One anti hunter keeps replying to my comments at the Huffington Post. He has also said that I have "embarrassed myself".
Let's have a look at his most recent comment, and my response.
You say/ask: "So your stats agree that it takes skill to shoot a deer. Even with a rifle."
Here's a video showing typical "hunting" skills, not to mention the
praiseworthy integrity of the hunters. Now you tell me how much skill
was involved in this hunt (more like loafing and waiting for something
to happen)? By the way, a deer was wounded and they never found it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QbTkgmfxgI
How did you embarrass yourself? I think it is self-explanatory:
You said: Having a picture of an animal rather than, say, a set of
antlers is about the same as having a picture of a house and actually
owning a house. It is the same as winning a car race on a video game and
winning that race in real life. There is hardly any comparison.
I have several problems with your video.
1. what evidence do you have that they hit the deer?
2. did you miss this comment:
"it was a staged miss..all for the video..did not have any more
tags..so we missed on purpose to scare the deer out of the field"
3. they seem like idiots, if I find a video of the people from peta throwing blood on people or show you this (http://www.chrisdiclerico.com/wp/wp-content/peta_comicbook.gif) does that mean all anti hunters are awful jerks?
4. How did you come to the conclusion that the video you linked is "typical"?
5. you've given me a link to a video, I watched it. This comment is in
response to a tv personality. You have made all sorts of accusations
about him and his show. Have you watched one minute of it?
This is a link to a video of his show. If you watch it you will learn
something about an animal, you will see him make good use of an animal,
and you will not see him mistreat that animal. (Although you will
probably disagree with that last point.)
If it is self explanatory then why do I still not understand why you
think that I have embarrassed myself? (Would you care to compare IQs or
some other measure of intelligence?)
You suggested that a picture could take the place of a set of
Your quote (as a reminder):
"Use most of your great hunting skills and not harm an animal - yet earn
a beautiful trophy to show-off to your friends. Wildlife photography."
I attempted, perhaps poorly, to point out that a picture of something cannot take the place of the item in the picture.
You cannot, for example, give a picture of aspirin to someone with a
headache, and expect that picture to do the same job as the actual
In the same way a picture of an animal in no way compares to actually hunting that animal.