# Thoughts on hunting



## SJ1208 (Jan 11, 2013)

Well I do hunt bear and deer not for sport but to have food wondered if any others hunted


----------



## Ranguvar (Jan 11, 2013)

In touch with the ground 
I'm on the hunt I'm after you 
Smell like I sound I'm lost in a crowd. 
And I'm hungry like the wolf. 
Straddle the line in discord and rhyme 
I'm on the hunt I'm after you. 
Mouth is alive with juices like wine 
And I'm hungry like the wolf


----------



## kyfox (Jan 11, 2013)

I support hunting. I also believe in morality while hunting.
You should respect the animal you kill. Don't tie it to the hood of your car. Don't waste the meat. Be responsible, don't make the animal suffer longer than it must. You should be prosecuted if you kill a protected animal, kill out off season, illegal techniques(canned hunts and the like). Basically, common sense stuff.


----------



## SJ1208 (Jan 11, 2013)

Exactly my point I don't waste a single piece of the animal


----------



## Sydira (Jan 11, 2013)

If you hunt without going all E-Z mode, more power to you.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Jan 12, 2013)

Don't really care one way or the other. Hunting's not really my thing, but I can see the appeal of going out into the wilderness and slaughtering some of god's creatures.


----------



## Percy (Jan 12, 2013)

My dad's a deer hunter. He hunts for the meat. The tasty, tasty meat.

I believe that if you hunt, it should be for food, or clothing if absolutely necessary. I don't support hunting for the hell of it.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Jan 12, 2013)

As long as it's not for fun or vain reasons.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 12, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> As long as it's not for fun or vain reasons.



Or worse, because you think you are actually a wolf trapped in a human body.


----------



## Kosdu (Jan 12, 2013)

I think it should not be done for sport, should be done with respect, and you should use the kill.


I really think those that just kill for the hell of it should be prosecuted for animal cruelty.


----------



## Aetius (Jan 12, 2013)

I am okay with hunting as long as it stays away from the realm of poaching.


----------



## Saiko (Jan 12, 2013)

Standard support from me. I find it mind-numbingly boring due to 2 hours of waiting, 10 seconds of shooting, and 2 hours of clean-up. But as long as you're humane and either eat the meat or sell it to someone who will, fine. Keep trophies if you want even.

And for the love of god don't dump carcasses on the corner down the road. Looks horrible and smells worse. -_-


----------



## SJ1208 (Jan 12, 2013)

Oh and I don't give a shit about what Obama says I use my .223 m4 (semi auto not fully auto) that I brought back from my time in the marines to hunt bears and coyotes but, I mostly use a WA 2000 .300 magnum for deer


----------



## Percy (Jan 12, 2013)

SJ1208 said:


> I mostly use a WA 2000 .300 magnum for deer


Something tells me you're not exactly truthful on this.


----------



## Tigercougar (Jan 12, 2013)

I have no real opinion except on the case of deer: since mankind wiped out the vast majority of their natural predators in this countries then yes, man needs to pick up the slack to keep their numbers in check. I actually encourage (well regulated, archery-only) urban hunting, for example.

The only hunters I really don't like are poachers. THOSE are the guys that are needlessly killing wildlife.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jan 12, 2013)

We've already wiped out so many species - if we're aware of the damage we cause for the whole ecological system, then let's end this.
I am against hunting. It is only enjoyment in killing. You don't need to kill to eat unless you live in a far remote dump. It's not a delicacy.
If you've got the time, the weapons and the muscles, then get a better job than killing animals.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jan 12, 2013)

.300 mag? Why? You either are LYING or you dont know guns. Or you waste meat for no damn reason. No self respecting hunter uses a .300 mag on a deer.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Jan 12, 2013)

Afterimage, I'm trying really hard not to make a crack about the fact you come from Israel and still managed to make that post.

Just... so many jokes...


----------



## Percy (Jan 12, 2013)

dinosaurdammit said:


> .300 mag? Why? You either are LYING or you dont know guns. Or you waste meat for no damn reason. No self respecting hunter uses a .300 mag on a deer.


Not to mention he claims he has an extremely rare rifle.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jan 12, 2013)

Percy said:


> Not to mention he claims he has an extremely rare rifle.




while that stuck out i was more bothered that he waste meat rather than he "possesses" a gun like that. Op I have lived on a farm most my life, I know what bullshit smells like, this smells like grade a angus. OP why do you use a gun more powerful than your prey can handle without looking like they got raped by a meat grinder? also. Bear are hard to get tags for and the tags are expensive. I doubt you just hunt bear willy nilly.


----------



## Fernin (Jan 12, 2013)

If you kill it an eat it that's fine. I'm no fan of sport hunting though. Also, as for 'easy mode' hunting, kiss my ass; I went out there to kill something so I can make tasty foods out of it, so I'm going to kill it in the most effective and quick manner possible, no matter how 'unfair' you think it is.


----------



## Saiko (Jan 12, 2013)

DD, your sig is so appropriate for this thread.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jan 12, 2013)

Fernin said:


> If you kill it an eat it that's fine. I'm no fan of sport hunting though. Also, as for 'easy mode' hunting, kiss my ass; I went out there to kill something so I can make tasty foods out of it, so I'm going to kill it in the most effective and quick manner possible, no matter how 'unfair' you think it is.




there is one thing to use a weapon to bring down your prey, its another to basically destroy about half of it from the damage of said gun. I am all for a gun that effectively kills the animal, not one so over powered it leaves a bloody mess with half of the usable meat basically GARBAGE.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 12, 2013)

As long as you kill it with the intend to eat it and use the other stuff instead of just mounting it and saying "LOOK GAISE I TOTALLY OWNED THAT BEAR LOOK HOW MANLY I AM!" it's fine by me.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Jan 12, 2013)

As long as you have a valid purpose for it, such as food or in some cases pelts. Not for fun or just a thing to hang on the wall. Hunting for sport is retarded and OP I don't believe a thing you've said.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jan 12, 2013)

Hunting is such a frivolous act.  
Most people that say they hunt just for the meat are full of shit.  It's the thrill of the kill.
You aren't Indians, you aren't shit. You don't use EVERY PART of the animal.
You may use the meat and organ meats but that's about it. What do you do with the bones? What do you do with antlers? Probably nothing.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 12, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> As long as it's not for fun or vain reasons.


Most hunting of predators (lynx, wolf, etc.) falls under this category. And then they gloat about it on YouTube.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jan 12, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Hunting is such a frivolous act.
> Most people that say they hunt just for the meat are full of shit.  It's the thrill of the kill.
> You aren't Indians, you aren't shit. You don't use EVERY PART of the animal.
> You may use the meat and organ meats but that's about it. What do you do with the bones? What do you do with antlers? Probably nothing.




bones get used for soup because marrow is delicious. They also get ground up and put in my lizard cage because its damn good fertilizer. Antlers make good dog chews/decorations and knife handles. Idk about you but I use just about everything or sell stuff I dont use to the native people by the base


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Jan 12, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Hunting is such a frivolous act.
> Most people that say they hunt just for the meat are full of shit.  It's the thrill of the kill.
> You aren't Indians, you aren't shit. You don't use EVERY PART of the animal.
> You may use the meat and organ meats but that's about it. What do you do with the bones? What do you do with antlers? Probably nothing.


They don't get eaten because human digestive system isn't made to digest bones. Only few species on planet earth consume larger prey with their bones.
However some chefs make good sauces or soups of bones


----------



## Fernin (Jan 12, 2013)

The dogs usually get our bones. Besides the whole 'Indians used every part" crap is just that, crap. Sure they had USES for every part (more or less), but more often than not they stripped what meat they needed and left the rest. As a mobile people they couldn't really afford the weight of taking more than skin and meat as necessary.


----------



## badlands (Jan 12, 2013)

i go lamping for rabbits sometimes. I eat what i kill (baring myxomatosis rendering them inedible) or give the excess to a friends ferrets. I don't count shooting for pest control as hunting, it is what it is; pest control.

i do not agree with people hunting for trophies, it seams a huge waste to me.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 12, 2013)

I can tolerate hunting only if A. Hunters are careful and respectful toward the animal and make sure it dies on the first shot. B. The hunter uses as much of the animal as possible. C. They are shooting within the established limits. I don't tolerate sport hunting. 

Having said that though I know there are many hunters who don't follow rules like this so in general I frown on hunting. The only reason I tolerate it in those circumstances is because I've known a few very kind and knowledgeable hunters. They appreciate the ecosystem and the animals so I can't complain too much if they take out a few dear here and there.

On second thought though, there's really no need for hunting.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 12, 2013)

Blood sport makes me feel absolutely sick. 
I am more understanding towards people who hunt out of necessity to eat, provided they are not damaging the environment. It still makes me feel sad. 

A popular argument used to support hunting in the UK is to control species' populations, which is ironic as many of the populations are bloated or extinct because of the effects of zealous hunters in the first place* or other ecologically frivelous practices. I feel reintroduction of extinct key species and the expansion of habitat would be a more effective solution. Ideally a healthy ecosystem should not require human control in this part of the world because we are not a truly indigenous species in this area. 


Also, the OP eats bears out of necessity? _Really?_

EG introducing non-native species of game onto an island nation and then being surprised that they spoil the ecological balance or multiply out of control. A prime example being reindeer introduced to south georgia.


----------



## GhostWolf (Jan 12, 2013)

My father was a hunter, and oh how he loved his guns. Me I a totally against hunting unless you need to survive. Other words if you feel the need to fire a gun there are many gun ranges out there.


----------



## Harbinger (Jan 12, 2013)

The only thing where i think its ok is if you are starving and you need something to eat. All other reasons infuriate me, pretty much most life is getting rarer and rarer thanks to us, look at all of the species we hunted to extinction, when we get all we need from a shop filled with pre-killed animals what is the point in killing more?


----------



## Machine (Jan 12, 2013)

Hunting in a nutshell: "I like to kill animals that are more beautiful than I am while I'm dressed up like a bush."

This doesn't count for those who actually use all of the kill. :V


----------



## Black Ice (Jan 12, 2013)

My family is huge into hunting. We use venison like anyone else might use beef, because its cheaper to buy tags and ammunition and fill our freezer with deer meat than it is to go to a grocery store. We're not struggling for survival or anything like that, but our income is lower than average and I see it as justified.
Hunting is completely natural, even with guns. Do people get upset because predators have teeth, claws, camouflage  and sometimes teamwork? Or that most predators pick out the weakest of the herd to kill? 
If people didn't have tools to make up for what we lack on our bodies than the human race wouldn't even exist right now. And anyone who argues that we'd be better off not existing is just stupid and self-loathing.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 12, 2013)

Guns are synthetic. However 'naturalism' isn't an argument to or fro anyway.


----------



## Black Ice (Jan 12, 2013)

IMO the only people that should be against hunting are ethical vegetarians.


----------



## Em1l (Jan 12, 2013)

I'm fine with it as long as the animal is eaten and there isn't any enjoyment involved.

Trophy hunting on the other hand is all kinds of fucked up, especially the "hunters" who gloat about how they are some kind of hero as they killed a "ferocious" wild animal that had absolutely no chance of fighting back against a vain man with a high caliber rifle. These people have no right to claim to be Hunters.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 12, 2013)

Black Ice said:


> IMO the only people that should be against hunting are ethical vegetarians.



This is too simple. Diverse distinctions must be made to reflect the diversity of hunting practices that exist. 

You don't have to be vegetarian to oppose ivory poaching. 

Personally I am ambivilent about reasonably afluent families hunting for food, mostly because the alternative of industrial meat is likely no better.


----------



## Tigercougar (Jan 12, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Hunting is such a frivolous act.
> Most people that say they hunt just for the meat are full of shit.  It's the thrill of the kill.
> You aren't Indians, you aren't shit. You don't use EVERY PART of the animal.
> You may use the meat and organ meats but that's about it. What do you do with the bones? What do you do with antlers? Probably nothing.



Think of it this way: at least the deer gets to live a full life in the wild before it is killed. I'd hope I don't need to tell you of some of the horrible conditions and practices domestic meat animals go through.


----------



## Black Ice (Jan 12, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> This is too simple. Diverse distinctions must be made to reflect the diversity of hunting practices that exist.
> 
> You don't have to be vegetarian to oppose ivory poaching.
> 
> Personally I am ambivilent about reasonably afluent families hunting for food, mostly because the alternative of industrial meat is likely no better.



Let's just say legal hunting practices, then.
If hunting is no better than industrial meat then why oppose one and not the other?
What do you say to farm-raised game animals? Farm animals are raised for the specific purpose of being used by humans for their resources.
If you want to look at it romantically, then at least wild animals get a few to several years of living a so-called "natural" life. Though of course we can't go back to how it was before the 1600s.


----------



## kyfox (Jan 12, 2013)

Tigercougar said:


> Think of it this way: at least the deer gets to live a full life in the wild before it is killed. I'd hope I don't need to tell you of some of the horrible conditions and practices domestic meat animals go through.


Actually, most aren't that bad, in general, ranchers take good care of their animals. It helps them get the best meat from the cattle. There are definitely are lower quality ranches, but it shouldn't represent the majority of cattle farmers.


----------



## Sydira (Jan 12, 2013)

Fernin said:


> If you kill it an eat it that's fine. I'm no fan  of sport hunting though. Also, as for 'easy mode' hunting, kiss my ass; I  went out there to kill something so I can make tasty foods out of it,  so I'm going to kill it in the most effective and quick manner possible,  no matter how 'unfair' you think it is.



Since this was largely directed at me - go ahead, get carried by your tools, just don't claim to have any skill.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 12, 2013)

Black Ice said:


> Let's just say legal hunting practices, then.
> If hunting is no better than industrial meat then why oppose one and not the other?
> What do you say to farm-raised game animals? Farm animals are raised for the specific purpose of being used by humans for their resources.
> If you want to look at it romantically, then at least wild animals get a few to several years of living a so-called "natural" life. Though of course we can't go back to how it was before the 1600s.



I don't _partake_ in either, but I am not seeking to make them illegal as those would be pointless battles. 
I agknowledge your point about 'free range'.


----------



## Rasly (Jan 12, 2013)

Some people like to get thair food like they are live in stone age, that buffs thair manliness, proofs that they have balls to kill something that is alive. Even if that is a stupid defenseless animal.

Also, there are some people living in woods that have to hunt to survive, i have nothing against them.


----------



## Fernin (Jan 12, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Guns are synthetic. However 'naturalism' isn't an argument to or fro anyway.



So where spears, arrows, traps, and every other tool humans have used through out the ages to kill food. Incase you haven't noticed, our species wasn't exactly gifted with teeth, claws, and the strength necessary to kill the 'correct' way. What we do have though are the minds to devise ways to do so.

@Sydira: In short, piss off. I'll give you the same rifle and camouflaged coat/pants I use and send you into the woods. I'd bet my gun you couldn't even FIND a deer, much less make the shot needed to drop it on the spot from any kind of distance. A tool is nothing without the know how to use it.


----------



## Sydira (Jan 12, 2013)

But bro, do you even lift?


----------



## RadioactiveRedFox (Jan 12, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> A popular argument used to support hunting in the UK is to control species' populations, which is ironic as many of the populations are bloated or extinct because of the effects of zealous hunters in the first place* or other ecologically frivelous practices. I feel reintroduction of extinct key species and the expansion of habitat would be a more effective solution. Ideally a healthy ecosystem should not require human control in this part of the world because we are not a truly indigenous species in this area.



I would agree that reintroduction of the indigenous predators in the area is the best solution to population control. However, doing this will cause predation issues for the regions farmers, which is often the reason why these species were hunted to extinction in the first place. A case in point is the Gray Wolf population in my area, they were hunted to extinction to prevent predation to livestock. The problem is they also were the main predator for deer which caused the deer population to explode, this eventually lead to the deer population needing to be controlled thru hunting. The Gray wolf was reintroduced several years ago and now has a stable population once more, the problem comes in keeping the wolf population large enough to be stable while at the same time small enough for their impact on farmers to be minimal, which means there simply are not enough wolves to keep the deer population in check. So in a nut shell its great from the ecological stand point but from the sociological stand point it don't work very well in its own.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 12, 2013)

The majority of hunting in America is done for sport, with the explanation of "I use some of the parts" thrown in as an afterthought. Yes, I have talked to hunters before.


----------



## Fernin (Jan 12, 2013)

Sydira said:


> But bro, do you even lift?



[yt]fLrpBLDWyCI[/yt]


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 12, 2013)

Fernin said:


> So where spears, arrows, traps, and every other tool humans have used through out the ages to kill food. Incase you haven't noticed, our species wasn't exactly gifted with teeth, claws, and the strength necessary to kill the 'correct' way. What we do have though are the minds to devise ways to do so.
> 
> @Sydira: In short, piss off. I'll give you the same rifle and camouflaged coat/pants I use and send you into the woods. I'd bet my gun you couldn't even FIND a deer, much less make the shot needed to drop it on the spot from any kind of distance. A tool is nothing without the know how to use it.



Yes I'm well aware weapons of any nature are synthetic. I wasn't making an argument upon this premise.


----------



## Sydira (Jan 12, 2013)

Fernin said:


> junk



I know you're used to baiting things, but try harder.


----------



## Conker (Jan 12, 2013)

I'm cool with hunting, though not poaching. Poaching is bad, hunting is hunting. Humans are on top of the food chain, might as well enjoy it and go kill a deer or something. Fuckers are overpopulated anyways, and I'd rather have a hunter shoot one than me hit one with a car because the fuckers are stupid and can't look both ways.

I couldn't ever kill a deer or anything, but I'm a pussy. I don't mind if other people do it though, and hell, I'll even partake in eating it. Shit's good.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 13, 2013)

When I read or hear this, "I use all the parts" noise I seriously don't believe it.  That being said, liver makes fantastic fish bait, and if you freeze an animal's tail you can use the fur to make fishing lures, particularly white-tailed deer.  That is my usual miscellaneous use of things I kill, besides smoking the bones to make my dog some bitchin' treats.  But none of you "I use every part of the animal" jackasses actually skin and salt the hide of every animal you kill, or use the ligaments to make fuckin' bow strings and the fat to make hippy-dippy candles and tallow.  None of you.  It's either too much work or you have no idea how.  And you know what, that's okay.  If you use the animal for the meat and then throw out everything else, then congratulations, you're fed, and everything's gon' be awright.  It's not like it makes you one with nature or makes your ancestors give you a spiritual ass-patting if you make a teepee out of your spoils of war.

Canned hunts where you put out feed and just sit and wait and pop off an unsuspecting, little, innocent baby boo are actually OK in my book.  If someone tells me I'm an asshole for this, then that's fine, but, it's not really gonna' change my opinion.  I don't scoff at canned hunts because food is more important than some notion of honor and making sure you made the "I can kill you instantly with this projectile" anglefeel less unfair to you doesn't really change that in the end you are killing your target.  If you conduct a canned hunt but it's just for a trophy, then yes, you are an enormous dickbag, but, you are also an enormous dickbag in my book if you're just a straight-up trophy hunter in the FIRST place.  I have been so broke that I just replaced store bought meats with things on my property and when you're going, "Hell yeah, I can eat meat again!" you really don't stop and tell yourself, "BUT WAIT! LET ME MAKE SURE IT'S _FAIR._"


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 13, 2013)

Why is it that every discussion about the morality of hunting ends up focused on deer?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 13, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Why is it that every discussion about the morality of hunting ends up focused on deer?



I am guessing because they are one of the most hunted creatures, and their ecology is also one of the most contorted among 'game' animals.



Conker said:


> I'm cool with hunting, though not poaching.  Poaching is bad, hunting is hunting. Humans are on top of the food  chain, might as well enjoy it and go kill a deer or something. Fuckers  are overpopulated anyways, and I'd rather have a hunter shoot one than  me hit one with a car because the fuckers are stupid and can't look both  ways.
> 
> I couldn't ever kill a deer or anything, but I'm a pussy. I don't mind  if other people do it though, and hell, I'll even partake in eating it.  Shit's good.




*Flesh eating diseases are on top of the food chain. 

On the subject of dear it's particularly frustrating that they are used as an argument to support hunting given their bloated population is due to overhunting of other species in the first place.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 13, 2013)

Hunting discussions end up on deer because deer are super duper everywhere and they're probably just the first  thing we think about because of their abundance.   Deer're so plentiful that in New York State (as far as I  understand since I don't live there) they're considered a pest animal  and you aren't expected to wait for a season to shoot them.  I think you  have to get a certain license, but it's not a HUNTING license.  On top of being plentiful, they're usually baby's first kill because hunting them is far more straightforward than hunting things like wild hog, dove, or whatever.  There are some other equally-as-straightforward-to-hunt animals, like I know several people who started out squirrel hunting and coyote hunting, but I think they are exceptions to the rule. 

As for deer overabundance, I didn't know it was over hunting of other species that people cited.  Truly. I thought it was, ...Well, killing off their natural predators and running them out, yes, but rather than through hunting them more like through developing areas for people to live in.  Killing them off as an externality.


----------



## Azure (Jan 13, 2013)

I hunt grizzly bears with nothing but my fists.


----------



## Tableside6 (Jan 13, 2013)

Azure said:


> I hunt grizzly bears with nothing but my fists.



I hunt an even more vicious animal with using only a nerf gun. This creature will attack anyone in sight and will attack using words. This animal, is my little sister.


----------



## Percy (Jan 13, 2013)

Tableside6 said:


> I hunt an even more vicious animal with using only a nerf gun. This creature will attack anyone in sight and will attack using words. This animal, is my little sister.


I've never got a chance to see this "my little sister" animal. It sounds dangerous.


----------



## Tableside6 (Jan 13, 2013)

Percy said:


> I've never got a chance to see this "my little sister" animal. It sounds dangerous.



You have no idea. Despite their low IQ, they have the ability to put on camo (her make-up) and attack using their vicious claws. Wear head protection because these creatures will attempt to pull of your hair.


----------



## ZerX (Jan 13, 2013)

I only agree with hunting if it's done for food or there is an overpopulation of certain animals
shooting animals for sport is retarded in my opinion


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 13, 2013)

HipsterCoyote said:


> Hunting discussions end up on deer because deer are super duper everywhere and they're probably just the first  thing we think about because of their abundance.   Deer're so plentiful that in New York State (as far as I  understand since I don't live there) they're considered a pest animal  and you aren't expected to wait for a season to shoot them.  I think you  have to get a certain license, but it's not a HUNTING license.  On top of being plentiful, they're usually baby's first kill because hunting them is far more straightforward than hunting things like wild hog, dove, or whatever.  There are some other equally-as-straightforward-to-hunt animals, like I know several people who started out squirrel hunting and coyote hunting, but I think they are exceptions to the rule.
> 
> As for deer overabundance, I didn't know it was over hunting of other species that people cited.  Truly. I thought it was, ...Well, killing off their natural predators and running them out, yes, but rather than through hunting them more like through developing areas for people to live in.  Killing them off as an externality.



It's likely both reasons and varies between location. In scotland the last wolves were hunted to death as 'pest control', resulting in the far worse pest problem of a red deer population 500% the natural size. Some bright spark then introduced sika deer, which interbred with the red deer, meaning that despite there being many many more deer than normal 'true red deer' are actually in danger of local extinction. 

The net effect of bad ecological practices in scotland is that a forest which once covered almost all of the highlands now covers <1% of them.

Some people in scotland also beat the last great awks to death because they thought they were witches...an entire species gone because of a few mind-numbingly inane jerk-bags.

If national parks had existed in those by-gone days, in which human presence was minimised and killing the creatures inside illegal, then perhaps much of the biodiversity of Europe would have been preserved. As it is it is the most ecologically damaged region on earth.


----------



## Conker (Jan 13, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> On the subject of dear it's particularly frustrating that they are used as an argument to support hunting given their bloated population is due to overhunting of other species in the first place.


The people I know that hunt only seem to hunt deer. Then they eat the meat. I guess it's just what I associate hunting with do to my area.


----------



## Tigercougar (Jan 13, 2013)

I believe wild turkeys are also extremely common now, at least in my state.

Speaking of overpopulation, in many states you can kill wild boars with any method at any time of year with no limit, because they're so destructive to crops and habitat.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 13, 2013)

Tigercougar said:


> I believe wild turkeys are also extremely common now, at least in my state.
> 
> Speaking of overpopulation, in many states you can kill wild boars with any method at any time of year with no limit, because they're so destructive to crops and habitat.



How odd; in the UK they are contemplating reintroducing wild boars [they went extinct due to human activities] to _improve _the habitat.

There are various trial enclosures.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 13, 2013)

@fallowfox: Man, time for me to make an insensitive and tactless comment again: Europeans are poopy :V.


----------



## RadioactiveRedFox (Jan 13, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> How odd; in the UK they are contemplating reintroducing wild boars [they went extinct due to human activities] to _improve _the habitat.
> 
> There are various trial enclosures.



There's no wild boars in the UK, I did not know that. I would think the population would have to be controlled very carefully as their highly destructive when there gets to be to many of them, I know this is true for all species, but it seems to be especially so with wild boars.


----------



## kyfox (Jan 13, 2013)

RadioactiveRedFox said:


> There's no wild boars in the UK, I did not know that. I would think the population would have to be controlled very carefully as their highly destructive when there gets to be to many of them, I know this is true for all species, but it seems to be especially so with wild boars.


Heh, they should take some of ours. IIRC, there's so many, they lowered the restrictions on hunting them, one state even made hunting hogs from a helicopter legal. XD


----------



## badlands (Jan 13, 2013)

RadioactiveRedFox said:


> There's no wild boars in the UK, I did not know that. I would think the population would have to be controlled very carefully as their highly destructive when there gets to be to many of them, I know this is true for all species, but it seems to be especially so with wild boars.



there are wild boar in the uk, most notably in the new forest and the forest of dean. They where 'reintroduced' by animal rights activists releasing animals kept in several farms. the population is some areas is getting to the point where culling might be needed (they have no predators in the uk)


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 13, 2013)

badlands said:


> there are wild boar in the uk, most notably in the new forest and the forest of dean. They where 'reintroduced' by animal rights activists releasing animals kept in several farms. the population is some areas is getting to the point where culling might be needed



In the remoter areas of the UK there is talk of reintroducing their natural predators. 
At first this might seem like it would have meritable opposition from the agricultural community but I read this in Newscientist today:

_"Behind their cultural baggage grey wolves are an evolutionary success story, giving rise to the domestic dog 10kya and more recently rebounding from years of persecution. 'there are wild wolves galore in europe' says caludio sillero, a conservation biologist at Oxford. 'they have recolonised vast areas of former range and live almost unnoticed in populated areas'
A wolf was recently spotted inthe netherlands, after an absense for over a century. There are ongoing calls from ecologists for them to be introduced to scotland, where they have been absent since the 1700's. In the us argument rage over whether their numbers are high enough to sustain hunting. 
'while we think of wolves as masters of wilderness in europe, they thrive in human-dominated landscapes' says sillero 'over 3000 live in heavily populated areas of northern portugal and spain and wolves have steadily colonised southern france from italy,'. French farmers may not share this enthusiasm, but with less persecution than in the past wolf numbers are growing. For those of us in europe the howl of a wolf could one day become as familiar as the cries of foxes."_
*-Rowan Hooper 12jan2013 Newscientist page 23*

I would love to see the this become a reality, as it would herald a much more balanced ecosystem, one in which sloppy human intervention that is constantly mingled with bloodsport could be marginalised in favour of 'hands off' conservation.


----------



## RadioactiveRedFox (Jan 13, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> In the remoter areas of the UK there is talk of reintroducing their natural predators.
> At first this might seem like it would have meritable opposition from the agricultural community but I read this in Newscientist today:
> 
> _"Behind their cultural baggage grey wolves are an evolutionary success story, giving rise to the domestic dog 10kya and more recently rebounding from years of persecution. 'there are wild wolves galore in europe' says caludio sillero, a conservation biologist at Oxford. 'they have recolonised vast areas of former range and live almost unnoticed in populated areas'
> ...



Wolves have been reintroduced in my area, so far the population hasn't gotten large enough to have a considerable impact on the deer or boar populations. Unfortunately, I'm not certain that they ever will, this last year or so the wolf population got large enough to get them off the endangered species list in Wisconsin and this last fall a hunting season was opened for them. Luckily it was cut short because of public outcry, but it certainly doesn't look like there going to have an easy future here.


----------



## iconmaster (Jan 13, 2013)

I feel totally okay with the idea of hunting, but I personally dislike it because it's a kinda stereotypically low-class thing to do? Is that even a valid argument??


----------



## RadioactiveRedFox (Jan 13, 2013)

iconmaster said:


> I feel totally okay with the idea of hunting, but I personally dislike it because it's a kinda stereotypically low-class thing to do? Is that even a valid argument??



The Upper crust likes to hunt to, they just like hunting Quayle and other humans. :v


----------



## lupinealchemist (Jan 13, 2013)

I'd like to go bow hunting this year, provided I find the time to take a safety course and the money to get a license. Deer would be my prey if I go.


----------



## Azure (Jan 13, 2013)

there is no such thing as "fair" in killing another living organism. but there is such a thing as a dickbag who hunts for trophy purposes and nothing else.


----------



## Cassedy (Jan 14, 2013)

So, humans took like 99 % of fertile territories to grow crops, and they still need to hunt to survive ? Makes sence ...


----------



## Fernin (Jan 14, 2013)

Cassedy said:


> So, humans took like 99 % of fertile territories to grow crops, and they still need to hunt to survive ? Makes sence ...



Aside from your statement being wildly incorrect, consider that our species eats, and indeed requires nutrients from, meat. Of course some of us like to hunt our food now and again.


----------



## Cassedy (Jan 14, 2013)

Fernin said:


> Aside from your statement being wildly incorrect


I hope you didn't take the exaggeration literally.



Fernin said:


> consider that our species eats, and indeed requires nutrients from, meat


And humans raise cattle on said fertile grounds. Why can't you leave wild animals alone ? There is not much territory left for them anyway.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 14, 2013)

Cassedy said:


> So, humans took like 99 % of fertile territories to grow crops, and they still need to hunt to survive ? Makes sence ...



Some people hunt because they find it as a cheaper alternative to buying meat at the supermarket. That and they do not agree/support the standards that the meat industry has on slaughtering.


----------



## Cassedy (Jan 14, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Some people hunt because they find it as a cheaper alternative to buying meat at the supermarket. That and they do not agree/support the standards that the meat industry has on slaughtering.


Catching street dogs, cats, rats, pigeons, whatever, would be even cheaper. 
It's freaking 21st century, people. We don't need to kill wild animals to survive anymore. And still, you'd kill an innocent animal just because you "don't support the standards" ? Way to go -_-


----------



## PapayaShark (Jan 14, 2013)

Cassedy said:


> Catching street dogs, cats, rats, pigeons, whatever, would be even cheaper.
> It's freaking 21st century, people. We don't need to kill wild animals to survive anymore. And still, you'd kill an innocent animal just because you "don't support the standards" ? Way to go -_-



How is a wild animal any more innocent than a tame one? And it is much less cruel to hunt than to buy meat from slaughterhouses, at least in america.


----------



## Cassedy (Jan 14, 2013)

PapayaShark said:


> How is a wild animal any more innocent than a tame one? And it is much less cruel to hunt than to buy meat from slaughterhouses, at least in america.


They both are innocent, they both provide meat, so if you have meat from one source, why can't you leave the other alone ? So at least some animals could live their own lives ?


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 14, 2013)

Cassedy said:


> Catching street dogs, cats, rats, pigeons, whatever, would be even cheaper.
> It's freaking 21st century, people. We don't need to kill wild animals to survive anymore. And still, you'd kill an innocent animal just because you "don't support the standards" ? Way to go -_-



That's a slippery slope you have there.

Urban animals tend to be vectors for diseases, so eating one poses a serious health risk.



Cassedy said:


> They both are innocent, they both provide meat, so if you have meat from one source, why can't you leave the other alone ? So at least some animals could live their own lives ?



Is this a case of "saev teh precuz anmlz, humenz r tek sukorz"?


----------



## Cassedy (Jan 14, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Urban animals tend to be vectors for diseases, so eating one poses a serious health risk.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a case of "saev teh precuz anmlz, humenz r tek sukorz"?


Doesn't sound like elven language at all.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 14, 2013)

Cassedy said:


> Doesn't sound like elven language at all.



Because it is "Furfagese". It's always good to become verse in the language when you come into a culturally diverse region.


----------



## Cassedy (Jan 14, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Because it is "Furfagese". It's always good to become verse in the language when you come into a culturally diverse region.



I believe that fits OP more, since he's a wolf, and wolves hunt, and they respect their prey, blablabla.
I just want to say, that for civilisation of our technical level, it's a shame to rely on hunting as a food source.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 14, 2013)

Cassedy said:


> I believe that fits OP more, since he's a wolf, and wolves hunt, and they respect their prey, blablabla.
> I just want to say, that for civilisation of our technical level, it's a shame to rely on hunting as a food source.



Because everyone can afford a hunting rifle, amirite. :V 

If you like in an urbanized environment, hunting is not seen as a sound thing to do since a lot of our food sources are conveniently brought to us in supermarkets. So there's no need to go out in the boonies and shoot a deer. 

In Other places where the nearest Wal-Mart is 20 miles down the road, that's a different story. Not every area in the US is urbanized heavily.


----------



## Fernin (Jan 14, 2013)

Cassedy said:


> I just want to say, that for civilisation of our technical level, it's a shame to rely on hunting as a food source.



And I just want to say, you're an idiot. 

As for why I can't leave the precious, little deer alone; it's because hunting them is enjoyable, and they taste better than beef. So bite me.


----------



## Cassedy (Jan 14, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Because everyone can afford a hunting rifle, amirite. :V
> 
> If you like in an urbanized environment, hunting is not seen as a sound thing to do since a lot of our food sources are conveniently brought to us in supermarkets. So there's no need to go out in the boonies and shoot a deer.
> 
> In Other places where the nearest Wal-Mart is 20 miles down the road, that's a different story. Not every area in the US is urbanized heavily.


I must admit, I don't know the situation in USA. 
Oh, and Fernin. This is just what I wanted to hear. Finally, not this BS about "I kill for food", but an honest answer "I kill because it's fun!"
Explains a lot about you.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 14, 2013)

Cassedy said:


> Catching street dogs, cats, rats, pigeons, whatever, would be even cheaper.
> It's freaking 21st century, people. We don't need to kill wild animals to survive anymore. And still, you'd kill an innocent animal just because you "don't support the standards" ? Way to go -_-


Because with these, especially pigeons and rats, their meat is either not enough or it's such a low quality it'd be harmful to eat them more than beneficial. Not all meat is equal.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 14, 2013)

There are some points that need to be addressed on this page.

About half of the world's land surface is now arable land, and 3 quaters is affected by the use of agriculture.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0104klm/broadcasts You can see this scenario outline in the bbc series 'the age we made' which is very well sourced. 

Our planet's future has been 'forced down the wrong trouser leg' as it were. 

I wouldn't mind subsidence hunting, but it's pretty clear from most of the comments here that people in rich western nations often hunt for economic reasons, taste or _enjoyment_. The latter brings a little bit of sick to the back of my throat. 

Farming meat is not exactly preferable. If we all avoided _both_ of these scenarios when we could that would seriously improve the state of this trouser leg. Whether or not humans should prey on a virtual food chain is debateable. On the one hand a 'natural food chain' would be massively distorted by the influence of a very large human population- as is the case in much of the world already due to shoddy ecological practice by people more interested in killing than much else [for instance lead pollution from old shot]. On the other hand creating a virtual food chain which contains meat has its own ecological set backs- although techonology can address these if we do not put _too_ much pressure on such a system. 

I would favour creating a virtual food chain because the efficiency can be artificially increased- the drawback being extra cost and reduced animal wellfare, in comparison to local extinction and culling.



Aleu said:


> Because with these, especially pigeons and rats,  their meat is either not enough or it's such a low quality it'd be  harmful to eat them more than beneficial. Not all meat is equal.



I think the poster you're replying to is probably saddened that not even the 'wild' forests set asside as the last vestiges of nature are free from human cruelty, particularly sadistic human cruelty. 

We might argue humans are indigenous to all areas of the planet they spread to, but humans with advanced projectile weapons certainly aren't. They take more than they need, destroy the ecological balance and then use that imbalance as a justification to continue the behaviour for generations into the future.


----------



## Icen (Jan 14, 2013)

I do not agree with hunting.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 14, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> There are some points that need to be addressed on this page.
> 
> About half of the world's land surface is now arable land, and 3 quaters is affected by the use of agriculture.
> 
> ...



I have a problem with the latter as well. People who hunt for the enjoy, pick the biggest and most "prized" animal out of the herd/pack/whatever, and like it because it has the largest antlers, or it looks unique. They take the head or the antlers and toss the rest into a lake, street, road or whatever.

That has a consequence in the long run by weakening the gene pool.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 14, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> I have a problem with the latter as well. People who hunt for the enjoy, pick the biggest and most "prized" animal out of the herd/pack/whatever, and like it because it has the largest antlers, or it looks unique. They take the head or the antlers and toss the rest into a lake, street, road or whatever.
> 
> That has a consequence in the long run by weakening the gene pool.



The UK's largest land mammal was shot a few years ago, the exmoor emporer- a huge great red stag. Nobody knew who shot the emporer, although everyone agreed he must have had a _very _small penis [or the female equivalent].


----------



## Aleu (Jan 14, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I think the poster you're replying to is probably saddened that not even the 'wild' forests set asside as the last vestiges of nature are free from human cruelty, particularly sadistic human cruelty.
> 
> We might argue humans are indigenous to all areas of the planet they spread to, but humans with advanced projectile weapons certainly aren't. They take more than they need, destroy the ecological balance and then use that imbalance as a justification to continue the behaviour for generations into the future.



He was arguing that the wild animals being hunted for food should be replaced with animals with terrible meat. They even reiterated it in another post.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> He was arguing that the wild animals being hunted for food should be replaced with animals with terrible meat. They even reiterated it in another post.



I'm not saying that _isn't_ ridiculous.


----------



## Tigercougar (Jan 14, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The UK's largest land mammal was shot a few years ago, the exmoor emporer- a huge great red stag. Nobody knew who shot the emporer, although everyone agreed he must have had a _very _small penis [or the female equivalent].



Surprised the poacher didn't have the body taxidermied so they could keep their "monster buck" in their home.


----------



## badlands (Jan 14, 2013)

that makes no sense to me, the stag was old and the meat from it would be of low quality.

i hunt small game for food (such as rabbits and wood pigeon). these meats are not readily available in shops but abundant on my friends smallholding (they are in fact serious pests) so it makes sense to go down there with the .22 and shoot them myself.


----------



## RadioactiveRedFox (Jan 14, 2013)

badlands said:


> that makes no sense to me, the stag was old and the meat from it would be of low quality.
> 
> i hunt small game for food (such as rabbits and wood pigeon). these meats are not readily available in shops but abundant on my friends smallholding (they are in fact serious pests) so it makes sense to go down there with the .22 and shoot them myself.



The stag was probably shot as a trophy, I wouldn't be surprised if the hunter was American.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 14, 2013)

My refrigerator has food in it.

Therefore, I do not hunt. Unfortunately this logic works in reverse concerning vegetables. Carrots can't run! :twisted:


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 14, 2013)

Tigercougar said:


> Surprised the poacher didn't have the body taxidermied so they could keep their "monster buck" in their home.



I've no idea if they did that or took the beast's antlers or what. Just someone out to corrupt huge symbols of male virility, perhaps they also petition the demolishion of church steeples.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 14, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I've no idea if they did that or took the beast's antlers or what. Just someone out to corrupt huge symbols of male virility, perhaps they also petition the demolishion of church steeples.



Maybe they wanted to use the deer's penis to make virility medicine.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 14, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Maybe they wanted to use the deer's penis to make virility medicine.



On a more disturbing note, my friend Xing tells me dead baby is a virility medicine in regions of East Asia, which makes even less sense.


----------



## Symlus (Jan 14, 2013)

Hunting, no. I prefer trapping the small game (mice) in glue traps. I then collect the mice and drive a mile to an abandoned area, and leave the mice there for the roaming cats. How they get the mice off the glue trap is a mystery to me.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 14, 2013)

My family catches mice in contraptions that close once they go in to get food, then release them in the woods and they bounce off. It doesn't always work though, as one chewed their own leg off, which was wedging the door, to escape.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 14, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> On a more disturbing note, my friend Xing tells me dead baby is a virility medicine in regions of East Asia, which makes even less sense.


And the traditional way to guarantee meat freshness is to beat the animal to death in front of the customer.


----------



## Saiko (Jan 14, 2013)

Lev1athan said:


> Hunting, no. I prefer trapping the small game (mice) in glue traps. I then collect the mice and drive a mile to an abandoned area, and leave the mice there for the roaming cats. How they get the mice off the glue trap is a mystery to me.


I'm not fond of glue traps to say the least. >_>

BUT that's a different topic... and an old thread I think.


----------



## Sydira (Jan 14, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> And the traditional way to guarantee meat freshness is to beat the animal to death in front of the customer.



"Adrenaline improves the flavor."


----------



## Tigercougar (Jan 14, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> My family catches mice in contraptions that close once they go in to get food, then release them in the woods and they bounce off. It doesn't always work though, as one chewed their own leg off, which was wedging the door, to escape.



My granddad always uses lethal mouse traps. Freaked me out seeing the mousies with snapped necks when I was little.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 15, 2013)

Sydira said:


> "Adrenaline improves the flavor."


Ancient Chinese Wisdom: Sweetest meat scream longest in pot.


----------



## ThisisGabe (Jan 15, 2013)

Whatever feeds yeah.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 15, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Ancient Chinese Wisdom: Sweetest meat scream longest in pot.



Tea is the sweetest meat?


----------



## Lunar (Jan 15, 2013)

Hunting is necessary to control population growth.  It would be great if people used every piece of the animal while also making sure the animals' numbers are under control, but not everyone's gonna be decent about it.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 15, 2013)

I keep getting mail every week from conservation organizations, talking about the recent de-listing of the Gray Wolf and the ensuing killing spree. I think I'lll actually donate this time, even though it won't stop pigfuckers from being pigfuckers (something only direct community action can do). The white trash mantra on predator hunting has always been 'population control' or 'protectin' mah land', but these laughable excuses for pleasure hunting are particularly worthless in the case of a species that was all but exterminated once before (in this country).


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 15, 2013)

Lunar said:


> *Hunting* is necessary to control population growth.  It would be great if people used every piece of the animal while also making sure the animals' numbers are under control, but not everyone's gonna be decent about it.



A balanced ecosystem with all of its original key species*

In the UK we could reintroduce the grey wolf in the remnants of caledonian forest and watch the forest regrow as overgrazing by the wolf's prey declines, leading to a better balanced and more extensive ecosystem that does not require human intervention to prevent it dissapearing entirely. 

...or we could pretend that hunting the deer is the solution and just continue to make a mint off of hunting tourists effectively treating the remaining forest areas as a form of free range farm and abatoire.

Here are some before-after photos to illustrate the scale of the problem:

What most of the highlands of scotland looked like before forests were deliberately felled and burnt to kill of wolves:





What the scottish highlands look like, for the most part, now that they have effectively been converted into a game reserve:




Some parts of the highlands naturally _are_ heather moor, but now this is the only well represented ecosystem there. New trees would grow back, but the deer eat them and it is not in hunters' interests or capabilities to decrease their population to a level in which tree regrowth is possible


----------



## RadioactiveRedFox (Jan 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> A balanced ecosystem with all of its original key species*
> 
> In the UK we could reintroduce the grey wolf in the remnants of caledonian forest and watch the forest regrow as overgrazing by the wolf's prey declines, leading to a better balanced and more extensive ecosystem that does not require human intervention to prevent it dissapearing entirely.
> 
> ...



Hunting would still have to be used to control the deer population for a few years while the wolf population grew, but as soon as the wolf population was large enough to control the deer population on its own hunting should be stopped. This hopefully will be the case in Wisconsin when our wolf population gets large enough, the real problem will be getting the drunken idiots to put away their rifles.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 15, 2013)

RadioactiveRedFox said:


> Hunting would still have to be used to control the deer population for a few years while the wolf population grew, but as soon as the wolf population was large enough to control the deer population on its own hunting should be stopped.



I agree. The obvious kick in the teeth I would see coming is the deer being overhunted and the wolf population deciding to predate on livestock outside of the territories of their forests instead instead of starving.


----------



## Tigercougar (Jan 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> A balanced ecosystem with all of its original key species*
> 
> In the UK we could reintroduce the grey wolf in the remnants of caledonian forest and watch the forest regrow as overgrazing by the wolf's prey declines, leading to a better balanced and more extensive ecosystem that does not require human intervention to prevent it dissapearing entirely.
> 
> ...



Is there a grassroots movement to reintroduce predators in your country?


----------



## RadioactiveRedFox (Jan 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I agree. The obvious kick in the teeth I would see coming is the deer being overhunted and the wolf population deciding to predate on livestock outside of the territories of their forests instead instead of starving.



This is a very real problem with it, the number of deer allowed to be hunted would have to be tapered down according to how successful the wolves were at culling the deer heard. It would definitely have to be implemented with great care, but could be done.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I agree. The obvious kick in the teeth I would see coming is the deer being overhunted and the wolf population deciding to predate on livestock outside of the territories of their forests instead instead of starving.



That's where I can see the potential of having some organization keeping track of the deer vs predator ratio and how it will impact them as a whole before allowing people to go and shoot them up like drunken rednecks.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 15, 2013)

Tigercougar said:


> Is there a grassroots movement to reintroduce predators in your country?



I don't think grassroots is the right word. An ecologist I met in Montrose was writing a thesis on it, put it that way. 

There's more public support for the reintroduction of species like beaver [which are in trial regions of Argyle]. 

Unfortunately in the UK our grassroots ecology seems to be more about killing grey squirrels and pleading with the government not to kill 70% of the badgers.


----------



## RadioactiveRedFox (Jan 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't think grassroots is the right word. An ecologist I met in Montrose was writing a thesis on it, put it that way.
> 
> There's more public support for the reintroduction of species like beaver [which are in trial regions of Argyle].
> 
> Unfortunately in the UK our grassroots ecology seems to be more about killing grey squirrels and pleading with the government not to kill 70% of the badgers.



Dose the UK have something like the Endangered Species Act? Honestly I think the only reason why the Gray Wolf was reintroduced to parts of the US is because of the ESA.


----------



## DepressedNutella (Jan 15, 2013)

Lev1athan said:


> Hunting, no. I prefer trapping the small game (mice) in glue traps. I then collect the mice and drive a mile to an abandoned area, and leave the mice there for the roaming cats. How they get the mice off the glue trap is a mystery to me.



You're disgusting.

Instead of putting the animals out of their misery, you either let them expire stuck on these traps, or you let a cat tear off something helpless and stuck (the cat can also get caught on the trap and possibly injure itself). You would have spent a significantly less amount of time just humanely putting the animal down. Even a kitten can get severely caught on these things. What the fuck's wrong with you? The fact that you're even using one of those damn things is bad enough, but to put other animals in danger just reeks of stupidity.

"Game", lol. Just an example of another idiot drawing out the animal's pain longer than necessary because they're too chicken-shit to do the decent thing themselves and put the animal down.


----------

