The Killing of Animals in its many aspects
 

A local news story has stirred up thoughts upon which I normally try not to dwell.

Four teenaged boys lured some ducks and geese into the middle of a roadway with food, and then ran them down with their car. The young 'men' were subsequently caught, and face (though of course they won't get it, more's the pity) as much as ten years in prison.

A caller to a Talk Radio program focused on this incident brought up hunters, who lure these same birds, during 'hunting season', out with bird-calls, and then blast them to death with shotguns. The host responded by asking, "Can't you see the difference between these two activities?" My first thought was, Yes, I can, but I can't imagine that the ducks and geese do.

If you encountered a 9-year-old boy in your neighborhood, shooting stray animals with a beebee gun, what would your reaction be? That maybe the kid was disturbed in some way, and that, at the very least, his parents should be talked with - maybe even the authorities involved? Why does our society treat adults, who go out and attempt to kill wild animals - especially on public land, which, at least in theory is, along with the animals themselves, supposed to belong to all of us - with such kid gloves...even license them to do it?

I'm sure that I'm going to make a few enemies when I say this, but I'll do it anyway: I believe that people who derive enjoyment from killing animals are mentally ill.

No, I'm not a vegetarian, but I'm sure that if I had to slaughter the animals I eat, then I would be. If I were to even see, first-hand, on a regular basis, how chickens and cows, etc., are killed, I'd probably not be able to eat the result.

Yes, I shut my eyes and don't think about it, and maybe that makes me, on some level, a hypocrite; what I'm saying is that I think there's something wrong or 'missing' in a person if they can watch the suffering, the pain, the fear, the death itself, and think of it all as some innocent, fun sport.

Not to detract from your post, but shouldn't the question be broken down into two components?

1) Killing

2) Torture

Killing is an aspect of a vestigial urge to hunt or protect I think.

Torture is a result of poor socialization and/or bad wiring.

I believe that people who derive enjoyment from killing animals are mentally ill.

I agree, but I don't think people are above animals by very much to begin with. Animals kill animals and they don't always do it to survive or for food: male cats (housecats, lions, etc) will kill litters of kittens for seemingly little or no reason, even if they are their own offspring. Various species of monkies and apes kill other creatures for reasons we don't understand. As humans, we are no different, even down to the child with the magnifying glass, a pile of ants, and a sunny day. We derive pleasure from destruction, death, and blowing stuff up -- I classify all of these things under "human nature", even if they seem very primitive.

My stance is somewhat strange on hunting, as I can see hunting and killing a prey animal, but only as long as you eat it. Kill to put a trophy on your wall and you are just being wasteful -- there is supposed to be a "balance" of sorts in life and the taking of a life. I also cannot understand the killing of a predator, as there simply has never been any point in doing such a thing unless it is for defensive purposes.

In witnessing the slaughter and preparation of animals for food, I quickly decided that, for me, it only made sense to eat things I could kill myself. Somehow I find a beautiful logic in the idea of "If you can't kill it, don't eat it." The only meat I eat these days is seafood and eggs. (You ever notice how easy it is to kill a chicken egg? Hell, that IS kinda fun!)

If you encountered a 9-year-old boy in your neighborhood, shooting stray animals with a beebee gun, what would your reaction be?

I'd think he's pretty messed in the head, but I also see the same in adults that dress in camo and head out to a field with bottles of stink and buckets of feed to attract deer then take pride that they could aim a rifle properly and squeeze a trigger.

...but The Cellar has had a couple hunting arguments, before. Godwulf, yours caught my attention because of your mention concerning the radio show that reminded me of a similar incident in FL in which a local DJ was fired in Tampa for airing the slaughter of a wild pig on the air during his morning radio show. The public was outraged at the atrocity of the killing of an innocent pig, then probably went right back to eating their sausage and egg McMuffin for breakfast. That I truly didn't understand.

Just call me Foghorn Leghorn
 

I'd go get a shotgun or maybe a .30-06. Then I'd tell the kid, "No, no son, you're doing it all wrong. I say, you can't shoot strays with that little piss-ant gun. Here, let me show you how it's done. BLAM! BLAM! Now you try!"

Re: The Killing of Animals in its many aspects
 

If I encountered something like this I would give the kid a stern talking to. Maybe even scare the shit out of him if I could. Its not just because he is shooting an animal, its because studies have shown that children that abuse animals grow up to be adults that abuse people. If I come across someone who is shooting stray cats with a REAL gun, well while I may not approve of it I am a little more ok with it because god willing the animal will die right away. But shooting an animal with a BB gun more then likely wont kill the animal, its just going to leave large welts all over the animals body and thats just not cool.

I, like Kitsune think that hunting is ok as long as you eat the animal you killed, and as long as you attempt to kill the animal with the first shot so it doesn't lay there in pain.

One time several years ago we were driving through this little podunk town in Utah and we stopped for gas. There in the gas station was a mountain lion stuffed and mounted on the wall behind the register. While I wasn't real happy with it, I wasn't angry that someone had killed a mountain lion till I looked below the animal and discovered about 10 photos of the "hunt". This man had taken about 12 dogs with him and the photos showed the dogs chasing the lion, cornering the lion, taking turns attacking the lion, etc. Several of the photos showed a clear shot this man could have taken to put the lion down, but instead he wanted to take photos of his dogs mauling this poor animal to death. Thats not sportsmanship, thats cruelty and thats where it crosses the line for me.

For me it all comes down to this; Its generally OK to kill an animal so long at it is put down swiftly and as painlessly as possible.

But thats just me.

Kitsune wrote:

No doubt that we do share certain urges and behaviors with other species - the ones that you mentioned, along with the recently discovered tendency of some male dolphins toward bullying and rape, to add another example - but I don't believe that we can simply, therefore, dismiss the behavior as 'natural' and not judge it from a distinctly human perspective.

Kitsune also wrote:

My point exactly - I don't see a difference, either. And to add to the confusion, anyone who is anti-hunting is accused, by some, of being anti-Second Amendment. Hey, I don't read anything about hunting in the Second Amendment. It's a tradition, not a Constitutional right.

Brigliadore wrote:

"Ok' with you, with many others, maybe even with me, if I were hungry enough and there was no other food available...my question, I guess, is "Don't the animal's feelings count for anything?"

Talking about animals to kill to eat... During a survival exercise, my buddy and me had to steal some fish and a chicken to get something to eat for the platoon. Killing a fish is quite easy: Just put it on a stone and hit with another one on his head or slap it hard against a tree... But killing a chick, man, that was heavy... My buddy couldn't do it so I had to take it with the legs and turn it around to lose sensations and feeling, take a sharp knife (we only had a small Army-knife, wish i had my grandpa's axe how he did it), and cut the head of... It was quite horrible. But we got something for the group and forget about the chicken shitting around and its eyes when i cut its throat...

Anyone that hunts for 'sport' is a fuckwit with a problem in my book.
Frankly I think it'd be less tortorous for the poor animal to run it over with a car than fill it full of buckshot and drop to the ground from 40 feet. What comes around goes around? You want to watch an animal attacked by your dogs? How about we dump you in a concrete pit with a couple of pit bulls for a few minutes , asshole.

If you're eating it it's a little different. There are a lot of people I'd rather shoot than most animals. Probably why I give money to WWF over CCF.

Now I am not saying animals don't have feeling because I believe they do but, What Feelings? A hunter goes out he stalks the deer for an hour. The deer does not know he is there, or else it would be long gone by then. He gets close enough, he aims, he shoots, he kills the deer. God willing he aimed well and the deer died almost instantly. Where does the deers feelings come into this? Did the deer want to die? I don't know I'm not a deer, but maybe he did, maybe he was depressed because he couldn't get a female deer and food was scarce that year. Maybe he was a happy deer who just wanted to live his little deer life and not be killed. Or maybe (and I am not saying this is true as I don't know) the deer is too dumb to have any idea how good or bad his life is. Maybe all he does is go on instinct i.e; eat, sleep, run from danger, mate, go to the bathroom.
Rereading the above comments it occurs to me that it comes off a little sarcastic, that is not my intent. I am simply trying to understand from your point of view where the animals feelings come into this.
I was raised on a farm, so my point of view on this type of thing comes from how I was raised. Cows were raised to be eaten, chickens to be eaten or to lay eggs, etc. Every animal had a purpose growing up and I was taught to respect what that animal was intended to be used for. Because of that upbringing I don't have a problem with a hunter going out and killing a deer and then taking it home and eating it. I was taught to treat the animals in my care kindly and fairly until it was time for them to fulfill the purpose then were meant to. So because my point of view is skewed by how I was raised I have to ask you to elaborate on what feelings the animals might have in that situation.

EDIT:Stupid spell checker wasn't smart enough to know what I meant rather then what I typed

I want to add that just because I don't have a problem with someone going out and hunting an animal doesn't mean I personally like it. I believe everyone has a right to pursue things that make them happy. I my self would never go out and shoot a wild animal for sport, but I am not going to tell someone else they cant.

Brigliadore wrote:
This, and much else that you wrote, could just as accurately describe the way much of humanity goes about its day.

I think of Philosophy, as a discipline, as an activity that has to transcend (in its evaluation of, for example, right and wrong) things like the statutory law and politics. Currently, people in most societies have many rights, including the right - unless they're unfortunate enough to happen to live in a war zone or occupied territory - not to be shot and killed for somebody else's amusement, and animals do NOT have that right in many situations. Even a companion animal or pet, in many cases, is viewed by the courts as mere property, whose needless death can be remedied with a small cash payment and a slap on the wrist. I'm trying to understand what is right, as opposed to what is simply true from a legal standpoint.

Brigliadore also wrote:
Most of what I have to work with, when it comes to evaluating how animals seem to feel, is what I experience every day with my own cats. They show affection for us, and for one another, they get scared, they display what is unquestionably a sense of humor at times, and they seem very concerned with staying safe and alive. I don't believe that there's any rational basis for thinking that the human urge to keep breathing and enjoy life is based on our ability to think and reason, and with every other species it's just dumb instinct.

No, I'm not a vegetarian, but I'm sure that if I had to slaughter the animals I eat, then I would be. If I were to even see, first-hand, on a regular basis, how chickens and cows, etc., are killed, I'd probably not be able to eat the result.

You mentioned you are not a vegetarian, Godwulf and you seem very concerned with the feelings of a wild animal killed when hunted, but you don't seem to be concerned with the lives animals lead that are specifically raised for slaughter. It is much more pleasant, I would think, to live a life in the fields and be put to death by an arrow or bullet than to live an entire life in the torturous conditions of a pen, be overfed, and then be killed by the infamous bolt-to-the-skull.

If you're content eating them, then you shouldn't be too concerned with animals being hunted, because I'm quite certain that aside from hunting with a pack of dogs that the life of a farm animal tends to be much worse than the death of a wild one by rifle.

...and then I read your original post. Maybe you are much more concerned with the mentality involved in the enjoyment of death than the actual death of the animal itself? I know that people who enjoy it seriously need to have their head looked at. The "noble" "sport" of foxhunting, for example, enrages me to the point of wanting to seriously hurt people for multiple reasons (and not just the obvious): It is, quite simply, the enjoyment of an extremely brutal, bloody, painful death that is wrapped up in the flag of tradition. And you're right -- any child doing such things would be put under heavy observation, treatment and consuling. Any adult doing such a thing is held in admiration for many. How fucked up is that?

Thanks, Godwulf, now I'm all pissed off, again.

Having been raised around all sorts of animals all my life I have no question that animals feel love, happiness, pain, etc. Even chickens which I think are relatively low on the intelligence scale have demonstrated loyalty and affection, but thats not the point. I dont think I was asking my question correctly. You asked me "Don't the animal's feelings count for anything?" . I want to know, if the animal is just walking along minding his own business and then Bam is shot and dies instantly, where do his feelings on the matter come into play? This is going to sound heartless but the animal is dead, I don't think he has feelings on the subject at that point.

Like I said, I personally don't think that wild animals should be hunted, but I am not going to tell someone they are wrong if they want to. Thats not my place or my right. Yes I am a hypocrite because I find it distasteful to hunt wild animals but have no problem with domestically raised meat. But I do think there is a big difference. I have seen many slaughter houses, stock yards, dairy's, poultry facilities, etc, some are bad, but the majority are not and having seen where the animals I eat live and where they die I still choose to eat meat. But thats just me.

Kitsune wrote:
You have a valid point...except that I AM concerned about the horrific conditions in factory farms and 'processing plants' of various kinds; but those institutions are always going to exist - all that can be done is to work toward strengthening and enforcing the laws that are designed to lessen the stress and pain experienced by the animals. Meat-eating is too deeply entrenched in our culture to ever go away, short of the extinction of all of the animals that we, as a species, can figure out how to choke down.

Hunting, on the other hand, is just a legally and (for the most part) socially acceptable (though rapidly shrinking, in terms of those who regularly participate) means for a borderline sociopathic mind to get its jollys in killing a living thing.

Kitsune also wrote:
You're undoubtedly right. I would not go so far as to accuse someone who worked in a factory farm, or a farmer slaughtering animals to feed his family, of being sick in the head; I have no such qualms when it comes to 'sport hunters'.

Brigliadore wrote:
Neither would you. Nor did all of those people in D.C. a while back, at least not the ones who died instantly.

I think that gets to the heart of why hunting is still OK. Those people in DC who got shot had family who mourned the loss of a loved one. Even those who didn't know the people were shocked at what had happened. No one knows for certain how animals feel about the death of one of their family members or one of their kind. I know elephants have been shown to mourn the passing of a herd member but not all animals seem to care that much. That is why it is still considered OK to hunt animals, because if you kill a deer does its deer family even care? Does a deer mom cry or feel any extreme pain over the loss of its deer child? As long as the answer to that question is still up in the air many people will not care if a wild animal dies. And frankly because many wild animals live solitary or semi solitary lives I suspect the answer to if the animal cares that another of its kind (or even a family member) got killed will still be a no.
I know it doesn't make it right but until it can be shown that animals have a larger range of feelings, many people are not going to care because they simply don't relate to the wild deer that got shot by a hunter.

Lets say the deer have feelings for the sake of argument. We ban all hunting because it is deemed to barbaric. Whats going to happen when the deer outgrow their current habitat and there is not enough food for them to forage? Those strip malls and housing developments are starting to take a toll you know. What happens when the deer get so populated they start inbreding? Whats going to happen to your emotions when they jump out in front of you car and total it??? The insurance companies lobbied in the state of Oklahoma to get the deer season extended by a week to help lower insurance costs. If we don't hunt the deer how are we going to control the population?

Next time, pretend you're cracking a whip. Grab it by the head, once around in the air and a snap of the wrist should do it. Quick, painless and bloodless.

If you do it right, that is.

Brigliadore wrote:
You're making the feelings of the DEER the issue, and getting completely off the track as a consequence. It's not the feelings of the deer that need to be examined - it's the feelings of the human being with the rifle, too much time on his hands and too little empathy for other creatures that are at issue.

So now it's whether there's anybody out there in the woods wearing a black armband and crying itself to sleep that determines whether or not we're going to approve of somebody going out and shooting holes in a living, sentient animal for fun? It's mercy and morality by consensus? Denis Leary's 'animal auditions' from 'No Cure For Cancer'?

I keep hearing things like (paraphrasing) It's okay because they're animals, It's okay so long as we do it quickly, It's okay because we don't really know how self-aware they are, and It's okay because they may want to die anyway rather than face another tough winter in the wild. Jesus, two hundred years ago we were hearing the same crap about slavery and Black people.

I'm only saying that, in judging what is the right and moral thing to do (or abstain from doing) when it comes to killing for fun (which is what it really is, minus the b.s. about "getting out in the fresh air and enjoying nature"), the law, tradition, the popular vote, the state of our certain knowledge regarding animal awareness - all of that is, or should be, of absolutely no importance; it's either an emotionally disturbed and immature thing to do, or it's not.

Shit they already do that a lot where I live, and hunting is REAL big in Utah. Despite hunting season thinning the population, during the fall and winter we have anywhere between 3 and 18 deer killed a WEEK on the 3 miles of road I live on.

By the way, Brigliadore, I didn't mean to suggest that you were the one who brought the matter of the animals' feelings into the discussion - actually, that was probably me when I wrote, "Don't the animal's feelings count for anything?".

I believe that when I wrote that, I was thinking not so much of the animal's feelings, as such, but of the animal's natural right to live until such time as it is taken down by the food chain - and no, I don't consider a camouflaged hunter with a high-powered rifle and scope a part of the food chain. Not unless he's being eaten by something else, anyway.

JeepNGeorge wrote:
Here's a thought - drive slower?

Seriously, here in Phoenix we don't get a lot of deer on the roads, but we have a serious problem with people jaywalking across busy streets, especially at night, and getting hit. Not to mention all of those 'undocumented' Mexian immigrants being hit while crossing highways in the southern part of the state. I guess maybe we need to add a hunting season or two, by that line of reasoning.

Whats going to happen when the deer outgrow their current habitat and there is not enough food for them to forage?

Then they die off due to starvation and their numbers return to normal.

What happens when the deer get so populated they start inbreding?

Uhh -- inbreeding is caused by small populations, not large ones.

If we don't hunt the deer how are we going to control the population?

What are we going to do when hunters aren't permitted to roam the countryside with .22s and plink away at mice? Won't the mouse population explode and overrun everything? Somehow, I think the deer population will tend to itself just as it has for thousands of years. I could be wrong, but I think the argument that hunters and hunting seasons control various animal populations is a load of bunk.

Actually I'm not, you asked point blank if the animals feelings counted for anything, and I responded in turn. Then you compared people dieing to animals dieing and I pointed out that the majority of the population is not going to care about animals being shot until you appeal to them on a more personal level.

I disagree with that statement. Going out into the woods and killing an animal is no better or worse then killing a cow or chicken or whatever. You seem to not have a problem with eating a hamburger but if someone kills a wild animal then they are disturbed and immature. Just because I don't believe with what someone does, it doesn't make them mental or childish. Shit my sister scrap books, which I think is a complete and utter waste of time but I am not going to call her stupid for doing it. I know scrap booking is not the same as hunting, but its not your right to judge someone when you yourself are being a hypocrite. I will say it again. I don't believe in hunting but I am not going to tell someone they are disturbed just because they happen to like it. I don't get the attraction to hunting but just because I don't get it doesn't make it wrong.

I think it holds true only in that we have taken so much habitat away from wild animals that now there is not enough predators to keep the population in check. Cattle & sheep ranchers killing off all the the wolves in some areas is a prime example of how we messed the natural balance up.

I only wish they would on my road. I don't like seeing all the dead deer on the side of the road, and because the city only comes by once a week to pick them up they lay there for a week some times.

I think it holds true only in that we have taken so much habitat away from wild animals that now there is not enough predators to keep the population in check.

Yeah, although in most of the areas I've lived enough land has been taken away that there isn't enough left to sustain a normal population, so the entire one dies out. There isn't even enough for predators to stick around. Really sad.

Cattle & sheep ranchers killing off all the the wolves in some areas is a prime example of how we messed the natural balance up.

I was never sure if this was because of wolves coming to attack sheep or just ignorance on the farmer's part -- I've seen documentaries showing farmers going well out of their way to kill a wolf, sometimes many miles from their farm, then return it to the farm to claim defense. That would hype up the other farmers and the hunting of wolves got really unessecary and destructive. Besides, wolves rarely kill healthy sheep -- they usually only go after the sick ones, which the farmer gets rid of, anyways. There was a much simpler problem to the wolf/coyote issue: lithium. Lace a carcass with lithium and let 'em eat up. The illness that follows is so severe that it only takes that one meal for them to associate being violently sick with eating mutton.

I think both, also for many years if a rancher caught a wolf killing his sheep he could kill it and send the carcase the the government which would then pay the rancher for every animal lost. A lot of hunters were killing the wolves for doing nothing and then claiming it killed several of his sheep. Quick way to make a few hundred in their minds and they didn't care about the harm they were doing to the balance of nature. Funny thing is every once in a while the deer population would get some real nasty disease that would then spread to the sheep and all the ranchers would complain to the government about the deep population being out of hand and disease ridden. If the fuckers hadn't killed off all the wolves the damn deer wouldn't have gotten out of hand.

You would rather a deer starve and feed the coyotes than be hunted and feed humans?

Inbreeding is caused by no new genes being introduced. When the dominant deer hangs around he tends to start breeding his own offspring. Random killing of the big monster bucks ensures that fresh genetics are given the chance to be introduced. Sure the old deer will eventually die and a younger buck be given the chance. Hunters are merely speeding it up. We are doing our duty in the food chain. I should have been more clear.

The hawks, snakes, cats, and my silly dog for that matter will help control the mice population as usual. If rats were bigger I'd even hunt them for food myself.

You can look at it anyway you want to, but we are a member of the food chain. Sure not everybody that hunts does it to eat the food. But to take away all hunting would be like the example of the farmers and the wolves mentioned earlier. It's all a balance. We just have the ability to make killing deer illegal that the wolves don't.

Brigliadore wrote:
You seem to have a problem with only reading, or possibly only retaining, the parts of other people's posts that it suits your argument to cite.

To explain it still a different way, yes, judged in the matter of having helped, in some small way, to perpetuate an industry that causes the deaths of millions of completely innocent animals, I am, by my meat-eaing ways, guilty, and I believe that I already labeled myself a probable hypocrite before you did.

Practically speaking, there is absolutely zero chance that all the forces of PETA and friends are ever going to eliminate the meat industry - but I believe that its possible to put a dent in the killing of wild creatures for fun and 'sport' by highlighting the pathological nature of the activity.

Killing animals in order to feed your family or to make a living is one thing - doing it for fun is just sick and wrong.

Quote:

Besides, wolves rarely kill healthy sheep -- they usually only go after the sick ones, which the farmer gets rid of, anyways. There was a much simpler problem to the wolf/coyote issue: lithium. Lace a carcass with lithium and let 'em eat up. The illness that follows is so severe that it only takes that one meal for them to associate being violently sick with eating mutton.

I do hunt coyotes for sport. They are smaller than wolves and even the coyotes will pack up and go after healthy calves. Sure they will take the sick ones first if any are available, but they are not picky at all. Any rancher around here will give you access to hunt all the coyotes you want. They get around the increased deer populations buy charging people to hunt those animals.

You would rather a deer starve and feed the coyotes than be hunted and feed humans?

Yes -- this makes much more sense to me than hunters removing a part of the food chain and interrupting the natural process.

...however, with the hunting of predators that has already taken place (along with general reduction due to development), there aren't enough to properly control the populations.

We are doing our duty in the food chain. I should have been more clear.

Maybe. I still don't buy the whole "genetic limitation in a population through the dominance of a SuperDeer" idea.

The hawks, snakes, cats, and my silly dog for that matter will help control the mice population as usual.

Hmm. Mice was a bad example.

There are plenty of animals out there that are not hunted and do not have natural predators that have normal populations through natural regulation. Alligators have no natural predators and we are not stepping on them as we walk out the front door in Florida -- their population is very normal and it is not due to them being hunted.

But to take away all hunting would be like the example of the farmers and the wolves mentioned earlier. It's all a balance. We just have the ability to make killing deer illegal that the wolves don't.

You might be correct on this -- I haven't read enough from the DNR group or understood enough about the trend of wild animal populations. Of course, all I can find are very biased reports in quick searches. The NRA and hunters' associations say hunters are essential and we'd be overrun by deer without this form of control, while IDA ("In Defence of Animals") says that population studies indicate that after the hunting season, the numbers quickly return to a plateu and that number reduction from hunting makes no difference when viewed in the long run.

So I'll continue to do what I always do and argue my point with little or no information, being that I can't find any decent studies at the moment. Damn media groups.
:p

But thats the whole point of my argument, MANY hunters do kill to feed there families. The ass hole who hunted the mountain lion with the dogs, he is sick and twisted, the hunter that goes on a hunt simply for the head or antlers to mount on his wall, he is sick and twisted. All I am saying is don't lump them all together, because the ones who hunt to feed their families are doing the exact thing a farmer is doing when he kills a cow. Yes there are ass hole people out there, but don't give a group a bad name simply because of a select few.

If you can get them fresh, you're allowed to keep them in most states. Just notify the game warden.

Brigliadore wrote:
It's only "MANY" if you include the guys (and a few women) who take time off each year and spend thousands of dollars in order to bring back 60 pounds of venison for the freezer. For those people, who are the vast majority of hunters, eating what they kill is an afterthought.

godwulf, just because you can't see the difference between a human and an animal doesn't mean the hunters labor under the same handicap.

Kitsune, don't worry about the natural order of things. On the one hand, humans are predators and deer are prey, so killing them IS the natural order of things. On the other, humans have already killed off the other large predators, so the natural order of things is already interrupted. And while I wouldn't mind re-introducing a wolf population to handle the deer in Valley Forge Park, Fairmount Park, etc, lots of other humans would disagree.

Mice are a bad example because there still are plenty of mouse predators. Alligators are a bad example because they (like wolves, like people) are top predators; their populations are limited by available prey, not by predation.

russotto wrote:
From the number of other hunters and innocent bystanders shot and killed by hunters every year, apparently SOME of them do.

On a more serious note than either that aside or your entire post:
-Theodore Vitali, "The Ethics of Hunting: Killing as Life-Sustaining," Reason Papers 12 ( 1987)

That's from a pro-hunting statement, in which the author then goes on to justify the killing of wild animals to provide food for human consumption. The author is at least making an attempt to take the discussion out of the realm of the mindless "Hey, they're just animals" way of thinking, in which vanity, macho combat fantasies, family tradition, and virtually any other half-assed justification imaginable is sufficient to offset the evil of killing.

Yes, russotto, we do know they're animals - to assume that because they ARE animals, they are ours to kill without ever having to examine the morality of the deed is a gigantic case of begging the question.

It's not an afterthought, if it's part of the plan. The hunters I know plan to eat it, if they get it, from the beginning. The fact that it's not cost effective makes no difference.

No, I didn't mean an afterthought literally - like, "Hey, I've got this dead animal here, I'll bet I can eat it!" I meant that the actual consumption of the animal's flesh is not the primary reason that the killing is being done - which, given the far more economical methods of obtaining food that are available to most people, has got to be the norm rather than the exception.

Assuming that there is need to justify killing animals for food is begging the question in the other direction. To admit the need for such justification is to assume that there is some rule which killing animals for food appears to break, and that there is therefore need of justification for that violation.

The taking of a conscious animal life is not automatically or by default a morality-neutral action, simply because someone who wants to do it chooses not to want to think about it.

On one side of the equation are the indisuputable facts that an animal feels pain when shot, and that the animal wants to live; unless you've got a reason to consider those things to be relatively unimportant - or which, in other words, overrides the facts noted - then I would think that the rule of common decency, if nothing else, is something you might want to consider.

[quote]Originally posted by godwulf

The taking of a conscious animal life is not automatically or by default a morality-neutral action, simply because someone who wants to do it chooses not to want to think about it.


Again, you're trying to rig the game in your direction by using loaded language. Like it or not, you don't get to play "king of the hill" by announcing something like "killing animals is horrible" and then knocking down all justifications offered with "that's just not good enough".

As for your "fact" that people who want to kill animals don't want to think about it, I don't believe it's true.

russotto wrote:
Whose posts are you reading? What I wrote was:
and I invited you - or anyone - to tell me why the hunter's priorities should be considered to be so much more important than the animal's pain and the taking of its life.

As a matter of fact, I do think that "killing animals is horrible" in most circumstances, but what I'm attempting to do is to logically explain why I believe that's true.
What justifications have been offered? "We eat the meat"? "The animal doesn't suffer long"? "They're just animals, and we're humans"? "We've got to kill them now before they overpopulate and starve to death"? Hardly worth bothering to knock down, the lot of them. Have you got anything better?

dammit, i missed a hunting thread
 

godwulf, I don't think you're a hypocrite for eating meat while still being uncomfortable with the killing of animals. Actually, the fact that you eat meat means that there is still hope for the portion of your brain that has been poisoned by Disney's talking animals.

Ducks and geese are meat that haven't yet been made suitable for the plate. The morons who run them over with their cars for fun should be beaten, simply because they're being wasteful and stupid. No, the animals don't have any choice in the matter, because they aren't people.

Fox hunting is kind of sick, but I'm not going to take fox hunters to task, because it's actually the dogs that are directly chasing the fox. The hunters encourage it, and do the actual killing at the end of the chase, but they're no more or less evil than the pack they are following. Why doesn't anyone want to psychoanalyze the hounds?

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?