Republican Celebrities

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by dissention

I didn't know that shooting something to death with bullets or arrows could ever be considered humane.

I want to say that I believe bow hunting increases the odds for the animal, there is a greater liklihood of the animal getting away from bow hunting than from gun hunting. Bow hunting requires strength and keen eyesight and patience on the part of the hunter....Gun hunting is weighted much heavier in favor of the hunter, what with scopes, and high power weapons....and the result is instantaneous...

I do think there is some justification for calling bow hunting more humane based on that. Of course, as you said, the end result is still the same, but at least the animal had more of a chance with a bow hunter than with a gun hunter...

[amber]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

is this sarcastic or your real feelings?
because if it is your real position, then I would have to remind you that the increase in the deer population is directly the result of doing away with its natural predator. Whenever you mess with the balance of predator/prey, there are problems. Early settlers were overrun with prairie dogs because they killed to near extinction the coyotes, who were viewed as vermin. Each of these animals has a place in the chain, and fiddling with the numbers of one will have consequences in the other....

But irregardless of the depletion of deer's natural predator, there still is an overrun of deer in certain places. We have already messed with the predator prey balance, but that does not mean we don't have too many deer in some places which causes it's own problems. And again, humans are classicly part of that food chain, it's the large meat farms which throw this out of balance.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Yes, but one is better than two, obviously.

If, say, a thousand people less per month bought meat at the store, then the meat places would lessen their distribution because no one is buying it. But if I thousand more people bought it, then they would have to output a thousand more units of dead animal. That's how it's the same. If you don't buy it, in theory, maybe they wouldn't kill it.

[ontheEdgeof17]

If you think hunting is so bad, tour a slaughter house.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Because I don't think it's right. You don't have to agree with me and you can eat as much deer meat as you want, but I just don't think it's right.

If you are talking about the pure rightness of killing an animal or not, I don't think it's any more right to kill it on a farm and package it for a store than it is to kill it yourself. And I do think it's less humane.

[amber]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Same here! It all sounds kind of exciting until you get to the killing part! I suppose I'd rather play DOOM or something.

Me, too, I loooooove AREA 51

[dissention]

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

But putting down cattle for meat is okay?

Did I ever say such a thing? I think not, dear.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

You try living in the middle of nowhere in the dead of winter. We couldn't make it to the store for weeks on end (no lie). We had to hunt.

I think it's difficult for someone who's always lived in urban areas to understand the day-to-day life of people in rural areas.

I'm in a small town, but (as you know, Curtis) we're surrounded by rural areas around here... so there's no escaping some of the facts of life.
And one of the facts of life around here, is that many people need to hunt for their food, because of the remoteness of the area in which they live.

I abhor hunting for sport, but I have no qualms with hunting for food. I eat meat... for me to have issues with hunting for food would be hypocritical, IMO.

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

I love love love deer meat.

I don't. It has an after-taste that I just can't get on board with.
My parents eat it and love it though... as does most of my family.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by amber

Man raising meat in food farms is an inefficient and detrimental way to grow food. Beef farms are terribly taxing on our resources. And before Europeans brought them over, the kind of meat that humans ate was part of an ecosystem that included humans. In theory, we are not shortchanging any ecosystem by eating a deer, we are a part of the ecosystem. However, cattle farms have been more detrimental to ecosystems than humans eating "wild animals" ever would be. It's called the food chain, instead of the "human constructed mass food farm". And classicly, people who hunted for their food did so in a way where no one species was depleted, by varying their food sources. They would have deer certain seasons, largely fish in other seasons, bison if that was in their area, and much small game (squirrels, rabbits, birds, etc) in other seasons. Very occasionally wolf or big cats, or perhaps a bear. But the meat from the bigger game would obviously last longer. (And also they would eat non meat sources that were plentiful in whatever their environment was.) I think there are many things about what people always ate, and how ecosystems affect each other, and why, that you guys may be unaware of. No offense, but I think you guys are missing something important.

The flaw with your argument is........drum roll........the population being served. When the continent was peopled with Natives that only hunted what they needed the animals far outnumbered the natives. The White man came in WITH HIS GUNS and posed proudly for pictures of piled up carcasses of bison which effectively starved the local natives! We, with our medicine, and our hygiene, and our education will never have the shorter lifespans, and thus more sustainable populations. No offense, but I think YOU are missing something here. The days of the natural food cycle will never be seen again. We've fiddled with the odds to come out on top and now, to feed ourselves, we must raise ungodly numbers of stock for slaughter.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Originally Posted by dissention

Did I ever say such a thing? I think not, dear.

An animal is dying in both.....either by a bullet or a tranq.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

If you think hunting is so bad, tour a slaughter house.

I don't need to, I've seen enough at PETA chapter meetings. Where you got the impression that I seem to approve of slaughterhouses as opposed to hunting is a mystery to me.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by amber

But irregardless of the depletion of deer's natural predator, there still is an overrun of deer in certain places. We have already messed with the predator prey balance, but that does not mean we don't have too many deer in some places which causes it's own problems. And again, humans are classicly part of that food chain, it's the large meat farms which throw this out of balance.

helloooooo, you cant disregard the lack of natural predator! Thats WHY there are too many deer in some places! We will never learn if we dont admit our mistakes!

as for the "classic food chain" our population has thrown that whole process out of whack and necessitated the formation of meat farms....the meat farms didnt come first

[dissention]

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

An animal is dying in both.....either by a bullet or a tranq.

And where did I say I approve of either? All I said was that if there is meat in the store for you to buy and you can buy it, do it, don't kill another animal.

[amber]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

The flaw with your argument is........drum roll........the population being served. When the continent was peopled with Natives that only hunted what they needed the animals far outnumbered the natives. The White man came in WITH HIS GUNS and posed proudly for pictures of piled up carcasses of bison which effectively starved the local natives! We, with our medicine, and our hygiene, and our education will never have the shorter lifespans, and thus more sustainable populations. I think YOU are missing something here. The days of the natural food cycle will never be seen again. We've fiddled with the odds to come out on top and now, to feed ourselves, we must raise ungodly numbers of stock for slaughter.

Just because we've ruined the natural food cycle, still doesn't make hunting worse than buying your meat in a store. Unless you're hunting to make endangered species kabobs, which most people aren't. Most people who hunt for food hunt deer and birds and fish, and possibly rabbits. And for the most part, those things aren't endangered. In fact, many people hunt during "deer season." Obviously, I don't agree with hunting for sport, and hunting big cats and wolves, etc, that are endangered. But that just isn't what most people hunt for food.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

And where did I say I approve of either? All I said was that if there is meat in the store for you to buy and you can buy it, do it, don't kill another animal.

That seems not only hypocritical to me, but I still submit you are killing, or causing to be killed, the same amount of animals either way.
It's okay, though, obviously we will never agree.