Well, so what? How does that justify you killing an animal that is minding it’s own business and not hurting you? Groceries stores and restaurants throw out meat that is about to go bad, so hunting to “eat” seems like a false justification to me. Of course, when I go to the grocery store or a restaurant and eat meat, I am eating an animal that was killed and was minding it’s own business and was no threat to me. In addition, farms where live stock are raised are crowded and far from humane, so, I know I am not morally correct in that situation.
But still, saying I hunt to eat (I eat what I kill) seems a bit of a false justification to me.
EDIT: I heard Skald mention he is a hunter is the Cecil the Lion thread. Just for the record I hold no negative opinion of you as an individual Skald, I like reading your posts and think you are a good guy. I am simply commenting on one and only one comment that you made that I disagree with.
Hunters hunt for a few different reasons. Here in Montana I know hunters who hunt for deer because that is their family’s primary source of protein for the year. If they don’t kill deer, which by the way would be overpopulated if they weren’t culled out, they would eat a lot more beans and rice. You and I are fortunate to be able to ‘hunt’ for our protein in the grocery store. That’s not the case for everyone… so yes, they definitely eat what they kill, and I don’t see a problem with it.
Look, I am not saying hunters are evil/bad people. I just mildly disagree with what they are doing. Given perfect dictatorial power over the world I doubt I would outlaw recreational hunting (as opposed to population control). To answer your question directly, I think trophy hunting is like 10 or 100 times worse than normal deer/game hunting.
Thanks, I thought I had posted in GD, thanks for swapping it.
How does killing an animal that’s in a pen all it’s life being fattened up for your cheeseburger get ‘justified’? Besides, you do realize that deer and boar in the US (two animals probably most hunted) aren’t always just minding their own business or harming no one, right? They are both pretty destructive species, especially since we wisely killed most of the apex predators that would have or did keep them in check in the past.
Well, to YOU it would be. Because you’ve already justified that some meat is ok, while others isn’t ‘justified’…to you. Kind of circular thinking really. But here’s a question…in the US as it actually is, there are several species that are hunted that, even though they are hunted are nearly out of control. What do you propose be done about that? Let them keep minding their own business? Round them up so that they can be killed in your justified and approved manner, and packaged like good meat should be? Poisoned?
Hunting a semi-tamed animal preservative lion is a different manner. I seriously doubt that the intrepid lion hunter that had to drag the lion out to kill it was planning to eat said lion, so seems like a bad analogy. You might want to consider that hunters that actually kill animals and DO eat them have a bit more justification than those who kill them just for fun or just for a trophy. THAT proposition I’d be more willing to go along with you on.
The dead animals in the grocery store weren’t hurting me either. I see hunting for meat as comparable to those who raise their own chickens, pigs, whatever for slaughter. I don’t see any real moral difference between killing your own meat and buying it after all the messy bits have been done for you.
I never said it was, in fact, I admit the opposite:
In addition, farms where live stock are raised are crowded and far from humane, so, I know I am not morally correct in that situation.
Besides eating your garden or shrubs how do deer harm people/property? Killing off boars because they are dangerous is an interesting debate but also kind of a separate debate, ie, should we allow dangerous animals to live?
Well, to respond to the more direct point you made, I have no problem with hunting or killing animals if it is necessary for population control
yes, I think most people are in agreement about this
In a different world where someone like yourself were to be in-charge of everyone elses eating habits, they would be able to force their views on others. However, in the real world, not everyone pays others to raise, kill, butcher, sell, and cook meat for their consumption.
“I eat what I kill” is an attempt by a hunter to assert that his moral standing on animal death & suffering is no different from that of a person who shops for farm-raised meat at the grocery store.
And to my eye the moral difference is indeed pretty slight. Not zero, but pretty slight.
“I eat what I kill” is an assertion that there *is *a significant moral gap between hunting for sport / entertainment and shopping for farm-raised meat at a store. And that the kill-to-eat hunter is waaay over on the shopping-for-farm-raised side of that gap.
It’s also a tactic to make the many self-righteous anti-hunting folks who do shop for farm-raised meat recognize that they too are complicit in the killing of animals. The mere fact they hire somebody else to do it does not absolve them of 100% of the responsibility for their decision to consume farm-raised animals. In fact it’s arguable whether hiring others to do the dirty work absolves them of even 0.001% of the moral responsibility for their eating habits.
It is interesting to note that many consumers of farm-raised meat consider themselves completely *not *responsible for any cruelty or killing in the meat industry since they personally didn’t do it. Which, IMO, is a completely indefensible point of view, both logically and morally. “I eat what I kill” is a bumper-sticker philosophy statement against that attitude.
If I am going to be 100% honest I will have to admit that I am being emotional or judgmental about this and bringing my own bias into the situation. Hunting just “bothers” me. I am not sure I can 100% logically defend my position.
I already stated that given the ability I would not outlaw recreational hunting
That was a well worded articulate response. I’m not sure to what degree we are in agreement or disagreement. My only major objection to what you say is that, even if I don’t buy that steak at the grocery store, someone else most likely will. If a hunter does not shoot that particular deer, there is a good chance that deer will live another week/month/year.
As to killing and eating animals in general being immoral, I agree that it is and I admit I am wrong for doing it.
And then you say you wouldn’t outlaw recreational hunting.
If you’re so emotional and judgmental just talking about hunting, I wouldn’t trust you not to outlaw hunting if you had the power or authority to do so. I believe you are only fooling yourself.
Ah yes, but who is fooling who? I think you and I disagree on almost everything. For you to assert that I would outlaw things I disagree with, when [ (1)you have no proof of such a claim, and, (2) I have specifically said that I would not ] well, to me, that makes you look like the foolish one.
Well, I don’t agree that it’s ‘immoral’ or that it’s wrong for me to do it from a morality standpoint. I might buy an economic or resource argument, but morality? Nope.
As to your first paragraph here, the thing is that if a given hunter doesn’t shoot a given deer then something else surly WILL kill it and something will eat it at some point, regardless. Death by bullet would most likely be better than, oh, say being ripped apart by wolves or hit by a car to die slowly…or the other myriad ways deer die every year (starvation being one of those which also wouldn’t be particularly pleasant).
I don’t believe it’s a moral/immoral situation, but then MMV and different people think about it in different ways. To me, it’s no different as long as we are actually talking about the kill being actually eaten. Where I’d draw the line is hunters that hunt for the head or just because they like to and then leave the kill, though even there something will eat the meat regardless. I just think that hunters of that type are a bit less justified (well, a lot less justified unless they are killing for other reasons, like a predator that’s after their livestock or something along those lines).
You do know that most of the food you eat is grown on those farm thingies, right? Deer destroy quite a bit of that, along with other species. In addition, quite a few people are killed or injured every year by slamming into a deer with their car or truck…I’ve hit 2 in my lifetime when I lived out east, and hit an elk here in New Mexico. I was lucky to live through one of those crashes, and they cost me quite a bit of damage to all 3 vehicles.
It is, but I think that the same justification used to kill a cow for a steak is in play to kill a deer for a steak. If you are going to eat the meat then it’s exactly the same thing, IMHO.
I either agree with most of what you said or would at least find most of it hard to refute. However…I do think killing animals to eat is wrong. People can call me a hypocrite for that if they wish and they would be correct, my only defense of making the claims I do is at least I am being as honest as possible about my own position and my own faults.
Having said that, why don’t you think killing animals to eat them is immoral? I’m sure they would choose to keep living if they had the ability to make that choice.
My brother hit a deer while on his motorcycle. He survived sort of but he was pretty fucked up in the brain until he died a few years later. Deer also wreak havoc on some crops. All this is a direct result of overpopulation of deer, which Robert163 doesn’t have a problem with.
Perhaps the confusion is why some hunters say “I eat what I kill”. It’s not to morally justify hunting in general, rather to distinguish themselves from trophy hunters, those who take a buck and just cut off the antlers leaving the carcass to sit and rot.
Here’s a "You know you’re in Oregon when … " you walk into a day care center to find a couple of big beefy guys with hammers and chisels tearing apart an elk head to get the eye-teeth out, blood splattered everywhere.
It’s not immoral because it’s what we are…we are omnivorous. We were hunters for 10’s of thousands if not 100’s of thousands of years, and we like meat. Basically, the cow used for meat in most of the world wouldn’t exist without humans who want to eat them. They would be extinct or would simply have never come into being, since they have been genetically engineered by humans over thousands of years to be what they are…food. Same for every other domestically raised meat animal we eat. So, morals or the lack of them don’t really factor in, IMHO…no more than they factor into a wolf or a big cat who kills and eats meat. Or of humans who tear up the earth to plant the various fruits and vegetables that have equally been genetically engineered through breeding for us to eat. We had to displace many, many species to have that wheat you ate for lunch in your bread or your organically grown tomatoes and <insert other fancy, nasty vegetables that I don’t eat> to have with it, and each and every thing you eat represents the death of many, many organisms for you to have it.