NorCalCazadora
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
The Hunted
Refriedgringo, that is precisely what I argued MsGrant should have done - argue the true point of debate here, instead of attacking hunting by presenting a grotesque caricature of the hunter. I don't think that would pass muster even on a junior high school debate team. It's sloppy and lazy. MsGrant, I'm glad you're finally debating reality (for the most part) instead of a caricature. I understand that you cannot stomach the killing of animals for any reason; I did not expect to change your mind. You take a few leaps in your criticism of why I hunt, but here's the one that needs correcting the most: I have made the decision to eat meat. Saying I don't "have to" hunt to get my meat suggests that it's somehow better to buy it at the store and let someone else do the dirty work - the killing, the gutting, the butchering. However, there's another way of seeing this: Most meat eaters don't "have to" buy their meat at the store; they could choose a path that gives them more personal responsibility and awareness about the implications of their choice. Tell me, why is it worse to hunt because one enjoys hunting than to eat meat without giving a single thought to the life and death of the animal on the polystyrene tray? What, it's OK to eat meat if you don't enjoy acquiring it? If you stick your head in the sand? I reject that. I find people's disconnection from the source of their meat to be a huge contributor to a waste of animal lives (and deaths) that came at a high cost to the environment, society and human health. Also, I don't consider you less-informed because you don't hunt; I consider you less informed about hunting because it appears you have not gotten to know your enemy. I have vegetarian and vegan friends, and I talk to them so I can understand where they're coming from; can you say the same? If you can, did you proudly show them what you wrote in your original post here? But yes, I enjoy hunting. I enjoy it because it connects me to what I am - an omnivore, the product of tens of thousands of years of omnivorous diets. It re-establishes my kinship with the animal kingdom (chock full of carnivores, omnivores and herbivores) from which humans have so carefully - and dangerously - extricated ourselves. That's the sense of belonging hunting gives me. If that offends you, then so be it.— May 25, 2009 6:45 p.m.
The Hunted
I understand that is difficult for non-hunters to reconcile - I never would've imagined it possible until I started hunting and experienced it myself. And of course I would never urge you to hunt, because obviously you've chosen a different path. Far be it from me to tell you your choice is wrong for you. But I'm very glad to hear you suffer no misperceptions about hunters. I'm glad you're aware the vast majority of us eat what we kill, that a trophy isn't the main reason most of us pull the trigger, that we are doctors and lawyers and college professors in addition to plumbers, janitors and sanitation workers, that many of us are fit and well-dressed and do most of our reading anywhere but on the toilet. I just wish I'd seen that in the piece you wrote here, rather than stereotypes and extremes.— May 24, 2009 5:35 p.m.
The Hunted
Most hunters are not Africa trophy hunters; nor are most hunters the ignorant bubbas msgrant describes. The vast majority of us hunt because hunting satisfies a deeply human drive that has been stifled by modern civilization, and hunting puts food on our tables. Really good food. Far better than most non-hunting omnivores eat. It's convenient to attack the extremes in an effort to discredit the norms. For example, I could just as easily denounce all animal rightists by writing about the terrorists and saboteurs among them. But wouldn't that be silly? Yes, I think it would, even though I disagree with animal rights activists. It should really come as no surprise that I would resent it when someone uses a grotesque caricature to describe what I (and many people just like me) do. If msgrant wants to attack caricatures instead of attacking the core issue, msgrant should expect to get some backlash. As for the additional issue you bring to the table, refriedgringo, yes, there are humans who will pay to watch all sorts of violence for all sorts of reasons, whether it's boxing, mixed martial arts, cockfights, dogfights, bullfights or - historically - to-the-death gladiatorial matches. But I'm sorry, that's not hunting. That's watching fights. What's the difference? Don't hunters "get off" on the kill, just like the people at the bullfight? I certainly don't. While the hunt is exciting, the kill is the hard part - you have to face the fact that you've just taken a life. Am I the exception? I don't think so. I think about it and write about it a lot because I'm a new hunter and a writer - I examine everything I do. But I've talked to a lot of other hunters about this, and what I've found is that while we may rejoice in a good shot, because it means what we have practiced and worked for has paid off, with very rare exception we regard the death with sadness and great discomfort. Yes, I know a couple people who don't suffer from those pangs, but they are the exception. And they still eat what they kill.— May 24, 2009 12:44 p.m.
The Hunted
Wow, congratulations! This is a really stunning use of stereotype to crush an enemy about whom you obviously know very little. If you're a vegetarian who opposes the killing of animals for food, that's fine - I totally respect your choice. I really respect you for acting on your values. But I have zero respect for what you've written about hunters here, because it's obvious there's no intellectual exploration behind it. I'm an omnivore who has thought deeply about my diet and chosen to eat meat. And as often as possible, I want meat from animals that have lived good lives, so my first choice is wild game that I hunt, and my second choice is local pastured animals that have not been pumped full of hormones and antibiotics. The biggest mistake you've made in this rant, aside from setting up and shooting down a fictional character, is to assume that killing an animal is an act of anger, akin to a retaliatory drive-by shooting. It is, of course, very easy to vilify that. But you couldn't be further from the truth. We do not hunt out of frustration with our lives; we hunt because it brings us closer to what we have been for most of our time as a species on this planet - omnivores who must work hard to put food on the table. I'm guessing that comes as a huge surprise to you, that hunters have to work hard to get game. But we do. Animals are not as stupid or defenseless as you appear to think; they are typically endowed with superior eyesight, hearing and/or sense of smell. And they have better camouflage than we humans ever will. But oh, you say, you have those high-powered rifles and shotguns! You have all the advantage! Yes and no. Yes, once an animal is in our sights, we do have the advantage - an advantage we humans have sought and developed for our entire time as a species, starting with rocks and sticks and culminating with modern firearms. But getting an animal within a specified range and in a position where we can get a good shot isn’t as easy as you might think. I have taken my finger off the trigger and watched animals walk (or fly) away many, many times because the shot just wasn't there. If you want to attack hunting, why not attack the root issue - killing animals - instead of attacking caricatures? And really, I don't understand why you disdain meat eaters who hunt over those who get their meat from polystyrene trays. We're the ones who have the courage to face the truth behind meat eating - that an animal must die for us to eat it. We don't look the other way as someone else does the killing for us. Google me, Msgrant. I write about this issue a lot. Perhaps next time you choose to write about it, you can base your vitriol on reality, not fiction. Just be prepared for the upsetting discovery that it's harder to be vitriolic once you realize the people you disdain aren't as stupid as you think.— May 24, 2009 10:51 a.m.