[TubaMuffins]

my friends and have spent many hours debating this one, there are really good arguments for both sides. What do you guys think?

[benb]

Why wouldn't it be?

[arson]

It is for the animals! It really depends on how you define "sport". It requires skill, it can involve teamwork... yeah, I'd call it a sport.

[davesimondotcom]

No, hunting is a sporting game - hunters are not athletes (or don't have to be). And there is no audience. To me a sport has to have an audience. Otherwise it's a game.

The one exception to this is hunting dogs. Hunting dogs ARE athletes, highly trained, highly athletic and cute too.

This post debticated to my dog Chinook, her best friend Iris and Iris' granddaddy, GMHR HRCH Chugwater Charlie Hill MH "Chug."

[arson]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
No, hunting is a sporting game - hunters are not athletes (or don't have to be). And there is no audience. To me a sport has to have an audience. Otherwise it's a game.

Have you ever seen the guys that curl? They're not exactly in tip-top shape, and that's an Olympic sport! I agree with you on the audience bit though, sports need an audience.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
No, hunting is a sporting game - hunters are not athletes (or don't have to be). And there is no audience. To me a sport has to have an audience. Otherwise it's a game.

The one exception to this is hunting dogs. Hunting dogs ARE athletes, highly trained, highly athletic and cute too.

This post debticated to my dog Chinook, her best friend Iris and Iris' granddaddy, GMHR HRCH Chugwater Charlie Hill MH "Chug."

Uh, why aren't hunters athletes? I'll tell you what, it isn't a simple matter for me to pull a 60 lb bow in 110�F heat many times per minute for several hours... not to mention the part about tracking animals, and whatnot.

Why are hunting dogs an exception?

Yes, hunting is most definately a sport.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by arson:
Have you ever seen the guys that curl? They're not exactly in tip-top shape, and that's an Olympic sport! I agree with you on the audience bit though, sports need an audience.

I never said that curlers were athletes. But curling is a sport.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Uh, why aren't hunters athletes? I'll tell you what, it isn't a simple matter for me to pull a 60 lb bow in 110�F heat many times per minute for several hours... not to mention the part about tracking animals, and whatnot.

Why are hunting dogs an exception?

Yes, hunting is most definately a sport.

Well, I said that hunters don't have to be athletes. Sure, it takes athletic ability to do some hunting activities (pulling a bow, for example) - but most hunters aren't bow hunters. It takes next to no strength to pull a trigger on a rifle or shotgun.

An there is athleticism required to be able to pull a fallen elk hundreds of yards to your pickup. But many people use smaller vehicles for the heavy lifting.

So, like I said, hunters don't have to be athletes, but some may be.

[effgee]

In my book - no. To me, sport is a friendly competition between two evenly matched opponents (players, teams). I don't really feel like getting into the whole philosophical shebang - but as long as you don't have a problem with killing for pleasure - be my guest. Not my thing, I guess.

[fat mac moron]

Originally posted by arson:
I agree with you on the audience bit though, sports need an audience.

I don't really think an audience is needed to define a "sport." I mean, the World Poker Championship has an audience and I certainly don't define that as a sport.

Sculling is a sport, and you can do it alone (time trials).

I'm not sure how you can ACTUALLY define a sport. Skill? Athleticism?

[starman]

Not unless someone tells the turkeys and the deer how to compete against the hunters.

Hunting is NOT a sport.

Mike

[malvolio]

One of my cousins used to bow-hunt for bears.
IMHO, that is a sport.

[TheDisaster]

When a see a deer hanging a person in it's tree, then yes. Unless you count the deer running out in front of your car and you having to swerve into a ditch a sport for them...

[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.

[MindFad]

Sport? I thought it was just killing for fun or food. Where's the sport in it? I don't get a "sporty" feeling from it. A matter of definition, I suppose? Though, I imagine activities in the Colosseum were considered sport, too. Nothing against hunting (for food), but I don't personally see any sport in it by my definition of the word.

[Scientist]

Is bowling a sport? It is similar to hunting in many ways. It may not require much strength to throw a ball or pull a trigger but they both require lots of practice and talent to do well.

But really it all comes down to how you define "sport". I have a solution to this problem. Lets create a rating scale for the specificity of a word so we can better subdivide the grey areas and enhance our communication efficiency.

SportLevel1Sublevel1 - A competition involving an audience and two or more teams all competing by the same rules, under supervision of an audience averaging greater than 3x the number of players. A SportLevel1Sublevel1 requires enough physical ability so that a general member of the public is unable to physically participate without first undergoing more than 6 months of intensive* training.

SportLevel1Sublevel2 - Same as SportLevel1Sublevel1 except only 2 months of training is necessary and such training need not be intensive*.

SportLevel2Sublevel1 - A competition requiring no audience. All teams must abide by the same rules. Training need not be intensive. By this definition chess is a sport.

SportLevel2Sublevel2 - Same as SportLevel2Sublevel1 except cheating is permitted. Rules are still necessary for a sport to be considered under this definition. These rules may be vague. By this definition flag football is a sport.

SportLevel3Sublevel1 - This degree of sportiness requires movement of some sort and must have a name and rules which are not necessarily formalized or followed. They are also not the same for all teams and/or change more than once per 10 sessions. Experience helps but is not necessary to participate. By this definition hunting and racecar driving are sports.

SportLevel3Sublevel2 - This level requires only minor movement. It can be performed from a sitting position, requires 2 or less limbs and less than 10 Calories of extra energy per hour. By this definition self pleasure is a sport.

SportLevel4 - This is any person, place or thing not described above. By this definition hippopotamus is a sport.


*As defined by a bi-yearly commitee appointed by the President of the "Standardized Exchange Management Association of Nomenclature and Technicalities International Committee of Speech".

I hope this clears up some confusion.

[effgee]

Originally posted by Scientist:
By this definition self pleasure is a sport.

Heh. Here's what the book says about this topic ...

Main Entry: 2sport
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 a : a source of diversion : RECREATION b : sexual play c (1) :physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) : a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in
2 a : PLEASANTRY, JEST b : often mean-spirited jesting :MOCKERY, DERISION
3 a : something tossed or driven about in or as if in play b :LAUGHINGSTOCK
4 a : SPORTSMAN b : a person considered with respect to living up to the ideals of sportsmanship <a good sport> <a poor sport> c : a companionable person
5 : an individual exhibiting a sudden deviation from type beyond the normal limits of individual variation usually as a result of mutation especially of somatic tissue
synonym see FUN

[TubaMuffins]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Uh, why aren't hunters athletes? I'll tell you what, it isn't a simple matter for me to pull a 60 lb bow in 110�F heat many times per minute for several hours... not to mention the part about tracking animals, and whatnot.

By this definition you could call NASCAR racing a sport too (obviously I dont think it is). Sitting in an extremely hot car, turning the wheel (not as easy as a regular car, much harder to turn), and an extended period of time. Just because it strains the body does not make you an athlete. Is a construction worker an athlete?
Hunting, I believe is a game.
NASCAR is a race
Sports are matches between two or more evenly matched parties. Baseball wouldn't be a sport if the batter didnt have a bat, it isn't evenly matched.

[ThinkInsane]

I have a hard time considering it a sport, since your 'opponent' doesn't know he (or she) is playing.

[deekay1]

hunting is either a means to get food (only if necessary) or murder.

[::maroma::]

I know for sure that SOME hunting is definitely not a sport. I'm talking about the hunters that load up a gun, climb a tree (with a ladder of course) and hide in a tree house until an unsuspecting "opponent" wanders close enough to be murdered. So the fatass "hunter" just sits there and whacks off until his target comes to be in his cross hairs. I mean, that shite could be done remotely from your fuggin couch via the internet and remote controlled weaponry.

I also find any hunter that uses a gun to be quite lame. Bow and arrow? Much better. Bare hands and a knife or spear? Now THAT'S a hunter.

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I have a hard time considering it a sport, since your 'opponent' doesn't know he (or she) is playing.

some people could argue with that, the animal probably knows its being hunted, it just doesn't want to play...you know they are finding animals to be smarter and smarter all the time. If you've ever hunted you might have better insight to this. Say your with all your freinds combing a heavily hunted area in the forest for elk or something, this isn't really fair to them but these animals evolve and what used to be an easy slaughter is now a very complex game of chess. They know exactly whats going on, and strangely they know what your gun is for too. If you don't have it pointed at them when you startle them they will either walk off or run. If its pointed at them they usually freeze (my experience that is). I aimed a gun at a cyote once and it stopped and started to cry, sounded just like a human, of course I couldn't shoot it, I also had a similiar experience with an elk, it didn't cry it just started to shiver and a few tears, I shot him though, was a once in a lifetime chance, he was a very smart animal...bout 9 years old. One of my Alaskan buddies told me he had the same experience when he aimed at a wolf, then as soon as he lowered the gun it walked off.

So...I don't hunt anymore, I hate it. I also think its more expensive to hunt for food than just buy meat once you pay for the ammo, licencing etc..

[Dubya's Dealer]

Hunting is a rather basic, primal practice. All kinds of animals hunt. I think that if had evolved as herbivores, we wouldn't hunt. Do apes hunt for that matter?

Hunting's primal, anyone can do it. The only rules are to kill, while not being killed. If you want to say it's different because there're rules and you're wearing orange parkas and whatever, so be it.

Sport is all about rules, and may even resemble hunting...it certainly doesn't have to friendly and death is sometimes involved, but it's more about competition between more or less equal oponents. One could argue that bullfighting involves the ritual killing of animals, but it isn't necessarily considered a sport. Indeed its biggest proponents consider it an art, a display of skill and bravery.

[arson]

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

Most Hunters? Where are you getting this load of BS from? I know plenty of hunters, and I myself hunt on occasion. There are laws and seasons for hunting. When people hunt deer, they are in the woods to shoot deer. They don't shoot birds and rabbits, or anything else. And of course, there are jerks that hunt at night and shoot from the road (both illegal), but they are a very miniscule minority, probably less than 1%.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by TubaMuffins:
my friends and have spent many hours debating this one, there are really good arguments for both sides. What do you guys think?

Hunting?

What kind of hunting?

- Job Hunting?
- Fortune Hunting?
- Hunting for Clams?
- Hunting B__ver?
- Deer Hunting?
- Good Will Hunting?
or
- Wabbit Hunting?



It is only a sport if you make it one.

How would one do that?

- Give the Deer a gun?
- Run 6 miles and then shoot?
- Close one eye? <wink>

Game / Sport does it really matter?

Is football a sport? If so, then why do they call it a football game?

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by arson:
Most Hunters? Where are you getting this load of BS from?

I live in Idaho. I know my state.

I know plenty of hunters, and I myself hunt on occasion. There are laws and seasons for hunting. When people hunt deer, they are in the woods to shoot deer. They don't shoot birds and rabbits, or anything else. And of course, there are jerks that hunt at night and shoot from the road (both illegal), but they are a very miniscule minority, probably less than 1%. [/B]

Where I live people shoot everything..anything that moves is fair game to them in or out of season, its not like there's too much law enforcement in the woods. Bunnies, squirels, baby deer, frogs, sparrows, doesn't matter, its Idaho, the white trash state. Many people use birds as target practice outside their home window. 1% follow the law. then again Idaho doesn't have much law its republican

[wdlove]

Yes, hunting is a sport. It take a lot of physical stamina. Shooting is part of the olympics.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
some people could argue with that, the animal probably knows its being hunted, it just doesn't want to play...you know they are finding animals to be smarter and smarter all the time. If you've ever hunted you might have better insight to this. Say your with all your freinds combing a heavily hunted area in the forest for elk or something, this isn't really fair to them but these animals evolve and what used to be an easy slaughter is now a very complex game of chess. They know exactly whats going on, and strangely they know what your gun is for too. If you don't have it pointed at them when you startle them they will either walk off or run. If its pointed at them they usually freeze (my experience that is). I aimed a gun at a cyote once and it stopped and started to cry, sounded just like a human, of course I couldn't shoot it, I also had a similiar experience with an elk, it didn't cry it just started to shiver and a few tears, I shot him though, was a once in a lifetime chance, he was a very smart animal...bout 9 years old. One of my Alaskan buddies told me he had the same experience when he aimed at a wolf, then as soon as he lowered the gun it walked off.

So...I don't hunt anymore, I hate it. I also think its more expensive to hunt for food than just buy meat once you pay for the ammo, licencing etc..

Oh, I have done my share of hunting, all kinds of animals up to and including people (in a combat zone). I just lost my taste for it. I think it's stupid, and unnecessary. But I'm not judgmental about it either. If someone wants to hunt, that's their business, but unless you have no other way to put food on the table, I don't see much point in it.

I don't really care for all the rationalizations that go along with hunting. The 'It helps control the deer population" theory is all well and good, but look at it a little more closely. My county has one of the highest deer populations in the state. We rank number two in New York for car/deer accidents. But a hundred ears ago we also had the highest population of wolves in the state.

The forefathers of todays blaze orange, rifle toting, hunters killed them all off. Maybe if they hadn't killed all the wolves, I wouldn't have to dodge deer on my way home from work every night. The population control todays hunters feel they have to do, is a direct result of the population control hunters did 100 years ago. People need to learn that they need to stop messing with the natural order of things.

anyway, my post was more or less a joke. I usually use that for fishermen. "Wow, you managed to trick the most mindless animal in the world. You must be proud". Although I do still go fishing on occasion.

[effgee]

Originally posted by wdlove:
Yes, hunting is a sport. It take a lot of physical stamina.

Huh? The only stamina required for hunting is to gut the poor schmuck you just killed. As for the rest - you do a whole lotta walking (golf *** comes to mind here) and sitting on your butt (fishing maybe?) - I don't know ...

Originally posted by wdlove:
Shooting is part of the olympics.

I could go along with the mental part - concentration and all - but then the hunters should ask themselves why they need to shoot animals to begin with. No matter how you twist and turn it - unless you have no other way of putting food on the table - there's not really a point to it. ThinkInsane's got it right.

But in the end ... *shrug* ... whatever floats your boat ...


*** - Uuuuuh, business proposal - Old and lazy golfers have golf carts - at Wal-Mart, sick people (<1%) and obsecenely fat people (>99%) have them electro-shopping-carts. How about an electro-hunting-cart? Silent, camouflage paint, ATV-wheels and a little lift thingy under the driver seat so you can get your lazy butt lifted up 3 feet to make the killing easier ... aaaaah, I smell a killer business opportunity - anyone in? Just think of all the options you could sell ... camouflage net, rifle holder, heated seats, GPS ... rrrRRRrrr ... we'd be rich, I tell ya!

[Truepop]

I think hunting is needed. You can argue that your county may have the second highest whatever but we have made it were we have to artificially kill the deer or whatever you are hunting. by killing most the predators of these animals we have take over.

Is it a sport. kind of

"well joe, I maxed out my ear tags for the week end and bagged a 14 pointer."

"Damn Jerry, I only got one doe and a little 8 pointer."

[mike one]

Originally posted by effgee:
In my book - no. To me, sport is a friendly competition between two evenly matched opponents (players, teams).

i back that one up

hunting is actually pretty f�kin stoooopid if you ask me, which you didn't.

[driven]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Well, I said that hunters don't have to be athletes. Sure, it takes athletic ability to do some hunting activities (pulling a bow, for example) - but most hunters aren't bow hunters. It takes next to no strength to pull a trigger on a rifle or shotgun.

Perhaps not, but it does take skill to aim the damn thing at 50 or 100 yards and still hit the target.

Not to mention climbing some damn steep mountain at 4AM in sub-zero temperatures and then climbing a tree to sit on a piece of wood.

(Then you have to shoot from that piece of wood all while trying to not move or fall out of the tree and breaking your neck.)

... then if you get a deer (or other animal) you have to hall this heavy carcus down the mountain and then (again in freezing temperatures) slit it open and gut it out ... and skin it. (And butcher it if you have the skill).

It does take strength ... just not to pull the trigger. :-)

[driven]

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

Those are not hunters. Those are poachers. They are held in the lowest regard by all self-respecting hunters.

Good hunters are also good environmentalists. These morons (poachers) screw it up for everyone.

[quandarry]

I was watching this movie many years back. This group of guys who always go out hunting together weren't have much luck.
They were trudging on thru the woods with their camaflauge gear and their guns getting kind of pissed off with the whole day.
They come upon a small river maybe forty feet across and follow it for a while. Soon they notice another group of hunters doing the same thing on the other side...they stop...they stair at each other without saying a word...stairing...then suddenly both groups at the same time start shooting at each other across the creek.
The rest of the movie has these groups hunting each other...the odd one getting picked off now and then.

now that was sport!

[Krusty]

preamble: I don't hunt. Don't care for it now and never have. BUT, to contest some of what you said:

Originally posted by effgee:
Huh? The only stamina required for hunting is to gut the poor schmuck you just killed. As for the rest - you do a whole lotta walking (golf *** comes to mind here) and sitting on your butt (fishing maybe?)

The amount of stamina needed for hunting varies. I had family and neighbors who hunted when I was growing up. Often they hike for miles through mountains, gorges, across creeks, carrying a heavy rifle and other gear for the day. Definitely not a wussy endeavor and could be likened to hiking with a pack. In fact, often they'd not kill anything and consider a "successful" day just having traipsed around the mountains. Think of the biathlon in the Olympics. Getting your blood pumping hard and then trying to precisely aim a rifle or bow is no easy task.

Originally posted by effgee:

I don't know ...I could go along with the mental part - concentration and all - but then the hunters should ask themselves why they need to shoot animals to begin with. No matter how you twist and turn it - unless you have no other way of putting food on the table - there's not really a point to it.

"why they need to shoot animals to begin with"

This is some of the most backwards logic I think I've ever heard:

Why does the vast majority of the population EAT animal flesh and (even most vegetarians) use animal products such as leather and all sort of animal-based extracts ?? Why don't they have the stomach to actually kill an animal whose products they are using ? Why must these people (and I include myself) distance themselves from animals that are being slaughtered daily so they can have bouncin-and-behavin' hair and a leather iPod case or car seats?

I'm sure this doesn't apply to the deer-spotlighting, shoot-from-the-road variety of hunter .... but some hunter's almost have a quasi-religious experience from hunting, killing and eating an animal that they have patiently tracked for hours and miles on a given day. Not too different from the way many Native American felt about it. Straight to the gory core of the matter ... not sanitized by a picture of Ronald McDonald on the outside of the box or by a pretty cursive font on the label of a high dollar wrinkle remover.

postscript: again, I don't hunt and don't want to. Love to hike though.

[driven]

Just one other point:

For those of you who think it's more "humane" to let animals live free .... consider this.

For some animals (whitetail deer) there isn't enough of a food supply to support a herd without hunting. Ever see a deer starve to death? It's ugly and far less humane than a hunter.

Also: Once deer become over populated they begin to overrun human habitats. (looking for food!) You'll see car-deer accidents increase, flowerbeds turn into salad bars, etc.

Deer can't be hunted like crazy either. There is a balance. This is why there are game limits (sometimes as little as 1 male deer per year per hunter is permitted, female deer (doe) cannot be killed). Most hunters will honor this limit. It's designed to allow for an ideal population of deer to live so that they have sufficient room to live and sufficient food in their habitat. If the deer population shrinks too much (rare) then hunting is suspended for a number of years to allow the population to rebuild. (When this happens it is usually because of a very harsh winter or a drought that kills off the food supply.)

[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??

"Oh wow, look at me. I have a gun, I hide behind a bush and wait for an animal to wander by so that I can shoot them. I'm so strong, I'm so maaaanly". Whatever.

[effgee]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Why does the vast majority of the population EAT animal flesh and (even most vegetarians) use animal products such as leather and all sort of animal-based extracts ?? Why don't they have the stomach to actually kill an animal whose products they are using ?

Talk about backwards logic ... unless you live on a farm, I'd really like to know when the last time was that you went out on a field to harvest/process the wheat for the bread you eat?

Same thing with cattle etc. - they're bred for human consumption (and yes, I do not like the way most of these animals are being held.)

If you had actually read the thread you'd have seen that I agreed with ThinkInsane about hunting being pointless - the killing part makes it worse as long as it takes place in connection with the "entertainment" (hunters having "fun"). As far as people having to put food on their table and/or badly needed population control (done by a real hunter, not some Wal-Mart "gimme-that-rifle-there-schmuck"), that's perfectly fine with me.

What I do have a problem with are people who hunt for the fun of it - you have a pet (dog/cat) at home? How about if I shot that from a sporty distance while it was roaming around your garden - fair game, right?

[ASIMO]

I used to hunt hummingbirds with my .22 from ~75 yards away.

[waxcrash]

I could shut anyone up here that doesn't think it is a sport if I took them clay pigeon shooting. I would laugh as you would miss. It takes skill and reflexes to handle and fire accurately. As someone else in this thread has pointed out - shooting is an Olympic sport. Whether you are shooting a fake target, deer, duck, etc. it takes skill. When it comes to hunting, not only do you have to shoot, but you have to track and call. And whether you need an audience is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
I could shut anyone up here that doesn't think it is a sport if I took them clay pigeon shooting. I would laugh as you would miss. It takes skill and reflexes to handle and fire accurately. As someone else in this thread has pointed out - shooting is an Olympic sport. Whether you are shooting a fake target, deer, duck, etc. it takes skill. When it comes to hunting, not only do you have to shoot, but you have to track and call. And whether you need an audience is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

I agree completely about shooting. I said I gave up hunting years ago, but I still shoot regularly. Anytime you want to pull some skeet, give me a shout, I'm up for it. I've lost my taste for killing things that have done me no wrong, but those paper targets and clay pigeons, well they're a different story.

[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.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by starman:
Not unless someone tells the turkeys and the deer how to compete against the hunters.

Hunting is NOT a sport.

Mike

Ah, so it's not a sport, because you disagree with the ethics?

That's open minded.

BTW - anyone that hutns turkey is a pussy anyway

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Well, I said that hunters don't have to be athletes. Sure, it takes athletic ability to do some hunting activities (pulling a bow, for example) - but most hunters aren't bow hunters. It takes next to no strength to pull a trigger on a rifle or shotgun.

An there is athleticism required to be able to pull a fallen elk hundreds of yards to your pickup. But many people use smaller vehicles for the heavy lifting.

So, like I said, hunters don't have to be athletes, but some may be.

I see, "most". So, you're lumping *everyone* together because *most* people don't hunt in a certain way?

I like to think of it this way - you're not a real hunter unless you go all the way.

I still respect rifle hunters, but not as much as bow hunters; anyone that can carry a rifle and a pack around the wilderness, tracking an animal, shooting it, and taking it back to their campsite, is truly an athlete. Infact, they make the people you consider to be athletes look like complete weakasses.

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.

Garbage.

A) Those people are not hunters.
B) That "most" statement is complete crap - I'd like numbers on that, if you plan on preaching it as fact.

I don't hunt just for the **** of it either. We take a drive a good 15 hours from here, out in the "outback" where the nearest pub's a few hours away.

Get out the bows (I shoot a HoytUSA MtSport @ 60lb - not a hunting bow, I know, but it's my favourite bow. Light, not too big, and plenty of power), shoot a kangaroo, and have some dinner.

No rifles for me.

Originally posted by MindFad:
Sport? I thought it was just killing for fun or food. Where's the sport in it? I don't get a "sporty" feeling from it. A matter of definition, I suppose? Though, I imagine activities in the Colosseum were considered sport, too. Nothing against hunting (for food), but I don't personally see any sport in it by my definition of the word.

Where's the sport in it?

Ever had a wild boar charging at you at top speed? Yeah. Thought not. They're not exactly harmless animals.

Originally posted by TubaMuffins:
By this definition you could call NASCAR racing a sport too (obviously I dont think it is). Sitting in an extremely hot car, turning the wheel (not as easy as a regular car, much harder to turn), and an extended period of time. Just because it strains the body does not make you an athlete. Is a construction worker an athlete?
Hunting, I believe is a game.
NASCAR is a race
Sports are matches between two or more evenly matched parties. Baseball wouldn't be a sport if the batter didnt have a bat, it isn't evenly matched.

...yes, I do consider NASCAR racing a sport...

Heh. Your example makes no sense, either. If neither player had a bat, it would be even... just not between the batter and the bowler.

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I have a hard time considering it a sport, since your 'opponent' doesn't know he (or she) is playing.

Not true (sometimes). Sure, if you're gonna sit on top of your Land Rover with a PSG-1 and take out a boar from over a mile away, they don't know they're playing; but I'm not talking about that sort of "hunting".

Originally posted by deekay1:
hunting is either a means to get food (only if necessary) or murder.

Murder? So, what is it when you use a leather wallet? When you eat steak?

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
I know for sure that SOME hunting is definitely not a sport. I'm talking about the hunters that load up a gun, climb a tree (with a ladder of course) and hide in a tree house until an unsuspecting "opponent" wanders close enough to be murdered. So the fatass "hunter" just sits there and whacks off until his target comes to be in his cross hairs. I mean, that shite could be done remotely from your fuggin couch via the internet and remote controlled weaponry.

I also find any hunter that uses a gun to be quite lame. Bow and arrow? Much better. Bare hands and a knife or spear? Now THAT'S a hunter.

Originally posted by effgee:
Huh? The only stamina required for hunting is to gut the poor schmuck you just killed. As for the rest - you do a whole lotta walking (golf *** comes to mind here) and sitting on your butt (fishing maybe?) - I don't know ...I could go along with the mental part - concentration and all - but then the hunters should ask themselves why they need to shoot animals to begin with. No matter how you twist and turn it - unless you have no other way of putting food on the table - there's not really a point to it. ThinkInsane's got it right.

Obviously, you've never even touched a weapon before, let alone hunted with one.

The only stamina required is gutting it?

Well, do you know what stamina means? Gutting it requires none.

You have to trek around carrying half your bodyweight in equipment; you have to be able to hold a 60lb bow in place (drawn) until your shot is clean. That's after you've been walking all day, up mountains, through swamps, and so forth. In sweltering heat. After tracking an animal, which, again, requires finding the tracks; tracking it successfully; etc.

You know nothing of what you speak.

Originally posted by driven:
Those are not hunters. Those are poachers. They are held in the lowest regard by all self-respecting hunters.

Good hunters are also good environmentalists. These morons (poachers) screw it up for everyone.

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??

"Oh wow, look at me. I have a gun, I hide behind a bush and wait for an animal to wander by so that I can shoot them. I'm so strong, I'm so maaaanly". Whatever.

Oh, hunters are murdering cowards, are they?

Seems to me you're the coward; you use animal products without ever getting your hands dirty, and try not to think about it.

Do you know how animals bred for such purposes are treated? How they are killed? I suggest you find out. Hunting is incredibly humane in comparison.

BTW - hunting does not entail "hiding in a bush waiting for an animal to wander by". Nor using a gun, for me.

You also know nothing of which you speak.

Coward. How's that leather wallet working out for you?

Originally posted by effgee:
Talk about backwards logic ... unless you live on a farm, I'd really like to know when the last time was that you went out on a field to harvest/process the wheat for the bread you eat?

Same thing with cattle etc. - they're bred for human consumption (and yes, I do not like the way most of these animals are being held.)

If you had actually read the thread you'd have seen that I agreed with ThinkInsane about hunting being pointless - the killing part makes it worse as long as it takes place in connection with the "entertainment" (hunters having "fun"). As far as people having to put food on their table and/or badly needed population control (done by a real hunter, not some Wal-Mart "gimme-that-rifle-there-schmuck"), that's perfectly fine with me.

What I do have a problem with are people who hunt for the fun of it - you have a pet (dog/cat) at home? How about if I shot that from a sporty distance while it was roaming around your garden - fair game, right?

Wheat? Are you smoking crack or something, or did you really miss the entire point of the discussion? ...by such a long way, at that?

Ahhhhh, cattle are BRED for human consumption. RIGHT! That makes it SO much better, now, doesn't it?

I guess they're bred to be mindless; painless; right? Wait, no... they're not. Hmm. Wow. What was your point again? Trying to make yourself feel better about eating meat? (BTW - I'm not a vegetarian. I don't need to justify eating meat).

Hunting is not about "entertainment"; while hunters may enjoy it, just because you enjoy something, doesn't make it entertaining.

You may enjoy donating to charities, but is that entertaining? No. Don't confuse the two.

It's far more than that.

Again; you know nothing.

[driven]

Originally posted by Cipher13:

BTW - anyone that hutns turkey is a pussy anyway

[/B]

Turkeys see and hear better than humans and they can fly. They have feathers that are too thick for a shotgun to penetrate. (You have to shoot their head or neck to kill them ... imagine shooting a moving toothpick).

Yeah ... pussys hunt that! <GRIN>

[Krusty]

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

And people who buy the "Eddie Bauer" Ford Explorer with leather seats and wear cosmetics tested on tortured animals to serve their vanity (not even for food or warmth) are more brave? Having the killing of animals out of your view doesn't make a person less of a coward -- it just means they can't look squarely in the face of the fact that animals are killed for their frivolous whims and wants that are no more necessary than the "fun" of a hunter.

Originally posted by Rain:
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??

Hmmm.. there are lots of animals that humans could easily kill in hand to hand combat. So its OK for me to crush a squirrel under my boot ? Rip the head off a turtle ? and pummel a slow-moving sloth to death ? Just as long as I do it with my hands and not a gun, right ?

Originally posted by Rain:
"Oh wow, look at me. I have a gun, I hide behind a bush and wait for an animal to wander by so that I can shoot them. I'm so strong, I'm so maaaanly". Whatever.

Oh wow, look at me, I make enough money to by birkenstocks and upgrade the interior of my car to leather. I hide in a man-made city or sanitary suburb completely removed from the reality that I'm paying other people to do the killing and torturing of totally defenseless animals for me -- not for sport -- but to support my "style" and fashion sense. I'm so pure and innocent.

Originally posted by effgee:
Talk about backwards logic ... unless you live on a farm, I'd really like to know when the last time was that you went out on a field to harvest/process the wheat for the bread you eat?

That's irrelevant Just because there are giant agri-businesses that can provide me with bread much more easily than I could produce it myself has no bearing on whether or not I can or should engage growing food for myself "for fun"

Originally posted by effgee:

Same thing with cattle etc. - they're bred for human consumption (and yes, I do not like the way most of these animals are being held.)

Yes, it is the same thing. What's to stop me from keeping a cow in my yard ("bred for human consumption") and then slaughtering and eating it ? How is that less moral or worse than having someone else do it for me and just going to the store and buying its meat? Sounds like you're saying that since I can buy bread that someone else produced and beef that someone else slaughtered, its "wrong" for me to do these things myself anymore.

Both the examples you gave are based on a phenomenon (agri-business) that is pretty recent historically. As little as 50 years ago many people who didn't live in a city did raise and slaughter their own cows/hogs/chickens and grow their own vegetables ... and still hunted for sport. Was it OK for them to hunt? ... since they raised their own meat and vegetables and didn't really need to ?

Originally posted by effgee:

If you had actually read the thread you'd have seen that I agreed with ThinkInsane about hunting being pointless - the killing part makes it worse as long as it takes place in connection with the "entertainment" (hunters having "fun"). As far as people having to put food on their table and/or badly needed population control (done by a real hunter, not some Wal-Mart "gimme-that-rifle-there-schmuck"), that's perfectly fine with me.

Good point, and well taken. Hunting is "pointless" in the sense that it is no longer necessary to feed ourselves. TV is pointless too .. as are computer forums, video games, music, hobbies, and having a 30 thousand dollar car when a $500 car will get your from place to place just as well. Most hunters are (obviously) hunting for entertainment or "fun". I just think its hypocritical to moralize the issue simply because it personally distasteful to you. Its personally distasteful to me too (I've never done it and can't imagine I ever will) but I don't think there is anything less moral about it than killing animals for the sake of fashionable shoes and or better conditioner for my hair.

Originally posted by effgee:

What I do have a problem with are people who hunt for the fun of it - you have a pet (dog/cat) at home? How about if I shot that from a sporty distance while it was roaming around your garden - fair game, right?

"fair game", wrong. I'd be pissed if you shot my pet dog. I'd also be pissed if you shot my pet deer. The animal involved isn't the question, the fact that it is someone's domesticated pet and not a wild animal is the point

I feel dirty taking the side that I am in this debate since I don't savor the idea of killing anything. But I can't, in good conscience, pretend that hunting for "sport" is somehow intrinsically worse than any of the other ways that we support the killing of animals for unnecessary things.

[TubaMuffins]

First of all, someone asked about apes, they are not herbivores and yes they do hunt, they are really quite intelligent to0 (eg setting up traps, tricking prey)
As for those who consider hunting to be a sport because it requires skill and stamina, well i dont agree. skill and stamina do not make an activity a sport. I believe a sport is competition, including but not restricted to skill and stamina. I believe that it must also include an even playing field (which hunting doesnt) and a sense of competion in all parties. the animal isnt competing, its doing whats natural, trying to survive. if someone was trying to hit you with their car while you were walking on the sidewalk, would that be a sport?
Using populatin control as an excuse to hunt is not a very strong one. If the deer population was left alone, it would eventually die off because food resources would be stressed out and eventually natural predators would regain control. It takes awhile but that's how nature works, has worked and will forever work. It is hard to say that hunting is artificial because we are animals and animals do hunt, but i think that using guns and such is just evolution, not artiificial. It is unfair to say that this natural progression of human is a sport.

[Rain]

Originally posted by Krusty:

Hmmm.. there are lots of animals that humans could easily kill in hand to hand combat. So its OK for me to crush a squirrel under my boot ? Rip the head off a turtle ? and pummel a slow-moving sloth to death ? Just as long as I do it with my hands and not a gun, right ?

Did I say I advocate animal cruelty? No. And I definitely wouldn't consider any of that a sport - remember what the topic of this thread is? "Is hunting a sport?", remember?

Originally posted by Cipher13:


Oh, hunters are murdering cowards, are they?

Seems to me you're the coward; you use animal products without ever getting your hands dirty, and try not to think about it.

Do you know how animals bred for such purposes are treated? How they are killed? I suggest you find out. Hunting is incredibly humane in comparison.

Yes, they're cowards. Anyone who uses a weapon to kill an animal for the fun of it is a coward.

You don't know me. What makes you think I, or other posters on this board, aren't aware of how animals are treated? I have a list of companies I've boycotted because they test on animals *waves list*.

"hunting is humane in comparison" - two wrongs doesn't make a right. One would think someone who is aware of the maltreatments of animals would be a bit more compassionate to animals and NOT support hunting as a sport.

As pointed out by Cipher and Krusty (eg. leather wallets, leather car seats, etc), humans kill enough animals already, do we really need to encourage more killings by making a sport out of it?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by Rain:


Yes, they're cowards. Anyone who uses a weapon to kill an animal for the fun of it is a coward.
"hunting is humane in comparison" - two wrongs doesn't make a right. One would think someone who is aware of the maltreatments of animals would be a bit more compassionate to animals and NOT support hunting as a sport.

As pointed out by Cipher and Krusty (eg. leather wallets, leather car seats, etc), humans kill enough animals already, do we really need to encourage more killings by making a sport out of it?

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.

The maltreatment of any animal, be it through hunting or barbaric executions at a slaughter house is plain wrong. I say we start a petition for killing our food animals through great big hugs! That way we all win. People get to have fun and it will be humane.
Anyway, you keep on boycotting. Its individuals like you and those people not buying French products that are changing the world. And the list, nice touch.
The only real sports are ultimate Frisbee, hackysack, and trying to follow Phish around the country on our allowances.

[effgee]

Originally posted by Krusty:
... that hunting for "sport" is somehow intrinsically worse than any of the other ways that we support the killing of animals for unnecessary things.

That is very true - 100% agreement from me on this one (this and the fact that there' so much ambiguity surrounding the whole "treatment of animals" thing are actually the reason why, earlier in thread, I stated "Whatever floats your boat - it's just not my thing") 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 Cipher13:
*pointless drivel snipped*

(1) Obviously, you've never even touched a weapon before, let alone hunted with one.

*more pointless drivel snipped*

(2) You have to trek around carrying half your bodyweight in equipment; you have to be able to hold a 60lb bow in place (drawn) until your shot is clean. That's after you've been walking all day, up mountains, through swamps, and so forth. In sweltering heat. After tracking an animal, which, again, requires finding the tracks; tracking it successfully; etc.

*even more pointless drivel snipped*

(3) You know nothing of what you speak.

(1) And you know that ... how?? Have we met before?? If you're not sure who you're talking about ... keeping it to yourself is always a good idea.

(2) Good for you. But we're not talking about whether or not trekking qualifies as a sport - we're talking about hunting - and I was specifically talking (complaining) about "entertainment-hunters" - just read the thread, will ya? According to your criteria, even chess will qualify as a "sport that requires stamina" - just go for a real long hike and bring your chess board along. Alternatively, you might want to try the garden chess variety and simply keep running around the board while you play ...

(3) Thanks for the brief summary - your tone confirms my opinion that - in some parts of the world - the process of getting a hunting license should be a helluva lot more restrictive.

You know why I say "some"?? Simply because I happen to know nearly every detail this process entails in my part of the world. Now, take a good guess - why might I know about the requirements to obtain a hunting license in my corner of the world?

[khufuu]

Originally posted by arson:
Have you ever seen the guys that curl? They're not exactly in tip-top shape, and that's an Olympic sport! I agree with you on the audience bit though, sports need an audience.

You have obviously never curled!! When you get into competitive curling, you get a pretty good work out. The problem is with all the booze you consume after the game.