Video of a hunter killing 2 deers with one shot

[Annces]

This is grotesque human behavior. If you have a youtube account, maybe you could help get it off the internet by flagging it as animal abuse or violent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxMmMbf249k

[mainegreen]

1. For those of us who cant view youtube, why is this particular video grotesque?

[Sukie]

4. The animals don't die instantly

and instead writhe in pain. Several you tubers reported this video already, and I did also.

[meow mix]

6. they werent killed just lay there squirming and suffering

hunting is fucking sick

[cali]

19. yes, that's awful. But guess what? Slaughter houses are far worse

than hunting. I'm not a hunter, but I did just raise (and have killed) 22 chickens. I'd much rather have some connection and responsibility to what I eat than go mindlessly to the supermarket.

[chupacabranation]

61. I'm so glad you made this point.

I'm a vegan for many different reasons but I respect your opinion b/c you see the connection here.

Animal lovers - don't just reserve your love for your dogs and cats...

[cali]

67. thank you for respecting my choice. I certainly respect yours

I do think it's about mindfulness.

[depakid]

30. So you think that being eaten alive by wolves- or starving to death

(which is often called winter kill) is a "nicer" alternative?

Wow.

[meow mix]

34. of course not.. but humans can make a choice not to inflict torture on living creatures

failing to do so is imo, failing as a human being (and mentally ill)

your other occurances would be outside the humans realm of "choice"

[cali]

45. with all your self-righteous and nauseating palaver, I certainly hope

you're a vegan who doesn't wear or use any animal products at all.

[meow mix]

57. making a humane choice when possible.. must be impossible?

sure people are going to mess it up from time to time as we are physical entitys existing in a chaotic, violent, imperfect universe.

some will use that argument to say, "anything goes" and that is thier inhumane choice to make.

as a longterm vegetarian i wish i had more control over time/space so that i could manipulate reality to be more kind.. in every aspect it exists.

however i do not have that magic power to be perfect and so i know i have inflicted much pain upon the animals of this world. as everyone

does that mean i or anyone else is not allowed to try to do the right thing?

[cali]

59. Let's be clear about

this: Hunting causes far, far less misery to animals than factory farming. Not even close. What's truly sick, is factory farming, not hunting.

[meow mix]

69. that is clear, and i even agree.

but so are ending somethings life, or allowing it live. 2 different catagories for that as well.
just sayin =)

[chupacabranation]

60. It's more a question is you want suffering on your hands.

Lessening suffering. If we're so evolved as human beings, why do we choose to kill animals instead of choose not?

[dflprincess]

93. Being eaten by wolves or starving is what nature intended

and usually kills the sick and the weak. Human hunters have a tendency to look to kill the buck that's in his prime, not necessarily the best thing for the species' survivial.

I know most hunters are responsible and, I assume, would have killed both animials quickly - not like the slob who apparently thought it was cool to video tape the animals' suffering.

[depakid]

121. I'm just making a comment in general about nature

of which we're a part- and of which most of the processed meat you get in the grocery store is divorced from.

The person on the video- we can all make judgments on that.

[Raskolnik]

88. How do you think the vast majority of wild animals die?

Of all the ways wild animals die, the vast majority cause a hell of a lot more suffering than being shot by a hunter with a rifle.

On balance, do you think a deer killed by a hunter suffers more or less than a factory farmed cow?

[1620rock]

2. Sickening. I hate hunters with a pure hatred to the bottom of my soul.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. For every yahoo who goes out for a trophy, gets drunk and shoots

his brother-in-law there are a thousand hunters who are responsible, who hunt for the meat, who take their sport seriously. The first conservation groups in the country were started by hunters.

Which is more humane? To go out to the woods and take down a deer that has lived all its life in those woods, and take the carcass home as food, or to go to the supermarket and and buy beef that was raised in feedlots, pumped full of drugs and hormones then herded into a slaughterhouse so you could take the carcass home as food?

[jayfish]

71. I Don't Hunt (I Hate It) But My Family...

and friends do. They would never, ever allow something like what's in that video to occur.

Jay

[wvbygod]

16. How would you legislate hunting if you could?

Hunters vote.

[Schema Thing]

31. You're either a vegan or a hypocrite

[chupacabranation]

63. Just as an aside..

...I'm vegan!! woot

Any others on this thread?

[Codeine]

118. At least one.

:hi:

[cobalt1999]

40. So you hate these people from the bottom of your soul then...

[Enthusiast]

46. Well you hate this fellow Democrat, my friends and family.

Again, there are millions of hunters in the interior states that hunt. Millions of us. Deer are so numerous in the Midwestern States that it is unsafe to drive at night. A good portion of the deer herd must be harvested every year. Why would you alienate a huge part of the electorate by taking your position?

Human beings are predators. We owe our existence as a species to the large brains that gave us an advantage over our prey. Hunting is part our evolutionary history. If we remained vegetarians we would have had no reason to evolve the large brains we needed as predators. We would have remained more similar to the other great apes.

Venison is good and healthy food. Shooting deer that live a wild existence is far more humane than holding animals confined until they reach market size.

[Lorien]

47. you and me both

the vast majority do it for " pleasure", which is a concept that sickens me.

[Raskolnik]

75. Why?

Why does someone enjoying the experience of hunting sicken you?

[RaleighNCDUer]

86. Can you identify the "pleasure" you speak of?

The pleasure of mud and brambles and freezing your butt off? The pleasure of not getting that clean shot so you have to track the wounded animal for half a mile to finish it off? No hunter WANTS to inflict pain and suffering on their quarry, because pain and suffering means not dropping it with one shot and a LOT of extra work.

Or is it the satisfaction of skill with a single-shot kill? The pleasure of the venison steak, venison burger hot off the grill? The homemade venison sausage?

The vast majority of hunters are very responsible about their hunting, and don't go out there because they just want to KILL!

[Big Blue Marble]

110. I know plenty of hunters that do hunt for the pleasure of killing.

I know this because they are in my extended family. Hunting season is the highlight of their year.
I know plenty of their friends too. Love to get drunk and kill. I have a close relative who shot an elk
last year from the third floor of his home. No freezing butts for that shots. Just some cold beer
and a warm room to make that kill.

[superduperfarleft]

50. You and me both.

If you want a hobby, try stamp collecting. Killing things for pleasure is psychopathic. ("But everyone else does it!!!111")

[MyNameGoesHere]

52. Wow really?

So when my grandparents were getting their meals from hunting, fishing, and farming because that's pretty much all they had in life you hate them to your very core? To your "soul" even? And with hatred as well? I sometimes think the wrong mammal is being hunted.

[Raskolnik]

74. Do you also hate meat eaters with a pure hatred to the bottom of your soul?

Because if not, I'd like you to explain how hunting and killing a wild animal is somehow more objectionable than farming and killing animals for human consumption.

[TahitiNut]

87. Puppy mills, factory farming, cosmetic testing, fur clothing, medical research ...

... you have an interesting perspective

:eyes:

[MicaelS]

98. Wow, you must you hate lots of people

Considering you live in Michigan. Do you verbalize this hate to many of your fellow residents?

Michigan's high number of registered hunters contribute $2 billion annually to Michigan's economy, excluding license fees.

[Ghost in the Machine]

105. And the only place you have the courage to say anything about it is on an anonymous website

I bet you don't have the guts to say anything to a hunters face, do you? Nothing but another nutless, gutless coward spouting off on the internet about something you don't know jack shit about..

Hatred is a product that destroys the vessel in which it is contained. It eats your soul.

[Odin2005]

107. It's bigoted attitudes like this that causes Dems to lose in rural areas.

This hunter finds your sanctimonious bigotry disgusting.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. In many areas, if there was no hunting, there would be a deer population explotion which would

result in:

1. Starvation of deer

2. A lot more deer being hit by cars.

[Hugabear]

10. So hunters are part of the evolutionary process?

Sorry, I find this argument totally bullshit. In most ecosystems, you have other mechanisms in place to ensure that a particular population doesn't get out of hand, whether it be natural predators, disease, weather, etc. I find it very hard to believe that humans with guns are the only solution to deer overpopulation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Natural predators like wolves and bears and mountain lions?

Sure, let's re-introduce those species to the suburbs.

[Hugabear]

22. Sorry, but you can't remove one part of an ecosystem without consequences

And there are wolves, bears, and mountain lions in many parts of the country where humans live. Don't forget alligators and crocodiles, which inhabit much of the South, and "man-eating" sharks that swim off our coasts. Somehow we've learned to coexist with these predators. Perhaps the introduction of more wolves or other natural predators into the environment would help with this deer overpopulation problem.

Sure, there are occasional attacks on humans, mostly when we encroach on their territory, but even those attacks are very few and far between. Predators serve a very valuable role in the eco-system, you can't just remove them and expect things to not get out of hand.

[wvbygod]

32. introduction of more wolves or other natural predators into LA and NYC

It's not a black and white world out there. Between the urban areas and the wild wilderness
may lie farms and people living the somewhat civilized life. If you want to release a few wolves
or other natural predators back into the hills of WV here then you will need to take just as many into your
neighborhood too.

LA, NYC and Boston have encroached on their territory also.

[Hugabear]

39. Wolves aren't natural to Florida. Alligators are.

And yes, there are plenty of alligators near where I live.

[Enthusiast]

49. But I want deer, deer are good to eat.

Venison is wonderful.

[wvbygod]

17. Are humans hunters?

If yes then hunters are part of the evolutionary process.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. True. But are disease and starvation any less cruel ways to die?

:shrug:

[The Stranger]

90. Yes, they are. Slowly bleeding to death from a non-lethal shot IS more cruel.

And disease and starvation are natural causes of death, each with ways that naturally remove the mind from the pain.

[Raskolnik]

99. With all due respect, that is nonsense.

A deer slowly starving to death over the course of weeks (or months) suffers horribly. A deer dying from disease often suffers for weeks (or months) before expiring. A deer brought down by a predator like a wolf is often torn apart while it's still alive.

If you think that any of those options are, by definition, less cruel to a deer than being killed by a hunter's bullet, you just don't know what you're talking about.

[The Stranger]

117. One at a time.

First, organisms going through starvation begin to lose cognitive function long before they finally succomb. It isn't as if they are completely aware of their final hours; thankfully, Mother Nature begins to dull the pain with progressive loss of awareness of it. This may even be an evolutionary tool that would allow an animal to recover if food is eventually found. The same is true with disease.

Second, here, on this thread, we are not talking about "a deer being killed by a hunter's bullet." Rather, you have a non-lethal hit on two animals, and the watching (and filming) their slow decline into death, and having been shot and with a concomitant surge of adrenaline, the deer are likely all too aware of what is going on, their own death, and the pain associated with that.

[Raskolnik]

120. Not really "slow" by any objective standard at all.

those deer in the video were going to die within minutes. If a deer doesn't have the ability to run away, it is hurt very badly and likely doesn't have very long to live. Granted, it is possible to shoot a deer and maim it in such a way that it will suffer badly before it dies (in the leg, or a grazing shot through the belly, for example) but I don't know of any hunter that does so on purpose. A wound like that defeats the whole purpose of hunting the deer in the first place--if the deer is able to escape even though it is suffering from a fatal wound, the hunter has to spend a *lot* to time and effort trying to track them down.

And yes, we are talking about a deer being killed by a hunter's bullet. The deer at issue were hit with a bullet, and (with 99.99% certainty) died as a result within a few minutes. How under any definition is that a "non-lethal hit?"

And frankly, your pseudo-scientific rationale for why slowly starving to death or dying of disease results in less suffering than a relatively quick death brought about by a firearm just don't hold water. If you've ever seen a wounded or sick animal that has been wasting away for a period of weeks, you would know that a quick end is much, much more merciful.

[LanternWaste]

104. I'd rather perish from a super-flu...

I'd rather perish from a super-flu than from a slow bleeding gunshot wound in my abdomen. I've read too many stories about the "temporary survivors" in no-man's land during WWI to think otherwise...

[dysfunctional press]

26. it's not the only way- just the most humane.

disease & starvation are not pretty ways to cull the herds.

[pnutbutr]

27. natural predators

are despised and viewed as pests that need to be feared and eliminated. Bears, cougars, wolves etc... We have depleted the natural predators in most areas to the point that they are no longer effective in controlling the population of prey animals without help from another natural predator, the human.

[Hugabear]

29. That's a problem that humans have created, and that humans need to fix

Yes, I would support the reintroduction of natural predators into the environment. We've done it pretty well here in Florida with alligators, which were once on the verge of extinction and now flourish. We've learned to coexist with natural predators in various parts of the country, as we've come to realize their importance in the ecosystem.

[pnutbutr]

33. you're kidding me

We are constantly encroaching on their habitats reducing it's size every year. Florida alligators may be rebounding but their habitat is shrinking and inevitably more and more interactions with stupid people will happen and cause people to scream and shout. I would love it if you were actually right about what you say but reality is different.

[wvbygod]

35. When does Orlando take shipment of its natural predators it displaced?

And most urban lawmakers cater to the anti-hunters so they make laws to forbid culling the
herds...even if a gun is not used.

[Hugabear]

42. Orlando (and the rest of Florida) has already "taken" its shipment of natural predators

Alligators were once on the verge of extinction here in Florida. Over the past few decades, there has been an aggressive program to bring them back. Now alligators are plentiful in Florida, even in and near metropolitan areas. And we're trying very hard to bring back the bear and panther populations, which have shrunk drastically.

Sorry, that argument isn't going to work.

[wvbygod]

51. Increasing bear and panther populations in downtown Orlando

I wish you luck with that effort.

[Hugabear]

53. Now you're just being ridiculous

The video in the OP wasn't in some downtown area. But yes, there is an effort to help increase the bear population around Orlando. Occasionally we do have bears that wander into downtown or neighborhoods; when that happens, people just call animal control, and they capture the bear and relocate it somewhere outside the city.

I'm glad to see that you have such a callous attitude towards a vital part of the ecosystem.

[GoneOffShore]

141. If you think about some of the folks who live in Florida

Reintroducing bears and panthers in downtown Orlando might be a good idea.

Evolution in action.

[liberati]

62. So instead of a clean and usually instantaneous kill

from a rifle's bullet, you'd prefer that deer get ripped apart by alligators, wolves, and mountain lions? Yeah, that's a great way to die!

[Hugabear]

68. Thanks for the most insipid, dumbass post I've seen on DU in a very long time

"you'd prefer that deer get ripped apart by alligators, wolves, and mountain lions"

You do realize that is how nature operates, don't you? God, what a stupid, dumbass thing to say. Enjoy your stay here on DU, I hope that all of your posts are as brilliant as this one. Should provide for some great entertainment!

Yeah, it's fucking horrible that natural predators should actually EAT.

[XemaSab]

92. I think if most people actually saw a deer get killed by a predator

hunting would look a lot better.

For example, I'm assuming the deer in this video are going to be dead in the next 10 minutes. Not so with animals killed by predators.

[liberati]

126. Ooooo, that's not nice!

"Thanks for the most insipid, dumbass post I've seen on DU in a very long time"

Yes, being killed by a bullet is absolutely less painful and more humane than being killed by being ripped apart. Nature is cruel, not too hard to understand that. People act like humans are aliens that were dropped here with some sort of "prime initiative" to not interfere with the natural order of things. Humans are an integral part of the natural order of things and they've been killing wildlife since the time they evolved. I'm not a hunter myself, but I wonder what the ramifications would be if all humans suddenly stopped killing wildlife. Not good I would think.

And hey, I'm not a prolific poster but I've been here a few years. I'm enjoying my stay just fine thank you!

[Indenturedebtor]

38. Ecosystems where there are apex predators anyways.

Sadly they're all dead and gone in most of the US. The natural "control" then becomes automobiles and the loss of nearly all ground cover. More than just the deer then die horrible deaths by starvation.

Why not eat the meat? Though it should of course be done humanely.

I am ALL for gun control to get handguns out of big cities, but I don't really have an issue with hunting rifles.

[Thothmes]

91. Humans are the apex predator in any terrestial environment

that they choose to occupy. And have been for many thousands of years.

[Indenturedebtor]

100. Exactly... which is why we have to kill deer :(

But as another poster said, I'm much happier eating a deer who's had a good life than a chicken that's been raised in a cage barely big enough for it's body.

[Enthusiast]

48. Humans are natural predators.

Easy to forget in the artificial world we have created.

[Hugabear]

54. You just said the magic words - "artificial world we have created"

And firearms are a part of that 'artificial world'.

Seems like the Native Americans had a much better understanding of how to live in harmony with both natural predators and game alike.

[Lance_Boyle]

56. So if those two deer were mortally wounded by an arrow you'd be OK

with that?

[Hugabear]

64. Nice strawman argument

If the person in question killed those deer for food, then that's one thing. But if they killed the deer simply for sport, then I wouldn't care if they used a gun or an arrow, it would still be wrong.

[NickB79]

149. It is illegal to kill deer merely for sport

You either have to bring the carcass out for processing, or donate it to a food shelf.

If a DNR officer catches you intentionally leaving a dead deer in the woods, or just bringing back the head, you face a hell of a lot of fines.

The whole "killing just for sport" argument is itself a strawman. I haven't met a hunter yet who was willing to invest THOUSANDS of dollars in equipment and many hours of their time and not want to end the process with at least a freezer full of steaks.

[Enthusiast]

58. Native Americans ate deer and

all sorts of wild game. Indeed, Native Americans surveyed many years ago listed beaver and cougar as their favorite meat. So, while they may have revered the animals they hunted, as many modern day hunters do, they ate them every day. Same as modern hunters. Guns don't change a thing.

[Hugabear]

65. But they didn't hunt deer and wild game simply for sport

They didn't go out competing simply to see who could kill the biggest deer or buffalo. They didn't kill wild game simply so they could take the antlers as a prize, and leave the rest to rot. And they most certainly didn't engage in the systematic slaughter of wildlife that the Europeans did when they came over here.

[Enthusiast]

72. I can't correct the sins of Europeans past.

But, you can rest assured that indeed a Native American hunter would take pride in an unusually large antlered specimen. We eat both bucks and does here. But we do appreciate an outsized specimen. For one thing bucks are larger and therefore have more venison. You might try not looking at hunting with such a critical eye.

[Hugabear]

76. Point granted, but it still wasn't done purely for sport

One could make the point that a particularly large game animal might be more valued because it would provide more meat and material for use. My point was that Native Americans simply didn't go out and kill large game animals for the sport of it, cut off the head or antlers, and leave the rest of the body to rot.

[Enthusiast]

82. But the vast majority of modern

hunters eat their kill also. Of course there are abuses. "Canned hunts", where captive game animals are shot by wealthy clients, are abhorrent to real hunters.

I am right where my ancestors were with regard to hunting except now there are laws to abide by. The only game laws in the past were enacted to protect the King's deer.

[XemaSab]

96. Do you know what a buffalo jump is?

:shrug:

[Thothmes]

89. A bow and arrow is just as articificial as a rifle.

Naturally the Native Americans lived in harmony with both the natural predators and game. In North America, the native populations remained relativley stable in size and lacked the means (tools) to seriously impact the of populations of natural predators and game.

[XemaSab]

94. You think the Native Americans lived in harmony with the environment?

What happened to the North American megafauna, then? :shrug:

[Enthusiast]

116. I've reconsidered the megafauna extinction.

I no longer believe early North American nomad hunters caused the extinction.

One reason is the megafauna didn't become extinct in other parts of the world, like The African Continent and Asia, for example. Certainly these ancient hunters were as competent as their American counterparts. Although many species did become extinct, the largest and most vulnerable, the elephants, did not.

But, the somewhat the geologically isolated megafauna population probably found these newly arriving hunting apes difficult to escape. We simply don't know.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, it was the great flood. :sarcasm:

[cobalt1999]

128. Elephants evolved along with humans.

thus had a chance.

It's not a coincidence that the other megafauna extinctions coincided with the arrival of humans. From mammoths to moas, humans have killed the largest and easy targets first.

Elephants had a fighting chance because we didn't spring upon them, we evolved along side them.

Humans have been wiping out species as fast as their technology and population levels will allow from the beginning.

[Enthusiast]

142. This is what I was pointing out.

Southeast Asian and African elephants had the longest contact with early humans and surely had a greater wariness than their American cousins. It's an interesting topic.

But Moas, and other flightless birds, were especially vulnerable to humans. About this there is no doubt.

[MicaelS]

95. Right....

That's why native Americans did NOT use guns for hunting when they appeared. :sarcasm:

[Raskolnik]

97. They sure were noble, weren't they?

[doc03]

157. We don't have natural predators because

they kill off farm animals an city people have a fit if they see one. Hunting is far more humane than starvation, disease etc.

[Annces]

11. Dept of Wildlife

has their head up their asses. All they care about is money. They allow hunters to kill elder bucks and leave young bucks and does to multiple out of control.

[wvbygod]

36. It's donr that way for gene diversity

Not everything you don't understand is a conspiracy.

[cobalt1999]

13. I'm not against hunting for food.

However, we need to reintroduce some of the natural predators such as wolves in many areas. That would help. Where it's not practical, then hunting has to be done because without the predators, populations explode.

[Big Blue Marble]

112. That is because we killed off their natural predators.

Bring back the predators and live in balance with nature instead of giving hunters an excuse to kill.

[Raskolnik]

122. Why not make reasonable efforts to bring back natural predators *and* allow hunting?

What reason do you have to oppose people hunting game animals?

[Big Blue Marble]

134. Hunting is often "justified" as population control.

The main reason the populations need to be "controlled" is because humans have created
the imbalance by killing the predators.

Bring back to predators and nature will keep the balance.

You give yourself away by calling certain species game. How is hunting justified as a game?
There is only one justifiable reason for hunting and that is to feed your family.

In past times, hunting was never sport. It was about survival. It is only in modern times
with high powered rifles and well-fed hunters that it has become entertainment.

[Raskolnik]

143. Frankly, you just don't know what you're talking about.

Hunting is often "justified" as population control.

That's one reason for certain species (particularly deer), but by no means the only reason to justify hunting in general.

Bring back to predators and nature will keep the balance.
Where possible, that's a great idea. It's not possible everywhere, however, and as has been pointed out in numerous places in this very thread--humans *are* predators.

You give yourself away by calling certain species game. How is hunting justified as a game?

Are you serious? Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the definition of the word, so I'll suggest: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game

There is only one justifiable reason for hunting and that is to feed your family.

And I believe you'll find that the vast majority of hunters do, in fact, eat the game they hunt. I don't particularly care for pure trophy hunting, but if it done in a responsible, sustainable fashion, it can actually serve to protect the species being hunted.

In past times, hunting was never sport. It was about survival. It is only in modern times
with high powered rifles and well-fed hunters that it has become entertainment.

You are factually incorrect. Humans have been hunting for sport for thousands of years. Is there a reason that you feel compelled to comment on a subject about which you know so little?

[Big Blue Marble]

147. You attempt to insult me by saying I know little about hunting.

Yet I was raised by hunters. I grew up on venison, elk, and even bear meat. I have many relatives and acquaintances even now who are hunters. I know the culture of hunting first-hand. I recognize the serious hunter who hunts with honesty and ethics and the many hunters I also know who just love the blood sport.

Please give me the reference that hunting for sport has been around for thousands of years other than for the rich elites. Hunting was a survival skill that was necessary particularly during the ice age. As a few gained wealth and privilege in later millennia, hunting for entertainment became the vogue as it remains today for the elites. And I am quite correct that hunters today have excessive technological advantages over the animals that they kill. It is hardly a contest with night vision goggles, GPS locators and and high powered rifles just to mention a few technologies.

There is nothing responsible about trophy hunting. It is a highly profitable industry preying
on animals not for food, but for vainglorious machismo. It preys on the finest animals of the species
reducing the fitness of the gene pool in species that are under threat. As these great animals go extinct under the pressures of modern civilization, it is a sport that will finally be forced to come to an end.

[Raskolnik]

148. Your own posts demonstrated that fact quite nicely.

Please give me the reference that hunting for sport has been around for thousands of years other than for the rich elites.

Ignoring for the moment that you are moving the goalposts by adding the "other than the rich elites" caveat, read some damn ancient history! Look at some damn ancient art! Romans hunted for sport. Egyptians hunted for sport. Greeks hunted for sport. Persians hunted for sport. Ancient literature and art is chock-full of references to people hunting wild animals both for food and sport, and oftentimes both. If you can't recognize that fact, I suspect you are being wilfully obtuse to an utterly non-controversial historical reality.

And I am quite correct that hunters today have excessive technological advantages over the animals that they kill.

I don't really care, because that was not, and is not, the issue at hand.

There is nothing responsible about trophy hunting.

As I stated before, I don't particularly care for pure trophy hunting either. But, it is just wilful ignorance to argue that properly managed trophy hunting can't actually serve to protect many species in the big picture. I would never in a million years want to hunt something like a mountain lion, but I do accept that such hunting seasons (if very closely managed) can serve the interest of the species by keeping their numbers in check and by putting a lot of money into the coffers of wilderness management programs.

[Big Blue Marble]

150. After having this discussion with you, I see that you will go

to great lengths to justify killing of animals while assuming that yours is the superior position.
Your posts do drip with arrogance. Is that necessary?

Would it be possible to have a conversation with someone who disagrees with you and assume they know
at least as much as you do? They may just have a different opinion. I am not here to change your mind nor will you change
mine. As I said and you ignored in your last post, I have lived with hunting since childhood. I know what it means.
It is often brutal to the animals. I personally think it is often far too cruel. And I repeat I know many hunters who
care nothing for the pain they inflict on either their victim or others in its social group. Far more often than
these hunters will admit, the killing is done for pleasure not survival.

Kill if you must for whatever rationalizations are necessary. If you kill for food at least you are honest. It is to your
own heart that you will answer not to me. Look into the eyes of those you would kill and justify it to them. Only they
and your heart knows if your motivations for killing exceed your need for food and if other less worthy motivations call
you to destroy the beautiful life of another being.


And no I do not eat any meat nor have I for over 15 years.

[Raskolnik]

151. self-delete / dupe

[Raskolnik]

152. Those "great lengths" are just facts.

I'm not taking issue with your opinion. You have a perfect right to dislike hunting and dislike hunters in general based on your own personal experience. However, you have made factual assertions that are simply not true.

[Big Blue Marble]

153. Actually you do confuse your facts with your opinions.

So be it. It is not your facts or your opinions that are disturbing. It is your condescension. Review your
own posts; maybe you are not aware of how you approached this conversation.

I do not dislike hunters. I do dislike hunting when it is for any other reason than food. I know hunters,
some in my family that do hunt to eat. If the kill is clean and the whole animal is taken, then fine.
I think that is more honest that packages of steaks from the store. I think hunting for any other reason
is cruel and unnecessary. Killing should never be sport. Period.

Only you know if every animal you kill is eaten or if you get pleasure from the act of killing. I will leave
that to your conscience. I do know that it is impossible to live in this world and not kill other organisms
(including insects and plants). We all participate to some degree in the taking of other life so that we may live.
And there is no clear cut answer to the ethics of this dilemma. I do strongly hold that we must be honest with ourselves
and minimize the destruction of others. In my view, all life is sacred; not just ours. I trust that in respecting the right of
others to share this earth with me, I will honor the process of making my footprint here smaller.

[Raskolnik]

154. Please point out which of my opinions I have presented as a fact.

I apologize for any condescension, but that does not change the fact that you really are mistaken in your facts.

[Big Blue Marble]

155. Thanks for your apology.

Come on Raskolnik, picking apart each other's "facts" in this sub-thread gets us where? We obviously
disagree on when hunting is justified. That is the only fact that really matters. You base your opinion
on your experiences and the motivations that filter your behavior and I on mine. When one feel as passionately
as you and I do, certain facts will be called in service to strengthen our positions. It is not the facts that are at issue
it is the positions.

Do you have a strong need to be right about your decision to hunt? Do you have to "prove" that your
desire to hunt is justified? Please remember this sub-thread started when you challenged me. I sense
that at least a small part of your being is uncomfortable with the killing. You may be arguing with your own
ambivalence rather than me. Maybe not. But if honesty is important to you, you might want to look inside.

Remember I do not fault all hunting only that which is done as sport. Animals suffer for human entertainment.
I want a better world than that. I hope that you do too.

[CRF450]

132. self delete

sorry wrong reply

[Hugabear]

5. Flagged, but I think it's also fake

At least, I don't believe that a single shot took both deer down. The angle looks very suspicious - the two deer in question looked too far apart for it to have been a single shot.

Regardless, this is very sick & disgusting behavior. IMHO, all hunting should be banned unless you can demonstrate that you're doing so out of necessity.

[wvbygod]

23. Banning hunting won't win many rural votes

Another good reason to insure we never lose the electoral vote and allow only the urban
cowboys to elect out presidents. Thanks for the authoritarian reminder.

[-..__...]

43. Goodie fer you!

Although I highly doubt YouTube will take notice of your pathetic hand wringing.

Just the same... if it was to be removed, I already saved it and would be more than happy to repost it on my YouTube account for your viewing pleasure.

[Hugabear]

55. I'm glad that you think killing animals for sport is amusing

n/t

[-..__...]

109. Where did you get the idea...

that I think killing animals for sport is "amusing"?

Actually... I'm indifferent to it.

I have no problem with hunting for reasons already posted by others (wildlife management, putting food on the table).

However... I am opposed to hunting for trophy, shits'n'giggles purposes just so someone can mount a head or hide on their wall.

My gripe is with the OPs little crusade to get the video removed from YouTube.

FWIW... I've never hunted in my life, nor have I ever had the desire to.

[G_j]

73. I didn't watch it

but people report it shows great suffering, why would you want to repost that?

(or maybe I shouldn't ask!)

[-..__...]

111. If someone were removing yard signs...

from the neighborhood I'd feel obligated to help put new ones up.

Suffering!?!

This is suffering!

Any decent human would find it offensive and demand it's immediate removal from YouTube. :smoke:

[Raskolnik]

77. That raises a lot of interesting questions.

Why do you think non-"necessary" hunting should be banned?

Do you also think people should not be allowed to purchase steak at the grocery store unless they can demonstrate that they are doing so out of necessity?

[MadHound]

84. And what would you term as "necessity"?

My in laws hunt deer for putting meat on the table. They can afford to buy meat, but it would increasingly strain their budget, thus they save that money to put towards other things, like their kids education. Furthermore, since they have so many tags(due to a huge explosion in the deer population), they can get more deer than they need, and do so, donating the extra deer, already processed, to the food bank in order to feed hungry people.

So would they have to be starving to hunt deer, or under your definition can they just be saving a little money?

What about worrying about their health? What with the diseases that are popping up in our commercial meat supply, the way we fatten our meat, all the hormones and such injected into livestock, it is much healthier to eat wild deer in many cases than to eat commercially raised meat. Is looking out for their health a "necessity"?

What about the sheer need to thin out the deer population? Since we've gotten rid of most of deer's natural predators, they have exploded in population, costing farmers millions in crop destruction, and millions more in car collisions, some of which lead to human death. Do you consider that a "necessity", or are you willing to let deer go forth and multiply, scouring the countryside like locusts?

What is your definition of necessity, and why do you think it's valid?

[YOY]

7. Did he use the meat?

If so...all good in my book. Extra meat on the table and culling the excess numbers of overpopulated white tail. It can also ease the expense of buying storebought meat. Venison is delicious and healthy. That's a hunt for food. Useful.

If not, that's just disgusting...inhumane and vile. Like a child shooting squirrels for some sick version of fun. Useless.

Also those were not clean kills. Clean kills pierce the spine...death is instantanous. Instead of talking about it in awe he needed to get out there and finish the job. Sloppy.

[jmowreader]

158. Your assertion as to what constitutes a "clean" kill is strange indeed

You will NOT pierce the spine on an animal with a hunting bullet unless (1) you're extraordinarily lucky and (2) you've got a rifle that can put a whole box of ammunition through a half-inch hole. (2) is much easier to attain than (1)--all you need is a shitload of money.

A heart shot, or a heart-lung shot, will cause an animal to hit the ground dead, assuming you actually pierced the heart.

Oh yeah: the quickest way for a hunter to die is for him to shoot a bear in the head. Their skulls are thick and angled.

[ThomWV]

8. I'm not too sure what I saw there

I mean it is obvious they two dear were shot but the video doesn't tell us much. My first impression when watching it was how many deer there were in that one small area. We see them like that around here and in such numbers they are destructive of crops, gardens, and ornamentals. That's why lots of people around here shoot them without all that much interest in eating them. I also have to tell you that one time in my life I managed to shoot two critters with one shot, and it was Grouse of all things - just one of those once-in-a-lifetime oddities I suppose.

I suppose that is not your point though. I imagine you are against the barbarity of hunting and that is fine. Its a matter of perspective of course. From over here where I sit sometimes deer are nothing much more than nuisances, some see them as destructive pests, others see them as god's own beauty and to be held high and safe. Personally I don't find the video particularly offensive - I could see much more horrendous stuff on the TV in less than 30 seconds of channel flipping.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. In many areas, if there was no hunting, there would be a deer population explosion which

would result in:

1. Starvation of deer

2. A lot more deer being hit by cars.

[Barack_America]

20. You know, my father and I have gone round and round on this issue....

For as long as I can remember (he's a hunter, I'm not). And I've decided that once hunters start going after the sickly and injured deer rather than removing the healthiest and most virile bucks from the gene pool, I'll buy it.

Reducing overpopulation might be an added benefit of their actions, but it is certainly not their #1 priority.

[Raskolnik]

80. That's not really why hunting keeps a deer population healthy.

It's not that the sick or injured deer are culled, its that the overall population is kept in check and diseases aren't given a chance to take hold due to overpopulation. For example, something like chronic wasting disease isn't easily spread when the deer population is kept down, but when there is a rapid population explosion in a system that can't readily sustain their numbers, deer will be much more susceptible.

[MicaelS]

108. Explain to me WHY

Hunters should kill "sickly and injured deer rather than removing the healthiest and most virile bucks from the gene pool"? Every single deer hunter I have ever know EATS why they kill, they don't simply leave the meat to rot. Would YOU want to eat an animal you KNEW was sick or injured?

[wvbygod]

28. more Lyme disease and other plagues would crop up with more deer

Unless we loose the original predators on them (even more hunting then), we will need to cull
the herd from time to time.

Hence the aerial culling of wolves in Alaska.

[The Stranger]

15. K&R

I think we're in a war for the very conscience of human kind.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. The spirit of censorship is alive and well

[spanone]

21. no thanks

[Stuckinthebush]

24. I'm not a hunter and never will be, but...

The hunters I know are quite good people. They eat what they kill and don't kill more than they can use. As a vegetarian, I don't partake in the venison, but I'm ok with the carnivores killing and butchering their own food.

[wvbygod]

37. maybe you could help get it off the internet

DO you think Obama should appoint internet censors like yourself? Or maybe a more open
approach like letting adults choose their data inputs by themselves would float better?

[-..__...]

41. Maybe you'd be happier in merry ol' England?

Seems like your cup of tea...

YouTube to ban videos with weapons in UK

[cbc5g]

44. Hunters that hunt for pleasure or fun SUCK ASS

Sick bastards. If you need to eat or shed an overgrown population that's one thing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. I'll leave it for the "killing is fun" crowd.

[Raskolnik]

78. What does that mean?

[MarkInCA]

70. While I don't hunt...

I don't believe it is wrong for those who do it for food, and do it properly, I'm just against it personally. I have no idea about the tactics of this person, but I agree that the video is inappropriate due to the suffering and flagged it.

[aikoaiko]

79. As long as hunters make good faith attempt to end the lives quickly, I'm OK the activity

Venison tastes great and its nutritious too.

[fascisthunter]

81. The thrill is what I will never understand...

it's just too easy for it to be considered a sport. I understand hunting and why it was necessary, but now it does seem way to superficial and unnecessary. If I had to hunt to eat, damn right I would do so.... but because I don't and because of where I was brought up, I never engaged in hunting... only fishing. Lot's of hunters hunt because it was introduced to them early in their lives.... tradition and some sport. It depends on perspective...

[flvegan]

83. My cat's name is Mittens.

Sorry, just too much silliness in this thread already for me to even attempt reason.

[mainegreen]

85. I demand that you, as a vegan send me a check for every deer I do not shoot!

:7

I love hunting threads.
They're like car accidents. Car accidents involving only people hopped up on meth.

[datasuspect]

101. good shot

if it's true.

talk about killing two birds with one stone.

[greguganus]

102. I see some troll on here has posted comments about DU under that video. Spineless fucker. n/t

[-..__...]

114. He left a trail...

back to his hidy-hole...

ASDF2231

There's also a few recent anti-hunting comments too.

Personally... I think the OPs suggestion is a perfect example of an idea backfiring.

I'll bet the video has gotten more views in the past 5-6 hours than it has the past month.

[Ghost in the Machine]

103. It always sickens me to see these posts acting like the very fascists that we detest

*YOU* may not like hunting, and that's your right/opinion, but when you start screaming about banning things you don't like or agree with, you sound just like fascist pigs that we abhor...

Get a grip on reality...

[CRF450]

139. Thank you!

These people are doing a good job at turning away potential voters.

[krispos42]

106. Looks like a bad ricochet caught the 2nd deer

The 2nd deer should have been shot again immediately through the heart/lung area.

Then you get your butts out of the tree stand and humanely finish off the deer if they are still alive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Do yourself a favor, go to a FACTORY FARM

and then to the Slaughter house.

Worked in a coop for a while, and I KNOW that the conditions at a chicken coop ain't that nice

And if these hunters EAT what they kill.. I have NO PROBLEM with them

We humans have been hunting for over 60K years... it is not going to stop

And if things get bad enough with the economy... I may take up on FISHING... something about food and table and survival

[Codeine]

119. At least those deer had a decent life.

Animals in the factory farm just experience misery, endlessly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. My point exactly, people are so separated from how their eggs get

from farm to fridge that it is not even funny

(and that is one example)

[cobalt1999]

129. I agree.

If people are against hunting but eat factory farm meat then they are huge hypocrites.

I eat meat, but I had to get my head around the fact that killing is part of the equation and to ignore that is dishonest. I have more respect for a vegan than a meat eater complaining about hunting.

[mudesi]

115. Watch THIS video!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu9bmEKysos&feature=related

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[alphafemale]

136. Napoleon Dynamite went deer hunting? That "Gosh" at the end absolutely slayed me.

:rofl:

I mean you can actually SEE the dust puffs and he doesn't correct!

I'm not anti-hunting so long as people eat what they kill, but that guy is a lousy hunter.

The deer's a Darwin wannabe too.

[Marr]

124. I once shot a man just for snorin' too loud.

I ate him, so it's ok.

[chatnoir]

127. LOL

Thanks for the levity. Hunting threads on DU are always these nasty affairs.

[Marr]

130. Heh- I know what you mean.

I don't even want to wade into it. :p

[chatnoir]

131. As someone said upthread about hunting threads

They're like car accidents. Car accidents involving only people hopped up on meth.

[Hangingon]

125. Has the end of the video been photoshopped? Looks like it.

[CRF450]

133. If they kept the meat, so what??

I dont see what the big deal is, except this is going to do nothing but make hunters think libruls are out to get them with the way this discussion is going.

Personally, I think this double shot was an accident, they guy on the camera says "how did you do that??" The one with the gun: "I dunno!".

[CRF450]

137. DELETE,

Wrong reply, AGIAN.

[michreject]

135. It's been up for 8 months

has over 1200 replies.

[CRF450]

138. Um people, the shot appears to be an accident.

Camera guy "How did you do that??". Shooter: "I dunno"

Turn your speakers up and listen before jumping into a bashing rampage for no reason.

[WeDidIt]

144. Clearly, the shot entered and exited the first deer

then entered the second deer.

The hunter should have pulled his knife and slit the throat of the second deer immediately.

[CRF450]

146. I agree, somehow, the bullet probably ricochet from the first deer to the second

[GoneOffShore]

140. They're deer - they carry deer ticks - Bambi was a disease vector

Don't breed the little fuckers.

We've killed off their natural predators and now everybody goes - awwww, when they get shot.

Think of it as evolution in action.

[underpants]

145. Oh BULLSHIT. DO you want them hit by cars? Do you know about Hunters for the Hungry?

http://www.h4hungry.org/

[doc03]

156. So what, it was an accident that two deer were hit by one

shot. There are too many f-----g deer, how do you think we should control them? I have seen 3 deer killed at one time by a semi-truck. What about all the people that are killed when they hit a deer with a car or motorcycle? I ride a motorcycle and deer are by far the worst hazard on the road around here. How in the hell you think they kill cattle? That's just why Democratic party keeps losing elections in many parts of the country people that live in the city worry about what people in the country do. People live in the city and kill each other off like savages and worry about someone shooting a deer for food.

[cobalt1999]

159. I ride too.

Deer are my biggest concern after old drivers and in Florida there are plenty of both!