Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes I hang their heads on the wall, but their meat is also in the freezer.
View Quote
Big game trophy animals rarely result in meat that is edible. Nothing like an old buck to chow down and down and down on.
I enjoy the challenge of the hunt whether I'm successful or not. Killing the animal is the closing of the deal on a successful hunt.
View Quote
A successful hunt results in a kill. You enjoy hunting. So unless there is a kill, the hunt would not be enjoyable.
I don't hunt because I enjoy killing
View Quote
Are you sure?
TT [coffee]
View Quote
TT--the meat from "trophy animals" is every bit as palateable as any other. I know because I've actually killed several "trophies."
View Quote
I lived for the first 15 years of my life eating almost solely wild game. Including "trophy" big game. I speak from extensive personal experience.
A hunt does NOT have to result in a kill to be "successful." Your insinuation that there is some wanton bloodlust in us for killing is repulsive and just plain foolish.
View Quote
I don't insinuate. I do believe there is some enjoyment that is derived from the hunt AND from the kill. I've seen it, experienced, lived it. I do NOT speak from an inexperienced or theorectical point of view.
Killing is a part of hunting, but it is not the only part, or even the most important part these days.
View Quote
I agree with your statement that the kill is not the only part. Enjoyment of the wilderness, comraderie among hunters, the tracking, etc are all a part that I can understand how one enjoys. I did too. The kill part is what I don't understand when one derives pleasure from it.
Also, in your prior post, you refer to your distaste for killing "living beings." It is incorrect to call animals "beings." Humans are beings, animals are animals.
View Quote
By definition you are incorrect. Humans are animals and animals are beings.
You are free to express your opinions,
but you need to expect to be flamed when much of what you post is erroneous. And, yes, [b]I am sure[/b].
View Quote
How can an opinion based on personal experience be erroneous? That's why it's called an opinion. I think you need a dictionary.
[url=www.websters.com]Dictionary[/url]
Perhaps it would have been slightly more appropriate to say "when what you post is not the opinion of the majority".
TT
Edited to add: What I expect (and invariably this doesn't happen often), when I present an opposing or controversial view, is a response that is informative. An explanation of why someone believes otherwise. I expect the person posting to present an "argument" as why my opinion is incorrect. It's called a discussion. An exchange of ideas. I learn from exchanges that are informative and on occassion my opinion changes because of the views expressed by another.