They figure out right and wrong based on their social interaction with other creatures.... just like we do. I don't think people are born knowing what is right or wrong, they learn it.... and some develop no concept of knowing it as well.
What is the value of ethics to a hunter?
- Thread starter The Grand Baboon
- Start date
- Status
They figure out right and wrong based on their social interaction with other creatures.... just like we do. I don't think people are born knowing what is right or wrong, they learn it.... and some develop no concept of knowing it as well.
Shoobee
member
Great question, ZReed.
I note that your query begins with a philosophical/scientific/religious assumption, "If an animal ... ."
Philosophy, then science, and finally religion are the basis for all consequential questions involving life and lifestyles. The lifestyles of hunters as predators who take their own game for meat or whatever other reason entails a solid foundation in philosophy, science, and religion.
In terms of philosophy, questions of values must be determined individually by each hunter. My own philosophical values about the Earth and life thereon revolve around leaving the Earth a better place than I found it, and certainly no worse off than I found it.
Regarding the philosophy of hunting game animals, I will only do so for meat for my table and freezer. For myself, I cannot justify any other reasons. For others, I respect their rights to do so for whatever reasons they see fit. A rancher may be involved in depredation, because he has too many varmint species on his range land, and that is perfectly acceptible; however I am no rancher, ergo I do not kill varmint species. And a museum curator may desire taxidermized animals for his/her display of worldwide animal species, and thus a trophy hunter would be required to gather then necessary species; however I am no curator nor taxidermist, ergo I do not trophy hunt.
That's my philosophy.
Regarding science, a herd species where the males acquire harems of females is naturally going to suffer the depredation of their excess male population at the hands of automobile accidents, predator attacks from mountain lions, coyotes, wolves, and bears, starvation, or other natural means of depredation. Carefully regulated or self-regulated depredation of the non-breeding male herds are insignificant to the population, even beneficial, because the excess males are gleaned from the wildlife.
That's the science.
Regarding religion, I have not read anywhere in the Bible that animals go through the same savation process as humankind. Therefore I am guessing that their animal souls transmigrate to other animals when they die, in order to keep the Earth populated with animals. That's just a guess, from what I have surmised, but it suits me that animals were placed on the Earth for the benefit and use of humankind, or so the Bible says, and it would explain why their deaths are merely a transformation for them. None of the prophets in history has seen fit to discuss animal souls, so religion is want to help us resolve the issue of animal rights, if any.
That's the religion from the Bible. I do not necessarily care about other religions and their views.
Whether animals suffer fear or anguish, we simply do not know. A clean quick kill from my Remington model 700 .300 RUM, or my Hoyt Maxxis 60 lb compound bow with broadheads, should provide a painless death, if I have carefully taken the shot right.
Thus philosophically, scientifically, and religiously, I am good with hunting for meat for my table and freezer. I believe it makes sense, that it is beneficial, and that it is moral. And any arguments against hunting therefore stike me as unfounded, unscientific, and irreligious.
I note that your query begins with a philosophical/scientific/religious assumption, "If an animal ... ."
Philosophy, then science, and finally religion are the basis for all consequential questions involving life and lifestyles. The lifestyles of hunters as predators who take their own game for meat or whatever other reason entails a solid foundation in philosophy, science, and religion.
In terms of philosophy, questions of values must be determined individually by each hunter. My own philosophical values about the Earth and life thereon revolve around leaving the Earth a better place than I found it, and certainly no worse off than I found it.
Regarding the philosophy of hunting game animals, I will only do so for meat for my table and freezer. For myself, I cannot justify any other reasons. For others, I respect their rights to do so for whatever reasons they see fit. A rancher may be involved in depredation, because he has too many varmint species on his range land, and that is perfectly acceptible; however I am no rancher, ergo I do not kill varmint species. And a museum curator may desire taxidermized animals for his/her display of worldwide animal species, and thus a trophy hunter would be required to gather then necessary species; however I am no curator nor taxidermist, ergo I do not trophy hunt.
That's my philosophy.
Regarding science, a herd species where the males acquire harems of females is naturally going to suffer the depredation of their excess male population at the hands of automobile accidents, predator attacks from mountain lions, coyotes, wolves, and bears, starvation, or other natural means of depredation. Carefully regulated or self-regulated depredation of the non-breeding male herds are insignificant to the population, even beneficial, because the excess males are gleaned from the wildlife.
That's the science.
Regarding religion, I have not read anywhere in the Bible that animals go through the same savation process as humankind. Therefore I am guessing that their animal souls transmigrate to other animals when they die, in order to keep the Earth populated with animals. That's just a guess, from what I have surmised, but it suits me that animals were placed on the Earth for the benefit and use of humankind, or so the Bible says, and it would explain why their deaths are merely a transformation for them. None of the prophets in history has seen fit to discuss animal souls, so religion is want to help us resolve the issue of animal rights, if any.
That's the religion from the Bible. I do not necessarily care about other religions and their views.
Whether animals suffer fear or anguish, we simply do not know. A clean quick kill from my Remington model 700 .300 RUM, or my Hoyt Maxxis 60 lb compound bow with broadheads, should provide a painless death, if I have carefully taken the shot right.
Thus philosophically, scientifically, and religiously, I am good with hunting for meat for my table and freezer. I believe it makes sense, that it is beneficial, and that it is moral. And any arguments against hunting therefore stike me as unfounded, unscientific, and irreligious.
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences. There is a lot fo discussion, both religious nd scientific, about whether or not animals are sentient beings and if so, to what exent. I have had pets all my life, mostly dogs and cats. My grandparents had horses, cows, chickens, pigs, sheep and goats so I have spent a lot of time around animals. I don't think anyone can spend anytime around animals and not percieve that some are sentient, especially mammals and even birds.
Sentience is not equal. Does a fly think? Does it reason? Does it have feelings? I doubt it. Does a dog or a cat? Close casual observation suggests they do. Certainly more so than a fly. A cow or a horse? I have to say yes. It is obvious to me that different kinds of animals have different levels of sentience.
Sentience is different from instinct. Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience, that is, in the absence of learning and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors. A formal definition of instinct is as follows: "An instinct is an inborn complex pattern of behavior that must exist in every member of the species and, because it is embedded in the genetic code, cannot be overcome by force of will.
Some animals can reason. They can learn. There should be nothing in a cat's genetic makeup that instills an instinct for how to open a closet door, but I have had several cats that learned how to do it. I didn't teach them, they learned it on their own. Maybe by watching humans, maybe by reasoning, maybe by sheer dumb luck. But they learned. And once they learned, they remembered.
I currently have a cat that loves to play with rubber bands. We keep rubber bands hanging from the door lever inside our pantry. The cat has learned to pull down the lever with his paw to unlatch the door, reach under the door with his paw and pull it open, and get a rubber band off the lever inside the door. I have watched him do this, but I didn't teach him. I know he can smell rubber bands because when I had one in my shirt pocket, he jumped in my lap and started digging in my pocket until he pulled it out (he really like playing with them).
I once had a cat that tried to turn door knobs when he wanted to go outside. He couldn't get a grip on the knob and couldn't do it, but he never stopped trying. It was like he knew he could open the door if he could just get that knob turned.
I have had other cats that never even tried to open a door by manipulating the latch. They pawed at it, they reached under it and pulled on it, but they never touched the latch or knob. Obviously not instinctive behaviour.
Cats can learn from each other. When we first installed a cat door, we had one cat and I had to teach it how to use the door. When we got a second cat, it came from a home that did not have a cat door and our first cat taught it how to use the cat door. I watched it happen.
I have seen horses and cows learn to open gates. Do cows instinctually know that a human will come feed them at a certain time? Or do they learn that? Do they learn it from experience or from other cows?
Pigs are very intelligent. If you don't think so, read Flintknapper's sticky thread about hunting them.
I have seen dogs, cats, and deer die. I have seen people die. When the life leaves their eyes, it looks much the same.
I have reached a point where I can only kill from necessity. I don't hunt much anymore. I like to eat wild game but I don't need to eat it. For me, fun is just not a sufficient reason for killing. I understand the hunter's role in wildlife management, but there are enough hunters who do enjoy it to manage most wildlife so I don't feel a need to kill (and I have friends who share their meat with me). Predators and nusiances like feral pigs are another matter. In the case of a nusiance or a threat I would not be hunting them for fun, but because they need to be eliminated or controlled.
Sentience is not equal. Does a fly think? Does it reason? Does it have feelings? I doubt it. Does a dog or a cat? Close casual observation suggests they do. Certainly more so than a fly. A cow or a horse? I have to say yes. It is obvious to me that different kinds of animals have different levels of sentience.
Sentience is different from instinct. Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience, that is, in the absence of learning and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors. A formal definition of instinct is as follows: "An instinct is an inborn complex pattern of behavior that must exist in every member of the species and, because it is embedded in the genetic code, cannot be overcome by force of will.
Some animals can reason. They can learn. There should be nothing in a cat's genetic makeup that instills an instinct for how to open a closet door, but I have had several cats that learned how to do it. I didn't teach them, they learned it on their own. Maybe by watching humans, maybe by reasoning, maybe by sheer dumb luck. But they learned. And once they learned, they remembered.
I currently have a cat that loves to play with rubber bands. We keep rubber bands hanging from the door lever inside our pantry. The cat has learned to pull down the lever with his paw to unlatch the door, reach under the door with his paw and pull it open, and get a rubber band off the lever inside the door. I have watched him do this, but I didn't teach him. I know he can smell rubber bands because when I had one in my shirt pocket, he jumped in my lap and started digging in my pocket until he pulled it out (he really like playing with them).
I once had a cat that tried to turn door knobs when he wanted to go outside. He couldn't get a grip on the knob and couldn't do it, but he never stopped trying. It was like he knew he could open the door if he could just get that knob turned.
I have had other cats that never even tried to open a door by manipulating the latch. They pawed at it, they reached under it and pulled on it, but they never touched the latch or knob. Obviously not instinctive behaviour.
Cats can learn from each other. When we first installed a cat door, we had one cat and I had to teach it how to use the door. When we got a second cat, it came from a home that did not have a cat door and our first cat taught it how to use the cat door. I watched it happen.
I have seen horses and cows learn to open gates. Do cows instinctually know that a human will come feed them at a certain time? Or do they learn that? Do they learn it from experience or from other cows?
Pigs are very intelligent. If you don't think so, read Flintknapper's sticky thread about hunting them.
I have seen dogs, cats, and deer die. I have seen people die. When the life leaves their eyes, it looks much the same.
I have reached a point where I can only kill from necessity. I don't hunt much anymore. I like to eat wild game but I don't need to eat it. For me, fun is just not a sufficient reason for killing. I understand the hunter's role in wildlife management, but there are enough hunters who do enjoy it to manage most wildlife so I don't feel a need to kill (and I have friends who share their meat with me). Predators and nusiances like feral pigs are another matter. In the case of a nusiance or a threat I would not be hunting them for fun, but because they need to be eliminated or controlled.
Last edited:
RhinoDefense
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2010
- Messages
- 883
Animals do not have the mental capacity to develop morals. A moral is purely a human trait. Animals cannot have ethics.
Bears are animals.. and very intelligent ones that behave a lot like humans at times... So would the intelligence of a bear allow for morals?
Actually how the hell would you even know what an animal is thinking? can you read minds?
and no im not an anti hunter I go hunting every year...
Shoobee
member
From my observations, insects and fish do not have any feelings at all.
Mammals and birds however do seem to have some sort of feelings, and most behave very human-like.
But just because they behave human-like, this does not make them like humans.
I grant all living things the right to life, within their sphere. Ergo no bugs allowed in my house. Entering my home is a capital offense for a bug.
Outside, I try not to kill anything needlessly. However smashing bugs with my car is unavoidable, as they fly all over the place, and they are often in the way of my path down the road.
For fish or any other animal (animal = moving thing, by definition), I do not kill or catch them unless I plan to eat them, and I eat or freeze them fairly quickly after I have caught them. Those are my personal views about hunting or fishing.
Insects and worms make great bait for fishing, or else you must spearfish, where allowed.
Mammals and birds however do seem to have some sort of feelings, and most behave very human-like.
But just because they behave human-like, this does not make them like humans.
I grant all living things the right to life, within their sphere. Ergo no bugs allowed in my house. Entering my home is a capital offense for a bug.
Outside, I try not to kill anything needlessly. However smashing bugs with my car is unavoidable, as they fly all over the place, and they are often in the way of my path down the road.
For fish or any other animal (animal = moving thing, by definition), I do not kill or catch them unless I plan to eat them, and I eat or freeze them fairly quickly after I have caught them. Those are my personal views about hunting or fishing.
Insects and worms make great bait for fishing, or else you must spearfish, where allowed.
CoRoMo
Member
This.
What I make the mistake of doing though, is what Ragnar Danneskjold described, and I tend to agree with his post. I senselessly pity an animal's "suffering" by imagining what it must feel like to have a slug shatter my shoulder joint and to flop around before a neck shot ends it. Even though a deer must feel some amount of physical pain, it's certainly not related to how we feel pain. I imagine that their level of pain sensory is minuscule compared to us. I'd say that they barely feel pain while we are extremely sensitive to it.
Some animals just feel no pain at all in certain ways. For example, geese have no insulation on their feet, but they stand barefoot on a frozen lake surface all day. We couldn't bear to do that. Same with a deer. It can stand in a 32° stream for a long time drinking, and it doesn't feel the pain that we would if we were doing the same thing.
I've personally seen an elk trying to run with a shattered shoulder. I can't imagine that I would be able to move around with such an injury, but rather, I'd lay down and wail about it. Where that type of an injury would be unbearably painful for us, I have to believe that it is rather manageable "pain" for the elk/deer... if pain at all.
Just my thoughts.
Nor can they grasp concepts. In order for a dog to feel shame or guilt, it would have to understand how their actions impacted their owner. I don't believe they can do this. They do something wrong and they are reprimanded for it. Their response to the reprimand isn't necessarily shame or guilt, just caution and fear because they've learned that the reprimand is a series of unpleasant moments.
Last edited:
Bobson
Member
My thing on this is kinda basic. I can feel pain, and I don't like feeling it. Animals can feel pain, and I have to assume they don't like it. For that simple reason, I'd prefer to do what I can to not inflict it.
I'll still hunt, but I won't go out of my way to make an animal suffer.
I'll still hunt, but I won't go out of my way to make an animal suffer.
Loosedhorse
member
What "sentience" is--and why it might matter--is very much in debate.
An animal's perception of stumuli (ability to "perceive" the world) is manifested by its different reactions to different stumuli. However, that an animal reacts to what we would consider a painful stimulus does not prove that it consciously "feels" pain. However, the similar structure of any particular animal's brain to ours might suggest that it does.
It is a similarly long jump from that to the idea that an animal is "conscious" of the world around him as any sort of unified mental impression, versus a series of sensory stimuli without organization or "meaning."
And self-consciousness? With all its implications of decision-making, knowledge of consequences, and experience-shaped and reflection-built individuality? I don't believe (no matter how many MRIs you look at) we have any basis for saying that animals have that.
As we know, a moral sense ("knowledge of good and evil", if you will) is traditionally felt to be the exclusive territory of the human being. As Mark Twain observed, "The human is the only animal that blushes, or needs to."
Perhaps the best known minimizer of human-animal differences is Peter Singer, who believes that different species deserve legal rights on a sliding scale, based on their ability to perceive pain. Yet he is oddly inconsistent, and has said that vivisection is acceptable if the benefit outweighs the harm done to the animals.
So, as long as I feel that the benefits of my hunting outweigh the harm done to the animals...I'm good?
Shoobee
member
A good close first reading of the Bible should resolve any of these questions.
Jesus ate a pascal lamb on passover 4 times that we know of.
Ergo Jesus was not a vegetarian.
Ergo killing animals and eating them is ok with Jesus.
Maybe not with Buddha or some other modern hippie guru, but ok with Jesus.
Jesus ate a pascal lamb on passover 4 times that we know of.
Ergo Jesus was not a vegetarian.
Ergo killing animals and eating them is ok with Jesus.
Maybe not with Buddha or some other modern hippie guru, but ok with Jesus.
Dylon Fisher
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2011
- Messages
- 30
I hunt and i dont feel guilty about killing animals. Although i will never forget the first time i saw i dying deer stare up at me with those big eyes. You just have to try to kill whatever animal your hunting as fast and painless as possible.
It is my opinion that hunting for food is better on the animals than buying food from the modern chicken or beef farms.
Animals obviously learn from social interaction with other creatures. They don't slap a name on a group of them, but they learn.
Freedom_fighter_in_IL
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,097
I know this is going to offend a few here. But all these "animals were put here for mans benefit" people really need to get a serious grip on reality. The simple logic of this statement is as follows. If the animals were put here for OUR benefit, could someone please explain to me why THEY were here millions of years before US? Humans are one of the YOUNGEST species on this planet. People seriously need to learn about reality. WE are animals. Our brains simply developed larger and we use more of the reasoning centers of them. Animals feel pain just like us. Their reactions to certain stimuli are of course different than ours but that in NO way means they don't feel pain. All animals "call out" when injured. That in itself says they FEEL pain. Hence why I do my dead level best to make the most clean and ethical shots I possibly can. The "bible thumpers" need to crack open some actual FACT books and learn about your animal brethren. Sorry if that comes across crass but it's just the plain old simple truth. We are no better in the eyes of nature than any other animal. Matter of fact, we are a SCOURGE on this planet. We decimate this planets resources on a daily basis. Hate to say it, but there are FAR more intelligent animals on this planet than us. Sure we can build things that allow us to defeat mother nature, or rather just hold her off because she will eventually get tired of us and educate us on TRUE power.
Aren't shame and guilt borne out of our fear of what others or ourselves think of our actions? Do people raised in different cultures feel guilt or shame for different things?
I'll admit that our concepts of guilt and shame are much more developed by our increased mental capacity, but I don't see definitive evidence that suggests that animals have none.
Well, think objectively about this. Do you not buy shells or load ammo in preparation for your hunt? If you are going to have a baby, do you not prepare before the baby shows up? As far as timeliness what is time to something that is ageless?
Freedom_fighter_in_IL
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,097
Not "timeless" just a vast amount of time has past since the Universe expanded. "All things that begin, certainly has an end". We evolved on this planet just like everything else. Over time. No one can say with any sort of certainty that other animals have no emotions or feelings. But anyone with any kind of intelligence whatsoever can plainly see that some mammals show "feelings" of happiness, sadness, pain & suffering, neediness, gilt & shame, and most of all, love. Any dog owner can attest to this. Anyone that actually scouts deer in the summer can see this when watching deer herds from a distance. The fawns goof off and play just like children of man. The doe fights and bickers just like females of man
Hell watch most any mammalian species and you will see this. Hate to tell you folks, but we are NOT the end all say all creatures of this planet. We are here for but a fleeting moment in the passage of time on this great Earth.Not "timeless" just a vast amount of time has past since the Universe expanded. "All things that begin, certainly has an end". We evolved on this planet just like everything else. Over time. No one can say with any sort of certainty that other animals have no emotions or feelings. But anyone with any kind of intelligence whatsoever can plainly see that some mammals show "feelings" of happiness, sadness, pain & suffering, neediness, gilt & shame, and most of all, love. Any dog owner can attest to this. Anyone that actually scouts deer in the summer can see this when watching deer herds from a distance. The fawns goof off and play just like children of man. The doe fights and bickers just like females of man
Then I think we are in agreement with everything except maybe the subject of that which we don't talk about on the high road.
splattergun
Member
Pain is a physiological response to a potentially damaging stimulus which results in involuntary physical reactions to prevent further injury. It may also result in instinctive responses, fight or flight for instance and, in humans, emotional responses.
I have no idea exactly what level the fish, birds and mammals I hunt experience pain, but I find no pleasure in causing unnecessary pain to any creature. That is why I do not release fish, but kill them immediately. I catch ONLY what I will eat and no more. Neither do I pull wings off flies nor the legs off spiders. I kill those dang things quickly as possible, too.
I strive for 1 shot 1 kill, but if there is an occassion where a bird flies off wounded I pray for a quick recovery or a quick death for it. And when I kill an animal for my own use I am always careful to give thanks for its life.
It's a matter of respect for my Creator's creation.
I have no idea exactly what level the fish, birds and mammals I hunt experience pain, but I find no pleasure in causing unnecessary pain to any creature. That is why I do not release fish, but kill them immediately. I catch ONLY what I will eat and no more. Neither do I pull wings off flies nor the legs off spiders. I kill those dang things quickly as possible, too.
I strive for 1 shot 1 kill, but if there is an occassion where a bird flies off wounded I pray for a quick recovery or a quick death for it. And when I kill an animal for my own use I am always careful to give thanks for its life.
It's a matter of respect for my Creator's creation.
Shoobee
member
FF-in-ILL, if you don't rely on some religious basis for your ideas and beliefs, when your questions exceed the bounds of known science or personal philosophy, then it simply means you are a-theist, which is fine, but being a-theist leaves you with less tools to deal with life on Earth.
I am not offended at all. And you are perfectly entitled to your own personal views, as is everyone.
Science however will not tell you what is right or what is wrong. Science is a-moral.
Philosophy deals with morality, but primarily with human-to-human morality. Philosophy cannot cope with issues like the morality of hunting.
So scratch science, and scratch philosophy, in the case of hunting ethics, and that only leaves religion.
Ergo if you are a Christian, and your particular Christianity is based on the Bible, then there is nothing wrong with meat hunting.
If you are Hindu or Buddhist, then there may be religious issues with hunting animals or any other life form.
Whether you think religious principles are reasonable or not compared with your ideas of scientific theory, that is a personal issue of your own. It will never convince anyone else other than perhaps a fellow a-theist, since your a-theism is your own primary foundation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
A-theism is a very small minority on this planet of ours overall, although interestingly there are some nations where they indeed are a majority. Your audience would therefore depend on where you are located.
For examply, I trust that scientific research has amassed significant evidence that red wine helps prevent prostate cancer and alcohol in general helps keep your arteries clean. But obviously several religious groups who shun alcoholic drinks are not going to be swayed at all.
I am not offended at all. And you are perfectly entitled to your own personal views, as is everyone.
Science however will not tell you what is right or what is wrong. Science is a-moral.
Philosophy deals with morality, but primarily with human-to-human morality. Philosophy cannot cope with issues like the morality of hunting.
So scratch science, and scratch philosophy, in the case of hunting ethics, and that only leaves religion.
Ergo if you are a Christian, and your particular Christianity is based on the Bible, then there is nothing wrong with meat hunting.
If you are Hindu or Buddhist, then there may be religious issues with hunting animals or any other life form.
Whether you think religious principles are reasonable or not compared with your ideas of scientific theory, that is a personal issue of your own. It will never convince anyone else other than perhaps a fellow a-theist, since your a-theism is your own primary foundation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
A-theism is a very small minority on this planet of ours overall, although interestingly there are some nations where they indeed are a majority. Your audience would therefore depend on where you are located.
For examply, I trust that scientific research has amassed significant evidence that red wine helps prevent prostate cancer and alcohol in general helps keep your arteries clean. But obviously several religious groups who shun alcoholic drinks are not going to be swayed at all.
Last edited:
Shoobee
member
The theory (actually it is merely a hypothesis) of evolution of the species is merely an academic model for explaining the similarity of taxonomy of species, living and extinct.
I don't think anyone ever intended for it to become a life's philosophy or a substitute for religion.
I don't think anyone ever intended for it to become a life's philosophy or a substitute for religion.
ZeroJunk
Member
I have never met a hunter who did not try to kill an animal as quikly as possible. I don't see that it has anything to do with ethics. It is simply the most logical and expedient way to get a job done.
Making a stupid shot does not necessarlly make you inhumane, just stupid.
In the end nature is harsh.
Making a stupid shot does not necessarlly make you inhumane, just stupid.
In the end nature is harsh.
jack_burton
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 27
As a hunter and butcher I kill to eat. With butchering I have found the less stress a creature goes through the easier the whole process is and I can't prove this but I think the quality of the meat is better. Hunting I approach the same. No one wants to see a critter flop around for 20 minutes unless Your an aspiring serial killer
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
And I would agree. I don't buy feedlot or forcefed meat from the supermarket or factory farms. We buy grass-fed beef from a local rancher with a closed herd. Chicken, lamb and pork come from a different ranch that operates on a similar basis.
GJgo
Member
Egocentrism aside, I agree with what a couple others have posted in that the faster the game dies, and the less it saw it coming, the better the meat tastes. If for no other reason than this I strive for a fast kill, and there are plenty of other reasons..
- Status