BF2S Forums Hunting

Homeschtar wrote:

-=1stInF.|Slappey wrote:

dshak wrote:

I think it would be a LOT more interesting if perhaps we could equip the deer with rocket propelled grenades, or at the very least teach them to lay claymores.

I'm one of those people who supports hunting only if it is a means of feeding oneself. Killing something, ANYTHING, for sport is just about the worst action another living thing can take in my opinion. I also find the above post to be unbelievable... you just don't know nature until you've shot and killed it. give me a friggin break. please.

I especially liked the part about nature undisturbed... that is except for the guy with the 22 trying to find things to murder.

Now if you will excuse me I'm off to meet with the other hippies...

All too often non-hunters equate hunting with killing.  Many believe to be a successful hunter that you must kill. Unfortunately, they do not realize that hunting is not about killing. What confuses the issue is the fact that nearly all successful hunters spend 99% of their time a field admiring wildlife and the outdoors in general.

Just wonderin here, have you ever sat in the wood for 4-5 hours, all the while remaining perfectly still? If not, then you won't understand what i am talking about(then again, if you have done that, you probably wouldn't have misunderstood my post). As i said in my other post, it's not the shooting that makes hunting so addicting, it's the experience. Seeing nature the way it truly is, when man isn't around. Virtually all of the hunters time is spent observing their quarry's habits, movements and learning about the animals environment. In other words a nature walk with a goal. Maybe you should re-read my last post, but this time, with an open mind. You say you don't mind hunting if it's to feed(which i fully agree with), but then you call it murder. When anyother animal kills for food, is that also concidered murder?

And just because you don't always agree with hunting doesn't make you a hippie, it makes you a lover of wildlife. Just like most of us who hunt.

The reason people equate hunting with killing is because the definition fo hunting is to "pursue and then kill". I also think that hunting is fine if you're doing it for the food, but I don't really think you can call it "sport" until you give the deer the same weapons you have. I understand what you mean about the experiencing nature aspect of it, but ultimately the goal of hunting is killing animals. If that weren't the goal, they wouldn't call it hunting, they'd call it "Nature experiencing". That's my position. I don't like hate everyone that hunts, but I don't consider it a sport or a respectable activity.

Last edited by -=1stInF.|Slappey (2005-11-27 22:12:48)

-=1stInF.|Slappey wrote:

I agree, it's NOT a sport. Killing something is never a sport, never has been, and never will be. And after killing a deer, i am always a lil sad.  However, i do it because:

1. It's an extremely cheap source for a LOT of lean, low fat meat(usually around 100 lbs of deer meat per trip).

2. I love the outdoors(and i spend as much time out there as possible)

3. I think there is something to be said about not always having to rely on the supermarket to get your food. Sort of an independence(archaic, as another poster said).

If you disagree with me, that's fine, i am not here to change anybody's mind, nor will i try.

AnarkyXtra wrote:

I don't have a problem with hunting as long as:

a) In the case of edible game, what you kill you eat (seems a bit of a waste otherwise!) rather than just killing for no reason;
b) What you're hunting isn't endangered.

Homeschtar wrote:

That's my position. I don't like hate everyone that hunts, but I don't consider it a sport or a respectable activity.

JOJOBA wrote:

ive got a couple things to comment on. 

some one said, it wouldnt be sport unless you give the animal you're killing the same weapon as you... i would like to follow that up with a HAHAHA and are you kidding?? of course, ill give a deer a shotgun, or even a bazooka, then will it be fair?   

and another person said something about shooting a deer with a 22??   all a 22 will do is bounce off of the deer.  it might puncture a little bit and it might die from having a small hole in its body, but thats basically it.  those bullets are less than half an inch long, and less than a quarter of an inch in diameter.  now if you had a .223 caliber M-16, then you might be able to kill, same diameter slightly longer bullet, but way more poweder behind that thing, but rifles are illegal to hunt with in some stats.   those are my comments, and i apologize if i offended anyone, really.

Mackaronen wrote:

JOJOBA wrote:

ive got a couple things to comment on. 

some one said, it wouldnt be sport unless you give the animal you're killing the same weapon as you... i would like to follow that up with a HAHAHA and are you kidding?? of course, ill give a deer a shotgun, or even a bazooka, then will it be fair?   

and another person said something about shooting a deer with a 22??   all a 22 will do is bounce off of the deer.  it might puncture a little bit and it might die from having a small hole in its body, but thats basically it.  those bullets are less than half an inch long, and less than a quarter of an inch in diameter.  now if you had a .223 caliber M-16, then you might be able to kill, same diameter slightly longer bullet, but way more poweder behind that thing, but rifles are illegal to hunt with in some stats.   those are my comments, and i apologize if i offended anyone, really.

I got a .222R rifle and it´s just a bit weaker than .223 (shorter cartridge same diameter) and it is perfect for roe deer hunting. But it is illegal to use at regular deer. You could easy kill a Swedish moose with it but it is illegal.