A most excellent thread indeed. Well posited arguments.
So compelling, I should be in bed asleep, but just gotta run my yap a bit now.
Bear with me and please forgive any rambling, errata, chaos, malpractice, etc.
The right to hunt is essentially the right to life. A natural right. Yep, it's in the constitution too.
We must all eat to live.
Maybe some ammunition for hunters to use to fend off the anti-hunters is in the form of "scientific data" (since common sense is dead to many; and/or common experience is unknown to many) that lack of protein, or better, lack of a proper combination of amino acids that allow the body to uptake a meaningful and beneficial balance of said protein, will result in malnurishment, injury, degraded mental and physical faculty and early demise. (Perhaps hunting rights groups already use this tack?)
When ones bowels are so impacted with highly toxic, putrifying and petrified fecal matter, quite possibly (I'm sure of it) due, in part, to the contaminants found in factory-like, unnaturally occuring, chemical laden fodder that passes for food as sold in the market today. FDA? Yeh, whatever. Supra-genetically enhanced uber-cows..no thanks. Same goes for veggies, so called fresh and natural..buyer beware.
There exists scientifically sound studies that indicate that some folks "need" protein in somewhat differing formats to fulfill their specific physiological requirements. To be healthy.
There's also some interesting stuff on blood-type based nutrition requirements that may prove fruitful..
As to the hunt itself ..
In my book (my lil opinion), there are good hunters, bad hunters and bloodthristy punks.
Thoughtful hunters will not hunt down a specie that is perceived to be endangered, regardless of permits and season. Just like none of us need a law to tell us what is or isn't a suitable arm for xyz. On the same token, a good hunter may well hunt to survive, while possibly breaking some law, yet still use his or her sense of responsibility to the land. A good hunter tries not to waste and will eat what is killed, provide the meat for the family hearth or charity and if able, possibly utilize parts like sinew and skins. A true stewart.
A bad hunter simply hunts beacuase they want to, without thought, with disregard to the ecology, and for no need than for the hunt itself. They are wasteful and boisterous.
Finally, the bloodthirsty punk. He or she kills simply for the sheer thrill of killing a living being. Often slaughtering numerous non-game animals without harvesting anything or mutilating the carcasses.
I don't hunt per se, but I do train a little bit in case the need should arise.
I like to stalk critters (when they'll let me) and put 'em in my sights and dry-fire on 'em. But let my tell ya, it is not easy, especially with a gut-full of McDees cheeseburgers
Not saying I'm perfect. As a kid, I was once, what I consider now to be a bad hunter.
I feel a strong hunter-ethos instilled in the youth and old alike, be they active in hunting or not, with respect for the land and its ecological balance, respect for the social contract and encouragement to support the second amendment as well as the rest of the BOR, will go a long way in making for a better world than the one we found ourselves in.
OK, enough of my disjointed .02$
Time to sleep.
