“Animals suffer for testing the products we all use.”
I don’t want to get into an Animal Rights debate here, but I wouldn’t use this as an example of ‘acceptable animal suffering’. Some people, like me, do not see this as acceptable and are against this type of testing because we see it as unnecessary. But the food thing is definitely necessary. And for the record, I’m not a member of PETA. 
~Eris~
CrankyAsAnOldMan said:
<< I dunno, that strikes me as something similar to “Bowlers must really love inflicting damage on bowling pins” or “Gardeners must really get off on destroying lettuce plants.” >>
That analogy is sound, with one exception. The bowling pins and the lettuce don’t feel pain. But animals, be it deer, birds, bears, etc. do feel pain, and that’s where you have to be careful. The bowlers can hurt the pins all they want, the pins are just plastic (what are they made of anyway? :)). But hunters can’t hurt the animals too much because then it is an issue of cruelty.
<<Yes, you could take the gun out of the hunter’s hands and tell him to go enjoy the stalking and the outdoors anyway, and give him a camera or something else that requires quick aim to measure success. But I think for many hunters it wouldn’t be the same.>>
I agree, it probably wouldn’t. But I place any animal’s well being over a hunter’s hobby. I’m sorry for the hunter that he won’t enjoy himself as much, but to me the animal dying humanely (or preferably not at all) is more important than that.
<<I still say that doesn’t mean all hunters must get off on taking life, watching animals die, and seeing blood.>>
And I never said all hunters do. Just a good deal of them do this and also use hunting to make them feel powerful and manly.
No hunter wants to admit that there are hunters like that around, just like animal rights activists hate admitting that extremists like some PETA members exist. But you can’t ignore the fact that some people like this do exist.
Whack posted a some links about canned hunts and trophy hunts. In his words, “More evidence that this isn’t ‘isolated’ but actual big business.”
~Eris~
Monkey said:
"What really happened was this, though. The birds we bought were released at dawn hours before our arrival. … …
Was this a caged hunt? I don’t think so. I know where meat comes from. I don’t mind doing the killing if I also do the eating."
It depends. Were the birds fenced in (“caged”) when you hunted them?? Were they domesticated birds (fat, clipped wings, anything that impaired them)? Were they of a species not native to that area?
If any of the above are true, then the birds were at a disadvantage and really had no chance of getting away. It’s good that you ate the ones you caught (i.e. it was not a trophy hunt) but it still might technically qualify as a caged hunt.
~Eris~
I think part of the debate here is over what a sport hunter is, anyway. I see three groups: subsistence hunters, market hunters, and sport hunters. Subsistence hunters would be those who have no other source of food, and either hunt or starve. Mostly aboriginal in this day and age, although possibly some rural folks would qualify. Market hunters hunt in order to sell meat/ furs/ other products. I am not aware of this existing anymore in North America (unless trapping counts as hunting?). Finally, sport hunters are everyone else. Within that, you have more trophy-oriented hunters, and more meat-oriented hunters, but it’s not a black and white thing. Most trophy hunters will eat the meat, and most meat hunters will be happy of a big animal. I guess my distinction would be that a meat hunter would tend to take the first animal seen, whereas the trophy hunter will let the smaller ones pass.
The only jurisdiction whose rules I’m familiar with is B.C., but here any hunter must pack out the edible portions of the kill, or else they are not hunters but poachers, by definition. (The exception is grizzly, where only the pelt must be carried out.)
I think some people think of sport hunter as meaning only the most trophy-oriented of what I understand by the term. But even those must, by law, pack out the meat, so that it is not wasted. I understand places in the States have programs whereby unwanted venison can be donated to food banks; I don’t know if such exists here, as I want to eat it myself.
So basically, while fully supporting sport hunting (as I understand the term), I would agree that someone who shot animals purely for the fun of it and left the carcasses to rot would indeed be a depraved and sick individual.
Scylla said:
<<How many fisherman do you know that are out there to make fish suffer?
Fishing is hunting.
Why do you think a game hunter is any different?>>
Don’t even get me started on fishing.
Seriously though, I have MAJOR problems with people who fish for “fun”, traumatizing and injuring the fish, and then throw it back in the water. To me, if you aren’t going to eat it, leave it alone.
I hold game hunters and fisherman to the very same standards.
~Eris~
Scylla said:
<<While it’s not really my bag, I have no trouble with canned hunts or those that hunt for trophy’s provided they do so safely and responsibly.>>
Doesn’t this go against everything you were saying about your life causing suffering, and you not letting other people do your ‘dirty work’?
The people that participate in canned hunts are doing it for fun, amusement, power, and dare I say bloodlust. I thought from your previous posts that you looked down on hunters like that, but now you say it is ok?
If they really do enjoy the killing, as you say you do not, doesn’t that make them “pathological”?
<<I don’t know what each person’s particular reasons are, so how can you or I judge them?>>
A person’s “reasons” for doing something are irrelevant if it is morally wrong or illegal. I’m sure the (dare I use it again) pedophiles of the world have their own “reasons” for molesting children. But do I judge them? Hell yeah I do. Molesting kids is sick and wrong. And it is illegal.
Canned hunts are also illegal, and for a good reason. It was deemed cruel to the animal to have no chance of escape, and they often use endangered and exotic species in them.
I don’t care what their ‘reasons’ are, or what their ‘philosophy’ is. If they are hurting the animals for fun and doing something illegal, they should be stopped.
~Eris~
There are a ‘good many’ of all kinds of people out there. There are afterall some 6 billion humans in the world. I must say that most of the hunters I know do not post to this board and wouldn’t considering it boring, a waste of time or being computer illiterate to some extent. They still bear little to no resemblance to the hunters that you describe.
They are intimately connected, why must hunting be motivated either exclusively by hunger OR pleasure in the act? Can’t it be both? I enjoy the process and I enjoy the results. The same could be said of cooking a gourmet meal, afterall I could satisfy my hunger far more easily and cheaply by going to McDonalds. I however choose to take the time and effort to purchase premium ingredients and cook them in a meticulous manner. I can ‘hunt’ with a camera and not eat and enjoy it… I can eat without hunting and pay somebody else to kill my venison for me and enjoy it… or I can do both. I choose to do both.
Ummmm… correct me if I’m wrong but the firearm is a product of the human mind. It is a tool. It is one of many tools that we, the human animal, have invented for ourselves in order to thrive as a species. It is part and parcel of what we are. That it is a ‘recent advancement’ is irrelevent, humans have been using their tools to aid in hunting since the first crude spear was formed or rock thrown.
Define ‘need’. Do humans simply require the minimum of food, water and shelter to survive? Perhaps, but I believe there is more to life than existence. As thinking animals we have ‘needs’ deeply rooted in our psyche that are essential for our well being. The pursuit of pleasure and personal fufillment is certainly among those needs IMO. And again, why does it have to be one OR the other? It can and IS both. I hunt because I enjoy the process AND the results when I consume the kill.
Divorce- 1 The legal dissolution of marriage. 2 **A Complete or radical severance of closely connected things. **
And again, I don’t see why one must always follow the other with no other permutations. Surely you must acknowledge that it is possible (and indeed HAS been done now successfully for decades) to manage hunting in such a way that it positively benefits animal populations. The idea that HUNTING is the major cause of animal extinction is dangerous IMO, the far more pressing danger for biodiversity is habitate destruction which is certainly not caused by the historically conservation minded hunting community.
Again, I never suggested that it was the single and ONLY definition of what constitutes a pathological creature. And yes, in general I consider same species predation a more serious indicator of a pathological nature than say… a gardener that prunes her rose bushes. After all she is a species causing harm to another species for her own enjoyment and pleasure. I would certainly hesitate to call her sick or ‘pathological’, same goes for the average hunter. Now, if the garderner was pruning fingers off of captive people she keeps locked in her basement… Definetly a sign of some serious psychological disease I would think. See the difference? That some people DON’T see that difference is what offends me to a certain degree.
Hmmm so our efforts at conservation of our natural resources are somehow selfish and tainted because unlike your garden variety member of The Nature Conservancy who just writes a check every month or so we actually go out into these natural areas and make use of them? Interesting. And I don’t need to argue that ‘because we saved the animals it’s ok to kill them’ as I believe it’s ok to kill them anyway as long as it’s done responsibly.
No, we have the right to kill them during hunting season, in limited numbers with a certain method following applicable laws regardless of our role in ‘saving them’. We CHOOSE to save our wilderness areas and wildlife because we enjoy a pastime that depends on both and because the world would be a lesser place without the wilderness and wildlife as well as the joy of hunting.
<<He was completely unsuccessful in convincing me that there is anything mystically wonderful about killing animals, no matter how much comraderie, sunsets, mastery over scary nature and early morning dew one throws into it. I believe you can have all those things without the blood and suffering and death. Matter of fact, 'tis my own view that the blood and suffering and death pretty much ruin all the rest of it.>>
Stoid, I think you and I are pretty much on the same wavelength here. 
I agree with what you and Whack have said so far. In my first post I mentioned things like photography and birdwatching as an alternative to killing on a hunt.
~Eris~
“Ethics are only important to those who are ethical.”
Are you saying you aren’t ethical? Is there any moral issue you feel strongly about?
“Canned hunts aren’t that big of a deal.”
In your opinion. Not in mine. I think they are a big problem and are morally wrong.
"He does have barbed wire fence surrounding most of his ranch though. Again, whats the problem?
Ae these canned hunts? Both have a no kill no pay policy, but niether chain animals up to trees or anything. They just manage their places effectively so that shots are easy and accessible for all. One of their biggest customer groups are handicapped hunters FWIW."
And herein lies the problem. Shots being “easy” and “accesible”? If it is easy to kill the animal, then it obviously doesn’t have a fair chance. Hunting is supposed to be hard. If handicapped hunters don’t have a problem, then it is too easy and the animals are at a disadvantage, and I consider that wrong.
~Eris~
“What is intrinsically bad about purposefully taking the life of another living creature? Why do you percieve that this is a bad thing to be avoided?”
Oh… my… god… I think many serial killers have asked this very question…
~Eris~
Whack said:
<<As to hunters policing themselves you need not get in the face of a gun-toting asshole. There are many things a group can do to set limits on its members. Lawyers have the Bar, doctors have medical review boards, football has review boards. Hundreds of choices to choose from. All these groups have written ethical standards that they agreed to amongst themselves. They can impose penalties on their own members for violating those standards. There is no reason hunters as a group couldn’t do the same thing but (AFAIK) they don’t. There may be unwritten rules that the people here adhere to but if some yokel wants to be an ass there isn’t really anything to stop him (unless you turn him in for breaking a law by doing something like poaching).>>
I’m with you on this one, Whack. And I really don’t understand the relectance on the part of the hunters to have such a nationwide institution. It’s unfortunate, but people can’t be trusted to not do stupid and wrong things. That’s why we have LAWS in the first place.
The hunters on this board are getting mad that we are “generalizing” them as a “bunch of yahoo’s tossing beer cans out of pick up trucks on the way to hunt”, but then they won’t take steps to reprimand those hunters that do act this way (and I can give you 10 names right now…).
~Eris~
Eris, you make perfect sense in what you said to me ("But I place any animal’s well being over a hunter’s hobby. I’m sorry for the hunter that he won’t enjoy himself as much, but to me the animal dying humanely (or preferably not at all) is more important than that. ") That makes perfect sense, and I respect that. Something about the way you expressed it before was more objectionable to me, but when you frame it as a matter of your beliefs and relative priorities, it makes sense and is also familiar.
It’s not just hunting where this applies. There are people who feel that all life is so precious, they won’t even kill insect. Me, I decided insect life isn’t so sacred that it should come before my comfort. Some people share your views on animals and hunting, and some even go further and refuse to wear leather or eat meat. Me, I like leather and meat enough to be okay with animals dying for that purpose. And on the boards we have gotten into parallel debates about war–some people feel that life is so precious, they can fathom almost no circumstances under which war is justified. Others can accept the sacrifice of some lives for what it seen as a greater good or higher principle.
Personally, I couldn’t hunt, either. For me personally, the death of something living and beautiful would overwhelm any sense of fun or challenge. But I can accept that hunters don’t feel the same way. And it doesn’t make them morally corrupt blood-lusters (which you’ve now clarified you weren’t claiming, but which a few other posters seem to still condemn them as.)
I_Eris_I wrote:
I would think that one of the reason’s for not having a national registry per se is the sheer numbers involved, from the NSSF’s website (taken with a grain of salt)…
And don’t forget, anytime you bring up national “registry” to a large portion of this demographic, you’ve said some fightin’ words.
**
I am ethical. Those who are not would not care to join a club such as the one Whack sugested. My point is that you cannot preach the ethics of hunting, business, sports, etc to those who do not care about ethics. It is wasted breath. I’ll write off you second question as an attempt to antogonize.
They are not a big problem unless you have a problem with hunting in general. If that is the case, very few, if any instances of hunting would be ok with you, correct? You don’t think that the handicapped should able to hunt afterall…
Obviously, I need to make a distinction here. Do you know how big 400 acres are? How about 10,000 acres? A babred wire fence wont keep a pheasant from flying away, nor will it keep an antelope or a deer in an enclosure. Eris I’m not sure where you live, but the type of fence I am talking about is about four feet high with three strands of barbed wire. It will hold back cattle or horses and that is about it. Were not talking about the fence around a prison or anything.
As far as “easy and accessible”. Our friend Whack A Mole lives in Chicago. If he decided to take Scylla up on his challenge he and give pheasant hunting a try, he would have to drive several hours in any direction in order to find land that was suitable for hunting in the first place. Then, he would have to ask permission in order to hunt it. With his Cook County license plates on his car, the odds are pretty good any downstate Illinois farmer would tell him to piss off before he let him hunt his ground. The game farm I metioned makes huntung accessible for anyone regardless of whether they own land, know a farmer, or happen to live in Cook or DuPage county.
As far as easy goes. The pheasants are stocked on the farm every year. Without the proper cover, it is impossible to see a pheasant, let alone shoot at it. The management of the farm provides the opportunity for the shot, the customer has to make it happen. It’s not easy and perhaps I should have left it as “accessible” instead.
As far as the handicapped go. I am a major proponet for the disabled to do anything “normal” people can do. Whether that be teaching blind people how to use a PC or taking a gentleman with cripling athritis pheasant hunting, I do what I can to help. Don’t bother nominating me for sainthood though, I do it for the thrill I see in them when they accomplish things they never thought they would be able to.
How about I repost your earlier thoughts first to keep things in context:
I already debunked your NRA/AP bullets bullshit, and of course you have no comment about that.
Your second smartass reply speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge of the subject at hand. Why is hunting hard? Because it is. The kind of hunting I do allows me to walk up to 20 miles in a day over rough ground often in sub zero temparatures. I’m not complaining though as it is my choice to make.
It is hard because I have in my hands the power to destroy and end lives, whether on purpose or by accident. This is a responsibility I take seriously.
It is hard because once I pull the trigger, I cannot take that bullet/shot back I need to make a snapshot reaction and judgement whether to shoot or not, whether take a life or not.
It is hard because often at the end of the day I have nothing to show for my efforts other than sore feet, a tired back and an empty game bag. If it was easy, despite everything you think you know, they would call it shooting, not hunting.
You still think it’s easy? Give it a try. Let me know how you do. Otherwise, feel free to troll this thread some more, but I encourage you to step away from the keyboard and enjoy the outdoors instead. It would be a much more worthwhile effort.
Those wacky word games. I say hooey. Double hooey.
Why in the world would someone spend sometimes thousands, even tens of thousands (depending on how seriously you are into your hunt and willingness to travel) of dollars, time, energy, etc., to make themselves feel sad and guilty and regretful? They don’t, and it’s an awfully silly claim. They do it because it is thrilling and exciting and makes them feel skilled and powerful.
I’ve heard this song before. You want to feel skilled and masterful and thrilled at the hunt? It’s easy…hunt 'em down and shoot 'em with a camera. Denying that the kill is the thrill, while insisting that the kill must occur, is simply not credible.
And ** Cranky, ** you are mistaken. I’ve known hunters in real life. I’ve even been related to one or two. I assure you, hunting for sport is a key marker of a worldview I do not share, and a solid indication that the hunter and I could never be good pals. I may someday have an experience that shows me otherwise, but haven’t yet.
I eris:
And this is the fundamental point that I keep bringing up and which never gets addressed. Why is killing animals for our benefit bad? Why are animals suffering for our benefit bad?
Everything else really comes down to this.
I eris:
I mean it doesn’t bother me. It is neither positive nor negative. It just is. I enjoy running marathons as well. I’m in misery for two of the four hours it takes me. Do you assume that I run marathons because I enjoy my own personal suffering? That I like to feel hurt?
When I run, the suffering just is. it’s neither good nor bad. It’s a part of it. While it’s true that the marathon would be easy and stupid without the suffering, the suffering isn’t the point. The point is to rise to a challenge and accomplish something, push yourself, see things differently.
It’s the same thing with hunting. To take a day off, go out early, walk through the woods, stalk and take a buck, pack it out, butcher it, and eat is in aggregrate a very pleasurable experience. There are moments which are pleasurable and moments which are not.
When I shot my first deer, I was practically trembling. It was very difficult to make myself take the shot. I hated gutting the deer and I really hated dragging his dead body 8 miles up a mountain.
When I looked back on it some weeks later, I realized what a fine experience the whole thing was. I had a sense of genuine accomplishment and pride. It had been a challenge. It had been difficult. I did it, and I did it well.
If it’s really importatnt for you to beleive that I enjoy bringing death to innocent animals and this is why I hunt, than feel to Stoid in her obstinate ignorance. If you beleive that hunters in general derive pleasure from the act of bringing death, there’s no point in continuing this discussion. I can’t reason you out of a position you haven’t arrived at from reason.
No, I don’t have to. I see no reason why I shouldn’t, and lots of good reasons why I should. I like the process, I like the food, I like the skill, I like the challenge, I like the accomplshment, and I like the perspective it gives me.
I don’t know if I’m wasteful. You tell me. When I kill a deer I field dress and dispose of the entrails and internal organs on the spot. I leave them in the woods and I’m sure something comes along and eats them.
Back at the house or camp, I’ll dress the deer further and possibly butcher it (if I don’t butcher it, it’s because I’m taking it to a butcher shop to be made into bologna.)
I have no use for the head, the skin, or the bones, and I usually cook the bones on the barbecue and give them to the dogs. The skin, legs and head, I bury in the garden. Sometimes I’ll hang up the rack if it’s a nice one.
I usually have a big meal of the meat while it’s fresh, and I make jerky with the rest. I have jerky down to a pure science, and it is so delicious I never have any left by Christmas.
He was a farm dog that showed up one day and stayed for ten years. We sold the farm and he was confined within a fenced in acre of our backyard. In my judgement he represented a danger to me, my wife, the neighbors, and most importantly my two year old. After conferring with a veterinarian I made the decision to put him to sleep.
I don’t know what that means.
Fun is one of the reasons why I hunt. It’s a lot of fun. I have no problem with fun.
You’re really going to have to trust me on this one. It is a lot different when you do it yourself.
I’m not sure how you determine need. I certainly don’t need a dead deer. I get a lot of use out of it, though.
I don’t know why they do, and I do look down on it, but I don’t have a problem with it. If it works for them, that’s fine with me.
I am not sure that enjoying killing is necessarily pathological.
[quote]
A person’s “reasons” for doing something are irrelevant if it is morally wrong or illegal. I’m sure the (dare I use it again) pedophiles of the world have their own “reasons” for molesting children. But do I judge them? Hell yeah I do. Molesting kids is sick and wrong. And it is illegal.
Canned hunts are also illegal, and for a good reason. It was deemed cruel to the animal to have no chance of escape, and they often use endangered and exotic species in them.
I don’t care what their ‘reasons’ are, or what their ‘philosophy’ is. If they are hurting the animals for fun and doing something illegal, they should be stopped.
[/quotes]
I don’t see why a canned hunt is morally wrong, and they’re not illegal in PA.
I buy live crabs in a bushel, take them home and steam them.
If somebody wants to have a big deer head on the wall, and they want to pay the outrageous fees for a canned hunt to get it, more power to 'em.
**
Yes it is. You are simpfully obstinate and willfully ignorant in this matter.
You even tell us why:
And ** Cranky, ** I assure you, hunting for sport is a key marker of a worldview I do not share, and a solid indication that the hunter and I could never be good pals. **
[/QUOTE]
If you don’t understand the worldview how can you possibly judge whether it is credible or not.
Let’s see how it feels on you:
As a porn purveyor, you must enjoy the degradation of your fellow human beings, otherwise you would not support it.
Why do you enjoy degrading others?
Scylla, for me the whole argument turns on how I view animals, versus how someone who hunts them might. I am not trying to put words in your mouth or even make a value judgement here, but I think there is probably a difference. After living in Wyoming and being on the losing end of this argument time and again I should probably have learned by now, but what the Hell, here goes:
You are no doubt fond of your dogs and your horses. They are your pets and have a different status than game animals you meet in the woods. The animals you hunt are prey - seen as a challenge, an adversary, lunch.
I admit this may not be biologically rational, but for someone like me the animal in the woods - the one specific individual in the crosshairs, is by virtue of our meeting, elevated to a similar status as your horse or dog. I could no more shoot it than I could shoot a pet. I never get as far as pondering the issue of whether killing animals for our benefit is fundamentally bad (well, I do, but more in the context of medical research than sports hunting) because, sentimental or not, I can’t get past the way I view that one particular creature.