Does Starbury have a point?

[monosylab1k]

If citizens didn't pay for the privilege

It's a privilege to kill animals?

If the sole purpose of going hunting was for "population control", I'd figure it would be a fairly unfavorable task for anybody who was forced to do it. People wouldn't want to pay for the "privilege" of controlling the animal population.

[Flopper]

Dogfighting = killing animals for your gratification.

Trophy hunting = killing animals for your gratification.

Dogfighting is worse, but there's an essential similarity.

Okay then, we get it. Trophy hunting has a basic reason as that of dogfighting, which is "killing animals for your gratification." People are not accepting the idea because of the action/methods involved in dogfighting, and they will continue to deny the simple narrow conclusion you came up with.

You can also look at it psychologically. People see dogfighting as wrong and evil because people are emotionally connected to dogs. Dogs are everywhere in a persons life, where they are pets and more. People are not emotionally attached to a deer.

[Spurminator]

Serious question... How realistic would it be, hypothetically speaking, to control the deer population through neutering and spaying? Say you replace the s s with something that would only stun the deer, or render it sterile.

Maybe not at all, but if it was possible, would people still hunt?

[monosylab1k]

Hypothetically, I think you'd have a lot of pissed off hunters, rather than people saying "Whew, glad the deer population is finally under control without me having to go hunt and kill them."

[Reggie Miller]

For better or worse, there aren't enough predators in the US to balance the population of certain animals. There are agencies set up where they determine the number of licenses sold and the limit per license for hunters, with the specific goal of keeping the population in check. If this were not done, there would be severe overpopulation and famine and disesase would be required to regain the natural balance. THAT is the point of hunting. If citizens didn't pay for the privilege, people would have to be hired to do it.

A little research goes a long way. I've said this before, but drawing parallels from one activity to the other is kind of like saying rape is okay because women like sex.

Well said.

Anyone who would compare deer hunting to dog-fighting has obviously never heard of chronic wasting disease. Wikipedia and Google...Try It!!!

There are several million more whitetail in the Continental U.S. today than there were 200 years ago. As habitat is destroyed, whitetail have adapted by eating crops, garbage, and marginally edible byproducts of human society (deer will eat sawdust if starving, for example). At the same time, the whitetail birthrate has stayed the same or increased. This leads to tens of thousands of deer starving to death every year. Additionally, the current theory is that chronic wasting disease is a result of the chronic overpopulation.

Here in Indiana, where deer hunting is not actively encouraged (no hunting with centerfire rifles, for example) the DNR has to spend most of the winter putting down whitetail or collecting their starved carcasses.

[Flopper]

Serious question... How realistic would it be, hypothetically speaking, to control the deer population through neutering and spaying? Say you replace the s s with something that would only stun the deer, or render it sterile.

Maybe not at all, but if it was possible, would people still hunt?

If deer hunting is illegal then there will be fewer cases of it; like dogfighting.

[monosylab1k]

Well said.

Anyone who would compare deer hunting to dog-fighting has obviously never heard of chronic wasting disease. Wikipedia and Google...Try It!!!

There are several million more whitetail in the Continental U.S. today than there were 200 years ago. As habitat is destroyed, whitetail have adapted by eating crops, garbage, and marginally edible byproducts of human society (deer will eat sawdust if starving, for example). At the same time, the whitetail birthrate has stayed the same or increased. This leads to tens of thousands of deer starving to death every year. Additionally, the current theory is that chronic wasting disease is a result of the chronic overpopulation.

Here in Indiana, where deer hunting is not actively encouraged (no hunting with centerfire rifles, for example) the DNR has to spend most of the winter putting down whitetail or collecting their starved carcasses.

So hunters mount deer heads on the walls of their homes to show everybody their contributions to the fight against chronic wasting disease? I find that a little hard to believe.

[jacobdrj]

There is truth to Marburry's line of reasoning.

There is also the very real fact that hunting is for food, and because there are no more natural predictors, we actually keep the species alive by hunting, because if we didn't they would overpopulate and die of disease and hunger.

Finally, if you don't think dogfighting is a big deal, you should go to your legislators and let them know. Be active in your community. If you think a law is wrong, don't break it, work to fix it.

Personally I think it is a deplorable act. But if I had my way, nobody would be allowed to have pets, because I think keeping animals in homes, period, in inhumane and cruel. Generally, animals belong outdoors, where they naturally occur. If the animals aren't for direct human benefit (Search dogs, Shepard dogs, food cattle etc) they shouldn't be handled by humans. I even have hard time with Zoos if the species kept are not endangered.

[Flopper]

Personally I think it is a deplorable act. But if I had my way, nobody would be allowed to have pets, because I think keeping animals in homes, period, in inhumane and cruel. Generally, animals belong outdoors, where they naturally occur.

Yeah I'm sure all those stray animals in the city are loving it.

[jacobdrj]

So hunters mount deer heads on the walls of their homes to show everybody their contributions to the fight against chronic wasting disease? I find that a little hard to believe.

What do the heads have to do with anything? If they hunted the animal and used it for food, the head is a 'left over' part of the animal. Nothing wrong with taking pride in your work.

Of course, there are those who just hunt for the 'sport' and for the trophy, and like others have said, there is some hypocrisies there in theory, but this doesn't count out the fact that, as has been pointed out many times before, we are now the top predator in the world, and natural ones can't keep up to do their job. Even killing them for no other reason than for fertilizer is better than letting the species self destruct and go extinct.

Again, if you feel so strongly about these things, go to your legislators and let them know how you feel.

[jacobdrj]

Yeah I'm sure all those stray animals in the city are loving it.

The animals in your home have nothing to do with the animals in your city, except it shows people didn't spade and nuder their pets, which is also a pretty scary thing.

I don't see stray cats and dogs any differently than overpopulated deer... if we need to stop them, as the top pseudo-predator, than we need to stop them, lest they overpopulate and kill themselves, or hurt humans. I know this sounds unsavory, but it is how it stands. I doubt many people would take strays in anyways. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but that is not usually how pet owners become pet owners.

[Dalhoop]

I'd be interested in knowing how often "population control" comes up in conversation when you get your buddies together for a hunt.

It is the start of any conversation about Deer and Duck hunting. As someone has pointed out, the state sets limits, the hunters cannot go over the limit.

If citizens didn't pay for the privilege, people would have to be hired to do it.

Hunting licence's are not free.

Serious question... How realistic would it be, hypothetically speaking, to control the deer population through neutering and spaying? Say you replace the s s with something that would only stun the deer, or render it sterile.

Maybe not at all, but if it was possible, would people still hunt?

On a personal level, I would still hunt .. even with a dart gun. It is not about the killing the deer, but about the hunt. As I have said, to outsmart the animal in its own world ... To do what man has been doing sense they were cave men ... It has its appeal that is hard to put into words.

Its like going home to the wife to tell her that you got a better job with a higher pay. Although the effect on the finances will not be that much .. It is a sense of accomplishment.

So hunters mount deer heads on the walls of their homes to show everybody their contributions to the fight against chronic wasting disease? I find that a little hard to believe.

Deer are not born with "mounting heads". Mounting a twelve point buck is something that I dream about. Its something that every deer hunter dreams about. I have shot many deer (Ate them all) and have yet to mount a head. Only the very best are worth it in my book.

I call bull . There are an infinite number of ways to gamble - legally or not - that don't involve two animals ripping each other to shreds.

If you have not been to one, then all you have to say is "I've heard that ... ". Dog fighting IS all about the gambling. There are as many yells from the crowd to get in on a bet as there are for the dogs.

is not dog racing not about gambling?

It is. And, the animals that loose live to run another day. Although many of the greyhounds are adopted after their racing careers are over, the needs of a "running dog" are different then those of a lap dog. It is still a black eye on the sport that some of the dogs are unable to find suitable homes.

Most hunters I know (myself included) hunt for the meat. And we eat what we kill, or at least give it away to someone who will. Circle of life kinda thing. If it's a big deer, yes, we'll mount the head or the antlers. But what else are you going to do with them? You can't eat head and antlers. I've also yet to meet a hunter who actually takes joy in killing the animal. In fact, I'd say hunters have a greater respect for animals than most people do. The gratification from hunting comes from being in the outdoors and putting together a successful hunt after all the preparation, stalking, tracking, hiking, etc. It's more about the challenge than anything. Which is why a lot of hunters like to bow hunt. It greatly increases the challenge. Man vs Wild thing.

VERY well said. Deer meat does not go to waste in my part of the country (East Texas)

[diego]

i dont agree with the hunting / dog fighting analogy, as dog fighting is evidently crueler to the animal and serves a questionable purpose (yes, they both involve killing for the gratification of humans, but the hunter is gratified by conquering nature yadda yadda yadda, while the dog fighter is gratified by the suffering of the dogs/ profit of the gamble).

however, Im amazed at the press this vick thing is getting. I dont live in the US but everytime i get near the internet there is some op ed blasting this guy. while agree hes stupid, i dont remember worse crimes getting near as much public scrutiny (for ex, the numerous church child abuse cases in cali in the late 80s, and boston in the early 90s). in the same line of the dog fighting, even that SF woman that got killed by her neighbors fight dogs a few years ago didnt get this much press. it just goes to show how obsessed with celebrities the US has become. the outcry isnt so much about the dogs, but about a millionaire ing up.

---

on a side note, if you want to hear about re ed laws, here in chile you can get 15 years jailtime for stealing livestock (chicken, cattle- this is a law from colonial times), but the max sentence for murder is ten years. how is that for confusing your priorities?

[jacobdrj]

on a side note, if you want to hear about re ed laws, here in chile you can get 15 years jailtime for stealing livestock (chicken, cattle- this is a law from colonial times), but the max sentence for murder is ten years. how is that for confusing your priorities?

In your case, I simply must ask: Can you go talk to your legislators, even if you wanted to?

[Obstructed_View]

It's a privilege to kill animals?

First of all, spare me the sanctimonious moral outrage, please. Until you start living strictly on food that you grow in your own garden, you have no moral high ground to take whatsoever on this issue.

Since hunters pay for licenses and for all the other required to go hunting, then yes, I'd say they consider it a privilege. People that enjoy venison typically get it from hunting.

If the sole purpose of going hunting was for "population control", I'd figure it would be a fairly unfavorable task for anybody who was forced to do it. People wouldn't want to pay for the "privilege" of controlling the animal population.

Um. Almost. If you read my post again that's exactly what I said, except that population control isn't the "sole" purpose, but it is the primary one. If people didn't enjoy doing it someone would have to be paid to do it, because it needs to be done, whether or not you choose to understand it.

[v2freak]

and mounting it's head in your study is part of the eating process?

It's tacky but would you prefer they throw the head away? It doesn't really matter

[td4mvp21]

Stephon Marbury, I guess he didn't read up on what all Vick did to the poor dogs.

[monosylab1k]

First of all, spare me the sanctimonious moral outrage, please.

i'm not trying to come at this from some moral high ground. believe me, i'm not. i enjoy a bloody steak just as much as the next guy.

and i really don't want people to see this as a dogfighting vs. hunting issue. there's no question that dogfighting is a more disgusting thing.

i'm just saying that in the end, both dogfighting and hunting serve the same purpose - for humans to get some sort of satisfaction from the death of innocent animals.

i think hunters are able to hide behind excuses like "we eat the deer" and "population control" to make themselves feel better about the fact that they just really enjoy going out and blowing the living out of Bambi's mother. And that's got a certain sickness to it. Maybe not to the degree of people that enjoy dogfighting, but there's still something wrong with it IMO.

People that enjoy venison typically get it from hunting.

if it's strictly for the food, then there's no problem whatsoever with hunting IMO. i just call bull on people who say they go hunting solely because they enjoy venison. i think they get some joy out of ending the life of another living being.

If people didn't enjoy doing it someone would have to be paid to do it, because it needs to be done, whether or not you choose to understand it.

If it needs to be done then fine. That's a necessary evil and completely understandable. But why do people enjoy killing an innocent animal? It's not as sadistic and sick as dogfighting, but again, why get any joy out of the death of another living thing?

[monosylab1k]

It's tacky but would you prefer they throw the head away? It doesn't really matter

yeah i'd prefer they throw the head away than proudly display to anyone that walks into their house that they enjoy blasting the out of defenseless deer.

just like i'd prefer that the government work a little harder to get rid of all dogfighting rather than just be satisfied with busting one high profile case.

[Flopper]

But why do people enjoy killing an innocent animal? It's not as sadistic and sick as dogfighting, but again, why get any joy out of the death of another living thing?

did you just ask why people enjoy killing an animal? that's just human nature, humans are naturally prone to violence (in my opinion). just be glad they're aiming their rifles towards wild animals rather than humans.

But really, if you want an answer to your question, ask a psychologist on how a human mind works.

[monosylab1k]

did you just ask why people enjoy killing an animal?

yeah, i did. people are going ape over Michael Vick doing it, and with every good reason to, yet they're finding any bull excuse available to excuse it when they themselves are the ones that go blowing deers straight to with their rifles.

if they're so intent on killing , then just play a ing video game.

again, if it's for necessary reasons, i have no problem with hunting. i just think any redneck with a gun is full of when he says that he hunts for "the food" or "population control".

[BeerIsGood!]

yeah, i did. people are going ape over Michael Vick doing it, and with every good reason to, yet they're finding any bull excuse available to excuse it when they themselves are the ones that go blowing deers straight to with their rifles.

if they're so intent on killing , then just play a ing video game.

again, if it's for necessary reasons, i have no problem with hunting. i just think any redneck with a gun is full of when he says that he hunts for "the food" or "population control".

You bring up a good point, I think some people get some sort of self validation from killing an animal, possibly a validation that they have sought and not received from other facets of their lives. It is a necessary evil, but a lot of people do it because it makes them feel masculine or enpowered. I think it's wrong for that reason, but it's almost impossible to prove that is the motivation and the govt. won't even try to attempt it. Like all things in our society, if it serves some sort of purpose that the govt. wants or needs then it'll be allowed regardless of the possible moral implications. The govt. is self serving, and the truth is it can produce monetary gains from hunting, but not from illegal dog fighting that it doesn't sanction. Same reason you can gamble in Vegas but not in a building in downtown Dallas. If the govt. doesn't get their cut they will ban it and arrest you. It's the way it is.

Obviously the govt. can't sanction dogfighting because of the close emotional bond Americans share with dogs. It would cause an outrage.

[BeerIsGood!]

Although I think Marbury opened his mouth and got into a hornets nest that he probably doesn't want to enter, I think this is a damn good discussion. In the end, though, there really isn't a reason to validate hunting for sport. It's allowed simply because animal population control is a necessary evil and hunting is a hold-over mainstay from the frontier days of America when people had to do it for survival. Hunting is built into our genes. We try to make ourselves believe that we are some high and mighty species, but in the end we are not much more than hypocritical savage predators ourselves. Myself included.

[T Park]

Obviously the govt. can't sanction dogfighting because of the close emotional bond Americans share with dogs. It would cause an outrage

or maybe becuase its a morally reprehensible, disgusting, barbaric thing, that we as human beings in this time period should be evloved enough to NOT do!??!

[BeerIsGood!]

or maybe becuase its a morally reprehensible, disgusting, barbaric thing, that we as human beings in this time period should be evloved enough to NOT do!??!

We as a society in this time period do all sorts of morally reprehensible, disgusting, and barbaric things that are not only allowed by the govt. but are sanctioned and perpetrated by the govt. There are thousands of humans being killed or disfigured all across the world right now by people in this time period. There are millions of animals being tortured and killed for sport and many, many other purposes. All of this the govt. is making money off of or has a self serving interest in. It's the way it is. If you actually think the govt. gives a about whether you live or die then you are being completely naive of the situation.

Dogfighting is morally reprehensible, disgusting, and barbaric - but that's not why it's illegal. It's illegal because it serves no use to the govt. and therefore there is no incentive for the govt. to attempt to make a positive spin on the situation or outright lie in order to sanction dogfighting. If killing dogs was a priority for the govt. you better believe that the govt. would find a way to rationalize the killing of dogs through fear. And that's not just the US govt. It's all govts.