View Full Version : Boy shoots albino deer, gets deaththreats
Akuma223
10-26-14, 10:23 AM
Boy Who Shot Albino Deer With Crossbow Receives Death Threats, Family Says (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/albino-deer-crossbow-gavin-dingman_n_6036734.html) so whats everyones opinion on this? I think its preposterous that this kid is getting threatened because he shot this buck. Its just a deer like any other and people putting it on a pedestal because its "different" and "prettier" is aggravating. This creature is no better than any other deer. Funny thing is a guarantee most of these people buy their meat from a supermarket which is far far worse. So whats everyones thoughts on this?
Jim Smith
10-26-14, 11:07 AM
I saw this story and while I can understand people not wanting to see such a rare animal killed, the boy did not break any laws. While I would never kill it now, when I was 14 and if I saw that buck in the same situation, I'd have shot it in a second. Death threats to a kid for any reason is a cowards way of making themselves feel better. Leave the kid alone and if anything, work towards changing the laws to make it illegal to shoot an albino deer like many/most other states have already done. Just my opinion.
EL Ziggy
10-26-14, 11:10 AM
I agree with you. Nobody should be threatening the kid. Sounds like it was a clean kill. Pretty impressive actually for a kid with a crossbow. I wonder if they'll eat the meat though.
CosmicOwl
10-26-14, 11:45 AM
The more I think about this, the more I disagree with the idea of killing this animal. It's not that I think albino animals are "special" and shouldn't be killed. I just find it impressive that such an animal has managed to survive to maturity. That deer would have been the first animal to be targeted by predators, and yet it was able to avoid all of them long enough to reach adulthood. And then somebody comes along and kills it with a crossbow. It's just sad. The deer already had so much stacked against it but it managed to defy the odds until human technology came along.
Akuma223
10-26-14, 12:01 PM
The more I think about this, the more I disagree with the idea of killing this animal. It's not that I think albino animals are "special" and shouldn't be killed. I just find it impressive that such an animal has managed to survive to maturity. That deer would have been the first animal to be targeted by predators, and yet it was able to avoid all of them long enough to reach adulthood. And then somebody comes along and kills it with a crossbow. It's just sad. The deer already had so much stacked against it but it managed to defy the odds until human technology came along.
You make a very good point, I'm mostly irritated that these people just decide to threaten the boys life rather than, gee I don't know maybe work to make it illegal for that to happen.
CosmicOwl
10-26-14, 12:10 PM
You make a very good point, I'm mostly irritated that these people just decide to threaten the boys life rather than, gee I don't know maybe work to make it illegal for that to happen.
Death threats suck and all... but are they worse than actually killing another living creature?
shaunyboy
10-26-14, 12:32 PM
it's terrible the kids getting threats over this.....
that said,if it was me and my young son out hunting,i would have told him not to take the shot,because it was such a unique animal...
but that's just my personal feelings on killing an albino of any species,i think they are beautiful and unique and should not be killed
i have no ill will towards people who shoot them though...
each to their own ;)
cheers shaun
shaunyboy
10-26-14, 12:37 PM
I agree with you. Nobody should be threatening the kid. Sounds like it was a clean kill. Pretty impressive actually for a kid with a crossbow. I wonder if they'll eat the meat though.
^^^^^
that's a great point mate...
an animal should only be killed if it's going to good use...
where the meat gets eaten,and better still the hide and antlers are going to be used
killing for the sake of killing is wrong imo
cheers shaun
eminart
10-26-14, 12:53 PM
Albinism is rare in the wild because it puts the animal at a disadvantage. There's no reason to view the animal as "special" or somehow above the food chain.
I also always see a lot of comments by non-hunters about how the animal should be eaten. I'm 37 years old. I've hunted literally since I was old enough to follow my dad. And, I've been surrounded by other hunters most of my life. The animals are ALWAYS eaten. I'm not saying there has never been a case where it didn't happen. But those are extreme cases by "hunters" that none of us would claim. Hunters don't go out there killing things and not using them.
eminart
10-26-14, 12:56 PM
Death threats suck and all... but are they worse than actually killing another living creature?
Are you asking if a death threat to a young boy is worse than him legally harvesting a deer and taking part in nature? Is that really what you're asking?
CosmicOwl
10-26-14, 01:44 PM
Are you asking if a death threat to a young boy is worse than him legally harvesting a deer and taking part in nature? Is that really what you're asking?
First of all, hunting with a crossbow is not, "taking part in nature." If the boy had run down the deer, like early humans in Africa, then maybe I could see that point.
Secondly, the point I was making is that killing is killing. I don't think death threats are acceptable, but I don't think the killing of animals should be taken lightly either. There is a certain hypocrisy with people justifying the killing of an animal while treating the hollow threats across the internet as abominable.
First of all, hunting with a crossbow is not, "taking part in nature." If the boy had run down the deer, like early humans in Africa, then maybe I could see that point.
Secondly, the point I was making is that killing is killing. I don't think death threats are acceptable, but I don't think the killing of animals should be taken lightly either. There is a certain hypocrisy with people justifying the killing of an animal while treating the hollow threats across the internet as abominable.
Really? So hunters should run down deer like in early Africa? Hmm. I have a sneaking suspicion that if I were to run down a deer and club it to death I'd get a whole lot more grief than I would ever get for using a crossbow.
Akuma223
10-26-14, 03:27 PM
Death threats suck and all... but are they worse than actually killing another living creature?
Are you a strict vegan?
CosmicOwl
10-26-14, 03:42 PM
Really? So hunters should run down deer like in early Africa? Hmm. I have a sneaking suspicion that if I were to run down a deer and club it to death I'd get a whole lot more grief than I would ever get for using a crossbow.
That's irrelevant. My point was that using a crossbow isn't "taking part in nature." It's just killing. I wasn't commenting on whether it was amoral or immoral.
Are you a strict vegan?
No, but I have I wrestled with it. And I obviously feed my snakes killed animals. I'm not condemning the killing or eating of other animals. I'm just saying that objectively, why are we okay with killing other life forms, yet appalled by hollow internet threats?
Jim Smith
10-26-14, 04:03 PM
I think that this thread has drifted a bit from killing a rare albino deer (which happens to be legal to do in the state this young man live in) to hunting/killing in general. I personally do not hunt. That said, I have zero problem with people hunting deer as they have become so over populated that they would soon have to be culled just to maintain a healthy herd. There are so many deer here in Georgia that the annual limit is 12 does and 2 bucks per hunter and we're still over populated. There are 5 or 6 deer in my front yard every evening, eating my landscape plants. It is not unusual to see 3 or 4 deer in the middle of my neighbors lawn at noon; they don't even run from us. When I drove from Atlanta to Savannah last week and route 16, (the highway between Macon and Savannah about 150 miles long), the dead deer along that road were like mile markers and still you have to keep one eye open for deer at all times of the day. Hunters, hunt to you hearts content, just hunt legally, make clean kills, and use what you kill.
That's irrelevant. My point was that using a crossbow isn't "taking part in nature." It's just killing. I wasn't commenting on whether it was amoral or immoral.
How an animal dies is irrelevant. Predators use any means necessary. We are predators, hence the position of our eyes. We lack the teeth, claws, talons and other assets used by animals to take down prey. But what we have is higher intelligence. We construct tools to aid us in hunting. That's how we kill. Has been since the beginning. So someone sending death threats to a child for doing what our species has evolved to do is wrong. Sorry this animal was "special", but the reality is albinism is a flaw. That boy was no different than any other predator, picking off the "special" white animal that sticks out like a sore thumb.
CosmicOwl
10-26-14, 04:49 PM
How an animal dies is irrelevant. Predators use any means necessary. We are predators, hence the position of our eyes. We lack the teeth, claws, talons and other assets used by animals to take down prey. But what we have is higher intelligence. We construct tools to aid us in hunting. That's how we kill. Has been since the beginning. So someone sending death threats to a child for doing what our species has evolved to do is wrong. Sorry this animal was "special", but the reality is albinism is a flaw. That boy was no different than any other predator, picking off the "special" white animal that sticks out like a sore thumb.
Not if you're trying to make the argument that the animal was killed naturally. As I pointed out earlier, the way humans naturally hunted prey was to literally run it to death. It's called persistence hunting. We don't need claws, sharp teeth or talons to take down prey because we're efficient runners and our ability to sweat means that we don't overheat as easily as other mammals.
That boy was no different than any other predator,And by this logic, if somebody killed that boy, they would be no different than any predator either. Predators often pick off the young and/or weak. "Might makes right," is not great moral standard if you value equality and liberty.
shaunyboy
10-26-14, 05:23 PM
Albinism is rare in the wild because it puts the animal at a disadvantage. There's no reason to view the animal as "special" or somehow above the food chain.
i disagree mate
the fact that the animal reached the age it did regardless of all the disadvantages it faced,along with it being a rare occurrence in the first place.....
makes said creature special and should grant it special dispensation
re hunters
i have no issues with hunting in any shape or form.....
all my life i have hunted using a variety of methods which have included,guns,ferrets,lurchers,traps,etc
when i was younger i even did a bit of poaching,when my father and grandfather taught me how to feed myself without running to a super market or shop
but as a hunter i would not take the life of something so rare...
that's just my own personal feelings on the matter
as said in my last post...
each to their own
cheers shaun
Not if you're trying to make the argument that the animal was killed naturally. As I pointed out earlier, the way humans naturally hunted prey was to literally run it to death. It's called persistence hunting. We don't need claws, sharp teeth or talons to take down prey because we're efficient runners and our ability to sweat means that we don't overheat as easily as other mammals.
And by this logic, if somebody killed that boy, they would be no different than any predator either. Predators often pick off the young and/or weak. "Might makes right," is not great moral standard if you value equality and liberty.
And as I said, how it's killed is irrelevant. Shot with an arrow, or ran to death, the results are the same. One animal dies, so another can live. Circle of life. And if he was killed, yes, that person would be no different than any other predator. But we have laws to attempt to stop such actions.
long time hunter...compound bow, black powder (with a scope and open sights), rifle (open sights and scope) and shotgun...i have zero issues with the method of harvesting the animal..and zero issues with harvesting it period. i would agree w shaun that the animal survived to adulthood and thereby was really lucky. personally, i prob would've passed on it as well. another hunter taking it by ethical means?...no problem.
edit...shaun...one day, i WILL come to your side of the pond, i WILL look you up dude..and you have got to take me hunting with ferrets!
Joshchimera
10-26-14, 11:19 PM
Hunting with ferrets is pretty epic! Beast master movie.
Aaron_S
10-26-14, 11:26 PM
Boy Who Shot Albino Deer With Crossbow Receives Death Threats, Family Says (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/albino-deer-crossbow-gavin-dingman_n_6036734.html) so whats everyones opinion on this? I think its preposterous that this kid is getting threatened because he shot this buck. Its just a deer like any other and people putting it on a pedestal because its "different" and "prettier" is aggravating. This creature is no better than any other deer. Funny thing is a guarantee most of these people buy their meat from a supermarket which is far far worse. So whats everyones thoughts on this?
We don't consider the animals we keep "the same" when we ask for different prices on morphs.
So yes to me this animal is different than any other deer. It's got a really cool paint job.
No, the boy should have been left alone. Death threats are a pretty horrible thing over this. Yes, fine to share an opinion, maybe write a letter or what have you but death threats? That's really low.
toddnbecka
10-26-14, 11:56 PM
Death threats are extreme and unjustifiable regardless of the color of the animal.
As for it surviving to adulthood despite being an albino, the environment it lived in is a long way from "natural" with regards to what it would be like w/out the effects of humans over the past couple hundred years.
Hunting is often necessary to control the population of animals since their natural predators like wolves or mountain lions have been taken out of the ecosystem.
eminart
10-27-14, 05:54 AM
First of all, hunting with a crossbow is not, "taking part in nature."
It is indeed. Humans aren't exactly equipped to kill deer with our teeth. We've always used our brains and ingenuity to come up with easier ways to kill prey. But, if you think killing a deer with a crossbow is just killing and not hunting, I invite you to try it. I don't use a crossbow, but I've been bowhunting since I was 10, and it's a lot more difficult than you might think. A lot of non-hunters get their impression of deer from those that live in parks and neighborhoods and are fed by people all the time. It's a different animal that lives out in real nature.
i disagree mate
the fact that the animal reached the age it did regardless of all the disadvantages it faced,along with it being a rare occurrence in the first place.....
And now it caught up to it.
The fact is, albino deer tend to be genetically inferior. You never see a truly big one, they often have poor eyesight, and they have smaller antlers. Humans have replaced the deers' natural predators in most places, so WE are the ones that weed out the weak. If we let the albinos live because we think they're somehow special, we're just allowing inferior genes an unfair advantage over more robust genes.
So, it's not only a silly human sentiment to let the white ones walk, but it's also detrimental to the herd.
David VB
10-27-14, 07:00 AM
I can understand CosmicOwl. While i'm no vegetarian at all and so i do know that animals have to be liked in order for me to have food on the table, i don't think hunting for fun should be allowed. Not on any animal, they deserve life as much as humans. But a friend of mine is a hunter too and he only shoots those animals that are too high in numbers to have a balanced nature. That is acceptable i think, but a 1' year old killing animals wit a crossbow is far from acceptable for me. But i would never send him or his family death threats of course, that's just stupid.
David VB
10-27-14, 07:05 AM
It is indeed. Humans aren't exactly equipped to kill deer with our teeth. We've always used our brains and ingenuity to come up with easier ways to kill prey. But, if you think killing a deer with a crossbow is just killing and not hunting, I invite you to try it. I don't use a crossbow, but I've been bowhunting since I was 10, and it's a lot more difficult than you might think. A lot of non-hunters get their impression of deer from those that live in parks and neighborhoods and are fed by people all the time. It's a different animal that lives out in real nature.
And now it caught up to it.
The fact is, albino deer tend to be genetically inferior. You never see a truly big one, they often have poor eyesight, and they have smaller antlers. Humans have replaced the deers' natural predators in most places, so WE are the ones that weed out the weak. If we let the albinos live because we think they're somehow special, we're just allowing inferior genes an unfair advantage over more robust genes.
So, it's not only a silly human sentiment to let the white ones walk, but it's also detrimental to the herd.
Most of 'us humans' don't use it at all... Would be better to use it to save animals and help the planet getting healthy again instead of killing animals for pleasure!!!
eminart
10-27-14, 07:29 AM
Most of 'us humans' don't use it at all... Would be better to use it to save animals and help the planet getting healthy again instead of killing animals for pleasure!!!
We really shouldn't get into this, but I'll just throw this out there........
Hunters have more respect for nature than non-hunters.
WHAT!? you say!
I assume you agree that in nature, animals eat other animals and it's all a big balance. I also assume that you agree that humans are omnivores, meaning that they evolved to eat at least some meat.
But, you're also going to say that it is now somehow superior to NOT eat meat, even though that is how nature is designed. So, you believe your silly human notions are superior to eons of natural design and nature. Why? Why is your sentimentality "better" than nature's design?
save animals and help the planet getting healthy again
I'd also like to add, that here in the U.S. where we have very well regulated game management, hunting DOES help the animals. If you think some animals falling to predators is bad, then you have absolutely no understanding of how nature works.
Zoo Nanny
10-27-14, 09:55 AM
People are idiots and will say anything from the shadows of social media. While I have no problem with hunting I think the father missed a chance to teach his son respect and acceptance of what others hold sacred. There were so many values that he missed in teaching his son, very sad.
Mikoh4792
10-27-14, 10:23 AM
Isn't killing deer a part of keeping this planet healthy? I thought the reason for killing deer was because their numbers are so high in a given area that they are causing problems. I always hear about how in some places you have to drive very slowly because you never know when a deer will come shooting out of the woods and crash into your car or motorbike.
Obsidian_Dragon
10-27-14, 10:48 AM
I personally wouldn't have killed the deer--but I'm probably one to pin more significance on sighting a 'white stag' tan most. My writer's soul would have been stirred. ;)
But the boy receiving death threats is absolutely out of line. It's a deer. We've killed most of their predators, now we need to cull them ourselves. As long as they try for a clean kill and preferably eat it, whatever.
54bogger
10-27-14, 10:55 AM
I alway's killed deer for the taste! Once the skin is off they all taste the same, albino or normal.
Zoo Nanny
10-27-14, 11:23 AM
Isn't killing deer a part of keeping this planet healthy? I thought the reason for killing deer was because their numbers are so high in a given area that they are causing problems. I always hear about how in some places you have to drive very slowly because you never know when a deer will come shooting out of the woods and crash into your car or motorbike.
Not always. If you drive through the Keys in Florida you will see signs for deer crossing. Key deer are critically endangered. You see moose crossing signs in the Northeast where the moose are just coming back. It just means that you happen to be driving through an area where animals travel. There are some areas where certain types of deer are over populated. Hunting seasons are regulated to avoid over hunting species which has happened in the past.
Mikoh4792
10-27-14, 11:59 AM
Not always. If you drive through the Keys in Florida you will see signs for deer crossing. Key deer are critically endangered. You see moose crossing signs in the Northeast where the moose are just coming back. It just means that you happen to be driving through an area where animals travel. There are some areas where certain types of deer are over populated. Hunting seasons are regulated to avoid over hunting species which has happened in the past.
Overpopulation is what I am talking about. I wouldn't agree with the killing of an animal if it's endangered.
Zoo Nanny
10-27-14, 12:10 PM
I agree with you on that one. There are a couple of local towns near me that do not allow hunting and the deer are getting out of control. The same people who ban hunting are the first to complain about the deer eating their flowers and the coyotes that are going to eat their children! And more than likely it's their children that make the threats on social media sites.
CosmicOwl
10-27-14, 12:16 PM
It is indeed. Humans aren't exactly equipped to kill deer with our teeth. We've always used our brains and ingenuity to come up with easier ways to kill prey. But, if you think killing a deer with a crossbow is just killing and not hunting, I invite you to try it. I don't use a crossbow, but I've been bowhunting since I was 10, and it's a lot more difficult than you might think. A lot of non-hunters get their impression of deer from those that live in parks and neighborhoods and are fed by people all the time. It's a different animal that lives out in real nature.
I've pointed this out already, but humans are capable of bringing down large animals without ranged weapons and with little more than a sharp stick or rock.
You try to say that humans have always used our ingenuity to come up with easier ways to kill prey, but then try to romanticize hunting by saying it's different to hunt the animals out in "real nature." If I hunt the docile, human fed deer in my backyard, that's just another way of "using my ingenuity" to more easily kill prey. There is no practical difference between that sort of hunting, and traipsing around the woods with a crossbow. They're just different strategies.
I agree with you on that one. There are a couple of local towns near me that do not allow hunting and the deer are getting out of control. The same people who ban hunting are the first to complain about the deer eating their flowers and the coyotes that are going to eat their children! And more than likely it's their children that make the threats on social media sites.
The problem is that we eradicated all of the predators. In many areas, we wiped out the wolves, panthers and jaguars that would have naturally preyed on those deer.
Zoo Nanny
10-27-14, 02:14 PM
If people weren't so misinformed about predators we could see the reintroduction of some species. So long as people feel that they are threatened by carnivores we will never see them come back. The deer, beaver, muskrat and other small mammals will continue to flourish.
I've pointed this out already, but humans are capable of bringing down large animals without ranged weapons and with little more than a sharp stick or rock.
You try to say that humans have always used our ingenuity to come up with easier ways to kill prey, but then try to romanticize hunting by saying it's different to hunt the animals out in "real nature." If I hunt the docile, human fed deer in my backyard, that's just another way of "using my ingenuity" to more easily kill prey. There is no practical difference between that sort of hunting, and traipsing around the woods with a crossbow. They're just different strategies.
The problem is that we eradicated all of the predators. In many areas, we wiped out the wolves, panthers and jaguars that would have naturally preyed on those deer.
I don't know how to explain what I'm saying an better. Whether a hunter uses a gun, crossbow, bow, rock or a pointy stick, it's still just a tool to get the job done. It's a method used by a predator to catch prey.
As for overpopulation, there are more deer in the US now than hundreds of years ago. Between predator populations declining, or being wiped out for that matter, and the agricultural, we've given herbivores the necessary tools to flourish. Which is why every state has a dept of wildlife, who employees people to study animal populations and determine the number of animals to be culled each year to maintain a healthy population.
And to davidvb, saying that allowing a ten year old boy to kill a deer using a crossbow is wrong, could you please explain why?
Cmwells90
10-27-14, 03:18 PM
You try to say that humans have always used our ingenuity to come up with easier ways to kill prey, but then try to romanticize hunting by saying it's different to hunt the animals out in "real nature." If I hunt the docile, human fed deer in my backyard, that's just another way of "using my ingenuity" to more easily kill prey. There is no practical difference between that sort of hunting, and traipsing around the woods with a crossbow. They're just different strategies..
Cosmic, the type of hunting you're referring to "persistance hunting" is only used by ONE culture today, and they're in Africa where it's easier for them to chase down their food for 8-10 hours while it dies of exhaustion than it is to risk losing a valuable weapon by throwing it. This doesn't make it a "better" way to hunt, in fact the animal suffers quite a bit during this process but the people of that culture respect their sacrafice so their families can eat! However this is not by definition "Natural hunting" in fact, all hunting is natural, hunting is hunting. You seem to humanize and very inhuman thing. Apes use tools to get their termites, is this not natural? How is this any different than us using a tool to hunt something? The edge humans have over other animals is our intellegence, our ability to look at something and figure out a way to solve the problem with a little effort as possible. and to answer this post, yes killing a Deer in your backyard and in the forest are the same to me, as long as the law see it the same way then it shouldn't matter.
CosmicOwl
10-27-14, 03:51 PM
Cosmic, the type of hunting you're referring to "persistance hunting" is only used by ONE culture today, and they're in Africa where it's easier for them to chase down their food for 8-10 hours while it dies of exhaustion than it is to risk losing a valuable weapon by throwing it. This doesn't make it a "better" way to hunt, in fact the animal suffers quite a bit during this process but the people of that culture respect their sacrafice so their families can eat! However this is not by definition "Natural hunting" in fact, all hunting is natural, hunting is hunting. You seem to humanize and very inhuman thing. Apes use tools to get their termites, is this not natural? How is this any different than us using a tool to hunt something? The edge humans have over other animals is our intellegence, our ability to look at something and figure out a way to solve the problem with a little effort as possible. and to answer this post, yes killing a Deer in your backyard and in the forest are the same to me, as long as the law see it the same way then it shouldn't matter.
I think this argument has become a bit semantic. I'm not saying that hunting isn't natural, or that making/using tools isn't natural human behavior. I'm arguing against the idea that humans can't hunt without tools. But if we're going to argue about what is or isn't "natural" then we have to define what "natural" means. It's a concept that has all but lost it's meaning in modern society.
I'm saying that persistence hunting is the "natural" method of hunting for humans because it is a task that we were adapted to preform in our native environment. It's a method of hunting that requires the barest of technology that any human could develop. Not utilizing a weapon that was developed by countless humans over centuries of technological development. I doubt that most hunters who use a gun or a crossbow would be able to build even the simplest versions of the highly advanced weapons they use.
I. I doubt that most hunters who use a gun or a crossbow would be able to build even the simplest versions of the highly advanced weapons they use.
I agree with this statement. But that extends to pretty much all aspects of life in modern society. How many people could accomplish even the most basic of human needs if left to fend for themselves? Fire by friction? Doubt it. Gathering wild edibles or growing crops? Might take a while and even then many would get sick and possibly die from misidentified plants or fungi. How about just getting clean drinking water? These are all tasks that not long ago were common knowledge, yet now most people would be $h*t outta luck if they had to provide these things for themselves or there family. We(most people) depend on modern conveniences to go about our day to day lives. Hunting is no different.
Mikoh4792
10-27-14, 05:34 PM
I think this argument has become a bit semantic. I'm not saying that hunting isn't natural, or that making/using tools isn't natural human behavior. I'm arguing against the idea that humans can't hunt without tools. But if we're going to argue about what is or isn't "natural" then we have to define what "natural" means. It's a concept that has all but lost it's meaning in modern society.
I'm saying that persistence hunting is the "natural" method of hunting for humans because it is a task that we were adapted to preform in our native environment. It's a method of hunting that requires the barest of technology that any human could develop. Not utilizing a weapon that was developed by countless humans over centuries of technological development. I doubt that most hunters who use a gun or a crossbow would be able to build even the simplest versions of the highly advanced weapons they use.
I think what they are getting at is that no matter what you use to hunt, hunting is still taking part in nature. Would persistence hunting be the only method of hunting considered natural? "Primitive" people all around the world use bows and arrows to catch arboreal animals, spears to catch seafood...etc. What would the natural way of catching fish be if not primitive archetypes of nets and spears?(and in some cases leaking poison into a lake to kill fish)
SnoopySnake
10-27-14, 10:13 PM
The fact that this this kid is getting death threats is ridiculous.. I don't care that he got an albino dear as long as he put it to good use. I also think hunting is much better than buying meat from the store. But what I'd be more concerned with is the fact that he used a bow, and that only concerns me for this reason:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/05/article-2487874-1937080D00000578-462_634x384.jpg
EL Ziggy
10-27-14, 10:25 PM
Aww, that is sad Adrian. I hate to see any sentient being suffer.
Aaron_S
10-28-14, 08:26 AM
Nobody wants to breed this thing to make hets?! Is it only me?!
eminart
10-28-14, 10:15 AM
But what I'd be more concerned with is the fact that he used a bow, and that only concerns me for this reason:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/05/article-2487874-1937080D00000578-462_634x384.jpg
A deer shot with a rifle through the face would still be walking around too. That goes back to proper hunting ethics - practice and only taking good shots. A deer shot through the vitals with a bow dies in less than a minute in most cases. Humans kill far more quickly than almost any natural death that an animal will meet.
As for all the other arguments springing up, it gets tiresome, as a hunter, listening to people with no experience talking about things they know nothing about. If you exist on this earth, other animals die for it. Even if you're a vegetarian, you take up space, and your veggies fields take up space. Things die because of it. Being further removed from the death that you cause doesn't make you better. It just means you're afraid to see the cost of your existence.
David VB
10-28-14, 12:16 PM
We really shouldn't get into this, but I'll just throw this out there........
Hunters have more respect for nature than non-hunters.
WHAT!? you say!
I assume you agree that in nature, animals eat other animals and it's all a big balance. I also assume that you agree that humans are omnivores, meaning that they evolved to eat at least some meat.
But, you're also going to say that it is now somehow superior to NOT eat meat, even though that is how nature is designed. So, you believe your silly human notions are superior to eons of natural design and nature. Why? Why is your sentimentality "better" than nature's design?
I'd also like to add, that here in the U.S. where we have very well regulated game management, hunting DOES help the animals. If you think some animals falling to predators is bad, then you have absolutely no understanding of how nature works.
Can't you read or are you just ignorant??? I think i wrote i do eat meat and that a friend of mine is a hunter who kills to keep the balance in the piece of nature he's living/hunting in...
David VB
10-28-14, 12:21 PM
I don't know how to explain what I'm saying an better. Whether a hunter uses a gun, crossbow, bow, rock or a pointy stick, it's still just a tool to get the job done. It's a method used by a predator to catch prey.
As for overpopulation, there are more deer in the US now than hundreds of years ago. Between predator populations declining, or being wiped out for that matter, and the agricultural, we've given herbivores the necessary tools to flourish. Which is why every state has a dept of wildlife, who employees people to study animal populations and determine the number of animals to be culled each year to maintain a healthy population.
And to davidvb, saying that allowing a ten year old boy to kill a deer using a crossbow is wrong, could you please explain why?
I guess our believes here are different from those in the US, but we (or at least I) don't like the idea of kids playing with any kind of weapon at all... I think history has proven us more than enough that ****ed up things can happen as a result of that. But again, that's my opinion ;)
SnoopySnake
10-28-14, 02:30 PM
A deer shot with a rifle through the face would still be walking around too. That goes back to proper hunting ethics - practice and only taking good shots. A deer shot through the vitals with a bow dies in less than a minute in most cases. Humans kill far more quickly than almost any natural death that an animal will meet.
Good point, guess I should say I'm more against head shots, then.
Mikoh4792
10-28-14, 04:36 PM
I guess our believes here are different from those in the US, but we (or at least I) don't like the idea of kids playing with any kind of weapon at all... I think history has proven us more than enough that ****ed up things can happen as a result of that. But again, that's my opinion ;)
I don't think anyone should play with weapons(including adults). I think weapons should instead be used responsibly as tools, and not toys. Using a bow and arrow for hunting is not playing.
I guess our believes here are different from those in the US, but we (or at least I) don't like the idea of kids playing with any kind of weapon at all... I think history has proven us more than enough that ****ed up things can happen as a result of that. But again, that's my opinion ;)
He wasn't playing with a weapon. He was hunting with it under the supervision of his father. And how can anyone be expected to use "dangerous" things if they are treated as the forbidden fruit. Life is dangerous. Death is all around us. What better way to avoid death or injury than by education and experience?
shaunyboy
10-28-14, 09:24 PM
The fact is, albino deer tend to be genetically inferior. You never see a truly big one, they often have poor eyesight, and they have smaller antlers. Humans have replaced the deers' natural predators in most places, so WE are the ones that weed out the weak. If we let the albinos live because we think they're somehow special, we're just allowing inferior genes an unfair advantage over more robust genes.
So, it's not only a silly human sentiment to let the white ones walk, but it's also detrimental to the herd.
yes it's human sentiment.but imo it's not silly...
so we should kill albino lions.tigers.etc because they are detrimental to the pride
i'm sorry but that whole statement just makes me feel sorry for all those folk who cannot see it as a thing of beauty and just see it as another slab of inferior designed meat
cheers shaun
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.