# The .600 Overkill



## PhotonGuy

I got the .600 Overkill. Its quite awesome to fire. Anybody want to try?


----------



## Flying Crane

No.

Are you gonna eat that buffalo?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Flying Crane said:


> No.
> 
> Are you gonna eat that buffalo?



http://jezebel.com/man-who-dedicated-life-to-killing-elephants-killed-by-e-1795429484


----------



## Flying Crane

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://jezebel.com/man-who-dedicated-life-to-killing-elephants-killed-by-e-1795429484


And the world was a better place after his departure.


----------



## Martial D

PhotonGuy said:


> I got the .600 Overkill. Its quite awesome to fire. Anybody want to try?




Killing for sport is abominable. I sincerely hope the buffalo wins next time.


----------



## Martial D

Martial D said:


> Killing for sport is abominable. I sincerely hope the buffalo wins next time.


Hi @CB Jones  Care to defend your position or is a hit and run dislike all you can muster?


----------



## PhotonGuy

Martial D said:


> Killing for sport is abominable. I sincerely hope the buffalo wins next time.


So you must be against fishing.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Flying Crane said:


> No.
> 
> Are you gonna eat that buffalo?



I don't buffalo hunt but that's just the picture that the company that makes the rifle uses. It uses a buffalo in comparison to show the size of the rifle.

But yes if I were to hunt anything I would either eat it or sell it for food.


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> Killing for FUN is abominable. I sincerely hope the buffalo wins next time.



I do agree with you but thought I'd change it to what it really is, there's no sport in shooting animals. To slaughter an animal for food because you need the food is one thing, to kill an animal and waste the carcase (when so many are starving, it's laughing in hungry people's faces) *just for fun* is totally another thing. I don't see how people can think they are civilised if they kill *for pleasure.*

We've had this discussion on here before as the OP well knows of course yet choses to bring it up again, very bad taste to try and bring this subject up yet again. As for the fishing comment...well, just inane.


----------



## Paul_D

PhotonGuy said:


> So you must be against fishing.


I don't follow that logic.  If you fish for food you eat the fish.  If you fish for sports/fun you through it back after and it swims away.  I don't see buffalo getting back up and running off after you've finished shooting it.


----------



## CB Jones

Martial D said:


> Hi @CB Jones  Care to defend your position or is a hit and run dislike all you can muster?



I don't have to defend anything.

I disliked your post...so I marked it as disliked.

I have a feeling it would be pointless to argue with you about sport hunting.


----------



## Flying Crane

PhotonGuy said:


> I don't buffalo hunt but that's just the picture that the company that makes the rifle uses. It uses a buffalo in comparison to show the size of the rifle.
> 
> But yes if I were to hunt anything I would either eat it or sell it for food.


That cartridge was developed for killing elephants.  Do you killl elephants?  Do you want to kill elephants?  

I'm guessing that must be an expensive cartridge for just...plinking...


----------



## Martial D

PhotonGuy said:


> So you must be against fishing.



No, not really. If I'm against anything it's the type of 'person' that kills for fun.


----------



## Steve

Is this the current version of the ar-15 argument?  And would that make it political (and therefore unsuitable for this forum?)


----------



## PhotonGuy

Martial D said:


> No, not really. If I'm against anything it's the type of 'person' that kills for fun.


Well people often fish for fun so you could say that is killing for fun too.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I don't hunt or fish anymore though I used to.  We did however use everything from the animal. 
So I am not against hunting for food but I am against sport killing.  That I find repulsive as well
as killing of any animal that is endangered or kenneled up on a preserve to be shot without any
chance at all.  I can say that I would hunt in the future if needed for food.  Now a day's I like to tell
people I hunt at the grocery store.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Steve said:


> Is this the current version of the ar-15 argument?  And would that make it political (and therefore unsuitable for this forum?)



I don't see how. The .600 Overkill is nothing like the ar-15 and its not one of those rifles that people are trying to ban so its not political.


----------



## Flying Crane

PhotonGuy said:


> I don't see how. The .600 Overkill is nothing like the ar-15 and its not one of those rifles that people are trying to ban so its not political.


Killing elephants isn't political?  Where have you been?


----------



## Flying Crane

PhotonGuy said:


> Well people often fish for fun so you could say that is killing for fun too.


There is the whole "catch and release" thing...


----------



## PhotonGuy

Flying Crane said:


> Killing elephants isn't political?  Where have you been?


We're not talking about killing elephants. Steve was asking of the thread had to do with AR-15s which it doesn't.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Flying Crane said:


> There is the whole "catch and release" thing...



There is also catch and eat, are you opposed to that?


----------



## Steve

PhotonGuy said:


> I don't see how. The .600 Overkill is nothing like the ar-15 and its not one of those rifles that people are trying to ban so its not political.


I think more how people are reacting to your post, big guy.


----------



## Flying Crane

PhotonGuy said:


> We're not talking about killing elephants. Steve was asking of the thread had to do with AR-15s which it doesn't.


The .600 overkill was developed to kill elephants.  Why do you have one?  What do you use it for?  At $45 or $50 per cartridge, that's not something you just fire off out of boredom...

So I ask, do you kill elephants?


----------



## Flying Crane

PhotonGuy said:


> There is also catch and eat, are you opposed to that?


No.  

But for fun, you can catch and release fish.  They live.

For fun, you cannot shoot and release animals.  They die.  Do you understand that there is a fundamental difference?


----------



## drop bear

water buffalos are pests. Kill them all you want.

Know Your Enemy

kill a pig or a feral dog on the way as well.


----------



## Headhunter

Killing animals for sport is a scummy thing to do. If people have to kill animals to survive then so be it. But to kill just for the fun of it is completely wrong and anyone who does I have 0 respect for.


----------



## PhotonGuy

This thread was not supposed to be about hunting and it was not supposed to be about AR-15s which Steve has brought into the discussion from left field, its supposed to be about the .600 Overkill. You don't like hunting buffalo? Fine. I didn't hunt the buffalo in the picture, its just a picture the company uses to show the size of the rifle in comparison to the buffalo. I was asking of anybody would ever try shooting it. And by that I mean not at a buffalo but at a shooting range.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> This thread was not supposed to be about hunting and it was not supposed to be about AR-15s which Steve has brought into the discussion from left field, its supposed to be about the .600 Overkill. You don't like hunting buffalo? Fine. I didn't hunt the buffalo in the picture, its just a picture the company uses to show the size of the rifle in comparison to the buffalo. I was asking of anybody would ever try shooting it. And by that I mean not at a buffalo but at a shooting range.



Then all you had to do is ask the question. People aren't stupid, why would they need a picture of a buffalo to show the size of the rifle?
There is the point too that it was designed to kill elephants, after previous discussion on MT you must surely have realised that killing animals for pleasure isn't something people approve of or want happening. Hunting for food and/or survival is a different subject, killing for _fun/pleasure/thrills_ is not only distasteful it's immoral. You know how people feel yet you ignore that feeling and post up picture of a weapon with a dead buffalo.


----------



## Buka

Life is easy as a hypocrite.(me) I could never shoot an animal other than for pure survival, it's just not in me. But I'm just fine and dandy eating anything someone else kills. I'll even cook.

Life at the top of the food chain can sometimes be morally difficult, I guess. But both the view, and the food, is exceptional.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> Life is easy as a hypocrite.(me) I could never shoot an animal other than for pure survival, it's just not in me. But I'm just fine and dandy eating anything someone else kills. I'll even cook.
> 
> Life at the top of the food chain can sometimes be morally difficult, I guess. But both the view, and the food, is exceptional.



If it is any consolation. All these buffalo pigs and other feral animals that get killed over here and left to rot are generally so people can eat vegetables.

Those vegetarians are scumbags.


----------



## Tez3

Buka said:


> Life is easy as a hypocrite.(me) I could never shoot an animal other than for pure survival, it's just not in me. But I'm just fine and dandy eating anything someone else kills. I'll even cook.
> 
> Life at the top of the food chain can sometimes be morally difficult, I guess. But both the view, and the food, is exceptional.



No arguments from me, I just don't see why people find killing animals enjoyable and fun. They aren't even using the carcase for food, just cutting the tail off for example as a trophy. One has to have respect for life, that doesn't mean you have to be a veggie but it means you kill only what you need for food and use as much of the animal as possible. Killing anything should not be a pleasure, even if it's a necessity.


----------



## Flying Crane

Tez3 said:


> No arguments from me, I just don't see why people find killing animals enjoyable and fun. They aren't even using the carcase for food, just cutting the tail off for example as a trophy. One has to have respect for life, that doesn't mean you have to be a veggie but it means you kill only what you need for food and use as much of the animal as possible. Killing anything should not be a pleasure, even if it's a necessity.


And some animals should never be hunted for any reason, like elephants, rhinos, whales, dolphins, polar bears, big cats...
Those aren't animals we need to eat.


----------



## Flying Crane

PhotonGuy said:


> This thread was not supposed to be about hunting and it was not supposed to be about AR-15s which Steve has brought into the discussion from left field, its supposed to be about the .600 Overkill. You don't like hunting buffalo? Fine. I didn't hunt the buffalo in the picture, its just a picture the company uses to show the size of the rifle in comparison to the buffalo. I was asking of anybody would ever try shooting it. And by that I mean not at a buffalo but at a shooting range.


At nearly $50 per cartridge, who can afford to go shooting at the range with it?  There is very little reason to own one, other than for the purpose for which it was designed, which is killing elephants.  So, why do you have one?  It's not a "fun" gun to have, unless you are quite wealthy you can't go spend the day firing off a couple hundred rounds at the range, just for fun.  The recoil must be downright unpleasant if not injurious, so I can't imagine it would be fun at all to shoot.


----------



## Steve




----------



## Xue Sheng

Many years ago my cousin lived in Colorado and his next door neighbor was John Denver, but he never saw him, they lived on different mountains. My cousin had a .460 Weatherby Magnum he carried when he went out on his property, not with the intent to kill something, although he did hunt deer for the meat, just not with the .460 Weatherby Magnum. He carried the .460 Weatherby Magnum just in case he ever ran into a Grizzly bear that was not all to happy with his presence. While he lived there he did come across a Grizzly but luckily he never had to use the Weatherby.

 There can be other reasons to own these guns than what they were intended for. However I do not think I would go get me a .460 Weatherby Magnum for target practice.


----------



## Tez3

Xue Sheng said:


> He carried the .460 Weatherby Magnum just in case he ever ran into a Grizzly bear that was not all to happy with his presence



If the grizzly came into his home he'd be entitled to shoot it to defend him and his family, if he goes into the grizzly's home the bear should be entitled to defend himself without being shot surely.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Tez3 said:


> If the grizzly came into his home he'd be entitled to shoot it to defend him and his family, if he goes into the grizzly's home the bear should be entitled to defend himself without being shot surely.


From a moral standpoint, sure. But at the same time, if I accidentally wander into a grizzly's den, I've got the gun and he looks like he's going to kill me, you can be I'm shooting him. Not going to give my life up for the moral high ground. If I wander in, see him sleeping, I'd just try to slip away.


----------



## Tez3

kempodisciple said:


> From a moral standpoint, sure. But at the same time, if I accidentally wander into a grizzly's den, I've got the gun and he looks like he's going to kill me, you can be I'm shooting him. Not going to give my life up for the moral high ground. If I wander in, see him sleeping, I'd just try to slip away.



or you could just not go anywhere near where bears live................

Is it true that the US is bringing I a law that hunters can shoot hibernating bears? It's been on the news here but it sounds ridiculous so we assume it's not true.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Tez3 said:


> or you could just not go anywhere near where bears live................
> 
> Is it true that the US is bringing I a law that hunters can shoot hibernating bears? It's been on the news here but it sounds ridiculous so we assume it's not true.


Ideally, I would not go where bears live. But if I'm camping and accidentally run into one, I'm going to defend myself rather than die.

I have no clue. I haven't heard that law, but I also don't go hunting so don't really pay attention to news in that area.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> or you could just not go anywhere near where bears live................
> 
> Is it true that the US is bringing I a law that hunters can shoot hibernating bears? It's been on the news here but it sounds ridiculous so we assume it's not true.


One of the funniest SNL skits was about the Hip Hop Kids, trapped in a bear cave.  Please, you guys.  Look it up.  You will thank me.  It will provide a much needed laugh, I hope.


----------



## Paul_D

Tez3 said:


> Is it true that the US is bringing I a law that hunters can shoot hibernating bears? It's been on the news here but it sounds ridiculous so we assume it's not true.


Sounds about as moronic as you can get, but as the saying go is... Only in America...

Donald Trump makes it legal to shoot hibernating bears


----------



## Flying Crane

Tez3 said:


> or you could just not go anywhere near where bears live................
> 
> Is it true that the US is bringing I a law that hunters can shoot hibernating bears? It's been on the news here but it sounds ridiculous so we assume it's not true.


Good gawd, I hope not!!!  I've not heard of it.


----------



## Steve

I like that the rifle maker was self aware and called this the "overkill."


----------



## CB Jones

Tez3 said:


> If the grizzly came into his home he'd be entitled to shoot it to defend him and his family, if he goes into the grizzly's home the bear should be entitled to defend himself without being shot surely.




what constitutes "his den?"

Is he paying property tax on said den?  Claiming squatters rights?  lol


And why is it so immoral to kill a bear that is a dangerous predator and whose species have killed many of people over centuries...but perfectly ok to kill an innocent lamb because the lamb is tastes delicious.

Seems awful judgemental to characterize someone as immoral just because your opinion of hunting differs from theirs. 

I have no problem with sport hunting as long as sound management and conservation practices are being utilized.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> If the grizzly came into his home he'd be entitled to shoot it to defend him and his family, if he goes into the grizzly's home the bear should be entitled to defend himself without being shot surely.



He was not looking to shoot a Grizzly, he was looking to protect himself should one decide to attack him while he was in the woods.

Like I said, he saw grizzlies, but they left him alone so he did not bother them either. To be honest, cougars are much more dangerous and those were there too. But he did not see any, but that does not mean the did not see him.


----------



## CB Jones

Paul_D said:


> Sounds about as moronic as you can get, but as the saying go is... Only in America...
> 
> Donald Trump makes it legal to shoot hibernating bears



Oh Goodness.

They repealed a law that Obama passed in 2016 that took away the state of Alaska's ability to manage its own wildlife and put the federal gov't in charge of it.

The shooting of hibernating bears is media BS.  The law just put management of regulations back into the hands of the state of Alaska.


----------



## Tames D

Paul_D said:


> Sounds about as moronic as you can get, but as the saying go is... Only in America...


Look Mildred... we have once again been insulted by the Europeans.


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> Many years ago my cousin lived in Colorado and his next door neighbor was John Denver, but he never saw him, they lived on different mountains. My cousin had a .460 Weatherby Magnum he carried when he went out on his property, not with the intent to kill something, although he did hunt deer for the meat, just not with the .460 Weatherby Magnum. He carried the .460 Weatherby Magnum just in case he ever ran into a Grizzly bear that was not all to happy with his presence. While he lived there he did come across a Grizzly but luckily he never had to use the Weatherby.
> 
> There can be other reasons to own these guns than what they were intended for. However I do not think I would go get me a .460 Weatherby Magnum for target practice.


Sure.   But I'll propose that a .600 is a poor choice for defense against a charging grizzly.  It's both way too much, and not enough, at the same time.

It's a pretty poor choice of gun to just..."have".


----------



## CB Jones

Flying Crane said:


> It's a pretty poor choice of gun to just..."have".



Why is that?

If you collect guns....what makes it a poor choice to add to your collection?


----------



## CB Jones

Flying Crane said:


> And some animals should never be hunted for any reason, like elephants, rhinos, whales, dolphins, polar bears, big cats...
> Those aren't animals we need to eat.



Culling to Conserve: A Hard Truth for Lion Conservation


----------



## drop bear

Tames D said:


> Look Mildred... we have once again been insulted by the Europeans.



Well.  All they get to hunt is rabbits so it is understandable that everything else seems exotic.


----------



## Flying Crane

CB Jones said:


> Why is that?
> 
> If you collect guns....what makes it a poor choice to add to your collection?


It's pointless.


----------



## Flying Crane

CB Jones said:


> Culling to Conserve: A Hard Truth for Lion Conservation


Oh of course I am aware of this.  What is touched upon in the article, but barely discussed, is that the need to take such action is caused by encroaching human activity creating a loss of habitat.  Humans created the problem, and then are forced to look for a solution.  Unfortunately culling may be part of that solution.  That doesn't negate the heniousness of getting ones rocks off by killing an animal for something as shallow as a trophy.  And it ignores the root of the problem.


----------



## Headhunter

Personally I just hate all guns, I've seen to many lives ruined because of them any coward can pull a trigger. I know some carry for self defence and that's fine I can agree with that as long as the person has self control and doesn't just shoot some guy he's having words with,

Personally I'm not into weapon training at all. I like the empty hand aspect and training your body. I just don't see any value to me for weapon training but that's just me I've seen amazing weapons guys who I have a lot of respect for but it's just not my thing.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> Sure.   But I'll propose that a .600 is a poor choice for defense against a charging grizzly.  It's both way too much, and not enough, at the same time.
> 
> It's a pretty poor choice of gun to just..."have".



Yes but it was a .460 Weatherby Magnum, not a .600


----------



## CB Jones

Flying Crane said:


> That doesn't negate the heniousness of getting ones rocks off by killing an animal for something as shallow as a trophy.



You believe it to be heinous because you don't understand it.

You make broad assumptions about people you don't know based on something you don't understand and then try to act like you have taken some kind of moral high ground.

Hunters do more for conservation than most people who are anti-hunting.


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> Yes but it was a .460 Weatherby Magnum, not a .600


Oh of course.  That is a better choice for bear defense.  I understand the point you are making, and at the same time simply comment that I don't see an equivalence for the .600.


----------



## Flying Crane

CB Jones said:


> You believe it to be heinous because you don't understand it.
> 
> You make broad assumptions about people you don't know based on something you don't understand and then try to act like you have taken some kind of moral high ground.
> 
> Hunters do more for conservation than most people who are anti-hunting.


Oh I understand it.  I grew up hunting, I am a gun owner, I get it. But there is a huge huge difference between hunting to eat something, and hunting to just sever the head and nail it up on the wall of your mancave, and spread its skin over your floor.  If that is how one gets ones rocks off, well...


----------



## CB Jones

Flying Crane said:


> Oh I understand it.  I grew up hunting, I am a gun owner, I get it. But there is a huge huge difference between hunting to eat something, and hunting to just sever the head and nail it up on the wall of your mancave, and spread its skin over your floor.  If that is how one gets ones rocks off, well...




Again....Thats more sit on a moral high horse and judge other peoples motives that you are just making assumptions about bull****

The idea that you are morally superior because you ate what you killed is non-sense.


----------



## Headhunter

CB Jones said:


> You believe it to be heinous because you don't understand it.
> 
> You make broad assumptions about people you don't know based on something you don't understand and then try to act like you have taken some kind of moral high ground.
> 
> Hunters do more for conservation than most people who are anti-hunting.


Hunters also do more to cause extinction in animals than people who are anti hunting


----------



## CB Jones

Headhunter said:


> Hunters also do more to cause extinction in animals than people who are anti hunting


----------



## Headhunter

CB Jones said:


>


Ah yes the typical way of not being able to say anything back trying to hard to be funny


----------



## Streetfighter2

Only cowards use guns


----------



## CB Jones

Headhunter said:


> Ah yes the typical way of not being able to say anything back trying to hard to be funny



How bout this then.

Everything you said is complete Bull****

nothing funny about that.


----------



## Streetfighter2

Headhunter said:


> Ah yes the typical way of not being able to say anything back trying to hard to be funny


Yeah it seems that guy does it a lot...well humours all he has because by looking at his posts his only form of martial art training is driving his kid to karate class and sitting and watching


----------



## Headhunter

CB Jones said:


> How bout this then.
> 
> Everything you said is complete Bull****
> 
> nothing funny about that.


Again you can't actually argue with it. But okay you go carry killing innocent animals to fuel your ego whatever works for you


----------



## CB Jones

Headhunter said:


> Hunters also do more to cause extinction in animals than people who are anti hunting



Here is why I claim what you say is bull****

---In 1907, only 41,000 elk remained in North America. Thanks to the money and hard work invested by hunters to restore and conserve habitat, today there are more than 1 million.

---In 1900, only 500,000 whitetails remained. Thanks to conservation work spearheaded by hunters, today there are more than 32 million

---In 1900, only 100,000 wild turkeys remained. Thanks to hunters, today there are over 7 million.

---In 1901, few ducks remained. Thanks to hunters’ efforts to restore and conserve wetlands, today there are more than 44 million.

---In 1950, only 12,000 pronghorn remained. Thanks to hunters, today there are more than 1.1 million.

---Habitat, research and wildlife law enforcement work, all paid for by hunters, help countless non-hunted species.

---Through state licenses and fees, hunters pay $796 million a year for conservation programs.

---Through donations to conservation groups, hunters add $440 million a year to conservation efforts.

---In 1937, hunters actually requested an 11% tax on guns, ammo, bows and arrows to help fund conservation. That tax, so far, raised more than $8 billion for wildlife conservation.

---11% tax on guns, ammo, bows and arrows generates $371 million a year for conservation.

---All together, hunters pay more than $1.6 billion a year for conservation programs.

---Avid hunter Theodore Roosevelt created our national forests and grasslands and forever protected 230 million acres for wildlife and the public to use and enjoy.

---With funding from hunters, conservation groups helped restore wild elk herds in seven states and provinces.

---legalizing hunting of the white rhino in South Africa had motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands.  "As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than 100 individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies,

---legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population


----------



## Flying Crane

CB Jones said:


> Again....Thats more sit on a moral high horse and judge other peoples motives that you are just making assumptions about bull****
> 
> The idea that you are morally superior because you ate what you killed is non-sense.


Ok well, people come up with all kinds of excuses to justify heinous behavior.


----------



## Flying Crane

Headhunter said:


> Hunters also do more to cause extinction in animals than people who are anti hunting


To be fair, hunters in the US at least have done a lot for conservation.  But this is mostly different from pure trophy hunting.  Deer, Elk, ducks, geese, pheasants, rabbits, squirrels, are all game animals that are regularly eaten, and I don't have a problem with that as long as it is done responsibly, and with conservation in mind.

What is heinous is the pure trophy hunt, whether those animals are exotic or local, and particularly when the animals may be threatened or endangered, and some of which are undeniably highly intelligent, like elephants.  Safari, where the wealthy pay for the privilege of shooting one of these animals for the adrenaline rush and for the trophy, is despicable behavior.  There is a special place in Hell reserved for those people.  And I don't even believe in Hell.


----------



## CB Jones

Flying Crane said:


> To be fair, hunters in the US at least have done a lot for conservation.  But this is mostly different from pure trophy hunting.  Deer, Elk, ducks, geese, pheasants, rabbits, squirrels, are all game animals that are regularly eaten, and I don't have a problem with that as long as it is done responsibly, and with conservation in mind.
> 
> What is heinous is the pure trophy hunt, whether those animals are exotic or local, and particularly when the animals may be threatened or endangered, and some of which are undeniably highly intelligent, like elephants.  Safari, where the wealthy pay for the privilege of shooting one of these animals for the adrenaline rush and for the trophy, is despicable behavior.  There is a special place in Hell reserved for those people.  And I don't even believe in Hell.



I disagree.  Conservation in the US was led by trophy hunters.  Same thing is happening in Africa.  Trophy Hunters are a big part of conservation there and like in the US when done responsibly it will greatly benefit many African game and non-game species.


----------



## Flying Crane

CB Jones said:


> I disagree.  Conservation in the US was led by trophy hunters.  Same thing is happening in Africa.  Trophy Hunters are a big part of conservation there and like in the US when done responsibly it will greatly benefit many African game and non-game species.


Ok, disagree then.  

There is certainly an incentive to conserve, if for nothing else than to ensure they can continue to get their rocks off and compensate for whatever other shortcomings they may have, by killing animals from a position of relative safety to decorate the man cave.  Hey, whatever makes one feel strong and manly...

That does not negate the fact that the need to take conservative action in the first place was caused by human behavior:  destroying habitat, and early hunting practices that nearly wiped out some species, did wipe out others, and still has others on the brink.  Yes, some species have rebounded, but others have not, and many have disappeared altogether and it is too late for them.  To then turn around and point to conservation as a justification of trophy hunting, is pathetic.

Sure, safari and trophy hunts can bring money into local economies, but that is blood money.  Some jobs and some professions simply should not exist, they are heinous by their very nature.  Ecology and nature tourism is a much better option in the long run.  It provides more job opportunities for the local populations, and more stable and regular income.


----------



## Steve

CB Jones said:


> You believe it to be heinous because you don't understand it.
> 
> You make broad assumptions about people you don't know based on something you don't understand and then try to act like you have taken some kind of moral high ground.
> 
> Hunters do more for conservation than most people who are anti-hunting.


I agree, but would qualify it a bit.  SOME hunters (maybe even most).

The issue here I see is a common one.  There are some few hunters who "get their rocks off" killing things.  I think going to Africa and coaxing an animal off of a protected reserve in order to shoot it to be pretty sleazy.

I don't see a lot of value in breeding animals so that they can be hunted, which isn't conservation.  I'm referring to businesses that breed animals and go around ahead of hunters, placing them so that they can be shot.  That's not hunting, IMO.

I do understand that hunting wildlife is necessary and helpful to the ecosystem, and have no concerns at all about it.  And I understand that the hunters I mention above, along with some others who engage in questionable behavior, are a subset of hunters. 

I also don't have a problem with people collecting rifles or handguns, even if they aren't practical, provided they know how to use them.  I have posted my opinions in past years on regulation, which I fully support.


----------



## CB Jones

Flying Crane said:


> Ecology and nature tourism is a much better option in the long run



And if these practices fail will you be ok with those species going extinct?


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> There are some few hunters who "get their rocks off" killing things.



Agree...What I have a problem with is making the broad assumption that all trophy hunters are heinous and immoral.



Steve said:


> I don't see a lot of value in breeding animals so that they can be hunted, which isn't conservation. I'm referring to businesses that breed animals and go around ahead of hunters, placing them so that they can be shot. That's not hunting



I agree 100%



Steve said:


> I do understand that hunting wildlife is necessary and helpful to the ecosystem, and have no concerns at all about it. And I understand that the hunters I mention above, along with some others who engage in questionable behavior, are a subset of hunters.



Agree


----------



## Tez3

Why were these animals going extinct in the first place? They weren't naturally becoming extinct because of weather conditions, predation by other animals etc. Taking lives just for fun is just always going to be wrong.
Saying trophy hunters conserve wildlife is strange considering that the wildlife was going extinct because of trophy hunters in the first place.


----------



## Tez3

CB Jones said:


> Agree...What I have a problem with is making the broad assumption that all trophy hunters are heinous and immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100%
> 
> 
> 
> Agree




How are they not though? They kill for the pleasure it brings them, they kill for the joy of killing, how is that not heinous and immoral?


----------



## CB Jones

Tez3 said:


> Why were these animals going extinct in the first place? They weren't naturally becoming extinct because of weather conditions, predation by other animals etc. Taking lives just for fun is just always going to be wrong.
> Saying trophy hunters conserve wildlife is strange considering that the wildlife was going extinct because of trophy hunters in the first place.



Were animals going extinct because of Trophy Hunters?

Or were animals going extinct because of a combination of loss of habitat and poachers killing for profit?


----------



## Flying Crane

CB Jones said:


> Were animals going extinct because of Trophy Hunters?
> 
> Or were animals going extinct because of a combination of loss of habitat and poachers killing for profit?


It's all part of it.  Of course poachers probably have a greater impact, but that is illegal, plain and simple.  Trophy hunting may not be illegal, but it is immoral and heinous, and that's why there is debate around it.  Some disgusting people want to do it.  Other people say, wait a minute, there is a problem here...And the habitat loss is a consequence of human behavior.  That's the real issue:  humans caused the problem in the first place.  Trophy hunters who claim rights based on conservation, have a twisted, bankrupt morality.  They are opportunists who twist the conservation reality and use it to justify killing for fun.  Special place in hell...


----------



## Flying Crane

CB Jones said:


> And if these practices fail will you be ok with those species going extinct?


Ok, this is a bizarre, twisted form of logic..


----------



## Xue Sheng

OK, time for a musical interlude....I honestly have no idea why, unless its the bang bang line...other than that I have no clue....but this thread is causing this song to run in my demented little noggin






OK, I'll go now


----------



## CB Jones

Tez3 said:


> They kill for the pleasure it brings them, they kill for the joy of killing



If that were the case....wouldn't they kill indiscriminately?  Why spend all the time and money hunting for a trophy when simply killing is what brings pleasure?


When I hunt whitetail deer, I don't kill every deer that I see.  I'm hunting solely the older mature trophy bucks.  I'm letting all others pass.  If you feel that I'm heinous and immoral for this then I can't help that.

I grew up hunting and where I live this is culturally accepted.


----------



## Flying Crane

CB Jones said:


> If that were the case....wouldn't they kill indiscriminately?  Why spend all the time and money hunting for a trophy when simply killing is what brings pleasure?
> 
> 
> When I hunt whitetail deer, I don't kill every deer that I see.  I'm hunting solely the older mature trophy bucks.  I'm letting all others pass.  If you feel that I'm heinous and immoral for this then I can't help that.
> 
> I grew up hunting and where I live this is culturally accepted.


Ok, twisted logic at play here once again in that first part...

But I'll ask:  are you also eating the meat, or just nailing the head or the rack onto your wall?  I will assume you are hunting within compliance of your local hunting laws.


----------



## CB Jones

Flying Crane said:


> But I'll ask: are you also eating the meat,



I am.....but the meat is not the reason I hunt.

I hunt because I enjoy hunting.


----------



## Steve

The Crucial Role of Predators: A New Perspective on Ecology

Predators are very important to the ecosystems.  Too many predators is also a real problem, but the article above mentions the re-introduction of wolves in Yellowstone.  There's an interesting YouTube video regarding that very thing, which I recommend watching.  It's informative.

Point, though, is that balance is important.  Most hunters (all of the ones I know) eat what they hunt.  I live in a semi-rural area, and the butchers around here are very good at processing game, as are some of the hunters.  My friends who hunt enjoy it.  They look forward to it. 

And unless one is a vegan, I don't know that there is a lot of moral high ground to be had.


----------



## Flying Crane

CB Jones said:


> I am.....but the meat is not the reason I hunt.
> 
> I hunt because I enjoy hunting.


Thank you for your honesty.

What do you enjoy?  The process of stalking and out-witting a wary animal?  Or the killing?  Or both?  Which one more?  Or something else?


----------



## CB Jones

Flying Crane said:


> The process of stalking and out-witting a wary animal?



And the satisfaction and excitement of taking that Trophy buck.

I guess it is a combination of both


----------



## Tez3

Around where I live someone is killing cats, domestic ones, is that acceptable? In a town not far from me, two men were found guilty of cruelty because they drove a nail into a dog's head and then buried it alive, how is that worse than killing an animal and slicing it's tail/antlers/hors off? We have people here illegally chasing hares with dogs, digging up badgers, all illegal, they do it for fun, for the thrill of killing, it's illegal because it's cruelty and these people disgusting, how is it different from killing an animal for fun?
I can understand enjoying the tracking, outwitting the animal etc but why must it end in the animal's death? Isn't it enough to know you *could* kill it rather than actually killing it just for the antlers/horns? I have a lovely set of antlers in my house, they fell off a red deer, I didn't need to kill it.


----------



## Flying Crane

CB Jones said:


> And the satisfaction and excitement of taking that Trophy buck.
> 
> I guess it is a combination of both


I appreciate your honesty.


----------



## CB Jones

Tez,

To answer your question....no there isn't the same excitement and pleasure from just simply seeing the animal.

There is probably a cultural difference in play here as many people here where I live hunt for the pleasure of hunting.


----------



## Steve

At least we know where people stand.  I see a huge difference between nailing dogs' heads to the ground and hunting a deer.  The two just aren't related in my mind.   But I also don't see any similarity between fishing and nailing a dog's head to the ground. 

Fishing is like hunting.  The only real difference in my opinion is that fishing is done with hooks, spears and knives and not a gun or a bow. 

Question, is fishing for trophies just as cruel, or are we only worried about animals with fur?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Steve said:


> At least we know where people stand.  I see a huge difference between nailing dogs' heads to the ground and hunting a deer.  The two just aren't related in my mind.   But I also don't see any similarity between fishing and nailing a dog's head to the ground.
> 
> Fishing is like hunting.  The only real difference in my opinion is that fishing is done with hooks, spears and knives and not a gun or a bow.
> 
> Question, is fishing for trophies just as cruel, or are we only worried about animals with fur?



One can catch fish with a bow; Bow fishing


----------



## Steve

Xue Sheng said:


> One can catch fish with a bow; Bow fishing


  Of course.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Steve said:


> Of course.



I only know because I have another cousin that wanted to try it when I was a kid and I remember seeing the bow and the arrows for it. Have no idea if he ever got anything


----------



## CB Jones

One day I would like to go Bowfishing for jumping Asian Carp.


----------



## Steve

The question remains, is fishing okay?  Is nailing a fish to the bottom of a river with a bow and arrow the same as nailing a dog's head to the ground in the UK?


----------



## Xue Sheng

CB Jones said:


> One day I would like to go Bowfishing for jumping Asian Carp.



He would have been fishing in the Allegany river or at Kinzua dam many many years ago.... no jumping Asian carp there...lots of giant carp though at the dam.


----------



## Tez3

CB Jones said:


> There is probably a cultural difference in play here as many people here where I live hunt for the pleasure of hunting.



We hunt here but the difference is we eat what we kill, fox hunting was banned some years ago. I will never understand the pleasure of killing animals. I can kill them to eat or because they were wounded/sick beyond help but never for the pleasure of seeing them die.


----------



## CB Jones

Tez3 said:


> We hunt here but the difference is we eat what we kill,



As do we, but are you claiming that there ya'll kill solely for meat and there is no sport or enjoyment of the hunt involved?

I like venison.....but to be honest, I'm not spending $1,500 - $2,000 a year just for 100-150 lbs of meat.  And some years, I spend that without killing any.....like this year.  (But I had a great time hunting a large 11 point that refused to move during the daytime)




Tez3 said:


> I can kill them to eat



I'm sure they appreciate that you eat them afterwards.    lol


----------



## Xue Sheng

You know, I once new a guy who had a Marlin 444 for home defense..... that I thought was overkill, no pun intended, and rather dangerous for his neighborhood too. But then he also had an authentic crusade era scimitar for the same thing..... so I am guessing he was a little bit crazy anyways.


----------



## Flying Crane

CB Jones said:


> As do we, but are you claiming that there ya'll kill solely for meat and there is no sport or enjoyment of the hunt involved?
> 
> I like venison.....but to be honest, I'm not spending $1,500 - $2,000 a year just for 100-150 lbs of meat.  And some years, I spend that without killing any.....like this year.  (But I had a great time hunting a large 11 point that refused to move during the daytime)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they appreciate that you eat them afterwards.    lol


I don't think anyone would say they don't enjoy the sport of it, the stalking and outwitting a wary animal.  But if someone finds pleasure in the actual killing, vs. simply accepting the killing part as the necessary outcome to acquire the meat, well that is troubling.  Seeing the killing as entertainment, that is troubling.

I had a neighbor who was keeping roosters that he entered into fights.  It was a cultural thing.  This was inside city limits, having roosters is illegal because of the noise, and they would crow all night.  I tried to be a good neighbor and mind my own business. I suspected what they were doing, but I did not know for sure, and they wouldn't talk about it.  So I looked the other way.  Then one day they just admitted that they were fighting the roosters, I wasn't even asking.  I was their neighbor for five years, I minded my business over it for about four years.  Then I reported them to the police and they were raided and the birds taken.

Making animals kill each other for our entertainment is sick and twisted.  I don't care if it's a cultural thing, it's morally bankrupt.

I think that is related.  Hunting for meat, doing it humanely and within the local hunting laws and with an eye for conservation, I don't see a problem with that, and I assume there is an enjoyment of the process.  And if there is a trophy as part of that experience, that does not upset me.

But hunting purely for a trophy, with no interest in the meat, just for the adrenaline of going after a dangerous and rare animal like a tiger or elephant or such, that is disgusting.  And using dogs to herd the anmal into the hunters, like that asshat from the Internet link who was killed by an elephant, well that is especially disgusting and he got what he deserved, good riddance to him.

The type and method and purpose of the hunt matters, as well as what animals are being hunted.

arguably, stock yards and commercial farming are much more inhumane than a lot of the hunting that happens.  I don't disagree with that.  There is a lot that ought to be fixed there.  But shooting an animal just to kill it, just for fun, just for a trophy, just for the adrenaline rush and the bragging rights, without even pretending that there is a legitimate meat issue there, is heinous.


----------



## Tez3

CB Jones said:


> As do we, but are you claiming that there ya'll kill solely for meat and there is no sport or enjoyment of the hunt involved?
> 
> I like venison.....but to be honest, I'm not spending $1,500 - $2,000 a year just for 100-150 lbs of meat.  And some years, I spend that without killing any.....like this year.  (But I had a great time hunting a large 11 point that refused to move during the daytime)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they appreciate that you eat them afterwards.    lol




Where I live we go out and shoot pheasants, wood pigeons, partridges, grouse when we need something to eat, farmers and the people around here have no interest in the fun of hunting, it's just another job that needs to be done. Enjoyable? No, it's work. You need food, you get your shotgun and shoot something, that's it.

I'm sure they don't in the least appreciate being eaten but it's what you do in the country, especially when times are bad. When we leave Europe and the grants farmers get are gone there will be more animals shot for the table. It's not easy living where we do, no arable crops grow other than the hill meadows which are cut for winter feed and the only animals that you can farm are sheep, even deer can't live up on the hills . Shooting for 'pleasure' is for the rich who have the time and money to kill because they enjoy it.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, twisted logic at play here once again in that first part...
> 
> But I'll ask:  are you also eating the meat, or just nailing the head or the rack onto your wall?  I will assume you are hunting within compliance of your local hunting laws.



If you have a head nailed against the wall. That would mean you get more use out of the animal than eating it.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Where I live we go out and shoot pheasants, wood pigeons, partridges, grouse when we need something to eat, farmers and the people around here have no interest in the fun of hunting, it's just another job that needs to be done. Enjoyable? No, it's work. You need food, you get your shotgun and shoot something, that's it.
> 
> I'm sure they don't in the least appreciate being eaten but it's what you do in the country, especially when times are bad. When we leave Europe and the grants farmers get are gone there will be more animals shot for the table. It's not easy living where we do, no arable crops grow other than the hill meadows which are cut for winter feed and the only animals that you can farm are sheep, even deer can't live up on the hills . Shooting for 'pleasure' is for the rich who have the time and money to kill because they enjoy it.



Where I live animals like water buffalo are pests.  If they were not shot for fun.  They would have to be shot anyway. The difference is our poor farmers make money on hunting rather than spend it on culling.

If Photon Guy wanted to come here take that cannon of his and kill a few big animals environmentalists would be shaking his hand. 

Saves them doing it.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Where I live animals like water buffalo are pests



They aren't native animals are they? I know that camels which are now wild ( wild? they're flipping furious!) were introduced to the country.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> They aren't native animals are they? I know that camels which are now wild ( wild? they're flipping furious!) were introduced to the country.



Correct. Buffalo,camels,pigs,goats,deer. Are all big game hunters dream and their presence is not really wanted.

Culling these are one of the few reasons a civilian can own an Ar.


----------



## Tames D




----------



## JP3

PhotonGuy said:


> I got the .600 Overkill. Its quite awesome to fire. Anybody want to try?


Nope.

Don't want to hold it.


----------



## Buka

It's nice having a discussion about hunting and folks not getting crazy.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> It's nice having a discussion about hunting and folks not getting crazy.



I could fix that if you want.  They do it with knives and dogs over here. By the way from asking those guys I found out blood grooves don't do much.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

That is because a blood grove or fuller is designed to lighten a blade.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Buka said:


> It's nice having a discussion about hunting and folks not getting crazy.



I am not going to get into a discussion about hunting in this thread.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> I am not going to get into a discussion about hunting in this thread.



So...you post up a picture of a weapon specially made for killing large animals, with a photograph of a large dead animal_ knowing from past experience_ that many people here are anti killing _for pleasure_ and NOW you say you won't discuss hunting?


----------



## Buka

PhotonGuy said:


> I am not going to get into a discussion about hunting in this thread.



I don't blame you, bro, me either.


----------



## Tez3

Buka said:


> I don't blame you, bro, me either.



You wouldn't have brought it up again, knowing how that discussion goes when it is brought up as PG well knows, that's my point, to keep bringing up a subject that is decisive on here and then complain is just plain daft.


----------



## Tgace

Tez3 said:


> So...you post up a picture of a weapon specially made for killing large animals, with a photograph of a large dead animal_ knowing from past experience_ that many people here are anti killing _for pleasure_ and NOW you say you won't discuss hunting?



I've hunted Whitetail deer since I was 16. I certainly do it "for pleasure" because I don't "need" to kill my own meat. I enjoy the tradition. I enjoy the time with my Father, Uncle and other hunting partners. I enjoy stories of hunts years past and memories of my Grandfathers and Uncles who I hunted with but are now gone. I like being outdoors. And I enjoy the venison. In addition, we hunters help maintain the deer population since there are few (or no) other predators of animals that size in our area.

People saying hunters do it for pleasure of killing don't understand that for many (if not most) hunters the enjoyment of hunting is not found in the killing. And since I do eat what I kill anyone who is not a vegetarian has no real moral ground to stand on when debating me on the subject.

Interesting blog post on the ethics of eating/killing here:

Eating and caring: The lines we draw | Tovar Cerulli


----------



## Tgace

Not to mention that many environmental preservation programs wouldn't exist without the fees from our hunting licenses....

And

I think Tez has a very "British" view on hunting. Culturally and historically, hunting has been a very different activity in Britain vs here in the US. Hunting has been a "sport" in Britain for many years. It's not quite the same everywhere.


On hunting as "sport":

The 'sport' of hunting: Why I don’t call it that | Tovar Cerulli



> I, for the record, do not think modern hunting is essentially and fundamentally anything. There are all kinds of modern hunting, done for all kinds of reasons and in all kinds of ways. I know that you (like Phillip) aren’t fond of drawing distinctions among different kinds of hunting, and are concerned by the divisive potential. But take six different people:
> 
> • a hunter who hunts 200 days a year, pursuing 15 different species in 30 states
> • a hunter who hunts one week a year and puts one deer in the freezer
> • a hunter who gets out in the woods for a couple days each fall but hasn’t killed an animal in 20 years
> • a hunter who hunts on a different continent every month, aiming to get his or her name in the top tier of every world trophy-record book
> • a hunter who chooses to live in the Alaskan bush and feeds his or her family through hunting
> • a hunter who doesn’t eat wild meat but enjoys seeing prairie dogs explode at 300 yards, or likes shooting snowshoe hares over beagles and leaves the carcasses in the woods.
> 
> I think it’s silly to argue that hunting is essentially and fundamentally the same kind of activity for all of them.
> 
> For various hunters, in varying degrees, I think hunting is a way of obtaining food, a form of communion, a form of recreation, a way of engaging with the basic realities of life and death, and/or any number of other things.


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> And since I do eat what I kill




we aren't talking about people who eat what they kill, we are talking about people who kill for the sake of killing and having a trophy. they kill lions, tigers, elephants, giraffes etc with no intention of eating them purely for the thrill of killing .



Tgace said:


> I think Tez has a very "British" view on hunting. Culturally and historically, hunting has been a very different activity in Britain vs here in the US. Hunting has been a "sport" in Britain for many years. It's not quite the same everywhere.



I think you'll find I don't have a 'British' attitude about hunting, many people hunt for food here which if you'd read my posts you would have seen me say, only we do it in a businesslike manner, as a job to be done to put food on the table not for the pleasure of chatting with mates etc, the pubs for that. Don't mistake what rich people do up on the grouse moors with what normal people do.


----------



## Tgace

Tez3 said:


> we aren't talking about people who eat what they kill, we are talking about people who kill for the sake of killing and having a trophy. they kill lions, tigers, elephants, giraffes etc with no intention of eating them purely for the thrill of killing .



But you are disparaging people who hunt when they "don't have to", or enjoy the hunt in any way, even if they do eat what they kill.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> But you are disparaging people who hunt when they "don't have to", or enjoy the hunt in any way, even if they do eat what they kill.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Do you enjoy killing? Don't you think there is something wrong with enjoying the act of ending an animals life?
I'm not 'disparaging' I'm saying it isn't right  to enjoy killing, are you saying it is?


----------



## Tgace

Tez3 said:


> Do you enjoy killing? Don't you think there is something wrong with enjoying the act of ending an animals life?
> I'm not 'disparaging' I'm saying it isn't right  to enjoy killing, are you saying it is?



You obviously aren't reading my posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> You obviously aren't reading my posts.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I did, you enjoy all the fun of being with mates etc etc then killing something. Normal people go out clubbing, to the pub, cinema whatever and enjoy themselves with their mates and family, it doesn't usually involve killing animals. Killing animals for food is fine but it shouldn't be treated as a social occasion. Death isn't fun and enjoyable.


----------



## Tgace

I don't know why I'm bothering, because you just don't get it.

I enjoy hunting even when I don't kill anything. Your equation of Hunting with killing isn't what the enjoyment of Hunting is all about.

I'd take a day in the woods over a night boozing up any day. Equating alcohol consumption with enjoyment has led to more misery than hunting ever has 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## CB Jones

Tez3 said:


> Do you enjoy killing? Don't you think there is something wrong with enjoying the act of ending an animals life?
> I'm not 'disparaging' I'm saying it isn't right  to enjoy killing, are you saying it is?



Difficult question.

Although I do eat the meat.....I do enjoy the hunt....Love the thrill of hunting and the adrenaline of taking that trophy buck.

I love hunting and am not ashamed of that.


----------



## Tgace

Do men who enjoy being soldiers love the killing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> Do men who enjoy being soldiers love the killing?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Some do yes.

Do Some People Simply Like to Kill Other Animals?


----------



## Tgace

Some people do many things for many reasons. Most soldiers I knew did it for many different reasons...and the killing was only a small part of it. And one most took no pleasure in.

I've never felt pleased with the actual act of killing a deer. I've certainly felt pleased with the sense of accomplishment afterwards. I don't know what it's like in the U.K., but bagging a deer here is not simply walking into the woods and picking one out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> Some people do many things for many reasons. Most soldiers I knew did it for many different reasons...and the killing was only a small part of it. And one most took no pleasure in.
> 
> I've never felt pleased with the actual act of killing a deer. I've certainly felt pleased with the sense of accomplishment afterwards. I don't know what it's like in the U.K., but bagging a deer here is not simply walking into the woods and picking one out.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Soldiers are humans beings, with the range of emotions, motives, pleasures and hatreds just like any other human.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Soldiers are humans beings, with the range of emotions, motives, pleasures and hatreds just like any other human.


And the Brits say that we don't understand irony.


----------



## Tez3

why?


----------



## CB Jones

Tez3 said:


> View attachment 20815 View attachment 20816 View attachment 20817 View attachment 20818
> 
> 
> why?



Because....why not


----------



## Tgace

Tez3 said:


> View attachment 20815 View attachment 20816 View attachment 20817 View attachment 20818
> 
> 
> why?



Far different from what I do or what I'm talking about.


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> Far different from what I do or what I'm talking about.



Actually if you'd read what I and a couple of others were saying this is *exactly *what we were talking about.


CB Jones said:


> Because....why not



because _killing for the pleasure of killing_ is morally reprehensible.


----------



## Tgace

Tez3 said:


> Actually if you'd read what I and a couple of others were saying this is *exactly *what we were talking about.
> 
> 
> because _killing for the pleasure of killing_ is morally reprehensible.


But at the same time you take a shot at me implying that I enjoy killing and I should go to a bar with my father instead of the woods even though I'm not a trophy Hunter....

Whatever.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## CB Jones

Tez3 said:


> because _killing for the pleasure of killing_ is morally reprehensible.



Ok but that is not what is going on.

Claiming trophy hunting is simply killing for the sake of killing is an oversimplification solely for argument.

It is much more complicated than that.

If the killing for pleasure is the reason why would hunters spend 10 - 100s of thousands of dollars hunting when they could just kill animals locally (stray dogs, cats, feral hogs, etc) for nothing?

Because it isn't killing for the pleasure. It's the hunt, and rush of it all.


----------



## CB Jones

Would you feel better if African game populations were cut in half and exist solely on poorly managed govt preserves?


----------



## Tez3

CB Jones said:


> Ok but that is not what is going on.
> 
> Claiming trophy hunting is simply killing for the sake of killing is an oversimplification solely for argument.
> 
> It is much more complicated than that.
> 
> If the killing for pleasure is the reason why would hunters spend 10 - 100s of thousands of dollars hunting when they could just kill animals locally (stray dogs, cats, feral hogs, etc) for nothing?
> 
> Because it isn't killing for the pleasure. It's the hunt, and rush of it all.






CB Jones said:


> Would you feel better if African game populations were cut in half and exist solely on poorly managed govt preserves?



it's always 'more complicated' than that though isn't it. It's always 'you don't understand' because managing wildlife is so much more complicated than people think because the rest of us are so stupid. It's always 'oh you people just don't understand'.

'it's the hunt' the rush of it' Yeah of course it is, because taking a photo isn't the same as killing is it, no fun in killing ordinary everyday animals, it has to be big, who wants to pose by a dog after all.

These people spend the money because it's what people like them do, spend a lot of money. What's the fun of having money unless you can show you have money? Most people can't afford to hunt big game even if they wanted to so it's a self appointed elite showing off their wealth and lack of morals at the same time.


----------



## CB Jones

Tez3 said:


> 'it's the hunt' the rush of it' Yeah of course it is, because taking a photo isn't the same as killing is it, no fun in killing ordinary everyday animals, it has to be big, who wants to pose by a dog after all.
> 
> These people spend the money because it's what people like them do, spend a lot of money. What's the fun of having money unless you can show you have money? Most people can't afford to hunt big game even if they wanted to so it's a self appointed elite showing off their wealth and lack of morals at the same time.



Well until the non hunters get off there moral high horse and stop looking down there nose at the hunters that are paying for the habitat the animals live on and start footing the bill for these habitats it is a necessity.

Because right now it's hunters footing a large part of the bill not photographers hoping to photo animals singing Hakuna Matata.

And Lets remember who should cast the first stone before we start judging people.


----------



## Tez3

CB Jones said:


> Well until the non hunters get off there moral high horse and stop looking down there nose at the hunters that are paying for the habitat the animals live on and start footing the bill for these habitats it is a necessity.
> 
> Because right now it's hunters footing a large part of the bill not photographers hoping to photo animals singing Hakuna Matata.
> 
> And Lets remember who should cast the first stone before we start judging people.



Really? and why would habitats need funding when they were perfectly fine before man got involved. Laughable. Non hunters aren't looking down their noses, they are disgusted at people trying to defend the indefensible. You are assuming all non hunters are some sort of hippies, so you are judging people. I'm not sure what stones you think people are throwing. I for one aren't saying we should be vegan or not eat meat, I'm saying one should not kill animals for pleasure, for the enjoyment of seeing life drain from the body of an animal.  Killing for pleasure is morally reprehensible and wrong.  

http://freefromharm.org/common-just...g-wildlife-population-control-ethical-eating/


----------



## Steve

I think there are a few distinctions to be drawn.  There is a distinction between poaching and hunting.  Illegal hunting is generally to the detriment of the local ecosystem and can result in entire species of animals becoming extinct.  I think that's reprehensible.  In the States, the hunters are typically on the right side of the law and are actually helping protect the ecosystem, not destroy it.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Really? and why would habitats need funding when they were perfectly fine before man got involved. Laughable. Non hunters aren't looking down their noses, they are disgusted at people trying to defend the indefensible. You are assuming all non hunters are some sort of hippies, so you are judging people. I'm not sure what stones you think people are throwing. I for one aren't saying we should be vegan or not eat meat, I'm saying one should not kill animals for pleasure, for the enjoyment of seeing life drain from the body of an animal.  Killing for pleasure is morally reprehensible and wrong.
> 
> Hunting for Wildlife Population Control and Ethical Eating?


I think there's room here for a reasonable middle ground.  I support hunters and have absolutely no trouble with it.  I also endorse raising animals ethically on farms in humane conditions.  And see no conflict between the two.

You don't do yourself favors saying you aren't a hippy or a vegan, but linking to articles that are absolutely anti-hunting (any kind of hunting) on pro-vegan websites.  

I also notice in the last paragraph, it draws a direct line between North American hunters who typically hunt for deer, and people in Africa who illegally poach elephant. 

This is an emotional position yearning for logical rationale, and it just isn't there.


----------



## Buka

Several thoughts....

In honor of this thread, I just took the last of the venison out of the freezer. Going to grill it this time, rather than make stew.

I don't like killing game, but I love eating the game my friends give me.

Vegan - old Cherokee Indian word meaning "lousy hunter"


----------



## Tez3

Buka said:


> I don't like killing game, but I love eating the game my friends give me.



and that's my point.
No one should like or enjoy killing. if it has to be done it should be done  but to *enjoy the act of killing *is very wrong.


----------



## Tgace

Tez3 said:


> and that's my point.
> No one should like or enjoy killing. if it has to be done it should be done  but to *enjoy the act of killing *is very wrong.



There you go again. Implying that ALL hunters are doing something wrong unless they hunt for subsistence reasons ("if it HAS to be done"). I don't NEED to hunt to feed my family, I hunt because I enjoy hunting. The killing of the game is only one aspect of hunting. In the end, what is the ultimate difference between my killing my own meat or going to the store to buy it? Besides your your judgmental attitude regarding what I may feel while acquiring my food?


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> There you go again. Implying that ALL hunters are doing something wrong unless they hunt for subsistence reasons ("if it HAS to be done"). I don't NEED to hunt to feed my family, I hunt because I enjoy hunting. The killing of the game is only one aspect of hunting. In the end, what is the ultimate difference between my killing my own meat or going to the store to buy it? Besides your your judgmental attitude regarding what I may feel while acquiring my food?



Good grief, you haven't understood a word have you? The implication is entirely in your mind not mine, *I never* *imply*, I always state exactly what I think. You have absolutely no idea have you of what I'm saying.

I'm not sure why you are taking this personally, you seem to think I'm getting at you. I assume you have little idea of the way many hunts are enacted in other countries. It's not all about you.

Hundreds of wild animals to be slaughtered in Limpopo, South Africa
“They have built platforms that line the bush for the hunters to stand on and have employed locals to walk in a straight line beating metal drums to chase the animals into the slaughter strip.

“The hunters then take pot shots at the animals. The animals have no chance of evading the onslaught and the hunters have no way of ensuring a clean shot or a humane death.

“From past hunts like these we have seen that much of the kill can’t be eaten or used as trophies because the dead animals are so full of bullets.”


----------



## CB Jones

Tez

We will agree to disagree then.


----------



## Tez3

CB Jones said:


> Tez
> 
> We will agree to disagree then.



You aren't agreeing with me nor disagreeing because you are talking about something I'm not. You are having a completely different conversation to me.


----------



## CB Jones

Tez3 said:


> You aren't agreeing with me nor disagreeing because you are talking about something I'm not. You are having a completely different conversation to me.



Ok in that case......Let me end it with....I no longer give a hill of beans about your opinion on this subject and I'm done discussing it.


----------



## Tez3

CB Jones said:


> Ok in that case......Let me end it with....I no longer give a hill of beans about your opinion on this subject and I'm done discussing it.



That's fine as you don't actually know what my opinion is, having massively misunderstood my posts from the beginning. You have been defending something I haven't attacked.


----------



## Buka

Here is a man hunting a refrigerator. Oh, sure, sounds easy. And don't let that door hit you on the way in. No, really don't let it hit you.


----------



## CB Jones

Buka said:


> Here is a man hunting a refrigerator. Oh, sure, sounds easy. And don't let that door hit you on the way in. No, really don't let it hit you.



That's awesome.  That's why I don't mess with tannerite...I'm way too unlucky.


----------



## Tgace

Tez3 said:


> That's fine as you don't actually know what my opinion is, having massively misunderstood my posts from the beginning. You have been defending something I haven't attacked.



When multiple people seem to be misunderstanding your point I would think you would realize something....


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> and that's my point.
> No one should like or enjoy killing. if it has to be done it should be done  but to *enjoy the act of killing *is very wrong.



Why?

Even people who hunt for food seem to enjoy the process. Or they wouldn't do it.

From a modern you can always just buy your food at the supermarket perspective.


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> When multiple people seem to be misunderstanding your point I would think you would realize something....



Yes of course, 'multiple' people... not.  The OP in his first post, posted an image of a weapon used for killing very large animals such as elephants so the conversation was based around the shooting for fun such large animals. Simple.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> Why?
> 
> Even people who hunt for food seem to enjoy the process. Or they wouldn't do it.


She didn't say enjoy hunting, she said enjoy killing. Big difference.


----------



## CB Jones

If you are gonna go big.....you might as well go real big....700 Nitro


----------



## Tez3

Paul_D said:


> She didn't say enjoy hunting, she said enjoy killing. Big difference.



Exactly, but being so willing to take offense when none was offered meant that it was not read properly.


----------

