0
   

Are YOU A HYPOCRITICAL ANIMAL LOVER

 
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 09:35 am
Re: Are YOU A HYPOCRITICAL ANIMAL LOVER
wattsie wrote:
... ( Have a look at some of the adverts on racing cars etc ).........
I am still trying to make sense of this from the first post Confused Laughing
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 09:36 am
cjhsa wrote:
parados wrote:
No, you aren't part of the cycle of life until you do your own dying.


We are all dying. Is that a threat parados?

(edited to add): I think parados didn't get his morning bacon.

Hunting doesn't make you part of the cycle of life. Rolling Eyes It doesn't change a thing about the cycle of life you are part of.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 09:37 am
Re: Are YOU A HYPOCRITICAL ANIMAL LOVER
TTH wrote:
wattsie wrote:
... ( Have a look at some of the adverts on racing cars etc ).........
I am still trying to make sense of this from the first post Confused Laughing


Road kill dog food...
"We run em over fast and bag em for your pets."
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 09:42 am
parados wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
parados wrote:
No, you aren't part of the cycle of life until you do your own dying.


We are all dying. Is that a threat parados?

(edited to add): I think parados didn't get his morning bacon.

Hunting doesn't make you part of the cycle of life. Rolling Eyes It doesn't change a thing about the cycle of life you are part of.


It sure does. You'll never get it until you try. I also garden.

Does buying celophane wrapped meat and "organically grown" veggies somehow make you closer to the cycle of life than me? Hardly.

You're not even close.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 09:49 am
I take it that your garden is not organically grown. You should really cut down on those pesticides. They are not good for you.

I get my meat at the grocery store. No waiting.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 09:51 am
There is a difference between being close to the cycle of life and being part of the cycle.

But you wouldn't understand that either.



whoopie.. you garden!! Loookie ma.. I gots me a tomato from a plant I bought at a green house. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 10:12 am
Actually we are seed savers and have consistently grown heirloom varieties year after year of all sorts of fruits and vegetables. We compost and recycle. We hunt and fish and eat what we harvest.

Every bird brained environut, when it gets right down to it, will realize that harvested game animals are the most environmentally sustainable source of protein, at least for those willing to harvest AND follow the rules.

What would you rather eat? A venison backstrap you harvested yourself from the forest, or a factory processed piece of beef from a cow you have no idea about? I'm a carnivore, I'll eat either, but I know the venison is much better for me.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 10:14 am
And one more thing. Just because we have effectively removed ourselves from the food chain by being at the top, that doesn't prevent us from getting eaten once in awhile. See the news from the San Francisco Zoo recently, or the Grizzly doofus that got devoured by the bears he "loved" so much.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 10:24 am
cjhsa wrote:


Every bird brained environut, when it gets right down to it, will realize that harvested game animals are the most environmentally sustainable source of protein, at least for those willing to harvest AND follow the rules.


It would not even be close to sustainable if even one tenth of humans tried to get their protein only from harvested game animals.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 10:26 am
Re: Are YOU A HYPOCRITICAL ANIMAL LOVER
parados wrote:
Road kill dog food...
"We run em over fast and bag em for your pets."
Thanks
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 10:40 am
Re: Are YOU A HYPOCRITICAL ANIMAL LOVER
TTH wrote:
parados wrote:
Road kill dog food...
"We run em over fast and bag em for your pets."
Thanks


The reference was to the company logos that get plastered all over race cars. Just because a company sponsors part of a race car doesn't mean they are making a lot of money. It is advertising for them.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 11:04 am
Linkat wrote:
Bella Dea wrote:
Well, I don't feel guilty eating meat because I am eating meat. It's the nature of life.

But I do feel guilty when I eat meat knowing that the animal I just ate probably was partially butchered before it was even dead or that it was beaten to death on the floor of some nasty slaughter house.

Humans are the only animals who torture their food before eating it.


I've seen cats do the same thing to mice - torture them before killing them.


This is very true Linkat. I've saved many of mice from the torture of my various cats. They like to play with the mice by chasing them, catch them, let them go and do it all over again. Poor mice!
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 11:06 am
Linkat wrote:
Bella Dea wrote:
Linkat wrote:
Bella Dea wrote:
Well, I don't feel guilty eating meat because I am eating meat. It's the nature of life.

But I do feel guilty when I eat meat knowing that the animal I just ate probably was partially butchered before it was even dead or that it was beaten to death on the floor of some nasty slaughter house.

Humans are the only animals who torture their food before eating it.


I've seen cats do the same thing to mice - torture them before killing them.


Really?

Well, cats are from the devil so they don't count. :wink:


Well they kind of play with them - sort of let them go and then pounce on them again - after 15 minutes they will kill it and leave it as a gift for you. Being the animal lover I am, I rescued a mouse that was being tortured by my friend's cat.


Responded to your last post before reading this Laughing

Yup, that what they do.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 11:18 am
parados wrote:
cjhsa wrote:


Every bird brained environut, when it gets right down to it, will realize that harvested game animals are the most environmentally sustainable source of protein, at least for those willing to harvest AND follow the rules.


It would not even be close to sustainable if even one tenth of humans tried to get their protein only from harvested game animals.


Sure it would. It's called managing wildlife. Plus, about 90% of the humans would die because they couldn't provide for themselves.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 11:55 am
cjhsa wrote:


Sure it would. It's called managing wildlife. Plus, about 90% of the humans would die because they couldn't provide for themselves.

There are 1.7 million deer in Michigan according to this website.
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=9116

Michigan has 10 million residents. At 10% that would be 1 million people. Even if we only calculate one deer per person per year for protein the taking of 1 million deer a year would quickly reduce the deer population to an unsustainable level.

Of course, if deer was your only source of protein, you would need more than one deer per year so my statement about 10% of the population relying on hunting for its protein would not be sustainable remains true.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 12:00 pm
Michigan sells about 1M deer licenses/year. We seem to be doing a pretty good job of managing the cervids, at least lately. Did you miss the part about 90% of folks not being able to sustain themselves? I'm talking able bodied men and women, not the young, old, or disabled.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 12:09 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Michigan sells about 1M deer licenses/year.


Bullshit . . . you're not even close.

Quote:
A survey of deer hunters was conducted following the 2006 hunting seasons to estimate hunter participation, harvest, and hunting effort. In 2006, an estimated 691,000 hunters spent 10.1 million days afield. Statewide, the number of people hunting deer increased about 3%, but hunting effort was virtually unchanged between 2005 and 2006. Hunters harvested nearly 456,000 deer, an increase of nearly 9% from the number taken in 2005. Statewide, 46% of hunters harvested a deer. About 22% of the hunters took an antlerless deer and 34% took an antlered buck. About 15% of deer hunters harvested two or more deer. (emphasis added)


Source at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Note, his is a PDF document)

You sure love to shoot your mouth off (about as much as you love to shoot your gun off, if you could get away with it), but as usual, you're short on facts.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 12:13 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Michigan sells about 1M deer licenses/year.


Yes and 50% or more don't take a deer. You are talking about doubling the number of deer taken to 1 million a year or more while not having any downward effect on the population.

Quote:
We seem to be doing a pretty good job of managing the cervids, at least lately. Did you miss the part about 90% of folks not being able to sustain themselves? I'm talking able bodied men and women, not the young, old, or disabled.
I didn't miss it and it is meaningless since the 10% that is left would still decimate the wild life if they were getting all their protein that way.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 02:29 pm
I don't see how I'm that far off. They sold almost 700K licenses according to that and they didn't count the extra antlerless tags they sold (and potentially didn't fill).

It helps to have a feel for the stats you are trying to interpret.

Also, nature abhors a vacuum. The deer population will be right back at 1.7M or so next fall.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 03:02 pm
cjhsa wrote:
It helps to have a feel for the stats you are trying to interpret.


You were off by more than 300,000, not to mention that you attempted to imply that a million deer are taken each year, when in fact in 2006, it was fewer than half a million. As that represented an increase over previous years, it's obvious that the kill did not even closely approach half a million in previous years. An error margin of more than three hundred thousand is not close at all.

It helps to know the statistics, and not to just feel around for them.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Feline Leukemia - Contagiousness - Question by CDobyns
A big hound dog killed BBB's little Dolly dog today - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Tigers and Pigs... - Discussion by gungasnake
Fertilizer - Discussion by cjhsa
The Imaginary Garden - Discussion by dlowan
Informed Consent? - Discussion by roger
Me a cat hater? - Discussion by Craven de Kere
Dressing dogs - Question by TooFriendly112
My pussy getting weaker.. - Question by pearl123
Choosing good dog food? - Discussion by roycovin
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/23/2025 at 03:42:24