When a hunter says "I eat what I kill"

Great Debates
41

Well, how do you define ‘moral’ then?

I bet we don’t…and I bet you and I both die before our bet can be won or lost. :stuck_out_tongue: I think that morals don’t come into it one way or another, except to those who try and justify their choice by giving it the imprint of ‘morals’ and attempt to use this to capture the moral high ground. Meat eating is part of our nature…as is eating fruit and vegetables. It’s no more ‘moral’ for us to do one above the other. Or, to turn it around, I could just as easily say that my being an omnivore for our species is the only moral stance, and that vegetarians aren’t moral because their stance takes us away from our roots and from the thing that made us what we are…and I’d be equally justified. It would be as silly an argument, to me, but it goes both ways.

42

I’m a meat eater and have no inclination to change, but if no-kill meat (lab grown) becomes as cheap, tasty, healthy, and safe as real meat, then I think it’s likely that the no-kill diet would become very popular over time, and possibly popular enough to consign slaughter to bans in some places (and perhaps eventually everywhere).

43

As a lifetime hunter, family member of other lifetime hunters, and friend to many lifetime hunters, I’ll add to what has already been said. We mostly start from a position in which we do not believe it’s wrong to kill an animal. So “I eat what I kill” is not actually a proclamation to justify killing. It’s instead a badge of honor showing that we do not waste, and that we hunt a certain way for a certain set of reasons.

Largely speaking in the hunting community there are divisions. People like me that never waste good meat take pride in the meat we’ve harvested. No different than a farmer that takes pride in his Blue Ribbon tomatoes or a fisherman who takes pride in his catch. That’s part of what we get out of hunting, and we’re proud of it.

I’m biased here because this is the part of the hunting community that I’m in. But in addition to taking pride in the meat we’ve harvested, we also will readily admit–we love the sport of hunting, the thrill of the chase, and the satisfaction in killing our quarry–any hunter who denies satisfaction in pulling the trigger or loosing an arrow and taking down a deer, beer, elk etc is either a liar or not human. Some of us also enjoy taking trophies from our hunts. This is a very ancient thing. Hunters have long made trophies from their hunts, it’s a badge of honor tightly woven in with “I’ve done my job for the tribe this season, we’ll have meat for the winter because of me.”

I, personally, don’t aesthetically like hunting trophies. I have (unmounted) the antlers from my first buck, killed when I was a teenager, they’re in my garage. That’s more of a personal memento. I don’t have anything from the deer, bear, elk etc I’ve killed, other than what meat might be in my freezer still from last season. But the hunters who otherwise “get it”, but still get off on that trophy thing, I don’t have a problem with that.

Some hunters like me also enjoy hunting animals that you really only hunt for sport. A lot of bird hunting is like this, and honestly that’s more of a shooting competition where you’re shooting against live targets. But that’s not me, I still don’t judge the type of hunter who is otherwise like me but does the trophy thing or goes out with a shotgun and shoots pheasants.

On the far end away from me is the “pure trophy hunter.” Again, I’m very biased and make it known, but the way hunters like me and I myself view them is this:

  1. Often they lack real hunting skills. They pay big money to basically have animals put in front of them. Walter Palmer paid $55,000 and two Zimbabweans lured a lion out for him. He didn’t stalk it or hunt the lion himself because he doesn’t know how, because he’s a fucking tourist who doesn’t really know how to hunt. I have immense contempt for that. There are game preserves here in the States where you can basically get a wild boar tied to a tree in front of you, pay a few thousand, kill it, and now you’re a big badass boar hunter. Sorry, but hunters like me do not consider it talent that you’ve killed a bunch of exotic animals when those animals were actually hunted by natives that know the local woods and fauna and did the real hunting. All you did was stand there and shoot.

  2. They typically waste what they kill. Many a hunter of my sort will tell you of the times we’ve heard of “asshole” trophy hunters who throw decapitated deer carcasses in dumpsters. It’s just supremely wasteful to kill an animal and not even make an attempt to see that the meat goes to some use.

  3. They often lack any respect for nature or the wilderness, one of the fundamental things hunters like me respect. These trophy hunters engage in destructive environmental practices, typically make heavy use of motorized equipment and etc that removes them further and further from really being out in the wild doing real hunting.

  4. Trophy hunters are far more likely to poach, at least that I’ve seen. Most of the assholes that do not follow game laws are a lot closer to the trophy hunting side of things than the “real hunter” side of things. Note that both Walter Palmer and celebrity asshat Ted Nugent (faux hunter) have had runs in with game wardens / the law for their hunting practices. Most people I’ve hunted with never have, some in 50+ years of hunting.

Again, I’m biased etc etc, but that’s my take. We’re not trying to justify killing, we do not think it needs justification because we don’t view it as wrong to kill an animal. Instead, we’re trying to exhibit pride in the way we do things, and disdain for the way another set of hunters does things. I won’t call what those hunters do immoral, except for when they waste meat or break the game laws.

44

How is it justified for deer to eat innocent plants that are minding their own business and not hurting them

45

Amen brother …

46

Vehicle/deer collisions have been mentioned. Striking, or accidents casued by trying to avoid the deer, maim, kill and cause vehicle damage. According to this story in 2012 they caused over 200 deaths and over 4 billion in damages. Presumably there’s a fair number of serious injuries as well as deaths but not in that link.

Overpopulation damages their ecosystems. I’m going to guess you see damaging the natural environment as a negative effect on people that live in and around them.

The carry and transmit bovine tuberculosis. That’s a threat to cattle herds for meat/dairy production. It’s also a disease that can infect most mammals.

Deer are a preferred food source in the reproductive life cycle of the Blacklegged tick (aka deer ticks). That’s the tick that spreads lyme disease. Reducing deer populations may reduce risk of Lyme disease

47

OK, let’s try this again. Killing an animal for meat has some amount of moral opprobrium attached to it (which amount might be zero). Whether you kill the animal yourself, or pay someone else to kill it for you, you bear the same amount of moral responsibility (if any) for the animal’s death. But when you say that paying for the meat is OK, but killing it yourself is not, you’re adding to whatever burden you have the additional burden of hypocrisy.

As for the argument that a hunted animal was “just going about its own business”, that’s a point in favor of hunting, not against it. The animal was enjoying life, to the extent that nature allows it. It never had to be confined to a cage, or be overfed, or to be bred for so much meat that it couldn’t support its own weight. Given the choice between your meat being happy or unhappy before its death, how is it preferable for it to be unhappy?

48

The joy of killing a cow is not equivalent to my joy of eating a hamburger for the same reason enjoying cheap fuel is not the same as enjoying killing an enemy soldier in an oil producing Middle Eastern nation.

49

I liked/appreciated pretty much all of your comments

As, far as the comment(s) quoted above…well at least you are honest. Probably/maybe most hunters are honest when they declare “I eat what I kill”… with the implied statement “I enjoy hunting and (killing) am animal”. Not to start an argument or point fingers but I am acknowledging that honesty goes a long way in debates, in terms of respecting the other side. And in terms of honesty, my own bias is probably to judge a bit too harshly/preemptively.

However,

I find the “thrill of the hunt/kill” to be a bit problematic to respond too. I like to box, I like watching MMA, I like to watch football on TV. But no one dies (usually) in those situations. I know there is a CLEAR difference between a human and a deer, but, still, I am a bit perplexed when I hear people talk about the thrill of the hunt/kill. I don’t know a lot of people who hunt but I do know a few and I would never categorize them as evil/bad, so please don’t misinterpret my comments. I’m not condemning anyone, I’m saying it seems a bit “barbaric” to kill animals and derive a thrill from it. I’ll say one more time that I apologize if my comments seem excessive. They are not meant to be.

Do plants think? Feel pain? Feel emotion?

Good pints, all, but by the same methodology of thinking, shouldn’t we get rid of all rattlesnakes, water moccasins, and rats? Do pigeons spread disease? Do possums? Hunting deer because we “need to” while not hunting other animals that are problematic seems to be inconsistent.

50

I think I have discovered the main point in my own argument! You stated:

Whether you kill the animal yourself, or pay someone else to kill it for you, you bear the same amount of moral responsibility (if any) for the animal’s death

Well, I don’t derive a thrill from eating a hamburger. (I do enjoy eating it). But people do derive a thrill from hunting and killing. Perhaps there is a huge bias or hypocrisy here I am not seeing. If so you can tell me.

51

That’s a good comment but I can’t tell if it is for or against my basic criticism of hunting…

52

There always will be children who rebel against their upbringing. But scholars are finding an Amish retention rate of 85 percent:

53

Very interesting! Perhaps worthy of it’s own thread at a future date.

54

Ever see what happens when a deer is hit by a car going at a fair speed? It’s not uncommon for the people in the car to be hurt, sometimes they’re even killed. Areas where there are too many deer are more likely to have such things occur.

Also, deer are not “harmless”. They are sizable wild animals. While they are timid by nature they can and have attacked people, and can cause considerable damage. Again, overpopulated areas are where this is most likely to happen.

Should we allow dangerous animals to live…? Yes, up to a point. Wild animals in wild areas should be allowed to live, but, say, a black bear that has taken to raiding peoples’ garbage cans instead of hunting/gathering it’s natural food might need to be either relocated or killed (presumably humanely). Escaped predators - say, a zoo lion or more typically these days someone’s exotic “pet” escaped - that are now prowling around the suburbs or in a city might, again, need to be put down because there is too much risk to human life.

So, yes, dangerous animals should be allowed to live, but the threat level to people needs to be assessed and re-assessed on a regular basis. Also, people need to NOT do things like leave garbage out where it might attract bears and such.

For deer it very much is necessary across much of the US. As noted, we killed off most of the apex predators, and in addition our typical homes/yards/landscaping is ideal deer habitat, so they’ve bred to numbers far in excess of what they used to have.

If we don’t kill them they’ll have a far more lingering death from starvation or disease, or be hit by vehicles and, if not killed immediately, may linger quite awhile.

55

We evolved as omnivores that at least occasionally ate other animals. I see nothing immoral in eating the diet we evolved to eat. While I think excessive consumption of meat, or needless cruelty to one’s dinner prior to slaughter, or a few other excesses are arguably wrong I don’t believe that eating meat is inherently wrong.

That, and due to food allergies getting sufficient protein from a vegan diet would be extremely difficult for me. Thus, I have to eat either animal flesh or dairy (and diary production is just as fraught with problems as meat production). That doesn’t mean I need to eat them every meal, or every day, I think moderation is a virtue in these matters.

56

It’s a romantic projection.

The Amish are people like everyone else and their lives have all the interpersonal drama the rest of us enjoy. Between the list of rules they have to follow and the sheer amount of work that goes into their lifestyle and (usually) raising large families I question if their life is really all that “simple”. It’s a LOT of work.

The Amish suffer mental illness, alcoholism, and drug addiction at about the same rate as the rest of us. On the upside, they’re also about as happy as the rest of us, and in some ways more socially secure giving the strong interpersonal ties they have. On the other hand, their religion and culture is sufficiently uncomfortable that about 1/4 of their children leave the Amish and become mainstream.

57

I’m not disagreeing with you personally, I am disagreeing with you philosophically. I am sure there are some very well versed vegetarians/vegans who could (no offense) dismantle your whole position quite easily…

I’m going to get some exercise. Will check for your response soon…

58

Are the ones that leave actually shunned to the degree that TV/media makes out or is that just sensational reporting?

59

It is for your criticism. Confusion arrived because my phone blows and I have fat fingers.

60

Addressing the OP (because I haven’t read all the posts) I think the point a hunter who says “I eat what I kill” is making is that he (or she) is hunting for a purpose. They are not just hunting so they can kill animals.