Is it there any logical argument to be a meat eater, but offended by hunting?

[scamartistry]

I run into this argument every once in a while. The argument is usually that " I dont think its ok to kill for "fun"".
How would you respond to this position?

[Springtime for Spacers]

Depends on what is being hunted dunnit? Here in the UK I have no problem with eating meat and being opposed to fox hunting -- the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.

[scamartistry]

Fair point. Lets say you go hunting in Africa for the "big five".

[ivan astikov]

Just don't call it a "sport", and I'll turn a blind - but slightly annoyed - eye to your shenanigans.

[Czarcasm]

I run into this argument every once in a while. The argument is usually that " I dont think its ok to kill for "fun"".
How would you respond to this position?I would agree with it. A lion that kills for food is natural, but a lion that kills just to kill is a rogue lion.

[DrFidelius]

Offended? No. Indifferent? Yes.

I suppose an argument can be made that killing and eating an animal specifically bred and raised for that purpose is fundamentally more ethical than killing an animal that is otherwise going through its "Normal" life.

However, I have never encountered this argument in the wild.

Added; Oh. Sport hunting. No, I see no reason to kill something you are not going to eat, or which is not directly threatening your family or property.

[bouv]

Fair point. Lets say you go hunting in Africa for the "big five".

Lion, rhino, hippo, elephant, giraffe? Or maybe cape buffalo instead of giraffe?

[Thudlow Boink]

I run into this argument every once in a while. The argument is usually that " I dont think its ok to kill for "fun"".
How would you respond to this position?If it's the killing itself that's fun, then yeah, it's reasonable to be offended by that.

The hunters who bother me, morally, are the ones who actually enjoy the killing (or worse, causing to suffer) of a living creature; but not all hunters fall into this category.

[ivan astikov]

Yes, but they are all demonstrably indifferent to the feelings of the animal they are shooting, no?

[One And Only Wanderers]

If the animal being hunted is a food animal, that will be used for such, then I don't see the argument. Would the *potentially* less humane denouement, not be offset by the animal's having lived free up to that point?

[Malacandra]

Meat for food may be arguably a luxury, but on the continuum of "pure need <----> pure luxury" it probably comes closer to the "pure need" end than does killing for fun. True, some vermin need killing, but you don't see people getting all dressed up to go ratting, or at least not where I come from, and even then I'd argue there's a distinction between "kills things that need killing, incidentally deriving satisfaction and enjoyment from it" and "kills things for satisfaction and enjoyment, incidentally getting rid of things that need killing".

I'd also be suspicious of a slaughterman who enjoyed his work - other than, say, the satisfaction of a job well done with the least suffering caused - even though people need the meat.

[Baboonanza]

I don't find the cencept offensive as much as the execution.

Someone who stalks a deer with a bow and arrow or knife, brings it down and takes it home to feed his family is to be admired.

A fat git sitting around with a high-powered rifle until he gets a deer in his sights to kill for fun and mounting is offensive.

[thelurkinghorror]

I don't find the cencept offensive as much as the execution.

Someone who stalks a deer with a bow and arrow or knife, brings it down and takes it home to feed his family is to be admired.

A fat git sitting around with a high-powered rifle until he gets a deer in his sights to kill for fun and mounting is offensive.

You have too many variables, which one makes the difference?

Have you seen bows these days? Most have ultra-high tech sights and equipment. The sitting around? Some forms of hunting are more amenable to moving around then others, based upon the behaviors of the game.

Purely sport hunting is sometimes bothersome (fox). Sustainable hunting is well good, whether for food or varminting like for coyotes. Poachers suck though.

[shiftless]

Do we have to fire any slaughterhouse workers who don't demonstrate a proper dislike for their jobs? Do I have to chew my steak glumly so as not to have fun from the death of an animal?

If you are sitting in a steakhouse enjoying your meal you have no room to complain about people killing animals. Just because you've had it done for you by professionals where you can't see or hear it doesn't mean that you've been kind to that animal. I would claim that throwing way meat is worse than hunting. How is leaving 3/4 of a T-bone on your plate any different than a hunter killing an animal and leaving it by the side of the road?

Hunting, at least in the US, is pretty well regulated and is supposed to prevent exess and cruelty. Of course that's not always the case but it's not like hunters are just blazing away at anything they want.

[Cagey Drifter]

I personally think for most people the big appeal of hunting has something to do with finding fun in exercising power, control, and in 'playing God'. As such, it really turns me off and strikes me as disrespectful to life.

[Czarcasm]

What other animals besides man kills for fun, if their environment is safe and they are sufficiently fed?

[Quartz]

Here in the UK I have no problem with eating meat and being opposed to fox hunting -- the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.

That shows how much you know about fox hunting. I'll guess you're a city-dweller.

But back to the OP. For me, a confirmed carnivore, it depends upon the method of hunting and what happens to the hunted. A creature should be only be killed for the resources it provides, not pleasure. Where possible, kills should be swift and not cause undue distress. Traps should kill quickly.

[Der Trihs]

Is it there any logical argument to be a meat eater, but offended by hunting?Sure. There's a number of reasons why someone may dislike hunting besides a disapproval of killing and eating animals. Some examples (not all "logical", as such):

* Cruelty; animals killed in hunting are less likely to die quickly.

* The "killing for the sake of killing is creepy" argument.

* It's bad for the prey species; human hunters tend to kill the biggest, prettiest, healthiest individuals instead of the weakest. Hunters essentially selectively breed animals to be small, sickly and ugly.

* Hunters are often dangerously irresponsible. I recall the example of the man who lost several cattle to hunters, even after painting "COW" on the side of one. And the Michigan law allowing for legally blind hunters.

* The "it's unnecessary argument"; you can get meat at the supermarket without bothering the wildlife.

* "Hunters are jerks and poseurs"; people who go on like what they are doing is all manly and brave and challenging when in fact it's horribly onesided are offensive. One of the more extreme examples being shooting caged animals.

What other animals besides man kills for fun, if their environment is safe and they are sufficiently fed?Dogs, cats.

[BigT]

For certain things we hunt, overpopulation is the problem, because we have essentially become their only natural predator. I honestly think it's inhumane to be against all forms of hunting.

But my answer to the OP is that, of course it can be logical: besides what has already been said, hunting is not he only way to get meat. One doesn't hunt a cow that they are raising for beef.

[Malthus]

What other animals besides man kills for fun, if their environment is safe and they are sufficiently fed?

Most mamalian predators, I suspect. I discount non-mammals because they are too alien to us to make any plausable claims about what they find "fun".

Certainly cats do. Outdoor cats are well known to do this - they get fed the best primo kitty chow indoors, which they eat with gusto, and go out to spend their leasure hours stalking and killing (but not necessarily eating) rodents and birds. While it is impossible to say whether an animal has "fun" - that's a human concept and we must be wary of anthropomorphosis - this observer can only conclude that if cats can have "fun", they find hunting to be "fun" and do it even though they are safe and fed. Indeed, some make the argument that you should not let cats out, for this very reason - that they will for fun hunt birds.

Also in terms of purely wild animals - foxes, coyotes, wolves, etc.

Foxes are notorious for this - they on occasion get into a hen coop, and kill every bird, far more than they can eat, apparently for the sheer fun of it (again, a perhaps justified anthropomorphism).

[John Mace]

I run into this argument every once in a while. The argument is usually that " I dont think its ok to kill for "fun"".
How would you respond to this position?I would agree with it. A lion that kills for food is natural, but a lion that kills just to kill is a rogue lion.

Says who? How does "rogue" become "unnatural?

Orcas seem to kill for fun, although it's hard to tell if any animal is having "fun" in the human sense.

[Czarcasm]

What other animals besides man kills for fun, if their environment is safe and they are sufficiently fed?Dogs, cats.Dogs? Dogs may kill because of territorial issues or fear, or because they have been trained to do so, but I don't know about well-adjusted dogs killing just for fun. Cats? If a cat is hunting mice and/or rats, is is most probably an instinctual thing-a bit of instinctual memory that hasn't been bread out yet. I've seen a tame cat catch a mouse, then hold it down, wondering what the hell she's supposed to do with it.

[Chronos]

Quoth Quartz:That shows how much you know about fox hunting. I'll guess you're a city-dweller.So you're saying that the hunters eat the fox at the end? It's kind of odd, especially around here, to point out someone's ignorance without correcting it.

If we're talking about African big game, then even if the animal is eaten, you've still got the issue of sustainability. One American deer per hunter per season isn't going to put the species in danger, but hunting elephants or rhinos certainly can. And there's a huge moral difference between "killing one individual animal" and "driving an entire species to extinction".

[Chronos]

Cats? If a cat is hunting mice and/or rats, is is most probably an instinctual thing-a bit of instinctual memory that hasn't been bread out yet.And just how do you think "instinct" works? When an animal does something by instinct, that's because it instinctively finds it fun.

[Czarcasm]

Cats? If a cat is hunting mice and/or rats, is is most probably an instinctual thing-a bit of instinctual memory that hasn't been bread out yet.And just how do you think "instinct" works? When an animal does something by instinct, that's because it instinctively finds it fun.Uh, no.
I'm saying it is instinctual because cats in the wild would find the critters edible and in plentiful supply.

[Malthus]

If a cat is hunting mice and/or rats, is is most probably an instinctual thing-a bit of instinctual memory that hasn't been bread out yet.


How do you know the same doesn't go for human hunters? :D

[Czarcasm]

If a cat is hunting mice and/or rats, is is most probably an instinctual thing-a bit of instinctual memory that hasn't been bread out yet.


How do you know the same doesn't go for human hunters? :DBecause prehistoric hunters used to get drunk and kill animals they had no intention of eating?

[Malthus]

Uh, no.
I'm saying it is instinctual because cats in the wild would find the critters edible and in plentiful supply.

Heh, ever played with a cat, say by dragging a string along the ground? Did the cat find the playing "fun" in your opinion?

Sure, there is an instinctual component that goes into the selection of what animals find "fun". Same with humans. Humans like games that imitate what humans had to do to survive - hunt, fight other humans, and gather (just look at any selection of video games). In the same way, domesticated animal preditors find hunting "fun".

[Odesio]

What other animals besides man kills for fun, if their environment is safe and they are sufficiently fed?

Chimps? Cats? I'm sure there are others.

[madmonk28]

If I had to be an animal consumed for food, I would much rather be a deer living a life in the wild, than a cow or pig living in one of those factory farms where you are pumped with chemicals, stunned and sometimes butchered while still alive. Some people just like their meat wrapped in plastic and don't care about suffering as long as they don't have to think about it.

[Babale]

Fair point. Lets say you go hunting in Africa for the "big five".

Lion, rhino, hippo, elephant, giraffe? Or maybe cape buffalo instead of giraffe?

Lion, Leopard, Elephant, Cape Buffalo, and Rhino.



Would it make a difference if I went hunting for the Big Five but went after man-eating or otherwise aggressive lions and leopards, and sold the other animals' meat once I shot them, so I was doing something practical even though my intention is just to have fun? Is it OK if I keep the heads and mount them?

Assuming I have the proper permits, of course.

[Malthus]

How do you know the same doesn't go for human hunters? :DBecause prehistoric hunters used to get drunk and kill animals they had no intention of eating?

I have no idea, but it would not surprise me. :D

More to the point, many people who no longer have to hunt for food still do it for fun - and so do animals. The distinction you are attempting to make simply doesn't exist, as any person with an outdoor cat can testify.

I suspect that if prehistoric people didn't kill for fun, it would be because of practical "stewardship" concerns - depleting the food stock was a bad idea - probably encoded in ritual (as in 'the great spirit is offended if you take more than you need').

[Babale]

Another example of animals hunting when they have food is all animals in zoos that are given boxes, balls, etc. to pounce on and attack. If the animals don't "hunt", they get bored.

[enipla]

I personally think for most people the big appeal of hunting has something to do with finding fun in exercising power, control, and in 'playing God'. As such, it really turns me off and strikes me as disrespectful to life.'Playing God'? Wow. I'm not a hunter but I know plenty of them. I can tell you right off that you know nothing about hunters.

I'm guessing that my very sweet and loyal Kricket (a dog) kills for 'fun'. Either that or there is some sort of fued between dogs and chipmunks.

[Der Trihs]

Dogs, cats.Dogs? Dogs may kill because of territorial issues or fear, or because they have been trained to do so, but I don't know about well-adjusted dogs killing just for fun. Sure they will; when presented with easy prey such as on a long isolated island, dogs have been known to have fun by running around killing as fast as they can kill.

If I had to be an animal consumed for food, I would much rather be a deer living a life in the wild, than a cow or pig living in one of those factory farms where you are pumped with chemicals, stunned and sometimes butchered while still alive.As opposed to being eaten alive by wolves? Nature isn't a fun place, regardless of how we romanticize it.

While imperfect, there IS a general attempt to make slaughterhouses humane.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I don't find the cencept offensive as much as the execution.

Someone who stalks a deer with a bow and arrow or knife, brings it down and takes it home to feed his family is to be admired.

A fat git sitting around with a high-powered rifle until he gets a deer in his sights to kill for fun and mounting is offensive.

Most actually do both: if you kill a buck, you mount the head and eat the meat.

[Broomstick]

Yes, but they are all demonstrably indifferent to the feelings of the animal they are shooting, no?
No - I'm thinking particularly of several hunters I know who feel that it is very important to have as quick as kill as possible and they really don't want the target to suffer any longer than absolutely necessary. That's not indifference. They want the meat enough to kill for it, but suffering is not seen as necessary to the goal but rather something to be minimized/avoided.

[Ninja_Lauren]

I love animals, and don't approve of cruelty towards them. However, I am also an avid hunter. I don't think I'm God, or on some crazed power trip while hunting. I look at it like this. I live in Michigan, where aside from cars, whitetail deer have virtually no natural predators left. With no one hunting them, their population would explode until winter hit, when a good number would starve to death. Also, there is the Quality Deer Management program, the goal of which being to educate people, only taking mature deer and keeping a healthy and sustainable population. Not every hunter is a drunken redneck shooting at everything they see. Most hunters want a clean kill shot, not just for the animals sake but for our sake too. Aside from needless suffering, you also then have to track your game. And yes, I eat what I kill. :p

[Malleus, Incus, Stapes!]

As several people have already said, shooting a deer to eat isn't that much different from buying a steak at the supermarket, or even said deer being eaten by wolves. I like Malacandra's scale of "pure need<-->pure luxury" (mostly because I'm not very good at written argument, and so he said it a lot better than I would have).

Hunting for fur is, IMO, further down the "pure luxury" side of the scale. Like I said, I'm not good with typed arguments, and I'm having trouble finding the right words to explain why meat and fur are different. Maybe Malacandra can help, since we seem to be on the same wavelength. So I'll just say that I find wearing fur a lot more troubling than eating meat, and wait for my thoughts to collect. (Though taking fur/leather and meat doesn't bother me. Maybe it's the whole waste thing. Things like not finishing your plate or throwing out a broken item that can be fixed just strikes something deep inside me).

Hunting for the sake of having a trophy is barbaric. You can eat meat, and you can wear leather or fur, but killing a fox so that you can hang its head on the wall doesn't gain you anything but a head on the wall. Yes, some animals play with their food. So what? We are the only animal that can look at our instincts and think, "Would following this impulse be good or bad?" We can decide that killing that serves no purpose should not be done.

[Onomatopoeia]

Is it there any logical argument to be a meat eater, but offended by hunting?
I run into this argument every once in a while. The argument is usually that " I dont think its ok to kill for "fun"".
How would you respond to this position?I wrestle with this. My father used to hunt caribou in Alaska. I went with him once. Because of the sickening horror of it, I never went again. He also took me fishing, which he loved. After the second time, I was done.

My father wasn't a sport hunter; we actually ate what he and his mates caught or shot, and to this day I'm a meat eater. I cannot, however, rationalize the actual killing of a living, breathing, and thinking being. It makes me sick to think about it, and I still try to block the memory of seeing an animal shot dead, and hearing it fall to the ground less than 20 yards in front of me, knowing it was simply minding its own business, living its life.

I'm conflicted and feel like a hypocrite. :(

[gonzomax]

Hunting is a blood sport. The act of shooting, killing and skinning an animal is repulsive to a lot of people. That does not mean if they eat a hamburger that they are tacitly agreeing that hunting is fine. People have to eat. They do not have to hunt.
Hunters and non hunters are just made up a little differently.

[thelurkinghorror]

Yes, but they are all demonstrably indifferent to the feelings of the animal they are shooting, no?
No - I'm thinking particularly of several hunters I know who feel that it is very important to have as quick as kill as possible and they really don't want the target to suffer any longer than absolutely necessary. That's not indifference. They want the meat enough to kill for it, but suffering is not seen as necessary to the goal but rather something to be minimized/avoided.

I am told it is bad for the meat as well to not make a clean kill. Something about lactic acid buildup while the injured animal is scared and fleeing? Hunter's education programs stress a clean kill, and the best way to go about making one. Sure there are probably hunters who fire multiple shots randomly until they hit something, but that doesn't mean they're in the majority.

[madmonk28]

....While imperfect, there IS a general attempt to make slaughterhouses humane. I absolutely disagree. There is a general attempt to make slaughterhouses cheap as possible. Modern factory farms are hell on earth for the animals and often the humans who work in them for very little money and no benefits. There have been a number of videos leaked from slaughterhouses in recent years that show just how horrible they are. Americans like to eat meat without having to think about where it came from, they would much rather eat an animal that spent its life in a pen too small to turn around in as long as they don't have to know anything about it, or the crap lives of the poor SOB who has to work in the slaughterhouse. Only a society that thinks its meat comes naturally wrapped in plastic on a styrofoam tray could be that delusional.

[Raygun99]

Fair point. Lets say you go hunting in Africa for the "big five".

Lion, rhino, hippo, elephant, giraffe?

Great, now I'm hungry for Zoodles.

[kushiel]

Is it there any logical argument to be a meat eater, but offended by hunting?
I run into this argument every once in a while. The argument is usually that " I dont think its ok to kill for "fun"".
How would you respond to this position?I wrestle with this. My father used to hunt caribou in Alaska. I went with him once. Because of the sickening horror of it, I never went again. He also took me fishing, which he loved. After the second time, I was done.

My father wasn't a sport hunter; we actually ate what he and his mates caught or shot, and to this day I'm a meat eater. I cannot, however, rationalize the actual killing of a living, breathing, and thinking being. It makes me sick to think about it, and I still try to block the memory of seeing an animal shot dead, and hearing it fall to the ground less than 20 yards in front of me, knowing it was simply minding its own business, living its life.

I'm conflicted and feel like a hypocrite. :(

Eh, I dunno. I remember being just short of my teen years and not being allowed near the area where my dad and uncle were butchering a cow my uncle raised. Something, y'know, about being young and impressionable and a lot of blood was around. ;) I wouldn't feel guilty about eating it, even though I wasn't there to see it being slaughtered. I know the path from a cow -> my plate and even though I'm not personally involved in it I don't feel like a hypocrite.

[Skald the Rhymer]

I am a hunter, as I have mentioned in threads before, and *I* am offended by killing simply for the sport of it. I will not hunt any mammal or bird I do not intend to eat. Clearly I don't think that to be self-contradictory.

I do think it's hypocritical to criticize my cousins and I for hunting deer and turkey while eating a cheeseburger.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Offended? No. Indifferent? Yes.

I suppose an argument can be made that killing and eating an animal specifically bred and raised for that purpose is fundamentally more ethical than killing an animal that is otherwise going through its "Normal" life.

How? Why is the turkey the Rhymers put on the table this Thanksgiving any more or less deserving of life because it lived in the wild?

[AClockworkMelon]

I'd actually like to go hunting one day. But I'd only be doing it with an experienced hunter because I don't know how to skin/prepare an animal I've killed.

Until then I'll just have to hunt my friends in the woods with paintball guns. :)

[Malthus]

I'd actually like to go hunting one day. But I'd only be doing it with an experienced hunter because I don't know how to skin/prepare an animal I've killed.

Until then I'll just have to hunt my friends in the woods with paintball guns. :)

Are you claiming you know how to properly skin and prepare your friends? :dubious:

Seems that would be a trifle difficult. A paintball gun won't even stun them.

[bdgr]

I'd actually like to go hunting one day. But I'd only be doing it with an experienced hunter because I don't know how to skin/prepare an animal I've killed.

Until then I'll just have to hunt my friends in the woods with paintball guns. :)

Are you claiming you know how to properly skin and prepare your friends? :dubious:

Not safe for...well...anybody....
Butchering the human carcass for human consumption.
http://www.lyndel.com/body_butch.htm



Seems that would be a trifle difficult. A paintball gun won't even stun them.

It will if you swing it hard enough.

[Broomstick]

No - I'm thinking particularly of several hunters I know who feel that it is very important to have as quick as kill as possible and they really don't want the target to suffer any longer than absolutely necessary. That's not indifference. They want the meat enough to kill for it, but suffering is not seen as necessary to the goal but rather something to be minimized/avoided.
I am told it is bad for the meat as well to not make a clean kill. Something about lactic acid buildup while the injured animal is scared and fleeing? Hunter's education programs stress a clean kill, and the best way to go about making one. Sure there are probably hunters who fire multiple shots randomly until they hit something, but that doesn't mean they're in the majority.
There's also the issue that approaching a wounded animal can be risky, as even wounded animals can attempt to fight back. Yeah, deer are cute and "defenseless" until one tries to kick a hunter in the nuts or other soft, vulnerable body part or gore him with antlers.

Someone hunting for food wants a quick, clean kill for a number of reasons.

[JRG1976]

I run into this argument every once in a while. The argument is usually that " I dont think its ok to kill for "fun"".
How would you respond to this position?

I eat meat and have no problem with other people hunting, but I will never go hunting myself. I could never bring myself to shoot an animal. I'd just be thinking about my pet cat back home.
It may be hypocritical, but it works for me.

[Malthus]

Not safe for...well...anybody....
Butchering the human carcass for human consumption.
http://www.lyndel.com/body_butch.htm




Awesome link. :D

[AClockworkMelon]

I'd actually like to go hunting one day. But I'd only be doing it with an experienced hunter because I don't know how to skin/prepare an animal I've killed.

Until then I'll just have to hunt my friends in the woods with paintball guns. :)

Are you claiming you know how to properly skin and prepare your friends? :dubious:No. I'm saying that since I'm not ready to hunt animals I'll just have to pretend to hunt my friends.

[Malthus]

Are you claiming you know how to properly skin and prepare your friends? :dubious:No. I'm saying that since I'm not ready to hunt animals I'll just have to pretend to hunt my friends.

Well, with the link helpfully provided by bdgr, you won't have to pretend any more. :D

Who says that this board doesn't provide practical advice?

[Chimera]

you don't see people getting all dressed up to go ratting.

You dress downward to go ratting.

A friend talked about how, when they went to knock down an old farm building known to be swarming with rats, they got a bunch of people together, stood off a ways on one side of it, pushed the building over and had people shooting at all the rats that came out.

So, while I haven't seen it, I have heard of people getting together socially to kill rats.

[DrFidelius]

Offended? No. Indifferent? Yes.

I suppose an argument can be made that killing and eating an animal specifically bred and raised for that purpose is fundamentally more ethical than killing an animal that is otherwise going through its "Normal" life.

How? Why is the turkey the Rhymers put on the table this Thanksgiving any more or less deserving of life because it lived in the wild?

I'll be damned if I know, oh feckless one. I personally believe all animals are deserving of respect in life and a fast and painless death if we find the need to kill it.

[Apollyon]

So, while I haven't seen it, I have heard of people getting together socially to kill rats.And also fitting in with Malacandra's "kills things that need killing, incidentally deriving satisfaction and enjoyment from it", I'd offer an example of the great New Zealand Easter Bunny Hunt (http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/alexandra/51285/terminators-top-easter-bunny-hunt). :)

Animal fur is an interesting side issue too -- the anti-fur folks generally don't seem too interested in the idea that some fur might be OK... say rabbit or possum fur in NZ, where both of those are pests that we'd really like to be rid of. I keep wondering if calling the (hypothetical0 company "Vermin Fur" might help. :)

[Scylla]

No. There is no logical argument for being offended by hunting, provided we're talking about sustainable hunting of non-threatened species, and that the animal harvested will be utilized.

People that have an issue with hunting aren't particularly rational.

In fact, I would argue that it is more ethical to hunt and harvest a wild animal than to buy one prepared in the grocery store: Take a steer, raised in a barn and then brought to a feed lot and force fed and given antibiotics because it's eating food that it has not evolved to eat that is damaging it, living under filthy conditions, knee deep in manure with eye infections and what have you. They time the stay on the feedlot pretty carefully. Any longer and it will likely die. Then of course it dies in blind terror at a slaughterhouse. A chicken's life is even worse.

Compare that to a deer, or a wild boar or a turkey that lived its life naturally in the wild up until the moment it encountered a predator who killed it. It's a much better life.

Hunting conserves land and helps manage wild populations responsibly. If you are a responsible hunter, paying for his license your contributing to that effort. When you a steak at the grocery store, no portion of that money goes to conserving game lands or ensuring the sustainability of wild species. When you buy a hunting license, it does.

Plus, it's a lot of fun. Great outdoors, exercise, it requires a good bit of skill to do it well.

If you're going to eat meat, I think it's more responsible to participate in the process and understand the cost first hand, at least occasionally.

According to the omnivore's dilemma, wild caught game is much healthier than its factory fed counterpart as a food item. He killed wild game and had it analyzed against its domestic counterparts for nutrition. The meat from a wild animal is much better for you.

Then, there's just this whole weird unhealthy thing in society that I just don't get: A lot of people seem to work under the principle that suffering, killing and death are wrong or distasteful. The squeamishness makes no sense. Everything dies. All living animals survive at the cost of killing other living things. Every animal that lives, also suffers and experiences pain. It is a part of the natural world that we exist in that they do so. There is nothing inherently good nor bad about it.

We seem to pretend otherwise, though. We hide our old and suffering in hospitals and nursing homes so that we don't have to deal with it, and we've become so afraid of pain or discomfort that we medicate against it at the drop of a hat.

We get so fat and lazy and spoiled and removed from reality that our very definitions of pain keep sliding more and more towards trivialities, like inconvenience. Many consider even basic exercise painful. Our thresholds are so low it's shameful. That's what's artificial. I don't think the animals are stupid enough to share our vanity on that count.

I think if you hunt and you open yourself up to the experience, you have the opportunity to understand that truth that most of us have insulated ourselves to our detriment. It's why I did it.

It's sort of the same reason I run marathons and 50 milers nowadays. If you court suffering, and become familiar with it, it's just another sensation, and one that is not particularly important or meaningful in and of itself. Do it enough and you understand the most basic axiom of life: Your body is nothing more than a pressurized bag of shit. Truly understand that, and you can make it do whatever you want, because you understand the separation and sameness between your body and "you." Your body doesn't control you, you control it. Most people just let their bodies boss them around, and the default setting for your body is to simply eat, drink, conserve energy. If you don't court discipline through discomfort it's hard for the "you," to be strong enough to overcome the minor discomfort in doing stuff other than eating, drinking, and being sedentary, which oddly, makes you suffer more in the long run.

Anyway, I digress. You understand some of that, you get some of its sense from hunting.

Personally, I'd love to try hunting in the truly old school sense, Persistence hunting. That is, run a deer down until it collapses of heat exhaustion.

That's what we evolved to do, run and hunt. If we don't exercise our bodies and minds and use them in the way that they were evolved to be used, we risk damaging them and atrophying them. We risk getting sick.

This aversion to hunting, and this aversion to suffering that we as a society have acquired is to me a pretty strong sign that we are physically and mentally sick as a society. We are allowing ourselves to believe things about our selves that just aren't true.

So, ummmm. That's why it's wrong to be against hunting.


***

Czarcasm

You asked what animals kill for "fun." That's a human term, and one that may or may not apply to the emotions of animals. Certainly, lots of animals kill needlessly in a way that we might interpret as "fun."

Having witnessed it, I'm pretty damn sure that a dog going on a killing spree in a chicken coup is having a grand old time of it, and doing it just for the sheer pleasure of it. For my border collie, catching frisbees seems to run a distant second.

Foxes, cats, monkeys, dolphins most every animal that predates also plays at it. Play, which I guess is "fun," is how most higher animals acquire and maintain skills. That's the evolutionary purpose of play.

You attempt to be trying to put some moral distinction between the actions of animals and humans, but we do the same things for mostly the same reasons which differ only slightly depending upon the niche those species evolved into.

I think the idea that humans kill for fun and animals don't is giving us a distinction that we don't deserve, a vanity I don't share with you.

[Malthus]

Czarcasm

You asked what animals kill for "fun." That's a human term, and one that may or may not apply to the emotions of animals. Certainly, lots of animals kill needlessly in a way that we might interpret as "fun."

Having witnessed it, I'm pretty damn sure that a dog going on a killing spree in a chicken coup is having a grand old time of it, and doing it just for the sheer pleasure of it. For my border collie, catching frisbees seems to run a distant second.

Foxes, cats, monkeys, dolphins most every animal that predates also plays at it. Play, which I guess is "fun," is how most higher animals acquire and maintain skills. That's the evolutionary purpose of play.

You attempt to be trying to put some moral distinction between the actions of animals and humans, but we do the same things for mostly the same reasons which differ only slightly depending upon the niche those species evolved into.

I think the idea that humans kill for fun and animals don't is giving us a distinction that we don't deserve, a vanity I don't share with you.

Ironically, the distinguishing feature between animals and humans is that, at least as far as we know, humans are the only predators to worry about killing animals for fun. :D

[SteveG1]

What other animals besides man kills for fun, if their environment is safe and they are sufficiently fed?
House cats. Watch one some time, if it gets a mouse or a bird.

[Lust4Life]

What about killing vermin ?

Foxes are fluffy and cute but they're also vermin that kills amongst other things chickens, cats and song birds.

[FE3O4ENAIL]

I don't know if it was having fun but we had a litter of kittens , born in the barn, that were killed by a tomcat. Torn apart, not eaten.
I was told it was a way to get rid of rivals ( or their offspring).

[Revenant Threshold]

In fact, I would argue that it is more ethical to hunt and harvest a wild animal than to buy one prepared in the grocery store: Take a steer, raised in a barn and then brought to a feed lot and force fed and given antibiotics because it's eating food that it has not evolved to eat that is damaging it, living under filthy conditions, knee deep in manure with eye infections and what have you. They time the stay on the feedlot pretty carefully. Any longer and it will likely die. Then of course it dies in blind terror at a slaughterhouse. A chicken's life is even worse.

Compare that to a deer, or a wild boar or a turkey that lived its life naturally in the wild up until the moment it encountered a predator who killed it. It's a much better life.

Hunting conserves land and helps manage wild populations responsibly. If you are a responsible hunter, paying for his license your contributing to that effort. When you a steak at the grocery store, no portion of that money goes to conserving game lands or ensuring the sustainability of wild species. When you buy a hunting license, it does. Scylla, it doesn't seem particularly reasonable to me to compare the worst and most unpleasant forms of commercial animal raising against responsible, good hunters. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with your overall point, but I think it loses something in the skew.

So far as your point about risking getting "sick" as a result of trying to avoid suffering a paradox? I mean, if you're counselling us to avoid this mental and physical sickness, isn't that an aversion to it in and of itself?

[SmartAleq]

Dogs, cats.Dogs? Dogs may kill because of territorial issues or fear, or because they have been trained to do so, but I don't know about well-adjusted dogs killing just for fun. Cats? If a cat is hunting mice and/or rats, is is most probably an instinctual thing-a bit of instinctual memory that hasn't been bread out yet. I've seen a tame cat catch a mouse, then hold it down, wondering what the hell she's supposed to do with it.

Yes, dogs definitely. Possums, squirrels, gophers, moles, birds, bunnies, rats, mice, shrews and occasionally snakes and lizards. The only dog I've had who'd actually eat what she caught was the Malemute, but she refused to eat moles and shrews and snakes. The other dogs just play with them a bit, disappointed that they no longer run away, then leave them on the back porch.

I have no problem with skillful hunters, but the ones who gutshoot or otherwise wound deer and just leave them to die need staking out on an anthill. Fuckers. Same with those goddamned trophy hunters who go out to ranches to "hunt" animals that have been raised to be shot by stupid motherfuckers--it's a wonder they don't just stake the poor things out to make it even easier for the idiots to shoot them.

[gonzomax]

Do we have to fire any slaughterhouse workers who don't demonstrate a proper dislike for their jobs? Do I have to chew my steak glumly so as not to have fun from the death of an animal?

If you are sitting in a steakhouse enjoying your meal you have no room to complain about people killing animals. Just because you've had it done for you by professionals where you can't see or hear it doesn't mean that you've been kind to that animal. I would claim that throwing way meat is worse than hunting. How is leaving 3/4 of a T-bone on your plate any different than a hunter killing an animal and leaving it by the side of the road?

Hunting, at least in the US, is pretty well regulated and is supposed to prevent exess and cruelty. Of course that's not always the case but it's not like hunters are just blazing away at anything they want.

Nobody made the claim that eating meat was being kind to animals.
There is a humane feeling one can get from not doing the deed of killing an animal. You forgo that when when you go off to the woods and shoot an animal that will not hurt you.

[Peremensoe]

This discussion usually arises among people who have not personally experienced either of the things they're talking about. If you've seen both, odds are you'll find hunting rather more palatable.

Scylla, it doesn't seem particularly reasonable to me to compare the worst and most unpleasant forms of commercial animal raising against responsible, good hunters.

But the "worst and most unpleasant" methods of livestock meat production are the standard now. Unless you go to some lengths to seek out better alternatives, that is where your grocery store meat comes from.

Hunting is one of those better alternatives.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Nobody made the claim that eating meat was being kind to animals.
There is a humane feeling one can get from not doing the deed of killing an animal. You forgo that when when you go off to the woods and shoot an animal that will not hurt you.

I'm pretty sure that the chicken whose carcass was part of my breakfast this morning would never have set out to hurt me.