M
Marfran
Guest
You don’t know the history. I was as polite as I could be. How kind of you to offer your dictionary!!! A true knight in shining armor!
- Status
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
Appreciate the definition.Looks like my guess was pretty close to the correct meaning.#3 appears to be the only definition that could be considered charitable, so I’ll go with that one.
Thanks!
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
In a country with free speech & on a public forum?
Unless I’m misunderstanding the policy of CAF, all can respond to a thread, even those who respectfully disagree.If you are aware of rules to the contrary, please advise.Otherwise threads would only be open to those with the same opinions or those hand picked by the OP.Not a free & open discussion…
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
Thanks! They are not friends of hunters or fishermen.And not the folks who run the local shelter for strays-at least in our part of the country.For mercifulJan. If you are for some reason a supporter of HSUS. You may view their actions as accomplishments. But the odds are, you are well intentioned and far removed from the realities and harm they do. They frequently use the rare occasion of dog fighting, or animal hoarding to push legisaltors to pass very restrictive laws which make the usual and moral use of animals anywhere from difficult to outright impossible.
Here are some of the problems I as a hunter and dog owner am aware of.
1,ussafoundation.org/Page.aspx?pid=1750
HSUS and Others Push New Agriculture Secretary to Stop Wildlife Control
Coalition Demands a Halt to Lethal Control of Predators
1/6/09
The incoming Secretary of the Agriculture is getting pushed by anti’s to stop a key federal program that prevents numerous problems associated with predatory animals. This push highlights the anti-hunting agenda to tar and feather historically effective means of managing wildlife.
On January 2, 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and a wide number of other organizations sent a letter to Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack (D), President- elect Obama’s choice to head the Department of Agriculture. The letter demands the end of lethal control by the Department’s Wildlife Services Program (WS).
When requested by state or local governments, the WS uses a variety of tactics to prevent predator encroachment on urban areas that compromise public safety. The WS also works to prevent economic loss to farmers and the destruction of endangered species as a result of over predation.
While the WS use numerous non-lethal mechanisms for reducing the threats associated with predatory animals, there are times when selectively removing a small number of them is necessary. According to fact sheets available from the WS, “WS employees strive to remove only the predators that are causing the damage. To accomplish this goal, they direct control methods at only the specific animal or local wildlife population in the area where damage has occurred.”
The coalition argues that the WS program focuses on “methods that are non-selective, haphazard, and brutal” and requests a meeting to discuss the issue with Vilsack.
If antis can stop legitimate forms of wildlife management conducted by wildlife professionals, it sets a precedent that can be used to continue attacks on the rights of sportsmen.
2.Some of the more famous quotes from Mr. Pacelle…“If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.” – Wayne Pacelle, as quoted by the Associated Press in Impassioned Agitator, December 30, 1991.
“Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.” – Wayne Pacelle, as quoted in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, October 8, 1991.
“Sport hunting—the killing of wild animals as recreation—is fundamentally at odds with the values of a humane, just and caring society.” – HSUS Website 2003.
“The most misleading appeals that Animal People sees on a regular basis are those which misrepresent the sender. Over time, such appeals can create an image for an organization which is sharply at odds with what it actually does.”
- Even Merritt Clifton, publisher of “Animal People”, a newsletter written by animal rightists for animal rightists, singled out HSUS for appearing to be something it is not. In December’s 11th annual report on fundraising, under the heading “How they fool the world”, he writes:
“The Humane Society of the U.S., for instance, is not and never has been a collective voice for all, most, or any other humane societies. Neither does it shelter animals, adopt out animals, neuter animals, or share funding with local humane societies. In fact, HSUS is an advocacy organization representing just itself.”
I think these four, show the HSUS as not worthy of trust. Unless of course you are opposed to hunting, or don’t mind being misled.
- I would concede, that they played a major supporting role in rescueing displaced pets after the katrina hurricane. What happened to the rescued pets? They flooded the local shelters up north. some of which, I’m sure are no-kill shelters. A cynical or world wise person might wonder if they like so many charities after 9/11 saw an opportunity to fill their coffers and got to work.
Hunters likely do more for wildlife than any animal right’s group has.
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
Thank you!
N
Newbie2
Guest
So Rush Limbaugh fanhood and Catholicism (as far as the teachings on animal welfare) are inconsistant? Interesting theory. Can you explain this further? I’m interested in how you came to this conclusion, being a fan of his and a Catholic myself.No problem. I mean if we are supposed to be Catholics then we should understand what the church teaches. Even if it makes people a little uncomfortable. The Rush Limbaugh fans won’t be able to stand it. But, you know, Jesus created quite a stir in his day,… and we are supposed to be just like him…(If only I could pull THAT off…)
Anyway, The Pope is pretty adamant about animal welfare. Of course I wish he were an abolitionist…But, He’s probably willing to allow it to sink in slowly. After all, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
R
redhen
Guest
Do you have any backing for this claim?
I question this entire line of “sport hunting”. What is the moral justification for it? If you say it is natural or instinctual, that is not a valid explanation.
“morality cannot adequately be characterized as acting by nature or instinct. Indeed, acting morally sometimes means acting against our natural feelings, such as the desire for revenge.** If acting according to our nature was identical with acting morally, we would all be saints**.”
oxfordanimalethics.com/index.php?p=comment&item=5
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
Sure, if you check out sites like “Ducks Unlimited”, etc there should be lots of info.I’ll hunt around when I have a moment & try to get some stats from hunting & fishing groups that promote wildlife conservation. When you purchase a hunting/fishing permit-at least here-some of those funds go to help wildlife.
Truthfully, sport hunting/fishing kind of escapes me too as far as the purpose to it.But I’m not a guy.As long as they eat their trophy, I guess it’s OK, but those big old boar hogs are not going to be very edible.And I see plenty of their heads complete with huge tusks mounted on folks walls.Those are a pest around here & are feral so it’s not a conservation question, I guess. Again, I’m not a man & prefer to only kill what is edible or endangering crops,livestock, or family.The only critters I’d have mounted on my walls-if I’d have chosen that route- would be varmints & nothing to brag on.
D
Drawmack
Guest
In my area that is a large group of sport hunters. They hunt the animals, make use of the pelts and heads for the personal collections. They then pay for the butchering of the meat and donate it to area soup kitchens. Last year they donated over 1000 pounds of meat to the local soup kitchens.
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
The deer hunters here do that, too.
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
Here is an excerpt from a testimony given by Brother David Andrews, CSC To the House of Representatives on June 29, 2006
ncrlc.com/congress_animal_welfare.html
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
I’m not real good at this but I tried to copy & paste a page from Ducks Unlimited’s website.Hope it works!
Ducks Unlimited’s 2008 Annual Report
Foresight is 20/20
Hindsight explains history, but foresight makes history. Ducks Unlimited’s history is grounded in hindsight, but founded on the foresight of a small group of sportsmen who, in 1937, launched an unprecedented, international effort to save waterfowl by conserving habitat.
Times have certainly changed since then, but some things remain the same: Waterfowl will always need habitat, sportsmen are still the conservation leaders, and DU is still making history conserving habitat. Last year was no exception. Thanks to the dedication of DU members, volunteers and partners across the continent, fiscal year 2008 was a record breaking year for Ducks Unlimited.
Despite a global economic downturn, DU supporters rallied to raise the largest revenue in DU history: $261 million. Of that, Ducks Unlimited spent a record $231 million on its conservation mission. That’s an 88 percent efficiency rating, which sets another record for Ducks Unlimited and exceeds our long-term goal to spend 80 cents of every dollar on DU’s conservation mission. And that’s the bottom line – habitat conservation.
Last year, in the United States alone, Ducks Unlimited conserved nearly 300,000 acres of the country’s most critical breeding, migration and wintering habitats. This annual report highlights several of those habitats and key donors who helped make DU’s work possible. We tip our hats to the people highlighted here and to all the DU members, volunteers and partners across the continent. We’ve come a long way together.
Again, I don’t really get “sport hunting” myself but it’s apparently important to many folk & they do a great deal to preserve the natural habitat.And many hunters are Catholics & are concerned about animals & wildlife in general.They just perceive things differently.
J
JaneGrey
Guest
I never said its okay if you need the fur. I know I implied that people like Eskimos do but I now realise that in this day and age, if they still REALLY have to wear fur it is not difficult to produce artificial. I dont think it was ever okay, even when people didnt have the technology. Humans killing other animals for fur that was on the animals’s bodies to protect the animal not the human, was never moral. I think it was just survival of the fittest. Not good, just the way things were and what happens in desperate situations. I would like to think that now that things are not the same, we should know better. Put to good use our ‘‘superior’’ sense of reason. No I have not been to a mink farm, I suppose some are ‘‘better’’ than others
but many are not (i would never condone it anyway). The view is that animals are just commodities whose lives are going to end anyway. They live in tiny cages and I think the worst thing is the method in which they are killed. No miliseconds here. Ive seen a video which I wish I didnt, tell me Im misled if you want. You and I have very different ideas on the concept of animals and their supposed uses. The fact that I think they have the right to live out their natural lives changes everything.3
Proves that the human body does not need meat to thrive. Thus I dont think there is such a a thing as ‘‘necessary suffering’’ for non-human animals when it comes to meat.
I have had as companions a variety of animals besides dogs and cats since childhood. Maybe Im missing something but it puzzles me how can compare killing animals for food to vaccinations. The animal is killed so a higer order animal (humans) can eat their flesh. Vaccinations are great for us but how exactly do animals benefit from being slaughtered? No animal desires to die so a human can eat their meat. They feel pain and desire for themselves and their young to live out their life. Each species of animal was created with defence mechanisms etc for their OWN sakes. They were designed for self-preservation.Maybe meat eaters (no offense to all meat eaters, most of my family are) like to think that the animal is in some way giving up its life for us or/and that eating meat is for the greater good in some perverse way. Iam powerless right now to stop everyone eating meat, but I just ask that people see it for what it is. Vegetarians understand why people feel they need to eat meat, so no judging there. The issue becomes divisive when people start accusing vegetarians of going overboard on animal rights. I dont think it is possible to do such a thing.
I agree with some other posters here like Marfran. Read ‘‘Dominion’’ by Mathew Scully if you can. The word dominion can be interpreted the wrong way.
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
There seems to be a contention in the air that is little more than vain arrogance when it comes to politics these days. And it is coming from both sides of the fence. I believe that both sides are sincere in their arguments. But, I am convinced that the ‘conservative media’ is a little more volatile than the ‘liberal media’. The lines between Catholicism and Protestant fundamentalism are getting more and more muddled everyday. And the ‘agendas’ of the two major parties have flip flopped since their inceptions.
When I listen to Mr Limbaugh, I hear a lot of emotional name calling and rhetoric implying ‘conspiracy’. When I listen to NPR, which is probably the only legit ‘liberal’ news source that can be trusted, I hear rational, calm educated scholars. Just the two differing approaches to getting their messages across says a lot about them.
Conservatives like to say the word ‘liberal’ as if it is synonymous with the word ‘evil’. Whereas, when it comes to issues of conservation, only the liberals actually care. The conservatives say, ‘exploit it and use it all up.’ The liberals say, ’ we better take care of it, there is only so much available.’ The conservatives use words like ‘wackjob’ and ‘pea brain’ and ‘nutcase’. The liberals use words like ‘education’ and ‘humane’ and ‘well-being’. The conservatives come across as bitter and skeptical. The liberals come across as concerned and determined.Yet, both sides at times get way out of line.
Conservatives vote out of fear. The liberals vote out of hope. I like to think I am 'middle of the road. I am a registered republican. Yet, I believe in the environmental policies of the democrats. Conservatives think about money…“Mammon”… Liberals think about a sustainable future. But, both sides are sincere in their convictions and both sides have valid points. Me? I follow what the Vatican says.
I have heard it said that Catholics are notoriously conservative. When in fact, we were considered liberals when it came to human rights in the 60’s.
Things have changed considerably over the years. Many of the old notions of a mechanical universe have been discredited by both science and the Church. As for the Catholic approach towards animals, my take on it is that we are responsible for their well being.
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
What I hear on NPR is hardly friendly to our Faith.Or well balanced. But I suppose it’s all in the eyes(or ears) of the beholder.
D
Drawmack
Guest
What about one of the other words in that passage – subdue?
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
I agree that not all of the issues they discuss are always directly in line with our doctrine. But, neither are the more conservative types on the air. Glenn Beck, for instance is a Catholic turned Mormon. And ones faith always plays a role in politics, regardless of the separation of church and state issue.
Because my faith plays such a large role in how I choose to vote and live, I can not, in good conscience, claim strict fidelity to either end of the political spectrum. I am pro-life and I am pro-environmental. It presents a strange feeling of being a misfit. But, I am convinced that the Holy See knows what they are doing. As I said in an earlier post, the lines demarcating Catholicism and Protestant Fundamentalism are growing thinner everyday in the media.
I know that many of the hunters associations are concerned about wildlife habitat. But, I doubt that it is because love of Christ is flowing through them towards the animals.(compassion) It is more likely that their concern is whether or not they are going to have game to harvest and trophies to show off. (gluttony and pride)
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
It is interesting how subtle the Devil works. To cause his agenda of the destruction of Gods creation by the using of The Word. Subdue…well it could either mean ‘conquer’, ‘destroy’, and ‘exploit’…which is exactly what mankind seems to have done. Or it could mean ‘tame’, ‘control’, or ‘take care of’. Which definition is more Christian,… and which is Satanic?
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
I also find it interesting that some folks are more interested in shouting their opinion rather than reading what the church fathers have to say. Every post that has a reference to the Vatican or one of the church fathers seems to be conveniently ignored. Why do you suppose that is?
R
redhen
Guest
Funny, that was the first organization I thought of, maybe because there are so few. But their motives are not entirely altruistic. If their members were not allowed to blast these ducks with shotguns, do you think they would give a damn about conserving wetlands?
“Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) was founded in 1938 by sportsmen. These conservation-minded individuals recognized that conserving wetlands helps to ensure the future of waterfowl populations.” ducks.ca/aboutduc/beliefs/hunting.html
Do they values the ducks in and of themselves?
“…recognizes and **treasures the rich heritage of waterfowling **and the contributions of hunters to conservation” ducks.ca/aboutduc/beliefs/index.html
Oh, and slipping some game meat to a soup kitchen is not helping wildlife any.
And finally, can anyone address my question about the moral justification for such a “sport”?
- Status