm very proud that I live fine & thrive without the killing :)

Of the 20 million that goes back to conserving wildlife and goes toward helping animals.  Actually, less than 20% goes back into the "welfare" of the animals... the rest of the money goes to salaries for the folks that administrate the whole hunting process.  And the "welfare" of the animals is mostly disease control... as was mentioned "cronic wasting" is quite the issue.I wonder Connor... do you ever see the possiblity of the challenge to go out and shoot wildlife with a lense and camera?  It's a feat to capture the image of a living being in it's natural habitiat - and both can walk away better for it all... 

"at least he wasn't badly injured" - Connor

OK, don't take this the wrong way, but in cases like that, I'm rooting for the deer.  It's the same when elephants trample circus workers.  I figure, that guy had it coming. F%&* him. ;-)

As for the hunter who thought it was a good idea to pour pee on himself...  No, on second thought, that doesn't even require a comment.  It absolutely speaks for itself.  Volumes, in fact!

"Connor,
What if it was you?  I know I would rather die of disease than be murdered."

Well so would I, but that's only because we have medicine, and pain medication that makes it so that if you DID have a deathly illness it would be a lot less stressfull and painful than without medication.
Animals don't have medicine like that, if I were an animal I'd rather be shot.

Sorry Paul but you still promote killing and kill things. You had to murder those soy beans to put them on your plate.
Plus I don't know one farmer who doesn't kill animals or allow other people to kill animals on their land so they can spare their crops. So you are still promoting killing.

"There's nothing generous or charitable about it.  They're just paying dues to preserve their "sport.""
How much money do you spend a year on conserving wildlife?
Hunter contribute more dollars towards conserving wildlife than any one else. So even if YOU don't think it's cheritable, that's fine, I still contribute more than you.

Considering that homeless people don't get enough protein and calcium, and other things in their diets that meat provides, going vegitarian for them is dangerous to their health. So I'd rather give them something their bodies will benifit from. Also people who are starving and homeless don't care what they eat. They are just happy to have a meal. I know I would.
Plus I could hunt more meat and feed more people with the meat I donate than food I could grow in a garden. And again homeless people are gonna need the protien in the meat to keep their bodies from withering away. Plus it's wrong to force your beliefs on homeless people, just because YOU don't want to eat meat.
If you don't want to that's fine, but I will continue to, from now untill the day I die. And that is perfectly okay.

Stephanie... granted I may've not been the most respectful person in this thread, and I admit that the way I tend to convey myself is rather bold and callous. However, you show absolutely no proof of my posts lacking "Intelligent" fiber, nor have you even tried to touch on the topics I stated. 
Are you dodging my posts because you know that I'm right? Because you don't mind killing a living creature so long as it has no heartbeat or face? You've not even tried to grasp at straws against my statements, you sheerly ignored them while trying to make me out as being of inadequate intelligence. I don't think it's right for you to cry over the lost lives of dogs or kittens when you turn around and eat a living piece of broccoli alive, or prepare it with heat (still alive, no less).
Why is it so hard for the average AR representative to admit that their statements are dripping with hypocrisy? That they will protect one species of creature, while endangering others or destroying them. Just because an animal may pose a threat doesn't mean it's not just as worthy of living as the dogs... dogs carry ticks, diseases, and all sorts of nasty little worms inside of their crawl. If that isn't enough, there are also countless deaths and injuries caused by neglecting to keep the dog properly secured, or simply forgetting that an animal can't tell you it's angry before it rips you a new one.
This brings me back to my previous statement: insects, bacterium, viruses, and plants are just as alive as your furry friends with faces. There have been studies done that prove a plant actually screams when being cut into with a knife (albeit under amplification). Furthermore we don't even know how our own brains work, much less other animals... and we have absolutely no idea if plants have intelligence or self awareness because we aren't capable of comprehending what language they could have, or where their cognitive center may be located. Many plants can live to be thousands of years old, which could even theoretically mean that their movement and communication is so slow, that we are unable to decipher it.  
Now Steph, if you're going to remark about the way I debate, I'd also suggest you try to refute some of the ACTUAL information within my post... you can nitpick at my style all you'd like, and if you're a coward you can also delete this post if it helps you sleep at night. I would, however, enjoy at least a collegiate effort put forth to refute my posts, as opposed to elementary tactics of using my boldness as a reason to disregard and chide my intellect. 

"Also for all of you bleeding hearts out there... the Biologists of the world, the very people who work to keep the balance of animals and plants at their finest levels possible... THEY DISSECT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ANIMALS EVERY YEAR. 50% of Biology students drop out... all of those lives are lost in vain. Furthermore... these animals are killed and preserved by companies who would make the food industry look bad... places that do not give one inkling feeling about the wellfare or overall outcome of what they do. Don't feed me bullcrap lines about plants being less significant than animals, they're what make our air not what breaths more of it. For those of you who cry about Darwinism and survival of the fittest... get over it, if these were cavemen times I'd kill you and your family so mine could prosper, I wouldn't respect you either... I'd do it simply for my own well being and my families. I'd eat you if it came down to it, wouldn't give a crap... human lives should not be constantly burdened with the sadness of "murdering" animals or even plants... we can't all coexist without dying. "

This is the caliber of so many hunters.  Truly frightening isn't it?  Schizophrenic, inconsistent and brutish.

"we can't all coexist without dying. "  It's not about "death"... it's about "killing".

http://beaelliott.blogspot.com/2009/03/animal-agriculture-is-not-about-death.html

There is no "natural order" to murder.  Everyone must die, it's true - Man has no moral right to place himself in the position of determining whose time is when.  Especially not to suit frivolous, fanciful desires.

There are no hunting accidents...it's called "Karma".

Debating is good. It is fun. It is healthy.

There will always be two sides to every healthy debate.
The sad part is...that there will always be TWO sides.

I hope that someday the majority will be for animal protection and not the minority, as it is today. I hope...I hope...I hope!