What's the difference between hunting and buying meat?

Andy Spalding wrote: Food waste. I don't just make this stuff up.

http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-ip.pdf

It outlines the inefficiencies in the food supply system. Read it. Or not. You already have your opinion made.

"up to 40 %" "from farm to landfill".

very far from your originally claimed "most of it rots before it gets distributed"

Those 40% include losses during distrtibution, losses by supermarkets/etc who cannot sell the product due to consumer pickiness and regulations, the food that gets wasted by the consumer because they keep it too long in the fridge, food the consumer finds "not good enough", etc. Same goes for restaurants. Some people find it rude to finish their plate too ( )

40% waste on renewables is a perfectly acceptable loss, mostly because landfilled food is compost in the making, therefore not a loss. Compare that to electronics, cars... there's a 100% waste there, most of it doesn't get recycled.

Next to that, hunters and fishermen are historically known for driving entire species to extinction and destroying ecosystems (by causing imbalances).

ren wrote: Next to that, hunters and fishermen are historically known for driving entire species to extinction and destroying ecosystems (by causing imbalances).

Hunters and fisherman are also called in to repair imbalances in the ecosystem because conservationists go too far.

I would agree with you Ren if this was the 1800's into the early 1900's, but the course of events brought on by World Wars and new farming techniques that have created abundant food supplies and distribution, I would strongly disagree.

The domestic cat is responsible for the most extinctions on the planet. Here is just one article on that subject.
(Just found it interesting.)

steamboat28 wrote:

ren wrote: Next to that, hunters and fishermen are historically known for driving entire species to extinction and destroying ecosystems (by causing imbalances).

Hunters and fisherman are also called in to repair imbalances in the ecosystem because conservationists go too far.

Both of you are right. Hunters for game had almost killed off the Bald Eagle. But they did kill off the Zanzibar leopard, dodo bird, and Sea mink

But hunting can also be for population control

In many places in the Eastern US we need to hunt the white tail deer. Due to all the corn farms in the area, especially in my area, the deer population booms. And we must hunt them because they become traffic hazards that can kill drives. And then in the winter they would starve to death, while kill millions of trees by ring eating them

Ist a delicate system that needs to be balanced










Sea mink

There have been other things that have caused extinction and near extinctions including the use of pesticides (namely DDT) and mans need for building materials. The deforestation of the rain forests may yet be mans demise.

On the flip side, it was the creation of National Parks and Preserves starting back with President Teddy Roosevelt that help to enlighten hunters and the general public to the devastation being caused by relentless hunting.

There are many side to this story and the best thing we can do is be mindful of our own actions and treat everything as precious and impermanent.

I'm not really arguing for one side or the other: There are side-effects to both methods. But it seems pretty obvious to me that we have the necessary technology (and wisdom) to completely detach ourselves from our environment when it comes to food supply.

Past actions, pollution, even human travel cause severe disruptions to the natural order, and this means certain species become invasive, while others disappear if no help is given. We will have to keep an eye on all that no matter what.

The real problem with farming isn't down to the technology or techniques yielding inferior food at a high environmental cost, we can already do much better than what we currently do. vertical farming actually works. Uses less space, less water, works in cities....
Also, simple regulation could insure land is either farmed, built, or forested. Our real problem is our economy, which is all about maximizing profits instead of creating the best product at the lowest possible price.


really, what we need to do is get rid of the government, replace it with Civilization IV, and switch to the environmentalism civic in one click.

Kohadra wrote:

Adder wrote: My chemistry lecturer often went pig hunting with a compound bow... his advice was to take a pistol if you missed because they would come at you. Some of them are huge up nearer the equator. I actually ended up buying one of his bow's but only killed targets with it
:whistle:

Personally I would prefer to carry a large-bore rifle compared to a pistol, just because I'm a better shot with long arms than I am with pistols.

Yup, I think the idea was to continue using the bow until it approached effective pistol range... I mean why walk to the animal when you can let it come to you
:huh:
Truth be told they were probably up a tree anyway, where it might be harder to escape up, or hang onto, with a rifle :silly:

To be honest, after attending this hunters education course I have gotten a new perspective on hunting, and I am not sure if I am truly interested in pursuing it any longer.

Many of those attending the course, as well as the instructors of the course, display a disregard for the lives of animals as demonstrated by their comments when discussing the taking of wild game. Many of the youth in the program display inadequate firearm safety handling, even after being shown how to properly hold and use said firearms.

But aside from this, I had an inner conflict even before attending the course. I have been asking myself, as someone who is pursuing a monastic path and lifestyle, whether it is ethical as a monk to take the life of an animal when there is an excess of resources already available for consumption and use. I asked one of TOTJO's clergy their opinion on this matter, and while they viewed it to be fine, I am still in conflict about the ethics of taking violent action and ending a life unnecessarily as a monk.

So while I will finish what I started and take my exam on Thursday evening, I do not believe that I will ever go hunting, at least not as long as I hold the view that there is inherent worth in all life, and pursue the lifestyle of an ordained monk.

Just wanted to add that in there while the thread was still recent.

As a Hunter education and Firearms safety instructor, I completely understand your hesitation. The “Sports Hunter” has a very different mindset and can be very discouraging with the lackadaisical view of the hunt/taking of life and or handling of firearms/bows..

Remember it is your action and your mindset that you can affect. Maybe being part of the positive change and a positive influence on the hunt could be your direction or calling. You are not hunting for the others in the course, and you are not hunting to put a big trophy on your wall.

Also remember, plants are very much alive too. Being a vegetarian, killing a plant to eat, to many is the same thing. “You ever hear a carrot scream?” Is a great reference I like to remind myse;f that just because we are not aware of the impact does not mean we did not make an impact.

I always propose to be thankful for however you receive your sustenance, whether you are hunting, gathering, picking, harvesting or fishing, be thankful for what you received. Honor the gift of the cycle of life.

Trust your instinct and you will be confident in your course.

Karn wrote: Also remember, plants are very much alive too. Being a vegetarian, killing a plant to eat, to many is the same thing. “You ever hear a carrot scream?” Is a great reference I like to remind myse;f that just because we are not aware of the impact does not mean we did not make an impact.

This is very true and is a point which I have made to my vegetarian parents and sibling numerous times over the years.

The element in my post about having an aversion to killing, was that of not finding it ethical or characteristic of a monk. I do not believe it is ethical to take an animals (or a plants) life, when there is already an overabundance of food and resources that can substitute the need to do so.