Skip

Humane Society Rips Dick Cheney
December 10, 2003 5:59 PM   Subscribe

The Humane Society of the United States rips Dick Cheney on "canned hunting": "This wasn't a hunting ground. It was an open-air abattoir, and the vice president should be ashamed to have patronized this operation and then slaughtered so many animals," states Wayne Pacelle, a senior vice president of The Humane Society of the United States. "If the Vice President and his friends wanted to sharpen their shooting skills, they could have shot skeet or clay, not resorted to the slaughter of more than 400 creatures planted right in front of them as animated targets." According to another news source, "five-hundred pheasants were released in front of Cheney and his men; and the ten-man hunting party killed 417 of the birds. Vice President Cheney alone shot over 70 pheasants. The birds were then plucked and vacuum-packed in time for Cheney's afternoon flight back to Washington, DC."
posted by fold_and_mutilate (76 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
I know, I know.

The Humane Society of The United States are well known traitors....and "canned hunting" is merely a form of "liberation".

~wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 6:00 PM on December 10, 2003


s/birds/citizens/
posted by dorian at 6:02 PM on December 10, 2003


foldy, would this be an issue to you if Cheney weren't involved?
posted by ashbury at 6:04 PM on December 10, 2003


"foldy, would this be an issue to you if Cheney weren't involved?"

This would be an issue to me no matter who was involved, as I was raised in a family of hunters. To even have the word "hunting" associated with something as despicable as this practice is an insult to true hunters and outdoor sportsmen everywhere.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:10 PM on December 10, 2003


i totally agree with f&m about the 'canned hunting' issue (as do many people). however, this article by Time tends to focus more on the issue at hand, less on political blah blah.
posted by poopy at 6:14 PM on December 10, 2003


Where's Ted Nugent when you need him?
posted by RakDaddy at 6:25 PM on December 10, 2003


I agree with crash, sort of. This is a disgrace both to hunters and to anti-sporting folk. I watched Winged Migration the other night and the hunting scenes pissed me off. That said, I know that many hunters are very avid environmentalists, even if they have a different mindset from my own. These idiots that pay people to chase animals in front of them so they can pick them off are no hunters. And it happens quite often. Those that serve as "hunting guides" or whatever you call them do quite well for themselves. The guy that lives behind my parents is one of them.
posted by Ufez Jones at 6:27 PM on December 10, 2003


crash, that is exactly my point. I contend that foldy wouldn't have posted this if Cheney weren't involved.
posted by ashbury at 6:29 PM on December 10, 2003


what difference does it make?
posted by mcsweetie at 6:36 PM on December 10, 2003


So it would have been ok if they'd just gone to the supermarket and bought 400 butchered pheasants?

Frankly, I don't care how they died. I would prefer it not be called hunting, but otherwise however they get the birds from bush to plate matters not to me.
posted by obfusciatrist at 6:36 PM on December 10, 2003


I guess we can all ignore the content here since the poster's biased.

Next!
posted by amery at 6:43 PM on December 10, 2003


No difference whatsoever, mcsweetie. I'm just joining the millions who've gone before me in getting tired of fold and mutilate's "agenda". As to the canned hunting, it's a horrible practice that should be banned, no matter who is doing it. It certainly isn't much sport.

obfusciatrist, the difference is that the people who indulge in this sort of thing presumably take a certain amount of enjoyment in massacring the birds. The point for them is the shooting, not the eating.
posted by ashbury at 6:46 PM on December 10, 2003


god himself gave us dominion over all else that creeps upon the earth, and cheney intends to slaughter himself his fair share. you got a problem with that?
/godbashing
posted by quonsar at 6:52 PM on December 10, 2003


I know there's minimal (by PETA's standards) protection on how you can kill say the turkey that ends up at a supermarket. From my uninformed reading, it seems the key difference in buying Pheasant vs. Shooting them is there's no laws protecting the birds from unecessary suffering and pain if they're shot.
posted by stryder at 6:57 PM on December 10, 2003


Damn that Foldy and his blatantly pro-pheasant agenda.

/remember to say 'agenda' using your scary voice, as you've been trained.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:57 PM on December 10, 2003


Come on, a chance simultaneously to poke at both an ugly practice and an ugly VP? Might as well kill two bir-- uh, yeah.
posted by ssukotto at 7:01 PM on December 10, 2003


Ashbury, would this be an issue to you if Cheney wasn't involved?

I'm sure we'll be hearing soon about how security concerns keep Cheney from real hunting, otherwise he'd be tracking black bears armed only with a bowie knife.
posted by 2sheets at 7:13 PM on December 10, 2003


It wouldn't surprise me at all if foldy had posted this with no Cheney involvement, but of course that provides the hook. If the general consensus even among real hunters is that this is a despicable, cowardly practice that has no place in the America we want to live in, the fact that "our" vice president is so emphatically endorsing it is something at least worth noting.

It's also worth noting that many of the animals giving their lives to provide this entertainment are merely extending their earlier careers, having been sold to the canned hunt by zoos and circuses. I was surprised to find out that my local big-city zoo has sold "cherished" animals off to be slaughtered this way. And why not? If an animal's life is worth nothing more than the entertainment it can provide to humans, shouldn't it go to the highest bidder?
posted by soyjoy at 7:19 PM on December 10, 2003


Cheney is the Republican front man. He keeps the members of his own party happy. Why does he need 70 frozen birds? To hand out to his Conservative buddies with a tag that says "killed by Cheney". That is some serious political weight right there, the year before elections. The more birds dead the better, and these were farm raised birds mind you, probably paid for 2 or 3 years ago in anticipation of the upcoming elections. If it was a Democrat in office instead of killing birds, he'd probably be inviting people to spend the night at the White House.
posted by stbalbach at 7:22 PM on December 10, 2003


2sheets, it is an issue to me, with or without Cheney.
posted by ashbury at 7:33 PM on December 10, 2003


Well put crash, and others in the thread. And thanks foldy.

though the nickname "foldy" always makes me think of Frank "Grimy" Grimes . . .
posted by tr33hggr at 7:36 PM on December 10, 2003


How about this angle:

"Normal" citizens would not be allowed to do this for hunting season.

"Normal" citizens have daily bag limits. And said limits are 5 or less birds a day.

Wonder if he and his party violated any wildlife hunting laws?

If Cheney and Co. wanted to kill farm-raised birds, he could have used an axe.

As far as I'm concerned, the actions were not something to be proud of.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:49 PM on December 10, 2003


Anyone who thinks this wouldn't be an issue to f&m if Cheney weren't involved hasn't paid much attention to his posting record. He's consistently been against the killing of animals by humans. As for this kind of mass slaughter in contrived "hunting" parties, it's been popular among kings, czars, and emperors from time immemorial, and I seem to remember reading that Yeltsin indulged in it as well. Our own imperial class certainly has the right to follow in the footsteps of their illustrious predecessors.
posted by languagehat at 8:02 PM on December 10, 2003


I love animals more than humans (usually), and this seems to me to be a despicable act.

It also seems to speak to the cavalier manner with which cheney is willing to taking a life. Entertained by it, even. That disgusts me even more.
posted by vito90 at 8:05 PM on December 10, 2003


My wife thought I said that Cheney killed 70 *peasants* that were release for sport in his immediate vicinity.

I guess that was just what she suspected from him.
posted by spartacusroosevelt at 8:35 PM on December 10, 2003


Why does he need 70 frozen birds? To hand out to his Conservative buddies with a tag that says "killed by Cheney".

Does this mean the vice-preznit isn't going to giv me a turkee fezunt?
posted by trondant at 8:38 PM on December 10, 2003


Meh. It's Cheney's blowjob.
posted by effugas at 9:05 PM on December 10, 2003


Disgusting.

Hate to break it to you, ashbury, but Cheney was involved. Your hypothetical seems kind of pointless.
posted by dobbs at 9:09 PM on December 10, 2003


Five-hundred pheasants were released in front of Cheney and his men; and the ten-man hunting party killed 417 of the birds.

If they'd used Blackhawk helicopters they probably could have gotten all 500 birds without much trouble.
posted by LeLiLo at 9:13 PM on December 10, 2003


2sheets, it is an issue to me, with or without Cheney.

Then shut up and talk about it, instead attacking fold_and_mutilate for what you perceive to be some sort of agenda..."ashy".

I too come from a family of hunters, and while I don't like the sport myself, I can understand its appeal and I don't have huge moral issues with it--if it's done in a manner that respects nature instead of exploiting it. This canned hunting practice is disgusting, and I can't imagine what kind of twisted worldview it would take for someone to enjoy it. That goes for "hunters" of all political parties and ideologies.
posted by jpoulos at 9:19 PM on December 10, 2003


....not to mention that, if fold_and_mutilate does have an "agenda" (as if the rest of us don't), it has always included a healthy respect for the rights of animals that don't happen to be human.

There. Now I'm done.
posted by jpoulos at 9:21 PM on December 10, 2003


State of Illinois has a bag limit of two per hunter for pheasant, and when we hunt we walk the fields, with our dogs, usually making a day out of it, with 4 to 8 hours of nice, cold hiking.

Hopefully it's cold, otherwise it's muddy. And mud is heavy when it sticks to your boots. Real heavy when you're a mile or so from the truck.

Fathers and sons, brothers, friends, dogs, mud, wind, cold, and hopefully snow. That's hunting.

I got no idea what the hell that other stuff is, but I know for a fact that it's not hunting. I also know that all of the hunters I know are repulsed by this crap, and would immediately lose any respect they had for anyone who participated in such a thing.

Go shoot sporting clays, asshole.
posted by dglynn at 9:29 PM on December 10, 2003 [1 favorite]


Those pheasants were all linked to 9-11.
posted by HTuttle at 9:36 PM on December 10, 2003


If the pheasants and ducks were later consumed, I don't care how they were killed.

Both are quite delicious and healthier than most meats.
posted by flatlander at 10:11 PM on December 10, 2003


Well, strike the Humane Society from my donations list then.

Thanks f&m for reminding us of just how fucking stupid some companies can be. Hunting is necessary in any section of earth heavily populated by humans.

Back to the kennel for you, Humane Society.
posted by shepd at 10:18 PM on December 10, 2003


Hunting is necessary in any section of earth heavily populated by humans.

You understand of course that this isn't talking about legitimate hunting to keep numbers done, but instead, a canned hunt, right?
posted by drezdn at 10:31 PM on December 10, 2003


Who cares drezdn, I ignore most anything said by biased sources. Too bad f&m didn't link to an uninvolved source in his post, then I'd care more.
posted by shepd at 10:39 PM on December 10, 2003


Peasants. Pheasants. Sematics if you ask me.

Best part is, we (Americans at least) got to pay for it: "The increasingly low-profile V.P. was taken to Pittsburgh by Air Force Two earlier this week where his 'security detail loaded him and his favorite shotgun into a Humvee,' and went to Rolling Rock Club in Ligonier Township..."

I hunt. Not well -- I've never been an early riser and it's cold out there -- but every couple of years I get a deer or three. It may sound silly to some here, but the meat does make a difference in the grocery bill and there is something to be said for the challenge. Trust me on this, the deer win sometimes -- so far this year two hunters in my area have died from exposure after getting lost, another from a heart attack and a fourth from a fall. There is a party of three missing as I write this.

I think Dick should come hunting with us. He might find it an entirely different expierience.

I know people have strong feelings about this and do not want to fall into a role of 'hunting apologist'. However, when development intrudes on what was once wild land the animal population suffers in a variety of ways and a bit of responsible culling is both ethical and sound wildlife management policy. That said, what the Cheney party did is not hunting, it's target shooting at living creatures and should disgust anyone who considers themselves a hunter.
posted by cedar at 10:39 PM on December 10, 2003


"Trust me on this, the deer win sometimes -- so far this year two hunters in my area have died from exposure after getting lost, another from a heart attack and a fourth from a fall. There is a party of three missing as I write this.

This is quite unusual for NY State. I'll have to check your info.
posted by flatlander at 10:46 PM on December 10, 2003


shepd: Too bad f&m didn't link to an uninvolved source in his post, then I'd care more.

You consider the NY Times and MSNBC to be 'involved' ?

It looks to me like f&m isn't the one with an agenda here. Discrediting a perfectly valid report because you don't like the messenger doesn't do a damn thing to change the facts.
posted by cedar at 10:51 PM on December 10, 2003


flatlander: Feel free. Start with Fort Drum, they do the Medi-Vac for the Adirondacks... you may also want to check with NY DEC (they do the searches). Local newspapers include the Utica Observer-Dispatch, the Adirondack Express and the Hamilton County News.

Get to Googling. If your really concerned about my facts, feel free to contact me and I'll be happy to provide you with a number for the District 8 ranger. You could also call the Old Forge, NY Fire Department, they provide search and rescue support for a wide swath of the central Adirondacks.
posted by cedar at 10:56 PM on December 10, 2003


Trust me on this, the deer win sometimes -- so far this year two hunters in my area have died from exposure after getting lost, another from a heart attack and a fourth from a fall.

Um, so the deer win by not getting shot? In that case, potentially dozens of deer have won by my never have gone hunting. Sounds more to me like Darwin won.
posted by Ufez Jones at 11:11 PM on December 10, 2003


cedar
Why don't you just post the links?
posted by flatlander at 11:16 PM on December 10, 2003


cheney is sending a message.
posted by quonsar at 11:16 PM on December 10, 2003


I like fresh meat. I don't like people killing an animal that they didnt HAVE TO FUCKIN FIGHT FOR, know what I mean? If this "417" kills thing is true than I am kind of pissed off, on the basis that he didnt have to trough through wilderness to get those damn commie fuckers.
posted by Keyser Soze at 11:30 PM on December 10, 2003


No cedar, I consider linking to the Humane Society for a description of that style of hunting linking to an involved party.

Ignoring that, this was just a hunting escapade. I do support those. Now, if I could see a link to something that describes this type of hunting as particularly bad, from someone who isn't involved in the debate in some way, I'm all over it.

And, we'll leave emotion aside here (no "But it's not fair, you should have to work for the kill / What about the poor animals type arguments are going to work). Let's stick with cause and effect. I often try to leave emotion aside when it comes to debates like this.
posted by shepd at 11:51 PM on December 10, 2003


god himself gave us dominion over all else that creeps upon the earth

Ah. Does that mean we can shoot Cheney?

Oh. All that creeps, not all the creeps.

By the way, the right thing to say to people who actually mean the above argument put forth and implicitly mocked by quonsar is that dominion includes wise stewardship...
posted by weston at 12:32 AM on December 11, 2003


Now, if I could see a link to something that describes this type of hunting as particularly bad, from someone who isn't involved in the debate in some way, I'm all over it.

Now I know that the proprietor of the canned-hunting facility is involved, but we could take his word for it:

Mark Bolish, an employee of the exclusive private club, told Channel 4 Action News that Cheney shot about 70 stocked pheasants and mallards that were released for a group of hunters. More than 400 of the farm-raised birds were killed in all.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 2:08 AM on December 11, 2003


I often try to leave emotion aside when it comes to debates like this.

- In my experience it is not the absence, nay, but bountiful emotion that leads to a debate.
posted by johnnyboy at 2:33 AM on December 11, 2003


I'd say this is an issue that needs to be sorted out between hunters.

As for the animals ... I can see the background ethical issues. But if we are falling for the anthropomorphically trap, then I have to say that most wild species lose naturally the majority of the individuals of each generation. And the same happens with farm animals. This is certainly not the same as canned hunting. But talking in terms of animal "suffering" is kinda misplaced. Most animal species "suffer" greatly no matter what.
posted by magullo at 2:37 AM on December 11, 2003


Whether it's Cheney or my next door neighbor participating, it's a sick way to satisfy one's bloodlust. I'm sure this violates some laws somewhere. Shooting once beloved zoo animals or drugged and dizzied pheasants just for the sheer glee of it reminds me, well, of dropping bombs on civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq just for the wartime glee of it.

Metafilter: It's not Cheney's blowjob.
posted by moonbird at 3:53 AM on December 11, 2003


I keep trying to trackback ping this fucking thread with my latest and tangentially-related most.offensive.post.ever at my humble Web Logging Vanity Site of Humour And Good Times, but have failed miserably each and every time.

So here's a fuckin' self-link, cheese-gladiators!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:07 AM on December 11, 2003


Though happy to join in any Cheney-bashing, I am amused/bemused by most of the comments from "real"-hunters here.

Shooting once beloved zoo animals or drugged and dizzied pheasants just for the sheer glee of it...

As I see it, if you spend 3 days tracking a deer through the woods, suffer hardships, prove your manhood and bond with your buddies before shooting it, the deer is just as dead and you still did it "for the sheer glee of it".

It's incredibly self-centered and arrogant to suppose that an animal won't mind being shot in the head just because you had some uplifting experience while doing it.

And why is it less ethical to murder a "once beloved zoo animal" than some random woods-living one?
posted by signal at 4:15 AM on December 11, 2003


I think magullo makes a good point. Happy endings are rare in the animal kingdom. I've spent a day in the kill room at a slaughterhouse, and although it was quite disturbing to see so much death up close and personal (cattle in this case), I would imagine it's not much better to see what happens when it occurs it it's natural setting.
posted by reidfleming at 4:36 AM on December 11, 2003


Signal-
I'm no hunter, but I imagine the argument goes something like this: if you spend 3 days tracking a deer through the woods, suffer hardships, get to know the natural habitat, observe the animals and their behaviors, you are more likely to learn a little respect for the critters, their habitats and wildlife management.

The deer is just as dead. But now, when quotas are being designed, or regulations on rural development are being formulated, or your ###hole friend is dumping plasic bags and other such animal-trapping trash in the wilderness, you may take a more nuanced view.

I think many peoples' kneejerk reaction in here is due to the feeling that this is just another example of Cheney's (and his buddies') attitute towards exploitation of natural resources.

I honestly do believe that familiarity breeds respect when it comes to spending time in nature (generally, anyways).
posted by kahboom at 4:59 AM on December 11, 2003


shepd: Now, if I could see a link to something that describes this type of hunting as particularly bad, from someone who isn't involved in the debate in some way, I'm all over it.

So the only valid argument has to come from someone who isn't interested enough to be involved in the debate? This makes sense to you?
posted by whatever at 6:49 AM on December 11, 2003


Hunting pheasants, the chickenhawk way.
posted by liam at 6:52 AM on December 11, 2003


Then shut up and talk about it, instead attacking fold_and_mutilate for what you perceive to be some sort of agenda..."ashy". jpoulos

As to the canned hunting, it's a horrible practice that should be banned, no matter who is doing it. It certainly isn't much sport.
obfusciatrist, the difference is that the people who indulge in this sort of thing presumably take a certain amount of enjoyment in massacring the birds. The point for them is the shooting, not the eating.
ashbury, upthread.

jpoulos, what do you want me to say that isn't a reiteration of my previous words? That I'm going to write my congressman about it? That I'm going to make a protest sign and walk around "hunting guides" with it? How about I go undercover and write a huge expose on the practice?

Maybe I'll start with the google page for canned hunts. Maybe fold_and_mutilate has a good track record with regards to the animals, but not with this post. The least he could have done was provide some other links that had something to do with how to abolish this practice.
posted by ashbury at 7:03 AM on December 11, 2003


HELLO!!!!!

Two people above have mentioned the most important aspect of this, and the rest of you are ignoring it:

THE VICE PRESIDENT VIOLATED THE LAW!

Pennsylvania has a daily limit of 2 pheasants per hunter, with a possession limit of 4. Also, Cheney's 10-person hunting party is in violation of Pennsylvania law that limits small-game hunting parties to 6 persons. What we don't know, though, is if Cheney had a proper out-of-state hunting license.

Canned hunting is not excluded from this regulation. If you purchase 500 birds and release them for hunting, then the normal hunting regulations apply. (They do not apply if you purchase 500 birds and then directly slaughter them; let them loose and take 'em down with a gun, though, and that qualifies as hunting). Once they are released, they are legally no longer your birds.

So, whether you agree with hunting or not, whether you're a PETA member or not, forget about all that. We get so distracted by crap like that for no reason.

What matters is that CHENEY VIOLATED THE LAW.

I've sent an email to the Pennsylvania Game Commission asking if they will be seeking prosecution in this matter.
posted by yesster at 7:46 AM on December 11, 2003


signal: "It's incredibly self-centered and arrogant to suppose that an animal won't mind being shot in the head just because you had some uplifting experience while doing it."

I agree and am sure that the animal is less than enthusiastic about sitting in my freezer.

However, his extended family who will live better lives and be less prone to the diseases caused by over population and being too tightly compacted into a relatively small area may benefit.

What your missing is that in a perfect world we wouldn't kill for sport. However, the need to 'manage' wildlife is a direct result of our expanding population and encroachment into once rural areas. This isn't going to change and we have a responsibility to mitigate the damage to the best of our ability -- unfortunately, this means limiting the game population via artificial means. I hate to break it to you, but if the hunters didn't cull the game the state would be shooting them on frozen lakes from helicopters.

It's also worth noting that hunting is lucrative business. In depressed rural areas jobs are scarce and we depend a great deal on tourism. That extra few weeks in the fall makes a difference. A portion of license fees and taxes are also used to bolster conservation efforts and you will find responsible hunters to be among the most adamant in terms of preserving what little wild lands remain in the eastern US. Surely their motives could be described as selfish, in part at least, however the fact remains that their efforts benefit all of us -- including the animal population.

In terms of pure numbers hunters are a drop in the bucket compared to the greedy land barons and corporations that have created this situation. If all you city folk would just stay in the cities we wouldn't be having this discussion, but instead you all want million dollar homes with views of pristine lakes and distant mountains. Unfortunately, once you start building, those lakes aren't pristine anymore and your view is going to be of the next newly minted millionaires McMansion across the lake. Feel free to visit and spend your money -- but please, when your Amex starts to wear thin, feel free to go back home.
posted by cedar at 8:03 AM on December 11, 2003


Surplus zoo animals? How are there surplus zoo animals? I thought zoos only took in the animals that they could keep. I just assumed that when a zoo took in an animal, they made a deal with the animal to take care of it until it died, not sell it for slaughter when the animal goes out of style. I'm just really horrified at that. I guess I watch too many Animal Planet zoo shows and assume that everybody loves all the animals so very much and it's all about the nice scientists and their love of the creatures and not about money...

I'm really naive, aren't I? *sigh*

I hate everybody.
posted by jennyb at 8:45 AM on December 11, 2003


get the birds from bush to plate matters not to me. had to mention "Bush", just joking:)

Suspect he "canned" hunt due to his heart condition as some have said real hunting is very physical. But having 500+ shotgun shots going off around one couldn't be good for an ailing heart condition: both physically & humanitarian. The real bad guy here may be the owner. Although the property owner may have had ethical intentions, this picture looks more like greedy elitism unfortunately.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:11 AM on December 11, 2003


Want to add have seen similar hunting techniques 24 years ago in Montana: deer licks viewable from kitchen windows: poachers. I do support respectfull hunting.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:15 AM on December 11, 2003


Another story regarding poor sportsmanship (this time without Cheney content).
posted by gimonca at 9:26 AM on December 11, 2003


>So the only valid argument has to come from someone who isn't interested enough to be involved in the debate? This makes sense to you?

Yes, it should to you also.

To clairify why and how, let's take an ordinary styrofoam cup. None of us would argue as to what a "cup" is, but some of us might argue what the styrofoam modifier really means.

I will present four arguments, each describing a styrofoam cup:

#1. A styrofoam cup is a cup made from styrofoam. The constituents of it are polystyrene pellets. There are then fed to a mold, and heated. Additives are added to ensure they don't leak water. You end with a cup, made from this mixture.

#2. The styrofoam cup does not exist.

#3. Styrofoam cups are made from polystyrene, a sanitary, sturdy, efficient, economical and convenient material! They are far cleaner than any other type of cup and should be used by anyone wanting to live a healthy future.

#4. Styrofoam cups are a danger to your health and environment. Using one will cause you to kill hundreds of innocent animals and will probably give you genital warts. They take forever to break down, meaning your 10th generation could still be drinking from your infested styrofoam remains. They'll poison your food and your air. Hell, there's probably a styrofoam cup on your desk right now reaching out to choke you to death and leave you sterile, all at the same time!

#1 is clearly the answer you want, as it is an answer from afar. All the other involved parties have either nothing to say (#2), have something great to say (#3), or something nasty to say (#4).

Now you can see why I work so hard to learn information from uninvolved sources. It makes all the difference when forming an opinion on something.
posted by shepd at 9:26 AM on December 11, 2003


yesster
If I am not mistaken, the state bag laws do not apply to private hunting preserves.
posted by flatlander at 9:53 AM on December 11, 2003


#1 is clearly the answer you want, as it is an answer from afar. All the other involved parties have either nothing to say (#2), have something great to say (#3), or something nasty to say (#4).

What are you talking about? #1 doesn't say much of anything. It tells me what a styrofoam cup is but not why I should give a fuck. #1 gives me content but #3 and #4 give me context, which is extremely important when forming an opinion.

It doesn't make much sense to search high and low for unbiased information. Unbiased information is arguably nonexistent, or at least extremely rare, and its usefulness is very limited anyway. It's better to seek out all kinds of information from all kinds of sources and view them all with a healthy dose of skepticism. Often what passes for an "unbiased" source is actually a source that presents many sides of an issue, adopting various biases so that, with luck, they'll cancel each other out.
posted by speicus at 10:24 AM on December 11, 2003


Now, if I could see a link to something that describes this type of hunting as particularly bad, from someone who isn't involved in the debate in some way, I'm all over it.

This is one of the funniest things I've read on MeFi in a while - funnier than "Too bad f&m didn't link to an uninvolved source in his post." As cedar pointed out and you failed to address, f&m did link to two "uninvolved sources" that do exactly what you ask - give the background information about this practice. To then "describe it as bad" requires the use of your own brain. You really need to have some newspaper columnist spoon-feed you the opinion that, looking at these facts, this is a pathetic, cowardly act? Or even that it's "particularly bad?"That's a riot.

Those who say the deer is just as dead no matter how hard we have to work to get it do have a point, but everybody seems to overlook the converse of these arguments: If I say "A is wrong from an ontological perspective" and you say "but A is ontologically the same as B," one might logically conclude that A isn't really wrong - or that B is also wrong. It combines elements of two wrongs making a right and the false dilemma. It's inherent in the construction "hunting must not be wrong, because slaughterhouses kill animals." Likewise, "killing deer isn't wrong, because we keep taking more open space for our suburbs, which makes their killing necessary." Well, maybe that says something about our continued quest to pave the whole planet, no?

As an aside, the whole notion that deer are "managed" to reduce numbers is, to put it mildly, questionable. Check out the complete situation and timelines involving contraception vs. "culling" and proven "rebound" effects such as higher incidence of twinning after populations are hunted, and the "positive" of killing as a population-reducer over time is, at the very least, up for debate. Here's a good starting point.
posted by soyjoy at 10:47 AM on December 11, 2003


flatlander -

After further consideration and investigation, I've found that you're correct. Unfortunately, the normal hunting restrictions don't apply on a private game reserve.

Of course, the only difference between a private game reserve and a large tract of privately owned land which contains game animals, is a small piece of paper issued by the state.

In other words, if you get the permit, you can run a game preserve. Without the permit, the exact same behavior (canned hunting) is very, very illegal.

I don't get it, but that's the law.
posted by yesster at 11:03 AM on December 11, 2003


I eat meat and I don't see why I should be against hunters, since it's probably more humane than a slaughterhouse. Responsible hunting requires lots of skill and a knowledge of the outdoors. Most hunters I know in Maine consider canned hunting to be un-sporting. It give sportsmen (sportspeople? nah.) a bad name.
posted by theora55 at 1:24 PM on December 11, 2003


You really need to have some newspaper columnist spoon-feed you the opinion that, looking at these facts, this is a pathetic, cowardly act? Or even that it's "particularly bad?"That's a riot.


nah.
a talk-radio caveman's "editorial" should be more than enough
;)

it's appalling how people seem to defend this "hunting" practice (I don't care if Cheney or Hillary Clinton or the Dalai Lama is doing it, it's just wrong) -- real, serious hunters (as opposed to sadistic, cowardly people who just dig to pass themselves as hunters) are the first in line to be disgusted by "canned hunting" bloodbaths
posted by matteo at 2:03 PM on December 11, 2003


Responsible hunting requires lots of skill and a knowledge of the outdoors.

No it doesn't. It requires only that you fulfill the objective, as in killing the prey. Responsible hunting only requires that you make the shot count when the animal wanders into the gun sights. Harming it and leaving it alive ... that's irresponsible. Successful hunting may require lots of skill and knowledge, but mostly I've found it to be as much luck as anything else.

As a hunter, I reject the argument that hunting is more "humane" than a slaughterhouse. It is, however, more humane than standing at a crowded meat cooler in the supermarket while granny argues with grandpa about the quality of a cut of beef tongue. The end result remains the same ... food.

I don't enjoy hunting, I enjoy eating. I respect what I kill for having given its life to sustain mine. Sport hunting is something I've never really understood. I understand that shooting shit is fun. Ever taken' a shotgun to an old TV? That's a fricken hoot! Shedding the blood of another being, whether you intend to eat it or not, just to get a rush with your own destructive power is disgusting, vomitous, loathsome.

I don't think it a matter of morality as much as personal ethics, the motivation behind the action. Cheney and his buddies are rich men. They don't need to kill for food ... they do so for sport, every bit as much as the assholes I encounter every year who only want a big ass rack to put on their wall (oh yeah, they'll still eat the skanky meat from a big musky buck, but holy shit aren't they grand for having defeated this mighty herbivore ... with a rifle). Whether or not its wrong to kill for food is not the issue here. It's just plain wrong to kill for a manly hard-on. And that goes for Cheney or anyone else who does so.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:05 PM on December 11, 2003


#1 is clearly the answer you want, as it is an answer from afar. All the other involved parties have either nothing to say (#2), have something great to say (#3), or something nasty to say (#4).

Kinda interesting that #1 was the only angle you didn't have a link for though, innit?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:26 PM on December 11, 2003


>What are you talking about? #1 doesn't say much of anything. It tells me what a styrofoam cup is but not why I should give a fuck. #1 gives me content but #3 and #4 give me context, which is extremely important when forming an opinion.

Why do you require someone else to form an opinion and then decide on that?

Why not just do the opinion forming yourself? The *last* thing I want when trying to form an opinion is everyone else with a set mind tugging at my heartstrings. Watching "Bowling for Columbine" is the last time I'll leave my heart open-season.

I can, however, now see after further review there are links I missed (silly me). Sorry. Oh well. Better luck for me next time. Nothing to see, move on. HAND.

>Kinda interesting that #1 was the only angle you didn't have a link for though, innit?

Yeah, I couldn't find a good story on how to make a styrofoam cup. I'm sure someone can find me one, but I'm tired enough and clearly mistaken (not on the cup "story", this story). Anyone who has some old North American Mr. Wizard episodes on tape will find the one on making your own styrofoam products, though. It was pretty much that boring.

For an incredibly unlively bit of information on how styrofoam is made, click. That should pretty much cover my #1. Damn Google and it's "I'm Feeling Lucky" button!
posted by shepd at 4:25 PM on December 11, 2003


[uncloak]

I am surprised and disappointed that nobody has yet hammered home the obvious answer to the question "Why bring up Cheney?"

Because the fact that he participates in and endorses the "canned hunting" demonstrates a mindset that regrettably explains the "we'll march in and Iraq will love us" foreign policy...

[recloak]
posted by wendell at 7:31 PM on December 11, 2003


Imagine that Cheney had spent a couple days out in the real bush, tracking a moose, eventually locating it, and stealthily setting about to make the one-shot kill required to bring it down immediately (because no one wants to have to track a wounded moose for another week, hoping to put it out of its pain and panic).

What kind of character would that indicate?

But Cheney is the sort of man who participates in a canned hunt.

What kind of character does that indicate?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:53 PM on December 11, 2003


« Older Guide to Philosophy on the Internet   |   Government benefits: screwing the young Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post