I'm curious about the opinion that hunters have towards these so-called canned hunts. Now, I have to say that while I am morally and ethically opposed to the vast majority of hunting, I did grow up in a hunting family and I do know that not all hunters are cruel, barbaric, stupid or rednecks (a general view of hunters from another board I am on). The sort of "hunters" that go on these canned hunts, however, really strike me as... useless? (Trying to think of a right word pre-coffee is hard.)

Morally opposed or not I can see that there a good hunter has a great degree of knowledge and skill; woodsmanship, dog training and handling (if applicable), marksmanship, knowledge of the wilderness, an in depth knowledge of habits and life cycle of the animals they hunt and much, much more. To the hunters I have known this has been a great source of pride. And I'd agree, morals aside, a good hunter is a damned skilled man (or woman). To me these canned hunts seem rather, well, lame. It strikes me as kind of pathetic to need to have your prey corralled for you and have someone hold your hand through the whole thing. Rather like those "mountaineers" who hire a sherpa to carry them up a mountain on their backs and then go and say they've climbed it.

I'd say most of the hunters who I grew up with would agree... but then, what would I know? I'm not a hunter. Just wanted another view on this practice. It just strikes me as so.... urban warrior. How can you hang a trophy on the wall and say "I did that" when it was someone else's skill and endeavour that got you there? Surely the skill that finds you the prey is part and parcel of truly "bagging a trophy"?

*shrug* It's their money and they can do with it what they like.

True, but there are still different levels of respect that one has for people in any sport/hobby/occupation. It's people's money and time to buy and make a paint-by-numbers picture but I'd still have more respect for an artist that sketches their painting themself. I was wondering just how canned these canned hunts were, my perspective of an urban non-hunter might be quite wrong.

What sort is it you have no moral/ethical objections towards?

I think it's an agit-prop term intended to convey a certain stereotype that may not be representative.

I do not believe in killing unnecessarily ie: for pleasure or fun (pleasure including hunting for enjoyment, wearing leather to look cool, eating meat because it tastes good, that kind of thing). Hunting because you like it, want a trophy, just like roast duck is a no go for me. Hunting or other killing to survive I have no problems with. If it is a choice between dying yourself or killing another being, well, in most cases I can understand if someone wants to go for the "kill" option.

I've been vegetarian for about 25 years now and have not come across a scenario where I needed to kill a being in order to stay alive but if it did come down to kill or be killed I'm fairly sure I'd be opting for "kill".

Well I think anyone who particpates in a canned hunt is a dirty asshole coward fuckerhead.

A long time ago I used to be a very good fisherperson. It's not just about throwing a line in and hauling out a fish. It's knowing the habits and habitats of the fish, when they feed and what on, where to source the bait (I liked getting my bait from the environment), which species likes what bait and when and where they school so you can have a better chance of getting the sort of dinner you want, it's knowing the ocean and the tides. To me going to one of those places where they give you the "right" fly or bait and point you towards a fully stocked pond would have taken half the fun out of it.

Well, yeah, you can go to one of those fish farms and fish but to me that's not being a "real" fisherman/woman.

Oh get a backbone, man.

Hey Fuzz. Glad to have you back! I assumed you were in the other camp but I was mistaken.

These canned hunts and fish in the barrel hunts are for wussies. There will always be that stigma attached no matter what 'real' hunters say in their defense. It's all about sticking together, no matter what floats your boat.

Then if someone is operating a "canned hunt" ranch as a means to provide for himself and his family, that's okay with you?

No, you're not mistaken. Fuzz is morally/ethically opposed to killing animals just because they taste nice. You embrace the idea of killing animals because they taste nice.

And to a purist flyfisherman, someone who uses natural bait isn't giving the fish a fair chance.

The "sticking together" part is because some people tend so greatly towards political oppression everytime they aren't minding their own goddamn business and something annoys them.

Yeah, I caught that part too :-)

Back then I didn't care about giving the fish a "fair chance". I cared about getting a nice dinner, a few days worth of nice dinners, fairly quickly and enjoyably, so I used whatever bait worked best. Also, I was a cheap arse, and getting cungi off the rocks or sandworms from the beach is cheaper than buying your bait. If I'd been a fly fisherwoman I'd probably have been into making the lures myself. I wasn't into the "whole day" fishing scenario, I was more into popping down to the beach and getting dinner quickly, efficiently and cheaply, and I was good at that. Never catch more than you need but always catch enough to fill your belly sort of thing.

RF

Nah. There's more to it than that. My memory sucks but I do remember the wijim thread where you reamed him inside out for straying outside the hunting/fishing camp. Had to do with cleaning fish. The Porch.

I truly don't give a flying fig if some fucker wants to shoot a deer from point blank range. Do I respect a person who would do that? No, but I don't think they give a flying fig what I think either. Would I do it? Hell no, it's a lot easier to go down to the local grocery and get my meat all wrapped up in cellophane and styrofoam.

Well, no, they can always do another line of work. I'm not really the hunt sab sort of person, so I'd not actively go and try to shut them down, or yell at them or leaflet them or anything, but if a friend came up to me and asked me if I thought it would be cool if he ran canned hunts for a living I'd sure be saying "no". It's not just "kill to live", it's more "only kill to live if there is not other choice".

Well to those purists, giving the fish a fair chance is what makes a real fisherman.

The whole point of this being that all that you were going on about is nothing more than how you, yourself feel about what you are doing. Esthetic concerns that may be relevant only to yourself. Maybe somewhere there is some guy who doesn't really feel he is a "real hunter" unless he takes the shot on Tuesday, while standing on one leg wearing a Lord Vader helmet. I don't see what all that would have to do with whether it is right or wrong to kill an animal for one's own benefit.

Couldn't the person you were talking about excusing for killing find some other way to survive?

No, it goes right back to what I just said. Now don't contradict me again.

Regardless, that may be true, but what I said has merit. Or did at the time of that thread.

Yes, when it comes down to it aethetic concerns are only relevant to myself, but it doesn't stop me wondering how other people think. And it doesn't really have much to do with whether it is right or wrong, I was just curious what hunters thought of "canned" hunts. I'm not curious about what a bunch off vegans and the like think of them because I pretty much already know. I'd never really thought about the fly fishing thing, to be honest, I haven't fished for over a quarter of a century after all, and back then I mostly knew rock fisherman, who seem to be a slightly different breed from fly fishermen if what you say is true. This thread was less about starting a debate than it was about learning how people I generally don't have with tick.

BTW: I'm not really in any "camp", I don't think.

Was that the time he said it wasn't necessary to bleed out a fish by cleaning it while alive? If so, how is it he strayed from the hunting fishing camp when a great many hunters fishers have that very idea?

RF

You tell me. It apparently bothered you he said it.

Well in showing you where I am at odds with some of your own thoughts, you should have a greater understanding of how I think, right?

Well geez....just because it is so obvious that it IS necessary to clean fish while they are alive. Given that, why would he want to go around telling lies like it isn't necessary?

If they could then, to me, that would not be a moral killing. After all, I did say in the last 25 years of my life I have yet to personally come across a need to kill.

Huh? Why is it necessary to clean a fish while they are alive? What did I miss?

Look at it this way Fuzz. If you went to a bunch of motorcycle enthusiasts and ask them what they think about Harley Davidsons, you're going to find some like them, some don't, some hate them, some don't care what you ride long as you're riding.

It's not really much different.

I think to you that there would be no circumstance in reality that allowed such a "moral killing".

That is true. I'm too contrary to restrain myself from arguing back, most times, even if I am seeking opinions. I tend to be very pig-headed about thinking I am always right, too.

I said it's necessary.

Fuzz Buzz


You must not live in S. Fla.

Nothing wrong with arguing back. I'm of the opinion one should be rigorous in examing one's own views as well.

No, it's not.

This

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/thread.php?fo...0422&page=1

Well I surely know it is.

I knew I wouldn't get a consensus. To be completely accurate I'd say "after looking at a bunch of dead deer and reading an article on canned hunts I was bored and vaguely wondering what the differing opinions of the various experienced hunters on this board thought of canned hunts as opposed to this ignorant, urban and biased non-hunting vegetarian".

SD

Oh apparently it makes dicks grow larger.

Heh. I read about three or four pages and that thread is hilarious.

That is very close to being true. I just don't want to rule out all case scenarios. I'm very hesitant to say "no, never, ever" because I don't think life is that black and white. What about early hunter gatherers? What about the Inuit? I really do not know enough about either lifestyle to say that there is "always" another method of pure survival, so I hesitate to say that killing is "always" wrong. Maybe they do/did need to hunt, maybe they don't, I just do not have the experience and knowledge to make that judgement call, therefore I won't say "all hunting is immoral to me". Then there is self-defense, euthanasia... this is too complex a moral issue to just say that "killing is wrong".

I can't help it if you don't know how to properly bleed a fish out before you clean it!

Oh, so that's what I've been doing wrong!

I agree to a large extent. The problem with coming up with various scenarios is that are in almost every case assuming that the necessity of that scenario is just what we say it is. Whereas in reality, we may never have that level of knowledge.

For intance, we suppose a guy starving in the wilderness and say, "Yes, it's okay for him to kill a deer because he'll die otherwise."

Really? Are we in reality that prescient that we absolutely know the rescue helicopter isn't showing up tomorrow?

But the thing is, I do. I let it efficiently bleed itself out.

Then the fish is dead while you're cleaning it :-)

I'd still like to see him try it with a shark.