Sustainable use VS animals rights.

[Art Eatman]

The greatest enemies of rational management of wildlife have been Walt Disney and Felix Salter (author of "Bambi"). Their anthropomorphizing of animals has created much of this "hugging".

 

[ericuda]

25 years ago there were no turkeys in kansas where I grew up and very few deer. Now "herds" of turkeys and deer cause numerous property damage accidents a year. The way I see with wasting disease and property farmers owners saying shoot not 1 but 2 I am not sure where we are going. I don't see where good management has been used. Interesting thread but for sustainability crop and vehicle damage may play a part.

 

[H&Hhunter]

The greatest enemies of rational management of wildlife have been Walt Disney and Felix Salter (author of "Bambi"). Their anthropomorphizing of animals has created much of this "hugging".

I absolutely agree. There is a huge disconnect with your average "dweller" and the stark realities of wildlife management.

 

[buck460XVR]

The greatest enemies of rational management of wildlife have been Walt Disney and Felix Salter (author of "Bambi"). Their anthropomorphizing of animals has created much of this "hugging".

We hunters like to illustrate the non-hunters feelings and opinions as being foolish or stupid. But it is not that simple. I doubt very much if the most active Animal Rights folks are stupid, nor do I think they really believe that Bambi talks, his mom is monogamous with his dad, and that all of the other forest creatures also talk. Probably no more than pro-hunters. Probably no more than fans of "The Walking Dead" actually believe in Zombies. I think those pictures of men killing defenseless baby seals by smashing their head in with a club and the videos of the chained up dog, starved and frozen to the ground outside his dog house probably have a greater affect on their opinions than any or all of the Disney animated movies. We need a better argument than anthropomorphism to make them understand the values of hunting. JMHO.

 

[H&Hhunter]

We hunters like to illustrate the non-hunters feelings and opinions as being foolish or stupid. But it is not that simple. I doubt very much if the most active Animal Rights folks are stupid, nor do I think they really believe that Bambi talks, his mom is monogamous with his dad, and that all of the other forest creatures also talk. Probably no more than pro-hunters. Probably no more than fans of "The Walking Dead" actually believe in Zombies. I think those pictures of men killing defenseless baby seals by smashing their head in with a club and the videos of the chained up dog, starved and frozen to the ground outside his dog house probably have a greater affect on their opinions than any or all of the Disney animated movies. We need a better argument than anthropomorphism to make them understand the values of hunting. JMHO.

buck,

I'm pretty sure I posted one in the OP......................

 

[Art Eatman]

Buck, those created an atmosphere around wildlife that ignores the benefits of management in a country such as ours, as well as creating some degree of anti-hunting. Beginnings, if you will, from which "hugging" grew.

It's part of civilization's "magic": Milk and meat come from a grocery. Electricity from a switch. Water from a faucet. A little handle on the white porcelain throne makes yucky stuff go away. You don't need farms and ranches. Or power plants. Dams and reservoirs exist only to either mess up a natural stream or allow for water-skiing. Waste treatment plants smell bad.

High emotion and abysmal ignorance. For all too many people, the less they know, the stronger their opinions.

 

[Sniper66]

Art has hit the nail squarely on the head. That's why we get a complaint from a woman who watched the TV show, Sara Palin's Alaska. One episode featured her shooting a caribou. A woman who watched the episode was "disgusted" and demanded to know why Palin chose to shoot the animal rather than get it from the supermarket "like everyone else". Walt Disney contributed to the evolution such notions, unintentionally perhaps. Organizations that have good intentions...EPA, Sierra Club, etc.....are never brought to task for the "unintentional" consequences of their excesses. In their narrow little minds, it serves the greater good and is therefore justified.

 

[BigBore44]

While I agree the entertainment business played a large role in mishaping ignorant people's views of game animals and hunters, I believe the real problem was the urbanization of America. When people never see deer, turkey, bear, elk, moose etc. except on television or in theatres, they don't understand the realities of wildlife management. The do not know the benefits of eating wild game (nor do they want to). The do not know the destruction overpopulation can cause (nor do they care). They have their bubble. Any "knowledge" beyond their bubble is filled with misinformation, ignorance, and apathy. And until those people actually experience game management, we will never change their minds. It's not gonna happen folks. The best we can hope for is damage control when dumb hunters do something stupid, and inviting nonhunters and nonanglers out to the field and/or lakes for some firsthand experience. And change one mind at a time.

 

[DLam]

Buck, those created an atmosphere around wildlife that ignores the benefits of management in a country such as ours, as well as creating some degree of anti-hunting. Beginnings, if you will, from which "hugging" grew.

It's part of civilization's "magic": Milk and meat come from a grocery. Electricity from a switch. Water from a faucet. A little handle on the white porcelain throne makes yucky stuff go away. You don't need farms and ranches. Or power plants. Dams and reservoirs exist only to either mess up a natural stream or allow for water-skiing. Waste treatment plants smell bad.

High emotion and abysmal ignorance. For all too many people, the less they know, the stronger their opinions.

Bravo art...

Post of the week.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

 

[Officers'Wife]

We hunters like to illustrate the non-hunters feelings and opinions as being foolish or stupid. But it is not that simple. I doubt very much if the most active Animal Rights folks are stupid, nor do I think they really believe that Bambi talks, his mom is monogamous with his dad, and that all of the other forest creatures also talk. Probably no more than pro-hunters. Probably no more than fans of "The Walking Dead" actually believe in Zombies. I think those pictures of men killing defenseless baby seals by smashing their head in with a club and the videos of the chained up dog, starved and frozen to the ground outside his dog house probably have a greater affect on their opinions than any or all of the Disney animated movies. We need a better argument than anthropomorphism to make them understand the values of hunting. JMHO.

Oh, you really are trying to set me out on a rant... OK-

Try this, go to a rural area hospital & salvage yard and take pictures of the aftermath of a deer/auto accident. Show them the picture of a five year old girl that has been scalped by a deer hoof coming through the windshield and just grazing her head. Or maybe a conversion with Mr Johns who had a deer knock him off his motorcycle while he was running at 45 mph. Or maybe the victims of Lyme disease caused by the overpopulation of ticks resulting from the overpopulation of deer and coyotes. Perhaps show them how trees have had the bark ate off from too many deer and too little forage. Perhaps the proper method of showing the benefit of hunting is to show the results of areas where there is too little hunting.

(my name is Selena and I am a ranter.)

 

[X-Rap]

There are certainly things that happen in the wild with both man and nature that probably shouldn't be viewed by the general public.
Hunting, trapping, control of pests, customary taking of everything from Harp Seals to bird eggs can leave those who don't understand the process with strong feelings against the acts.
This is exacerbated by those who are vegan and place their beliefs over that of others.
Many who don't mind eating from the supermarket meat counter would probably turn vegetarian if they were left to their own to process the protein they consume.
Killing for food or fur takes effort and a strong constitution that 100 years ago was much more understood among the human race.

 

[buck460XVR]

buck,

I'm pretty sure I posted one in the OP......................

Yes you did, and a very good one. That is the direction we need to go, not just calling folks foolish, stupid or that they believe in fairy tales.

Buck, those created an atmosphere around wildlife that ignores the benefits of management in a country such as ours, as well as creating some degree of anti-hunting. Beginnings, if you will, from which "hugging" grew.

Then it must be those same fairy tales of the "Big Bad Wolf" and "The Three Little Pigs" that makes most folks hate wolves, eh? I believe Disney made movies of both of them too. Must be why so many folks look past the benefits of having them around. To think I always thought it's because they might catch and eat a deer/elk, that others want to shoot, even tho the deer/elk herd is at a level above the holding capacity of the area. That same type of anthropomorphism used on Bambi was also used on Great White Sharks in those "Jaws" movies and yes, some folks really believe that sharks are evil killing machines that kill outta revenge and greed. That those animals have the cognitive thinking to plan an attack on a individual person, in a unique scenario. But that is a very small part of the population and folks that do not really make an impact on shark populations. It is the sport fishermen and the greedy Asian market that is killing off the sharks, not folks still having nightmares over the "Jaws" movies. Animal activist despise those fishermen netting sharks only for their fins and then returning them to the sea to die a slow and agonizing death because they can no longer swim. Funny, I do too and I am a fisherman and a hunter.

It's part of civilization's "magic": Milk and meat come from a grocery. Electricity from a switch. Water from a faucet. A little handle on the white porcelain throne makes yucky stuff go away. You don't need farms and ranches. Or power plants. Dams and reservoirs exist only to either mess up a natural stream or allow for water-skiing. Waste treatment plants smell bad.

High emotion and abysmal ignorance. For all too many people, the less they know, the stronger their opinions.

I agree, there are many folks out there that have distanced themselves from the real world and do not have a clue as to how that meat got into their value meal burger, or their Chicken Nuggets. Those folks looking out for the welfare of the animals that die for that burger or those nuggets know exactly what's going on, and it has nuttin' to do with Fairy Tales. The majority of those folks do not want all of us to stop eating meat, they just want those animals grown for it to be treated humanely, and responsibly. There are many dams and reservoirs that are detrimental to the ecology. My state has been in the process for years to remove many dams from small streams and rivers once used to create cheap electricity. Problem is, there are alternate methods out there that do not impede the movement of game fish or detrimentally change the water temperature. It's the greed of irresponsible folks for looking cheap electricity, may lose their lakefront property that is in the way of responsible resource and game management. This is more of a problem than folks that believe in Fairy Tales.

But this is the argument I see most often from hunters on game management and folks that support the 2nd Amendment. That their opponents are "stupid and foolish". Those other folks just don't understand the real world. That is not true. For the most part they are just as intelligent and sensible as we are. For the most part they do not have any more "extremists" as we do. For every career Animal Rights extremist out there, I'd bet there is at least one career poacher. Thus we need to use intelligent and rational arguments against their ideas....not the Disney Channel. The biggest impediment most, DNR's, F&G's and other game/resource managers have, is managing for the masses. Woods, forests and other public land parcels were once managed only for hunters and foresters. Now they have to be manage for hikers, Off-Roaders, mountain bikers, bird watchers and snowshoers, just to name a few. Once deer populations were managed only for hunting and always the prime purpose was to increase those populations for hunters to be more successful. Now the insurance companies are involved because of car/deer accidents. Farmers a generation ago that were happy to see deer on their property, now are fed up with loosing large amounts of profit from them. Those folks that buy their 5 acre piece of heaven in the country are tired of replanting ornamental shrubs and plants every spring because the deer are no longer afraid of humans. Then there are the concerns of CWD and Lyme Disease that go along with high density. Many of these folks are repulsed by the sight of a deer with an arrow stuck in them, or their intestines sticking out of their side standing in their yard, or the sight of a dead deer hanging from a tree or sitting in the back of a truck outside a bar. They understand that it needs to be done, they just want it done as humanely as possible and they don't want to negative images of it, publicly displayed. Many of us hunters want the same. It ain't Disney. When applied to hunting, it's called respect of your quarry. Something my Grandpa taught me half a century ago. When it comes to domestic animals, it is called being a responsible owner. Many of the ideals we had a generation ago on game management have changed greatly from lessons learned. Ethology and Anthrozoology have changed a lot of once considered Gospel facts to just old wive's tales. Tomorrow or next year it could be completely different. Giving animals the respect they deserve, regardless of what animal they are, should never change.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

You boast that animals have no rights. I don't agree. The good Lord put them here for a purpose and that purpose gives them rights.

And for everyone not Christian on the forum? Is it the animals that disappear or their rights? Neither. Rights aren't created or endowed by a divine being any more than they are from a government. Rights are the creation of a mutually agreed upon social contract that arises in any human society in order to promote peace and civility. Animals don't normally have rights because they can't understand the ramifications of long term social organization and thus can't form a social contract. Animals can only be conferred rights by other creatures capable of understanding such. Humans.

How about a legalistic view. If animals do indeed have the right to life, then hunting is not only illegal but unethical and immoral because we are depriving them of their rights without due process.

Don't accidentally create rights where they don't exist instead of simply saying that as humans we have a responsibility to act ethically in all regards.

 

[buck460XVR]

And for everyone not Christian on the forum? Is it the animals that disappear or their rights? Neither. Rights aren't created or endowed by a divine being any more than they are from a government. Rights are the creation of a mutually agreed upon social contract that arises in any human society in order to promote peace and civility. Animals don't normally have rights because they can't understand the ramifications of long term social organization and thus can't form a social contract. Animals can only be conferred rights by other creatures capable of understanding such. Humans.

How about a legalistic view. If animals do indeed have the right to life, then hunting is not only illegal but unethical and immoral because we are depriving them of their rights without due process.

Don't accidentally create rights where they don't exist instead of simply saying that as humans we have a responsibility to act ethically in all regards.

...and what are those inalienable rights that pro 2nd Amendment folks so often refer to and insist they cannot be infringed? Natural rights. The right to exist without being persecuted or treated with undue cruelty. Even non-Christians believe in animal rights. Many of the most ardent Animal Rights folks are atheist. Many other religions give animal more rights than the Christian belief. Look at the beliefs of our Native Americans. They had great respect for the land and the animals that thrived on it, and they were not Christians at the time. Many animals do have long term social organization and contacts. Pods of whales, dolphins, bees. All live within a social structure and communicate to each other thru a language only they know. Again, modern Ethology has shown us that animals are much more intelligent than we previously gave them credit for.

As for humans not having the responsibility to act ethically, isnt that what makes us humans? Don't most of us think those folks that rip the wings off flies and put kittens in the microwave are sick? Don't we all want to have the book thrown at those folks that throw puppies in a bag into the river on YouTube? I always thought it was ethics and responsibility that made made us human....at least civilized humans. Again, I see the parallel between having ethics when hunting and wounded/wasted game. It's a very obvious thing unless one has no ethics. No where have I said animals should not be hunted or raised domestically. I have only said there is a responsibility from us humans, the stewards of the animal community, to do so ethically and humanely. I'd prefer not to ever hunt with someone who feels differently.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

..and what are those inalienable rights that pro 2nd Amendment folks so often refer to and insist they cannot be infringed?

You do know that the Constitution doesn't grant rights, but protects them from infringement by the government? Right?

Many of the most ardent Animal Rights folks are atheist.

I hope after saying that. you have given up the claim of rights being god given... because then... how would atheists believe in them?

Look at the beliefs of our Native Americans. They had great respect for the land and the animals that thrived on it, and they were not Christians at the time

Again, do not confuse acting ethically towards something with that thing having a right. If you believe animals have the right to live, you must by default also admit that hunting the, thus depriving them of life without due process is wrong.

As for humans not having the responsibility to act ethically...

Well, since no one said that I'll proceed to ignore your strawman.

 

[Art Eatman]

To have the Founder's "inalienable rights" means having their (basically) Judeo/Christian basis of belief. Maybe an atheist would use "guaranteed" or some such equivalent, I dunno. Irrelevant to this thread.

Sure, there aren't all that many PETA- type activists. But enough of them are clever enough with words in a message similar in appeal to "it's for the children" that they can be persuasive to the unknowing.

Unknowing? School teachers in Austin, Texas told elementary school kids that the whitetail deer is an endangered species. This, in an area where newspaper articles speak of the local over-populations. The head of the Travis County chapter of the Sierra Club called for protection of the cougar, it being endangered--in the face of a known expansion in numbers and area.

This is modern America, where perceptions outweigh facts. Listen to any Social Justice Warrior.

 

[buck460XVR]

You do know that the Constitution doesn't grant rights, but protects them from infringement by the government? Right?

I never said anything about the Constitution giving us rights. Only that Pro 2nd Amendment folks talk about inalienable rights all the time.

I hope after saying that. you have given up the claim of rights being god given... because then... how would atheists believe in them?

Again, inalienable rights are believed to be birth rights or natural rights. Folks that believe in God then assume they are God given. Being "natural" rights or "birth" rights, one does not have to believe in God to believe in them.

I don't know if you are intentionally twisting my words in an attempt to dis my comments, don't get my point, or just want to argue. Again, I have been a hunter all of my 62 years. I help teach Hunter Safety and have for decades. I have raised cattle, milked cows and raised game birds. Treating animals with respect, even when they are to die, has always been a big part of my ethics. Part of my point is one does not have to be a Christian to be an ethical hunter, rancher, dog breeder, etc. Another part of my point was that using Disney movies to explain why the majority of folks in the world believe in some sort of Animal rights is about as real as those Disney movies.

Again, do not confuse acting ethically towards something with that thing having a right. If you believe animals have the right to live, you must by default also admit that hunting the, thus depriving them of life without due process is wrong.

Most inalienable rights deal with ethics. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", the three most well know inalienable rights here in America, basically come down to the ethics of our government and our culture. Civil rights, or the idea that all men are created equal is basically a ethics thing. Using your rationale, if you believe in "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as a inalienable right, then you must, by default admit that war and the sending of soldiers into battle is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. But we all know that is not how the story goes. Same with Animals. No where did I say they had the right to live forever, only that while they are alive, we treat them ethically and with respect. When they die, if it is at our hands, whther they are a wild animal or domesticated, they deserve to die quickly without suffering. This was my point way back in post #13 "It does not have to be Sustainable use vs Animal's Rights, but Sustainable use and Animal's Rights.".

This is modern America, where perceptions outweigh facts.

Similar to gun/hunting forums. Where some folks perception of Animal Rights is that they never should be killed for any reason, just like there are folks who believe that there should be no regs, no seasons and no accountability for how many animals are killed and how they are killed. As you said Art, there are very few PETA- type activists, just as there are very few career poachers in the world. The majority of us are in between that, and realize there is a lot of room in between both extremes, where man and animals, along with Mother Earth, can exist together in some kind of harmony. This means some animals will be killed, but done so ethically and responsibly to ensure the species will perpetuate and that the animals do not suffer, not only in death, but as they live.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

I never said anything about the Constitution giving us rights. Only that Pro 2nd Amendment folks talk about inalienable rights all the time.

So, your whole point was to get me to defend comments that theoretical people not appearing in this thread made? Uh, okay, nevermind.

Again, inalienable rights are believed to be birth rights or natural rights. Folks that believe in God then assume they are God given. Being "natural" rights or "birth" rights, one does not have to believe in God to believe in them.

Let's try this again... If one does not believe in God, where does that person believe the rights come from? Think about it for a second instead of just accepting talking points. The rights have to come from somewhere.

Does Thag, the first and only human on the planet have the right to free speech? Does Thag have the right to redress his government? Does Thag have the right to freedom of association? Of course not. The concepts don't even exist in Thags world where things like government aren't even dreamed of. If you believe that Thag, alone on the planet, had the right to redress his government then you also believe that I have the right to xaphnob my fleeboo. Not that I know what a fleeboo is or how to xaphnob it, but in 10,000 years when we have evolved to a higher state it's going to be pretty danged important. Pretty silly isn't it to suppose I have that right now, when in the future wars may be fought over it? Not until Thag meets Unta and they start have little Thags and Untas do concepts like privacy get invented. And you need a whole heck of a lot of Thags and Untas before you come up with the idea of having a right to not have troops quartered in your house... oh, or even having property at all for that matter.


So, where did the rights come from if Alone On The Planet Thag doesn't have them but Colonial 1770 Thag does? Let's look back: "Rights are the creation of a mutually agreed upon social contract that arises in any human society in order to promote peace and civility." Yeah. See, I didn't make this concept up. The founding fathers of the United States cheated when they hand waved and said, "God did it" while other secular nations have actually had to do their homework and figure out where rights come from. In the world court, "God did it" doesn't hold water, but a mutually agreed upon social contract evolved over this history of mankind does. You have rights because your society has mutually agreed that is how humans will behave towards each other to prevent ever day looking like a Mad Max out take reel.

Most inalienable rights deal with ethics. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", the three most well know inalienable rights here in America, basically come down to the ethics of our government and our culture.

That's a basic logic failure at work. Rights and ethics often parallel, ergo ... ergo what? Ergo nothing. Rights and ethics often parallel. period, full stop, end of concept. You can't simply conflate the two because they often agree. You can't make the leap from "I'm treating X ethically" to "therefore it has a right to be treated that way"

Using your rationale, if you believe in "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as a inalienable right, then you must, by default admit that war and the sending of soldiers into battle is wrong, regardless of the circumstances.

Actually, that is the first right caveman Thag got, the right to his own life. You see, under the social contract that created our rights, the rights of the innocent are more important than the rights of the usurper. That's why almost always a social contract has the right to self defense and the right to cast off oppression, even if it means depriving life and liberty.

You chose a really poor example. Because yes, even with Life and Liberty as the cornerstone foundations of rights, I will kill you dead if you try to take my life or liberty without due process. And most every society agrees with that. It's part of the social contract. If rights can't be defended and upheld, they aren't rights at all but a sham. Even the subjects of kings have the right to take life to protect themselves.

Same with Animals. No where did I say they had the right to live forever

That is the worst cop out I have ever seen. Earlier you said animals had a right to life. Now you've put a stopwatch on that right? That's not how rights work. Not even close. Honestly, I can't believe you typed that. If you can kill an animal at some point, because reasons and stop watches, then they don't have a right to live at all. They only live at your will, and die by it.

... that while they are alive, we treat them ethically and with respect

That's radically different than saying they have rights. Like, not even the same ballpark.

 

[H&Hhunter]

The point is quite simply. As stated in the video. Without hunting, wildlife suffers. There are only two geographic area on the planet where wildlife has not only recovered but striven and grown exponentially in numbers during the last century. Those two areas are North America and Southern Africa, the only two continents which use wide spread hunting based conservation model on vast tracks of open land, the proof is in the pudding.

It matters not that the sins of our forefathers nearly wiped out wildlife for good. What mater is that they also established the most viable wildlife conservation model in the history of mankind. What matters is if the Animal Rights fringe is allowed to destroy this incredibly successful model here or in Africa wildlife will disappear at exponential rates.

 

[Pushrod]

http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/20151208/wvdnr-prepares-for-return-of-elk-after-140-year-absence

Pushrod,

Looks like West Virginia is about to have an official elk population once again.

Good start. I want to see them back in my AO in the Northeast section of the State.

 

[Sniper66]

We have all seen 1,000s of films, news reports, magazines, etc., that humanize animals. How about all the cute animal YouTube videos? Not to mention Disney Land. We are inundated with the stuff. Now how many publications or films are dedicated to hunting as an effective tool in managing wild life? They as rare as nuns at a Planned Parenthood rally.

 

[TimSr]

The point is quite simply. As stated in the video. Without hunting, wildlife suffers. There are only two geographic area on the planet where wildlife has not only recovered but striven and grown exponentially in numbers during the last century. Those two areas are North America and Southern Africa, the only two continents which use wide spread hunting based conservation model on vast tracks of open land, the proof is in the pudding.

It matters not that the sins of our forefathers nearly wiped out wildlife for good. What mater is that they also established the most viable wildlife conservation model in the history of mankind. What matters is if the Animal Rights fringe is allowed to destroy this incredibly successful model here or in Africa wildlife will disappear at exponential rates.

I could not agree more. Well summarized!