Is it moral to hunt animals?

[funinsnow]

Animals do not reflect on death. They live from second to second. A mother deer or cow does not grieve the death of her offspring. You can see it in their behavior. Once they realize it’s dead, they utterly ignore it and show not the least sign of sorrow. They will proceed to graze right next to it and wander away in their grazing as if nothing had happened. We humans, however, do reflect on death and on existence, and because we do, we are empathetic. Because we are empathetic, we are prone to transferring our empathy to animals that have no empathy at all themselves or even for themselves. We’re not them, and they’re not us.

Animals do mourn their dead. This has been observed with lemurs, crows, ravens, deer, etc. Deer also do what they can to protect their young from predators such as wolves & others if possible. If you watch animal shows, there are many times where you can find a zebra, gnu (wildebeest), gazelle, topie, etc. trying to protect their young from predators if they can such as a gnu charging @ a cheetah to protect her calf. Zebras will fight hyenas if they can to protect their ponies or foals. Buffalos aggressively defend their young. After a female deer give birth, they’ll sometimes eat the umbilical cord so that predators can’t recognize their newly born fawn. Musk ox form circles around their young to protect them from wolves. Animals are much smarter-they do have feelings & there’s man’s best friend dog.

 

[DS59]

I’m not sure I understand your logic?

The fact that you, a former bishop and a priest hunt isn’t a rationale for it’s morality.

LOL, no one has ever mistook me for a bishop!!! He was our bishop here before moving on (like I said, he is an archbishop now) was and still might be a hunter.

 

[triumphguy]

Chinese Buddhist monks make great vegetarian, actually vegan food too.

You’re not a vegetarian if you eat Chinese Buddhist monks!!!

 

[triumphguy]

Animals do mourn their dead. This has been observed with lemurs, crows, ravens, deer, etc. Deer also do what they can to protect their young from predators such as wolves & others if possible. If you watch animal shows, there are many times where you can find a zebra, gnu (wildebeest), gazelle, topie, etc. trying to protect their young from predators if they can such as a gnu charging @ a cheetah to protect her calf. Zebras will fight hyenas if they can to protect their ponies or foals. Buffalos aggressively defend their young. After a female deer give birth, they’ll sometimes eat the umbilical cord so that predators can’t recognize their newly born fawn. Musk ox form circles around their young to protect them from wolves. Animals are much smarter-they do have feelings &** there’s man’s best friend dog.**

Who only started living with man to get free meat! And who man only invited to the fireside to help in hunting.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The bull is first stabbed by men on horseback to weaken it. Great sport -not!

But is that why they do it? I have always understood they do it to get the bull’s fury aroused. Same with the guy who places the barbed sticks.

Now, I’m not a bullfight enthusiast. I have never seen one except on films. I have also read James Michener’s explanation of bullfighting. The following strikes us a strange. It would strike some as cruel. But it makes sense on its own terms.

The bulls are specially bred for aggressiveness. If done properly, the function of the horsemen and the guy who places the barbs is to arouse that aggressiveness. The whole purpose of the whole thing is to exemplify excellence…both that of the men and that of the bull. Death and suffering are simply part of that exemplification…both for the men and for the bull.

The matador’s early passes serve three purposes. First to assess the bull; particularly his best qualities. Does he show excellence in attacking from a distance, or perhaps from up close? Are his legs strong enough to sustain distance charges. Is his excellence perhaps more in the way he hooks at the matador? Perhaps in the way he raises his head at a pass. Is the bull brave or only reckless? The matador then decides which passes also exemplify his own best qualities. Is the matador good at close passes? Can he “wrap the bull around his own body” in a slow pass, to show his own best qualities as well as that of the bull? Finally, he actually trains the bull to do those things that best show the bull’s prowess; his most dramatic and attractive moves, as well as his own.

In the end, the matador risks death the closest he will come in the ring, probably. The most celebrated final pass is when the matador kills the bull “recebiendo” or “receiving”. The matador plants his feet and does not move them for the final charge. He has trained the bull by then to charge at his signal. At the last split second, the matador deceives the bull to pass his horns as close to the matador’s body as possible without impaling him, but to simultaneously impale himself on the matador’s sword, which goes right to the bull’s heart if done properly. Death is immediate, and any matador who does a sloppy job of any of it is dishonored and will not last long in the “profession”.

We can say it’s a primitive thing. It’s almost like the “aristeia” of the ancient Greeks…to fight well and gracefully and to die well. To demonstrate courage and excellence in a duel to the death. We see the remnants of Minoan paintings and murals and see those people and those bulls doing something very similar. We admire the excellence of the bull in those paintings; his musculature and grace, and the prowess of the gymnasts who take a charge full on and somehow grasp the horns and vault themselves over the back of the bull. Same thing. Nowadays, we have little girls spinning on vaulting horses at the risk of broken necks. And we admire it because we don’t see the deadliness in it. Those who watch bullfights do see it.

Primitive. But those Spanish people conquered a continent with a bravery and a fortitude from which most of us are so distant we do not see the least merit in it. Those people sustained a horrendous civil war and produced many martyres and heroes as well as villains. To this day, little Spanish boys go out and fight heifers of that fighting breed, risking life and limb just to do it. Few of them ever become matadors, just like few of our Little Leaguers ever become big league players. And yet, it’s potentially deadly, even with a near-grown heifer. It’s a different way of thinking. We do see a bit of it every year on TV when they run with the bulls at Pamplona. It’s crazy, we think. Pointless. Yet they do it. They do it to show what they call “pundonor”, which is equivalent to “honor”, and “gracia”, equivalent to “grace” or “excellence”.

We latter-day inheritors of Anglo-Saxon culture don’t think in that way, and we think of it as alien, remote, cruel. Except for circus performers (most of whom aren’t of our culture anyway) we don’t get into rings with deadly animals. We see cattle in a field, and we don’t realize or even think what excellent creatures they really can be; the prowess and deadliness all but an occasional rancher who makes a mistake never know anything about.

I’m not pushing bullfighting here. I am only encouraging others to at least try to understand it better, as I did after reading up on it.

 

[yellow8yellowM]

If I am correct, there is a mistake in your line of thinking. The mistake is that you assume that all of these things happen instantaneously. In reality, there is a population of young and old deer. If the food supply goes to zero, for example, the adult deer will reproduce much less. There will be much fewer baby deer born next year. But at the time of the food shortage, many deer, young and old, will die of starvation. Before this happens, though, they will try to eat your garden.

If you’ll do some research, when deer begin to have lowered food supply their reproductive rate decreases. They stop having children when they don’t have enough food to support the children. When they have an excess of food the rate goes up. So the simple fact is overpopulation is a myth.

 

[funinsnow]

Elephants are also known to aggressively protect their young. Elephants are in herds, mostly matriarchal but male elephants will also help in chasing away lions to protect baby elephants. Elephants have also been known to adopt baby elephants who have been lost from another herd. Ostriches are also known to sometimes be foster parents. Deer & antelope have warning calls esp. for their young to let them know a predator such as lion is nearby. Sentries & alarm calls have also been found in prairie dogs, meerkats, primates, etc. to warm of predators. Whales, penguins & other animals have got different ways to protect their young. Some animals make better fathers than others. With cats, the lion is a good father as he has to protect the kittens (while lioness is out hunting) from other male lions, hyenas, etc. Giraffes aggressively will protect their baby giraffes from predators such as lions & leopards & an adult giraffe’s kick can kill a lion if it hits the head. Animals can be smart & they do have feelings esp. as it relates to protecting their young.

 

[Speedypizza]

The really sad thing about the people on this board is you have the ultra-right who will attack anything (Harry Potter, Pepsi, AD&D, dance, and evolution) they can, but where are these people when left wing people are attacking our right to eat meat? The Bible says we can eat meat, the Church says we can hunt AND eat meat plus a look around nature says eating other animals is natural. However people attacking that, and the same anti-everything else club never shows up quoting the Bible and the Catechism here…

 

[yellow8yellowM]

I am a hunter and I completely agree with this statement. The vast majority of hunters to not hunt because they are ecologists or environmentalists. They do it for sport, and they do it ethically and legally. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, it is the fairest way for the animal. It is a fact that I am going to eat meat. Why not give the animal a fighting chance (in fact, the animal usually wins).

In hunting, I am also re-enacting one of the oldest traditions of man. Being a hunter and a woodsman unites me with all the men before me who relied on this practice to survive. It is a truly fulfilling experience.

But come on… how many hunters get up in the morning thinking,* “Well I think I’ll get my gun and go thin out the deer herd to reduce the cruelty of starvation?”*

 

[yellow8yellowM]

The CCC and every state Department of Fish and Game in the U.S. agree: It is wrong to cause animals to suffer needlessly.

The supposed gray area in this thread is the added, “…or die needlessly.”

Based on this, to be consistent, if you think legal hunting is wrong, then you must be a vegetarian. Butchered cattle and hunted deer die just as needlessly.

No it is not moral to unnecessarily kill animals for pleasure.

From the CCC 2418: “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.”

 

[bmullins]

The CCC and every state Department of Fish and Game in the U.S. agree: It is wrong to cause animals to suffer needlessly.

The supposed gray area in this thread is the added, “…or die needlessly.”

Based on this, to be consistent, if you think legal hunting is wrong, then you must be a vegetarian. Butchered cattle and hunted deer die just as needlessly.

From the CCC 2418: “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.”

I am a vegetarian. I eat a vegan diet but consider myself not vegan because I do not think it’s wrong to eat/use animals in all situations. I do think it’s wrong to do so when you don’t need to. (Which in today’s society very few of us ‘need’ as much meat as we are eating, if any of it. One can survive quite well on a vegetarian diet.

 

[meltzerboy]

Animals do mourn their dead. This has been observed with lemurs, crows, ravens, deer, etc. Deer also do what they can to protect their young from predators such as wolves & others if possible. If you watch animal shows, there are many times where you can find a zebra, gnu (wildebeest), gazelle, topie, etc. trying to protect their young from predators if they can such as a gnu charging @ a cheetah to protect her calf. Zebras will fight hyenas if they can to protect their ponies or foals. Buffalos aggressively defend their young. After a female deer give birth, they’ll sometimes eat the umbilical cord so that predators can’t recognize their newly born fawn. Musk ox form circles around their young to protect them from wolves. Animals are much smarter-they do have feelings & there’s man’s best friend dog.

There are a few documented cases of chimps that have died of a broken heart after their mother died, despite being well fed and cared for by humans. I was not aware of what you point out with regard to the mourning of lemurs, ravens, and deer. However, I saw a show on PBS about crows, which have been found to have remarkable intelligence, so I’m not surprised if they too mourn their dead by means of some kind of ritual behavior. Animals’ protection of their young in certain species has long been recognized by ethologists. This seems to be part of their hard-wired biological instinct more so than a function of intelligence or social learning. Whether or not this reveals empathy on their part, I think is debatable.

 

[JRKH]

If you’ll do some research, when deer begin to have lowered food supply their reproductive rate decreases. They stop having children when they don’t have enough food to support the children. When they have an excess of food the rate goes up. So the simple fact is overpopulation is a myth.

I suggest that you do a little research also…The mechanism that causes deer to stop reproducing is hunger!!! This causes the birth rates to go down for a number of reasons. In other words - suffering.
It’s not like deer have the mental capacity to say - “Oh well this year there weren’t as many berries so I won’t have a fawn next year.” When the food supply drops the present population is weakened through hunger, cold and disease and the result is fewer healthy offspring.

We thin then because we don’t want them to be a burden on us, it’s simple as that. We don’t want them in our yards, hitting our cars, and we like the taste. It has nothing to do with the good of the deer, only our own personal good.

I will not argue that culling the herds are VERY beneficial to us for the reasons you outline above. But in addition to that, those deer who die a relatively quick death and serve to feed the hunter or some other family, leave room for the rest to have a better chance at surviving the winter.

The sad fact is that some deer herds that really NEED to be culled cannot be because they are actually in the cities where hunting is prohibited.
Some areas are taking action to correct this and hiring men specifically to cull these herds. I believe that the meat is processed and goes to free stores and the like.

No one HAS to kill the deer for their own good.

No - no one HAS to do this…But the fact remains that it IS to the advantage of the deer population that it is done.

Peace
James

 

[funinsnow]

There are a few documented cases of chimps that have died of a broken heart after their mother died, despite being well fed and cared for by humans. I was not aware of what you point out with regard to the mourning of lemurs, ravens, and deer. However, I saw a show on PBS about crows, which have been found to have remarkable intelligence, so I’m not surprised if they too mourn their dead by means of some kind of ritual behavior. Animals’ protection of their young in certain species has long been recognized by ethologists. This seems to be part of their hard-wired biological instinct more so than a function of intelligence or social learning. Whether or not this reveals empathy on their part, I think is debatable.

Both ravens & crows are related (corvis SPL)& I too saw both programs PBS did on ravens & crows. Crows & ravens are both intelligent birds incl. stealing food from wolves, caches (hiding food), recognizing faces & they both have their own language. Have seen many PBS shows on animals. Most things on TV is rubbish but PBS is the best when it comes to nature shows. You can see all sorts of trouble that deer, etc. will try to do to protect their young & they have alarm systems, etc. With most animals, everyday from birth to death is a matter of survival & avoiding getting eaten by predators. When a goose with young is in a lake or river & there’s a wolf threatening it’s young a strategy the mother goose will doto distract the wolf from her ducklings is pretend that she has a broken leg or wing, go near the wolf who’ll try to swim & escape until the young are out of he wolf’s reach. Finally there’s safety in #s. If you see zebras & gnus crossing the River in the Serengate, having many zebras & gnus in the water raises their survival rates when there’s hungry crocodiles. If you have only 1 or 2, then the crocodiles will go after you, but if there are hundreds, then it’s harder to get you & the pounding hoofs can be a defense. The crocodiles will only get the 1s which are moved by the current or which are wounded in the water.

 

[Mintaka]

Catholic teaching does not forbid hunting. It urges prudence and that’s it.

Traditionally, hunters, hounds, and hunting weapons have been blessed, and many hunters formed guilds devoted to the saints of hunting. If you look on the label of Jagermeister, you’ll see the traditional German master huntsman’s dedication to do honor “to the Creator and His creations.”

From an old British Pathe newsreel, the Blessing of the Hounds on St. Hubert’s Day, the first day of the French hunting season.

 

[bmullins]

So I am seeing that we ‘cull’ the heard because without our intervention the animals will starve to death? Where does God’s design come into that sort of theory? Do we not trust in God to provide for the animals himself? We, ‘man’ have to step in and solve the problem of animals starving because God isn’t feeding them?

Or rather are they starving because of man himself? Did God provide a way for nature to balance out it’s herds naturally and man interfere by unbalancing the very structure?

At some point we have to say, if we believe in God, then man doesn’t need to keep his hand on nature… or we have to acknowledge that the very fact that nature cannot feed it’s animals is because man has claimed all the land for his own. Either way, we are culling the heard because of something we ourselves have perpetuated.

Unless there is another explanation that I am missing?

 

[garn9173]

These threads are just silly.

Four years ago this coming summer, I attended a family reunion at my aunt & uncle’s farm in rural South Dakota. There must have been over 30 of us in attendance and my aunt & uncle made arrangements for their Priest to come to the farm to celebrate Mass on a Saturday night. After Mass, my cousin said “hey Father, wanna beer?” Father cracked opened a cold one and preceded to sit with alot of us guys and we, including Father, traded hunting stories back and forth which was followed by a wonderful BBQ dinner.

 

[JRKH]

In today’s world it’s cheaper to go hunt your own meat.

Especially if you’re feeding a big family. Hunting license, bullets… these things can’t possibly add up to how much one pays to buy meat from the store.

I agree…though how much cheaper can depend a couple of things like
a) whether you can process your own meat or pay to have it processed -
b) The “up-front” cost of purchasing the appropriate gun.

Of course for smaller animals like rabbits - we just "processed them ourselves…Yummy…
And I received my first shotgun at 14 years old.

Peace
James

 

[Mintaka]

In the Catholic tradition of Gaelic Scotland, a young man going out on his first hunt was anointed with oil while he stood barefoot on the grass as a sign of humility, and then a bow was placed in his hand. With similar ceremony to the installation of a tribal king or a judge of brehon law, the dos and don’ts were formally declared and he swore an oath not to do any kind of bad hunting practices. After this, he was blessed and sent off.

From Carmina Gadelica’s “Chants of Labour”, here’s a translation of the “Beannachadh Seilg” (Hunting Blessing), which was given by a boy’s father.

FROM my loins wert thou begotten, my son,
May I guide thee the way that is right,
In the holy name of the apostles eleven *
In the name of the Son of God, torn for thee.

• As a reminder not to be like Judas, who betrayed his promises.

In the name of James, and Peter, and Paul,
John the Baptist, and John the apostle above,
Luke the physician, and Stephen the martyr,
Mary Magdalene the fair, and Mary mother of the Lamb.

In the name of Patrick holy of the deeds,
And Carmac of the rights and tombs,
Columba beloved, and Adamnan of laws,
Fioda calm, and Brigid of the milk and kine.

In the name of Michael, chief of hosts,
In the name of Ariel, youth of lovely hues,
In the name of Uriel of the golden locks,
And Gabriel, seer of the Virgin of grace.

The time thou shalt have closed thine eye,
Thou shalt not bend thy knee nor move.
Thou shalt not wound the duck that is swimming,
Never shalt thou harry her of her young.

The white swan of the sweet gurgle,
The speckled dun of the brown tuft,
Thou shalt not cut a feather from their backs
Till Doomsday, on the crest of the wave.

On the wing be they always
Ere thou place missile to thine ear,
And the fair Mary will give thee of her love,
And the lovely Brigid will give thee of her three good things.

Thou shalt not eat fallen fish nor fallen flesh,
Nor one bird that thy hand shall not bring down,
Be thou thankful for the one,
Though nine should be swimming.

The fairy swan, Brigid of the flocks,
The fairy duck, Mary of peace.**

They’re complimenting Mary and St. Brigid here, by saying they are like swans and graceful ducks. Also, there’s wordplay between “fairy” and “peace.”)

There were also special prayers for hunters to say when setting out, just as there were for most activities being begun or ended. They would wash their hands in the first three streams they came to and pray the prayer each time, in order to ask for purity of behavior, safety, and good hunting.

 

[JRKH]

So I am seeing that we ‘cull’ the heard because without our intervention the animals will starve to death? Where does God’s design come into that sort of theory? Do we not trust in God to provide for the animals himself? We, ‘man’ have to step in and solve the problem of animals starving because God isn’t feeding them?

Or rather are they starving because of man himself? Did God provide a way for nature to balance out it’s herds naturally and man interfere by unbalancing the very structure?

Actually the structure became unbalanced when man eliminated most of the natural predators of the deer - Wolves, puma and coyotes mainly. This was done because these predators did not distinguish between bambi the deer and bossy the cow…For a long while this was not a big problem because out society was more rural and hunting more widespread.
Today there are fewer hunters per capita and the herds have grown and spread into areas where they hadn’t been in decades. In fact where I grew up we never saw deer except for the half dozen or so that the local county park kept in a large enclosure. When my cousin saw a deer on my Uncles’ farm, it was big news in the family…Now…some 40 years later you can’t drive 15 miles on the highway without seeing at least one deer hit on the road.
Where does THAT fit in God’s plan??

At some point we have to say, if we believe in God, then man doesn’t need to keep his hand on nature… or we have to acknowledge that the very fact that nature cannot feed it’s animals is because man has claimed all the land for his own. Either way, we are culling the heard because of something we ourselves have perpetuated.

Unless there is another explanation that I am missing?

No I don’t think that you are missing anything, except drawing a full and proper conclusion from the evidence. Of course i don’t know where you live or what the animal situation is like there…But here…in the area where I live, Man IS part of nature, and part of God’s plan.
As I explained above, man did indeed change the balance of nature. Now he is changing it again, albeit in a passive way. The fewer hunters means more deer. More deer means they need more range. Now that they have pushed into areas like cities and suburbs where there is NO hunting permitted and NO predators, they are procreating prodigiously. That is nature by golly…
So - what is God’s plan now?? Or does man need to step in again to continue his part in nature and in God’s plan?

Peace
James