So, here we are, the entire family, Myself, Crystal(she's my very beautiful and much better half) Erika the six year old and Caitlyn the almost 4 year old. We are gathered in the living room watching a hunting program and having a nice evening. The show featured a fellow hunting the Selous for Cape Buffalo and Lion. The children seem riveted as the stalk takes place and then the shot. A perfect placement and the buff goes down without the drama so often associated with them. Erika turns her beautiful young face to me and asks "are they gonna eat that whole animal?" My reply was simple "No, they will simply take the head and the horns and leave the meat for the local people." With that she returned with another question "why kill it if you're not going to eat it. They're not going to eat the head are they?" I answered no and then began to think. How do I tell this little girl why people spend years saving and dreaming about traveling half way around the world to kill an animal that only exists to them on film or in print. I dream of Africa someday myself, but as a Dairyman with a young family I know it will be years before I have my chance. And now the innocence of a child has me wondering what this mythical power of "the hunt" and why does it encompass us as grown rational adults. Here at home the reason is simple. I hunt for meat and that makes sense to her. Crystal prepares everything I kill into meals fit for a king and I make it a point to demonstrate the oldest of circles to the kids. The animal dies so that we may live. The reasons to go to Africa are less clear and I am at a loss to explain the love of the hunt to her. There is a good chance that we have another child on the way (my first biologically) and should that child ask me the same question, I would love to have an answer for him. Surely the core of hunters that make this board the magnificent place that it is must have at some point looked at the passion they posses for hunting and asked them selves "why"

Joe

We all have our own answers to that question. Mine is mine and may not be the answer of any other hunter.

I am primarily a hunter. I hunt. I kill because I hunt but enjoy hunting because it permits me to kill. I don't need to hunt or kill to eat or live, but I hunt and kill and that feeds me and others anyway. Hunting is what I love and hunting and killing are therefore what I do.

I find a nice juxtaposition in Ortega and Hemingway, who approached this subject from different starting points, but who I think crossed the finish line together.

"To the sportsman the death of the game is not what interests him; that is not his purpose. What interests him is everything that he had to do to achieve that death--that is, the hunt. Therefore, what was before only a means to an end is now an end in itself. Death is essential because without it there is no authentic hunting: the killing of the animal is the natural end of the hunt and the goal of hunting itself, not of the hunter. The hunter seeks this death because it is no less than the sign of reality for the whole hunting process. To sum up, one does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted."

--Jose Ortega y Gasset, Meditations on Hunting , 1942 (Prologue to Twenty Years A Big Game Hunter , Edward, Count Yebes, 1943)


"Killing cleanly and in a way which gives you aesthetic pleasure and pride has always been one of the greatest enjoyments of a part of the human race. Because the other part, which does not enjoy killing, has always been more articulate and has furnished most of the good writers, we have had a very few statements of the true enjoyment of killing. One of its greatest pleasures, aside from the purely aesthetic ones, such as wing shooting, and the ones of pride, such as difficult game stalking, where it is the disproportionately increased importance of the fraction of a moment that it takes for the shot that furnishes the emotion, is the feeling of rebellion against death which comes from its administering. Once you accept the rule of death, thou shalt not kill is an easily and naturally obeyed commandment. But when a man is still in rebellion against death, he has a pleasure in taking to himself one of the Godlike attributes; that of giving it. This is one of the most profound feelings in those men who enjoy killing. These things are done in pride and pride, of course, is a Christian sin, and a pagan virtue."

--Ernest Hemingway
Death in the Afternoon , 1932

"I like to shoot a rifle and I like to kill and Africa is where you do that."

--Ernest Hemingway
Letter to Janet Flanner, Key West, 1933

I had a version of the same question for my PH when I hunted elephant. The question was answered in spades during the safari.

After the hunt I wrote an article for Sports Afield about how 100 to 150 local tribes people were fed from my elephant meat. All the meat was taken, including the organs, they even broke apart the bones for the marrow. I got to try the meat and experience the hunt but they got to keep the meat and a good portion of the trophy fee (CAMPFIRE program area).

Many of those people have little or no chance of getting protein other than from hunters so they needed it more than I did. Many of them even thanked me as they filed by with their ration of meat.

I'll be glad to email you a copy of the article if you would like.

Kyler

One of the problems is that the anti-hunting crowd aims at kids .Your children may have been exposed to greatly distorted 'info' about hunting. A similar thing has been done with the 'global warming' BS where , for example they show Gore's move ! Educate them with true information....I was pleased to see a recent program on Versus channel where they showed an elephant being cut up and given to the local villagers. That information should be seen more often !

a couple of other points should be made, explain how the people there get very little meat, that their diet consists mainly of sudza (corn porridge) and that the proteins meat gives them is quite important in order that they live. explain that most of meat comes from the hunters animals they kill pictures do not show the fact than the camp helpers, trackers, skinners, all may have their families with them and that the animal you shoot feeds dozens of people there. explain there is no refrigeration, no electricity in the bush so anything which is killed is eaten immediately, or turned into biltong. I believe when the actual facts are brought into the picture, most will understand

Had the same question from my grandaughter, who was pretty young, after I came back. One of the things that came to mind when explaining was the feeling we get when we have sharing a big thanksgiving dinner with family and friends. Ours usually involve a lot of people with everybody contributing. I explained that sharing the meat from my safari was the same kind of thing. Some helped with the hunt, some with keeping camp, and some just seeing that the habitat was there. The other answer I gave her was that the folks there were like the farmers where we hunt. We share with them and they give us a place to hunt.
She sees the same thing when I share venison and small game meat with farmers, friends and family.
Bfly

One of the attributes of the hunter, from the time he first killed an animal with a heavy rock, is that he shares his kill with the members of his tribe.

That you have the opportunity to pay for the privilege of hunting and supplying the meat for these people should not diminish the hunt.

Another good reference about the whole argument of hunting elephants, etc. in Africa from a conservation perspective can be found in Wilbur Smith's book "Elephant Song".

Though it's fiction, the first 28 pages of this book illustrate hunting from a conservation perspective perfectly. I've even given it to a couple of vegetarians I work with, as well as an aspiring young veterinary student. It's been an eye-opener for them, and while maybe not changed their diet, they don't roll their eyes any more when I talk about my upcoming Africa hunt.

you hunt in africa for the same reasons you hunt here. But wait you say I hunt for food here. B.S. you eat what you hunt here. you could just as easy get a second job delivering pizza and buy beef that someone else killed for you. you kill to have hunted not the other way round. someone eats what you kill in africa so no wanton wast is on your head. you keep the heads because of tradition and they spark memories and feelings in you everytime you look at them. your trophy on the wall is the representation of a covanent from the begining of man that all these beasts of the field are yours. even non hunters who are open minded find some primal wonder and stare at trophys for hours if you let them. show your daughter her third tooth and how her teeth work vs how a cows teeth work you are not a vegetarian. you are also not an animal you are man and you have reason and emotions that animals dont. you are compelled by forces outside your understanding to be a hunter. it is an idea that was inside your head before you were born. the natural wonder lust of man whats over the next mountan whats over the sea our tech moves us further to hunt but it is the same as whats in the next valey. you dont shoot game in your living room you shoot them in their living room. your reason and thumb make you master and some of us need to prove it once in a while by hunting something that could kill us.

To eat meat from the grocery store, deli, or fast-food place, or to wear leather--an animal must have been KILLED. Modern citizens of the West have a difficult time associating their use of such as the CAUSE of the DEATH of an animal (usually a young animal) that had NO chance of escape. A hunter is attempting to kill an old animal, that has lived its life in freedom, and has a chance of escaping. The game animal usually lives a "better" and a longer life than a domestic animal, and its death, if from a hunter, is usually quick and also affords much pleasure to the hunter. The deaths in slaughter houses are horrendous in comparison. The true trophy hunter is the MOST ethical of meat eaters. Vegetarians need to be reminded that where the corn and wheat fields are planted, many wild animals have been eliminated to provide their veggies. They, too, are not "INNOCENTS", even though they and the BAMBI LOVERS like to think that they are.
Also, man has almost eliminated the large dangerous predators any place near where mankind lives. We must assume their role in preservation of the natural balance, preventing over-population and ensuing mass die-offs or starvations, of the large herbivores.
Perhaps our genes that allow us pleasure at the taste of steak, burgers, and bacon are closely related to the genes that give some of us such great pleasure in the Hunt.

See this?

NEW YORK (AP) - New York Knicks guard Stephon Marbury defended Michael Vick, calling dogfighting a sport and comparing it to hunting.

Marbury spoke Monday about the federal dogfighting conspiracy charges against Vick while promoting his basketball shoe in Albany, N.Y.

"I think it's tough," Marbury said, according to Albany TV station Capital News 9. "I think, you know, we don't say anything about people who shoot deer or shoot other animals. You know, from what I hear, dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors."

On Monday, Vick said through a lawyer that he will plead guilty to a federal charge of conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and conspiracy to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture. He also faces possible prosecution in Virginia.

"I think it's tough that we build Michael Vick up and then we break him down," Marbury said. "I think he's one of the superb athletes, and he's a good human being. I just think that he fell into a bad situation."

Explain the because YOU don't eat the whole animal, it is shared with many very hungry people, who desperately need the proteine, and that the cape, and horns are simply things to decorate the hunter's home, and bring back memories of a hunt long passed!

You swat and kill a mosquito on your arm. You are not expected to eat it.

You shoot a rabid raccoon in you yard. You are not expected to eat it.

Coyotes are taking over your land. You are not expected to eat them.

There are many legitimate reasons we take the lives of animals besides food. Some folks think the pursuit of trophy animals is a singularly shallow goal. As pointed out by several above, although the trophy is the only concrete benefit the hunter receives there is far more benefit to those who reside in the area the hunt took place.

Joe, I think it is a good thing that we continually ask ourselves, or have to answer, this question. Hopefully we WILL ask ourselves this question and think about it, rather than come up with the usual pat answers. One of my granddaughters is wrestling with this. When she saw my pictures from Africa a couple of years ago she just said "It's not nice to kill animals". Not aggressively or assertively, she just said it. Just a couple of days ago when I was cleaning out my "den", which my wife calls "Gander Mountain", my granddaughter saw the Kudu Eurpoean mount and asked if I ate it. She was satisfied that I ate some of it, and gave the rest to the local people. I think we do ourselves a disservice when we try to convince people with the force of our wonderful logic and arguments. I think they will figure it out for themselves, eventually. Of course we won't have the satisfaction of convincing them on the spot like we all want to do.
Peter.

We shall, all of us, man and animal, die.
Few are allowed to choose the time and manner of death which pleases them.
Ask your questioners--if they were an animal destined to be eaten by man, would they rather be penned and fed for a year, then sent to a place of horror to be made into the stuff in the grocery store? or would they rather live free, fend for oneself, and perhaps be suddenly taken by death at an old age?

The anti-gun, anti-hunters that control our media have an agenda, and are doing an excellent job with their propaganda. Good answers to children's questions are a good start to counteracting the lies of the mainstream media.

Lack of contact with the realities of this world can be a serious problem for our children, just as over-exposure to death and destruction can also be.

quote:

"Killing cleanly and in a way which gives you aesthetic pleasure and pride has always been one of the greatest enjoyments of a part of the human race. Because the other part, which does not enjoy killing, has always been more articulate and has furnished most of the good writers, we have had a very few statements of the true enjoyment of killing. One of its greatest pleasures, aside from the purely aesthetic ones, such as wing shooting, and the ones of pride, such as difficult game stalking, where it is the disproportionately increased importance of the fraction of a moment that it takes for the shot that furnishes the emotion, is the feeling of rebellion against death which comes from its administering. Once you accept the rule of death, thou shalt not kill is an easily and naturally obeyed commandment. But when a man is still in rebellion against death, he has a pleasure in taking to himself one of the Godlike attributes; that of giving it. This is one of the most profound feelings in those men who enjoy killing. These things are done in pride and pride, of course, is a Christian sin, and a pagan virtue."

--Ernest Hemingway
Death in the Afternoon , 1932

mrlexma,

Respectfully, that quote by Hemmingway is an abomination. The Christian commandment is against murder, not killing.

Hemmingway was a spectacular writer but a miserable wretch of a man. He was not in rebellion against death, as he claimed; rather he was a willing accomplice to it having intentionally ended his own life at the muzzle of a shotgun. No, his rebellion was against God.

A bitter, hard-hearted man who shot himself to death is about the last person we should listen to on the topic of killing with guns.

quote:

Originally posted by TheBigGuy:
You swat and kill a mosquito on your arm. You are not expected to eat it.

You shoot a rabid raccoon in you yard. You are not expected to eat it.

Coyotes are taking over your land. You are not expected to eat them.

There are many legitimate reasons we take the lives of animals besides food. Some folks think the pursuit of trophy animals is a singularly shallow goal. As pointed out by several above, although the trophy is the only concrete benefit the hunter receives there is far more benefit to those who reside in the area the hunt took place.

Here is something I wrote to an animal rights activest, that you might get something out of, but i don't think it would halp with the poster's kids, they are too young to absorb it properly! It didn't change anything with the Animal rights Idiot though!

Man is a hunter, by nature

The reason man hunts, anyplace, is because it is natural for him to hunt! In the beginning, the hunt was just part of the gathering food for himself, and his family to survive. This brought on the natural roles of man, and woman, that exist today, just in a modified form.

The man hunted animals, for their meat, for food, their skins for clothing, and other things needed to live. This meant the man had to travel some distance at times, so he was away from home to do his job.

The females, on the other hand had children to take care of, and protect, while going about their part of the making a living for their families. The women had to dig roots, and gather fruit, or seeds, and other things so they could take their kids along. This was necessary because the very young were breast fed, and the ones old enough to start eating solid food, in the beginning, the food had to be chewed for them to make it easy to swallow, and digest, so the child had to be close by.

Today the things that have changed are not as they looked in the cave man’s day, but they are the same anyway!

The man goes out to do a job away from the home because generally he is drawn to jobs that are in the building, of things like dams, and bridges, and buildings, where children would be in grave danger, as they would have been on a hunt for a bear by the cave man. The money the man, today, gets for his job, BUYS the meat, and clothing, that the hunt used to produce.

In a traditional family the woman keeps the home, and takes care of her little ones, and purees the food for her young tottelers, for solid baby food, and either breast feeds, or bottle feeds the ones younger. She goes to the grocery store to GATHER, her food, taking the children with her, so she can care for their needs, while doing her gathering.

When man goes hunting today, it is to replace the one item that modern society has eliminated from the man’s total job, much the same way the man goes out with a bow, or flintlock rifle to hunt, he is simply replacing something the rest of the world seems to have lost. Instead of the meat coming directly from the man’s kill, it comes from the JOB that has replaced his hunting, and some one else kills his meat, and tans his skins for food, and shoes, and clothing, for his family.

The hunt in African comes closer to the original need for hunting by man, than any other type today! This is because the man has to travel into uncharted territory, so to speak, and hunt animals that are much larger, and much stronger, and faster than him. This, as in the cave man’s day, required him to design weapons that even out that disadvantage the very weak man has when dealing with large animals. That weapon, combined with man’s highly developed brain, gives him the ability to take animals he couldn’t even think of taking on with his hands.

In the end, the animal is down, and butchered, the meat feeds the village, as it did in the cave man’s day, and the skins are tanned for clothing, and other things needed by humans. Even the tiny pieces of meat, that were left on the large bones, is consumed by birds, and bugs. The bones are a source of calcium for other small animals. Nothing is wasted! The law doesn’t allow the meat to be brought back home, from Africa, so the cape, and horns are all that the hunter can bring back. The trophies are for decoration of his home, much the same way as ornaments were made for the kills by the cave man. The food is gone in a few days, and clothing made from the skins wears out, but the ornament (the trophy) made from part of the animal is a memory producer long after the hunt has passed.

Man hunts because he is a natural hunter, and kills because that is the conclusion of a hunt! The death by a hunter’s bullet is a far less painful death than by other natural causes in the wild! Nothing in nature dies from old age, for every death in nature, many other things benefit.

.....................................

Wismon, I agree. Plus, he (Hemingway) has mistaken joy in the hunt as PRIDE--which many theologeans/philosophers would more likely define as "enmity towards our fellow man" rather than taking pleasure in an activity.

quote:

Originally posted by Wismon:

quote:

"Killing cleanly and in a way which gives you aesthetic pleasure and pride has always been one of the greatest enjoyments of a part of the human race. Because the other part, which does not enjoy killing, has always been more articulate and has furnished most of the good writers, we have had a very few statements of the true enjoyment of killing. One of its greatest pleasures, aside from the purely aesthetic ones, such as wing shooting, and the ones of pride, such as difficult game stalking, where it is the disproportionately increased importance of the fraction of a moment that it takes for the shot that furnishes the emotion, is the feeling of rebellion against death which comes from its administering. Once you accept the rule of death, thou shalt not kill is an easily and naturally obeyed commandment. But when a man is still in rebellion against death, he has a pleasure in taking to himself one of the Godlike attributes; that of giving it. This is one of the most profound feelings in those men who enjoy killing. These things are done in pride and pride, of course, is a Christian sin, and a pagan virtue."

--Ernest Hemingway
Death in the Afternoon , 1932

mrlexma,

Respectfully, that quote by Hemmingway is an abomination. The Christian commandment is against murder, not killing.

Hemmingway was a spectacular writer but a miserable wretch of a man. He was not in rebellion against death, as he claimed; rather he was a willing accomplice to it having intentionally ended his own life at the muzzle of a shotgun. No, his rebellion was against God.

A bitter, hard-hearted man who shot himself to death is about the last person we should listen to on the topic of killing with guns.

Everyone's a literary critic.

To each his own, but most with any kind of critical acumen would disagree with your assessment. There is more truth in that one Hemingway quote than in libraries full of other lesser authors on hunting. But all writers risk being misunderstood. It's an occupational hazard.

And please don't any of us kid ourselves, pride and killing are central to hunting. The least bit of honest introspection will reveal that. IMHO, notwithstanding that some of us might prefer not to discuss these things, there is nothing wrong with pride or with killing, in the context of hunting, self-defense or warfare, for that matter.

Truths, even when expressed well, sometimes put people off. BTW, you need to read more closely. It was pride, not killing, that Hemingway cited as a Christian sin and pagan virtue, and that was only one of many examples he could have cited of where the pagans got it right.

I know that some killers do take joy in imposing their will on the game/victim, and that in those cases, PRIDE is involved. Many hunters, however, would say that the joy of the hunt(including pulling the trigger) out-weighs their sadness at having taken a life. To those hunters, if it were up to me, I would not ascribe the sin of Pride.

Although a newbie to this forum I've hunted for meat and trophies for 40 years. I have not hunted in Africa though I have watched scores of videos, read untold number of articles on the subject; and have one friend who recently returned from his third Safari. Most information, I've come by, mentions the locals benefiting greatly from downed game animals. In at least one video and on several AR posts I have seen reference made to elephant carcasses being used as food on croc farms. I have to admit to feeling a bit of a twinge when I came across those references. I realize that doesn't mean the whole carcass went for that purpose but it still came as news to me.

I hunt because I enjoy hunting and cleanly taking game animals. I prefer game meat over a store-bought steak most of the time... but I would hunt even if I didn't. I too have had to answer that question for my young daughter and she seemed to understand what I do just fine.

Your first answer to the question is correct; the meat from the animal is given to the local people who do need it and do enjoy getting it.

Collectively, as a race, it is because we are a predator species: our eyes fact forward; we have well developed canine teeth, and the dentation of an omnivore; we naturally eat meat; and we use tools to capture/kill it. The locals obtain their meat by snaring it, spearing it, or shooting it, unless it is given to them by sports hunters.

Why one goes half way around the world to hunt an animal that, if he is lucky, he might get a couple of steaks out of, is the essence of her question?

I hope you are proud of your child because she is a very smart young lady. The answer to this question is more complex because it is not based in our needs, but our preferences.

For some it is the thrill of making the stalk, making the shot and testing their skills against the collective abilities of a herd animal. For others it is testing themselves, particularly when hunting lion and elephant. Other are seeking recognition of others by taking the Big Five (of the little seven.) Others enjoy the entire panoply of activities: the planning, the rifles, the marksmanship challenge, the hunt, providing meat for others, the ambiance of the hunting camp, the travel, the after-hunt touring and the recognition. This last statement describes its attraction for me.

I could meet some of those goals here, at home. But I can meet all of the goals only halfway around the world. Kudude

The best response to her question may be to start taking her hunting with you. Personally, while I find upland shooting to be more of a recreation than "hunting" Stalking/lying in wait for game is as religious as fly fishing -- there is something deeply appealing and satisfying in going out into God's creation and using skills we were made for, but which we don't get to exercise very often. Additionally, if you're from a Christian (possibly other religions as well, I'm not familiar w. them) God calls us to engage in stewardship of the earth -- and provides us w. parables of bad stewards vs. good stewards -- so, we are also called to cull and harvest animals, even though we might not "hunt" them, in order to preserve the bounty of the earth.

quote:

BTW, you need to read more closely. It was pride, not killing, that Hemingway cited as a Christian sin and pagan virtue, and that was only one of many examples he could have cited of where the pagans got it right.

No, mrlexma, you are incorrect; it is you, mrlexma who need to “read more closelyâ€, as you put it. It seems you did not read very carefully the Hemmingway’s quote that you posted. How about rereading it before condescendingly responding, as you did? Let me help you find the part you seemed to have missed:

quote:

"Killing cleanly and in a way which gives you aesthetic pleasure and pride has always been one of the greatest enjoyments of a part of the human race. Because the other part, which does not enjoy killing, has always been more articulate and has furnished most of the good writers, we have had a very few statements of the true enjoyment of killing. One of its greatest pleasures, aside from the purely aesthetic ones, such as wing shooting, and the ones of pride, such as difficult game stalking, where it is the disproportionately increased importance of the fraction of a moment that it takes for the shot that furnishes the emotion, is the feeling of rebellion against death which comes from its administering. Once you accept the rule of death, thou shalt not kill is an easily and naturally obeyed commandment. But when a man is still in rebellion against death, he has a pleasure in taking to himself one of the Godlike attributes; that of giving it. This is one of the most profound feelings in those men who enjoy killing. These things are done in pride and pride, of course, is a Christian sin, and a pagan virtue."

The bold part was what I addressed, not the pride issue, which is what you addressed in your response to my post. And as for the pride issue, SGraves155 did address it and nailed it perfectly. I can’t add to it, but I will requote it:

quote:

…he (Hemingway) has mistaken joy in the hunt as PRIDE--which many theologeans/philosophers would more likely define as "enmity towards our fellow man" rather than taking pleasure in an activity.

And perhaps everyone’s a critic but that doesn’t mean every one is a good one. There is nothing that pagans got right and Christians got wrong, as your response illustrates.

Praise the Lord and hallelujah, I am saved!

Thank you Wismon for putting me on the right path. I now see the manifest error of my ways.

Gentlemen,

Thank you for your thoughts and suggestions. You all have paved the way for this little girl and I to better understand one another and hopefully a bit more about the world in general. I am going to begin taking her to the woods next week. Living on a dairy farm, she understands life and death, so killing is not foreign to her. Hopefully she will begin to understand life from the perspective of others who have walked many more miles than she or I.

Joe

quote:

Thank you Wismon for putting me on the right path.

No, mrlexma, I don’t think I did that. But I was trying to help you out - you’re apparently too stupid to read your own post.

Praise the Lord and hallelujah, thanks again for the further enlightenment!

You already posted that, give or take a few words. Then again, I think we’ve established that you don’t necessarily know what’s written in your own posts. And for someone who aspires to quote Hemmingway your rhetorical skills seem as limited as your reading ability.

My daughter has asked questions related to this before. I think one thing we often do wrong is we try and polish up and make a pr presentation to a child. My children love me as no person has ever loved me, and when they ask me honest questions I deliver with no nonsence honest answers. When my children ask me why I hunt and kill animals I tell them the truth. Sometimes it is for pleasure, sometimes for food and sometimes for environmental responsibility. When they ask me why, I tell them no animal is a mans equal, and we are entitled to control, and kill animals. My daughter at the age of three saw me kill a pig on the farm. She asked what happened. I told her I killed it. She next asked if it would ever get to see its' mommy or daddy ever again. I told her it never had a mommy or daddy and it would never see anything again. She totally accepts death amongst animals. No questions about necessity.

quote:

Originally posted by Wismon:
You already posted that, give or take a few words. Then again, I think we’ve established that you don’t necessarily know what’s written in your own posts. And for someone who aspires to quote Hemmingway your rhetorical skills seem as limited as your reading ability.

Praise Jesus and all the saints, but you are a veritable baptismal fount of keen observation and spiritual and literary advice.

BTW, there is only one "m" in Hemingway.

quote:

we are entitled to control, and kill animals.

I think thats what Michael Vick says as well!
Peter.

Let’s recap, shall we?

Joe Miller asked for suggestions on what to teach a child about hunting. In response Mr. Laxative makes a post containing a Hemingway quote that misquotes a biblical teaching. I respectfully point that out to him and also note that Hemingway ended his own life with a gun – hardly someone to emulate or draw upon for a child’s instruction.

Lex Luthor then responds disrespectfully giving every indication that he either did not read or did not understand my post or even the one that he himself posted! So I pointed that out to him while matching the tone he chose to set.

Then, because Lexbananarama’s teachers were so lax in lecturing him in his lexicon his chosen elixir is to revert back to the playground, using the nanny-nanny-boo-boo tactic, but making sure to be profane in the process because that used to get him so much attention back in his glory days, sixth grade. With, of course, more of the same with each post.

It would be enough to make a person flying from Luxembourg to LAX throw up their lox. Or, in other words, spew a big pile of mrlexma all over the aisle of the plane.

Of course, Hemingway did not "misquote" biblical teaching. Hemingway was a writer, an artist, and spoke in non-literal and metaphorical terms, in this case as well as in many others, as writers are wont to do in making their literary points.

His efforts were and are, however, forever doomed to misinterpretation and misrepresentation by narrow-minded, childish fools and fanatics, religious and otherwise, of which the current critic in this thread is a prime and sad example.

The suggestion that, because Hemingway killed himself (when seriously ill and clinically depressed, by the way), he is not worthy of study or emulation, is particularly despicable - or at least not very Christian.

Educating (or debating) or even informing the foolish is an impossible and thankless task, and I must, with reluctance (because it has been somewhat entertaining to me in this case) here and now give up in the case of the current critic.

Howdy Peter,

Where in my post did I say it is OK to torture animals? I realize I may not have the same values as you but don't paint me as something I am not, just stick to painting me what I am.

AND we wonder why the anti-hunters make such headway against us...

We can't even agree on the simplest points of how to answer one of the most basic questions non-hunters have?????

Sorry, Smarter...I just quoted you. Michael Vick supposedly killed animals by electrocution, hanging and drowning. At least two of these methods have been used by governments as instruments of execution, so I assume they are not classified as torture, just killing. Waterboarding is not torture according to the present administration.
Just to set the record straight: "no animal is a mans equal"...if Michael Vick killed my dog I would execute him without a second thought. To put it bluntly, there are "men" who are not the equal of my dogs. Why, because they demonstrate NO spark of humanity.
Kyler, I think if you reread the answers, there is pretty broad agreement. Where we disagree, is perhaps with the more "extreme" answers (for want of a better term) where the justification is "because I am a human, animals are inferior, therefore I can do whatever I want to with them". This answer may not satisfy all hunters, and, I suspect, will not carry much weight with the non hunters.
Peter.

Peter, you compared me to Vick and you know it. It wasn't just about quoting me. And yes I consider fighting dogs to be torture. I would have no problem if Vick wanted to kill his own dogs. I am not a speciest and believe that a dog is not any better than a cow or chicken. Last you really have a problem if you are going to kill a person that kills your dog. You really need to get your priorities straight and qiut worrying about being the humanity police.

quote:

Of course, Hemingway did not "misquote" biblical teaching.

Yes he did. He said that the Bible disallows killing. It does not; it disallows murder.

quote:

Hemingway was a writer, an artist, and spoke in non-literal and metaphorical terms, in this case as well as in many others, as writers are wont to do in making their literary points.

On the point in question he spoke quite directly.

quote:

His efforts were and are, however, forever doomed to misinterpretation and misrepresentation by narrow-minded, childish fools and fanatics, religious and otherwise, of which the current critic in this thread is a prime and sad example.

As, for example, in your quote immediately above. You seem unwilling or unable to read your own post.

quote:

The suggestion that, because Hemingway killed himself (when seriously ill and clinically depressed, by the way), he is not worthy of study or emulation, is particularly despicable - or at least not very Christian.

Where in the Bible does it say that it is wrong to advocate against emulating someone who has committed suicide? Back up your baseless accusation, please.

As for your claim that it’s despicable, I have had suicide occur in my immediate family. I attend a monthly after-suicide support group for those so affected. Don’t presume to lecture me on the topic, you immature cowardly bully.

The topic at hand is killing with guns and the quote in question specifically deals with the taking of life in an effort to deny death. To say that it is irrelevant to Hemingway’s having killed himself with a gun is absurd; it couldn’t be more relevant.

quote:

Educating (or debating) or even informing the foolish is an impossible and thankless task, and I must, with reluctance (because it has been somewhat entertaining to me in this case) here and now give up in the case of the current critic.

You’re bowing out because you’re a bully by temperament and are not used to someone defending himself.

I can't resist.

I am, in fact, bowing out because I am used to intelligent debate with informed and able verbal adversaries, as opposed to the current "someone defending himself."

With apologies to Joe Miller, this time - I promise - I will not respond further.

You know, guys, even with a lot of people disagreeing with what everyone said, I have to say I learned a lot from reading this post, and I thank you all. I agree with most of you and can see everyone's point of view, but in this subject, like most things in life, there is not one right answer. Everyone can look at a subject from a different point of view, I'm glad I'm reading from a bunch of guys that would go hunting with me now, though. I live at State College, PA (Penn State) and there are a lot of people that are simply turned off by hunting. I've had a few intelligent conversations with those people, and a few not so intelligent conversations with them, but the point is, it's nice to have some people that are in same corner (more or less). Please, though, this shenanigans about quoting dead writers and the interpretations of their writings is nothing more than childish. We're all hunters, and I'm sure we would all like to see hunting go into many generations from now. I would, anyway, especially because I'm probably younger than most of you. For that to happen, we need to get along and really try to help younger generations (such as Jim's daughter) to understand why we do what we love to do. Also try to explain to them why we love doing it. There's not one answer to that, we all have different reasons for it, but we can all agree, there's nothing better than a good day afield.