hunters are not conservationists and don't care about the environment

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > hunters are not conservationists and don't care about the environment

«‹›6 »

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

when justifying their desire to kill things for fun and profit, hunters argue that they are conservationists and their killing of animals keeps said animals from a more painful death from starvation.

one must ask: were these animals dying of starvation before massive numbers of people moved in? probably not. some small number were, but their numbers were checked largely by natural predation, predation that was killed off by people. in either event, it's unlikely that anyone, even the most bleeding-heart environmentalist, cares particularly about natural predation or starvation occurring off in the woods somewhere.

but when animals start starving, they move in to human spaces looking for food. getting on the roads, eating landscaping and garbage, dying in our driveways. these are the consequences of humans moving into natural spaces and killing all the predators to protect their livestock and pets. so we see that hunters, in killing the "overpopulated" animals in the region, are not stewards of the environment. they are protecting the fringes of human colonization of nature from the meager consequences of their expansion, meager as they may be. without beer-drunk yahoos culling animal populations away from people, those people would have to deal with starving fawns in their suburban bushes, with getting the vapors from bears rooting through their garbage, with skeletal elk crashing through their minivan's windshield. with these consequences not hidden they would have to confront the reality of what they are doing in their ceaseless expansion and might be less inclined to do it.

hunters are not conservationists. they are the opposite. they are hiding the consequences of the destruction of the environment, mercenaries paid only in the satiety of their bloodlust and a pile of raw meat like the most primitive bushman. i hope this has clarified things and i look forward to a discussion of how profound you have found it.

# ? Sep 9, 2015 19:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 17:52

Hell Yeah: Dec 25, 2012

i have to hunt for your mom's poosay under all the rolls of fat.

# ? Sep 9, 2015 19:51

FlimFlam Imam: Mar 1, 2007; Standing on a hill in my mountain of dreams

Tezzor posted:

when justifying their desire to kill things for fun and profit, hunters argue that they are conservationists and their killing of animals keeps said animals from a more painful death from starvation.

one must ask: were these animals dying of starvation before massive numbers of people moved in? probably not. some small number were, but their numbers were checked largely by natural predation, predation that was killed off by people. in either event, it's unlikely that anyone, even the most bleeding-heart environmentalist, cares particularly about natural predation or starvation occurring off in the woods somewhere.

but when animals start starving, they move in to human spaces looking for food. getting on the roads, eating landscaping and garbage, dying in our driveways. these are the consequences of humans moving into natural spaces and killing all the predators to protect their livestock and pets. so we see that hunters, in killing the "overpopulated" animals in the region, are not stewards of the environment. they are protecting the fringes of human colonization of nature from the meager consequences of their expansion, meager as they may be. without beer-drunk yahoos culling animal populations away from people, those people would have to deal with starving fawns in their suburban bushes, with getting the vapors from bears rooting through their garbage, with skeletal elk crashing through their minivan's windshield. with these consequences not hidden they would have to confront the reality of what they are doing in their ceaseless expansion and might be less inclined to do it.

hunters are not conservationists. they are the opposite. they are hiding the consequences of the destruction of the environment, mercenaries paid only in the satiety of their bloodlust and a pile of raw meat like the most primitive bushman. i hope this has clarified things and i look forward to a discussion of how profound you have found it.

Rawrrrrr

# ? Sep 9, 2015 19:51

Nooner: Mar 26, 2011; AN A+ OPSTER (:

Hell Yeah posted:

i have to hunt for your mom's poosay under all the rolls of fat.

ayy lmao

# ? Sep 9, 2015 19:51

Ride The Gravitron: May 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Tezzor posted:

when justifying their desire to kill things for fun and profit, hunters argue that they are conservationists and their killing of animals keeps said animals from a more painful death from starvation.

one must ask: were these animals dying of starvation before massive numbers of people moved in? probably not. some small number were, but their numbers were checked largely by natural predation, predation that was killed off by people. in either event, it's unlikely that anyone, even the most bleeding-heart environmentalist, cares particularly about natural predation or starvation occurring off in the woods somewhere.

but when animals start starving, they move in to human spaces looking for food. getting on the roads, eating landscaping and garbage, dying in our driveways. these are the consequences of humans moving into natural spaces and killing all the predators to protect their livestock and pets. so we see that hunters, in killing the "overpopulated" animals in the region, are not stewards of the environment. they are protecting the fringes of human colonization of nature from the meager consequences of their expansion, meager as they may be. without beer-drunk yahoos culling animal populations away from people, those people would have to deal with starving fawns in their suburban bushes, with getting the vapors from bears rooting through their garbage, with skeletal elk crashing through their minivan's windshield. with these consequences not hidden they would have to confront the reality of what they are doing in their ceaseless expansion and might be less inclined to do it.

hunters are not conservationists. they are the opposite. they are hiding the consequences of the destruction of the environment, mercenaries paid only in the satiety of their bloodlust and a pile of raw meat like the most primitive bushman. i hope this has clarified things and i look forward to a discussion of how profound you have found it.

# ? Sep 9, 2015 19:51

proof of concept: Mar 6, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

Hell Yeah posted:

i have to hunt for your mom's poosay under all the rolls of fat.

# ? Sep 9, 2015 19:52

Fishy Joe: Apr 19, 2005; Eat at Fishy Joe's

uh most hunters are just some middle aged dad that doesnt wanna buy beef all winter

# ? Sep 9, 2015 19:52

Ratjaculation: Aug 3, 2007

Hell Yeah posted:

i have to hunt for your mom's poosay under all the rolls of fat.

lol

# ? Sep 9, 2015 19:52

big nipples big life: May 12, 2014

Tezzor posted:

when justifying their desire to kill things for fun and profit, hunters argue that they are conservationists and their killing of animals keeps said animals from a more painful death from starvation.

one must ask: were these animals dying of starvation before massive numbers of people moved in? probably not. some small number were, but their numbers were checked largely by natural predation, predation that was killed off by people. in either event, it's unlikely that anyone, even the most bleeding-heart environmentalist, cares particularly about natural predation or starvation occurring off in the woods somewhere.

but when animals start starving, they move in to human spaces looking for food. getting on the roads, eating landscaping and garbage, dying in our driveways. these are the consequences of humans moving into natural spaces and killing all the predators to protect their livestock and pets. so we see that hunters, in killing the "overpopulated" animals in the region, are not stewards of the environment. they are protecting the fringes of human colonization of nature from the meager consequences of their expansion, meager as they may be. without beer-drunk yahoos culling animal populations away from people, those people would have to deal with starving fawns in their suburban bushes, with getting the vapors from bears rooting through their garbage, with skeletal elk crashing through their minivan's windshield. with these consequences not hidden they would have to confront the reality of what they are doing in their ceaseless expansion and might be less inclined to do it.

hunters are not conservationists. they are the opposite. they are hiding the consequences of the destruction of the environment, mercenaries paid only in the satiety of their bloodlust and a pile of raw meat like the most primitive bushman. i hope this has clarified things and i look forward to a discussion of how profound you have found it.

cucked up if true

# ? Sep 9, 2015 19:52

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

Fishy Joe posted:

uh most hunters are just some middle aged dad that doesnt wanna buy beef all winter

does not contradict my claim

# ? Sep 9, 2015 19:53

Vin BioEthanol: Jan 18, 2002; by Ralp

i bought a tranny tag this year, hoping to bag a 300+ pounder

# ? Sep 9, 2015 19:53

Nooner: Mar 26, 2011; AN A+ OPSTER (:

you should move to teh wood and die alone in a dumb gay cave OP

# ? Sep 9, 2015 19:54

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

The best chance an animal has in 2015 to survive the next millennium as a species is to be tasty or fun to kill.

# ? Sep 9, 2015 19:55

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

Nooner posted:

you should move to teh wood and die alone in a dumb gay cave OP

i don't see how that is relevant. please keep your "non sequiturs" out of this thread

# ? Sep 9, 2015 19:56

Pimpcasso: Mar 13, 2002; VOLS BITCH

i havent bought any beef since october last year due to killing six human being deer last season hth you beta bitch

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:02

satanic splash-back: Jan 28, 2009

You can do better than that, OP, and you know it.

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:03

Pimpcasso: Mar 13, 2002; VOLS BITCH

but tbqh i dont give a gently caress about the enviroment

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:05

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3: Nov 15, 2003

that thing you are describing IS conservationism tho

the vegan-approved version of whatever it is you're talking about has some other gay rear end name

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:09

Ein cooler Typ: Nov 26, 2013; by FactsAreUseless

Most anti-hunters don't even care about animals

They're just wimpy liberals who are scared of guns

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:12

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

LegoPirateNinja posted:

that thing you are describing IS conservationism tho

don't troll

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:14

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

Daedra posted:

i havent bought any beef since october last year due to killing six human being deer last season hth you beta bitch

i'm sorry and hope that you ingest many pathogens as a result

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:17

Cool NIN Shirt: Nov 26, 2007; by vyelkin

Well we hosed their environment up in an irreparable manner. Better to kill 20-30 deer in the interest of population control than for the entire population to starve IMO.

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:20

Nathilus: Apr 4, 2002; I alone can see through the media bias.

I'm also stupid on a scale that can only be measured in Reddits.

Its true of deer hunters at least. Not that deer compassion is anywhere in their list of motives, but we've killed off all of the natural predators that go after deer and if left to their own devices they undergo massive population booms and then similarly massive starvation die offs. So yeah, by shooting some a level of suffering on another magnitude of scale is avoided.

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:21

Hatebag: Jun 17, 2008

Horseflop. Ducks Unlimited have done more for wetlands than any other private group. And if you freeze the meat you kill most protozoa.

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:22

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

Cool NIN Shirt posted:

Well we hosed their environment up in an irreparable manner. Better to kill 20-30 deer in the interest of population control than for the entire population to starve IMO.

wrong. if they start starving they enter human spaces and gently caress everything up. this is optimal and should be encouraged

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:23

AlwaysBeSithing: Aug 27, 2015; by Ralp

suicidal ideation? .....from tezzor?? no way I dont believe it

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:24

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

Nathilus posted:

Its true of deer hunters at least. Not that deer compassion is anywhere in their list of motives, but we've killed off all of the natural predators that go after deer and if left to their own devices they undergo massive population booms and then similarly massive starvation die offs. So yeah, by shooting some a level of suffering on another magnitude of scale is avoided.

yes, meager human suffering from having to deal with the consequences of their actions is avoided by allowing yahoos to kill them. no one cares about deer starving in the woods somewhere.

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:24

GuyDudeBroMan: Jun 3, 2013; by Ralp

Hi Fire! Great thread!

Watch this video about what Wolves do for the environment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q

Since we can't really put wolves and other predators back into the suburban areas of this country, and you are against hunting, I assume you are arguing in favor of either poison or leghold traps to control the deer populations? Or maybe tranq darting and sterilization?

What kind of poison should we use? What kind of leghold trap? You sound quite knowledgeable on this subject so I assume you have thought this out. How much will the tranq dart program cost?

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:24

Nathilus: Apr 4, 2002; I alone can see through the media bias.

I'm also stupid on a scale that can only be measured in Reddits.

Tezzor posted:

wrong. if they start starving they enter human spaces and gently caress everything up. this is optimal and should be encouraged

Most deer don't live near suburbs. When they die no one really cares.

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:25

Applewhite: Aug 16, 2014; by vyelkin; Nap Ghost

I never understood why hunters and other assorted outdoorsmen aren't a huge voice for conservation when they're typically the people who enjoy nature the most.

As a city dwelling nerd, I could care less if I have to live in an arcology and eat slime, but you'd think people who pride themselves on their outdoor prowess would care if the environment is healthy.

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:27

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

GuyDudeBroMan posted:

Hi Fire! Great thread!

Watch this video about what Wolves do for the environment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q

Since we can't really put wolves and other predators back into the suburban areas of this country, and you are against hunting, I assume you are arguing in favor of either poison or leghold traps to control the deer populations? Or maybe tranq darting and sterilization?

What kind of poison should we use? What kind of leghold trap? You sound quite knowledgeable on this subject so I assume you have thought this out. How much will the tranq dart program cost?

i'm not Fire, imbecile from the nazi stalker offsite. my position is to do nothing whatsoever to control the deer population. i thought this was abundantly clear, but then again: imbecile from the nazi stalker offsite

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:27

Nathilus: Apr 4, 2002; I alone can see through the media bias.

I'm also stupid on a scale that can only be measured in Reddits.

Tezzor posted:

yes, meager human suffering from having to deal with the consequences of their actions is avoided by allowing yahoos to kill them. no one cares about deer starving in the woods somewhere.

I'll bite. I've been deer hunting and I care at least a little about massive deer starvation. They're lovely animals but I'm down with preventing even stupid idiot animal suffering. You're right though that almost no one cares.

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:28

Cool NIN Shirt: Nov 26, 2007; by vyelkin

Tezzor posted:

wrong. if they start starving they enter human spaces and gently caress everything up. this is optimal and should be encouraged

Where are deer going to get food from "human spaces"? I thought they ate tree bark and stuff like that

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:28

Nathilus: Apr 4, 2002; I alone can see through the media bias.

I'm also stupid on a scale that can only be measured in Reddits.

Cool NIN Shirt posted:

Where are deer going to get food from "human spaces"? I thought they ate tree bark and stuff like that

Real post, they forage. They eat like wild oats and clover and poo poo. They aren't grazers, tho.

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:30

Pimpcasso: Mar 13, 2002; VOLS BITCH

Cool NIN Shirt posted:

Where are deer going to get food from "human spaces"? I thought they ate tree bark and stuff like that

they eat birds dumbass

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQOQdBLHrLk

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:31

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

look at all these deer! they're chewing up all the bark or whatever! the environment!! *cuts down 5000 trees to build Johnnys House of Pre-Ban CFCs*

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:31

Pimpcasso: Mar 13, 2002; VOLS BITCH

how dare these hunters do something i dont do *lives off tyson packs of chicken breasts and generic ground beef from walmart*

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:34

GuyDudeBroMan: Jun 3, 2013; by Ralp

Tezzor posted:

i'm not Fire, imbecile from the nazi stalker offsite. my position is to do nothing whatsoever to control the deer population. i thought this was abundantly clear, but then again: imbecile from the nazi stalker offsite

Says the guy with the spreadsheet on offsite posters. How's the revolution coming? Will we still be able to play princess dress up vidya games after the bourgeoisie is crushed?

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:34

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

OP if your point is that most hunters aren't doing so as a benevolent action intended to minimize the suffering of local deer populations then that's fair but the reality is whatever their motives are the effect of controlled hunting is more humane than not having it so you should still support it.

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 17:52

Pimpcasso: Mar 13, 2002; VOLS BITCH

so does fire jr read nazi offsite to figure out whos who

# ? Sep 9, 2015 20:36

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > hunters are not conservationists and don't care about the environment

«‹›6 »