i believe tha hunting is in some way violent, but the world is a violent place. get over it. things die every day, and most of the time getting shot by a hunter' s arrow is a more humane way to die than, like ArthurP said, than being eatin' alive by a hungry pack of coyotes.

Of course hunting is violent. We may get defensive about it because we see nothing wrong with harvesting animals, but it is by it' s very nature and definition violent. We take bow or gun in hand and go to the woods to enjoy the outdoor experience and, let' s face it, hopefully end an animals life. Is this wrong? Only if you waste that animal or kill for the pure sake of killing. Then, in my book, it' s just plain murder. I never harvest an animal unless I myself, my family, or someone in need plans to consume it.

We are playing our part as predators in the natural scheme of things and it is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. In many parts of the country, we are the only natural enemy a deer has other than disease or domestic dogs.

Those people who would label it in a negative context are the very ones who would be on the telephone dialing 911 out of fear if there were mountain lion, grizzlys, wolves, or other animal predators roaming around near their homes. Or for that matter think nothing of sinking their teeth into a nice juicy thick angus steak. Beef doesn' t grow on trees either.

We as humans (I speak strictly in a collective sense here. Don' t get offended) are responsible for the lack of animal predators (and for that matter many other species that were driven to extinction) in many areas of our country. Our ancestors destroyed them in the name of civilization.

As hunters we must possess a much greater understanding of the ways of the wilderness than those who never venture out except to walk a trail in a National or local Park or something of the sort. We also have the added responsibilty of educating those who are ignorant of the natural order of things.

This of course is just MHO. Your mileage may vary

Let' s not forget the violent scenario of a deer getting slammed by an automobile. I rarely hear the anti' s address that one.

What' s interesting about violence and the anti' s is they can sit back and bitch while they eat their Big Mac. Or, when my buddy (who traps animals that get in people' s homes) gets a call from one of the top anti' s here in the DC area about a snake in her home finds out that she killed it because it was venomous.

My buddy showed up and determined it was a black snake. She had said on the phone it was a copperhead. Things are violent when it is convenient for them.

My point is that the violence issue is another example of the hypocrisy that laden the anti' s argument.


Sorry about the rant, but in this context I don' t think hunting is violent.

I think of hunting as harvesting. No one thinks of a farmer as being violent when he harvests. Likewise, we are not violent.
Actually, we are an army of volunteers who perform the necessary service of keeping the deer population at an acceptable level. Others should be thanking us instead of criticizing. Without us, deer would proliferate and the anti' s could get a look at what starvation looks like.

By the way, P.E.T.A. can also stand for " People Eating Tasty Animals" .

Clint

For me to consider things violent I would have to take into account a persons intent. Most hunters strive for a quick clean kill, their intent is not to maim an animal or cause suffering.

We compete in a sport that to be sucessful ends in death. Thats tough for some to handle, but most of those people dont have a problem killing by proxy.

For one life to keep living it must kill another, regardless if its plant or animal.

I don' t consider hunting violent. Even though my end goal is to kill something, I don' t consider it violent. When I think of hunting, I think of quiet, serene places. The quiet thump of my bow smoothly sending an arrow into a deer' s vitals just doesn' t seem like a violent act.
However, two bucks fighting each other to near , or even seems like a fairly violent activity. Watching tapes(never actually seen this one myself-yet) of does batting each other in the head with front feet while competing for food seems a little violent. A pack of coyotes ripping the hind quarters off a sick, but still living deer seems violent to me(never actually " seen" this either, but we all know it happens).

I don' t consider hunting violent. I think a well placed arrow is as quick and painless a as possible. If I were violent I would be trying to give that animal as much pain, fear, and suffering as possible. That' s just the opposite.
Wild animals on the other hand, don' t consider the pain it' s prey feels.
Hunting isn' t violent if done properly. However, nature often times is.

peashooter

I' m sending an arrow tipped with razor blades into the flesh of an animal at darn near 300 fps, hoping to shread it' s vital organs. Dang right it' s violent.

Can' t wait to get out on Friday

I agree with chaz - in Michigan last year, reported car deer accidents caused 32 million in damage, 11 deaths, and over 1,000 injuries. Is that violence? I would think so. Think if we didn' t hunt. Those numbers would violently increase every year. Then, who' s the violent ones? The tree hugging idiots or us trying to control the population. Another thing - this year' s deer season (between Oct 1 and Jan 1) will bring a half billion dollars to Michigan' s economy. Might get real violent if it weren' t for hunters dumping millions into the economy.

I dont know if you could call it violent, hitting a deer with a broadhead, bullet pretty quick death. I would classify violent as beating it to death with a club or something.

I don' t care if it is, or isn' t violent. It' s hunting, and I' ll do it no matter how they define it. I' ll also allow my children to play any video game I deem to be okay, regardless of what it says on the package. I' ll make these decisions, not some game analyzer that may have different views on what' s appropriate.