# Self Sufficiency/Living off the Land or Off the Grid > Hunting & Trapping >  How hard would it be for you?

## RangerXanatos

The recent bear thread got me to wondering:  How hard would it be for you to kill an animal for food and tools, if you haven't before?  

I have never hunted and really don't want to.  I don't want to take an animal's life, but I do want to know the process of it in case I had to.  Shot placement, gutting, skinning, quartering, bone and tendon usage, etc. to make the most of the kill.  So for those of you who have never hunted, how do you think you would do on your first time? For those of you who have hunted, pretend as you haven't and have never been shown how, and then follow up by how you would correct those mistakes you may make with the skills you now know.

I believe mine would be a lot of trial and error guesswork with a lot of the loss of meat, hide, and tendons.  Everything I know about this process is by reading on the internet which is a poor substitute to the real thing.  I would hope to learn first about how to gut and skin an animal by using something small as squirrels and rabbits, hoping that when I get something bigger, I will be more proficient at keeping the meat, hide, and tools.  Also, in a case in which I would absolutely need to hunt, I would not hunt to keep from going hungry, but to hunt to keep my freezer full.  I'd rather a surplus of tough meat rather than a deficient amount of tender meat.

----------


## Rick

I have no problem killing anything if the need is justified. From procuring food to self defense.

----------


## SARKY

It's very strange, for me I had no "buck fever" on my first kill. I have since then. But no it isn't difficult once you have the proper mind set. I am not a trophy hunter, strictly meat.
As to self defense, I have less of a problem killing a person attempting to do me harm than I do an animal attempting to do me harm.

----------


## BENESSE

I would do it with a heavy heart and _only_ as a last resort.

Ordinary people, by their own accounts, have learned things fairly quickly when the instinct for survival kicked in and I am content to deal with it if and when the need arises. Target practice is the only way I'll ever prepare for anything of the sort.

----------


## Pal334

It is always a good thing to keep a bit of regret in your heart when you have to or decide to kill something.  That sense of regret is a twinge of humanity that you always want to keep. I am not saying you should hesitate if the need arises. When I do hunt it is for meat. If successful, I try to use everything that is usable. Never think of killing an animal as fun.  I have met people that crossed the line and started to think that killing was fun, and they were scary people.

----------


## gryffynklm

I have never hunted. It is my goal for next year to have the equipment I need. I have a good friend who said he would guide me in that regard. 

I'm the same as ranger. I have never had a need to go hunting or the opportunity but feel that in the future I may need to. There is a bit of subsistence hunting around my area. 

I have done many things in my life which were uncomfortable but necessary. I will take the same attitude. I have a goal in mind concerning hunting it is necessary to go through the process of the hunt, and processing the meat. I will learn as much as I can and if successful, I will have remorse for the animal. I will respect it and offer thanks to God and the animals spirit. I will be sad but I will get over it because it was not a careless or selfish wasteful act but a well thought out decision. 

At least thats what I tell myself.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> I have done many things in my life which were uncomfortable but necessary. I will take the same attitude. I have a goal in mind concerning hunting it is necessary to go through the process of the hunt, and processing the meat. I will learn as much as I can and if successful, I will have remorse for the animal. *I will respect it and offer thanks to God and the animals spirit. I will be sad but I will get over it because it was not a careless or selfish wasteful act but a well thought out decision.*


Karl, If you can keep this, you are miles ahead of MOST  hunters in my book.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

I haven't hunted in many years, but I do kind of miss it. I think that hunting is just nature. We (most of us.) don't "have" to hunt for food, but we are still eating animals that were killed for our consumption. I would hope that people have the same respect for the cow and the chicken, as they do the deer and the bear. Most people on this forum, I believe, have a great respect for all things living. However....having respect for an animal does not remove it from the food chain.

----------


## DOGMAN

I think everyone can do it. Its really not that hard...it gets easier the more you do it. 

I figure I have killed over 50 deer, 20 Elk, a couple of bears, a sheep, hundreds of pheasants, ducks, and grouse, probably about 100 beavers and marten, a horse and several dogs (i euthanize my own animals instead of paying a vet)....sometimes it bothers me- other times I just feel its part of the cycle of life.  I feel close to the animals I kill- I view it as those animals die- so i can live.  I don't feel like an observer of nature- I feel like a participant.  i guess it probably helps if you start young.  My son is only two and has seen several dead deer and elk, I can only imagine when he's old enough to pull the trigger- he wont hesitate

----------


## wildWoman

You can do just about anything if you have to. 
I had to shoot my own dog, which was something I was absolutely terrified of doing, but because of where we live the vet was not an option. It's the hardest thing I've done in my life and I wish I wouldn't have had to do it but that's just me being egoistical. 
From the dog's point of view (and the same is true for any animal you hunt, I would guess), I'm sure it was a good death. There was no stressful trip to the vet involved, no stranger fiddling with him. It was just him and I, out for a walk as every day, and in one split second his world went dark.
Game animals you'll rarely be able to kill at close range with a headshot, so they will not die instantly. It will take a few minutes. But compare a few minutes of suffering, with you as the killer remaining hidden until the animal is dead, to the other deaths that are in store for wildlife: being bitten and mauled by a predator, slowly perishing in rotten ice, getting hit by car, starvation or illness. Those are the alternatives and I'm sure those deaths are slower and more agonizing than getting shot.

----------


## rwc1969

If you didn't hunt before and didn't know about shot placement or tracking then the animal, especially if big game, would likely just run off and die and you would never find it. Even if you know how to track, if the animal runs off it will be long gone and rotted or eaten by coyotes or the like before you find it.

Animals aren't like people, if you shoot them they run, and sometimes very far against unimaginable odds.

Also, if you've never hunted before it's likely you would freeze, be too slow to react, or simply not be able to pull the trigger and take a life.

Let's say you do shoot it and find it. Now you gotta gut it. It's not a task for someone who has never even seen the makup of the insides before. Not to mention if you cut the wrong parts it can make the meat taste awful and speed spoilage.

I had no one to teach me. At 12 or so years old I walked out into an old farm field, fell asleep atop a junk pile and when I woke there was a big doe deer out in the field. Having hunted with my uncles a couple times before and hearing stories I knew to aim for the front chest are just behind the shoulder. Boom! The deer ran off and I heard a sound liking someone hollering "mom, mom, mom" real loud over and over coming from where I shot. A young deer was standing behind mom and it was the one I hit.

I ran up to it, reloaded, and waited for the deer to hold it's head still as it was screaming bloody murder for mom. Boom! I felt horrible. Poor deer!

But, being a hunter I immediately began to cut into it. I had saw my uncle gut one deer about 2 years earlier, he said "see that big stomach looking thing, we call that the paunch, don't poke it or you will regret it", and that was all I knew about gutting deer.

I carefully cut a slit and it was real thick and seemed like there was many layers. I couldn't tell if I was cutting guts or belly. All I knew is upon reaching my hand in to try and keep the knife away from the dreaded paunch it was very hot and seemed almost to burn me. I kept cutting and eventually dumped the guts and what seemed like twenty gallons of blood out onto the ground. It was still attached at the neck, diaphragm and anus/ pelvic region. I remember my uncle saying don't cut the guts so "how am I going to get these guts out without cutting?" I thought, and "what is that fleshy layer that is sealing off the lungs and heart from the rest of the guts?". I poked and prodded and eased my way in, into, and around who knows what and eventually just cut the guts off at the diaphragm and above the pelvic bone. I got it back to my uncle's house as he was the only one i knew that could help. He was like "what did you do?" with expletives, and proceeded to clean up the anus area and remove the heart, lungs, and esophagus.

I guess when it comes down to it if you've never done it you can still get it done, it just won't be very pretty. The only way to know how to get it done is to do it. You can watch, but until you take the shot, track it down, gut it, drag it, cut it up and bag it it's all just a guessing game.

It's the old "knowledge without experience is just information" thang. But, it would help greatly to watch someone process an animal from start to finish several times and ask questions as they go. At least that way you'd have somewhat of an understanding of deer anatomy, which parts to cut or not cut, and could physically see where to put your shot for the best effect.

----------


## Beans

I grew up hunting, killing and butchering hogs and yearling steers for our table, fishing for food ETC.

But I gave up hunting in 1970 because I had no need to hunt for food.

I have killed since then for protection of our pets, ETC, coyotes that were trying to attack our dogs through a fence. I have elimated pack rats that was doing damage to our property.
I have accompanied my son on his deer hunting trips and help prepare his deer.

AS this applies to only me, I have no need to hunt nor do I enjoy elimating colonies of ground squirrels.

FWIW I do understand the need to control the wildlife population and I understand that hunting is part of that.

I do enjoy the outdoors and can watch a deer herd for hours, wild turkeys forge for food, quail and rabbits running around our property, mountain lions in our mountains, even a glimpse of Black bear raises my heart rate. When living in southern Nevada the Mountain Sheep aways grabbed my attention.

I have never hugged a tree nor do i ever plan on it.

After stating all of that If I or my family *ever need* to eat, I will go back to hunting.

If anyone or anything tries to or causes injury to me or my family, All bets are off and the hunt is on. That issue I have come to terms with a long time ago.

----------


## Beans

> You can do just about anything if you have to. 
> I had to shoot my own dog, which was something I was absolutely terrified of doing, but because of where we live the vet was not an option. It's the hardest thing I've done in my life and I wish I wouldn't have had to do it but that's just me being egoistical. 
> From the dog's point of view (and the same is true for any animal you hunt, I would guess), I'm sure it was a good death. There was no stressful trip to the vet involved, no stranger fiddling with him. It was just him and I, out for a walk as every day, and in one split second his world went dark.
> .


I feel your pain and anguish on that issue.  It may be the right thing to do, but it doesn't make it any easier.

There is nothing egoistical about it. It is called being caring, compassionate human being.

----------


## klkak

I killed a deer day before yesterday. The only thoughts that crossed my mind were: Sight alignment, breathing, trigger control and bacon wrapped tenderloins for dinner that night.

----------


## Wes in the Rockies

> bacon wrapped tenderloins for dinner that night.


Yes indeed very good!

----------


## crimescene450

Ive fished for a long time, but never hunted.

I want to hunt in the future, but no one in my family does. Im pretty good at stalking deer because i do it regularly when i hike.  but im not sure how im gonna learn to clean and butcher.

  Ive read a ton of books, and seen many videos, but i have a feeling it'd be much better to have someone teach you how to do it right.

----------


## Rick

When I was a kid I taught myself to clean rabbits, squirrels and doves. Didn't do any of it right but I got the job done until someone showed me a better way. As long as you end up at the same place when it's over that's all that matters. Having someone show you just improves your process and makes it easier. You'll do fine when the time comes. 

If you have a butcher shop/processing plant nearby you might be able to watch them slaughter a few animals if they will let you. That will give you an idea of how they do it. Just a thought.

----------


## hunter63

Hunting for me has been just something I was brought up with.
I don't hunt for anything I don't intend to eat.
This has kinda limited what I hunt for these days, deer, turkey, ducks/geese, grouse.

The hunt itself is what keeps me going, and I guess I have slowed down the last few years.

It's not for everyone, and there is nothing wrong with what ever you happen to believe.

I believe it is part of life's cycle, even it ancient times all people didn't think the same, all had their own skills and jobs.

----------


## LowKey

I've only ever cleaned chickens. There is something un-warm-blooded-animal-like about chickens. It's fairly easy to do them in without too much remorse. I've wanted to get rabbits and goats but the first time I read about killing extra (third) goat kids with a quick hammer blow, hmmm I'm not sure I could do that. 

I'm working my way up to hunting quality firearms. Didn't grow up with them like most of you here, so having to learn mostly on my own at a rather late age. The guys at the ranges are cool and all and always willing to let me try a rifle or handgun and give pointers on shooting that particular piece, but hunting seems to be either you've done it or you haven't, and if you haven't, you don't belong to the "club." Tough to learn that way.

----------


## FVR

I don't hunt much anymore, just don't like to kill that much.

But if I have to eat, anything goes.  I'll eat the neighbors cat, may just anyway as it sits on my porch and drives my dogs crazy.  It's kind of overfed, how does bbq fluffy sound.

No problems killing to eat, just problems killing for fun or sport.

----------


## rwc1969

> ... hunting seems to be either you've done it or you haven't, and if you haven't, you don't belong to the "club." Tough to learn that way.


No club here, we don't have seals.

Heck, I'd love to take someone hunting and show them everything I know, which isn't much, but no one i know is into it except for a couple friends and they already know how to hunt and process.

I got my ex's kids into it a little bit but they're more into the computer and video games. One has taken up fishing a bit and the other likes to hunt, but doesn't seem too motivated right now. The other is just plain dangerous and I won't go afield with him ever again. But, he is cool to hang out with otherwise, just don't put a tool of destruction in his reach.


I guess another tip on field dressing and processing would be stay safe. It's real easy to slip with the knife and cut a wrist or artery, or to get too tuckered or excited while dragging a deer and such that you have a heart attack and die, that would suck.

I've heard some real horror stories in that dept. and don't want to experience any of them myself.  :triage:  No EMS to drag you out.

----------


## Batch

My first kill of an animal most would be concerned about was a rabbit. We raised rabbits and had 175 or so rabbits and code enforcement said we could have 3. We had two weekends to give away the rabbits or slaughter them. 

We got rid of what we could and then me and my dad set to slaughtering. We broke their necks by hand and then nailed them to a board and bled them. Then we gutted them and skinned them. 

I took care of them rabbits every day. We had eaten plenty. But, some seemed just pets. The first one I killed and helped gut I said I had to use the bathroom. Went in the house and threw up in my hands on the way to the bathroom. Cleaned up and went back out and finished helping my dad.

My first deer was a doe. I pinned its neck to its back with an arrow. It was still kicking, I walked up and shot another arrow. I watched its eye go from alive to dead. I felt gratitude that the animal had stopped suffering. I don't get buck fever. I don't feel bad for my prey either. I want to kill it as quickly as possible. 

But, I understand that is not always possible. Look at any predator and you will see we all strive for a quick kill. But, often it can't be helped and some times the prey escapes us and dies without benefit to us. No life in nature is wasted.

----------


## flandersander

I personally believe if I am able to track, find, stalk and kill an animal, it was it's time to die. Generally, they hear, see, smell, or percieve (yes, I think animals can feel your thoughts) that I am there, and they get away. I believe they run, and don't give me a chance to shoot, because it's not their time. On the other hand, there's usually a deer that decides to take a second look at me, or to stop and smell, giving me a shot. If I miss, it wasn't his time, If I connect, it was his time to go. I could go on all day about animal perception. I believe what I believe, take it for what it is.

----------


## mosquitomountainman

I've been hunting most of my life.  My dad and male relatives hunted small game and I learned a lot from them.  Read all kinds of hunting books and magazines and hunted a lot on my own.  I don't like the killing part but it's kinda' hard to eat them without first killing them.

For new hunters I always recommend taking a hunter safety course.  All of them I know of teach the basics of firearms safety and choices, game identification and shot placement and hunting methods in addition to indoctrination on game laws.

Please don't wait until you must hunt to survive to "learn" how.  It's not as easy as it looks.  The deer that stand placidly along the highway is an entirely different animal when being hunted and they usually know when that's happening.  Plus, shooting an animal isn't like shooting a target.  Animals move and are often found in places where you must shoot between trees, bushes, etc. with the wind and light as factors along with fatigue and adrenaline.

The best cure for "buck fever" is to carefully and methodically go through each step of target identification, pick the aiming point, sight alignment, and trigger control.  Concentrate on these steps and you will defeat buck fever.

Start with small game.  Big game is the same, just, well, ... bigger!

It's easier for me to kill wild game than domestic animals.  Wild game has lived in freedom and generally doesn't know I'm there before I shoot.   Domestic critters have no chance of escape and are somewhat trusting and it feels like a betrayal of that trust to kill them.  I still do it though.  I'm not willing to be a vegetarian.

----------


## hermit

I like the idea that my meat got to live out it's life in it's natural setting, until the point where we shoot it.  It ate it's natural diet and roamed the forest.  It wasn't raised on growth-enhancing feed formulas, it wasn't kept in a pen or cage, it wasn't shipped to a stockyard, it wasn't dipped in or made to walk through a tank of some vile fluid to kill fleas or whatever that stuff is for.  It never had antibiotics, it was never herded into a line for execution at a meat processing plant.

Walking in the woods while hunting makes me feel close to the core of my survival.  I'm grateful for the experience, even though it means shooting an animal for my own sustenance.  Like my husband said in a previous post on here, butchering our domestic animals has been harder, emotionally, than hunting wild game.  

The only ones that weren't as hard were our nasty-tempered hogs.  We named them Lord Bacon and Hamlet, and that still didn't make it hard to butcher them!  lol  Chickens and rabbits, though...

----------


## kyratshooter

I am learning a lot about the state of the culture at this point.  Here on a survival forum about 1/3 of the people replying to the thread have never killed game or domestic stock and prepared it for the table.

This answers a lot of the questions I have had about why the big knife/little knife argument persists, why the "I can kill anything with a .22lr" thread is always active and why there is a bug out/bug in debate.

We have had many reasons presented;
don't need to
don't get a chance
never got to learn
no one asked me to join the club
will be able to if I have too

I should not be surprised.  When they ran us through the survival course in the Army many of the hard cores could not kill the rabbit and chicken we were given as our week food supply.  They would not let those that did kill and clean their stock share. 

Tack Sgt finally seperated the groups and told them up front, "you can't kill a rabbit and you are trying to tell me you can go to war and wreck havock and distruction on humans with your bare hands?"

They ran anyone that could not kill their livestock through a second run and did not warn them it was comming.  They did not get to go back to the base for a steak dinner before the restart!  Some had held out for a week with no food, they would not make it for two.  Their mental and physical weakness was already hindering our efficiency. 

I grew up butchering livestock and small game animals.  It never occurred to me that there were people that could not do the same, until I was grown.

Now I am discovering that there are "survivalists" that not only can not hunt or trap, but do not know how to stay alive on roadkill if no one packages it in celophene.

I am not trying to put anyone down.  This is like any other skill set that everyone should know.  It is something one must learn.

The thing is that I do not know what to do for you!  I can tell you where to go and learn firestarting skills, navagation skills, cooking skills, camping assistance, firearms safty and instruction, but for the life of me I do not know where to send you so you can learn to clean and butcher an animal.  Even the local meat market does not do this any more. 

I do know one thing.  I have taken too much for granted with my own students.  Next summer there will be chickens to clean at the big camp.

Now, how many here have actually slept outside of the house?

----------


## mosquitomountainman

> "...Now, how many here have actually slept outside of the house?


Does a night in the doghouse count?  :Innocent:

----------


## wildWoman

> Wild game has lived in freedom and generally doesn't know I'm there before I shoot.   Domestic critters have no chance of escape and are somewhat trusting and it feels like a betrayal of that trust to kill them.


I totally agree with that. We keep ducks, mostly for the eggs and manure (well, mostly because I like having them around...), and I hate killing them. As you said, they just have no chance of escape. I hate this god-like power to decide who's to live and who's to die. With hunting, at least there's always an element of chance.

----------


## wildWoman

> Now I am discovering that there are "survivalists" that not only can not hunt or trap, but do not know how to stay alive on roadkill if no one packages it in celophene.


Well, it's an internet forum  :Smile:  A lot of people prefer to talk and think about stuff instead of just going and actually doing it, as with anything, really.

It's the same with people dreaming about living in the wilderness. Everybody loves to talk about it, look at pictures and ask questions, but when it comes down to giving up the luxuries of home and getting your hands dirty, it's maybe 0.5% of people who actually go and do it.

----------


## Rick

> This answers a lot of the questions I have had about why the big  knife/little knife argument persists, why the "I can kill anything with a  .22lr" thread is always active and why there is a bug out/bug in  debate.


I fail to understand how you got from point A to point B. What does carrying a .22 have to do with never having killed game or stock? Or bugging in or bugging out? 

I sort of get the big knife/little knife debate on the subject but I carry both for different reasons. Right tool and all that.

----------


## kyratshooter

> I totally agree with that. We keep ducks, mostly for the eggs and manure (well, mostly because I like having them around...), and I hate killing them. As you said, they just have no chance of escape. I hate this god-like power to decide who's to live and who's to die. With hunting, at least there's always an element of chance.


It's not a "God Like power", it's efficiency.  You kill and eat the ones that are not laying/producing.  

If I had a cow that went barren, no calves, no milk production, she got eaten.  All of the males but the very best male  specimens were castrated and killed after a year of feeding.  

This is why most farm families try to keep the kids from naming the livestock!

The reason amimals were domisticated was so that they would be EASY TO KILL!  

"Hey Ogg, if we build a fence across this box canyon we can keep all these sheep in here and play with them cause they are so fluffy and purty!  Then we can cry when they die of old age."   You think that was how that first domestication conversation went?

And guess what?  All of the animals you hunt are going to die too.  All of them.  None are going to escape.  They will be killed by predators, by hunters, by disease, by vehicles or by starvation.  They are all doomed!  Just like us humans.

----------


## Rick

Did he say we're all doomed? That's pretty pessimistic in my book. You must be a glass completely empty kind of guy.

----------


## WakeUp91

I myself have never hunted, and don't feel the need to as long as I get what I need nutritionally from any other means.  But if I needed to hunt to survive, I guess I'd have no choice if I wanted to live.

Yes I know out in nature things die all the time, that is nature's way.  But there is a big difference between how the human race and every other animal out in the wild operates.  They do it strictly based on survival.  You don't see a predator kill an animal for fun and then skin it and hang it up as a trophy.  I doubt there is any personal thoughts a lion has while it's chasing down a gazelle, it is soley focused on the hunt.  I don't think I can say the same for any human, whether the thought running through their head is positive or negative.

----------


## Ken

I haven't been hunting in years.  Never for sport and always for meat.  Never shot any game at more than 50 yards, and I'm grateful that all were clean kills.  How many? Three deer and more rabbits, squirrels, and birds than I can remember.  Can I do it again?  Sure.  I've been saying "next season" for over 10 years.  

Field dressed my first 2 deer with some help, and by the third felt confident enough that I wouldn't ruin the meat that I did it by myself.  All three deer went to a butcher.  I've processed and wrapped beef quarters, pigs, birds and probably a thousand fish, but never a deer.

Every animal, bird, or fish I've ever taken has given me pause to reflect and offer a prayer of thanks.  Each one was respected as part of nature's bounty.

I'll never forget the first bird I killed.  It was purely by accident.  I was probably 9 or 10, and a bunch of us kids were throwing rocks at a tree.  I missed the tree, got the bird, and felt horrible for weeks.

What was the other question?  Oh yeah, humans.   We all know what morally justifies the taking of a human life.  Would I do it if faced with the necessity?  Yes, without any hesitation.

----------


## DOGMAN

> I myself have never hunted, and don't feel the need to as long as I get what I need nutritionally from any other means.  But if I needed to hunt to survive, I guess I'd have no choice if I wanted to live.
> 
> Yes I know out in nature things die all the time, that is nature's way.  But there is a big difference between how the human race and every other animal out in the wild operates.  They do it strictly based on survival.  You don't see a predator kill an animal for fun and then skin it and hang it up as a trophy.  I doubt there is any personal thoughts a lion has while it's chasing down a gazelle, it is soley focused on the hunt.  I don't think I can say the same for any human, whether the thought running through their head is positive or negative.


"You don't see a predator kill an animal for fun".....thats completly false...I have seen domesticated dogs and cats kill just for fun many, many times...Wolves kill for a variety of reasons- they even murder their own....as do bears sometimes....I have also definetly seen cats and dogs "show off" their kills to humans and other members of their species....

----------


## mosquitomountainman

> ... But there is a big difference between how the human race and every other animal out in the wild operates.  They do it strictly based on survival.  You don't see a predator kill an animal for fun and then skin it and hang it up as a trophy. ...



Wrong!  Animals sometimes kill for the joy of it.  Look at some of the statistics for wolf kills.  Many times they'll slaughter whole herds of sheep.  I've found carcasses in the woods that have been abandoned by predators.  In nature there is no waste because the birds and insects will eventually clean it up but the truth is that predators will move on and kill before they've completely devoured the original kill.  It's not like they have a conservation mindset or moral qualms about killing.  It's simply a way to survive for them and sometimes they do it just because they want to.

Predators prefer to kill the weakest/easiest out of expediency.  Not to preserve the integrity of the herd.  Wolves will follow a herd of elk in the spring and kill the new calves as they desire.  Are the calves weakest?  At the time, yes, but had they been given a chance at life they'd have become strong.  It's not like predators go after the old and lame only.  Again, it's expediency.

Our news media likes to point out any wastefulness on the part of hunters but neglects to inform the public when predators kill and maim randomly.  I've also seen does kick the snot out of their fawns for trying to forage where "mom" found some particularly delicious morsel she wanted to keep for herself.  Our neighbors have buffalo that we feed for them and there's a definite pecking order.  The younger ones wait until the older ones are satisfied or they get knocked on their posterior for barging in.  That includes the cows butting their own young away until "mom" is satisfied.

While I've never seen an animal skin and hang a "trophy" I've sure seen them chowing down on a live victim.  Don't idealize the animal kingdom.  They are after all ... animals.  And they often act like it!

----------


## BENESSE

Always amusing to see humans compare themselves to animals when it comes to getting a free pass at killing them for any reason other than need.

----------


## DOGMAN

Alot of it is de-sensity training....repeated exposure makes it very easy to harvest wildlife...here are some pics of training my son this season...if you arent sure you could do this...keep looking at the pics until they dont bother you....

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## DOGMAN

> Always amusing to see humans compare themselves to animals when it comes to getting a free pass at killing them for any reason other than need.


Humans are animals...just some of us have forgoten that

----------


## BENESSE

> Humans are animals...just some of us have forgoten that


I agree, _up to a point_...I just resent the double standard and like to bring it up any time I think people forget that particular detail.

----------


## randyt

sometimes I wonder about the fun part. ever have a weasel get into the chicken coop and kill a half dozen chickens? Those little buggers :Gun Bandana:  :Gun Bandana:

----------


## DOGMAN

> I agree, _up to a point_...I just resent the double standard and like to bring it up any time I think people forget that particular detail.


"up to a point"...whats the point?  bottom line humans are animals...and the more you study wildlife, the more you realize many animals suffer from what we'd call "human nature"....animals kill, murder, maim, rape, wage wars, kill their own babies, you name it and there is some wild animal that does it.  If you think humans are more evolved- just go read "lord of the flies" or any tale of survival...even the most lofty minded city dweller will resort back to savagery in a few short days without their necessities being met....

we are all savage beasts...

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Humans are animals...just some of us have forgoten that





> I agree, _up to a point_...I just resent the double standard and like to bring it up any time I think people forget that particular detail.


 Not only are we animals, we are animals with some pointy teeth. :ohno: 

(LOL...sorry B, I just had to take the "meat eating" jab.)

----------


## wildWoman

> It's not a "God Like power", it's efficiency.  You kill and eat the ones that are not laying/producing.  
> 
> If I had a cow that went barren, no calves, no milk production, she got eaten.  All of the males but the very best male  specimens were castrated and killed after a year of feeding.  
> 
> This is why most farm families try to keep the kids from naming the livestock!
> 
> The reason amimals were domisticated was so that they would be EASY TO KILL!  
> 
> "Hey Ogg, if we build a fence across this box canyon we can keep all these sheep in here and play with them cause they are so fluffy and purty!  Then we can cry when they die of old age."   You think that was how that first domestication conversation went?
> ...


Not every person has the same attitude towards animals. I really love animals and that makes it harder for me to lop the head off a duck that I've hatched in the oven, cared for, laughed at and that has provided me with company. I only spend 2-3 weeks among fellow humans other than my partner, so animals have a whole different dimension to me than just being efficient egg layers or meat providers. 
While it would make the killing of animals easier if I could regard them as only feathered and furry "things", my life would be a lot poorer, I find. How boring then to sit out in the bush and get no deeper joy out of seeing an animal other than "oh look, a meal!".

The other thing is, it's not necessarily more efficient to keep livestock. In our case it's certainly not, since we don't have road access and with only 4 months of growing season, we need to import almost all of the duck feed. It would be more efficient for us to buy eggs and haul in some bags of manure, but I enjoy having the ducks around.

As to your last point, if you read my earlier post in this thread, I said the same thing.

----------


## Ken

> ...even the most lofty minded city dweller will resort back to savagery in a few short days without their necessities being met......


Kinda' like the crowds waiting for the stores to open up on Black Friday.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Kinda' like the crowds waiting for the stores to open up on Black Friday.


 Most "wild" animals aren't that bad. :No:

----------


## Rick

Wait a minute. You two agreed on something?!

----------


## wildWoman

> Wrong!  Animals sometimes kill for the joy of it.  Look at some of the statistics for wolf kills.  Many times they'll slaughter whole herds of sheep.


I think you can say that there is a kind of dialogue going on between predator and prey. A predator like a wolf that is not in hunting mode can amble through a herd of caribou without causing much reaction - because it's telling them by its relaxed body language "I'm just passing through". It's different when the predator is tense and focussed, that puts the prey on alert. And then the dialogue continues. A bear or wolf will approach a herd or a moose and be able to tell by the individual reactions who is weak and thereby an easy kill and who's not.
I think the cases of wolves killing herds of sheep, just like a weasel getting into a chicken coop and killing everything in sight, the thing is that the sheep and chickens are in an enclosure and can't get away, plus domesticated animals freak a lot more easier if you ask me. 
A panicky animal signals to a predator "I'm really scared and I have no clue what to do" - easy prey. In the wild, you'd never have a whole herd react like that, but predators are used to killing the animals that give these kind of signals. So I guess in the case of sheep and chickens, they go for every one that basically says "I'm dead meat".

Apparently the phenomenon with only partially eaten carcasses occurs in predator populations that are well-fed and where there is an overabundance, and so easy to catch supply of prey, like coastal bears during salmon runs or wolf packs re-introduced into areas where elk or deer (or sheep) are a lot more populous than they would "normally" be. It's more efficient then to kill more prey and only eat the most calorie or protein rich parts, as opposed to eat the whole thing.

----------


## Rick

+1 WW. People are the same way. Efferent clues. When you get that gut feeling something isn't right you had better listen to it. Nice job!

----------


## BENESSE

WW, that makes sense. Thanks.

----------


## DOGMAN

> I think you can say that there is a kind of dialogue going on between predator and prey. A predator like a wolf that is not in hunting mode can amble through a herd of caribou without causing much reaction - because it's telling them by its relaxed body language "I'm just passing through". It's different when the predator is tense and focussed, that puts the prey on alert. And then the dialogue continues. A bear or wolf will approach a herd or a moose and be able to tell by the individual reactions who is weak and thereby an easy kill and who's not.
> I think the cases of wolves killing herds of sheep, just like a weasel getting into a chicken coop and killing everything in sight, the thing is that the sheep and chickens are in an enclosure and can't get away, plus domesticated animals freak a lot more easier if you ask me. 
> A panicky animal signals to a predator "I'm really scared and I have no clue what to do" - easy prey. In the wild, you'd never have a whole herd react like that, but predators are used to killing the animals that give these kind of signals. So I guess in the case of sheep and chickens, they go for every one that basically says "I'm dead meat".
> 
> Apparently the phenomenon with only partially eaten carcasses occurs in predator populations that are well-fed and where there is an overabundance, and so easy to catch supply of prey, like coastal bears during salmon runs or wolf packs re-introduced into areas where elk or deer (or sheep) are a lot more populous than they would "normally" be. It's more efficient then to kill more prey and only eat the most calorie or protein rich parts, as opposed to eat the whole thing.


I still think we are just trying to project human "logic" on animals actions, and rationalizing their behavior in our terms- its still anthropomorhic.  Wolves kill other packs (wage wars)....male bears will often kill their own sons, etc...when an animal does these things its labeled as "survival stategies" for a specific group, etc... and not labeled as "bad"....but when a human does something identical we say its bad....but when you really break it down to its simplest form....our actions are just as easily described in terms of survival....Wars are nothing more than securing ideal optimal territories...its the same for wolf packs, street gangs, or countries....its a battle for resources

----------


## DOGMAN

I have seen adolescent pheasants bully, haze and merciless kill other juvenile pheasants....school yard bullying is not a new thing....pheasants have been doing throughout the ages...the list goes on and on....

----------


## mosquitomountainman

> I think you can say that there is a kind of dialogue going on between predator and prey. A predator like a wolf that is not in hunting mode can amble through a herd of caribou without causing much reaction - because it's telling them by its relaxed body language "I'm just passing through". It's different when the predator is tense and focussed, that puts the prey on alert. And then the dialogue continues. A bear or wolf will approach a herd or a moose and be able to tell by the individual reactions who is weak and thereby an easy kill and who's not.
> I think the cases of wolves killing herds of sheep, just like a weasel getting into a chicken coop and killing everything in sight, the thing is that the sheep and chickens are in an enclosure and can't get away, plus domesticated animals freak a lot more easier if you ask me. 
> A panicky animal signals to a predator "I'm really scared and I have no clue what to do" - easy prey. In the wild, you'd never have a whole herd react like that, but predators are used to killing the animals that give these kind of signals. So I guess in the case of sheep and chickens, they go for every one that basically says "I'm dead meat".
> 
> Apparently the phenomenon with only partially eaten carcasses occurs in predator populations that are well-fed and where there is an overabundance, and so easy to catch supply of prey, like coastal bears during salmon runs or wolf packs re-introduced into areas where elk or deer (or sheep) are a lot more populous than they would "normally" be. It's more efficient then to kill more prey and only eat the most calorie or protein rich parts, as opposed to eat the whole thing.


Yes and no on the "dialogue."  A mountain lion, bobcat or lynx will stalk with eyes that never leave their prey nor lose their intensity and the animal being stalked will seldom sense it. 

Wolves will dig out a coyote den and kill every coyote in it.  If that's not a good example of a "turf war" I don't know what is.  Other examples have also been given of males killing potential threats.

IMO ... Killing more than an animal can eat is not so much efficiency as it is expediancy.


Regarding your statement;  "While it would make the killing of animals easier if I could regard them as only feathered and furry "things", my life would be a lot poorer, I find. How boring then to sit out in the bush and get no deeper joy out of seeing an animal other than 'oh look, a meal!'."   :Thumbup: 

I couldn't have stated it better myself!

----------


## DOGMAN

> Regarding your statement;  "While it would make the killing of animals easier if I could regard them as only feathered and furry "things", my life would be a lot poorer, I find. How boring then to sit out in the bush and get no deeper joy out of seeing an animal other than 'oh look, a meal!'."  
> 
> I couldn't have stated it better myself!


I think deep down, we do view everything as "edible or not"...I also think we look at other people with the mindset "could I take them"....meaning could we beat up other males "threats to our survival"...and I also think we look at the other gender in the light of "is this a suitable breeding partner"....we may not admit we have such basic thoughts...but that stuff is floating through our conscious more than we admit. we are animals whether we like it or not...damned savages....

----------


## randyt

what is more treacherous, a person smiling at you with intent to do harm or a wild animal snarling and very apparently ready to do harm?

----------


## wildWoman

> I still think we are just trying to project human "logic" on animals actions, and rationalizing their behavior in our terms- its still anthropomorhic.  Wolves kill other packs (wage wars)....male bears will often kill their own sons, etc...when an animal does these things its labeled as "survival stategies" for a specific group, etc... and not labeled as "bad"....but when a human does something identical we say its bad....but when you really break it down to its simplest form....our actions are just as easily described in terms of survival....Wars are nothing more than securing ideal optimal territories...its the same for wolf packs, street gangs, or countries....its a battle for resources


Sure, I see humans as part of the animal kingdom, and a lot of the behaviour translates between the species. Emotions and feelings too, I would argue. What is difficult and probably impossible to understand is if animals other than humans have a concept of morals and ethics. 

That's the key difference to me. If I assume (which I do at this point but I'm open to other views) that other species don't have a world view that includes morals and ethics as we humans define it, then I can't label a war among ants, dogs, wolves as "bad".

I think the problem for us humans is that we still have all our animal instincts, a basic greed for more of everything, which used to be a survival advantage in the good old cave days, but that this conflicts with our conscience and living in complex societies that evolved over time. 
So if you look at humans as a pure animal, driven by its instincts for survival, and disregard human intelligence and reason, then of course there's nothing bad about child abuse, rape, wars and destroying the planet at all. We simply can't help ourselves then and these actions are not bad.

Unless I understand other animal species to a point where I can say with assurance that they have the same choices and ability to curb their insincts as humans, I personally cannot find anything inherently bad in an ermine killing all my ducks (which has happened), much as I hate it for it.
However, if a person came along and did the same, I'd certainly call it bad and worse, because I expect a human to curb behaviour that causes undue harm to others.

----------


## wildWoman

> I think deep down, we do view everything as "edible or not"...I also think we look at other people with the mindset "could I take them"....meaning could we beat up other males "threats to our survival"...and I also think we look at the other gender in the light of "is this a suitable breeding partner"


Nope. Can't say that it works for me this way. But maybe that's a gender difference...for sure the breeding partner part  :Lol:

----------


## BENESSE

> I have seen adolescent pheasants bully, haze and merciless kill other juvenile pheasants....school yard bullying is not a new thing....pheasants have been doing throughout the ages...the list goes on and on....


So to take your previous line of thought to it's logical conclusion, we should tolerate or even encourage school yard bullying since it exists in nature and we're all animals after all. So why discourage the instinct, right? 




> ...bottom line humans are animals...and the more you study wildlife, the  more you realize many animals suffer from what we'd call "human  nature"....animals kill, murder, maim, rape, wage wars, kill their own  babies, you name it and there is some wild animal that does it.  If you  think humans are more evolved- just go read "lord of the flies"


Animals do that because they don't have a conscious choice nor do they have a sense of right and wrong--they act on instinct. In this respect we _have_ evolved or else we wouldn't have the laws we do and we wouldn't be horrified when we hear about murderers, child-molesters and rapists. 
We'd just chalk it up to our _animal_ nature and learn to live in hell.
My mind and my sensibilities just work differently. When and _if_ I find myself in the Lord Of The Flies situation (yeah, I read the book and saw the movie) I'm sure my innate animal instincts might kick in. Until then I'll just work on being a better human.

----------


## Rick

I think on a level playing field then all animals are animals. However, you also have to sprinkle in a modicum of delusion on the human animal. We have a fair share of crazies that come to power in places every now and then. That changes the whole landscape.

----------


## wildWoman

> Yes and no on the "dialogue."  A mountain lion, bobcat or lynx will stalk with eyes that never leave their prey nor lose their intensity and the animal being stalked will seldom sense it.


Good point. I guess I still have to work on the finer details of this theory  :Smile:

----------


## BENESSE

> I think on a level playing field then all animals are animals. However, you also have to sprinkle in a modicum of delusion on the human animal. We have a fair share of crazies that come to power in places every now and then. *That changes the whole landscape*.


It sure does.
Are we justified in "harvesting" them? :Sneaky2:

----------


## Rick

Oh, sure. We find them in spider holes all the time.

----------


## DOGMAN

> So to take your previous line of thought to it's logical conclusion, we should tolerate or even encourage school yard bullying since it exists in nature and we're all animals after all. So why discourage the instinct, right? 
> 
> Animals do that because they don't have a conscious choice nor do they have a sense of right and wrong--they act on instinct. In this respect we _have_ evolved or else we wouldn't have the laws we do and we wouldn't be horrified when we hear about murderers, child-molesters and rapists. 
> We'd just chalk it up to our _animal_ nature and learn to live in hell.
> My mind and my sensibilities just work differently. When and _if_ I find myself in the Lord Of The Flies situation (yeah, I read the book and saw the movie) I'm sure my innate animal instincts might kick in. Until then I'll just work on being a better human.


No, we shouldn't tolerate school yard bullying, murder or rape...because we can create rules to live harmoniously.  Rules and laws should be cut and dry (however they are not) but they can be....however morals and ethics are always a real grey area.  morals and ethics are flexible and are subjective and cause inner turmoil because of all the contradictions.....Thou shalt not kill....now thats a commandment....but its alright to break it if your at  war for your country.....but, its not alright to break it if your a street gang defending your corner to deal drugs....we may think we have a moral compass, and live ethically...but if you really look at our societies actions as a whole- we go around doing what every other species does...we are merely struggling to survive and trying to perpetuate our kind.

Next, How do you know animals don't have a sense of right and wrong?  I fundamentally disagree with that....watch wolves in the wild, or watch domesticated dogs in my yard- they definetly know right from wrong...in their own language and with their own kind...with their own definitions of right and wrong....animals speak through body language fluently and can tell one another for sure whats right or wrong.  All you have to do is watch them, and you can see that they do lots of things that aren't just driven by instincts.

I know alot of psychology books like to theorize that animals only act on instinct....but, that is just a bunch of BS written by people who don't spend much time with animals outside of labratories, and they are still brainwashed from the Judeo-Christian mindset of man being superior to other animals.  Adam and Eve getting kicked out of the Garden of Eden, is basically just the story of mankind trying to seperate themselves from Nature...but, its bunk...we are not seperate from Nature- we are nature, and we are animals...

----------


## wildWoman

> No, we shouldn't tolerate school yard bullying, murder or rape...because we can create rules to live harmoniously.  Rules and laws should be cut and dry (however they are not) but they can be....however morals and ethics are always a real grey area.  morals and ethics are flexible and are subjective and cause inner turmoil because of all the contradictions.....Thou shalt not kill....now thats a commandment....but its alright to break it if your at  war for your country.....but, its not alright to break it if your a street gang defending your corner to deal drugs....we may think we have a moral compass, and live ethically...but if you really look at our societies actions as a whole- we go around doing what every other species does...we are merely struggling to survive and trying to perpetuate our kind.
> 
> Next, How do you know animals don't have a sense of right and wrong?  I fundamentally disagree with that....watch wolves in the wild, or watch domesticated dogs in my yard- they definetly know right from wrong...in their own language and with their own kind...with their own definitions of right and wrong....animals speak through body language fluently and can tell one another for sure whats right or wrong.  All you have to do is watch them, and you can see that they do lots of things that aren't just driven by instincts.
> 
> I know alot of psychology books like to theorize that animals only act on instinct....but, that is just a bunch of BS written by people who don't spend much time with animals outside of labratories, and they are still brainwashed from the Judeo-Christian mindset of man being superior to other animals.  Adam and Eve getting kicked out of the Garden of Eden, is basically just the story of mankind trying to seperate themselves from Nature...but, its bunk...we are not seperate from Nature- we are nature, and we are animals...


I agree with your last two points but to me, that still doesn't quite answer if other animals have a moral and ethical view of the world in the sense of humans. Shouldn't the wolves then persecute those wolves that went wild among the sheep and shouldn't one bear slap the other one on the wrist for just eating the brain of a salmon? 
I don't agree that humans are exclusively struggling to survive and multiply. What about treehuggers like me who choose to be childless? What advantage to your personal survival is it to do volunteer work when you could spend the time making money and bolstering your own bank account? Why bother to nurse an injured animal back to health? Why fight industrial development in wilderness areas when it would create jobs and thereby aid in survival?

I think your notion of us being animals is a bit too simple. I do agree we're animals, but you can't discount these things I just mentioned that are part of the human makeup too and that objectively only make survival harder for people who are volunteering or getting their butts whipped for speaking out.

----------


## your_comforting_company

> ... How hard would it be for you to kill an animal for food and tools, if you haven't before? 
> 
> I have never hunted and really don't want to. 
> *I don't want to take an animal's life*, but I do want to know the process of it in case I had to. Shot placement, gutting, skinning, quartering, bone and tendon usage, etc. to make the most of the kill. So for those of you who have never hunted, how do you think you would do on your first time? For those of you who have hunted, pretend as you haven't and have never been shown how, and then follow up by how you would correct those mistakes you may make with the skills you now know.
> 
> I believe mine would be a lot of trial and error guesswork with a lot of the loss of meat, hide, and tendons. *Everything I know about this process is by reading on the internet which is a poor substitute to the real thing*. ..., I would not hunt to keep from going hungry, but to hunt to keep my freezer full. I'd rather a surplus of tough meat rather than a deficient amount of tender meat.


 
You know what. I hunted today. 5 does walked out on me and I could feel and hear every beat of my heart. I waited as patiently and as still as I could. I waited for the best possible shot.
Immediately as I calmly squeezed the trigger, I heard the bang and began to shiver.

To take a wild animals life is a thing I can never seem to level myself with. It disturbs me and it's as if I can feel the world shift a little.

I read the OP but none of the comments afterward, but I thought now would be a good time to say my piece. uninfluenced by the thoughts of others.

I still felt disturbed by taking that does life, somehow. I'm not starving, although it is for my foodstores and it will be eaten.. banked assets. but it never fails, I get ice cold after I shoot. sure, it was 30 degrees, but I had plenty of layers on and I was about 1 degree from bursting into flames just before I pulled the trigger.. but the instant the bullet went off.. :Cold: 

I found that doe right where she should have been and commenced to dragging her the half mile out of the woods.

To answer the question, whether it's the first time or the hundredth time, it still takes a few minutes to come back. Since it is for food and not for pride, I will take a clean shot if given the opportunity, but I never enjoy it. It is human nature to "survive" and even a person who is against killing, after reaching a certain stage of hunger, would take an animals life to stay alive. food is food. there are no "pet" chickens or squirrels when that belly starts growling.

I am against killing for pride and glory, and I never condone the taking of a life in vain. For me at least, it is all a matter of ethics, necessity, and opportunity.

Now that I've put two in the freezer, I think I'll put up my gun and take my camera instead/also. If I can get within distance to take a decent shot with that nikon, I KNOW I'll be within Marlin range. Your camera might even have the spot-thingy in the viewfinder.. put the crosshairs on the lungs and snap. broadside, right behind the shoulder, or base of the skull.
be sure to post the pics!

There are surely enough hunters around that you could practice all you've read on a friend's deer. Offer to skin and quarter one for them for free. You can't swing a dead cat by the tail around here without hitting somebody who hunts... and most of them waste most of the deer..
I sometimes offer free skinning and quartering just for the skin and brain and leg bones.. the junk noone wants.

I remember my first time. I wanted to use more and waste less of the deer. It drove me to be who I am today. Shaped a lot of my views... that first "kill". I didn't enjoy that one either.. kinda regretted it and wished I'd have just kept watching.
On that same note, if I hadn't harvested some deer last year, there would have been a couple skimpy suppers this year...

I hope I answered the questions appropriately. :Thumbup1: 

I'd like to point out that the internet is a valuable tool. I was shown by folks who callously and very incompassionately butchered a deer, somewhat like wolves.. almost degrading. What I know about all the stuff I do is from books and research on the internet.
It's hunting season now. find a hunter. get him to take you with your camera. If he does get to harvest a deer, help process it and keep his "trash", using all the skills you've read about. Nothing quite like "boots in the field" to learn a lesson.

----------


## DOGMAN

> I agree with your last two points but to me, that still doesn't quite answer if other animals have a moral and ethical view of the world in the sense of humans. Shouldn't the wolves then persecute those wolves that went wild among the sheep and shouldn't one bear slap the other one on the wrist for just eating the brain of a salmon? 
> I don't agree that humans are exclusively struggling to survive and multiply. What about treehuggers like me who choose to be childless? What advantage to your personal survival is it to do volunteer work when you could spend the time making money and bolstering your own bank account? Why bother to nurse an injured animal back to health? Why fight industrial development in wilderness areas when it would create jobs and thereby aid in survival?
> 
> I think your notion of us being animals is a bit too simple. I do agree we're animals, but you can't discount these things I just mentioned that are part of the human makeup too and that objectively only make survival harder for people who are volunteering or getting their butts whipped for speaking out.


I think your looking to microscopic...your looking at yourself as an individual...there is way more to survival of our species than the immediate meeting of needs (bank accounts and $$$) 

obviously you believe that humans need a connection to nature and wild places to thrive...so, ultimately in order for our species to survive and have a better life we need to protect our home, we need to limit our demand on resources...so, not having a child and working to protect and save wild places is your direct action to save the home of our species which will possibly ensure our survival

----------


## wildWoman

> so, ultimately in order for our species to survive and have a better life we need to protect our home, we need to limit our demand on resources...


Exactly. And now please explain to me how you can tell that other animal species have a moral and ethical world view like this that makes them renounce a number of things their instincts tell them they need, and behave in ways that are atypical for their species, in a belief that this atypical behaviour is for the greater good of the planet.

----------


## BENESSE

> Rules and laws should be cut and dry (however they are not) but they can be
> They are in some countries. In Saudi Arabia for instance, if you steal, they'll chop your hand off, if you murder, your head--in a public square. In Iran, a woman can be stoned to death for infidelity (not a man!) if only one eyewitness (has to be a man) says she did it. In some Islamic countries a man can divorce his wife by literally saying 3 times: I divorce you. That's it.
> In our own country, in some states, consenting adults can be prosecuted for having a homosexual relationship. People can be prosecuted for attempting suicide or assisting a terminally ill person do it. It's not all cut and dry Dogman, and it really shouldn't be, no matter how much we'd like to see it happen in some cases.
> Precisely because... 
> ....however morals and ethics are always a real grey area.  morals and ethics are flexible and are subjective and cause inner turmoil because of all the contradictions.....Thou shalt not kill....now thats a commandment....but its alright to break it if your at  war for your country.....but, its not alright to break it if your a street gang defending your corner to deal drugs....*we may think we have a moral compass, and live ethically*
> That's the goal, that's what we teach our children and we _all_ recognize a moral compass when we see it. In people who do the right thing even when it's not convenient, who put others above themselves who give their lives for a cause bigger than them.
> ...but if you really look at our societies actions as a whole- we go around doing what every other species does...we are merely struggling to survive and trying to perpetuate our kind.
> That may be the _absolute lowest_ common denominator but when have we ever settled for that? We wouldn't be where we are if that were enough.
> Next, How do you know animals don't have a sense of right and wrong?  I fundamentally disagree with that....watch wolves in the wild, or watch domesticated dogs in my yard- they definetly know right from wrong...in their own language and with their own kind...with their own definitions of right and wrong....animals speak through body language fluently and can tell one another for sure whats right or wrong.  All you have to do is watch them, and you can see that they do lots of things that aren't just driven by instincts. 
> ...


We are only superior because we _think_, and inferior when we _act_ like animals without thinking.
We cannot un-ring the bell of evolution and progress of thought, and disregard the mighty responsibility it has given us as _human_ beings to protect, preserve, and cherish the Nature we are all part of.

----------

