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.

(Opposing Views)   Baby deer walks up to hunters during their target practice, licks one of their guns   (opposingviews.com) divider line 169
    More: Sappy, target practice, baby deer, deer, hunters  
•       •       •

10944 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Dec 2013 at 9:59 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-14 01:07:50 AM
i.picasion.com
 
2013-12-14 01:09:35 AM

HeadLever: fusillade762: Evolution gave us big brains so we no longer need to be shackled by it. Unless, of course, you deny free will.

Well, we can grow our food via domicile ungulates that require constant care, antibiotics, are subject to strict government regulation, taxes, need to be fattened before slaughter in enclosed pens standing in their own waste, fattened on genetically modified feed, slaughtered by illegal aliens and sold in neat little Styrofoam and plastic packages so that the public never really understands what goes into making said hamburger.

Or we can kill, slaughter and butcher wild meat that has never known a fence.  My free really leans toward the latter.

Any more dumb statements on free will?


No. Just that the whole "we're predators who evolved to eat meat" argument is dumb. Evolution gave us tonsils and an appendix, are we required to use them, too?
 
2013-12-14 01:16:27 AM

HeadLever:
And that is fine.  In any case, I hope you realize that this type of beef only represents a fraction of how beef is process here in the US.  Even if they are grass/pasture/public land grazed during most of their lives; when sold for slaughter, they get shipped to the nearest feedlot for a month or so of fattening by corn and then slaughtered.

I love the folks that buy grass fed beef and butcher them right then and there.  I have done it myself.  However, don't fool yourself on believing that is how most beef ends up in this country.


I don't. However, I believe it should be. I also agree with animal welfare activists that Americans (and increasingly, other countries) eat too much meat, and therefore more cows SHOULD be raised the way I described. Occasionally I'm guilty of a steak or large burger, but more often I incorporate an equal portion of meat into a casserole or stew that has several days of leftovers.

HeadLever: ladyfortuna: They don't 'require' constant care or antibiotics, because those are cash/factory farm tricks to maximize herd size for profit.

Have you ever been to a branding?  Ever heard of 8-way? 7-way?


I've seen videos of it. They don't do that.
 
2013-12-14 01:20:03 AM
Is anyone actually doing this poor animal any favors? The poor things mother got taco'd by a Chevy. In the purest form of naivety it licks the rifles made to kill it and gets nursed and nurtured to go back into the wild to become the venison jerky it was meant to become. I see no clear winners here. Only a land devoid of deer like veal thing that would have made awesome jerky. :(
 
2013-12-14 01:21:02 AM

CarrieWhite: I have no idea how anyone could get a thrill from shooting these beautiful animals.


They're delicious.
 
2013-12-14 01:25:04 AM

LukeR: Is there such a thing as a Darwin award for animals? This deer is going to earn one.


They're all farking stupid, so the award should go to the entire species.  Drive down a road and scare another animal and it will run AWAY from the car.  Scare a deer and it will run IN FRONT OF the car.  That's a special kind of stupid.
 
2013-12-14 01:27:38 AM

twiztedjustin: Can I just start going directly to Opposing Views and not be bothered by constant ads to pay $5 a month here?


Ya it's called adblock.
 
2013-12-14 01:38:08 AM

fusillade762: HeadLever: fusillade762: Evolution gave us big brains so we no longer need to be shackled by it. Unless, of course, you deny free will.

Well, we can grow our food via domicile ungulates that require constant care, antibiotics, are subject to strict government regulation, taxes, need to be fattened before slaughter in enclosed pens standing in their own waste, fattened on genetically modified feed, slaughtered by illegal aliens and sold in neat little Styrofoam and plastic packages so that the public never really understands what goes into making said hamburger.

Or we can kill, slaughter and butcher wild meat that has never known a fence.  My free really leans toward the latter.

Any more dumb statements on free will?

No. Just that the whole "we're predators who evolved to eat meat" argument is dumb. Evolution gave us tonsils and an appendix, are we required to use them, too?


Uh...your body *does* use both of those organs. The tonsils are part of the immune system and help fight infections. While the appendix helps the digestive system by repopulating the gut with the proper flora following an illness. 

/just because you can survive without something doesn't mean it's not used.
 
2013-12-14 01:44:47 AM

cuzsis: fusillade762: HeadLever: fusillade762: Evolution gave us big brains so we no longer need to be shackled by it. Unless, of course, you deny free will.

Well, we can grow our food via domicile ungulates that require constant care, antibiotics, are subject to strict government regulation, taxes, need to be fattened before slaughter in enclosed pens standing in their own waste, fattened on genetically modified feed, slaughtered by illegal aliens and sold in neat little Styrofoam and plastic packages so that the public never really understands what goes into making said hamburger.

Or we can kill, slaughter and butcher wild meat that has never known a fence.  My free really leans toward the latter.

Any more dumb statements on free will?

No. Just that the whole "we're predators who evolved to eat meat" argument is dumb. Evolution gave us tonsils and an appendix, are we required to use them, too?

Uh...your body *does* use both of those organs. The tonsils are part of the immune system and help fight infections. While the appendix helps the digestive system by repopulating the gut with the proper flora following an illness.
/just because you can survive without something doesn't mean it's not used.


OK, how about this:

There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).

In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses.
 
2013-12-14 01:58:23 AM
fusillade762:

In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables.

I can't find the comic where I first saw this, so words will have to suffice.

A banana fits perfectly in your hand.

So does a penis.
 
2013-12-14 02:01:44 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: CarrieWhite: I have no idea how anyone could get a thrill from shooting these beautiful animals.

They're sociopaths


Or hungry.

WTF man, where do you think food comes from?
 
2013-12-14 02:22:12 AM

dittybopper: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: CarrieWhite: I have no idea how anyone could get a thrill from shooting these beautiful animals.

They're sociopaths

What's wrong with it?  Man is a predator, and has been for millions of years.  We evolved that way.  Unless, of course, you deny evolution and think the world was created by God 6,000 years ago.


ah, a Dexter fan
 
2013-12-14 02:42:08 AM
It was coming right at them so they shot it, right?
 
2013-12-14 02:42:27 AM

Calmamity: CarrieWhite: I have no idea how anyone could get a thrill from shooting these beautiful animals.

It's not my thing either, but I have no problem with people hunting for food.
Trophy hunters, on the other hand, can fu*k off.


I wholeheartedly agree.  I don't hunt, but I support the right of those who do so to put food on the table and feed their families.  Trophy hunters can eat scat and die.
 
2013-12-14 02:44:15 AM

Kahabut: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: CarrieWhite: I have no idea how anyone could get a thrill from shooting these beautiful animals.

They're sociopaths

Or hungry.

WTF man, where do you think food comes from?


plants?
 
2013-12-14 02:44:35 AM

violentsalvation: Cheap, healthy, organic, cage-free, hormone / growth stimulant-free, antibiotic-free, grass-fed meat from an animal killed as quickly and humanely has humanly possible? Hell yeah that gives me a thrill.


If you're gonna eat it, be willing to meet it. If you're not willing to kill it, you shouldn't eat it. And if you do kill it, you damn sure better eat it.
A clean, humane kill of an animal is the best way to get your meat.
 
2013-12-14 04:08:59 AM

CarrieWhite: I have no idea how anyone could get a thrill from shooting these beautiful animals.


You know how I know you've never seen one close up?

I don't know about 'thrill', but boy do they taste good, and they'll readily overpopulate an area and cause lots of damage if they aren't hunted.

By the way, hunting season is deliberately timed so that bambi won't lose his mother in that fashion outside of the hunter being a poacher.

Calmamity: I'm talking about the guys who go to Africa to shoot a tiger that's tethered in a fenced enclosure.


I'm sure that's happened somewhere, sometime.  However, there was probably more to it than a guy traveling all the way to Africa soley to shoot a tied up Tiger, said occurance is probably so rare as to be a statistical outlier.  Probably to put down a critically ill/injured animal when it's judged to be the best option.  Yes, I know lethal injection is more common today, but given the right(wrong) circumstances like the animal being dangerous and them not having a trank gun available(limited resources)...

gja: No, but they WILL shoot the nice plump fat ones even if they have no antlers.


Sure, but in some areas that's not allowed.  Only antlered deer ar allowed, and in some areas you have to check to make sure the rack is developed enough.
 
2013-12-14 04:32:05 AM

Bucky Katt: Kahabut: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: CarrieWhite: I have no idea how anyone could get a thrill from shooting these beautiful animals.

They're sociopaths

Or hungry.

WTF man, where do you think food comes from?

plants?


Take a bet with me.  Eat nothing that isn't a plant for 30 days, and if you can still type, tell me how you feel.

/strict rules : no salt, seasoning, dressing, or other non-plant items
//no vitamin supplements
///no modern chemistry

////Double strict rules: Grow it yourself.

The opposite it easy, I've done it before.  cheated on the seasoning bit, that's all.
 
2013-12-14 04:36:54 AM

Firethorn: I'm sure that's happened somewhere, sometime.  However, there was probably more to it than a guy traveling all the way to Africa soley to shoot a tied up Tiger, said occurance is probably so rare as to be a statistical outlier.  Probably to put down a critically ill/injured animal when it's judged to be the best option.  Yes, I know lethal injection is more common today, but given the right(wrong) circumstances like the animal being dangerous and them not having a trank gun available(limited resources)...


Unfortunately, it's not as rare or circumstantial as we'd like it to be.

But I think we can all agree, those people are farked up.
 
2013-12-14 05:27:29 AM

dittybopper: Calmamity: CarrieWhite: I have no idea how anyone could get a thrill from shooting these beautiful animals.

It's not my thing either, but I have no problem with people hunting for food.

Trophy hunters, on the other hand, can fu*k off.

Why?

Seriously, why?  Because they'll pass up a 6 pointer because it's too small?

In the pantheon of hunters, the one you should be celebrating is the trophy hunter.  He's the one most likely to be dropping a large amount of cash to preserve habitat so he can hunt that monster buck, and it's not just the deer that benefit from that.

People who hunt just for food are worse, imho.  They, along with market hunters, were the ones that caused the crash of whitetail deer populations until regulations were enacted and enforced by "trophy hunters" back in the early 1900s.

Now that the people who shoot deer just for food have to follow the same ethical rules that trophy hunters set for them, and market hunting (ie., hunting to sell their meat and hides) has been outlawed completely, deer have bounced to the point where they are more numerous now than when Europeans first set foot on the continent.

And it was the people who wanted a Boone and Crockett or Pope and Young sized trophy that you can thank for that.


Point ----> Counter Point
Come on!
Who needs logic and facts?! The deer are cuuuute!!


With economies going the way they are, I'm surprised that more people don't turn to 'living off the land.'

I know one guy in a coastal area when things got financially tight for him would go fish off a pier before work to provide food for his family.

/someone should still eat that trophy meat
 
2013-12-14 05:46:00 AM

fusillade762: cuzsis: fusillade762: HeadLever: fusillade762: Evolution gave us big brains so we no longer need to be shackled by it. Unless, of course, you deny free will.

Well, we can grow our food via domicile ungulates that require constant care, antibiotics, are subject to strict government regulation, taxes, need to be fattened before slaughter in enclosed pens standing in their own waste, fattened on genetically modified feed, slaughtered by illegal aliens and sold in neat little Styrofoam and plastic packages so that the public never really understands what goes into making said hamburger.

Or we can kill, slaughter and butcher wild meat that has never known a fence.  My free really leans toward the latter.

Any more dumb statements on free will?

No. Just that the whole "we're predators who evolved to eat meat" argument is dumb. Evolution gave us tonsils and an appendix, are we required to use them, too?

Uh...your body *does* use both of those organs. The tonsils are part of the immune system and help fight infections. While the appendix helps the digestive system by repopulating the gut with the proper flora following an illness.
/just because you can survive without something doesn't mean it's not used.

OK, how about this:

There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).

In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting fles ...


Thanks for that, now I feel safe in knowing that I will not read anything that reaches that level of stupidity again this day. Omnivores, how do they work?
 
2013-12-14 05:56:09 AM

gja: tuxq: AutumnWind: CarrieWhite: I have no idea how anyone could get a thrill from shooting these beautiful animals.

Agreed. It would just make me sick to my stomach. The exact opposite of a thrill.

So I take it that you're both women. Look, we know you don't like doing it. That's what we've evolved to do it over millions of years.

I take offense to that. I am a guy. I am trained and likely more proficient with my 24 than you can scarcely imagine.
Certainly better at a distance than most hunters could hope to function at all.
I will never shoot an animal. I shoot only targets. I feel no need to cause death with my rifle, and it would take an unthinkable situation for that to change.

And I like shooting. And I like TEACHING kids to do so safely, respectfully and proficiently. I get to tutor in math, physics and discipline all in one.



I was awake all night wondering what a "24" is. I must know.
 
2013-12-14 06:01:25 AM

GodComplex: In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting fles ...

Thanks for that, now I feel safe in knowing that I will not read anything that reaches that level of stupidity again this day. Omnivores, how do they work?


You delivered a resounding defeat to that argument. Kudos!
 
2013-12-14 06:58:09 AM

Resident Muslim: /someone should still eat that trophy meat


It happens in Africa.  Turns out that 'Elephant Graveyards' don't exist.  The local people, predators, and carrian eaters do an amazingly good job at breaking down dead elephants.  Saw a time lapse video once - 2 days and the elephant was gone.  Even the bones are cracked for the marrow.

Kahabut: Unfortunately, it's not as rare or circumstantial as we'd like it to be.

But I think we can all agree, those people are farked up.


Given that my preference would be 'never' for killing a tied up animal solely, or even mostly, for the thrill of shooting something, yeah.  Are the people that do that farked up?  At that point, yes.

fusillade762: You delivered a resounding defeat to that argument. Kudos!


Meh, our digestive tract is a heck of a lot closer to a predator's than it is to a ruminent's.  Predator's digestive tracks aren't short to 'quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh', they're short because flesh is easy to digest, thus don't need long tracts to process it.  Herbivores, on the other hand, need really long digestive tracts because in most cases they need gut flora(bacteria, generally) to digest the plant matter they've consumed, breaking it down and reprocessing it into something they CAN digest(the bacteria, generally).

By the same token, more than just the small intestine is different - predators generally have highly acidic stomachs to help keep down bacteria and all that, while herbivores have much closer to neutral stomachs to avoid killing the flora off.

Humans are in between the two, making us omnivores.
 
2013-12-14 07:32:19 AM

fusillade762: cuzsis: fusillade762: HeadLever: fusillade762: Evolution gave us big brains so we no longer need to be shackled by it. Unless, of course, you deny free will.

Well, we can grow our food via domicile ungulates that require constant care, antibiotics, are subject to strict government regulation, taxes, need to be fattened before slaughter in enclosed pens standing in their own waste, fattened on genetically modified feed, slaughtered by illegal aliens and sold in neat little Styrofoam and plastic packages so that the public never really understands what goes into making said hamburger.

Or we can kill, slaughter and butcher wild meat that has never known a fence.  My free really leans toward the latter.

Any more dumb statements on free will?

No. Just that the whole "we're predators who evolved to eat meat" argument is dumb. Evolution gave us tonsils and an appendix, are we required to use them, too?

Uh...your body *does* use both of those organs. The tonsils are part of the immune system and help fight infections. While the appendix helps the digestive system by repopulating the gut with the proper flora following an illness.
/just because you can survive without something doesn't mean it's not used.

OK, how about this:

There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).

In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting fles ...


Except for a few things:

a) Humans aren't strictly carnivorous OR herbivorous--they are a member of a great ape clade that are omnivorous, with a more distantly related member of the next clade up that are true herbivores.  (The true herbivorous hominin apes--gorillas--also have significantly longer intestines than members of the human/chimp clade.)

b) Evolutionarily speaking, hominin apes adapted for true herbivory have adaptations we do NOT have--especially in jaw musculature and the size of the gut.  (This is true not only with gorillas but with a genus that (as it turns out) Leakey incorrectly lumped in with the australopithecines that led to us--Pithecanthropus (a genus of at least two known groups of what were formerly referred to as "robust australopithecines", which not only would have made great examples of "possible Bigfoot" but had very specific jaw and--as we can tell from the fossils of the pelvis and chest--gut adaptations for herbivory or near-total herbivory that are NOT present in the stem-line australopithecines nor in the particular clade of australopithecines that led to us).

If we go a bit further from hominin apes, the only other ape that's shown evidence for near herbivory (pongid apes--the clade including modern orangutans and Gigantopithecus the orangutan-cousin panda-analogue) also had specific adaptations for herbivory including longer guts than humans and more robust jaws and teeth.

c) The Science Has Moved On since Leakey wrote that--evidence of omnivory in hominin-line primates now goes back to a good candidate for the Most Common Recent Ancestor of chimpanzees and humans (Ardipithecus); we also know now that pre-hominin ape ancestors were likely omnivorous (probably obtaining meat via scavenging and eating insects), and there is evidence for "gracile australopithecine" (namely, the australopithecine lineage that led to us--rather than the line that led to pithecanthropines) omnivory as well.

d) Evidence for active omnivory in Homo proper stretches very far back (all the way back to Homo antecessor) and there is strong evidence that at least one "sister clade" of our species (that have recently been found to contribute non-negligible amounts to our own genome, which brings back the question of "species or subspecies?") had a nearly entirely-carnivorous diet similar to those of modern indigenous Arctic peoples like the Sami and Inuit and indigenous peoples of Siberia--the Neandertal people, who primarily only had berries and fruits in summer and primarily subsisted on hunting.

e) As an aside, the fact that we have indigenous peoples in the Arctic who have lived in conditions of near total carnivory by necessity and also had a sister clade or two in the same condition is in and of itself an "anti-proof" to humans being supposed natural vegetarians.  True carnivores cannot live in a state of herbivory and herbivores cannot survive on a purely carnivorous diet as evolution tends to result in metabolic changes requiring intake of certain vitamins or amino acids that only are obtainable in a carnivorous or herbivorous diet.  (Just try feeding a cat tofu for months to see this.  Poor kitty WILL end up blind and with fatty heart disease, due to cats being true carnivores and having evolved to require taurine in their diet.)

There is evidence of this exact sort of "dietary dependence" happening at least twice in human evolution--one very, very far back around the time that Old World and New World monkeys split (Old World monkeys and apes, including us, are obligate citrivores--our ancestors tended to eat a lot of fruit high in vitamin C, and as a result we are one of the very few clades (along with cavies and guinea pigs) dependent on an external dietary source of vitamin C and thus one of the very few critters ABLE to get scurvy) and a second time during the colonisation of Europe and the Americas (where skin lightened in northern populations to allow the body to generate vitamin D and--later--the reduction or loss of lactose intolerance in European and African populations who drank milk, probably discovering along the way that drinking milk helped prevent rickets).

If anything, humans actually (along with other faculatively omnivorous species) show a lot of dietary flexibility, along the same lines as critters like rats (which interestingly are in a clade that turns out to be the sister group to primates and their most recent ancestors according to recent analyses; yes, primates, rodents and lagomorphs fit together in a nice clade) and other clades that tend to live in a dietary lifestyle of both active foraging and scavenging.  The only thing we absolutely REQUIRE in a diet are an external source of vitamin C (like all Old World monkeys including the great apes), certain B vitamins (which can be problematic to get in a purely vegan diet but are not problematic for ovo-lacto vegetarians) and--if you are a darker-skinned individual in a more northern climate--some external source of vitamin D.  This is because our ancestors--rather like critters like rats--had to get their food from wherever they COULD get it.

And that said, there are critters that are even less dependent on an external dietary source for some nutrients than us.  Rats, for one; smaller canines (like foxes) and members of the bear/raccoon clade also tend as a whole to be less dependent on specific nutrients.  Bears, in particular, are an especially interesting study in how a base condition of faculative omnivory (black bears and their kin and, to an extent, brown bears), obligate carnivory (polar bears, known now to have speciated from brown bears QUITE recently and thanks to loss of habitat in a process of essentially merging back into a subspecies of brown bear via hybridisation), and obligate herbivory (pandas)...

f) There is evidence of hunting among our closest living "sister clades" (chimpanzees); quite interestingly, chimpanzees (much like us) explicitly make tools for the purpose of hunting, and also hunt meat as a major part of courting and familial bonding behaviour (very similarly to what has been found with fossil evidence of hunting by Homo).  The major differences between hunting in chimpanzees and hunting in humans seem to be "humans do at least show meat fire, and humans also tend to use rocks to make other rocks sharp and find inventive ways to hurl the rocks at a food animal whilst chimpanzees tend to stick with the traditional well-sharpened wooden stick and haven't yet figured out the fire thing".  (And as we'll note...chimps don't seem to really have issues getting the meat off.)

g) Before anyone brings up the whole "but humans have teeny teeth!" thing--thanks to Ardipithecus we know now our condition is a neotenous trait--a fancy way of saying "the lack of big farking fangs in humans is close to the condition of baby apes, along with our big heads".  The large fangs in chimpanzees are a secondary evolution which is known to be essentially sexually connected (the big teeth in chimps are roughly analgous to the antlers on deer, actually), the largest fangs are actually owned by the most purely herbivorous of the great apes (gorillas--again, the fangs are used primarily for display of sexual prowess and fighting off other gorilla suitors), and the condition of bonobos is probably close to that of the Most Recent Common Ancestor of the chimp/human/bonobo and gorilla clades.

More important for terms of herbivory are the sizes of jaw muscles and molars; gorillas and pithecanthropines have huge molars and sagittal crests, smaller ones in bonobos and chimpanzees, and the general trend is for molars to get smaller (and, most recently, to reduce in number) and the sagittal crest to disappear as we progress from Ardi to us.  (In fact, humans have the smallest molars by proportion of all the great apes--including the pongid apes like orangutans.)  We actually have smaller molars than even early modern humans (much less Neandertals, which had a diet of near-total carnivory not unlike a traditional "country food" diet of the Inuit--and whose skulls fit the traditional "hominin body plan" more than ours) and there are now starting to be cases of people born without "wisdom teeth"--and a lot of problems with impacted teeth for those who ARE born with them.

As there is apparently very early evidence of tool use by hominin apes (pretty much all three of the surviving hominin apes are known to be tool-users, and confirmed for use in hunting at that) the lack of sharp, pointy teeth is less an impediment.

So it's actually rather inaccurate to say that humans are "pure herbivores" OR "pure carnivores"; hominin apes as a whole actually trend towards omnivory including active foraging AND active hunting as well as scavenging.
 
2013-12-14 07:52:06 AM
Also, as an addendum--many of the human groups and immediate sister clades to modern humans who have lived largely-carnivorous lifestyles did so because they lived in the Arctic or in Arctic-like areas where there wasn't a hell of a lot of food AVAILABLE save through hunting.  (There is actually a good argument to be made that the invention of both fire and systematic advanced tools for bringing down large game was what enabled hominin apes to spread out of Africa and southern Asia to begin with.  Most of the modern human cultures that practice ovolacto vegetarianism (veganism is pretty much an invention of the Industrial Revolution, because the B vitamin supplementation needed for veganism was simply not available and vegetarianism without supplementation from dairy and egg sources was not sustainable before then) are in areas where yearlong farming is possible; all of the great apes with explicit evolutionary adaptations for herbivory (gorillas and the pongid apes) have lived in tropical rain forests (or in the case of Gigantopithecus, large bamboo forests) with large amounts of food sources available.

And it seems a very similar thing evolutionarily speaking happened with bears.  (Yes, I'm going back to the bear thing. :D)   Most bears with a herbivorous or "plant heavy" omnivorous lifestyle tend to live in tropical or very temperate climate zones with a lot of browse available, and/or they tend to go into periods of hibernation-like torpor in colder periods (the classic example of this being the black bear, which tends to live in forested areas with lots of plant AND animal-based food and which goes into winter torpor...awakening during warmer periods to browse, or in the case of the typical black bear near some national parks, taking a break in a hot tub between attempting to break and enter into cars for food).

Pandas seem to have forked rather early (much as gorillas split relatively early from the hominin apes) but they do seem to have evolved from omnivorous bear ancestors.  They are now running into pretty much the same problem Gigantopithecus ran into (loss of habitat and loss of primary food source), though unlike with the giant panda the problem with China's giant bamboo-orangutan seems to have been caused by natural climate change we call an "ice age".

Bears that lived in areas with sparser browser and more animal-based foods have trended towards stronger carnivorous tendencies (traditional human diets in more northern areas, and possibly the diets of more southern Neandertal and early modern human populations pre-agriculture, are our equivalent of how the brown bear manages to get along).

In the Arctic, where there tends not to even be the browse available in spring and summer that there is in taiga areas, bears and humans went to near carnivory--"country food" of the Inuit in the case of humans, evolution into polar bears in the case of bears (and polar bears are a recent fork indeed--they are close enough to brown bears that they can interbreed, and may have only split from brown bears as a distinct species around 100,000 years ago...yes, grizzlies and polar bears may be as related or even more closely related than us and Neandertal or Denisovan people).
 
2013-12-14 08:07:32 AM

Great Porn Dragon: and there are now starting to be cases of people born without "wisdom teeth"


Raises hand. I'm one of those advanced humans that only ever got 28 teeth. My last tooth didn't come in until I was 17.
 
2013-12-14 08:58:31 AM
Me too Mark, The Navy went looking for them and even asked me if I'd had them removed.  Mom said she never had them either.
 
2013-12-14 09:19:13 AM

MarkEC: Great Porn Dragon: and there are now starting to be cases of people born without "wisdom teeth"

Raises hand. I'm one of those advanced humans that only ever got 28 teeth. My last tooth didn't come in until I was 17.


I was short 2.  Darn near had the room for those 2 that I did have.
 
2013-12-14 09:49:44 AM

PaLarkin: LukeR: Is there such a thing as a Darwin award for animals? This deer is going to earn one.

They're all farking stupid, so the award should go to the entire species.  Drive down a road and scare another animal and it will run AWAY from the car.  Scare a deer and it will run IN FRONT OF the car.  That's a special kind of stupid.


Squirrel.

Scare a squirrel and it will run away from the car, then towards it, then away, then towards it, then closer towards it and..just when you think you've managed to avoid it..it takes a dive for the closest tire..

Make deer look like gotdamn Einsteins...
 
2013-12-14 09:56:59 AM

ladyfortuna: I've seen videos of it. They don't do that.


They don't do what?  Vaccinate or brand?  They still do both.  They also castrate most of the bull calves and dehorn most calves if necessary.

/grew up on a ranch and still have family that does.
 
2013-12-14 09:59:08 AM
Sounds familiar...
img.fark.net
 
2013-12-14 10:03:30 AM

fusillade762: No. Just that the whole "we're predators who evolved to eat meat" argument is dumb. Evolution gave us tonsils and an appendix, are we required to use them, too?


Our need for required nutrients, protein, etc is typically best served with the addition of meat to the diet.  Yes, you don't need as much as most typically eat, however, trying to push folks to a vegetarian/vegan diet is also just as dumb.
 
2013-12-14 10:06:31 AM

Kahabut: Take a bet with me.  Eat nothing that isn't a plant for 30 days, and if you can still type, tell me how you feel.

/strict rules : no salt, seasoning, dressing, or other non-plant items
//no vitamin supplements
///no modern chemistry


I understand where you're coming from..but, seriously..??

What does salt (mineral) have to do with this animal-agenda thing you're proposing..?  Vitamins only come from plants..?  Man, Vitamin D and K and..etc,etc,etc will be really surprised to hear that..  Chemistry..?   *YOU* are chemicals..  The beer you may/may not be drinking, meat, vegetables, the computer your using, the chair you're sitting on..ALL "chemicals"..

I went pure Vegetarian for over a year for a past GF (and can now make a veggie-burrito, among other things, that you would swear contained beef and would murder orphans for) and had not one single day of hardship or discomfort..

What point are you trying to make..?  Do you have any idea of what you speak of..?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-12-14 10:29:13 AM

HeadLever: gja: Knuckleheads sit up in these things and expect game to just waltz by?

Yep, I take it you don't spend much time in the woods.  If you get out every once in a while away from the malls, you might see how many deer there are in the river-bottoms and riparian areas.


Malls? Bleh. Camping? Bleh, too. I have a nice apartment and a park not 500 yards away. I need to run a bit? Park. I wanna eat? Apartment.
BTW, where I live there are few, if any, deer about. This aint the country here man.Long Island is pretty dense with people and not a lot of open land.
At least not in the town I am in. It is what it is.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-12-14 10:35:27 AM

Oblio13: I was awake all night wondering what a "24" is. I must know.


Hey! Don't blame me for insomnia.

24=M24
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-12-14 10:37:15 AM

Firethorn: and in some areas you have to check to make sure the rack is developed enough.


Sounds a LOT like my college days.

/lol, he said "rack"
 
2013-12-14 10:39:46 AM

gja: Bleh, too. I have a nice apartment and a park not 500 yards away. I need to run a bit? Park. I wanna eat? Apartment.
BTW, where I live there are few, if any, deer about. This aint the country here man.Long Island is pretty dense with people and not a lot of open land.
At least not in the town I am in. It is what it is.


So you don't spend much time in the woods.  Your ignorance on the topic makes sense then.   Get away from the city and tree stands are a great way to hunt in wooded areas if you spend a bit of time finding and understanding game paths.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-12-14 10:47:24 AM

HeadLever: gja: Bleh, too. I have a nice apartment and a park not 500 yards away. I need to run a bit? Park. I wanna eat? Apartment.
BTW, where I live there are few, if any, deer about. This aint the country here man.Long Island is pretty dense with people and not a lot of open land.
At least not in the town I am in. It is what it is.

So you don't spend much time in the woods.  Your ignorance on the topic makes sense then.   Get away from the city and tree stands are a great way to hunt in wooded areas if you spend a bit of time finding and understanding game paths.


I'll pass, but thanks for the info. Hate the woods. However, I can see the allure to some. I suppose it is nice in its' own way. Only use I ever had for them was Enduro's. And I have a collarbone that still aches from time to time thanks to a swinging branch that caught my jersey as a reminder of those halcyon youth days on 2 wheeled hysteria.

I am more of a fishing/waters man. Fresh, salt, fly, spinning. Love it all. Love the water.
 
2013-12-14 11:06:27 AM

dittybopper: udhq: You eat it/use the pelt?  Fine.  Deer populations need to be managed.  I would never choose to do it myself, but as long as you respect the animal, I can accept it.

But you kill an animal for a farking trophy, especially a large endangered animal?  You deserve to be hollowed out and made into a douche-skin rug.

See my post above.  It's the trophy hunters who spend the most on things like preserving habitat.

I'm not a trophy hunter myself.  My only "trophy" is a knife handle made out of one of the antlers of the first deer I ever shot (3 pointer).  Since the littlebopper and distaffbopper don't care for venison, I give most of it away when I do get a deer.  But I know some trophy hunters, and they tend to be the ones who take it more seriously than the others.

It was hunters looking for trophies that started the whole conservation movement to bring hunting under federal and state regulation, to keep the subsistence hunters and market hunters from hunting the deer to extinction, like they did with the passenger pigeon and nearly did with the bison.


Bullsh*t. The bison was hunted by white men for its pelt. The hunting had nothing to do with subsitence. Only the Indians hunted reasonably.

Your posts read like what they are: pro-hunting propaganda.

Disgusting.
 
2013-12-14 11:07:49 AM

gja: HeadLever: gja: Bleh, too. I have a nice apartment and a park not 500 yards away. I need to run a bit? Park. I wanna eat? Apartment.
BTW, where I live there are few, if any, deer about. This aint the country here man.Long Island is pretty dense with people and not a lot of open land.
At least not in the town I am in. It is what it is.

So you don't spend much time in the woods.  Your ignorance on the topic makes sense then.   Get away from the city and tree stands are a great way to hunt in wooded areas if you spend a bit of time finding and understanding game paths.

I'll pass, but thanks for the info. Hate the woods. However, I can see the allure to some. I suppose it is nice in its' own way. Only use I ever had for them was Enduro's. And I have a collarbone that still aches from time to time thanks to a swinging branch that caught my jersey as a reminder of those halcyon youth days on 2 wheeled hysteria.

I am more of a fishing/waters man. Fresh, salt, fly, spinning. Love it all. Love the water.


 So do you fish for food or catch and release? Don't like half of all fish caught and released die within a week? Strange you'd feel bad about deer and not fish.
 
2013-12-14 11:26:55 AM

gja: I'll pass, but thanks for the info. Hate the woods.


Yeah, different strokes for different folks.  That is fine.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-12-14 11:27:29 AM

MagSeven: gja: HeadLever: gja: Bleh, too. I have a nice apartment and a park not 500 yards away. I need to run a bit? Park. I wanna eat? Apartment.
BTW, where I live there are few, if any, deer about. This aint the country here man.Long Island is pretty dense with people and not a lot of open land.
At least not in the town I am in. It is what it is.

So you don't spend much time in the woods.  Your ignorance on the topic makes sense then.   Get away from the city and tree stands are a great way to hunt in wooded areas if you spend a bit of time finding and understanding game paths.

I'll pass, but thanks for the info. Hate the woods. However, I can see the allure to some. I suppose it is nice in its' own way. Only use I ever had for them was Enduro's. And I have a collarbone that still aches from time to time thanks to a swinging branch that caught my jersey as a reminder of those halcyon youth days on 2 wheeled hysteria.

I am more of a fishing/waters man. Fresh, salt, fly, spinning. Love it all. Love the water.

 So do you fish for food or catch and release? Don't like half of all fish caught and released die within a week? Strange you'd feel bad about deer and not fish.


Well that was convenient for you. Do you reach conclusions and then comment on your own assumptions before an actual reply from people as a rule?

I fish for food. I eat it. And your stat is BS, BTW.
Here is a Maryland study.
Here is another study.
Not 50%, not even near that.
 
2013-12-14 11:28:29 AM

RRicochet: ullsh*t. The bison was hunted by white men for its pelt. The hunting had nothing to do with subsitence. Only the Indians hunted reasonably.


What part of his 'market hunting' point did you not understand?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-12-14 11:33:39 AM

RRicochet: dittybopper: udhq: You eat it/use the pelt?  Fine.  Deer populations need to be managed.  I would never choose to do it myself, but as long as you respect the animal, I can accept it.

But you kill an animal for a farking trophy, especially a large endangered animal?  You deserve to be hollowed out and made into a douche-skin rug.

See my post above.  It's the trophy hunters who spend the most on things like preserving habitat.

I'm not a trophy hunter myself.  My only "trophy" is a knife handle made out of one of the antlers of the first deer I ever shot (3 pointer).  Since the littlebopper and distaffbopper don't care for venison, I give most of it away when I do get a deer.  But I know some trophy hunters, and they tend to be the ones who take it more seriously than the others.

It was hunters looking for trophies that started the whole conservation movement to bring hunting under federal and state regulation, to keep the subsistence hunters and market hunters from hunting the deer to extinction, like they did with the passenger pigeon and nearly did with the bison.

Bullsh*t. The bison was hunted by white men for its pelt. The hunting had nothing to do with subsitence. Only the Indians hunted reasonably.

Your posts read like what they are: pro-hunting propaganda.

Disgusting.


Um, you do realize the HUGE, MASSIVE, WIDE time span that separates these two issues, yes?
 
2013-12-14 11:35:03 AM

gja: MagSeven: gja: HeadLever: gja: Bleh, too. I have a nice apartment and a park not 500 yards away. I need to run a bit? Park. I wanna eat? Apartment.
BTW, where I live there are few, if any, deer about. This aint the country here man.Long Island is pretty dense with people and not a lot of open land.
At least not in the town I am in. It is what it is.

So you don't spend much time in the woods.  Your ignorance on the topic makes sense then.   Get away from the city and tree stands are a great way to hunt in wooded areas if you spend a bit of time finding and understanding game paths.

I'll pass, but thanks for the info. Hate the woods. However, I can see the allure to some. I suppose it is nice in its' own way. Only use I ever had for them was Enduro's. And I have a collarbone that still aches from time to time thanks to a swinging branch that caught my jersey as a reminder of those halcyon youth days on 2 wheeled hysteria.

I am more of a fishing/waters man. Fresh, salt, fly, spinning. Love it all. Love the water.

 So do you fish for food or catch and release? Don't like half of all fish caught and released die within a week? Strange you'd feel bad about deer and not fish.

Well that was convenient for you. Do you reach conclusions and then comment on your own assumptions before an actual reply from people as a rule?

I fish for food. I eat it. And your stat is BS, BTW.
Here is a Maryland study.
Here is another study.
Not 50%, not even near that.

 
Nope. Asking you a a question is not reaching a conclusion. Just did a wiki search on catch and release and that's what I found.  So I asked you the question.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_and_release
 
2013-12-14 11:37:42 AM
RRicochet: Only the Indians hunted reasonably.

I am pretty sure that giant sloths, short faced bears, sabertoothed tiger, California tapir, the mammoth, as well as several species of llama, bison, peccaries, oxen and the mastodon would like disagree with your moronic statement.
 
2013-12-14 12:13:47 PM

CarrieWhite: I have no idea how anyone could get a thrill from shooting these beautiful animals.


Yeah. We should let them live unchecked. We can just manage their numbers by letting them starve or hitting them with our cars.
 
2013-12-14 12:33:02 PM

umad: CarrieWhite: I have no idea how anyone could get a thrill from shooting these beautiful animals.

Yeah. We should let them live unchecked. We can just manage their numbers by letting them starve or hitting them with our cars.


I wonder how they managed before we humans came along to save them.

img.fark.net
 
2013-12-14 12:42:27 PM

edmo: I wonder how they managed before we humans came along to save them.


I'm more about saving my car or my life. Deer kill quite a few people in cars every year. You tards want it to be even worse. Go spend a few years living in the sticks to see what it is like or STFU.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report