Opinions on deer hunting...

You pulled that out of your ass pretty quick, Rimbaud.

I could have done the same though. I too, am quite confident that all of those institutions and publications have provided funds for studies done by interests with a vegetarian slant. I imagine they've also provided funds for studies done by those who eat meat.

Nevertheless, I wasn't talking about studies. The scientific method is sometimes a facade. Control groups are sometimes just an ornament. Studies are often just a way to back up on opinion. I'm talking about curriculum. I'm talking about what these institutions teach to their paying students. Do Harvard cafeterias serve only veggies? Do they teach their biology students that you should never eat meat? Just curious; I've never been there.


------------------
stop posting my damn signature

 

I hunt deer because it's a rush and because venison is one of my favorite types of meat. To me, seeing a deer in the wild is an awesome site. I don't get defensive when someone says that it's not a sport or it's cruel. That's called an opinion. In my opinion, taking a deer from 200+ yards is a challenge despite having a high-powered scope and rifle. I'm sure that deer hunter's will agree that there's no feeling quite like dropping a muy grande.

------------------

 

Pole,

Are you suggesting that vegetarian interest groups pay Harvard, Oxford, the Journal of the American Medical Assoc, etc to make meat consumption look bad?

Sorry, most I have seen have been independent studies that started out trying to find causes of things (cancer, osteoperosis, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc.

There have been instances where scientists hired to do experiments and studies for the meat industry have gone against what the study was trying to discover.

As far as universities, no, Hravard does not just serve veggies - would cause an outrage. They have, however, done a great deal of nutritional and scientific research and studies that have led them to announce the negatives of animal product consumption.

Nutrition is a maturing field, more and more things I have mentioned are being taught in schools, etc. Keep in mind, no one questioned any of this until about 40 years ago.

Understand, I did not buy any if this at first, either. Nutrition is just a part of my decision, but it was one of the first flashing lights to lead me where I am today.

The more I read (and not on the internet, by the way) the more I was convinced.

Sure, studies can be wrong, but when they keep piling up the same evidence - coming from different approaches, to examine different things, and from many different countires - I will tend to believe them.

I am not trying to convince you to adopt my lifestyle, Pole, just trying to show that this is not all fake and biased - that there is scientific basis to it all.


------------------
Talking to a dead hare about art

 

Pole,

I also do not understand what you meant about "pulling that out of my ass quickly."
I check the BBS the same time every morning and my computer is in my library - I can literally pull books while I am sitting. So I did and looked up a few studies. Not hard.

I can do that with just about any subject represented in my library, by the way.

Does this discredit my position?

------------------
Talking to a dead hare about art

[This message has been edited by rimbaud (edited October 12, 2000).]

 

The most famous study I've seen is one done by Oxford independantly. They studied British naval officers' wives and a group of African women. The study was to determine the effect of the "western diet" on transit times of digestion - from the time you eat to the time you have a bowel movement.

In this independant study that was done mainly for research on colon cancer and heart disease, they found that transit times for the African women whose diet consisted mainly of vegetables and grains with very little meat or dairy was less than 36 hours. They also observed that many of the diseases commonly found in the west like some forms of cancer, heart disease and osteoparosis were scarce or non-existent among these women.

Note as well that these weren't starving women in some poor African province. They were villagers who lived off the land primarily.

The British women were found to have transit times between 72 and 120 hours on average. In addition, these women had a high incidence of the diseases not found in the African women. They also had a tendency towards being overweight.

Scientists concluded that the heavy intake of fatty foods, dairy and meat had the direct result of slowing down digestion which caused higher levels of stress on the body and a higher level of fat absorbtion into the blood stream.

As a result, the British women were not as healthy and had a higher incidence of disease.

Numerous other studies have been done at many medical research institutes throughout the US, Canada and England among others. Johns Hopkins has done several on the link between meat/dairy and heart disease, for instance.

When the food pyramid was set for release, many independant scientists and physicians recommended putting dairy and meat among the smallest portions. After much heavy lobbying by the meat and dairy industries, they reached the compromise of moving it up the ladder a notch or two despite the vocal protests of hundreds of physicians and scientists.

It isn't that meat is bad for you in every situation. Some meat can be beneficial. Salmon, for example, is very good for you as are many types of fish. The problem isn't the meat or dairy that is eaten, it is the amount of dairy and meat that is eaten in a traditional western diet.

The high amounts of protein put a tremendous strain on the body's systems - digestive, circulatory and respiratory primarily.

That constant diet makes it more difficult for the body to do its job and stay healthy. I certainly think anyone should feel free to eat how they wish and would never tell anyone what to do. But, to accuse vegetarians of controlling all the studies into diet is just bizarre.

You mean to tell me that you honestly believe that any vegetarian group has the kind of money or power that the cattle or dairy indusrty does? Yeah, that's why I see all those "Got Veggies?" ads all over the place instead of "Got Milk?"

------------------
Save Our Rockets and Comets
SaveOurRockets.com

 

Perhaps I should make more points along the lines of "pulling things out of your ass." That seems to be the only thing I wrote that you truly addressed.

You conceded that humans are omnivorous, and I'll concede that we, as a group, probably consume too much animal protein.

Outside of that, I don't think we have any common ground on this subject, and I don't see us ever finding any. If we don't stop now, we're just going to continue going round and round saying things that back up our points. That's what people do when they vehemently disagree. I'm done with this subject; I haven't been deer hunting in well over a decade, but for some strange reason, I've spent some time this morning looking at some tracts of land in South Texas (Muy Grande country). It will be a good investment anyway. L8R


------------------
stop posting my damn signature

 

Are there any studies that state what role evolution, if any, has had on the way we eat?

I've often heard that as humans we originally were primarily vegetation eaters. I don't doubt this seeing how it took a while for us to figure out how to make fire and all that. Did we start eating meat because we saw other animals eating meat or did we accidentally discover the greatness that is grilled meat?

Throughout these millions of years our bodies have adapted to what we take in. When we are exposed to something over time doesn't our bodies adapt?

Nowadays we have a lifespan that is double or triple of what humans had way back in tha day. Some people smoke, drink, and eat unhealthy foods yet they live to be a 100 or more. On the other hand, some people have no tolerance whatsoever for certain things. Some people live completely healthy lifetyles and die of cancer at the age of 30.

Do we REALLY understand the details of what effect everything has on our bodies? We are just now getting to the point where scientists are beginning to recognize certain aspects of our DNA.

I am not trying to discredit any scientific observations from either side of this discussion. But it seems to me that as time goes on scientist are finding out that they were wrong about what they thought was true in the 50s or 60s.



------------------
RocketFuel is dead!

 

why, thank you for the compliment rimmy. THat won't save you from a beating though.

Behad, the example you give is neither more shocking nor more grotesque than fishing.

There is a difference between killing deer and cow farming. The deer are still wild animals. A little more wiley than cows methinks.

Pole, you seem a little agitated.

On the nutrition issue. I am pretty sure that if people were eating for nutrition, then meat would be a small staple of meals, if at all. But people don't eat to necessarily be healthy. And there is something to be said for quality of life. Would eating healthy with a low amount of meat significantly improve the quality of life so much that it would warrant giving up food that they enjoy? Probably not.

------------------
There are 3 kinds of lies:

lies, lies, and heypeeisms.

-DrofDunkingDonuts

 

Is anyone else hungry?



------------------
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."

 

CriscoKidd, put down the tubb of Crisco and back away .

Seriously, though, you bring up a solid point. If you feel you can eat whatever crap food you want, then you may not live as long because of heart disease. Of course, lack of exercise can also contribute to an early demise. If you watch what you eat and eat healthy(meat or no meat), then you hope to live longer free of heart disease and feel better inside.

I know from experience that when I eat a burger and fries, I don't feel as well as if I had a turkey sandwich on whole wheat bread with mustard and baked potato chips . So, as you might tell, I have sworn off all bad foods and am currently indulging in a healthy, active lifestyle. I will still eat meat in smaller portions but I usually don't eat steak, though.

But, any one of us can die tomorrow for no good reason at all. At least, by choosing to live a healthy life, you can take preventive measures from heart disease now rather than collapsing at 45 from a heart attack later.
It's not what I do now that scares me. It's what accumulates inside our bodies and happens later in life that you should be concerned about. Keep that in mind next time you bite into that taco from Taco Bell or burger from McDonald's.

Granted, it's not easy to watch what you eat, but it can have a big payoff. It may very well prevent open heart surgery for many as they get older.

Surf

------------------

 

This is the year 2000. There is no reason whay anyone should have to hunt for food unless they are lost in the woods. Hunting is pointless, and cruel. I don't know how anyone could find pleasure in murdering any animal.

------------------

1999-2000 Rockets Game Formulas:
End of 1st quarter: "They're playing so well!"
2nd: "What a great game!"
3rd: "Theres no way they can lose now!"
4th: "What the ******* **** happened?!!"

 

I would never go hunting(although i dont mind fishing), killing is not my bag.

HOWEVER

i live on an island that is approximately 5 miles by 4. there are 2000 year round residents, and 5300 deer living there. the deer population is so dence that all the deer are starving. also their overpopulation is causing the deer to change their natural diets.
in my town there is now an unlimeted hunting season, where licenced hunters can kill as many deer as they want. its brutal, semi-disgusting, but since they have initiated this program, i can actually see a deer without its ribbs showing.

hunting is nor a sport, but it is enjoyable, and advantageous in some instances.

------------------

 

Actually, I answered your comments:

1. pulling info outta my ass
2. validity of studies
3. changing curriculum in universities

Something I missed? I reread you post, didn't see anything new.

Oh well.

Land is almost always a good investment.

------------------
Talking to a dead hare about art

 

Pole,

Don't worry, I realize who is arguing against hunting (more eating meat). But, you seem to be taking it personal, man. Relax, have a beer.... go grill up a big fat juicy heart stopping double cheeseburger.

-----------------

Achebe,

Hmm, I don't see the connection. I believe humans have souls, and animals do not. Does this make us biologically different? NO.

Our bodies are no different than other animals: we have bones, hair, blood, organs, red blood cells, white blood cells, muscle tissue, tendons, ligaments, etc.

----------------------

Jeff & rimbaud,

Humans are omnivores (as rimmy has stated). We have "canine" teeth, do we not? Also, primates have been known to hunt, kill, and eat other mammals, including other primates.

----------------------

On the "Health" issue: What about the Inuit people in Alaska who's diet cosists on 95% meat during parts of the year due to a lack of vegetation?

Also, deer meat is much much lower in fat that beef, so if it's fat you're worried about, go shoot and eat a deer.

----------------------

On the "Cruelty" issue: You are a hypocrit if you believe it is "cruel" to hunt for your food, but "not cruel" to buy that ground beef from the grocery store. The meat found in the grocery store had a far less happy life than the deer any hunter shoots, and a far more traumatic death.

----------------------

On the "It's not a sport" issue: The Olympics seem to disagree. They give out medals for that dumb ass skiing and shooting event. It may not be the decathalon or an Iron Man competition, but shooting a target especially from a good distance is a sport.

And, I still say Bow Hunting is more of a sport than: golf, bowling, darts, bocce ball, lawn darts, badmiton....

----------------------

------------------
I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem.
DREAMer's Rocket Page

 

Jeff & rimbaud,

Humans are omnivores (as rimmy has stated). We have "canine" teeth, do we not? Also, primates have been known to hunt, kill, and eat other mammals, including other primates.

----------------------

On the "Health" issue: What about the Inuit people in Alaska who's diet cosists on 95% meat during parts of the year due to a lack of vegetation?

----------------------

On the "Cruelty" issue: You are a hypocrit if you believe it is "cruel" to hunt for your food, but "not cruel" to buy that ground beef from the grocery store. The meat found in the grocery store had a far less happy life than the deer any hunter shoots, and a far more traumatic death.

We do canine teeth. Compare ours to that of a dog and you'll understand the difference. We may have once had protruding fangs but we don't any longer. Our teeth are now more comparable to a cow's teeth as is our digestive system.

The Inuit people are extremely unique. Like those who live high in the Himalayas, the Inuit people require large amounts of fat and protein to protect their bodies against the harsh elements. We certainly do not. In addition, the Inuits have horrific rates of heart disease as a result of their diet.

Our bodies are extremely adaptable but we have to give them what we need. People who live in warm desert climates tend to eat only berries and roots because that is what is available and their body cannot take all the fat and protein that comes from eating meat.

I agree that meat from a store was once a living creature that died a very cruel death perhaps more cruel than one that was hunted and killed in its habitat. To me, ALL killing is cruel.

However, you cannot honestly equate the purchase of meat in a store to the actual act of violence that must happen to kill an animal on your own. The act of violence is what concerns me, not the way the animal dies. Either way, it is cruel for the animal because the animal ends up dead.

What troubles me is the ability to kill an animal (and take a life), not the desire to eat it.

------------------
Save Our Rockets and Comets
SaveOurRockets.com

 

This is a philosophical issue drawn on very broad lines of demarcation. So "for" and "against" don't lend much insight. To "Veg" or to "not Veg" also has fuzzy lines of seperation. Even "Yes, it's a sport" and "No, it's not a sport" add even more comlexity.

Is it "To Veg" or "Not to Veg" ?

My Problem

After experiencing both ideals (admittedly "not to veg" was considerably longer than the converse), I choose to be omniverous.

I could not rationalize the slaughtering of animals as unconscionable, when my daily life involved many direct and indirect uses of animal products. Glues, leather belts, bone handled utensils, feather pillows, etc ... In short, I would drive myself crazy (and those I choose to associate with), if the focus of my consumption (dietery and otherwise) was predicated on the method of harvesting/producing every single item I came in contact with ...

The solution

I have made myself aware of specific areas of consumption that I feel effect my deeper philosphy. One that involves how I feel about myself and my relationship with EVERYTHING around me. For instance: I do not eat Veal. I limit my consumption of all meats. I eat as much tofu, and grain staples and legumes as meat. I eat fish, as wild state self-caught. I refuse farmed fish.

Basically I accept myself as one dot in a whole world of dots. However, I recognize that single dot is as important as any other single dot. I do not consider myself more important than the whole. But recognize that in my world, the safest and most fulfilling experience for me is to take a position of compromise. On almost all encounters.

If I am hungry for instance, I may have a number of choices. If the available alternatives include only meat, then I accept the one that has the lesser of evils according to my determined philosophy. Most important to this way of co-existing, is that I try not put myself in the position were the choices I have, are ones that are counter-productive to my philosophy. For instance, if I went to Luther's BBQ, it would limit my choices, given my paramenters to eat mostly a decreased, farmed, animal meat intake. So I don't eat at Luther's. That's my compromise. Likewise, I also don't eat at any catfish restaurants or buy them at grocery stores. They are readily available in the lakes and rivers. If I want them, I can buy a license and fish for them myself. That's my compromise. Albeit a small one, but one of many that shapes me as a person.


"Is it Sport or is it Slaughter?"

My Problem

I was brought up on some very strict adages about survival, sportsmanship, wildlife, the outdoors and living within nature.

They are as inherent as my facial features and the color of my eyes. Some are possibly even deeper than that, as it has been suggested by people more learned than me, that the "animal instinct" or "survival instinct" makes us hunters or gatherers or both since the dawning of man. I don't know about any of that, except that I like and enjoy being at one with nature.

Sometimes I am the hunter. Sometimes I am the gatherer. I have been both. I cannot accept one and deny the other. As a gatherer, I have hunted with a camera, have guided passive tours and have taken long sojourns alone just to be "there" in that one spot. Alone. Comfortable.

But I also have hunted. Taking days, cold-stalking a single opponent alone, in his forest and sometimes bringing back meat and sometimes fruitless. I recognize the feelings within me when I do it. I don't have an answer as to why I feel that way.

At the completeion of a hunt, involving a meat kill, or just as ofetn not, I usually offer some sort of a blessing. A thank you. I never feel I have hurt nature. I always feel like I have complimented it. I feel like I have completed some circle. It's hard to explain.

To me this is the sport.

The telling factor I guess, is that I feel a deep fullfilment irregardless of wheteher an animal has died or not. The meat may be the reason. But the process was the sport. Again, going back to my initial posting, I find very limited "sport" in the way people "hunt" in Texas. It is not just a question of objectionable semantics.

"My Solution"

To me, eating game animals is more in keeping with what I see as my relationship with food (survival), nature (the other dots) and my place or co-existence in all of this.
Presently I do not hunt game animals. It is a matter of choice. But I would again, given the opportunity and assurance that such were hunted in a sporting fashion, as discribed above. Where the woodsmanship and skill level was more balanced with my quarry. This is not to justify the killing but establish the parameters in which my "compromise" within hunting takes me.

Cheers.

 

Rimbaud.......I hope you don't mind me dragging up an eleven year old thread just to give you some vindication, but I felt it was my duty. I'm getting older and fatter with all of the bad crap that comes with it....hypertension and Type II Diabetes chief amongst them. I can only imagine what my arteries look like. One of my very best friends.......someone I've been all over with on "foodie" trips has recently (within the past year) adopted Dr. Fuhrman's diet (vegan, but with an emphasis on nutrient density), and the results have been astounding. He had been VERY hypertensive and had a kidney scare, and he just put his foot down and did it. He looks great, and he sounds like he feels great. There seems to be a lot of great press coming out these days about a vegan diet...........even Mr. hamburger and fries billy-boy Clinton is on the bandwagon.

So I feel compelled to give this a try before a bad-mouth it any further. Please accept my apologies and wish a fellow Sharpstowner (I think I remember that correctly) good luck.