B
bigfootbob
Guest
I’m not sure how this got into the discussion…or what it has to do with it…
- Status
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Kids who like to torture animals often have serious problems. Serial killers are very rare, but regular old psycopaths are much more common, and often tortured animals as kids. Given what it means t be a psycopath, it isn’t that suprising - after all, most kids who hurt animals find they feel guilty because they have empathy, and don’t do it again.
I don’t think this is directly related to the question at hand, except where the actual act of killing seems to be the thing that the hunter in question is enjoying. There are a few people like this, enough that I have met more than one. Partly it may be a learned thing I suppose, but in any case, I don’t think it is very healthy. One sees the same thing among soldiers occasionally, where it is very disturbing, and I think the distance between the two feelings is very very small.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
For some animals, it’s illegal and wasteful to just let them lie after shooting them. I have never known a person who would, for example, shoot a deer and just leave it. People always take them in to have them processed, and SOMEBODY always gets the meat. Lots of people give the meat away, and there are plenty of takers. To me, anybody who kills an edible animal and doesn’t either eat it or give it to somebody else to eat is doing wrong. I think that would extend to sinning, though mildly.
For “nuisance” animals, like groundhogs, snakes, etc, I never had a problem shooting them. Nor did I ever have a problem leaving them where I shot them. SOMETHING always eats them. Always. In fact, I try to decide who will get fed with, say, this water moccasin I just shot. Will I put it on land so a fox or buzzard or something can eat it, or do I put it in the water, so the fish, turtles and crawdads will eat it. (In the water, it’s consumed MUCH faster, interestingly enough) Perhaps it’s weird of me, but I rather enjoy the notion of feeding the foxes or the fish or whatever. Wild animals have a hard life, and food is not always easy to come by for them.
So where’s the waste in this? Those animals are all going to die sometime or other, and they are not human beings whom God has told us we must regard as the face of His Son. And, when those animals die, they will be eaten, either by a human or by another animal. And it’s almost always a more merciful death for, say, a groundhog to be shot dead than to be eaten half alive by a coyote.
So, maybe if I shoot a groundhog and leave it, some buzzard will be able to feed her chicks. Perhaps a bald eagle. Perhaps a fox or a feral cat, down on its luck, that might die if I didn’t. But for absolute certain sure, something will eat it. What’s the difference if an eagle kills a groundhog and eats it, or if I shoot the groundhog and the eagle “lucks out”, finds it and eats it? To me, there isn’t any, except that the eagle doesn’t have to be hungry through several unsuccessful attempts at catching a live animal if he finds what I shot.
People shoot animals for all kinds of reasons; elimination of pests being one of them. Sometimes it’s the challenge of testing one’s skill. Sometimes it’s for food for the hunter or other people. But again, it must be remembered that it never goes to waste.
For “nuisance” animals, like groundhogs, snakes, etc, I never had a problem shooting them. Nor did I ever have a problem leaving them where I shot them. SOMETHING always eats them. Always. In fact, I try to decide who will get fed with, say, this water moccasin I just shot. Will I put it on land so a fox or buzzard or something can eat it, or do I put it in the water, so the fish, turtles and crawdads will eat it. (In the water, it’s consumed MUCH faster, interestingly enough) Perhaps it’s weird of me, but I rather enjoy the notion of feeding the foxes or the fish or whatever. Wild animals have a hard life, and food is not always easy to come by for them.
So where’s the waste in this? Those animals are all going to die sometime or other, and they are not human beings whom God has told us we must regard as the face of His Son. And, when those animals die, they will be eaten, either by a human or by another animal. And it’s almost always a more merciful death for, say, a groundhog to be shot dead than to be eaten half alive by a coyote.
So, maybe if I shoot a groundhog and leave it, some buzzard will be able to feed her chicks. Perhaps a bald eagle. Perhaps a fox or a feral cat, down on its luck, that might die if I didn’t. But for absolute certain sure, something will eat it. What’s the difference if an eagle kills a groundhog and eats it, or if I shoot the groundhog and the eagle “lucks out”, finds it and eats it? To me, there isn’t any, except that the eagle doesn’t have to be hungry through several unsuccessful attempts at catching a live animal if he finds what I shot.
People shoot animals for all kinds of reasons; elimination of pests being one of them. Sometimes it’s the challenge of testing one’s skill. Sometimes it’s for food for the hunter or other people. But again, it must be remembered that it never goes to waste.
Moral truths are timeless.
To attempt to justify an action based upon the date is a play towards moral relativism.
This fails to account for the difference in what exactly a slave was from the OT timeperiod and the present time.
Slavery today was not the same then. However the morality behind it has always been the same.
Of course they are.
Let me take the straw man and start kicking it around the stage…
ALL Serial killers start off as children…oh the horror.
We should ban children completely to stop this scourge upon humanity.
P
pnewton
Guest
Are you referring to the strawman that you built here?
Serial killers, or most of them,start with animal torture when they are young.
Most people that torture animals will become serial killers.
These are not equivalent statements. Everyone recognizes that serial killers are rare. Most of the animal rights people see torturing animals as common. Even on face value the difference is clear. Those that understand logic know that only the contrapositive can be derived from a conditional statement. Thus it is your statement that is the strawman and qualifies for the pot meet kettle award.
Moral truths are no the same as actions. The first is what we believe, the second is what we do. No one has made any statements that show a belief in moral relativism. In other words, another strawman.
I did not make that statement.
Correct.
Morally right is always so. Morally wrong is always so.
Time and date are irrelevent to the fact.
Statements have been made to attempt to differentiate the morality present in biblical time from morality now.
This is in itself moral relativism.
M
Marfran
Guest
Ridgerunner, I’m weird like you too, except I don’t kill anything. Animals or birds I find hit by cars or by collision with a tree, etc., I pick up and put in a place where I know that the Red Tails, etc., will find them. I must be absolutely sure of the cause of death, however, because I would not want to place an animal that had been poisoned out for another animal to devour and die from. No one dies by my hand, however–except the one time I ran over a mouse in my driveway. I placed his body on a high perch, and actually saw the hawk come and take it. (Not the Red Tail but the Cooper’s)
P.S. I don’t consider anyone a “nuisance.” I guess nuisance is in the eye of the beholder.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
It is a nuisance when the squirrels burn down your house, or the rats eat half of the chicken feed and roll away the eggs.
N
Newbie2
Guest
I wasn’t sure what the poster was gettin’ at. Just asking for clarification.
I don’t think this is directly related to the question at hand,QUOTE]
It’s not. Just asking for what the poster was gettin’ at.
vz71;5817266:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Some animals are, indeed, nuisances from the human point of view, but it can depend on what they are and where they are. Groundhogs in a field can cause a cow or horse to break a leg or a tractor driver to break an axle or his neck. So can armadillos. To me, poisonous snakes are always a nuisance because they can harm or kill human beings. They are particularly dangerous to children and one bite from a water moccasin can kill a child very quickly. Can kill an adult too. Copperhead bites won’t usually kill an adult, but can certainly kill a child. There are other, nonpoisonous snakes that do whatever good poisonous snakes (in this area anyway) do in the way or eating vermin, etc. So I don’t shoot those. Feral hogs are unbelievably dangerous and I shoot them on sight. Coyotes getting too near a human habitation. Don’t want the brazen ones to carry off a child. I will shoot a snapping turtle on sight because they can bite off a child’s (or adult’s) finger or toe. A really big one can haul a child under water.
To me, human life and safety takes precedence every time.
On the other hand, something like a possum, a crow, an otter, a mink, any bird; I don’t shoot those at all. No reason to do it because they’re not a hazard to humans, and they all have their place in the grand scheme of things.
M
Marfran
Guest
Sounds like you need to move into the city!!! The most dangerous of animals is probably the dreaded dust bunny.
4
4elise
Guest
And your comment on slavery then?
It was never right to torture and kill animals needlessly - it is wrong today, as it was wrong in the time of Christ.
It is not right to put financial gain above the care of creation - it is wrong today, as it was wrong in the time of Christ.
What action do you see people trying to justify on this thread that would have been considered wrong in the time of Christ -
I see a consistency.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Ah yes. Dust bunnies. I guess, though, some suburban dwellers are beginning to learn what it’s like to live with resurgent bears, mountain lions, coyotes and poisonous snakes. For myself, I would prefer to always know to “de-snake” a mountain pool (there is a way to do it, and awareness means a lot) before swimming, than jump into my urban swimming pool without thinking, only to discover I share it with an errant and totally unexpected water moccasin.
C
CntrySngr72
Guest
The chance for an injury to an animal you are hunting is always a possibilty no matter what choice of ‘weapon’ you are using. With a bow you have to be more accurate, but you also have to be a lot closer to the animal as well. Rifles you can be hundreds of yards away, with a bow you don’t want to be more than 40 - and ideally 20. This makes it extremely difficult to get an animal as they tend to smell you before they get in that range.
I have been practicing with my bow all year - I feel pretty confident up to 30 yards…I know my limits and will not take a shot much beyond 30…definitely not 40…at that range I am still pretty accurate, but I also realize adreniline will affect my shot…so I don’t want to take any chances beyond that.
A co-worker harvested a deer last year and told me that he found scar tissue around a buck-shot from a shotgun. He figured it had been there for at least 5 years. As far as living longer with the arrow after hit - it depends on the shot, same as with a gun. Ideally a hunter aims for a double lung/heart shot. At a double lung, the deer shouldn’t go more than 50-100 yds. Hit the heart and its less.
Question back to you about capturing the deer. What to do with them afterwards? to answer your question, though, deer are not only fast, they can jump high and can be quite powerful when threatened. I once had a deer eating out of my hand at a national park…when I went to touch its antlers it kicked me hard in the chest…imagine what a non-tame animal would have done. I’m no expert, but there ‘could’ be ways to capture them…but what to do with them afterwards?
A
athansor
Guest
Many years ago, before I was vegan, I took a hunter safety course. I never did go hunting, but a person I was dating was a hunter and I wanted to learn about it.
When they described bowhunting, the instructor said that the draw for bowhunting was that people got two hunts for one…the first to find and shoot the animal, and then all the tracking as the animal bleeds out. This was coming from the teachers of this class, and the discussion was that the longer it took to track the deer after it was shot, the more or a challenge and the more fun.
Is that something that has changed now? Do the majority of bowhunters aim for a quick kill so that they no longer have to track the bleeding animal? Just for reference, the course I took would have been about 15 years ago.
F
fultonfish
Guest
How do you all feel about killing varmints: rats, for example.
Or nutria.
Or brown tree snakes on Guam.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080808090313.htm
Animals that have become major pests and that cause lots of damage.
Or nutria.
Or brown tree snakes on Guam.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080808090313.htm
Animals that have become major pests and that cause lots of damage.
- Status