Author Topic: Why Do Hunters Kill? (Read 2573 times)

Slug-Gunner · « **on:** September 20, 2003, 09:38:59 AM »

I found this on another talk forum, thought it was good reading. I couldn't have stated it better myself. (that's why I copied and pasted it!) It gives "food for thought" the next time someone ask you the same question.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do Hunters Kill?

It is my feeling that hunting is not a sport, inasmuch as a sport is most often perceived as an organized activity performed for the entertainment of the participants and/or onlookers. Hunting is something that goes much deeper than that.

I've been asked several times why hunters kill, when we could just as easily stalk our prey with a camera or binoculars, just for the thrill of being up close with a deer, turkey, or other game animal. The answer is simple: without the kill, we're not hunting.

The kill is the culmination of the hunt. We're not fishing here; there's no catch-and-release option, it's all or nothing. Yes, it's fulfilling just to be in the woods with the animals, and to get up-close-and-personal with them. Yes, it's a thrill to have a deer walk by at 25 yards, totally unaware of my presence. But the kill is what makes it hunting.

I've got to quote a favorite statement here: "We don't hunt to kill, we kill in order to have hunted." I'm not sure of the source of this quote, but it's right on. We hunt for the thrill of the chase, and the ecstatic peace that comes with being out there trying to beat a wild animal at his own game. When the chance finally comes, there is no doubt; we will kill.

But, can't we just stroll down to the grocery store and pick out a nice roast, instead of killing the poor forest creatures? Yep. But why should we? When I kill a deer, I know that deer had a chance, and that up until the time I took him, he lived a wild, free life. That erstwhile cow that's sitting in the foam trays in the butcher's case was born to die... it never had a chance. Add to that the various steroid injections, etc, and I know I'd rather be eating the deer. I also know the conditions in which the deer was butchered, since I've always done that myself. I also have the pride in furnishing it, rather than paying someone else to do my killing for me.

To those who don't kill and don't understand why we do, I'll borrow from an acquaintance. Why do we kill rather than buy meat? For the same reason many folks grow vegetables in their back yards... for the same reason amateur musicians play music rather than buying it... for the same reason folks paint or draw pictures, rather than buying someone else's art... for the same reason many enjoy photography rather than just buying a picture book of photos... because of the pride that lies in doing it ourselves. Also, venison (deer meat) is healthier than beef or pork, as it is much leaner.

I have to include another quote as well, from The Old Man and the Boy: "...if there's one thing I despise it's a killer, some blood-crazy idiot that just goes around bam-bamming at everything he sees. A man who takes pleasure in death just for death's sake is rotten somewhere inside, and you'll find him doing things later in life that'll prove it." All true hunters agree with this, and we don't kill out of bloodlust, and we don't kill everything we see.

The kill is not the bottom line reason for the hunt, but it cannot be removed from the equation.

-Russ Chastain
---------------------------------------------------

Slug-Gunner · « **Reply #1 on:** September 20, 2003, 09:58:17 AM »

This was a reply to the above posting on the other forum that I think also makes a good statement to the question.

quote:
-----------------------------------------------
I had a discussion on this very topic with a colleague the other day.

I usually add that even if you do not pull the trigger or let the arrow fly yourself you are still very much responsible for the death of an animal. You are simply hiring someone to do the killing for you. Either way an animal dies and is consumed.

My way the animal lives a free life and consumes natural food and grows into an antibiotic free, growth hormone free, low fat protein source.

The other way the animal lives a more confined life where it is fed whatever will fatten it up the fastest and it may or may not be filled with antibiotics and growth hormones. Then when it is fat and rich in artery clogging goodness it is killed by someone that you basically hire to do the dirty work.

I am just a more integral part of the food chain.

I of course eat beef, chicken, pork and other farm raised meat. I am not saying that the drugs and hormones are bad. They have never been scientifically shown to be bad for us. The great advantage to that stuff is to keep costs down for the farmers and eventually the consumer. It just makes the argument stronger and usually if someone is concerned about animals dying they are concerned about organics and such.

How much more organic can you get than a true free range deer, duck, pheasant, grouse, bear...harvested in their prime and brought to the table?
----------------------------------------------------

:-D :lol: :wink:

huntsman · « **Reply #2 on:** September 21, 2003, 06:29:38 AM »

If your heart doesn't start pumping a little faster when you see a deer after waiting for hours on a stand, if your adrenaline doesn't peak when you confirm to your kill, knowing you have consummated weeks or months of planning, preparation, and matching wits with a worthy prey, you are simply not a hunter. You are a stalker and a butcher, perhaps, but not a hunter.

It is some primeval instinct in man as an omnivore that part of his or her being is irrevocably tied to the conquest of prey. There is a drive and sense of integrity with the natural cycles and rythms of this planet we live on to hunt, and to consummate the hunt with the kill and consumption of game animals. A great many humans on this earth have lost that instinct, whether it be because they have never had the chance to experience the hunt, or because they live in a world where such instincts cannot transcend an environment altered by mankind for the sake of himself alone.

I feel sad deep down in my heart when I hear the "environmentalists" speak against killing animals because of their love for these creatures. I do not doubt their love, but I know at once and instinctively that they are lovers of nature once removed. By that I mean that their original instincts have been distorted by living in a world so urban, so controlled by man, that their view is now of animals as needing and deserving the protection of and against mankind supreme. The true ecology and rythm of nature is at every turn, for all organisms, a struggle for life against all the disparity of nature itself. Nature is constantly and without remorse a killer of all creatures. The role of secondary consumers in nature is to carry out predation with all the senses, instincts, and knowledge nature endows upon them. The role of the wise predator is to limit this predation to what is reasonable and healthy for the ecosystem.

Death of organisms s very much a healthy and necessary part of that true ecology. Whether we as human predators eat the meat or use the products of our kill for practical or spiritual purposes is immaterial so long as our desire to kill is driven by consumption of some kind and tempered by a knowledge of ecological sensitivity. To love a game animal and kill it is to understand intimately the bond that ties that animal to you, and that ties both predator and prey into the ultimate complexity of life on Earth. To lack an understanding of why it is natural and healthy for humans to kill wild animals is to be removed from that web of life, and to place humans apart from nature itself.

Ron T. · « **Reply #3 on:** September 25, 2003, 07:37:34 AM »

Making the kill causes a spectator to become a participant.

But few hunters I know enjoy the killing once the animal is down and dead. I think most of us feel some sorrow once the kill has been made. I know I do and I think most of us do even if some won't admit it.

That feeling doesnt stop us from hunting again, but it gives each of us pause to think about the animal weve kill time to put a value on its life and to put a comparative value on the pleasure we get from hunting.

After so many years, Im passing shots on game I would have taken 30 or 40 years ago. Im not anxious to kill anymore. Maybe its my age or maybe its a mixture of respect for the games life and the realization of the hardships and rigors the game animal has had to face & endure in the woods for all those nights and months and years I sat warm and cozy by my fireplace.

But whatever it is it causes me to look at things somewhat differently than I once did.

Just my :money: worth...

Strength & Honor

Ron T.

willis5 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 25, 2003, 08:05:05 AM »

Sorrow, sometimes, but never guilt. You have to look at the killing part as worth the rewards you and the environment receive.

Mikey · « **Reply #5 on:** September 26, 2003, 09:40:49 AM »

Fellas, the predatory nature of the human animal cannot be disputed. All predators kill. It is only our human-social training that lends us any emotional 'guilt' or 'questioning' of our actions toward other humans and animals.

Regardless of how well (questionably) we socialize ourselves, there is and will always be that part of us that remains predatory and there are those of us who will kill and those who won't. This isn't really something we should waste time questioning, but rather accept and channel the behavior appropriately. It's sort of like the old Graham Wilson cartoon from Playboy years back with the Leopard sitting on the witness stand saying: "Well, I first started killing for food but then, ya know, I just kinda got into it socially".....

Man is what man is, and man is a predator regardless of what the leftists and bunny huggers want others to believe. So, rather than to argue about it, let's just look at it from a practical matter - how many of you hunters and shooters out there think that Bambi is going to jump right into that cookpot for us if we don't kill him first?????????

Sorry guys, but I just had to drop that last one on ya'll, but it is the truth and I think that as practical hunters and shooters we have to look at the practicality of a question and determine an appropriate response level. In this case I think the practical answer is that it is a necessity, period. M2C. Mikey.

razmuz · « **Reply #6 on:** September 28, 2003, 06:37:58 AM »

Protect the animal people have strange priorities and are very selective in what they want to protect. At the Texas state fair they set in their booths and say "save the dogs and cats." In the building behind them is the Stock show where animals are being judged so that they can then be slaughtered. Their smug in their convictions as they munch on Corny Dogs. These hypocrites really don't give a damm, they just want to appear warm and fuzzy. Most would be better off if they stuck to their potted plants and celebrity TV shows. Why do I hunt? It's what I enjoy and after the hunt I like to get about half soused around the camp fire and relate past hunts and that day's events. Now all you anti-everything freaks get back to your knitting or go picket a chicken farm.

Mikey · « **Reply #7 on:** September 29, 2003, 10:31:09 AM »

razmuz: I think the problem with those folks is just that they have gotten far too familiar with those potted plants of theirs. Mikey.

BowMan · « **Reply #8 on:** October 14, 2003, 11:01:49 AM »

:grin:
I hunt mostly because MickeyD's doesn't offer a venison tederloin and egg biscuit. Sometimes you just have to do things for yourself.

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #9 on:** October 16, 2003, 06:59:02 AM »

Stalking a with binoculars or camera compared to actually hunting and killing is like looking a dirty magazines compared to actually making love to your wife.

Quote

Making the “kill” causes a “spectator” to become a “participant”. - Ron T.

matt d · « **Reply #10 on:** October 16, 2003, 08:39:00 AM »

BJJ,
So you're saying I should put my guns away?

matt d · « **Reply #11 on:** October 16, 2003, 08:46:43 AM »

cknight98,
your comment about the hunt after the kill caught my attention, I don't know that I understand what you are saying. I am not judging anything, I am just curious. :grin:

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #12 on:** October 16, 2003, 09:45:04 AM »

I think what cknight was getting at is he finds great value in the care of the game after it is dead.

I noticed this once when I went along with an invite to a pheasant shooting ranch. We shot the birds, dog retrieved them. Then to my astonishment the farmer collected the birds, gutted, plucked, and bagged them. :shock:

Something just turned my stomach.

Going back to my analogy, THAT felt like something akin to prostitution. Just the "thrill" but no commitment.

Now, before you guys gets all agitated, I'm using this analogy as simile not metaphor. Hunting ethics just don't carry the same levity as marriage and fidelity. There's probably nothing "evil" about having the farmers do the guttin' and pluckin', it just didn't feel right to me. A part of the experience was removed. Even though it was a part that is generally not "enjoyable" I found that it did detract from the experience.

HWooldridge · « **Reply #13 on:** October 16, 2003, 10:23:59 AM »

BJJ and others,

Sounds like everyone is saying the thrill comes from the entire experience starting with the initial anticipation of going on the hunt to the final act of putting the cooked game in your mouth. The stalk, the kill, butchering, etc. are all just trail markers along the way. A bad experience anywhere in the chain can leave a bad memory (like your pheasants). I clean my own game partly because I'm too cheap to take it to a processor and because of the self satisfaction that I'm somewhat self sufficient and beholden to no one to put meat on the table. It's a process and not an event...

matt d · « **Reply #14 on:** October 16, 2003, 10:41:42 AM »

Yes, I understand now and totally agree. What first came to mind was hunting for the thing you just shot at. I thought to myself that tracking something that has been shot is very much part of the hunt and requires a certain skill but I would rather not have to go "hunting for something that is shot." I wouldn't let someone else clean or butcher my kills if they wanted to pay me. I think that its all enjoyable except the clean up. If a farmer wanted to scrub cutting boards, saws, knives, and dehidrators for me I would probably lok the other way. What a great conversation, it is all a process

Dand · « **Reply #15 on:** October 18, 2003, 08:06:03 PM »

I don't really enjoy the kill but I like the results. I grew up in a neighborhood where in the fall, meat was hanging in many of the garages and porches. Earlier in the summer we were all busy filling our freezers with fish, salmon and berries. Many had gardens too. Not to sound too PC but all the food gathering and preparation is a very defining part of the area's culture - who and what we are. I think I get more satisfaction from these activities than I would if I'd made a pile of money. I cannot describe how complete I feel (rich beyond $$$) when I have a boat full of fish for the winter, a moose or caribou in the meat shed or buckets of berries waiting to be made into jam or pies etc. Same goes for spending an afternoon digging spuds you've worked all summer to grow. Now that my boys are getting old enough to participate in these activities the feeling is even better. Besides you just can't buy that kind of food to eat and its different when you've done it yourself. After heading into the big towns for vacation or work, I'm always so glad to get home to real food.

All the aspects of hunting are part of many people's culture. I find it strange that these activist non hunters and anti hunters can go on and on about "preserving cultural diversity" and will go to ridiculous lengths to feign "respect" for other cultures, particularly when practiced by folks of a another race. But those same activists show little regard for people who look the same as them but may have a different culture. Pretty inconsistent in my book. I'm not trying to stuff meat down some veg-head's throat or force city folk to move to the woods. Why do those activist folks feel compelled to interfere with my culture by taking or restricting my guns or denying me the ability to take animals from carefully managed game herds? Or worse yet, try to decide who does and who does not get to continue practicing their culture based on the person's blood lines.

dakotashooter2 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 31, 2003, 05:44:43 AM »

I don't know if anyone else feels this way but it also causes us to reflect on our own mortality. I think hunter have a different viewpoint on death in such that it is not so much a trajedy as a process of nature. In other words, we better understand death and have less fear and tend to be more at peace with deaths that effect our own lives. We understand the reality of death rather than the TV version and are neither hardened or horrified by it.

matt d · « **Reply #17 on:** October 31, 2003, 06:01:39 AM »

dakotashooter,
It doesn't really matter what I think but I really enjoyed reading your post, you have a very good point! Very true point.

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #18 on:** October 31, 2003, 04:26:31 PM »

Dakota,

Yes, I've often thought that hunting forces a sort of stark humility on you. You stand over a beautiful animal and watch it take it's last gasp and you realize you caused it.

Sounds kind of grim, but I think simply driving through the drive through at MacDonalds is dangerous in that we can slip into an arrogant self-view.

When you witness the sacrifice animals make for you, you should feel a sense of gratitude, and humility. It's a realization that the Creator has a great appreciation for us, but at the same time we don't particularly deserve anything we get in life (except maybe the bad stuff :lol: )

Ron T. · « **Reply #19 on:** November 05, 2003, 09:21:12 AM »

After reading some of the other comments, there is something I should have said in my original post on this subject.

Deer hunting is NOT about the killing its about the TRADITION and the ENJOYMENT of the hunt its about being in the woods and the CAMARADERIE of the men in your deer camp its about holding a half century old rifle (a 1953 Model 99 Savage) in your hands that was first designed & first manufactured more than a 100 years ago (1899) in a caliber (the .300 Savage) that is 83 years old (introduced in 1920).

You see deer hunting isnt about DEATH, its about LIVING and TRADITION and those things that are so very private and important to us those things we rarely talk about, but honor so much. :-)

Strength & Honor

Ron T.

Larry Gibson · « **Reply #20 on:** November 05, 2003, 10:22:18 AM »

Before we answer a question of why we do something we should define what it is we do. What is "hunting". There in lies the problem; there are many different types of hunting. Some get caught up in thinking it applies to eating what we kill, but does it? If you pick up a fly swatter and go after it are you hunting? Do you eat it if you kill it? If you sit out in your garage with an air rifle to shoot a rat are you hunting? Do you eat it? Do you eat the crows, magpies, starlings, ground squirrels and rockchucks you hunt? How about the coyotes, foxes and cougars? By the laws in most locations if you do most of these you are "hunting". Thus we see the procurement of food is not necessary to hunt. I am not defining what hunting is here but am saying what I think it is not.

On the other hand Ron T. has identified the type of hunting (deer hunting) that he refers to. His position is ok with me as are most. I consider them as touchy feely excuses though. No flame here so please don't get riled, just my thoughts. It is my opinion that anyone who says they hunt for the tradition, comraderie or just because they enjoy communicating with nature is kidding themselves. They are not hunters they are recreationalists and that's ok with me as they can justify there actions to themselves as they please.

"We don't hunt to kill, we kill in order to have hunted." Horse pucky! You can walk through the woods, you can have tradition, you can fondle the old rifle and you can sit around a campfire soaking in the all the comraderie you want while singing "kume bye ah" (have no idea how to spell it - can't sing it either) without hunting. If you truely go hunting your sole purpose is to kill something. I don't care whether it is that rat, the fly, a deer or a coyote, you are there to kill it. That IS what hunting is, killing something (perhaps that is a definition? Not a complete one in my mind though). If we think our purpose in hunting is not to kill something we are just kidding ourselves.

Why do we try to kid ourselves? Because over the years we have lost sight of the fact that we, humans, are hunters, perhaps predators. We should not make excuses for that or try to be touchy feely with our pacifistic brothers who don't want to take responsibility for what they really are. At least I don't, I am a hunter. I do not eat everything I hunt and kill. I take exception to what the old man told the boy in Ruarks' book. It may have been applicable to quail hunting and when managing a renewable resource but it does not apply to all hunting or hunters. If I have one deer tag to fill I hunt and kill one deer, same with elk or any other regulated game animal. With flies, rats, coyotes, crows, starlings, ground squirrels and other such varmints all are fair game. I will in certain circumstances leave some for seed, rockchucks in particular. Am I filled with blood lust? Am I rotten inside? I have been called worse but I think I am not either of those. I am a hunter.

I hunt to kill becuase a hunter is what I am and I enjoy it.

Larry Gibson

Glanceblamm · « **Reply #21 on:** February 20, 2004, 10:06:26 AM »

I am getting old enough that I enjoy doin the calling and letting the other fellow be the shooter.
Have also let deer pass with the hope that it would pass in front of my son.

Bottom line is I still do my best hunting alone. I am at the top of the food chain and figure that the people who dont like hunting are a chromosome
short.

Dave in WV · « **Reply #22 on:** February 20, 2004, 04:17:44 PM »

I don't shoot every season. I can't explain why other than I know it's not about killing or a "sport". After the shot I take time to honor the animal that gave it's life to the hunt. We cut and wrap our deer at camp.I never disrespect the animal. When I see life leave in the eyes of the animal I know I see what mankind has seen for thousands of years. It doesn't make me feel manly, better, or guilty. I feel part of the world around us and a part of nature as god meant it to be.

Spencer · « **Reply #23 on:** March 28, 2004, 02:27:39 AM »

Glanceblamm, I know what you mean. In the past, it was all about me being able to be one of the people that bagged game the day we hunted. Now with a few years of hunting behind me, I get just as much enjoyment helping someone else get their first game, trophy, or just first in a few years. Mind you I still spend a lot of time hunting solo while hoping for a chance to fill my freezer as well, but it is not all about me anymore. I have hunted coyotes for three years and have yet to get one, but I still go. And I don't go without my gun. I enjoy immensly the time outdoors, and do hope I may make contact someday, but that isn't the only reason I head out each time.

jrcanoe · « **Reply #24 on:** March 28, 2004, 12:53:12 PM »

For the past 30 years I have shot, butchered, and put in the freezer three deer. Some years I have a hat trick hunting and some years I have been totally skunked. Most years it is a combination of hunting and harvesting. The difference seems to be what my feet are on when I pull the trigger. Mowed grass, concrete, blacktop, shag carpet, and hardwood floors are Harvesting. I don't hunt to kill or put food on the table; harvesting would take care of that. I hunt for the intangibles, the peace of mind and soul, the being of one with nature, the circle of life. I could live without harvesting but would only exist without hunting. It is a part of who I am not what. I could have all the money in the world but would be poor without hunting. It is hard to tell those who do not hunt what it is, the best I can do is to tell them what it isn't.

jdt48653 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 01, 2004, 02:35:56 PM »

there are harvesters and there are killers!and everything in between!

New Hampshire · « **Reply #26 on:** April 03, 2004, 02:00:52 AM »

Also important is the fact that we, as hunters, are most directly responsible for the preservation of the species. I know that it sounds funny to the Antis, but if the deer herd was left to go about its own means nothing but suffering, pain and death would result down the line as their food source and habitats declined. It was either Shemane or Ted Nugent who said something to the effect "We simply realize that we are responsible for habitat decline. We, as humans, are taking land and making it ours to use while deniing that land to wildlife. So WE are now responsible for caring and maintaining that species." Not a Direct quote, but it about sums up real good what Im trying to say. We hunt not because we are hungry and are cheap and dont want to pay the store prices (and lets face it, we as hunters can be pessions happy creatures, so it usually ends up being MORE costly

.) When someone hunts something, IMHO, it is a sign of respect for an animal. Of course not EVERYONE is like that. There are the Boomf**k brothers who are all about just getting their deer, and then there are the evil low down poachers who have no respect for society OR wildlife.
I guess Ill get off my high horse now :grin: .
Brian M.

Bushnell Boy · « **Reply #27 on:** April 15, 2004, 11:06:39 AM »

I found this on Missouris dept of conservations web sight. It gives a pretty good explanation

http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/hunt/whyhunt/

RipOne · « **Reply #28 on:** April 25, 2004, 12:31:45 PM »

Words of Fred Bear ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LIVE THE CODE

Mikey · « **Reply #29 on:** April 29, 2004, 04:35:52 AM »

Well folks, a lot of us have tossed this issue around for over 7 months now and I believe we may finally have the real answer.

Regrettably, this wasn't brought up by any of us here and I am just danged sorry to say that but, wouldja believe the peta people finally came up with the real answer.

Now, this follows a gruesome discovery in Canada. Apparently the remains of about 20 women were found at a hog farm and following this discovery peta opined that we are all basically hot dogs and hamburgers - that is, they equated the remains of those murdered women with the carcass of slaughtered hogs. (Actually, they went way to far overboard on this one and have lost a lot of credibility within their own ranks).

So, if peta is right (hasn't been yet), that means we're all just animals occupying our respective places on the food chain and since animals kill to eat, then it is perfectly natchural fer us to do the same.

Dang! I'm sure glad someone finally figgered this out. (LOL). Mikey.