Is it moral to hunt?

In My Humble Opinion
61

Wring… you have no idea how much we pay. Your comment about a $40 license shows that so I thought I would get you a little more info courtesy of the US Fish & Wildlife Service.

The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, was approved by Congress on September 2, 1937, and begin functioning July 1, 1938.

The purpose of this Act was to provide funding for the selection, restoration, rehabilitation and improvment of wildlife habitat, wildlife management research, and the distribution of information produced by the projects.
The Act was amended October 23, 1970, to include funding for hunter training programs and the development, operation and maintenance of public target ranges.

Funds are derived from an 11 percent Federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns. These funds are collected from the manufacturers by the Department of the Treasury and are apportioned each year to the States and Territorial areas (except Puerto Rico) by the Department of the Interior on the basis of formulas set forth in the Act. Funds for hunter education and target ranges are derviced from one-half of the tax on handguns and archery equipment.

Each state’s apportionment is determined by a formula which considers the total area of the state and the number of licensed hunters in the state. The program is a cost-reimbursement program, where the state covers the full amount of an approved project then applies for reimbursement through Federal Aid for up to 75 percent of the project expenses. The state must provide at least 25 percent of the project costs from a non-federal source.
The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, commonly referred to as the Dingell-Johnson act, passed on August 9, 1950, was modeled after the Pittman-Robertson Act to create a parallel program for management of fishery resources, conservation, and restoration.

The Sport Fish Restoration program is funded by revenues collected from the manufacturers of fishing rods, reels, creels, lures, flies and artificial baits, who pay an excise tax on these items to the U.S. Treasury.

An amendment in 1984 (Wallop-Breaux Amendment) added new provisions to the Act by extending the excise tax to previously untaxed items of sporting equipment.

Each State’s share is based 60 percent on its licensed anglers (fishermen) and 40 percent on its land and water area. No State may receives more than 5 percent or less than 1 percent of each year’s total apportionment. Puerto Rico receives 1 percent, and the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, and the District of Columbia each receive one-third of 1 percent.

62

Sledman, please look back and note that I ** said ** I don’t know exactly how much a hunter pays in licensing.

Was pleased to see your research into the other monies, though, please note of course, that much of it has nothing to do with hunting (ammunition can be used in target or skeet shooting, handguns are specifically not used for hunting, fishing is included, etc.)

many other posters have pointed out the “wildlife management” issue.

This does NOT alter my stance. Why? I concede that some action needs to be taken to control the deer population, in particular. However, there are areas with an errant deer population that is not conducive to hunting for a variety of reasons, and they take other measures. ** The fact that we have relied on hunters for this function does NOT prove or even implyt that it is the ONLY possible solution. ** To state that our choice is either allow armed amatures into the woods hunting at specified points in the year or have zero efforts at controlling the population is, I believe a false dillema.

So, we can add another argument without substance to the list “we’ve always done it this way, and therefore it’s the best/only way”.

The actual number of hunters taking to the woods is not a majority of our citizens. Not all hunters taking to the woods are trained at all. In fact, in my state, I believe the only requirement is that you have to take a “hunting safety course” My son took it. He had a perfect score. 3 weeks later, his “avid hunter” father had him for the day, but was leaving him alone at the house and said “sure, you can practice your bow (broadtip arrow) shooting in the back yard while I’m gone”. My son now has a manly looking scar on his leg. Could have been quite a bit worse. No, I’m not blaming the instructor etc.

My point is, here you had a person who’d aced the hunting safety course, and an avid hunter with some 20 years experience, and there was STILL a bonehead decision resulting in a scarring injury. Now, multiply that by the number of hunters you’ve got roaming the woods, keeping in mind that a good percentage of them ONLY take their weapons out this time of year, clean 'em etc and go shooting (do most of them target shoot to get better aim???), many look upon it as the “boys night out” (I see them in the stores buying up provisions for their trips - ammo, new hat, beer, beer, beer, booze, beer, etc).

YES NOT ALL OF THEM. I know. But even the ones posting here have mentioned “if anyone doesn’t follow safe hunting rules, they don’t hunt with me” real good. they still hunt, but not with you.

We aren’t only letting trained, cautious, responsible, sober individuals out there. We don’t require any of them to pass a test that says they can reasonably hit what they’re aiming at. But, even trained, cautious, responsible, sober people can have accidents.

Do you see the issue now? We’re letting one group of people to purchase a license, and take over public lands for several weeks, thereby making it unsafe for those who are NOT part of that group to use those same public lands And I think that it is morally wrong.

63

I don’t think anyone is saying hunting is the one and only solution to wildlife management. But I defy you to find a different solution that would work as effectively at curbing deer populations given the cost constraints. It’s like most things government is involved with–lots of people want to protect the environment, but few are willing to pay for it.

Personally I do not find this a compelling argument. This is like making an argument that because some people abuse alcohol and endanger others on public highways, allowing any public drinking is immoral. You are taking the specific case of immorality (dumb hunters endangering others) and generalizing it to apply to the entire group.

Secondly, does making the environment unsafe automatically equate with immorality? Say I’m running a pharmecutical company and producing a magic pill that will solve the deer population problem. But in the manufacturing process, I release minute amounts of dangerous toxins in the air that risk killing a couple people a year. Is that immoral? Now, what if the pill could also save a few lives, though we’re not sure how many (car-deer accidents), is it still immoral? Then, if there was a multi-million dollar solution that would save these couple lives a year at the cost of say, cutting school funding or highway construction (and possibly resulting in the cost of more lives, who knows…), would that be immoral?

We live in an inherently unsafe world. An airplane taking people on their vacations could fall out of the sky right this moment and kill you. Is it immoral that they should take a vacation at the risk of making you unsafe? After all, it’s just a vacation, and they wouldn’t have to fly.

64

Actually, they said in defense of huntin(paraphrased) “But society NEEDS wildlife managment and hunting provides it”
my point is that it is NOT the only solution, we have simply relied on it, without looking for others. I don’t know that it’s the most cost effective, because we’ve never evaluated it. It isn’t a very effective tool, since we keep having deer problems. Maybe it’s time to look at different solutions.

and regarding the other point about allowing some folks to take over public lands. AGAIN, it’s not germane to my point whatever percentage of hunters are abusing the hunting concept. It is fundementally dangerous to wander around ANY area where you know people are shooting at moving targets. At a firing range, there’s very specific areas you don’t walk around because of stray ammo.

**

Again, you’re not addressing my point. The point is that ONE group is allowed to make PUBLIC areas UNSAFE for others. So, the non hunting group are being denied use of public lands for the sake of this one group to engage in a hobby.

**

Of course we do. However, what gives ONE group the right to INCREASE the risk (however slight of an increase) to others?

65

What are these “other measures” to which you refer?

I’m not aware of any, unless you want to put 20-foot-high fencing everywhere.

You appear to be addressing subjects in which you are not knowledgeable. Every statement or argument you have made in this thread has been refuted with facts.

If you want to be one of those people who says, “Don’t bother me with facts or statistics; I just think it’s wrong,” say so, and I’ll quit wasting my time.

66

Of course I did, but perhaps you missed it. Companies dump waste chemicals into PUBLIC rivers and air all the time. Drunk drivers use PUBLIC roads. Airplanes fly over and crash on PUBLIC (and private) property.

Answer: General public approval of the practice, just like the previous things I mentioned. Society has accepted that the risks associated with hunting are outweighed by the benefits. Don’t like it? Think you’ve got a better way? Start a petition, talk to your representatives, think of a another solution and try to get it implemented.

67

You define it as immoral because it inconveniences people, specifically yourself.

In response to your statement that one group takes over the public lands and during that time frame it is “unsafe” for those who are not part of the group to use public lands. That is where the monetary aspect of what I have posted comes in to this argument. Plus I maintain a little common sense goes a long way. Blaze for 15 days in the woods. The rest of the year the woods and Public lands are expansive enough to provide recreation for both hunters and non-hunters.

We get to use the land for that period because we are the ones that fund it. Check out the FWS homepage and you will find reports by state showing the impact of hunters on the economy and the tax dollars raised as a result. It is really quite staggering.

Handguns are used for hunting. More often they are not the chosen weapon for obvoius reasons, but they are legal for hunting. I would guess the majority of ammunition used at the shooting range is used by hunters who are “tuning up” their skills. We pay an excise tax on our clothing, weapons, ammunition and accessories. This adds up quickly. When you factor in licenses and stamps it becomes a significant amount of money we pay for something you can use without paying your fair share. Are there excise taxes on your hobbies?

Hunting is a fact of life in rural America. I would guess you knew that prior to moving to a rural area in Michigan. I agree you do not need to be a hunter to enjoy the outdoors but you lack tolerance. You have a perception of the danger that is higher than it actually is. When I brought up the car argument and you asked for stats(I still say that was modified) I provided them. Then you changed the request to car deer accidents. Well beyond the injuries and occasional death in car/deer accidents, which I think we can agree would be significantly higher without hunting, your insurance would be higher due to the increased number of accidents caused by overpopulation. Hunters took approximately 500,000 deer in Wisconsin last year and we were not able to reduce the herd to DNR over winter population goals. This year we should exceed 600,000 weather permitting.

I would love to hear any theories you have on a more effective means of population control. To my knowledge there is no other method that is as effective and will not possibly result in long term damage to the species. Don’t even throw the carrier pigeon argument into this. That was prior to today’s practices of wildlife management. Under these practices we have seen the reintroduction of native species and in many cases the number of a particular species rebound to unprecedented numbers.

I maintain that hunting is not immoral. Hunters do a great service to the general population through our chosen hobby. Many hunters do not hunt for the greater good of society, but society still benefits from them hunting. We can extend the benefits of hunters beyond clothing, accessories, weapons, ammunition and licenses to the large number of organizations that Sportsman have started and provide with support. Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Whitetails Unlimited, Pheasants Unlimited, Ruffed Grouse Society, Izaak Walton, (insert state here) Waterfowl Association, Delta Waterfowl etc. etc. etc. You would not have access to the public lands you do without hunters and many of the species you enjoy today would be gone without our efforts to restore vital habitat that is being destroyed by urban sprawl. If you are inconvenienced for a small time that is a tiny price to pay for what hunters truly provide.

And one other thing wring, no offense by any of this to you as a person but I am extremely passionate on this subject and in that regard you positioned yourself as a threat to something I hold dear. You focused on the minority of hunters who are less than responsible and chose that as your characterization for us as a group. I will not accept that mantle.

Fall is for hunting and football. It does not get any better than this IMHO.

68

A. Public lands are for the public.
B. hunters constitute only one segment of the public.
C. It is morally wrong to knowingly create a risk (however small) to innocent persons, for the sake of a hobby.
D. During the time hunters use these public lands, they make those public lands unsafe for other members of the public.

the fact that hunters may, in the course of their hobby generate positive things for certain elements of our society does not change any of the above (through either deer management or fees etc.)

One at a time:

Milo: what other methods? other jurisdictions have done chemical birth control, controlled hunts by specially trained persons etc. If hunting is such a good method of deer control, why has it not been more effective? If the government CHOSE to seriously deplete the herd for control, they could come up with a more effective method than sending a couple thousand amateurs into the woods. I would submit to you that the fact that we’ve relied on hunting for deer control means we have not actively sought out other methods.

What facts have I ignored? your and other’s numbers on how much money is poured into the economy doesn’t change the above. Nor does the need for deer population control.

Mr. Blue:

The companies, drunk drivers etc. are PROSECUTED for these things. They are considered nuisances and criminal acts. In addition, airlines, drivers and companies all carry specific insurance to cover them and their victims in case of accidents. If they knowingly create a hazard they are subject to criminal and civil penalties. But the creation of the hazard is NOT ignored, as it is in hunting. Not only is the creation of the risk (by hunters) allowed, other people are required to assume the risk from the other person’s actions. Isn’t this backward?

So, instead of the SHOOTER being the one responsible to insure that they don’t hit something they shouldn’t, the responsibility suddenly shifts to the OTHER PERSON to make themselves an “obvious non target”. People are cautioned (and in some states required) to take precautions against SOME ONE ELSE’S mistake. and in NONE of your examples, is one group given special permission to specifically CREATE a hazard on public grounds.

and YES FINALLY, you’ve stated the obvious: We (society) has by tacit action, “agreed” to this. but, (ahem) this does NOT MEAN IT’S MORAL. to bring up a tired one, we “agreed” to slavery for a number of years, too.

And Sledman:

No, I define it as immoral because one group is 1.denying the rest of the public the use of public grounds by 2. creating a risk to their safety.

You repeat your agreement that folks pay taxes, I repeat mine that public lands are for public use. The length of time hunters deny non hunters the use of the public lands doesn’t alter the basic unfairness of it. The level of risk does nothing to alter the basic wrongness. The amount of money the government “gets” doesn’t alter the basic unfairness of it. And all of this so SOME people can pursue a hobby. Show me where to sign up that for ANY sum of money I can take over ANY public land to the exclusion of others. You pay a fee to rent space in public campgrounds, but if you create hazards for others, you’re kicked out and you don’t get your fee back.

AND Sledman, re: the risk factor. ONCE AGAIN. why do you believe that it is moral for you to increase anyone else’s risk even one iota so that you can pursue a hobby?

Yes, I live in rural MI, yes, I knew hunters hunted. You say that I’m intolerant. I understand that you are passionate about this. I don’t debate this lightly either. I know and understand that there are hunters who are careful, etc. I’ve said that before. The question was not “do I find it repulsive, inconvenient, obnoxious, moronic, distasteful” it was “is it moral”.

So, once again, in total, the arguments have been:

  1. You overstate the risks. My answer - the level of risk is immaterial. The fact that the risk is there is material.

  2. Hunting has been here for a long time and society as a rule agrees with it. The question wasn’t “is it generally accepted” the question was “is it moral.”

  3. the government and public in general get some benefits out of the actions of hunters by taxes, fees and spending habits. Answer: Again, why does this change the basic moral/immorality of the act? When slavery was legal, the government and local residents got some benefit from it, too.

  4. You overstate the length of time or amount of inconvenience to other people (after all, just wearing orange is NOT that much to ask). What gives anyone the moral right to deny me access to public lands for any length of time or demand that I wear something specific.?

Each of you has started from the premise that Hunting is inevitable, that we’ve always had it(true) and learned to benefit from it (true) , and therefore, we always should have it (open to debate) and it is moral and right and good (we disagree).

In summation:

A. Hopefully, the same jerk who trespassed last year won’t come again this year. But, if he does, I know it isn’t Milo, or Sledman or Mr. Blue etc. And I will again call the local cop and try and get them to do something.

B. Hopefully none of you will get hurt this year. Hopefully, neither will I or anyone deer (oops) to me.

C. I don’t hold any grudge against any of you for your views. we simply disagree on this one. I admit I don’t care for hunting personally (big surprise, right?), but I would hope that you don’t hold that view against me personally either.

D. I DO understand that my personal risk, incovenience is small, that there are some specific good things that SOME hunters do and that our government and economy are pretty linked with hunting as an allowable sport.

E. I would hope that you’d lobby with your individual governments to permanently disallow certain people from hunting. My brother in law Wally still legally hunts, despite the felony from when he shot the woman chopping the tree. I find this frightening, and would hope all of you do as well.

It has been intersting. As a side note, in my family: among the females, none hunt. among the males - My dad didn’t hunt. My brother does. My brother in law does. My ex husband does. My son does. My current SO doesn’t. We all continue to have harmonious discussions about various topics. I would hope that it would continue with all of you. I have mentioned before that I am appreciative of the lack of name calling and other nastiness. Hopefully, you also feel that I have treated you with respect, even if we disagree.

69

(1) Curious…why do you interpret “dominion over them” to mean “the right to kill (or do whatever we please)” instead of, say, “have the responsibility to care for”. Rather self-serving the other way, isn’t it?

(2) Evolution does not imply that we evolved “above” the rest of the animal kingdom. There is no “better”, only “better suited to the conditions of a particlar time”. For that matter, humanity cannot survive without the survival of many other species. Also, “survivial of the fittest” is just a catch-phrase of only one aspect of evolution…it’s not the defining mechanism.

(3) IMHO, humanity is capable of morals without a Supreme Being. Morals can be justified based on altruism (the good of a society) or even selfishness (“do unto others…”).

70

If you take Websters definition of moral to mean right or wrong then you must believe that hunting is moral.
By not hunting we must agree that more people would be killed or hurt in automobile accidents property would be at risk and some property (crops) destroyed.That in itself makes any arguement that hunting is not moral ridiculus.

What we have here imho is a more moral discussion.

Is it more moral to save life, protect people, and protect property than it is to inconvenience a few people who want to walk in the woods a few weeks in the fall.

71

Oh. I forgot about FEED thousands of people

72

All of which might be marginally effective in a very small and controlled area, but completely ineffective if you are looking at statewide deer management.

As I mentioned earlier, the head of my state’s DNR with regard to bovine TB problems in the deer herd told me that, even if the state wanted to kill all the deer in an attempt to eradicate the problem, the Army couldn’t even do it. There are too many in too many places.

But you’re proposing that we catch them or in some other way give them all birth control?

So we switch from a system that is effective at keeping herd sizes managed and that brings in* millions of dollars to local economies, and exchange it for one that would involve incredible amounts of manpower, chemicals and equipment, that would almost certainly be impossibly expensive, unwieldy and ineffective.

Who said it hasn’t been effective? I said deer-hunting is absolutely necessary to control deer populations, not ineffective. The reason car-deer accidents are up almost everywhere is A. more people are moving to rural areas and B. said people are driving more miles on rural roads. That’s according to the state agencies that provided me the aforementioned statistics.

  • Yes, I said “brings in money.” We most definitely get thousands of out-of-state hunters coming here for our deer season, as other states do. They bring money that is essential for our local economies. And even if it is coming from within state, the fact that the money is being spent where it is is highly significant to those reliant upon it.

Your no-net-gain argument, that “if they’re spending it there, it just means they’re saving it and not spending it elsewhere,” could be said about any expenditure, anywhere.

73

You seem to have missed my point again. Did you not say your brother-in-law was prosecuted? Trespassing is a criminal act. Involutary manslaughter is a criminal act. If I were to be killed through negligence from any of the parties listed above, including a hunter, no doubt my family could sue the responsible party for wrongful death. Are you suggesting that if hunters were required to buy insurance it would make any difference whatsoever in your position? If not, then how is it relevant? Hunters are still held responsible for their illegal conduct, legally the point is moot. (I’ll talk about enforcement in a second.)

Dow Chemical (across the road from where I’m sitting) legally dumps a significant amount of chemicals in the river here (I am unsure of numbers or types, but no doubt many could be measured in tons). I doubt they have insurance, as it likely would cost more than the fines. The EPA monitors them closely, of course, and they do pay fines if they exceed their allowances, but rest assured that even if they never polluted more than the EPA allowed, they would be creating a “hazard”. What does society gain for this hazard? Methocel & Ethocel used for food products and medication capsules, among many other products, and the livelihoods of many families. No doubt much of industry operates on much the same environmental cost vs. society benefit situation as Dow does.

What, you’ve never been told to drive defensively, boil water before drinking, don’t swim in that river, or beware of the dog? The shooter is still responsible, but given the possible risk of death, no matter how slight, it is wise to protect oneself. Or maybe you’d prefer no warning–ignorance is bliss, so I’ve been told.

Apparently you’ve never seen any sort of factory that has a smokestack or a plane flying over your house. You’re telling me these aren’t federally regulated hazards in public areas?

Depends upon where you think morality is derived from. But that’s another debate entirely.

This argument is the correct one, but you’ve stated it poorly. The benefits are more than just monetary–they are environmental and human as well. justwannano just pointed this out.

I think you underestimate the intelligence of your opponents–it should be clear to you that at least some of the lines of thought expressed here are nowhere near that simplistic. If, at some point in the future, hunting was rendered obsolete or unnecessary, I would have little cause to complain, though I’m sure you realize traditions die hard.

I would urge you to get your video camera out (or borrow one) and document any intrusions on your property. If the local cop doesn’t do anything, call the DNR, State Police, or local prosecutor’s office. You know, squeaky wheel and all… Others who have had similar experiences may be better able to give you advice.

74

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mrblue92 *
**

Specifically get a shot of his backtag. That backtag number is your ticket to a positive ID. If he says it wasn’t him then why did someone else have his license? He gets a fine either way. One of the main reasons that the use of backtags was implemented was in order to identify individuals committing violations.

It may be more difficult in Michigan because, unless they changed it recently, your backtags are relatively small. Still video tape or take a picture for proof and then write down the backtag # which you could probably get through binoculars without leaving the house. A picture of his vehicle would not hurt either.

Hopefully Nov 15-30th can be less stressful for you this year.

75

Another point not mentioned here so far is the health of the wildlife. If the wildlife becomes sick there may be something wrong with the environment. It is a pretty good way to check up on illegal dumping etc.
When the Great Lakes fish turned up with mercury in their systems it was a warning.
Think what it would mean if no deer were harvested in your county because they were sick and dying.I don’t know what the per county count of harvested deer is but if it were significantly less something must be wrong.
Just something else to think about.

76

Another thought
If all the squirrels began experiencing Boils or something like that how would anyone know if it were not for hunting since the hunter has close contact with the animal.
Remove the word squirrel and insert any other game animal.

77

Hey wring, does this mean we’ve convinced you that hunting, in and of itself, is not necessarily immoral? Or did you just get tired?

(Milo, do we get to spike the football and do a little victory dance?)

78

Convince me? no.

I still believe that it is immoral for one group to intentionally create a hazard in a public area. The relative amount of the hazard, length of time the hazard exists and assorted side benefits of said hazards do not, IMHO, justify the creation of a hazard. It is the shooting of weapons in an open area that I find objectionable.

I knew going in that I’d be pretty lonely. It seemed to me that I was repeating my objection, that the responses were only varients on the lines above (it’s not that dangerous, it’s not that long of a time, we need to control deer population and hunting is the way we’ve chosen, all this money the hunting ) and I didn’t want it to get contentious.

I understand that the hunters feel very strongly about the issue. As do I. I appreciated the civility shown, and hope that you all felt that it was returned. Look forward to agreeing/disagreeing with you on other topics.
best to you, don’t feel like you have to invite me over for venison, ( :wink: )

79

sigh

Oh well. Maybe next time.