How Do You Feel About Hunting?

[Hamar Fox]

Plenty

How?

Hypocrisy is your life........at some point in your history was a hunter do you hate them be you have Vegi's do you use leather fuel etc etc yep just like the Greens Party here hypocrites

Fuel doesn't come from dead animals.

Show me the statistics

It's pretty simple mathematics. The brain and heart combined make up less than 10% of a creature's total body area, but the overall chances go up a bit, since the brain or heart is what's being aimed at.

and then show me the statistics that say a fast moving projectile will not kill instantly even if it misses the Heart ....again you fail

Hunters don't use particularly powerful weapons. The only way a shot could miss the heart or head and still kill immediately would be if it was powerful enough to sever the head from the body or damage the spinal cord.

true how ever we humans made the ship so we could get here......the fox could never get here on its own accord and there in is the reason they are a pest and will be killed......or even exterminated

We agree the fox didn't choose to be taken to Australia. So it's being punished for something it had literally zero control over.

[Herefugol]

...

Do you believe that the foreign fox should be allowed to overpopulate, cause the extinction of large amounts of indigenous fauna, and suffer from starvation when there is nothing to eat? That almost sounds like the horrible state of affairs we humans are dealing with . Limiting the numbers of a foreign predator protects biodiversity and helps ensure the survival of our indigenous animals.

[Hamar Fox]

Do you believe that the foreign fox should be allowed to overpopulate, cause the extinction of large amounts of indigenous fauna, and suffer from starvation when there is nothing to eat? That almost sounds like the horrible state of affairs we humans are dealing with . Limiting the numbers of a foreign predator protects biodiversity and helps ensure the survival of our indigenous animals.

I like how this argument is used so frequently. I suppose when humans reduce virtually every wild species to the brink of extinction, it's just because we're 'preserving biodiversity'. Humans have proven beyond all doubt that it's better they don't meddle with nature. I'm sure every person who killed a tiger thought 'Well, I'm just controlling the population', but that didn't stop the species from now being next to extinct. Humans shouldn't import wildlife, but they also shouldn't punish that wildlife for their own mistake. They certainly shouldn't try to 'correct' their mistakes, because invariably they'll make things that much worse.

[Herefugol]

I like how this argument is used so frequently. I suppose when humans reduce virtually every wild species to the brink of extinction, it's just because we're 'preserving biodiversity'. Humans have proven beyond all doubt that it's better they don't meddle with nature. I'm sure every person who killed a tiger thought 'Well, I'm just controlling the population', but that didn't stop the species from now being next to extinct. Humans shouldn't import wildlife, but they also shouldn't punish that wildlife for their own mistake. They certainly shouldn't try to 'correct' their mistakes, because invariably they'll make things that much worse.

Believe what you want. Yes, it was a mistake bringing rabbits into this country, but we can still do our best to correct or reduce the problem. If it weren't for Myxomatosis to reduce the rabbit population, many native Australian animals such as the bilby would surely be extinct by now.

We've had situations here where animals have exploded in population and have used up all the available food, and ended up starving and suffering. Culling a population actually means less suffering, mate. It is not "punishing" them.

If we follow your logic that it's "our" collective fault and we must live with it, then perhaps that also applies to Germanic preservationism: that we should just put up with the destruction of our people and our culture for allowing this to happen in the first place.

[Hamar Fox]

Believe what you want. Yes, it was a mistake bringing rabbits into this country, but we can still do our best to correct or reduce the problem. If it weren't for Myxomatosis to reduce the rabbit population, many native Australian animals such as the bilby would surely be extinct by now.

We've had situations here where animals have exploded in population and have used up all the available food, and ended up starving and suffering. Culling a population actually means less suffering, mate. It is not "punishing" them.

Any kind of human interference will result in the expansion of one species at the expense of another. Which species deserves our sympathy and which doesn't boils down to POV. Nature is a series of knock-on effects. But one thing is definitely clear: Without human intervention, biodiversity would be far, far greater than it is presently.

Reducing fox populations will increase rabbit numbers, which will increase competition for native fauna, which will result in reduced numbers of the latter, and will also result in increases in predators, therefore less rabbits, therefore less competition and so on. But hunting ensures absolute numbers are always lower than they have to be.

If we follow your logic that it's "our" collective fault and we must live with it, then perhaps that also applies to Germanic preservationism: that we should just put up with the destruction of our people and our culture for allowing this to happen in the first place.

Well, not exactly. I don't think we should take sides in other species' fight for survival. We should of course take our own side. Now I suppose that needs clarifying, considering I've not taken humanity's side in this thread. Well, I actually would take a Germanic or Celtic's side over animals, if the threat was literally us or them. But I don't take, say, a Chinaman's side over an animal's. And also, since there's virtually never an 'us or them' situation between animals and Germanics/Celts, I advocate coexistence and as little interference as possible.

[Zimobog]

Do animals concern themselves with biodiversity and extinction? I wonder if a fox with a rabbit in his teeth ever wondered if he'd caught "the last one".

Any kind of human interference will result in the expansion of one species at the expense of another.

Or a comet from out-space could crash into the planet and kill off 90% of the organisms, resulting massive restructuring of the food chain. But you never hear greenies trying to save us from comets.

The issue I have with most of the type of thinking I see with non-hunters is the belief that man should live in plastic bubbles away from nature (because, that man is not apart of nature) and has no buisness participating with animals, or that animals are going to be "ok" if only humans are to leave them alone.

Actually, any fox I don't get is going to eventually have his liver torn out by a coyote or wolf or be extracted from his den by a black bear and defecated out two weeks later. But greenies are ok with that, too.

[Neophyte]

I really don't hunt, but if it were between me and the bunny there would be rabbit stew.

[Hamar Fox]

Do animals concern themselves with biodiversity and extinction? I wonder if a fox with a rabbit in his teeth ever wondered if he'd caught "the last one

This is irrelevant, since I'm not arguing from nature's perspective (which is indifferent to everything), but rather from an ethical and aesthetic perspective. Less biodiversity means the world has less aesthetic appeal to me. And my ethical objections are already known.

Or a comet from out-space could crash into the planet and kill off 90% of the organisms, resulting massive restructuring of the food chain. But you never hear greenies trying to save us from comets.

An analogous argument: I should be allowed to kill someone because he might get hit by a bus tomorrow anyway.

The issue I have with most of the type of thinking I see with non-hunters is the belief that man should live in plastic bubbles away from nature (because, that man is not apart of nature) and has no buisness participating with animals, or that animals are going to be "ok" if only humans are to leave them alone.

Man straddles both a natural and anti-natural existence, as suits him. Man can live amongst nature and submit completely to its laws or he can defy nature. What he can't do is attack nature on a fundamentally unnatural level (insofar as his activities and their effects have no cognate in non-human nature), such as through chemicals, machinery, concrete and steel, the splitting of the atom etc. and also attack it on a natural level (such as through hunting). The consequences are obvious. Man weakens nature through anti-natural acts and developments (ridiculously massive deforestation, acid rain, river pollution, toxins etc. etc.) and then delivers the finishing blow through 'natural means' (if shooting them in the face for commercial gain is truly natural). Man then pats himself on the back for defeating a foe 'fair and square' and oh so naturally.

But OK, let's forget about animals for a minute. How does it benefit humans for nature to be destroyed or reduced?

Which do you prefer:



or



So it doesn't even benefit humans for human activity to go unchecked.

Actually, any fox I don't get is going to eventually have his liver torn out by a coyote or wolf or be extracted from his den by a black bear and shit out two weeks later. But greenies are ok with that, too.

That's fine for reasons stated above.

[Anselm]

Fox are famed for their intelligence and cunning. I wouldn't say that fox have a mental capacity anything like a human; truly apples and oranges there. A human matching wits with a fox (or even a 'yote or wolf) is going to find himself on the short end of the stick a lot of the time.

You make it sound as if a foxes are eating humans and that's inane. Moreover, I can't believe we're on a forum where swearing is unacceptable, but posting pics of pitiful, bloody little carcasses is fine.

Actually, any fox I don't get is going to eventually have his liver torn out by a coyote or wolf or be extracted from his den by a black bear and shit out two weeks later. But greenies are ok with that, too.

You just said earlier that foxes can outwit humans, now you say they’re all dumb enough to end up as bear feces? I don’t buy it. I think you just like dangling their bodies in photos and selling them.

I'm not a greenie btw. Al Gore’s hypocrisy is phenomenal. He owns a cattle ranch and that is among the most destructive things for the environment.

I also love my guns.

Most thugs I ever met were city folks, that did not hunt at all. I wonder if the guy torturing the possum is even still 'hunting', as that does not sound like any hunting I ever heard of.

And most any of these city boys, you’re making a distinction of, go to canned hunts that "good" country folks are glad to provide or hire a good country guide. Or they belong to a hunting club rented to them by country land owners.

I'm from the country, and my friend that quit hunting is as country as they come---he used to play softball with us barefoot. We called him shoeless joe jackson lol. There are good and bad people, be it rural or urban.

Is letting animals and people starve and die a cruel death empathy?

Starve? That's pretentious.

Every hunter I've ever met still takes his kids to McDonalds on a regular basis. I'm sure that some hunt only what they need and have principles against the cattle industry.

But I think there's a "mocking line" among them, if that makes sense? They can't cross it always want to distance themselves from animal rights or compassion for animals. It shows weakness to them. They prefer a hard heart.

Most hunters contribute far to saving the environment and habit of wild animals than any anti-hunter. Most really do care for being outside and nature that is what draws them there in the first place.

That's good, but you make it sound as though the hunter’s motivation for preservation is noble. He wants them to be around so he can kill more of them.

It’s rather like a pedophile making certain that children continue to thrive.

[SpearBrave]

And most any of these city boys, you’re making a distinction of, go to canned hunts that "good" country folks are glad to provide or hire a good country guide. Or they belong to a hunting club rented to them by country land owners.

As well they should be glad it is added source of income that is much needed in rural areas. Beside most people that can afford a canned hunt are not the thug type in any sense.

I'm from the country, and my friend that quit hunting is as country as they come---he used to play softball with us barefoot. We called him shoeless joe jackson lol. There are good and bad people, be it rural or urban.

You say you are from the country you should very well know the relationship the country people have to animals whether the be livestock or game. It is a relationship of respect, the hunter and farmer respects the animals and views them as food.

Starve? That's pretentious.

I know what happens to the deer population if it is not culled by hunters. They used to ban hunting in all state parks here. They deer became so over populated that they starved and even destroyed the environment around them. Don't try the bit about natural predators because man is also a natural hunter. Besides the area I live in was not a historic range for wolves.

Every hunter I've ever met still takes his kids to McDonalds on a regular basis. I'm sure that some hunt only what they need and have principles against the cattle industry.

Well I for don't eat McDonald's period for health reasons. I am however very much for the grass fed beef industry

But I think there's a "mocking line" among them, if that makes sense? They can't cross it always want to distance themselves from animal rights or compassion for animals. It shows weakness to them. They prefer a hard heart.

I like talking about rights and what they are. Do you know if animals have rights did the form a congress and set written laws in place to foster these rights?