Hey all,
I wanted to present an editorial that was in the NY Times today.
A guy wrote in the following:
It is useful to dispel two myths. First, there is no "heritage" of hunting as it is practiced today. In the early days trappers and others hunted for survival. They would be appalled to see how their survival "heritage" has been transformed.
Second, hunting is not a "sport," since any true sport involves two or more competitors, either individuals or teams, similarly equipped, playing by the same rules, let the best individual or team win. There is no "sport" when one "competitor," the hunter, equipped with a high-powered weapon, camouflage clothing and other devices, pursues an unsuspecting animal.
The reason hunting has no future in this country is that the next generation of potential hunters will not accept these myths. The next generation understands that the slaughter of our precious wildlife is unethical and has no place in modern society.
Robert H. Aland
Winnetka, Ill., Sept. 29, 2010
I was drawn to trad bow hunting because you have to be a good hunter. When you can shoot an animal from 400 yards, you don't have to be that great a hunter. I disagree strongest with the above column when he writes that "the slaughter of precious wildlife is unethical and has no place in modern society." I think a much stronger argument can be made that corporations who stock the grocery stores with meat and poultery are more inhumane than hunters.
The writers lack of understanding in regards to hunting underscores that hunters should be ethical when hunting and good stewards of our resources. A few bad apples can ruin the lot.
What are your thoughts on this?
We all know about the vital role that hunters play in wildlife management. Aside from this, (along with many other aruments against this article that I'm sure will be presented by others in this thread), this guy obviously has no idea who my children are, who my family members' children are, or who any of my buddy's children are (let alone the rest of the upcoming generation) or what they will know or understand about hunting's role in society. Most every hunter I know that has chidren is highly active in every aspect of their children's lives, especially when it comes to sharing their love for hunting with their kids. He's misinformed on so many different levels here.
I agree, he does make very broad generalizations about a very diverse group of people. This is fed my misinformation.
That writer is off his dag nabbed rocker. I used to work in a slauter house during the summer while i was in high school. I don't care what anyone says... There isn't anything "ethical" about how thoes hogs are killed! I'd take death by a hunter over that any day or time.
That guy has no Idea what sport is.........he's thinking games . He is also a moron!!!
It was in the NYT. What do you expect? They all think that meat somehow magically appears in grocery stores, never having a clue about how it got there. Mr. Aland wouldn't last a week if he was without his prepackaged food. He's probably enjoying a Big Mac right now without any understanding whatsoever about how that hamburger patty got there. You can't fix stupid!
"You can't Stupid"
Amen centaur!!!!!!!!!
I think he kind of brings in a red herring when he says hunting is not a "sport." Many of us would agree with that statement. Hunting is a way of life for us, a challenge, an important part of our lives. In fact, we feel cheapened when we hear of someone attempting to make it into a competitive sport. Hunting is like mountain climbing, cave exploring, backpacking, kayaking, scuba diving, and other activities that people engage in for intrinsic benefits other that winning or losing a game.
There have always been people like the writer of the editorial, and always will be. People like that can be dangerous if they influence very many people, but it is generally a mistake to react directly against a particular editorial; it just feeds fuel into their fire. It works better if we have influential people of our own who can speak out on the positive aspects of hunting.
+1 McDave on the "sport" point. I guess when I go bicycling that's not a sport either, because I'm not racing?
There's no way to "win" an argument with self-important people like this. He even claims to speak for a whole generation on why they aren't hunting.
Thanks for posting this. But I am not that concerned about anti-hunters because they will always be there and are quite in the minority. Arguing with them only energizes them.
I believe our energy is much better spent on non-hunters who don't care either way and who are the vast majority of Americans. Keep hunting in the respectable, wildlife preserving endeavor that it is.
I guess I'm saying what McDave just did in different words. Rather than argue, just keep speaking positively about hunting and respect for wildlife.
For me, the reason hunting seems to be losing the next generation has more to do with the perversion of basic values and the quick-fix, instant gratitude, mentality that grows year by year. Add to that the gradual but real loss of access, and you have a lot of trouble gaining new hunters' interest.
He's from Winnetka...why am I not surprised?
People think the only sports are the one that they see on TV, baseball,basketball, soccer,football and so on. They are games........Hunting, fishing, cycling, mountain climbing, sailing and so on are sports. Remember when Wide World of Sports was on ABC years ago.......I rest my case!
The New York times is "tanking" now. They WILL go out of business and cease to exist. Hunting on the other hand will continue as long as wildlife is abundant.
<><
<------------------<<<<<<
This fella is probably just upset because he got sap on his shirt with all the tree huggin' he has been doing.
I talked to the head of PETC, people for the ethical treatment of carrots, and he said that a meal of venison is like eating the most absorb-able multivitamins that there is. We eat what we shoot with our bows, who cares if it is sport or not. Bow hunting is the most environmentally non brutish way to control game numbers that there is. Plus, it requires skill and finesse that most other hunters do not understand or appreciate.
QuoteOriginally posted by bornagainbowhunter:
This fella is probably just upset because he got sap on his shirt with all the tree huggin' he has been doing.
:thumbsup: :laughing:
Another "rag" of an editorial, by a buffoon who is as ignorant about hunting as he is about it's future!!
Sport as defined by Websters:
a : a source of diversion : recreation b : sexual play c (1) : physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) : a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in
So... hunting is a sport. But not sexual.
It's a Sport...If the animal out runs me and survives then it won But if I stick him and have food to fill my freezer then I won... :archer:
I kinda feel bad for him. He's in for a rude awakening one day when he has to face up to reality. Just an uneducated (in life) simpleton who preaches what he was taught, without doing real research.
The problem with that editorial is the same as with so many arguments that many people try to make. They think, just as this person did, that they can argue their one sided point based solely on their own emotional reasoning. They take no time to actually study the facts and history of what is actually going on. If they do actually do some research they do what this person aparently did, they read the part that says hunters used to hunt for survival then the so called "researcher" says well we don't need to hunt any longer because we can just go to the grocery store. Point being they pick and choose the facts that THEY want to present which changes the context of the reality of things and give a false presentation of the facts.
Obviously the person who wrote this, as with any case, was previously biased against hunting and tried to make a transparent argument based on misrepresented facts. All said the only person who can truly research a situation and present the true argument for or against is a person who is truly not affected and has no reason to care what the outcome is. Like it or not the anti's emotions overrun the facts when they argue against hunting and although we're not nearly as bad or as far off base we allow our feelings to interject as well.
But the anti's can suck it cause we're still right and they're not. :thumbsup:
Mitch - maybe not for you. Where's your creativity? :saywhat:
We all need to pay attention to this type thing, and we should never believe that this is not a serious threat.
We have many hunting videos now on TV, we have people viewing killing of animals that have never seen this type thing in the past. As they flip channels they see animals lying on the ground kicking, hunters giving high fives because they killed an animal and scenes of blood. This is not a good thing for hunting. The non hunting public do not need to see this stuff.
We need to be smarter and keep this stuff off the TV.
:saywhat:
Another reason why Zog is feared in deer woods and sheep pens everywhere.
Arguments trying to prove a redetermined premise are like sheep jumping a fence backwards. We are what we are, we eat animal and plant life. Even a pure vegan is denying wildlife their habitat, through monocultural agriculture and keeping those thieving deer out of the soybeans. If the true picture of corporate farming were made inescapable, and the lives of our store-bought slices of animals were made blatant, hunting would seem so merciful in contrast. Nothing we do is more natural.
Unsuspecting?
Give me a break. The deer I hunt run from a cricket fart.
Killdeer~ hugger of many a tree, BTW.
It really was not an editorial. It was a letter to the editor in response to the following article that was published in Sept 2010.
HAMBURG, Pa. — To millions of Americans, autumn means not just N.F.L. games and the World Series but also the start of hunting season — a few months packed with chances to stalk deer, bear, ducks and doves with rifles, shotguns, bows and even black-powder muskets.
"Hunting is one of those sports where you can't have too much stuff," said Dan Gechtman, 46, one of many customers streaming into Cabela's, a hunting and fishing megastore here, on a balmy afternoon. "This store is on steroids," he said while trying on a camouflage suit that fluttered with artificial leaves and taking in the dazzling array of products, stuffed animal dioramas and a laser-shooting arcade.
In some rural areas, hunting is still so universal that schools close on the opening day of deer season. President Obama, in a ritual White House act requested by sporting fans and manufacturers, proclaimed Saturday National Hunting and Fishing Day. But as the hunters revel in their preparations for their annual forays into the wild, hunting enthusiasts are gearing up to reverse the long-term dwindling of their ranks.
As the nation becomes more urban and teenagers seek other recreation, the popularity of hunting is declining. The latest federal survey, in 2006, found that 12.5 million people hunt each year, down from 17 million in 1975. Other studies suggest that perhaps 18 million people hunt occasionally, but in any case, hunters represent a shrinking part of the population.
The graying ranks and the impulses that have sustained stores like Cabela's, even in the recession, are typified by Gerard Dick, 72, who has hunted since childhood and through a career as a high school science teacher. He owns plenty of weapons, he said, but on Thursday afternoon he was checking out a small rifle with a camouflage-covered stock.
"I'll use it on turkeys and groundhogs," he said.
The decline in hunters is a concern for state fish and game agencies, which are financed through licenses and excise taxes on sporting goods, as well as for pro-hunting conservation groups and advocates like the National Rifle Association.
"We're concerned that in the future we aren't going to have adequate dollars to manage our wildlife resources," said John E. Frampton, director of South Carolina's Department of Natural Resources and president of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. "We also want to preserve an important part of our heritage."
Mr. Frampton serves on a new federal advisory board intended "to help promote and preserve America's hunting heritage for future generations," in part by drawing in more youths and women.
While declining interest and shrinking wildlife habitat may be the main threats to the pastime, hunting and gun groups are worried by the occasional efforts to restrict it, like the ban on mourning dove hunting in Michigan that was promoted by animal rights advocates.
South Carolina is one of four states, along with Arizona, Arkansas and Tennessee, that will vote this fall on adding the right to hunt and fish to their constitutions. Ten states already have such provisions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
None of these long-term worries were on the mind of Victor Hakes, 53, as he wandered in Cabela's on Thursday afternoon with his wife, Shawna, and their grandson after making a two-hour drive from northern Pennsylvania. Mr. Hakes, who builds custom trailers, bags deer and turkeys every year but has not yet shot a bear, "although I passed over two cubs," he said.
On this trip he was just buying boots, but his eyes shifted toward the gun racks. "I've got 10 rifles and shotguns, and she won't let me buy any more," he said, nudging his wife with a laugh.
Their 3-year-old grandson, Aiden Jaeger, looked with wide eyes at a huge stuffed moose. "He'll be a hunter and a fisherman," Mr. Hakes said, expressing a hope that Aiden would buck the national trend and carry on a family tradition.
"We need to be smarter and keep this stuff off the TV."
Scout, we need to be smart and make it well-known that this is not what REAL hunting is about. This is a perversion, a pornographication of the ancient and sacred ways of the Earth.
Killdeer
I don't listen to anti-hunters because they are morons and live in fantasy land where all the animals in the forest love each other,sing and talk.Well said killdeer!