Killing Animals for "Sport"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marfran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_Gail_36 said:
See, I am not sure what hunting for sport means after all these posts. :whacky:

If you mean shooting at animals for target practice, and leaving them. That would I guess be wrong.

But I could shoot an animal for protection.

Perhaps that was the scenario with Father Corapi and the bear could have been for protection. Some years favorable weather might cause more bears to meet and mate, and better food causing more little bear cubs. The following year the weather might change, and there isn’t a great deal of food for them to eat. From the photo it looke like a brown/grizzly bear. They are very agressive, especially when looking for food. They kill livestock too. Maybe that was the situation. Too many bears in an area near people.

And the meat could probably be donated to a zoo to feed the big cats, etc. Or be used for fertilizer. The Deacon mentioned that bear meat is fine for humans.
Click to expand...
I guess clarity on the term sport has at times drifted in this discussion…
But - yes - I think (IMHO) the ‘sport’ part comes in when there isn’t a need (food / protection of property / self defense) - vs - just doing it for the ‘fun’ of it… is that what you concluded?

Of course Fr. Corapi could have been part of what you had suggested and that is why I chose to go to the source for clarification - rather than make any assumptions - I’ll let you know if I get an answer 😉
 
4elise said:
I guess clarity on the term sport has at times drifted in this discussion…
But - yes - I think (IMHO) the ‘sport’ part comes in when there isn’t a need (food / protection of property / self defense) - vs - just doing it for the ‘fun’ of it… is that what you concluded?

Of course Fr. Corapi could have been part of what you had suggested and that is why I chose to go to the source for clarification - rather than make any assumptions - I’ll let you know if I get an answer 😉
Click to expand...
There is also the idea that hunters enjoy the activity, and they eat the animal. I also do not think “need” means you have to be to the point of starving. I am not at the point of starving when I go to the grocery store. I think we are getting to a point in the discussion where we need to start absolutely defining some pretty basic terms like “need”
 
CWBetts said:
There is also the idea that hunters enjoy the activity, and they eat the animal. I also do not think “need” means you have to be to the point of starving. I am not at the point of starving when I go to the grocery store. I think we are getting to a point in the discussion where we need to start absolutely defining some pretty basic terms like “need”
Click to expand...
But you will have ‘need’ of the food you purchase - you have means to purchase what you need. Is that how you would see it clarified?

If one were to hunt, without need (eliminating the issue of animal population for the point of discussion) would it be the same? Or is there a difference? Meeting future need?
 
CWBetts said:
There is also the idea that hunters enjoy the activity, and they eat the animal. I also do not think “need” means you have to be to the point of starving. I am not at the point of starving when I go to the grocery store. I think we are getting to a point in the discussion where we need to start absolutely defining some pretty basic terms like “need”
Click to expand...
We all NEED to eat food to live. You can only go for so long without eating FOOD. There are many food choices available to all of us, though you will find more or less of certain items within certain cultures, or more or less of certain items at certain times of the year etc. So we have the NEED to eat food, but do not have the NEED to eat specific foods, and if there are ethics to be considered in making a choice, then those should be considered before partaking in the food.

You NEED to eat, but do you NEED to eat a Twinkie?
You NEED to eat, but should you eat that stolen candy bar?
You NEED to eat, but should you eat animal products that were produced inhumanely?

Now if in all three examples you ***were ***starving, then your NEED would probably take precidence over the other factors. If not, then you would likely make a different choice.

Is it legitimate to consider how your food choice contributes to pollution? To suffering? If you are not in a state of starvation, and can consider and weigh the impact of your choice, do you have an ethical obligation to do so? Or is it just about personal taste?

If one candy bar comes wrapped in an eco-friendly, biodegradable wrapper, and the other comes in packaging that will not bio-degrade for generations–should you consider the impact of your choice?

Should a hunter kill an animal for the enjoyment of killing, if that is the primary motivation? Is that a justifiable need? If the meat he procurs is secondary to his joy of killing? And the hunter who hunts for the challenge, the ego, the trophy to hang on the wall–are these justifiable reasons to cause an animal to suffer?
Mary_Gail_36 said:
See, I am not sure what hunting for sport means after all these posts. :whacky:.
Click to expand...
I would define hunting for “sport”, as hunting for the main objective of playing a game to kill animals. A sports hunter may or may not use any meat from the animal, but his main objective is ***not ***hunting for food, or conservation, or protection. And one who hunts exotic trophies can rarely disguise the purpose of his hunting–it’s all about the head on the wall. I can begin to understand the mixed reasons that people choose to hunt deer–but the sportman who shells out big bucks to go on a “canned hunt” for an exotic head to add to his collection???
 
bigfootbob said:
No, he was hunting for bear.
Click to expand...
Oh, I understand. I didn’t think he was in immediate danger.
Don’t the various juristictions open up bear season according to bear population? If the populations are too large, then they pose a threat to humans and livestock. (Dad was a small game hunter, so I am not familiar with big game regulations)

Obviously, if Father Corapi was hunting for bear, he was justified.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Oh, I understand. I didn’t think he was in immediate danger.
Don’t the various juristictions open up bear season according to bear population? If the populations are too large, then they pose a threat to humans and livestock. (Dad was a small game hunter, so I am not familiar with big game regulations)

Obviously, if Father Corapi was hunting for bear, he was justified.
Click to expand...
Bear Hunting Fact Sheet: hsus.org/wildlife_abuse/campaigns/bears/spring/activists/spring_bear_hunting_fact_sheet.html
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Oh, I understand. I didn’t think he was in immediate danger.
Don’t the various juristictions open up bear season according to bear population? If the populations are too large, then they pose a threat to humans and livestock. (Dad was a small game hunter, so I am not familiar with big game regulations)

Obviously, if Father Corapi was hunting for bear, he was justified.
Click to expand...
In Wisconsin, we have a drawing every year I think. But the ones around here are just black bear, so they usually don’t bother livestock or humans.
 
bigfootbob said:
In Wisconsin, we have a drawing every year I think. But the ones around here are just black bear, so they usually don’t bother livestock or humans.
Click to expand...
You mean you draw bear instead of shoot them!!! That is so cool!!! I love wildlife art!!!
 
Really? - HSUS is a very worthy organization… And the PETA ‘joke’ guess it is funny to some? People for the ETHICAL Treatment of Animals - their goal is that animals be treated ethically - seems consistent with our teaching - even if one objects to their methods.

One of the things that always leaves me a bit uneasy is when a thread like this goes in a direction where some feel it is OK to ‘make fun’ of people who have made a choice to remove animals and their products from their diet on what they (read I) believe is an ethical issue.

I don’t want to sound over sensitive, because I realize it is not a universal choice - and should perhaps require a thicker skin - but really, this is important to me. This is an issue that I really care about, and I know is an outgrowth of my faith journey.

I understand that I have to explain to the meat eaters who may feel judged that I am not judging them - and always try to do so with respect… I think it seldom goes in the direction of those of who have chosen to be vegetarian / vegan actually making fun of the choice to eat meat / hunt etc… we may discuss this - try to offer a point of view, but I haven’t seen much that is a tone of ridicule

Perhaps it is just meant as a joke, and perhaps if this were on the back fence thread it would be more understandable - but this one is on the social justice thread So that is my two cents — sorry if I’m over reacting.
 
4elise said:
Really? - HSUS is a very worthy organization… And the PETA ‘joke’ guess it is funny to some? People for the ETHICAL Treatment of Animals - their goal is that animals be treated ethically - seems consistent with our teaching - even if one objects to their methods.

One of the things that always leaves me a bit uneasy is when a thread like this goes in a direction where some feel it is OK to ‘make fun’ of people who have made a choice to remove animals and their products from their diet on what they (read I) believe is an ethical issue.

I don’t want to sound over sensitive, because I realize it is not a universal choice - and should perhaps require a thicker skin - but really, this is important to me. This is an issue that I really care about, and I know is an outgrowth of my faith journey.

I understand that I have to explain to the meat eaters who may feel judged that I am not judging them - and always try to do so with respect… I think it seldom goes in the direction of those of who have chosen to be vegetarian / vegan actually making fun of the choice to eat meat / hunt etc… we may discuss this - try to offer a point of view, but I haven’t seen much that is a tone of ridicule

Perhaps it is just meant as a joke, and perhaps if this were on the back fence thread it would be more understandable - but this one is on the social justice thread So that is my two cents — sorry if I’m over reacting.
Click to expand...
PETA is about criminalizing hunting and driving farmers out of business by imposing laws that would give animals the same rights as people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top