Let's get one thing straight. Killing an animal is not murder. Look the word up in a good dictionary.
Rowdy - 14 years ago
I live in Australia and we have very strict gun control rules. I am not a hunter and don't intend to be one.
Generally only the rural communities get gun-ownership. When they shoot invasive introduced species that would otherwise compete with native species for food I would assume that is green. The damage done by feral camels and donkeys in low rainfall areas is a major concern.
Let them shoot but let's give them targets that help nature
vetch jones - 15 years ago
Why are those fishermen throwing back those fish they can't win a derby with? They're not fined for it. They deliberately kill them instead of releasing them alive. One bass fisherman told me that fish don't feel pain, so it was OK.
The meat is bony, making them hard to clean and cook unless you pressure cook/can them. But, what the hey! the state sponsors a bounty derby for them once a year because they compete with game fish for food. Squaw fish and suckers also eat what other fish won't and do a service to those of us who like pristine waters.
waltinseattle - 15 years ago
at least you got the anthromorphics out of the way regarding nature but how about realizing that Your morals have no sway to others why are dis-inclined by whatever past history and emotional ways to agree. Since the "moral" is not a fact of existence that we have agreed upon, unlike life liberty persuit of happiness via personalproperty which are agreed upon in the sonstitution of this republic, since they are opinions, it is not any argument to state them. It is merelt a statement about your demuring to participate. Which is fine and defensible. Hence no "argument" exists to frame slavery or women's rights.
I presume you reserve the right not to own slaves and not to abuse women. That is good of you. And it means you get to remain among the free citizens of the republic. wise choice.
Now, why are those "fishermen" fined for throwing back the fish they cant "win" the contest with? Isn't it poluting to throw dead stuff in the water? they should dispose of them responsibly, and I don't mean some claptrap about leaving them for the birds and weasels.
Jason V - 15 years ago
There is no logic and rationality when people ascribe intentions to 'nature.' Nature is a concept, it does not intend nor create creatures for a purpose.
Comments like "When hunted, an animal is doing its thing, as nature intended," obfuscate the discussion with irrationality.
Ducks Unlimited does invest a large amount of money into wetlands, but for one purpose, that of killing. This is a selfish act, and one that should not be rewarded with praise.
Similar arguments could be made for institutions such as slavery. Similar arguments could be made for the oppression of women. Similar arguments could be made for oppression of minority groups. These too, I feel, are immoral.
There is no humanity in violence.
RationalityAcolyte - 15 years ago
It is refreshing to see so much logic and rationality on a topic so often relegated to irrational ("oh, isn't it cute") opposition.
Ducks Unlimited is a group formed by, of, and for hunters, which has protected, and in some cases created, large amounts of wet lands across North America, to preserve continuous habitat for migratory birds. Hunters are (almost without exception) respectful and supportive of sensible sustainable-harvest regulation.
When hunted, an animal is doing its thing, as nature intended, and then (within a few seconds or minutes, if the shot is good) it is dead. In commercial farming, animals are crowded into meat wagons, corralled for days (often smelling blood), before finally being lead forward (smelling more blood), to a death probably no less painful than hunting.
So, in contrast, factory farming is quite immoral (I admit I eat commercial meats, but I know that it is a moral compromise - except possibly for kosher and hallal meats).
Eating commercial fish is, if anything, more damaging to the environment than eating meat - fish harvests are in many cases unsustainable.
I would love to hunt more - if my lifestyle allowed.
vetch jones - 15 years ago
I eat meat. I will not apologize. Hunting to feed your family is more humane than the kill in the slaughter house. I dressed and butchered the meat I raised my family on. I am a woman. I am not ashamed of the blood on my hands.
Re: Take a boat ride on the river during a fishing derby. Count the dead trash fish floating belly up on day one of any derby. These fish are edible, these fish do a service to it's environment, but... they're killed and discarded because they're not game fish.
I have never met a hunter who killed an elk and threw it back. (unless it was gov't ordained.) Hunting to feed a family is humane and when done with respect, green as grass.
Steve - 15 years ago
Check out Ducks Unlimited. This organization has done more to protect wetlands than anyone else. Yes they like to shoot the ducks but they are conservationists of the best tradition.
Ray - 15 years ago
well said Nick i agree
Nick - 15 years ago
I'm amused by the potentially unjustified self-righteousness of the "No. Murder is not a sport." response. No one who is not a vegan or vegetarian has any business clicking that button. Or do they suppose that the meat they buy in a supermarket is harvested non-lethally? Perhaps they draw a distinction between "murder as sport" and "murder as business?"
I find myself agreeing with Canadian author David Adams Richards, who maintains that everyone who eats meat should go hunting at least once in their lives, so they have no illusions about where their meals come from.
Jason V - 15 years ago
Guy stated: "I have been baffled by the disgust people hold for hunters. Fisherman perform the same act as hunters and are practically celebrated for their talents."
As a vegan, I do not agree with the commodification of animals whether that is hunting or fishing.
I think part of the different however, is due to religious influences which often state that fish are not meat. This is a common source of confusion, some people do not understand that fish is still an animal.
Guy - 15 years ago
To preface, I am not a hunter, but both my father and brother are. It is important to properly define what a "hunter" is.
Where I come from a hunter is someone who culls an animal in order to provide food for his family and to aid the species in its survival. Yes, when properly managed, hunting should actually help a species population. All hunters attempt to kill the animal as humanly as possible, which on occasion will not be the case. I’ve heard on a few occasions of hunters feeling sick to their stomachs after missing a shot and only wounding an animal. It can be argued that this percentage of suffering outweighs the gains of hunting, but it is my belief that this percentage is far lower than those in our 1500 animals an hour slaughter houses. A hunter also takes an active role in aiding his desired species in surviving. My father and brother spend a large amount of money on feed so that more of the deer population survive the harsh northern Ontario winters. As a result, on our property, where we would only see 2 or 3 deer a night we can now see 10-15. From this population my father will cull one animal and my brother will do the same at his place which has seen the same growth in deer population. This growth of deer population will hopefully help the wolf population in the area which has been suffering of late. A thought shared by both my brother and father.
I have been baffled by the disgust people hold for hunters. Fisherman perform the same act as hunters and are practically celebrated for their talents. I’ve never heard someone insinuating that a fisherman he is a murder. Why the difference? The “sport” hunting shows aren’t doing the hunters any favours. The fact that they will kill cute looking animals doesn’t seem to help much either. I am guessing then that most of this is emotional then?
Let's get one thing straight. Killing an animal is not murder. Look the word up in a good dictionary.
I live in Australia and we have very strict gun control rules. I am not a hunter and don't intend to be one.
Generally only the rural communities get gun-ownership. When they shoot invasive introduced species that would otherwise compete with native species for food I would assume that is green. The damage done by feral camels and donkeys in low rainfall areas is a major concern.
Let them shoot but let's give them targets that help nature
Why are those fishermen throwing back those fish they can't win a derby with? They're not fined for it. They deliberately kill them instead of releasing them alive. One bass fisherman told me that fish don't feel pain, so it was OK.
The meat is bony, making them hard to clean and cook unless you pressure cook/can them. But, what the hey! the state sponsors a bounty derby for them once a year because they compete with game fish for food. Squaw fish and suckers also eat what other fish won't and do a service to those of us who like pristine waters.
at least you got the anthromorphics out of the way regarding nature but how about realizing that Your morals have no sway to others why are dis-inclined by whatever past history and emotional ways to agree. Since the "moral" is not a fact of existence that we have agreed upon, unlike life liberty persuit of happiness via personalproperty which are agreed upon in the sonstitution of this republic, since they are opinions, it is not any argument to state them. It is merelt a statement about your demuring to participate. Which is fine and defensible. Hence no "argument" exists to frame slavery or women's rights.
I presume you reserve the right not to own slaves and not to abuse women. That is good of you. And it means you get to remain among the free citizens of the republic. wise choice.
Now, why are those "fishermen" fined for throwing back the fish they cant "win" the contest with? Isn't it poluting to throw dead stuff in the water? they should dispose of them responsibly, and I don't mean some claptrap about leaving them for the birds and weasels.
There is no logic and rationality when people ascribe intentions to 'nature.' Nature is a concept, it does not intend nor create creatures for a purpose.
Comments like "When hunted, an animal is doing its thing, as nature intended," obfuscate the discussion with irrationality.
Ducks Unlimited does invest a large amount of money into wetlands, but for one purpose, that of killing. This is a selfish act, and one that should not be rewarded with praise.
Similar arguments could be made for institutions such as slavery. Similar arguments could be made for the oppression of women. Similar arguments could be made for oppression of minority groups. These too, I feel, are immoral.
There is no humanity in violence.
It is refreshing to see so much logic and rationality on a topic so often relegated to irrational ("oh, isn't it cute") opposition.
Ducks Unlimited is a group formed by, of, and for hunters, which has protected, and in some cases created, large amounts of wet lands across North America, to preserve continuous habitat for migratory birds. Hunters are (almost without exception) respectful and supportive of sensible sustainable-harvest regulation.
When hunted, an animal is doing its thing, as nature intended, and then (within a few seconds or minutes, if the shot is good) it is dead. In commercial farming, animals are crowded into meat wagons, corralled for days (often smelling blood), before finally being lead forward (smelling more blood), to a death probably no less painful than hunting.
So, in contrast, factory farming is quite immoral (I admit I eat commercial meats, but I know that it is a moral compromise - except possibly for kosher and hallal meats).
Eating commercial fish is, if anything, more damaging to the environment than eating meat - fish harvests are in many cases unsustainable.
I would love to hunt more - if my lifestyle allowed.
I eat meat. I will not apologize. Hunting to feed your family is more humane than the kill in the slaughter house. I dressed and butchered the meat I raised my family on. I am a woman. I am not ashamed of the blood on my hands.
Re: Take a boat ride on the river during a fishing derby. Count the dead trash fish floating belly up on day one of any derby. These fish are edible, these fish do a service to it's environment, but... they're killed and discarded because they're not game fish.
I have never met a hunter who killed an elk and threw it back. (unless it was gov't ordained.) Hunting to feed a family is humane and when done with respect, green as grass.
Check out Ducks Unlimited. This organization has done more to protect wetlands than anyone else. Yes they like to shoot the ducks but they are conservationists of the best tradition.
well said Nick i agree
I'm amused by the potentially unjustified self-righteousness of the "No. Murder is not a sport." response. No one who is not a vegan or vegetarian has any business clicking that button. Or do they suppose that the meat they buy in a supermarket is harvested non-lethally? Perhaps they draw a distinction between "murder as sport" and "murder as business?"
I find myself agreeing with Canadian author David Adams Richards, who maintains that everyone who eats meat should go hunting at least once in their lives, so they have no illusions about where their meals come from.
Guy stated: "I have been baffled by the disgust people hold for hunters. Fisherman perform the same act as hunters and are practically celebrated for their talents."
As a vegan, I do not agree with the commodification of animals whether that is hunting or fishing.
I think part of the different however, is due to religious influences which often state that fish are not meat. This is a common source of confusion, some people do not understand that fish is still an animal.
To preface, I am not a hunter, but both my father and brother are. It is important to properly define what a "hunter" is.
Where I come from a hunter is someone who culls an animal in order to provide food for his family and to aid the species in its survival. Yes, when properly managed, hunting should actually help a species population. All hunters attempt to kill the animal as humanly as possible, which on occasion will not be the case. I’ve heard on a few occasions of hunters feeling sick to their stomachs after missing a shot and only wounding an animal. It can be argued that this percentage of suffering outweighs the gains of hunting, but it is my belief that this percentage is far lower than those in our 1500 animals an hour slaughter houses. A hunter also takes an active role in aiding his desired species in surviving. My father and brother spend a large amount of money on feed so that more of the deer population survive the harsh northern Ontario winters. As a result, on our property, where we would only see 2 or 3 deer a night we can now see 10-15. From this population my father will cull one animal and my brother will do the same at his place which has seen the same growth in deer population. This growth of deer population will hopefully help the wolf population in the area which has been suffering of late. A thought shared by both my brother and father.
I have been baffled by the disgust people hold for hunters. Fisherman perform the same act as hunters and are practically celebrated for their talents. I’ve never heard someone insinuating that a fisherman he is a murder. Why the difference? The “sport” hunting shows aren’t doing the hunters any favours. The fact that they will kill cute looking animals doesn’t seem to help much either. I am guessing then that most of this is emotional then?