Bodee Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Nor do I. Many survive on their hunt primarily. And I too don't honour the smiley pictures. There's nothing, in my opinion, honourable about why he kills and how he behaves once he's taken that life. I have a deep disdain for men who seek to lord over the killing of those weaker than them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. White Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 disregard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada Hockey Place Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 ************************************************************************ Here is a fun fact for you to consider: If you were to take every single human on earth, and give each a quarter acre to live on, that is one full acre per family of four, and placed them ALL in Alberta Canada, Alberta would only be 2/3rd's full, and the rest of the planet would be completely empty of humanity. ************************************************************************ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 But if everybody lived in Alberta....... everybody in the the world would be Albertan, completely empty of humanity. /sorry. had to. : P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Man Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Makes a great point though. I think humanity is in much more need of saving then the animals or the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cIutch Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 But if everybody lived in Alberta....... everybody in the the world would be Albertan, completely empty of humanity. /sorry. had to. : P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaku Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I honestly hate all this "hoopla" about David Booth's hunting. - He hunts within the the rules & regulations that are enforced to make sure those species of animals do not become extinct. So can we just stop complaining about it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 ["But if everybody lived in Alberta....... everybody in the the world would be Albertan, completely empty of humanity. /sorry. had to. : P"] haha and even worse, there would probably be a lot more Flames fans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 Way to try to justify your little vegan dream lifestyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVank15 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Does this really need to come up every time Booth posts a picture of himself and his successful hunts? I understand it angers some people, but he is doing it within the law and following all the proper regulations. He says he eats the meat and I believe him, so he is not just a trophy hunter. In regards to the pictures, he is proud of what he has accomplished. First off, hunting can be tough, my step-dad goes out and hunts and though he is a good tracker and does all the right things, he doesn't always come home with anything, and he often pays for the tag to just get the opportunity to hunt. Anytime you succeed at something, you feel proud and want to tell people, and Booth is doing that through pictures on twitter. Sure he may not care about what some of his followers think but then why follow him? You have that choice and if you don't want to see these pictures then press the unfollow button and let him live his life. Hockey players do have personal lives outside of hockey, I know many of us do things that others may not agree with, but since we aren't famous it does not get scrutinized in the same way. So just leave Booth alone in regards to his hunting, only scrutinize his personal life if it is actually something worth getting worked up about, and not something based on personal opinions on what you feel is right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted October 24, 2012 Author Share Posted October 24, 2012 since we aren't famous it does not get scrutinized in the same way. So just leave Booth alone in regards to his hunting, only scrutinize his personal life if it is actually something worth getting worked up about, and not something based on personal opinions on what you feel is right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVank15 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 The moral of the story seems to go for everyone and not just Booth. I posted the OP because I thought Booth's rationale was lacking. Killing animals is worth getting worked up about because animals do matter, morally speaking. To say they don't is contentious. And who says the moral wrongness of killing animals for sport is only subjective opinion or how one feels? You? That isn't much of an argument. You're just saying so, which begs the question: why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Man as hunted throughout time. Goats are not endangered nor are they even on the watch list. They are limited entry as they are not as abundant as deer. Hunting serves several purposes. One is population control. This is where you have it backwards. You're not actually saving goats by not hunting them. Without population control yje winter food supply disappears faster and more will be expiring from starvation. Starvation is currently the goats biggest enemy. If the population grows too much even more will expire as food becomes too scarce earlier. For example: If there's 100 and only food for 50 the entire 100 could wind up starving to death. Culling ensures longer availability of food and a greater chance for a herd to survive the winter. Then of course the money generated from hunting pays for conservation. What areas are available to hunt are decided by population. You cannot legally hunt where and what you please. An area open to hunting this year may well be closed the following year if the winter survival was too low. This population control actually helps the overall survival of each species in each hunting zone. Btw, Booth had to conquer the mountain before conquering the goat. I did hunt for several years. It has nothing to do with ego as far as I'm concerned. Nor did I do it out of need for meat. I couild buy meat. I do have a love for elk and moose meat. Tough to find at the local Save On. I always thought of hunting as being out hiking and camping with friends. Bagging something was a bonus that put meat in the freezer. Hunting is an experience. There's far more to the experience than simply shooting an animal. Now I've never bothered with taking trophies from hunting myself. My older brother has though. He has a whitetail buck, a six point elk, and a longhorn sheep on his rec room wall. Plus a sheepskin rug (from that longhorn) along with a bearskin rug. Each of those trophies represent a memory for him. And I can guarantee you none of the meat went to waste. Every time I see that elk on his wall it reminds of that week I spent in the woods in the rockies with my three older brothers. It's a good memory and the only week long vacation we've all done together as adults. I haven't hunted for 20 years now. But I did enjoy it. I do think you have to experience hunting to truly understand it. I do have to ask: is it of higher morality to raise an animal in confinement only to be shipped off to the slaughter house or to head out into the woods, put in the effort of actually hunting, and kill an animal that spent it's life roaming free? Do either live a happy life? I don't know. Perhaps our livestock are simply too stupid to realize they're food until that final terror filled moment while those out in the wild spend their entire life trying to avoid being food. Whether a cow, a pig, or a deer or elk, they're all part of the food chain and have been since the beginning of time. Which is why I don't really see it as a question of morality myself. It's simply the nature of the world. Virtually everything in this world is hunted by something else. I see those that eat meat but are opposed to hunting as head in the sand hypocrites. At least the hunter experiences the ugly side of where the meat came from. The non-hunter simply buys his packaged steak and roast without having to look into the cows eyes as he's killed. He doesn't have to gut and skin the cow. Nope. It's all clean and tidy. They don't have to think about how that meat made it to that package in the store. It's just food. At least the hunter goes through the entire process. My experience was a greater respect for the animals. And that's really difficult to explain having gone through the entire process. As I said before, I have no problem with hunting as long as it's done legally. There's far more to it than simply killing an animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I would agree with you if it was shown he is only killing for sport, but he seems to enjoy eating the meat he gets from them so in that sense I don't see a problem. If he was killing the animals, taking a picture and then leaving it there to rot, then yes that would be wrong and a basis to get worked up about, but there is no evidence of that. I do agree that killing animals for just the purposes of sport is wrong, and shouldn't be done. But I have grown up with and have friends / family who hunt, and they respect the animals they kill, and use all the meat possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I'm just going to say this, in my own oppinon. I hate hunting, don't like it, killing another animal is something I don't like. Put yourself in the animals shoe as you just got shot, and ready to die. Despite the most advances specie, the most cruel specie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I'm just going to say this, in my own oppinon. I hate hunting, don't like it, killing another animal is something I don't like. Put yourself in the animals shoe as you just got shot, and ready to die. Despite the most advances specie, the most cruel specie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 I do agree that killing animals for just the purposes of sport is wrong, and shouldn't be done. But I have grown up with and have friends / family who hunt, and they respect the animals they kill, and use all the meat possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 There are very few people per capita in Canada that NEED to hunt to survive. But, most of us eat meat. I don't see any moral high ground for grocery meat eaters over hunters, because in both cases an animal had to die to put that meat on the table. The only difference is that one got to live a much more free life. How is it any different? When you buy a steak you don't have any appreciation for this animals life, because all you see is a T-Bone. Every time I've hunted big game a word or a thought of appreciation is said to the animal for giving his life to feed your family. It doesn't change anything, but I think hunting has the moral high ground over grocery stores. If they played video of the slaughtering process of the meat you were about to purchase on a TV in the meat department, then I bet it would turn the stomach for a lot of people, and it still wouldn't give you half the perspective that hunting would. Chicken processing is especially disgusting. The animals do matter, but just because we are able to keep our food animals in pens does not mean that we have any moral reason to give up hunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I'm not going to push hard here, but I would like to bring up a point. Both of you seem to agree that killing animals for sport is ethically wrong. That is, trading off an animal's life (and all the goods that that animal could have experienced) for someone's emotional thrill is not sufficient, ethically speaking. So what I want to push here, is that in some sense the animals themselves morally matter, just like it would be wrong to kick a cat down the road for fun because that cat morally matters. If you accept the above, even if Booth is using the goat, is that sufficient ethically speaking? I ask this because what it seems to imply is that our interest in eating animals/hunting them is more important than an animals interests in non-interference and ulimately its life. In Booth's case, I don't think the justification cuts it, ethically speaking. If it were in the Arctic where hunting to eat is necessary to survive I think the judgement would be different. But in Booth`s case, it doesn`t really seem to be that far off from sport hunting that both of you acknowedge is morally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 The animals do matter, but just because we are able to keep our food animals in pens does not mean that we have any moral reason to give up hunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.