Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 8 votes

David Booth Hunts Goat


  • Please log in to reply
333 replies to this topic

#301 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 19 October 2012 - 10:11 AM

Common sense - most people use theirs when they know they're getting under people's skin....especially if some of those people are the very fans who buy tickets to see you play. The problem for me is that, in reviewing DB's Twitter feed, it seems that he enjoys the fact that he riles others up as much as the hunt itself. He boasts about losing followers every time he tweets and, at times, almost mocks those who do find the pictures disturbing vs considering their take on things (there are 2 sides to this). So it's not so much that he hunts, it's the attitude surrounding the whole thing.

So if you're truly a hunter because you love to hunt, eat what you kill and simply don't care what others think - fine. As stated, I have family members on this side of things. But to have a defiant, in your face attitude about it is something else. The ego does seem to come into play a bit and that's a contributing factor in assessing likeability.

Lay low, do your thing, post your pictures if you must but, if confronted, try to at least show a little empathy to those who are sensitive to these things. Personally, I don't see much of that....

David Booth owes us no apology but, in that, we also don't owe him our undying support (just because he's a Canuck). I've been labeled a bit of a homer (with good reason), but do base my support of the players on their overall attitude as well as their hockey skills. So this one's a struggle for me....

Hopefully, they'll get back on the ice soon and he'll light 'em up and give me reason to sway to the other side. But so far, not so much....

(and I hear there's a charity game in town....he's obviously got his aim down to a fine art in hunting....maybe time to get on the ice with his brothers and work on his on ice shot instead of proving his point out there, in the wild?)


Well said Deb...........balanced and to the point.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#302 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,646 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 19 October 2012 - 10:16 AM

I don't know where to begin with this. First, you don't have the facts right. Plants don't feel pain. At least not like we or most sentient non human animals do. They are not sentient beings i.e they lack the prerequisite neurophysiology (nociceptors and brain) and psychology (e.g. mental life) to experience anything. Second, if plants are subject to pain in a very general sense (whatever that is), then that pain is very different than the pain we or other non human animals experience. Thirdly, morality is important. It gives us reasons for caring. And it is rational to act ethically. If you see a drowning child, the reasonable thing to do is save them if you can. The weak thing to do is miss-characterize something you obviously have no clue about.


Way to try to justify your little vegan dream lifestyle. Love how some human beings think they're all better than others for a variety of stupid reasons. Where do you get off judging the value of pain that plants feel? Just because you have little pain receptors and what you call a life doesn't make you the judge and decider of who and what is important or what they feel. People like you make me chuckle, self important Gods .. ha ha ha ha ha
  • 1

"What players need is the right kind of strength and power. That includes learning to understand that leverage and positioning can be just as important as raw strength when it comes to winning battles in the game. It's more about timing and athleticism --and avoiding injury--than it is about how much you can bench press. I don't know how many times I've seen a guy with the physique of a defensive end line up a guy half his size, only to bounce off when he connects. Sure, there is room in the game for big guys who can throw their weight around. But for the most part, players are smart enough to see them coming--and strong enough to protect the puck when they arrive. There are trainers out there who know how to devlop hockey-specific strength--though a trainer can help only if a player follows the program. All too often, I've seen players sign up with the best trainer, but not show up for their workouts and never to reap the benefits."

 

Bobby Orr - ORR MY STORY Viking 2013


#303 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 19 October 2012 - 10:21 AM

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.


I think we need to face up to the fact we don't have the sharpest tool in the box here. We are obviously dealing with someone who just doesn't get it.

It's like his game. It is almost as if someone (some coach perhaps) said "Go to the dirty areas"...........and he thought that was all it took. His game is stunted because he doesn't appreciate that there is more to being a good/great NHL player in a team than just going to the dirty areas.

Someone showed him how to kill the animal but apparently, not how to respect it afterwards. I don't think any of his disrespect or his apparent gloating is intentional...........he's just not very bright.
  • 3
Kevin.jpg

#304 Mr. White

Mr. White

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,554 posts
  • Joined: 22-May 12

Posted 19 October 2012 - 12:19 PM

disregard

Edited by Alexander Edler 23, 19 October 2012 - 12:19 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
^VanCauck93^

#305 Canada Hockey Place

Canada Hockey Place

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,592 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 19 October 2012 - 01:00 PM

************************************************************************
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.

************************************************************************


But if everybody lived in Alberta....... everybody in the the world would be Albertan, completely empty of humanity.


/sorry. had to. : P
  • 1
Quando omni flunkus moritati

#306 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,646 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 19 October 2012 - 01:08 PM

But if everybody lived in Alberta....... everybody in the the world would be Albertan, completely empty of humanity.


/sorry. had to. : P


Makes a great point though. I think humanity is in much more need of saving then the animals or the planet.
  • 0

"What players need is the right kind of strength and power. That includes learning to understand that leverage and positioning can be just as important as raw strength when it comes to winning battles in the game. It's more about timing and athleticism --and avoiding injury--than it is about how much you can bench press. I don't know how many times I've seen a guy with the physique of a defensive end line up a guy half his size, only to bounce off when he connects. Sure, there is room in the game for big guys who can throw their weight around. But for the most part, players are smart enough to see them coming--and strong enough to protect the puck when they arrive. There are trainers out there who know how to devlop hockey-specific strength--though a trainer can help only if a player follows the program. All too often, I've seen players sign up with the best trainer, but not show up for their workouts and never to reap the benefits."

 

Bobby Orr - ORR MY STORY Viking 2013


#307 Mountain Man

Mountain Man

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 386 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 12

Posted 19 October 2012 - 03:40 PM

Makes a great point though. I think humanity is in much more need of saving then the animals or the planet.


Or possibly the gene pool needs a little chlorine.
  • 0
virtus junxit mors non separabit.

Hockey season must be back on, the crazies are coming out again....


#308 cIutch

cIutch

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,285 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 12

Posted 19 October 2012 - 04:32 PM

But if everybody lived in Alberta....... everybody in the the world would be Albertan, completely empty of humanity.


/sorry. had to. : P

dont apologize it was necessary
  • 0
Posted Image

#309 Jaku

Jaku

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,186 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 08

Posted 19 October 2012 - 04:55 PM

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.


THANK YOU. This is the most reasonable post i have seen in a long time.
  • 0
R.I.P- #37 Rick Rypien, #28 Luc Bourdon, #38 Pavol Demitra Forever Canucks.
Posted Image
Credit to Khalifawiz501 for the Sig.
Posted ImageColorado Avalanche GM in CDC STHS Sim League

#310 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,080 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 20 October 2012 - 01:28 PM

["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...

Edited by oldnews, 20 October 2012 - 01:29 PM.

  • 0

#311 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,884 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:10 AM

Way to try to justify your little vegan dream lifestyle.


It's a much more rational argument than the stupidity you've posted below.

Love how some human beings think they're all better than others for a variety of stupid reasons. Where do you get off judging the value of pain that plants feel?


I'm not "getting off". It's called rational argument. Factually speaking plants don't feel pain like we do. That means it is a category mistake. Whatever you mean by "plant pain" is vague. Look up the meaning. Might do you some good.


Just because you have little pain receptors and what you call a life doesn't make you the judge and decider of who and what is important or what they feel. People like you make me chuckle, self important Gods .. ha ha ha ha ha

Everyone accepts that pain is morally relevant. If non sentient life forms matter, you have to say why, or else it is just question begging. I do think non sentient life forms e.g. the environment does matter, just not in the irrational sense you do. Further, how is your argument (if it can even be called one) entails killing animals is not wrong? You have no answer do you? Smart ass that doesn't have a clue what your talking about...
  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#312 TVank15

TVank15

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 10

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:47 AM

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.
  • 1
Posted Image
Thanks to 23Qwerty

#313 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,884 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:54 PM

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.


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?
  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#314 TVank15

TVank15

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 10

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:17 PM

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?


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.
  • 1
Posted Image
Thanks to 23Qwerty

#315 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 24 October 2012 - 07:34 PM

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.

I just wanted to post this comment again. I completely agree.
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#316 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 24 October 2012 - 07:51 PM

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.

Exactly. Simply killing to kill isn't hunting, it's murder. Every time I've been hunting there is an understanding of respect for the animal. We used nearly everything from the carcass, and usually spread it out through the large family in the area.

What percentage of hunters do the haters think hunt recklessly and illegally? Everyone I have ever known to hunt did it this way. I think those who have not hunted likely have the imaginations version of a highlight package in place of what hunters have as actual memory. I might point out that the animal suffers A LOT less from a properly placed bullet than it does from an arrow (Booth's choice), or a spear, or from hunting dogs, or from any other primitive forms of hunting. If you are against hunting, then you must hate history books, because it happened a lot. The percentage of people who hunt is at an all time, record shattering, not even close low, whereas the amount of meat available is likely at an all time high. What does that tell you?
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#317 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,385 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 24 October 2012 - 07:56 PM

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.
  • 2

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  


#318 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 24 October 2012 - 08:36 PM

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.

Until relatively recently we were in those shoes. Everyone hunted back then, cause that was how to eat. Should we outlaw it just because we can keep animals in tiny pens until we kill them instead?
If you hate it so much, then are you part of any sort of affiliation that works towards restricting it further or outright banning it? If your level of hate goes further than a like on facebook, or a comment in a thread like this, then you might have the tiniest little leg to stand on morally, but what's the likelihood of that?
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#319 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,884 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:01 PM

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.

Exactly. Simply killing to kill isn't hunting, it's murder. Every time I've been hunting there is an understanding of respect for the animal. We used nearly everything from the carcass, and usually spread it out through the large family in the area.


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.
  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#320 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 08:54 AM

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.

Edited by WiDeN, 26 October 2012 - 08:56 AM.

  • 1

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#321 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:55 AM

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.


I'll say it again, the only difference between hunting and trophy hunting is being more selective as opposed to taking the first legal animal you see.

These animals rarely ever die of old age. They die from hunters, accidents, starvation, or natural predators. Death by hunter is typically the quickest of those options. They don't live their lives prancing through the woods and across meadows living a happy Disney life. They are constantly hunted and know they are food to all the predators out there. The vast majority eventually wind up food to another species.
  • 0
Posted Image

#322 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,884 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 03:48 PM

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.


Not quite sure I'm following you. If the animals do matter, it seems then you would need a good argument (i.e. reasons) for why it is morally permissible to hunt them (generally speaking). I'll say outright that I think there are some situations where hunting is permissible, maybe even morally necessary e.g. wildlife management as a last resort, but these contexts are quite different from sport hunting or hunting for food (generally speaking). The latter contexts do not entail any necessary reason to kill animals (at least that I can see). I'll say though that I am sympathetic with what you have to say. It is alot better than people who dismiss the interests of animals outright. To ignore the suffering that factory farm animals endure is border line psychopathic.

I'll say it again, the only difference between hunting and trophy hunting is being more selective as opposed to taking the first legal animal you see.

These animals rarely ever die of old age. They die from hunters, accidents, starvation, or natural predators. Death by hunter is typically the quickest of those options. They don't live their lives prancing through the woods and across meadows living a happy Disney life. They are constantly hunted and know they are food to all the predators out there. The vast majority eventually wind up food to another species.


You're right in a sense, but I would also disagree in certain respects as well. Wild animals don't necessarily die pleasantly in nature so I agree with you on that, but I don't think that gives us sufficient reason to hunt them on "compassionate grounds". What's better in one respect isn't always better on the whole. For starters, you're taking away prey for predatory animals which need to survive as well and indirectly this also has significant negative impacts on ecosystems e.g. killing keystone species. More importantly, I'd argue that wild animals have a significant interest in non-interference. Living in the wild is much different than a domestic life. One reason is that animals roam much more freely, socialize in groups with other wild animals or independently on their own. These interests may not seem that important to you but for wild animals this is what they do. A good example is what happens to some whales in aquariums. Some argue that it is morally better to have whales in aquariums because they are less prone to the dangers of the wild similar to the argument you have given us. But what happens to some of these whales is that they will just float in their aquarium motionless for hours and unresponsive. They NEVER behave like this in the wild. It is actually quite disheartening to see. Is that a better trade off? Further, would killing them be a better alternative to them dieing in the wild? On the face of it you seem to imply that this is so, but I'm not sure the reasoning is fully there given what I have stated above. So even if wild animals are at significant risk, it is more in their interests to not be interfered with.

Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 26 October 2012 - 03:53 PM.

  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#323 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 05:51 PM

So, are you a vegan?

If you are, then I recognize that the stance of "we can be civilized enough not to kill anything" is not a contradiction, and I can respect that but humbly disagree.

If not, then the stance weakens, but I'm not here tell you what to do or think.

Have you ever hunted? I'm not asking to be confrontational, but more curious.
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#324 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 26 October 2012 - 05:57 PM

You're right in a sense, but I would also disagree in certain respects as well. Wild animals don't necessarily die pleasantly in nature so I agree with you on that, but I don't think that gives us sufficient reason to hunt them on "compassionate grounds". What's better in one respect isn't always better on the whole. For starters, you're taking away prey for predatory animals which need to survive as well and indirectly this also has significant negative impacts on ecosystems e.g. killing keystone species. More importantly, I'd argue that wild animals have a significant interest in non-interference. Living in the wild is much different than a domestic life. One reason is that animals roam much more freely, socialize in groups with other wild animals or independently on their own. These interests may not seem that important to you but for wild animals this is what they do. A good example is what happens to some whales in aquariums. Some argue that it is morally better to have whales in aquariums because they are less prone to the dangers of the wild similar to the argument you have given us. But what happens to some of these whales is that they will just float in their aquarium motionless for hours and unresponsive. They NEVER behave like this in the wild. It is actually quite disheartening to see. Is that a better trade off? Further, would killing them be a better alternative to them dieing in the wild? On the face of it you seem to imply that this is so, but I'm not sure the reasoning is fully there given what I have stated above. So even if wild animals are at significant risk, it is more in their interests to not be interfered with.


Wouldn't this apply to all living creatures? Do you think salmon and lobsters don't want to live free? Or that perhaps cattle don't want to roam the range without interference? Just as those roaming the forest they are all food for others. If you are not a vegan you're a hypocrite. No living creature wants to be killed and eaten. It doesn't matter if it's raised for it or living in the wild. They all have a desire to survive.

It's not like endangered species are open to hunting in Canada. Hunting here is limited and regulated. Populations are monitored, including the predators, and a balance maintained. The cost of hunting permits helps pay for that.

Edited by Baggins, 26 October 2012 - 06:14 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#325 Jaimito

Jaimito

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,819 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 03

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:59 PM

he's a hockey player. what he does in personal life is not my concern, esp when it is legal.
  • 1
Posted Image

#326 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,884 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 27 October 2012 - 07:17 PM

So, are you a vegan?

If you are, then I recognize that the stance of "we can be civilized enough not to kill anything" is not a contradiction, and I can respect that but humbly disagree.

If not, then the stance weakens, but I'm not here tell you what to do or think.

Have you ever hunted? I'm not asking to be confrontational, but more curious.


I am a vegan, but if I wasn't it wouldn't make the argument contradictory. It would be irrational (and somewhat hypocritical) though to accept the argument but continue to act otherwise. But that doesn't affect the validity nor the soundness of the argument.

I don't hunt.


Wouldn't this apply to all living creatures? Do you think salmon and lobsters don't want to live free? Or that perhaps cattle don't want to roam the range without interference? Just as those roaming the forest they are all food for others. If you are not a vegan you're a hypocrite. No living creature wants to be killed and eaten. It doesn't matter if it's raised for it or living in the wild. They all have a desire to survive.


Domesticated animals e.g. broiler chickens are much different than wild animals. They've been engineered in a way that they couldn't survive prolonged exposure outside. Nonetheless, I do think cattle and even broiler chickens to a limited extent want to experience the warmth of the sun (something you take for granted everyday), dustbathe, etc. These are their most basic interests. Imagine, for example, that you are in a crowded elevator with no room to move. After some time, memebers of the group begin to get agitated and start acting aggressively while others, out of sheer hopelessness, resort to activities like canibalism. That is the life of a battery caged chicken. And you're right. These animals have a desire to live + more. We owe them that much. This isn't hippy bull s***. It's the rational and intelligent thing to do. And yes, I am a vegan.

It's not like endangered species are open to hunting in Canada. Hunting here is limited and regulated. Populations are monitored, including the predators, and a balance maintained. The cost of hunting permits helps pay for that.


That sounds all fine and dandy, but you're missing the point at issue.

Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 27 October 2012 - 07:19 PM.

  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#327 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 28 October 2012 - 03:49 AM

I'll say it again, the only difference between hunting and trophy hunting is being more selective as opposed to taking the first legal animal you see.

These animals rarely ever die of old age. They die from hunters, accidents, starvation, or natural predators. Death by hunter is typically the quickest of those options. They don't live their lives prancing through the woods and across meadows living a happy Disney life. They are constantly hunted and know they are food to all the predators out there. The vast majority eventually wind up food to another species.


???????????????????.................bull!

Edited by Bodee, 28 October 2012 - 03:51 AM.

  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#328 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 October 2012 - 09:17 PM

???????????????????.................bull!



Posted Image
  • 0
Posted Image

#329 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 October 2012 - 09:25 PM

I am a vegan, but if I wasn't it wouldn't make the argument contradictory. It would be irrational (and somewhat hypocritical) though to accept the argument but continue to act otherwise. But that doesn't affect the validity nor the soundness of the argument.

I don't hunt.




Domesticated animals e.g. broiler chickens are much different than wild animals. They've been engineered in a way that they couldn't survive prolonged exposure outside. Nonetheless, I do think cattle and even broiler chickens to a limited extent want to experience the warmth of the sun (something you take for granted everyday), dustbathe, etc. These are their most basic interests. Imagine, for example, that you are in a crowded elevator with no room to move. After some time, memebers of the group begin to get agitated and start acting aggressively while others, out of sheer hopelessness, resort to activities like canibalism. That is the life of a battery caged chicken. And you're right. These animals have a desire to live + more. We owe them that much. This isn't hippy bull s***. It's the rational and intelligent thing to do. And yes, I am a vegan.



That sounds all fine and dandy, but you're missing the point at issue.


Well at least you're arguing from the point of a vegan. I'm not and never will be. I have no problem with the natural food chain. But if you are going to argue that animals should be allowed to roam free without interference then you should be making the argument for all creatures as opposed to specific creatures. Cattle, pigs, and chickens all roamed free at one time. Now they are simply prisoners waiting execution. How moral is that?
  • 0
Posted Image

#330 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,080 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 28 October 2012 - 09:32 PM

Posted Image
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.