I went to the link. With respect, I believe hunting for any other reason than food for survival, is wrong and that hunting perpetuates a culture of violence. I dont think it raises the reputation of any country to say it has a heritage and culture of hunting.“Encouragement of a proper hunting spirit, a proper love of sport, instead of being incompatible with a love of nature and wild things, offers the best guaranty for the preservation of wild things.”
–Theodore Roosevelt, U.S. President,…
Nobel Peace Prize Winner, NRA Life Member
Would you mind looking at this link and reading at least some of it before you respond.? nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=124
Raising my kids we worked to draw the difference between need and want - and I think this is what Marfran is talking about — if we do not NEED fur - then the suffering is needless - if one does not NEED a trophy animal head - then the suffering is needlessApologies if I have given you this impression.
I do not wish to divert the topic, I wish to narrow it to the relevent information rather then introduce emotions on our part or the imagined emotions on the animals part into the fray.
If you wish to argue the ethics of fur, that is fine. But let’s not base any of these arguments on things we cannot know with any degree of certainty. We should base the arguments solidly upon the catechism and whatever scientifically provable information is there.
Maybe. Is the death painless? Is there needless suffering involved?
Sure, why not.
If there is no needless suffering caused, then I see little issue with this.
It is not logical to anthropomorphize our emotions.Projecting our emotions upon other animals is the first step in allowing our emotions guide a decision best left to the brain.
Sure they are.No one is doing that here.
The fact of introducing a human emotion is doing exactly that.There is something evil about enjoying the fear of an animal in pursuing it and then killing it.
OK, I’ll ask again.I don’t know, sounds like **anal electrocution **might be more fun that regular electrocution.
I believe that the UK was the first to ban this type of cruel slaughter. It was banned in the state of New York in 2007, here’s some info for you:
hsus.org/furfree/news/new_york_bans_anal_electrocution.html
“The one-step process of anal and genital electrocution forces a surge of electricity into the animal’s body through electrodes, and although the animal can appear rigid and motionlessness, he or she may remain conscious and suffering while experiencing the full force of a heart attack. Such a method of killing is considered unacceptable by American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) guidelines.”
Hunters are the biggest group of conservationists there is. In 2000, over 15.1 million hunters gave 745.2 million dollars for conservation and education in the US.
OK, one of these quotes actually provided information to back up their statement.Hunters are kind of a deceptive bunch. They are not genuine conservationists. It’s like people who go to church just to look good and holy, but are really louses. If we give enough money then the people can’t complain about us blowing off animal’s heads.
And what emotion might that be?If animals were stones with no feelings, innate things, then there is nothing to discuss. They are sentient beings. Their emotions do come into it.
Actually, I have for most of my life.With regard to your earlier post, have you never kept a pet or observed an animal?
“I believe…”I went to the link. With respect, I believe hunting for any other reason than food for survival, is wrong and that hunting perpetuates a culture of violence. I dont think it raises the reputation of any country to say it has a heritage and culture of hunting.
Quite right.Raising my kids we worked to draw the difference between need and want - and I think this is what Marfran is talking about — if we do not NEED fur - then the suffering is needless - if one does not NEED a trophy animal head - then the suffering is needless
That is exactly the issue at the heart of this thread. Animals are cruelly treated, live in unnatural conditions (small cages), suffer on a daily basis, until they are killed, often by anal electrocution (an extremely cruel method of death, chosen because it does not damage the fur/pelt), for their fur–not for food–to clothe affluent customers.Quite right.
If there is no need, then whatever suffering there may be is needless and wrong.
Apparently you want to dispute whether animals suffer or not, as they endure all the things that we do to them, including anal electrocution. (Anal electrocution is deemed inhumane by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).However, that raises the question of what exactly is suffering?
Well there is pain and suffering involved, so then your position is that you would support a global ban on fur farming? You find trophy hunting objectionable on the grounds that the animal suffers, but not on the grounds that a trophy on the wall is not an authentic need?If there is no pain involved in the termination of the life of the animal, then there likewise is no suffering…and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the trophy, or clothing.
The biology of animal stress: By Gary P. Moberg, Joy A. Mench - apparently by the release and presence of specific and measurable hormones it is possible to determine an animals response to pain based upon the physiological reaction… our instinct that if it would hurt us it will cause physical pain and stress to an animal is correct and requires no anthropomorphism - only common sense.OK, I’ll ask again.
Is it painless?
What I see described in your provided quote is ambiguous on that particular point.
I think both quotes take too much liberty with grouping all hunters together - and there is truth in both positions - some are hunters to indeed do the most to preserve the environment in which they hunt - others prefer to do so from a truck, tossing beer cans out as they go…OK, one of these quotes actually provided information to back up their statement.
The other provided an ad hominem attack against all hunters, and provided no information at all to back the claim.
Guess which one I am inclined to believe.
Guess which one I believe has no credibility.
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
No, I would be in support of banning cruelty to animals.Well there is pain and suffering involved, so then your position is that you would support a global ban on fur farming? You find trophy hunting objectionable on the grounds that the animal suffers, but not on the grounds that a trophy on the wall is not an authentic need?
What of those that simply hunt for the fur and the flavor?To me it again goes to NEED.
Those who need to hunt for food because their economic circumstances require this method to provide food for themselves and their families, are the ones who NEED to hunt.
Others who as part of a conservation effort to keep a balance in a specific environment are providing a NEED because of the removal of natural preditors in a given environment.
Those who hunt for self gratification, to inflict pain on animals, for vain glory are IMHO actually acting in a way that is contrary to our Catholic Faith - causing NEEDLESS pain
By your reasoning, no one can ever really know about emotions in another, even in human beings. Could you show evidence that animals have no emotions or feelings?And what emotion might that be?
How exactly are we to know what goes on in the head of some animal?
Behavior doesn’t cut it, because they can readily learn responses.
We can’t say an animal feels fear because it runs when we try to bludgeon it with a hammer. It may feel fear, it may not. We have no way to tell. The running may simply be a response to the stimuli and an unwillingness to sit there while it is beaten.
Likewise love. Most especially love. How are we to tell in some creature how it knows love? Most teenagers of the human variety cannot sort this one out among themselves yet we would ascribe the feelings to animals?
How about anger? I admit I have seen animals act like they could be angry.
But then I can throw some food in their direction and suddenly the acting is gone. Perhaps there was no anger at all…
Joy? Same as my experience with anger. Throw some food and the display is gone.
Short of a talking animal that can tell me what they are feeling, I am going to stick with my position that emotions in animals cannot be judged with any degree of certainty.
Actually, I have for most of my life.
I have had chickens, snakes, dogs, cats, rabbits.
In all of them, I do not believe anyone could say with any degree of certainty if there are emotions at all. Their behavior is learned.
I would really be interested in seeing the evidence to support your very strong opinion that animals have no emotions. I am really surprised that you have kept animals (pets?) and have not observed any feelings and emotions when I have observed and experienced the contrary. Yes, I am entitled to my opinions, thank you.“I believe…”
“I don’t think…”
I can live with your disappointment in my culture and country. You are free to your opinions.
Do you have any type of concrete evidence to support your opinions?
If you read my post, you will find that not to be the case at all.By your reasoning, no one can ever really know about emotions in another, even in human beings. Could you show evidence that animals have no emotions or feelings?
Humans can speak. Indeed they can communicate with each other on many different levels. Humans can relate to one another, and yes, humans can know the emotions of other humans.Short of a talking animal that can tell me what they are feeling, I am going to stick with my position that emotions in animals cannot be judged with any degree of certainty.
I see. Well, sorry. No.I would really be interested in seeing the evidence to support your very strong opinion that animals have no emotions.
No you have just said we cannot know. Those like me know they do, from our experience with animals. There is also scientific evidence that animals feel physical pain.and some scientists now believe that animals feel emotional pain and have emotions. Yes animals cannot communicate verbally ( with some exceptions with birds) but that by itself is not evidence of their not having emotions. It is true that we as humans cannot accurately gauge exactly how animals feel It is enough that they feel pain and suffer to oppose fur farming and the use of fur other than for survival when no other alternates are available.There is no justification for causing suffering for the sake of vanity or pleasuree.I see. Well, sorry. No.
I do not subscribe to the concept that people can make grandiose claims and then claim them backed on the basis that the contrary cannot be proven.
You claim animals to feel fear. Prove it.
I have plenty of evidence, and have shown it throughout this thread that we cannot know.
So how do you know?No you have just said we cannot know.
OK, tell me how exactly you know.Those like me know they do, from our experience with animals.
I never said they didn’t.There is also scientific evidence that animals feel physical pain.
That’s nice. Got a reference for this?and some scientists now believe that animals feel emotional pain and have emotions.
Never said it did. Please read my posts more carefully.Yes animals cannot communicate verbally ( with some exceptions with birds) but that by itself is not evidence of their not having emotions.
Thanks. That is what I have been saying all along.It is true that we as humans cannot accurately gauge exactly how animals feel
None whatsoever. However, if there is no suffering involved…It is enough that they feel pain and suffer to oppose fur farming and the use of fur other than for survival when no other alternates are available.There is no justification for causing suffering for the sake of vanity or pleasuree.
The term ‘Carrying Capacity’ is the number of animals a habitat can support. If there are more animals then the habitat can support, The animals die. Think of hunting as “thinning out the herd”I went to the link. With respect, I believe hunting for any other reason than food for survival, is wrong and that hunting perpetuates a culture of violence. I dont think it raises the reputation of any country to say it has a heritage and culture of hunting.