Recommended Posts

Ellen:

"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....

"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."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan:

"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."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Charlie Brown would say, "Good grief!" I'm finally getting at least the beginning of the explanation I've been asking for, and I can see a certain sense to it. Why has everyone been keeping it a dark secret? I can see that what troubled me the most -- the idea that the entertainment was in killing the animal -- probably is not the essence of the pleasure most peope find in hunting.

Let me ask this, Jonathan and Jon: Do you put hunting in the same category as bull-fighting? If not, what do you see as the difference? What still troubles me is the vast difference between the intelligence and skill of the armed human beings and that of the bull or the deer -- the fact that the animal, particularly in the case of the bull, has no real chance of winning.

Hunting will never be for me, and I need to think further about what Ellen and Jonathan have said, but for the first time I'm willing to grant the possibility that values are imvolved that I can respect.

Barbara

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let me ask this, Jonathan and Jon: Do you put hunting in the same category as bull-fighting? If not, what do you see as the difference? What still troubles me is the vast difference between the intelligence and skill of the armed human beings and that of the bull or the deer -- the fact that the animal, particularly in the case of the bull, has no real chance of winning.

I'll say something about bull-fighting, though the question wasn't addressed to me. Still, it's a question I've thought about in connection with hunting ever since I saw a bull-fight (Juarez, the summer of '62). The fight I saw, as it happened, was considered a spectacular one by the native audience -- the matador was awarded every part of the bull which can be awarded. I'd always thought I would like seeing a bull-fight, because of what the scene looks like in movies, e.g., "The Sun Also Rises." (Is that the Hemingway story in which Eva Gardner stars and which has bull-fight footage?) Watching the reality, I felt sick. I hated it. The bull is tortured; the horses are tortured. Nonetheless, I think I can understand what in the "Spanish" mind is attracted by bull-fighting. Something I myself am attracted to, within non-precise limits: the Spanish S-M quality. AR was attracted to that, also. It's redolent in Capuletti's work. Also in flamenco, which I love to watch. There's a control-pushed-beyond-the-point-of-pain thing. I don't think it's the same dimensions, though, which are operative with the guys I've known -- American wilderness-loving persons, most of them -- who love hunting. It isn't the same I was talking about with the re-awakened "ting" of the blood I feel when Fall finally comes. It is related, however. It's not a completely different domain of experience.

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites
What still troubles me is the vast difference between the intelligence and skill of the armed human beings and that of the bull or the deer -- the fact that the animal, particularly in the case of the bull, has no real chance of winning.

Coming back to that detail -- it kind of went past on first reading. The bull has a good chance of killing the matador! The bull-fighter is risking his -- or her; these days there are female matadors -- life every time. Which risk is part of the thrill for the audience.

Tracing the evolution of hunting in the human species: the human was often the puny one by comparison to the animals. Big-game hunting is plenty dangerous even today for the human. And when hunting evolved in the primate line leading to humans, there wasn't anything approaching modern technological capacity. I think the risk of danger remains part of the genetic thrill. Bird-hunting with rifles, fishing in a stream, though there's lots of chance of missing the shot, there's not direct potential threat from the hunted creature to the human. But if a human is confronting an animal much bigger than a grouse, a pheasant, a stream fish, there's real threat to life and limb even for the modern hunter, with all the weaponry humans have developed.

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Barbara, you asked for it…

I hunt birds with pointing dogs. There’s a common misconception that pointers literally point to the prey, but that’s not what they do. Going “on point” is just an extension of stalking behavior, they’re freezing, just like a cheetah freezes, moves closer, and freezes again—she doesn’t want to be noticed until she’s close enough and the time is right to burst. This is a natural behavior in dogs inherited from their wolf/coyote ancestors. Those canids will slowly “creep” upon a bird on the ground and if all goes well the bird will hold tight and not take to wing until it realizes the coyote is there, only a few feet away. Then the coyote can jump up and forward, swat the bird down, and eat it.

Pointing dogs were bred by selecting for strong “pointing” behavior, that is, the tendency to freeze, like a cheetah does, instead of creeping. They were selectively bred for this tendency as well as for acute scenting ability, intelligence, and pack cooperation.

We train pointers starting as puppies. The simplest early routine is to tie a bird wing to the end of a fishing pole and go into the back yard. When the dog is not looking you cast the wing behind some object and wait. Dufus wanders around until she smells the bird wing. That moment of discovery is dramatic. Her head will snap to the direction of the wind that brought the scent and the way she carries herself changes—no more dopey puppy, now she has her nose down and looks like a blood-hound in hot pursuit. Generally, she will quickly find the wing, but before she can bite it you whip the pole up and behind you allowing the wing to settle down elsewhere. The dog’s experience is: smelling a bird, approaching it, going in for it, and being disappointed it has disappeared. She will now wander around again until her head snaps again in the direction of the wing. This time, she will take a few steps and freeze. When she moves, breaks the freeze, you whip the pole again and place the wing somewhere else. Now she can’t smell it, it’s gone. Her experience is: smelling a bird, approaching it, freezing, breaking the freeze, and being disappointed it has disappeared. Soon, the dog learns that breaking her point means the end of the marvelous experience of taking in that bird scent. When she holds a long point, you tell her what a great dog she is and end the lesson.

I explain this because for the hunting I do, this is part of it. It starts years ahead of the hunt. You can hunt birds alone, but hunting with pointing dogs is a completely different experience and you have to train them and get the protocol down first.

You probably have no idea how hunting birds with pointing dogs works, so I will explain this too.

The birds habituate on the ground. If you hunt without dogs, it’s your foot traffic noise that gets the bird up and flying. It’s always a surprise, you never know when one will pop up and fly away. And, if you hunt without dogs, it doesn’t matter if you go into the wind, downwind or whatever. But when you hunt with dogs there are fewer surprises. The birds are located, by scent, by the dogs. The guns don’t look for birds, they watch the dogs. They watch for the change in body disposition, and the snapping of the head that indicates the dog has picked up bird scent. You walk into the wind, dogs in front, and guns behind. You have to walk into the wind so that scent may be picked up. (If you walked down wind, the dogs wouldn’t smell a bird until they had passed it.) The dogs work back and forth and forward into the wind until they pick up bird scent.

For all of this to make sense I have to explain the bird’s behavior as well. Their behavior is the result of eons of evolutionary pressure being predated by canids on the ground and birds of prey from the air. As a result, they do not mull about on open ground, but prefer always to be hunkered into cover, in brush, in thick grasses, etc. If their genetic behavioral repertoire could speak it would say: “I hear some foot traffic coming. A coyote. It could find me, and I am ready to go to the pond for water anyway, so I’m going to fly away right now while that coyote is still far enough away for my safe exit from here.” On the other hand, if the bird has only just settled down in that spot, has nice cover with seeds all around it and wants to feed for the next hour, it says: “I hear some foot traffic coming. A coyote. A steady prance. It’ll probably just pass by. I will keep my head down, remain in this ideal cover and hope it passes by without noticing me. If that steady prance breaks up and it gets to sounding louder and closer, I’ll reassess.” There are times when they hunker down and don’t switch to flight mode until the last minute. Most bird hunters have experienced literally stepping on top of birds (ruffed grouse and pheasant, especially) before they take to flight. So there’s that whole spectrum of sometimes taking to flight a hundred yards ahead of the guns (three times the kill range, so way out of range,) all the way down to not taking to flight until someone literally kicks them. Most common is right in the middle, that is, the bird will take to flight when the feet are about fifty yards away (out of range.)

So the point here is that hunting without dogs means that most birds will take to flight and go away safely, well out or just out of range. There’s nothing you can do about that, except keep going and hope for the one who favors hunkering and doesn’t take to flight until only ten or twenty yards separate you from him, and only then will you get an executable outcome. (Remember, his behavioral repertoire is tuned to your being a coyote, not a gun-toting human, so even an exit with only three yards separation is taken to be sufficient for a safe exit.) Some people take their untrained Fido bird hunting, because the extra foot traffic helps in putting up the hunkerers, but the calculus remains mostly the same—most birds will go up well beyond shooting range. Also, without good dogs, many hunkerers succeed in their hunkering—you walk right past them. This is known because occasionally a dog will run behind the guns on his way back out front only to locate a bird on the ground you just now walked past.

Now, the part you are still reading for…here’s how the classic bird hunt goes with well trained pointing dogs: You walk into the wind, dogs in front. The dogs run zero to one hundred yards ahead of the guns, left to the last gun on the left and right to the last gun at right and back and forth. They cover vast amounts of ground sniffing for bird scent, they run like demons. The guns scan the sky ahead because it worth knowing that birds are going up ahead, but mostly they watch the dogs’ body posture for signs of bird scent suspicion. When such is detected, we call it being “birdy.” This is an art, actually, and every dog is different. Everyone can read their own dog’s birdieness, it’s in the way they carry their tail or arch their back or furl the skin on top of their head. After a day or two with a new hunting partner’s dog, you start to see it, too. The chatter sounds like this: “Birdy dog over here. Very birdy dog. Never mind, he’s mousing. Hey! Never mind the mice, find a bird!” The point of announcing birdiness is to alert the other guns that a dog is looking like he suspects he might smell a bird so that they will make their gun hold more ready, since a bird could imminently burst to flight. This goes on and off, birdiness announced and retracted, over and over again, until suddenly one of the dogs locks up frozen on point like a statue. The other dogs notice him on point and they lock up as well. All the dogs, moments ago running around like madmen, are still as stone now. All the guns are at ready, but no one moves or talks. The dog that is on point exercises his professional discretion and slowly and deliberately steps forward two more yards. He was mistaken initially in believing the strength of the scent indicated the bird was right in font of him, so he closes in on it a bit more and then locks up again, and starts shivering.

Now comes the critical interplay of bird instincts and dog instincts. The dog’s natural instinct would be to now creep quietly to the bird until the bird switches to “time to fly out of here” mode and the dog would have a good chance at swatting it down and killing it. Problem with that is, we don’t want the dog to kill the bird. Instead, we want to shoot it from the sky ourselves, but we are still DOZENS of yards behind the dog (we are out of range.) If the dog were to creep up on the bird, he would cause it to take flight before we get within range. So you can see why holding the point is critical. The dog must stay tight.

Reading the posture of his point, especially the adrenaline-loaded shivering, we know the bird is within ten yards in front of him (a more “tentative” point would indicate the bird is farther, sometimes twenty or even forty yards ahead, in which case the guns would need to proceed well ahead of the pointing dog.) Once the guns are within ten yards behind the dog everyone is positioned perfectly. The die is cast; all except the pointer relax now. The chatter picks up again. “Look at him shiver, it’s a wonder he doesn’t lose his balance and fall down.” “This is Vince’s dog, he should be the one…where’s Vince? Oh, there you are, Vince. You’ll do this, yes?” “Sure, but feel free everyone, after I miss.” “I’ll step back a bit here so you have a fully open sky.” We’ve been walking on dry leaves and sticks all morning so the silence now is disorienting. Everyone is still and quiet for a long moment. For the first time we can hear the cows in a nearby field, and the wind.

“You gonna do this, Vince?” “Yes! I’m gon…” “Well, your dog is shaking like a leaf, it can’t be good for him.” The click of his safety coming off is heard. Vince looks down at some sticks, raises his boot and stomps on them. At once everyone startles, even the dogs. The bird bursts loudly into the air from a spot on the ground no one of us had particularly expected. Its plumage appears neon in the low morning sun. What seems an eternity passes…Vince could be shooting, but he hasn’t. More safety clicks are heard. You raise your gun and track it to the bird’s path. You’ll shoot before it gets out of range. Just before you shoot, Vince’s gun is heard and the bird drops, lifeless, instantly dead. The dog runs to the spot, picks up the prey in its mouth and retrieves it to Vince’s hand.

Now, is this just a game? Of course it is. But it’s a sophisticated one that requires its participants connect on multiple levels.

We humans are top-notch predators; yet this form of predation is one we could not engage in without the cooperation of another fine predator, the dog companion. This is predation with the use of predators who answer to you—something no other creature can engineer. You, the hunter, beginning years ago in your back yard with a wing and a fishing pole and a puppy, create that scale of cooperation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

~ 'Hunting' really should be a whole separate thread, since there are really different motivations re hunters (here, I'm including fishing!)

~ Like Barbara, I'm an 'animal lover' from the word go; I'll catch a spider/moth in the house and throw it into the back yard. Invaders like mosquitoes/flies/ants get squashed, though. I'm not a hunter and find no interest in such, but, have absolutely NO 'moral' qualms about it as a hobby...s'long as the prey is fully consumed, hide and all.

~ As someone asked "What's this got to do with Vick?"

~ Voyuerism re animals fighting has little to do with 'predatorness', other than maybe vicariously; merely for gambling, I'm just as disgusted with gambling on Siamese 'Fighting' fish. Bull-'Fighting' I'd have respect for if peccadores weren't needed, nor the 'final kill' (generally) required.

~ Vick deserves all the VICKs he gets, should he go to prison.

LLAP

J:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant:

~ I'm not too much up on prison life, but, re what you said...if it's 'one-on-one', you're correct.

~ My impression is that it is NEVER that, especially for nubes. And, I do hope there're some 'dog-lovers' there... :)

~ Still, he's got 'celebrity'-ness going for him...dammit.

LLAP

J:D

Edited by John Dailey
Link to post
Share on other sites

Judith:

~ I really don't think this is the place to argue 'animal rights' (p#13), but, since you brought it up...

~ Graham asserts a really nice-sounding idea there, but, ties it into nothing he's defined as to why such a 'right' should be 'recognized'/respected by humans. My view is: whatever species (even individuals thereof!) recognizes 'rights' of my species, I recognize theirs (ergo, including aliens.) Neither donkeys nor staphylococcus...nor human rapists/murderers/child-molesters...recognize any 'rights' of mine, ergo, I recognize none of theirs.

~ This is not to say they have none; Rand's original metaphysical definition implied such exist for other species as well as ours. However, the question is why should whoevers' be recognized by whom. I clarified my criteria; Graham hasn't.

LLAP

J:D

Edited by John Dailey
Link to post
Share on other sites
Judith:

~ I really don't think this is the place to argue 'animal rights' (p#13), but, since you brought it up...

~ Graham asserts a really nice-sounding idea there, but, ties it into nothing he's defined as to why such a 'right' should be 'recognized'/respected by humans. My view is: whatever species (even individuals thereof!) recognizes 'rights' of my species, I recognize theirs (ergo, including aliens.) Neither donkeys nor staphylococcus...nor human rapists/murderers/child-molesters...recognize any 'rights' of mine, ergo, I recognize none of theirs.

~ This is not to say they have none; Rand's original metaphysical definition implied such exist for other species as well as ours. However, the question is why should whoevers' be recognized by whom. I clarified my criteria; Graham hasn't.

LLAP

J:D

Very interesting, John, but I don't think you can make the case that the donkey threatens your rights so you can shoot him down!

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
As Charlie Brown would say, "Good grief!" I'm finally getting at least the beginning of the explanation I've been asking for, and I can see a certain sense to it. Why has everyone been keeping it a dark secret?

Barbara,

I realized that we were probably talking past each other when I read Ellen's post. I had been of the mindset that you were looking for us to give you an argument supporting or defending hunting. Ellen's post made me think that a more emotional approach might have been what you were after -- something which might let you feel at least a part of what a hunter might feel.

I can see that what troubled me the most -- the idea that the entertainment was in killing the animal -- probably is not the essence of the pleasure most peope find in hunting.

I've been trying to think of movies which might let you experience the feeling of the hunt since I don't think that you'd like (not necessarily because of the killing, but because of the physical demands) coming along with me and some friends, and helping us walk/jog through acres of forests and fields to flush out deer and drive them into an ambush, which is really the only way that I think you'd be able to fully appreciate all that a hunt can be. Anyway, the buffalo hunting scenes in Dances With Wolves are the only ones that I can think of at the moment which might come close to simulating the experience for you.

Let me ask this, Jonathan and Jon: Do you put hunting in the same category as bull-fighting? If not, what do you see as the difference?

I don't put bullfighting and hunting in the same category, but I don't know enough about bullfighting to have a strong opinion about it one way or the other. The idea of its being a staged event makes it significantly different from hunting for me, but, depending on its rules and traditions, I suppose that it could have a certain type of honor or cultural meaning that is respectful of the animals.

What still troubles me is the vast difference between the intelligence and skill of the armed human beings and that of the bull or the deer -- the fact that the animal, particularly in the case of the bull, has no real chance of winning.

I haven't hunted for a few years (I just haven't had enough time lately) but when I was doing it regularly, I was mostly hunting deer, and they have speed, hearing and sense of smell on their side.

They can be very smart. I've been on drives where they've sensed what was going on, and, instead of running, they've hidden in brushy areas and hoped that they'd not be seen by us humans passing within feet of them. I had to stop during a drive once (nature had called) and I noticed a doe's leg inches from my boot -- I wouldn't have noticed it if I hadn't had to "go." I visually followed her form up through the foliage until I found her eyes, and I said something like "What a clever girl," which didn't make her stir in the slightest. I walked away. I think that her level of guts or intelligence should earn a lot of respect.

I've preferred to make hunting deer a challenge. I've never used anything but shotguns with slugs -- no long-range rifles with scopes -- and I've never shot twice at the same animal. If I miss, that's it, the deer lives. All of which basically means that I need to get pretty close, and it's not easy to do so. I don't use a tree stand or otherwise sit and wait for the deer to stumble upon me. I like the idea of making my presence known, and of trying to drive the deer and ambush them, either on my own or with others.

Hunting will never be for me, and I need to think further about what Ellen and Jonathan have said, but for the first time I'm willing to grant the possibility that values are imvolved that I can respect.

Good. I think that it's hard to put the essence of the experience into words, so if we've succeeded in doing so, even to a small degree, I'm glad.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish Michael Vick could continue to play football so that he can prove to everyone that he's overrated as a quarterback and that his style of quarterbacking will never lead a team to a championship without far more support than would be required of a Tom Brady or Payton Manning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant:

~ You're correct about what I didn't say. However, I thought it was implied by my point about recognizing 'rights.'

~ To clarify: donkeys, crows, (pick-your-PETA-'animal'), don't have to individually threaten my rights for me to decide that 'that' one is going down (ie: they don't have to be meat-eating 'predators'.) --- That they are not 'rights-recognizers', is enough; ergo, bunnies, whether munching in my garden or hippity-hopping through a wooded area are fair game for killing or capturing and selling...at my discretion.

LLAP

J:D

Edited by John Dailey
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to be clear, I consider dog fighting to be a serious crime

Just for the record, there was more to this situation than dog fighting. There was hanging, choking, electrocution, head-bashing, etc. inflicted by Vick on the dogs.

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.

I believe that in 100 years or so, the penalties for such crimes will be much more severe. I certainly hope so, and the sooner the better.

Judith

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that one should literally hunt and clean all of one's own meat. I did, however, mean quite seriously that if one isn't willing to kill animals, one shouldn't benefit from their deaths. If one tells one's self pretty lies about where one's food comes from, and "blanks out", in Rand's phrase, the reality of what is actually happening, I have no patience with that kind of hypocrisy. Eating meat and wearing leather entails the death of living creatures. It's a high price.

Judith

Link to post
Share on other sites
We humans are top-notch predators; yet this form of predation is one we could not engage in without the cooperation of another fine predator, the dog companion. This is predation with the use of predators who answer to you—something no other creature can engineer. You, the hunter, beginning years ago in your back yard with a wing and a fishing pole and a puppy, create that scale of cooperation.

That was beautifully described. My single experience of hunting with dogs wasn't a group experience; there was one guy with two dogs, and me. But the partnership between the human and the dog is amazing. Any situation where you work with an animal as partners, and have to rely on that animal's abilities and judgment, is a mind-blowing experience.

Judith

Link to post
Share on other sites
~ Graham asserts a really nice-sounding idea there, but, ties it into nothing he's defined as to why such a 'right' should be 'recognized'/respected by humans. My view is: whatever species (even individuals thereof!) recognizes 'rights' of my species, I recognize theirs (ergo, including aliens.) Neither donkeys nor staphylococcus...nor human rapists/murderers/child-molesters...recognize any 'rights' of mine, ergo, I recognize none of theirs.

To continue his logic, the same could be said regarding marginal cases of humans. A two-year-old trying to steal your dinner from your plate with his grubby little fist isn't capable of recognizing your rights, but you still recognize his and refrain from doing him bodily harm. Same goes for a mentally impaired adult.

Judith

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judith:

~ True. However, *I* don't put crows, donkeys, rats, cows and bunnies on the same moral/'rights' par to begin with (as I implied; check my argument re 'species' type, please) as a 2-yr-old human. --- I hope you're not implying that you do.

~ I semi-facetiously included aliens that recognized my 'rights'; I'd include alien 'younglings' in *my* recognition of their species' rights, so...I'd certainly apply the same respect to...human 2-yr-olds.

~ As with Brant, re your case-example, why must I have to really spell out the reasons for my making exceptions here?

~ Unless I misunderstood your point; if so, it was...what?

LLAP

J:D

PS: You must not be aware that I'm raising a mentally-impaired legal-minor, as well as his 'normal' younger brother.

Edited by John Dailey
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that one should literally hunt and clean all of one's own meat. I did, however, mean quite seriously that if one isn't willing to kill animals, one shouldn't benefit from their deaths. If one tells one's self pretty lies about where one's food comes from, and "blanks out", in Rand's phrase, the reality of what is actually happening, I have no patience with that kind of hypocrisy. Eating meat and wearing leather entails the death of living creatures. It's a high price.

Judith

Thanks for clarifying. I understand what you mean by the "blank out." Even though I believe that your evaluation of "the death of living creatures" is a bit more strict than my own, we are certainly on the same page when it comes to valuing the life of animals and acknowledging the reality of what our meat intake entails.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now