hunting

Wow... and the poor guy just wanted to discuss methods Seriously though, I'd have to agree with some of the points both sides are putting forth. I completely agree that it is wrong to kill animals for fun. Not only is it barbaric, it's wasteful. On the other hand, I don't find hunting for food to be any more inhumane than breeding an animal just so you can fatten it up and _then_ kill it. At least the deer/bear/turkey/rabbit has a fighting chance. In that same spirit, I applaud those who hunt with a bow over a gun. Gives the prey more of a chance. (Personally, I prefer cutting down trees with an axe over a chainsaw for the same reason. Weird huh? ) There's also hunting of predators who go after livestock. I keep chickens and have no compunction against killing an animal to protect them. I usually try to refrain from doing so to a neighbor's pet (for obvious reasons) but I can't make a raccoon's owner lock him up better.
Those who believe that human's are evil for killing animals at all obviously have not spent enough time studying nature. We eat meat for a reason. It is a living picture of the sick twisted world in which animals eat other animals. Death is part of our world now, to deny that is foolish.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Most people who hunt for sport eat their kill. Humans are naturally omnivores, so it is quite natural for people to kill animals for consumption. How is predation of wild animals any different than that of domestic?

it's about an individual's morals... humans already have a system in place for domesticating and slaughtering animals for consumption... to some people it is immoral to kill in situations where it is not absolutely necessary... to others, it is not

domesticated animals are bred to be slaughtered... they would not exist were it not for our consumption... wild animals came about on their own and have there own kind of community and interaction... they may not be quite human, but watch some nature programs about wolf packs or bear families and it's hard to think of them as "just animals" anymore

i don't think it should be illegal... i just have a very hard time understanding the "fun" in it... but i do know people i respect who enjoy it quite a bit... i think it is mostly a "how you grew up" kind of thing (like most things in life)... if you grow up around hunters, you hunt... if not, you probably don't

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

I think I was going more along the lines of the wolf not violating the rabbit's legal rights and it is completely natural (natural wild life).

I just don't think that's a very good argument, because lots of things are natural for wildlife and shouldn't be natural for people.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

domesticated animals are bred to be slaughtered... they would not exist were it not for our consumption...

That doesn't really say anything about whether or not it's moral to consume them. Some humans have been born to be enslaved. Does that mean it's moral to enslave them?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

wild animals came about on their own and have there own kind of community and interaction... they may not be quite human, but watch some nature programs about wolf packs or bear families and it's hard to think of them as "just animals" anymore

Some people have befriended chickens or other such animals too. I clean up after, feed and water three guinea pigs every other night and love them very dearly. However, I know that in other countries guinea pigs are killed and served as meals. Some guinea pigs are born for that purpose, I expect. The fact that they were born and raised for a purpose doesn't say whether or not that purpose is right or wrong.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

We do not grant legal rights to life, freedom, and happiness to animals.

But we do grant them a certain wellbeing, a wellfare. *kicks language barrier* Otherwise they may be the animals but we would be the beasts. I think there is truth to be found in the statement that civilisation is partly determinded by the way we treat animals.

Most people who hunt for sport eat their kill. Humans are naturally omnivores, so it is quite natural for people to kill animals for consumption. How is predation of wild animals any different than that of domestic?

I don't think you can equate predation by wild animals to modern day hunting. For once, the human situation is much more diverse and complicated. It's indeed quite natural for humans to kill and eat animals. However, when we have sufficient animals bred for food, is there really much need for hunting for food? I don't think the need of food can still be a big argument in favour for hunting in western lands today.

Wildlife control, yes that would be a viable reason in my eyes. To kill predators to protect cattle and life-stock, less but still acceptable. But it is too often used as an excuse to wipe out all predators men can gun down. I have seen situations that have made my blood boil: the wolves in France, the bears in the Pyrenneans. There are very often other, usuable ways to protect domestic animals. Granted not always and they usually involve some more work. Sometimes there is sadly no other way than to shoot the wild predators. But it should never be the first option.

In my opinion wild animals are more than just meals on legs like their domestic bred counterparts sometimes are. Wild animals have a certain survival instinct, that's why it's hard introducing animals in the wild, they have to learn so many things to survive. Most predators can never hunt unless they were taught by their mother. Some animals need a family group to be able to function correctly.

One can relatively easy replace a lost herd of cattle. One can far less easily replace a wild population of animals. I think certain wild populations are too valuable to be merely a past-time food source for hunters.

[rohirrim TR]

acran merns got a point the guy wanted to know what kind of gun or bow you prefer and your point about protecting livestock is valid as well I have horses and i also have the legal right to shoot any animals that would bother them ( luckily haven't had to yet) but technically thats not what you would call hunting that really self defense

and billy the only hunting i do is shoot varmints which is a way to have fun and help the environment got rats in your apartment? a .22 shot shell works great but seriously rats , praire dogs, rabbits, is a way to have "fun" and even if you don't eat rats they still need to be eliminated

[Lief Erikson]

I must confess, I wouldn't have a problem with your coming over to our block and blowing the heads off a few of our rats.

[Nerdanel]

In Finland, we don't have enough big predators to keep the moose populations under control. People have a strange hate towards wolves, so they haven't had the chance to found a proper population. This is why they have to hunt moose and deer and so on; there is no natural control, and there has to be some sort of it, otherwise it won't be good for nature. I would rather see that they'd give wolves and lynx a better chance to do the controlling though.

Still, if I'd eat meat, I'd prefer that from animals who have led a life in nature, than meat from the meat industry - I find that sickening.
I don't support hunting, but there's no way to stop it just like that, since it's been going on for quite a while now, and we're not talking about just a few animals. Stopping the hunting of moose completely, and still not letting populations of predators grow stronger would be disastrous. At least here in Finland.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

In Finland, we don't have enough big predators to keep the moose populations under control. People have a strange hate towards wolves, so they haven't had the chance to found a proper population.

That's sad.

[Spock]

seen on the back of a pickup, hereabouts

"I love animals, in the proper sauce".

[Lief Erikson]

:-P :-P :-P Pretty bad.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I think there is truth to be found in the statement that civilisation is partly determinded by the way we treat animals.

This sums it up just right. As kings and queens of the natural order, armed & gifted with the ability to reason and make choices and question our existence, and with all the other unique abilities and traits that us human beings are born with, we as the dominant species of this planet have a responsibility to deal with all living things with RESPECT, with KINDNESS. We should be using our brains as well as our hearts, protecting the animals that need our assistance (like any wild animal who needs help not to go extinct), RESPECTFULLY controlling the animals who require human intervention in order to stay stable (like the deer thing).

Farmed food animals deserve respect and compassion, too. They musn't be forced to live their little lives in terrible, terrible conditions - not when they are literally giving the gift of their very EXISTENCE as a farm animal to us humans.

Everything, everything that lives has a right to exist, otherwise it wouldn't exist, right? Carnivores, herbivores, crocodiles, jellyfish, an ant, grizzly bears, meerkats, chickens, rattlesnakes, human beings, amoebas, or whatever - all have the right to live, and to use whatever means available to them in order to continue to survive as a species. Meaning if a crocodile jumps on your jugular, you've got to kill him because he's trying to take YOUR life away, and that's fair. The crocodile's not in the wrong, the human's not in the wrong. Or, if you need to get food and you've got a gun, and you live in crocodile-land, then of course hunt the damn things - to eat them, not for "fun."


anyway... I'm having problems trying to articulate today...

I hate whenever animals are needlessly injured and/or killed by people. I can't stand that friggin' Ernest Hemingway mentality so prevalent in the hunting crowd. And finally, it is absolutely shameful and heartbreaking that our domesticated animals have to endure so much pain before they are slaughtered, when all they deserve is a clean and decent little life before they become bacon and lambchops, or whatever.

[Ragnarok]

I think Mr. Ghandi makes an interesting point...

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Mahatma Ghandi

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

I think Mr. Ghandi makes an interesting point...

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Mahatma Ghandi

Word!!! Abso-friggin'-lutely.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Mahatma Ghandi

Couldn't the Pawnee Indians then be considered the height of moral progress? They hunted buffalo and made use of everything . . . and tortured human captives with exquisitely cruel techniques.

In France before the Revolution I heard of peasants complaining that the nobles took far greater care of their horses and dogs than they did of human beings.

While taking good care of animals isn't a sure sign of moral progress, I think brutality toward animals is a sure sign of moral decay.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

anyway... I'm having problems trying to articulate today...

I think that post of yours was quite articulate. I don't know what I think of hunting for sport rather than food myself. If people hunt game and then eat it, I don't have a problem with that. I'll have to consider about the other, still. This is an issue I haven't really thought about seriously before.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In France before the Revolution I heard of peasants complaining that the nobles took far greater care of their horses and dogs than they did of human beings.

While taking good care of animals isn't a sure sign of moral progress, I think brutality toward animals is a sure sign of moral decay.

good point.

[Spock]

meerkats, Loteese; most obscure reference....oh, and crocks don't jump

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That doesn't really say anything about whether or not it's moral to consume them. Some humans have been born to be enslaved. Does that mean it's moral to enslave them?

that's the whole point about relative morality... in certain places and times owning slaves was seen as perfectly moral by those who owned them... it was the life the owners and slaves were born in and died in... whether or not it is moral to consume animals is both an individual judgement and a societal one... many individuals decide that it is immoral to consume animals eventhough they live in societies that allow it... while in other cases, whole societies decide to condemn the consumption of certain kinds of animals

it's usually a function of history and environment... in asia and africa, certain animals are consumed that we might find disgusting, but to them it is the norm (i.e. monkeys or even rats)

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Some people have befriended chickens or other such animals too. I clean up after, feed and water three guinea pigs every other night and love them very dearly. However, I know that in other countries guinea pigs are killed and served as meals. Some guinea pigs are born for that purpose, I expect. The fact that they were born and raised for a purpose doesn't say whether or not that purpose is right or wrong.

that's the key right there... emotional attachment has a strong effect on what one thinks of as "moral"... if you grow up in a fairly rural setting where everyone and his brother hunts, it is the norm for you... you've eaten deer and goose, or skinned a muskrat since you were a kid... there is nothing wrong with it... yet you still might take it rather hard if someone came by and shot your dog... but why? it's just another animal

other people might only experience these animals in petting zoos, as pets, or on television... and you may have never even (or rarely seen) an animal killed in real life... to such a person, the idea can be quite repulsive

who's right and who's wrong? both

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it's about an individual's morals... humans already have a system in place for domesticating and slaughtering animals for consumption... to some people it is immoral to kill in situations where it is not absolutely necessary... to others, it is not

domesticated animals are bred to be slaughtered... they would not exist were it not for our consumption... wild animals came about on their own and have there own kind of community and interaction... they may not be quite human, but watch some nature programs about wolf packs or bear families and it's hard to think of them as "just animals" anymore

I still think of killing an animal as killing an animal, whether or not it was specifically bred to go into hamburger or just running wild (with the more general purpose of being food for something).

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I just don't think that's a very good argument, because lots of things are natural for wildlife and shouldn't be natural for people.

I see.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

But we do grant them a certain wellbeing, a wellfare.

Yes. To some extent. I just wouldn't take it as far as you

I don't think you can equate predation by wild animals to modern day hunting. For once, the human situation is much more diverse and complicated. It's indeed quite natural for humans to kill and eat animals. However, when we have sufficient animals bred for food, is there really much need for hunting for food? I don't think the need of food can still be a big argument in favour for hunting in western lands today.

I think we are privileged that we don't need to hunt animals for food (due to other sources), but that doesn't flip to mean we never should hunt animals. To many negatives...umm...That doesn't...argh...Just because we don't need to hunt for food doesn't mean that we should be prohibited from using older methods (hunting). (I think that's what I'm trying to say...).

Here in Pennsylvania, the Game Commission carefully regulates the number of doe ("antlerless" deer) licenses, I'm not sure about buck ("antlered"); I'm sure they do it for other animals. For any species there are specific times of day and days of the year when one can hunt. Deer season is around Thanksgiving time. They pick this because it is most compatable with the deer's life cycle...not during mating season, not when there are little deer-lings (fawns I suppose). There are also different regulations depending on archery, certain types of guns, etc. For example, one can hunt deer with a bow and arrow in a greater window of time than with a gun. It's a lot harder with a bow and arrow and a lot less people do it, hence they get more time. There are limits of how many deer (1), squirrel, pheasant, etc. With fish there are size minimums, too.

It's not cheap for the folks involved either. For example, to fish in PA (out of state for me) I had to pay over US$60 for a license. Some of my relatives who hunt in PA have to pay around a US$100 for a deer license (doe/buck separately). And they only really hunt for the first week or so of the season.

The game commission heavily regulates licenses. For example, they only started allowing people to hunt doe in the last few years, due to the fact that they were getting a bit plentiful. This year, they cut back the number of licenses they give by 40%. Why? To keep the number of deer at the perfect level.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that's the key right there... emotional attachment has a strong effect on what one thinks of as "moral"... if you grow up in a fairly rural setting where everyone and his brother hunts, it is the norm for you... you've eaten deer and goose, or skinned a muskrat since you were a kid... there is nothing wrong with it... yet you still might take it rather hard if someone came by and shot your dog... but why? it's just another animal

other people might only experience these animals in petting zoos, as pets, or on television... and you may have never even (or rarely seen) an animal killed in real life... to such a person, the idea can be quite repulsive

who's right and who's wrong? both

If you go back in my family, almost everyone is mountain boys (both sides of my family!). My grandma is 83 and she still goes deer hunting at her cabin (and yes, she gets them). My dad's grandfather came from a really really big family, and he would have to "go up the mountain to shoot dinner." We have hunting pictures galore in boxes and around the house. I haven't ever gone hunting, but I do fish.

I guess that's why I'm for it .

BJ- speaking of skinning muskrats, there's this movie...I'll pm you if you're interested.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

BJ- speaking of skinning muskrats, there's this movie...I'll pm you if you're interested.

i did it with my uncle when i was a kid... i thought it was cool

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

I still think of killing an animal as killing an animal, whether or not it was specifically bred to go into hamburger or just running wild (with the more general purpose of being food for something).

killing and animal is just killing an animal... but your life experience as well as your personal reasoning behind it can vastly influence how you judge a certain situation... like everything in life, there's a lot of grey area