Comments on Neva Vegan: I Ain’t Mad Wit’cha Morgan Spurlock

Norcal's passion is in the taking of lives. Neva's...

2008-07-13T16:58:00.000-07:00

Norcal's passion is in the taking of lives. Neva's passion is in the saving of lives. In both cases, we have power over another, and what we choose to do means that the vulnerable being before us will live or die. What makes one person crave taking that life, and another crave saving it?

Norcal, if you think goat farming will take away the inevitable cruelty and injustice that accompanies dairy products, I suggest you read the account of a dairy goat farmer who ultimately concluded that there is no humane way of doing it:

http://www.humanemyth.org/cheriezell.htm

Since you grew up on a farm, you'll probably find these other statements from former farmers of interest:

http://www.humanemyth.org/haroldbrown.htm
http://www.humanemyth.org/howardlyman.htm

Something has brought you to this web site. I commend your openness to learning more about vegan consciousness. If you really want to understand how we vegans think and feel, what inspires us, what nourishes our spirits, I encourage you to spare the life of the next animal you encounter within shooting range. Experience the thrill of saving a life. This thrill is something we vegans feel on a regular basis, not just through the animal rescue work we do, but every time we sit down to a meal. In a world plagued by violence, exploitation and injustice, it's a great feeling to know that nobody had to die for us to live.

this is beyond anything i can understand (to harm ...

2008-06-25T14:36:00.000-07:00

this is beyond anything i can understand (to harm an innocent because it brings you pleasure).

i know of a hunter, whose obsessive passion for many many years was hunting.

one day something happened, (his wife is the one who told me the story.)

he went out to hunt and came back changed. he put away his gun for ever and anything that reminded him of hunting.

never to hunt again.

his wife thought it was because he shared eye contact with his intended victim and that moment of connection changed him.

i hope norcal, though you speak against the rhetorical exchange, and say you won't be changed that your life is not a stagnant dead-end and that you are capable of learning and growing and becoming better.

so norcal, it is ok with you, you sleep well at ni...

2008-06-25T14:27:00.000-07:00

so norcal,

it is ok with you, you sleep well at night knowing that you've killed/harmed/tormented an innocent animal - because you enjoy stalking?

Quote:"You're wrong and here's why" (which, by the...

2008-06-24T07:39:00.000-07:00

Quote:

"You're wrong and here's why" (which, by the way folks, is not the most effective conversion technique)."

I'll end with a comment about this statement: You haven't addressed our arguments about why you are wrong Norcal, primarily that you don't need to eat meat to be healthy. You eat meat because you like to do so. Therefore, your argument is founded on a faulty assumption.

How can you justify killing an animal simply to satisfy a desire for flesh - taste?

It's interesting that you say attempting to illuminate where a persons reasoning is wrong is not the best way to have a discourse. What other way is there Norcal? Only someone who doesn't want their baseless assumptions challenged would say such a seemingly ludicrous thing.

I’m happy that you agree with our complaints about factory farming. I hope you do the right thing.

Hi Noracal (and everbody else),I agree: The steak-...

2008-06-23T20:01:00.000-07:00

Hi Noracal (and everbody else),

I agree: The steak-eaters (and even more so, the chicken-eaters) are probably inflicting more pain and suffering than the hunters they're dissing. There's some hypocrisy there.

I believe your respect of vegans (at least some vegans - fair enough) is sincere. FYI, the best way to show that respect is to not kill animals when avoidable. Actually, though I appreciate it, I'm not nearly as concerned about respect for me as respect for the animal. The animal profoundly wants to live, and killing him because you like the taste of his flesh is a gross disrespect.

I also believe that you enjoy the whole non-killing part of hunting. If you don't enjoy the killing, don't do it. I think your conscience is telling you it's wrong. You can get even closer to nature if you leave the gun at home. The gun impairs your ability to fully empathize with the animals. By fully empathize I mean his joy is your joy, his sorrow is your sorrow. If you kill him, needlessly, your objective is violently at odds with his deepest desire. You have to turn of part of your empathy to kill, and that's not good for anybody.

There are lots of opportunities to know where your food came from - at least a good part of it. Search for "community sponsored agriculture."

Kudos on earnest efforts to cut back on factory farm-sourced meat, and props on no mayo. You mention that you buy some bacon and milk. Even though the animals are pastured, there's still a ton of cruelty in those operations. Veggie bacon tastes great and cooks up a lot like bacon - plus it has no cholesterol or saturated fat. Try the varous kinds of soy, almond, and oat milk out there. The selection has mushroomed in the past several years, and the quality has improved dramatically. In general, it's more healthy than milk, too. BTW, if you like mayo, try Veganaise (my favorite), Nayonaise, or Spectrum no-egg mayo.

I know lots of hunters eat what they kill. That doesn't justify it, though. Since we don't need meat, you're killing for pleasure. That violates my deepest moral principles - and maybe yours, too.

This may sound weird, but my impression is that you would not have much trouble going vegan. Why not give it the "30 days" try? It's a wonderful, peaceful feeling. You will discover a new kinship with nature and animals.

To judge the accuracy of a study you would need to...

2008-06-23T11:40:00.000-07:00

To judge the accuracy of a study you would need to know how the study was conducted, where, and the size.

The way questions are worded also will affect study outcome.

I've actually been fairly harsh on studies on our side for these reason too. Leading questions increase the chances of getting a certain answer. If the study is opt-in, then there's a good chance that the kind of people who leave coots or heaps of deer lying around aren't participating in the study. And there's reporting bias--many people won't answer questions truthfully if they feel the truth reflects poorly on them. Just as an example I imagine many people would say that they don't litter if asked. However, just looking at my own neighborhood, many people do seem to litter. And were my father asked in a survey if he always ate the animals he killed he would probably answer that yes, considering the bear to be a minor exception and any animals discarded later due to freezer burn (which happens if they sit in the freezer for six years) to be accidents.

Of course none of this has to do with my main point which was that veganism is actually fairly easy, can be adopted by any type of person, and is less costly than seeking out so-called humane animal products, which might not in truth be humane. Going vegan also helps move us away from that idea of animals as a less class of beings here for our use. I find it hard to imagine justifying breeding animals merely to kill them at an artificially young age, or constantly reimpregnate them for milk production without a basic belief that we have more right to their bodies than they have.

A study that will be released this week by the Nat...

2008-06-23T10:10:00.000-07:00

A study that will be released this week by the National Shooting Sports Foundation finds that 97 percent of hunters eat what they kill. I'm guessing you're considering the source! And again, I can't deny your personal experience, even though it doesn't match mine.

I'm grateful to live in a state where "wanton waste" is illegal. I have reported wasteful killing to rangers - in this case, someone had been shooting coots - a bird that doesn't taste very good - and just leaving carcasses all over the place. I thinking campaigning for stricter wanton waste laws and strict enforcement of those laws would be a good thing.

Hmmm, this whole thread is getting a tad long.By a...

2008-06-23T10:01:00.000-07:00

Hmmm, this whole thread is getting a tad long.

By and large I think trophy hunters don't eat the animals they kill. They might at times, but if the goal is to get the biggest, rarest animal for bragging purposes, then often they don't eat them. But I don't have statistics, so anyone with actual statistics for or against this view, feel free to share them.

My father and his friends, just as one example, did not eat the bears they killed. And he is a hunter who talks all about only killing what you "need" to eat, etc, but he really wanted to kill a bear and found that this did not coincide with wanting to eat the bear. There was an article recently about hunters seeking places to donate deer as they wanted to hunt more deer than they could eat themselves. Some areas will accept hunted animals at food banks. The area where I live I believe most will not due to fears of bacterial contamination.

Growing up we often found stacks of deer corpses with either just the heads missing, or in some cases just the antlers. Since these hunters were not interested in taking six or seven deer at a time home with them, we can safely assume that they either didn't care to eat hunted meat or else hunted far more animals than they could consume. In any case I certainly saw first hand a tendency to not always eat the animals they kill. Likewise those who kill predatory animals, like wolves or large cats (most often in canned hunts) are highly unlikely to eat those animals.

Thanks for saying I listen--I actually am trying to listen, though my emotional response probably gets pretty high at times.

It is true that the vast majority of people do eat animals. From my perspective though, I'm really not terribly different from those people and veganism has actually been incredibly easy and rewarding to me. I went vegetarian at first, dragging my feet, calling it a boycott and saying that I was only opposed to factory farming. I couldn't imagine going my entire without eating bacon again. My thinking changed along with my habits. More later.

Neva, I agree that vegans are more marginalized th...

2008-06-23T09:42:00.000-07:00

Neva, I agree that vegans are more marginalized than hunters. And the political pandering is a good point - you don't hear much vegan pandering outside of places like L.A. and S.F. And quite honestly, it wouldn't bother me a bit to hear a candidate say, "I don't eat or use animal products and I'm proud of that" because I respect people who think about their beliefs and act on them. What bothers me is watching some chump talk trash about hunters between bites of steak. That's a person who has not thought carefully about anything.

But the stereotyping is pretty extreme for both of us. There is a calculated and deliberate campaign out there to make the non-hunting public believe that hunters don't eat what they kill, because all reasonable people can agree that's reprehensible. The truth is most of us do eat what we kill, but I can't tell you how many friends have said, "Well, Holly, the way you hunt is fine because you eat what you kill, but I just don't think most people do." Newsflash: They do. I hate it when organizations lie to score points; this is why I am honest about some of the hard facts of hunting. No "victory" achieved on a false premise is sustainable.

For the record - and I'm not sure this is worth reentering this fray, but I'll do it anyway: I actually don't enjoy killing. Killing is grim, the hardest part of hunting. I do enjoy the hunt - searching, stalking and stealth - because that awakens something in me that no other activity does. Just the other day, I went kayaking on a local lake and found myself getting very close to wildlife again and again, and while it was thrilling and I enjoyed it tremendously, it wasn't the same. This is the kind of stuff I meant, Neva, when I said there are some things you can't understand unless you do it yourself (and obviously I would never try to persuade you to hunt).

And I do enjoy the connection to my food. I know where it comes from - I face it directly. I used to waste meat all the time, but I haven't wasted a bite since I started hunting. Industrial food production makes us lazy, wasteful and indifferent to the realities of consumption.

I appreciate your readers' attempts to persuade me, because I respect people who care enough to share their worldview, but I have to say I've thought about my hunting and meat eating a lot. I am not the ignorant soul chomping on a burger and pretending CAFOs aren't a problem. Like you, Neva, I think about my choice a lot, and I read about it a lot, and I analyze my feelings, and give careful consideration to my actions. I am firm in my beliefs, and it is highly unlikely that any of the arguments anyone makes here - any picking apart of the sentences I've written, and certainly not any commentary about drunks and cheap beer (a little snooty there! though yes, I drink good beer, and I don't litter, and I don't drink before hunting)- is going to change my mind about eating meat.

But I do support the fight against factory farming. I have tried to purge most factory-farmed meats from my diet (almost everything in my refrigerator and freezer is hunted meat), and my goal is to eliminate all of them. I purchase the best milk I can find (i.e., pastured animals, not crap that's "organic" or "natural" in name only), and I hope to divorce myself of that completely some day by raising goats. There's no mayonnaise in my refrigerator. Twice a year you'll find store-bought bacon, though mostly my boyfriend makes his own from pastured pigs.

I know you and your readers would rather see no one eating meat. But given that 96.8 percent of American adults eat animal flesh and another 2.7 percent are "vegetarians" but not vegans (Source: Vegetarian Times survey, April 16, 2008), so obviously they use some animal products, I think an excellent starting point is ending industrial farming abuses and work toward sustainable local farming as sources of meat for those, like myself, who don't plan to give it up.

I write all this with some hesitation, because I'm sure this is going to invite yet another round of "You're wrong and here's why" (which, by the way folks, is not the most effective conversion technique). But I'm encouraged, Neva, by the fact that you listen. And if you or any of your readers were to come over to my blog and share your point of view with my readers, I would encourage my readers to listen to you as well.

Yes, thanks everyone for your contributions to the...

2008-06-23T08:41:00.000-07:00

Yes, thanks everyone for your contributions to the discussion!

Thanks Gary for the statistics. I thought I knew a lot about hunting and yet I'd never heard that 25% statistic, so that's incredibly informative.

I think that it's a difficult discussion to have. Having known many hunters personally I've known hunters who hunt while drunk, aren't pleasant people overall, and abuse companion animals. But I've also known hunters that cringe at footage of factory farms and dote on companion animals. Just as I've known people who found hunting repulsive but weren't particualarly caring toward other animals. So Norcal does have a point on the stereotyping of hunters. Though my money is still on the idea that more hunters drink while hunting than not, just on personal experience.

Nobody likes to be told that they're doing something wrong, and the reflex reaction is to say "No, I'm not, other people might be wrong, but no me!" Actually I can still be guilty of that myself in certain areas ("No, the way I said that WAS NOT rude!")

I think I've been educated by this thread to understand that hunting can be approached from a cruetly/suffering standpoint, though I still think this is an area where a basic rights stance is helpful too.

I think we all have a tendency to jump on hunters because unlike slaughterhouse workers or vivisectors, hunters are very out in the open about what they do to animals, they take pride in killing and post pictures. A vivisector won't say "I cut open monkey's skulls while they're still alive." They say "I work on brain research." But what the show did was show that hunters as a whole may not be the most unreachable group, they are not immune to compassion. The show also showed the value of respectful, reasoned dialogue over shouting. There's a lesson for me since I've spent a fair amount of time at protests just chanting slogans.

There is a great deal to think about in all of this.

Oh, Gary, I also appreciate your point that when it comes to hunters as compared to vegans, hunters aren't particularly marginalized. It's true that practically every political candidate wants to get some picture of them either holding up dead birds or at least in camoflage holding a gun. Vegans are a very small sliver of the population and thus perhaps less understood.

This was a very informative thread, Neva. Thanks e...

2008-06-23T08:22:00.000-07:00

This was a very informative thread, Neva. Thanks everyone :)

Norcal,I am vegan, but I haven't always been vegan...

2008-06-22T20:18:00.000-07:00

Norcal,

I am vegan, but I haven't always been vegan and didn't grow up on a hippie commune. There often seems to be a misconception about vegans that we are somehow a different composition. To the contrary, I am just a regular guy who grew up in a lower middle class suburban family.

I was just prompted one day to face myself and the trail of suffering and death I had caused, and decided no more. It does not matter that some animals kill other animals, any more than it matters that some humans kill other humans. There are plenty of things that are natural but which we have generally decided are not for ethical people -- rape, murder, genocide, narcissism, theft, racism, sex with minors, to name a few. Others, like greed, most people are still working on, even though most people claim to follow religions that condemn it.

Is killing animals "natural"? I have yet to hear anything to convince me it's a relevant question.

Any way, at least you admit you kill animals because you enjoy it, rather than lying, like most hunters, who pretend (at least in the public eye) to do it for the good of the animals.

I don't have a lot of time to comment here, at lea...

2008-06-22T20:01:00.000-07:00

I don't have a lot of time to comment here, at least not the time the issue deserves.

I don't really think that I can convince an avid hunter via this blog to stop killing animals, so perhaps it seems like I'm not really trying.

My experience with hunters in my own family is that they will do and say anything to defend their hobby, while still trying to cast themselves in the best possible light. As such they won't discuss the effect of hunting on the animals themselves, their families, or the collateral damage of hunting such as programs to exterminate natural predators. When my father went on a guided hunt so that he could kill a bear (you have to pay the company to go kill a bear on their land) the guides said "If you see a wolf, shoot it, because we also hold elk hunts and they kill the elks." My father didn't like this, but he still paid them to go shoot and kill a bear. So when it comes to the important vote, he supports the extermination of natural predators. And incidentally everyone who buys hunting licenses is supporting such programs. My father says he's opposed to it, but everything he does supports it, nor has he written letters or taken other action to stop the extermination of predators. That would mean breaking ranks with the hunting groups...

I don't think that having a personality or any intrinsic value exempts anyone from an untimely death. I could die in a car accident tomorrow. I think that those qualities exempt living beings from a death with malice aforethought at MY hands. I prefer not to extinguish other personalities from this life. An animal I don't kill/eat today might meet an untimely end tomorrow, but that won't be my doing. I can't eliminate suffering in the world, I can't eliminate death. I don't even want to eliminate death, since it is necessary obviously. But I do think as a thinking, feeling, caring human being I can choose not to kill and that given this choice caring, compassionate people should choose not to kill.

But I have argued ad nauseam with hunters through the years and I can't ever get past the "but I enjoy it argument." This is not an ethical, nor even a logical argument, but it is the sole argument that remains on the table at the end of the day.

I have asked hunters how they think the animals feel to be shot. The typical response is either "I don't think it hurts" or "It's over quickly" thus they avoid having to really consider this. And then they always speak of what an incredible experience it is, how much they enjoy it, and so on, as if this the intrinsic value of an activity. Thus they demonstrate a relative inability to really put themselves in the place of the animal.

But this is not to say that hunters as a group are particular monsters beyond the obvious. This can be a selective turning off of empathy. Likewise you might see in people who don't hunt, when informed of the horrors of animal agriculture, won't give up eating burgers and can speak of it only in terms of how much they enjoy eating burgers. So it goes. Most of us can turn down or off the empathy as a situation requires. When I've been involved in rescue situations where I know I can't save every animal involved I often have to shut off some of those feelings to avoid being so overwhelmed that I can't save any. For me, that comes back later, but sometimes, when faced with awful things we never do feel it fully. I think many people are quite good at just choosing not to feel empathy or compassion when it suits them. I think the trick is finding a trigger that can push a closed-off person to feel that empathy. For George in the show I think that the rescue and care of Sugar pushed him to feel empathy and connection he didn't really want to feel. However, it remains to be seen if he will open up his heart further or remain closed off.

Hi norcal,I'll start off with points of disagreeme...

2008-06-22T19:10:00.000-07:00

Hi norcal,

I'll start off with points of disagreement, but end up with a big area in which I think we agree, and a request, which I think is actionable.

It's not hard to find estimates by non-animal rights/animal protection groups that 25 percent of animals shot by hunters do not die right away. Instantly killing an animal who may move any second, from a distance, is not easy.

Even people who shoot themselves in an effort to commit suicide don't always succeed!

Hunters may be pilloried but they're also vaunted and pandered to. I hope one day to live in a society where nearly every candidate for president, and many candidates for senator, representative, and governor tout their vegan-ness and/or their support for veganism.

I clean up the side of a highway once a month. The road is a popular route for hunters. Every year during hunting season, the number of beer bottles (and McDonald's breakfast wrappers) noticeably increases. BTW, it's not yuppie beers like Amstel Light or microbrews; it's Bud.

I don't think I'm any farther from nature than you are. I've spent a lot of time in the woods - in all four seasons, sometimes sleeping in a tent, with no roads nearby. I think the gun separates you from nature.

I also volunteer at a farmed animal sanctuary - I get to know some of the escapees, for the duration of their lives, under conditions in which they never have to fear human violence. I can talk about these animals from personal experience in a way no farmer can.

This isn't my request but try the hunting trip except hunt with a camera. You will be even closer to nature. Trying to get just the right "shot" with a camera is every bit as challenging as trying to get the perfect shot with a gun. Except that your mistakes and learning curve won't cause animals to suffer. Furthermore, you may see the same individual over and over, learning more about him, and you'll let others after you have the pleasure of seeing him. You may find that without the gun you will gain pleasure in seeing the animal simply enjoy his life and live another day.

True, lions kill other animals. But that doesn't make it right for humans. Some animals kill their mates. Does that mean humans can do it? Human behavior is judged moral not because some other species does it but because it abides by our fundamental, near-universal principles of right and wrong: The Golden Rule, mercy, generosity, humility, charity.

But if we were to follow animals' lead, may I suggest that most of our closest relatives are vegan or near-vegan. Many animals are vegetarian - why not emulate them?

Here's my request, and area in which I bet we hugely agree: We both detest factory farms. Most animal-derived food comes from factory farms. Most of the rest comes from farms in which many of the factory farm cruelties are done, albeit on a smaller scale. We probably both think supporting factory farms is wrong - at least morally troubling.

So my request is stop doing it. Do you buy mayonanaise? Bacon? Muffins? Hamburger? Milk? It's a near-certainty that the animals who were killed and/or exploited to produce these foods were:

- genetically forced to be obese or overproduce milk or eggs

- denied a mother or separated from their mothers when very young

- mutilated in one or more ways without painklillers

- starved for one or more days before slaughter

- transported under harsh conditions (some died en route)

- Killed when quite young

- Killed brutally

I suspect you're opposed to most of this. So stop supporting it.

Quote:“Where I differ is my belief that being an i...

2008-06-22T11:16:00.000-07:00

Quote:

“Where I differ is my belief that being an individual of any species doesn't protect you from harm by other animals and entitle you to a quiet death from old age, nor does it eliminate other animals' need for meat and the raw fact that eating meat requires killing. It certainly doesn't protect swimmers from sharks, or hikers from mountain lions. What I'm saying is this is my view on all life; I do not see myself as the dominant entitled species.”

Again Norcal, your assumption is baseless: Human animals aren’t carnivores – by any definition of the word – we are omnivores who are capable of living an optimally healthy life without animal flesh. The shark and mountain lion you cite are natural carnivores that are incapable of living absent of flesh. Therefore they kill and eat the dead out of instinct, not choice.

Further, as I stated before, we are an animal but we have moral capacities that we employ to challenge our base instincts: “might doesn’t make right,” we believe selflessness is important, even if it detracts from our self-interest. We are a moral species, therefore, your argument suggesting otherwise is selective reasoning: Would you continue along this line of argument if it concludes with enslaving orphaned irreversibly mentally handicapped persons for the end of medical research?

We are not lions Norcal. We don't appeal to nature to justify what we do absent a selfish reason to do so – but that doesn’t make it right.

Quote:

“…no rhetorical tactics on either side will sway the other's opinion.”

Appealing to your reason isn’t a “rhetorical tactic" Norcal; it’s done in the hope that you will see through “tradition” and think critically about what you are doing when you kill and eat an animal to satisfy your interest in “entertainment,” “taste,” “sport,” etc. Why should that trump the animals interest in not suffering, or in simply living his life?

Insisting on erroneous claims to justify your actions simply because it's what everyone who likewise justifies their actions are saying, doesn't make it correct.

I don't have time to comment at the moment. Not a...

2008-06-21T19:48:00.000-07:00

I don't have time to comment at the moment. Not approving the comments in order was an oversight. I thought I had approved all the comments, but I somehow didn't hit the button for this one comment.

For the sake of anyone watching this thread, I sho...

2008-06-21T19:29:00.000-07:00

For the sake of anyone watching this thread, I should note that it appears my last comment was approved after Alex's and Jody's. (Not that I'm complaining - nobody can stay at the computer all day. Personally, I've been at the lake.)

Truly, I don't wish to turn this into a debate, because vegans and hunters have firmly made up their minds - no rhetorical tactics on either side will sway the other's opinion.

I do wish to tell you where I'm coming from, though, because I'm guessing the bulk of vegans haven't hunted and it may interest you to know how we think. If you want to view it in purely practical terms, think of all the neat ways you could use my honesty and forthrightness to defend your cause!

I see vegan/PETA/Humane Society blogs every day and don't say a word on them because they strike me as hostile territory. Neva struck me as a thoughtful person, her blog a place worth leaving the comfortable, safe environment of hunting blogs for. Just as on "30 days," where George and Melissa talked, reached some common ground, and remained firm on other positions, I was hoping for that kind of conversation here.

I found it. Thanks again, Neva.

Quote:"For us, your myth is that you live in a wor...

2008-06-21T14:54:00.000-07:00

Quote:

"For us, your myth is that you live in a world removed from nature, where the rule of life is that flesh eats flesh, life sustains life."

Norcal, you're attempting to create a false dichotomy when in fact human animals have at their disposal a third option: through our intellectual capacities we are capable of grasping both dietary realities that avoid these reductionist tendencies ("flesh eats flesh") while also being able to consider the ethical implications of our diet.

It is a patently false to suggest that vegans have created a "myth" whereby we remove ourselves from nature. This is selective reasoning Norcal, for everything human animals have done by way of progress (practical and moral) is an effort to "remove ourselves from nature": rape is no longer acceptable; we create concrete worlds that separate us from "nature"; we bend habitats and the environment to our will; we re-create "nature" in laboratories.

It is nonsensical to appeal to "nature" as a justification for anything. Darwin made special note of this, advocating several times that we ought to avoid evaluating the material world whereby we derive moral value from facts (although you have your facts confused I think). Indeed given your reasoning, the moral principle of "might make's right" follows, which has been proven unsound since the time it was used to justify the property status of Africans.

This said, then, your statement, "I'm a new hunter, so I am far from perfect, though that is my goal. How do I deal with this imperfection, besides beating myself up about it and trying to get better? I remind myself that non-human predators do not kill quickly. Sometimes they begin eating their prey while it's alive; sometimes it takes literally hours for their prey to die" ought to be defended. It's not that just those who oppose hunting would question this, anybody concerned with logical consistency should question this reasoning; as well as those people that are concerned with unnecessary suffering.

My disapproval of hunting is derived from my disapproval of suffering - pain is intrinsically evil and ought to be avoided unless there is a sufficient reason for not doing so. My issue with George (30 Days) is that I don't believe he left with this understanding, although I may be wrong. Hunters - like all animal exploiters - appeal to "nature" when it's convenient, when it's not, they suggest a different reason for their actions.

whoa norcal and hunters,for me the most brutal act...

2008-06-21T14:40:00.000-07:00

whoa norcal and hunters,

for me the most brutal act of hunting is inflicted upon those left behind. this issue, sadly, is almost completely left out of the hunting debate. i was driving a country road during the hell of deer murdering season in Wisconsin and saw a group of hunters next to a murdered deer. as i drove on, and i wasn't driving abnormally slow, i could not believe what i saw next. I can still remember my thudding heart. next to me, keeping pace with the car, a deer running full out, which such terror and speed, almost stretched out straight at times in her gait, to gain the most ground, consumed by a terror words cannot describe. it was one of the most horrible and heartbreaking things i've ever seen. I broke into tears which I could not stop for many miles. anyone witnessing it, who had preserved any part of their heart would have been profoundly changed. the one left behind. I also witnessed, once while sitting quietly in a very wild place, a mother deer and two fawns (I imagined it was a boy and a girl), grazing peacefully - one of the fawns lifted his head to walk over to his brother or sister and gently, comfortingly nuzzled the neck of his sibling and then rested his head against her withers for long moments. it was of the most beautiful things I’ve witnessed, in the graced presence of pure love. animals bond with each other, and quite possibly love with a purity more intense than most humans are capable of. the delusion that there is any justification for shooting an innocent, defenseless animal or that there is some kind of conquest, or sport in this act is mind-boggling to me.

No matter the circumstances, morally there is no justification ever, for one to believe that they are more worthy of life than another innocent creature, to put one’s own life above another innocent, to harm or take the life of another innocent for personal gain or for a bite of bloodied, decomposing corpse. Ever. Thou shalt not kill is very simple to understand and makes total sense to me.

i am sorry but i don't have the time to edit this post as I’d like or to coddle and try not to offend, to win a hunter over with a civil respectful dialogue. i can only say, please wake up to who you truly are, who you were created to be. stop your insane cruelty. and thank you for any act of kindness to an innocent you show. it is in these acts of kindness to the innocent, that we find our worth and salvation. there is so much more but i am crazy busy without time for now.

Thanks, Neva. It's such a relief to have a civil d...

2008-06-21T13:57:00.000-07:00

Thanks, Neva. It's such a relief to have a civil discussion!

I certainly can't deny your experience with hunters who drink (or with the ones who've left abusive comments). That's not my crowd at all - and I'm sure that's no accident.

And I agree that hunting isn't sustainable for everyone. We've gone way past that with a population this huge. At best, I'd like to see sustainable agriculture supporting those who wish to continue eating meat, because CAFOs are revolting. And it wouldn't be a bad idea for people to cut down on meat consumption (which interestingly enough is what I did once I started hunting).

And I agree with you about seeing animals as individuals. That's the biggest problem I had with Snedeker on that show - he went into it viewing them as a servant class, which I understand is how Western Civilization opted to treat animals to rationalize their domestication for food. (Also a handy tactic for women and slaves.)

Where I differ is my belief that being an individual of any species doesn't protect you from harm by other animals and entitle you to a quiet death from old age, nor does it eliminate other animals' need for meat and the raw fact that eating meat requires killing. It certainly doesn't protect swimmers from sharks, or hikers from mountain lions. What I'm saying is, this is my view on all life; I do not see myself as the dominant entitled species.

That said, while I would love it if the whole world understood and accepted hunting, it is not my wish to (or even my belief that I can) change your opinion. I hope only that I've given you a little insight into my world view, just as you have given me insight - quite eloquently - into yours.

Thank you so much for the discussion!

Continued comment:I have some difficulty with the ...

2008-06-21T13:31:00.000-07:00

Continued comment:

I have some difficulty with the "you can't understand until you do it" concept. I probably can't. On the other hand, you can't understand what it's like to be vegan. People who have never joined a cult might never understand the incredible feeling of inter-connectedness that cult members experience...

I'm getting off topic, sorry.

Whether or not I can understand the rush that hunters get from hunting is largely irrelevant to the overall morality of hunting or whether it's a good idea.

I brought up in my post two other issues I had with hunting. The first being that it's unsustainable given the size of our human population--thus leaving veganism as the only humane lifestyle that is viable for widespread adoption. The second objection is that human hunting, unlike animal predation, has a negative effect on the animal gene pool and weakens prey animal populations over time. I have a third objection as well, the further destruction of natural ecosystems as areas that make money from human hunting attempt to exterminate all natural predators in order to artificially inflate prey animal populations for human hunters.

I also assume from your statements here that you are completely opposed to canned hunts and hunting of endangered species so that I probably don't even need to address those two popular pastimes.

I wonder at the applying of animal standards here too. If we forgive ourselves the rough kills, the ones that are agonizing or go on for long periods of time by saying that some predatory animals likewise don't alway kill cleanly, then how do we defend the fact that we hunt with modernized weapons. If we are like the predatory animals, shouldn't we chase down deer and tear them limb to limb with our teeth and nails. Oh wait, we can't. So we admit that we are apart from other animals, that we use tools, that only through weapons do we have the ability to hunt, but we excuse avoidable cruelty by saying animals can be cruel?

I must admit that I just don't get the concept of worshiping animals and killing them. But then again I've had similar disagreements with my father when he talks about how beautiful the animals he kills are. When I see a beautiful living creature my thought process doesn't go "How beautiful, let me wipe him off the face of the planet." I would prefer beauty to continue, unharmed by me. Likewise when I feel reverence for something, an animal, a beautiful area, a waterfall, etc, I don't simultaneously want to destroy the very thing I feel reverence for.

But perhaps the heart of the problem is that I actually do view animals as individuals. And maybe my rescue experience plays into this too, since if you save the lives of enough animals you see the huge variance in personality, intelligence, temperament, etc, even within a single species. So when I view each animal as an individual, then if I kill that animal, then I extinguish that individual, which cannot be undone once done. I did go fishing quite a bit as a child and I have actually killed animals myself, and that was not a happy experience for me, nor something I long to repeat.

I can't say that there aren't some vegans out there who are out of touch with nature. I don't think I am. I don't think my husband or my friends are. Many vegans are involved in wildlife rehabbing, some live way out in wooded, wild areas. My husband and I love to hike and I grew up very close to nature. But I am troubled by what is happening to our environment and that worry is what initially lead me to veganism actually (my thoughts on animals changed considerably after I stopped eating them). I think most vegans would consider themselves very realistic. They recognize they don't live in a perfect world and never can, but they would like to eliminate some of the worst suffering in the world and see veganism as a path toward that goal. We also acknowlege reality as we experience that animals are individuals, more intelligent and more emotional than most of us ever imagined, while many people hide behind a myth that they only eat animals who are stupid and unfeeling. So our veganism isn't the result of reading too many fairy tales, but ultimately seeing far too many terrible things and drawing our line in the sand and saying we won't contribute any more to the exploitation and suffering of non-human animals.

Thanks for your input Norcal Cazadora, I'm actuall...

2008-06-21T13:11:00.000-07:00

Thanks for your input Norcal Cazadora, I'm actually happy for polite and respectful disagreements here. I just previously had some issues centering around abusive and obscene comments.

I don't necessarily think that all hunters hunt drunk, but from my own personal experience drinking is a huge part of hunting culture overall. Perhaps not in your case, I don't know.

Growing up practically every adult male I knew and a good number of the male kids hunted. Had I asked the adult men if they hunted drunk I'm sure every last one of them would have said that they never hunted drunk. However, I also never observed hunters going out unless they had already consumed a couple drinks and were hauling along a cooler of beer. I'm not sure what the cut off is, but I tend to think some things don't mix well with alcohol, for example motor vehicles and firearms.

I blogged here previously about my experience as a child when a group of hunters tried to chase down my friend and I and we barely escaped. I think there's an additional pathology there to try to rape and perhaps even murder little girls, but they were drinking, they scattered liquor bottles all around the pond where they had been hunting.

Every year there are reports of hunters accidentally shooting people, often their own family members or hunting buddies. Farmed animals are often mistakenly shot by hunters. My brother, who is pro-hunting incidentally, often makes jokes about how every hunting seasons farmers either try to keep their cows in or else spray paint them with bright orange paint and even so some of the painted cows are shot accidentally. Most of these accidents are preceded by drinking.

So maybe you and your friends never consume alcohol while hunting, but I don't think anyone can deny that alcohol is a large part of traditional hunting culture.

I'll continue in another comment, this one is getting long.

Alex, yes, I actually read your post first, and I ...

2008-06-21T13:03:00.000-07:00

Alex, yes, I actually read your post first, and I appreciate your thoughts.

I think there is a difficulty in concentrating just on the argument that not every kill is clean as opposition on hunting. The first time I ever shot a shot gun, at age nine, I powdered the clay pigeon (these are flung up in the air by a a machine so they are a moving target--the men gave me the gun as a lark, I had not even done stationary practice with a shot gun before). That is, first shot ever with a long gun I beat the adult practiced shooters. It's not being a child vs. being an adult. Even the most experienced hunter in the world will sometimes miscalculate. Hey, even trained snipers miss. There is no way to guarantee a perfect shot--there's wind, there's atmosphere, there are other influences, and hunters are shooting at a living being who can decide to change her course or turn around or jump or whatever with no real notice. Plus some people are just bad shots, no matter how much they practice, for reasons of depth perception or shaky hands or whatever.

I think it is about taste, wanting to eat animals, but it's about more than that. A hunter kills a living animal and in that way completely dominates a being that is larger and more powerful than himself. Hunters take pictures and keep trophies. They like getting congratulations from others for being so powerful. In the pictures hunters take with their kills you can plainly see the dominance present--they often put the animals in humiliating poses or stand with a foot on top of them. Subtext: "I own you, I killed you." People who don't feel powerful in many other areas of their lives may become addicted to these feelings of power and will be totally unwilling to give it up. This is also why many hunters, my father included, put down the guns and take up bow and arrow--because it "proves" more to hunt with a primitive weapon, it proves how good, how strong, how tough they are. But bow and arrow of course increases the suffering of the animals.

Neva Vegan, I really appreciate your thoughtful co...

2008-06-21T09:06:00.000-07:00

Neva Vegan, I really appreciate your thoughtful commentary. I'm a hunter, so I disagree with some of it, particularly the line about hunting drunk - I know some people do drink before they hunt, but the stereotype is far bigger than the reality (as most stereotypes are).

But you seem like a person who I'd love to have a conversation with. Though I would not make the choice you've made, I thoroughly respect you for acting on your beliefs, which is more than most people do. I came to hunting late in life, so I've had to think about it a lot, and I too am acting on my strongly held beliefs.

I was really struck by a couple of things in your post. First, the notion about vegans being mocked and ridiculed. Just like vegans, hunters are a small minority who are subjected to ridicule, jokes and stereotypes. In that sense, we're in the same boat. I think as a group, both vegans and hunters are probably far different than the stereotypes and jokes suggest. And like you, I felt this show didn't partake in the gratuitous bashing against my group - the hunters.

The second thing was the part about hunters creating an idealized myth that allows us to do what we do. That struck me, because that is, of course, how we feel about vegans. For us, your myth is that you live in a world removed from nature, where the rule of life is that flesh eats flesh, life sustains life. It's fascinating that we see each other this way.

In reality, I think the people most removed from the real world are the ones who eat and consume without a thought to where their food comes from - they know animals suffer in CAFOs, but they choose to avoid thinking about it, and keep buying their shrink-wrapped roasts.

Couple other things: You're right about perfect killing shots. That is our goal, and we have weapons that make it possible, but there are plenty of variables, and you correctly identified inexperience as one of them. I'm a new hunter, so I am far from perfect, though that is my goal. How do I deal with this imperfection, besides beating myself up about it and trying to get better? I remind myself that non-human predators do not kill quickly. Sometimes they begin eating their prey while it's alive; sometimes it takes literally hours for their prey to die. I understand, though, that this is not a sufficient answer for people who oppose hunting.

There are many other things I'd like to explain about the world I live in, such as how hunters can pretty much worship the animals they hunt, as well as all other creatures. (You should see me with my cat - she is my beloved familiar). But the truth is, there are some things you just don't understand until you actually go hunting. Even though I grew up in a family that raised animals for food, hunting has been an astonishing revelation for me. But I would never suggest that you pick up a gun and go hunting in the interest of understanding because that would be reprehensible to you.

Guess I've said enough for now. Even if you don't care to have a conversation with me, thanks very much for your thoughtful post. It has helped deepen my understanding of where you're coming from.

Good post. I did however take great issue with Mr....

2008-06-21T08:04:00.000-07:00

Good post. I did however take great issue with Mr. Spurlock's introduction. So we disagree there.

The bulk of your post is accurate I think. In regards to George's hunting, I thought it was great when Mrs. Karpel had that discussion with him about how a child for example, couldn't possibly kill an animal painlessly with a single shot.

George, explicitly acknowledging that suffering ought to be avoided, had to play some verbal gymnastics to avoid the inconsistency. I thought that the conversation was further interesting because Mrs. Karpel dissects his interest in hunting: George ends with "You can't eat a picture." It's all about taste, nothing more - I hope the viewer caught onto that.