What's the difference between hunting and buying meat?

As some members on here are aware, I am pursuing my state mandated hunters education, and bow-hunters education in order to be able to purchase and use my first hunting license in the upcoming hunting season. I am doing this because hunting provides several advantages over simply buying meat from a store, such as I know that the meat I am buying is healthy and fresh, It only costs me 22 cents for small game such as rabbit, or larger game such as coyote (Which is still edible even though most would rather not consume it). Coyote is obviously not commercially available, but that same 22 cent rabbit would cost as much as an entire tin of ammo (15$) if I were to buy it commercially.

On top of the cost advantages, there is the ethical advantage. The animals I kill are not raised in closed pens and bred for the sole purpose of being slaughtered for possible consumption (as we all know a great deal of meat is just thrown away by markets)

Many people take offense and have an aversion to hunting. I have seen this in both the attitudes of the people I interact with on a daily basis, as well as the animal rights activists who comment on YouTube videos and say that the hunter should be brutally and horribly killed for humanely killing an animal they intended to consume. These same people buy packaged meat that was raised in a slaughterhouse and placed on the store shelf for their convenient consumption.

So, thus asks the question. What is the real difference between hunting and buying meat? Either way, you are still killing or supporting the direct killing of an animal for your use and/or consumption. At least in hunting, you take part in all parts of the process, where as with buying it from a store you feed into the illusion that somehow the meat just appeared there after the magical meat fairy placed it there. Killing is killing, whether done directly or via proxy.

Or am I just misguided in thinking all of this and it is really much more complex/simple than I thought?

Things are always as complicated, or easy, as we make them...

I like eating meat...

Not beef so.much, but, chicken, fish, and just about every other kind I've had...

I guess beef is OK, just prefer the others...

Good luck on your upcoming first hunt...

The packaging?

Seriously though. Hunting an animal for food/use of its hide etc is understandable.

Hunting for sport I do not care for.

When I hunt, I also thank the animal for its sacrifice, I honor the animal and give thanks. Many do not do so. It is part of the cycle of life, but it is necessary for survival.

I also use the whole animal, the hides I tan and the bones are used for making things. Very little gets wasted.

Good luck with your hunt and aim true ensuring a quick and merciful kill shot.

I don't hunt. Mostly because I'd rather spend my patience elsewhere but as an animal lover, I personally have no issues with the hunting of animals with the intent to consume. I don't like pure trophy hunting, but as long as you're going to use the animal and strive for that one shot kill, Then enjoy

I hunt for meat when able...I don't believe in "sport"hunting...

Just got a 150lb crossbow...already have a couple of rifles...

Wild meat tastes better, but requires more thorough cooking....

Now my tummy is rumbling fiercely :evil:

Hunting or small farm livestock is fine with me. Trophy hunting crosses a line. I think the reason I still pick things up at the store is because I haven't sufficiently horrified myself over the meat industries practices yet. Fast food, too.

I would rather animals were allowed to live wild and hunted for food than intensively reared for meat. The problem is our society's demand for cheap meat is so high animal welfare/quality of life is sacrificed to save a few bucks (no pun intended..).

Trophy hunting and factory farming are both deeply unpleasant to me.

Hunting is an important skill imo, but I'd be vegetarian before actually hunting for fun or food, but I do buy meat :blush:

I think they are both really different, hunting is more personal and can have a greater immediate effect and represent a more direct expression of ones self - but buying into the mass slavery and slaughter of the meat industry seems much worse, but more detached. People tend to live in cities these days, where the only option is to buy it.

I've managed to exclude beef, cow and fish meat from my diet, and gotten down to only free range egg's and chickens. I guess a theoretical ideal might be something like an elderly animal near death takes its last sleep on my back porch, but well that's not going to happen and would not be sustainable farming practice either I bet!!

Any guidelines for spiritual hunting practices modeled on human ethics and morality might contradict the process of natural selection. Perhaps the 'ethical hunter' is someone who learns about the social dynamics of the creatures and pick's the one's which represent overtly counter-productive behaviour to that group, perhaps selfishness and laziness or act's of violence for pleasure etc!? Looking broader in the same theme we might see the same trend represent the foundation for pest control, which is supposed to be helpful to the wider community of animals.

This has been an interesting read ...

But I just wanted you to know that I saw the title : "What's the difference between hunting and buying meat ?"

My first thought was ... :huh: 'Isn't it evident ?'

Besides, they really hate it and haul you off to institutions (either penal or mental) when you go shooting the meat in the supermarket ...

:S ... I guess ~

Ah, man, I had a really funny "lamebook" post to do with this. Basically someone posted "Why don't people get meat from the grocery store where no animals were harmed?". :huh:

I grew up on a farm (grazing sheep and cows) so I'd just like to point out that most farm practises are nothing like what is portrayed to you by organisations like PETA. We don't deliberately torture animals. Nor are they killed inhumanely. Having said that, my experience is from a family-owned farm which may have different practises to the "factory farms" (cue imperial death march tune).

I've never had a problem with someone hunting for food as long as the animal is killed humanely. So, in answer to OP's question, I would say the main difference is that, in hunting, you can't always guarantee a quick, clean kill. It's ironic, though, because there's no such thing as a quick clean kill in nature. Ummm... the following spoiler contains my observations of the cruelty of nature. Not for the squeamish! So in the scheme of things, if you "wing" a rabbit and it scoots off into the bushes and it takes a few minutes to die... well, it's still better than some of the alternatives, isn't it???

As mentioned, trophy hunting seems wrong but then, who are we to judge another person's actions and desires?

The other main issue with hunting is to make sure that it's done sustainably. One example I'm thinking of is fishing. In Australia we have a fairly well-regulated fishing industry to ensure that species are not hunted to extinction. That's not the case in many parts of the world. Sharks, in particular, are being over-hunted in many of the Earth's oceans. Following this "sustainability" argument to its conclusion has interesting consequences, though. The Japanese whalers argue that they are hunting whales in a way that is sustainable and humane.

Just looking back to the home page, I find this:

Jedi believe in the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it.

I sometimes wonder if this statement is encouraging us to eat less meat. Then again, carrots are alive too!

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.