Killing Animals for "Sport"

[Sean_Boyle]

God is perfect. God did not create violence and cruelty.

Exactly! God is love. As a brother in Christ, I need to inform you as christian that your personal perception is not according to God’s plan. If you don’t believe me, we are encouraged to take it to the Church. Your parish or mine. It really won’t matter which.

The other stuff that was edited out, is extra unbiblical teachings that really doesn’t need to be addressed. They are a slippery slope.

 

[4elise]

No, it is not unethical to hunt for the enjoyment, ego, or other psychological reasons.

I believe the ethical question is answered by the Catechism:

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.

The question of need / and what is needless has been discussed and I see that we have come to different conclusions on this definition - A condition or situation in which something is required - not only wanted

 

[vz71]

Please read about the creation. The lion lay down with the lamb, it did not eat it. God directed hat ws to be eaten.

Which creation story are you reading?

I have scanned Genesis a few times now and have yet to find anywhere in it what you describe.

Can you please provide chapter and verse?

 

[4elise]

But we must also look at the intent. Hunting for food is different than hunting for sport.

 

[vz71]

The question of need / and what is needless has been discussed and I see that we have come to different conclusions on this definition - A condition or situation in which something is required - not only wanted

One of the wonderful things about the capatalist society we live in is the fact that anything can be sold.

I can go out on a hunt (if I so chose) and claim a deer for the rack.
I can then let the processing plant have it the parts I do not want.

The remaining parts will then be processed and sold. And people that need it can have it.

Nothing wasted, and a real need has been realized and fulfilled.

The claim can be attempted that I do not have the immediate need.
But that is not what the CCC says.
In theory, I could hunt for the trophy all I want secure in the knowledge that every kill will provide for someone else’s need.

 

[bigfootbob]

One of the wonderful things about the capatalist society we live in is the fact that anything can be sold.

I can go out on a hunt (if I so chose) and claim a deer for the rack.
I can then let the processing plant have it the parts I do not want.

The remaining parts will then be processed and sold. And people that need it can have it.

Nothing wasted, and a real need has been realized and fulfilled.

The claim can be attempted that I do not have the immediate need.
But that is not what the CCC says.
In theory, I could hunt for the trophy all I want secure in the knowledge that every kill will provide for someone else’s need.

Many states have programs to donate meat to the poor. Most meat processing places will process the meat for free.

 

[severus68]

Exactly! God is love. As a brother in Christ, I need to inform you as christian that your personal perception is not according to God’s plan. If you don’t believe me, we are encouraged to take it to the Church. Your parish or mine. It really won’t matter which.

The other stuff that was edited out, is extra unbiblical teachings that really doesn’t need to be addressed. They are a slippery slope.

Thank you for the concern but totally not needed, thank you. If you tell me God causes violence and cruelty then you are wrong. God may allow it as He has given us free will. We will only know all of God’s plan, when we meet God.

I do not live in the US so taking it to either o our parishes is not ging to work.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

I believe the ethical question is answered by the Catechism:

The question of need / and what is needless has been discussed and I see that we have come to different conclusions on this definition - A condition or situation in which something is required - not only wanted

Your statement points to the fact that you only see things from your point of view…

What is your favorite food to eat or favorite drink?

Do you need to eat it and relish it so?

Is there undue human suffering or animal suffering to obtain that favorite food? The answer is yes to both yet you persist in craving that food item, when the world would be better off or at least a if portion of the earth wasn’t used to provide you with your favorite food, whatever it is.

Is that clearer now?

 

[4elise]

One of the wonderful things about the capatalist society we live in is the fact that anything can be sold.

I can go out on a hunt (if I so chose) and claim a deer for the rack.
I can then let the processing plant have it the parts I do not want.

The remaining parts will then be processed and sold. And people that need it can have it.

Nothing wasted, and a real need has been realized and fulfilled.

The claim can be attempted that I do not have the immediate need.
But that is not what the CCC says.
In theory, I could hunt for the trophy all I want secure in the knowledge that every kill will provide for someone else’s need.

And here my friend is where you and I disagree.

For an individual to cause the death of an animal when they do not have a need of the meat is IMHO not in keeping with human dignity - as Catholics I believe our standard must be higher - to be light in the world / we should strive to have all our actions reflect our faith.

You can justify your actions - hunting just for the ‘sport’ as long as the meat is eaten by someone - I do not believe this is consistent - I have no doubt you will disagree with this conclusion.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Thank you for the concern but totally not needed, thank you. If you tell me God causes violence and cruelty then you are wrong. God may allow it as He has given us free will. We will only know all of God’s plan, when we meet God.

I do not live in the US so taking it to either o our parishes is not ging to work.

Of course it will work anywhere, The Church is universal!

 

[4elise]

Your statement points to the fact that you only see things from your point of view…

What is your favorite food to eat or favorite drink?

Do you need to eat it and relish it so?

Is there undue human suffering or animal suffering to obtain that favorite food? The answer is yes to both yet you persist in craving that food item, when the world would be better off or at least a if portion of the earth wasn’t used to provide you with your favorite food, whatever it is.

Is that clearer now?

Well Sean,
I’m a coffee lover - I buy fair trade coffee because I try to minimize the impact of my coffee ‘desire’

It is my opinion and I believe it is a reflection of my understanding of the teaching of the Church that since I do not need meat / dairy / fish - therefore I chose not to eat them becaus these living beings, also are part of God’s Creation

"2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.196 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

I do understand that other good Catholics have not come to this same conclusion.
So I do hope my ‘opinion’ is now also clearer.

Peace

 

[severus68]

Of course it will work anywhere, The Church is universal!

Oh dear, you said , we could take it to either parish.

 

[Marfran]

Will you please answer my question: Do you see anything wrong with ethical, responsible hunting?

I would say that a defintion of what is ethical and responsible would be in order. I would imagine that you will find variations of definition among individuals. Maybe that’s why these types of threads are so popular. There’s seems to be a lot up for debate.

I do not think one should hunt to kill, or kill animals for reasons of the pleasure and thrill of killing. Ernest Hemmingway once said that the reason that he hunted was because he had to take his aggressions out on something, and better it be animals than people. (I’m paraphrasing, don’t have the exact quote.) I would say that hunting for that reason is not ethical, and that anyone who hunts for this reason has some psychological issues. Ernest Hemmingway ended his own life with a gun by the way. Violence begets violence.

A case can be made that it is ethical to hunt to feed oneself. A case can be made that is ethical to hunt as a part of “conservation,” though I do not agree with “conservation” mythology, and feel that we have other means to the same end.

I personally believe that hunting to feed oneself is superior to participating in the factory farming of animals, though I do not personally see the necessity to use animals from either scenario.

I would rather see consciencious hunters in the woods, who choose ***not to ***take the shot, because that particular shot will probably not result in an immediate kill, and rather just a wounding where the animal may likely escape–than hunters who just let bullets fly in all directions with disregard for any suffering an unskilled shot would have.

I do not think it is responsible to have children hunting. I do not think it is responsible to keep lowering and lowering the age where children can hunt.

I do not think it is responsible to drink alcohol and hunt.

I do not think it is ethical to purposefully manipulate animal populations in order to increase animals for the purposes of hunting them.

I do not think it is ethical to hunt exotic animals.

I think that there are different callibers of hunters, different motivations, and that there are a lot of negative motivations inherent in hunting, which may make determining who is behaving responsibly and ethically somewhat difficult.

I believe that there are a lot of negative motivations inherent in hunting clubs and organizations, however, I do believe that it is possible for individual hunters to have high standards based on an ethics and regard for responsible behavior, and who do consider any suffering that they bring to the animals that they kill.

Now, I don’t know if that answers your question–I would debate each consideration and aspect of hunting–the motivations, the necessity, the alternative to herd management etc., but yes, I do believe that there are individuals who aspire to tread gently and responsibly, as opposed to individuals who are hapazard and are motivated by thrill to the exclusion of all else.

 

[vz71]

And here my friend is where you and I disagree.

I’m glad we have cleared that.
It is always good to know what the root of a disagreement is.

For an individual to cause the death of an animal when they do not have a need of the meat is IMHO not in keeping with human dignity

Let’s follow that logic…
It is now wrong for a hunter to collect meat for a family that otherwise may not be able to. And that is not a fictional scenario. My wife clearly remembers many times when her family would have gone hungry were it not for the generosity of hunters that brought food when they had more.

You can justify your actions - hunting just for the ‘sport’ as long as the meat is eaten by someone - I do not believe this is consistent - I have no doubt you will disagree with this conclusion.

You would be safe in that conclusion.
It comes down to a question of adding to something what is not really there.
The CCC specifies the word ‘needless’
It does not qualify it any further.
It does not specify the need to be fulfilled, you are.
Likewise it does not specify whose need is fulfilled. Again, you are.

 

[Marfran]

Many states have programs to donate meat to the poor. Most meat processing places will process the meat for free.

And ironically, many states and food banks are outlawing/disallowing this because of the levels of lead and other contaminants in the meat.

 

[CWBetts]

And ironically, many states and food banks are outlawing/disallowing this because of the levels of lead and other contaminants in the meat.

Is there an excuse you won’t use to complain about hunters, or eating meat in general? You don’t like meat, fine. But there is nothing wrong with meat, nor is there anything wrong with hunting to putt food on someone’s table. Accept the fact that you will not succeed in imposing your will on others. Lets be honest. That is exactly what you are trying to do.

 

[Marfran]

Let’s follow that logic…
It is now wrong for a hunter to collect meat for a family that otherwise may not be able to. And that is not a fictional scenario. My wife clearly remembers many times when her family would have gone hungry were it not for the generosity of hunters that brought food when they had more.

This is exactly why my mother had to hunt growing up. Her family could not rely on the generosity of others and the children had to hunt to survive in the harsh climate. Once the need was no longer there, my mother ceased to hunt and never looked back. She did not morph into a “sports” hunter and did not take pleasure in the deed. She only hunted out of necessity. There was a real need to survival.

 

[vz71]

Really?
Let’s go back to my post and see what was really said…

I bolded the pertinent part. The part you edited out. The part that alters what I have said when edited out.

You edited out the pertinent part of my quote to make it appear that I said something that I did not.
You are trying to deceive people. The edit of my post was dishonest.

And I would like an apology.

Still waiting on that apology…

 

[Marfran]

Is there an excuse you won’t use to complain about hunters, or eating meat in general? You don’t like meat, fine. But there is nothing wrong with meat, nor is there anything wrong with hunting to putt food on someone’s table. Accept the fact that you will not succeed in imposing your will on others. Lets be honest. That is exactly what you are trying to do.

Just how does one impose their will on others??? Let’s be honest. Topics for discussion are just that–topics for discussion. Everyone has an opinion and a perspective and everyone shares freely here. What would be your motivation to post in a thread, which of course you have no obligation to do so, and claim that someone posting their opinion is imposing their will on others? Again, short of waterboarding, or chopping off fingers, just how to you impose your will on a topic being discussed???

 

[Indyann]

QUOTE=Marfran;5843266
.

A case can be made that it is ethical to hunt to feed oneself. A case can be made that is ethical to hunt as a part of “conservation,” though I do not agree with “conservation” mythology, and feel that we have other means to the same end.

What other means to the same end?

And what would be a solution to the overpopulation of deer, for instance?

If they are not culled, they will die of starvation.
The forests are not repleninshing themselves, the deer eat all the seedlings.
If they are relocated, a lot die from the relocation.

They have become a threat to humans and property.

Other than regulated hunts, what is your means to the same end?