people complain about hunting. yet they eat meat...

[swampdog]

The "usual suspects" tried to stop a black bear hunt in the Dismal Swamp Refuge this week. They were unsuccessful. The article is here.

I think the enjoyment hunters get out of it bothers anti's more than the actual killing. The above article reminded me of the Colorado elk situation.

I hunt and I eat meat. If I was forced to be a vegetarian, I'd be dreaming of a char-grilled porterhouse within the first week and buying one on the blackmarket by the second. Luckily, I still have a choice, for now.

I've often heard statements putting down hunters for not caring enough about the rights of all gun owners. I'm sure everyone here has. I think all gun owners should care more about the rights of hunters. If they were to make hunting illegal, that would be one less reason why we "need" guns. I believe the anti-hunting movement is just a front for the anti-gunners and any gun owners that support it are supporting the same people who want to take their guns.

 

[MCgunner]

I enjoy hunting for food you will eat, but I was at the range and was talking to an older man who was talking about what he had used to shoot an elephant, and I was taken aback. Killing an elephant as a trophy in this day and age is something I do not feel comfortable with at all. Maybe if you were Teddy Roosevelt, in 1908, but I don't see it today.

And why not? IF the meat is utilized by the local population or SOMEbody, I don't see it as unethical. Heck, I kill coyotes for predator control, no other reason. I don't eat 'em.

But, if it's an edible animal, it is a waste to let it rot. This is one of the more sickening things about the slaughter of the buffalo herds in the 19th century, all that protein going to waste, and danged tasty, too. So, if I had more money than sense (I don't, and not because I have a lot of sense) and I wanted to hunt Elephant, I wouldn't do it unless the animal was going to be utilized by the local population. Just killing one for a couple of teeth is unethical IMHO. There are plenty of people in Africa that could use the free meat I'd think.

So, I'm with you if the meat is not utilized. I have never been of a trophy hunting mentality anyway. Can't eat the horns. But, I do have a few mounts on my walls. It's a Texas home, after all.

 

[DirtyBrad]

MCgunner,

I have a lot of trouble with the "natural" argument. It isn't natural for us to sleep in a bed, wear shoes, floss, treat women as equal, get chemotherapy, write literature, get married, hunt with a rifle, etc.

If you want to say that part of our nature is our relatively tremendous intelligence that allows us to develop new tools, materials, and techniques, I would say that electing to be vegetarian or vegan is then just as natural as eating meat.

As far as the health aspect, as I said before, there are vegetarian atheletes at every level of sport, including weight-lifting and millions of healthy vegetarians in this country. That to me is a very strong argument that it's a perfectly healthy lifestyle. Quite a few doctors are now recommending a vegetarian diet because of various other health benefits, but I don't really think about that much.

Perhaps the society that we belong to allows for a meat-free environment more than the past. However that came about, it's the way it is and because of that, I choose to take advantage of it and not hurt or kill an animal to eat. As I've said, eating meat was a necessity in the past, so it was a moot point. But it's not now, so we can start to explore the issue more.

***

swampdog,

I certainly hope you take pleasure in hunting. I don't know why you'd do it if you didn't.

Black market? I find that sort of thing pretty funny. It's just one kind of food. I understand really liking it. I miss it myself sometimes, but people always say they couldn't live without it. It's just food. If you had a medical condition where meat would kill you, you'd stop eating it. You'd miss it, sure, but you'd get by just fine.

That happens all the time. People are diabetic or can't eat dairy or have other health problems that restrict their diets. Yeah, it sucks on some level not to be able to eat things you enjoy, but it's not exactly a hardship.

 

[mustanger98]

As for the legality of hunting and whose rights are being violated, I think it all depends on your view of animals. If you're of the view that an animal doesn't have the right to go about its daily business in the forest without being shot, then you're right. From that perspective, anyone trying to legislate your hunting is infringing on your rights.

But if you have the view that they do have those rights, then it's no longer your right to shoot them. It's not the law or the tree-hugging hippies that are violating your rights, it's you who's violating the rights of the animals.

Animal rights are a tricky subject. Most people would agree, I think, that a person who tortures a dog should be punished severely. But most people also agree that we should eat animals. From that, it strikes me that the average person feels that animals have some rights, but not the same as us. I would agree with that; I think it's the definition of just what "some" means that is a tough area.

I say this as a Christian who knows something about the Old Testament as well... God said "man shall have dominion" over the land and the animals. He also said after the great flood that "I give you every living thing to eat", but later named "clean and unclean" animals as to whether or not they should be eaten. Now, my point in bringing this up is partly to say this is a big part of why we draw lines as to what we're comfortable eating. The other part of my point, and more importantly, is that with dominion comes a huge responsibility in so many areas it'd be impossible to discuss them all reasonably.

 

[mustanger98]

I enjoy hunting for food you will eat, but I was at the range and was talking to an older man who was talking about what he had used to shoot an elephant, and I was taken aback. Killing an elephant as a trophy in this day and age is something I do not feel comfortable with at all. Maybe if you were Teddy Roosevelt, in 1908, but I don't see it today.

What you don't readily realize is that there are negative consequences to banning the legal hunting of elephants. Herd size and rogues being two interrelated issues. Plus, every time a paying hunter kills any elephant or other African game animal, while the hunter gets the trophy (head/ivory/hide), the local native people get the meat. They can clean up an elephant in two or three days, that is, process the meat for future eating. A paying hunter kills a large dangerous game animal (elephant, rhino, hippo, etc.) like that and the natives generally celebrate. Examples of this can be read in Elmer Keith's "Hell, I Was There".

 

[MCgunner]

Now, my point in bringing this up is partly to say this is a big part of why we draw lines as to what we're comfortable eating.

Maybe, but so long as I can shoot deer, catch redfish and trout, and buy a T bone, why should I eat grasshoppers?

But, in not so Christian countries, they do eat grasshoppers, so you probably have a very good point there. If I'd grown up in the Philippines, I'd probably like grasshoppers. Yum. Deal is, just because vegetarianism is a fad here, don't mean it's going to go world wide. You ain't gonna keep a Chinese from his fish, I can tell ya that! I know too danged many of 'em, LOL! And, what's that stuff they do in Korea, egg buried in the ground until it rots? Kimshee or something like that I think. Then, there's the Chinese thing where the strap a live monkey in a cage below a table with his head showing, lop the top of his head open while he's still alive to eat the brains. Supposed to give them courage or intelligence or something. We don't do that sort of thing here, of course, but over there I'd suspect you'd get laughed out of town if you tried to get 'em all to be vegetarian. It's the culture, different morays. I don't believe in forcing our culture on others, though western civilizations have been doing that forever in the name of the Lord. I guess it's my Cherokee side speaking. Maybe it's the Cherokee that makes me hunt, but I tend to think it was growing up a native Texan in a rural community.

Would eating grasshoppers be against the vegetarian religion?

 

[DirtyBrad]

mustanger98,

I try to avoid supporting arguing the Bible because it seems, from my experience, that one can back up almost any position with its words.

You're referring to Leviticus, right? No shellfish, pigs, blood, etc? Didn't Jesus lift those restrictions, which is why Christians aren't kosher? Forgive my ignorance if I've misunderstood. Bhuddists are vegetarian if I'm not mistaken, as are Hindus. In any case, it's difficult for me to imagine standing before God at the end and him being upset with you for not eating meat.

I personally don't hold with the idea of man's dominion over nature (Genesis, right?). I would say that our agrarian ancestors previously reference lived in nature, not lorded over it. When I'm outdoors, I certainly don't feel dominion.

But I still feel we have a responsibility for it. I also feel that a those of us who are able have an obligation to watch out for the weak.

 

[WolfMansDad]

Some need to hunt

I have known a great many cats in my life. Most of them are content to sleep all day in the sun and eat the cat chow their owners set before them. A few of them, however, have been hunters. Those of you who have a cat like this will understand. They NEED to go out and hunt. They will actively go out and look for things to catch. You can't stop them, and it will probably warp them if you try.

Some people are the same way. I am. I have to hunt. It's an inborn need, and I have felt it since I was very small. There are some kids who torture animals, but that is not the same thing. The born hunter kills quickly, without malice, and never just for the thrill of killing. Sometimes, the born hunter will pass up the kill once the prey is caught or outwitted, if killing the animal is inconvenient or unecessary. After all, the chase is the game. But the prey is not spared out of kindness any more than it is killed out of malice.

I can't speak of whether animals have rights or not. Does the cat have the right to follow its inborn need? Does the rat have the right to be left alone? Could you explain this concept to either one of them? I really don't care. I choose not to be cruel, but that's really more a part of the inborn need than a deliberate choice. To see an animal suffer is upsetting, but I still have to hunt.

I can't explain it any other way.

 

[DirtyBrad]

Vegetarianism isn't American by any means. It's popular in all of the western countries. And there are many millions of Hindus and Bhuddists in many eastern countries (including China) who are vegetarian.

Being vegetarian or vegan isn't a religion (although there are many religious people who are). It's just about not eating a certain food. There's not a governing body. Some people would have a problem eating a grasshopper, some wouldn't, just like some people don't support eating veal and some do. Personally, I have no use for grasshoppers.

It's hard to imagine calling something a fad without that being an insult. If vegetarianism is a fad because it's new, then so are cars and electric lights. If that's because you don't think it will last, I guess time will tell.

 

[MCgunner]

My education is in wildlife and fisheries science (management) and I'm not Christian. I do what I do because it is what I am. I don't think it particularly healthy to try to be an herbivore, but that's your right if you wish. Knock yourself out at the salad bar. HOWEVER, it is not I or people like me that are threatening to keep you from eating salad. It is the animal rights folks and vegetarians who are calling me a murderer and attempting to keep me from doing what I do. Therefore, I have a right to fight back. It is my birthright to eat meat, it's what I do, it's my place in nature.

I'm not sure the animal rights folks have enough intelligence to understand that there are cultures beyond their control. They might politically exercise their will over me someday. At that point, I'll be an outlaw because I will still kill to eat. It is doubtful that they'll ever have the political clout to bring down the entire agricultural industry, however. Money talks, BS walks. It is doubtful they could fight the sport hunter and win. After all, we are right and game managers know it. Without the tools of hunting, their job becomes impossible. Heck, without our licenses and pitman robertson taxes, they lose their jobs! There is a HUGE dollar industry around sport hunting, of course, too.

But, even if they could be victorious in America or the western world, they'll not keep the Chinese from eating his meat, or the African, or the Saudi, or the Indian, or whom ever. They're fighting a lost cause if they think they can force their values on every culture in this world. If they wanna eat salad, no problem, just let me eat my meat!

 

[DirtyBrad]

WolfMansDad,

I understand what you're saying, but if an animal has a right to life, then it's a moot point. I can say I have a need for a variety of things, but if it violates another's rights, then I'm out of luck.

I feel like I'm going off the rails a bit, though. Obviously, a few of us hijacked this thread a long while ago, but I don't think I've been anti-hunting from the start, and I don't mean to be now.

As I said before, I don't see hunting as cruel or torture at all and I have a certain kind of respect for those of you that eat meat and actually understand the process and what's involved in doing so.

My big problem is with both the current "mass-produced" meat industry and in what I think is hypocrisy in a lot of people who would contribute to it, but say they don't think animals should be made to suffer if it's possible to avoid.

I'm not stopping anyone from hunting (or anything else, I'm sure). Those of you that do, stay safe.

I have to get away from you guys, get the hell out of the office, and get some dinner already. Hummus, pita, and potatoes, yum.

 

[MCgunner]

Hummus? That's what I till into my garden, I think, like peat moss. I'll stick with my oven fried chicken, thanks. It was real good.

 

[Cousin Mike]

3 points I want to argue

...this is just my opinion on a few issues that have been discussed since I last read here.

1.) Eating meat is not necessary for survival.

I think a lot of folks would disagree. You tell me someone only eats organic food, what I hear is "So & so is a wealthy person." And that's about all I hear... If you don't make $100k a year, you just can't afford to eat like that. Trust me, I've tried it. A quart of orange juice might cost $3 - but that same juice with the word "organic" on the carton all of a sudden costs $7-$8.

I can get a 20-pack of chicken legs for $4.50 - so if I live on a normal salary like most of America, I can't afford to eat salads and exotic fruits all day - as wonderful as that may be. And I definitely can't make that the main staple of my diet. I need meat to survive and be healthy.

2.) Vegetarians are inherently healthy.

Caca del toro... Most vegetarians I know in their 30's look like they're approaching 50. Most have assorted health problems of various flavors, usually digestive problems - and 100% of them take supplements for protien. If being a vegetarian was healthy in and of itself, there would be no need for nutrition supplements for protien - which is almost exclusively found in meat.

Yeah I know, beans and nuts have protien... Not nearly as much as a steak does, though. They say an 80-90% vegetarian diet is healthy, but that's different than complete vegan/vegetarianism.

3.) Animal rights.

A mutually exclusive point. Animals don't have rights in any real sense as far as I'm concerned. Of course they should be free to live a life free of unnecessary pain and suffering, but when we start to talk about "rights," red flags go off in my mind.

I say that because if animals have rights, then we have to subject them to law. Which is silly. But that's the other side of the coin. So if someone thinks animals have rights, they're telling me that predation should be illegal, no matter if it's human or animal predation. So what do we do, imprison all meat eating people AND animals? What's the charge, violating the civil rights of an animal?

When the world goes in that direction, I'm headed for Mars.

MCgunner, great point about the evolution of our brains. I've also heard that eating cooked food (read: meat) as opposed to raw food is a big part of why our brains continued to evolve the way they did. In any case, this has been a very interesting and civil discussion - it's been a pleasure to take part in.

 

[mustanger98]

I try to avoid supporting arguing the Bible because it seems, from my experience, that one can back up almost any position with its words.

I've noticed the same thing about how some people twist the words to mean something they were never intended to mean. The KKK tried that on one occassion I'm aware of and a college professor who is a campus minister handed them their butts at knowledge of scripture; he balanced out everything they said so it didn't support their view. But that's a different story, or at least on a different subject.

You're referring to Leviticus, right? No shellfish, pigs, blood, etc? Didn't Jesus lift those restrictions, which is why Christians aren't kosher? Forgive my ignorance if I've misunderstood. Bhuddists are vegetarian if I'm not mistaken, as are Hindus. In any case, it's difficult for me to imagine standing before God at the end and him being upset with you for not eating meat.

Leviticus; right. I'm aware that many people believe Jesus did lift those restrictions, but I'm also aware of some professing Christians who don't believe He did. BTW, I'm not quite kosher either, but I found shellfish and ham don't exactly agree with me. That said, I'm not past hunting squirrels and wild hogs either if I know the meat will be used. I knew Hindus were vegetarians, but wasn't sure Bhuddists were. As far as God's judgement at the end, I don't think eating meat, and which meats, or not eating meat will be the major issues He will be judging on, but a practitioner of Judaism, whether Jewish or gentile convert, might disagree on that point. I recall Jesus said it's not what a man puts in his mouth that defiles him, but rather what he says. I believe He meant this as what we eat is not nearly so important as that we don't blaspheme and how we treat our fellow people. And some believers during Jesus human lifetime were gentiles who ate pork and He didn't turn them away for it.

I personally don't hold with the idea of man's dominion over nature (Genesis, right?). I would say that our agrarian ancestors previously reference lived in nature, not lorded over it. When I'm outdoors, I certainly don't feel dominion.

Right; Genesis. The way I see it, whether someone believes in man's dominion or not, we humans are managers with very different ideas as to how things should be managed. The way I understand it though, in the period where many were thought to be strictly agrarian, this is still going to vary by region. Cain and Abel... the first to brothers; one raised crops while the other raised sheep. (I'm not discussing the first murder here; different subject.) They lived at the same time, but had different specialties. Fast forward down the line to the Tower of Babel... I've heard it preached that Nimrod got real well known for killing animals other people were scared stupid of. The way I understood it, those people who worshipped Nimrod were agrarian. (That don't make farmers idolaters by default either. Also, if we read our Bibles, we know how that part of the story went.) I'm not disagreeing that agrarians didn't live in nature, but we're all still managers from one angle or another.

But I still feel we have a responsibility for it. I also feel that a those of us who are able have an obligation to watch out for the weak.

I'm thinking we agree on the generality of those two points.

 

[DirtyBrad]

Cousin Mike,

In response to your three points:

1. I don't really agree. I've been a vegetarian since I was 12 (32 now) and never been wealthy. I do okay now, but I put myself through college working part-time (technically) jobs for about $10 an hour and lived about as cheap as you can. I honestly never had trouble with a food budget. Sure, I was eating Ramen or Mac 'n Cheeze at the end of plenty of months, but I don't know too many college kids that don't.

Yeah, there are expensive pre-packaged vegetarian foods, but there are plenty that aren't. Being vegan for the last few years has posed some challenges, but vegetarian never did at all.

As far as organic, yeah, you're going to get screwed hard on a lot of that stuff. I don't feel any need to drink organic OJ, though. I buy it in the gallon jug when it's on sale at the supermarket.

2. The health thing seems an almost impossible discussion to "prove". You say every vegetarian you know looks twenty years older. I'll say that every one I know looks great and is fit. Do we count up who knows more? I don't know.

I don't take a supplement for protein. I take a regular multi-vitamin, which I think most doctors would recommend for anyone. I think you'll find that protein is becoming understood as a bit over-rated in terms of how much the average person needs. I've read this in plenty of non-vegetarian places like fitness magazines.

Personally, I'm healthy. I get good checkups and have never had a problem. I had a thorough physical a few years back at NIH and the nurse looking at my blood results said I must eat a lot of red meat. Two years ago I had kidney stones and the doctor said I should try cutting down on the meat.

3. As for rights, I don't know. Like I said, most anyone would agree that a dog owner shouldn't be able to do whatever he wants to his dog. If he beats the dog, he should be punished. Does that mean the dog has the right not to be beaten? I don't know. It seems to mean the dog's got something, though.

 

[MCgunner]

I'm not quite kosher either, but I found shellfish and ham don't exactly agree with me.

Man, how could you live without raw oysters? I have an oyster knife in my tackle box and when I'm out fishing in the winter, often, I'll stop on a reef and open a few. Helps to bring along some cocktail sauce. You can imagine 'em screaming as they go down your gullet. How's that for cruel, eaten alive? Don't get no fresher, though.

 

[mustanger98]

This is just me and where I grew up, but the times I recall eating oysters, we had 'em pan fried. Tasted pretty good too, but they weren't that big a deal to me. But that's just me. But then, I'm more into freshwater fishing (bass, stripers, crappie, or trout). It's more my style to cornmeal batter 'em and pan fry 'em... preferably in cast iron.

 

[Cousin Mike]

Animal suffering - I guess that's the button for me. Like I said earlier, nature is very cruel. I respect anyones choice to eat whatever they like. But there are lots of things you could do to help animals. Not eating common food doesn't seem to me to be a big help to much of anything, except one individuals self-image. I hope that doesn't offend you - self-image is important on an individual level. But when people start feeding me that collective animal suffering stuff, as if going vegetarian somehow helps the animal world, I tend to get annoyed. Delusions of grandeur, etc.

Watch nature shows sometimes. Lions often start eating their prey while it's still alive. I've seen video of baboons eating the eyes (and various other parts) out of a very alive and struggling antelope, long before killing it. Lots of animals kill and/or eat their prey in ways that are not-so-quick-and-humane. A person shooting an animal, or slitting it's throat/wringing it's neck is very mild compared to what it's counterparts in the wild would do in a lot of cases.

People who abuse animals are sicko's IMO, and that's a whole other matter. We already have laws against that - and they should be enforced. But buying/eating chicken, even though you know somewhere, some chicken suffered during it's life, doesn't amount to hypocrisy in my way of thinking. I'd be much more inclined to worry about human suffering... At the very least, there are animals that could really use our help. Chickens are not being poached to the brink of extinction.

So I guess if I wanted to help animals, or the planet, I'd go volunteer to help clean up the ocean - or give my time to preserve an endangered species.. And maybe I will one day... Or, I could grab my rifle/shotgun/revolver/bow and arrow, and help out nature by hunting for my food and maintaining the natural balance in my area - and I can feed myself and my family, and maybe even the poor at the same time. That does a lot more than just abstaining from meat solely on the principal of "suffering."

That's the part of the "animal rights" thing that annoys me personally, aside from the obvious fallacy in the logic of legally granting human rights to animals, like the PETA freaks think we should. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose - as long as "I'm saving the world because I don't eat precious animals!" or that other animal rights extremism doesn't come into the conversation. As for what will help me sleep tonight? I have a steak and some potatoes downstairs that I need to attend to.

 

[gezzer]

I go by eat what ever you want, I don't care, but it seems the new Vegans cannot do that they HAVE to preach to me about eating meat is bad. Well to bad get OUT OF MY FACE I am sick of being nice when they are not.

I could have sworn we killed and ate all the Vegans a couple thousand centuries ago. Besides if I was to be a Vegan by design my eyes would be on the sides of my head.

 

[DirtyBrad]

I'm a little offended, but I'll manage.

It's probably impossible to be completely objective about self-image, but I don't think that's any part of it. If anything, I feel it's the opposite. Answering the "But what do you eat?" question got old a long, long time ago.

I think the argument on the actual collective effect of vegetarians would be an interesting one. I have no idea of the real numbers. Hopefully, it makes a difference. I assume that the number of people that eat meat has a direct impact on how much is produced. If one percent of the population is vegetarian, it seems reasonable that there will be something like one percent less meat produced. I'm sure various economic and production factors keep it from being a one-to-one relationship, but it's hard to imagine it not having some effect.

In any event, that's not actually much of a part of the decision for me. I'm sure we all have things in our life that we do, not because of the actual impact, but because we believe that they're right. Heck, take voting. My vote certainly doesn't mean a thing, but I think it's the right thing to do.

I agree that nature is cruel, but I'm not sure what bearing it has on what we do. We may be more humane than a lion or baboon, but those aren't the standards I think most of us try to live by.

I agree that people who abuse animals are sickos. It does something to me that almost nothing else does to hear about someone hurting an animal or a kid or anyone who can't defend themselves. I think it's as sick to cause that kind of suffering for profit or by negligence.

When I decide to protect my family, the answer isn't "buy a gun". Having a gun may be one tool I have, but there's not a limit on the things I can do for my family's safety. Because there are other things I can do to help animals doesn't make this one less valuable.

***

gezzer,

I don't think I understand your post.

I don't think there were humans hundreds of thousands of years ago. Which makes it hard to picture us eating anything, much less each other.

Gorillas have their eyes in the front of their heads and don't eat meat.

 

[lawson]

i am an enthusiastic eater of meat. i am a hunter, and my parents raised me to believe that animals are to be respected, and if i can't take one's life, i shouldn't have the priviledge to eat it's flesh. at eight years old, my ma would send me out to the chicken coop on sunday afternoons to kill and clean a chicken for dinner. though we did also eat meat from the grocery store, we raised chicken and goats in our backyard as well as the occasional hog. there were catfish to clean after fishing trips, bigger game when someone in the family was lucky enough to be drawn for a tag, and lots of quail and dove in the fall. for me, killing was a part of eating. these days, i don't get to hunt and fish as often as i'd like, so most of my meat comes from the grocery store. i try to buy organic free range meat as much as possible, mainly because it tastes better.

now, one of my best friends is a vegan. no animal products whatsoever. no meat, no dairy, no leather goods, nothing. the guy doesn't even own a car, chooses to ride his bicycle everywhere. he doesn't own guns and doesn't like them very much.

how are we able to be friends? i respect his beliefs, he respects mine. this is America, and we're allowed to believe whatever we want. that's what freedom is all about, right?

when asked why he is vegan, he told me that he never really liked eating meat as a kid, and couldn't get the image of it being an animal out of his head while he was eating it. i respect this, as it's a pretty good reason to choose that lifestyle. he's been vegan for over 10 years now and is very healthy.

granted, this is the exception. i've met many vegans and vegetarians who are not so tolerant, and will not bend to another point of view. try to respect others, and hope they do the same. always take the high road.

 

[razorburn]

As for rights, I don't know. Like I said, most anyone would agree that a dog owner shouldn't be able to do whatever he wants to his dog. If he beats the dog, he should be punished. Does that mean the dog has the right not to be beaten? I don't know. It seems to mean the dog's got something, though.

Is this really a right of the dog though? Or a restriction on the person who does this? I've spent thought on the subject myself. Is it really the actual beating of the dog that is wrong? Or is it the sadistic nature of a person who enjoys beating the dog that's really what's objectionable?

This fits in with the ideas of 18th century philospher Immanuel Kant. The entire concepts of right and wrong are built on "willing". This is... how to say.. the ability of choice. A human is a beautful and unique thing, in that it has the ability to stand back from primal desires and choose our own path. This ability of choice is the basis of all kindness and good and bad and evil that exists. For example, a man who encounters a boy in the desert. The boy he finds is dying of thirst and in need, and he has a choice. He can choose to offer him some of his water and save him. If he chooses to do this, then this is right. This is good will. He can choose to take advantage of this and rob the boy. If he chooses this, then this is wrongful or bad will. If he was not presented with any choice, like if he never encountered the boy in the first place, then there is neither right or wrong. Do you see what I'm saying? This unique ability of "will", of discretion through consciousness is the entire fundamental base of all ethics!

Now good will is the only thing, in terms of ethics, with intrinsic value. This is kindness, this is compassion, this is love, whatever you want to call it. It's inherent goodness and the only thing in the interest of the whole of morality that has inherent value!

Animals don't have will. And where no will exists, there cannot be good will, and therefore, inherent value.

I wish I were a more articulate man, but I can't seem to phrase this so well. Can something incapable of morality be subject to any moral laws itself? Animals exist somewhere beyond ethics. None of what an animal can do, can be either ethical or unethical. Then can laws of ethics really be applied to it?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

hockeybum said,

people complain about hunting. yet they eat meat...
People are hypocrites. they eat meat, and yet complain about killing animals. they say its okay to eat meat from farms, because they dont suffer...

The fallacy of hockeybum's statement is obvious. He is assuming that those who complain about hunting are complaining solely about those who kill and eat what they kill, and since the complainers eat meat, he thinks they are hypocrites.

There are several things going on here. First, not all complainers are complaining about hunters who eat what they kill. Second, not all hunters eat what they kill. It also assumes that hunters are all ethical and that meat processing companies and ranches that process livestock are unethical.

I have met some outstanding hunters who eat what they shoot, shoot when they have clean shots at ranges they are comfortable with at shooting, using appropriate calibers, and tracking down less than adequate shots with the tenacity of a bulldog. I have met others who hunt ducks without dogs and don't fetch downed ducks that are too far out in the water. I know deer hunters who can't shoot worth crap and have the tracking skills of a blind person on crutches with tactile nerve damage and a poor sense of smell.

There are hunters who are very good stewards of the land, but many are as messy and careless with the land as they are with their homes and families. In fact, the last 3 properties we have purchased all have signs of these nasty hunters.

There are good and bad hunters out there. The really good hunters end up passing like ghosts in the night. The bad hunters leave enough evidence behind that the blind guy mentioned above could find them.

I have no problem complaining about nasty hunters. They may not be in the majority at all, but they do enough reputation damage to make it easy for folks to see hunters as unnecessary evil.

 

[swampdog]

I have no problem complaining about nasty hunters. They may not be in the majority at all, but they do enough reputation damage to make it easy for folks to see hunters as unnecessary evil.

I agree that hunters can be their own worst enemies. The same can be said for the more vocal animal rights activists. While I know a few "trashy, redneck" hunters, most of the anti-hunters I've met, present company excluded, come across as flaky extremists.
The Dismal Swamp bear hunt I mentioned earlier is a good example. There were over 1400 bear killed in Va. last year. The 20 bears they are going to take in the park will have absolutely no effect on the stable population they've maintained there since the 80's. To listen to the activists on the local news channels, you'd think the hunt was for an endangered species.

http://www.portfolioweekly.com/Pages/InfoPage.php/iID/2278
Kristie Phelps of the IDA:

"When I found out basically this would happen in my back yard," she said, "I decided to do whatever I could to stop this hunt…This is a wildlife refuge - the mere name refuge connotes safety and protection. Now we’re being told a black bear hunt will be held. Our stance is that there is no excuse for recreational hunting. It’s simply not right to kill a bear for sport."

I think the last two sentences of the above statement pretty much cover the matter.
Funny, it seems our government has a different idea of what a refuge is.

Suzanne Baird, refuge manager of Great Dismal Swamp, a federally owned land administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, said hunting is one of six priorities for the land as defined by federal law.

I've been on several of the managed deer hunts they offer in the refuge. It's a beautiful place that I'm glad I've had the privilege of hunting in.

 

[DirtyBrad]

razorburn,

I think you're getting across what you mean. Animals are amoral. A lion or a baboon doesn't have the capacity to do right or wrong in how they kill an animal. A lot of people would agree that humans do.

I'm not sure how much it matters whether the dog has a right or whether the person has a restriction. I hear what you're saying, though. A dog in nature doesn't have a right not to be beaten, but what I said above sort of implies that around people he does. Maybe you're right, maybe it is just the people. Or maybe what he has is something other than a right. Maybe what he has is a recognition from us that we think he deserves to be treated a certain way by people.

***

I think the point of good hunters passing through like ghosts applies to about everything. It's a shame that those who conduct themselves well and don't make a scene aren't usually the ones that make the impressions. And it's a shame that those impressions are so often the ones on which we base our opinions of that group. Old news, I guess.