Post by brobear on Jan 17, 2023 5:21:58 GMT -5
Animal enthusiasts come in a variety package.
Hunters are animal enthusiasts. Despite the hostile opinions of most of us towards those who find enjoyment in shooting and killing animals, many of them, perhaps most of them, have a love for animals. Sounds strange to non-hunters, but it's true. I know a few of them. They were kids I grew-up with. They enjoyed books about animals and watching movies about animals, etc. But, these guys were very much into fishing and hunting. Anything that would put them outdoors. So, they're love and interest of animals is a little different from ours', but it's there.
We must keep in mind, that those who grow-up in the country (majority ) occasionally have wild meat on the dinner table. Most of us, whether we hunt or not, eat meat regularly, and yet we have this love for animals.
Side note; I grew-up out in the country in N. Carolina surrounded by thousands of acres of woods, creeks, ponds, a river, and hills.
On the forums, most of us are either cat fans or bear fans. The cat fans are strongly divided mostly by lion fans against tiger fans. They're debates are even more intense against each other than against bear fans. Our debates are just this side of explosive. Nevertheless, we all have something in common. We are all animal enthusiasts. If not, we would be on other forums arguing about Ford vs Chevy or perhaps Captain America vs the Batman.
It's a shame that some posters end-up hating the animal that their debate adversaries defend.
Then there are the true tree-huggers who view our debates as being hostile. They think of us as people who want to see animals tossed into an arena where we can glory as we watch them tear each other to pieces. Among us, there might possibly be a few (very view) who are in that category. But, I'd prefer to believe that the vast majority of posters who debate these face-off scenarios are simply curious and interested in which animals stand as the "top dogs" within the "Wild Kingdom". I would suspect that most of you are very much like myself, and are sickened by those who actually arrange such things as dog pit fights.
Being interested in which animals are natures' "big dogs" is simply a natural part of being masculine. It's a "man-thing" and there's nothing wrong with that. I have seen posted so many times that "biologists have no interest in which animal can outfight another." Well, for a biologist to get himself involved in our debates might look bad for him professionally, but that doesn't mean he has no interest - if he's a man.
It's like saying that baseball, football, and golf are legitimate sports, but anyone interested in boxing is low-class and should be ashamed. American Football is a contact sport. The fans of any particular team will cheer for his team as he curses any opposing team. Does this place him within the category of serial killers?
Anyway, all I'm saying is that hunters and fishermen, forum posters, tree-hugging hippies, park rangers, and biologists are all animal enthusiasts - animal lovers.
Hunters are animal enthusiasts. Despite the hostile opinions of most of us towards those who find enjoyment in shooting and killing animals, many of them, perhaps most of them, have a love for animals. Sounds strange to non-hunters, but it's true. I know a few of them. They were kids I grew-up with. They enjoyed books about animals and watching movies about animals, etc. But, these guys were very much into fishing and hunting. Anything that would put them outdoors. So, they're love and interest of animals is a little different from ours', but it's there.
We must keep in mind, that those who grow-up in the country (majority ) occasionally have wild meat on the dinner table. Most of us, whether we hunt or not, eat meat regularly, and yet we have this love for animals.
Side note; I grew-up out in the country in N. Carolina surrounded by thousands of acres of woods, creeks, ponds, a river, and hills.
On the forums, most of us are either cat fans or bear fans. The cat fans are strongly divided mostly by lion fans against tiger fans. They're debates are even more intense against each other than against bear fans. Our debates are just this side of explosive. Nevertheless, we all have something in common. We are all animal enthusiasts. If not, we would be on other forums arguing about Ford vs Chevy or perhaps Captain America vs the Batman.
It's a shame that some posters end-up hating the animal that their debate adversaries defend.
Then there are the true tree-huggers who view our debates as being hostile. They think of us as people who want to see animals tossed into an arena where we can glory as we watch them tear each other to pieces. Among us, there might possibly be a few (very view) who are in that category. But, I'd prefer to believe that the vast majority of posters who debate these face-off scenarios are simply curious and interested in which animals stand as the "top dogs" within the "Wild Kingdom". I would suspect that most of you are very much like myself, and are sickened by those who actually arrange such things as dog pit fights.
Being interested in which animals are natures' "big dogs" is simply a natural part of being masculine. It's a "man-thing" and there's nothing wrong with that. I have seen posted so many times that "biologists have no interest in which animal can outfight another." Well, for a biologist to get himself involved in our debates might look bad for him professionally, but that doesn't mean he has no interest - if he's a man.
It's like saying that baseball, football, and golf are legitimate sports, but anyone interested in boxing is low-class and should be ashamed. American Football is a contact sport. The fans of any particular team will cheer for his team as he curses any opposing team. Does this place him within the category of serial killers?
Anyway, all I'm saying is that hunters and fishermen, forum posters, tree-hugging hippies, park rangers, and biologists are all animal enthusiasts - animal lovers.
