Hunting? The Big Problem

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Who cares if most animals are not as intelligent as most humans (some animals are more intelligent than some humans which is amusing)? That doesn't make them any less important than us. You could make that same argument with a newborn baby who doesn't know any better.

Well, I think it's a valid concern when making a moral comparison between humans and animals. If an animal isn't capable of a moral decision in the form that we're discussing, then it'd be irrevelant to compare the two. It'd be like comparing a Pioneer high definition TV to a bucket of water in regards to image quality; as the bucket of water is incapable of rendering an image, the comparison wouldn't make sense.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Merely opinion. Guide dogs for one are really intelligent ^_^ ...

And, Pnt, why does it matter if the animal is less capable of making a moral decision? That doesn't make it any less of a creature, it still has just as much right to be happy and enjoy life as we do...

Anyway, this isn't really on the topic...

I think it's on topic. The main argument I always hear in defense of the animals in regards to hunting is that humans have: A. a superiority complex, B. Are evil, hateful creature who kill things for fun, or C. Care more about themselves than any other creature. My point is that animals lack the ability to have a superiority complex, be evil, or care about other species, thus it's not a very fair, or logical, comparison. I personally see nothing wrong with killing a deer for food. I am an omnivore, I eat meat, along with other foods. I also feel that hunting is infinitely more humane to the animal than growing up on a massive livestock farm.

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by Pnt
I also feel that hunting is infinitely more humane to the animal than growing up on a massive livestock farm.

Agreed,

And chains of slaughtering houses,

If you think Hunting is cruel, Try watching a cow go through one of those, you'll soon think different..

Kovu

[SpiritWolf77]

I'm a vegetarian and personally do not like the idea of an animal having to die for any reason, but it's a sad fact of life that sometimes they do. As others have already said, there are environmental benefits to regulated hunting.

Additionally, for those of you that do eat meat but may be against hunting, have you considered that the animals you eat probably suffered a great deal to become your food (factory farm conditions generally suck) whereas a hunter's kill probably had a much more pleasant life?

Before anyone misunderstands, I'm not saying you should all stop eating meat etc. etc. I'm not a militant vegetarian and I have absolutely no issue with other people eating meat, it's just a personal choice for me. What I'm saying is, if you do eat meat, think about the comparison before you're so quick to demonize hunters.

I actually have a great amount of respect for someone who is willing and able to hunt their own food. With grocery-bought, farmed meat, it's often easy to remove yourself from the idea of it once being an animal. But a hunter has to end the life of the food he or she eats which I'd hope would foster a greater respect for the animal.

In summary: 1-Hunting for food and population control are good things. 2-If you think hunters are terrible cruel people and you're not a vegetarian/vegan, you're being kind of a hypocrite.

Edit: Whoops. I had missed the additional pages of this thread when I read it. Sorry for just repeating things a bunch of people already said.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Edit: Sorry for just repeating things a bunch of people already said.

I believe if you weren't to say anything, how would people find out how you feel about the situation?

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
In my eyes, all three of those points are true, for many hunters, and for almost all hunters.

As for animals not being able to do those things, that doesn't mean humans are excused! Humans actively do those things, whereas animals don't. Even if they could, there's nothing to say they would. Humans are not excused.



Not really. Sure, I probably wouldn't get a buzz out of watching it, but I'd rather that happen since it's necessary, instead of other animals being killed unnecessarily as well...



I disagree on both points. If you've ever taken a decent biology class, you will have studied predator-prey cycles.

Basically, for those who haven't:

1) The predator population is less than the prey's population.
2) The prey population increases because there aren't many predators.
3) The predator population increases because of the excess of prey.
4) The prey population starts to decline because there are more predators.
5) The predator's population declines because there is less prey.

And back to step 1. Humans disrupt that; that's how it works perfectly naturally and would continue to do so if humans didn't interfere!

And, no, as for being a hypocrite, that's a load of rubbish; I condone hunting much more than animals being raised for meat. That is necessary; hunting is not (usually).

First of all, I completely disagree with you that hunters are those three things. Of all the people I've met, hunters seemed to have the most respect for nature. They realize that an animal died for them to eat, they usually use every part of the animal that's realistically able to be used so as not to waste the body, and many are very concerned for the environment. If a deer is shot in the kill zone, it should go down in a matter of seconds; it doesn't suffer much. It was able to live its entire life in its natural environment instead of on a farm. Deer hunting, in this area at least, keeps the overall population to a safe number.

I don't see any defense for mass farming over hunting. Mass farming is no more necessary than hunting because, while meat may be necessary to many people, the way in which they get it is not. Hunting generates as much meat for the hunter as shopping at the supermarket does for the average consumer. As Spiritwolf said, huntind demands a respect and knowledge of the fact that an animal died for you to eat. Shopping at a store almost completely removes that. Instead of realizing that they're eating a once living creature, most people just see that slab of meat on their plate. A cheeseburger at McDonald's is a cheeseburger to most people; a venicin burger is a once living deer to a hunter.

I dunno, it just seems like your side of the debate relies upon a disdain for humans, not a concern for the animals.

[Kovu The Lion]

Hmm.. I agree with Pnt at this point, My cousins and other family parts are major rednecks, when they deer hunt, They take the head, and they do get it mounted, however they usually do rip the meat, and eat it, everytime.. Deer meat is pretty good to them so I hear,

as for hooves and other things, like tails, they use for good luck charms and things, and yeah I dont really know much

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
In my eyes, all three of those points are true, for many hunters, and for almost all hunters.

Do you personally know any hunters, allowing yourself to have an informed opinion on this matter? My grandfather used to hunt. He most certainly did not fit -any- of those descriptions. He's a very nice humble man, with great respect for living things.

Sidenote: It's actually false that animals do not have the ability to care about members of other species. Anyone ever owned a dog? There have also been several incidents of animals adopting orphaned young of another species, even in predator-prey relationships (the lioness and the...I believe it was, gazelle story anyone?)

Not really. Sure, I probably wouldn't get a buzz out of watching it, but I'd rather that happen since it's necessary, instead of other animals being killed unnecessarily as well...

Which part is necessary? Cattle being stuffed into little boxes? Chickens force-fed grain? Is that what you're saying is necessary? Or just that we need to have some source of meat for food? If it's the latter, wouldn't it be better to go about this in a more natural way, rather than breeding hordes of animals that spend their entire lives suffering?

I disagree on both points. If you've ever taken a decent biology class, you will have studied predator-prey cycles.

Basically, for those who haven't:

1) The predator population is less than the prey's population.
2) The prey population increases because there aren't many predators.
3) The predator population increases because of the excess of prey.
4) The prey population starts to decline because there are more predators.
5) The predator's population declines because there is less prey.

And back to step 1. Humans disrupt that; that's how it works perfectly naturally and would continue to do so if humans didn't interfere!

If you've ever taken a decent biology class, you should also understand that humans are part of this chain. What we do affects the rest of the cycle. We cannot remove ourselves from it so long as we reside on this planet. Cattle require vast amounts of land to graze on. When using farm-raised meat, you have two options: Keep the animals in small, inhumane conditions, or destroy natural land in order to create more comfortable conditions for the livestock. Granted, with human populations at the size they are, we do need to produce more animals for food, but perhaps we wouldn't need to produce quite so many if we relied on natural populations to a degree.

Additionally, nature does not always work in perfect cycles. You should have also learned that in a decent biology class. Sometimes the top predator species is wiped out, sometimes naturally, sometimes because of us. The problem Yellowstone has been having for quite some time was initially our fault. Humans wiped out the wolf populations and deer populations skyrocketed. Deer began dying of disease and starvation because their environment could not maintain such a large population increase. We had to thin out the population via hunting to prevent the -entire- population from dying out. We have been reintroducing wolves to the area, but this is a slow and difficult process and in order to keep the deer population stable, hunting is required.

And, no, as for being a hypocrite, that's a load of rubbish; I condone hunting much more than animals being raised for meat. That is necessary; hunting is not (usually).

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here because you just contradicted yourself. You just said you condone hunting more than factory farming. But you said factory farming is necessary whereas hunting is not. Hunting is not "necessary" only because factory farms exist. If you condone hunting over factory farming, then why are you condemning hunting? Wouldn't it make more sense to condone it? If more people hunted, less meat would come from factory farms. If you agree that factory farming is more cruel than hunting, but choose factory farmed meat over hunted meat, then you're just proving my point that typically, grocery-meat consumers have less respect for the circumstances that brought them their food because it's easy for them to ignore and forget what it took to get that meat. If you cared about animals as much as you claim, and honestly did not condone factory farming, then I would expect you to either 1-Not eat meat or 2-Turn to hunting for your food so that you're not supporting such a cruel system.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Sidenote: It's actually false that animals do not have the ability to care about members of other species. Anyone ever owned a dog? There have also been several incidents of animals adopting orphaned young of another species, even in predator-prey relationships (the lioness and the...I believe it was, gazelle story anyone?)

True, but to my knowledge, there is absolutely no credible scientific evidence of any animal (with the possible exception of dolphins) having the higher cognitive power of humans that allows them to face moral dilemas. The most basic, accepted explanation for dogs (again, to my knowledge) is that they assume the human family as part of their pack. I will give you that, dogs (and in some extremely exceptional cases, other animals) do care for other species, but there's no evidence showing that these animals do so through moral decision.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
So it's the humans' fault; if the wolves hadn't been wiped out there wouldn't have been the deer problem!

As I said before, this isn't about concern for the animals, it's about disdain for the humans. You get angry at the humans when they make a mistake, and you get angry when they try to fix it. It's a lose-lose situation, and it seems like you'd consider anything a human does to be bad.

By the by, you're a human being too.

[TX-101]

O...K... This is getting complicated. What's the big deal? hunting? killing?
You can find everywhere that! Where would we be if there wouldn't be cold bloody murderers on the world? there wouldnt be a natural defense on anyone, there wouldnt exist 2 big groups of animals, there wouldnt be some evolutionary important changes which made this world like we all know. Who knows what would there be. If anything wouldnt be like it should.. there would already happen something to keep this world on the way.

[TX-101]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
So you're saying you're happy that there are murderers o_O ? I didn't quite understand all of that post...

no, no. you got it wrong.
I'm saying thatour world always had killers on it. It's a part of the world we're living on. I'm not happy or sad becouse of it.

[Nephilim]

I condemn hunting far more than I condemn normal farming.

You make it sound as if they don't both end in the same thing: killing.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Pnt
True, but to my knowledge, there is absolutely no credible scientific evidence of any animal (with the possible exception of dolphins) having the higher cognitive power of humans that allows them to face moral dilemas. The most basic, accepted explanation for dogs (again, to my knowledge) is that they assume the human family as part of their pack. I will give you that, dogs (and in some extremely exceptional cases, other animals) do care for other species, but there's no evidence showing that these animals do so through moral decision.

I think there may be evidence of that in apes, but I'm not sure about other animals. I don't think they know why that lioness adopted that gazelle, for example.

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Why did he kill them then? I don't know any offline, though I've met some online.

I don't know the specific reasons, I'd have to ask him. May've been more cost-efficient since he was raising a family of 6 kids. In the long run, gun and ammo upkeep may have been cheaper than buying store-meat. He also may have just enjoyed the experience. Both of my grandparents on my mother's side have always enjoyed traveling and being out in nature.

Simply that we require food, not that they need to be stuffed in boxes as you put it. I support free range farming ^_^ , and organic produce.

Free-range farming is a good solution to the problem. Of course with that, there's the issue of natural land loss since humane free-range farming requires far more space than factory farming. It's not as detrimental to the animals, but depending on the specific circumstances, it can be more detrimental to the environment. It's a tricky situation, in that respect.

No, humans are completely irrelevant from predator-prey cycles. If we left them alone, they would be fine! Just like they were before humans existed.

What is "them" you're referring to? Other animals? Keep in mind, we were not always an industrialized, or even a farming society. We were very much part of predator-prey cycles when we were a hunting and gathering society. We did not suddenly appear on this planet, completely removed from nature. Even now, in industrialized society, we continue to affect and be affected by natural cycles, even if it's not direct involvement in predator-prey cycles. Not to mention, not all societies on this planet are industrialized. Some are still hunter-gatherer societies, or some have drastically different societies than our own due to the conditions of their environment (i.e. the Inuit people). I'm assuming you're okay with those societies hunting since they don't have any other option.

In any case, when you say the natural populations would be just fine if we left them alone, you're assuming we don't have any effect on the environment. We build cities, we clear forests to set up farming land. We drill and mine and dig for natural resources. Even in trying to create a perfectly self-sustaining society, we still have an effect on the environment. We can't just "leave them alone."

So it's the humans' fault; if the wolves hadn't been wiped out there wouldn't have been the deer problem!

In this instance, yes. But we are not always responsible. Natural disasters and disease can also suddenly wipe out a population. And besides, it's already been done. Saying we shouldn't have wiped out the wolves doesn't change the fact that we did. It happened. And now we have to deal with the consequences. And some of those consequences are having to control the deer populations until we can fully rehabilitate the wolf populations. Hunting is necessary in this respect no matter how much you don't like it. I assume you don't like it because it involves the deaths of animals. If we didn't do it, the entire population, or most of it, would die out from disease or starvation. Would you prefer that?

Oops, I meant 'condemn'. I condemn hunting far more than I condemn normal farming. The other way around to how it came across ^_^ ...

Here's what I don't get. You don't like hunting, because you consider it unnecessary death, right? Why is raising and killing livestock different? You said because it's necessary, because we need to get our food from somewhere. What gives the livestock less of a right to live than the wild populations? If we relied entirely on hunting for our food, and some people decided to raise animals to be killed, people might consider that cruel and unnecessary. They'd say, why raise an animal just to kill it when we already have plenty of food from hunting? It's killing either way. And what you consider "necessary" is subjective.

[Dare]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
As was said earlier, apparently there is a lot of free land in China. That could potentially be used for farming.

The reason that land is free is because there's not much they can do with it, unless we figure out how to farm deserts. The land that is available for farming is already being used and/or is growing smaller due to encroaching desert and industrialization.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
If we relied entirely on hunting for our food, then suddenly all the animals we have in farms would have to be discarded in some way. Plus, a lot of people may not want or be able to hunt for their food. Consider the elderly and disabled. With food from farms, we are able to avoid the problem, and it's a lot more convenient - also it provides farmers with money and a way to live!

There's two sides to that, though. For some people, hunting provides the main source of their meat, at least at certain point during the year. Hunted meat is normally less expensive and yields quite a bit of food as compared to store-bought meat. It's also usually fresher and, frankly, better tasting. Some hunters are professionals that make a living off of hunting for meat and taxidermy. Just like the farmers, these poeple need money and a way to leave as well.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
If we didn't do those things; if humans weren't here, the cycles would work perfectly well.

If humans weren't here, you wouldn't be here. Not all humans are destructive either. For the record.

Why can't they simply put wolves back? Then again, they'd probably be hunted again.

It's not that simple. It's a slow process to reintroduce a population to an area. They're working on it, but it takes time and until the population is stable and large enough to keep the deer population in check, deer will need to be thinned out by hunting.

If we relied entirely on hunting for our food, then suddenly all the animals we have in farms would have to be discarded in some way. Plus, a lot of people may not want or be able to hunt for their food. Consider the elderly and disabled. With food from farms, we are able to avoid the problem, and it's a lot more convenient - also it provides farmers with money and a way to live!

Well, as I already said before, with our current population size, we do need some farming to ensure that there is enough food for everyone. I don't think farming should be removed altogether, I'm just saying that I don't see why anyone would condemn hunters since they're actually benefiting the system by not depending on farmed meat. I think it's good if part of the population that is able hunts for their food instead of relying on farming. That results in fewer farm-raised animals, and hopefully results in less factory farming and less land use.

And on the topic of China, my boyfriend is a Chinese language major and quite familiar with the country, having spent some time there and spent a lot of time studying it. The country's economy is doing well but the people are not. There is a great deal of poverty and hunger in China at the moment.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion


Pnt: But it's not necessary to live like that... They could get a different job that is necessary. We have a lack of teachers here; so it's quite annoying when you see kids without an education then you see people doing no job/unnecessary jobs.

I agree with SpiritWolf, "Necessary" is subjective.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
No. As stated in the dictionary:

1. Being essential, indispensable, or requisite.

Clearly, it's not these things, and hence it's not necessary.

It's not necessary for a person to make a living with the skills they have? Or to ensure food for their families?

And you know, it may not be necessary. Neither is the computer you're on, the car you ride in, nor the chips you eat. That light in your room isn't necessary, you could survive without out. The only thing necessary by your definition is a small bit of shelter, milk and bread, and clean water. All the rest, a person could survive without. The fact remains, though, that hunting is generally more humane than industrialized farming, and in many cases, more beneficial, if not necessary for the surrounding environment.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Heh, I have a business studies GCSE; I've studied 'needs' and 'wants'. They can quite easily just get food from the supermarket. And if you try to pull the argument of "Oh, some people aren't qualified enough to work.", then well, you could always work in a job that doesn't need any qualifications. It is not necessary. There's nothing really to be debated there.

As for you saying the things I have aren't necessary - well, I'm sure you have many of the things I have. And, I didn't choose to have all of these things. As I often say to the person whom I love, I'd be more than willing to go without food if it meant he had enough to eat, or to work 16 hours per day in the cold if it meant he had a roof over his head. Quite frankly I'm not too bothered about myself; even if I didn't have a computer or light in my room, I would strive to make the most of myself that I possibly could, and do my utmost to make a difference in this world.

You're completely missing the point, bud. Things don't need to be necessary to have a point. Hunters get their food from animals they hunt. Sure, they could go to the store, but they don't. Generally, the food they hunt is killed much more humanely, and the hunter has respect for the animals he/she kills and for those that are still living. The majority of society, however, does not have much respect for where their food comes from. They see a hamburger on a plate and that's all they think. Thus, hunters tend to be not only more respectful towards animals, they also obtain their food in a more natural way.

How is mass farming any more necessary than hunting?