More from the Anti-Hunter

Rumzee

"Would you care to compare IQs or some other measure of intelligence?"

--- Ha - no, I might lose that competition.

"You suggested that a picture could take the place of a set of antlers."

--- However I look at it, a great picture would be better than a deer head with those dead glass eyes or a pair of sad antlers on the wall. A great photograph of a deer is beautiful. The photo can be enlarged, matted and framed. All that natural beauty, yet the deer was not killed.

A beautiful photograph is more than a captured image. Great photographs are often considered works of art.

To get a really great photograph of a deer in its habitat, you have to be a skilled outdoorsman. Maybe even better than a good traditional hunter. Would it be more difficult to work yourself into a position to get a good clear photo of a deer than to get a rifle shot off at the deer?

My comment about you embarrassing yourself came after your talking about a photo of a house and owning a house, etc. - comparing that to a photo of a deer and deer antlers. It sounded goofy to me.

I found deer antlers in the woods a few times. I brought them home and put them out to be seen. 

Me:

I had planned on replying with a list of the arguments that we've used. After your reasoned last response, I'll pass on that.

"A beautiful photograph is more than a captured image. Great photographs are often considered works of art."

I don't disagree, but here's another analogy: having a picture of a Ferrari in no way compares to having the actual Ferrari.

"To get a really great photograph of a deer in its habitat, you have to be a skilled outdoorsman. Maybe even better than a good traditional hunter. Would it be more difficult to work yourself into a position to get a good clear photo of a deer than to get a rifle shot off at the deer?"

To get a picture of a deer would be much much easier than shooting one. Even if we don't include trail camera pictures, a camera is much smaller than a bow or rifle, which means that you can move one into position for a "shot" without scaring the deer, much more easily than you could with a bow or rifle. Although the problem is that most deer come out at dawn and dusk (they're crepuscular) and you'd need to take the picture without a flash.

Someday, I wouldn't mind having a dog trained for shed hunting.

What I had planned on sending:

If I may sum up the arguments that we've used so far:

Compared to the average anti-hunter an average hunter:

-spends more time, money, and effort improving land for wildlife
-secures more land for use by wildlife
-plants more trees
-grows more wildlife food
-donates more to food pantries
-understands wildlife behaivor better
-understands wildlife anatomy better
-understands biology better
-understands and appreciates life and death better

On the other hand, your arguments against hunting have been:

-its wrong to kill [some] living things
-people don't need to kill [some] living things to survive anymore (and its totally okay for other omnivores to kill in order to survive)

By the way, (and I realize that you may call this question off topic, but I'd like to see if your position on another issue is logically consistent with your opinion on this issue) are you "pro-choice"?

***

These next few lines were not included in my comment.  But I'd like to see if his opinions are logically consistent across two issues.  Although, I doubt that he'll tell us.

in favor of hunting + in favor of abortion = makes logical sense

in favor of hunting + opposed to abortion = values human life above animals

opposed to hunting + opposed to abortion = makes logical sense

opposed to hunting + in favor of abortion = values animal life above human life