What's the difference between hunting and buying meat?

Bard: It is the idea that they are being killed unnecisarily, not how, that disturbs me.

Do I "Know of" that killing, or do I "Allow" that killing?

Adder: How can human and animal behaviour be said to be similar in this instance?

i have been known to hunt and fish.

for me it is gratitude. I am more grateful for that which i put in effort. I express more gratitude to the animal i slay for my own eating. ... not that it cares.

I find i keep venison i hunt months longer than just a roast i pick up at market.

rugadd wrote: Adder: How can human and animal behaviour be said to be similar in this instance?

In regards to hunting? Depends on the environment and the reasons. Usually the human has huge advantage in mobility and firepower. This does give them the opportunity to observe and gather more knowledge about potential targets prior to any direct action. While animal's will probably look for the easiest kill to conserve their energy expenditure. For wild animals its probably considered a constant struggle for survival. Hunting then to me seems a bit unfair to target animal's in that situation, and so a theoretical ideal might be to look for animal's that are acting like pests to their environments - a decision made by observation and understanding of the environment. Is that what you meant?

In a sense, but if I took it that route, arn't pests a natural part of it all?

rugadd wrote: In a sense, but if I took it that route, arn't pests a natural part of it all?

Depends what is meant by 'pest'. At a macro level nature tends to be about balance, its evolved that way. I thought it most usually means when a species achieves some unusual advantage, as seen with some introduced species if there is no natural predator for it. It is commonly used here for when a species population gets too high for its food source, as that leads to pressure on other species and spreading of the 'pest' beyond its normal habitat seeking food. My line of thought in regards to hunting, if your going to shoot something, then it might as well be something which is or appears to be an agent of imbalance. The trick then between intelligent decision making and not, is knowing how they normally live. In that regard its like sustainable farming - help the 'system' work. To me that would classify as more proper hunting, instead of just killing for food. I think it sits better with the heritage of apex predator hunting of old, but more importantly seems a more compassionate way to the environment, to do a rather non-compassionate activity. Gosh, I have an opinion about everything dont I, Lol

Unpopular Opinion time:

Everybody here seems to be on the "sport hunting is for jerks" bandwagon, and I wholly disagree. I am fully in favor of sport hunting if the following conditions are met:

• The animal's population is successful, and not endangered or otherwise compromised.
• The animal is used for more than simply a taxidermy display (bear skin rugs, ceremonial items for certain religious uses, etc.)
• The animal can kill you, and the manner of the hunt demands you be within such a distance that it can.

steamboat28 wrote: Unpopular Opinion time:

Everybody here seems to be on the "sport hunting is for jerks" bandwagon, and I wholly disagree. I am fully in favor of sport hunting if the following conditions are met:

• The animal's population is successful, and not endangered or otherwise compromised.
• The animal is used for more than simply a taxidermy display (bear skin rugs, ceremonial items for certain religious uses, etc.)
• The animal can kill you, and the manner of the hunt demands you be within such a distance that it can.

Do you mean killing for pleasure?

Adder wrote: Do you mean killing for pleasure?

I mean killing for sport--for challenge. Not for trophies, but for the knowledge that you have earned your place at the top of the food chain.

There is, I believe, a vast gulf between killing something out of desire to kill something (which is always wrong), and a desire to test yourself against the worst that nature can throw at you. I see that sort of "sport" hunting as no different than people who trek out into the wilderness and risk their lives to see if they can survive. They're just ending a larger animal's life in this instance, rather than many smaller ones for their subsistence. Both are sports, both are tests of our wills against that of nature, and both are equally unnecessary, but my point remains.

Mano-a-mano would be fair, else its just an exercise in whether or not the weapons choice was adequate for the desired experience. Seem's a bit selfish to me but I'm not judging.

Adder wrote: Mano-a-mano would be fair, else its just an exercise in whether or not the weapons choice was adequate for the desired experience. Seem's a bit selfish to me but I'm not judging.

I think this might be an argument for a different thread, but every creature has its natural weapons. Beaks, claws, teeth, horns--and humans have their mind. Which allows them to innovate things like the atlatl and the shortbow, so I don't really think they're an immediate disqualifier.