:dubious: Say what? That’s a ridiculous claim, the treatment of animals is a significant concern of ethics.
Which justifies why we could morally justify hunting back then. Today we absolutely can be here without hunting. So doing so becomes morally questionable.
And you certainly can be human without killing animals, I’m not sure how asserting the opposite makes any sense.
There is this thing called a “car”, you see, that allows people from the city to… :). Europe being tiny and compact, you don’t have to drive very far to get from the heart of the metropolis to the boonies.
Be that as it may, the noble thing has precious little bearing on why hunting is getting bad press in modern day France.
Thank you. I don’t always expect everyone to agree with me, but it’s always nice to make a real impression. :rolleyes:
My post was in response to the OP which, you will note, used the words “hobby” four times, “sport” three times, and “recreation” twice (I may have miscounted). That seems to have a lot more to do with someone’s concept of fun than with “why we are here” or survival. There are lots of things in our history that are not necessarily commendable, including things we did to each other – like throwing people to the lions, burning them at the stake, or nailing some guy to a cross. (Some of them we really did do for “fun” and amusement.)
The reality is that, from what I can gather, many people who raise and live with farm animals including those animals that are slaughtered for food have a great deal more connection and empathy with life than the kind of dismissive attitude you’ve expressed. And they sure as hell don’t kill for “fun”.
I remember a comedian years ago saying that if fish could scream, there would be no fishing. A hook in the lip has got to hurt!
Want to bet? How long can you hold your breath?
In the UK, a political dimension is seen to the phenomenon by which there is widespread great dislike of hunting, whereas those who fish as a recreation, mostly carry on doing so with no-one bothering them. Hunting for sport, of land creatures, has been largely (not totally) an upper-class pursuit; and definitely a minority one. For some years now, hunting animals with packs of hounds has been forbidden by law in the UK – shooting of game birds of non-protected species, is still allowed.
There is and has been, no widespread agitation to forbid fishing; although there are many keen animal lovers and animal-rights advocates who abhor fishing, and would like to see it banned. But as a practicality vis-a-vis politics: there are in the UK many millions of enthusiastic anglers – of all social classes, though rather weighted toward the lower end of the social spectrum – who would be very unlikely to vote for any party which tried to introduce legislation to ban angling. Those who hunted with hounds, were an easier target for banning (and in comparison, were few in number); and tended to be upper-class folk, resented by a good many of their “social inferiors” – whereby an anti-hunting agenda on the part of politicians, attracted the votes of many.
Hunting:
You get up in the cold morning and probably catch nothing but a cold because the bow hunters have picked off all the low hanging fruit before rifle hunting season and all you have left are deer the that are smarter than you.
Fishing:
You get on a boat and drink, if you happen to catch some fish, thats great, they spawn by the thousands, if not then you have room for more beer.
I suppose things might be different if i could track worth a damn but its not a skill you pick up growing up in the city.
Hunting, as distinct from poaching, is a very good thing. There was a flap recently when they opened black bear hunting after not having it.
Anti-hunters have very peculiar ideas about what they think it entails. A popular platitude is “it should only be legal to use your hands, to make it fair.” As if it consists of wandering onto a field and shooting Bambi. Many also think it’s mostly unregulated, with not short seasons and no limit (tags).
Hunting involves shooting a vital area (or trying at least). Fishing involves cutting a living creature from gills to asshole. Although I am sure that the fish’s nervous system is not comparable to ours.
The most horrifying experience I had killing an animal was with a catfish. It would. not. die! 
And in that experience, I had it on the cutting board, its skin peeled upwards… and it started thrashing! It was dead though, just muscular impulses acting up.
…tasty though.
Clarify please. Hunting is popular among graduate students!? Exact opposite of my experience, really. Academia tends not to overlap. Part of that may depend on if the place is large enough to attract many out of state residents.
Many people who fish practice catch and release. It’s a bit pointless to release a duck or deer after you shoot a hole through them!
The vision of a kid pulling a small fish from a lake and letting it go is certainly less offensive (I think) than someone blasting a goose from the sky or dropping a majestic elk with a “high-powered rifle”. It’s the difference between “catching” and “killing” for many, I suspect. Catching *can *lead to killing, but killing *does *lead to killing.
Most non-sportsmen probably don’t think about what happens to the fish they see caught and chucked in the cooler. Sure, they **know **it’s going to be eaten somehow, but they don’t ***see ***and don’t dwell on it. It’s like bacon. We love it, but it’s best just to think it begins as a package in the cooler at the store!
However, shooting Daffy or Bambi and having them collapse on the ground dying and bleeding is a bit more obvious and traumatic death that just “cleaning” a fish, especially if you never see anyone clean the fish!
'tis an interesting question!
Truth be told, catch and release is also a bit pointless - very often you’re going to mangle the fish’s mouth unhooking it (meaning it’ll starve before it can heal, probably), and if it swallowed the hook you’re going to rip its guts out pulling it back.
Or you could just cut the wire and leave the hook. Then it’s got a pointy barby thing stuck inside its stomach/oesophagus.
As far as the OP’s question, I haven’t noticed any difference in “social acceptance”. But I guess it depends on location (see mine).
Occasionally I get some beef about it at work, usually from a newcomer (most recently from NJ). I tell them that unless you’ve got chloroplasts in your cells, something dies every day so you can eat. And that I don’t care to argue about how cute it was.
I’m incredibly puzzled by all this. The only rational answer is that we are more empathic towards smarter animals. How can anybody not see that immediately? What you are asking, to me, is a question as weird as “If I can kill a plant, why can’t I kill my neighbour?”
Just like fishing whales - dolphins is more socially unacceptable than fishing tuna.
Now, if you want to stump people with an actual example of hypocrisy, ask yourself: why is hunting unacceptable while the horrifying torture camps that are farms are fine?
Fish are often bred, raised, and stocked for anglers, at least here in the western US.
Animals are not. We supposedly “manage” their populations.
I find the first situation more comforting than the second.
I catch and release. I cut the barbs off of all my hooks, and they do not seem to do much damage to the fish.
I actually find catch and release more offensive than catch and eat, although I freely admit mine is a minority opinion these days. It’s just that fish DO have a nervous system, they DO react to injury in a manner that sure looks like pain to me, and there seems to me something wrong about deliberately injuring an animal for “sport”, which is what catch and release is.
Then again, I feel the only legitimate reason to hunt/fish is to do so to obtain food. If all you want to do is look then shoot with a camera, and yes I include fish in that.
I’ve caught, killed, and cleaned fish. Note the order in which I list that. I dispatch the fish as quickly as possible before I proceed to gut it.
I’ve also seen deer dead in the backyard from starvation when their populations explode and they run out of food to eat in the winter. A bullet to the heart would have been kinder.
But then, a lot of people don’t have a clear understanding of life in the wild. Human hunters are far more merciful than animal ones, who will happily start eating before their prey is entirely dead.
Because there is no absolute Source of Truth to guide altruism, and fish sort of in the middle of the current philosophic spectrum.
The spectrum ranges from absolute selfishness to absolute selflessness. Once you extend a general altruism toward non-violence or suffering of organisms, scope creep is inevitable until you are only damaging plants to survive (assuming your selflessness does not extend to starving to death in defense of your respect for life).
The Jains won the contest long ago for the most extreme extension of (non-violent) altruism on any broad scale. For everyone else the spectrum starts with being nice to humans, then mammals then the rest of the animals (in a general progression from brighter to duller) then on into the plant world until you are eating beet leaves but not the beet itself.
Fish are in the middle right now, but maybe the pendulum will swing so far that snails or grasshoppers will replace them as the socially-acceptable dividing line between “That’s reasonable altruism” and “You are a nutcase.”
I guess this is the wrong thread for me to show my support for the seal hunt in Canada then. After all, the meat and the pelt are both put to good use. The population is huge and culling it yearly has no effect on the overall viability.
But they’re cute. So don’t kill them. Enjoy your Big Mac or tuna sandwich though. Hypocrites.
I think that’s really the difference- the level of violence is a lot less in fishing- the fishes aren’t generally killed by the process of being caught, but by bad handling or storage conditions. The actual “fishing” part is perceived as more of a competition between the angler and the wily fish, and then the “catching” part is more of a wrestling match. Plus, there are size limits that require that fish be thrown back, and a lot of fishermen practice catch and release fishing as a matter of course.
Hunting on the other hand, has the perception that some guy with a powerful firearm sits around passively and tries to lure the animal in, and then violently shoots the animal with the firearm, hoping that they estimated size and species correctly.
I know that neither of these is necessarily the case, but that’s the perception among the members of the general public. I don’t think it’s a matter of what’s actually done with the animal post-killing that’s the issue.
Yes, the OP addressed this exact point. However, the main hook (Ha! Get it?) of the OP was that those who find hunting unacceptable tend to be okay with fishing. I don’t know if that’s true or not but anecdotally speaking I’ve never had someone express bafflement or disgust when I mention fishing but it’s happened with hunting.