Man, I know we’re here to talk about how fucking dumb the whole situation is, but there’s something in particular about this that is so fucking stupid outside of the psy-op part:

If Hasan does have a “vibrate only” collar, it’s highly likely that his dog FUCKING HATES IT. Many dogs find vibrating collars to be more aversive than low-to-mid-level shock, because it’s scary and uncomfortable as shit.

Shit, dawg, I’m gonna take this opportunity to rant about some shit.

Seriously, find a collar that does both vibration and shock, strap it to your neck, and have a friend/partner/stranger/whoever shock you without warning at a setting that would be considered a reasonable “working level” for a pet dog (in between a 1-Low and 2-Med on a garmin/tritronics models, somewhere between 5-15 for e-collar tech.). Great. Feel that? It ain’t much, is it? Kinda almost feels nice, right? Cool. Now, have that same person hit you with the vibrate function without warning. FUCKIN SCARY AND UNCOMFY RIGHT??

Here’s the thing, folks: shock collars aren’t bad. In fact, if you are against the euthanasia of “problem” dogs, you should probably be PRO shock collar. Anyone who says otherwise has likely never spent any time with a truly powerful, aggro, anxious, dominant dog. And all you R+ folks out there, let me know how your fucking “positive only” methods work on a bigass mal or dutchie who wants to fucking hurt you.

If you’re anti-collar and are a totally pro-animal liberation, anti animal-husbandry totally vegan person who believes that we shouldn’t even have pets, then you get a pass, because your logic is consistent with those views. Anyone else can fuck right off if you’re hating on e-collars.

More lefties need to get into the k9 protection world, not for sport, but out of necessity. Some shit will likely come to pass in the future, and dogs are going to be a not insignificant component. You wanna know who currently has the monopoly on fucking hard ass dogs who can do WAY more than just bite? It ain’t lefties, thats for sure. The stuff out in the public domain about the U.S. military use of dogs for surveillance/recon/protection/violence etc is absolutely nutty. And that’s just the stuff in the public domain.

Aight sorry rant over

Being a landowner is not incompatible with being a proletariat. Moreover, hunting does not require ownership of private land — a great many hunters are not landowners. They either benefit from family or acquaintances who are landowners, knock on doors of complete strangers and ask permission to hunt their land, or — if they are fortunate enough to live in a state with an abundance of public land open to hunting — they hunt public land.

Surely, there are those who only hunt estates, ranches, preserves, etc., but I’d wager they make a up only small, but disproportionately represented percentage of the hunting population due to their visible wealth.

As I said in another comment, many of the hunters I encounter are of humble means, many are immigrants, and most are working class.

I appreciate your feedback, and you’re probably correct. Though, I did intend for it to be somewhat vague, I did not intend to signal support for sport hunting.

My intention with the ambiguity was quite literally to survey the community’s thoughts about hunting, and more specifically their feelings about hunters and their motivations. To that end, I feel like it was fairly successful.

Much of my curiosity is driven by the ever-increasing urban vs. rural sentiment in America (a story as old as civilization itself, I fear). I wonder, too, how many people in online spaces such as this one are city-dwellers, and how many reside in rural areas? I personally grew up in and currently live in a very rural area. Not being a landowner myself, I spend a fair amount of time on public land hunting and foraging. Many of the people I encounter are of no greater means than myself. A surprising number are immigrants who view it as a cost-effective means to provide for their families. Many are your typical white cis male, to be sure, but that’s not entirely the case.

Often when I see hunting come up in online, left-of-center oriented spaces, I see most people view the average hunter as landed gentry — petite bourgeois suburbanites. Though they represent a great number of hunters, in my own experience, they only make up a portion of the American hunting population. Certainly it is rare that I meet left leaning hunters, and I have yet to encounter one who outright claims to be a leftist.

I find this curious because these are supposed to be workers movements, yet, so many rural working class Americans are misrepresented in the discourse about them. I find it more curious, because I hear my own story reflected in the stories of my neighbors, and I wonder: how did we end up so ideologically opposed? Further, I wonder, how is it that the left (myself included) expects to motivate people to abolish capitalism, rectify settler-colonialism, and have any semblance of solidarity with one another when so much working class American culture is antithetical to both online and in-person leftist rhetoric.

Ugh. Long rant is long. Hope that clears things up.

looking at hunting as a subculture

I pretty much abhor hunting culture (or any sort of purely extractive subculture for that matter), but I continue to participate in the ways I do because I appreciate the opportunity to spend time with people who are ideologically opposed to me. We are all members of the proletariat, and I’m quite certain that I am one of the few leftists many of the hunters I encounter will ever personally meet — much less have a relationship with.

Curiously enough, the right seems to be doing a sufficient job of alienating their base of hunters. Millions of acres of public lands are slated to be sold, while countless more are being opened up for mining and various other forms of resource extraction.

Additionally, non-toxic (read: lead-free) ammunition is becoming more expensive due to the ongoing trade war with China, which controls upwards of 80% of the global supply of bismuth and tungsten. This poses a problem for migratory bird hunters and all hunters who hunt on federal land regardless of pursuit. Federal regulations stipulate that use of lead shot is forbidden for pursuit of migratory birds, and the mere possession of lead shot is forbidden on federally owned and managed lands.

Copper and Steel alternatives exist, yes, but they are as yet inferior to bismuth and tungsten. Prices for bismuth and tungsten cartridges skyrocket, as does demand for steel and copper, thus driving the price for those inferior products ever higher, and —as fucked as they all are — I can’t see any federal regulatory agency backpedaling on the issue of lead. Moreover, the so-called “ethical hunters” who refuse to shoot lead are in an even bigger pickle. Superiority of bismuth and tungsten is due in large part to increased density which means superior killing potential over steel and copper. This results in fewer crippled birds, and thus, is considered more humane.

Autistic info dump. Sorry. Anyways, I’m curious to see how all of this plays out.

states with DNRs who actively breed deer should probably stop that.

I agree. I think harvesting of deer for management of CWD is potentially legitimate as well. Also, states who manage habitat and operate hatcheries solely for the hunting of imported game (such as pheasants) should probably stop that too.

there are probably some american leftists who subsistence hunt but i doubt they’re on the forum descended from a podcast subreddit.

I know of precisely one in addition to myself, though, I know them in real life as well. Curious if there are others.

Agreed. Thank you for your response. To be clear, I am neither advocating for the killing of animals in the pursuit of sport hunting, nor am I suggesting that pride is an inborn consequence of killing animals.

Again, I’m not intending to start a debate, as I know this is a delicate subject. I personally don’t see progressive/leftist ideologies as being mutually exclusive of hunting, and am simply curious if there are other likeminded folks in this community. My expectation is that there are very few people who share in this belief, but I’m asking nonetheless.

No. I do, however, believe in unconditional positive regard. Essentially, believing that people are doing the best they can with what they have, and genuinely wanting the best for them.

In interpersonal — and especially romantic relationships — success is largely contingent upon mutual adherence to agreed upon conditions. Anyone promoting unconditional love in romantic relationships is likely promoting abuse.

Love is a two way street.

Regard is a one way street.