People who enjoy hunting intelligent mammals...

[dogmush]

Actually, while it might be [well] thought out, your argument has a lot of holes in it. Including, but not limited to;

*There's no overwhelming evidence that fish don't enjoy life.

*You're projecting your emotions to other people.

*You're a predator (albit not a good one), the fact that you let others do the actual killing doesn't make you less responsable for that death.

*Hunting is about a lot more then the actual killing of the animal.


You make a big deal out of the supposed enjoyment of the act of killing, completley neglecting that for a lot of folks, (or at least me) It's more taking responsbility for myself then anything else. In a couple of ways. First, if need be I can feed me and mine. If the store dissappears tommorrow, I can still get meat. If you think shooting silluettes makes you a hunter, I can only say try it. Those pesky animals can be pretty hard to find. Second, if someone is going to kill for me, I should at least be able to do it myself. By never having killed for food, you don't actually know anything about the morals of doing it.

Speaking only for myself, I am always a little sad when I shoot an animal. Be it a pigeon I'm clearing out of a warehouse, or a moose I'm going to eat. The stalk is challenging, and I enjoy that, but the actual watching the animal die I'm not that fond of. It's needed to continue my life, but it's not actually that much fun.

I would suggest you find someone to take you hunting at least once. You might very well find that there's some thinking you have yet to do on the subject.

 

[TexasRifleman]

. I do however have a problem with calling hunting a sport.

From the dictionary, several in fact:

"Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. "

"An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature,"

"to amuse oneself with some pleasant pastime or recreation."

So, a thing does not always have to be competitive to be considered sport.

YOU may want to define it that way and that's fine, but the dictionary disagrees with you.

 

[doc2rn]

Do you grow vegetables in your garden as plants to look at or to eat? Same goes for hunting you shoot it to eat it.
If I want to make a stew and there are 20 squirrels in the back yard you can bet some of them are going in the pot, along with the vegetables they ate from my garden and then some.
Why waste time, gas, and wear-n-tear on my vehicle to do something I can accomplish in my own backyard? Just like the Pope said people are wasting resources by buying preprocessed/ packaged food.

 

[Shung]

What you are missing most is a belief in God and the belief that God put the animals here for our use as food, as clothing, as building materials and that God intended all along for us to use animals in this way.

I for once believe that "God" should be left aside of that matter (mainly because God doesnt exist, but that is another matter ). There are plenty of better arguments to bring in..

 

[holepuncher]

"Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. "

"An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature,"

"to amuse oneself with some pleasant pastime or recreation."

So is having sex or reading or knitting or remodeling the kitchen a sport?

 

[dewage83]

Quit rationalizing the fact that you like hunting. Give him reasons why you should hunt. Everyones on the defensive.

To the OP= I do like your method of reasoning, but like all reason it can be flawed. I did read the whole thing and I actually enjoyed it. (maby because I'm not a hunter) I think you did sound way to condecending to make people actually listen to your points of argument. If your post was more objective you might have had more of a chance. Good post weither I agree with the point or not.

 

[TexasRifleman]

So is having sex or reading or knitting or remodeling the kitchen a sport?

You arguing with me or the Dictionary? I didn't write the dictionary, I just use it. We communicate in a common language. If we all decide to use our own words with no common agreement as to what they mean there is no such thing as communication so, for now, hunting IS a sport; by definition.

Quit rationalizing the fact that you like hunting. Give him reasons why you should hunt. Everyones on the defensive.

Why? The OP made it very clear he believes himself to be 100% right and offers no dialogue on the subject at all, merely the publishing of his "manifesto". So, everyone else feel free to publish THEIR manifestos on hunting.

The OP made it clear there is to be no debate.

 

[kevindsingleton]

<Quote>So is having sex or reading or knitting or remodeling the kitchen a sport? </Quote>

Around my place, it certainly is! You do not want to face me in a knit-off!

 

[jrfoxx]

And if you still just HAAAVE to have that meat, obviously they sell it at the market.

Maybe where you live, but I cant find rabbit, pheasant, bear, deer, elk, moose, etc at any of the stores here, and to me they taste WAY better than any cow or pig, so no, you are not correct, and have not won the arguement as you state.

I wont bother with any of your other arguments, as I have already shown, IMHO, that what you claim is "truth" may be accurate for some but is no where NEAR universal.

Also, all of what you give seems to be opinion and emotion, not proven scientific fact.I personally feel you are overestimating the emotional capability, intelligence, and general awareness of the animals that you are trying to make out to be so highly developed and near-human like.

But, you are free to think and feel however you wish.doesnt bother me onew bit. you are free to hunt, or not hunt as you please, and are free to decide wha tyou feel its ok to kill and when, and what isnt. If thats how you want to do things, then go for it.whatever works for you is fine by me.You think what you want, and I'll think what I want.You feel what you want, and I will too.you beleive what you want, and I will continue with my beleifs.No problems at all, whatsoever, unless you try to FORCE you feelings, ideas, beliefs, etc on me. thne we have an issue, as I dont presume to do that to otheres, and I expect others to treat me the same. The great thing about America, is we are all free to think, feel, and beleive whatever we want, and as long as we all agrre to agree to disagrre and leave it at that, things are just dandy, and everybody is happy.

ps-the above is not to imply that you are trying to "force" or even "push" your beliefs on me, as I dont beleive you are by the way you wrote the OP, so it's all good for me.

I hunt (or used to, bad knees has pretty much killed it except on RARE occasion) for many reasons, and "just to kill" isnt one of them.

 

[hacksaw]

LIke someone on this board says in their sig line..
"If we weren't supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't be made of meat"
I think an ethically conducted hunt is much more meaningful to the hunterand most of the game animalsare better for you than beef.

Whats not to like?

 

[MrRezister]

I can't remember every point made by opp off the top of my head, and I don't really want to do a point/counterpoint type of thing anyway, so just to hit the highspots:

1) How do you know that a fish is less intelligent than a deer? The correct answer is "you don't", but you think it is so, thus it is oh-so-easy to justify yanking said fish from his natural habitat, chopping it into bloody pieces and munching away. Claiming any sort of moral highground based upon your perception of intellect and/or emotion is great when it comes to making you feel good about what you do, but that is no basis for condemning the actions of others.

2) A large portion of your argument seems to be based on the idea that it would be worse for me to kill an animal while enjoying the kill than if I did not enjoy it. Why? Isn't the result the same (i.e. animal dead, family fed) regardless of how I feel? Does a lion enjoy stalking, running down, tripping, killing, and eating a gazelle? How do you know? If she did enjoy it, would that make her eeeeevil?

3) Biology teaches me that the human animal should be an omnivore and a predator. As such, it's reasonable to expect that we've spent a long time killing and eating animals that may or may not have been intelligent, and we started doing so long before the firearm was invented. Could we live without munching the meats of various intelligent creatures? Probably. Does that mean that we should? Why? Because some people are queasy at the thought of killing animals who are capable of understanding that they are dying? The fact that you have a brain developed enough to exhibit a conscience doesn't make the food chain go away.

4) Did you know that plants talk to one another? Just how smart are they? Consider that the next time you order a salad instead of a steak.

 

[JWarren]

A few interesting posts on this thread.

I'll see if I can express myself my first cup of coffee...


I'll express my own standard for the ethics of hunting from the perspective of being a hunter myself.

First, I make a distinction between act of Hunting and the act of Sportsmenship.

Obviously, there is practically none who are wholely one aspect. I know Sportsmen who are also hunters and vice-versa. I, however, am a hunter.

So what do I mean by this distinction?

To me, a hunter focuses on the end result: taking the game. End of story. The challenge of the hunt is not a primary concern. The taking of a trophy is not a prime concern. Filling a freezer with meat, however, is a prime concern. Population control of the herd is a prime concern.

For me, I know how many animals I will use over the year, and I will hunt until I meet that amount. Typically, I put my rifle away when I hit that number. If I do go back hunting that season, I usually just carry a book and hope that I get a show from my deer stand or just enjoy the peacefulness of the woods.

Over 30 years of hunting, I've only mounted one deer. I mounted him because he was the "Bull of the herd" and my father and I had seen evidence of him for over 5 years before he was taken. As it turns out, he was taken at the end of his prime (based upon jawbone analysis), and it seemed fitting to mount him.

I don't fault hunters that take trophies. After all, both my mother and father have trophy mounts. I just tend to take out the non-trophies and hope that the gene pool of our herds are strengthened by those that I let pass by.

Perhaps one day, trophies will be the norm rather than the exception to the rule on our land due to that action. Who knows.


However, being a "Hunter," I am not concerned with the challenge of the hunt. So no-- I am not going to hide behind a tree and jump out with a knife as someone on this thread suggested. After all, THAT sounds like more suffering for an animal than I am willing to deliver.

As a "Hunter," my primary goal in taking the shot is that the animal can be taken down in the most effecient manner as I can. I don't take "iffy" shots, and I want to be certain that the animal suffers as little as possible in the act. While none can insure or predict the results, I am lucky in that I've not had a deer run in my entire hunting life.

I will use the best and most effective tools to ensure the kill quick and painless. I've no interest in the challenge or what some would call a "Fair Chance."


Second, I concern myself with population management. Unlike many on this thread, I have seen with my eyes deer who have starved to death in a particularly harse Winter. I have seen herds become overcrowded for the territory that they roam. For that reason, our land is part of a State program that analyzes our herds and tells us annually which and how many deer to take from the herd.

For me, I consider a swift, merciful death far more humane than a slow, starving one.


Third, I don't find myself overly aggressive towards "nuisance" animals. If we can co-exist, so be it. My wife is more likely to feed a racoon or possum that starts coming in our yard that I am to shoot it. I do, however, remove anything that would be a treat to my Jack Russell Terriers. That includes a pack of 8-10 coyotes that have been coming in my yard over the last few months. This also includes a multitude of cottonmouth moccasins and quite a few rattlesnakes that I encounter over the warm months.


Forth, many will say that hunting is unneeded because we can buy meat in stores. I consider this a disengenuous arguement. There are plenty of things that those same people CAN do should they choose it. For me, I love venision. I've yet to see any in my local supermarket. If it were in the supermarket, I would likely pay a premium for the meat, and I would still have to wonder about what hormones and such have been injected into the meat.

I see those that criticize hunting and who still eat meat as hypocritical. They want to enjoy the meat, but do not have the stomach to deal with how they got it. I can think of little that is more disturbing to me than the idea of a slaughter house where animals are crowded in and put down with a bolt in their head. And yet, that's how you get your Big Mac. No, those that eat meat while simutaneously criticize hunting are simply emotional cowards who try to not see the blood on their own hands because they let someone else do it for them.

Now, I am not finding fault in non-hunters who eat meat. I AM finding fault in non-hunters who eat meat AND criticize hunting.


Even without my overpowering concern with "Challenge," I consider my taking a game animal out in the woods as a more dignified process. The animal lived its life in its environment and free and by its own terms. It likely lived a full life and spread its genes for future generations. It was not raised in a pen with its only purpose in life to be slaughtered.




Finally, addressing "Enjoying Killing:"

No. I can't say that I enjoy killing. I am not ashamed to say that I shed a few tears over the last deer I killed. And that is not an isolated event. For me, there is no rejoicing and no thrill of the kill. There is just the task of loading, cleaning and processing the meat.

Because of this lack of enjoyment in the taking of the game, I--as I mentioned above-- typically stop hunting when my quota for the year has been reached. I lose my motivation once the need has been filled. Eventually, I plan to get a nice camera to take to my stands when I've reached the quota.


I hope that gives some explaination.


-- John

 

[BryanP]

And if you still just HAAAVE to have that meat, obviously they sell it at the market.

I'm not a hunter, but this argument doesn't pass muster. You say you don't like killing animals that "are as smart as your pet cat or dog." If that's the case then buying the meat at the market is just as bad.

 

[PercyShelley]

Consider this from a worldwide energetics/opportunity costs perspective.

There is only so much surface area on this planet. Barring a few exotic deep-sea vent communities, all life on earth requires sunlight at the very base of the food pyramid. There is a (more or less) fixed amount of sunlight falling upon a fixed amount of space.

Furthermore, there is a (again, more or less, ignoring cometary impact) fixed amount of water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and other chemicals essential to life.

Because there is a finite amount of space, energy and material for life there is also a fixed upper limit on the amount of life that this planet can support. Ipso facto, the existence of one form of life is preventing the existence of another form of life that would otherwise use that energy, space and material.

That is to say; even the strictest vegan is still displacing other animal life.

Consider the food that they do eat; it has to come from somewhere, almost certainly a farm. That farm represents an enormous detriment to any animal life in the immediate vicinity that doesn't happen to eat whatever is being farmed there, and anything that does happen to eat whatever is being farmed there will probably be heavily (read: lethally) discouraged from doing so. Even if you subsist upon wild berries you're still eating food that would have otherwise gone to something else. It is trivial to calculate the exact load; but I'll put it this way; the amount of food it takes to feed one human being could feed a whole lot of endangered songbirds.

Your very existence is quietly, but surely snuffing out the lives of countless animals everywhere, no matter how you cut it. An aversion to killing animals is actually only an aversion to the immediate killing of animals. Why should it matter if you directly hunt them or passively preclude their lives? The end result is the same.

It is no surprise, therefore, that some forms of life directly take the energy and material from other forms of life to sustain their own; there's only so much of that to go around, you've got to get it somehow. Does anyone happen to recall the carbon isotope ratio studies on early hominid skulls? I suspect a non-trivial percentage of our forebearers' daily sustenance came from meat; if not by Olduvai then certainly by Clovis (they didn't make those pretty flint spearpoints just to look at). To hunt with a projectile weapon is ancient human birthright.

 

[Ed4032]

You must live alone.

 

[Onmilo]

And have a lot of free time on your hands,,,,,,,,

Go spend some time alone in the deep woods, get together and commune with the bears and the wolves and the coyotes and the cougers.

Those intelligent animals will be happy to remind you that they will eat you in a heartbeat if given the chance.

Wild animals are not your friends and we didn't get to the top of the food chain being meek.
Things die, people eat, simple as that.

 

[XDKingslayer]

I weigh the benefit to myself of the animal dying against what the animal that is about to die is going to lose when it dies.

Let's take your line of thinking and run with it shall we?

If the hunter kills the animal it's usually quick. It's usually relatively humane. Usually, all the animal is used in one form or another. The hunter also follows laws and bag limits that are designed to maintain a proper, and most important a health population.

If the hunters didn't kill the animals and they were left to their own devices they will overpopulate due to a lack of natural predators. They will then start dieing horrible, slow, painful, inhumane deaths due to disease caused by that very same over-population.

Please take a look at chronic wasting disease in deer as a very good example.

If the hunter kills the deer it loses it's life quickly. If the hunter doesn't kill the deer it still dies but now it suffers. Even in a healthy population an animals natural death is now where near as quick and relatively painless as a hunter's kill. They usually end up starving to death because they are too unhealthy to find food due to old age.

As far as enjoying it? Yes, I do enjoy it. I enjoy hunting. I enjoy fishing. I enjoy every last aspect of either one. I would even say that I enjoy the killing. I enjoy it because I know what that animal faces if I didn't. I enjoy the process of putting food on the table and supporting my family.

 

[Blakenzy]

I appreciate the OP's view. I think he made some logical points. However, all animals were put here for our use and amusement. Saying that killing an "intelligent" animal is wrong, solely because it has the ability to experience pleasure isn't enough to condemn the act of hunting for the sake of hunting.

Discussing philosophical issues on the net is an exercise in futility...

 

[Harvster]

The real flaw in your argument comes from the fact that you eat meat. Now, I know you break this down into the act of killing as the enjoyable part. Well maybe some people do enjoy that part. But maybe the guy at the slaughterhouse loves being cruel to the cows (videos have been taken of folks at slaughterhouses abusing the animals) and if you enjoy your burger you are basically helping to cause the suffering and deaths of those delicious bovines. As an example, in the Roman Colosseum the used to watch gladiators kill people, animals eat people, and other fun things. You seem to be like the throngs in attendance there. You are not doing the killing but are enjoying the benefits of others who are. And, they in fact would not be doing it if not for the rest of the people enjoying the show or the hamburgers in our case today. One more example: you and I are buddies and we are walking down the alley. We see an intelligent animal enjoying life and you say "boy I sure would like some of that money in her purse." I say "OK" and shoot her dead and take her purse. As we are splitting up the money the cops walk around the corner. I go on trial for murder. Care to guess what you go on trial for?

 

[Z71]

Just a human take on hunting.

Human society is warped. We exist in a constantly changing social structure. Hunting for the average person now consists of going to the grocery store or eating at a resturant.

Just remember, if any animal gets hungry enough it will do it's level best to eat something! A homosapian is just another animal.

Society is a human thing, constantly changing. Human values change too. What was normal and proper 100 years ago, may be frowned on today. However, the basic rules of nature never really change.

Homosapians like to think of themselves as "above animals", "above the rules of nature". Not true. Those thougts are a product of the social stucture we have created for ourselves.

A middle ground exists if you choose to take advantage of it. Hunting and fishing is rapidly becoming a lost art as societys "morals" change.

If you think about it, crime is a form of hunting. Criminals being the predators, victims being the prey. Homosapians by nature are preditors. The balance between human society and natures society has gone way out of whack!

I imagine natural selection will sort it out eventually.

 

[MedWheeler]

I think people try sometimes too much to dissociate humankind from the animal kingdom. We are, in fact, all animals. Our species, by our own definition, has merely "evolved" more with developmental advantages blessed to us by our Creator. However, it is my firm belief that many "animal" instincts and traits remain, despite our best efforts, individually, and as a society, to suppress them. Some do us well, such as developing tools, machines, and infrastructure, and developing a moral code to live by. Others do us poorly, such as aggression and predatism (not sure if that's a word, but you get my point.) The traits we try to suppress include those that have us robbing and raping others; things that are common in most other species in the mammalian world. Suppressing them makes our society easier to live in, but it goes counter to two million years of implanted instinct.
It is our own choice to set standards, such as respect for property of others, the practice of pair-bonding, and age limits for sexual encounters. These are defined by us, not by genetics (some will state: "no, they're defined by God." I submit that our purposeful decision to believe in God still comes from within ourselves, and not by instinct.)
That being said, our hunting practices, loosely put, are comprised of two major components: an animal instinct to dominate (and consume, in most cases) the "lesser" species in which we come in contact, and our developed sense of tool-making, tactics, and industry to go about it in the way we do.

Edit: Z71 posted his entry at the same time, and seems to have said pretty much the same thing..
Oh, and I don't hunt. Not because I have no objections to it. Just never did..

 

[alex_trebek]

Just because a black widow/fish doesn't express emotion the same way a deer does, does not mean they don't feel the same emotion necessarily. I agree that insects are lower forms of life compared to more complex species, but insects perform very important environmental services (just like almost everything else). So their life is not as worthless as you would believe. That said, I still kill them when I see them in my home.

Deer aren't sentient, like humans are. I think you are anthropomorphizing some of these animals a little too much.

Lets face a fact of life, everything you see around you has an expiration date. In other words, everything and everyone is dying. It is not like the deer would live forever, if a hunter never came around. More than likely a deer would starve, or die slowly from disease, or get hit by a car. Let me pose this question, would you rather be shot through the heart, or starve to death? Given this, how is hunting not mercy, to at least a small degree?

Also you made mention of buying meat at the store. Let me use an analogy here. Do you rely on police/others to protect you because you choose not to spend the time or money to invest in self protection? Personally I choose not to rely on others for my protection, it is something I will help myself with.

Same goes for buying meat, you are not willing to do the job yourself so you ask someone else to. Nothing morally wrong with this really, just don't question those that choose to be more self-reliant.

Just out of curiosity, how exactly do you think animals are killed in a slaughterhouse? While I don't have much experience with slaughterhouses, I would be willing to bet that hunting is much more humane.

Last point, have you ever hunted with a dog? The first thing you notice if you ever hunt with a dog, is the mentality of that animal changes. The dog is now doing what it was born to do, and part of you wonders if it was crime against nature to ever lock the dog up in a house. When hunting with one, you are reliving an inter-species connection that is thousands of years old. I think there is something to be said about this, could just be me though.

 

[qwert65]

To the OP, I'll go out onb that limb with you and say that most higher mammals have emotions (I've got two years left before I get my DVM)

Your argument is incorrect however, Animals exactly like people do what benefits them-not other species(well we do but we're way smarter/in a position of power) When my dog shows me loyalty and love it is because in his view I am a member of his pack. I encourage you to study wolves-they help each other even in the hard times. It's been well documented that wolves will even bring back food from a kill to injured/old wolves that cannot hunt(if food is plentiful) The wolf does this because they are family and packmates. That same wolf finding an old wolf from a different pack will not hesitate to kill it (and eat it if hungry)

Is this wrong? If the wolf can think and has emotions than he must be held accountable. Is the wolf a murderer? No, he's just trying to survive.

Lets look at domestic dogs there are countless stories of heroism by dogs who had nothing to gain by doing it(sometimes noit even knowing the person) Some of those same dogs will kill other dogs/humans who pose danger to their families. Is this wrong? no the dog is only doing what he thinks is correct ie HIS family is important screw everything else.

Farm animals although bred to be dumber will still care for each other esp. if allowed to go feral. They don't leave grass for other species though why because they are looking out for themselves.

My POINT is this we are all animals and we all want to survive. Humans are the only animals that think ahead(cept for chimps and dolphins) EVERY species will try to survive. the deer and bear will do what they need to do and we do what we need to do. The fact that we have people who do our butchering for us does not change this concept. In fact assuming a good shot the wild animal lived a better life. As has been pointed out if you went to live in the woods and break your leg the wildlife will not hesitate to eat you nor should they as when you get hungery you would eat them. Does that make sense?

 

[rc109a]

I think that if you try and break down hunting to one reason and use that as justification as to why you hunt, then that just does not work. It is the sum of the entire event that makes it enjoyable. Things like the outdoors, being with friends, the thrill of the hunt, the thrill of the actual kill, the prep of the animal, and the eating. It all adds up. As far as the argument of intelligence or not, all animals posses some forms of intelligence. It does not matter when it comes down to hunting. Heck if dolphins (the mammal not the fish) were found to tast good, then I bet a lot of people would eat them too. If you don't like hunting, then good on you. you made a decision hopefully on your own. If you like to hunt, then the same goes as well. I for one will continue to hunt because I can and I love it.

 

[Drgong]

Deer actually kill a number of people and do much property damage as they are heavily overpopulated.

Most hunters I find enjoy getting out in the woods with friends more then anything else, that and they enjoy the task of putting food on the table.

I have no problem with people who hunt for food or hunt pest animals (for example, many horse and cow farmers will be more then happy for you to get rid of groundhogs as they are pests for them) Though I never understood hunting for a Trophy*.

*Unless its a african Safari...