# Mockery of Men



## Converse (Jan 21, 2015)

Trophy Hunters. 

These are the ones that hang animal heads on their walls under the excuse that it is a beautiful species. Yes a wolf or a bear or a lion is a beautiful species, while it is living and breathing. It makes one must wonder if it was legal if these people wouldn't hang their wives heads on walls or make a rug out of the newest Miss. America's skin. Maybe immortalize the latest porn star as a stuffed mounting? 

The sad thing is, is that these "trophy" hunters, these mockeries of men, wouldn't know mother nature is even if she kicked them in the backside. Often hidden in their concrete jungles, they understand little of how the real world, the world that doesn't cater to McDonalds and the closest Starbucks, works. I have lost track of the number of such hunters whom claim that they can not find anything to shoot, not comprehending the problem of venturing into the woods atop of ATVs and snowmobiles. Do they think that a wild animal will stand still and let you shoot them. I have had to bite my tongue on more than one occasion least I ask if they'd like that with or without an apple in the mouth?

But am I being too mean to hunters?

No. 

The perfect example of just what these barbarians do to mother nature is found high in the Rocky Mountains of Alberta Canada. There one will discover a herd of mountain goats that has been plagued by hunters for roughly ten to twenty years. And plagued they have been. These hunters have picked only the healthiest and choicest of rams over the years, continually shooting the males whom are biggest and possess the biggest horns. Now herd's breeding males are weak rams, light of frame, with a horn that isn't worth a second thought. These rams will go ahead and father weaker and weaker young until only the dregs survive. If they survive at all. 

This herd has been essentially destroyed. 

But that isn't the only thing hunters destroy. 




It's a little ditty I did up. Thoughts? Not too "cruel" or finger pointing?


----------



## Blade (Jan 21, 2015)

'Finger pointing' for sure but addressing cruelty rather than causing it. There is a type of 'techno-hunter' (for lack of a better name) that inflicts damage and cruelty on the natural world for no apparent gain either to themselves or others.:scratch: Granted it is a small minority of persons and the public generally would disapprove but unless someone steps in to stop them the rape will go on.

Actually if the government of Alberta is as swift on this as they are on on controlling pollution from the oil sands it is somewhat of a lost cause.:blue:


----------



## Converse (Jan 21, 2015)

Blade said:


> 'Finger pointing' for sure but addressing cruelty rather than causing it.



Yeah I figured, I scribbled this out in class thinking of something I'd read. 


Can't say I've heard of techno hunters as unless we're thinking the same thing - I had heard of simulated hunting


----------



## The Defenestrator (Jan 21, 2015)

It's quite finger-pointing and since so much of it seems to be based in bias instead of sources, it's not very convincing.  It feels like an emotional argument rather than a compelling, logical argument.  Some things...



> The sad thing is, is that these "trophy" hunters, these mockeries of men, wouldn't know mother nature is even if she kicked them in the backside. Often hidden in their concrete jungles, they understand little of how the real world, the world that doesn't cater to McDonalds and the closest Starbucks, works.



Are you talking trophy hunters or hunters with this argument?  Its a *VERY* important distinction, and it has to be maintained throughout. If you're talking trophy hunters specifically, then always refer to the group in a specific way.  It felt like your argument started out talking about trophy hunting, but moved to all hunting.  In my experience (as a hunter), "hunters" are more concerned with enjoying the hunt and getting meat on the table, even though they will always shoot at the largest animal they have a tag for.  "Trophy hunters" shoot things for a wall decoration and a piece of paper that says they shot the biggest thing.  Trophy hunting is even frowned upon by a large portion of the hunting community (that I've witnessed and participated in) because of how wasteful and un-sportsman-like it can be.  Not just that, a huge majority of hunters I know come from rural areas bordering the wild places where they hunt.  You also can't generalize all hunters (even trophy hunters specifically) to be people living in concrete jungles, because that's wrong.  Either narrow down your argument to a specific group of hunters hailing from cities, or don't say things like that.  Or back up that statement with statistics about the percentages of trophy hunters that come from urban areas (as opposed to rural).

Also, your argument disregards government regulation of hunting that serves to protect animal populations and the environment from over-hunting.  Any hunter will throw that point at you and say that what they're doing isn't harming the environment because the government won't allow them to kill too many of one animal in specific areas, guaranteeing the herd's ability to regenerate itself despite the hunting.  If you think that hunting is still harmful even with government regulation, you HAVE TO GIVE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED BY SOURCES.  Your anecdote about the mountain goats doesn't count because there's no source.  For all I, the reader, know, you made that up.

In fact, that anecdote shows you don't know very much about the creatures you're arguing about.  Male goats aren't 'rams'.  They're 'bucks'.  You're either talking about bighorn sheep, which aren't goats, or you need to demonstrate to your reader a convincing understanding of the environment by using the correct word.  



> I have lost track of the number of such hunters whom claim that they can not find anything to shoot, not comprehending the problem of venturing into the woods atop of ATVs and snowmobiles. Do they think that a wild animal will stand still and let you shoot them. I have had to bite my tongue on more than one occasion least I ask if they'd like that with or without an apple in the mouth?



I thought this was hilarious.  These hunters obviously don't know what they're doing, and are hardly representative of any group of hunters I've ever met in my life.  


So, I've played the devil's advocate pretty darn hard here.  Hopefully this will help you, should you argue this further!  Thanks for sharing


----------



## Converse (Jan 21, 2015)

The Defenestrator said:


> It's quite finger-pointing and since so much of it seems to be based in bias instead of sources, it's not very convincing.  It feels like an emotional argument rather than a compelling, logical argument.  Some things...




Actually yeah it's based off of facts. If you want quotes, I can easily reference a dozen articles off the top of my head. The Alberta herd has been studied for years. They're finding that deer bucks are breeding too young because the old bucks are being picked off. 

Humans = world destroyers. It goes without say, one merely has to open their eyes. 




The Defenestrator said:


> Are you talking trophy hunters or hunters with this argument?  Its a *VERY* important distinction, and it has to be maintained throughout. If you're talking trophy hunters specifically, then always refer to the group in a specific way.  It felt like your argument started out talking about trophy hunting, but moved to all hunting.
> 
> In my experience (as a hunter), "hunters" are more concerned with enjoying the hunt and getting meat on the table, even though they will always shoot at the largest animal they have a tag for.




No it's just trophy hunters, I refer to them as mockeries or trophy. 

I am aware of that, I've been hunting since I was old enough to own a license. Yet I use almost all of the animal which is something no trophy hunter can ever claim. 




The Defenestrator said:


> Also, your argument disregards government regulation of hunting that serves to protect animal populations and the environment from over-hunting.  Any hunter will throw that point at you and say that what they're doing isn't harming the environment because the government won't allow them to kill too many of one animal in specific areas, guaranteeing the herd's ability to regenerate itself despite the hunting



I got to laugh at this. The argument of every hunter and yet on average you do more damage than a wolf pack a thousand strong could ever do. 

You have heard of poachers yes? 

Our local deer herd has been poached to such a degree that the government has cancelled hunting for the last 4 years and yet there's always some loser that goes out and poaches. The last ass let the caresses of two does & a fawn at the entranceway of the local park that is about 1/2 hours south. 





The Defenestrator said:


> Male goats aren't 'rams'.  They're 'bucks'.  You're either talking about bighorn sheep, which aren't goats, or you need to demonstrate to your reader a convincing understanding of the environment by using the correct word.



Oh man. Sheep are called rams. I don't know whom calls them bucks but they're not bucks, no scientist calls them bucks. Hunters whom may not know the difference between a white tail & a big horn might call them bucks but then... those sorts of people are nothing more than city slickers with a gun and little brains. 






The Defenestrator said:


> I thought this was hilarious.  These hunters obviously don't know what they're doing, and are hardly representative of any group of hunters I've ever met in my life.



You try to say you're a hunter. So you don't go trophy hunting unless you're using the words interchangeably. I've worked for 6 years at a hunting camp in northern alberta. Twits, trophy hunters & city slickers, used these devices and bitched like crazy if they were expected to get off & walk or get on a horse.


----------



## Plasticweld (Jan 21, 2015)

Converse the Non-Fiction forum is the place for having your work critiqued.  The content here is not as important has how it is presented and how the piece is written.  

You should quote your sources. 

"Actually yeah it's based off of facts. If you want quotes, I can easily reference a dozen articles off the top of my head. The Alberta herd has been studied for years. They're finding that deer bucks are breeding too young because the old bucks are being picked off. 

 Humans = world destroyers. It goes without say, one merely has to open their eyes. "


If you use just your opinion it should be stated as such.

Our desire is to help you as a writer present a opinion and have it read as well as possible.  If this is just something you wanted share with the forum and not have it critiqued I can move it to the lounge. 


To the other posters here please keep your posts in line with a critique, there in nothing wrong with asking for sources or for clarification of any statements made


----------



## Ashley87 (Jan 22, 2015)

The post is finger pointing yes, however, it a lot of what is stated is fact. 

We've been finding that out for the last 50 odd years and moreso in the last 20 with the relocation of wolves into Yellowstone for example. 



However, with respect to the post itself I feel its more of a rant than anything actual constructive piece. A person itching for a fight if you would and definitely if this became published it'd be a fight. 

You'd have hunters raising their fists and screaming no. While organizations like Green Peace / PETA will be screaming yes. 

It's nature's "religious" conflict if you would. 


If you're going to do it - take a breathe & think. You may have some considerable experience but you must remember what knowledge does the average joe reader have outside of what NatGeo tells them or their relatives who hunt. 

A can of worms.


----------

