A question to anti-hunters.

[prashantsingh]

Good Post Shooters.
That's exactly what Carbon Footprinting is all about. In simple words.....
Imagine a big tusker (elephant) walking through a paddy field. Every step forward tramples and "destroys" the crop. The distruction is irreparable .
We as humans (in our daily life) knowingly or unknowingly are causing damage to our envirnoment. On this World Environment Day 5-6-10 . Let us all pledge to (at lease) reduce (if not erase) our carbon footprints.

[grewal]

Sorry for late reply,

Are you a meat eater,Grewal?

I am a vegetarian and non drinker .

Paaji, do you actually read others posts?

yes I read other posts also. One thing I have seen here is the majority of members have pro hunting views. Whereas I am opposite to it under any circumstances . Well talking about conservation, I have planted more than 150 trees at my home itself i.e. dedicated more than 70% of the total area to afforestation where every kind of fauna flourishes. and all these trees are full size grown up trees. incase any one has any doubt he can see the vegetation on Google earth I can give you the location also. At my farm house I dedicate roughly 35% of the land under cultivation to such varieties which consume less water, like at present basmati rice has been planted on that 35% land. There are some neel gai in close proximity of my farm whome i always love to see and find them flourishing. In my locality ( concrete jungle) I have planned to plant as many trees as possible.

Shooter paaje if I am talking of conservation I am very well doing my part . I don't want to convince anybody, Neither I want to present myself as a very intellectual person. Vikram I am not against your effort of giving facts and stats regarding conservation . But I am totally against Hunting , and hunting is indeed cold blooded killing. No one can deny this fact.

[drifter]

dear all,

I think many a times we mix the terms hunting, poaching and killing without due thought towards the implications.
The difference between hunting, poaching and kill(killing) for our own benefit and better understansing are stated below. I hope this sheds more light on the debate we are trying to have without steering away from the essence of the topic, now I am talking on behalf of the group we are pro hunting not pro killing or pro poaching. I hope the minority group of pro hunting agrees with me.



Hunting:
is the practice of pursuing living animals (usually wildlife) for food, recreation, or trade. In present-day use, the term refers to lawful hunting.

poaching:
which is the killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species contrary to applicable law.

Kill(Killing):

To deprive of life, animal or vegetable, in any manner or by any means; to render inanimate; to put to death; to slay

To murder; assassinate; slay; butcher; destroy. -- To Kill, Murder, Assassinate. To kill does not necessarily mean any more than to deprive of life. A man may kill another by accident or in self-defense, without the imputation of guilt. To murder is to kill with malicious forethought and intention. To assassinate is to murder suddenly and by stealth. The sheriff may kill without murdering; the duelist murders, but does not assassinate his antagonist; the assassin kills and murders.


reg drifter.

[prashantsingh]

Interesting post drifter.
An important difference (apart from the legal aspect) between a Poacher and a Hunter ,which should be mentioned again here (I think I mentioned it earlier in another post) is that the poacher kills with No regard to the season , while the Hunter kills only when the "Hunting season" opens up. In India , in the olden days when Shikar was open this "Shikar season" was in the winters. Normally from Nov. to Feb. So you see the hunter was basically doing all his Shikar in these 4 months and would leave the animals in the wild at peace for the rest 8 months in a year.
The poacher would have no regard for the season. The "best" season for the poacher was when the sun was at it's hottest. It was most convinient for him to sit next to a water hole in the peak of summer and trap/poison/capture/shoot whatever animal (with no regard to age,sex and species) came for a drink. Maximum financial gain.....with minimal effort.

-- Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:05 pm --

There is a poacher turned Professional Hunter I met in South Africa who NOW stresses the need for hunting ONLY during the season.
As a teenager he once went to a water hole near his farm and was surprised to see a number of sandgrouse taking a dip in the water. He ran home and picked up his 12 bore and shot as many as 50 of them.
When he showed his "prize" to his father ..(who was out for the day and had come back late evening). His father "rewarded" him with a tight slap across the face.
The father then explained that this was NOT the season to shoot these birds.
The birds he saw in the water were not bathing, but were carrieng the water (in their soaked feathers) to their little ones in the nest. By shooting 50 odd birds , this teenager had indirectly killed many many more in the nests.

[Timnorris]

every human behaves according to his nature so there is no end for this argument

[drifter]

Thanks Prashant,

fully agree with you.

In nagarifle's earlier post it compares to this situation, a kid driving in a reckless and rash manner on the streets needs to be corrected, if he likes driving fast then the right place is a race track where his energy is channeled the right direction. In our country doing things which are not the regular stuff like being a Dr or Er is looked down upon like a crime, peoples acceptance towards things which are not common in our country is taboo. If one enjoys doing a hobbie or if it turns into a profession it cannot be looked down upon. This is my opinion on the matter.

In my earlier post the defenition for kill also includes: depriving life to vegetables.

reg drifter

[shooter]

Shooter paaje if I am talking of conservation I am very well doing my part .

More power to you paajee. I hope others follow in your footsteps.

I don't want to convince anybody

You dont have to. As long as you are convinced, all is well.

and hunting is indeed cold blooded killing. No one can deny this fact.

Well so is death penalty, war, even giving medicine for deworming.

Paaji some people enjoy firing guns into air others enjoy hunting. You may not agree with one and i may not agree with the other.
As long as it is not breaking any laws, it can be done.

Hunting is illegal in India and firing rifles into air is illegal in the uk. In many parts of the world, firing rifle into air is considedred much worse than hunting. But it is culturally acceptable in india.
All i can say is that i wont fire into air. I cant say that such people are terrorists in the making.
Similarly, you can say you dont like to hunt but you cant say hunting is anti-conservation.

I mean you can say it but that wont make it right.

By your logic, populations/governments of majority of the countries in the world are cold blooded killers. Most of these countries dont have death penalty.

India on the other hand has the death penalty but isnt 'cold blooded killer' as it has banned hunting.

I know this is way OT but im trying to say one cant judge nature or the temperature of ones blood by laws and culture or activities as a result of them.

[srswamy]

This maybe OT, still I would go ahead and post. I've been following this thread, but I wasn't going to post anything here.
However, this statement and a similar POV posted earlier have made me do so.

In my earlier post the defenition for kill also includes: depriving life to vegetables.

So, what are we comparing here? The mere fact of using two different names (hunting and harvesting, which have diagonally opposite nuances) will denote they're not entities to be compared. Being a vegetarian since childhood, I've seen a couple of "smart" chaps with same question.

This is how it goes. There are two forms of life,

1. Regenerative
2. Degenerative

Simply put, cutting a bunch of bananas or plucking few apples from a tree will not stop the tree from giving the produce in future. We will get the bananas and apples again, next season, whereas, cutting one of a guy's hands or leg of a goat is not like that.

Scientifically & logically -- killing is de-generatively harming a live form. Hunting is also included in this.
Though I'm not so conversant in the hunting lingo, today's English has got different words like, killing, slaying, poaching, hunting, game management, conservation hunting, selective game hunting, legal hunting, population control blah, blah, blah -- All end up in the same action. Taking out a life, forcefully. If people say, it is licensed, Who are the government officials to give the license?

Another point:

Hunting:
is the practice of pursuing living animals (usually wildlife) for food, recreation, or trade.

Just pursuing? What made you stop from completing the action? Maybe, a hunter pursues an wildlife, sees it off at the door of it's Den, or probably has beer with it, bids goodbye and walks off?? Cut it!!

[TenX]

srswamy... just to add:
eating fruit is actually helping the tree, which is nature's master game. The fruit is meant to attract animals to eat it and throw the seed elsewhere for it to grow into another tree

[drifter]

srswamy,

In a earlier post the question was asked to grewal whether he is a vegetarian the issue I am trying to highlight is not a argument about Vegetarians or Non vegetarians. Well the debate is endless.....pls dont forget that all plants are not re-generative for eg carrots(the whole plant is pulled out for the carrot).

Please read the defenition fully and understand the meaning

Hunting:
is the practice of pursuing living animals (usually wildlife) for food, recreation, or trade.

It does not say just pursuing, it completes the action by saying for food, recreation or trade. This is the meaning given in the dictionary.

reg drifter.

[Vikram]

@ Grewal,

I take my hat off to you,I do wear one when it's not too hot ,for your efforts at a personal level.I keep saying it and I say it again- I respect anyone's choice of not hunting and not eating meat.I completely understand their choice not to kill.Not a bad thing at all.

@ srsswamy,

You made a lot of sense with your suggestions like making the corporations pay for the damage they cause while using forest resources and to wildlife and making businesses to extend their corporate social responsibility to conservation.

However,it slightly pains to see when a man of your obvious intelligence and education chooses to play the game of semantics instead of reasoned debate.

Eating/hunting animals has been a part of human history/nature and it will not go away with wishful romanticising or impractical lawmaking.Even when poaching was a capital offence in England, many a Robinhood -in tights or not- slew the king's deer. Making it legal and sustainable is not only practical, it also helps in conservation.

Man does exercise dominion,fortunately or unfortunately, over wildlife and it is better to use scientific and proven wildlife management practices than unbridled exploitation or impractical prohibition.

Show me,please, one single instance where a pro-hunting poster here who did not agree with restricting the creep of the so called civilisation onto the territories of wildlife? Show me one instance where anyone spoke about unhindered massacre of wildlife in the name of hunting?Have you read and understood any of the relevant posts that spoke about the role legal/ethical/sustainable hunting plays in conservation? Did anyone suggest that it's the only way? If you do not make it a part of the conservation efforts, poaching will continue and you lose a lot of money and resources that can be used.

I give you one example from India alone.In Karnataka, certain areas along the Kaveri river were taken over by Masheer fishing enthusiasts who actively protect these areas and also indulge in their favourite sport of Masheer fishing. The offshoot is the Masheer population is not only increasing but also other fish population and crocodile population too.How? All poaching,especially dynamiting, has stopped in these areas.

http://www.wasiindia.com/mahseer.html

I sincerely suggest you read about conservation efforts across the world and how legal hunting fraternity are at the spearhead of those efforts.

As I keep saying, if you do not hunt or eat meat, it is a respectable choice.However, to take a moral high ground and denounce the other perspective is not only impractical but also disrespectful.

Look forward to you reply.

Best-
Vikram

[shooter]

I sincerely suggest you read about conservation efforts across the world and how legal hunting fraternity are at the spearhead of those efforts.

As I keep saying, if you do not hunt or eat meat, it is a respectable choice.However, to take a moral high ground and denounce the other perspective is not only impractical but also disrespectful.

This is good advice. A good post, as usual.

today's English has got different words like, killing, slaying, poaching, hunting, game management, conservation hunting, selective game hunting, legal hunting, population control blah, blah, blah -- All end up in the same action.

Rape, Love, sex, marriage, child marriage, date rape, pedophilia blah blah blah are fancy names for the same action. Who gives the govt the right to decide who is old enough? Also in some countries prostitution is legal. Who are they to give the right to those women?

OOPS too Ot an example?

Well, hanging, execution, murder, killing in self defence, war, suicide, accidents also results in the same thing. Who gives one human the right to kill another?

If people say, it is licensed, Who are the government officials to give the license?

So researchers are wrong, forest officials are wrong, the govt is also wrong; not just one but most of the worlds governments are wrong. Fine by me.

srswamy, since you are a vegeterian, are you opposed to eating meat as enthusiastically or is just hunting?

And out of curiosity what are your views death penalty. You have mention youre a vegeterian since childhood; at what age did you turn vegeterian? What made you change?

[357 S&W]

with Vikram and Shooter. Hunters by far are the largest contributors to wildlife conservation. Can the Anti- hunters tell me how much of their own hard earned money they have spend on wildlife conservation in the last one year
Me and my fellow hunters are proud to say that we spend a good amount to help the conversation of wildlife as we pay for our annual hunting licenses, landowner permits, Tags(permit to hunt certain species),Upland bird stamps, Ducks and Goose Stamps, etc. The government takes this money and helps in the conservation of the wildlife.