ORIGINAL: Windwalker7
Whoa!!!! I just got home from work.
There are some things I've read that I question. I asked a few questions as to why people were so opposed to WHA in my original post. here is what I gather.
1. Animals may be injured or even killed in all this.Ok, first off my bow only shoots about 240fps and some of the paintball guns shoot much faster than this. I've been hit by quite a few paintballs. I'm sure the bows that are used in this won't be shooting anywhere near 300fps. I'm also sure these are specially designed arrows also. Secondly, I thought the vetenarians that will be present were their to appese the anti/nonhunters to assure the deer was alright and they were to be present to gather information on that paticular deer's health and age. I believe they do something like this on all kinds of animals to attach radio collars and study their health.
I think this animal injury thing had alot of spin put on it, on here.
2. The antis may get weird ideas of using this dart system as a way to give birth control to deer. Yeah they might. I'm sure there are many areas in this country that the deer population is totally out of control. This may be an idea in places where deer can't be hunted safely.
3. The nonhunting public will not like this. I feel when the nonhunting public sees that a majority of hunters oppose this, it will confirm their beliefs, that hunters are blood thirsty killers and just want to KILL animals.
4. "True" hunters do not want these slobs to endanger their sport buy paying big money to competitors in the WHA. Look at the money payed to the holders of world record animals, especially deer. Endorsements, replicas of racks, shows, etc... I see alot of money going to those guys and none of you guys complain about that.
5. This makes hunting look bad. Does it? I feel people opposing this because they'd rather kill the deer makes hunters look bad. Yes, killing is part of hunting. That, in itself is why anti/nonhunters don't like hunting. So how you would think darting an animal will make hunting look worse, to the public, I don't understand.
As far as threatening to kick people off for namecalling, maybe you shoul reread some of the posts calling me Bunnyhugger, a Plant, a Slob, yeah I can take it. I haven't called any names yet. I just wanted to know why everyone was so irate about WHA. I fully expected to get ripped up one side and down the other and that's OK too.
Its all part of debating. Each person has their own views and sees what they want.
Let me start with a warning and an apology about the length of this post ... my husband would say he could have warned you about my wordiness a long time ago. I am going to attempt to be calm and logical but this whole idea hits a hot spot within me and makes it difficult. I think it does that with every hunter and that is the reason you are not getting the "logical" responses you claim you want. There is just something inherently wrong about this whole idea that it is difficult to see something other than red when the subject comes up.
I understand there are people out there who are opposed to killing an animal. I personally don't agree with killing just to kill. My husband and I hunt and eat what we kill -- as do all of our friends who hunt. That is one reason. Another reason is the friendships we have with other hunters and the experiences we can share together. I know, I know, the people who are hunting in the WHA can also have the friendship and experiences.
Here goes:
1. I realize there will be vets there and they will be monitering the drugging and checking the animals health and age. That still does not make it right. It seems to be cruel and inhumane to subject an animal to this over and over (because we know if it is a large buck they will all want it again and again) -- unless there is limit to the number of times an animal can be 'shot'. And I can hear you jumping up and down yelling "And killing the animal is not cruel and inhumane?!?!" Everybody I know practices and practices and practices and practices so that their aim is accurate and the animal does not suffer a needless, prolonged death. I remember how I felt when I came out of surgery and cannot imagine inflicting this on an animal ... who will not know why it was done and not understand why it feels the way it feels. It just seems to be demeaning to the animal. And people who do this on a regular basis to attach radio collars and track animals do not do it for money on TV. They do it for the benefit of the animal and to learn more about the animal. Repeat: not in it for the money.
2. Does birth control work? For it to work you would have to administer it to every female in an area. Hmmm ... see that happening? And is the birth control 100% effective? I know mine is only 90 something percent effective. And if you want to use birth control just think of all the possible other problems that could cause. Kinda like a throwing a small stone in a pond and the ripples it causes.
3. Who is saying that people who are against hunting will be in favor of this? Just because it is a 'catch and release' deosn't mean the anti-hunters will be for it. It just means they will see another reason to attack hunting and people who hunt. And, mentioning money --
4. HUNTING IS NOT ABOUT THE MONEY. Just because there are people out there who make money to hunt doesn't mean they are there for the money. These are people who were hunting to begin with. These are people who would hunt to this day even if they were working as a construction worker, lawyer, banker, bartender, truck driver, pilot, etc. They just got lucky enough to get picked out of the group to hunt wonderful places and get paid to do it. Who among us wouldn't love to be paid to do what we love? Hunting is a way of life. It is how you live your life. It instills in you a sense of awe and reverence for life and respect for the animal(s) you are hunting. 'Just darting them for money' -- where is the respect and awe and reverence in that? And the people who get money for their world records and the replicas, etc ... they were not getting paid to hunt when they took the animal were they?
5. Let's not forget that that 'dart' has drugs in it. How can drugging an animal not look bad? And can you really call it hunting if the only thing you will get out of it is money?
If anti-hunters are opposed to the killing aspect ... let them give up eating all meat. Seriously. If you are opposed to someone killing an animal that they (or someone else) are going to eat then you should not be hypocritical. This means eating no meat -- none. Period. Just because we would also like a nice set of antlers with our meat doesn't overshadow the basic reasons for hunting.
Basically, hunters see this is a moral and ethical issue and they also see it is another reason for people who oppose hunting to criticize what we love. If we can stop it before it gets started then that is one less attack we have to contend with.
Just my opinion in a non-name calling post. You've got to stand for something or you will fall for anything and this is where I am making my stand. This is wrong on all fronts. Whether you agree with me or not does not change that.
Shannon