XavierBreath
Member
I'm going to jump in over my head here. First, I am not a hunter. I do fish, for enjoyment and food. The enjoyment comes from being with friends and my kids in a common activity that can feed us, not from killing. I have never hunted, although many folks I know and like do. My freezer gets stocked every year with free venison and I love venison chilli and sausage. I have nothing against hunting, fishing......or killing. It is the way of the world. Life begins and ends.
When we begin to talk of moral imperatives, ethical obligations, and these types of responsibilities, there is the axiom that a person has a right to hunt. When the moral imperative or ethical responsibility is questioned, the axiom is threatened.
If we are to do away with all suffering why are we not also doing away with all predators? Why of course, because starvation from overpopulation would result. So why not do away with all animals so there will be no suffering from predation or overpopulation and starvation? Because they are good to eat, that's why. We require the regeneration of other species for the preservation of our own. Thus, we will never stop the suffering of the "animals".
Now, here is my question......and it is a genuine one based on ethics and morality, I think. There seems to be a premise that the injured animal will die. How many hunters have taken deer with healed wounds, or an arrow or bullet from two weeks ago, or last season? How many people have killed an animal that was lame from a trap? Heck, I once trapped a coon on my front porch that looked like it had been hit by a car! These animals obviously escaped, healed and lived. How can we be so certain that such an animal will die? I concede that the chances of death are increased, but so are the chances of escape and life, along with much less probability of ever being seen by humans again.
As one who has spoken to those who were shot, hunted down and escaped.......Veterans, each one, with a couple of exceptions, was grateful that they escaped and lived. One group is praying for a quick kill, ostensibly trying to reduce suffering from a sport they voluntarily partake in, or a war they cannot avoid, but also to provide nutrition for themselves, or in the case of war, to advance the mission in regards to the demands of their society, prevent their own death or a buddy's death. (I concede that the reality of war is to injure your enemy and place a greater strain on his society by weakening the resolve and resources through injured veterans returning needing medical and rehab attention)
For the hunted person or animal that is wounded, escape and life is still a possibility until death overcomes them. For the person who is facing death, any chance at life is a ray of hope. Life leaves the injured not only when enough blood is lost, but also when hope is lost. This is an intangible element of the equation. The trapper who checks his traps every three days rather than every day increases the trapped animal's odds of escape and life along with the suffering. The hunter who takes the unsure shot increases his odds of a miss or minor injury and therefore escape and life as well as lessons learned for his prey. Also, all other things being equal, the trapper who checks every three days vs every day will run more traps. The hunter who takes less certain shots will shoot more frequently and miss more frequently. What does this do to the prey that lives through avoidance of the predator? It provides greater chances of life through learning from past encounters. Of course, the trapper who checks daily or the hunter that does not take uncertain shots does not want his prey to gain this learning. It decreases his odds.
Further, by injuring an animal who may later die and never be found, are we not providing food for other predators? The carcass will not go to waste, it will feed coyotes, wolves, bears, buzzards or worms. It simply goes to waste to the hunter. So is the argument really one of moral imperatives against wasting ammunition?
I apologize in advance if I have offended anyone, that is not my intent. Perhaps I am way off base in ascribing learning through encounters with predators, including human predators, to prey. I don't think I am. As a person who has quite literally been hunted, I find these to be compelling questions. If you do not, then I mean no offense. I make no judgements. I do think looking at the ethical/moral question from the viewpoint of the prey places it in an entirely different light. The real question is whether we are acting in the prey's best interests or our own as the predator.
When we begin to talk of moral imperatives, ethical obligations, and these types of responsibilities, there is the axiom that a person has a right to hunt. When the moral imperative or ethical responsibility is questioned, the axiom is threatened.
If we are to do away with all suffering why are we not also doing away with all predators? Why of course, because starvation from overpopulation would result. So why not do away with all animals so there will be no suffering from predation or overpopulation and starvation? Because they are good to eat, that's why. We require the regeneration of other species for the preservation of our own. Thus, we will never stop the suffering of the "animals".
Now, here is my question......and it is a genuine one based on ethics and morality, I think. There seems to be a premise that the injured animal will die. How many hunters have taken deer with healed wounds, or an arrow or bullet from two weeks ago, or last season? How many people have killed an animal that was lame from a trap? Heck, I once trapped a coon on my front porch that looked like it had been hit by a car! These animals obviously escaped, healed and lived. How can we be so certain that such an animal will die? I concede that the chances of death are increased, but so are the chances of escape and life, along with much less probability of ever being seen by humans again.
As one who has spoken to those who were shot, hunted down and escaped.......Veterans, each one, with a couple of exceptions, was grateful that they escaped and lived. One group is praying for a quick kill, ostensibly trying to reduce suffering from a sport they voluntarily partake in, or a war they cannot avoid, but also to provide nutrition for themselves, or in the case of war, to advance the mission in regards to the demands of their society, prevent their own death or a buddy's death. (I concede that the reality of war is to injure your enemy and place a greater strain on his society by weakening the resolve and resources through injured veterans returning needing medical and rehab attention)
For the hunted person or animal that is wounded, escape and life is still a possibility until death overcomes them. For the person who is facing death, any chance at life is a ray of hope. Life leaves the injured not only when enough blood is lost, but also when hope is lost. This is an intangible element of the equation. The trapper who checks his traps every three days rather than every day increases the trapped animal's odds of escape and life along with the suffering. The hunter who takes the unsure shot increases his odds of a miss or minor injury and therefore escape and life as well as lessons learned for his prey. Also, all other things being equal, the trapper who checks every three days vs every day will run more traps. The hunter who takes less certain shots will shoot more frequently and miss more frequently. What does this do to the prey that lives through avoidance of the predator? It provides greater chances of life through learning from past encounters. Of course, the trapper who checks daily or the hunter that does not take uncertain shots does not want his prey to gain this learning. It decreases his odds.
Further, by injuring an animal who may later die and never be found, are we not providing food for other predators? The carcass will not go to waste, it will feed coyotes, wolves, bears, buzzards or worms. It simply goes to waste to the hunter. So is the argument really one of moral imperatives against wasting ammunition?
I apologize in advance if I have offended anyone, that is not my intent. Perhaps I am way off base in ascribing learning through encounters with predators, including human predators, to prey. I don't think I am. As a person who has quite literally been hunted, I find these to be compelling questions. If you do not, then I mean no offense. I make no judgements. I do think looking at the ethical/moral question from the viewpoint of the prey places it in an entirely different light. The real question is whether we are acting in the prey's best interests or our own as the predator.