Killing Animals for "Sport"

[athansor]

Then you shouldn’t eat them…I eat meat, and wear leather, and drink milk, and eat eggs…I don’t consider it wrong or in the same league with abortion, and neither does the church…Man was given dominion over the animals…Christ ate meat and fish, and wore leather…If it was sinful He wouldn’t have done it

To cmopare abortion with hunting is just plain wrong

Please understand, I’m not trying to compare abortion with hunting in any way. I’m just saying that when one finds an act to be wrong, then it puts a different perspective on judging the motivations of the act. I don’t see eating meat as being in the same league as abortions at all…for instance, I married a meat eater, who I love dearly. I wish he would give up meat, but I’ll love him no matter what he eats. I don’t think I could have married an abortion doctor, though.

For instance, I was bothered by the sanctions and outcry against Michael Vick. I don’t support dogfighting at all, but when people who support the veal industry, the fur industry, the egg industry and similar things get up and judge Vick and others for animal cruelty, I think they should look at their own choices. If you say, on the other hand, God gave us the right to use animals in any way we like, and therefore dogfighting is OK, well, at least that’s consistent. I almost called a radio host last week. She was going on about how bad it was that Vick was re-instated into the NFL and had some endorsements back, despite the good work he’s done since his release to stop dogfighting. She kept saying that she was an animal lover and could not forgive Vick for what he did. I thought, well, if she eats factory farmed meat, wears furs or eats eggs from battery caged chickens, then maybe she’s more of a dog lover than an animal lover.

 

[redrosetea]

I don’t think making dogs fight is in the same league as raising animals for meat…I hope Vick is sorry…He was not only cruel he was greedy…Dog fighting does nothing to make life better for people…It is being cruel for the sake of watching animals suffer

I think you are a sincere person but you need to dig a bit deeper when you compare things…I know there are bad farming practices that need to be addressed but they are not the cruel blood sports that Vick practices…What he did was diabolical the act of someone who enjoys causing pain and suffering

I hope Vick is sincere…I won’t judge him nor will I defend him

 

[Tosk]

Animals are non-persons and have no rights. What Vick did was wrong because it increased his violent nature and increased the likelihood that he would perpetrate violence against a person. Personally I don’t see that what he did was that much more cruel than the way we treat other animals we hunt, eat, or use for clothing. The only reason he was punished so severely is because so many Americans are dog lovers.

I don’t think that it is wrong to cause an animal to suffer. It is only when some kind of sadistic pleasure is taken in making an animal suffer that it becomes a sin. Animals were made by God and put here for us to use.

 

[4elise]

Then you shouldn’t eat them…I eat meat, and wear leather, and drink milk, and eat eggs…I don’t consider it wrong or in the same league with abortion, and neither does the church…Man was given dominion over the animals…Christ ate meat and fish, and wore leather…If it was sinful He wouldn’t have done it

To cmopare abortion with hunting is just plain wrong

You might want to go back and read the post you are replying to without being defensive -

The writer never made a suggested that abortion was the same as hunting - rather looking at motivations for one abortion vs another and motivations for hunting for food vs sport - suggesting that motivation can influence how someone might view the actions of another, even noting that

On the other hand, the more I learn about factory farms and slaughterhouses, the more I have to think that someone who gets their meat from hunting is contributing far less to animal cruelty than someone who buys veal at the supermarket.

This can be an emotional topic because people are accustomed to doing something one way their entire life - and for someone to suggest the possibility that it may be wrong - makes people defensive, understandably. However, I think we should always be open to learning about how our actions impact other people and all creation and be open to modify our actions if we LEARN that our actions have a negative impact.

You assertion that Jesus ate meat and fish and wore leather - I’m not going to argue with, as some may want to take that on - it is TODAY - how meat, fish, and leather come to us that I believe we, as people of faith, need to be open to learn about and take appropriate action to remedy if possible.

In my 50’s I went from a complete ominvore to a vegan over a couple of years because I LEARNED - and then felt compelled to change because I BELIEVE MY ACTIONS MATTER.

Blessings

 

[redrosetea]

If you feel better not eating meat than you shouldn’t…but we can only choose this for ourselves…to try to drag abortion into this in any form is just plain wrong…

 

[4elise]

Animals are non-persons and have no rights. What Vick did was wrong because it increased his violent nature and increased the likelihood that he would perpetrate violence against a person. Personally I don’t see that what he did was that much more cruel than the way we treat other animals we hunt, eat, or use for clothing. The only reason he was punished so severely is because so many Americans are dog lovers.

****I don’t think that it is wrong to cause an animal to suffer. **** It is only when some kind of sadistic pleasure is taken in making an animal suffer that it becomes a sin. Animals were made by God and put here for us to use.

You do not list if you are Catholic but the Catholic church teaches otherwise… no caveat is added that sadistic pleasure be taken - simply it says it is WRONG TO CAUSE ANIMALS TO SUFFER OR DIE NEEDLESSLY

**

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.

**

 

[redrosetea]

Animals are non-persons and have no rights. What Vick did was wrong because it increased his violent nature and increased the likelihood that he would perpetrate violence against a person. Personally I don’t see that what he did was that much more cruel than the way we treat other animals we hunt, eat, or use for clothing. The only reason he was punished so severely is because so many Americans are dog lovers.

I don’t think that it is wrong to cause an animal to suffer. It is only when some kind of sadistic pleasure is taken in making an animal suffer that it becomes a sin. Animals were made by God and put here for us to use.

Pope Benedict said to cause an animal to suffer needlessly is wrong and he is a vegetarian too…I think we need to try to make sure animals are treated as humanely as possible

 

[Tosk]

On the other hand, the more I learn about factory farms and slaughterhouses, the more I have to think that someone who gets their meat from hunting is contributing far less to animal cruelty than someone who buys veal at the supermarket.

I have worked in farming and I have a lot of experience hunting and I really have to second this. The only reason that people are able to criticize hunters for being barbaric and then eat meat from the grocery store is because they just don’t realize how animals are farmed and slaughtered. I guess it all comes down to ignorance is bliss.

 

[4elise]

If you feel better not eating meat than you shouldn’t…but we can only choose this for ourselves…to try to drag abortion into this in any form is just plain wrong…

I completely agree that bringing the topic of abortion to this topic is distracting at the least - even though I believe it was done just to discuss motivation ---- you might be surprised how many times abortion is brought up on this topic to derail the discussion.

You are right we can only chose for ourselves - may I ask a question however - do you believe that if you learn something that you think may be of value to others of faith you have a responsibility to share it?

The OP for example was brought up I believe to share the discussion on ‘sport’ hunting as it may be viewed by the people of the Church - many of us also see a correlation between this act and factory farming in that animals are also cruelly treated in many cases, and so making this connection feel some responsibility to share this with others of faith.

Blessings,

 

[Tosk]

You do not list if you are Catholic but the Catholic church teaches otherwise… no caveat is added that sadistic pleasure be taken - simply it says it is WRONG TO CAUSE ANIMALS TO SUFFER OR DIE NEEDLESSLY

---

“We may lawfully use them for our reasonable wants and welfare, even though such employment of them necessarily inflicts pain upon them. But the wanton infliction of pain is not the satisfaction of any reasonable need, and, being an outrage against the Divinely established order, is therefore sinful.”

newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm

 

[4elise]

I have worked in farming and I have a lot of experience hunting and I really have to second this. The only reason that people are able to criticize hunters for being barbaric and then eat meat from the grocery store is because they just don’t realize how animals are farmed and slaughtered. I guess it all comes down to ignorance is bliss.

Well said - opened eyes might mean that one needs to make changes to the most basic action of eating. I did.

 

[4elise]

“We may lawfully use them for our reasonable wants and welfare, even though such employment of them necessarily inflicts pain upon them. But the wanton infliction of pain is not the satisfaction of any reasonable need, and, being an outrage against the Divinely established order, is therefore sinful.”

newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm

My previous quote comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm

Respect for the integrity of creation

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

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.

• you apparently disagree with this section of the Catechism, having written: ****I don’t think that it is wrong to cause an animal to suffer. ****

The key word here I believe is needlessly - to the OP - there is no need to sport hunt.

 

[lumenorientale]

Okay everyone, here’s the point of view from a hunter. Hunting IS considered a sport–I enjoy the chase, I enjoy the challenge, I enjoy the outdoors. But I also love the meat. And it is unethical, wrong, and in many places flat-out illegal to kill an animal and leave it to rot. A class A misdemeanor that, where I live, comes with a possible $10,000 fine and up to a year in jail.
If we, as hunters, are saying that we are “all about the meat,” we are lying. If we want lean, organic meat, we can buy that at the grocery store. Do you think I would have hiked and climbed over 100 miles this year, bushwacking, and slogging through miserable biting fly-infested swamps, put up with freezing cold mountain winds, exhausted muscles, traitorous winds, dangerous cliff climbing–all in an attempt to get an elusive full-curl Dall Sheep ram–if everything was about the meat? Oh yes, I absolutely love Dall sheep meat. I look forward with great anticipation to fresh sheep steaks every fall, the 75 odd pounds of meat that a ram provides for my family and I. But if I want only meat, would I have put myself through that kind of suffering? No. I like the challenge, I like the chase.
For me, bringing home the skull, hide, and horns can remain as a memorial to this animal that died for us. I can look at those things and say “thank you.” I can say thank you to God for providing this animal.
So, I guess, in conclusion, there is an element of love of the hunt, the chase. There IS an element of sport–and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong, is if sport becomes the only reason.
(all you vegans out there, I guess you would be jumping for joy to find out that I didn’t get my ram this year. 480 yards away from him, but he winded us and walked off. He was a magnificent animal, and I admire him for his intelligence. Oh well, there is always next year. )

*The preceding was actually an opinion by myself, a FEMALE hunter. I can’t attest to what men feel–this is just MY opinion.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Here in Michigan the high deer population is a problem in some place, to the point of hurting eco systems. Annother good reason for hunting.

 

[Tosk]

My previous quote comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm

• you apparently disagree with this section of the Catechism, having written: ****I don’t think that it is wrong to cause an animal to suffer. ****

The key word here I believe is needlessly - to the OP - there is no need to sport hunt.

No, I don’t disagree. The key word is going to be needlessly. How do you interpret that? I don’t see anybody here in the US with any genuine, can’t do without “need” for any animal products. Everybody would be able to live long, healthy, tasteless lives if everyone decided tomorrow that animals have rights. Yet I have not seen one single call from the RCC for American Catholics to give up meat. To me needlessly means that the animal was killed not to fulfill a reasonable human need like food or clothing but just for the hell of it. It is not wrong to cause an animal to suffer as long as the motivation is satisfying a reasonable need and not just out of wanton cruelty.

 

[4elise]

Okay everyone, here’s the point of view from a hunter. Hunting IS considered a sport–I enjoy the chase, I enjoy the challenge, I enjoy the outdoors. But I also love the meat. And it is unethical, wrong, and in many places flat-out illegal to kill an animal and leave it to rot. A class A misdemeanor that, where I live, comes with a possible $10,000 fine and up to a year in jail.
If we, as hunters, are saying that we are “all about the meat,” we are lying. If we want lean, organic meat, we can buy that at the grocery store. Do you think I would have hiked and climbed over 100 miles this year, bushwacking, and slogging through miserable biting fly-infested swamps, put up with freezing cold mountain winds, exhausted muscles, traitorous winds, dangerous cliff climbing–all in an attempt to get an elusive full-curl Dall Sheep ram–if everything was about the meat? Oh yes, I absolutely love Dall sheep meat. I look forward with great anticipation to fresh sheep steaks every fall, the 75 odd pounds of meat that a ram provides for my family and I. But if I want only meat, would I have put myself through that kind of suffering? No. I like the challenge, I like the chase.
For me, bringing home the skull, hide, and horns can remain as a memorial to this animal that died for us. I can look at those things and say “thank you.” I can say thank you to God for providing this animal.
So, I guess, in conclusion, there is an element of love of the hunt, the chase. There IS an element of sport–and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong, is if sport becomes the only reason.
(all you vegans out there, I guess you would be jumping for joy to find out that I didn’t get my ram this year. 480 yards away from him, but he winded us and walked off. He was a magnificent animal, and I admire him for his intelligence. Oh well, there is always next year. )

*The preceding was actually an opinion by myself, a FEMALE hunter. I can’t attest to what men feel–this is just MY opinion.

Thanks for adding this perspective… and yes - I (a vegan) do feel happy that the ram got away - but I also value your perspective of gratitude to our mutual creator, knowing that your family also values the meat - as well - so this is certainly not just sport hunting.

I know a women who does similar treks but with a camera - returns home with the photos and then tries to capture the moment on canvas. I think she does a beautiful job of also celebrating both the ‘chase’ and the ‘catch’ - I think she grew up in a hunting family and this is how she has preserved that tradition for herself.

Blessings

 

[4elise]

No, I don’t disagree. The key word is going to be needlessly. How do you interpret that? I don’t see anybody here in the US with any genuine, can’t do without “need” for any animal products. Everybody would be able to live long, healthy, tasteless lives if everyone decided tomorrow that animals have rights. Yet I have not seen one single call from the RCC for American Catholics to give up meat. To me needlessly means that the animal was killed not to fulfill a reasonable human need like food or clothing but just for the hell of it. It is not wrong to cause an animal to suffer as long as the motivation is satisfying a reasonable need and not just out of wanton cruelty.

And that is the point of the OP - Killing Animals for “Sport” IS NEEDLESS

Now… you are also drawing a conclusion that I have come to - I do not need meat, dairy, fish, to live. Therefore to me their suffering of animals for my dinner is not a reasonable need.

(P.S. - I’d be happy to share some very tasteful vegan recipes-]/-] if you are interested! )

 

[lumenorientale]

Thanks for adding this perspective… and yes - I (a vegan) do feel happy that the ram got away - but I also value your perspective of gratitude to our mutual creator, knowing that your family also values the meat - as well - so this is certainly not just sport hunting.

I know a women who does similar treks but with a camera - returns home with the photos and then tries to capture the moment on canvas. I think she does a beautiful job of also celebrating both the ‘chase’ and the ‘catch’ - I think she grew up in a hunting family and this is how she has preserved that tradition for herself.

Blessings

I cried so hard when I didn’t get my ram…my husband had to put his arm around me and help me walk back up the trail. But I would have never taken such a long shot–the possibility of wounding the animal would have caused me to cry even harder. I wounded an animal once, it was a mountain goat. I got so sick…it was a terrible feeling. We eventually found him, but I felt so bad. Wounding an animal happens, it’s usually an accident, never something you intentionally do. You want a clean heart-lung shot (which is, by the way, more merciful than some of the things they do in the slaughterhouses). And sometimes, a big gust of wind comes along even when you have a perfect shot, and just nudges that bullet a little bit. It sucks, and no hunter worth his/her salt would look on experiences like that and not second guess everything they did up to that point.
I guess the point I’m trying to make, is even though you see the nasty ones that hang up deer on the roadside as a gruesome spectacle for all to see–those are the few. For every one of those, there 100 hunters who love the sport and the meat–and treat it all (including the animal itself) with due reverence.
As for going on treks to take pictures of animals like that woman you speak of–it’s still not quite the same, but it sounds fun. And I bet she does beautiful work. I wish I would have had a telephoto lense to take a picture of that beautiful ram as he walked over the other side of the mountain (and once they do that, there’s no way to catch them). But, more so, I wish I had his horns in my living room and his steaks in my tummy.

 

[Tosk]

And that is the point of the OP - Killing Animals for “Sport” IS NEEDLESS

Now… you are also drawing a conclusion that I have come to - I do not need meat, dairy, fish, to live. Therefore to me their suffering of animals for my dinner is not a reasonable need.

(P.S. - I’d be happy to share some very tasteful vegan recipes-]/-] if you are interested! )

As long as the meat of the animal doesn’t go to waste, killing it does satisfy a basic human need, and isn’t in that sense needless. Like I said earlier taking an animal just for the antlers or horns and leaving the rest to go to waste is needless and is a crime.

If we are supposed to interpret needless as meaning life or death kind of need then why has the Catholic Church been so silent on this matter? There is simply not a tradition for animal rights in the Church, like there is in Buddhism or Hinduism, and the ethical tradition of the Church affirms the right of man to put animals to use for his wants and needs.

 

[redrosetea]

I completely agree that bringing the topic of abortion to this topic is distracting at the least - even though I believe it was done just to discuss motivation ---- you might be surprised how many times abortion is brought up on this topic to derail the discussion.

You are right we can only chose for ourselves - may I ask a question however - do you believe that if you learn something that you think may be of value to others of faith you have a responsibility to share it?

The OP for example was brought up I believe to share the discussion on ‘sport’ hunting as it may be viewed by the people of the Church - many of us also see a correlation between this act and factory farming in that animals are also cruelly treated in many cases, and so making this connection feel some responsibility to share this with others of faith.

Blessings,

Well we take our interpretations of sin from the church not a BB for starters…and there is nothing that scripture speaks of that would make this a sinful act, not in the old or new testament…it is inhumane and that is cruel…and we are not to be cruel to anything…but it is not in the same league as murder

Speaking only in human terms there is nothing wrong with sharing any sort of information…we should all strive to be as kind as possible to all living things…but eating meat or wearing leather will not keep you out of heaven…murdering a baby will…its just not the same

Warning people about cruelty to animals is a good thing to do on any level…but to mix it with breaking the 10 commandments is not correct…when this sort of thing is done it tends to dilute their argument instead of strengthening it…I am sure St Francis wants us all to love God’s creatures as he did