In defense of “trophy hunting”

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, Mason, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Locked
User avatar
SpaceRanger42
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:05 pm
Location: Mountlake Terrace, WA
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by SpaceRanger42 »

Trophy hunting is for epic douche bags with too much money and time and far too little sense. I have pretty strong opinions on hunting in general and I don't object to it mostly. But people who just go after a trophy, no matter that they give the meat to "the locals" (also anyone who uses that phrase in that context is probably a racist/classist douche) they are still garbage human beings. I see a lot of talk about stalking and what not in this thread. Lets be really honest here. Most hunters do not stalk and kill any more. They sit in blinds or in tree stands on obvious and well marked game trails. They use lures/calls and wait for the animal to walk into their site picture.
Varmint control is another topic entirely and not really hunting. I have never had to deal with the issue personally as I am neither a farmer nor a rancher worried about the animal population destroying either my living or what I need to live on. But I will say that I don't hunt. Not that I wouldn't. I would like to go elk hunting or maybe white tail. But I also want to use every part of the animal I know how. As a leather worker I can honestly say that I know how to use a LOT of any given animal above and beyond sustenance. The processing can be a little messy and I would probably want a pro to process the hide so that as little as possible was wasted. Otherwise I will likely just keep going to the store/butcher to buy meat.
Sidenote: Regulations on pork inspection have been basically rolled back to pre FDA regs. I would avoid bacon on your burger for a while.
Never smile too big, the gods may mistake it for hubris.
Yes, I haz a moose. :D

BungalowBill
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:51 pm
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by BungalowBill »

K9s wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:42 pm
If you didn't want to hear our views, why did you start this? You ended your original post with "End rant. Flame away." So, I assume you were just trying to stir it up. You did. Now what?
I assume you read the whole post. The “now what” was: Are these people open-minded enough to consider that they might be adhering to straw-man arguments? Could they realize that maybe they have half-baked opinions about a subject they know next to nothing about? Or will they resort to name calling. I see a lot of frustration on this board about our fellow liberals who condemn gun ownership even though they know nothing about firearms. I also see a lot of commentary on here, completely oblivious to the irony, condemning “trophy hunting.” One of us knows a whole lot more about hunting than the other, and it isn’t you.

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 11177
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by YankeeTarheel »

BungalowBill wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:31 pm
K9s wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:42 pm
If you didn't want to hear our views, why did you start this? You ended your original post with "End rant. Flame away." So, I assume you were just trying to stir it up. You did. Now what?
I assume you read the whole post. The “now what” was: Are these people open-minded enough to consider that they might be adhering to straw-man arguments? Could they realize that maybe they have half-baked opinions about a subject they know next to nothing about? Or will they resort to name calling. I see a lot of frustration on this board about our fellow liberals who condemn gun ownership even though they know nothing about firearms. I also see a lot of commentary on here, completely oblivious to the irony, condemning “trophy hunting.” One of us knows a whole lot more about hunting than the other, and it isn’t you.
You're right. I don't hunt animals to kill them. All I hunt is restaurants, motorcycle shops, and hardware stores.

So maybe you can explain exactly what I got wrong here. BTW, I don't have any objection to 1), 2), or 3) :
I'm not a hunter but it seems to me that there are 4 reasons to hunt:
1) Food. I've known plenty of people who fed their family for a year on venison.
2) "Varmint" control. Pests that destroy fields, crops, or prey on herds. Animals that cannot successfully be relocated and are dangerous to people.
3) Environmental control to strengthen herds, reduce over-grazing.--mainly to offset our killing off the apex predators.
4) Trophy hunting. To make guys feel more manly by killing some big animal minding its own business. Like Uday and Qusay Trump showing off the poor leopard they killed.
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

User avatar
TEXGunny
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:33 pm
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by TEXGunny »


YankeeTarheel wrote:
BungalowBill wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:31 pm
K9s wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:42 pm
If you didn't want to hear our views, why did you start this? You ended your original post with "End rant. Flame away." So, I assume you were just trying to stir it up. You did. Now what?
I assume you read the whole post. The “now what” was: Are these people open-minded enough to consider that they might be adhering to straw-man arguments? Could they realize that maybe they have half-baked opinions about a subject they know next to nothing about? Or will they resort to name calling. I see a lot of frustration on this board about our fellow liberals who condemn gun ownership even though they know nothing about firearms. I also see a lot of commentary on here, completely oblivious to the irony, condemning “trophy hunting.” One of us knows a whole lot more about hunting than the other, and it isn’t you.
You're right. I don't hunt animals to kill them. All I hunt is restaurants, motorcycle shops, and hardware stores.

So maybe you can explain exactly what I got wrong here. BTW, I don't have any objection to 1), 2), or 3) :
I'm not a hunter but it seems to me that there are 4 reasons to hunt:
1) Food. I've known plenty of people who fed their family for a year on venison.
2) "Varmint" control. Pests that destroy fields, crops, or prey on herds. Animals that cannot successfully be relocated and are dangerous to people.
3) Environmental control to strengthen herds, reduce over-grazing.--mainly to offset our killing off the apex predators.
4) Trophy hunting. To make guys feel more manly by killing some big animal minding its own business. Like Uday and Qusay Trump showing off the poor leopard they killed.
so you...

don't hunt,

yet pretend to know about hunting.

meanwhile your list of four reasons to hunt is redundant. trophy hunting provides food for local people, reduces old aggressive animal populations to balance out the herd composition, and reduces populations that need reduction. the money generated (like $50k for a lion hunt) is invested in the local economy in the form of conservation jobs.

you have a very limited view of something you know very little about. I'm glad, however, you finally admitted that your main squeamishness is about killing and not hunting. at least that's a step forward.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 11177
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by YankeeTarheel »

TEXGunny wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:56 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote:
BungalowBill wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:31 pm
K9s wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:42 pm
If you didn't want to hear our views, why did you start this? You ended your original post with "End rant. Flame away." So, I assume you were just trying to stir it up. You did. Now what?
I assume you read the whole post. The “now what” was: Are these people open-minded enough to consider that they might be adhering to straw-man arguments? Could they realize that maybe they have half-baked opinions about a subject they know next to nothing about? Or will they resort to name calling. I see a lot of frustration on this board about our fellow liberals who condemn gun ownership even though they know nothing about firearms. I also see a lot of commentary on here, completely oblivious to the irony, condemning “trophy hunting.” One of us knows a whole lot more about hunting than the other, and it isn’t you.
You're right. I don't hunt animals to kill them. All I hunt is restaurants, motorcycle shops, and hardware stores.

So maybe you can explain exactly what I got wrong here. BTW, I don't have any objection to 1), 2), or 3) :
I'm not a hunter but it seems to me that there are 4 reasons to hunt:
1) Food. I've known plenty of people who fed their family for a year on venison.
2) "Varmint" control. Pests that destroy fields, crops, or prey on herds. Animals that cannot successfully be relocated and are dangerous to people.
3) Environmental control to strengthen herds, reduce over-grazing.--mainly to offset our killing off the apex predators.
4) Trophy hunting. To make guys feel more manly by killing some big animal minding its own business. Like Uday and Qusay Trump showing off the poor leopard they killed.
so you...

don't hunt,

yet pretend to know about hunting.

meanwhile your list of four reasons to hunt is redundant. trophy hunting provides food for local people, reduces old aggressive animal populations to balance out the herd composition, and reduces populations that need reduction. the money generated (like $50k for a lion hunt) is invested in the local economy in the form of conservation jobs.

you have a very limited view of something you know very little about. I'm glad, however, you finally admitted that your main squeamishness is about killing and not hunting. at least that's a step forward.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
True bullshit. You just like killing and get off on it. I guarantee you that Africans don't need YOUR help killing wild animals--they've been doing it for millennia.
I've never known a hunter, even for meat, who didn't kill the biggest, most spectacular buck, not the weak, sick, limping ones.
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

User avatar
TEXGunny
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:33 pm
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by TEXGunny »


YankeeTarheel wrote:
TEXGunny wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:56 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote:
BungalowBill wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:31 pm
I assume you read the whole post. The “now what” was: Are these people open-minded enough to consider that they might be adhering to straw-man arguments? Could they realize that maybe they have half-baked opinions about a subject they know next to nothing about? Or will they resort to name calling. I see a lot of frustration on this board about our fellow liberals who condemn gun ownership even though they know nothing about firearms. I also see a lot of commentary on here, completely oblivious to the irony, condemning “trophy hunting.” One of us knows a whole lot more about hunting than the other, and it isn’t you.
You're right. I don't hunt animals to kill them. All I hunt is restaurants, motorcycle shops, and hardware stores.

So maybe you can explain exactly what I got wrong here. BTW, I don't have any objection to 1), 2), or 3) :
I'm not a hunter but it seems to me that there are 4 reasons to hunt:
1) Food. I've known plenty of people who fed their family for a year on venison.
2) "Varmint" control. Pests that destroy fields, crops, or prey on herds. Animals that cannot successfully be relocated and are dangerous to people.
3) Environmental control to strengthen herds, reduce over-grazing.--mainly to offset our killing off the apex predators.
4) Trophy hunting. To make guys feel more manly by killing some big animal minding its own business. Like Uday and Qusay Trump showing off the poor leopard they killed.
so you...

don't hunt,

yet pretend to know about hunting.

meanwhile your list of four reasons to hunt is redundant. trophy hunting provides food for local people, reduces old aggressive animal populations to balance out the herd composition, and reduces populations that need reduction. the money generated (like $50k for a lion hunt) is invested in the local economy in the form of conservation jobs.

you have a very limited view of something you know very little about. I'm glad, however, you finally admitted that your main squeamishness is about killing and not hunting. at least that's a step forward.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
True bullshit. You just like killing and get off on it. I guarantee you that Africans don't need YOUR help killing wild animals--they've been doing it for millennia.
I've never known a hunter, even for meat, who didn't kill the biggest, most spectacular buck, not the weak, sick, limping ones.
well let me be the first to burst your fragile bubble: I don't hunt for trophy, primarily. I kill pigs to eat them. if I killed a big buck, itd be on the wall and in the freezer. a kill is something to be respectful about, as well as happy that you got lucky and the months of preperation didn't go to waste. the thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours working up hunting loads, casting my own lead bullets, spending 8 hours at the range sighting in and writing up load data actually resulted in meat in the freezer and a European style mount on the wall.

but no, I just like killing.

kindly stop talking about something you know nothing about. it's not a good look

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


User avatar
lurker
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14402
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:00 pm
Location: spencer, nc.
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by lurker »

divide and conquer. cute. pay more attention to your own "look", thrill-killers.
i know something about it, and i have no use whatsoever for trophy hunting, or trophy hunters. there's something fundamentally lacking in their character. sure, the locals (dismissive term, that) can use the meat, and yes, some of the money goes into the local economy or conservation. but that's not why they kill. trophy hunting is symptomatic of everything that's wrong with modern humanity. the disconnectedness, the lack of empathy, the egotism.
Last edited by lurker on Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 11177
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by YankeeTarheel »

TEXGunny wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:12 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote:
TEXGunny wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:56 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote:
You're right. I don't hunt animals to kill them. All I hunt is restaurants, motorcycle shops, and hardware stores.

So maybe you can explain exactly what I got wrong here. BTW, I don't have any objection to 1), 2), or 3) :
so you...

don't hunt,

yet pretend to know about hunting.

meanwhile your list of four reasons to hunt is redundant. trophy hunting provides food for local people, reduces old aggressive animal populations to balance out the herd composition, and reduces populations that need reduction. the money generated (like $50k for a lion hunt) is invested in the local economy in the form of conservation jobs.

you have a very limited view of something you know very little about. I'm glad, however, you finally admitted that your main squeamishness is about killing and not hunting. at least that's a step forward.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
True bullshit. You just like killing and get off on it. I guarantee you that Africans don't need YOUR help killing wild animals--they've been doing it for millennia.
I've never known a hunter, even for meat, who didn't kill the biggest, most spectacular buck, not the weak, sick, limping ones.
well let me be the first to burst your fragile bubble: I don't hunt for trophy, primarily. I kill pigs to eat them. if I killed a big buck, itd be on the wall and in the freezer. a kill is something to be respectful about, as well as happy that you got lucky and the months of preperation didn't go to waste. the thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours working up hunting loads, casting my own lead bullets, spending 8 hours at the range sighting in and writing up load data actually resulted in meat in the freezer and a European style mount on the wall.

but no, I just like killing.

kindly stop talking about something you know nothing about. it's not a good look

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
You don't know me so I'll tell you: You don't get to tell what I can and cannot talk about. Only TM, The Mgt , gets to do that. Next, I don't give a flying fuck what someone who has totally lost my respect thinks of my "look".

And, with that, I'm done with you.
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6005
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by featureless »

lurker wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:47 am
and then one day it occurred to me that i don't really enjoy eating fish. or cleaning fish.
This is why I don't fish any more (unless I'm with someone that really enjoys fish). Always ate what I caught, and generally fished planted trout in the Sierra, but didn't enjoy eating it enough to continue.

Now, I like pork, and if I ever get around to a ferral hog hunt, I can do it mostly guilt free and eat well.

User avatar
TEXGunny
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:33 pm
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by TEXGunny »

featureless wrote:
lurker wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:47 am
and then one day it occurred to me that i don't really enjoy eating fish. or cleaning fish.
This is why I don't fish any more (unless I'm with someone that really enjoys fish). Always ate what I caught, and generally fished planted trout in the Sierra, but didn't enjoy eating it enough to continue.

Now, I like pork, and if I ever get around to a ferral hog hunt, I can do it mostly guilt free and eat well.
it's not exactly like store bought pork. more....porky? and many more parasites (whatever you do don't look up brucellosis)

if you've ever wanted to machine gun pigs from a hot air balloon, Texas has got it

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk



User avatar
Marlene
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 11:48 pm
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by Marlene »

are they ever not here in tandem?
Image

User avatar
lurker
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14402
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:00 pm
Location: spencer, nc.
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by lurker »

they do like to tag-team: "over here!", "no, over here!" whether they actually plan it that way, i can't say. i would be curious to know how many of them have been banned here before.

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 11155
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by K9s »

Gecko45
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 21127
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by CDFingers »

Even in a team, it's impossible to defend killing for fun. No soup for them.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Get yourself a shotgun and a pocket full of shells
While away the time

User avatar
max129
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:35 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by max129 »

The only line-of-reasoning I saw from the proponents is this:
Trophy hunting is legal

I like to track, stalk, hunt and kill

It is natural for people to want to hunt - part of the natural order

I would have preferred a more philosophical argument, if such was available. I am afraid it would have devolved to a Hobbesian approach about the brutish nature of "man".

In any even, I am marginally glad for this thread because it did cause me to ask if I feel like I have the "moral right" to pass judgement on trophy hunters. In general, I do not feel the moral right to judge others for the vast majority of grey area behaviors. What this thread did for me is to officially move trophy hunting in my mind from a grey area to black and white.

After thinking about it, and reading a bit elsewhere on the topic, I concluded that trophy hunting is not now a grey area, if it ever was. It is a barbaric throwback to the human history. If it is "natural" in man, it is not "good natural", it is "bad natural" and needs to be educated out of people in childhood.

And as much as it pains me to gore another person's ox, I concluded the same for sport fishing that devolves to trophy hunting.

Here is my reasoning:

Absent religion, little is "sacred" among us, but living things carry the spark of life, and that is as close to scared as we are going to get.

If you need to kill a living thing for good cause, do so, but try to limit the number you kill.

Try to examine your definition of "good cause" with some rigor and frequency.


In addition, trophy hunting has an anti-natural aspect: you are killing the best of the breed you can find. Any basic look at nature will tell you that weakens the long term population that you hunt.

Now I am done tracking this thread. Trolls, interlopers or not.
Image

BungalowBill
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:51 pm
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by BungalowBill »

Marlene wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:20 pm
are they ever not here in tandem?
First you all refuse to listen to reasoned arguments from people who obviously know more about the subject matter than you do (on a subforum devoted to hunting, no less), then you get all moralistic and judgmental. Now you’re trafficking in bizarre conspiracy theories??

Are you SURE you aren’t a bunch of Republicans?

User avatar
Marlene
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 11:48 pm
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by Marlene »

Buddy boy, I have listened to all sorts of crap in this thread and weren’t much of it seasoned let alone reasoned.

Also, while I think “I think killing is great fun” is a creepy ass statement, I’m not actually solid in my opinion on trophy hunting. I’m damn sure I still haven’t heard a real argument for it here. Just some mush with feelings on top and someone swearing that’s a “reasoned argument “.

Don’t worry, I’ll continue to not blame all trophy hunters for your shortcomings on the debate field. I’ll also continue to construct sentences in ways which make clear my Germanic linguistic heritage. At the end of the sentence is an excellent place for a verb to be. Are we still doing this? You see, while I don’t have clarity on the question of murdering big spotted kitties, I’m cautious to pass judgment, as what I’m doing to you right now is also purely for sport and might not shed a flattering light on me when compared.

I, sir, am many things, but I certainly am not a bunch of Republicans. I’m not even Irish.
Image

User avatar
lurker
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14402
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:00 pm
Location: spencer, nc.
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by lurker »

i think what we have here is commonly known as an "attention whore". like kim kardashian but without the silicone. like donald trump but without twitter. like miley cyrus but without the gender ambiguity.

User avatar
Bisbee
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:38 pm
Location: On The Border with no need of The Wall.
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by Bisbee »

:laugh:

Amusing repartee, all.

And I particularly enjoyed reading Max’s evolution to “finding his religion”. Welcome to the sangha...
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 11177
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by YankeeTarheel »

Aw, I was gonna say "Like Miley Cyrus without the tongue" :weep:
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

User avatar
curtism1234
Loquacious
Posts: 2315
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:31 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by curtism1234 »

I don't feel like getting into a back and forth debate, but I wanted to at least add my perspective.

I've hunted since age 11 (now 37) - small game, game birds, turkey, deer, antelope, and very occasionally predators. With the exception of the handful of predators, I eat everything. Two deer yields 80 pounds of meat on average. Shooting a deer dead quickly is morally no different than a butcher walking up to a steer with a 22lr or bolt device. Unfortunately mishaps occasionally occur and game is wounded. I suppose that is the trade off for it being able to live a truly wild life instead of in a cage.

I don't consider myself a trophy hunter even though I have 4 deer, two turkey fans, a bobcat, and fish on the wall. That is an accumulation of animals taken over the course of 25 years that happened to be "trophies".

Being a life long hunter, I think I would like to go to Africa or Scotland/Romania to hunt deer-like species someday. For the most part, I don't see anything wrong with that --- I have no desire to shoot a rare rhino or giraffe. It is unfortunate you can't take the meat home, but it is not wasted. Is shooting a kudu and donating it to the staff / school any different than shooting an extra deer for your neighbor? I don't want to make a habit of shooting animals solely for the picture / taxidermy, but I don't see a moral conflict of taking a couple trips during the course of your life.

User avatar
TEXGunny
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:33 pm
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by TEXGunny »

curtism1234 wrote:I don't feel like getting into a back and forth debate, but I wanted to at least add my perspective.

I've hunted since age 11 (now 37) - small game, game birds, turkey, deer, antelope, and very occasionally predators. With the exception of the handful of predators, I eat everything. Two deer yields 80 pounds of meat on average. Shooting a deer dead quickly is morally no different than a butcher walking up to a steer with a 22lr or bolt device. Unfortunately mishaps occasionally occur and game is wounded. I suppose that is the trade off for it being able to live a truly wild life instead of in a cage.

I don't consider myself a trophy hunter even though I have 4 deer, two turkey fans, a bobcat, and fish on the wall. That is an accumulation of animals taken over the course of 25 years that happened to be "trophies".

Being a life long hunter, I think I would like to go to Africa or Scotland/Romania to hunt deer-like species someday. For the most part, I don't see anything wrong with that --- I have no desire to shoot a rare rhino or giraffe. It is unfortunate you can't take the meat home, but it is not wasted. Is shooting a kudu and donating it to the staff / school any different than shooting an extra deer for your neighbor? I don't want to make a habit of shooting animals solely for the picture / taxidermy, but I don't see a moral conflict of taking a couple trips during the course of your life.
and for this opinion you will be called someone who just loves killing shit, bot by me, but by people who've never hunted in their life

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


User avatar
max129
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:35 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by max129 »

TEXGunny said

... and for this opinion you will be called someone who just loves killing shit, bot by me, but by people who've never hunted in their life

I have hunted many times, and will hunt more in the next couple of years. The only things I really hunt now are Ducks and Deer. Do I like the outdoor experience? The 'Man vs Nature' of Hunting? The hunting craft and skill? The focus? Yes to all of those. I really love to hunt. But I am not willing to hunt for any other reason than as an alternative to buying from the butcher. I have hunted, killed and eaten wild boar, but I don't live near any wild boar now and I didn't love the meat - just not my thing.

But to disregard another's line of reasoning because a person is not a hunter seems odd for a thread like this one. I find it strange that a topic such as a "defense of trophy hunting" is considered off limits to non hunters. In fact, I would simply assume that many who would read such a post would be curious as to a defense that may change their mind.

The entire concept of an abstract "defense" is a philosophical journey. Most of the observers of this thread, myself included, have watched for an actual reasoned defense. No compelling defense has been given.

I would request that we abstain from attacks ad hominum when we are trying to divine some truth by oral and written discussion.

By the standard you imply, "non hunters should not express an opinion on trophy hunting", you are also implying:

- People who do not drive cars cannot comment on auto safety
- Women cannot comment, at all, on 'maleness' and vice versa
- People who have no children cannot comment on any topic related to children
- People who have never murdered cannot comment on murder

As you can see, these Reductio ad Absurdum clearly expose the weakness of the general form of
but by people who've never [hunted, driven, been male, lack children, murdered] in their life.
As for having game preserved and mounted after a hunt, and after also eating the meat, it is not to my taste, but seems pretty morally neutral to me.

The debate here has nothing to do with taxidermy and everything to do with the deliberate killing in order to obtain a trophy. If one who hunts to replace a butcher also likes preserved animals - I have no comments or issues. But the "trophy hunting" problem is that one is seeking to kill a large, successful specimen, and IME, they are seldom good eating.
Last edited by max129 on Sun Sep 29, 2019 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
TEXGunny
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:33 pm
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by TEXGunny »

max129 wrote:
TEXGunny said

... and for this opinion you will be called someone who just loves killing shit, bot by me, but by people who've never hunted in their life

I have hunted many times, and will hunt more in the next couple of years. The only things I really hunt now are Ducks and Deer. Do I like the outdoor experience? The 'Man vs Nature' of Hunting? The hunting craft and skill? The focus? Yes to all of those. I really love to hunt. But I am not willing to hunt for any other reason than as an alternative to buying from the butcher. I have hunted, killed and eaten wild boar, but I don't live near any wild boar now and I didn't love the meat - just not my thing.

But to disregard another's line of reasoning because a person is not a hunter seems odd for a thread like this one. I find it strange that a topic such as a "defense of trophy hunting" is considered off limits to non hunters. In fact, I would simply assume that many who would read such a post would be curious as to a defense that may change their mind.

The entire concept of an abstract "defense" is a philosophical journey. Most of the observers of this thread, myself included, have watched for an actual reasoned defense. No compelling defense has been given.

I would request that we abstain from attacks ad hominum when we are trying to divine some truth by oral and written discussion.

By the standard you imply, "non hunters should not express an opinion on trophy hunting", you are also implying:

- People who do not drive cars cannot comment on auto safety
- Women cannot comment, at all, on 'maleness' and vice versa
- People who have no children cannot comment on any topic related to children
- People who have never murdered cannot comment on murder

As you can see, these Reductio ad Absurdum clearly expose the weakness of the general form of
but by people who've never [hunted, driven, been male, lack children, murdered] in their life.
your argument isn't very good.

experience with a thing is necessary for full understanding. experience gets rid of false assumptions, and gives someone a chance to learn about the thing as an entirety. how many times do we see people against "assault weapons" who've never held a gun? would you accept someone else's opinion on the status of geological study who's not only not been to a conference, but never even taken a class in the subject? probably not. it's not a question of an argument from authority, it's a question of credibility

I find the opinions of people talking about things they haven't experienced to be less credible than that of those who have.

being called killers tells me more about the people leveling the epithet than their other words.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


User avatar
max129
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:35 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: In defense of “trophy hunting”

Post by max129 »

Dear TEXGunny,

Sorry, my line of reasoning is quite sound. And I do not find the word "killers" anywhere in this thread until you posted it above.

Please document exactly where, in this thread, anyone has been called a "killer".

You seem to lack any awareness that this was originally an assertion that there is a logical defense of trophy hunting.

And this did not devolve into an attack on hunting IMO. I, like many others on this thread, see no real difference between killing one's own game and buying it from a butcher. If one objects completely to hunting, one should be a vegetarian.

Your counter argument seems to misunderstand that issues of "credibility" are quite good when it comes to a topic requiring expertise and knowledge. This topic, as I have argued, is not a topic of expertise, it is a topic of philosophy, a blood sport that has been conducted for more than 3,000 years from an armchair, not requiring hands on experience. It is your lack of comprehension regarding the nature of a "defense" that causes you to look for experience.
Image

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests