My son mentioned to me the other day that his boss is an avid hunter and was going to spend the week hunting moose. Thinking about this for the last couple of days, envisioning someone slaughtering an animal in a most barbaric way, inflamed my aversion to the “sport” of hunting. Having worked on construction for many years, an industry that seems to breed hunters, I have engaged in many heated discussions over the whole hunting issue.

Ask a hunter why he hunts and he will tell you for food, that he doesn’t waste an ounce of the usable remains of the slaughtered animal. He’ll also proudly brag that hunting is merciful, because if men didn’t hunt to thin out the over-population of certain animals, they would just starve to death. Is it okay for me to use the word, “bullshit”, in my blog?

First of all, the only reason there is an over-population problem with many animals is because human intervention has disrupted the balance of nature. Mother Nature is a hell of a lot smarter than humans, so if we just let wild animals be, the strong would hunt the weak, and the animal kingdom would be ruled the way nature intended: survival of the fittest.

Second, in this day and age, why would anyone want to hunt for food when there are grocery stores and butcher shops all over the place, many of which sell free-range and hormone free meats? It seems a lot easier to make a trip to the grocery store than to make a trip to a secluded forest.

Third, how often does a hunter have a clean, one-shot kill? Unless he’s a marksman—and most hunters are not—chances are it takes multiple shots to kill the animal. Consequently, the animal must suffer unnecessarily. And how many animals are seriously wounded by a hunter but vanish into the woods and die a slow, agonizing death?

Fourth, why do they call hunting a “sport”? Every single sport on Earth from chess to tennis to football to hockey consists of evenly balanced opponents and a level playing field. Granted, not all quarterbacks have the same skills and not all pitches can throw a fastball 95 miles per hour. But the basic premise of any sport is to have evenly matched participants. If hunters truly want to make hunting a sport, then they need to leave their rifles at home and face the moose, the elephant or the grizzly bear one-on-one. Now that’s a sport.

One last thing: why are the majority of hunters men? Why do few women hunt? I believe that hunters hunt for the thrill of killing a living thing. It’s a man-thing. I’d wager a fair amount of money that the vast majority of hunters probably pulled the wings off houseflies when they were kids, just for the hell of it. And some did much worse. Hunting for sport or for food or to benefit Mother Nature is bullshit (sorry, there’s that word again).



Filed under Uncategorized

8 responses to “Hunting

  1. poolagirl

    Say no more. Well done.

  2. Daniel

    Wow! You actually agreed with something I said!?

  3. your sis, ro

    Well said, bro. I feel the same way..(coming from a vegetarian)

  4. Daniel

    You don’t have to be a vegetarian to recognize that hunting is barbaric.

  5. There is nothing barbaric about hunting. Yes you have some hunters that don’t have no respect for the animal they hunt. I hunt and yes it is helpful to the wildlife. Mother Nature can only due so much and if she was smarter than humans why would she let animals continue to get disease like CWD and yes it does affect more than cows. I respect your right to disagree with me or any other hunter. I do agree that man has disrupted the balance of wildlife by all the taking of land that they once roamed but as our population increases would you rather humans be confined to smaller space?

    • Daniel

      As an animal activist, it’s difficult for me to validate your point of view. However, I respect that right. The fundamental issue is simply this. More than any other factor, human intervention has created an imbalance in the animal world, and this meddling has compromised Mother Nature’s plan, which is simply survival of the fittest.

      • ok so what do “Animal Activists” propose we do about the population of wildlife vs. the population of humans? You see as human population grows more and more woods are taken away and the most humane thing to do is hunt and preserve the rights of all hunters every where. Wildlife does not have a chance against the human race. We build, take away the natural habitat of wildlife, wildlife and vehicles do not mix very well.
        As far as shooting more than 1 time any hunter that does that needs to go to the shooting range and practice because most hunters are more humane to the animal for which he/she hunts than an automobile is.
        Please do not get me wrong I do respect your point of view.

        • Daniel

          This is a topic upon which we will never agree. But that’s what makes the world go round. You talk about how responsible and humane most hunters are? Well, my experiences have been quite different. Iworked on construction for six years, and 80% of my workmates, perhaps more, were avid hunters. During our lunch breaks–particularly during deer season–hunting dominated the conversations. I won’t give you a chapter and verse account of the many repulsive comments I overheard, but I assure you, they were anything but humane. In fact, they were downright barbaric. And this wasn’t just one or two isolated incidents, nor was just a few guys. It was the majority. So, we draw our conclusions from real life experiences, and when it comes to hunting, mine have been terribly unsavory. Unlike you, I believe that to use the words humane and hunting in the same sentence is an atrocity. But you have a right to your opinion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s