Killing Animals for "Sport"

[chain]

As for eating meat, I seem to recall at least 2 miracles in the bible in which God fed his people meat. If it was that unethical - why would God go so far out of his way to create it for his people. That does not even touch the greatest miracle of all - we are to eat the flesh of our savior.

The 2 I am recalling are the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, and the quail and manna in the desert (everyone tends to forget about the quail part of that one)

I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread: and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God.

And it came to pass at even, that the quails came up, and covered the camp: and in the morning the dew lay round about the camp.

I am all for eliminating pointless killing and pain. We just differ in our opinions of pointless. Even offering a burnt sacrifice is not pointless (abet that is no longer required of us). If eating meat allows marginal land to be utilized in food production, it can increase the overall food supply - then it certainly is not pointless.

Just to poke a bit at vegetarians - technically you would need to be very careful how your food was fertilized. Most agriculture uses either byproducts of meat production or fish as part of their ingredients. Likewise if you eliminate all these questionable fertilizers I can almost assure you there would be a world wide famine.

 

[Godscre]

As for eating meat, I seem to recall at least 2 miracles in the bible in which God fed his people meat. If it was that unethical - why would God go so far out of his way to create it for his people. That does not even touch the greatest miracle of all - we are to eat the flesh of our savior.

The 2 I am recalling are the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, and the quail and manna in the desert (everyone tends to forget about the quail part of that one)

I am all for eliminating pointless killing and pain. We just differ in our opinions of pointless. Even offering a burnt sacrifice is not pointless (abet that is no longer required of us). If eating meat allows marginal land to be utilized in food production, it can increase the overall food supply - then it certainly is not pointless.

Just to poke a bit at vegetarians - technically you would need to be very careful how your food was fertilized. Most agriculture uses either byproducts of meat production or fish as part of their ingredients. Likewise if you eliminate all these questionable fertilizers I can almost assure you there would be a world wide famine.

Concerning the quail, God gave them to the Israelites, but read what he thinks about it and what happened to the Israelites in Numbers 11:31-35.

God looks on our heart. He is concerned of our motives for eating, not what we put in our stomachs.

 

[Marfran]

Is*** sports hunting ***ethical? Can we kill animals for the game of it?

Can you be more specific? i.e fox hunting by the gentry in the English countryside w/ a pack of hounds, or a father & son outing for deer in the wilderness?

Agreed. The original post question is far too broad.

I would say that the operative word is “sports” and the phrase “the game of it” referring to motivations other than for food, conservation, etc. Phrasing the OP broadly, I think we have discovered that the term “sports hunting” has different connotations/definitions for different people. I would say that hunting fox in the English countryside would definitely fall into the “sports” category–the father & son hunting deer is a little grayer and would be determined by their personal motivations. When I think of the term “sports hunting” I think of persons who enjoy hunting and killing, this being their primary motivation, who will hunt to satifsy their egos, etc. What particularly comes to my mind is wealthy hunters who participate in “canned hunts” or who pursue trophies, and who have no concerns toward using animals for food, or in an effort toward conservation, etc.

 

[dprewett]

Sorry that was supposed to be men. Wild game is way better for you and has less chance of giving you a mad cow or anything else. If you want to talk about cruel look at modern slaughter houses. Hunting is much better the animals are not all caged up and sent through scarry death machines. They look like something out of a horror novel. Not to say that I do not get meat from the store but hunting is much more ethical. At least the hunted has a chance animals are very cunning and are hard to track.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I have been following and taking part in some of this discussion. It is most obvious that those who are against hunting or eating meat will not be convinced otherwise. AND Those who are convinced that there is nothing wrong with responsible hunting and eating meat will likewise not be convinced otherwise.

That said, I will fire up the grill and put on some back strap from a deer and enjoy what follows.

 

[tweetymom]

I have been following and taking part in some of this discussion. It is most obvious that those who are against hunting or eating meat will not be convinced otherwise. AND Those who are convinced that there is nothing wrong with responsible hunting and eating meat will likewise not be convinced otherwise.

That said, I will fire up the grill and put on some back strap from a deer and enjoy what follows.

Can I come over and enjoy the feast?:clapping:

 

[dprewett]

I have been following and taking part in some of this discussion. It is most obvious that those who are against hunting or eating meat will not be convinced otherwise. AND Those who are convinced that there is nothing wrong with responsible hunting and eating meat will likewise not be convinced otherwise.

That said, I will fire up the grill and put on some back strap from a deer and enjoy what follows.

Sounds great when is dinner I will bring the boar ribs.

 

[Marfran]

I have been following and taking part in some of this discussion. It is most obvious that those who are against hunting or eating meat will not be convinced otherwise. AND Those who are convinced that there is nothing wrong with responsible hunting and eating meat will likewise not be convinced otherwise.

I find your quote interesting. I don’t think that it is, or should be, the intent of any thread to try to convince anyone to change their opinions, however this may happen as a natural result of learning something new, etc.

I find the threads great places to discuss, debate and share with people of different backgrounds, different experiences, and who have reached different conclusions on many different matters. There is an openness here that is harder to find in “real” life.

I have learned so much from people in the threads, and I appreciate all the sincere discussions!!!

 

[Indyann]

I would say that the operative word is “sports” and the phrase “the game of it” referring to motivations other than for food, conservation, etc. Phrasing the OP broadly, I think we have discovered that the term “sports hunting” has different connotations/definitions for different people. I would say that hunting fox in the English countryside would definitely fall into the “sports” category–the father & son hunting deer is a little grayer and would be determined by their personal motivations. When I think of the term “sports hunting” I think of persons who enjoy hunting and killing, this being their primary motivation, who will hunt to satifsy their egos, etc. What particularly comes to my mind is wealthy hunters who participate in “canned hunts” or who pursue trophies, and who have no concerns toward using animals for food, or in an effort toward conservation, etc.

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/environmentalism

"Some hunt for sport, but the sport is in the tracking, gun skills, and trophy hunting, not in causing suffering and death to animals. All responsible hunters take care not to leave a wounded animal injured by a badly aimed shot to suffer; they make sure to track it down and end its suffering.

In short, the Church does not oppose sport hunting."

Just call me a Papist. I don’t have to wrangle with all these moral dilemmas.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Can I come over and enjoy the feast?:clapping:

I will most likely be finished eating the treats before you get here. If you can make it within the next 3-4 hours, you are more than welcome.

 

[tweetymom]

I will most likely be finished eating the treats before you get here. If you can make it within the next 3-4 hours, you are more than welcome.

Will give it my best shot! LOL LOL LOL

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I have learned so much from people in the threads, and I appreciate all the sincere discussions!!!

Me too. But I have found some of the “sincere” discussion at times to be just a tad pointed. let me hastily add, present company excepted.

 

[vz71]

I would say that the operative word is “sports” and the phrase “the game of it” referring to motivations other than for food, conservation, etc. Phrasing the OP broadly, I think we have discovered that the term “sports hunting” has different connotations/definitions for different people.

So when you say “for the sport” are you speaking purely of motivation, or are you taking into account what is done with the prey afterwards?

 

[Marfran]

So when you say “for the sport” are you speaking purely of motivation, or are you taking into account what is done with the prey afterwards?

I don’t know. It seems that this thread has clarified that there are numerous motivations for hunting, numerous definitions of hunting for “sport,” etc. I think that the word “sport” connotes things that perhaps those who hunt for food or conservation, don’t necessarily agree with. I was just reviewing a few “hunting” articles that revolved around more of conservation attitude, and I will say that I did not find them offensive or irresponsible, even if I do not necessarily agree with the conservation science being used. What I do find disrespectful to God, and to people of faith, are the attitudes expressed in some “hunting” magazines and websites that glorify the thrill of the kill, that focus on a massaging of human ego, and a complete disregard for animals or their suffering.

I think that the term “sports hunting”, or “sportsman”, may in many cases be a misnomer.

 

[vz71]

So when you say “for the sport” are you speaking purely of motivation, or are you taking into account what is done with the prey afterwards?

I don’t know. It seems that this thread has clarified that there are numerous motivations for hunting, numerous definitions of hunting for “sport,” etc. I think that the word “sport” connotes things that perhaps those who hunt for food or conservation, don’t necessarily agree with. I was just reviewing a few “hunting” articles that revolved around more of conservation attitude, and I will say that I did not find them offensive or irresponsible, even if I do not necessarily agree with the conservation science being used. What I do find disrespectful to God, and to people of faith, are the attitudes expressed in some “hunting” magazines and websites that glorify the thrill of the kill, that focus on a massaging of human ego, and a complete disregard for animals or their suffering.

I think that the term “sports hunting”, or “sportsman”, may in many cases be a misnomer.

OK, let me go one further then and see if it clarifies the picture.
I have known people that go hunting for the enjoyment. They get a thrill of besting prey on their own turf.
They also take their kill and donate it so that it services the need of others as they believe it sinful to waste it.

So are they sinning?

 

[tweetymom]

OK, let me go one further then and see if it clarifies the picture.
I have known people that go hunting for the enjoyment. They get a thrill of besting prey on their own turf.
They also take their kill and donate it so that it services the need of others as they believe it sinful to waste it.

So are they sinning?

My humble oponion No. Thats a great thing that they:thumbsup: do donating the meat.

 

[Ridgerunner]

In Deborah Jone’s (who has a PhD in Animal Theology), “The School of Compassion: a Roman Catholic theology of animals” 2009 she states on p. 259:

The management of large numbers of wild animals can sometimes be devolved onto human beings, who have already destroyed the balance of nature by eliminating many of the natural predators. In which case, if the welfare of whole herds is threatened by either disease or over-population, it would be preferable to treat the sick animals and to remove excess numbers to other locations, but it is admitted that with some animals and in some conditions this is not possible. In which case, regretably, on a purely utilitarian basis, culling may be required of the weakest and sickest. This should be undertaken only by trained and authorized marksmen, and no element of entertainment or pleasure-seeking involved – for God’s creatures’ lives are being taken. Game-shooting and ‘recreational’ hunting are activities no Christian or humane person should engage in;80 although hunting for food – where other sources of protein are genuinely not available – would mitigate the culpability as it would come under the category of ‘self-defence’; one life taken so that another may survive."

80 See Fr. James Legge’s defence of hunting as a ‘natural, selective and humane way of managing the environment’, in his article ‘Animal Rights: a perspective on the hunting debate’, Faith 36.1 (Jan-Feb 2004). This is answered in an article by Deborah Jones in ‘Animal Rights: another perspective’, Faith 36.2 (Mar-Apr 2004).

Her book is excellent with references from the Church Fathers to present day, including the CCC (which she dissects theologically).

“Animal Theology”??? There is a PhD program in Animal Theology? There IS such a thing as Animal Theology??? Learn something new every day.

To me, this quote is just bizarre. Does she have any idea what it’s like for an animal to be killed by a predator? I have, and it isn’t pretty. Does she not realize that oftentimes, in the wild, there are severe “die-offs” due to cycles in the food supply and disease processes that have nothing to do with predators? Those are grim. I have seen them. Predators have a wonderful time of it for awhile, killing and eating those weakened by lack of food, parasites or disease. Scavengers eat the ones the predators don’t get to. The predator and scavenger populations explode, then they, too, starve, and the cycle begins again.

And this is better than a hunter killing, e.g., a deer and giving free meat to his family or to someone else. This lady wants to be sure the recipients have no other recourse for food before they can have a gift of free food? If this is the kind of thing “animal theology” teaches, I think I’ll stick to plain old theology.

 

[holy_moly]

I would say that the operative word is “sports” and the phrase “the game of it” referring to motivations other than for food, conservation, etc. Phrasing the OP broadly, I think we have discovered that the term “sports hunting” has different connotations/definitions for different people. I would say that hunting fox in the English countryside would definitely fall into the “sports” category–the father & son hunting deer is a little grayer and would be determined by their personal motivations. When I think of the term “sports hunting” I think of persons who enjoy hunting and killing, this being their primary motivation, who will hunt to satifsy their egos, etc. What particularly comes to my mind is wealthy hunters who participate in “canned hunts” or who pursue trophies, and who have no concerns toward using animals for food, or in an effort toward conservation, etc.

What % of overall hunting would you figure is ‘sport/the game of it’?

 

[bigfootbob]

What % of overall hunting would you figure is ‘sport/the game of it’?

Again, that goes back to the definition of what hunting for sport is. I could say 95%, or I could say 3%.

 

[CWBetts]

“Animal Theology”??? There is a PhD program in Animal Theology? There IS such a thing as Animal Theology??? Learn something new every day.

To me, this quote is just bizarre. Does she have any idea what it’s like for an animal to be killed by a predator? I have, and it isn’t pretty. Does she not realize that oftentimes, in the wild, there are severe “die-offs” due to cycles in the food supply and disease processes that have nothing to do with predators? Those are grim. I have seen them. Predators have a wonderful time of it for awhile, killing and eating those weakened by lack of food, parasites or disease. Scavengers eat the ones the predators don’t get to. The predator and scavenger populations explode, then they, too, starve, and the cycle begins again.

And this is better than a hunter killing, e.g., a deer and giving free meat to his family or to someone else. This lady wants to be sure the recipients have no other recourse for food before they can have a gift of free food? If this is the kind of thing “animal theology” teaches, I think I’ll stick to plain old theology.

I’ll stick to those who have degrees in moral theology, rather than “animal theology.” I think this quote proves that the “animal theologist’s” elevator doesn’t make it to the top floor.