PR: "Kevin, you damage your credibility by resorting to unnecessary obscenities. (And, by the way, you weren't called a liar unless...)
As one who used to hunt, I feel qualified to jump in here. As stated, hunting is not a comfortable "sport", but the adrenalin "rush" one feels when game is sighted is infinitely more profound than merely seeing, say, a deer in the wild. Exciting is probably the appropriate term. Interesting would be appropriate for merely seeing a deer."Sorry for swearing. I was angry. And I was called a liar, because I did meet the "unless..." requirement. As for deer, I saw three today. I was excited AND I had no gun. I am often excited by living things I see, including plants. It makes me happy, and my adrenalin starts to run. It makes me happy to be alive. I do not get a rush in anticipation of any bow shot or gun blast (point taken elsewhere, BTW, Hunter and Proud.)
PR: "As to the "rights" of various life forms, all life forms except some bacteria exist by preying on other life forms. You apparently feel that animal forms are "better" than plant forms. Why? Both are alive. Both have some senses - perhaps all that we have. (Plants appreciate light, heat, moisture, nutrients, touch, airborne chemicals). Pulling that radish (or a dandelion!) from your garden is killing just as much as shooting a duck or a deer. Or butchering that steer raised specifically so you could enjoy steak. Efficientcy? I guess you could say the steer was grown in an animal garden, like the radish was in a vegetable garden. Does that make it O.K.?"
Well, to sumarize my lengthier explanation of my reasons (found here), let me say that plants transform 1% of the sunlight energy they absorb into consumable forms. This energy is what drives virtually all food chains, and it decreases by 90% at subsequent levels. Therefore, it makes better use of available resources to consume "lower" on the food chain. The simple proof of this is that there are far more plants than herbivores, and far more herbivores than carnivores. Furthermore, if I eat a field of wheat, only the wheat suffers. If I eat the cow, then the cow suffers and the field of wheat it had to eat also suffers. (I believe plants have feelings, incidentally, but that they are less magnified than animals' feelings.)
PR: "If you object to killing for food, as you seem to, then you must limit your nutritional intake to water and ripe fruit (ensuring that you plant any contained seeds, else you have destroyed life). What your life expectancy will then be I can only guess."
I do not object to killing for food. I object to sport killing, and unnecessary killing. I believe in eating lower on the food chain for the reasons mentioned above (among other reasons, including issues of environmental sustainability.)
PR: "I hunt no more, for unnecessary killing saddens me. Be that killing plant or animal - including human. Killing essential to my, or others', life is quite acceptable."
My sentiments exactly.
