on August 8, 2009 7:45 PM
Idiocy in the New York Times.
This isn't something new either. I was lucky enough to be raised in a household that hunted and from a very early age I was taught to respect the animal, and be thankful for what I had received.
Humane and ethical hunting is no way the same as what Vick did. To be frank, the comparison is offensive.
I also want to point out that no one is shooting anything out of the skies with rifles. That is an ignorant statement.
It's funny. I just took a Hunter Education class this weekend with Hsoi, and the class really stressed hunting ethics, and conservation.For many, the nonnegotiable issue in the Vick case is cruelty to animals. But let's climb off our high horses. We know many fans hunt. They track down innocent animals, blast them with shotguns, shoot them out of the sky with rifles -- for sport. Some take off animals' heads and mount them as trophies.
Perfectly legal.
This isn't something new either. I was lucky enough to be raised in a household that hunted and from a very early age I was taught to respect the animal, and be thankful for what I had received.
Humane and ethical hunting is no way the same as what Vick did. To be frank, the comparison is offensive.
I also want to point out that no one is shooting anything out of the skies with rifles. That is an ignorant statement.
Unless William Rhoden (article author) is a vegan, then he's got no place to talk. He may well be... with a comment like "perfectly legal" it makes it sound like he'd love to outlaw the consumption of meat and all animal-based products.
When I look back at my ignorant days (i.e. pre-gunny), I can understand how someone could look at hunting like Mr. Rhoden does. But I can do that because I know I was ignorant???I didn't understand hunting. I've gained knowledge, now I understand it. I've shed my ignorance. I may still not agree with all things within the world of hunting, but that goes back to a matter of ethics.
In the end, Mr. Rhoden's comments (including his "sky with rifles" comment) serve well to demonstate his ignorance of the topic.