Is hunting a sin?

[WingsOfEagles]

Some animals are outright dangerous pests … such as feral hogs … which can kill people easily and routinely destroy livestock.

If an animal is a pest, as such, then hunting it and leaving the carcass for the vultures and foxes, is perfectly fine.

Well, yes, in that case it would be a self-defense thing, not for the enjoyment of just killing an animal.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Well, yes, in that case it would be a self-defense thing, not for the enjoyment of just killing an animal.

If the animal is a pest or some kind of varmint, killing it would be a societal good thing. It doesn’t matter if you get enjoyment or not.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

If the animal is a pest or some kind of varmint, killing it would be a societal good thing. It doesn’t matter if you get enjoyment or not.

God created all creatures, so we do have responsibility to not enjoy in bloodshed for the sake of bloodshed. Now, are you going to enjoy the fact that the wild boar is no longer digging up your garden? Well, yes, of course, but that isn’t really enjoying the killing part of it.

 

[tafan]

I think it gets into grey area if someone just shoots and leaves the animal (doesn’t happen often). My personal belief is that the animal should be used for food, clothing, etc.

I would say the majority of animals I have shot in my life, I have left the animal. Predator control. We had horrible problems with jack rabbits when I was a kid. They can be quite distructive to grassland when over-populated.

I have gone bird hunting for sport, where I always brought home the meat to eat. But never needed to, and the intent was pure sport, not feeding myself.

Having a hard time following this logic. It makes no sense. Of my two examples, I would say if either one was questionable morally, it was the latter. The first was, beyond all doubt in my mind moral. Yet you guys would come to an opposite conclusion.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So if it’s done for sport within the rules set by your State or Province’s conservation arm it is not unethical.

Properly controlled hunting improves herds.

It depends.

In some states there are hunt clubs and game ranches where the animals are raised just for sport hunting.

It’s not done to control animal population, for the resort raises the animal population for sport hunting, nor is it to feed people, because the cost of the hunt would buy meat for a family of four for an entire year.

It’s all done for money and to satisfy the desire to kill.

Jim

 

[po18guy]

I don’t associate with hunters. I can’t really feel comfortable around someone who enjoys bloodshed for sport.

It’s often been said hunting controls the animal population, but that’s not true, it just throws it off balance. Besides, God put those animals there. Who am I to say I know better than Him?

Remember, in order for you to live, something has to die. Just because plants can’t scream doesn’t mean they don’t suffer. Science just can’t measure that suffering yet.

 

[Nabooru]

A plant has no consciousness. That’s why it cannot feel pain or suffer. I don’t think the modern scientist would even bother to study “a plant’s pain” since it would be a moot point.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

A plant has no consciousness. That’s why it cannot feel pain or suffer. I don’t think the modern scientist would even bother to study “a plant’s pain” since it would be a moot point.

Does a lobster feel pain?

 

[tafan]

It depends.

In some states there are hunt clubs and game ranches where the animals are raised just for sport hunting.

It’s not done to control animal population, for the resort raises the animal population for sport hunting, nor is it to feed people, because the cost of the hunt would buy meat for a family of four for an entire year.

It’s all done for money and to satisfy the desire to kill.

Jim

There are always secondary consequences that can certainly justify this sport, IMO. Those same game ranches have successfully raised some species of near extinct African animals in abundance and are now sending animals back to Africa to restock native populations.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

There are always secondary consequences that can certainly justify this sport, IMO. Those same game ranches have successfully raised some species of near extinct African animals in abundance and are now sending animals back to Africa to restock native populations.

Most don’t, but raise the animals for nothing other than sport hunting.

Jim

 

[tafan]

Most don’t, but raise the animals for nothing other than sport hunting.

Jim

And that is fine also. I guess we have a choice, the animals could never exist or they live for a while and some if them due from hunters. Seems a rather morally neutral choice to me.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

And that is fine also. I guess we have a choice, the animals could never exist or they live for a while and some if them due from hunters. Seems a rather morally neutral choice to me.

The Church teaches differently about sport hunting as included in the link to Michele Arnold (apologist).

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 (CCC 2418).

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And that is fine also. I guess we have a choice, the animals could never exist or they live for a while and some if them due from hunters. Seems a rather morally neutral choice to me.

Yeah, you can look at it that way.

However, as you evolve spiritually, you wont see it that way.

Jim

 

[tafan]

The Church teaches differently about sport hunting as included in the link to Michele Arnold (apologist).

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 (CCC 2418).

Well, I disagree. A good hunter can certainly kill animals without undue suffering, almost always less suffering than a natural death will cause an animal in the wild ( almost always either a very violent event or a slow gaining end ). So you saying hunting causes unnecessary suffering is either due to ignorance of hunting or nature or both ( or lack of thinking about the issue beyond a politically correct answer)

As to spending money on hunting that should go to the poor. That might be valid. However, does this then condemn all forms of luxury? Do you own a tv? Certainly you could have not bought that and given it to the poor. So I think as long as some level of moderation is observed, hunting like other luxury activities is ok on those grounds.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Well, I disagree. A good hunter can certainly kill animals without undue suffering, almost always less suffering than a natural death will cause an animal in the wild ( almost always either a very violent event or a slow gaining end ). So you saying hunting causes unnecessary suffering is either due to ignorance of hunting or nature or both ( or lack of thinking about the issue beyond a politically correct answer)

As to spending money on hunting that should go to the poor. That might be valid. However, does this then condemn all forms of luxury? Do you own a tv? Certainly you could have not bought that and given it to the poor. So I think as long as some level of moderation is observed, hunting like other luxury activities is ok on those grounds.

It’s not hunting I’m against (please read my previous posts). It’s just killing for the sake of killing. I notice you honed in on “undue suffering”, but ignored the part I actually put in bold, which was “die needlessly”. To hunt for sport and not use the animal for food or clothing afterwards (or give it to someone who can) is to kill an animal needlessly.

 

[tafan]

It’s not hunting I’m against (please read my previous posts). It’s just killing for the sake of killing. I notice you honed in on “undue suffering”, but ignored the part I actually put in bold, which was “die needlessly”. To hunt for sport and not use the animal for food or clothing afterwards (or give it to someone who can) is to kill an animal needlessly.

But I have already addressed the lack of logic with that position (read my previous posts). Rarely today is the food reaped from hunting needed today. So the end use of the carcass cannot be used to say the animal did not die needlessly. Not in today’s modern world.

Also, there are legitimate reasons to kill animals besides the use of their carcass, eg predator control.

Conversely, there are times when hunting is clearly morally wrong, even if one chooses to eat the meat, eg one is prohibited by law from killing a particular animal.

So your determining factor, ie the use of the carcass, of when hunting is morally acceptable makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

But I have already addressed the lack of logic with that position (read my previous posts). Rarely today is the food reaped from hunting needed today. So the end use of the carcass cannot be used to say the animal did not die needlessly. Not in today’s modern world.

Also, there are legitimate reasons to kill animals besides the use of their carcass, eg predator control.

Conversely, there are times when hunting is clearly morally wrong, even if one chooses to eat the meat, eg one is prohibited by law from killing a particular animal.

So your determining factor, ie the use of the carcass, of when hunting is morally acceptable makes absolutely no sense to me.

It’s a matter of waste. Sure, you can go buy a package of meat at the store, but perhaps a person would rather not support that industry. The logic that “you don’t need to hunt your own meat” doesn’t back up what the catechism is telling you.

We’ve already established that killing an animal that is a threat to you or your property is not needless, but sport hunting doesn’t fall under that.

When it comes to sport hunting with a license, it is wrong to just shoot for fun and leave the animal lying there. May I ask why someone would shoot a deer and leave it there?

 

[tafan]

It’s a matter of waste. Sure, you can go buy a package of meat at the store, but perhaps a person would rather not support that industry. The logic that “you don’t need to hunt your own meat” doesn’t back up what the catechism is telling you.

We’ve already established that killing an animal that is a threat to you or your property is not needless, but sport hunting doesn’t fall under that.

When it comes to sport hunting with a license, it is wrong to just shoot for fun and leave the animal lying there. May I ask why someone would shoot a deer and leave it there?

No deer hunter would. To your last question.

As to it being matter of waste: that has not been your point. So as long as I don’t waste the meat, hunting for sport is always ok?

You draw an imaginary fine line between hunting for sport vs killing an animal because it is a threat. Where I come from praise dogs are a big problem. If they take over a pasture, the land will be largely useless for grazing. So if they move in, they are going to be killed. It used to be very common to spend a Sunday afternoon shooting them , purely for sport. The next day the poison would be brought out regardless. By your logic, immoral to kill for them for fun one day, even though they would be poisoned shortly after.

 

[tafan]

Oh my, I have exposed my family as part of that evil industry we shouldn’t support. Am I to be banned?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

No deer hunter would. To your last question.
**
As to it being matter of waste: that has not been your point. So as long as I don’t waste the meat, hunting for sport is always ok?**

No, that has been exactly my point. That’s why I’ve stated that the animal should be used for another purpose…food, clothing, etc. To hunt for sport, as in go shoot some animals, but not bother to pull them out of the woods and use them is wrong. To hunt for sport, as in shoot an animal, but also utilize it, is not wrong.