Re: Rebeka Breder trying to ban Wolf an Bear hunting
Originally Posted by
mod7rem
In my opinion, this is not honest for most hunters. This is the spin that a 12 yr old could easily defeat.
I’ve said it in the past, defending hunting needs to be honest and unapologetic. As soon as we bracket hunting into a purely sustenance argument, it will make it that much easier to separate different hunting practices and defeat them one by one using our own argument against us. I don’t think people are stupid enough to believe and accept that all the things we do as hunters, are in the name of sustenance and I don’t ever use that argument to justify what I do. Think of all the time, effort and resources that most of us put into our hunting. For example, how would you justify traveling to different provinces and states to an anti hunter, as a need for sustenance.
The bulk of the people we need to justify this to, are people who eat meat but think that the life of a wild animal has a higher value than a domestic animal, and therefore should be left alone. They are uninformed/misinformed and find the idea of hunting unnecessary, distasteful and disturbing. I’ve heard this argument countless times in the past 20 years. We are never going to convince the extreme anti hunters of our right to hunt, so I think we better get those misinformed people in the middle on our side because they are a far bigger population.
Im not trying to offend anybody, but this is my opinion.
Being honest and appologetic is good, but it really doesn't matter.
You can't defeat agenda with honesty.
Most of the time you can't defeat agenda with reason and logic, but it is our best weapon.
I have to concede and say that I probably went too far by saying "food only".
I understand that there are other reasons like being outdoors, family, besting your best, one upping your next door neighbour, bringing meat to your cave woman etc.
Whatever it may be.
But food is and should be the primary driver.
Justifying why people travel to far away places to hunt is easy.
How do you justify some people paying top dollar for rare caviars, bluefin tuna sushi, kobe beef and other things most of us don't eat?
Why are these people legitimate in spending loads of money on some food that other people bring for them and guys who spend loads of money to go and get the food for themselves are not?
Why are people spending $78,000 on a bottle of whiskey?
Are they trophy drinking?
There is always an element of exotic, hard to get resources that some people can get to and most can't.
There is also always an element of "I have more money than you do" in everything in the world of humans, so in hunting as well.
Isn't that the human peacock's way of telling the peahens that they have brigther feathers?
Why should a guy be allowed to spend $10,000 on a steak that someone killed, butchered and prepared for him.
And a guy who goes and gets his own dinner can't?
Hunting for many people is profitable and cheaper than going to a store to buy meat. Not to mention healthier.
Except for us urban rats, most guys in the boonies can get a deer, bear or moose practically any time they drive an hour outside of town.
We need to shed the British colonial hunting heritage where only aristocrats were allowed to hunt.
Peasants were shot on the spot if they were caught hunting.
I suspect this is where "Trophy hunting" comes from.
Today you can't procure your own food because majority don't have the skill and forgot what that's about.
Tomorrow cooking will also be illegal because some obscure group won't have the skill.
For me personally, since I work with computers and machines all the time, hunting also keeps me human.
Last edited by adriaticum; 02-18-2021 at 04:45 PM.
1. Human over population
2. Government burden and overreach