84
Big strong predator that sucks at hunting so much that they need to lure the deer to stand directly in front of their gun.
At that point you're not even a hunter, you're a slob that might as well be ordering from a menu. Pathetic.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
84 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13509 readers
1234 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I think this is interesting. What is the specific thing that makes hunting inhumane? Some might say it's about the act of killing, but really it's about the act of suffering and dying that matters.
And then you have to compare that suffering and death to whatever the alternative is. The obvious answer is less suffering and death. But nobody is reducing that, or really planning on reducing that.
The nature of a wild animal is that they don't write wills and crawl into hospital beds and take morphine and kiss their grandchildren goodbye. Every time a deer dies, it's going out a few different ways or a combination of a few different ways. Those ways are all the worst things that can possibly happen to a sapient being.
Usually they'll break a leg, drag themselves around in constant pain for months, and then slowly wither away in the pure agony of starvation.
Or if there are wolves, coyotes, wild dogs etc, those animals will do heinous torture to the deer that barely any human has ever done to an animal, so badly that doing so would put you in the company of our most infamous sadists. It's slow and agonizing and outrageously disgusting. They ram their heads up the deer's ass to tear organs out as the deer watches, for hours.
The other main option for a deer is to be shot in the heart, sprint 100 yards and keel over. When hunters fuck up or take an unethical shot, they begin to approach the standard wild animal death but are very unlikely to get close.
So if you accept that it's not about the human, and it's really about the animal, nothing about the process of hunting is actually adding any suffering to what a wild animal experiences.
Your pet dog basically does get morphine and head pats and euthanasia, so none of that applies there. If deer were getting morphine and euthanasia in old age, it's pretty bad to shoot them. But if you have no intention of reducing animal suffering, I don't think the deer could, should, or even would give a shit about how "natural" a person thinks it is to be starving and devoured by wild dogs
Am I being trolled, is this some weird carnist realism bit? Eat vegetables. Some tofu maybe. Use your intelligence to realize you don’t have to kill sentient life to eat. Your point isn’t great anyway, each bullet to the heart robs the deer of years of life.
It doesn't really. Killing these large animals is an essential function of a natural or even a partially artificial ecosystem. They can't have their full lives. If wolves fail to torture them to death, and humans fail to shoot them, they literally kill most of the rest of the plants and animals in their environment. If humans became allergic to meat next year and only ate vegetables, we would keep shooting deer and use the meat as feed or fertilizer.
Long life is not on the table and never has been. One of the biggest failures of western forest management has actually been to let the deer live too long. So the difference really is the manner of death.
And that's just talking about deer and not the 30-50 wild hogs running through my back yard
That's why we need the BabyKiller Mark 7 fully automatic grenade launcher like our forefathers intended
source? Sounds more like game warden / hobby-hunter bullshit than ecology. Also, we don’t need to shoot deer for fertilizer if we stopped eating meet. If plants or ecosystems are imbalanced, it should be the work of ecologist not hunters
The ecologist would generally prefer to introduce wolves or, if they weren't allowed to, they would shoot the deer. In fact those are the 2 main things they are doing and encouraging in various out of wack, deer overpopulated ecosystems.
Funny, are you an ecologist? First article I found in google scholar concluded hunters should be reduced.
They should be reduced in various areas or replaced in all areas by natural predators. I assure you there are areas with not enough hunting because a) the bears and wolves were exterminated 100 years ago, b) livestock farmers lobby the local and state governments against introducing those predators and c) hunters either don't hunt enough or only try to trophy hunt
I think the people who think hunting is the only options should be reduced in various areas
I mean yeah, natural predators are much more effective
Here's an article.
The abstract:
As this ecologist notes, hunters are essential parts of maintaining healthy, biodiverse ecosystems.
Funny, are you an ecologist? First article I found in google scholar concluded hunters should be reduced.
"hunting is the primary population management tool" and "hunting should be reduced" are not mutually exclusive statements. You're not clever for demanding people have a degree in ecology to give you information.
Love that this person demands everyone else have a phd to argue with them about a subject they clearly understand less than a middle schooler