Quote Originally Posted by sumbirdy
So...If I died should I be eaten so that I wouldn't have died in vain? I don't see why people think that if an animal dies and is not eaten that animal dies in vain. Why not just pull the animal in the woods and tell it you're sorry? I've been raised around hunters since I was 5 but I find it disgusting and I find this very wrong. He was cruel by throwing that stick at it. And then roasting it in front of the children? Did he fully kill it first or did he roast it alive? I think a squirell could have survived with only a hurt paw. To hurt an animal in front of children is just teaching them that it is ok.

If I had to kill something in order to live...I would die. That just seems like murder to me.
I am in agreement with you on this.

I don't like the phrase 'it didn't die in vain'. How do you define such a phrase, is it not more of a presumption? To me, dying in vain is suffering a death premature to the one that would be reached naturally. So, falling off a cliff is dying in vain. Taking an overdose is dying in vain. Injured by aerial objects and then roasted and eaten by animals larger than myself is dying in vain. I know that there'll be many who'll now jump at the chance to try and explain the dictionary version of 'dying in vain', but I couldn't care less. That's just how I perceive it to be.

Just because it was eaten after it was brought down makes no difference. I just don't get how using the corpse seems to mask the KILLING.

I know, as I've been dictated to many times before, that the predator/prey cycle happens all the time in the wild and prey animals must fall victim to predators for the benefit of both species. But the last part is exactly my point, for the benefit of both species. A lioness will hunt and bring down a weak zebra, thus continuing her species and strenghtening that of the zebra. A human on the other hand, will be more attracted to shoot a big, strong stallion to show off his skills, and will shoot at it from afar giving it virtually no chance of survival. At least when a predator gives chase, there is some chance that it could get away. Chances are he'd have a go at shooting the lioness as well.

Even those that do shoot for food have drastic impacts on populations of creatures. The human population is exploding and we're taking more and more land from the animals. Then we throw up our arms and say, "There's a huge amount of deer all crammed up in a little wood! Some are coming into our towns! I know, lets go and shoot them all so the population doesn't rise too much! And if we eat them, the animal lovers have nothing on us!"

Sorry this has gone on a bit (believe me, I could go on a lot further, but that would take me into the depths of my thoughts on meat and slaughter, to which I am not keen to go publically), but I had to express my opinion that hunting wild animals is a primitive action, and I hope that as the world modernises, we'll think more about how both the animals and we can live alongside each other, and hunting will be squeezed out.

I agree with Richard's post, unless all the kids at that camp were vegetarian, then they are being contradictory and selective about what they eat. I have to admit that only a vegetarian/vegan could complain against such a matter.