• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is it ok to hunt for sport?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I came to my own personal decision regarding it in 7th grade when I got a Daisy BB gun for Christmas and the first thing I did was go outside to try to shoot a squirrel with it. Fortunately for the squirrels they were much better at evading me than I was at shooting at them and somewhere during that time while I was chasing one through the woods I actually stopped and asked myself what the hell I was doing. I went back home and plinked some cans etc very glad that I never came close to hitting the squirrel let alone killing it. Never again have I had any desire to hunt. I just do not understand chasing down something and killing it for the sport of it. If I had to do it to survive and eat then yes I would do it but otherwise I have no interest in it.
 
Aharami said:
only if the hunter is equipped with just a knife. Level the playing field and we'll see what's what!

People who hunt for sport disgust me! yeah...you're a real man...NOT!!
Click to expand...
You have no idea what you're talking about. The weak fall to the mighty. My .30-.30 makes me the mighty. One moment they're eating over a corn plot and the next I'm trying to decide if they're going on my wall or not.
 
The only time I have ever pulled the trigger or a gun aimed at an animal is if I intend to eat said animal or have been given specific instrutions by the land owner that that species is to be killed.
 
Only if you're hunting carnivores that have learned to enjoy the taste of humans and will kill you if you fail.

the-ghost-and-the-darkness-movie-poster-1996-1020198993.jpg


something like that ^

it's based on a true story with much embellishment supposedly.
 
Actually, that lion hunt was completely legal & despite what a lot of people believe, probably results in better wildlife management than a lack of hunting. (More later; class is about to start.)
 
Gooberlx2 said:
Teddy was big on responsible hunting and conservationism. Nowadays, people would call him a treehugger.
Click to expand...

Those early ideas of conservation are different than they are today. Rhinos weren't heavily endangered, nor were tigers and other apex predators--as far as science understood, then.

Ditto, the crucial role that certain predators and animals play within their ecosystems.

Teddy's idea of conservation was not to trash everything, keep things unspoiled, etc etc, which is a very good thing. I think he was also a responsible hunter, but at the same time, heavily exploited the accepted safari practices of the time. Killing wild predators that have never posed a threat to humans is and was never a good idea.
 
blankslate said:
Only if you're hunting carnivores that have learned to enjoy the taste of humans and will kill you if you fail.

the-ghost-and-the-darkness-movie-poster-1996-1020198993.jpg


something like that ^

it's based on a true story with much embellishment supposedly.
Click to expand...

I think most of the embellishment is around all the drama involved. The lower estimate of the humans the two lions killed was 35 people, which science seems to support. However, there is theory that they didn't eat all of the humans they killed and might have killed just for fun (as other man-eaters have done in the past).

I've actually seen these two lions in the Fields Museum in Chicago.
 
adairusmc said:
Bear and cougar make awesome pepperoni sticks. But that's about it.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying people don't eat it, they obviously do. But carnivore meat should never be considered a staple, or a reliable source of meat. It is simply too dangerous to consume--and as you mentioned, works when heavily preserved as a cured meat, salted all to hell, or boiled for a very long time.

All I'm saying is that there never is an argument for "providing meat" that would support hunting predators. Actual game meat options are plentiful, safer, and far better use of wildlife management.
 
DrPizza said:
Actually, that lion hunt was completely legal & despite what a lot of people believe, probably results in better wildlife management than a lack of hunting.
Click to expand...

You mean that one that was the basis for the GatD movie. I have no doubt that it was.

Two lions killed people. They needed to be hunted down. Also if the people they hired to hunt those lions failed they could also hypothetically have been killed/eaten.

Which was my point if you're going to hunt for sport and not to eat; then if you're not hunting a particular animal that has shown a propensity to kill humans, then you're not really being a sporting sort.




===
 
Last edited:
adairusmc said:
Bear and cougar make awesome pepperoni sticks. But that's about it.
Click to expand...

Pepperoni is what you make out of otherwise inedible meat. My roommate went moose hunting once and brought a ton of it back. The steaks were good (a bit gamey, but good), but the snouts and assholes had to be cut with 50% pork and made into spicy pepperoni to make it taste halfway decent.
 
Put her in an MMA cage with the lion. Give her a spear and a loincloth for effect. Put it on PPV. Big money.

Canned hunts are stupid beyond belief. Might as well strap some C4 to the animal and give the rich douche a pair of binoculars and the detonator.

FWIW I've done some bow hunting for deer and fish. I'd say that's a little more sporting. Bow hunting from the ground for turkey now there's a challenge.
 
DrPizza said:
Actually, that lion hunt was completely legal & despite what a lot of people believe, probably results in better wildlife management than a lack of hunting. (More later; class is about to start.)
Click to expand...

Legality doesn't even matter (especially since there's a ton of shady dealing in big game hunting), canned hunts are legal lots of places, its still a pathetic chicken shit thing to do.

That might be true but that certainly is not why they let people hunt them, they do it for money. You can argue that enables them to better protect and conserve the animals but that's quite debatable since they often have the animals contained to such a degree you can't even consider them still wild.

Want to be a real badass? Go over there to fight the ivory poachers. Then you'd have a shot at the greatest trophy of all and actually do something to help conserve these animals.

blankslate said:
You mean that one that was the basis for the GatD movie. I have no doubt that it was.

Two lions killed people. They needed to be hunted down. Also if the people they hired to hunt those lions failed they could also hypothetically have been killed/eaten.

Which was my point if you're going to hunt for sport and not to eat; then if you're not hunting a particular animal that has shown a propensity to kill humans, then you're not really being a sporting sort.




===
Click to expand...

No he's talking about the one the woman killed.

Not likely since most of these chickenshit big game hunters do it with ridiculously overpowered rifles from the safety of a vehicle while the animal is maybe even behind a fence. Often it'll be old or possibly sick as well, and that's if its not a total sham.
 
BladeVenom said:
Anyone who has swatted a fly or squished a spider has no right to criticize.
Click to expand...

because all life is equal, or all non-human life is equal?

What if, instead of black-and-white thinking we thought of sentience (or person-hood if you prefer) as a continuum, where an ape might be 1/10th of a full person, a cow 1/50th of a full person, a fly 1/100000th of a full person etc?

Then we might say that killing even 1000 1/1000000ths of a person to avoid spider bites is fair; but killing 100 apes so you can have your 'ape heads' room is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
DixyCrat said:
because all life is equal, or all non-human life is equal?

What if, instead of black-and-white thinking we thought of sentience as a continuum, where an ape might be 1/10th of a full person, a cow 1/50th of a full person, a fly 1/100000th of a full person etc?
Click to expand...
Flys, ants, fetureses....same.
 
highland145 said:
Flys, ants, fetureses....same.
Click to expand...

Protean wise I couldn't agree less.

I've been thinking, if we agree that 'life' of some form has some level of person-hood, but some degrees of person-hood are unacceptable to kill and others acceptable, I propose a com promise.

Let us ban both hunting for sport, and abortion (which is just a doctor hunting for sport in a uterus), if the target of the sport is more than 3/5ths a person. Seems fair, and well grounded in historic precedent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top