Ops-Normal.org

Not to pick on any particular post but I'll use Joyrides comment as an example of an underlying feeling I get from many of the anti hunting community here:-

Regrettably some animals do it, but humans should know better by now.

What, exactly, is "regrettable" about killing without purpose? It's nature. It's how animals developed and, like it or not and despite our feelings of superiority, we are still simply animals. We still maintain many of the basic instincts that are common throughout the animal world yet, for some inexplicable reason much of our species like to think they are somehow superior when we really aren't. I placed a whole lot more trust in my dogs than I would a large part of the human race because humans are far from the "superior" entities many like to think we are. In fact, we are, without doubt, the cruelest, nastiest beast on the planet. Shooting a deer or an elephant is far from the worst of our "crimes".

Pinky

Joy ride, that is exactly how I feel, although much better expressed than I could have done.

I am sorry that this thread has, on occasion, descended into nastiness. 500N, you should be ashamed of yourself. You have had nothing to contribute, because your stated position is that you will not explain why you like to kill, and yet you repeatedly attack others who, like me, are merely trying to understand something that seems, to us, incapable of rational explanation.

And that, I suggest, should be the end of this discussion. I can see nothing more to be gained by it continuing, and fear more unpleasantness if it does.

I promise to ask a less provocative question next time.

Good night folks.

Bull

I wasn't the one who calls pieces of hunters anatomy to belittle hunters.
Suggest people don't throw stones in glass houses if they ge offended.
I don't have boundaries, verbally or physically.

I kill for every reason mentioned so far. Happy now ?

Foxes, cats abd Wild Dogs / Dingos are about the only things I kill on sight for no other reason
that they are vermin and need to be killled.

Cats?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Someone is trippin' today. Illegal high?

And this time it ain't me!!!!!

re merely trying to understand something that seems, to us, incapable of rational explanation.

Of course it can, what level do you want it, basic sociology and psychology 101, chemistry, quantum physics, all can explain it depending how deep you want to get.

. There are a couple of kinds of people who pose these sorts of question, ones trying to stir, and others who have very closed minds, hence don't get it and never will. hence taking the p!ss.

Why do people display trophys or have fast cars, mag wheels or fancy this or different that, basically the person identifys with that particular trait and their social group that they care about does to. the same as every other reason animals do things.

I am astounded to see that all the anti-hunting proponents here have requested questions be answered but have summarily avoided answering why the professorial elites at the University of Michigan can cause a problem by effectively manipulating the environment to suit them and when nature takes advantage of it they feel it is alright to simply kill for no other reason than to save a few garden plants.

Or would the answer be a little too revealing?

500N wrote:

Airborne Aircrew wrote:The problem with this whole debate is that people have forgotten what animals are...

I know that on survival exercises I did there were people, friends, that were unable to associate the chicken breast they purchased wrapped in polystyrene and cling film with the chuks they were given to kill, butcher and eat.

Same on my selection course.

They dropped a box of live chickens (3 of them) and a bag of veggies and said we had 25 minutes to cook a meal.
90% of them stood around wondering what to do with the chickens and then were horrified when I grabbed a chook
and ripped the heads off with my bare hands (only one other person was game enough).

I suppose that is where the name "Chicken Killers" came from

During your selection course they dropped a box of live chickens for you all to eat? Pussies. Did they deliver McDonalds as well?

Try going out into the field with no food and no live chicken drops and be expected to live off whatever you can find.

6050 wrote:

espite all I have read here I am still none the wiser as to why people enjoy killing animals simply for the sake of killing animals.

Not sure what your after, maybe comprehension is a problem, its been stated various ways. Try this, Its nature, some people get a boner over different things, whats hard to understand about that?

Some men get boners from little boys. Or little girls. Which, to them anyway, is perfectly "normal". So what's hard to understand about that?

airborne wrote:

What, exactly, is "regrettable" about killing without purpose? It's nature.

I'm sure the clown who opened fire in the movie theater in Colorado thought similarly. Killing without purpose is not "nature" and you, of all people airborne, should certainly know better than that.

RG:

Try going out into the field with no food and no live chicken drops and be expected to live off whatever you can find.

Yep I know you guys were tougher than us aircrew, well some of you. Actually I was at university with the guy who was your top 'Rock'. Got shot in London stopping a robber if you remember the incident.

Not getting into this argument any more. We are closer to reality than most so drift thread again. In the snow, survival exercise, with nothing but flying suit and parachute. A chart which was cut off showing nothing than moors. One though what were the DS hiding from us. After dark I suggested to my flight that we wandered off the map for look-see. one member of the team said it wasn't cricket. He stayed under his makeshift tent thingy, we went walkabout. An hour later we found a great pub and restaurant. We had no money of course but we had a RN pilot on the team. The Landlord turned out to be ex Fleet Air Arm. No problem guys just send me the money. Steak chips and a few pints later his delectable daughter drove us back to survival camp with loads of sandwiches for the next few days in his Land Rover. Daughter turned down my gentlemanly offer, I am sure only due to slightly below par accom. Wimp who stayed behind hoovered the sarnies and made AVM. Must be a lesson there.

RGB:

During your selection course they dropped a box of live chickens for you all to eat? Pussies. Did they deliver McDonalds as well?

Try going out into the field with no food and no live chicken drops and be expected to live off whatever you can find.

These were Basic Survival courses... They were designed for those who had little knowledge of the countryside and for those who may not yet associate that neatly wrapped cuts of meat in their supermarket with the feathered thing sat clucking in front of them. The advanced courses lacked the meat and two veg... Oh, and we didn't have any girlies on our courses...

Killing without purpose is not "nature" and you, of all people airborne, should certainly know better than that.

Allow me to rephrase the "without purpose" bit because when that cat plays with the mouse there is "purpose", it's practice and/or learning. However, outside that there is no discernible reason for the death of the mouse. The cat does not concern itself with the death of the mouse, in fact I'm quite sure that the cat has no concept of life and death and certainly doesn't concern itself with the feelings of the rest of the population of mice. The dickhead you refer to is quite a different kettle of fish but the deaths of his victims did serve a purpose - for him. Dickhead wanted to give some strange meaning to his pathetic little life and however much you might dismiss it his killings served a purpose. You'll notice that he appears not to concern himself with the death of his victims and also seems to not to concern himself with the feelings of the rest of the population. Just like the cat and therefore quite "natural".

Let's call it "killing without a significant, tangible benefit to the killer". Is that better?

Airborne Aircrew wrote:RGB:

Let's call it "killing without a significant, tangible benefit to the killer". Is that better?

That's better, yes.

As for the live chicken drop: that was addressed to the Aussie aka, 500N and not you, sir!

PS: there are still no females in the 75th Ranger Regiment. Zero. Null. None.

RGB:

PS: there are still no females in the 75th Ranger Regiment. Zero. Null. None.

True, as long as we ignore that picture of you in your tutu...

6050 wrote:

re merely trying to understand something that seems, to us, incapable of rational explanation.

Of course it can, what level do you want it, basic sociology and psychology 101, chemistry, quantum physics, all can explain it depending how deep you want to get.
. There are a couple of kinds of people who pose these sorts of question, ones trying to stir, and others who have very closed minds, hence don't get it and never will. hence taking the p!ss.

Why do people display trophys or have fast cars, mag wheels or fancy this or different that, basically the person identifys with that particular trait and their social group that they care about does to. the same as every other reason animals do things.

Well said.

I consider myself to be an ethical hunter. I do not know where my ideas put me in the general mass of hunters so I can only speak for myself.

First, there is hunting and hunting. If I go duck hunting with a group of friends it is more to enjoy the company than to hunt, we get endless hilarity in remembering the time Jim took a step in the water and moved from water one foot deep into a four foot deep hole. It took us an hour to dry him out in a temperature of goodness knows how many degrees below freezing. Great times but I can't remember whether we actually shot any ducks. However, if I hunt larger game I go alone much to the consternation of the wife. There are things about being alone in the forest hunting that are not easy to share.

Second, serious hunting does not necessarily include killing. The reward is in the hunt, in outwitting a cunning animal to the point where you could have killed it. The final result could be capture I suppose or it could merely be a photograph. The decision of life or death occurs at the final moment of the hunt and it is not, for me at least, the purpose of the hunt. I have hunted in areas where I knew full-well that I could not recover the meat if I killed an animal so I took the opportunity to fire into the ground near the animal to show I had won rather than kill it. Sort of like saying checkmate and au revoir.

Third, hunts differ. I happen to be on a list of hunters that the State uses to cull excess deer and elk. On a State hunt I am given a special tag and a description of the area I am to hunt and the animal I am supposed to kill. Sometimes you succeed sometimes you fail. On the other hand I might make a personal hunt using a public tag I purchased at a sporting goods store. On this hunt I have a choice whether to kill or not. The point is that, apart from the tag, both hunts proceed identically, there is no difference between the two in the way the hunt is carried out, the only difference is the result. In one case I can choose not to kill, in the other I am supposed to kill - bit like being in the military really.

.

Boing

Pretty much the same.

I have let animals go after a stalk.

I have let caught animals go and given them a hurry along with the gun so they know humans are
not safe to be around.

Cats?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Someone is trippin' today. Illegal high?

And this time it ain't me!!!!!

Flame Lily FX; The reference here would have been to feral cats which are a substantial problem in parts of Australia.

I once saw a feral cat way out in the desert area near Cordillo Downs Station. (Far SW Queensland)

One of literally millions in Australia that eat a million native fauna a day.

Nothing quite like seeing a wild cat turning to red mist.

500N wrote:One of literally millions in Australia that eat a million native fauna a day.

Nothing quite like seeing a wild cat turning to red mist.

I go back to my youth... Bill and Joe, the Homewood twins... Their dad had a few acres down in Radley near Abingdon. They had an old Beagle or some other such hound and an bunch of feral cats... The dad caused the cat problem by introducing them to keep down the vermin. Now the cats were vermin. Scabby, nasty looking things that were in more pain than living a happy life. We'd go up into Bill's bedroom and open the window. The dog would run, as best it could, to right under the window, lay down and take a nap. We'd sit here waiting for a target and when one appeared we'd shoot. As soon as the rifle went off the dog would bay like a true hunter and run off to find the "prey". He was amazing. If we hit he always found it and brought it back to under the window. If we missed he'd come back looking dejected and somewhat blameful...

Damn, they were good times..

I learned a lot... and the feral cats were far better off where we sent them than the diseased life they were living... when we "cleaned up" the sores and general malnourishment was not a pretty sight... We did a lot of cats a lot of favours... While some may disagree, those that would have probably never seen really manky cats...