Michael Vick and Dog Fighting

[Brant Gaede]

The one time I went deer hunting was in 1958 in the Kaibab forest off the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. I was 14. I got off one shot, but didn't hit anything. Later, my brother-in-law and I came upon a freshly killed very nice looking doe, abandoned by the hunter who wanted a buck (the limit was one deer per hunter). We thought it was a waste, for we weren't trophy hunting. Our idea of hunting was stalk, kill and eat, preferably a buck.

In the 1920s, after that area had been cleared out of mountain lions, the deer population exploded resulting in a massive die off of tens of thousands of deer from cold and starvation. Hunters have been used since to control the deer population.

When I was driving an 18-wheeler in Maryland I came around a bend and right on the edge of the highway was a beautiful fawn quivering in fear. Nothing I could do. I knew it had next to no chance. That's life. Hunting per se is so bad compared to starvation and about-to-die fawns? Or compared to young men going to war and killing people and being killed?

Driving out of New York State into Ohio I saw a state trooper take aim at a gigantic, beautiful deer with his shotgun as it was running by him inside the fence that bordered the Interstate and fire. The deer ran 30 or 40 more feet and a bloody spot appeared on its chest and he collapsed. Beautiful shot and the trooper was obviously a hunter from way back. He had to do it for if Mr. Deer had run out on the highway he would or could have caused a terrible accident.

Hunting is not a "blood sport" except for some perverted chaps. I only knew two Americans in Vietnam who actually enjoyed killing people. One ended up convicted of murdering his wife in North Carolina decades later. I think the other eventually grew up. I enjoyed not being killed, which meant being the killer instead if necessary. I mean that wallowing in blood is not a sane man's motive. Hunting is ingrained in human DNA. If it weren't we wouldn't be here.

Shall we go fishing next?

--Brant

Edited August 31, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Time out for a plug for those who have not read it:

A Hunting Story

by yours truly.

Michael

[Jonathan]

The thing that interests me is that I often hear non-hunters phrase their concerns to hunters by asking something like "How can you enjoy killing Bambi?" But they rarely seem to ask themselves "How can I enjoy eating a slice of flesh that someone cut out of Mabel for me?" or "How can I enjoy carrying around my makeup and keys in a bag made of skin torn off of poor old Rocky?"

And they usually get upset when asked such questions -- not with themselves but with the questioner.

J

[Judith]

What's the difference between Jon enjoying the thrill of the hunt, and a non-hunter enjoying a rib eye or a new pair of leather shoes (especially in today's world where there are plenty of alternatives to animal products)? Is one type of pleasure at an animal's expense upsetting or perplexing but the other is perfectly natural and understandable? Is the actual killing itself something about which we should be somber, but after someone (not us!) carves up the dead animal, and does so with the proper degree of melancholy and regret that we demand of him, then let's have a happy old time chowing down while being fashionably accessorized and not giving it any more thought?

It seems that those who don't understand the enjoyment of the hunt selectively anthropomorphize the issue in favor of their own brand of pleasure: others' enjoyment of hunting animals -- which are living, breathing, feeling creatures just like us -- is disturbing because it too closely resembles the psychology of someone who might enjoy killing humans, but those who don't do the killing themselves, but enjoy eating animals or purchasing their parts as products, somehow do not too closely resemble those who might enjoy doing the same thing to humans. Is that the essence of the emotions driving the issue?

The thing that interests me is that I often hear non-hunters phrase their concerns to hunters by asking something like "How can you enjoy killing Bambi?" But they rarely seem to ask themselves "How can I enjoy eating a slice of flesh that someone cut out of Mabel for me?" or "How can I enjoy carrying around my makeup and keys in a bag made of skin torn off of poor old Rocky?"

And they usually get upset when asked such questions -- not with themselves but with the questioner.

I agree with you; the above-described phenomenon is hypocrisy. One of the reasons I decided to learn to hunt was to have it out with myself regarding whether I was or was not going to go the vegetarian route. I decided that I was going to make it real to myself what I was doing every time I ate meat. If someone is not willing to kill for him- or herself, he or she should not consume animal products. Meat and leather are not manufactured in neat, clean factories and delivered to the store shelves.

And yes, hunting is fun. There is that within the human that loves the thrill of the hunt.

Personally, I'd rather act out that instinct playing war games chasing down imaginary bad guys, and do only the occasional hunting for animals I'm willing to eat.

Judith

Edited August 31, 2007 by Judith

[Judith]

Are you saying, then, that someone could be convicted of any crime, or multiple crimes, and should still have an unhampered football career? If so, then I retract my outrage.

Now I am more confused than ever. If I were saying that a criminal should have an unhampered career, that is when you should feel outrage. Why would you retract it in that case? I don't understand.

Oi. Michael, you weave tangled webs!

You said Vick's career shouldn't be hampered for the dogfighting incident.

I said, change it to child-molesting: what would you say then?

You said, same answer.

I, from that response, concluded that no crime was bad enough, and no series of crimes was bad enough, for you to believe that Vick's football career should be hampered for having committed them.

Now you contradict that conclusion.

I'm confused.

My original outrage was because you seemed to be implying that dogfighting wasn't a sufficiently serious crime to merit hampering the guy's career. So I substituted for "dogfighting" the cliche'd crime that gets everyone up in arms, namely child molesting, to see what you said to that, and to prove a point. When you said that that wouldn't make any difference either, since he wouldn't have any more opportunity to molest kids on the football field than he would to fight dogs, it seemed to me only logical that you meant that no criminal record (other, perhaps, than a record of harming fellow players on the football field) would merit hampering his career, so I withdrew my outrage, which was originally caused by your seemingly blowing off dogfighting as an insignificant crime.

Clear?

Did this shed some light on my meaning?

Yes.

Judith

[Jon Letendre]

I think you are right, Jonathan. There seems to be something operating here, that people feel more OK with a mess the further they are personally removed from it.

I heard an interview on NPR with a researcher who studied this phenomenon. He said that in studies, the vast majority of people are fine with an impersonal action, and they become less and less fine with it the “closer” and more “personal” it becomes, despite that consequences of the action remain the same.

This isn’t the best example, but it’s the one I remember from the interview: Suppose you are on a bridge overlooking a rail line. Six men are working on the rails below and an unexpected train is coming that will kill them. There is a lever conveniently placed next to you and if you pull it, you can redirect the fast approaching train to a different set of tracks, where only two men are working and would be killed. Do you pull the lever? Apparently, the vast, vast majority of respondents would pull the lever.

Then those same respondents are asked to modify the scenario. This time there is no lever, but a very fat man is standing next to you who you could push off the bridge and his hefty body would redirect the train to yet another set of tracks where only one man (instead of six) is working and would be killed. Respondents are asked to assume the fat guy will die, and that pushing him would work, as sure as pulling the lever in the first scenario would work. Positive response dropped to a small minority of respondents.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My original outrage was because you seemed to be implying that dogfighting wasn't a sufficiently serious crime to merit hampering the guy's career. So I substituted for "dogfighting" the cliche'd crime that gets everyone up in arms, namely child molesting, to see what you said to that, and to prove a point. When you said that that wouldn't make any difference either, since he wouldn't have any more opportunity to molest kids on the football field than he would to fight dogs, it seemed to me only logical that you meant that no criminal record (other, perhaps, than a record of harming fellow players on the football field) would merit hampering his career, so I withdrew my outrage, which was originally caused by your seemingly blowing off dogfighting as an insignificant crime.

Clear?

Judith,

Going from your understanding, I understand now. OK. Clear.

Now the part that was not clear.

You said Vick's career shouldn't be hampered for the dogfighting incident.

Nope. I said the following:

The connection between Michael Vick as a football player and Michael Vick as a dog fight enthusiast is nonexistent.

I literally meant "football player," since I heard those bimbos on TV ranting and railing against him as a football player per se. I did not mean public entertainer at that moment, which is why I covered it in the next paragraph:

But, as a sports entertainer, I can understand him being removed from the major leagues. Both kids and adults get really attached to their dogs, so the idea of watching—as entertainment—the performance of a man who kills dogs for entertainment and gambles on their lives is a turn-off. And that is literally what would happen if Vick continued playing without any remedy. People would literally turn off the TV channel where he was being broadcast and watch something else.

I understand the "entertainer" part as where the money comes from (spectators), so this is the professional part (or career part). I not only think Vick's career should be hampered for becoming famous for doing something disgusting like dog fighting, I gave the main reason why. He would interfere with audience ratings (where the money comes from). Losing audience would also hamper the income of oodles of people.

If the guy were an accountant or factory worker or TV repairman or deep sea fisherman or wholesale purchase agent for a department store, do you think he should be permanently barred from his employment (after jail time) because he promoted dog fighting? I don't because there is no connection. I was looking at employment from that angle.

If he wants to play football outside of the profession, I see no connection to his crime. If he wants to reintegrate with the major leagues, he has an image that needs to be cleaned up. That is the real issue career-wise because of the nature of entertainment. His actual performance on the field is not affected by dog fighting one way or the other. There is no connection, regardless of what the bimbos were saying when they contemplated his destruction as a football player (not just public entertainer) with self-righteous pontification. But box office and advertising receipts are affected (with good reason) and that's serious. That was my point.

If we keep up this dialog, maybe we will get there and understand each other by 2010 or so.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Barbara,

I still object to describing hunters as motivated simply to reduce the count of we the living.

That's not what I'm saying, Jon. I'm saying that I don't understand the motivation of hunters who do not hunt for food. Of everything one might do with one's time, why would killing animals be a choice? Why would this be entertaining?

Jonathan you wrote: "The thing that interests me is that I often hear non-hunters phrase their concerns to hunters by asking something like 'How can you enjoy killing Bambi?' But they rarely seem to ask themselves 'How can I enjoy eating a slice of flesh that someone cut out of Mabel for me?' or 'How can I enjoy carrying around my makeup and keys in a bag made of skin torn off of poor old Rocky?'"

You have a point, one whch I'm well aware of. The result has been that I find myself not wanting to eat meat, and rarely doing so. This has not been out of a considered conviction, not out of a decision to be a vegetarian -- which I'm not -- but because I more and more find I simply don't want it. However, there is a great difference between the two issues, that is, between hunting for pleasure and simply including meat in one's diet.I have not been questioning the validity of destroying an animal in order to provide man with a real benefit, but only the validity of enjoying the process of killing that animal. That's why I raised the issue of animal experimentation, which I believe is valid -- assuming the animals are not needlessly made to suffer. What concerns me is not whether an animal lives or dies per se, but the motivation of those who choose to kill animals for sport.

Barbara

[Jon Letendre]

Barbara,

It still seems to me that that is what you are saying. Your latest question seems to confirm this: “Of everything one might do with one's time, why would killing animals be a choice? Why would this be entertaining?”

If we were talking about fishing, the question would be: “Of everything a grandfather might do with his grandson, why would torturing fish be a choice? Why would this be entertaining?”

The question itself presupposes that the grandfather takes the boy fishing because it is entertaining, and the specific form of entertainment is the joy of torturing fish.

[Barbara Branden]

Barbara,

It still seems to me that that is what you are saying. Your latest question seems to confirm this: “Of everything one might do with one's time, why would killing animals be a choice? Why would this be entertaining?”

If we were talking about fishing, the question would be: “Of everything a grandfather might do with his grandson, why would torturing fish be a choice? Why would this be entertaining?”

The question itself presupposes that the grandfather takes the boy fishing because it is entertaining, and the specific form of entertainment is the joy of torturing fish.

That's not what I think. But I want you to tell me -- and no one has done this yet -- what exactly is the nature of the entertainment? (By the way, your reference to fishing is more legitimate than you realize; I don't understand why people enjoy that either. I was taken fishing once, by an uncle, when I was about eight years old. That was the end of my career as a deranged fish-murderer.)

Barbara

[Judith]

I literally meant "football player," since I heard those bimbos on TV ranting and railing against him as a football player per se.

You know, Michael, perhaps the reason we often misunderstand each other is that I don't watch TV. At all. So you're coming from a context in which you've heard all this stuff, whereas all I know about the entire Vick incident is what people have told me and what I've gleaned from headlines and internet jokes. (Frankly, in this instance, I've tried to shield myself from the details. Certain facts, once known, can't be unknown, and horrible images can haunt one for years. Once the security guard at the office told me about the incident, I've been really careful not to read too many details.)

If the guy were an accountant or factory worker or TV repairman or deep sea fisherman or wholesale purchase agent for a department store, do you think he should be permanently barred from his employment (after jail time) because he promoted dog fighting? I don't because there is no connection. I was looking at employment from that angle.

I hadn't thought that far. I was reacting to what I perceived as your dismissing the crime he committed as minor.

I've always believed that people who have paid their debt to society after committing crimes should be able to get back into normal life. But then again, there are certain crimes so brutal that I don't think that the people who commit them can ever safely be set free upon the innocent again, and perhaps this is one of those crimes. Unless and until we have a way to look into the mind of the criminal to see if/when he/she is genuinely reformed, such people are better off kept away from the rest of us (and the animals).

If we keep up this dialog, maybe we will get there and understand each other by 2010 or so.

Only if you reproduce all the transcripts of every TV show you watch to provide context for all of your comments. :devil:

Judith

[Jon Letendre]

Barbara,

“I have not been questioning the validity of destroying an animal in order to provide man with a real benefit, but only the validity of enjoying the process of killing that animal.”

Here, again, you seem to say to that no real benefits can accrue from hunting for sport and that such hunters are motivated by sheer enjoyment of the killing process.

It’s fine that none of the values sport hunters pursue are of any value to you. Part of the reason I am shy to elaborate on what those values are for me is that I am certain they will hold no allure for you, so it really wouldn’t help. Nevertheless, I can assure you I extract values from hunting and killing things is incidental to them. For me, those values certainly rate alongside the tastiness of a prime rib or the beauty of a pair of designer shoes. Someone who thought leather looks and smells disgusting, who thought meat is counter to good health, etc., would be in your situation—they would be incapable of seeing the values, the “real benefits” of destroying any animals. There would be no way to bring them to an appreciation of those values which are real benefits to other people, but we could at least ask that they appreciate that those really are real values to other people, and it simply isn’t so that none exist and so, oh well, they must just prefer dead things to living things.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

Just to be clear, I consider dog fighting to be a serious crime, but I do not rate it with homicide, child molesting, rape, etc. I consider those crimes worse.

Qua crime, I agree and firmly support that bloodsports (often with gambling) like dog fighting, cock fighting, hog baiting, etc., must be punished. But your statement, "... there are certain crimes so brutal that I don't think that the people who commit them can ever safely be set free upon the innocent again, and perhaps this is one of those crimes," goes beyond my own value priorities. We have courts to decide these things and what punishment is fit for them. Not a perfect system, but a good one.

Beyond that, I believe any further punishment of Vick should come from the free market, if people so desire. If not, then not. You, like all others, would then be free to cast your vote in the traditional capitalistic manner of not patronizing his sports entertainment if he makes it back.

I believe this is proper.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Jon, you wrote: "It’s fine that none of the values sport hunters pursue are of any value to you. Part of the reason I am shy to elaborate on what those values are for me is that I am certain they will hold no allure for you, so it really wouldn’t help."

Is it quite fair to conclude that I value none of the values hunters pursue, when I keep telling you I have no idea what those values are? Do you really know me well enough to come to that conclusion? Perhaps I deserve just a bit more trust in my ability to understand, and even to rspect values that may not be mine but that I can grasp the rationale for.

Why not take a chance and tell me what values you gain from hunting? From your posts on various forums that I've read, it's clear ro me that you, like other hunters I've known, do not hunt because you enjoy spilling blood. What can either of us lose?

Barbara

[Jon Letendre]

“Is it quite fair to conclude that I value none of the values hunters pursue, when I keep telling you I have no idea what those values are? Do you really know me well enough to come to that conclusion?”

It’s fair because earlier you wrote “I don't want to be unfair, bit I don't understand it, despite the attempts of hunters to explain it.” From this and other of your previous comments I took it that the non-bloodthirsty hunters you have conversed with have tried to share their perspective with you to no avail.

“Perhaps I deserve just a bit more trust in my ability to understand, and even to rspect values that may not be mine but that I can grasp the rationale for.”

I intend no insult; it’s just that it sounds to me that you’ve heard much of what I can say about it and it just doesn’t work for you, which is OK.

[Brant Gaede]

“Is it quite fair to conclude that I value none of the values hunters pursue, when I keep telling you I have no idea what those values are? Do you really know me well enough to come to that conclusion?”

It’s fair because earlier you wrote “I don't want to be unfair, bit I don't understand it, despite the attempts of hunters to explain it.” From this and other of your previous comments I took it that the non-bloodthirsty hunters you have conversed with have tried to share their perspective with you to no avail.

“Perhaps I deserve just a bit more trust in my ability to understand, and even to rspect values that may not be mine but that I can grasp the rationale for.”

I intend no insult; it’s just that it sounds to me that you’ve heard much of what I can say about it and it just doesn’t work for you, which is OK.

Well, what values was Teddy Roosevelt pursuing when he went to Africa and shot all those animals?

My brother once wrote an article claiming hunting was part and parcel of attracting females. That is, I guess, females usually don't hunt except for the right male to bed. I have no comment on that.

Hunting does have an element of male bonding.

Hunting is atavistic.

Hunting is an expression and extension of deadly power. The trophy the proof of prowess.

When I was a young teenager I was fascinated with guns and the idea of hunting. I imagined having 30 or 40 rifles, some just to have and special rifles (and shotguns) for different game. The idea of becoming an effective, knowledgeable hunter was par with becoming a competent person.

When Jack Wheeler was in Vietnam he went Tiger hunting and killed the man-killer of Dalat. That is certainly some of what it is about--self defense. Our ancestors killed cave bears with spears, and wiped them out. Our ancestors killed off all the Neanderthals--ALL OF THEM!

Humans are the dominant species and hunting is an expression of that dominance--so are the animals raised and slaughtered for food. So are our skyscrapers and cities and successful scientific investigations. It includes our armies and kicking ass when ass needs to be kicked.

Without women we men wouldn't be civilized or civilizable. Of course, we wouldn't be here either. It's all HER fault!

--Brant

PS: There's an adrenaline rush. My brother's best friend, Timothy Treadwell, was obviously an adrenaline junkie. See the movie "Grizzly Man."

PPS: Do women tend to like adrenaline rushes?

PPPS: Opps! I just found out that some women like hunting too.

AP: "CUERO, Texas -- Phylis Canion lived in Africa for four years. She's been a hunter all her life and has the mounted heads of a zebra and other exotic animals in her house to prove it.

"But the roadkill she found last month outside her ranch was a new one even for her, worth putting in a freezer hidden from curious onlookers.

"Canion said she believes she may have found the head of the mythical, bloodsucking chupacabra.

"'It is one ugly creature,' Canion said, holding the head of the mammal, which has big ears, large fanged teeth and grayish-blue, mostly hairless skin."

While she didn't kill this sucker, it's obvious she's quite capable. Welcome to the clubby male club, women! I apologize for my sexist implications that you can't help kill those cave bears and Neanderthals and Bambi's mom. Or go to war and kill terrorists.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Barbara Branden]

Jon, let me try once more. I said I still don't understand the motivation of hunters, despite the attempts of hunters to explain it to me. Surely that's not the same as saying that the explanations were such that I came to understand the motivations of hunters very well but I still disapproveed.

Please, take me at my word. I meant just what I said. So live dangerously and tell me what you enjoy about hunting. (Besides, it probably would take less time and effort than this constant back and forth about why you should or shouldn't tell me.)

Barbara

[mvir9]

Several Points:

1. It was mentioned that if a person isn't willing to hunt and kill his own meat, then he shouldn't eat it. I couldn't disagree more. Thankfully, we live in a wonderfully advanced barter system that allows individuals who enjoy meat but prefer not to kill it to pay someone else to do it for them. I love milk, but I don't fancy milking cows. I also enjoy meat, but I don't want to kill my dinner. The exception is if I (or my loved ones) were starving. I would absolutely kill if I had to . . . but I don't, so I won't.

2. Regarding fishing: My grandfather took me fishing when I was twelve. I was pretty proud that I "snagged" a couple of fish. We took the fish home, where my grandfather showed me how to clean them. The smell and mess made me physically ill. I found no joy in the experience, but I love the taste of cooked fish. I am glad that there are people in the world who are willing to fish in my stead.

3. Mr. Vick's behavior is disgusting, and as previously mentioned by other posters, I am concerned that he and his friends enjoyed watching and participating in such senseless violence. I don't approve of senseless violence, even if someone is beating the hell out of a wall. However, senseless violence towards living beings speaks of a dangerous psychology.

4. Thankfully, Mr. Vick will serve time in prison and he will certainly suffer some repercussions in his career (even if they are not permanent repercussions). Should the NFL take him back? It is up to the private owners of his team or any other team that may consider hiring him. If they keep him on payroll, will their organization suffer? I believe it will, but my beliefs have no bearing on what the organization should or should not do. I can certainly put my "vote" forth by no longer supporting their organization, but that is as far as my control over Vick's future goes. I am content to leave the free market alone so that it may function properly.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Virginia Murr

[Chris Grieb]

Virginia; That is a good post. I am not into hunting or fishing. I have seen fish cleaned and the process don't nauseate me.

I think Mr Vick playing again depends on Judge Hudson's sentence. He will not be seen by owners and coaches in the NFL as the valuable property he was when he was signed by the Falcons. I also suspect that the NFL does not want to have Peta protesters at every game he appears at. But I can't wait and see as you what the market will do.

I suspect he may try and tell how he found Jesus at 2am on these paid programs.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Jonathan]

However, there is a great difference between the two issues, that is, between hunting for pleasure and simply including meat in one's diet.

I think that a phrase like "including meat in one's diet" sounds scientific and emotionally distant, and doesn't accurately identify the true motivation of those who eat meat. I think non-hunters might have an easier time understanding what motivates people to hunt animals "for sport" or "for pleasure" if they referred to their own dining habits more truthfully as "eating dead animals for pleasure" rather than as "including meat in one's diet."

Most people who eat meat don't do so primarily because they're concerned about following a carefully balanced nutritional program, but because it is pleasurable. They eat it because it tastes good. So, I think that dining on dead critters is no less a purely pleasure-based activity than hunting. Both primarily satisfy psychological needs, not physical ones, despite the fact that physical good can come from both.

I have not been questioning the validity of destroying an animal in order to provide man with a real benefit, but only the validity of enjoying the process of killing that animal. That's why I raised the issue of animal experimentation, which I believe is valid -- assuming the animals are not needlessly made to suffer. What concerns me is not whether an animal lives or dies per se, but the motivation of those who choose to kill animals for sport.

But I want you to tell me -- and no one has done this yet -- what exactly is the nature of the entertainment?

What exactly is the nature of choosing to enjoy the flavor of a dead animal rather than sustaining one's existence with a meal of beans and greens or other options that don't taste as good as the dead animal? You wonder why hunters like to hunt. Well, why do you love the taste of meat (or, if you no longer love it, why did you once love it)? I don't know how one answers such questions with anything other than "I just enjoy it."

I don't see a difference between hunting animals for pleasure and eating them for pleasure. Judith mentioned that there are alternatives to hunting animals. A day at the paintball or laser-tag range might be a good example, and it might be pretty fulfilling, but I don't think that it would result in the same satisfaction as hunting wild game, just as soy burgers don't taste as good as bacon cheeseburgers made of real pork, dairy and beef.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One thing is for sure. To paraphrase Rand, it doesn't matter to the animal whether it was killed for sport or killed for food. It is just as dead either way.

One condition of life is not only that it is self-generating action. It also consumes other life to help generate that action. We have to kill to live. That may not be fair, but that's the way it is.

Human beings are carnivores by nature. Just because some people choose to be different does not alter the fact that we evolved that way. I think it would be strange for us to be carnivores and not have some hardwiring to feel the pleasure of the chase and the kill. Call it the pleasure of the predator's efficacy. Pride in his predatory competence.

Since man is not manufactured according to factory measurements, but comes with the details varied degree-wise from one person to the other, it makes sense to me that some people have a stronger degree of this emotional bent and some have a weaker degree.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

But I want you to tell me -- and no one has done this yet -- what exactly is the nature of the entertainment?

What exactly is the nature of choosing to enjoy the flavor of a dead animal rather than sustaining one's existence with a meal of beans and greens or other options that don't taste as good as the dead animal? You wonder why hunters like to hunt. Well, why do you love the taste of meat (or, if you no longer love it, why did you once love it)? I don't know how one answers such questions with anything other than "I just enjoy it."

I don't see a difference between hunting animals for pleasure and eating them for pleasure. Judith mentioned that there are alternatives to hunting animals. A day at the paintball or laser-tag range might be a good example, and it might be pretty fulfilling, but I don't think that it would result in the same satisfaction as hunting wild game, just as soy burgers don't taste as good as bacon cheeseburgers made of real pork, dairy and beef.

A particular poem has kept surfacing in my thoughts ever since I noticed yesterday that this thread had turned to talk of "What's the appeal of hunting?"

The poem is "The Spell of the Yukon," by Robert Service:

http://www.geocities.com/heartland/bluffs/...vice/spell.html

In particular the lines which started the poem playing come from the next-to-last stanza:

"Yet it isn't the gold that I'm wanting

So much as just finding the gold."

I think that focusing just on the kill misses the whole "ambience" of what it's about. Would just shooting animals standing in a barnyard have the appeal? I don't think so.

Although I've never actively done hunting myself, I feel that I can sense what it is about hunting, because of my own response to roaming through woods and mountains, and especially in Fall. Today has started Fall here; the change is occurring. I can detect it in an awakening excitement "in my blood," an excitement dormant in the humid summer months which is coming back alive with the start of that "ting" in the air. It wakens ages-old ("in the DNA," as Brant said) echoes in me. Plus, a lot of guys I've known who hunt will talk of the companionship with the dogs, the male bonding with each other as part of the whole scene.

It isn't just the kill which is the entertainment. It's much more everything else associated.

A comparison to eating flesh: Is it just the eating which is the appeal of the total experience of dining in a luxuriant restaurant? Or is it much more the "everything else associated"?

Ellen

___

Edited September 1, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Neil Parille]

I haven't been following this thread, and I make no judgment about those who eat meat or hunt. Personally, I've never hunted and never would. I'm slowly giving up meat in my diet. Of course, nothing tastes better than grilled meat. Soy burgers et al just don't cut it. As James Burnham once said, "Just as good, isn't."

The little I've read about how animals are treated before they are killed for human consumption sickens me.

[Brant Gaede]

It might be best if we go to "Soylent Green."

--Brant

[Jonathan]

\A particular poem has kept surfacing in my thoughts ever since I noticed yesterday that this thread had turned to talk of "What's the appeal of hunting?"

The poem is "The Spell of the Yukon," by Robert Service:

http://www.geocities.com/heartland/bluffs/...vice/spell.html

In particular the lines which started the poem playing come from the next-to-last stanza:

"Yet it isn't the gold that I'm wanting

So much as just finding the gold."

I think that focusing just on the kill misses the whole "ambience" of what it's about. Would just shooting animals standing in a barnyard have the appeal? I don't think so.

Although I've never actively done hunting myself, I feel that I can sense what it is about hunting, because of my own response to roaming through woods and mountains, and especially in Fall. Today has started Fall here; the change is occurring. I can detect it in an awakening excitement "in my blood," an excitement dormant in the humid summer months which is coming back alive with the start of that "ting" in the air. It wakens ages-old ("in the DNA," as Brant said) echoes in me. Plus, a lot of guys I've known who hunt will talk of the companionship with the dogs, the male bonding with each other as part of the whole scene.

It isn't just the kill which is the entertainment. It's much more everything else associated.

A comparison to eating flesh: Is it just the eating which is the appeal of the total experience of dining in a luxuriant restaurant? Or is it much more the "everything else associated"?

Ellen

___

Well said, Ellen.

Companionship and bonding are a big part of it for me. More specifically, hunting gives me a sense of my place in the timeline of the human family, a sense of bonding not just with those present on the hunt but with my ancient ancestors or with my own nature as a member of our species. It offers a feeling of something like running with a wolf pack, which just feels good or right or like an important part of what we are.

I've felt something like it before during other activities, such as playing with the same team year after year on the basketball court, knowing and relying on each other's strengths, and using them to tear into an opponent, and then sharing victories with those who were the only ones who knew what it took to attain them, or consoling each other in defeat and taking responsibility for having let the team down, or forgiving others for their having done so. But even that didn't quite have the intensity of feeling that hunting can. It wasn't as real. It felt like a pretty good substitute, but a substitute nonetheless.

The kill is an important part of it. It's what makes it real. It's a direct connection to being able to survive by my own means even under the most primitive of circumstances.

J