“The Hunter”
The hunter crouches in his blind
‘Neath camouflage of every kind
And conjures up a quacking noise
To lend allure to his decoys.
This grown-up man, with pluck and luck
Is hoping to outwit a duck.
— Ogden Nash
*Guffaws*
iyer_the_gr8 told me of an instance of quail hunting. Apparently, there is a park in the USA (there may be more like this one) where quail are bred for hunting. Now these birds are bred in complete captivity and can’t fly to save their lives (bad pun, I agree). Hunting means, kicking these birds out of their cages and then shooting them. It amazes me – I had no clue that hunting was still practised by people from the *civilized* world. To chase an animal/bird relentlessly with a group of other crazed companions, to home in on the helpless beast and to finally kill it – for what? Not for food, not for protection but for plain fun. And to have licenses issued for hunting – give me a break.
Below is an excerpt from the website Hunting USA.
Also, you must be accurate with your weapon. There is no point in even hunting if you don’t intend on a quick, clean kill. Anyone who intends just to wound an animal can not call themselves a hunter.
I can hardly believe that this is for real.
gotjanx says:
Of course you have to be accurate !! Especially with the great white hunter around.
p.s. That was exactly the kind of park where he managed to shoot his friend.
August 2, 2006 — 8:43 pm
Lakshmi says:
Right, I heard about that one too.
August 2, 2006 — 8:55 pm
splitpeasoup says:
That poem is hilarious!
I don’t view hunting as intrinsically wrong. As a vegetarian, I don’t eat meat and obviously I don’t hunt. However as regards people who eat meat, I don’t think buying ham wrapped in plastic at the supermarket is in any way more virtuous than hunting.
If anything, *most* animals that are hunted have better lives than those bred in captivity. At least wild deer, or ducks for that matter, live wild and free until they meet that bullet. They are far better off than cattle and chickens in factory farms who never even see daylight. Drinking non-organic milk is itself worse than hunting.
Many (though certainly not all) hunters observe compassion for the animals they kill and many are conservationists. One of India’s most famous wildlife reserves, Corbett Park, is named after an erstwhile hunter.
Of course I have contempt for hunters who do not eat their kill, or those who lack compassion or respect for the wild.
The beautiful Indian cheetah was hunted to extinction – so was the dodo – and the American bison and Indian tiger came perilously close to the same fate. One should not assume that hunters are always good stewards of the land. Hunting licences and regulations are one way of regulating hunting and making sure that irreversible damage does not occur.
August 2, 2006 — 8:46 pm
splitpeasoup says:
Just to be clear: trophy hunting is abhorrent to me. I only defend hunting for food.
August 2, 2006 — 8:54 pm
Lakshmi says:
This one strays close to a *vegetarian v/s non-vegetarian* debate but that was not what I intended. Frankly, I cannot respect a hunter even if he eats what he kills or respects the wild. It does not make sense to me.
August 2, 2006 — 8:54 pm
gleefulfreak says:
Well, my father is a hunter (for food only), and while it’s not something I ever want to do or be involved in (we’ve had some huge fights over my veganism), I really can’t see why it is ethically worse somehow to hunt and kill your own food, than to pay someone else (by buying meat in the supermarket) to kill and dismember the animal for you. This is not about veg vs. non-veg, for me – I just genuinely do not understand why hunting is worse than buying. Either way, the animal is killed.
August 2, 2006 — 9:14 pm
Lakshmi says:
I agree. It is killing for fun, I feel, that is plain taking cruel advantage of God-given abilities to kill a helpless creature. I can possibly understand a situation where there is lack of food and no other alternative to killing the animal. But I completely see where you’re coming from.. and yes, it crossed my mind when I penned this post as well.
August 2, 2006 — 9:22 pm
parag says:
Not just quail but many other animals are bred for hunting, just as they are bred for meat. But, Hunting means, kicking these birds out of their cages and then shooting them, this is just silly exaggeration unless you are talking about the vice president. 🙂
I personally don’t hunt, but know many who do and they take pride in the sport and won’t take any shortcuts for getting an easy kill. And these hunters do kill it for food. They bring their deer or fish home, freeze it and eat it through the rest of the year. I would like to go for a deer hunt, but I don’t because I don’t eat meat. I don’t want to kill something and waste it.
The licenses are issued to make sure that people don’t hunt these animals to extinction. Also, in many areas of US, deer are just like pests. Without any natural predators, their population just keeps on increasing and they destroy crops, cause accidents on the roads, etc.
I don’t believe that I am actually defending hunters and hunting, but your outrage is totally uncalled for.
August 2, 2006 — 9:42 pm
Lakshmi says:
I don’t believe that I am actually defending hunters and hunting.
Me neither.
August 2, 2006 — 9:46 pm
kookygoblin says:
I think the point about accurate hunting for a quick, clean kill is to minimise the agony of the animal. Sometimes, wounded animals suffer agony for days before they die and that is inhumane. Just saying..
August 3, 2006 — 2:11 am
Lakshmi says:
🙂 What part of this is not inhumane?
August 3, 2006 — 7:23 pm
kookygoblin says:
See, you’re seeing this from a non-veg/veg perspective. I see it as if you have to kill, do it quickly and as painlessly as possible. I cannot take a view on what people eat and why they eat it, but I can take a view on how they go about it.
August 4, 2006 — 9:18 am
Lakshmi says:
See, you’re seeing this from a non-veg/veg perspective.
Not at all, you misread me. I intend to talk about hunting specifically – the act of killing a helpless animal for pleasure. I agree that the argument could be extended to eating meat but that is not what I intended.
August 4, 2006 — 2:50 pm
radhika74 says:
I am totally with you in this ,Lakshmi. It is cruel fun..and defending it is pure rationalisation.
August 3, 2006 — 9:00 am
radhika74 says:
*on
August 3, 2006 — 9:00 am
Lakshmi says:
Thanks for the support, Rads! At last, someone seems to have got my drift…:-) Actually, this entire argument is on sticky ground what with various aspects as hunting for food, hunting for fun, etc.
August 3, 2006 — 7:26 pm
99kanitas says:
reminded me of bowling for columbine
August 3, 2006 — 2:56 pm
Lakshmi says:
Got the DVD, returned in unwatched.
August 3, 2006 — 7:26 pm
rileen says:
I agree with the sentiment, but i’m afraid hunting is likely to outlast us on this planet. And not by a little, either.
August 3, 2006 — 6:51 pm
Lakshmi says:
And not by a little, either.
Meaning?
August 3, 2006 — 7:26 pm
rileen says:
Meaning you and i shall be gone in, say, less than a hundred years, while hunting is likely to be around much, much longer 😐
August 3, 2006 — 7:28 pm
Anonymous says:
“Quick clean kill” so the animal suffers no pain.
Tell me, how many times has the hunter died to know what this pain is like?
basically, the hunter is trying to avoid pain for yourself. Sheesh, now that is cowardly, isn’t it?
Killing for food is OK. I mean, a person needs to eat, right? When ppl r hungry, they will do anything for food.
You’ve gotta read Hitchhikers’ Guide to the galaxy – the second book – “The restaurant at the end of the universe”
there’s a scene where a cow comes and offers different parts of itself for food. The scene is hilarious!!!!!
Bharat
August 3, 2006 — 10:09 pm
Lakshmi says:
Have heard loads about the Hitchhikers’ series but never read them.
August 4, 2006 — 12:29 am