Well when people hunt for sport, we always end up with riots like Baltimore.

First off, you've confused the terms. Generally, one would likely firstly imagine that "hunt for food" implies that things are shitty enough that you have to go out there and get shit done for yourself out of neccessity.

Now even if we remove that from the equation, what are we left with?

Killing an animal for the purpose of hacking off a body part to use a trophy.

Or, killing an animal for the purpose of eating it.

What creates more waste? The first option. There's a very slight difference, in that at least one scenario, one death is less of a waste than the other. Personally, I would never hunt for any reason other than neccessity.

Which, to be fair, seems to be approaching. Food prices are skyrocketing up here and there's no slowing down. Second, there's less bullshit in natural meat over all the processed shit. And third, if I ever did kill anything, I'd do my damndest to use every part for something.

Is there a difference between trophy hunting, and hunting for food when there's iffy meat products on store shelves?

Very slight.

First off, you've confused the terms. Generally, one would likely firstly imagine that "hunt for food" implies that things are shitty enough that you have to go out there and get shit done for yourself out of neccessity.

I made sure to caveat that. From experience, people are generally okay with hunting for food even outside of survivalist situations.

What creates more waste? The first option. There's a very slight difference, in that at least one scenario, one death is less of a waste than the other.

I think this a very trivial difference and not really valid, but it is a difference nonetheless, so thanks.

Is there a difference between trophy hunting, and hunting for food when there's iffy meat products on store shelves?

Very slight.

I'm inclined to agree.

Clearly Hunting for sport is worse.

If I ever have to hunt an animal, it means I'm hungry as fuck. By that point it's survival. Hunt an animal or be hunted by an animal.

There can be. You can hunt out of necessity, and not gain enjoyment out of it. Likewise you can hunt and give the food away. My cousins usually get their own permits as well as filling my grandmothers. So in that sense they're hunting purely for the sport of it. Even if the food is still being used.

I don't see anything preventing you from doing both tho. I think most hunters see it both ways. Though obviously that seems deplorable to the vegan/peta types. In the end its like you said not much difference whether you get enjoyment out of it or not. End result is the same. I don't see either as being worse, or even bad.

What about people who have easy access to supermarkets?

And please don't lump me in with PETA  =[

What about people who have easy access to supermarkets?

And please don't lump me in with PETA  =[

I'm just being grumpy cuz tired.

The thing is that most hunting is required for population control purposes (since we've forced out most natural predators). For the sake of the animals (disease, etc). Hunting is also regulated by permit ensuring the population doesn't come anywhere close to endangered. Which makes the sport aspect of it acceptable.

Most hunters have access to supermarkets, so that makes no difference to me. As long as you're not endangering the overall population, and not wasting the meat, I'm fine with it.

Plus what's more respectable? Raising a cow in its own shit and then firing a pin into its head, or hunting a deer and giving it a reasonable chance. Anyone saying hunting is wrong (for any reason) should be horrified by any meat on any plate.

I suppose that's why I respect vegans more since they're at least willing to stick to their beliefs across the board. Even if I think those beliefs are pants on head stupid At least they're not being hypocritical.

The thing is that most hunting is required for population control purposes (since we've forced out most natural predators). For the sake of the animals (disease, etc). Hunting is also regulated by permit ensuring the population doesn't come anywhere close to endangered. Which makes the sport aspect of it acceptable.

The truth of this is not so simple, I'm afraid. Wildlife departments commonly manipulate the predator:prey ratios in the environment to provide hunters with plenty of game and generate revenue. This is then propagated as "population control" (a term vague enough to keep the public happy while not really explaining anything or giving any insight into how the ecological imbalance came about). This isn't conspiracy talk either -- it's openly listed in annual reports.

Most hunters have access to supermarkets, so that makes no difference to me. As long as you're not endangering the overall population, and not wasting the meat, I'm fine with it.

But then you should have no problem with sport hunting either, assuming it doesn't  damage the overall population. (edit: it appears you don't. Moving on)

Plus what's more respectable? Raising a cow in its own shit and then firing a pin into its head, or hunting a deer and giving it a reasonable chance.

Not sure what this "reasonable chance" would be ("okay deer, I'm gonna count to one hundred..."?) but I agree that it is preferable to factory farming. That doesn't make it ethical, though.

Anyone saying hunting is wrong (for any reason) should be horrified by any meat on any plate.

Undoubtedly, but I'm asking about the act of hunting itself, not the inconsistent beliefs people have toward it.

I suppose that's why I respect vegans more since they're at least willing to stick to their beliefs across the board.

I was going to say thanks, but then...

Even if I think those beliefs are pants on head stupid

-__-
I was kinda hoping to avoid this but the bait is too strong. What do you find so stupid about it? I'm willing to bet that they are not the beliefs that most vegans actually hold.

do you have sources to back this up, or are you just regurgitating what you hear from your fellow meat-eaters

Anyone who is familiar with deer understand how stuff like blue tongue can wipe out a local population if left unchecked. Its not exactly rocket science. A population will sky rocket with no predators. Stuff like tics spread disease. This is basic biology, and happens everywhere with every species.

how

You have local wild life experts who's job it is to regulate hunting. Can't think of the official name of the rangers cause I'm tired as hell, but they patrol via planes / cars / etc. Essentially a police type force to ensure rules are being followed. They keep track of the local population , and issue permits depending on what an acceptable kill number is. The number of permits issued varies each year. Breaking any number of rules will get your hunting license removed.

yes, it's pants-on-head stupid to draw the simple conclusion that we don't have the right to torture other sentient beings

i hate you so much

Look verby its late and I'm tired. I'm not looking to debate the basic foundations of hunting regulations or the ethics of eating meat in a giant multiple page essay war with you. I don't care what your opinions are. Your opinions mean nothing. At all. Cry me a river.


Eh, as for Pendulate I wasn't looking to start another stupid vegan war thread or derail this one. I don't care what you eat. I was just being honest with my opinion of refusing to eat meat or being against hunting. Its an opinion. I wasn't trying to be a dick about it. Just jesting and being playful. Though that tone probably doesn't carry over in text.

LOL THAT AWKWARD MOMENT WHEN 90% OF THE HUMAN RACE IS WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING

Theres enough food in the shops.
so hunting and fishing is a waste of time

Eh, as for Pendulate I wasn't looking to start another stupid vegan war thread or derail this one. I don't care what you eat. I was just being honest with my opinion of refusing to eat meat or being against hunting. Its an opinion. I wasn't trying to be a dick about it. Just jesting and being playful. Though that tone probably doesn't carry over in text.

Well ya, we all have opinions, but I think it's completely fair to say that some are more valid than others.

And nobody should want to cling to an opinion just because it's their opinion. That's why honest discussion is so valuable; If my opinion is shown to be wrong, I change it. No point being wrong any longer than I have to.

*Not saying you're necessarily wrong here, just that the opinion card is a pretty silly thing to pull most of the time.

Quote from: DAS "كافر" B00T on May 31, 2015, 05:40:10 AM

They're basically one and the same.
Now poaching... fuck those assholes.

Why is poaching so much worse?

Well, first off it's illegal and unregulated, meaning no tags, limits, or firearm/ammo restrictions. Secondly, if done enough, it can completely deplete game populations for legal hunters. Third, and this seems to mostly be an asian/african issue anymore (though I think there's issues down in Delaware with their endangered fox squirrel population), it directly hinders and opposes conservation efforts.

Quote from: FatherlyNick on May 31, 2015, 04:47:40 AM

Theres enough food in the shops.
so hunting and fishing is a waste of time

Yes there is enough food in shops, but most of those animals had a worse life and a worse time dying than animals that were hunted.

Sure, but the topic wasn't about the humane methods of obtaining food, its about which type of hunting is bad. In the perfect world, men would have to follow the rules of nature and get food like every other animal, but this isn't a perfect world.