Is it moral to hunt?

In My Humble Opinion
41

Let me repeat, please. the question is, “is it moral to hunt”. Most have focused their attention on the aspects of killing and eating meat.

I mentioned, in passing, certain specific attributes of specific hunters that I found to be reprehensible (the tresspasser, my ex-bro in law-the killer).

But my main objection is that for the duration of hunting season
** every other citizen ** in order to protect their safty must stay out of the woods or buy a garment that * might * protect them from getting shot, but has virtually no other use (flame orange still isn’t a fashion statement). And for those who say “gee it isn’t that expensive…” so what? Why should ** I ** have to pay ** anything ** in order to not get shot by you while you are enjoying your hobby. I repeat. For me to enjoy ** my ** hobbies, you are not even aware of what I’m doing, let alone have to curb your interests, change your route or actions, or purchase a piece of clothing.

Look at it this way: You have a community pool. all citizens are allowed access to said pool, except for the summer months when a certain select group of people take it over completely. and these people, while taking over the pool, create a risk around the pool as well. If any of the other citizens wants to safely go around the pool during this season, they need to purchase, at their own expense a pink satin tutu and wear it in a conspicuos place. Now, the pink tutu doesn’t cost a whole lot of money, so, really, it isn’t any real inconvenience to you to need to buy it and wear it, just so you can safely go to the pool which you tax dollars fund.

I happen to really like the changing leaves. I cannot safely walk in the woods while the leaves are changing because there are armed stangers wandering around shooting at moving objects. And, I believe that it is immoral for one group of people in the state to completely take over public lands for thier own, mutually exclusive purposes.

And Milo, no, I’m not kidding about needing that cite for the stats. I’m aware there are MANY car/deer accidents every year, but I don’t believe that they end in fatalities. I’ve lived in MI all my life, read the papers, annually we have the stats about the hunters who die (most from heart attacks). and, there are often people killed by hunters. And every day, we hear about fatal car accidents with other cars or with a tree etc. I personally don’t recall of a single one where a person died when the car hit a deer. I’m not saying that since I don’t remember, therefore it couldn’t happen or didn’t happen. Just that I have CLEAR memories of fatal hunting accidents. none from car/deer crashes.

42

Please also understand that I believe that each of the posters here who have defended hunting are serious about it, take care and concern in what they do. I have nothing PERSONALLY against any of you (and even, frankly my ex-husband, although I wouldn’t like to be in the same county as Wally…)

There are MANY, MANY hunters out there. even if most of them are courteous and careful:

A. There’s still a significant # who aren’t curteous and careful, and you know that there’s guys out there drunk or hungover. You might not hunt with them (and I recommend against it) but they’re there.

B. EVEN if all of you were really, really careful, the fact that there’s bullets and stuff whizzing around all over the woods make them dangerous for others to be there.

C. and, please, think about the fact that you’ll be taking over these public lands for a period of time. Yes, you’re paying hunting fees, and adding to the economy etc. but it remains that while you collectively are out there, the rest of us probably shouldn’t be. and is that, really fair?

I suspect that none of you had considered this, especially when I read comments like “well who was there first?” and "aren’t you overreacting, there’s really not ** that ** much danger in getting shot. " I don’t care what the risk factor is, the risk factor is there at all, not because of something that I’m personally doing, but because of a hobby of yours. Shooting at a firing range does NOT diminish my ability to walk in the woods. Fishers are able to fish in the same waterways as other people enjoying the public lakes in different ways. Hunting is the only sport/hobby that I can think of where your enjoyment of your chosen hobby directly and negatively impacts on my life for significant periods of time. (several weeks out of the year is significant. a few moments of a single day isn’t).

heck, I’m not even telling you not to hunt etc. It would be a refreshing change for the hunters to say “s’cuse me” - I mean that’s what I expect to hear from the person who’s pushing past me to get into the theater seat, and that’s only a momentary inconvenience.

43

This is getting deeper and deeper.

1.) The cite for the statistics on being killed hunting(actually of just being accidentally shot) vs odds of dying in your car is posted above. Now unless I’m mistaken, and I don’t think I am, the part of your post that asked for that cite has been altered. Anyway here is the cite again.

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

2.)Take over the woods during fall colors??? You’re in Michigan right. The colors are done by deer season. Small game hunting is not anywhere near on par with gun deer season for the number of hunters in the woods for a 15 day period. In addition there are many state parks where hunting is not allowed.

3.) We pay for the public lands you don’t or you barely do. You said this wasn’t the point but your pool example is about a pool everyone paid for. Non-sportsmen pay a fraction of what sportsmen do to keep public lands available and acquire new ones. That is the trade off you make for not paying your fair share to use public lands.

4.) So the majority dictates what is right/moral for all groups?

Don’t say that too loud or you’ll be elected Governor of Mississippi.

5.) You drive don’t you. Well if i want to walk or bike on the road at night I should have a light on my bike, light colored clothing and preferably reflective material on my clothing. Boy that is inconvenient. Hmmm…death vs inconvenience. Wait…Don’t tell me… I know this one…

Blaze in the woods during Gun Deer Season is the LAW for everyone in Wisconsin.
6.) Oh and one more point regarding car deer accidents. The higher than any other time of the year in 2 cycles. October/November and May/June. Neither reason is due to hunters. October/November is when a young bucks thoughts turn to love and they are chasing does. May/June is when does are moving around with their inexperienced young.

Plus the point was car fatalities not just car/deer fatalities.

44

Wring
Would you be agitated if the people in your pool were repairing it? How about removing excess alge or something that if left to itself would destroy the pools usefulness? Thats all that is happening.
Sorry but it cannot be done at a time that is convenient to you.
As far as the pink tutu goes I don’t look good in pink but I’ll bet you do.

45

First off, Wring, I apologize for misunderstanding your question. I thought you were comparing hunting fatalities to ALL car accidents; not just car-deer accidents. You can see why I thought that was ludicrous, I’m sure.

Even when making comparisons using your parameters (hunting fatalities vs. car-deer accident fatalities) the car collision statistics are clearly higher, particularly when considering number of injuries, where (as I expected) the numbers are several hundred times higher.

For the sake of ease, I looked at only Michigan and Wisconsin, two fairly rural states where deer-hunting is big. The statistics aren’t easily laid out for year-to-year comparisons, and there are some missing years in what I was able to find.

In Wisconsin, three people were killed and 805 injured in car-deer crashes in 1996; five were killed and 783 injured in car-deer crashes in 1998.

Deer-hunting shooting accidents resulted in two killed; 15 injured in 1998 and two killed, 28 injured in 1999. (Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)

They aren’t including old fogeys who croak out in the woods of heart attacks, and I’m not either. I mean, that could happen anywhere. It isn’t necessarily hunting-related.

In Michigan three people were killed and 1,899 injured in car-deer crashes in 1997. (Source: Michigan Network of Employers for Traffic Safety)

Couldn’t find injury stats, but no more than three hunters were fatally shot in Michigan from 1992 to 1998, when five were killed, according to the Michigan DNR. It should be noted that in 1998, two of the five killed were hunting at twilight without wearing blaze orange, so there was some Darwinism at work. I’m willing to speculate that there weren’t 1,900 hunters shot and injured in any given hunting season. Probably not 1/100th that number.

There were 68,000 car-deer crashes in Michigan in 1996, according to state police crash statistics. Car-deer crashes caused $95 million in car and other property damage in Michigan in 1997, according to the Michigan NETS.

And society has determined that hunting is necessary to control deer populations; hundreds of thousands of people enjoy the activity; it brings millions and millions of dollars to local economies; it provides essential funding for various wildlife and habitat preservation and other programs. Society has determined that for the aforementioned benefits, it is willing to inconvenience your woodland enjoyment for a couple of weeks in November. Sorry.

46

quickly justwanna know. The people “fixing” the pool isn’t a correct analogy. hunters aren’t “fixing” the woods. they’re enjoying their hobby. Hunters being prominate in the woods make it unsafe for other peoples uses.

Sledman. 1. I saw your cite. It does not answer the issue. my question had to do with deaths of people involved in car/deer accidents. (see below comments)

  1. In my part of Michigan, the fall colors can go through November (southern). And, in any event, if I’m just wanting to walk through the woods to admire the bare trees, fine. same arguement. 15 day period only refers to firearm deer season. although that’s when the most hunters are out there, firearm small game, bow hunting deer, and muzzle loading deer season still negatively impact my ability to use common land.

  2. The fees and so on that the hunters pay in: This consists of your hunting license, right? We both pay tax dollars. My tax dollars are not split out in different ways than the hunters. So you’re saying that if you pay your $40 hunting liscense fee (or whatever it is), this allows you and your friends to make the public lands unsafe for me for several weeks? I don’t see that. Show me where to sign up and pay $40 so I can exclude great quantities of the tax paying public from public lands for a month.

  3. I repeat. It is my opinion that for a segment of the population to conduct themselves in a manner that forces the rest of the people to significantly alter their life for several weeks is immoral.

  4. The only reason that I would need to wear Blaze is so you won’t shoot me. Now, yea, I’m interested in staying alive. However, to require me to purchase clothing I wouldn’t normally want just so I won’t get shot, seems, um… gee, what’s that word??? Immoral, yea, that’s it.

  5. the point was, to me, car/deer fatalities. Since it was postulated to me that y’all were protecting me from deer leaping out at my car and potentially killing me, and that I had more chance of that happening than the hunter accidently shooting me.
    the driver/biker analogy is closer, not exact, but closer. there, you have two groups each wanting to use public roads, but not to mutual exclusion. of course, the driver isn’t intentionally attempting to cause the death of moving objects, whereas the hunter… See, the hunter is shooting at stuff. you want me to wear orange since it’s unlikely that the things you WANT to shoot would be wearing orange, and there fore, hopefully, you’d know I wasn’t something to be shot. The cyclist (or pedestrian) would be wearing something light SO THEY COULD BE SEEN, not that they could be seen as humans.

47

milo, thanks for the cites. I, too, would not include the death by heart attacks. Am suspicious of the stats of dead hunters in MI, since I personally recall at least 2 in the past two years, just in my area. but, won’t belabor that point. It does appear that more people die from car/deer accidents than by hunting shot to death. am also suspicious that no data was available about the injuries from the hunting accidents.

As for the financial arguments:

The fact that hunters spend money is not necessarily the best of your points. In the first place MOST of the hunters are local(in state) guys. For this claim about money pouring into the economy to hold true, we would have to speculate that the LOCAL folks who are spending money hunting would otherwise hoard the money and NOT spend it.

In addition, the trade off is massive, IMHO. I live near East Lansing. During football season, massive hoards of fans come onto the campus and hold tailgate parties and so on. and during football season, I tend to pay attention to game days and make MINOR alterations to my life, in order to support the local infusion to the economy. Such alterations include: changing by a few minutes or so the time I go to town, and I may change my route slightly. My son works pt at MSU, and once had to BE at the Breslin (next to the stadium) at 4 pm on game day. We left a bit early and I dropped him off a few blocks away for him to walk the rest of the way. That would be a MINOR inconvenience.

The trade off with hunting season is that DURING hunting season if you’re going to be in the woods, you will be sharing the space (finite) with armed people shooting at moving objects. Shots go awry. Shots miss. I don’t alongside a shooting range, either. Hunting season lasts several weeks. Much more is expected of me, the non hunter to deal with, and for a longer period of time, the potential down side is bigger (gee, I’m delayed from my destination for 10 mintues vs. gee I’m shot).

I disagree that society has “decided” that hunting is the method for dealing with errant deer population. No one asked the question “do we really want untrained armed people wandering around our public lands to eradicate the errant deer population”. I will admit that it’s got tradition behind it and therefore would be very difficult to eradicate (much like prohibition). I understand that my POV will not likely become law in the foreseeable future. But, again, the question was, “is hunting moral” and I’m finding, that the more questions that are asked, the more certain I am that hunting definately has immoral aspects to it.

On another note, though - I really appreciate your tone Milo. people can disagree without it becoming ugly.

48

I urge you to talk to motel, restaurant and hunting supply store-owners in my region of the state, regarding what deer season means to them financially.

Also, talk to the same types of business owners in the Northeastern Lower Peninsula, where the bovine TB epidemic in the wild deer population and cattle is at its worst. Although the human health risk is minimal, people are shying away from hunting there, because who wants to eat an infected deer? It has been devastating to local businesses who rely on the boost hunting brings.

I’ll work on scaring up those Michigan deer-hunting shooting injury stats for you.

P.S. As was mentioned earlier, hunting is certainly not immoral, possibly amoral and could be viewed as moral, in that you are participating in the natural process to obtain your meat. The way you get that bacon, hamburger or hot dog would be much easier to prove immoral.

And I think your opposition to having your enjoyment of the forests curtailed for 15 days in November certainly isn’t a question of morality; it’s a question of policy.

49

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Milossarian *
**

**
State wide stats on amounts of money spent during the season were mentioned originally. I will concede that in any specific area you will find some people who have learned to benefit from the hunting season. However, I would still maintain that the conclusions you stated originally about the vast quantities of “hunting” money that goes pouring into the economy, while they may be technically accurate, do not necessarily mean that more actual dollars are going in the economy. Fred spends $300 on hunting. If Fred doesn’t hunt, Fred would spend that $300 on something else, in all likelihood.

You’re in MI, right? you know about the casino’s. When they were being suggested, they kept on saying “what money makers these will be” since the casinos in MT. Pleasant do so much business, D-troit will SURELY get scads, too." well the preliminary data is starting to show. There really is a finite amount of disposable income in the state. We can spread it around differently but, it’s not really new money.

**
thanks.

again, I’m not standing on ground that depends on the meat vs. not meat part of hunting at all, thank you. and, look back, the OP quesion is “IS hunting moral”.

**
let me repeat- 15 days firearm deer, plus how many days fire arm small game, plus days of bow hunting deer, plus muzzle shooting deer = much more than 15 days. And frankly, even if it WERE "only " 15 days, my point remains: When you do YOUR hobby, for those 15 days, my enjoyment of life is diminished. When I do MY hobby, you don’t even know it.

**

I agree that hunting is legal (policy). the original posting, (sigh) was “is it moral”.

50

I just didn’t know where to find it. Here’s what I’ve been able to find out since.

According to the Michigan DNR, two were killed and 25 injured in firearm- and deer hunting-related accidents during the 1997 season; one dead and 15 injured in the 1996 deer season.

25 injured and 15 injured are a far cry from the 1,900 injured in car-deer accidents.

OK, I’ll leave it alone now. I can’t say any more than I’ve already said.

51

thanks for the info.

I, too will leave this alone. It has been a polite debate. we disagree on this point. But, I believe that we’ve agreed on others. I don’t hold this against anyone, really. well, except maybe my brother in law Wally…(But that’s different)

52

and yet another uproarious applause from Ad Noctum for Milo’s great work!

Wring, then it must just be the MINNESOTA deer that kill people in car/deer accidents? I always knew they were evil Nazi deer, but did’t know they had a grudge that big against humans!!

Aside from the getting-the-shit-scared-out-of-you-when-a-guy-walked-past-your-window-at-5:00-while-you-were-getting-out-of-the-shower incident, which is TOTALLY unacceptable, what else has happened that makes you so against hunting?
in my MANY years of hunting, I have never seen nor heard of that kind of dim-witted boldness, and if I ever hunted with anyone that pulled Anything like that, he would (a) not be hunting with us anymore and (b) would probably be shunned by me. apologies on my behalf

the fact is though, for all of those stray bullets, more than 3/4 of them get stuck in the ground, in a missed shot, because simple physics denotes that a bullet traveling in a downword angle (from a deer-stand) will eventually hit ground, probably some 5-10 feet behind the deer.
although, stalking deer is not as common, the bullets will travel significantly further, but go outside, Wring, and try to throw a tomato or apple, or even a marble more than 25 yards into the woods. bet you anything it’ll hit a tree, and when something, even abullet, hits a tree, it’s gonna stop, seeing as they flatten out!

and Wring, why do you continue to allow hunters to hunt on your land then anyway?
and if you say you do not allow them, then how do they get on your land?
just post it “no tresspassing, no hunting… ever”
and if you hate it so much, then why do you not do anything about it? you are talking how it cramps your lifestyle so much, and everything, and how you would rather question the ethically and morality of hunting, rather then get rid of these few hunters that hunt on your land, or neighboring land… just ask your neighbors if they could not shoot near your house, or towords your house, your questions will probably be met with a nice agreement, head nod, and handshake.
Thank you :slight_smile:
I leave you with That
-Ad Noctum-

53

**
Sigh. the question was “is it moral”. My take on it was "is it moral for one group of people to take over public property to the exclusion of others for a significant quantity of time so they can enjoy their hobby?’ My answer was no. Everybody else came up with “but it’s not that much of an inconvenience” or “but it’s not really very dangerous” “but it’s really not that long of a time”. or “it’s pouring $$ into the economy” (which would have been spent anyhow)
And not a single one came up with WHY I should be inconvenienced AT ALL so somebody else could persue their hobby.

Your next long paragraph goes into the “but it’s not really very dangerous” arguement, which I reject, since the level of risk is not the issue. You do not have a moral right to put any one else at risk, however slight, in pursuit of your hobby.

**
He parked on the side of the road next to my lawn, walked across our lawn, right by our house, past my car, past the other two cars, past our garage. it’s posted “No hunting” he walked past that sign, too. We left notes on his car to please not hunt there. police enforcement in the rural districts is minimal. he hunts, too. The trespassing hunter would pull up while we were still in bed (or in my case the shower) with 3 vehicles there, lights on in the house. and leave when there was one vehicle there and lights on. I’m not willing to get into an argument with an armed stranger, even if I’m in the right.

Your statement of “if it cramps your lifestyle so much” goes again to the issue of what gives anyone the right to cramp some one else’s lifestyle at all (let alone “that much”) in pursuit of a HOBBY???

I especially like this:

**

Why in the world should I ever be in the position of needing to ASK anyone to “Please don’t shoot towards my house”??? I would have thought that was a given.

But, anyhow. You addressed me personally, and politely, and for that I am grateful. At least you all (posters here) have demonstrated that not all hunters are rude etc. Perhaps I have offered you a glimpse into why others may not be all that thrilled with you. information is always a welcome addition.

54

Ah but Wring you are wrong.
The hunters are fixing the problem by removing the excess . The pool cannot stand that much pressure. If left to its natural ends the foilage will be gone. The deer will starve and so will the predators that feed upon the deer.
I’m sure that Mich. has state parks that are over browsed.
I know Iowa does.
I just wish that I could find several thousand able bodied people that would put hay up in my barn for two weeks a year and call it a hobby.

55

justwannano makes a good point–I would like to clarify it a bit. By allowing hunting, the deer population is reduced, preserving the environment you enjoy at minimal risk to you. If you have a solution to control animal populations that offers more “bang for the buck,” I would like to hear it. (No pun originally intended, but in retrospect, that’s pretty good.)

Is it any more moral to use wolves, dogs, or poison in populated areas toward the same ends? To the hunter, hunting may be a hobby, but to the DNR, it’s a management tool.

56

I feel that I must agree with wring on one crucial element of her argument. Just because any jack-ass can go to K-Mart and purchase the equipment, obtain a liscense, and manage to find his (or her) way into the woods does not qualify said jack-ass to be a “hunter”.
This is preciseley the reason I personally do not go in the woods during deer season in my area. Therefore, would anyone concede that what wring describes in this thread, is a matter of education, qualification, liscensing? Trespassing is not something a responsible hunter would do, neither is not qualifying a shot. Several states require tests to obtain a hunting liscense. Some even require a day of school if you are a non-resident. I have hunted all of my life, but I have had some really bad experiences with so-called “hunters” in the last ten years, bad enough to keep me out of the woods. Just add alcohol to a moron with a gun and turn him loose in the woods and watch him spoil it for all the responsible hunters you otherwise would not even know were out there.

57

Nope Tomas sorry.
According to Websters almost anyone can be a hunter.
All you have to do is hunt.
Although there are several decriptions of hunters.
Jackass Hunters
Piss Poor Hunters
Bad Hunters
Unsafe Hunters
Bad Ass Hunters
Not So good Hunters
Good Hunters
Successful Hunters
Professional Hunters
And the most important of all
Safe Hunters

58

Ya left out “responsible”

59

Several of you know from my posts that I am an avid firearms gal and firm believer in and defender of the 2nd Amendment.

Probably none of you knew that I am morally opposed to hunting, but on a personal level. I, for personal reasons I cannot easily justify, will not hunt wild or raised animals with my weapons. That having been said, I also do not vote to restrict a hobby that I do not agree with - when any hunting-related initiative or law comes up, I will simply abstain from voting either way.

Because sometimes people have activities and hobbies I may not approve of or agree with certainly does not mean I need to try to either regulate or ban them.

And wring? Your account of hunters coming on your property against your will makes me sick - I am also a firm believer in private property, and the defense of said land. I used to own a large piece of land in the country about 60 miles West of KC (the one I sold that made me “rich” :D), and although I posted “No Tresspassing, Hunting, Felching, or Whatever” signs on it, people still kept coming on it to hunt. It was very disturbing to me, as there were many deer and quail and other critters on my land that I did not want others to shoot at while tresspassing. Plus, they were trespassing, whether or not they were shooting at anything.

I only ever met one “hunter” out there - a guy who was wandering around with a 12-gauge out of season. I ordered him off my property at once, and he started arguing with me to prove that it was really my property, or else get out of his way and be a “good girl”. A very tense moment, but I argued him down and followed him until he got in his car - parked right next to one of my “No Trespassing” signs!.

The only reason I probably was able to get him to leave is because I was carrying one of my folding-stock Mini-14’s with a 30-round magazine - a very wicked looking gun, and much better than his 12-gauge considering the range between us.

And before the flames start - on my property I always carried one of my guns, because I was deep enough in the woods that I could easily be gang-raped and killed by someone and no one would ever know for days. And neither of us ever acted threatening with our weapons at all, but the possibility was there, and it makes me sick that I actually had to go that far to get someone to simply obey the motherfucking law.

Do I recommend you go out and start playing “Old West Showdown” with hunters? Absolutely not. I was illustrating via anecdote that I have had similar problems with people who are determined to use any land available to trespass on and shoot animals. You do need to do something though, and flyers on cars isn’t working. Perhaps go out and start taking pictures of them and their cars, writing down plate numbers. Take several of those air-powered horns and go into the woods, blasting them to scare the animals (and “hunters”) away. Or maybe you will need to get several friends and weapons together and make a “common law arrest” of them on your property - pretty extreme and dangerous, but if the sheriff isn’t helping obviously, what can you do?

60

I once asked a French woman if they ate cats in France and she was appalled!
But we were eating her homemade rabbit stew at the time.
She killed it herself! Said it was bought a coulple days before her dinner party and it’s best fresh!