Reply
Wed 4 May, 2005 08:40 pm
I would like to hire a few green berets, armed with springfield sniper rifles, and take them to various sport-hunting grounds in order to even the odds between hunters and hunted... :wink:
Sounds as though you've resolved your own question, doesn't it?
Since you'd have an epidemic of starving deer if it were banned, I suppose my answer has to be "no."
DrewDad wrote:Since you'd have an epidemic of starving deer if it were banned, I suppose my answer has to be "no."
Would it not be better to feed the deer???? Killing for sport is killing for the thrill of the kill. What is wrong with target shooting?
I say arm the animals. Let the hunter become the hunted.
You get what you pay for, Intrepid. Feed the deer and you get more deer to feed.
I think it should be regulated. The arguments herein for population control ignore that sport hunting has historically not contributed much to balancing animal populations.
The cases in which it decimates the population are great ecological dangers and the odd case where it helps keep an ecosystem in harmony ignore that sport hunting eliminates the only balancing motivation: food.
I think hunting should be regulated and support itself within the ecosystem. I like that responsible hunting statutes build the cost of hunting into the cost of hunting.
Hunting should be allowed only with bare hands.
Grab a stick, make a spear, dig a pit, use only whatever the natural environment provides to the hunter. Then at least some skill would be involved, as a human being.
Oh ... and you have to clean the entire animal by yourself, with a sharp rock. No metal objects allowed.
A friend of mine used to catch deer by jumping onto them from a tree. When it's your own
two hands that take an animals life ... then it requires knowledge, understanding, honor and respect for what you do.
(The folks with sniper rifles could always be hired to encourage compliance).
roger wrote:Sounds as though you've resolved your own question, doesn't it?
Do you see the futility in this statement? Let me know...
Craven de Kere wrote:I think it should be regulated. The arguments herein for population control ignore that sport hunting has historically not contributed much to balancing animal populations.
The cases in which it decimates the population are great ecological dangers and the odd case where it helps keep an ecosystem in harmony ignore that sport hunting eliminates the only balancing motivation: food.
I think hunting should be regulated and support itself within the ecosystem. I like that responsible hunting statutes build the cost of hunting into the cost of hunting.
I agree; of course, I also agree that any one balance of animal population does, via naturalis to be sure, involve one balancing motivation only: food.
As for building the cost of hunting into the cost of hunting, it may be futile; that is, hunters can- and most top-tier hunters certainly do- have a well-established source of money to finance their great expeditions either in the Americas or the Safari. And, as you know, such expeditions are costly. Their trophy rooms are quite costly as well.
Some tribes and communities hunt exclusively for food. Sport-hunting, on the other hand, has a different object. This should be remembered.
The object is to shoot (or pierce) an animal unaware of your presence for the sake of excitement, thrill, expertise, and so on. The animal is then taken either to a butcher as a gift or discarded, so long as the hunter himself or the group takes notice of the "kill." It is that notice, and the prize thereof, which fuels the hunt.
This sport, unlike other sports, as in archery, target shooting at a range, etc., involves, as the moralist Regan pointed out, a subject-of-a-will; it is, in a word, a life, a living-in-motion, and moves from here to there for food, entertainment, shelter, and so on- much as what we would do in that set of circumstances.
And, I agree with Craven and NobleCon: the deer may not starve necessarily, and green berets would be the most excelllent choice.
roger wrote:You get what you pay for, Intrepid. Feed the deer and you get more deer to feed.
Feed the poor and you get more poor to feed.
Sport
Function: noun
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
I don't think it should be outlawed. I mean, sometimes you just want to screw somebody for the hell of it, you know? Just to keep yourself in shape and have some damn fun! Yeah, you go out with your buddies, all looking for the skankiest ho you can find, just trying to get some action as quick as possible, with whomever will have you, just for the sport of it, and then the next morning, you look over and see the most hideous beast that god ever created, and you want to puke, but you can't, and then you have to---oh, wait, sport hunting? Oooops! I thought you said something else...
NobleCon wrote:
As for building the cost of hunting into the cost of hunting, it may be futile; that is, hunters can- and most top-tier hunters certainly do- have a well-established source of money to finance their great expeditions either in the Americas or the Safari. And, as you know, such expeditions are costly. Their trophy rooms are quite costly as well.
If the cost of hunting is built into the cost of hunting it doesn't matter whether or not the hunter can pay it.
If it is the case that the cost of hunting is built in the cost of hunting, and this method is to serve as a form of deterrence in reference to sport-hunters and their objects, I fashion that if one has unlimited resources for his sport, such a deterrent would be futile. The amount of money one has in his possession for his sport is of great importance in relation to this built-in cost.
What is your opinion?
NobleCon wrote:What is your opinion?
You miss the point. Deterrence
isn't the point, covering the cost of hunting is. If the cost of hunting is built into the cost of hunting the ability of the hunter to pay for it is immaterial.
If the cost of hunting can't be covered by the cost of hunting in certain cases then it should not be allowed.
Here are real world examples:
To fish in some places, you need to pay for a license. This can contribute to the cost of replenishing the fish population and in california they have trout farms that are used to replenish lakes.
If hunting is eradicating deer make the cost of the deer tag the cost to replace the deer and cover the other enviromental costs.
If said costs can't be covered then deer licenses should not be sold (and therefore deer hunting not allowed) until the enviroment can support it.
This is not too dissimilar to the way hunting is currently regulated in some places.
Yes, I did miss that point. My apologies.
I only imagined that the topic was revolving around costs and deterrents. Your point is well taken.
Though, may I ask: how does the cost of hunting and so on relate to the notion of banning sport-hunting? That is, how does the cost of hunting relate to such a ban?
Is it not the case that your real-world example in reference to deer hunting is the very point here- the life of the deer, and not any "cost" to replace it? Replacing it by added costs? So then, hunt it, but pay for the hunt, otherwise it will not be allowed?
Am I understanding this correctly Craven?
NobleCon wrote:Though, may I ask: how does the cost of hunting and so on relate to the notion of banning sport-hunting? That is, how does the cost of hunting relate to such a ban?
It addresses one argument in favor of a ban, which is the cost of hunting. If said cost pays for itself then the argument is rendered moot.
Quote:
Is it not the case that your real-world example in reference to deer hunting is the very point here- the life of the deer, and not any "cost" to replace it? Replacing it by added costs? So then, hunt it, but pay for the hunt, otherwise it will not be allowed?
"Responsible hunting" won't address any arguments against hunting on the basis of an
appeal to pity. That much is true.
So it won't address the concerns of those who feel the animal simply should not be killed. It does, however, mitigate against concerns that the hunting will have a negative impact on the enviroment, since regulation can address this to some degree.
The point, I suspect, is the life of the deer- that moral for animals. Compounding further costs on present hunting costs would "replenish" the dead deer for certain (granting that state park departments would do so), but it would not cease the activity. I was under the impression that this was the matter under consideration.
You do say that "...if the cost of hunting can't be covered by the cost of hunting in certain cases then it should not be allowed." This I believe implicitly grants moral access to such sport-hunting, insofar as the hunter can compensate the state for the renewal of the wildlife which s/he hunts.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace