Is hunting really a "sport?

killing innocent animals for the sheer pleasure of it? Not to survive,but for killing sake?

Killing to eat is okay by me. Killing for sport is just strange.

Would football still be considered a sport if players killed each other?

:eyes:

I might actually watch it if that were the case :P

sport
   /spɔrt, spoʊrt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA
–noun
1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.
2. a particular form of this, esp. in the out of doors.
3. diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime.
4. jest; fun; mirth; pleasantry: What he said in sport was taken seriously.
5. mockery; ridicule; derision: They made sport of him.
6. an object of derision; laughingstock.
7. something treated lightly or tossed about like a plaything.
8. something or someone subject to the whims or vicissitudes of fate, circumstances, etc.
9. a sportsman.
10. Informal. a person who behaves in a sportsmanlike, fair, or admirable manner; an accommodating person: He was a sport and took his defeat well.
11. Informal. a person who is interested in sports as an occasion for gambling; gambler.
12. Informal. a flashy person; one who wears showy clothes, affects smart manners, pursues pleasurable pastimes, or the like; a bon vivant.
13. Biology. an organism or part that shows an unusual or singular deviation from the normal or parent type; mutation.
14. Obsolete. amorous dalliance.
–adjective
15. of, pertaining to, or used in sports or a particular sport.
16. suitable for outdoor or informal wear: sport clothes.
–verb (used without object)
17. to amuse oneself with some pleasant pastime or recreation.
18. to play, frolic, or gambol, as a child or an animal.
19. to engage in some open-air or athletic pastime or sport.
20. to trifle or treat lightly: to sport with another's emotions.
21. to mock, scoff, or tease: to sport at suburban life.
22. Botany. to mutate.
–verb (used with object)
23. to pass (time) in amusement or sport.
24. to spend or squander lightly or recklessly (often fol. by away).
25. Informal. to wear, display, carry, etc., esp. with ostentation; show off: to sport a new mink coat.
26. Archaic. to amuse (esp. oneself).
—Idiom
27. sport one's oak. oak (def. 5).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sport

Hunting was called a sport long before there were organized athletic events. Hunters were sportsmen, engaging in the sporting life. The word itself comes from the activity. Even anglers were not considered sportsmen until the 17th century, and barely, even then.

Hunting dogs are referred to as "sporting breeds," even today.

Of course, before that, hunting was simply survival. No hunting, no food.

I shot a deer in Wyoming, back in the 1970s...the only one I've ever killed, since I was mainly a small game hunter. I dressed it out in the field, butchered it myself, packed it with dry ice in an old freezer for the trip home. Then, I ate every bit of that animal that was edible over the next six months. Having done that, I'm aware each time I eat a cut of meat what the origin of that meat was. I suspect that most people do not have that connection to their T-bone steak. They eat it without really knowing its origins. They don't know which part of the animal it might have been. If confronted with a dead steer and given a knife, saw, and cleaver, they would probably go hungry.

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sport

Original Meaning: 1 a: to amuse oneself : frolic <lambs sporting in the meadow> b: to engage in a sport

I have to say that I actually respect that. In some ways I find Ted Nugent less objectionable than the millions of people who enjoy their burgers and McNuggets without ever once having to think about factory farming conditions.

animals to prevent starvation if they overpopulate or extermination in the case of too many wild boars who will attack unprovoked. They have a highly educated system of ecology which incorporate a minimal number of these master hunters. Nobody else (civilians or non-police) is allowed to even hold a firearm in Germany.

:D

:D

Germany's Federal Weapons Act (1972) does strictly regulate gun ownership, but private citizens can, with the appropriate permits, own weapons.

nekkid.

perhaps justified if you need the food.

Then I assume you also consider everyone who eats meat or uses animal products to be "murderers," correct?

As I said, it's justified if you need the food.

I assume you do occasionally read what's written, correct?

if you consider *all* meat eaters to be in the same "muderer" category as hunters, at least you're being intellectually consistent.

but it doesn't mean I said them.

As for a term to describe it, how about recreational animacide?

Do you or do you not consider hunting to be "murder?"

I'm certainly not trying to put words in your mouth--if you don't consider hunting and eating meat to be equivalent acts of "murder," please feel free to explain.

Killing an animal when you don't need the food (and there is no other compelling reason such as self defense, putting an animal down to keep it from suffering or to manage a population that threatens other species or an ecosystem)? Again, we don't have a good word. "Murder" is closest without a visit to the dictionary. "Recreational animacide" might suffice.

If that's not clear enough for you, then I can't do much to help.

It is just intellectually dishonest to consider hunting to be "recreational animacide" but eating meat to be something less objectionable.

First, the vast majority of people that eat meat pay someone else to kill and butcher it for them, out of their sight. Just because you don't see that animal being killed, however, does not mean it doesn't occur.

Second, I guaratee that that vast majority of wild animals that are hunted for sport enjoy a significantly higher quality of life than animals raised in factory farms, and quite often endure less suffering when meeting their demise.

Just because you pull the trigger...

Therefore by his logic, if you eat meat, even if you don't do it yourself, you're paying someone to, and therefore you are a murderer as well.

You'd think you people would be grateful for me taking the bait and giving you someone to talk to on your little stalking-and-ambush foray out of the gun-nut ghetto. Sheesh!

You haven't made any sort of justification for considering hunting to be equivalent to "murder," but not the eating of meat. You haven't, because you can't.

you'll feel better.

kill=animacide
kill to eat=not animacide

If you still can't understand, we'll have to meet someplace that has crayons.

Interesting shift. That "need" requirement certainly wasn't really workable, so I'm glad to see you shifted away from it. Under your own standards, the vast majority of hunting is, in fact, not "animacide." Fair enough.

(and your attempts to blow up the discussion with personal vitriol aren't going to work--your position was untenable, and you know it)


edit subject/verb

pretty soon I'll have you slobbering over a grunt.

There's no need to be so unpleasant about it. You painted yourself into a corner, and you wanted out. That's fine. It's not the crime of the century, but it is a little unseemly for you to be so hurt about it.

Take care.

I admit that word is imprecise. To my knowledge we have no better alternative.

I'm not hurt. I'm laughing my ass off.

Since you clearly don't like interacting with people that don't think just as you do, I'll take my leave of you here.

If you'd like the last word, feel free to suggest that I shoot an animal (again) or that you have somehow been victimized in this exchanged because I held you accountable for your own words.

Have a lovely evening.

I'm no victim. I'm sorry the trap didn't work. Maybe next season.

Can you suggest a word to use for killing an animal that poses no threat and whose flesh you don't want to eat?

Who does that?

Without exception.

And I'm a hunter.

make stools out of elephant feet, etc....

You don't know what a trophy hunters is or what he does; yet you despise them. Interesting!

They shoot animals for sport, and then take part of those animals and preserve them for the pleasure of displaying them. What they do with the rest of the remains is usually throw it away or leave it.

I'm repeating this, as I've already told you once.

Are you always this blatantly, painfully stupid?

To take a game animal and not take the meat is against the law in all 50 states and throughout Canada. These laws are strictly enforced. Since you claim to be a hunter you should know this.

"Are you always this blatantly, painfully stupid?"

No but you've surly proven you are, and rather childish and crude with your comment's as well.

All the trophy hunters I was referring to go to Asia and Africa, so spare me your self-righteous bullshit.

Other than that:

A. It's not illegal to hunt and leave kills in the field in the US.
B. In the US, game laws are not usually strictly enforced, except perhaps in your fantasy land, due to severe budgetary restraints.

Have you ever considered actually knowing what you're talking about before posting?

The meat is to be consumed while hunting or given to the tribes. They're very strict about this. I've hunted plains game in Africa twice, once with firearms and once with a bow, what meat we didn't consume was given to the local tribes. How about you?

"B. In the US, game laws are not usually strictly enforced, except perhaps in your fantasy land, due to severe budgetary restraints."

As a retired peace officer who has enforced both state and federal game laws in TX, I'm amused with your comments and your lack of knowledge, but don't let that stop you, please continue.

And, no, I've only hunted in N. America, but the trophy hunters who I know hunted africa and asia and no, they didn't always distribute food amongst the locals.

<i>As a retired peace officer who has enforced both state and federal game laws in TX, I'm amused with your comments and your lack of knowledge, but don't let that stop you, please continue.</i>

While quite interesting, it's also irrelevant to the greater matter at hand. I, too, am quite experience in law enforcement, but that doesn't change the fact that if there are no officers in a certain area, enforcement is simply not strict.

Where I'm from in CA, for example, there is 1 game warden for a three county area. Perhaps that constitutes 'strict enforcement' in your mind, but not in mine.

Believe me, I've got plenty of knowledge of the law, which you've already misrepresented, but it's irrelevant to what we're discussing here: do trophy hunters or do trophy hunters not just take trophies.

In my experience, quite often they do, regardless of the law.

Good luck in your world of the Platonic Ideal.

And cut out how ever much venison meat they can. I dont see a problem with that. The poachers you refer to in Asia and Africa, I am completely against.

that I was complaining about occurs here in N. America as well.

I've come across a few deer carcases, heads removed, the rest laying there rotting in the woods. Why drag out the whole body if you only came for the head and pelt? Just wrong.

Kill cockroaches?
Kill mice?

... when they shoot animals for anything other than providing food for their families.

shoot. Many times the animal suffers needlessly due to the inexperience of the "hunter"

I think learning from one's father (or mother) is a pretty good way to go about it, personally.

n/t

So it can't be called a sport in my opinion.

I'm vegetarian and I don't understand hunters. To take down a beautiful unsuspecting animal with a gun from one's own safe perch.....I just don't get it. But to each his own, I guess.

much better knowledge of the environment, and an innate instinct of being a prey animal to begin with. It isn't as easy as you make it sound. Ever tried it? Even to get a good photo? There are real skills needed, no matter how advanced your weapon is.

I work as a copy editor for hunting and fishing magazines, but that doesn't mean that I approve of hunting.

I don't hunt but I don't deign to approve or disapprove of it, as I have seen both what I would consider decent and shitty hunters "in action".

I'll never forget the deer smacking the hunter, knocking him down, and beating him up with its hooves on the funniest home videos show. That was one of the coolest videos they ever had next to the "Long John Silver" cat. :rofl:

but if you want to apply your own definition of "sport", then it would depend on how you define it.

In fact, I haven't thought about that aspect of it at all.

I simply like the flavor of wild game, fish, and fowl. Sport doesn't have a single thing to do with it, it's healthier, and it allows me to lessen my partaking of the fruit of factory farming.

Your post equated ALL hunting with "killing innocent animals for the sheer pleasure of it". That's not silly, it's fucking off-the-wall idiotic.

:hi:

Hunting takes skill, but it doesn't meet my definition of a "sport".

It would only be a "sport" if the animals were also armed and knew how to shoot.


Strangely enough, I suspect hunting would be less popular among humans if this were the case.

I see.

Tends to be the ones who don't actually have to do the fighting.

the real question we should be debating here is: are hunter out for the thrill of killing, or out to get some good-tasting food? That seems to make a difference.

Everyone knows they're playing. It's why the deer run away.

The ball doesn't know it's playing.

Baseball is a sport, even though the gloves don't know they're playing...

I don't consider the animal my opponent any more than an archery target is an opponent.

I have no problem with hunting. I don't do it myself, but I have plenty of friends who do.

Hunting, to me, is like hiking or camping combined with shooting. It may take knowledge, it may take skill, it may require patience...but it's not a "sport".

What if you start the day with 8 hunters, and you all go out at the same time, and the one who brings back the most Grouse, for instance, wins the day. Would it be a sport then between the hunters as they're competeting against each other?

I go grouse hunting every year, and every day the guy who bags the most birds that day (which can often be just 1 or 2) doesn't have to pay for dinner or beer that evening. Is that enough to make it sport?

Also can you simply compete against yourself? You can play golf against people, but you can also play against yourself. Yesterday I shot an 84. I want to beat that score...Does that make it a sport?

Not being a smart ass. I think it's a semantic discussion that people seem to have widely varying views on.

I would say that sport requires some sort of level of difficulty (ie it takes skill and is not just a completely random thing, rock paper scissors for instance), some sort of physical activity (chess takes skill, but I wouldn't consider it a sport), and an aspect of competition (either against another team, another player, or a set number, score, or time of your own that can be measured).

If it takes no skill, no physical activity, or has no way of measuring itself against yourself or others then it can't be a sport.

I don't have any moral outrage going, I just don't see it as a sport. If hunters are competing against each other, it's a competition...but not all competitions are sports, either.

Golf played against other players is a sport. Golf played against yourself is a pastime...much as playing baseball against another team is a sport while spending time in a batting cage is a pastime.

For me, relatively equal individuals or teams playing against each other is what makes it a sport...but yes, that's an entirely personal definition.

If the animal "wins" (manages to stay alive) then all the hunter loses is some time. Not exactly equal terms. Besides, "harvesting" is the in vogue term now for "hunting". It makes it seem like it is harmlessly collecting berries in the woods. Hunting for food I can understand. Hunting for sport or just enjoying shooting something, I cannot understand.

For example, left alone, most deer populations would explode due to the dearth of natural predators. Their eating habits would then defoliate woodlands. Eventually, greater numbers of predators would prosper to balance that out, however, predators would spill out into communities neighboring woodland areas. This would then lead to the excess predators being killed off by humans to protect those communities, which would then cause the deer population to increase again, and round and round we go.

Without a hunting season to cull the herd, these "innocent animals" would create an ecological problem greater than the clearly moral problem you have with hunting. Nature does not entertain things such as "innocence" and "guilt". In the natural world, these two things are nonce, there exists only balance between predator and prey and the ostensible way our presence must serve to upset it. Unless we are prepared to wall off large swaths of land as natural preserves from development, we, as the upsetting force, must provide counterweight to the balance existing in nature which we've disrupted, and become predators in the stead of their natural ones.

That some derive pleasure from the "sport" of it (which I've always taken to mean pleasure from the exercise of one's own skills in the matter), I really see no issue.

P.S. I'm not a hunter. Just FYI.

Something to do outdoors, a way of re-connecting with nature, a challenge, and a source of food.

"Killing innocent animals" translates to sitting in the woods with frozen extremities for hours and days on end, most often without seeing a deer with antlers, until usually after dark when a thousand eyes mock you as you drive home in your truck. Deer, my friends, are smarter than you are. They are not just willing hapless targets.

And I personally don't know of anyone who doesn't pack every last bit of venison into the freezer when they are lucky enough to get a deer. Oh yes there are those who go to "canned hunts" (stocked deer on preserves) but these people are generally referred to as and have earned the title of "unsportsmanlike."

My state has a large proportion of people who hunt, and we have a very healthy deer herd.

If indeed, deer are smarter than I am, then why do so many not know not to step in front of the big beasts with the glowing eyes? By this, I mean, cars. If you could, please communicate this lesson to them, as I believe both the beast and the deer could probably do themselves a great service by coming to some level of understanding.

Thanks, in advance.

Deer go looking for food, and since we're everywhere, that means they have to cross the roads. The less hunting there is, the more deer there are, and the more there will be in the roads, sick, dying, starving, searching for food that doesn't exist. Taking more risks eating next to roads, closer to humans etc.

if hunting were to cease you'd see alot more of them frozen in the roads.

And as far as WHY they freeze in front of cars, it's a survival mechanic. if a deer hears something in the woods they'll freeze and try and figure out what it is. Looking for motion, color, etc. I don't know about you, but if you are in even a medium density forest and a deer holds fast on you, you can be 20 feet away from it and have a damned hard time seeing it. it's a great survival mechanic for the woods....on the roads though...doesn't generally play out too well.

out doing more than "killing innocent animals for the sheer pleasure of it" For most of the hunters I see it is a (mostly but not always) male bonding event. A chance to spend time outdoors, live in nature for a few days, bust each others balls a little, maybe practice shooting a bit and if skilled and/or lucky bring home some meat for the freezer.

Vacations. Some people take cruises and do nothing, some go out and set up a camp. I don't have a real problem with it. There is plenty of game out there and they pay their way and contribute to the local economy so...

"Sorry. If you can't use your hands, it isn't a sport." --- George Carlin

I know I have. But truth be told, I'd rather play Unreal Football.

Sorry, but soccer (and I'll keep calling it that, thank you) is a snoozefest from beginning to end.

was what I was talking about. Football requires a similar level of skill, but is combined with physical strength and endurance far beyond our more popular sports of American Football, Basketball, Baseball, etc.

I'm not diminishing any of those other sports, merely pointing out that it very much more demanding than it looks. American Football is the ultimate consumer sport, it takes 3 hours to play a 60 minute game where there is about 20 minutes of action. Lots of time for consumption, requires virtually no attention span.

The amount of physical strength and endurance required depends largely upon the position in football. I would seriously doubt that any soccer player would be able to last a full Unreal Football game on the defensive line. If they did, they'd be eating turf for most of it.

I have watched soccer on occasion, you know. It's 90 minutes of dribbling the ball up and down the pitch punctuated by the occasional shot on goal. You call that "action"? I don't. If I added up the total amount of "action" in that game by my definition, you might get a single minute. If you're lucky.

Soccer sucks. And by my (and Carlin's) rules, it isn't a sport.

So, soccer remains on the pile.

End of line.

"Anything I can do while drinking beer is not a sport"

he also said: "You think hunting is a sport? Ask the deer."

:rofl:

than hunting, in your opinion?

The DU concession stand ran out of :popcorn: three times already.

victory garden. It wouldn't hurt to develop a hybrid that puts out more kernels per ear. :popcorn:

killed animals "for killing sake," as you put it. I used to hunt, but I don't any more. Now I catch fish, but I don't kill them. I just let them go to be caught again.

Anyhow, I take it from your question that you don't eat animals or use animal products. If you did, you would be having others kill "innocent animals" for you, and that seems unsupportable morally, really, if you take the position that it is immoral for someone to hunt and kill an animal.

If you do eat animals or use animal products, I'd be interested in hearing how you justify that while damning those who go out into the countryside to kill their food.

as they involve some competition. While hunting can be challenging, fun, and/or recreational, that doesn't necessarily make it a sport.

One of the reasons why trying to determine/legislate if a firearm has "sporting use" based on it's roll in hunting is silly.

I'm a vegetarian, but I don't begrudge his hunting. He's gotten several deer this season and shared them at work with those who have fallen on hard times and he eats deer as his primary source of meat since he's sending most of his money home to his family in Missouri.

If you're going to eat meat, I think hunting and raising your own farm animals is the most honest thing you can do. The meat is free of all of the chemical additives and hormones. He dresses and packages all of his kills, so I think he has the same natural bond that one gets from growing their own produce.

Because of over development and the removal of natural predators, if hunters were not allowed to conduct controlled culls, many deer would die of starvation and disease because of overpopulation. I think that is less humane. And it's certainly better for the environment than the toll factory farming takes.

So, I guess all of the good vegetarians can revoke my membership now.

is that without humans acting as a predator, deer (and a lot of other game animals) don't generally meet a peaceful end, dying in their sleep surrounded by friends and family. When deer are overpopulated, the starvation and disease that result are quite unpleasant for all involved.

Who kills your food for you?

In my county they now have a bounty on bears. Last year they were knocking off cougars. Personally, myself I would go after the coyotes, before I would go after the cougars and bears. I find them far more dangerous and less afraid of people than the other two. Well, I guess I have a grudge about coyotes for killing one of my cats.

It has a much lower fat content than beef, so it dries out FAST if you don't take steps to hold the juices in. Done properly, it's a lot like beef steak.

Preservation and cooking tips to help flavor: http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/tips/fall/venison.html

Also, I don't know the source of the venison you've tasted, but a deer that is dropped in its tracks by a surprise shot while grazing tastes a LOT less "gamey" than a deer that has been running for miles and has lactic acid, adrenaline, etc. in its muscles. So a deer stalked or shot from a tree stand will taste better than a deer shot on the run or a deer that's been chased by dogs, from what I've been told.

most honest thing you can do."

I am very bothered by those who are meat eaters and call hunters awful names while enjoying their factory-farmed, antibiotic and steroid laden steak.

Hunting is a FAR more honest and honorable approach to meat-eating.

other methods are used to give the hunted a real disadvantage, but still causing untold terror in the last minutes of its life. I know people who hunt for food and they do try to be humane about it by making sure the first shot kills or in the case of some Amazon tribes who use poisoned darts to stun the prey making death not so traumatic. I really hate the amateurs who kill for killing because it's some macho thing to prove.

pissing off people who aren't exactly like you for the sheer pleasure of it. Not to learn more, but for argument sake?

:shrug:

My only problem with it is that it causes "Reverse Evolution." Hunters kill off all the strong big animals, thus the small and/or weak animals thrive. Also I dislike it when people hunt predators. It just seems like a perversion of the natural order to me.

I've worked enough deer check stations to see with my own eyes that hunters take all sorts of animals, not just the biggest and strongest, even if that's what they want to take.

I raise cattle and also hunt deer, turkey and quail as an outfitter. Texas and a few other states have started Antler restriction on deer, they now require at least 13 inch inside spread on bucks before they can be taken, we have close to 65 counties involved. The reason for this is most deer taken in the past were in the 1 1/2 to 2 year old range. Few people ever see a mature deer, let alone take one.

:shrug:

If it is just for pleasure, then it really isn't going to be called hunting and is probably inhumane and illegal.

I've hunted, for food. Never killed something I didn't intend to eat. I would not call hunting a sport. It's a practical thing for many people.

any more than any other apex predator hunting something is mere sport. I don't think it can be pigeonholed like that.

I would point out that humans are biologically omnivorous primates, so hunting is hardly "unnatural" for humans, and that meat does not grow on trees. The deer or bird who lives in the wild and is shot by a hunter almost certainly lives a fuller life than the cows/pigs/chickens that nonhunting non-vegetarians consume.

FWIW, I am a nonhunter, but I do not believe that nonhunting is morally superior to humane hunting, and I may take up hunting someday (I already own a suitable rifle).

You’re correct! Hunting is neither sport nor game, It's an instinct we all possess, whether we choose to admit it or not.

Unless the animals are herbivores, chances are they aren't innocent. In fact, even animals that are herbivores may have blood on their hands. Other animals kill animals for food, what makes humans so different?

The first rule of nature, you are either eating or being eaten.

Animals are amoral. We cannot layer our worldview into the behaviors of other species.

The notion of an animal being "innocent" (or by extension, "guilty") makes no sense. I have the ability to make choices based on my understanding of what is right or wrong for me; animals don't have that option open to them.

Animals eat to survive. Humans do a great deal of pleasure eating.

And he got his first deer and a wild hog. I do consider it sporting. We always clean and eat what we kill. We have also gotten many robins, dove and squirrels in the yard this year with pellet guns, make nice meals. I was deer hunting with my dad at a few years old, he put me in a stand with a Winchester 30-30 by myself starting when I was 9 years old, killed two deer that year. It's fun, ever heard the saying "thrill of the hunt". Used to run deer and hogs with dogs with my grandfather every year too, that was definetly a sport.

If people eat what they kill, I suppose hunting is justified, but considering another animal's pain and suffering enjoyable to watch is just plain sick.

It's just ambush and slaughter.

question you obviously think you have all the answers anyway?

disarm the humans and give then a camera.

But here's a question for you: if one illegal hunter shoots one game warden because hunting is now illegal and the hunter doesn't wish to be caught, how many cute little bunnies is the game warden worth?

if it's on ESPN then...

Seriously,
Bicycle racing is sport but ya need to be physical if you're on your butt and gonna call it sport

that's hunting and real sport.

Sitting in your camouflaged tree perch with a .30-06 and scope, luring the animal in with bait and slaughtering it is simply satiating your blood lust, (with the exception of a survival situation, but I don't think you are talking about that) and probably attempting to compensate for something.

You need help, really.

Some people seem to think golf is a sport, too.

if there's no competition from the opponent.

but understand why it needs to be done at times. But do not understand why so many hunters get such a thrill out of killing an animal--except that man is blood thirsty. I can understand somebody hunting for meat to survive on, but not for the "fun" of doing it.

and the organisms in it.

them for months then hide and shoot the animal from a distance with a high powered rifle are cowards. If they would sneak up on an animal (almost impossible) and kill it with their bare hands and eat it because they are hungry, then I might be impressed.

In the south, baiting (using "wildlife corn" to attract animals) is perfectly acceptible.

In the Northwest- that's poaching.

since the time I was old enough to learn how to shoot. Growing up, we'd have had a hard time getting by without the meat. Man as predator is the natural order of things and nothing to be shied away from. Even today, the only meat I purchase is the occasional poultry when I'm in the mood fer some fried chicken ( I like whiteman's food from time to time ;-) ) , the rest I hunt and what beef I eat is raised by my uncle. The rest is deer and elk along with some small game that I hunt myself. Oh yeah, and some dog stew every now and again is a tasty treat.

is only in a Yuwipi ceremony-or something along those lines. :)

...but not always :)

Posting inflammatory topics for the sheer pleasure of? Not for understanding, but just to stir things up?

Seems apropos.

He doesn't seem to have much passion for the game.

Twenty quatludes on the newcomer!

When I fish, I throw back anything that is not going to be eaten.

I normally wouldn't shoot innocent creature, but it's really frustrating to lose to an opponent that can't even hold a paddle.

Fucking deer.

It takes a lot of skill, knowledge, and patience to be a hunter.

I mean, I know some like to be arrogant enough to think they have it within their power to redefine words all by themselves, but the real world doesn't quite work that way. One need merely look at the very definition of Sport to see that hunting is included.

sport
   /spɔrt, spoʊrt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA
–noun
1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.
2. a particular form of this, esp. in the out of doors.
3. diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime.
4. jest; fun; mirth; pleasantry: What he said in sport was taken seriously.
5. mockery; ridicule; derision: They made sport of him.
6. an object of derision; laughingstock.
7. something treated lightly or tossed about like a plaything.
8. something or someone subject to the whims or vicissitudes of fate, circumstances, etc.
9. a sportsman.
10. Informal. a person who behaves in a sportsmanlike, fair, or admirable manner; an accommodating person: He was a sport and took his defeat well.
11. Informal. a person who is interested in sports as an occasion for gambling; gambler.
12. Informal. a flashy person; one who wears showy clothes, affects smart manners, pursues pleasurable pastimes, or the like; a bon vivant.
13. Biology. an organism or part that shows an unusual or singular deviation from the normal or parent type; mutation.
14. Obsolete. amorous dalliance.

for deer or whtever hunting season it is. so I get the pleasure of hearing guns go off and it freaks me out. I know, I chose to live here and I love nature, so... but here is the disparity I see with the hunting. Anyone who actually would benefit from hunting, like poor folks who can't afford food at the store... they can't afford to get the permits needed to hunt. I am against 'sport' hunting. if you are going to kill an animal, it should be because you need to eat. but that's just me.

For the most part, people don't eat meat because they "need" to eat meat, they do so because they like it.

How is eating a steak that you don't really "need" to survive any different than hunting, killing, and eating a deer that you don't really "need"?

those are the ones who would 'need' to be hunting food. this is vs people like my brother in law who hunt for fun. now, my brother in law and sister eat the meat. i think you are not understanding what i am saying.

especially knowing if you're gonna eat it.