What have I gotten myself into now? Anti-hunting debate again?

Home > What have I gotten myself into now? Anti-hunting debate again?

Thanks a lot, Holly! It was all because of your post, and the trouble you had getting your comments approved on Michael Markarian’s Huffington Post blog.

I had to go over there and try to get my own two cents published. Of course, mine went right on up there, and I got challenged (politely and respectfully), and now here I am embroiled in the same old debate I’ve been having for a couple of decades now… just on a whole new podium.

It’s a real challenge making a reasonable reply in 250 words or less, and I hope I don’t end up looking like a fool. If I do though, I’m still blaming Holly. If she hadn’t posted about Markarian’s blog, I’d never have even gone over there in the first place!

Reply

T.Michael Riddle

Posted June 15, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Lordy, lordy Phillip,
You truly are a glutton for punishment, those people have their minds made up over there, and all of the logical, science based and sane arguments which you have presented to them, are not gonna’ change their sentiments anytime soon.

But, I understand, you have to at least try!

Just like the fact that how many times must we tell them that the phrase “Canned Hunting” is not a legal term and gets thrown out of court every time!

Even supposed hunters (who, self admittedly, haven’t even hunted for over 20 years) still insist on using “Canned Hunt” in every other sentence as well as fully believing that internet
hunting actually exists!

Just as so very many people believed in the (People who woke up in a bathtub full of ice only to find that they had been robbed of their kidneys and liver) L.O.L. too much!
Reply

Albert A Rasch

Posted June 15, 2009 at 5:16 PM

Phillip,

If I wasn’t working 12s I would take the time to respond to that M fellow. Maybe towards the end of the week.

Regards,
Albert
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles.
Where do Donations to the HSUS Go?.
Reply

T.Michael Riddle

Posted June 16, 2009 at 1:55 AM

The Huffington site will not let me comment Phillip!
I have tried several configurations and the site will not let me in to post a comment, I have to enable cookies? no thanks!

I am very easily traceable through other means without enabling “That” dreaded feature on my e-mail address.

If Mr. Markarian was even the slightest bit interested in intelligent dialog it would not be so hard to allow individuals to comment on his essay about “Pay to Kill” “Pay To Play”‘.

My comment would have been, (If allowed to be posted) that every bit of the sport of hunting and our necessity to eat is pay to kill and pay to play.
All the way from us paying a slaughter house to do our killing for us, and also deep into the amount of money we pay to the State each year for Tags, Licensing Fees, Ammo and Firearms Taxes.
And even paying extra fees on top of our taxes, for access to our very own public lands ie: Los Padres National Forest down by the Liggett area.

Yourself and Holly as well as the actual data has revealed that internet hunting is just an urban legend and nothing more.
The term “Canned Hunting” is a made up name which P.e.T.A. coined back in the 80s in order to stir up the flames of controversy, and has no legal weight whatsoever.

When will people ever learn?
Reply

Arthur

Posted June 16, 2009 at 4:26 AM

I can’t comment on the site either for some reason. It looks like we have a pretty decent debate going on over there, though. I realize that it doesn’t all fit our ideals and beliefs, but I’m honestly impressed that it is civil and well thought out.

That being said, though, don’t give up yet, Phillip. Keep it going for all of us who can’t comment for whatever reason.
Reply

T.Michael Riddle

Posted June 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM

P.S.
This internet hunting bandwagon which the antis seem to have jumped upon is just another example of how they operate.

Choose something which they can lobby about that no one will challenge, and when they have successfully lobbied and won their little victory, it will be one more item of which they can point to and publish in all of their propaganda literature.
Along with the standard statements of: Look what we did, we were instrumental in the banning of this loathsome practice of Internet Hunting!

It is proven that (No One!) is even doing this type of hunting venture since the originator shut it down several years ago!

Great idea, spend the taxpayers money to ban something which does not even exist!
Reply

Phillip Loughlin

Posted June 16, 2009 at 2:44 PM

The discussion is worth having. You’ll never change the minds of the anti-hunters, but it’s a valid exercise to challenge the myths and misinformation that are presented to non-hunters. That’s why I keep doing it, and I’m thankful for other folks, like Holly, who keep at it even when it can be downright overwhelming.

As far as the Internet Hunting, yeah, it’s a straw man. The thing that pisses me off is that it was hunters who shut it down, before the HSUS or PETA even got their armies up in arms.

But in the interest of factual information, the technology definitely does exist. This was a real thing, and it would have become reality if hunters hadn’t stepped up to draw the line.

A lot of people would like to draw the same line at high-fence hunts. Honesty, logic, and facts… that’s the only valid currency in this debate. Don’t let them drag us into the name-calling and myth-making game.
Reply

pupp

Posted January 22, 2010 at 4:29 PM

anti hunters are over rated they don’t know what its like to go out day by day to get trophy so tell this to an anti hunter and then ask your self WHAT DID I GET MYSELF INTO!!!
Reply

krell

Posted November 7, 2011 at 2:39 AM

Sport hunting is legal murder. There are no ethics in it, let alone morality. The prime motive is not hunger or survival. It’s pleasure. Hunters kill because they enjoy doing it. Have to. It makes them feel good. They kill millions of animals they do not eat. And the industry behind them makes a hefty profit. Hunters will forever claim they love and respect nature, yet they needlessly slaughter the best it has to offer. Such love. It’s not a “sport.” It’s more like a war. You have the snipers and you have their unwitting targets. But in this particular war, the other side can’t shoot back. The brutal and cowardly couldn’t ask for more.
- Reply
  
  Phillip Loughlin
  
  Posted November 7, 2011 at 5:53 AM
  
  Some interesting thoughts, there, Krell. And of course you are not the first to type them up…
  
  I can’t much argue with your personal feelings about hunting, sport or otherwise, because they are your own. I won’t judge anyone for holding tight to their convictions, even if I don’t agree with them… but that only goes up to the point of calling names.
  
  I’ve known a lot of hunters in my lifetime, and one thing I can say with some certainty is that “brutal” or “cowardly” aren’t adjectives I would use to describe many of them. The implication is unfair, and it stems from the same sort of ignorant prejudice as racism. Raise yourself above that. You don’t have to like what hunters do, or even agree with it. But don’t be blinded by your ideals to the point of failing to recognize that, despite the differences in how we see our relationships with animals, we’re all still free-minded individuals here.
  
  You don’t KNOW what motivates hunters. Hell, I don’t even know to the point of making a blanket statement. But think, instead, about what motivates you. Why do you feel the need to anonymously post this sort of comment on a hunting blog? Do you think that saying this sort of thing, protected by the buffer of the Internet, is going to change anything for the better? Do you think it lends credibility to your arguments? Whose mind are you trying to change, or is this more like a drive-by shooting and you don’t much care who gets splattered with your ignorance and hate?
  
  If you think you’ve achieved some moral high ground, you may want to revisit your position. With this sort of generalized bigotry, you’ve lowered yourself into the cesspool. Are you really interested in wallowing in it? If that’s the best you’ve got, then you can move along. It won’t be tolerated here.
  
  If you’re interested in a civil discussion, or even debate about hunting, then you’ve come to a good place. We’ve had this conversation before, but we do so from a position of mutual respect and intelligence. Many of the readers and participants on this blog come from some pretty varied backgrounds, and you might be surprised to find your preconceived notions challenged at every turn.
  
  The ball is in your court. Just remember, if you can’t get above the petty, personal attacks and name-calling, my finger is on the delete key.
Reply

krell

Posted November 10, 2011 at 2:59 AM

No, Phil, I am not as naive to think that words are going to change the minds or reach the hearts of those who take joy in killing. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be said.

It’s odd and also ironic that you or anyone would, with “certainty,” not call “brutal” the act of those who gladly choose to fire projectiles into the bodies of relatively innocent living beings. And it’s my “implication” you cry as “unfair,” but not the needless destruction of the animal. From what you’re saying, you see no brutality in shooting something to death. Takes a brutal person to commit a brutal act, especially more than once. We are what we do.

Of COURSE we know what the hunter’s motive is: He enjoys shooting animals, else he wouldn’t do it. It doesn’t matter exactly why, or what specifically goes through his mind when he pulls the trigger.

On the other hand it’s hunters who don’t seem to grasp what the ANTI-hunters motives are. Simply put, we’re opposed to recreational murder, and murder in general. The abolitionists were opposed to slavery even though it was legal to own slaves. Being legal doesn’t make it right or moral. Morality is not something you tailer to suit your personal pleasures.

Then you mention “hate,” as if what hunters do in committing needless violence was less hateful than my opposing it. This, among some of your other comments, is why there can never be a reasonable discussion between those who believe in live and let live and those who believe in killing. It requires something else.

I think what I’ve said here was quite civil and does not lower me into a “cesspool” any more so than than your personal comments to me.
- Reply
  
  Phillip Loughlin
  
  Posted November 10, 2011 at 6:09 AM
  
  First things first, Krell. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human by a human. You can call sport hunting slaughter, or bloodletting, or any other emotionally charged word you choose. But murder is simply an incorrect and ridiculous cliche.
  
  Secondly, brutal also carries a pretty distinct definition, although at least I can see where that perception would come from to someone ignorant to the realities. However, I’d challenge that perception because I know the truth. There are, indeed, brutes in the hunting community… those who relish death and killing for the simple sake of taking lives. They are a minority, but to deny their existence would be pretty stupid. But there are brutes in most walks of life. Hunting hardly has the market cornered there. Hunters are people, just like anti-hunters. The community includes good people and bad… criminal and paragon. That hardly defines the community.
  
  The argument that you somehow “know” the hunters’ motive for hunting is ridiculous. No one can know another’s mind, which is completely evident in your (intentionally) misguided belief that the whole mindset cooks down to the enjoyment of shooting animals. You have no interest in understanding more than you want to understand, especially if it challenges your moral position, and there’s the problem in a nutshell. Your mind is closed, and you are unwilling to consider any ideology other than your own. The suggestion that hunting is hateful, or the implication that we hate the animals so we kill them… that’s simply ignorant. Hate has nothing to do with it. Again, you are speaking through the blinders of your personal belief. You are a bigot.
  
  Remember that slavery was abolished because it was wrong to treat humans like animals. This oft-repeated argument from the anti-hunting faction that somehow the abolition of slavery and the abolition of hunting are equal concepts is fatally flawed. I’m not sure why you folks keep falling back on it. Many once-lawful behaviors have been outlawed, but many more continue unabated. What the hell that has to do with anything eludes me. Laws come and go. Ideas come and go. So how does that prove a point?
  
  What you are doing, Krell, the same as the other dogmatic anti-hunters I’ve known, is trying really hard to push your form of religion on those of us who believe differently. You can call it what you want, but that’s the truth of it. You have a belief system that is based on some emotional ideal, and you are working to impose that system on non-believers… as forcefully as you can. If you can’t make us believe, then you will try to use the rule of law to force compliance. That’s oppression, my friend, pure and simple. The upshot is that people who believe as you are a distinct minority in this country. I’m thankful, at least, for that.
  
  On the other hand, no one in the hunting community is trying to force you to become a hunter, or even to eat meat. You are free to pursue life according to the direction of your own moral compass. You can believe what you want to believe. But your freedom to swing your ideological fist ends at the tip of my nose.
  
  For my part, I am willing to wallow in the cesspool if necessary to challenge baseless and misguided statements like those you have made here. I won’t leave them unanswered, even though I may dirty my hands in the process. But now I’ve spent more time with you than I have with any other door-to-door evangelist, so I’m closing the door. You’ve had your say. If you have something to present besides your baseless “moral” arguments, this is your opportunity. If you can tell us why hunting is “wrong”, or explain the harm it causes, someone might be interested in that discussion. However, if the best you’ve got is to spew your hatred for our ideology, then your welcome is worn out.
Reply

krell

Posted November 11, 2011 at 2:12 AM

I’ll attempt to address some of what you wrote. But how about an honest try in defending hunting instead of your demeaning distractions? Your approach comes off like the tactics of a defense attorney using obfuscation and diversion to undermine the case against his client and have his victim appear at fault. “There are brutes in most walks of life” you say, as if that excuses brutality. But there so happens to also be no brutes in many other walks of life beyond hunting. And as for the legal term “murder,” the act itself, whether committed on a human or non human is exactly the same. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

Then you present the persecution angle, that we’re trying to push our “religion” and morals on hunters and oppress them by wrongfully limiting their freedom. Limiting needless killing is the cause. Nothing else. You of course can believe or think what you want, but when a 12% “minority” does what it pleases with a national heritage called wildlife, which belongs to all of us if anyone, they are infringing on other’s “beliefs” and other’s heritage as citizens. It has indeed become an emotional issue, and will continue to be as long as the freedom to kill for pleasure continues. Emotions are not “baseless.” They’re generated by ideals and morals and empathy, and a sense of right and wrong that separates us from the rest of nature. What morality is there in killing for fun? What gives anyone that right? Or do you believe sport hunting is not fun? You have not addressed the plainly specific points of WHY hunting is opposed by an ever growing number of folks. Instead, you choose to make denigrating comments and flagrant accusations. I have not done that with you, but I will dare to say now, based on what you wrote, that you’ve been rather personally more offensive than I expected.

What’s wrong with hunting you ask. The answer is the same thing that’s wrong with the needless killing of any individual being, along with the countless animals crippled and wounded by hunters. This is not to mention hunting being the cause of deer “overpopulation”; skewing nature’s balance by having wiped out the predators in many regions; killing the biggest and healthiest in a herd (hunters do not select the weakest prey like wild predators do) resulting in a severe weakening of gene pools which decimates herds and stresses nature, and the list goes on. Ask any impartial wildlife biologist. Ever wonder why there are always so many deer…even though hunters kill millions every year? It’s called “compensatory reproductive rebound.” Because of the reduction of deer through hunting, there is more food available for the survivors. This triggers an increase in births, often twins and triplets, resulting in another season of an abundance of deer for hunters to mass slaughter.

Everyone knows that hunters enjoy killing. Many of them will admit it. The problem is it’s hunters who are not willing to consider another ideology. They would not put their guns down short of the Almighty himself appearing before them and pointing a finger. And what is their ideology anyway? It is you who’ve lumped all anti-hunters into the same category. The question should be what’s RIGHT about hunting. Your argument is terribly evasive and the same one used by most hunters these days. It seems they have learned to defend their “sport” by talking around it and carefully ignoring critical points made by anyone who dares to challenge them.
- Reply
  
  Phillip Loughlin
  
  Posted November 11, 2011 at 5:41 AM
  
  Krell, what’s to defend? That’s the whole point here, isn’t it? I don’t believe there is anything wrong with hunting, from either a moral or environmental perspective. So far, the most you’ve done is tell me my ideology is wrong and yours is right. Not a lot to build on there, now is there?
  
  Then you come back with the tired and weak arguments about compensatory reproductive rebound that have been fairly well disputed by scientists far more qualified than I. Simple note to that end, however… it was unregulated hunting pressure, along with rapid habitat destruction that nearly removed the whitetail deer from the southeastern part of the United States. It is turban sprawl, and the growth of suburbs (where hunting is prohibited), combined with commercial agricultural practices that have enabled them to return and overpopulate. And now, careful wildlife management, leaning for the most part on hunting as a tool, is creating a reduction in that population. It’s happening, and it’s documented. For most of the rest of the country west of the Mississippi, by the way, there is almost no deer overpopulation problem except in certain human population centers.
  
  I’ve written about five years’ worth of posts on this blog, and a good many of them are directly related to a defense of hunting, both as a sport and as a moral and ethical action. Several of those discussions have centered around your very idea that hunters find killing fun. I’m not going to sit here and try to condense that into a single argument just for you. I’ve done that too many times already for others. Do your own homework if you really care that much. I’ll help… narrow your search by selecting the Category, Anti-Hunters from the drop-down box on the right side of the page. Every question you ask is addressed in these “pages”. And if that’s not enough for you, take a look at some of the other bloggers I’m linked to, and see what they have to say.
  
  The more important thing to remember here, is that I don’t feel a need to shove my ideology down the throats of those who believe differently. I’m not trying to make you, or people like you, hunt. If you don’t like it, don’t do it. As long as you guide your life by your own moral compass, and live according to the ideals you claim to believe in, then I have no qualms with you. I’m not being evasive or closed-minded by telling you that I disagree with you, and that I’m not changing my life simply because you say I should. You simply haven’t made any “critical points”.
- Reply
  
  JAC
  
  Posted November 11, 2011 at 3:38 PM
  
  Krell, you construct a good piece so why stoop to a characterization of defense attorneys which is a mere cariacture? I am a plaintiff’s lawyer. I represent poor people against big companies and insurance companies and I am awash in defense lawyers. American jurisprudence allows that they put the plaintiff to her proof and provide alternate explanations for her damages. It sometimes feels overwrought and phony, but the individual incidents to which I am exposed don’t support a stereotyped generalization, and your indulgence in that analogy does not aid your argument. Indulging in generalities about hunters and hunting is no more availing.
  
  Most of my friends are highly educated liberals. A small number of us shoot, a smaller number of us hunt. I can really only describe my reasons for hunting, though I believe that my friends feel the same. Before I get to those reasons, let me tell you that I agree with you that hunting is not a sport. Not by my definition. I am likewise sympathetic to your analogy of hunting to sniping. And I agree that the animal has limited recourse, generally none, except in the case of feral pigs which can be dangerous.
  
  I used to be sympathetic to your panentheistic view that every creature is a being just like me. For a long time I held that view, until ultimately, I stopped being any kind of theist. Accordingly, I now reject the notion that hunting is needless killing. I don’t see the distinction between my hunting or the hunting done by any other predator.
  
  I similarly reject the notion that all hunters enjoy killing. I don’t. I enjoy shooting. I like breaking clays and I really like the concentration and precision that bench rest shooting requires. But I don’t enjoy killing animals. I spend a lot of time thinking about how the killing is done. I think about what it must be like for an animal to have a bullet crash through its shoulder, take the top off its heart and destroy its lungs. It is sobering to the point of making me sorrowful
  
  This brings me to the reasons I hunt. I do it because I eat meat. Several years ago, I became aware of factory farming and the cruelty built into its business model. A few PETA videos, a few articles in the Atlantic, some debates featuring Bil Maher and I decided that if life was going to be rendered into meat for me to eat, I would do it myself. Not to put too fine a point on it, I hunt so that I don’t foment factory farms. I don’t want to be the reason farm animals are tortured during their lives and deaths. I don’t want to be the reason immmigrants subject themselves to inescapable servitude in slaughterhouses. And I hunt because I don’t want to be inured to what meat is.
  
  I think that if you cast around a bit, you’ll find that a lot of hunters take my view of things. I’m not trying to convert you, but I do want you to know that geralizing about a bunch of people you probably don’t know just makes you wrong in a fundamental and basic way and it places you at loggerheads with the people you want to convince. Better to hone the point, no?
Reply

krell

Posted November 14, 2011 at 9:19 PM

First off, Phil, no one is “shoving” an ideology down your throat. It is YOUR so called ideology that’s being shoved down the throats of wildlife and the majority of us by a hunting minority that does what it pleases with the entire country’s natural heritage. If I don’t like hunting don’t hunt, you say…as if that’s the answer. That’s like saying if you see some guy beating a dog and he says “If you don’t like what I’m doing just don’t do it.” No. You speak out, at the very least. The issue is what YOU do, not what others DON’T.

You’re dead wrong if you think this issue doesn’t compare to the historical clash between slave owners and abolitionists or any struggle in which beings unjustly dominate other beings. Not all ideals are of equal virtue. And sometimes the victims of certain “ideals” have no voting rights…or even voices. And just what are your “ideals” anyway as regards hunting? Does it by chance have anything to do with going into the woods and being a vital part of nature? It’s sort of spiritual, no? Am I wrong about that? Only problem is, guns are not a part of nature and never will be. They’re thoroughly foreign to it, which makes anyone using artificial weapons against nature an invader and not a part of it. If a gun is a part of nature then so is a tank and a jet fighter. Are they? I’ve also been told by hunters that they’re seeking a certain independent lifestyle in doing their own bidding. But how independent are they if someone else made/built their vehicles, their guns, cell phones, computers, watches, clothing, boots, you name it?

Speaking of “hate,” a word you’ve tossed around here, when you shoot animals you don’t need to shoot, is that an expression of love, or even respect? What worse could you do if you hated them? Love and respect are not conducive to killing. You know what they say: “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” If you express “respect” that achieves the same result as an act of “hate,” then something’s wrong somewhere. Or do you think your bullet is doing a healthy animal a favor?

There was no “overpopulation” problem with deer until relatively modern times after hunters succeeded in wiping out most of the natural predators, and no problem before the advent of modern long range weapons with which one can kill easily and efficiently, like nothing existing in nature. If, as you claim, wildlife management is reducing deer populations, why then are there still always so many deer, and why are feed pots put out so deer will eat, grow and of course multiply. So much for the hunting industry’s concern for reducing game populations. Why would they be concerned? It’s against their interest. Nature has managed itself quite well for many millions of years. There are NO surplus animals in nature. Only through human meddling. To this day in this country they are decimating the few small wolf populations that cling to existence. Why, one might ask. Mostly to increase game animals for hunters. Revenue. Big bucks for the industry and antlered bucks for hunters, not to mention moose and elk.

I gave you some facts, such as “compensatory reproductive rebound,” knowing you wouldn’t like them. But it’s true and with much scientific evidence to support it. A comprehensive study in New Jersey of heavily hunted regions revealed, upon the autopsies of pregnant deer, the fetuses of twins and triplets not seen in non hunted regions and in numbers many times greater than in deer from non hunted regions. Other studies included show that a compensatory process takes effect when deer herds are drastically reduced through hunting. Overpopulation has nothing to do with hunting? It has everything to do with it. Much falls on deaf ears, doesn’t it. Frankly, your “argument” has been a tad narrow. I’ve made a number of “critical points,” but you want things limited to only “facts” in a discussion that calls for far more than that. Do you live only by facts? We’re talking about millions of innocent beings killed and wounded every year. But ya know what — and this may not mean much to you — compassion and empathy are far better companions to justice and goodness than cold facts.
- Reply
  
  Phillip Loughlin
  
  Posted November 15, 2011 at 5:47 AM
  
  Krell.
  
  You’re about to overstay your welcome. You’ve spun your wheels without moving your argument an inch. Your arguments are both uneducated and, honestly, boring. You haven’t said an original thing yet, and what you have said hasn’t changed a lick since the first time I “debated” with an anti-hunter, years before the Internet let people like you spread your lopsided “religion”. You propose an argument rooted in emotion and personal belief because you know that there are no right or wrong answers to it. It’s a long drag down a muddy road to get to the conclusion… and that conclusion is that I can’t “prove” you’re wrong. But here’s the kicker. You can’t “prove” you’re right either. You’ve got nothing.
  
  You want to toss out “facts”, and then ignore my repudiation and suggest that I’ve ignored yours. Compensatory reproductive rebound is an interesting phenomenon, but it has almost nothing to do with the overpopulation problem facing a relatively small part of the country. It’s geographically limited at best, and where it does occur it’s usually linked to all sorts of environmental pressures which may include predation… but they also include habitat loss and human encroachment. Close your PETA/HSUS playbook (I’ve read their little “talking points” guides) and read some real research for a change. I’m not some uneducated redneck, Krell. You’re not going to overwhelm me with the same false data that’s been trotted out in this discussion for almost 30 years.
  
  As far as “facts”. Yes. I insist on facts because what you want is to change my actions. I most definitely reject your ideology, so if you want change the burden is on YOU to prove that hunting is wrong. Calling it “hate” or “brutal” or any of those other loaded words is meaningless. You don’t have a clue about hunting or hunters, either our motivations or our methods, and you don’t want to get one. You know nothing about wildlife management, and what you think you know is educated only by the propaganda of anti-hunting organizations. I could recite your arguments by rote without your involvement. We’ve heard it all before.
  
  Has MY argument been narrow? Yes. Because you haven’t even begun to challenge me here. There’s been no need to expand. All you’ve done is spew repetitive, inflammatory dogma. You’ve said a lot without saying a damned thing at all. So it’s time for you to take it elsewhere. Your trolling days on this blog are over.
Reply

krell

Posted November 14, 2011 at 9:21 PM

JAC:

I appreciate what you say, but there seems to be some rationalizing and inconsistency going on, as I read it. You’re fully aware that factory farms are a nightmare, so you don’t support the suffering involved by abstaining from marketed meat. Good. That’s what stopped me from eating meat. My personal “belief” was more important to me than a particular facet of my diet. (BTW, I too am not a “theist.”) But you also realize, and quite graphically, that being shot is horrific and admit there’s no sport in hunting, yet you personally perpetrate this horror you describe. In other words, you know better but still do it. If I may be frank, and with all due respect, it reads like some sort of attempt to assuage your conscience by denouncing one brand of atrocity, factory farms, but allowing yourself to practice the other, blasting animals. But both are animal abuse.

One might ask, if you cared that much about animals why not just stop eating them and of course stop shooting them. Obviously you’re not willing to sacrifice your pleasure. Instead you sacrifice the animal. Comparing factory farming to putting bullets into animals and blowing open their hearts and lungs, as you’ve well described, does not remove the latter’s abuse. Savage abuse. Simply cutting short the natural life of a wild animal is a kind of abuse. Then there are the millions of animals hunters wound and cripple that die lingering deaths, and those they throw into panics by chasing before shooting. Shooting an arrow into an animal’s liver and waiting a half hour for the black blood to drain until it dies in agony is not abuse? I’ve heard hunters recall shooting a deer in the eye and a pig up the butt and laugh about it. All part of hunting. There’s no difference between a pet duck and a wild duck that warrants murdering either one of them.

I also think you’re being very naive if you honestly believe there are “many” hunters who do not enjoy killing, aka “fun.” Would anyone take all that effort and spend the money required to kill wild animals if they didn’t enjoy it? Let’s be real. It’s only those who don’t hunt who truly do not enjoy killing animals, and the majority of them know they wouldn’t enjoy it. It takes a particular kind of person willing to put bullets into other living beings, and in that sense you CAN categorize hunters. Whatever’s in them that urges acting out this kind of violence does not exist in those who don’t hunt and certainly not in those who oppose it. Psychologically speaking, killers are quite different from non killers, though it may otherwise not be apparent. But amongst themselves, hunters share enough common values and views to be considered a type or group, like any other. One does not need to personally know a hunter or what he’s thinking when he pulls the trigger, or why. We judge others by what they do. The prime motive for almost all “sport” hunters is personal desire (pleasure in one form or another). Many do not eat the meat. You may do it to “inure” yourself, but that is no less a personal desire. You feel like doing it enough to do it. Should personal desire justify killing?

You mention not seeing the distinction between your hunting and any other predator’s. Really? Wild predators have no choice! You do! They must kill to survive, and that makes all the difference in the world. Are you saying that if someone or some thing commits violence and bloodshed then why not you? Is that a philosophy? Secondly, all wild predators ENGAGE their prey and often take real chances. Not from safe distances with guns. You agree with hunting being sniping. Is there honor in sniping what is not an enemy and means you no harm and cannot shoot back? What pride is there in that? In a court of law motive is often the difference between guilty and not guilty, is it not? You say you don’t enjoy killing animals and it makes you “sorrowful.” But you do it anyway! What the…? Tell me something, really hypothetical I know, but I wonder. If somehow your prey could convey to you “Please don’t shoot me I have a family,” would you show compassion and lift your death sentence? Animals don’t want to die either. But they can’t speak. You in your profession are a spokesman for the unfortunates who need a voice. This is what I’m talking about.

Let me reiterate that I have no need to “hone” what I write in the sense that I am not giving a sales pitch or trying to convince anyone to do it my way. I’m old enough to know I will not persuade a hunter to stop hunting. My purpose is simply the input I give and get. Nothing more. All that matters in the real world is what we do and not simply who we believe ourselves to be. Most of us believe we’re good people, right? But I know a psychopath who believes this too and rationalizes all his violent and destructive behavior. Has no conscience to get in his way…but doesn’t know he has no conscience. Is sure he does. Try and explain compassion to him and he’ll prove it’s his with answers that perfectly mimic the element of humanity missing in him. He could make a case for absolutely anything and should’ve been a trial la… I won’t say it. <:) Seems to me you are concerned about animals but not quite enough to refrain from ripping into them with bullets. Anyway, taking life should be a thoughtful matter to be considered by anyone who considers themselves thoughtful. In my opinion, if there is any possible way around killing, one should take that path. Unfortunately for all of us, too many things are finally realized only on deathbeds.
Reply

JAC

Posted November 27, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Ahaaaa. I eat meat and do not anthropomorphize animals, so I hunt – even though it can make me sad. Krell does not eat meat, and does anthropomorphize animals, so he evangelizes on hunting blogs – even though it can make others mad. Makes perfect sense to me. We are both just acting on our world view. And, frankly, if I heard a hunter laughing about wounding an animal, I might evangelize on hunting blogs too.
- Reply
  
  Phillip Loughlin
  
  Posted November 28, 2011 at 5:16 AM
  
  Everyone is welcome to their world view. I’ll even offer a platform for discussion… to a point.
  
  What I won’t offer is a podium for someone like Krell to denigrate hunters, call us cowards and brutes, and offer nothing in the way of support for that argument except more of the same. That’s not discussion. This blog is my “house”, and anyone who can’t show some respect and manners will be quickly shown the egress.
  - Reply
    
    JAC
    
    Posted November 29, 2011 at 3:12 PM
    
    Commendable. Your mile-wide streak of honesty and libertarianism at work no doubt.
    
    Shall we put together a trip?
    - Reply
      
      Phillip Loughlin
      
      Posted November 29, 2011 at 4:55 PM
      
      I’d love to hit the field, John. Timing is a little tricky as we move into December, but I’ll bet we can work something out. Shoot me an email.
  - Reply
    
    Ludi
    
    Posted January 24, 2012 at 2:32 AM
    
    You kill animals for fun…and you want respect?

What have I gotten myself into now? Anti-hunting debate again?

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Phillip Loughlin

Blogroll

Fish and Game Contacts

General

Outdoor Industry and Media

Outdoor News

Outfitters I've Used

Web Forums

Archives
Categories