Now add that 51 seconds to all the other videos and random crap he puts up.

Thats a bit too much of a blanket statement, don't you think?

Hunting is more then a method of providing food (which it can do well).  Its also how populations are kept in check, predators thinned out, and the environment and endangered species are protected.  As a specific case, In Hawaii, Wild Boar are hunted since they tear up the soil in sensitive regions causing massive erosion.  They are also a huge threat to endemic  species, especially the native birds.  I agree that in today's day and age, it's no longer a requirement for survival, but its definitely not useless.

Being a living organism on Earth means we sort of have a role in the environment, y'know. 

We have way too many of those as it is.

But as someone in this thread already pointed out (sorry don't feel like reading this stuff again...), man has his place in the food chain as well, and by not fulfilling that obligation I'm sure there's some form of negative impact to be had.

 

That being said, it all goes back to the point of not being necessary =/= not being legal. Hunting has been a tradition in alot of families (including my own) for decades, and what right does anyone have to take that away from future generations?

 

Besides, if you just sit back and let continued overpopulation of humanity keep going, you won't have to worry about hunting for the next century.

 

We need someone to take care of our population...

 

 

Eh?

 

And no, we don't thin our own numbers as humans. Deer arn't humans. Plus, if we did, natural selection tells us you wouldn't be here to argue with us anymore.

 

So my challenge, to any anti-hunting people here, is give me a reason it should not be legal. Otherwise, i don't see the point in these arguments.

 

And for the record, I actually agree that hunting has little use. I don't think saying that hunting is necessary in a pro hunting argument is any better than saying OMG I NEED MY GUN TO DEFEND MYSELF in a pro-gun argument.  Hunting is a recreation, and nothing more, in my opinion.

Traveling to mars without rockets, is physically possible, its just a pretty stupid thing to do. Sure would save that poor rocket fuel from getting burnt up tho, poor babies.

 

Now you're just being silly.

 

How exactly? By having farmers donate beef instead of selling it? By paying farmers to domestically raise deer?

 

Both possible I suppose, but are really expensive and therefore ludicrous to consider.

 

 Hunting on the other hand, not only gets the meat on the table without COSTING the state anything, it actually brings IN money. License sales in NY have jumped through the roof this year, but I don't know anyone who always has hunted that is going to refrain from it this year because of the added cost. So Joe Smith pays his $80 for a sportsman's license, wanders out and shoots a deer, then donates the meat to a collection center.

 

The state pays nothing. They MAKE money. In fact, the only person here who spends anything at all is the guy who buys the license and the ammunition in the first place. Seems to me that providing revenue to the state is another 'use' for hunting......but since thats not WHY people hunt, it doesn't count and the instituion is still useless right?

 

jmac, to me it seems like you're manufacturing brand new definitions of the word "useless" in order to justify a pretty silly point.

 

As far as your comment that we hunt because we want to, not because we're going out there to thin out the population: On one hand you are correct. I hunt because I want to and because I like to, but because I do, (If I'm lucky) there's a chance that I could stem the tide of a rapidly growing animal population. Especially considering that in many states, there has been a huge wipe out of natural predators for deer. Wolves were nearly killed off by farmers and bounty hunters, and with the exceptions of a few packs of coyotes, the deer population {you're ignoring all this aren't you?} has only human intervention and mass starvation as its options in many places.

 

On the other hand, you're completely wrong. In places like natural parks all over the country, rangers go out expressely to hunt and kill deer for the single purpose of controlling the population of the animals.

 

http://civilwarinteractive.com/Newswire/?p=4260 - Example

Oh and would you look at that.....the venison is being donated. You say useless, I ask you if you're trying to convince me, or convince yourself.

 

 

jmac3 wrote: Could be done without hunting. Oh well of course, who doesn't have 337.51 tons of meat sitting in their garage. The same people that hunt. Could donate food or money to shelters. Instead of buying guns, bullets, gas to somewhere to hunt, freezers to freeze it, knives to cut it.

 

Two years ago, my brother shot a doe locally that yielded 90 pounds of meat. Have you got any idea what 90 pounds of meat would cost to purchase and donate?

 

Consider this: With his being in the military, he got his license for $15. He hunted locally, which means walking out the back door and into the woods. No gas spent. He used a single shot, which lets ludicrously say cost him a dollar. We had a friend process and cut it, so that cost nothing but a few steaks. The grand total of the cost of his hunt: No more than $20. For 90 pounds of meat.

 

Instead, you're asking that he give up hunting, PURCHASE meat, and donate that? You can't get a decent steak meal for $20 and he got enough that we were eating venison for quite some time, rather than buying beef at whatever the cost of that was at the time.

 

 

 

I think the huge problem in this thread is that I'm not sure we all understand what you're shooting for here.

 

Are you arguing that hunting should be illegal, or just arguing against everyone saying how useful it is?

 

Because I was under the impression that you were advocating that hunting should be illegal, but reading back I'm not exactly sure at this point what we're all arguing about...

 

Elaborate or go away.

 

And yes, we do hunt other animals for overpopulation. Alligators immediately come to mind as I remember when they initiated the program to issue licenses to hunt them. They were endagered, that made illegal to hunt and the population exploded like cockroaches. Same issues with human encroachment into their habitat made for dangerous confrontations. The population had to be controlled, still does. Would you suggest they do away with this program as well? Because unlike deer, alligators hunt back.

 

/thread

 

And for the record, I don't hunt. I don't have any moral objections against, it, I simply choose not to, it just isn't my bag.

 

 

 

Somehow the potential lives of deer are somehow more important that the lives of humans? Car accidents, food, gotta tell ya man, scaredeer arn't really gunna do much. And I don't really get where you think you are gunna magically provide 100+ tons of food.