If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   NPR asks the question: Are hunters committing murder?   (npr.org) divider line 308
    More: Interesting, NPR, OneKind, murders, Winchester rifle  
•       •       •

8823 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2013 at 8:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



308 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-07 08:39:59 PM  
Yes. Tasty, tasty murder.
 
2013-02-07 08:41:22 PM  
Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!
 
2013-02-07 08:42:26 PM  
cdn2.mamapop.com
 
2013-02-07 08:51:18 PM  
done in one.
 
2013-02-07 08:51:40 PM  
In many cases, hunting as part of wildlife management helps control the populations of animals whose natural predators have dwindled due to humans. I don't hunt and it's not anything I care to do, but it can serve a legitimate purpose.
 
2013-02-07 08:51:46 PM  
Well, the Manhunters do.

/No man escapes the Manhunters.
 
2013-02-07 08:52:03 PM  

WTF Indeed: Yes. Tasty, tasty murder.


and we are done.
 
2013-02-07 08:52:15 PM  

ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!


You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?
 
2013-02-07 08:52:20 PM  
Only if two go out, but one returns.
 
2013-02-07 08:52:33 PM  
Deer don't have feelings. They're evil hellbeasts who like to run in front of me at night on the highway.

But some hunters do manage to shoot other humans every year, that probably qualifies.
 
2013-02-07 08:53:15 PM  
Meat's meat, and a man's gotta eat!
 
2013-02-07 08:53:19 PM  

MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?


I get the feeling a lot of people think this -- that huntersjust go out in the woods and blast away at deer or anything else that happens across their scope.
 
2013-02-07 08:53:31 PM  

ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!


This.
 
2013-02-07 08:54:09 PM  

Government Fromage: MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?

I get the feeling a lot of people think this -- that huntersjust go out in the woods and blast away at deer or anything else that happens across their scope.


Just the guys who make the hunting shows.
 
2013-02-07 08:55:29 PM  

ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically  LEGALLY no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!


FTFY

Murder is a legal concept. There is no murder in the jungle.
 
2013-02-07 08:55:49 PM  
Is NPR run by furries?

If so, I guess I can understand their bias.
 
2013-02-07 08:55:50 PM  
It's not murder if you're intending to use as much of the animal as possible in tasty, tasty recipes. So remember that next time your city has a homeless problem.

/I'm not a...hah..."SERIAL" killer....
 
2013-02-07 08:56:35 PM  

ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being


It's actually the unlawful killing of another person...important distinction.
 
2013-02-07 08:56:47 PM  
Do ob-gyn docs who perform abortions commit murder?
Do Republicans who send poor kids into pointless Asian land wars commit murder?
Does the Grinch have a rotten soul?
 
2013-02-07 08:56:58 PM  

ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!


And illegal in my state.

/and probably most others.
//since "game animals" are considered a "public resource" and wasting public resources is a big no-no.
 
2013-02-07 08:57:51 PM  

ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!


Ah, inuits trying to keep polar bears away from their village, and any city trying to keep natural predator numbers in check would like to disagree with you. Did you just forget that there are communities, even within the U.S. that have a problem with wolves?
 
2013-02-07 08:57:55 PM  
im not a hunter, id rather go out and shoot animals with a camera than a rifle. but it aint murder.
//dnrtfa
 
2013-02-07 08:58:11 PM  
Man I could really murder a nice venison steak right about now
 
2013-02-07 08:58:17 PM  

Nabb1: In many cases, hunting as part of wildlife management helps control the populations of animals whose natural predators have dwindled due to humans. I don't hunt and it's not anything I care to do, but it can serve a legitimate purpose.


How new are you? Logical answers? Pfft... This is FARK! Bust out the hyperbole!
 
2013-02-07 08:58:50 PM  

WTF Indeed: Yes. Tasty, tasty murder.


Came for this ^^ leaving satisfied.
 
2013-02-07 08:59:43 PM  
Do I havde to be the first one to post this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyoSLOlglw

Hunting is murder only if cows are out of season and one of the hunters isn't insured.
 
2013-02-07 08:59:53 PM  
Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.
 
2013-02-07 09:00:31 PM  
You can't grill it until you kill it. That meat you ate for dinner didn't kill itself.
 
2013-02-07 09:00:34 PM  
No. It was a hunting accident. Stop rocking the boat.
 
2013-02-07 09:01:30 PM  
If you don't plan on eating it, yes.

If you don't plan on eating it then you are just killing for fun, and its murder.
 
2013-02-07 09:01:47 PM  
Depends what animal you're hunting. Homo Sapiens? Yeah. Murder.
 
2013-02-07 09:02:15 PM  
I know this is a touchy subject but here is my 2 cents.

Hunters love the kill. The idea of taking another life, the final kicking of the animal is all part of the charm, otherwise why would they do it? Getting food isn't the answer. It's the fun of it.

Also I think hunters claiming that video games makes people violent is absurd.

that's all folks
 
2013-02-07 09:02:41 PM  

Raw_fishFood: Well, the Manhunters do.

/No man escapes the Manhunters.


I was rather disappointed at that. I always thought The Martian Manhunter was a sci-fi themed gay porn.

How...unexpected.

skylabdown: Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?


Tell us your feelings on people who are not straight, white Christians of the protestant faith?
 
2013-02-07 09:03:48 PM  
No , but I would like to hunt the people who came up with the idea of hunting from the internet and helicopters
 
2013-02-07 09:04:07 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Is NPR run by furries?

If so, I guess I can understand their bias.


I'm pretty liberal on almost everything, but NPR has been really pushing the anti-gun angle.  I realize they are just covering the nonsense coming from various legislators, but I wish they would cover it in the same manner they covered the idiots making the 'legitimate rape' and similar comments.
 
2013-02-07 09:04:31 PM  
I've never hunted, and I probably never will- it just seems like a pain in the ass to me, and I would much rather just buy my meat all neatly sliced and wrapped up in plastic. This shiat is retarded, however.
 
2013-02-07 09:05:04 PM  
So I guess we are all accessories to murder?

Like purses and hats.
 
2013-02-07 09:05:17 PM  

MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?


Who eats wolf meat? They just take the coat and that's it.
 
2013-02-07 09:05:33 PM  

nigeman: I know this is a touchy subject but here is my 2 cents.

Hunters love the kill. The idea of taking another life, the final kicking of the animal is all part of the charm, otherwise why would they do it? Getting food isn't the answer. It's the fun of it.

Also I think hunters claiming that video games makes people violent is absurd.

that's all folks


Your change is one penny.
Have a nice day.
 
2013-02-07 09:05:51 PM  
BronyMedic:

skylabdown: Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

Tell us your feelings on people who are not straight, white Christians of the protestant faith?


Project much?  Tell me your feelings!  What's your point?  I guess you agree with me then.
 
2013-02-07 09:06:24 PM  
you say pheasant, he says peasant

t1.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-07 09:06:35 PM  
Don't be silly, if left unchecked, overpopulation would force many to be unable to sustain themselves and they will start to suffer and starve. Hunting is doing them a favor.

www.mnn.com
 
2013-02-07 09:07:12 PM  
No, because the law says they aren't. And the only difference between killing and murder is legality
 
2013-02-07 09:07:46 PM  
Hunting isn't murder, but hunters should stop displaying those sexy deer heads on their walls.
 
2013-02-07 09:08:16 PM  

skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.


pfft this is like having someone say "you don't know the difference between mexican brown and china rocks yet YOU are telling me that heroin is bad.
 
2013-02-07 09:08:39 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Ah, inuits trying to keep polar bears away from their village, and any city trying to keep natural predator numbers in check would like to disagree with you. Did you just forget that there are communities, even within the U.S. that have a problem with wolves?


Actually, yes I did. But I'd wager that the polar bear isn't going to freeze to the ice or the wolf's pelt isn't going to be harvested once the nuisance is dead.

/A storm is coming into the NE
//And the stupid out there has me red.
 
2013-02-07 09:08:41 PM  
Short answer: No

Feeling this way, it's hard for me to understand the pull to hunt animalsunless the meat is actually needed to feed one's family, or the hunting is managed and results in good outcomes for the animal population in question. (This can be the case when high population numbers would otherwise consign individuals to starvation and slow, miserable deaths).

A: You don't need to hunt because you're too poor to feed your family. Some people choose to hunt because it's cheaper. Some chose to hunt because they can get more meat at once, so they aren't trying to buy a side of beef. Others do it because the meat isn't pumped full of hormones, fed GenMod feed, and has less fat.

B: Hunting IS managed, it's why we have seasons and limits. This isn't just a whim, this is to manage the populations and lessen then instances of starvation.

C: If hunting is murder, so is slaughtering the cows for distribution to your local grocery store.
 
2013-02-07 09:08:58 PM  

Government Fromage: MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?

I get the feeling a lot of people think this -- that huntersjust go out in the woods and blast away at deer or anything else that happens across their scope.


Perhaps they think everyone is some cartoonish trophy hunter who kills an animal just to add to their collection and just leaves the yummy bits to rot.
 
2013-02-07 09:09:46 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: nigeman: I know this is a touchy subject but here is my 2 cents.

Hunters love the kill. The idea of taking another life, the final kicking of the animal is all part of the charm, otherwise why would they do it? Getting food isn't the answer. It's the fun of it.

Also I think hunters claiming that video games makes people violent is absurd.

that's all folks

Your change is one penny.
Have a nice day.


I see you have it covered.  Except I think you can also add:  "I think anyone claiming that video games make people violent is absurd".


I hate taking the life of animals.  But I love how they taste.  If I could harvest venison like I harvest chives, I'd be quite happy.  Unfortunately, literally everything humans eat was once alive at some level, there is no getting around that.   Some people just have a line they have drawn based on cranial capacity and cuteness.
 
2013-02-07 09:10:18 PM  
  It's quite a bit different here...We take the deer out for a few cocktails..then a nice dinner..Maybe some girls later...And then when the deer is relaxed and happy...Boom! one right behind the antlers.
 
2013-02-07 09:10:22 PM  
s20.postimage.org
 
2013-02-07 09:10:46 PM  

skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.


This is and probably will remain the most correct and sensible statement in this entire thread.
 
2013-02-07 09:10:56 PM  

nigeman: I know this is a touchy subject but here is my 2 cents.

Hunters love the kill. The idea of taking another life, the final kicking of the animal is all part of the charm, otherwise why would they do it? Getting food isn't the answer. It's the fun of it.

Also I think hunters claiming that video games makes people violent is absurd.

that's all folks


... and yet, if you're not a vegetarian you're depending on other people to do your dirty work for you, just executing animals in an assembly line process so you can have your steak.

Hunters earn it. The animals have a far chance to get away. Thousands upon thousands of hunters come up empty every year. They catch, clean, butcher, and consume their kills. Their food didn't come from the freezer section of the supermarket.
 
2013-02-07 09:10:57 PM  

Government Fromage: I get the feeling a lot of people think this -- that huntersjust go out in the woods and blast away at deer or anything else that happens across their scope.


sadly i find a lot of supposed "hunters" do a lot to make it seem that way. Especially in the gun threads, when they claim they need AR-15s to kill a dozen or so "varmints" at a time. for those of us who hunt, the exterminators are a very frustrating group.
 
2013-02-07 09:11:30 PM  
As a 41 year old who hunted from the age of 8 to the age of 22 I say, it depends.   I grew up low middle class and at times would have qualified as poor.    Now I would feel bad even running over a squirrel by accident.     But back then I had a combination of angry male teenage hormones and immature brain development and I expressed my frustrations with violence though hunting.  Then in my early teens I felt bad about killing an animal that we would not eat, and I then just hunted for meat.  After I made enough money to satisfy all my food needs, I could not hunt if it wasn't for meat.   This was a the age of 17.  After getting my first girlfriend at 21, who had a serious animal rights agenda, it was harder to hunt than ever.  Essentially, I was converted in a way, but remained an athiest until I was 32.
So IMHO, hunting is evidence of human evolution in spirit.  In the future most people will hate it and think of anyone who kills an animal as a bad person.   Maybe at that point, we can see a society with less violence than now.
 
2013-02-07 09:11:38 PM  
I enjoy hunting for the sake of being in the woods and getting food for my family.  I don't enjoy the idea of killing, but all edible things I eat once had lived, even if it was vegetation.  Today I killed a minnow in the attempt to catch a larger fish (went ice fishing without any luck).  To kill and waste is murder, to kill for eating is necessary and who can really say that it isn't some animals' purpose is to lay down their lives so others live.  The cycle will carry on.  I say PETA members should continue their argument in front of wild carnivores.

/I could go for some venison right now.
//I did enjoy the taste of dead chicken, dead potatoes, and dead corn tonight
///my breakfast tomorrow will have dead wheat product (biscuit) & dead pig liquid (pork gravy) and well mixed destroyed unfertilized chicken embryos (scrambled eggs)
 
2013-02-07 09:12:14 PM  
ajgeek:
Actually, yes I did. But I'd wager that the polar bear isn't going to freeze to the ice or the wolf's pelt isn't going to be harvested once the nuisance is dead.

Why would they not harvest the wolfs pelt or head for mounting?
 
2013-02-07 09:13:31 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Hunters earn it. The animals have a far chance to get away. Thousands upon thousands of hunters come up empty every year. They catch, clean, butcher, and consume their kills. Their food didn't come from the freezer section of the supermarket.


i did this year. and i'm still kicking myself...

/new camp this year, still learning the area
//no excuse for hesitating on my one really good chance though :(
 
2013-02-07 09:14:06 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: You can't grill it until you kill it. That meat you ate for dinner didn't kill itself.


img.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-07 09:15:32 PM  

JDJoeE: Government Fromage: MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?

I get the feeling a lot of people think this -- that huntersjust go out in the woods and blast away at deer or anything else that happens across their scope.

Perhaps they think everyone is some cartoonish trophy hunter who kills an animal just to add to their collection and just leaves the yummy bits to rot.


Akin to what I said above. Would you eat a wolf?
/If so why not a fat grain fed easy as hell to hunt dog?
 
2013-02-07 09:16:55 PM  
So does this mean vegetarians are cereal killers?
 
2013-02-07 09:17:22 PM  
And the angel of the Lord came unto me,
snatching me up from my
place of slumber,
and took me on high,
and higher still until we
moved in the spaces betwixt the air itself.
and he bore me unto a
vast farmland of our own midwest,
and as we descended cries of
impending doom rose from the soil.
one thousand, nay, a million
voices full of fear.
and terror possessed me then.
and I begged,

"Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"
And the angel said unto me,
"These are the cries of the carrots,
the cries of the carrots.
You see, reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day
and to them it is the holocaust."
And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat
like the tears of one millions terrified brothers
and roared,
"Hear me now,
I have seen the light,
they have a consciousness,
they have a life,
they have a soul.
damn you!
let the rabbits wear glasses,
save our brothers...can I get an amen?
can I get a hallelujah? thank you, Jesus.

life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on...
this is necessary

it was daylight when you woke up in your ditch.
you looked up at your sky.
that made blue be your color.
you had your knife with you there too.
when you stood up there was goo all over your clothes.
your hands were sticky.
you wiped them on your grass,
so now your color was green.
oh Lord, why did everything always have
to keep changing like this?
you were already getting nervous again.
your head hurt and it rang when you stood up.
your head was almost empty.
it always hurt you when you woke up like this.
you crawled up out of your ditch unto your gravel road
and you began to walk
and waited for the rest of your mind to come back to you.
you could see the car parked far down the road
and you walked toward it.
if God is our father, you though,
then Satan must be our cousin.
why didn't anyone else understand these important things?
when you got to your car,
you tried all the doors,
but they were locked.
it was a red car and it was new.
there was an expensive leather camera case lying on the seat.
out across your field
you could see two tiny people walking by your woods.
you began to walk towards them.
now red was your color and of course,
those little people out there were yours too
 
2013-02-07 09:17:34 PM  

Land Ark: Don't be silly, if left unchecked, overpopulation would force many to be unable to sustain themselves and they will start to suffer and starve. Hunting is doing them a favor.

[www.mnn.com image 530x300]


They'll arrest you if you shoot shanty town residents, although one might argue you'd be doing them a favor too.
 
2013-02-07 09:21:06 PM  
www.allfordmustangs.com
 
2013-02-07 09:21:15 PM  
Only if you are living this plot:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-07 09:23:46 PM  
t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-07 09:24:59 PM  
Pick you leeks in the spring.
Mark the trails of the venison.
Find the venison in the Autumn.
Harvest.
Eat seasoned venison.
 
2013-02-07 09:26:26 PM  
I grew up hunting but I really never see myself killing an animal unless it was about to kill me, someone else or if I was starving.

I don't mind the deer hunters mainly because there's an overpopulation in some parts.
It'd still be hard for me to kill one.

Although there is a squirrel that tries to get into my house I wouldn't mind slugging with a baseball bat.
 
2013-02-07 09:26:29 PM  

kim jong-un: Ego edo infantia cattus: nigeman: I know this is a touchy subject but here is my 2 cents.

Hunters love the kill. The idea of taking another life, the final kicking of the animal is all part of the charm, otherwise why would they do it? Getting food isn't the answer. It's the fun of it.

Also I think hunters claiming that video games makes people violent is absurd.

that's all folks

Your change is one penny.
Have a nice day.

I see you have it covered.  Except I think you can also add:  "I think anyone claiming that video games make people violent is absurd".


I hate taking the life of animals.  But I love how they taste.  If I could harvest venison like I harvest chives, I'd be quite happy.  Unfortunately, literally everything humans eat was once alive at some level, there is no getting around that.   Some people just have a line they have drawn based on cranial capacity and cuteness.


Wow, I didn't even see that they said "hunters claiming that video games..." My brain must have blown a logic fuse trying to read that.
 
2013-02-07 09:27:27 PM  
"Can hunters and animal advocates talk and listen together about their different ways of thinking through these issues?"

Maybe someplace, but it sure as hell isn't going to happen on Fark.
 
2013-02-07 09:27:35 PM  
Are hunters committing murder?

Sometimes, but it's not related to their hunting (usually).
 
2013-02-07 09:31:11 PM  
Sit down NPR, I have some bad news. The cows, pigs, chickens, and fish in the supermarket did not commit suicide.
 
2013-02-07 09:32:59 PM  
Are people who hit a squirrel in the road and drive off guilty of a hit and run? Leaving the scene of an accident?  "Manslaughter"?

Simply put, this is stupid and NPR has officially slipped to below TMZ on my "level of respect" spectrum...
 
2013-02-07 09:33:34 PM  

badhatharry: Sit down NPR, I have some bad news. The cows, pigs, chickens, and fish in the supermarket did not commit suicide.


at least the frogs get wheelchairs

well....don't they?

coreybradshaw.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-07 09:33:40 PM  

FuturePastNow: Deer don't have feelings. They're evil hellbeasts who like to run in front of me at night on the highway.


images1.wikia.nocookie.net
Even on the interstate,  F.O.E.! ( ºДº)
 
2013-02-07 09:33:47 PM  
no

/I suspect I am not the only such post in this thread
 
2013-02-07 09:33:53 PM  

badhatharry: Sit down NPR, I have some bad news. The cows, pigs, chickens, and fish in the supermarket did not commit suicide.


That's covered in the piece.

The writer is wondering why people continue to kill animals themselves when they could go to the supermarket and buy all the cows, pigs, chickens and fish already dead and dressed for cooking.
 
2013-02-07 09:34:09 PM  
To me, murder means to kill something, whether it's human or a simple animal.

When we hunt animals, we shoot them with bullets or arrows, sometimes we club them to death. The end result is always a dead animal. I can't imagine of any fish who would willingly jump into a pan and present itself as "Ready to Fry!", nor can I think of any pig who would impale itself to a stick ready to be roasted. These animals, when they figure out that there's danger and you're out to get them, will run away or fight back. They won't willingly die for you, and to me, that means we are forcefully taking their lives, something that equates to murder.

Just think of it this way. What is the difference between a person who hunts and eats animals and a person who hunts and eats humans? You can say that hunting and killing animals is allowed by law, while hunting and eating humans is considered a crime in most societies. The end result is still the same, something or somebody dies to satisfy hunger.
 
2013-02-07 09:36:37 PM  

Lidocaine: Are people who hit a squirrel in the road and drive off guilty of a hit and run? Leaving the scene of an accident?  "Manslaughter"?

Simply put, this is stupid and NPR has officially slipped to below TMZ on my "level of respect" spectrum...


It's a commentary piece. It's not news. I think it asks a valid question...Why do people who don't need to kill animals continue to kill animals.

I agree that the use of the term "murder" is silly, but that's exactly the dialogue that the writer is trying to open.
 
2013-02-07 09:37:17 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Why would they not harvest the wolfs pelt or head for mounting?


I can't brain. Please do excuse me. They would harvest the wolf as well. Not sure how the meat is used, however.
 
2013-02-07 09:38:36 PM  

BronyMedic: It's not murder if you're intending to use as much of the animal as possible in tasty, tasty recipes. So remember that next time your city has a homeless problem.

/I'm not a...hah..."SERIAL" killer....


I've not seen any coyote recipes.
 
2013-02-07 09:38:50 PM  
clearly the answer is yes

And furthermore, just as clearly, eating hunted meat is cannibalism.
 
2013-02-07 09:39:26 PM  

MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?


geos-nature.org
 
2013-02-07 09:39:47 PM  

KidneyStone: BronyMedic: It's not murder if you're intending to use as much of the animal as possible in tasty, tasty recipes. So remember that next time your city has a homeless problem.

/I'm not a...hah..."SERIAL" killer....

I've not seen any coyote recipes.


if it's anything like dog, which I'd guess it is, stick it in a stew and simmer for quite awhile.
 
2013-02-07 09:41:45 PM  

vernonFL: If you don't plan on eating it, yes.

If you don't plan on eating it then you are just killing for fun, and its murder.


I kill flies all the time. I guess that makes me a serial killer!
 
2013-02-07 09:41:52 PM  

lostcat: badhatharry: Sit down NPR, I have some bad news. The cows, pigs, chickens, and fish in the supermarket did not commit suicide.

That's covered in the piece.

The writer is wondering why people continue to kill animals themselves when they could go to the supermarket and buy all the cows, pigs, chickens and fish already dead and dressed for cooking.


That's one step away from only going to restaurants so you don't have to cook the dead animals yourself.
 
2013-02-07 09:42:52 PM  

nigeman: I know this is a touchy subject but here is my 2 cents.

Hunters love the kill. The idea of taking another life, the final kicking of the animal is all part of the charm, otherwise why would they do it? Getting food isn't the answer. It's the fun of it.

Also I think hunters claiming that video games makes people violent is absurd.

that's all folks


I shot a deer earlier this fall.  I had forgotten in the excitement of the hunt that my rifle was off by about 6" left at 100 yards, so what I aimed as a heart/lung shot ended up being a gut shot.  The deer ran about 100 yards before he fell, then took another four or five minutes to bleed out.  I cried as I stroked the deer's head, trying to make its death easier, if not less painful.  If you think it's all about the "final kicking of the animal" being "all the charm," you're incredibly, patently, and completely wrong.  I still feel bad about that shot, and wish like hell I hadn't taken it.  I would rather go without fresh venison than give an animal a lingering, painful death.
 
2013-02-07 09:42:58 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: No , but I would like to hunt the people who came up with the idea of hunting from the internet and helicopters


Why do you hate disabled people?
 
2013-02-07 09:44:15 PM  

badhatharry: lostcat: badhatharry: Sit down NPR, I have some bad news. The cows, pigs, chickens, and fish in the supermarket did not commit suicide.

That's covered in the piece.

The writer is wondering why people continue to kill animals themselves when they could go to the supermarket and buy all the cows, pigs, chickens and fish already dead and dressed for cooking.

That's one step away from only going to restaurants so you don't have to cook the dead animals yourself.


To be honest, I eat meat, but I used to never buy it at the store and bring it home because I always found handling raw meat a little disgusting. I love it when it's been well-cooked though, so I used to only eat meat when eating out (which I did, a lot).

Recently I've started experimenting with steak and grilling a bit, so I do pick up some meat every week.
 
2013-02-07 09:44:56 PM  

taurusowner: skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.

This is and probably will remain the most correct and sensible statement in this entire thread.


Except it also applies to farking a six year-old.
 
2013-02-07 09:48:36 PM  

Maus III: Depends what animal you're hunting. Homo Sapiens? Yeah. Murder.


What if you eat them?
 
2013-02-07 09:49:53 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: taurusowner: skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.

This is and probably will remain the most correct and sensible statement in this entire thread.

Except it also applies to farking a six year-old.


I was gonna say...It sounds exactly like what pedos say when defending their behavior online. "How can people who don't know the pure joy of a child's love tell us that we are wrong?!"
 
2013-02-07 09:49:56 PM  

lostcat: "Can hunters and animal advocates talk and listen together about their different ways of thinking through these issues?"


Why should they?
 
2013-02-07 09:50:29 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: lostcat: "Can hunters and animal advocates talk and listen together about their different ways of thinking through these issues?"

Why should they?


Quote from the article.
 
2013-02-07 09:52:14 PM  

KidneyStone: BronyMedic: It's not murder if you're intending to use as much of the animal as possible in tasty, tasty recipes. So remember that next time your city has a homeless problem.

/I'm not a...hah..."SERIAL" killer....

I've not seen any coyote recipes.


Killing coyotes is like killing rats.  Big big rats.
 
2013-02-07 09:54:09 PM  
Why are we singling out hunters?  If you hire somebody to kill an animal, how is that morally superior to killing it yourself?  If hunting is murder, then this is a holocaust.
 
2013-02-07 09:54:54 PM  

lostcat: BarkingUnicorn: lostcat: "Can hunters and animal advocates talk and listen together about their different ways of thinking through these issues?"

Why should they?

Quote from the article.


I know; I actually read the farking things.  That's why my comments are usually late.
 
2013-02-07 09:55:25 PM  
SUMMON DITTYBOPPER!


/NPR isn't even pretending anymore to be objective
 
2013-02-07 09:56:22 PM  

ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!


What about killing animals that carry disease, or prey on your pets or livestock and threaten your livelihood?
 
2013-02-07 09:57:05 PM  

phrawgh: Only if two go out, but one returns.


www.virginmedia.com
 
2013-02-07 09:58:05 PM  
Kahlil Gibran, "On Eating and Drinking:"

Would that you could live on the fragrance of the earth, and like an air plant be sustained by the light.
But since you must kill to eat, and rob the newly born of its mother's milk to quench your thirst, let it then be an act of worship.
And let your board stand an altar on which the pure and the innocent of forest and plain are sacrificed for that which is purer and still more innocent in man.

When you kill a beast say to him in your heart,
"By the same power that slays you, I too am slain; and I too shall be consumed.
For the law that delivered you into my hand shall deliver me into a mightier hand.
Your blood and my blood is naught but the sap that feeds the tree of heaven."
 
2013-02-07 09:58:18 PM  
NPR asks the question

Actually, a guest blogger asks this, but I suppose it won't stop everyone from jerking themselves off about the "liberal media".
 
2013-02-07 09:58:29 PM  

The Southern Dandy: KidneyStone: BronyMedic: It's not murder if you're intending to use as much of the animal as possible in tasty, tasty recipes. So remember that next time your city has a homeless problem.

/I'm not a...hah..."SERIAL" killer....

I've not seen any coyote recipes.

Killing coyotes is like killing rats.  Big big rats.


Same with deer.
 
2013-02-07 09:59:22 PM  
"You can't have the word EAT without MEAT ya farking hippy!"

~Scott H. Biram
 
2013-02-07 09:59:46 PM  

Mikey1969: Short answer: No

Feeling this way, it's hard for me to understand the pull to hunt animalsunless the meat is actually needed to feed one's family, or the hunting is managed and results in good outcomes for the animal population in question. (This can be the case when high population numbers would otherwise consign individuals to starvation and slow, miserable deaths).

A: You don't need to hunt because you're too poor to feed your family. Some people choose to hunt because it's cheaper. Some chose to hunt because they can get more meat at once, so they aren't trying to buy a side of beef. Others do it because the meat isn't pumped full of hormones, fed GenMod feed, and has less fat.

B: Hunting IS managed, it's why we have seasons and limits. This isn't just a whim, this is to manage the populations and lessen then instances of starvation.

C: If hunting is murder, so is slaughtering the cows for distribution to your local grocery store.


I'd like to add, venison and rabbit are tasty, and venison at least isn't really commercially available as far as I know except in specialty markets maybe. Same with other critters. I don't however advocate for trophy hunting; I think that's disgusting.

Plus, many hunting seasons and limits are based on managing the overall species population too; I know in parts of NY in years past, the DEC has authorized bait and shoot because of deer overpopulation. Frankly I'm a lot happier knowing they're not starving to death slowly in those situations. The only big issue I have with hunting on the policy side is 'managing' predators because they're encroaching on human areas or livestock. We've seen those stories here on Fark of course. It just seems ridiculous to me that people think we're so far above the ecosystems and that we should completely maintain the status quo...

Also on the beef thing, the second to last cow my in-laws had butchered was one I fed daily for periods of time when they were out of town. I was on a first name basis with that guy, and he was delicious.
 
2013-02-07 09:59:57 PM  
Well I messed that one up.

The word MEAT without EAT.

Ugh, I suck.
 
2013-02-07 10:01:07 PM  

White_Scarf_Syndrome: Well I messed that one up.

The word MEAT without EAT.

Ugh, I suck.


TWSS
 
2013-02-07 10:03:13 PM  
Since the author concludes that the answer is "no", and pretty much hints at that conclusion on technical terms in the second paragraph, the headline is sensationalistic at best maybe morally dishonest at worst.
 
2013-02-07 10:04:26 PM  

Omahawg: badhatharry: Sit down NPR, I have some bad news. The cows, pigs, chickens, and fish in the supermarket did not commit suicide.

at least the frogs get wheelchairs

well....don't they?

[coreybradshaw.files.wordpress.com image 565x420]


nmisscommentor.com

Not always
 
2013-02-07 10:06:38 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Kahlil Gibran, "On Eating and Drinking:"

Would that you could live on the fragrance of the earth, and like an air plant be sustained by the light.
But since you must kill to eat, and rob the newly born of its mother's milk to quench your thirst, let it then be an act of worship.
And let your board stand an altar on which the pure and the innocent of forest and plain are sacrificed for that which is purer and still more innocent in man.

When you kill a beast say to him in your heart,
"By the same power that slays you, I too am slain; and I too shall be consumed.
For the law that delivered you into my hand shall deliver me into a mightier hand.
Your blood and my blood is naught but the sap that feeds the tree of heaven."


Favorited for quoting Gibran.
 
2013-02-07 10:07:41 PM  
KidneyStone:
I've not seen any coyote recipes.


I have one! And when I was stationed in Korea I saw dogs hanging in the marketplace. So I was going to try it when I shot one this past season. But it smelled so bad that I just couldn't go through with it.
 
2013-02-07 10:08:00 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: taurusowner: skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.

This is and probably will remain the most correct and sensible statement in this entire thread.

Except it also applies to farking a six year-old.


not entirely... as we were all once six years old, and can at least on some level realize that "being farked" at that age is not something you would have been able to consent to.
 
2013-02-07 10:08:20 PM  

nigeman: I know this is a touchy subject but here is my 2 cents.

Hunters love the kill. The idea of taking another life, the final kicking of the animal is all part of the charm, otherwise why would they do it? Getting food isn't the answer. It's the fun of it.

Also I think hunters claiming that video games makes people violent is absurd.

that's all folks


Yes that is true.  When I was a teenager it was an absolutely heart pounding level of excitement.  There's a reason they have the term called "buck fever".  It's when you become so excited at the presence of the deer that you aren't able to function appropriately to shoot.  However I am older now.  I don't really hunt much and not much of a gun fanatic but I do own a shotgun and I do go pheasant hunting a couple times per year.  My perspective now is I had a nice afternoon, getting good exercise in nature on public nature land whose only reason it isn't plowed up is so that I could be there.  Meanwhile dozens of species of plants and animals go undisturbed and flourish.  The pheasant itself is a foreign species native to Asia.  We are only allowed to shoot the roosters which has zero effect on reproduction and population since they are not monogamous and in fact studies show a 5 or 10 to 1 hen to rooster ratio is preferable.  I shoot on average 5 or so a year.  I paid in taxes (license fees and ammo tax) probably $50 for that privilege and it was a healthy, lean source of protein.  Additionally it tastes like chicken.  Instead of a chicken and wild rice soup it was pheasant and wild rice soup.

In the end I figure what I did was trade the life of a wild animal that lived free and comfortable until the last 5 seconds of its life for that of a pen raised chicken that will not need to be raised and not need to suffer 6 months in a cage with its top beak cut off so it doesn't peck the others while it can barely if at all turn around in the cage.  It is understandable how a vegetarian can be opposed to hunting and quite consistent ethically.  It is not understandable to oppose hunting while eating animals that were raised suffering.  I once had someone who was eating veal tell me they opposed hunting.  I just chuckled.  I refuse to eat veal.

So yes it is disgusting however it would seem that much less meat in general would be consumed and there would be significantly more vegetarians in the world if they had to kill their food.

/has free range laying hens too.
//and bees.  honey bees for delicious honey.
 
2013-02-07 10:09:30 PM  

lostcat: "Can hunters and animal advocates talk and listen together about their different ways of thinking through these issues?"

Maybe someplace, but it sure as hell isn't going to happen on Fark.




As I imagine the conversation" Hunter: "OK, I don't object to your not hunting if you don't want to."

Anti: " Great! As long as you don't hunt because I don't want you to."
 
2013-02-07 10:10:32 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Kahlil Gibran, "On Eating and Drinking:"

Would that you could live on the fragrance of the earth, and like an air plant be sustained by the light.
But since you must kill to eat, and rob the newly born of its mother's milk to quench your thirst, let it then be an act of worship.
And let your board stand an altar on which the pure and the innocent of forest and plain are sacrificed for that which is purer and still more innocent in man.

When you kill a beast say to him in your heart,
"By the same power that slays you, I too am slain; and I too shall be consumed.
For the law that delivered you into my hand shall deliver me into a mightier hand.
Your blood and my blood is naught but the sap that feeds the tree of heaven."


There are few poets who can change the mood for me like him.
 
2013-02-07 10:11:15 PM  

ladyfortuna: I don't however advocate for trophy hunting; I think that's disgusting


Seconded... Even if someone was trophy hunting and planning on donating the meat, it's still trophy hunting and bothers me as well.
 
2013-02-07 10:13:54 PM  

WTF Indeed: Yes. Tasty, tasty murder.


And then we make some tasty Murder Stew!
 
2013-02-07 10:14:17 PM  

rev. dave: After getting my first girlfriend at 21, who had a serious animal rights agenda, it was harder to hunt than ever.


The beaver hunting does become more difficult once you are in a committed relationship...
 
2013-02-07 10:14:43 PM  
If the animals didn't want to die, they shouldn't be dressed in such sexy, sexy meat.  They brought it on themselves.
 
2013-02-07 10:16:51 PM  

The Southern Dandy: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

What about killing animals that carry disease, or prey on your pets or livestock and threaten your livelihood?


I mentioned it above, but I can't brain tonight. I did forget exceptions or should have emphasized hunting killing and not self defense or hazard reasons for killing. Sorry.

If confused, please refer to sentence 1.
 
2013-02-07 10:17:28 PM  
You step on a spider, cockroach. Swat a housefly or a mosquito.Have a bug zapper on your patio. Murder? Or does it only count if it's a mammal?

Farking stupid question re: the headline.
 
2013-02-07 10:17:30 PM  

badhatharry: That's one step away from only going to restaurants so you don't have to cook the dead animals yourself.


You mean like the people who work at NPR?
 
2013-02-07 10:18:56 PM  
I like my murdered steak smothered in murder sauce.
 
2013-02-07 10:19:28 PM  
is it manslaughter when you run over a squirrel with your powder blue prius?
 
2013-02-07 10:19:36 PM  

Nabb1: In many cases, hunting as part of wildlife management helps control the populations of animals whose natural predators have dwindled due to humans. I don't hunt and it's not anything I care to do, but it can serve a legitimate purpose.


Deer have been called "rats with antlers" for a reason. If they are not hunted, the results are hideous.

We also have some introduced animals that shouldn't be here at all. Killing them is performing an ecological service.
 
2013-02-07 10:21:55 PM  
NPR asks the question: Are hunters committing murder?

No, just liberals who love CNN and MSNBC like Chris Dorner.

And the SPLC, through it'shiatman, Floyd Corkins.

They are.
 
2013-02-07 10:22:30 PM  
Someone a while back posted a pic of one of the planes hitting a tower on 9/11 and Photoshopped a banner being towed by the plane that said Meat is Murder. Wish I had saved that.
 
2013-02-07 10:23:04 PM  

Government Fromage: MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?

I get the feeling a lot of people think this -- that huntersjust go out in the woods and blast away at deer or anything else that happens across their scope.



MANY DO. And please don't try to make up a lie to convince me otherwise. I've spent too much time in the woods to believe otherwise.
 
2013-02-07 10:23:45 PM  
Yes, hunting is murder.

In the same way that antibiotics are weapons of mass destruction....
 
2013-02-07 10:26:27 PM  

GreenSun: What is the difference between a person who hunts and eats animals and a person who hunts and eats humans?


The fact that we do not kill and eat members of our own species is one of the most commonly accepted ideals that separates us from "animals."  I would submit that this, along with the evolutionary lottery ticket which gave humans and exceptional ability to develop and use tools, is what allowed humans to become the dominant species on earth.  It is also what makes us the apex predator on earth and, nature being nature, I am just exercising my evolutionary given rights and talents as I see fit.  The fact that it is no longer "necessary" to hunt for food does not matter.  I have the will and ability to make the most effective use of what nature has given me and I do just that, without hurting another of my own species in the process.  At the same time it is an incredibly humbling experience to see how much hard work is involved in harvesting an animal, even with modern tools. It is a miracle that humans made it this far.
 
2013-02-07 10:27:41 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?

Who eats wolf meat? They just take the coat and that's it.


If left in the wild, something will eat the entire carcass. Nothing goes to waste in nature.
I haven't hunted in many years, but I do fish and eat the ones I keep.
 
2013-02-07 10:29:16 PM  

beta_plus: SUMMON DITTYBOPPER!

/NPR isn't even pretending anymore to be objective



Got any evidence of that?

That's what I thought.
 
2013-02-07 10:30:34 PM  
If so, I guess I'm a mass murderer.  There are an awful lot of ducks, geese, pheasants, grouse, and deer who have been slain by my regime.

I would have responded earlier in the thread, but I was at my Thursday night archery league holocaust practice.  This makes me a better murderer.
 
2013-02-07 10:31:02 PM  
I love maiming the animal, walking up and ripping out it's heart and eating it while they die...
Works on deer too...
 
2013-02-07 10:32:19 PM  

Abox: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being

It's actually the unlawful killing of another person...important distinction.


with malice aforethought.
 
2013-02-07 10:34:32 PM  

parkthebus: If so, I guess I'm a mass murderer.  There are an awful lot of ducks, geese, pheasants, grouse, and deer who have been slain by my regime.

I would have responded earlier in the thread, but I was at my Thursday night archery league holocaust practice.  This makes me a better murderer.


Does your regime have any openings in Management and if so, where can I apply?
 
2013-02-07 10:36:17 PM  
If NPR wasn't run by a bunch of Godless, homosexual, atheists with a communist agenda; they might have noticed the Lord game us dominion over all animals on the earth to do with as we please.
 
2013-02-07 10:36:52 PM  

nigeman: I know this is a touchy subject but here is my 2 cents.

Hunters love the kill. The idea of taking another life, the final kicking of the animal is all part of the charm, otherwise why would they do it? Getting food isn't the answer. It's the fun of it.

Also I think hunters claiming that video games makes people violent is absurd.

that's all folks


You're wrong.  Just about any hunter will tell you that all the fun is over once you pull the trigger.  Every hunter I know is in it for the hunt.

"One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted...If one were to present the sportsman with the death of the animal as a gift, he would refuse it. What he is after is having to win it, to conquer the surely brute through his own effort and skill with all the extras that this carries with it: the immersion in the countryside, the healthfulness of the exercise, the distraction from his job."
Jose Ortega y Gasset
 
2013-02-07 10:38:54 PM  
Can hunters and animal advocates talk and listen together about their different ways of thinking through these issues?

Hmm, so you're accusing me of murder and want to have a rational talk with me.  I don't think I could stop myself trying to guess your chromosome count.
 
2013-02-07 10:39:18 PM  
Hunting is not murder if you eat what you kill.

I watched an episode from the final season of No Reservations a while ago. It was set in the Ozarks I guess, or some other equally backward redneck hot bed. They took Tony duck hunting, miraculously for this show, they actually got some ducks. Not one of the Bubbas that was accompanying Bourdain on that day knew how to cook duck or liked to eat duck. It took the city boy to show them how to freaking cook a duck breast with crispy skin to medium. They had lived their all their lives, spent god knows how much on their farking mossy oak EVERYTHING so they could go out and shoot ducks that they never farking ate.

Idiots, murdering idiots.
 
2013-02-07 10:41:19 PM  

ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!


Same for sex then right?  Sex without intent to procreate is BLOODY STUPID!?

People do such things not for the result, but the pleasure of the act.  It is in our nature to enjoy such things, a gift of Darwin, so to speak, that granted us better odds.

It's entertaining that one argument here is liberal(hunting = murder) and the other is more of a christian sort of conservative(recreational sex = evil), yet they use the same flawed logic.

Many liberal vs conservative arguments suffer from the same base moral-judgement that one accuses the other of.
 
2013-02-07 10:41:26 PM  
I pay upwards of $60 a year in license fees for the right to hunt deer.  Then pay $80 to have my tasty venison butchered if I am successful.    $140 dollars for 40 pounds of delicious meat is a good deal for me.   My daughter turns down a filet mignon before a piece of deer steak.
 
2013-02-07 10:47:07 PM  

KidneyStone: BronyMedic: It's not murder if you're intending to use as much of the animal as possible in tasty, tasty recipes. So remember that next time your city has a homeless problem.

/I'm not a...hah..."SERIAL" killer....

I've not seen any coyote recipes.


Here ya go.

 http://www.foremostcoyotehunting.com/2011/02/eating-coyote.html

/not a big fan of predator meat myself
//but then again I don't hunt predators unless they, hypothetically, need to have their numbers reduced for safety reasons.
///haven't hunted them yet.
 
2013-02-07 10:47:43 PM  

GreenSun: To me, murder means to kill something, whether it's human or a simple animal.

Well, the rest of us participate in a civilisation , where we agree on such things necessary to live together, such as language.  In order to share a common language, the rest of us use common definitions.  Like in a dictionary.


SO, go ahead and make up your warm and fuzzy definitions if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy.  But by the english language the rest of us use, no it's not murder.  And for that matter, animals don't have rights.  Not an opinion, just a point of fact, if you understand the definition of the words.

/Hmm, that commentary (including the rest that I snipped) is so obtuse I'm wondering if I'm being trolled...
 
2013-02-07 10:48:32 PM  
HighlanderRPI:  Does your regime have any openings in Management and if so, where can I apply?

I could use a chief scout.  The fact that I have to work all the time really reduces my regime's slaughter efficacy.  What are your qualifications?  We are an equal opportunity regime, and welcome any assistance we can get in identifying where and when to pursue our murderous ways.
 
2013-02-07 10:52:12 PM  
jed clampett shot the ground and out sprang oil. oil! OIL! black gold! texas tea!


you too can hunt the earth. that sneaky, sneaky planet.
 
2013-02-07 10:53:23 PM  
Absolutely the most ridiculous article I've ever read.  EVER.
 
2013-02-07 10:53:35 PM  

IgG4: Hunting is not murder if you eat what you kill.


Did you think my Hobo-stew wasn't authentic?
 
2013-02-07 10:54:34 PM  
No. Animals kill and eat other animals all the time. It's called the food chain. We just happen to be towards the top. But there are superior predators that will make a meal of us given the opportunity.
 
2013-02-07 10:56:50 PM  
ts1.mm.bing.net
 
2013-02-07 10:56:55 PM  

GreenSun: To me, murder means to kill something, whether it's human or a simple animal.

When we hunt animals, we shoot them with bullets or arrows, sometimes we club them to death. The end result is always a dead animal. I can't imagine of any fish who would willingly jump into a pan and present itself as "Ready to Fry!", nor can I think of any pig who would impale itself to a stick ready to be roasted. These animals, when they figure out that there's danger and you're out to get them, will run away or fight back. They won't willingly die for you, and to me, that means we are forcefully taking their lives, something that equates to murder.

Just think of it this way. What is the difference between a person who hunts and eats animals and a person who hunts and eats humans? You can say that hunting and killing animals is allowed by law, while hunting and eating humans is considered a crime in most societies. The end result is still the same, something or somebody dies to satisfy hunger.


Do you ever eat any kind of meat?  If so then you are a hypocrite.  If not then you are entitled to consistency of ethic.
 
2013-02-07 10:58:23 PM  

skylabdown: Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?


I hate to say it, but this happens  all of the farking time in a democracy.

All of a sudden, everyone is an expert on:

* foreign diplomacy,
* warfare,
* welfare,
* healthcare,
* civil rights,

and a gigantic list of bullcrap on which anyone over the age of 18 (and isn't a felon) can vote.
 
2013-02-07 11:00:36 PM  

brandent: GreenSun: To me, murder means to kill something, whether it's human or a simple animal.

When we hunt animals, we shoot them with bullets or arrows, sometimes we club them to death. The end result is always a dead animal. I can't imagine of any fish who would willingly jump into a pan and present itself as "Ready to Fry!", nor can I think of any pig who would impale itself to a stick ready to be roasted. These animals, when they figure out that there's danger and you're out to get them, will run away or fight back. They won't willingly die for you, and to me, that means we are forcefully taking their lives, something that equates to murder.

Just think of it this way. What is the difference between a person who hunts and eats animals and a person who hunts and eats humans? You can say that hunting and killing animals is allowed by law, while hunting and eating humans is considered a crime in most societies. The end result is still the same, something or somebody dies to satisfy hunger.

Do you ever eat any kind of meat?  If so then you are a hypocrite.  If not then you are entitled to consistency of ethic.


Not to mention missing the basic fact that *most* animals don't eat their own kind. You'll get an odd one in every bunch of course. But, for example, wolves do not hunt to eat other wolves. They hunt other wolves to chase them away from tasty tasty elk/deer.

/humans are unique in a lot of ways
//not eating each other except in unusual circumstances is not one of them however.
 
2013-02-07 11:01:49 PM  
Hunting or raising and slaughtering, they're both pretty horrible. One day we'll create tasty, healthy food that we can manufacture from simple chemicals and will no longer need to hurt animals. Until then I just try not to think about it too much.
 
2013-02-07 11:02:17 PM  
Carthax:

I shot a deer earlier this fall.  I had forgotten in the excitement of the hunt that my rifle was off by about 6" left at 100 yards, so what I aimed as a heart/lung shot ended up being a gut shot.  The deer ran about 100 yards before he fell, then took another four or five minutes to bleed out.  I cried as I stroked the deer's head, trying to make its death easier, if not less painful.  If you think it's all about the "final kicking of the animal" being "all the charm," you're incredibly, patently, and completely wrong.  I still feel bad about that shot, and wish like hell I hadn't taken it.  I would rather go without fresh venison than give an animal a lingering, painful death.

I really hope this is a troll, otherwise you're a horrible human being and a worse sportsman. Apart from not knowing how to zero your scope, if you wanted to make the deer's death easier, if not less painful, you would have PUT A SHOT BEHIND ITS EAR TO END ITS SUFFERING AFTER IT WAS DOWN. Was it really too much effort to pull the trigger again or were you too busy getting in touch with your inner vagina?
 
2013-02-07 11:03:10 PM  
OK I don't eat a lot of meat for health reasons but I have two deer (ok, parts of them) in my freezer. We eat some but I feed most of it to my dog as part of his raw diet. Hubby hunts when he can find someone with land who will let him hunt on it. He got tired of the gun thing and likes the slightly more challenging bow/arrow method. All of the hunters I know get permits, hunt in legal places to hunt, and take their deer or turkeys home, butcher them, and eat them (or give them to neighbors like me who use it to feed their dog).

At a certain point if deer are overpopulated there isn't food for all of them or the risk of disease increases- hunters are helping with that. And I don't think most hunters are thinking 'I WANT TO HURT THIS DEER' but instead are thinking 'ok, I gotta find tracks, I gotta figure out where they go, I gotta get in a good spot and wait, then I gotta be quiet and hit this deer with a good shot'- basically it is a challenge.

Animals aren't humans and killing them isn't murder. People who torture animals might have problems, but they still aren't murderers.

/animals that know they alive like dolphins, apes, etc. might have the right to not be killed, but their lives still shouldn't come before human lives and I'm not sure if it is murder
 
2013-02-07 11:04:19 PM  

badhatharry: Sit down NPR, I have some bad news. The cows, pigs, chickens, and fish in the supermarket did not commit suicide.


Many of them are vegetarians.
 
2013-02-07 11:05:12 PM  

trappedspirit: IgG4: Hunting is not murder if you eat what you kill.

Did you think my Hobo-stew wasn't authentic?


You know,  one of the weird things from the last couple wars was the involvement of the lawyers in target selection. Like you had to be able to legally defend actions in war, the converse is also weird, that we should feel obligated to take to trial every 15 year old kid who picked up an AK or tossed a grenade. Those actions are part of war and not really subject normal legal structures. These are soldiors whose job it is to kill each other. That is not murder, it is war.

Killing people and eating them is still murder, if it is done without consent. With consent is still gross, but it is definitely a grey area.
 
2013-02-07 11:07:53 PM  

spidermilk: At a certain point if deer are overpopulated there isn't food for all of them or the risk of disease increases- hunters are helping with that. And I don't think most hunters are thinking 'I WANT TO HURT THIS DEER' but instead are thinking 'ok, I gotta find tracks, I gotta figure out where they go, I gotta get in a good spot and wait, then I gotta be quiet and hit this deer with a good shot'- basically it is a challenge.


Hey hey hey, this is Fark.  Take your experienced and well-reasoned logic to them wickerpedias
 
2013-02-07 11:13:46 PM  

HighlanderRPI: parkthebus: If so, I guess I'm a mass murderer.  There are an awful lot of ducks, geese, pheasants, grouse, and deer who have been slain by my regime.

I would have responded earlier in the thread, but I was at my Thursday night archery league holocaust practice.  This makes me a better murderer.

Does your regime have any openings in Management and if so, where can I apply?


People reveling in death... sure... that's real healthy. Animals kill because they have to or sometimes because it's just instinct. Humans are the only animals that kill due to inferiority complexes, mostly brought on by a lack of phallic material.
 
2013-02-07 11:14:43 PM  

hitlersbrain: People reveling in death... sure... that's real healthy.


Why do you hate our Lord, Jesus Christ and His Heavenly Kingdom?
 
2013-02-07 11:17:05 PM  

MyRandomName: you think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?


He didn't say that.
 
2013-02-07 11:17:26 PM  

Carthax: nigeman: I know this is a touchy subject but here is my 2 cents.

Hunters love the kill. The idea of taking another life, the final kicking of the animal is all part of the charm, otherwise why would they do it? Getting food isn't the answer. It's the fun of it.

Also I think hunters claiming that video games makes people violent is absurd.

that's all folks

I shot a deer earlier this fall.  I had forgotten in the excitement of the hunt that my rifle was off by about 6" left at 100 yards, so what I aimed as a heart/lung shot ended up being a gut shot.  The deer ran about 100 yards before he fell, then took another four or five minutes to bleed out.  I cried as I stroked the deer's head, trying to make its death easier, if not less painful.  If you think it's all about the "final kicking of the animal" being "all the charm," you're incredibly, patently, and completely wrong.  I still feel bad about that shot, and wish like hell I hadn't taken it.  I would rather go without fresh venison than give an animal a lingering, painful death.


Can't tell if serious.
If not, 6⅓/10
If so, why wouldn't you just shoot it in the head so it didn't suffer? I've only ever had one animal not die immediately. It was a squirrel I headshot but the pellet must have gone in at an odd angle because instead of just twitching for a second or two and dieing it kept twitching. I felt bad so I walked over and put another pellets in his head. As much as I enjoy taking the feed lot out of the equation I can't stand to see animals suffer.
 
2013-02-07 11:22:03 PM  

CthulhuCalling: Carthax:

I shot a deer earlier this fall.  I had forgotten in the excitement of the hunt that my rifle was off by about 6" left at 100 yards, so what I aimed as a heart/lung shot ended up being a gut shot.  The deer ran about 100 yards before he fell, then took another four or five minutes to bleed out.  I cried as I stroked the deer's head, trying to make its death easier, if not less painful.  If you think it's all about the "final kicking of the animal" being "all the charm," you're incredibly, patently, and completely wrong.  I still feel bad about that shot, and wish like hell I hadn't taken it.  I would rather go without fresh venison than give an animal a lingering, painful death.

I really hope this is a troll, otherwise you're a horrible human being and a worse sportsman. Apart from not knowing how to zero your scope, if you wanted to make the deer's death easier, if not less painful, you would have PUT A SHOT BEHIND ITS EAR TO END ITS SUFFERING AFTER IT WAS DOWN. Was it really too much effort to pull the trigger again or were you too busy getting in touch with your inner vagina?


Maybe... don't shoot it at all? Venison tastes like crap. My idiot uncle loved killing stuff and had dead, stuffed things all over his house. He was always giving my mother deer meat and try as she might there was simply no way to prepare that stuff that tasted good. In the 'olden days', when people had super immune systems (or died) they would let the meat rot for a while to get rid of the gamey taste. Yeah, they'd rather eat rotten meat than 'fresh' venison.
 
2013-02-07 11:22:24 PM  
many times i have come home having listened to NPR on the car radio. i'm usually freaking out and going Mach II with my hair on fire.

one time Mrs. Kritter says: "I wish NPR didn't even exist".

I finally understand what the woman meant.
 
2013-02-07 11:25:02 PM  

phrawgh: hitlersbrain: People reveling in death... sure... that's real healthy.

Why do you hate our Lord, Jesus Christ and His Heavenly Kingdom?


Hey, he started it. No one is killing in MY name.
 
2013-02-07 11:27:59 PM  

IgG4: Hunting is not murder if you eat what you kill.

I watched an episode from the final season of No Reservations a while ago. It was set in the Ozarks I guess, or some other equally backward redneck hot bed. They took Tony duck hunting, miraculously for this show, they actually got some ducks. Not one of the Bubbas that was accompanying Bourdain on that day knew how to cook duck or liked to eat duck. It took the city boy to show them how to freaking cook a duck breast with crispy skin to medium. They had lived their all their lives, spent god knows how much on their farking mossy oak EVERYTHING so they could go out and shoot ducks that they never farking ate.

Idiots, murdering idiots.


I know a lot of people think Tony is a D-bag or worse, but you have to at least give him props on stuff like that - I recall one episode where he delivered the final stab to a pig they roasted afterwords. He looked almost green after doing it, but he said something to the effect of 'if I'm going to eat it, I should be able to kill it'. I'm not quite at that point yet but I know if I were hungry enough, it wouldn't be an issue.

People who don't eat what they kill sicken me. One time while exiting a Finger Lakes Trail leg, I met a nearby resident who told me the farmers with the big 'no trespassing' sign (hand written, poorly spelled) had dumped the bodies of multiple deer in the creek bed along the trail, after taking the heads. If I ever see those farkers doing something like that when I'm up there (or evidence of it), I'm absolutely calling it in and raising hell.
 
2013-02-07 11:30:29 PM  
I feel so lonely, having actually read the article.

Which concluded, fwiw: no, not murder... /~:
 
2013-02-07 11:31:25 PM  
The only deer I ever killed was with my car, and I turned her into tasty, tasty sausage and burger meat. Not a  scrap was wasted.
 
2013-02-07 11:32:08 PM  

GreenSun: To me, murder means to kill something, whether it's human or a simple animal.

When we hunt animals, we shoot them with bullets or arrows, sometimes we club them to death. The end result is always a dead animal. I can't imagine of any fish who would willingly jump into a pan and present itself as "Ready to Fry!", nor can I think of any pig who would impale itself to a stick ready to be roasted. These animals, when they figure out that there's danger and you're out to get them, will run away or fight back. They won't willingly die for you, and to me, that means we are forcefully taking their lives, something that equates to murder.

Just think of it this way. What is the difference between a person who hunts and eats animals and a person who hunts and eats humans? You can say that hunting and killing animals is allowed by law, while hunting and eating humans is considered a crime in most societies. The end result is still the same, something or somebody dies to satisfy hunger.


That's cute, that false equivalency. Tell me, do you dress your pets? If not, what are you, some kind of pervert?! That's indecent exposure!
Humans > Animals

/until the dolphins grow thumbs... then we're f=cked
 
2013-02-07 11:33:15 PM  

hitlersbrain: phrawgh: hitlersbrain: People reveling in death... sure... that's real healthy.

Why do you hate our Lord, Jesus Christ and His Heavenly Kingdom?

Hey, he started it. No one is killing in MY name.


Well... not anymore anyway...
 
2013-02-07 11:36:39 PM  

GreenSun: To me, murder means to kill something, whether it's human or a simple animal.

When we hunt animals, we shoot them with bullets or arrows, sometimes we club them to death. The end result is always a dead animal. I can't imagine of any fish who would willingly jump into a pan and present itself as "Ready to Fry!", nor can I think of any pig who would impale itself to a stick ready to be roasted. These animals, when they figure out that there's danger and you're out to get them, will run away or fight back. They won't willingly die for you, and to me, that means we are forcefully taking their lives, something that equates to murder.

Just think of it this way. What is the difference between a person who hunts and eats animals and a person who hunts and eats humans? You can say that hunting and killing animals is allowed by law, while hunting and eating humans is considered a crime in most societies. The end result is still the same, something or somebody dies to satisfy hunger.


If you leave out a salt lick I bet you could walk up to a deer tame as you please and throttle it.
 
2013-02-07 11:36:46 PM  

hitlersbrain: phrawgh: hitlersbrain: People reveling in death... sure... that's real healthy.

Why do you hate our Lord, Jesus Christ and His Heavenly Kingdom?

Hey, he started it. No one is killing in MY name.


I'll kill and eat one in your name then. It will have to be a fish 'cause hunting season doesn't start in these parts until September. Walleye or perch? I'm going tomorrow.
 
2013-02-07 11:38:54 PM  
On a lighter note:


Well, where to start . . . I have a house with about a 150 'of lake shoreline as my back yard and an 70' walkway to a floating dock.Sounds great, got good pics (don't know how to post them), good times . . .  but all is well until sitting on the back deck for a sunrise or sundown and realizing how many effing creatures there are and what they do.

The ducks and herons and other water birds are beautiful but full of shiat.They crap all over my walkway and dock when they roost and get warm in the sun.The squirrels are just as cute as rodents can be expected to be except they chew through soffits and invade the house and then chew wires and plumbing.Occasionally the grackles and seagulls invade my yard in numbers (100s) and make it impossible to talk with their constant noise not to mention their shiat and stench.Actually, if I am not out there I don't mind, it is nature, why I bought the place.

So what am I to do.I could become a murderer and get a 20 Gauge with bird shot or a .22 short or long and cap as many as possible. I would consider it justified elimination of nuisance.

My problem is a public park that is popular with the kids about 300 yards away, in my primary direction of fire. I cannot risk a shot, at all.

So, I got me a paint gun and I mark the bastards.Guess what, it will knock a squirrel off a limb.They hit the ground looking about at what the H happened then take off not to be seen for a while.The thrill of the hunt with no life damage, that I know of.

Just beware, the sky-rats (seagulls) will come over and argue with you when they realize you are trying to run them off instead of feed them.Bastards.

I have not been a hunter for more than 30 years because of all the second guessing myself guilt about the senselessness crap but now that I have targets that move and I don't seriously hurt them I think I'm lucky and in good shape.It is fun to plink the creatures, it just is.And I don't have clean up a body.
 
2013-02-07 11:39:11 PM  

Ordinary Average Guy: The only deer I ever killed was with my car, and I turned her into tasty, tasty sausage and burger meat. Not a  scrap was wasted.


I hope you didn't throw the bones away. You take them home, throw it in a pot, add some broth, a potato. Baby, you've got a stew going!
 
2013-02-07 11:41:53 PM  
Probably, Even if we limit murder to "taking the life of a member of your species without legal grounds for doing so." There's always one asshole up to no good. Decidedly yes if we take a more logical view of sentience being the qualifier for "life"

But nature is a nasty game to play and the day you're born you're dealt a hand and you don't get to leave the table till your chips are gone. Every meal takes life or potential life, even a magic food that was generated spontaneously from nothing would still be crawling with germs the minute you put it in your mouth. Those same germs die in your guts. Killing animals for food is just the same thing scaled up.

Good hunters only shoot food and dying animals. The people who I'd say murder are the ones who shoot healthy animals for fun and don't even eat 'em. Plinking squirels for fun is the first step on the road to serial killing. People who do shiat like that should be monitered carefuly. But if the eat 'em and use the pelts? Oddly enough then killing a dozen a day isn't a sign of mental illness nor is it murder.
 
2013-02-07 11:42:35 PM  

parkthebus: hitlersbrain: phrawgh: hitlersbrain: People reveling in death... sure... that's real healthy.

Why do you hate our Lord, Jesus Christ and His Heavenly Kingdom?

Hey, he started it. No one is killing in MY name.

I'll kill and eat one in your name then. It will have to be a fish 'cause hunting season doesn't start in these parts until September. Walleye or perch? I'm going tomorrow.


I always ask the fish I catch "If you grant me three wishes I won't gut you and fry you up."

no takers thus far

fishie fishie fishie
 
2013-02-07 11:46:58 PM  

hitlersbrain: In the 'olden days', when people had super immune systems (or died) they would let the meat rot for a while to get rid of the gamey taste. Yeah, they'd rather eat rotten meat than 'fresh' venison.


That's called "aging."  I do it all the time, even with morally superior store-bought meat.  Some day you will eat at a nicer steakhouse than Outback and will see the light.
 
2013-02-07 11:51:01 PM  
hitlersbrain:

Maybe... don't shoot it at all? Venison tastes like crap. My idiot uncle loved killing stuff and had dead, stuffed things all over his house. He was always giving my mother deer meat and try as she might there was simply no way to prepare that stuff that tasted good. In the 'olden days', when people had super immune systems (or died) they would let the meat rot for a while to get rid of the gamey taste. Yeah, they'd rather eat rotten meat than 'fresh' venison.

Never go full retard.
 
2013-02-07 11:52:19 PM  

IgG4: trappedspirit: IgG4: Hunting is not murder if you eat what you kill.

Did you think my Hobo-stew wasn't authentic?

You know,  one of the weird things from the last couple wars was the involvement of the lawyers in target selection. Like you had to be able to legally defend actions in war, the converse is also weird, that we should feel obligated to take to trial every 15 year old kid who picked up an AK or tossed a grenade. Those actions are part of war and not really subject normal legal structures. These are soldiors whose job it is to kill each other. That is not murder, it is war.

Killing people and eating them is still murder, if it is done without consent. With consent is still gross, but it is definitely a grey area.


You never mentioned anything about consent.
 
2013-02-07 11:52:27 PM  
NPR asks the question: Are hunters committing murder?

Gyrfalcon answers: Only if they kill other hunters with malice aforethought.
 
2013-02-07 11:54:42 PM  

tlchwi02: Government Fromage: I get the feeling a lot of people think this -- that huntersjust go out in the woods and blast away at deer or anything else that happens across their scope.

sadly i find a lot of supposed "hunters" do a lot to make it seem that way. Especially in the gun threads, when they claim they need AR-15s to kill a dozen or so "varmints" at a time. for those of us who hunt, the exterminators are a very frustrating group.


While scouting our deer hunting area we noticed loads of coyote sign, so we set up a call.  Within 15 minutes three coyotes came in.  Using my buddy's AR, I shot two, and he got a shot at a third.  When we got to deer season, I used a semiauto AR style in 7mm-08 to get my deer.  I didn't need an AR for these, but you probably aready know I could have used a Ruger mini 14 for the coyotes and a mini 30 for the deer.  Same semi auto operation, except without the scary pistol grips.

I'm not sure where you fall on the right of citizens to own semiauto rifles with standard capacity magazines, but the claim to have a right to own an AR has merit to me.
 
2013-02-07 11:54:43 PM  

Gyrfalcon: NPR asks the question: Are hunters committing murder?

Gyrfalcon answers: Only if they kill other hunters with malice aforethought.


Which happens.
 
2013-02-08 12:00:52 AM  
It really doesn't matter if hunters are committing murder, because the police have no constitutional duty to protect animals. So unless the animals ever pass their own 2nd amendment, it's open season.
 
2013-02-08 12:01:09 AM  
assets.diylol.com
 
2013-02-08 12:03:58 AM  
This place has become Yahoo! on HGH, and massive amounts of steroids...

90% trolls.

Sad.
 
2013-02-08 12:08:59 AM  

AcesFull: It's quite a bit different here...We take the deer out for a few cocktails..then a nice dinner..Maybe some girls later...And then when the deer is relaxed and happy...Boom! one right behind the antlers.


Nice. +1
 
2013-02-08 12:09:55 AM  
When people hunt and kill animals for sport, are they committing murder?

That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read and I have read one Limbaugh rants, although I rarely make it past the first paragraph before thinking his position is complete shiat, NPR did it in one sentence, bravo trollPR
 
2013-02-08 12:10:41 AM  

Big Man On Campus: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

Ah, inuits trying to keep polar bears away from their village, and any city trying to keep natural predator numbers in check would like to disagree with you. Did you just forget that there are communities, even within the U.S. that have a problem with wolves?


And of course, you must eat the rats you poison, and make a rat fur coat to wear. Coyotes killing your pets? Be prepared for a coyote stew, with that great cat flavor. A fitting revenge for fluffy, to eat that which ate him. Kill a venomous snake, better fire up the BBQ. (Ok, that one actually is a good idea, and yes, a pair of shoes or belt in the making, but still is an uncommon practice). Oh yea, and also you must now eat that man eating gator. Preferably as soon as possible.
 
2013-02-08 12:15:47 AM  

nigeman: I know this is a touchy subject but here is my 2 cents.

Hunters love the kill. The idea of taking another life, the final kicking of the animal is all part of the charm, otherwise why would they do it? Getting food isn't the answer. It's the fun of it.

Also I think hunters claiming that video games makes people violent is absurd.

that's all folks


Really? I believe you're too stupid to troll, so you must be serious. Every hunter everywhere loves meat. Period. Obviously you've never had game meat. Or eaten a fresh caught fish. Because lemme tell you, its all about the food. And getting away from family and civilization, relaxing, maybe having a beer, just unwinding. And I am not a hunter. Just not stupid.
 
2013-02-08 12:20:08 AM  

skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.


Fark, by and large, is populated by the 18-35 demographic from sub/urban environments. They are varying degrees of very-to-completely cut off from the reality of what goes into making their comfortable little middle-class lives a reality. They have a vague, nebulous idea that stuff happens in the background, but they have little comprehension of the amount of manual, unpleasant tasks that go into creating what they assume to be a ubiquitously sanitized world. To them, there's no excuse for things to be done in the most idealistic way they can think of, because they truly don't grasp the difficulties of the world, or that most people on this planet don't have their lifestyle.

That's not to criticize Farkers, it's just stating how it is. In a sense, it shows just how successful those who provide the lifestyle to people in the Fark demographic really are - they've made it so comfortable and easy for its beneficiaries that they really have no idea what's behind the curtain. This thread - especially after comments like mine - will be filled with people who will try to say they actually do have a clue, citing either some documentaries they saw on TV or the one or two incidents in life where they actually saw the real work that creates their world, but they don't know the difference between knowing something exists intellectually and actually understanding the intricacies - and the often gross/unpleasant realities - of the processes that make their tech-driven lives possible.

So yes, you end up with a lot of absolute ignorance bordering on stupidity when it comes to topics like food processing, hunting, firearms, etc - but that same worldview is critical to our advancement, because it's an ideal, and ideals are worth chasing. Those same "clueless" people are often the same ones who come up with a better way of doing things, from a technical advancement to a practical application of ethics. So, while it's ok to point and laugh at them, do keep in mind they have their place in the world.
 
2013-02-08 12:20:51 AM  

IgG4: Hunting is not murder if you eat what you kill.

I watched an episode from the final season of No Reservations a while ago. It was set in the Ozarks I guess, or some other equally backward redneck hot bed. They took Tony duck hunting, miraculously for this show, they actually got some ducks. Not one of the Bubbas that was accompanying Bourdain on that day knew how to cook duck or liked to eat duck. It took the city boy to show them how to freaking cook a duck breast with crispy skin to medium. They had lived their all their lives, spent god knows how much on their farking mossy oak EVERYTHING so they could go out and shoot ducks that they never farking ate.

Idiots, murdering idiots.



Oh, I know this.  I fish quite a bit with my cousins and it doesn't matter if it is catfish or bass or pike or trout they want to batter and fry anything they catch.  They only know one way to prepare it and they don't want it any other way.
 
2013-02-08 12:22:32 AM  

Civil_War2_Time: This place has become Yahoo! on HGH, and massive amounts of steroids...

90% trolls.

Sad.


Eh. At least Fark steals its content from relevant sites like Reddit and so is relevant by proxy. Yahoo steals their stuff from Skip Bayless and the AP. Worthless.
 
2013-02-08 12:22:51 AM  

doglover: Gyrfalcon: NPR asks the question: Are hunters committing murder?

Gyrfalcon answers: Only if they kill other hunters with malice aforethought.

Which happens.


Sure. If I was going to murder someone, it would be just like that, in fact.
 
2013-02-08 12:23:14 AM  

NobleHam: BarkingUnicorn: Kahlil Gibran, "On Eating and Drinking:"

Would that you could live on the fragrance of the earth, and like an air plant be sustained by the light.
But since you must kill to eat, and rob the newly born of its mother's milk to quench your thirst, let it then be an act of worship.
And let your board stand an altar on which the pure and the innocent of forest and plain are sacrificed for that which is purer and still more innocent in man.

When you kill a beast say to him in your heart,
"By the same power that slays you, I too am slain; and I too shall be consumed.
For the law that delivered you into my hand shall deliver me into a mightier hand.
Your blood and my blood is naught but the sap that feeds the tree of heaven."

Favorited for quoting Gibran.


"On Children" is another of my favorites.

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
 
2013-02-08 12:26:39 AM  

Big Man On Campus: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

Ah, inuits trying to keep polar bears away from their village, and any city trying to keep natural predator numbers in check would like to disagree with you. Did you just forget that there are communities, even within the U.S. that have a problem with wolves?


And tree rats. The tree rats must die. DIE
 
2013-02-08 12:26:57 AM  

ladyfortuna: People who don't eat what they kill sicken me.


But something always eats it.  Food is never wasted.
 
2013-02-08 12:28:08 AM  
Carousel Beast 2013-02-08 12:20:08 AM

skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point: (I'm paraphrasing

This and this!!!!
 
2013-02-08 12:31:06 AM  

no talent ass clown: Civil_War2_Time: This place has become Yahoo! on HGH, and massive amounts of steroids...

90% trolls.

Sad.

Eh. At least Fark steals its content from relevant sites like Reddit and so is relevant by proxy. Yahoo steals their stuff from Skip Bayless and the AP. Worthless.


It used to be fun around here, and I was a newcomer 8.5 years ago. Now, it is hate, hate, hate, and all negativity. The Millenials are doomed, as well they should be.

Sorry if you are one, but it seems like you have a brain and a fighting chance.
 
2013-02-08 12:31:28 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: ladyfortuna: People who don't eat what they kill sicken me.

But something always eats it.  Food is never wasted.


ryanseacrest.com
 
2013-02-08 12:31:44 AM  

Fluxinator: Absolutely the most ridiculous article I've ever read.  EVER.


You don't get out much, do you? There are much worse.
 
2013-02-08 12:36:54 AM  

cuzsis: Not to mention missing the basic fact that *most* animals don't eat their own kind. You'll get an odd one in every bunch of course. But, for example, wolves do not hunt to eat other wolves. They hunt other wolves to chase them away from tasty tasty elk/deer.


I agree with most but great horned owls eat barn owls.

/just thought I would toss out one exception
//there are probably many more I am unaware of
 
2013-02-08 12:39:29 AM  
Carthax:I shot a deer earlier this fall.  I had forgotten in the excitement of the hunt that my rifle was off by about 6" left at 100 yards, so what I aimed as a heart/lung shot ended up being a gut shot.  The deer ran about 100 yards before he fell, then took another four or five minutes to bleed out.  I cried as I stroked the deer's head, trying to make its death easier, if not less painful.  If you think it's all about the "final kicking of the animal" being "all the charm," you're incredibly, patently, and completely wrong.  I still feel bad about that shot, and wish like hell I hadn't taken it.  I would rather go without fresh venison than give an animal a lingering, painful death.

You only brought one bullet?  You stroked the deer's head and cried trying and failing to make it's death easier instead of putting a bullet in said head and making sure of it?  You are either a troll or a moron.
 
2013-02-08 12:41:11 AM  
We murder animals to survive. That's just how life goes, the same as how a big animal like a bear or lion would view us if we wander into their territory. So what if we "murder"? It's an important part of living. No matter what flowery words you use, we still take the life of something in order to continue living. You can call it hunting or "transforming an animal into an exciting source of nutrition", killing is still the main process. Maybe we shouldn't be too ashamed of being called murderers especially since we simply kill to survive, and animals do the same anyway.
 
2013-02-08 12:43:47 AM  

spidermilk: /animals that know they alive like dolphins, apes, etc. might have the right to not be killed, but their lives still shouldn't come before human lives and I'm not sure if it is murder


How do you know that they know they are alive and a deer or bear or isn't? It is all semantics on the way we judge animals against ourselves. Maybe we don't recognize it. Weasels seem to love to play as do otters. Does that make them self aware? The big question here is how do we know?

/carry on hunters and non-hunters
//do as you wish
///neutral
 
2013-02-08 12:48:47 AM  

Nabb1: In many cases, hunting as part of wildlife management helps control the populations of animals whose natural predators have dwindled due to humans. I don't hunt and it's not anything I care to do, but it can serve a legitimate purpose.


I had to check the URL. I thought I was on Fark, but you're talking sense.

WTF, dude?
 
2013-02-08 12:51:37 AM  

spidermilk: /animals that know they alive like dolphins, apes, etc. might have the right to not be killed, but their lives still shouldn't come before human lives and I'm not sure if it is murder


Sorry to repeat here but I watched the Decoarh eagles last year every day. I ran it at work on a community computer. They are truly alive birds. The way they cared for their young was fascinating to watch. Unfortunately they built a new nest and I can't watch them this year. I would assume a camera on a family of most creatures would show the same. The falcon cam shows the same.

No animal has the right to be killed but it happens. Making them "alive" does no good. I'm guessing you meant they know they are alive or aware. All animals are. Some are just unlucky to taste good and are hunted.
 
2013-02-08 12:54:49 AM  

IgG4: Killing people and eating them is still murder, if it is done without consent. With consent is still gross, but it is definitely a grey area.


So if I kill someone in battle and eat them it is a grey area?

Weird.
 
2013-02-08 01:02:39 AM  

worthlessjuan: On a lighter note:


Well, where to start . . . I have a house with about a 150 'of lake shoreline as my back yard and an 70' walkway to a floating dock.Sounds great, got good pics (don't know how to post them), good times . . .  but all is well until sitting on the back deck for a sunrise or sundown and realizing how many effing creatures there are and what they do.

The ducks and herons and other water birds are beautiful but full of shiat.They crap all over my walkway and dock when they roost and get warm in the sun.The squirrels are just as cute as rodents can be expected to be except they chew through soffits and invade the house and then chew wires and plumbing.Occasionally the grackles and seagulls invade my yard in numbers (100s) and make it impossible to talk with their constant noise not to mention their shiat and stench.Actually, if I am not out there I don't mind, it is nature, why I bought the place.

So what am I to do.I could become a murderer and get a 20 Gauge with bird shot or a .22 short or long and cap as many as possible. I would consider it justified elimination of nuisance.

My problem is a public park that is popular with the kids about 300 yards away, in my primary direction of fire. I cannot risk a shot, at all.

So, I got me a paint gun and I mark the bastards.Guess what, it will knock a squirrel off a limb.They hit the ground looking about at what the H happened then take off not to be seen for a while.The thrill of the hunt with no life damage, that I know of.

Just beware, the sky-rats (seagulls) will come over and argue with you when they realize you are trying to run them off instead of feed them.Bastards.

I have not been a hunter for more than 30 years because of all the second guessing myself guilt about the senselessness crap but now that I have targets that move and I don't seriously hurt them I think I'm lucky and in good shape.It is fun to plink the creatures, it just is.And I don't have clean up a body.


This actually sounds like fun.

I used to plink at stray cats with wax pellets my dad made. Three pumps and it would sting them but not injure. Eventually they stayed away.
 
2013-02-08 01:03:53 AM  
Only if they are playing 'The Most Dangerous Game'.

As for the cats, the big problem isn't that cats are eating birds, it's that we are feeding larger populations of outdoor cats than would normally be present in the ecosystem (assuming we'd already made the decision to introduce them into ecosystems they weren't naturally present in).  I love cats, but the apartment complex I live in lost almost all the birds living around it in about a 1 year period when 5 well fed cats were wandering the premises.  (Well, I don't think one cat was terribly involved, even although he was outdoors all the time.  He was nearly blind.  I once saw him sit for five minutes with a squirrel running around within 5 feet and he didn't even flinch.  He was a sweetheart, but he got FIV and had to be put to sleep.)  One cat seemed to have a new bird it had caught almost every day.  The easy food their owners gave them made them less territorial, and kept them in better shape.  They were bird exterminating machines.
 
2013-02-08 01:04:44 AM  

doglover: Plinking squirels for fun is the first step on the road to serial killing. People who do shiat like that should be monitered carefuly.


[citation needed]
 
2013-02-08 01:08:05 AM  

Gyrfalcon: NPR asks the question: Are hunters committing murder?

Gyrfalcon answers: Only if they kill other hunters with malice aforethought.


My uncle was killed in a hunting accident. Rumor has it he was carrying on with a married woman. Coincidentally the hubby shot him. He walked away.

Dad put away his hunting rifle after that.
 
2013-02-08 01:19:43 AM  
<i>As I've written here before, those of us with the luxury to choose might consider not eating other animals. </i>

That's as far as I got. Go ahead and do that Barbara, and leave me the fark alone.
/dnrtft
 
2013-02-08 01:20:39 AM  
Well so much for html...
 
2013-02-08 01:30:23 AM  

Carousel Beast: skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.

Fark, by and large, is populated by the 18-35 demographic from sub/urban environments. They are varying degrees of very-to-completely cut off from the reality of what goes into making their comfortable little middle-class lives a reality. They have a vague, nebulous idea that stuff happens in the background, but they have little comprehension of the amount of manual, unpleasant tasks that go into creating what they assume to be a ubiquitously sanitized world. To them, there's no excuse for things to be done in the most idealistic way they can think of, because they truly don't grasp the difficulties of the world, or that most people on this planet don't have their lifestyle.

That's not to criticize Farkers, it's just stating how it is. In a sense, it shows just how successful those who provide the lifestyle to people in ...


This x 100000
 
2013-02-08 01:44:06 AM  
Yes, but everything dies anyways.  Murder is a faster end than most of the other ways available.
 
2013-02-08 01:46:19 AM  
I hunt. not as much as I used to, but I still like to get out in the woods on occasion and save a little on the grocery bill and acquire some meat that I cannot get easily anywhere else. I was always taught any animal I kill has sacrificed for my family. They have myself and my loved ones the ultimate gift. I was taught to appreciate that, and in my religious days even pray for them. There was no "thrill of the kill" only the excitement of the hunt and the joy of being in the outdoors. The patience, the marksmanship, and the tasty prize that comes later.

When it comes to meat I aim to be as non-hypocritical as possible. I am 100% willing to take the life of whatever it is that is on plate little regret. If the grocery store offered discounts if I personally dispatched the bovine carrying my burgers I would gladly do so. Every bit of meat I consume I as well aware of where it came from and understand what had to happen in order for me have it. I appreciate that very much. I will make sure my children understand as well and never take it for granted.
 
2013-02-08 01:47:04 AM  

saturn badger: IgG4: Killing people and eating them is still murder, if it is done without consent. With consent is still gross, but it is definitely a grey area.

So if I kill someone in battle and eat them it is a grey area?

Weird.


You'd be in a weird battle, at the very least.
 
2013-02-08 01:52:46 AM  

doglover: Plinking squirels for fun is the first step on the road to serial killing.


For me, it was burning ants with a magnifying glass.
 
2013-02-08 01:53:47 AM  

dudemanbro: Well so much for html...


It was just a passing fad, anyhow.
 
2013-02-08 01:57:48 AM  

doglover: Plinking squirels for fun is the first step on the road to serial killing.


Hey, man. You have NO IDEA what I went through. You're an asshole, and you can take that welcome to fark crap and DIAF.

I can still hear their furry little chattering maws as they released the battlecry of death and lept from the branches onto my baby. They devoured him while he was STILL ALIVE! You have no idea of the horrific heart break I had to deal with when the Doctor said they couldn't find his nuts! THEY TOOK HIS NUTS, YOU MONSTER!

We keep him on our piano as a tasteful reminder of the reason those furry bastards HAVE to die.

:)
 
2013-02-08 02:06:52 AM  

Gyrfalcon: saturn badger: IgG4: Killing people and eating them is still murder, if it is done without consent. With consent is still gross, but it is definitely a grey area.

So if I kill someone in battle and eat them it is a grey area?

Weird.

You'd be in a weird battle, at the very least.


Marquis of Queensbury rules?
 
2013-02-08 02:08:55 AM  
For some reason I read NPR as NRA. This makes more sense than that (but not much).
 
2013-02-08 02:11:14 AM  
animal cruelty
veal
beef
dog
pets

So we have laws against cruelty to animals. I am ok with this.
Veal is yummy. Some people think that crosses the line to cruelty. But some of those people still eat beef. That seems a bit hypocritical.
Beef is yummy. Some people wont eat beef. But hey have pets? How is enslaving an animal not cruelty?
Dog is ok. Many cultures eat dog. Out culture has problems with this for some reason. Even those that eat meat. Which is even more hypocritical.

so what were we talking about again?
some people want to force their beliefs on others?
We already draw those lines in the US. I can eat veal but not dog.
People, like the author of this article, will never stop until their religion is the law of the land.
Can you imagine living in a country where you cant eat beef or pork? No, neither can I.

JUST say no to Vegans!
 
2013-02-08 02:12:00 AM  
Want to know why I hunt things like racoons, bears, coyotes? It's because I don't want things like that on my property. I can kill as many racoons, porcupines and coyotes as I want, in NYS there isn't a bag limit so everyone I see gets a bullet to the head. I can only shoot a single bear a year so I just give it to my neighbor. Everything else gets thrown in a pile in my woods.

And honestly? I couldn't care less, I don't need porcupines destroying my trees, racoons potentially giving my dogs rabies, coyotes killing my cats, or the DEC dumping problem bears into my area. Got a problem with that, well go fark yourself.
 
2013-02-08 02:12:51 AM  

namatad: animal cruelty
veal
beef
dog
pets

So we have laws against cruelty to animals. I am ok with this.
Veal is yummy. Some people think that crosses the line to cruelty. But some of those people still eat beef. That seems a bit hypocritical.
Beef is yummy. Some people wont eat beef. But hey have pets? How is enslaving an animal not cruelty?
Dog is ok. Many cultures eat dog. Out culture has problems with this for some reason. Even those that eat meat. Which is even more hypocritical.

so what were we talking about again?
some people want to force their beliefs on others?
We already draw those lines in the US. I can eat veal but not dog.
People, like the author of this article, will never stop until their religion is the law of the land.
Can you imagine living in a country where you cant eat beef or pork? No, neither can I.

JUST say no to Vegans!


images2.wikia.nocookie.net

DANNY. DANNY WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT HEART RATE DOWN BUDDY!
 
2013-02-08 02:16:24 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: doglover: Plinking squirels for fun is the first step on the road to serial killing.

For me, it was burning ants with a magnifying glass.


I killed ants back in the day. Still would if necessary. But only if they were eating the house. It's strictly genocide of a pest colony for defense of the home and I take no particular joy in the act of laying down traps or squishing the queens and drones. If they stick to the back 9, I let them build any size colony they want.
 
2013-02-08 02:17:06 AM  
If you're gonna use the animal's parts for food, clothes, and such, then no.
If you're protecting your family, livestock, crops, and property (to an extent, don't indiscriminately shoot and trap and poison, especially if it's because something "might" do it), then no.
If it's to cull the numbers of an overpopulated group (that would have been fine if humans hadn't annihilated all the predators that normally keep them in check, but that's a rant for another time), then no.

Poaching is murder, especially when they take one thing that's worthless and leave the rest to waste. Poachers should be shot on sight, no questions asked.

/poaching bushmeat is the likeliest cause of the HIV virus infecting humans
 
2013-02-08 02:30:06 AM  

saturn badger: cuzsis: Not to mention missing the basic fact that *most* animals don't eat their own kind. You'll get an odd one in every bunch of course. But, for example, wolves do not hunt to eat other wolves. They hunt other wolves to chase them away from tasty tasty elk/deer.

I agree with most but great horned owls eat barn owls.

/just thought I would toss out one exception
//there are probably many more I am unaware of


Doesn't count. They're different species. Ugh, this is one of my pet peeves, people tossing around the term "cannibal(ism)".

A human eating another human is cannibalism.
A lion eating another lion is cannibalism.
An alligator eating a crocodile is not cannibalism.
A hawk eating a falcon is not cannibalism.

Looking similar doesn't mean it's cannibalism of one of them eats the other. Another thing I always facepalm at is stories where all species of animals have human-level intelligence and for whatever reason any of them eating any of the others is considered cannibalism. Just because they're smart and can talk doesn't mean they're all suddenly the same species.
 
2013-02-08 02:33:16 AM  
20 percent of surveys without reference to the original source are made up on the spot while only 5 percent of people think that is bullshiat. Do carrots cry when you boil them? I like to drink Jack Daniels and smoke Peyote with my spirit guide. If I stare at my toenails long enough I swear I can see them grow. You're paying me for the bullshiat I made up this morning at 2 am with your tax dollars. Did you know the Burger King is modeled on a real Portuguese king from the 3rd century. I never cared for orange marmalade since it reminds me of my dead dog.
 
2013-02-08 02:33:58 AM  

hitlersbrain: Maybe... don't shoot it at all? Venison tastes like crap. My idiot uncle loved killing stuff and had dead, stuffed things all over his house. He was always giving my mother deer meat and try as she might there was simply no way to prepare that stuff that tasted good. In the 'olden days', when people had super immune systems (or died) they would let the meat rot for a while to get rid of the gamey taste. Yeah, they'd rather eat rotten meat than 'fresh' venison.


What do you they do to most steaks you buy in a restaurant?
 
2013-02-08 02:35:07 AM  

CthulhuCalling: Carthax:

I shot a deer earlier this fall.  I had forgotten in the excitement of the hunt that my rifle was off by about 6" left at 100 yards, so what I aimed as a heart/lung shot ended up being a gut shot.  The deer ran about 100 yards before he fell, then took another four or five minutes to bleed out.  I cried as I stroked the deer's head, trying to make its death easier, if not less painful.  If you think it's all about the "final kicking of the animal" being "all the charm," you're incredibly, patently, and completely wrong.  I still feel bad about that shot, and wish like hell I hadn't taken it.  I would rather go without fresh venison than give an animal a lingering, painful death.

I really hope this is a troll, otherwise you're a horrible human being and a worse sportsman. Apart from not knowing how to zero your scope, if you wanted to make the deer's death easier, if not less painful, you would have PUT A SHOT BEHIND ITS EAR TO END ITS SUFFERING AFTER IT WAS DOWN. Was it really too much effort to pull the trigger again or were you too busy getting in touch with your inner vagina?


Didn't want to hurt his trophy, no doubt.  Sorry I keed, I've had to track gutshots before and while the trail is always easy to follow, it's not for the light of stomach.  I also know that while growing  up poor, a dear bagged in the fall meant meat for every meal during the winter when things got tough.

Oh and for those curious how hunting goes(at least in Colorado) this is a super abridged summary:
If you want a big game license you wait until the season for that specific animal opens up.  Then you pick a numbered location and sex of the animal. The state decides specific numbers of each big game animal and if they get more requests for that animal than they want, I think you get put in a lottery for your tag.

Small game is a different story, one license encompasses all manner of animals that aren't birds or large game.  These are mostly small mammals shot for their skins, meat, or pest control.  I couldn't give a good list of all of the ones considered small game, but coyotes and rabbits are the first two that come to mind.  I also couldn't tell you about waterfowl or pheasant hunting, but I think it's regulated similarly to big game hunting.

They're all highly regulated: not supposed to have loaded gun in vehicle, can't shoot from roadside, must respect private property and hunt during the day and so forth.  If you get busted doing any of these it's considered poaching and you can get your weapons confiscated.  We always saw a game warden at least two or three times during each season, so they do keep an eye out.  They also have them fancy things called binoculars which means you never do know if you are being watched or not, especially if you're wearing the blazer orange like you're supposed to during rifle seasons.
 
2013-02-08 02:36:55 AM  

kim jong-un: hitlersbrain: Maybe... don't shoot it at all? Venison tastes like crap. My idiot uncle loved killing stuff and had dead, stuffed things all over his house. He was always giving my mother deer meat and try as she might there was simply no way to prepare that stuff that tasted good. In the 'olden days', when people had super immune systems (or died) they would let the meat rot for a while to get rid of the gamey taste. Yeah, they'd rather eat rotten meat than 'fresh' venison.

What do you they do to most steaks you buy in a restaurant?


Some people are just too dumb. You might as well no bother because that just went over his head.
 
2013-02-08 02:38:48 AM  
The 'olden days'.  ZOMG are you trying to be folksy and relate or something.  The 'olden days'.   Ha ha ha ha ha
 
2013-02-08 02:39:57 AM  
Ctrl-F
"two game wardens" 0 results
"seven hunters" 0 results
"and a cow" 0 results
"lehrer" 0 results

What the hell?
 
2013-02-08 02:41:08 AM  

Civil_War2_Time: It used to be fun around here, and I was a newcomer 8.5 years ago. Now, it is hate, hate, hate, and all negativity. The Millenials are doomed, as well they should be.

No kidding.  I joined up with Fark back in 2002/2003ish  (obviously not as deargreatleader, when I left school, my email account went with it, and my old fark name too)  But the trolling/vitriol/hate in threads is something I don't remember.  I'm starting to use it less and less for the comments, and just as a general news collector.
 
2013-02-08 02:43:42 AM  
saturn badger: How do you know that they know they are alive and a deer or bear or isn't? It is all semantics on the way we judge animals against ourselves. Maybe we don't recognize it. Weasels seem to love to play as do otters. Does that make them self aware? The big question here is how do we know?

Fawns play too, even with other creatures until mom teaches them to be scared of everything that moves.

<p><b><a target="_blank" href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7580942/82389983#c82389983">besti e1</a>:</b> <i>20 percent of surveys without reference to the original source are made up on the spot while only 5 percent of people think that is bullshiat. Do carrots cry when you boil them?
.</i><br /><br /> </p>

Ask Reverend Maynard
 
2013-02-08 02:47:37 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-02-08 03:04:06 AM  

skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.


Most gun owners themselves are for the recent White House proposals concerning gun safety.
Maybe this argument is better suited for gay marriage politics.
 
2013-02-08 03:39:51 AM  
When I joined Fark back in 1978 we used to all smoke ginseng and talk about peace.  Where did all these horrible people that don't agree with me come from?  This is the internet for Gaia's sake.  I just want to cry and light some candle's right now.
 
2013-02-08 03:40:34 AM  

Ablejack: skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.

Most gun owners themselves are for the recent White House proposals concerning gun safety.
Maybe this argument is better suited for gay marriage politics.


Citation please?
 
2013-02-08 03:57:25 AM  
are felonies committing murder.

yes.
yes they are

<insert pic of dick cheney>
 
2013-02-08 05:14:23 AM  

vernonFL: If you don't plan on eating it, yes.

If you don't plan on eating it then you are just killing for fun, and its murder.


Here, borrow my ladder. You may need it to get over yourself.
 
2013-02-08 06:01:19 AM  
Are they hunting humans?  No?
 
2013-02-08 06:55:26 AM  

brandent: Do you ever eat any kind of meat?  If so then you are a hypocrite.  If not then you are entitled to consistency of ethic.


Remember, it's not just food:

www.lifewithwolves.org
 
2013-02-08 07:19:18 AM  
FTFA:
I'm tempted to accept the term "murder" as it's (warning: graphic photos) and, who go after families of elephants and great apes.

Actually, trophy hunters aren't the ones who are a problem from an ecological standpoint.  It's the people who need to hunt in order to eat (subsistence hunters), and the people who hunt from purely economic motives (market hunters).

We should encourage trophy hunting, instead of denigrating it, because generally trophy hunters are the ones who are restrained in targeting their animals, taking only the best.  Since it's an avocation, and they wish to continue doing it, widespread and regulated sport hunting is a powerful game management tool to keep and maintain healthy populations of animals.

That has been the experience with the "charismatic megafauna" in North America:  After subsistence and market hunting was banned, and only regulated sport hunting was allowed, the populations have rebounded to the point where we actually have *TOO* many animals in some areas.
 
2013-02-08 07:39:09 AM  

dittybopper: After subsistence and market hunting was banned, and only regulated sport hunting was allowed, the populations have rebounded to the point where we actually have *TOO* many animals in some areas.


Tell me about it...

I have had my drivers license for 15 years.  I have had collisions with at least 15 (if not more, lost track) of those damn animals.  Only two confirmed kills, and one time three came out of a cornfield and sideswiped me.

My family owns a farm with about 300 acres of corn.  We get damage permits most years.  One year we were able to get 26 permits.  We either gave the deer to our neighbors (most who are hunters) or to a local processor who donates to food pantries.

And for those of you who don't know what damage permits are, they are permits allowing people to hunt deer out of season with fewer restrictions (high powered rifles, spotlighting).  One caveat is that if you shoot a buck, you have to turn in the antlers (we left the those for the trophy hunters though).  Game warden comes out, asses the damage that the deer has done to your crops, and gives you a number of permits based on the damage.  Our corn is used to feed the pigs (a good harvest will last all year, sometimes with extra that we can sell).

I don't hunt (I don't have patience for it) but I definitely support it.

/One time I saw two bucks fighting in the middle of the road on my way to work at 5:00 am
 
2013-02-08 07:41:23 AM  

Burr: /One time I saw two bucks fighting in the middle of the road on my way to work at 5:00 am


Also saw a deer clothesline itself on a barb wire fence. Graceful my ass.  I laughed my ass off for a good 5 mins after that one.
 
2013-02-08 07:44:54 AM  

dittybopper: hunt in order to eat (subsistence hunters)


How would you feel about a subsistence permit?  Say, one deer every six months (ow however long it would take to consume an average deer).  Do you think that could be regulated well enough to prevent "over-hunting"?
 
2013-02-08 08:06:11 AM  
0-media-cdn.foolz.us

"You keep what you kill"
 
2013-02-08 08:10:34 AM  

Burr: dittybopper: hunt in order to eat (subsistence hunters)

How would you feel about a subsistence permit?  Say, one deer every six months (ow however long it would take to consume an average deer).  Do you think that could be regulated well enough to prevent "over-hunting"?


A few things:

1. A deer takes much less than 6 months to consume, even for a single person.  If you had a 6 oz serving for lunch and dinner each day, it would take you less than 3 months.  If you were feeding a family of 4, it would last less than 3 weeks.

2. This is already accomplished by the sport hunting license, so there is no need to add a complication, we can just tweak the regulations on how many deer in which areas can be taken.
 
2013-02-08 08:20:15 AM  

Burr: they are permits allowing people to hunt deer out of season with fewer restrictions (high powered rifles, spotlighting).


Uh, you normally hunt deer with high powered rifles.
 
2013-02-08 08:29:29 AM  
If you don't hunt and you eat meat, are you a contract killer?
 
2013-02-08 08:36:15 AM  

MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?


Umm, most hunters? No. A significant amout of them? Yes. Ever hear ab o ut rhino horn? Elephant tusks. Morons shooting dolphins and seals for  fun? Where have you been?
 
2013-02-08 08:45:18 AM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?

Umm, most hunters? No. A significant amout of them? Yes. Ever hear ab o ut rhino horn? Elephant tusks. Morons shooting dolphins and seals for  fun? Where have you been?


Most of your examples are "market hunters".  People who shoot rhinos just for their horns, or who shoot elephants just for their tusks are doing if for *MONEY*, not for sport.

I haven't heard of morons shooting dolphins and seals for fun.  I have heard of fishermen doing it because they felt they were competition for their fish, however (again, market hunting, if indirectly.  BTW, commercial fishing is market hunting).
 
2013-02-08 09:01:31 AM  
www.naderlibrary.com/delicious
 
2013-02-08 09:07:12 AM  

dittybopper: Uh, you normally hunt deer with high powered rifles


In CT, we can only use rifles on parcels over a certain acreage (I think 30), otherwise - shotguns only. I imagine that other states may have restrictions as well as to rifle use.
 
2013-02-08 09:09:35 AM  

Big Man On Campus: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

Ah, inuits trying to keep polar bears away from their village, and any city trying to keep natural predator numbers in check would like to disagree with you. Did you just forget that there are communities, even within the U.S. that have a problem with wolves?



Inuits are going to use as much of that polar bear as they can. As for killing wolves, coyotes, rats, nutria, mice and such-very true-most of those animals are wasted, with the exception of pelts. (I know how some of you Farkers like their rat-skin nut-huggers.) Most native cultures aren't going to waste much. Poachers do, and there are a good number of almost-native poachers, but most poachers aren't truly "native" as they've become fully operational capitalists.

Problems with wolves? LOL! If only that was what we had to most worry about!

I hunt, fish, eat meat. Some hunters are huge douchebags that get their rocks off killing things. Most of them? Hell no. There's a bell curve of douchebaggery, as with anything.
 
2013-02-08 09:10:49 AM  

Carousel Beast: skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.

Fark, by and large, is populated by the 18-35 demographic from sub/urban environments. They are varying degrees of very-to-completely cut off from the reality of what goes into making their comfortable little middle-class lives a reality. They have a vague, nebulous idea that stuff happens in the background, but they have little comprehension of the amount of manual, unpleasant tasks that go into creating what they assume to be a ubiquitously sanitized world. To them, there's no excuse for things to be done in the most idealistic way they can think of, because they truly don't grasp the difficulties of the world, or that most people on this planet don't have their lifestyle.

That's not to criticize Farkers, it's just stating how it is. In a sense, it shows just how successful those who provide the lifestyle to people in ...


If you two are finished jerking each other off, I believe there's a meeting of the 'We're all smarter than you sheeple' club that you're running late for.
 
2013-02-08 09:14:09 AM  

Big Man On Campus: Is NPR run by furries?


No, it's even worse.  It's run by liberals.
 
2013-02-08 09:23:22 AM  

dittybopper: Feral_and_Preposterous: MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?

Umm, most hunters? No. A significant amout of them? Yes. Ever hear ab o ut rhino horn? Elephant tusks. Morons shooting dolphins and seals for  fun? Where have you been?

Most of your examples are "market hunters".  People who shoot rhinos just for their horns, or who shoot elephants just for their tusks are doing if for *MONEY*, not for sport.

I haven't heard of morons shooting dolphins and seals for fun.  I have heard of fishermen doing it because they felt they were competition for their fish, however (again, market hunting, if indirectly.  BTW, commercial fishing is market hunting).


I know my examples are about market hunters.


So? My points are still valid. And people shooting seals and dolphins isn't unheard of, but really, as far as the point I'm making--it doesn't make one bit of difference. A market hunter killing something they don't intend to market and a regular old sport hunter killing something they don't intend to use are, for the purposes of the discussion about "murder" the same thing.

Are they murder? No. But they do share the fact that they're needless killings.

Should you go to jail if a deer runs out in front of you and you kill it? No. Should you be punished if you turn your car into a Deathrace Deerslayer with nitrous tanks and spear launchers and go out on nights with a full moon to run down Bambi. Hell yes.

If you deny there are douchebags that go out and needlessly kill stuff then you need to go talk to a game warden and see what they have to say.
 
2013-02-08 09:29:42 AM  

dittybopper: Burr: they are permits allowing people to hunt deer out of season with fewer restrictions (high powered rifles, spotlighting).

Uh, you normally hunt deer with high powered rifles.


I'm in Ohio, I don't think we can

From ODNR

Gun Season and Youth Gun SeasonOpen Statewide

Shotgun: 10-gauge or smaller shotgun using one ball or one rifled slug per barrel (rifled shotgun barrels are permitted when using shotgun slug ammunition). Shotguns cannot be capable of holding more than three shells.

Muzzleloading rifle: .38 caliber or larger

Muzzleloading shotgun: 10-gauge or smaller using one ball per barrel

Handgun: with 5-inch minimum length barrel, using straight-walled cartridges .357 caliber or larger.

Longbow or Bow: minimum draw weight 40 lbs. This would include compound bows and recurve bows. The arrow tuo shall have a minimum of two cutting edges which may be exposed or unexposed and minimim 3/4-inch width. Expandable and mechanical broadheads are legal. Poisoned or explosive arrows are illegal.

Crossbow: draw weight not less than 75 lbs. The arrow tip shall have a minimum of two cutting edges which may be exposed or unexposed and minimim 3/4-inch width. Expandable and mechanical broadheads are legal. Poisoned or explosive arrows are illegal.
 
2013-02-08 09:41:20 AM  

MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?


There is a subset of hunters that is only interested in a trophy.  This is really my only problem with hunting.  Killing something just so you can hang it's head on the wall of your den is disgusting.  Hunting for meat is perfectly acceptable.
 
2013-02-08 09:52:44 AM  

White_Scarf_Syndrome: "You can't have the word EAT without MEAT ya farking hippy!"

~Scott H. Biram


Well, actually, you can...

\Scott H. Biram sounds really, really dumb
 
2013-02-08 09:54:38 AM  

dittybopper: A few things:

1. A deer takes much less than 6 months to consume, even for a single person.  If you had a 6 oz serving for lunch and dinner each day, it would take you less than 3 months.  If you were feeding a family of 4, it would last less than 3 weeks.

2. This is already accomplished by the sport hunting license, so there is no need to add a complication, we can just tweak the regulations on how many deer in which areas can be taken.


1.  Thanks for the info.  I have no idea about deer other then I am not too fond of them

2.  How about instead of making it so "everybody" can do subsistence hunting, we could make it a welfare program or something. If you have the right conditions then its either a choice of full amount of food stamps or reduced amount of food stamps plus an out of season permit to bag some food.
 
2013-02-08 10:04:53 AM  

GUTSU: Want to know why I hunt things like racoons, bears, coyotes? It's because I don't want things like that on my property. I can kill as many racoons, porcupines and coyotes as I want, in NYS there isn't a bag limit so everyone I see gets a bullet to the head. I can only shoot a single bear a year so I just give it to my neighbor. Everything else gets thrown in a pile in my woods.

And honestly? I couldn't care less, I don't need porcupines destroying my trees, racoons potentially giving my dogs rabies, coyotes killing my cats, or the DEC dumping problem bears into my area. Got a problem with that, well go fark yourself.


Way to live in harmony with the world around you, dude.

\if you aren't trolling, you are a complete farking asshole
 
2013-02-08 10:13:58 AM  
If hunting deer is murder, what is abortion exactly? NPR just broke the liberal agenda.
 
2013-02-08 10:16:55 AM  

HighlanderRPI: dittybopper: Uh, you normally hunt deer with high powered rifles

In CT, we can only use rifles on parcels over a certain acreage (I think 30), otherwise - shotguns only. I imagine that other states may have restrictions as well as to rifle use.


Well, considering that a decent rifle can shoot across the entire state, I see why.

Here in NYS, rifles are mostly allowed except in very built up areas.
 
2013-02-08 10:20:46 AM  

Burr: dittybopper: A few things:

1. A deer takes much less than 6 months to consume, even for a single person.  If you had a 6 oz serving for lunch and dinner each day, it would take you less than 3 months.  If you were feeding a family of 4, it would last less than 3 weeks.

2. This is already accomplished by the sport hunting license, so there is no need to add a complication, we can just tweak the regulations on how many deer in which areas can be taken.

1.  Thanks for the info.  I have no idea about deer other then I am not too fond of them

2.  How about instead of making it so "everybody" can do subsistence hunting, we could make it a welfare program or something. If you have the right conditions then its either a choice of full amount of food stamps or reduced amount of food stamps plus an out of season permit to bag some food.


Actually, there is a program sort-of similar to that:   Hunters for the Hungry.

You can donate venison to food banks and the like.  I've done it myself because the distaffbopper and the littlebopper don't care for it, and I'd rather see it eaten then go to waste.

/Keep the backstraps for meself.
 
2013-02-08 10:35:09 AM  

worlddan: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically  LEGALLY no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

FTFY

Murder is a legal concept. There is no murder in the jungle.


JDJoeE: Government Fromage: MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?

I get the feeling a lot of people think this -- that huntersjust go out in the woods and blast away at deer or anything else that happens across their scope.

Perhaps they think everyone is some cartoonish trophy hunter who kills an animal just to add to their collection and just leaves the yummy bits to rot.


i194.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-08 10:35:21 AM  

CheekyMonkey: MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?

There is a subset of hunters that is only interested in a trophy.  This is really my only problem with hunting.  Killing something just so you can hang it's head on the wall of your den is disgusting.  Hunting for meat is perfectly acceptable.


I actually *DON'T* have a problem with them.

Trophy hunters aren't the sort to go out an kill everything that moves.  They tend to be quite selective in their targets.  I know a guy who is pretty much a pure trophy hunter.  That's all he's interested in, and you know what?  He spends more time, effort and most especially *MONEY* towards that goal then you would believe.  And I know of no more staunch conservationist than he.

Sound like a paradox?

It's not.  He recognizes that a healthy population of animals that produces trophy sized game requires habitat to be protected and preserved.  So he puts time and money into that sort of thing, to the benefit of *ALL* the animals that live in that habitat, not just the deer.

The guy who goes out and shoots the first buck that crosses his path isn't the one who is putting all that effort into making sure that deer with large racks are available, along with all that implies.
 
2013-02-08 10:53:02 AM  

dittybopper: CheekyMonkey: MyRandomName: ajgeek: Since the definition of murder means killing another human being, then technically no. However, killing anything that isn't going to be used in a functional way "food, clothing, tools" is BLOODY STUPID!

You think hunters just kill and leave the carcasses to rot?

There is a subset of hunters that is only interested in a trophy.  This is really my only problem with hunting.  Killing something just so you can hang it's head on the wall of your den is disgusting.  Hunting for meat is perfectly acceptable.

I actually *DON'T* have a problem with them.

Trophy hunters aren't the sort to go out an kill everything that moves.  They tend to be quite selective in their targets.  I know a guy who is pretty much a pure trophy hunter.  That's all he's interested in, and you know what?  He spends more time, effort and most especially *MONEY* towards that goal then you would believe.  And I know of no more staunch conservationist than he.

Sound like a paradox?

It's not.  He recognizes that a healthy population of animals that produces trophy sized game requires habitat to be protected and preserved.  So he puts time and money into that sort of thing, to the benefit of *ALL* the animals that live in that habitat, not just the deer.

The guy who goes out and shoots the first buck that crosses his path isn't the one who is putting all that effort into making sure that deer with large racks are available, along with all that implies.


The conservation efforts may have a valuable end result, but killing something just to stick it's head on one's wall is still reprehensible, and the two acts can and should be evaluated separately.  The fact that trophy hunters may do some good does not excuse the fact that they're killing living things for a rather petty and selfish reason.  I understand your point, but I don't agree with it.
 
2013-02-08 10:56:35 AM  
"Murder", to me, has always meant "The willful or negligent destruction of a self-aware, sentient mind that has collected memories of living."

So abortion is not murder. It's killing, but not murder, because the fetus has no memories of living. And don't give me shiat about a fetus remembering life as a zygote or in the womb, because it's bullshiat. Most people do not remember anything before being a toddler.

Hunting is killing, but not murder except in a few rare cases. Killing some whales is murder, as science is backing the idea more and more that some species of whales are, indeed, self-aware and fit our definition of sentience. They form family ties and make friends. They recognize themselves as individuals. They have expressed actual sentimentality and bravery.

The same applies to some dolphins, and possibly to some apes. There's even an argument for elephants, though I think we need to learn more before we declare them self-aware.

However, deer, bears, squirrels, moose, cows, chickens, pigs, and most other animals are just animals. They're not self-aware. They're not what most people would call sentient. Hunting them is just killing, not murder, as you're not destroying a sentient, self-aware mind that has collected memories of living.

Euthanasia is murder, but in some cases it is "noble murder"-- if such a thing exists-- because the "victim" is most likely terminally ill, in horrible pain, or losing their mind. This must be judged on a case-by-case basis. The one who is to die must ask for it openly-- Not be convinced by a third party. An argument could be made that "assisted suicide" is the more accurate term.

And here's the thing: Suicide is, by my definition, murder. It's self-murder, sure, but it fits the qualification of destroying a self-aware, sentient mind that has collected memories of living.

And finally, let me clarify something: When I say "mind" I mean consciousness. If you're a religious person, it could also mean "soul", though I believe the soul and mind are the same thing. I do  not mean "brain".  The brain is the meat that processes and holds the mind. It's a conveyance for consciousness. One can have a brain without having a mind.
 
2013-02-08 11:03:48 AM  
dittybopper:
We should encourage trophy hunting, instead of denigrating it, because generally trophy hunters are the ones who are restrained in targeting their animals, taking only the best.  Since it's an avocation, and they wish to continue doing it, widespread and regulated sport hunting is a powerful game management tool to keep and maintain healthy populations of animals.

That has been the experience with the "charismatic megafauna" in North America:  After subsistence and market hunting was banned, and only regulated sport hunting was allowed, the populations have rebounded to the point where we actually have *TOO* many animals in some areas.


I read an interesting article a few years ago about this, specifically to big cats in South Africa..  When trophy hunting for them was reintroduced, the populations started rebounding.  The reason cited was economic, a simple cost/benefit to the local farmers.   Before hunting, farmers would just shoot any leopards that threatened their livestock.  After hunting was reintroduced, they were much more likely to put up with the loss of a couple hundred dollars of sheep to get a couple thousand dollars in hunting fees.
 
2013-02-08 11:22:00 AM  

blunttrauma: After hunting was reintroduced, they were much more likely to put up with the loss of a couple hundred dollars of sheep to get a couple thousand dollars in hunting fees.


I can easily lease out 40 acres of land for hunting for $1000.  Especially since I live in Big Buck Country.  We have hunters tripping over each other every year to get hunting rights.
 
2013-02-08 11:38:24 AM  

GUTSU: Want to know why I hunt things like racoons, bears, coyotes? It's because I don't want things like that on my property. I can kill as many racoons, porcupines and coyotes as I want, in NYS there isn't a bag limit so everyone I see gets a bullet to the head. I can only shoot a single bear a year so I just give it to my neighbor. Everything else gets thrown in a pile in my woods.

And honestly? I couldn't care less, I don't need porcupines destroying my trees, racoons potentially giving my dogs rabies, coyotes killing my cats, or the DEC dumping problem bears into my area. Got a problem with that, well go fark yourself.


Kill yourself.
 
2013-02-08 11:48:03 AM  

GUTSU: I don't need porcupines destroying my trees, racoons potentially giving my dogs rabies, coyotes killing my cats, or the DEC dumping problem bears into my area


Groundhogs (Woodchucks) digging holes in the fields causing broken axles on tractors
Coyotes killing lambs, calves, and baby pigs
Raccoons digging the seed corn out of the field after planting and getting into the combine chewing cables and what not

When you are a farmer you try to kill these whenever you see them.  Damn pests.
 
2013-02-08 11:48:17 AM  

CheekyMonkey: The conservation efforts may have a valuable end result, but killing something just to stick it's head on one's wall is still reprehensible, and the two acts can and should be evaluated separately.  The fact that trophy hunters may do some good does not excuse the fact that they're killing living things for a rather petty and selfish reason.  I understand your point, but I don't agree with it.


I consider the trade-off worth it.

I would much rather have the occasional animal left (though I don't know of anyone who does this, including my friend) thus providing food for numerous other animals, and take the money spent on habitat protection, then to discourage that sort of thing and risk losing it.

I suspect that at least *SOME* of the "trophy hunters who leave a deer to rot" are people who shot a deer and lost it.  It happens to *EVERY* hunter at some time, often due to circumstances beyond your control.   I lost a deer this last bow season because it started to rain, and we lost the blood trail.  I shot it in the early morning, and we spent all day searching the area to no avail.   Tried every trick we knew:  Followed the deer paths down hill, checked out all the dense thickets, searched near all the water sources, and just couldn't find it.

In the 30+ years I've been hunting, that's the second deer I've lost.

BTW, I "sort of" trophy hunt.  But instead of going for bigger racked bucks, I instead decided to ramp up my difficulty by going primitive:  I only hunt with my flintlock during gun season, and with my wooden longbow during bow season.  And I'm not averse to taking a doe if one comes in my range (and I have the proper tags).
 
2013-02-08 11:53:32 AM  

dittybopper: I suspect that at least *SOME* of the "trophy hunters who leave a deer to rot" are people who shot a deer and lost it.


It never fails that after every season my great pyrenees (giant white dog) drags another deer corpse into the yard.  Somebodies lost kill.  Never get a chance to see where it got shot though, dogs have it mangled by the time I see it.

/has a bone pile in the yard
//use them for Halloween
 
2013-02-08 12:12:05 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Kahlil Gibran, "On Eating and Drinking:"

Would that you could live on the fragrance of the earth, and like an air plant be sustained by the light.
But since you must kill to eat, and rob the newly born of its mother's milk to quench your thirst, let it then be an act of worship.
And let your board stand an altar on which the pure and the innocent of forest and plain are sacrificed for that which is purer and still more innocent in man.

When you kill a beast say to him in your heart,
"By the same power that slays you, I too am slain; and I too shall be consumed.
For the law that delivered you into my hand shall deliver me into a mightier hand.
Your blood and my blood is naught but the sap that feeds the tree of heaven."


Very well said.
 
2013-02-08 01:16:23 PM  

dittybopper: Well, considering that a decent rifle can shoot across the entire state, I see why.


I think you have CT confused with RI :P
 
2013-02-08 01:43:42 PM  

HighlanderRPI: dittybopper: Well, considering that a decent rifle can shoot across the entire state, I see why.

I think you have CT confused with RI :P


Yeah, well, I knew it was one of them dinky little states.
 
2013-02-08 01:50:06 PM  
Tasty tasty murder. Mmmmm. Elk on the grill.

grillinfools.com
 
2013-02-08 01:54:51 PM  

Burr: dittybopper: I suspect that at least *SOME* of the "trophy hunters who leave a deer to rot" are people who shot a deer and lost it.

It never fails that after every season my great pyrenees (giant white dog) drags another deer corpse into the yard.  Somebodies lost kill.  Never get a chance to see where it got shot though, dogs have it mangled by the time I see it.

/has a bone pile in the yard
//use them for Halloween


You sure the dogs didn't do it, at least some of the times?  Not that your dogs are "bad", but if a deer bolts upon seeing them, that would make the prey drive kick in for all but the most highly disciplined dogs.  They are, at their hearts, still predators after all.
 
2013-02-08 02:23:28 PM  

dittybopper: You sure the dogs didn't do it, at least some of the times?  Not that your dogs are "bad", but if a deer bolts upon seeing them, that would make the prey drive kick in for all but the most highly disciplined dogs.  They are, at their hearts, still predators after all.


Doubt it.  The Great Pyrenees isn't bred to hunt, they are bred to guard.  One of their traits is that they consume dead livestock to keep other predators away from the herd.  I assume that this is kicking in when he drags the corpses into the yard and chews on them for a few weeks.

That, and he is too old and has a slight limp.  I doubt he could catch a deer even if he wanted too.  He did bring up just the hide of a deer one time as well (which why a hunter would skin a deer and just leave the hide I don't know). We also have an Australian cattle dog (blue heeler) but she is older the the pyrenees.
 
2013-02-08 03:12:13 PM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: I hunt, fish, eat meat. Some hunters are huge douchebags that get their rocks off killing things. Most of them? Hell no. There's a bell curve of douchebaggery, as with anything.


On the opposite end of the sadists, you have the people who cradle a deer dying of a painful gutshot rather than delivering a lethal shot.

ZeroCorpse: The same applies to some dolphins, and possibly to some apes. There's even an argument for elephants, though I think we need to learn more before we declare them self-aware.


However, deer, bears, squirrels, moose, cows, chickens, pigs, and most other animals are just animals. They're not self-aware. They're not what most people would call sentient. Hunting them is just killing, not murder, as you're not destroying a sentient, self-aware mind that has collected memories of living.

I really want to find out what the signs of sentience really are because I've seen arguably sentient behavior in animals other than the handful you hear the most about.  I've sat and watched 3 crows either play a game of chicken or "Let's make that pink thing in the shiny box swerve" for about an hour on a country road once.  In pack and herd animals, some understanding of who the alphas, betas, omegas, and their place in that spectrum has to be present. I think it's just that most wild animals are wary of us so it's hard to catch a candid glimpse of them interacting with each other and their environment.
 
2013-02-08 03:15:19 PM  
An awful lot of PETA like typing detected in this thread.

I think fark has surpassed peak rationality and is well on it's way to the shallow end of the pool.
 
2013-02-08 03:31:55 PM  

omeganuepsilon: An awful lot of PETA like typing detected in this thread.

I think fark has surpassed peak rationality and is well on it's way to the shallow end of the pool.


If that's in response to me and my views on animal sentience, that's a laugh.  I hunt in full awareness that I am taking a potentially sentient being's life.  It's necessary, so be it.  We farked the hell out of some ecologies thanks to a combination of introducing invasive species and overhunting others.  We pushed natural predators out of areas and made pest animals out of what would otherwise be benign creatures like deer and such.

Life's a farked up game and I know most of the rules.  I'm not going pretend I can avoid bloodshed by eating an imbalanced diet when half of the non-food products I use contain animal ingredients anyway.
 
2013-02-08 03:39:33 PM  

Deman: If that's in response to me and my views on animal sentience, that's a laugh.


It's not funny if you think crows were playing with you on the road that day, just sad.
 
2013-02-08 03:44:26 PM  
Not playing with me, eachother.  They didn't give two wits about me, just were taking turns diving out in front of cars on a country road.  Farewell.
 
2013-02-08 03:55:04 PM  

Deman: Not playing with me, eachother.


Then what's the pink thing in the shiny box?

Deman: I've sat and watched 3 crows either play a game of chicken or "Let's make that pink thing in the shiny box swerve" for about an hour on a country road once.


You're honestly trying to make them being oblivious to a car in to a point towards sentience?
 
2013-02-08 04:28:42 PM  

Burr: dittybopper: You sure the dogs didn't do it, at least some of the times?  Not that your dogs are "bad", but if a deer bolts upon seeing them, that would make the prey drive kick in for all but the most highly disciplined dogs.  They are, at their hearts, still predators after all.

Doubt it.  The Great Pyrenees isn't bred to hunt, they are bred to guard.  One of their traits is that they consume dead livestock to keep other predators away from the herd.  I assume that this is kicking in when he drags the corpses into the yard and chews on them for a few weeks.

That, and he is too old and has a slight limp.  I doubt he could catch a deer even if he wanted too.  He did bring up just the hide of a deer one time as well (which why a hunter would skin a deer and just leave the hide I don't know). We also have an Australian cattle dog (blue heeler) but she is older the the pyrenees.


A hunter would do that if he's smart:  It's much easier to skin a deer immediately after you've killed it than if you let it hang.  You can literally *PULL* the skin off using your body weight that way.

I always skin my deer as soon as possible after I kill them, and butcher them as soon as possible too.
 
2013-02-08 05:41:12 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Deman: If that's in response to me and my views on animal sentience, that's a laugh.

It's not funny if you think crows were playing with you on the road that day, just sad.


Crows are smarter than you might think...

/Though, they also tend to be suicidal alcoholics...
 
2013-02-08 05:42:19 PM  

lostcat: BarkingUnicorn: taurusowner: skylabdown: Once I heard someone make this point:  (I'm paraphrasing)

Is there anything more illegitimate than having one's lifestyle regulated by those who have no idea what that lifestyle is about?  How just is it to have those ignorant of an issue make decisions limiting the rights of those with absolute knowledge of an issue?

One recent example is the recent gun-grabber movement populated by those "against" the 2nd ammendment who don't even know the basic nomenclature.  They don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.  They have never fired a weapon before.  They think guns are "scary."  Yet, these folks are the ones trying to limit the rights of folks who have been brought up with guns being as ubiquitous as any other tool in the garage.

Hunters also deal with this problem.  Folks who have never hunted, never killed what they eat... People who think meat comes wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap... people who have never dirtied their own hands with the blood of animals they eat every day.  THESE people are the ones who feel qualified to tell hunters what is right and what is wrong.

Much like the author of this article.

This is and probably will remain the most correct and sensible statement in this entire thread.

Except it also applies to farking a six year-old.

I was gonna say...It sounds exactly like what pedos say when defending their behavior online. "How can people who don't know the pure joy of a child's love tell us that we are wrong?!"


You are comparing pedophilia to hunting and supporting the 2nd ammendment.  Awesome.  It must be amazing to live in a world where everything is viewed through the perspective of the lowest common denominator.  Doing so saves you from actually having to take a stand on anything.
 
2013-02-08 06:03:16 PM  

Delay: ***SNIP***
Do Republicans who send poor kids into pointless Asian land wars commit murder?
***SNIP***


Do you know who ordered the first U.S. ground troops into Vietnam in March of '65 after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident?

I'll give you a hint... he wasn't Republican.

I'll give you another hint... His Mexican hookers referred to him as "el B.J."

Oh, fark it!
thepatriotperspective.files.wordpress.com


/please learn basic history so you don't come off as ignorant
//or a partisan, libtard douchenozzle
///slashies come in 3s
 
2013-02-08 06:55:39 PM  

RobSeace: Crows are smarter than you might think...


Limited intelligence is a common factor in a vast array of animals(and apparently humans such as yourself) and has been observed for quite some time.  Even some aquatic life and insects have a certain amount of problem solving skills.  Implying that that is a rare knowledge, or that the ability is special in some way, doesn't reflect well on you.

Doubly so for the people trying to pretend they own some moral high ground because they treasure the life of these creatures, many of which amount to vermin.(the people of that opinion as well as the animals in question)

For example, the only reason to limit the killing of deer( that some use to back up their argument), is to allow for future generations to hunt them for sport, the eating is entirely optional.
 
2013-02-08 08:32:59 PM  
This thread is the fruit of Bambi. I weep for the increasingly urban America. So much wisdom of life has been lost.
 
2013-02-08 08:46:12 PM  

omeganuepsilon: and apparently humans such as yourself


You're apparently completely oblivious to humor... I thought the second link would've given it away... But, I guess, as you say, some humans are of limited intelligence... Or, perhaps you're just a crow, typing away with your beak...
 
2013-02-08 09:22:17 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: Tasty tasty murder. Mmmmm. Elk on the grill.

[grillinfools.com image 515x342]


God damn it, now I'm hungry for steak.
 
2013-02-08 09:31:26 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Clemkadidlefark: Tasty tasty murder. Mmmmm. Elk on the grill.

[grillinfools.com image 515x342]

God damn it, now I'm hungry for steak.


Me too, Hope that elk steak tasted better than it looked. (like a dried out shoe sole)
 
2013-02-08 09:31:46 PM  

RobSeace: You're apparently completely oblivious to humor... I thought the second link would've given it away


I'm not oblivious to humor, you're just not very good at it, nor is this a great thread for such simple, well, you can't even call the second link a joke, more of an inane/obscure culture reference.

but ...

Nevermind, you're completely correct.  That was so funny that all who saw it should have pissed his pants from laughing so hard at your genuine wit and cleverness.  In fact, I doubt the sanity of anyone that didn't blow a vein or have an embolism from laughing at your hilarious shenanigans. All of the so called greats could take lessons from you.
/sarcasm

Really, it was your phrasing of the almost veiled insult that caught my eye.

RobSeace: Crows are smarter than you might think...


What I find entertaining is your stalker like quality, in every thread where you quote me out of the blue you're quite condescending in such a way.  Do you have me favorited with a note to harass me?  Still white knighting(in your pathetic skull) some fark desperate darling attention whore I called out, and doing so for so much time after the fact paints you that much more of a sad sack.

I only ask, and do so rhetorically, because I wonder if you even know why you play tag with me with such a way, that you're still acting out some past injury to a favored maiden in distress, and hence your ego.

Personally, it's partially annoying but still entertaining to see.  It seems you are pathetic no matter the situation, be it following some AW like a lost puppy, and also pathetically nip at the ankles of people you take a personal distaste with.  Superbly passive aggressive.  Inferiority complex got you down?  We can help!

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

Why have I gone through the trouble?  As I said, it is annoying in a disruptive sort of way, a not quite well-disguised threadshiat.  If you wish to converse with me along with the guidelines of Fark, talk about the topic at hand, points mentioned.  If you want to harass me, email is in the profile.(but I suppose that would be WAY too aggressive for you).
 
2013-02-08 09:52:30 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: saturn badger: cuzsis: Not to mention missing the basic fact that *most* animals don't eat their own kind. You'll get an odd one in every bunch of course. But, for example, wolves do not hunt to eat other wolves. They hunt other wolves to chase them away from tasty tasty elk/deer.

I agree with most but great horned owls eat barn owls.

/just thought I would toss out one exception
//there are probably many more I am unaware of

Doesn't count. They're different species. Ugh, this is one of my pet peeves, people tossing around the term "cannibal(ism)".

A human eating another human is cannibalism.
A lion eating another lion is cannibalism.
An alligator eating a crocodile is not cannibalism.
A hawk eating a falcon is not cannibalism.

Looking similar doesn't mean it's cannibalism of one of them eats the other. Another thing I always facepalm at is stories where all species of animals have human-level intelligence and for whatever reason any of them eating any of the others is considered cannibalism. Just because they're smart and can talk doesn't mean they're all suddenly the same species.


Going by this from a wiki page:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species. Second paragraph.

It appears you are correct. Few owls are of the same species. They have completely different names.

Thanks. I learned something today.

/don't like the new buttons at all
 
2013-02-09 09:43:40 AM  

omeganuepsilon: What I find entertaining is your stalker like quality


Heh. You flatter yourself way too much... You just happen to show up and be a douchebag in a lot of threads...

you're quite condescending in such a way

Hilarious... Wait, who was it who said this to some random person "out of the blue", as you say?

omeganuepsilon: It's not funny if you think crows were playing with you on the road that day, just sad.


But, no, that's not "condescending" at all, is it?

Should I welcome you to Fark now, as you so love to do to me, newb?

Do you have me favorited with a note to harass me?

No, you're not nearly interesting enough... Your douchebaggery just stands out on its own, usually...

Jesus Christ man, I wasn't even trying to start anything with you this time! I was just trying to make a slightly humorous off-hand quip... I didn't even expect a reply, let alone your insane vitriol and rambling bullshiat... Get the fark over yourself, man... And, grow the fark up...
 
2013-02-09 12:48:54 PM  

RobSeace: I wasn't even trying to start anything with you this time!


Um.

RobSeace: You're apparently completely oblivious to humor... I thought the second link would've given it away... But, I guess, as you say, some humans are of limited intelligence... Or, perhaps you're just a crow, typing away with your beak...


Yeah, that wasn't your intent at all.  I find your denial in the face of the obvious enjoyable.
 
2013-02-09 01:07:20 PM  

Burr: GUTSU: I don't need porcupines destroying my trees, racoons potentially giving my dogs rabies, coyotes killing my cats, or the DEC dumping problem bears into my area

Groundhogs (Woodchucks) digging holes in the fields causing broken axles on tractors
Coyotes killing lambs, calves, and baby pigs
Raccoons digging the seed corn out of the field after planting and getting into the combine chewing cables and what not

When you are a farmer you try to kill these whenever you see them.  Damn pests.


Sounds like you need a good dog, a couple of cats and better enclosures for your livestock.
Maybe a .22 for the 'chucks and a .30-06 if things get hairy with a predator, but you shouldn't need to kill that many 'pests' on a ranch unless you're doing several other things wrong.
 
2013-02-09 02:53:37 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Yeah, that wasn't your intent at all.


That was not my Boobies, you disingenuous fark... My Boobies was a completely inocuous attempt at lightening the mood... You then started attacking me over it for no sane reason, and then yes, at that point I responded in kind... I should've just let it go, but I foolishly responded... I was foolish to post anything at all to start with...

Tell you what, from now on, I promise to never respond to a single post of yours... Will that make you happy? Bye! Enjoy being douchey!
 
2013-02-09 03:31:30 PM  

RobSeace: Tell you what, from now on, I promise to never respond to a single post of yours... Will that make you happy?


Will it make me happy if you promise or you actually do?

I care not for promises. This wouldn't be the first time an obsessive compulsive stalker said one thing and then did another sometime down the road.
 
2013-02-10 08:43:54 AM  
RobSeace: Tell you what, from now on, I promise to never respond to a single post of yours... Will that make you happy?

omeganuepsilon: I care not for promises. This wouldn't be the first time an obsessive compulsive stalker said one thing and then did another sometime down the road.


cineplex.media.baselineresearch.com
 
Displayed 308 of 308 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report