David K Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Your Z is a product of nature. Nuclear power plants are natural. You really dont score any respectable arguement points when you include nonsense like the above in your posts. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Post derailed, again, run for your lives....errr...brains! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Can you prove me wrong? If not, then I'd like to take this time to give your argument back to you. Your argument is dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 We might want to tone down the rhetoric or this thread will be gone. Maybe I got a little too metaphysical before. The non-hunters in this thread are not doing a very good job of listening. That is why they can't see why anyone would condone hunting. You try and project all types of reasons why someone would hunt and don't listen to why they actually do, then make all kinds of emotional arguments against it without facing many of the essential facts of the matter. Sort of reminds me of the hybrid vs purist thread..... Are you people really that wrapped up in your own little worlds that you can't see there might be other perspectives? Are you truly so arrogant as to believe that man is some "majestic being" and not just another part of the natural cycle of life and death? Can't you see the natural part hunters play in the balance of nature? You guys complain about duck hunters, yet the if it wasn't for hunter groups like Ducks Unlimited there would not be anywhere near the habitat for ducks today. Did you know there are more deer in the US today than when Columbus landed? Have you read about the number of people who have been eaten by mountain lions in California since they banned hunting a few years ago? Do you honestly think it is better for game animals to die of starvation and disease due to overpopulation then to have their population controlled by hunting? How is it somehow more acceptable to have game wardens and park rangers culling the animal populations? Do you honestly think that is why they became game wardens and park rangers? Who are the freaks of nature? The people who recognize the cycle and rhythm of nature, or arm chaired, overly analytical, pony tailed Hillary wannabes who don't like hunting because it is icky? Perhaps it is the guy who thinks it all boils down to penis envy. Wanna talk about issues? One last thing. To any of you guys who think that was a "easy" shot I defy you to attempt the same. You are really marginalizing something that is very, very difficult. I know you won't believe that. But just because you don't understand that doesn't make it any less true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 You're right Pop. Sorry everyone, I get a little carried away sometimes. Sort of reminds me of the hybrid vs purist thread..... Are you people really that wrapped up in your own little worlds that you can't see there might be other perspectives? Are you truly so arrogant as to believe that man is some "majestic being" and not just another part of the natural cycle of life and death? Can't you see the natural part hunters play in the balance of nature? Who are the freaks of nature? The people who recognize the cycle and rhythm of nature, or arm chaired, overly analytical, pony tailed Hillary wannabes who don't like hunting because it is icky? Perhaps it is the guy who thinks it all boils down to penis envy. Wanna talk about issues? That says it better than I ever could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Z Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 None of the sources I checked online had up to the minute stats on lion populations, but NONE of them listed the lion as an endangered species. Hmmm, let's see.... American Lion - extinct European Lion - extinct Asian Lion - gone North African Barbary Lion - thought extinct, a few found recently Coastal Lion - a few left African Lion - 20,000 or so. If we had been wiped out on every continent except one, with a population you could fit in a decent New York City skyscraper, what would you call it? You're right I don't read African newspapers. Do you? Was the endangered part really the argument? Yes I do and yes it is. Here's a quick article from last year: Big dip in lion numbers Tim Radford Thursday September 18, 2003 The Guardian The lion population of Africa has fallen to about 23,000 - roughly the human headcount of Woodbridge, Suffolk - though just 20 years ago it numbered more than 200,000. A report in New Scientist today says that not just lions but the populations of all African predators are plummeting. The wild dogs may be down to 3,000 now, roaming a fraction of their old range. Cheetahs, once common from southern Africa to west Asia, perhaps now number only 15,000 animals. All the species face human pressures and loss of habitat. Laurence Frank, of the University of California, Berkeley, said: "These large carnivores are nearing the brink." People caused 74% of the deaths of large carnivores in African parks, according to Rosie Woodroffe, of the University of California, Davis. A team at the university and at the Texas Tech University, in Lubbock, said there was also insufficient effort to save the species of the Americas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 HeavyZ, if your argument was that we shouldn't hunt lions because they are endangered, then I think you have a point. I still haven't seen that they are even considered threatened, and I would leave those threatened and endangered distinctions up to the experts, you know, the ones whose research is funded by safaris... I was reading that lions are magnificent creatures and that anyone who hunts them should do so with their bare hands. Totally different argument. There is a time and a place to hunt endangered species too. When they get diseased and could transfer that disease to the rest of the population. Might as well let someone come in and pay big to kill the animal and use that money to further their cause. That's what they do with elephants a lot of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheelman Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Who are the freaks of nature? The people who recognize the cycle and rhythm of nature, or arm chaired, overly analytical, pony tailed Hillary wannabes who don't like hunting because it is icky? Perhaps it is the guy who thinks it all boils down to penis envy. Wanna talk about issues? I love this quote and it should have been said many posts back!!! As for what jmortenson was trying to say: I'll try and rephrase it, please forgive me John if I get it wrong. The lion evolved it's tools of the trade, teeth, claws, muscles and instincts. Man evolved his tools, large brain allowing him to use use other materials for offense and defense. OK now which is more natural? For a Lion to use his tools or a man to use his?? Or are they both the same. Maybe it's a stretch to say a Z or nuclear plant is "natural" in the sense they were created by man but they are a direct product of our intellect which IS natural, And it's natural for us to develop technology to subdue to world around us so we survive and flourish. The question of fairness is irrelevent, life isn't fair, never has been and never will be. Humans have used their superior brain power to survive and dominate this planet, without it we would still be cowering in the forests afraid of the moon, being eaten by that very lion we've been discussing. Wheelman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 wheelman, YEP! That's it! I like my explanation better though. It tends to get under people's skin more, and there really isn't a good argument against it, unless religion comes into the conversation. Since environmentalists are almost always left leaning socialist non-religious types it helps to flush out the emotion in their argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim240z Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 HeavyZ' date=' if your argument was that we shouldn't hunt lions because they are endangered, then I think you have a point. I still haven't seen that they are even considered threatened, and I would leave those threatened and endangered distinctions up to the experts, you know, the ones whose research is funded by safaris...[/quote'] OK I too have been keeping out of this...the whole argument is ridiculous IMO....I too did not bother watching the video. However, being African (of European descent), I have seen with my own eyes the kind of $hit that goes on.....it's not pretty and does nothing to endear the whole 'Hunting' romance. Jon, why wait until the species is threatened before worrying about it......by the time that determination has been made, it is usually too late, esp. in 3rd-world, or 2nd-world countries where the funds aren't available for these types of efforts. When the Western world does finally see what's happening, and they throw $$ money at the problem, the $$$ usually ends up in places where it does no good. I don't see any need to kill an animal that is so high on the food chain. 20,000 animals is not very many at all. I have nothing against hunters or hunting, or anglers or fishing, but the argument that there are plenty of these types of animals out there to just kill for the hell of it is disgraceful!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Jon, why wait until the species is threatened before worrying about it......by the time that determination has been made, it is usually too late, esp. in 3rd-world, or 2nd-world countries where the funds aren't available for these types of efforts. When the Western world does finally see what's happening, and they throw $$ money at the problem, the $$$ usually ends up in places where it does no good. I don't see any need to kill an animal that is so high on the food chain. 20,000 animals is not very many at all. I have nothing against hunters or hunting, or anglers or fishing, but the argument that there are plenty of these types of animals out there to just kill for the hell of it is disgraceful!!! The money that these countries get for protecting these animals comes from hunting them. Like it or not, that's where a lot of it comes from. The rest of your argument gets into "how many is enough" and since I am not a lion researcher, I wouldn't like to speculate on that. If they say that it is not endangered or threatened, then I'll go with that. If they change that figure to 75,000 or 200,000, then I'll go with that. I don't pretend to know as much as they do about that subject. Is it disgraceful? I don't know, I know I wouldn't do it, but I don't feel qualified to make that determination for EVERYONE all by myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Z Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Are you people really that wrapped up in your own little worlds that you can't see there might be other perspectives? Are you truly so arrogant as to believe that man is some "majestic being" and not just another part of the natural cycle of life and death? Can't you see the natural part hunters play in the balance of nature? Who are the freaks of nature? The people who recognize the cycle and rhythm of nature, or arm chaired, overly analytical, pony tailed Hillary wannabes who don't like hunting because it is icky? Perhaps it is the guy who thinks it all boils down to penis envy. Wanna talk about issues? So there you have it, a call for open-mindedness followed by a bashing. I share some of your thoughts on conservation, but which side of the fence are you on here? When you read something you disagreed with, you lashed out the same way others condemned your opinion. No difference whatsoever. If everyone played by the rules in your 1st paragraph we'd be more in the spirit of Hybrid Z, rather than the alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonfen Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 I'll admit I am a little torn on the subject. The video is pathetic. Where else in nature is killing done for sport? Do you think Lions get up in the morning to go take out an antelope for the heck of it? No, it is either that or starve. There are only a couple of reasons I accept for hunting. Food source. I'm not talking about stocking your freezer. I mean, you live in the wild and you have limited resources. Second, is overpopulation. Nature usually takes care of itself. However, humans have changed the rules enough that intervention is now necessary. I grew up hunting and fishing. I only killed one deer in my life and did not enjoy it. I hunted pheasants that were damaging crops. I probably still will. I have no desire to hunt for sport. It just does not make sense to me anymore. My only source of conflict is fishing. It seems like a simple thing. It is even in the Bible. However, can you think of a more cruel thing to do than keep an animal from breathing? I certainly do not need to fish to stay alive. In the end, you either have a problem with killing or not. The face of the creature is irrelivant. The same people that are against hunting probably use bugspray. Just because it isn't cute like a puppy doesn't mean it deserves to die. Ok, I'll stop rambling now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim240z Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 This is a fun debate nonetheless!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Are you people really that wrapped up in your own little worlds that you can't see there might be other perspectives? Are you truly so arrogant as to believe that man is some "majestic being" and not just another part of the natural cycle of life and death? Can't you see the natural part hunters play in the balance of nature? Who are the freaks of nature? The people who recognize the cycle and rhythm of nature' date=' or [b']arm chaired, overly analytical, pony tailed Hillary wannabes who don't like hunting because it is icky[/b]? Perhaps it is the guy who thinks it all boils down to penis envy. Wanna talk about issues? So there you have it, a call for open-mindedness followed by a bashing. I share some of your thoughts on conservation, but which side of the fence are you on here? When you read something you disagreed with, you lashed out the same way others condemned your opinion. No difference whatsoever. If everyone played by the rules in your 1st paragraph we'd be more in the spirit of Hybrid Z, rather than the alternative. Well, you know, I tried quoting Wordsworth and it went unnoticed, so I had to turn to the sound bite. And I don't think that last part is bashing. Probably could have worded it in a less inflammatory manner, but I was trying to point out a genre of people who are incapable or unwilling to see any perspective outside their own. Couple that with politicians the like of Hillary “don’t worry I know what is best for you whether you know it or not†Clinton and it is not hard to imagine why people get defensive when their whole way of life is attacked. I honestly don’t care who agrees with my opinion, but at least support your arguments with some sound analytical conclusions. And one more thing. People are complaining about the needless suffering of the animals and talk about giving then a humane death, and at the same time deriding the hunters for using high power, high tech, “scoped†rifles to gain an unfair advantage. Well guess what: the bigger and more accurate the rifle the greater the chance of making a clean kill. And one last thing, we are not the only “animal†that kills for some reason other than food. Dianne Fossy chronicled a tribe (pack? Clan?) of Chimpanzees that actually went to war with another group, killing off all the males using weapons and stole the females. Ever seen that video of the killer whale tossing a seal about in the surf? Lions will routinely attack hyenas, partly to gain territory but also out of spite. Male lions will kill their own young if they are males. A house cat will kill a mouse not out of hunger, but simply because that is the way God made them. Even generations of domestication cannot breed that instinct out of them. We as humans can strive for more, but who are we to think we are above millions of years of evolution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David K Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Even generations of domestication cannot breed that instinct out of them. Instinct is using a high powered rifle with a scope to blow off a Lions head from 100 feet away while he is running to safety? You guys can keep pounding your chest and howl at the moon making excuses to justify your opinion, while the rest of the civilized world sits back and rolls their eyes, kinda like this >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest plainswolf Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Well, on a few ways this thread seems nto be turning I must respectfully disagree. Man is NOT the only creature of nature who kills for reasons other than food or defense. I have personally seen the results of predatory animals who kill for no other reason other than what wildlife biologists declared as 'sheer oportunity'. In this case it was again coyotes and their prey were sheep. On one sheep the coyotes ate only parts of the internal organs, the rest of the animal was not cached away for a later meal, but was left to rot. On another they ate only the ass area out of it and the rest of it too was left to rot. Two more ewes were killed and nothing was eaten from them. They were not cached away for a later meal but were left to rot and be scavenged by lesser creatures.. One last sheep was attacked, banged up and bitten pretty good but did survive. Two of these sheep were killed by coyotes for no other reason than sheer opportunity. As far as the coyote is concerned, it has been documented that given the opportunity, it will kill for no reason other than opportunity itself. Simply "because it can". There are also documented case of this very same activity in New Mexico as well. Secondly, as far as "Unfair advantages" that man holds over the rest of nature-People have a bad habit of somehow separating man from nature, as if we are not a as much of a legitimate creature of nature as the rest of creatures, as if we are indigenous to some other world or realm. To say it is so 'unfair' of man to hunt a lion with the superiority of a high powered rifle-(with a scope no less)-is an absurdity of natural reason. For instance,- Lions have a great advantage over their prey and their competitors, and those advantages are superior size, speed, and bigger, more massive claws and teeth. Therefore, by following this same line of erroneous reasoning I can ask in return: isn't it quite unfair and overly 'macho' of the lion to kill they hyena because he has such a superior advantage over it? Or the zebra who has no claws nor elongated teeth to defend itself with? Should the lion break out his teeth and break off his claws to make it fair? And further, how 'unfair' of the lion to take adantage of stalking low to the ground in high grass that camoflauges his movements, allowing him to gain an 'unfair advantage'of closeness over his prey or his competitors. You bet the lion will exploit every advantage it can.. and justifiably so. Bottom line is that every creature of nature will use every advantage at it's disposal to gain advantage over prey, predator, or competitor.. and that includes man. Now the guys in this video I agree, I have no favor for what appers to be a 'canned hunt" and they were were REALLY lousy shots as well! And it looked as if the lion may have indeed suffered unecessarily. But as far as them using scopes, I don't necessarily see that as odd at all. Simply because we saw what may have been only a small part of a total area they were in. Even out here in the plains, we have alot of semi-scrub areas just as in that clip. But if there is any possibility of encountering a fairly open area, then a scope would definitely be appropriate. Out here we would regularly take deer at well beyond 200 yards. Now one could hit a deer at that range with open sights, but how much more efficient it is to have a scope to ensure a quick kill shot which, on a deer is directly behind the lower shoulder(the heart). a .270 or 30-06 round placed in this area will almost always drop it instantly. Instinct is using a high powered rifle with a scope to blow off a Lions head from 100 feet away while he is running to safety? You guys can keep pounding your chest and howl at the moon making excuses to justify your opinion, while the rest of the civilized world sits back and rolls their eyes, kinda like this >>> It is instinct to use every advantage at your disposal in a dangerous situation the same as it is with the lion to use his larger size, bigger teeth and claws who is chasing a hyena or zebra, or a coyote using his speed and sharp teeth and snagging claws while chasing a slower, defenseless sheep that is running to safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest plainswolf Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 "Ever watch that Ted Nugent character on his hunting show? While he is carefully observing a deer, he does a lot of commenting on how beautiful and majestic it is. After about an hour or so of observing the deer, he loads and cocks a rifle and blows a hole in the side of the deer. Then he walks to find the deer that has bled to death over an hour or so, and commences to kneeling down next to it to admire its beauty with "ooohs" and "ahhhs". IF ITS BEAUTIFUL, WHY THE HELL DID YOU JUST BLOW A HOLE IN ITS SIDE!" Actually this is not very hard to understand at all.. The plains indians depended on the buffalo for EVERYTHING.. their food, their shelter, their tools, their heat. and they GREATLY esteemed the buffalo because it was their very source of life! To them the buffalo was a life giving gift from the 'great spirit'. By them the buffalo was treated with great reverance, veneration, and respect, and was the symbol of the people. But at the sime time they did indeed kill the buffalo. They were a deeply spiritual people and they had a beautiful comprehension of nature and a harmony with the natural world around them that most people couldn't begin to understand let alone bear any form of appreciation for. And when they killed buffalo it was an intensely spiritual moment for them. But it sounds like Ted Nugent understands this deeper and more fully than most. This I know because I lived with the Lakota in South Dakota for a few years while my dad was a school teacher there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Instinct is using a high powered rifle with a scope to blow off a Lions head from 100 feet away while he is running to safety? You guys can keep pounding your chest and howl at the moon making excuses to justify your opinion, while the rest of the civilized world sits back and rolls their eyes, kinda like this >>> That's funny. "Civilized" world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VRJoe Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Ok, I won't address the hunting questions.... Can somebody explain the purpose of football ???? Guys banging heads and giving high fives when somebody gets carried off the field ??????? How about boxing ?????? I know hunters I have great respect for, and I've known some that deserve no respect at all. You can apply these arguments to anything you want as was well pointed out above. Hunting is a necessary function of conservation. In Pennsylvania we now have more deer than ever recorded. All the fees from hunting licenses and excise taxes go to conversation (both state and national). If I shoot a wild dog pack that is attacking a herd of cows am I now a bad guy ??? If I clear out the ground hogs on a horse farm (the horses can break a leg in the holes) am I a bad guy????? We all agree that the video showed a less than admirable hunt, but if you're going to condemn hunting please include football, boxing and a few other sports. I'm pretty sure that Mike Tyson is the only boxer who attempted to eat his opponent. Bottom line: If you don't like hunting, fine, just just remember that all hunters are not morons and hunting is integral with conservation. As far as lions, discuss the issue with the governments of the countries that allow it. Right now it's legal. - Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest plainswolf Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Bottom line: If you don't like hunting, fine, just just remember that all hunters are not morons and hunting is integral with conservation. Very well said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.