Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: MatthewCromer on November 22, 2009, 10:59:08 am
-
Please tell me that this is some kind of mistake!
http://iamidaho.deviantart.com/ (http://iamidaho.deviantart.com/)
http://news.deviantart.com/article/100543/ (http://news.deviantart.com/article/100543/)
- Bobcats are worth 2 points
- Foxes are worth 2 points
- Coyotes are worth 2 points
- Wolves are worth 3 points
- Ties are resolved by weight.
A "shooting spree" of apex predators for "points" in some kind of game -- and Nikon is sponsoring this? WTF?!
Vomit!!!!!!!
-
For those who are unaware: Nikon makes fine hunting scopes (http://www.nikonhunting.com/).
-
For those who are unaware: Nikon makes fine hunting scopes (http://www.nikonhunting.com/).
This is not about hunting, this is about slaughtering predators for fun and "points" while throwing away the carcasses.
People can argue about the ethics of hunting -- and there are a lot of points of merit on both sides -- but I find it difficult to believe that any lover of nature could agree with or sanction this event which is about slaughtering predators for fun and to win a contest.
-
This is not about hunting, this is about slaughtering predators for fun and "points" while throwing away the carcasses.
People can argue about the ethics of hunting -- and there are a lot of points of merit on both sides -- but I find it difficult to believe that any lover of nature could agree with or sanction this event which is about slaughtering predators for fun and to win a contest.
You're implying I somehow condone activity described in your links. I don't. You're free to express your indignation, but don't use me as a conduit for it.
-
You're implying I somehow condone activity described in your links. I don't. You're free to express your indignation, but don't use me as a conduit for it.
I think your understanding of English needs some work. I implied no such thing. I merely responded that this is not about hunting.
-
I think your understanding of English needs some work. I implied no such thing. I merely responded that this is not about hunting.
No, sir, it is your reading comprehension.
I'm done with this. And IBTL.
-
Feppe,
I did not imply that you condoned either this activity or hunting.
My initial reply was only to note that this was NOT about hunting but rather about the mass slaughter of predators for "fun" and to gather points for a contest. I know many hunters who also find this "contest" sick and twisted.
I have to imagine that when Nikon hears from its wildlife-loving customers tomorrow they will pull their sponsorship of this event.
-
Thom Hogan has mentioned to me in a private email that he believes that Nikon is not actually sponsoring this event, because the web site linked by the Nikon logo on the predator shoot website is not actually owned by Nikon.
Hopefully we will get some clarification from NikonUSA soon and if in fact Nikon is not sponsoring this event their logo will be removed from the predator slaughter website. I will update this thread when I find out more.
-
Thom Hogan has mentioned to me in a private email that he believes that Nikon is not actually sponsoring this event, because the web site linked by the Nikon logo on the predator shoot website is not actually owned by Nikon.
FWIW, I went to the event website and clicked on the Nikon logo. It is linked to a currently non-existent site called www.nikonoutdoors.com.
Paul
-
Please tell me that this is some kind of mistake!
http://iamidaho.deviantart.com/ (http://iamidaho.deviantart.com/)
http://news.deviantart.com/article/100543/ (http://news.deviantart.com/article/100543/)
- Bobcats are worth 2 points
- Foxes are worth 2 points
- Coyotes are worth 2 points
- Wolves are worth 3 points
- Ties are resolved by weight.
A "shooting spree" of apex predators for "points" in some kind of game -- and Nikon is sponsoring this? WTF?!
Vomit!!!!!!!
UTTERLY OUTRAGEOUS, HORRENDOUS AND DISGUSTING IN THE ABSOLUTE.
I felt ill just reading it.
I shake my head in shame that elements of humanity can be so cruel.
-
2 points:
1. The Nikon logo links to a non-existent web site, so it's highly doubtful that Nikon is sponsoring or involved in this event in any way. Going after Nikon half-cocked about this is just going to make you look stupid, and deservedly so.
2. The so-called "friends of the animals" who get their panties in a knot about this sort of thing actually cause more pain and suffering to the animals they are trying to protect than the hunter they abhor. When a predator gets absolute protection from hunting, two things happen: the predator population increases until they run out of prey, the species the predator preys on (some of whom are endangered in their own right) run the risk of getting wiped out by over-predation. Instead of a nearly-instantaneous humane death from a rifle bullet, many of the predators slowly starve to death over weeks or months. The reason wolves were taken off the endangered species list is because their numbers had increased to the point that they were wiping out the deer and elk populations in some areas. Keeping predator and prey populations in balance requires a continuously adaptive approach, increasing protections when a population drops too low, and decreasing them when a population becomes too large. It is just as destructive to an ecosystem to allow a predator to multiply until it consumes the entire prey population as it is to eradicate the predator and allow the prey population to increase until it consumes its food resources.
I'm not convinced that this "predator derby" is based on sound wildlife management principles; in most states, the wildlife management agency tracks the populations of various species of game animals, calculates what the optimum populations and predator-prey ratios should be to prevent any species from overpopulating, and issues a controlled number of hunting permits based on the difference between current population and optimum population. There is no reason any predator should be completely exempted from controlled hunting when there are sound reasons for keeping the population at a controlled level, but that doesn't mean that indiscriminate eradication is a good idea, either. The best course, both for the long-term health of the environment and the survival of all species of predator and prey, is a middle ground.
-
UTTERLY OUTRAGEOUS, HORRENDOUS AND DISGUSTING IN THE ABSOLUTE.
I felt ill just reading it.
I shake my head in shame that elements of humanity can be so cruel.
Being killed with a rifle is less cruel and disgusting than having your guts or other body parts chewed and eaten while you're still alive to appreciate the experience, or being slowly strangled by being bitten in the neck hard enough to cut off your air supply. Most predators are oblivious to the concept of a clean, quick kill, and the experience of their prey becoming dinner is often horrendous, drawn-out torture. Have you ever seen a cat play with a mouse? From the mouse's view, it's sick and twisted sadism--the intentional infliction of pain and suffering deliberately drawn out for extended periods of time for the sole purpose of entertaining the cat. Wolves aren't quite as sadistic as cats, but I'd much rather be shot by one of the hunters you find disgusting and abhorrent than eaten by wolves if I was forced to choose one or the other.
-
I am quite sure that nature can no longer balance itself, perhaps because of the input from humans over many years, and I can accept that some form of intervention is needed to keep stocks at some kind of sustainable balance that is compatible with our own survival.
Where I feel this all goes badly wrong is when fun, sport and money are invoked. In my opinion, killing for those reasons is not acceptable, reasoned adult behaviour; it is blood-lust. If control is needed, then that's why there are professional gamekeepers, rangers who have the skills to do the job cleanly and without turning it into a carnival.
That anyone can take life and derive pleasure from so doing says a lot more about the individual than he/she might think.
Rob C
-
Being killed with a rifle is less cruel and disgusting than having your guts or other body parts chewed and eaten while you're still alive to appreciate the experience, or being slowly strangled by being bitten in the neck hard enough to cut off your air supply. Most predators are oblivious to the concept of a clean, quick kill, and the experience of their prey becoming dinner is often horrendous, drawn-out torture. Have you ever seen a cat play with a mouse? From the mouse's view, it's sick and twisted sadism--the intentional infliction of pain and suffering deliberately drawn out for extended periods of time for the sole purpose of entertaining the cat. Wolves aren't quite as sadistic as cats, but I'd much rather be shot by one of the hunters you find disgusting and abhorrent than eaten by wolves if I was forced to choose one or the other.
Its just this kind of twisted logic that 'shooters' use to justify their actions.
Nature is cruel; we all know that. But that is NOT the point. Many of these animals that will be shot may have lived many more years and contributed to their environment. The point is that they are being shot for nothing more than the pleasure of it - and that is sick.
Nature has something called 'survival of the fitest' - which basically ensures the strongest of the species survive to perpetuate the species. So a certain amount of animals must die to predators to keep the species healthy. But this is a natural process - it is not about blowing animals apart with high powered rifles for the thrill of it.
Shooting animals for sport and pleasure is just SICK. And no amount of justification makes it acceptable or excusable.
-
How about killing an animal so that you can hold your pants up (leather belt), or killing an animal just so that you can bite into a big, juicy steak instead of corn on the cob - is there a difference? Animals are killed every day so that all of us can live better lives - fact of life that a lot of folks seem to ignore (millions of products we use everyday use animal parts, not just what we eat or wear). That hamburger didn't come out of a plant. We don't actually REQUIRE meat every day in order to survive, nor do we REQUIRE leather shoes or belts, but we like them - makes us feel good. Visit your local slaughter house sometime. It's kind of the same thing...
-
I did not imply that you condoned either this activity or hunting.
Actually you did, but quoting his message and making your reply seem a direct response to his statement. That may not have been your intent, but that's how I read it (and I'm guessing many others would, as well).
On the issue of the event described in the link, it certainly strikes me as distasteful and unpleasant, but I won't pretend to have a full grasp of the issues at play and whether or not this sort of culling is truly necessary in some areas to maintain a balance in predator populations.
-
Gotta kill something..
-
Thank you everyone who wrote and called Nikon. They have pulled their sponsorship of this event.
-
Thank you everyone who wrote and called Nikon. They have pulled their sponsorship of this event.
Thats a good start.
-
The point is that they are being shot for nothing more than the pleasure of it - and that is sick.
How do you know this? Have you examined the population data for the various species of animals involved and proved that no hunting is necessary to maintain optimal balance between predators and prey? Do you even have a clue what the optimal ratio between predator and prey populations would be, or what the optimal population levels should be, given the local availability of food, water, etc.?
People like you getting involved in wildlife management on the basis of an emotional response are responsible for more environmental problems and animal cruelty than hunters. Let me cite an example. A few decades ago, cougar hunting was outlawed in California because the treehuggers and animal rights people like you thought it was inhumane and disgusting. As a result, the cougar population mushroomed, and the deer population in California was pretty much wiped out. So the cougars weren't able to hunt in their normal wilderness areas any more due to lack of food, and they began moving int urban areas and snacking on stray dogs and cats, small children, and the occasional jogger/hiker--things they wouldn't usually hunt but were forced to due to the circumstances. When I left California in 2005, there had been a string of attacks on humans, and the wildlife management people were concerned about some endangered species being wiped out by the cougars. I don't know how the debate ever turned out; being California, it wouldn't surprise me if the stupidity is still continuing. But if the cougar population had been managed properly via controlled hunting from the beginning, the deer population wouldn't have been nearly wiped out, and several people wouldn't have become cougar attack victims.
Another example: when I was growing up, I lived in northwestern Wisconsin for a few years. During that time, there was a large spike in the starling population. Huge flocks of tens of thousands of starlings were common to see. If one of them passed through your area and stopped to feed, your driveway (and anything parked outside) could go from blacktop to whitewash overnight. It even affected the population of other bird species, like robins, cardinals, blue jays, etc. After a few months of this, the consensus of the community was that the population needed some serious thinning out--it was more or less a civic duty. So I spent most of my allowance on .22 ammunition, and spent much of my free time wandering the woods near my house shooting starlings with a rifle my dad gave me for Christmas. I don't know how many I killed, but I would guess somewhere in the hundreds. That may sound indiscriminate to you, but I can assure you it was a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands that flew by every day. After a year or two, the starling population went back to normal, (as did the other birds) and I moved on to other activities--thinning the starlings out was no longer necessary.
I haven't hunted in years, mostly because I haven't had the free time. But I have no problem with hunting, even if done primarily for sport, as long as it is controlled to keep populations in optimal balance. Believe it or not, most hunters are conservationists--you can't hunt indefinitely if you go overboard and wipe out the animals you hunt. Hunters have done more work to protect and rebuild habitat for game animals than PETA and and the animal-rights activist crowd.
To reiterate my original point: I'm not going to rush to judgment on the "predator derby" hunt. If there is an overpopulation of predators in the area and they need thinning out, then it's a good thing for the long-term survival of both predator and prey populations. If the participants have fun while doing what needs to be done, I don't care. OTOH, if there isn't an overpopulation of predators, then it's a bad idea. Either way, the squeamishness or revulsion one might have to seeing animals shot with a rifle is irrelevant, and is more likely to cause long-term damage to the ecosystem (by preventing needed culling from taking place) than benefit.
-
I don't have much to add to this discussion, I am not a hunter but some members of my family have been. I did shoot some birds when I was younger, but never took hunting up as a pastime. I think I would have a hard time shooting an animal for sport these days, but if I were hungry I would kill for food, and if I were in danger I would kill to protect myself and would not lie away feeling guilty about that. In a sense, I kill all the time by proxy by buying meat in grocery stores.
By and large I agree with Jonathan's view on the issue. That is to say, the knee-jerk "I don't want to kill animals" point-of-view is often misplaced. Not always of course, there is gratuitous killing for no good reason and that does bother me, and I see nothing wrong in unmasking it. I have no idea if the event in question falls into this category. People have been known to stock game farms with living targets for the shooting fun of those too lazy to go out in the bush and stalk their prey. I may have an old-fashioned idealized view of hunting and fishing; it bothers me, for example, that people use sonar to go after fish. At some point, isn't that a little like just buying one in a grocery store. I think people should be forced to outwit their prey, but that is my own personal biased view of the subject, nothing more. Using sonar seems to remove the "sport" from it, for me at least.
Jonathan also referred to hunters being respectful of conservation and that, as a group, they have a self-interest in the perpetuation of the conditions (habitats, animal populations, etc.) for their sport. I can't disagree in general, but after 57 years of living, I find it optimistic to expect that enlightened self-interest will lead hunters, as a group, to behave in sustainable ways. I think they are just as likely to behave stupidly and wipe out the source of their fun. I have come to NOT believe in the innate "reasonableness" of humans. There are plenty of historical examples of humans killing the golden goose, to mangle a metaphor. I know plenty of reasonable folks who hunt as a pastime, but I also pick up a lot of empty beer bottles on bush roads after hunting season.
In my life, the people that I have seen to be most vehemently against hunting have been urban dwellers, and they've been people whose only real experience with rural life was renting vacation cottages. Much of their criticism of hunting comes from ignorance, I find. Like a lot of other groups in society, religious, political, etc., they believe that they know the one true way and expect everyone to agree with them, part of the modern polarized life. A wide-ranging liberal education could help with that, but it's not about to happen anytime soon. Trying to analyse things from someone else's point of view is not something we do well, doesn't mean we should stop trying though.
-
How do you know this? Have you examined the population data for the various species of animals involved and proved that no hunting is necessary to maintain optimal balance between predators and prey? Do you even have a clue what the optimal ratio between predator and prey populations would be, or what the optimal population levels should be, given the local availability of food, water, etc.?
People like you getting involved in wildlife management on the basis of an emotional response are responsible for more environmental problems and animal cruelty than hunters. Let me cite an example. A few decades ago, cougar hunting was outlawed in California because the treehuggers and animal rights people like you thought it was inhumane and disgusting. As a result, the cougar population mushroomed, and the deer population in California was pretty much wiped out. So the cougars weren't able to hunt in their normal wilderness areas any more due to lack of food, and they began moving int urban areas and snacking on stray dogs and cats, small children, and the occasional jogger/hiker--things they wouldn't usually hunt but were forced to due to the circumstances. When I left California in 2005, there had been a string of attacks on humans, and the wildlife management people were concerned about some endangered species being wiped out by the cougars. I don't know how the debate ever turned out; being California, it wouldn't surprise me if the stupidity is still continuing. But if the cougar population had been managed properly via controlled hunting from the beginning, the deer population wouldn't have been nearly wiped out, and several people wouldn't have become cougar attack victims.
Another example: when I was growing up, I lived in northwestern Wisconsin for a few years. During that time, there was a large spike in the starling population. Huge flocks of tens of thousands of starlings were common to see. If one of them passed through your area and stopped to feed, your driveway (and anything parked outside) could go from blacktop to whitewash overnight. It even affected the population of other bird species, like robins, cardinals, blue jays, etc. After a few months of this, the consensus of the community was that the population needed some serious thinning out--it was more or less a civic duty. So I spent most of my allowance on .22 ammunition, and spent much of my free time wandering the woods near my house shooting starlings with a rifle my dad gave me for Christmas. I don't know how many I killed, but I would guess somewhere in the hundreds. That may sound indiscriminate to you, but I can assure you it was a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands that flew by every day. After a year or two, the starling population went back to normal, (as did the other birds) and I moved on to other activities--thinning the starlings out was no longer necessary.
I haven't hunted in years, mostly because I haven't had the free time. But I have no problem with hunting, even if done primarily for sport, as long as it is controlled to keep populations in optimal balance. Believe it or not, most hunters are conservationists--you can't hunt indefinitely if you go overboard and wipe out the animals you hunt. Hunters have done more work to protect and rebuild habitat for game animals than PETA and and the animal-rights activist crowd.
To reiterate my original point: I'm not going to rush to judgment on the "predator derby" hunt. If there is an overpopulation of predators in the area and they need thinning out, then it's a good thing for the long-term survival of both predator and prey populations. If the participants have fun while doing what needs to be done, I don't care. OTOH, if there isn't an overpopulation of predators, then it's a bad idea. Either way, the squeamishness or revulsion one might have to seeing animals shot with a rifle is irrelevant, and is more likely to cause long-term damage to the ecosystem (by preventing needed culling from taking place) than benefit.
Johnathon,
It is unclear to me wether you are attempting to play devil's advocate and/or launching a personal attack on me. 'If' you consider a personal attack labelling me a 'tree hugger' or 'animal rights activist' then please do continue; these are not insults to me. You see I actually care about what 'we' (being the human race) are doing to our planet. I also care about the need to maintain a balance in nature and the occasional unfortunate need to 'cull' animals. In Australia we occasionally have to cull kangaroos (and more often rabbits as an introduced pest) - I am not against this when its required. For the record, I also eat meat; so dont throw me in your cliche'd box as you insinuate.
Turning my attention to your probable devils advocate stance.. Allow me to flip the coin for a moment...
Do YOU know if this so called 'Derby' is required for legitimate reasons? I could find no evidence to suggest this on the website. And I feel more than confident in saying that should these hunters who are going to participate in this slaughter have this excuse they would be singing it high and low as a justification for their pleasure.
You dont need to respond to my post as I am now done with this thread (I just wanted to clarify my position as you were skewing my viewpoint).
-
It is unclear to me wether you are attempting to play devil's advocate and/or launching a personal attack on me. 'If' you consider a personal attack labelling me a 'tree hugger' or 'animal rights activist' then please do continue; these are not insults to me. You see I actually care about what 'we' (being the human race) are doing to our planet. I also care about the need to maintain a balance in nature and the occasional unfortunate need to 'cull' animals. In Australia we occasionally have to cull kangaroos (and more often rabbits as an introduced pest) - I am not against this when its required. For the record, I also eat meat; so dont throw me in your cliche'd box as you insinuate.
If you acknowledge the legitimate need for culling on occasion, you are far more enlightened than many anti-hunting environmentalists. Like you, I care about the environment. Where I differ from many so-called environmentalists is in insisting that environmental policies have a demonstrated positive impact, rather than being mere symbolic feelgoodism. The problem with people who are unconditionally anti-hunting is that they fail to recognize that a total ban on hunting is more destructive to the environment and a greater threat to endangered species than controlled hunting as part of an intelligent wildlife management program. As a result, the anti-hunting crowd (whether environmentally motivated or not) as a whole is responsible for more environmental destruction and animal suffering than hunters.
Do YOU know if this so called 'Derby' is required for legitimate reasons? I could find no evidence to suggest this on the website. And I feel more than confident in saying that should these hunters who are going to participate in this slaughter have this excuse they would be singing it high and low as a justification for their pleasure.
No, I don't know for sure that the predator derby is needed for wildlife management purposes, which is why I never gave it an unconditional endorsement. But contrary to your assumptions, the fact that it is legal is a pretty good indication that the local wildlife management authorities are of the opinion that there is a predator surplus in that area, whether the event website "sings it high and low" or not.
-
Population control by comedian Bill Burr ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ35XbW_n0Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ35XbW_n0Y)
Edit: Warning - Offensive language.
-
...insisting that environmental policies have a demonstrated positive impact, rather than being mere symbolic feelgoodism.
Jonathan, Ever see Walt Disney's "Bambi?" That's pretty much the root of the problem. I'm old enough to remember when the "feelgooders" either didn't exist or stayed out of sight. Of course, in those days, a lot more people were farming and were in close contact with the real world. Once "Bambi" came out things started to change rapidly.
-
Jonathan, Ever see Walt Disney's "Bambi?" That's pretty much the root of the problem.
Yes. I think that there's a lot more involved in the increase of anti-hunting sentiment though, like the transition of society as a whole from primarily rural to primarily urban. City dwellers are far more likely to gravitate to the simplistic feelgood option of banning all hunting; rural people have a better first-hand grasp of the situation and are more likely to see the big picture.
-
Yes. I think that there's a lot more involved in the increase of anti-hunting sentiment though, like the transition of society as a whole from primarily rural to primarily urban. City dwellers are far more likely to gravitate to the simplistic feelgood option of banning all hunting; rural people have a better first-hand grasp of the situation and are more likely to see the big picture.
Yep, If you think milk comes from a bottle and hamburger comes from the meat counter you're able to have all sorts of illusions about how the world works.
-
The "predator derby" is, of course, not at all about hunting for food. It is a PREDATOR slaughter, and the foxes, coyotes, bobcats and wolves are just blown away and then thrown away, by people who have no respect and love for their fellow creatures who are just making their way in the world the only way they can.
I do not hunt myself, but I feel that hunting for meat is an honest way to be a carnivore (versus the drive through at Wendy's). Killing predators for fun and prizes -- that is just sick and twisted.
So please take all the ludicrous discussion about "bambi" somewhere else. We have a huge problem with overpopulation of deer because all the cougars and wolves were killed off where I live.
-
No, I don't think you can disguise the fact of wanton cruelty by calling upon the anthropomorphic as a sort of easy excuse-all counter-argument. Neither can the fact that people eat meat be part of any defence of cruelty for its own sake, which hunting for fun is all about.
I once had the grim task of shooting the photographs for the opening of a new abattoir in Paisley, Scotland for a group of companies involved with the structure and the overhead rails. I didn't want to do it, but couldn't refuse for diplomatic business reasons. Anyway, I can tell you that the experience produced a smell of blood that stayed with me in reality or in my mind for days on end; worse, I remember vividly the eyes of some of the cattle that I has to pass in a holding pen outside the killing area, from where they were driven into a cage/trap strucrture, something like they use in rodeos, where the man did his thing with stun gun and another with a long steel rod.
Anyone who tells me that animals don't know, can't see or smell that they are going to die is deluded.
I can accept that, horrid as it is, man is a carnivore and that his manner of industrialised 'hunting' is done by breeding and subsequent 'humane' killing. A truck-load of guys with guns and funny hats is not something that fits into the dynamic of preserving the human race. As for conservation of the environment, as I said before, that's best left in the hands of professional gamekeepers and rangers.
Rob C
-
In principle, I believe man is not needed to regulate nature. Nature would be fine on itself if we would let it have its way. But, since man influences nature there might indeed be cases where direct population control is absolutely neccessary. (And I also think its ok to kill animals for food supply.)
However, real world animal population regulation attempts had often unintended and undesired - desastrous - effects, think Australia, man attempting to influence a system which he doesnt even understand fully, and also it is known that "neccessary regulation" is often just a faux argument to legitimate, well, agression, and/or profit.
One example: Chinese people where told by goverment in the 50's or 60's (dont remember) to kill as much sparrows (nests, eggs, etc.) as possible, because these would eat the seeds away. This indeed initially improved harvests, but as a consequence locust population increased wich lead to famine, exactly the opposite of what was intended. (As they figured later, sparrows eat much more insects than seeds.)
So basically a whole nation was killing animals for some made up reason. In my opinion, this was no longer about crowd control but became active destruction of nature under irrational reasons. Agression directed towards nature. Entirely made up reasons for justifying mass killings. Sounds dramatic, maybe horrifying, but is a well known fact if you dig up the right literature.
So, thats maybe one more aspect to consider when thinking about such actions as described in Matthew's links.
And sorry for my English, some formulations probably sound funny.
-
While I won't pretended to know whether this hunt is a good thing or not to create a better balance, I am quite sure that if it is necessary, we are the cause of the problem in the first place. I agree with Christian that nature works very well on it's own and it only needs "correcting" because of our influences. Unfortunately, I think that all too often we humans, in all are arrogance, think we know better than mother nature like in Christian's example.
-
The "predator derby" is, of course, not at all about hunting for food. It is a PREDATOR slaughter, and the foxes, coyotes, bobcats and wolves are just blown away and then thrown away, by people who have no respect and love for their fellow creatures who are just making their way in the world the only way they can.
Au contrare... predator hunting is perhaps the hardest hunting of all, because you are hunting a hunter. And the animal is not wasted, the fur is harvested. Did you know that coyote fur is often used around the hoods of extreme cold weather parkas because it is the only fur that will not ice up from the condensation of the wearer's breath?
I do not hunt myself, but I feel that hunting for meat is an honest way to be a carnivore (versus the drive through at Wendy's). Killing predators for fun and prizes -- that is just sick and twisted.
What difference does it make to the animal if the hunter keeps the meat and throws away the pelt (which is what happens to most deer, rabbits, ducks, etc.) or keeps the pelt and throws away the meat (which is what happens to predators)? The animal is still dead. This is the kind of thinking that leads to "Don't wear fur!" bumperstickers on cars with leather interiors.
Hunting animals for their pelts is a pastime that is as old as hunting animals for their meat. The urge to be good at hunting, and take pleasure in it, is instinctive... genetic. Bad hunters don't reproduce. Every photographer who takes satisfaction after acquiring a difficult capture is utilizing the same instincts.
As long as the predator population supports the event, and the hunters act in an ethical manner (so that the predators have a chance), then I see no reason for the moral outrage.
So please take all the ludicrous discussion about "bambi" somewhere else. We have a huge problem with overpopulation of deer because all the cougars and wolves were killed off where I live.
Here in Washington we have a huge problem with cougars since they can no longer be hunted with dogs; they're coming into suburbia and eating housepets and attacking the occasional jogger. We have the same problem with coyotes; several people were attacked a few years ago within a couple of miles from the high rise office building I'm sitting in. We can reintroduce grey wolves and grizzlies, and they'll keep the coyote and cougar population down... but then they have to be controlled and these larger predators are much more dangerous to humans.
Of course, we humans are the top predators....
-
I find it interesting that those who worship nature are against nature being able to act as intended and that includes the species of predator called the human. Either believe in nature and the natural order of things or believe that humans are above nature in which case you are pretty much denying belief in 'mother nature' by somehow putting human kind outside of the natural order of things. You can't have it both ways. This applies to much more than just hunting of course but it is interesting that those who worship nature are also so often the ones who worship the perversion of nature...