Killing Animals for "Sport"

[severus68]

To those of you who say its unethical. Are you a better person because you buy your meat neatly wrapped in a grocery store?? That animal wasn’t born that way. I am from Pennsylvania and I’m a hunter. Yes I do enjoy hunting very much and do love the sport. I eat all I harvest. I take my role as a hunter very seriously. Hunters do more in nature conservation than anyone who is in PETA. If you left deer herds un-managed they would devastate our woodlands by over browsing. Geese are a huge problem here because they are not hunted enough and are ruining parks and lakes everywhere here. Their feces is everywhere. Please don’t be hypocrites and say hunting is unethical and if you feel this way, next time your at Burger King eating a whopper think about where it came from. Do we stop driving because animals get killed by vehicles??

I am in no way a trohpy hunter. I love being outdoors. An experience I had yesterday to share. I was hunting with my muzzleloader for a doe only season and was watching a well used trail when something I caught out of the corner of my eye got my attention, I turned and not 30 feet away was a beautiful 8 point buck staring at me, we stood there staring at each other for a couple of minutes and he just walked away unalarmed like he knew I couldn’t shoot him and paused for a moment and looked at me again then slowly walked away. It was awesome. It was two of Gods creatures sharing a moment in the woods. Thats why I hunt. I’ve had many experiences like this with different animals that I cherish the most. One time while bowhunting I watched an albino doe with twin fawns taking milk from here right under the tree I was in. Hunters are stereotyped but in truth our woodlands would be ruined with out them and animals would suffer starvation if herds were not thinned. In Pa. hunters are pretty much the only predator a deer has to face. Sure some animals do hunt deer like coyote and bear but they prey on fawns only and have minimal impact. That is the reality of it. Hunters are conservationists.

Firstly, none of us are saying we are better than anyone else. We certainly do not or at least try not to judge. Only God is perfect.

Secondly I saw the OP is a vegan and I am a vegetarian. So i do not buy or eat meat.

Thirdly, are you saying all hunters are conservationists.

 

[Marfran]

Hunters are conservationists.

People who participate in “canned hunts” are conservationists? Safari Club members who shell out thousands of dollars to kill an exotic animal as a trophy are conservationists???

The Safari Club has awards every year for the biggest rack, the largest animal etc. These people are not hunting for conservation (which is a disputable science anyway), they are hunting for the “game” of it, and the ego of hanging the biggest head on the wall.

How do the “responsible” hunters on this thread feel about that??? Are you turned off by the Safari Club and related “hunting” organizations who glorify the “sport” and the “game” of it?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

that it is unintentional

Using a technique that has been used here many times by the animal rights side to make a point, not by you specifically …

So some amount of animal cruelty is acceptable to you? Amazing!!

Does everyone see how this line of reason makes no inroads and divides both sides even more??

Now…

Your saying that the ends justifies the means, to put it in a Catholic perspective. Yes, that is the point being made by the ethical hunters in this thread. And I have not seen an unethical hunter voice a differing opinion yet. We are all in agreement it seems.

There are laws that prevent the sort of things that represent an unethical and immoral waste of our natural resources.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

People who participate in “canned hunts” are conservationists? Safari Club members who shell out thousands of dollars to kill an exotic animal as a trophy are conservationists???

The Safari Club has awards every year for the biggest rack, the largest animal etc. These people are not hunting for conservation (which is a disputable science anyway), they are hunting for the “game” of it, and the ego of hanging the biggest head on the wall.

How do the “responsible” hunters on this thread feel about that??? Are you turned off by the Safari Club and related “hunting” organizations who glorify the “sport” and the “game” of it?

Try a new thread, this is a bit off topic.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Thirdly, are you saying all hunters are conservationists.

I think the case could be made that more hunters are conservationists by percentage than are non-hunters.

 

[4elise]

Using a technique that has been used here many times by the animal rights side to make a point, not by you specifically …

So some amount of animal cruelty is acceptable to you? Amazing!!

Does everyone see how this line of reason makes no inroads and divides both sides even more??

Now…

Your saying that the ends justifies the means, to put it in a Catholic perspective. Yes, that is the point being made by the ethical hunters in this thread. And I have not seen an unethical hunter voice a differing opinion yet. We are all in agreement it seems.

There are laws that prevent the sort of things that represent an unethical and immoral waste of our natural resources.

The question I was answering was (I believe) how I felt about driving down the road and killing bugs / vs having a chicken live in a battery cage till it could be killed for my dinner / of hunting to kill something to eat.

In driving - it is not my intention to kill bugs / in cooking chicken it is necessary that a chicken be killed (or I’d have to hunt a deer) - so I opt for beans, tofu, etc… this is an intentional choice to chose beans, tofu, over dead animals for dinner.

I have not disagreed with those who hunt and fill their freezer with meat, and believe I’v shared how I see this preferable to food from factory farms.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I just saw a documentary about feral hogs. They are scary, they have been becoming more and more agressive, they destroy farmland and crops. And I beleive they might not even be edible, because of their enormous size. (I might be wrong though).

I was a bit surprised, though not greatly, as I was driving yesterday. I saw a huge billboard set up by the Conservation Dept warning of the perils of feral hogs and encouraging people to shoot them on sight.

I suppose they’re more or less edible, in the same sort of sense that deer are edible. Rough, gamy and not especially tasty. (Sorry deer hunters, but let’s admit the truth here. Yes, I know, if you put venison in chili or mix it with beef, etc, etc) But hogs are hogs, and feral hogs are much more likely to transmit diseases and parasites that are hazardous to humans if butchered or consumed. In older times, people most definitely ate them.

 

[Marfran]

Hunters do more in nature conservation than anyone…

This is a myth that people either seriously believe (because they are not aware of all of the science), or use as a justification to hunt for whatever their true motivation for hunting is.

I assume that all hunters on this thread believe that hunting is the necessary “evil” of conservation management, however, how would you feel if the animal populations could be controlled by other management strategies? Perhaps your answer to that will reveal whether you hunt for “conservation,” to assist in a necessary, albeit unpleasant, aspect of of wild animal management, or if it is for other reasons.

I would suspect that most hunters would not like to see the populations, of say deer in the US states, sucessfully managed by other means, thereby negating the need to artificially cull numbers from the herds through hunting.

There are two types of conservation management:

1. ***Manipulative management ***acts on a population of animals/birds, etc., either changing its numbers by direct means (killing/hunting), or influencing numbers by the indirect means of altering habitat, food supply, density of predators, or prevalence of disease.

Habitat manipulation and predator control are often used to maintain artificially inflated populations of game animals, not for the purpose of conservation, but for the purpose of maintaining numbers of animals for hunters.

1. ***Custodial management ***is preventive or protective.

We have much science available to us to be able to to maintain healthy eco-systems and numbers of animals within a habitat. True conservation should be preventative and protective in nature, but conservation (in the United States) is oriented to ***preserve ***numbers of animals for the “hunt.” If conservation were truly successful, there would be no need to cull animals artificially through hunting.

So when people speak of doing their duty, and hunting as participation in “conservation,” would those same people be OK with the implementation of science and wildlife management that seeks to decrease the need of utilizing artificial culling techniques?

If the number of hunters (in the US) declines, then wildlife managers will have to utilize other methods. So is it really the revenue from hunting, and the desire to have animals to hunt that fuels this “conservation” practice???

 

[Marfran]

Texas doesn’t even try to disguise the fact that it’s all about “allure” and “desire.” You even have the opportunity to kill exotics in Texas. And we need to kill exotics, exactly why???:
tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/hunt/public/

 

[Ridgerunner]

The question I was answering was (I believe) how I felt about driving down the road and killing bugs / vs having a chicken live in a battery cage till it could be killed for my dinner / of hunting to kill something to eat.

In driving - it is not my intention to kill bugs / in cooking chicken it is necessary that a chicken be killed (or I’d have to hunt a deer) - so I opt for beans, tofu, etc… this is an intentional choice to chose beans, tofu, over dead animals for dinner.

I have not disagreed with those who hunt and fill their freezer with meat, and believe I’v shared how I see this preferable to food from factory farms.

Of course, there is a lot of bug and small animal mortality involved in farming for things like beans and tofu. It’s pretty massive. And, of course, there are bug and animal parts in just about every vegetarian dish we consume. It’s sometimes interesting to see what the USDA acceptable levels are for things like bugs and mouse parts, but not especially appetizing.

I have been on factory farms, and while I can’t say I have seen every type, I can say that when it comes to “animal needs”, factory farms I have seen tend to them better, in general, than does “the wild”. Animals need food, water and security from parasites, diseases and predators. Beyond that, I’m not too sure most of them “want” anything else. They’re not even interested in sex in the same way we are. Possibly my cattle (open pastures and fresh water) pause now and then to admire the scenery or smell the flowers or admire a heifer (not in heat) with a comely appearance, but I have never seen it. When it comes to animal death, there’s not a lot to be preferred in being shot by a 30-06 versus being shocked into insensibility and bled out while unconscious. Certainly, both may reasonably be thought preferable to being torn apart by, e.g., wild canines and consumed, in part, while still alive.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

This is a myth that people either seriously believe (because they are not aware of all of the science), or use as a justification to hunt for whatever their true motivation for hunting is.

I assume that all hunters on this thread believe that hunting is the necessary “evil” of conservation management, however, how would you feel if the animal populations could be controlled by other management strategies? Perhaps your answer to that will reveal whether you hunt for “conservation,” to assist in a necessary, albeit unpleasant, aspect of of wild animal management, or if it is for other reasons.

I would suspect that most hunters would not like to see the populations, of say deer in the US states, sucessfully managed by other means, thereby negating the need to artificially cull numbers from the herds through hunting.

There are two types of conservation management:

1. ***Manipulative management ***acts on a population of animals/birds, etc., either changing its numbers by direct means (killing/hunting), or influencing numbers by the indirect means of altering habitat, food supply, density of predators, or prevalence of disease.

Habitat manipulation and predator control are often used to maintain artificially inflated populations of game animals, not for the purpose of conservation, but for the purpose of maintaining numbers of animals for hunters.

1. ***Custodial management ***is preventive or protective.

We have much science available to us to be able to to maintain healthy eco-systems and numbers of animals within a habitat. True conservation should be preventative and protective in nature, but conservation (in the United States) is oriented to ***preserve ***numbers of animals for the “hunt.” If conservation were truly successful, there would be no need to cull animals artificially through hunting.

So when people speak of doing their duty, and hunting as participation in “conservation,” would those same people be OK with the implementation of science and wildlife management that seeks to decrease the need of utilizing artificial culling techniques?

If the number of hunters (in the US) declines, then wildlife managers will have to utilize other methods. So is it really the revenue from hunting, and the desire to have animals to hunt that fuels this “conservation” practice???

What does this have to do with the topic being discussed? Start a new thread for a new discussion.

 

[CWBetts]

for me it is enjoying the outdoors with my family

You can do that without killing something

 

[Marfran]

What does this have to do with the topic being discussed? Start a new thread for a new discussion.

I am replying to all the people talking about “conservation” as a reason for hunting. BTW: Almost no one is addressing the topic here. The topic is hunting for “sport” and the “game” of it.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Texas doesn’t even try to disguise the fact that it’s all about “allure” and “desire.” You even have the opportunity to kill exotics in Texas. And we need to kill exotics, exactly why???:
tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/hunt/public/

exoctics are regulated like livestock not hunting opportunities.

Struggling to see the reliance of this topic within the topic of the thread also

 

[Marfran]

I think the case could be made that more hunters are conservationists by percentage than are non-hunters.

Who brought up the topic of conservation??? I imagine that people are trying to clarify one motivation from another.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

I am replying to all the people talking about “conservation” as a reason for hunting. BTW: Almost no one is addressing the topic here. The topic is hunting for “sport” and the “game” of it.

so to fix that you join in…

 

[Marfran]

exoctics are regulated like livestock not hunting opportunities.

Struggling to see the reliance of this topic within the topic of the thread also

Hunting exotics is exactly the topic. Is there a need to hunt exotics?? We are*** regulating them like livestock so that we can hunt them ***for the “sport” and “game” of it, in addition to the motivation of ego for the rare wall trophy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is a myth that people either seriously believe (because they are not aware of all of the science), or use as a justification to hunt for whatever their true motivation for hunting is.

I assume that all hunters on this thread believe that hunting is the necessary “evil” of conservation management, however, how would you feel if the animal populations could be controlled by other management strategies? Perhaps your answer to that will reveal whether you hunt for “conservation,” to assist in a necessary, albeit unpleasant, aspect of of wild animal management, or if it is for other reasons.

I would suspect that most hunters would not like to see the populations, of say deer in the US states, sucessfully managed by other means, thereby negating the need to artificially cull numbers from the herds through hunting.

There are two types of conservation management:

1. ***Manipulative management ***acts on a population of animals/birds, etc., either changing its numbers by direct means (killing/hunting), or influencing numbers by the indirect means of altering habitat, food supply, density of predators, or prevalence of disease.

Habitat manipulation and predator control are often used to maintain artificially inflated populations of game animals, not for the purpose of conservation, but for the purpose of maintaining numbers of animals for hunters.

1. ***Custodial management ***is preventive or protective.

We have much science available to us to be able to to maintain healthy eco-systems and numbers of animals within a habitat. True conservation should be preventative and protective in nature, but conservation (in the United States) is oriented to ***preserve ***numbers of animals for the “hunt.” If conservation were truly successful, there would be no need to cull animals artificially through hunting.

So when people speak of doing their duty, and hunting as participation in “conservation,” would those same people be OK with the implementation of science and wildlife management that seeks to decrease the need of utilizing artificial culling techniques?

If the number of hunters (in the US) declines, then wildlife managers will have to utilize other methods. So is it really the revenue from hunting, and the desire to have animals to hunt that fuels this “conservation” practice???

I would like to know what the alternative methods would be.

Having, in my lifetime, watched the population explosion of wild animals of all kinds, including predators, (due to limitations of hunting and elimination of predator bounties) I have my doubts that methods other than hunting will limit their numbers. It is astounding how fast they can multiply.

But one thing I cannot abide is the idea of introducing or allowing the presence of predators like mountain lions into populated areas, no matter what the reason. I would much rather see deer limited by hunters than by mountain lions. Hunters don’t intentionally kill children for food. I don’t even like to see the state protect bears, which this state does. Nor do I favor acceptance of wolves or even coyotes in populated areas.

Now, if you’re talking about setting aside big wildlife areas like Yellowstone or something, I don’t have a problem with that, as long as dangerous animals are not allowed to wander outside and into populated areas, and as long as people are properly warned about the dangers of wandering into the wildlife areas.

 

[Marfran]

so to fix that you join in…

??? I started this thread. My intent was to discuss hunting for “sport” and the “game” of it. I think that I clearly stated that in the OP. Hunting for “sport” and the “game” of it are psychological reasons for hunting.

Can we kill animals for the ***game ***of it???

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

This is a myth that people either seriously believe (because they are not aware of all of the science), or use as a justification to hunt for whatever their true motivation for hunting is.

I assume that all hunters on this thread believe that hunting is the necessary “evil” of conservation management, however, how would you feel if the animal populations could be controlled by other management strategies? Perhaps your answer to that will reveal whether you hunt for “conservation,” to assist in a necessary, albeit unpleasant, aspect of of wild animal management, or if it is for other reasons.

I would suspect that most hunters would not like to see the populations, of say deer in the US states, sucessfully managed by other means, thereby negating the need to artificially cull numbers from the herds through hunting.

There are two types of conservation management:

1. ***Manipulative management ***acts on a population of animals/birds, etc., either changing its numbers by direct means (killing/hunting), or influencing numbers by the indirect means of altering habitat, food supply, density of predators, or prevalence of disease.

Habitat manipulation and predator control are often used to maintain artificially inflated populations of game animals, not for the purpose of conservation, but for the purpose of maintaining numbers of animals for hunters.

1. ***Custodial management ***is preventive or protective.

We have much science available to us to be able to to maintain healthy eco-systems and numbers of animals within a habitat. True conservation should be preventative and protective in nature, but conservation (in the United States) is oriented to ***preserve ***numbers of animals for the “hunt.” If conservation were truly successful, there would be no need to cull animals artificially through hunting.

So when people speak of doing their duty, and hunting as participation in “conservation,” would those same people be OK with the implementation of science and wildlife management that seeks to decrease the need of utilizing artificial culling techniques?

If the number of hunters (in the US) declines, then wildlife managers will have to utilize other methods. So is it really the revenue from hunting, and the desire to have animals to hunt that fuels this “conservation” practice???

Hunters dont just conserve game animal population. The money from our fees goes to many different programs, the majority of which I am sure you would support, such as forest maintenance.

I have always found it to be somewhat… sad (for lack of a better word)… that some people have such an aversion to hunting. This “cruelty” to animals that people talk about is so misconstrued that it has reached, for me, the level of comedy. Because some people see all animals as cute and cuddly they imagine that it is a bad thing to kill them for food. Take deer for instance. Most vegetarians I know would make that “awwwwww” sound and try to hug them. then, when their population explodes and they start to eat EVERYTHING, cause car accidents, and literally attack people, these “awwwwwww”'s turn into something very different that sounds like indignant silence. I know several people that started as “animal rights” crusaders against the “evil hunter” epitomized in Bambi who have subsequently come to believe that hunting is necessary when their property was destroyed or they hit a fawn with their car or they just got tired of seeing carcasses and blood spray on the road.

Anyway, I need to avoid going on a tirade here. go to youtube and look up carrot juice is murder by the arrogant worms.

May God grant us all patience and wisdom,

FSC