Intune
Member
Ridiculous indeed. After a post such as yours he shouldn't have to re-evaluate. His first impression was spot on. Methinks you forget your manners in someone's house. Tread lightly, Grasshopper. :banghead:
are there any people out there that are animal lovers AND gun lovers?
- Thread starter againstthagrane
- Start date
- Status
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
What is important is that THR maintains a particular cultural tone that is derived from our members who are willing to conduct their activity here with a particular level of decorum and civility.
If you intend to remain a member of THR it's probably not the brightest notion to go about making fun of this forum's culture and those who admirably choose to abide by it.
If you find yourself unable to meet a basic level of civil discourse, THR may not be a forum that suits you.
Loosedhorse
member
Only terminology that separates us?
Halo--I would suggest that your narrow meaning of the phrase "trophy hunting" is at odds with what it is generally taken to mean. I have trophy hunted (yes, I have the heads), but I can tell you that other than the offal there was NOTHING left behind for the scavengers.
What you describe (killing but not collecting from the field all or most of the usable animal) is generally called "wastage." It is not only unethical, but frequently illegal.
That having been said, MY MAIN PURPOSE when I trophy hunt is to HUNT, and secondarily to GET THE TROPHY. I would not hunt in a situation that allowed wastage, but that doesn't change the fact that the goal of my hunt was not the meat (which I couldn't travel with, but which did get eaten locally), but the trophy.
To get more to the point of the OP: In squirrel season, I'm happy to legally hunt squirrel (no squirrel heads on my wall, by the way
). But off the hunting field, I always try to avoid squooshing squirrels when they run in front of my truck. Is that inconsistent? It makes sense to me. And my braking for squirrels could fool someone into thinking I love animals. I sure think so.
Halo--I would suggest that your narrow meaning of the phrase "trophy hunting" is at odds with what it is generally taken to mean. I have trophy hunted (yes, I have the heads), but I can tell you that other than the offal there was NOTHING left behind for the scavengers.
What you describe (killing but not collecting from the field all or most of the usable animal) is generally called "wastage." It is not only unethical, but frequently illegal.
That having been said, MY MAIN PURPOSE when I trophy hunt is to HUNT, and secondarily to GET THE TROPHY. I would not hunt in a situation that allowed wastage, but that doesn't change the fact that the goal of my hunt was not the meat (which I couldn't travel with, but which did get eaten locally), but the trophy.
To get more to the point of the OP: In squirrel season, I'm happy to legally hunt squirrel (no squirrel heads on my wall, by the way
). But off the hunting field, I always try to avoid squooshing squirrels when they run in front of my truck. Is that inconsistent? It makes sense to me. And my braking for squirrels could fool someone into thinking I love animals. I sure think so.
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi againstthagrane,
Sometimes jokes are taken badly in certain context. The custom is to apologize to those offended and take the lesson of what is unacceptable in that particular place. This is not only the 'high road' but common decency.
Selena
Sometimes jokes are taken badly in certain context. The custom is to apologize to those offended and take the lesson of what is unacceptable in that particular place. This is not only the 'high road' but common decency.
Selena
Halo
Member
I may not be using the term "trophy hunting" in the way it is understood by the hunting community, that's a point I can certainly concede. The "wastage" you mention is what I'm referring to here. By whatever term it is known, the practice of killing solely for a trophy to me seems an affront to nature, and I reckon it is also an affront to the dignity of the hunting culture as well.
BruceRDucer
Member
/
Well thank you very much AgainstThaGrane.
________________________________________
You finally got around to doing precisely what you set out to do in the beginning, which is postulate an Animal Rights ethic for the purpose of judging others.
Now, you have arrived at the point wherein you bluntly start telling others what they must do:
You started with Animal Rights, and when you can make no progress with that advocacy, you attempt to retaliate by any means possible.
If to post here in a loquacious manner, equates to not having a life, what are you doing posting a topic here?
I don't know, I'm just asking:
(1) Why you get personal?
(2) Entirely off-topic?
(3) And assume an imperious tone?
I just don't know, but what I do know is that for someone who begins a topic with specific questions about a controversial issue, attempting to introduce a DIVIDE & CONQUER issue into the forum regarding lawful hunting, by substituting a personal ethic for American law, you seem to have brought little improvement to the public understanding.
It just seems that other highly charged emotions seem to be driving an external pleasantry and disaffected manner.
For myself, I only wish to indicate that hunting species that are not to be consumed is lawful in the United States and elsewhere. Having introduced the issue, you seem unable or unwilling to discuss the lawful aspects of the issue in any depth.
As far as I can tell, respectfully, you have an agenda that you are not making entirely clear.
/
Well thank you very much AgainstThaGrane.
________________________________________
You finally got around to doing precisely what you set out to do in the beginning, which is postulate an Animal Rights ethic for the purpose of judging others.
Now, you have arrived at the point wherein you bluntly start telling others what they must do:
You started with Animal Rights, and when you can make no progress with that advocacy, you attempt to retaliate by any means possible.
If to post here in a loquacious manner, equates to not having a life, what are you doing posting a topic here?
I don't know, I'm just asking:
(1) Why you get personal?
(2) Entirely off-topic?
(3) And assume an imperious tone?
I just don't know, but what I do know is that for someone who begins a topic with specific questions about a controversial issue, attempting to introduce a DIVIDE & CONQUER issue into the forum regarding lawful hunting, by substituting a personal ethic for American law, you seem to have brought little improvement to the public understanding.
It just seems that other highly charged emotions seem to be driving an external pleasantry and disaffected manner.
For myself, I only wish to indicate that hunting species that are not to be consumed is lawful in the United States and elsewhere. Having introduced the issue, you seem unable or unwilling to discuss the lawful aspects of the issue in any depth.
As far as I can tell, respectfully, you have an agenda that you are not making entirely clear.
/
JCMAG
Member
Those who hate hunting--ergo, humane population control--hate wild animals. Human beings saw it fit to eradicate most of the natural predators in the spirit of preserving themselves.
Fair enough.
But if we want to maintain a healthy ecosystem that can sustain itself, we must become the predators.
To me its not about sport or health. It's about tradition and good stewardship. And free meat.
Fair enough.
But if we want to maintain a healthy ecosystem that can sustain itself, we must become the predators.
To me its not about sport or health. It's about tradition and good stewardship. And free meat.
I'm an animal lover and non-hunter. I don't disparage anyone for hunting though. I'm a little less understanding of hunting the large predators (e.g. Kodiak's), but if I were king, wouldn't prevent anyone from doing it.
I'd hunt too if times got bad enough.
I'd hunt too if times got bad enough.
turnyourback
Member
i love guns, don't hunt, and am vegan. the majority of the people i know here who love/have guns are also vegan.
anything can happen.
anything can happen.
I hunted and trapped a bit when I was a kid. In my late teens I decided that I did not like taking the life of other animals. At age 23 I became a vegetarian and I still am and pretty much vegan for many years ( I'm now almost 60).
I am a licensed wildlife rehabilitator and make my living doing non-lethal wildlife control.
I believe that hunting is a means of survival--not recreation, entertainment or sport.
I'm also really into guns. For self defense, target shooting and for the enjoyment of just having them. It's a mechanical device that involves explosives and fires projectiles--who can't love that?
So no hunting for me but that's my decision--to each their own
I am a licensed wildlife rehabilitator and make my living doing non-lethal wildlife control.
I believe that hunting is a means of survival--not recreation, entertainment or sport.
I'm also really into guns. For self defense, target shooting and for the enjoyment of just having them. It's a mechanical device that involves explosives and fires projectiles--who can't love that?
So no hunting for me but that's my decision--to each their own
Stevie-Ray
Member
Think what you like, doesn't matter a whit to me. If you've seen your cats nose to nose through a doorwall screen with a street fighter, you don't just let the fight go on. In fact if you're smart, you get sick of it and take out the perpetrator, which is illegally on your property, illegally out of it's owner's home, and basically raising hell so nobody within a 5 house radius can get any sleep. No better than a common rat if you ask me, and I used to shoot those for sport at the dump. Opossums rate about the same, IMO. But, cat owners that scorn leash laws should pay huge fines for this type of crap. Same with dog owners.
NotSoFast
Member
I love guns and I love animals. Except for two accidents, I have not killed any animals,nor do I plan to.
I would kill and eat if my life depended on it though. Or if I was threatened by an animal, including the two legged kind (except the eating part).
I would kill and eat if my life depended on it though. Or if I was threatened by an animal, including the two legged kind (except the eating part).
halfbreed808
Member
I love animals. But I really love to eat. I've hunted and would love to go again as soon as possible. Nothing like fresh deer from Molokai, or goat, or boar from the Waianae mountains.
It really boils down to what choice you decide for yourself. My life motto, "IT'S ALL ABOUT CHOICES." What you choose for you is what you deem the best for you.
It really boils down to what choice you decide for yourself. My life motto, "IT'S ALL ABOUT CHOICES." What you choose for you is what you deem the best for you.
AStone
Member
I'm a biologist. I love life.
Not just animal life, either.
Plants, fungi, microbes ...
I find them all fascinating.
In fact, I find the very concept of life fascinating.
I'm neither vegetarian nor vegan
though I love both kinds of cuisine
(along with my burgers and fish and chips).
Like many (most? I wish this was a poll) here,
I only hunt what I'll eat.
But mostly, reading sporadically in this post this week
- mostly lurking during a very, very busy week at work -
I once again realize I'm proud to be part of the THR community.
Our diversity and civility
(a few squabbles not withstanding)
never ceases to amaze and please me.
I'm also reminded of a quote from a famous biologist
(even if I can't remember which one
):
without death (as in eating living things), life is impossible.
Nem
Not just animal life, either.
Plants, fungi, microbes ...
I find them all fascinating.
In fact, I find the very concept of life fascinating.
I'm neither vegetarian nor vegan
though I love both kinds of cuisine
(along with my burgers and fish and chips).
Like many (most? I wish this was a poll) here,
I only hunt what I'll eat.
But mostly, reading sporadically in this post this week
- mostly lurking during a very, very busy week at work -
I once again realize I'm proud to be part of the THR community.
Our diversity and civility
(a few squabbles not withstanding)
never ceases to amaze and please me.
I'm also reminded of a quote from a famous biologist
(even if I can't remember which one
):without death (as in eating living things), life is impossible.
Nem
Joist
Member
I have raised cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, dogs, cats and vegetable gardens.
I have shot foxes, coyotes, woodchucks, fluffy bunnies in defense of same.
I guess my love of animals is conditional
I have shot foxes, coyotes, woodchucks, fluffy bunnies in defense of same.
I guess my love of animals is conditional
jackdanson
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 859
I am vegetarian. I love my dogs. I love my guns. I don't have a problem with someone who hunts for food, although I'm not particularly fond of "factory" farms. I would eat meat if it was neccessary, but it isn't for most Americans and I don't have an overwhelming craving for it. I hate the 2nd amendment/gun rights being tied to hunting, they have nothing to do with eachother. (not that I have a problem with hunting either)
to each his own.
Oh yeah, I'd shoot hogs/other pests if I owned property where they caused trouble. Make some good jerky for the dogs.
to each his own.
Oh yeah, I'd shoot hogs/other pests if I owned property where they caused trouble. Make some good jerky for the dogs.
BruceRDucer, you write like a fresh grad student who can't get over their supposed "mastery" of the English language. Yes, I do realize my use of the word "their" is incorrect in context.
But seriously, there is an art to writing good prose, in a forum or anywhere else, and your attempts at dazzling us with your pseudo-fancy language have failed. Get over yourself.
But seriously, there is an art to writing good prose, in a forum or anywhere else, and your attempts at dazzling us with your pseudo-fancy language have failed. Get over yourself.
Ben Shepherd
Member
No, we just have a wide enough spectrum food wise here in the states that we can get almost all our proteins from other sources.
I still prefer steak, myself.
I still prefer steak, myself.
Last edited:
Lamb of Gun
Member
Hunting seems boring to me and I would probably never get up the courage to shoot an animal that poses no threat to me. So I probably will never go.
So I guess I am an animal loving gun lover.
So I guess I am an animal loving gun lover.
BruceRDucer
Member
You know, for the past five years, when I find a huge spider in the basement bathtub...(and it happens about once a week)...I make a toilet paper "rope" for him to climb out with.
[Sheesh...I've gone totally cuckoo!]
/
MinnMooney
Member
Not sure what you mean by "Animal Lovers". I'm not protective of wild animals to the point of actually doing harm to them by letting their population get out of control where they'll die horrible deaths by starvation, road kills and hunam harm. I'm all for having hunting seasons to cull the herds but want hunters to use utmost care in dispatching the animals as quickly and humanely as possible.
I have had 3 dogs in my life that I've treated great, to the point of slight spoilization, I think. Had a cat, also. Treated it very well but never cozied up to the cat.
Animals need our love and attention so they can survive on earth along side us. We have the power to care for or annialate almost any species on earth (except mosquitos). That's a HUGE responsibility and one that can't be taken lightly.
P.S. I love firearms!
I have had 3 dogs in my life that I've treated great, to the point of slight spoilization, I think. Had a cat, also. Treated it very well but never cozied up to the cat.
Animals need our love and attention so they can survive on earth along side us. We have the power to care for or annialate almost any species on earth (except mosquitos). That's a HUGE responsibility and one that can't be taken lightly.
P.S. I love firearms!
BruceRDucer
Member
/
Thank you for the comment Dr. Fresh.
Essentially, your remarks are AD HOMINEM, or an attack upon the person, and not a discussion of the legalities or ethics which would be the proper subject per the original post.
Your interest in ridiculing a person for the useage of the English language and the employment of reason, indicates that you prefer to establish something other than a dialogue, in which ideological propositions amount to nothing more than exchanges of mutual invective and a fundamental failure to recognize either a citizen's rights at law or merely his right to a public opinion.
In any context, I do not find those appropriate. Many advocacies, and this is certainly true with Animal Rights Activism, rely upon a simple DIVIDE & CONQUER tactic and it typically engages in efforts to marginalize any individual in a group who openly and rationally addresses the flawed ethics of Animal Rights advocacies.
Moreover, that you use the word "us," which identifies yourself as a plurality, rather than identifying yourself as a single person expressing a personal view, shows that your remarks are further still, removed from ordinary reason.
I think it fair to indicate, per your initial sentence, that we do not employ these forums for the purpose of making public determinations such as you indicated by writing:
We are here to neither praise grammar, nor to denigrate it. Your comments shows the tactic of SCATTERING all commentary into total irrelevency to create confusion in the minds of any who encounter your vague, disparate, and entirely disconnected propositions.
/
Thank you for the comment Dr. Fresh.
Essentially, your remarks are AD HOMINEM, or an attack upon the person, and not a discussion of the legalities or ethics which would be the proper subject per the original post.
Your interest in ridiculing a person for the useage of the English language and the employment of reason, indicates that you prefer to establish something other than a dialogue, in which ideological propositions amount to nothing more than exchanges of mutual invective and a fundamental failure to recognize either a citizen's rights at law or merely his right to a public opinion.
In any context, I do not find those appropriate. Many advocacies, and this is certainly true with Animal Rights Activism, rely upon a simple DIVIDE & CONQUER tactic and it typically engages in efforts to marginalize any individual in a group who openly and rationally addresses the flawed ethics of Animal Rights advocacies.
Moreover, that you use the word "us," which identifies yourself as a plurality, rather than identifying yourself as a single person expressing a personal view, shows that your remarks are further still, removed from ordinary reason.
I think it fair to indicate, per your initial sentence, that we do not employ these forums for the purpose of making public determinations such as you indicated by writing:
We are here to neither praise grammar, nor to denigrate it. Your comments shows the tactic of SCATTERING all commentary into total irrelevency to create confusion in the minds of any who encounter your vague, disparate, and entirely disconnected propositions.
/
- Status
