[khufuu]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
Most hunters...

1. hunt at night which is illegal
2. hunt in large groups combing the forest then whoever stumbles accross an animal points shoots, its done...no sport in that.
3. shoot from the road which is illegal
4. intentionally try to blind animals with their headlights then shoot from their truck

So its not really a sport to those hunters 'cause it requires no skill. If the animal has a chance its a sport. I also think it should be required for all hunters to use bows. Pointing a gun at something and pulling the trigger takes no effort.

Although real hunting is what I do...stalking an animal...like a goat, then jumping out and and going " ggghhhhhhhh hissssssss!" and sinking my fangs into the back of its neck. drinking just the blood and leaving the rest.

You must be from Kentucky. Hunters don't do 1-4 at all. What you're talking about are poachers.

[driven]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
True, but people trying to gnaw away at a deer's jugular would make everyone's dental insurance skyrocket. But I do see your point even though I have never shot a gun outside of summer camp.
Artificial solutions to the over population problems aren't right. Thinning out the herd to get rid of the weak specimens is the natural order and we should let that happen naturally. Let them starve and freeze in the cold when there are more than can be supported from the fat of the land. We should just stay out of it, its why I oppose so many social welfare programs.

Too late. The fact is that people have already altered the environment so that the "natural order" is gone. Most of the natural preditors don't exist in these areas. (Should we reintroduce bears, wolves, coyote and other such animals into places like Princeton NJ?)

We are responsible for changing the habitat, we are thus responsible for maintaining it.

[mike one]

Originally posted by osiris:
I love shooting skeet and target matches where I can compete with fellow shooters. But I've never had the heart to kill anything that moonlights as a Disney character.

likewise....


comments about dear population etc..:
there can be an argument made that hunting decreasing the genetic 'stregth'/diversity of deer populations.
by going after the stronger, more pointed bucks (which are the ones that typically forage by themselves) you are killing the strong animals, the ones best equipped to survive and produce good offspring. the ones left behind are weaker, more prone to disease and since they are the only males left those genes get transferred to the next generation....

in my mind hunting is not the environmental cure-all that many hunters cite w.r.t. the deer population...

[driven]

Originally posted by mike one:
likewise....


comments about dear population etc..:
there can be an argument made that hunting decreasing the genetic 'stregth'/diversity of deer populations.
by going after the stronger, more pointed bucks (which are the ones that typically forage by themselves) you are killing the strong animals, the ones best equipped to survive and produce good offspring. the ones left behind are weaker, more prone to disease and since they are the only males left those genes get transferred to the next generation....

in my mind hunting is not the environmental cure-all that many hunters cite w.r.t. the deer population...

You mean the ones most likely to mate with many does and produce a huge number of offspring?

[Krusty]

Originally posted by effgee:
But there's also the point that since we are doing so many real nasty things to animals (wild and/or domesticated) already - is it really necessary to add another one (referring to "entertainment-hunting" here, not "for-food-" or "population-control-hunting")?

Originally posted by Rain:
do we really need to encourage more killings by making a sport out of it?

I would agree with this wholeheartedly if it weren't for the fact that "entertainment" hunting has been around for thousands of years (dating back to ancient Egyptian royalty, thru European royalty's famous fox hunts). It hasn't been "added" to the list of nasty things done to animals and people didn't just "make a sport out of it" recently. All of the other things (cosmetics, the factory-i-zation of chicken, hog, and beef production) are what has been "added" -- in just the last several decades mostly. (effgee: your distinction between entertainment-hunting and population-control/food hunting is duly noted).

I'm NOT saying sport hunting is "OK, 'cuz it been around forever" but I am saying that, if anything, the other, newer means of cruelty should be rolled back first. Especially since the newer types are the ones that remove the end-user of the animal product from the reality that an animal is being killed or tortured to produce their wrinkle cream.
--------------------
But, as Rain pointed out in an earlier post ... this is a huge digression from whether or not hunting is a "sport". I'd still have to say that it is for these reasons:
1) It can require a lot of physical stamina. (in that sense, it could be compared to bicycle racing ... the true "pros" have tons of stamina but that does not exclude amateurs without much stamina from participating in it at their own level)
2) It requires accuracy and precision to do correctly. And that requires practice and perfecting of several skills (shooting, tracking, etc). How is that different from practicing basketball (shooting, dribbling, passing)?
3) It can be competitive, and there can be winners and losers. Which brings up an important point that everyone seems to have missed:
In the "sport" of hunting, the competition doesn't have to be cast as "man with gun vs. defenseless deer". How about "man with gun vs. other man with gun" ? The one who kills the most/biggest/one with biggest horns is the "winner" of the competition. All this "it an uneven fight unless someone tells the turkeys and deer how to compete" philosophy goes right out the window. Medieval fox hunts were a competition between HUMANS for who could find and kill the fox first. Hunting clearly meets the criteria for competition between roughly equally matched "competitors" who are equally equipped and who understand the rules of the competition, if the competition is between hunters. Hunters who hunt alone can then be seen as simply practicing/perfecting the craft.

As distasteful as it may seem to a lot of people ... I think it can definitely be called a sport.

[Invictus]

Olympic type shooting or competitive shooting is a sport.

Killing animals when not for necessity of life is bloodlust. It is just that plain and simple.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Invictus:
Olympic type shooting or competitive shooting is a sport.

Killing animals when not for necessity of life is bloodlust. It is just that plain and simple.

And your problem with that is?

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Invictus:
Killing animals when not for necessity of life is bloodlust. It is just that plain and simple.

Thanks for the detailed reasoning backing up your assertion. I've set rat traps before when I've had mouse in the house. I can assure you it wasn't because I was lusting to kill (it was gross to find my bread nibbled in to). Is someone who wears makeup that was tested on "disposable" animals such as rabbits lusting for blood .. or just callously pursuing their own comfort and fashion ?

[Invictus]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Thanks for the detailed reasoning backing up your assertion. I've set rat traps before when I've had mouse in the house. I can assure you it wasn't because I was lusting to kill (it was gross to find my bread nibbled in to). Is someone who wears makeup that was tested on "disposable" animals such as rabbits lusting for blood .. or just callously pursuing their own comfort and fashion ?

Excuse me sir but we are discussing hunting as a sport. is your brain not functioning properly or maybe you sent it in for repairs. If you think before you post you may come across as having a bit more intelligence than a slug under a rock.

[quandarry]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Thanks for the detailed reasoning backing up your assertion. I've set rat traps before when I've had mouse in the house. I can assure you it wasn't because I was lusting to kill (it was gross to find my bread nibbled in to). Is someone who wears makeup that was tested on "disposable" animals such as rabbits lusting for blood .. or just callously pursuing their own comfort and fashion ?

are you from mars?

[malvolio]

Originally posted by Rain:
People who "hunt" for sport are murdering cowards.

I'll consider it a sport if the hunter goes one on one, hand to hand combat, with the animal. Otherwise, no it's not a sport. How can it be a sport when the animal is totally defenseless??

I refer you to my previous post about my cousin who bow-hunted for bears.
If he missed a kill-shot, he was facing a pissed-off animal that outweighed him by a couple hundred pounds, and had large claws and teeth as well.
Hardly an activity for "murdering cowards."

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Invictus:
Excuse me sir but we are discussing hunting as a sport. is your brain not functioning properly or maybe you sent it in for repairs. If you think before you post you may come across as having a bit more intelligence than a slug under a rock.

Please see my previous posts where I laid out some more reasoned arguments in detail.

As far as "thinking before I post" ... I obviously didn't think much before my last one ... why should I have ? Your statement "Killing animals when not for necessity of life is bloodlust." is your opinion and is backed up by no reasoning, logic, or anything, other than "It is just that plain and simple." --- gee, how erudite and convincing My response was as flippant and unsubstantiated as the post it was responding to.

[quandarry]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Please see my previous posts where I laid out some more reasoned arguments in detail.

As far as "thinking before I post" ... I obviously didn't think much before my last one ... why should I have ? Your statement "Killing animals when not for necessity of life is bloodlust." is your opinion and is backed up by no reasoning, logic, or anything, other than "It is just that plain and simple." --- gee, how erudite and convincing My response was as flippant and unsubstantiated as the post it was responding to.

so when is your next mouse safari?

bwa haahaa haaaaaa....

[Rain]

Originally posted by Krusty:
I would agree with this wholeheartedly if it weren't for the fact that "entertainment" hunting has been around for thousands of years (dating back to ancient Egyptian royalty, thru European royalty's famous fox hunts).

Thousands of years ago they didn't have that many things to do for entertainment.

There is so much more options available today, so there's no reason why sport hunters can't find something less cruel and just as entertaining to do!

H*ll, thousands of years ago watching people kill each other (Gladiator, anyone?) was considered a sport...do you see where I'm going with this? What was condone thousands of years ago doesn't necessarily mean it's appropriate in today's world.

[effgee]



Originally posted by Krusty:
I would agree with this wholeheartedly if it weren't for the fact that "entertainment" hunting has been around for thousands of years (dating back to ancient Egyptian royalty, thru European royalty's famous fox hunts).

Uhm yeah - but there's a number of other "entertainment-related" activities that have/had been around for quite some time - the Circus Maximus in Rome along with gladiator games comes to mind (after all, those were en vogue for several centuries) - and yet we (apparently) don't feel the need to continue these proud traditions either ...