Within the Ontario Hunting regulations is written the following golden rule,
“You may not let the flesh of any harvested game wildlife (see
Definitions, page 78) which is suitable for food be destroyed,
spoiled or abandoned. This includes black bear.” Entire Ontario Hunting Regulations Here
This means hunters eat what they kill. Animals are not killed for the sake of killing and left to rot. That would be called poaching. Too many times the picture painted of the ‘hunter’ is the image of a special ‘idiot’ I like to call, a Poacher.
Poaching is ILLEGAL. So is dog fighting. Let’s keep the idiots grouped with the idiots.
The only difference between store bought meat and hunted meat is an appreciation for how the animal came to be on your plate.
Rember that before you jump on the anti-hunting bandwagon.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
August 28th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
You raise a good point that is relevant to the hunting versus dog-fighting debate that has been raised in some forums and blogs. Even if hunters don’t desire the meat for themselves, there are many states that participate in operations such as “Hunters for the Hungery.” Hunting can be good news to non-hunters!
August 28th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Very good point and one that I do believe is often forgotten. Animals will be killed for food. Is it less cruel if it is another animal that does the harvesting instead of a hunter?
August 28th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Kristine - your question depends on what you consider an animal. If a grizzly attacked and ‘harvested’ a child, I would say that was cruel (the bear wouldn’t). If a hunter harvests/kills a bear within the context of a hunting managment plan I would say it is not cruel.
August 28th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Bryan - I agree with you! There are many places hunter killed meat can be used to benefit humanity.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
I guess I don’t include humans in the category of “animals” although I guess technically we are.
What I was trying to ask is the question of why a wolf killing a deer is considered o.k., but a hunter killing a deer is not. Both deaths will result in a meal, so why is one considered natural and the other unnatural or cruel.
Does it make more sense now?
August 29th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Kristine - That makes perfect sense to me! I see no difference. It’s the circle of life - so to speak. I know the anti hunter would not agree with that and would probably say, “Why not eat cow?”. I would say it still involves killing an animal.I don’t think the cow understands that arguement. PETA people won’t ever agree. Their agenda is vegetables only (as you know).
August 29th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Exactly. That’s what always gets me when people eat meat but say they think hunting is cruel. Cows and pigs and such aren’t exactly killed in the most humane ways.