Backlash over hunt

[Ahnehnois]

Very, very few hunters kill for sport.
98% of the people I know what hunt do so for the meat.

You seem to be implying that hunting is nothing more than killing for sport.

In the example provided in the OP, it pretty clearly is.

That being said, the sport and food are not mutually exclusive. Even if a person is consuming the animal's remains, they still went through a lot of effort to acquire them, in a society where hunting is neither a necessary of even efficient means of feeding oneself (I'm assuming you don't live in the Amazon or rural Mongolia or anything). And it's also likely that they enjoyed the process; hunters commonly refer to themselves as outdoorsmen, and consider the hunting a recreational hobby, not a means of sustenance.

Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd put it as "non sustenance hunting" or something. The point is, it's optional now, where it really wasn't for early hominids.

 

[Robin Hoodlum]

Optional?
Perhaps... perhaps not.
At any rate, that is just your opinion.

Some people do not buy meat, they hunt it, or supplement their bought food with meat they have hunted.
To arbitraily declare hunting as "optional" is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then report it.

I don't like reporting people these days. I would much prefer to state my opinion that it is veering too far into the political for my taste. Don't have any interest in guns, hunting or the politics surrounding them.

 

[Robin Hoodlum]

I don't like reporting people these days. I would much prefer to state my opinion that it is veering too far into the political for my taste. Don't have any interest in guns, hunting or the politics surrounding them.

*shrug*
What good is stating your opinion on the thread do? If you are so uninterested, why bother posting at all?
Some people could/would consider your post as baiting... or at the very least disruption and/or off-topic.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Optional?
Perhaps... perhaps not.
At any rate, that is just your opinion.

Some people do not buy meat, they hunt it, or supplement their bought food with meat they have hunted.
To arbitraily declare hunting as "optional" is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst.

Do those people not have other options? Would they die of starvation without the products of their hunting? I think there are very few people for whom this is the case. If we're talking about people who live in the first world where there are grocery stores and food banks and space for farming (and where hunting equipment and licenses are expensive and restricted), it's hard to imagine hunting being a significant food source, certainly not one that renders the other options irrelevant.

If there are other viable options for acquiring food, then it is optional to do so in this particular way. That's not an opinion. What could possibly be misleading about that? I don't understand what you're getting at.

 

[Robin Hoodlum]

Perhaps they don't want to eat store bought meat, for a variety of legitimate reasons.
Would you force them to do that instead of hunting their own?
What about folks what can't afford to buy meat? Would you tell them they couldn't trap or hunt?
What about people what simply want to be self-reliant? Would you tell them they can't be, and must buy meat from a regulated source?

I don't understand why you hate hunting.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Perhaps they don't want to eat store bought meat, for a variety of legitimate reasons.

Sure, a variety of debatably legitimate reasons that might encourage them to select the option of hunting. No one's holding a gun to their head and making them do it, so to speak.

Would you force them to do that instead of hunting their own?
What about folks what can't afford to buy meat? Would you tell them they couldn't trap or hunt?

I'd suggest they eat vegetarian. In general, it's cheaper and healthier. However, I'm skeptical that hunting is a cost-effective means of food acquisition for most people. I doubt that many people are forced to hunt animals for food out of need.

What about people what simply want to be self-reliant? Would you tell them they can't be, and must buy meat from a regulated source?

Again, that's them making a choice, one which they don't have to make. And I would again suggest that the meat aspect is completely unnecessary. And even if they did want to be self-sufficient and eat meat, it would likely be more efficient for them to raise their own livestock than hunt.

There are many people who live with very little money or who live very independently, but do not hunt.

I don't understand why you hate hunting.

Probably because I'm a pacifist and I see nonviolence as a moral imperative, regardless of who the target of the violence is.

There's probably a case to be made for why a person might choose to acquire food by hunting, but I see no case to be made that it is anything other than optional in the twenty-first century. I don't understand what you're arguing for. I'm not saying that people can't do it, merely that they don't have to if they don't want to.

 

[Abraxas]

I'd suggest they eat vegetarian. In general, it's cheaper and healthier. However, I'm skeptical that hunting is a cost-effective means of food acquisition for most people. I doubt that many people are forced to hunt animals for food out of need.

The ability to have the variety of foods necessary for a healthy vegetarian diet on a large scale is part of the reason wildlife habitat is being destroyed. As for need - what part of the world are you talking about?

Again, that's them making a choice, one which they don't have to make. And I would again suggest that the meat aspect is completely unnecessary. And even if they did want to be self-sufficient and eat meat, it would likely be more efficient for them to raise their own livestock than hunt.

This is only true if the person has sufficient land.

There are many people who live with very little money or who live very independently, but do not hunt.

And many of them do hunt.

There's probably a case to be made for why a person might choose to acquire food by hunting, but I see no case to be made that it is anything other than optional in the twenty-first century. I don't understand what you're arguing for. I'm not saying that people can't do it, merely that they don't have to if they don't want to.

There was a period of time, while living in Michigan's upper peninsula, where hunting and fishing were a significant and necessary means of supporting myself. The choice was between having enough to eat and not having enough to eat. In poorer, rural areas it really may not be a choice.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The choice was between having enough to eat and not having enough to eat. In poorer, rural areas it really may not be a choice.

I'm not excluding that possibility. However, the number of people in situations like that is pretty small. Most people in the Western world live in urban or suburban areas where there isn't much to hunt.

In general, agriculture is a much more efficient means of producing food, and between the low prices of food and the availability of government subsidies it takes a very specific and unusual set of circumstances for someone to be excluded from our agriculturally-based food supply against their will.

And of course, it's true that if someone wants to produce their own food, it takes money and a lot of work, but hunting also requires that one have access to (if not own) land where something exists to hunt, and requires a significant amount of effort, skill, and resources to do on a regular basis (permits, weapons, equipment and facilities to store and prepare the meat). It's hardly the path of least resistance. For the people I know who do, it, it's quite an expensive and impractical indulgence, something they do as a hobby. I can't apply a blanket statement to say that the same is true for every single individual as there are likely some exceptions, but I feel comfortable in saying that the typical hunter in the United States would not starve without his hunting license.

And keep in mind that the article the OP referenced wasn't exactly about someone in poverty trying to feed themselves.

The ability to have the variety of foods necessary for a healthy vegetarian diet on a large scale is part of the reason wildlife habitat is being destroyed.

I'm not sure where that comes from. As far as I know, the net food production in the world is already well in excess of need, it just isn't distributed equally. Also, a great deal of habitat destruction is for animal agriculture. I doubt very much that this is the case; animal sources of food are inherently a less efficient use of land in terms of usable food per acre per year, simply because animals are farther down the food chain. Again, there are rare exceptions, but it's not as if hunting is a low-impact, high-yield means of food acquisition.

 

[Bedrockgames]

*shrug*
What good is stating your opinion on the thread do? If you are so uninterested, why bother posting at all?
Some people could/would consider your post as baiting... or at the very least disruption and/or off-topic.

I think it is fair for me to point out that this thread, as well as some others, have become overly political in my opinion. The board has a long standing no politics policy, and i was pointing out to the posters that this may have crossed that line. But no trying to bait anyone or disrupt. I think there is room to discuss the original topic without getting into a broader debate about libertarianism, vegetarianism, guns, etc. However, if you feel I was baiting, certainly feel free to report me.