mrnoodle, you seem to be saying that only the feelings of humans count for anything - is that right? That when it comes to non-human animals, they might as well be inanimate objects for all the morality that is involved in hurting or destroying them?

In NJ you need a license to pick up roadkill. I think its easy to get, but you still officially need it.

In PA you apply for the license after the fact, at least that's according to my local police.

I'm assuming a 72 hour waiting period. ;)

Hit one in Paoli and the cop said anybody that wants it can take it.
The guy across the street, who looked to be 90, went home to get his father to help him.:eek:

I'm going to duck this question to ask another: why should my regard for an animal's feelings exceed the animal's regard for mine? What has a deer done for me lately? I'm not being facetious (sp?), it's a real question.

My relationship with any particular deer is limited to aesthetic enjoyment, sport, and nutrition (in no particular order). A mountain lion's relationship with the same deer is similar (perhaps it lacks the aesthetic part).

However, I take an active role in perpetuating the health and well-being of the species by contributing to wildlife management with my money and my time. The mountain lion doesn't. Yet, his relationship with the deer is seen as just, while mine is seen as unjust.

Also, they're not people. :D

The latter answers the former. They're not capable, but you are.

I don't buy that. If they aren't capable of having regard for my feelings, that means they aren't capable of abstract thought. That means they aren't capable of "feelings" in the human context at all. Yet I'm supposed to treat them as if the opposite were true, as if they had "feelings" like a person.

We project our own feelings and worldviews onto lesser animals and pretend that they share them. I don't think they do. I hate to say this, but I think our relationships with our domestic animals are similarly skewed. Unlike most animal rights people, I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it's going to take more than "You should have seen the look in Muffy's eyes when I gave her Fancy Feast. She was sooooooo happy!"

Gads.

No, they're capable of feelings in the dog context, or cat context, or cow context, etc. In particular, they are capable of feeling pain. Pain is a mechanism by which animals (including humans) train their instincts and receive warning of immediate harm. The existence and effectiveness of thorns, nettles, and poison ivy are evidence that animals feel pain and discomfort. They may not be capable of empathy, but they are capable of feeling.

Which brings us back to godwulf's point: There has been no proof that any animal has any higher goal than its immediate survival in any given circumstance. This desire for survival is programmed into its simple brain as a mechanism for perpetuating its genes and ensuring the survival of the species. If hunting is allowed as part of an established wildlife management program, the goal is accomplished. It doesn't take into account any one particular animal's instinct for survival or pain avoidance.

My priorities as a hunter take precedence over the immediate survival instinct of an individual animal because the powers that be have a sense of the larger picture - the species will survive regardless of (or perhaps due to) the death of this particular deer that I am hunting.

Of course, that's not what anti-hunters are getting at. They think that, in the throes of death, a deer is saying to itself, "Oh my, the pain. What have I done to deserve this? What will my children do? Who is this who torments me so?" This is a case of projecting human emotion onto an animal. The animal is likely not thinking anything, because it lacks the capacity for abstract thought. It is simply responding automatically to the stimuli of pain, acting out of impulse and instinct - it's running a program like a computer. No one has proven to me yet that there is any higher consciousness involved.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I expect that the deer is thinking "ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow gotta hide ow ow ow ow ow". Not especially abstract thought, but it's enough for me to not want to cause it.

And that is the kind of answer that I don't mind. Simple, honest, and to the point.

Re: The Killing of Animals in its many aspects
 

Well, the mentally ill part is true in some instances. However, it generally, when in the context of mental illness, points to a personality disorder such as sociopathy rather than organic mental illness. Murderers often have a history of torturing animals as children (part of the "homicidal triad": bedwetting, firestarting, and animal torture)...the consensus is that those who cannot bond with an animal, a creature that gives unconditional love, subsequently have extreme difficulty bonding with people at all. So it's always possible that the people you are talking about (the teenagers) could be starting down the primrose path to sociopathy, especially if they're often in trouble with the law or authority (among other symptoms, of course).

And I have to agree with you on two points: One, yes, if you saw the conditions in which the food animals had to live, and how they die, you probably wouldn't eat meat. I saw animals slaughtered 15 years ago, and I've been a vegetarian ever since, and two, I'd have to agree with the opinion that anyone who could watch a terrified animal suffer in the context of "sport" has "something missing." Usually it's the idea that animals are life forms that have a right to freedom and life independently of their use to humans.

Hey, but that's just me. I don't have a huge problem with people who go out there with a bow and arrow and shoot their food, especially if they use all of what they kill. But "sport" and "trophy" hunters disgust me.

Sidhe

Let's see...considering the hundreds of animals I've had in my lifetime, I can give anecdotal evidence for the reasoning ability of animals. Sure, it's around the level of a two or three year old, but reason they do. Just ask Troubleshooter about Logan's little improvement to the end of his bed. Research has proven that Ravens, the smartest birds in the world, have the intelligence of a two/three year old, learning amazingly fast, and being innovative and effective in dealing with previously unexperienced situations.

So yeah, I think that animals can, in a limited context, "reason." And they most definitely DO have emotions. Anyone who has a pet can tell you that. Simply because they don't speak our language doesn't mean they don't think or reason at all.

I personally couldn't hunt for any reason. However, since I am borderline anemic, I have to at least eat seafood, as per doctor's orders. I consider it justifiable homicide, but I still can't go fishing (can't torture the poor little worms, and can't stand the idea of the fish with a hook in its mouth), and I can't purge crawfish (if one escapes the bag, it's a pet).

As for hunters, see my previous post.

Sidhe

Lady Sidhe, in the prison thread, you mentioned that you agree with the notion of deliberately infecting convicts with AIDS or cancer so that medical testing can be performed on them. And in this thread you say you won't fish because you feel sorry for the worm on the hook.

Worms get significantly more sympathy than humans? Why do they rank higher for you? Do you feel more kinship with a worm than with a person who has broken the law? Have you ever broken any laws?