Hunting vs. Endangered Hunting

Dragonwolf

any kind of hunting is pretty pathetic and disgusting

my dad is a hunter so I grew up with it and have been around it my entire life

zero respect for it

So bears and mountain lions and wolves are disgusting? We're predators too, we're just the most highly intelligent and have developed technological tools for hunting, since we don't have claws and can't run as fast as alot of our prey. Why do you think we developed canine teeth hmm? Hunting isn't disgusting or cruel, it just IS (as in it's a fact of life, get used to it).

These exact reasons are why humans are not carnivores or omnivores. We do not have claws. Our canines are pathetic and in fact, all herbivores have them as well. We cannot run at great speeds like predators can. Our jaws do not open wide like a predator when we eat, nor do we tend to bite and swallow like them. We mash and grind out teeth like herbivores. We also have to cook and season our meat. When was the last time you saw a lion roast a gazelle over an open flame with some lawrys season salt? Also, when we eat meat it is acidic - our body needs to balance this out and it does so by leaching calcium phosphate from our bones. The only reason humans ever ate meat was because during drought or in times where we could not find fruit or vegetables we turned to scavenging. There is literally no reason to consume meat, dairy or eggs anymore other then our own selfish reasoning. I'm sorry but a life should not have to die just for my taste buds.

Wolves, lions, cats, birds of prey all hunt out of survival. We do not need to do so anymore, regardless of what our ancestors did.. It does not apply to us anymore.

sorry but you are wrong about many of the above points.

1. humans are omnivores, so are all great apes in fact. Even gorillas (despite what vegan propaganda tells you).

2. humans lack many adaptations of herbivores, for example we only have one stomach and our gut is too short. Of all the great apes, the one that eats the highest percentage of plant food, the gorilla, has a much longer gut than us. Human teeth are not like herbivore teeth... human teeth are similar to the teeth of other primates, but with reduced canine teeth, and most primates are omnivores. In fact there's a rule of thumb in primates that the more animal protein eaten the larger the brain (relative to body size). that holds true throughout the human genus. Herbivorous primates have very small brains for body size.

3. the very first stone tools, used by australopithecines (bipedal apes with similar brain size to chimpanzees) were used butcher up animal carcasses, in particular to extract bone marrow and brains. They were not the first hominins to eat meat, just the first to use stone tools to extract brains and marrow. This extra source of energy gave them a significant evolutionary advantage, and they were the direct ancestors of humans - i.e. the availability of the high protein high fat brains and bone marrow gave them the energy to be able to sustain larger brains. And throughout human evolution, the evolution of brain size happened alongside the evolution of more and more sophisticated hunting weapons and larger and larger animals being hunted. more meat = bigger brains. bigger brains = better at catching animals = more meat

4. chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest extant relatives in the animal kingdom, co-operatively hunt small mammals, including monkeys. It's therefore highly likely that the common ancestor of chimps bonobos and humans did as well, and that what we see in the fossil record in the immediate ancestors to humans, is an increase in meat eating, in particular the ability to extract the essential fatty acid rich parts of the animal, which then gave them the raw materials to grow bigger brains

5. the reduction of the canine teeth in hominins (which is evident in human ancestors dating back millions of years and precedes the increase in brain size and the australopithecines who first used stone tools already had tiny canines) is to do with a reduction in male to male aggression. In primates, the canine teeth are usually bigger in males and used to fight other males and even just for displaying to other males (these primate species will open their mouths wide to display canine teeth as an act of aggression) - it's not an adaptation for eating meat. The loss of it in hominins relates to a reduction in male to male aggression which relates to an increase in co-operation and food sharing, which are hallmarks of human societies. Bipedalism evolved at the same time, thought to be advantageous for carrying food back to base camp. Bipedalism and reduction in canine size pretty much co-evolved. And both had already evolved in Australopithecus before humans existed.

6. There is so much evidence for meat eating in the human fossil record. For example, every species of human has been found alongside animal bones that have stone tool cut marks on them, i.e. the animals were butchered with stone tools. Over time, the complexity of the stone tools, the complexity of the hunting weapons, the size of the animals and the size of the humans' brains increased, and they all increased together. It was a kind of positive feedback loop. More meat = bigger brains. Bigger brains = better at hunting. Better at hunting = more meat. Note: all human species were omnivorous, that means they ate vegetable foods as well.

7. Chimps and bonobos don't have claws or other specific adaptations for hunting meat - they have brains and can use tools (one subspecies of common chimp has been observed spearing bush babies on sticks and eating them - i.e. the use of a very basic hunting weapon).......... humans' adaptation for hunting is our brains and our hands and our ability to make stone tools.

8. the large temporalis muscle of apes acts as a contstraint on brain size, i.e. the brain size is limited because the skull is surrounded by this huge muscle - that's most evident in gorillas (who eat the most plant food) - this muscle is used to grind up vegetation. Some australopithecine species had this, e.g. australopithecus boisei (who is not an ancestor of humans) - some australopithecines took the evolutionary route of eating a lot of plant food, like gorillas, and they evolved bigger and bigger jaws and teeth, and bigger temporalis muscles - just like gorillas. Note: they were not herbivores, they ate insects too, just like gorillas. The ancestors of humans showed a big reduction in the size of the temporalis muscle, which meant brain size was no longer constrained, but it also weakened human jaws... these ancestors with small temporalis muscles could survive with smaller teeth and jaws because they ate meat, which is much softer than the kinds of plants eaten by gorillas and australopithecus boisei (molecular analysis shows what kinds of plants they ate).... again, without eating meat, these australopithecines would never have evolved bigger brains, and it's that evolutionary trajectory - bigger brains, smaller teeth, more meat eating, use of stone tools to extract the brains and bone marrow from carcases.... that set australopithecines on the route to evolving into humans. We're not just omnivores... we would never have evolved without consuming this additional animal fat and protein. As for australopithecus boisei with its huge teeth and jaws... it went extinct.

9: re cooked meat... lower palaeolithic humans ate raw meat. middle palaeolithic humans had controlled use of fire (that's one of the defining characteristics of the middle palaeolithic era) and they cooked food. modern humans can digest raw meat, cooking simply protects against pathogens and parasites. If you're certain about the food hygiene in the whole chain from farm to your plate, you can eat raw meat. It's not a good idea because it's very hard to be certain of the food hygiene of everyone who's handled the animal before you. But restaurants do serve up steak tartare and sushi... and lots of people eat rare beef steak (i.e. still raw in the middle) - some meats like pork and chicken can't be eaten raw but only because of the prevalence of certain pathogens and parasites in them that it's not worth the risk.

---

I have respect for people who are vegetarian or vegan for ethical reasons, but seriously you should stick to science and not believe the twisted vegan propaganda version of human evolution that would have you believe humans are supposed to be herbivores. They're not. Humans are omnivores. And you have to go way way back in primate evolution to find a herbivore ancestor... Humans are omnivores and humans evolved from omnivores. The whole "we don't have the adaptations that carnivores have" is nothing but a strawman argument... because carnivores are very different from omnivores, just like omnivores are very different from herbivores.... lots of herbivores have 4 stomachs, for example. Primates just have one.

I you.

Fun fact, it's also possible to eat rotting meat.

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/this-guy-has-eaten-nothing-but-raw-meat-for-five-years

And in addition to the laundry list neandermagnon provided, there's the fact that heme iron is more bioavailable to humans, and that the only way to get the essential nutrient B12 without animals is with the help of society (the production of yeast for the specific purpose of B12, fortified foods, or supplements). And, of course, the fact, that the healthiest populations in the world eat at least some amount of meat.

Also, we may not be able to run as fast as some other hunters, but we have endurance out the wazoo when we're actually fit. Many hunter tribes have been known for chasing an animal to the point where it dies (or left in a state to be easily killed) from exhaustion or dehydration from running from our hunters. Not even all meat-eaters rely on running speed (or even speed in general) to catch their prey.

So...yeah...

QueenBishOTUniverse

Ok, I'm actually taking a break in the middle of my workout to come back and write this because it bugs the crap out of me. As a scientist that works in environmental and conservation fields that also involve a large amount of popular activism, can I please make a few basic requests:

Please do not confound the scientific facts with your own personal beliefs, morals or ethics. When this happens it has several detrimental effects. It tends to confuse the general population which may not be familiar enough with the issue at hand to separate out the two factors (I'm looking at organic farming and environmental vs. individual health issues on this one). For those who are more familiar with the general issues it will result in a loss of credibility that can often overshadow the very real concerns being raised by the scientific community. Finally, it will often result in the complete and total dismal of the issue at hand by anyone who happens to hold differing beliefs or morals, in other words, you completely lose an entire segment of the population that might otherwise have supported your cause if you had simply left it in the realm of science and not turned it in to a moral imperative.

/end rant I feel much better now, back to deadlifts.

QueenBishOTUniverse

i really want a buffalo burger wrapped in Bacon. I hunt, and do it respectfully as well as fish. I love the environment but I wouldnt kill anything that is endangered.

If someone doesn't like it its ok thats their opinion io respect it as you should respect mine as we do in a civilized world.

Yes we have a bad deer population. due to lack of predators. like it or not we have to control them. i dont mind the state police shooting Bambi skull off as target practice that they do once a year to feed the homeless and prevent cars from hitting them

I also fish. Are there people against that? I am not asking to be a tird but curious. i release the fish though

Ah fish. Full of iodine and omega 3 fatty acids. Fish consumption that led to an increase in brain function particularly in the memory area.

Ok, one more, fish are great if they're from populations that are responsibly managed, but there are some very serious issues regarding the overfishing of the large predatory fish. And then there's the mercury issue. And on that lovely cliffhanger I really am off. Back after deadlifts.

_John_

Ok, one more, fish are great if they're from populations that are responsibly managed, but there are some very serious issues regarding the overfishing of the large predatory fish. And then there's the mercury issue. And on that lovely cliffhanger I really am off. Back after deadlifts.

yeah, but half of us are male, and most of us aren't eating fish caught out of Minamata bay

str8bowbabe

While y'all are still battling over this...Im gonna go shoot my bow or do some bowfishing! Who's in?

_John_

While y'all are still battling over this...Im gonna go shoot my bow or do some bowfishing! Who's in?

as long as you're not shooting gator gar in a state with no harvest restrictions, I'm in...

str8bowbabe

I DO NOT hunt or fish illegally! I value my life time license too much!

T1DCarnivoreRunner

i really want a buffalo burger wrapped in Bacon. I hunt, and do it respectfully as well as fish. I love the environment but I wouldnt kill anything that is endangered.

If someone doesn't like it its ok thats their opinion io respect it as you should respect mine as we do in a civilized world.

Yes we have a bad deer population. due to lack of predators. like it or not we have to control them. i dont mind the state police shooting Bambi skull off as target practice that they do once a year to feed the homeless and prevent cars from hitting them

I also fish. Are there people against that? I am not asking to be a tird but curious. i release the fish though

Ah fish. Full of iodine and omega 3 fatty acids. Fish consumption that led to an increase in brain function particularly in the memory area.

Ok, one more, fish are great if they're from populations that are responsibly managed, but there are some very serious issues regarding the overfishing of the large predatory fish. And then there's the mercury issue. And on that lovely cliffhanger I really am off. Back after deadlifts.

I agree - they must be managed properly just the same as other wild animals. Here's an example of not managing properly: I live in Iowa, and the Iowa DNR (Dept. of Natural Resources, which is responsible for a number of things, including managing wildlife and hunting / fishing / trapping regulations) just decided to start issuing licenses for paddlefish on 2 rivers that have few paddlefish. A couple of years ago, they changed rules to allow for more bobcat kills because, even though the science showed it would adversely decrease the bobcat population, hunters and trappers were unhappy about not being able to kill more bobcats.

My point is that, whomever is regulating needs to be more interested in managing to proper populations and not making sportsmen happy.

As far as the OP's article and question, I still do not have any respect for a wealthy girl that brings a camera crew to a hunting preserve in Africa and kills animals for fun with hopes of becoming famous.

_John_

I DO NOT hunt or fish illegally! I value my life time license too much!

just noticed your location...shot any of those Asian carp out of the air?

they're all over a private like I fish in western TN.

Gator gar was a sore spot for me though in fishing regulations. In a lot of states that have them they don't/didn't have restrictions. I was happy to see TX adopt bag limits, as those fish take SOOO long to mature (iirc they become sexually mature at 15), and spawning conditions aren't met every season. One of the true river monsters of North America.

ladymiseryali

I love animals, but support hunting for population culling and ONLY if you plan to use the whole animal, and ONLY if done quick and humanely. I don't agree with hunting for sport. I think that's cruel. I also think taking a selfie with the animal you killed is sickening and makes you an arsehole in my book.

roanokejoe49

Hunting is not a sport. In a sport, both teams know they're playing the game. You have a gun and are shooting a defenseless animal. But hey, props to you.

Disgusting.

Do you eat meat? Beef, Pork, chicken?

If not, they good for you for your stand. But if you do, your argument is invalid.

I've heard this analogy before, and it's pretty damn silly. Chickens, cows, and pigs were BRED to be eaten. That is their sole existence, and the only reason they are alive. There are no natural predators for them and natural selection doesn't apply. They are a CREATED food source. Is the treatment of these animals more humane than hunting? The outcome varies as to the skill or douchebaggery of the hunter, I suppose. The point is that nobody goes looking for a chicken to kill it for their meal. It is provided for them by whatever farm process happens to raise it.

salembambi

any kind of hunting is pretty pathetic and disgusting

my dad is a hunter so I grew up with it and have been around it my entire life

zero respect for it

So bears and mountain lions and wolves are disgusting? We're predators too, we're just the most highly intelligent and have developed technological tools for hunting, since we don't have claws and can't run as fast as alot of our prey. Why do you think we developed canine teeth hmm? Hunting isn't disgusting or cruel, it just IS (as in it's a fact of life, get used to it).

What a stupid response

_John_

What a stupid response

Since you have already stated an inflammatory opinion that you admittedly will not budge from, what is the point in continued posting on this thread?

ArchangelMJ

How can anyone in their right mind support poaching of endangered species? it's sickening and horrible. There are some scenarios that are complex and difficult to solve, such as impoverished villages being forced to hunt sea turtles for food - that is understandable though obviously not ideal.

But so much poaching is done for terrible reasons. There is absolutely no value to the harvest of rhino horn, which some people ignorantly believe has medical benefits. Even when a conservationist cuts off horns to the base to deter poaching, a poacher will still kill the animal to carve out those centimeters of remaining horn. It's positively disgusting and so many of the earth's beautiful creatures are suffering because fools want to have "fun"?

digitalbill

Hunting is not a sport. In a sport, both teams know they're playing the game. You have a gun and are shooting a defenseless animal. But hey, props to you.

Disgusting.

Do you eat meat? Beef, Pork, chicken?

If not, they good for you for your stand. But if you do, your argument is invalid.

I've heard this analogy before, and it's pretty damn silly. Chickens, cows, and pigs were BRED to be eaten. That is their sole existence, and the only reason they are alive. There are no natural predators for them and natural selection doesn't apply. They are a CREATED food source. Is the treatment of these animals more humane than hunting? The outcome varies as to the skill or douchebaggery of the hunter, I suppose. The point is that nobody goes looking for a chicken to kill it for their meal. It is provided for them by whatever farm process happens to raise it.

The majority of the anti hunters are anti because they believe that, morally, killing an animal is wrong.
So, what is the difference between killing an animal for food out in the wild or, having an animal killed and then buying it at the grocery store?
Dead is still dead, right?

digitalbill

How can anyone in their right mind support poaching of endangered species? it's sickening and horrible. There are some scenarios that are complex and difficult to solve, such as impoverished villages being forced to hunt sea turtles for food - that is understandable though obviously not ideal.

But so much poaching is done for terrible reasons. There is absolutely no value to the harvest of rhino horn, which some people ignorantly believe has medical benefits. Even when a conservationist cuts off horns to the base to deter poaching, a poacher will still kill the animal to carve out those centimeters of remaining horn. It's positively disgusting and so many of the earth's beautiful creatures are suffering because fools want to have "fun"?

That *kitten* in the picture posted by the OP is a piece of ****. You do not KILL a rhino to conserve it, people are busting their *kitten* doing everything they can to protect as many lives as possible, because rhinos are CRITICALLY endangered and each one counts - she's full of ****ing ****! I want to punch her in the face just seeing those photos.

You do realize that this was a LEGAL hunt and NOT poaching, right?

dbmata

Hello All!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/kendall-takes-wild-facebook-controversy

To get a little more opinions of this subject, I wanted to post it on here rather than my hometown area! The link above is a girl who apparently hunts as well as hunt endangered mammals! At first, I was shocked! How can a little gal like that take on a huge-*kitten* elephant hahaha It is pretty sad though seeing her hunt those types of animals (as well as other people who do the same). I am all for hunting deer or whatever type of "legal" wildlife is around during hunting season, but what is the reward for killing an exotic animal?

I am from a rural/country lifestyle community so I get the pros/cons of hunting, but I wanted a more wide variety of opinions on this subject! I am NOT (repeat NOT) trying to start anything or causing ruffled feathers, I am just curious!


Thanks Everyone!

Generally people will get their panties in a wad about OMG, killing threatened animals! Without giving thought to the economic impact. There are a lot of animal refuges in Africa, that need income in order to continue to act as refuges. They also can support a certain amount of animals, otherwise the entire population has the chance to die slowly due to starvation as resources are quickly exhausted.

Some hunters will pay 10-20-30k or more to go down there, hire guides, cooks, stay in hotels, drivers, and then pay to cull an animal that the biologists and managers of that particular refuge have determined they can remove. In most cases, it's a finely tuned thing for very affluent people to indulge in. The refuge gets to survive economically and ecologically, and rich people get to do "cool stuff".

Surprisingly, it is a win for all animals involved, even the one who dies. They avoided a slow lingering death from a large predator, injury, or starvation.

I find nothing wrong with the people going to reserves and keeping them open. My issue is with the hunters who go to the midwest to hunt the high fence deer for the retard racks, and they leave the meat, only wanting the antlers.

Those are who I got beef with.

dbmata

I think that if Kendall really cares about the service she's providing (and not just the hunt for the sake of it), I think she should help educate people on these types of measures. Put more explanations about why she was licensed to kill the given animal and how it actually helps the local populations of both the animal's species and humans.

Unpossible. You can't defeat belief with logic.

Remember, there are still people who think creationism is real.

SunofaBeach14

Is it legal? As long as it's legal and the funds from those types of hunts are being used for the preservation of the species then I'm not going to get too worked up about it. And by "too" I mean "at all."

SunofaBeach14

Also, the girl who said she would eat bacon even if the pig "asked" her not to... You are an absolutely vile human.

So how much time do you spend in the field actively researching on conservation and ecological sustainability? Or educating the public about responsible animal and environmental management?

Quite a bit since I have a degree in animal science and working my way to veterinary school so I can work with exotic animals making sure they are getting the best treatment and enrichment possible.

Awwwww! Are they tasty animals?