Ethics of Hunting...

[ChrisAHF]

Is it natural to hunt? if so why?

If all people stopped hunting would the ecosystem collapse? evidence?

Why is ok to kill an animal but not a human? after all we are all reduced to just animals.

If a species became opverpolulate3d would only the excess population die? would it affect other species?

Is what is natural always right? wrong? either?

I got into a small debate over animal rights. It got me thinking and I wanted to bounce some ideas. So what do you think?

 

[Dksimon]

I think that it is ok to kill animals for afew select reasons.

(no order of importance)
1) food
2) personal defense
3) to keep the population in check
4) dispatch nusiance animals

I think that humans should only kill animals if they have a need to do so.

I hunt deer and pheasants and all the game animals that I kill are eaten.

I also occasionally have to deal with a varmint or two.

And ecosystems have to be kept in check, if the deer population get so outrageously high that they are causing a monetay loss to farmers or are eating so much of the available food that other animals cannot live on then the deer need to be thinned.

If you are going to kill an animal do it humanely.

 

[moooose102]

1) yes, we humans have been hunting since the first man ate a dead animal and liked the taste.

2)no, the ecosystem would not colapse. it would change, but not collapse.

3)animals, as such, are just not as intelegent as humans, also GOD gave us (certain) animals to eat as food. he also gave us athourity over all living things. it is in the bible. also GOD comanded us NOT to kill each other, that is one of the ten comandments.

4) if a certain animal became over populated to an extreem, yes it would mess up the whole eco system. after a while, yes, mother nature would take care of this problem on her own. but we also may loose many other species due to the over population, from that species eating all of the available food, disease, predation (if the animal in question was a predator), etc. .

5) is mother nature always right? well, that is a question that would require a lot of contemplation, and possibly, a brain that is more powerful than any human has. 1st, is mother nature GOD? is it just a series of random events? who really knows? all i really know is we (humans) screw up the world in so many ways that is not even funny. and usually, we dont even know it until its to late. we, are the most destructive animal on the planet. and we are not content with that. we want to go into outer space, and screw that all up as well.

as far as animal rights are concerned, what makes you think thay have rights? who gives them rights? we do. its a joke. god created them to be and live free. and we come along and say they do, or do not have rights. let me assure you of this. an animal does not care one little bit about rights. all it cares about is living, eating, and propagtion of the species. all the rest are simply human terms and labels that we slap on them. try walking up to a hungry lion in the wild and tell it it has the right to be free and not be shot. it is going to do what nature intended it to do, eat! not thank you for giving it a label!

 

[H&Hhunter]

Is it natural to hunt? if so why?

People have been hunting since the beginning of people, we are predators. It is one of the most natural instinctive activity's of mankind. To hunt is to be human. Even in todays jaded society we are hunter gatherers at heart. What do think the emotion that makes people want to go shopping is? It is nothing more than a modified version of hunter gatherer.

If all people stopped hunting would the ecosystem collapse? evidence?

Please keep in mind that humans have been part of the eco system since the beginning of human existence. The most early remains of the human show that he was a hunter.

Hunting levels out the highs and lows of population spikes and declines by keeping the population levels at a manageable size. The eco system would not collapse with out human intervention but the highs would be higher and the lows would be lower. Human hunters have had a natural effect on game populations for tens of thousands of years.

Why is ok to kill an animal but not a human?

Sometimes it is ok to kill a human. Sometimes it isn't ok to kill an animal. It depends on the situation.

But if you don't know the difference between a human and an animal I'm afraid I can't explain it to you. You are missing something basic in your life experiences. I am afraid that Disney has blurred those lines for many people with talking animal cartoons.
Especially ones with human like emotions and logical thinking. Get clue guys, Bambi was not real.

If a species became opverpolulate3d would only the excess population die? would it affect other species?

No when a species overpopulates not only the excess die it severely affects the health of the entire population because the excess do not only eat the excess food they eat everything causing mass starvation and disease which kill off far more than simply the excess animals. In the natural scheme of things this allows the eco system to repair while the population levels are down.

And of course it affects other species. Sometimes for the benefit sometimes to determent.

Remember that a healthy predator prey relationship helps to level out these spikes. The human has been part of this process since the beginning.

Is what is natural always right? wrong? either?

Hunting is natural. Natural is right. Any questions?

PS

Don't take any of what I wrote personally this is simply how I would present this information to an animal rights activist. They don't listen anyway. So you might as well be direct.


Thanks for posting this. It is a great forum for some good exchange of information.

 

[Art Eatman]

I imagine that for some species, the cessation of hunting could see a collapse. I think mostly of whitetail deer in this regard. Homo sap is pretty much the sole remaining predator on that species. We've eliminated the large meat eaters, and in the south we've eliminated the ultimate predator, the screwworm fly.

The whitetail population increases geometrically. Absent predation, the herd expands beyond the carrying capacity of the land. If you have a drouth or disease at a time of weakened animals that had stripped the food supply, you have one hell of a die-off.

This is well-codified in the mule deer herd of the North Rim country of the Grand Canyon, back in the 1920s. Anti-hunters were successful in stopping hunting. The herd grew and then collapsed from some 6,000 or more, down to a few hundred.

In 1962, in Texas, the hunter kill was some 15,000 deer in Llano, Mason and Brady counties. That fall, winter and spring was very dry. By spring, according to the wildlife biologists and wardens, some 17,000 were lost to "winter kill", i.e. thirst and starvation.

I agree with those who wish to control--or "manage"--for "the good of the species". The fate of any one individual animal is irrelevant to the health of the herd. Species survival has a moral importance far beyond anybody's personal opinion. In areas where the local people have some vested interest in the survival of a herd, few species are endangered--whether whitetail deer or elephants.

 

[472x1A/B]

Gentalmen I thank you all very much for this excellent information. I renew my fur buyers licens every year to buy fur from local hunters. This will be really good reading material for my customers. Some of these guys don't have a clue about ethics it's all about the $buck$. Agian thank you all.

 

[ChrisAHF]

Thanks. Very insightful.

 

[AKCOP]

Chris,
If you are interested in some further discussion on culture and the hunt you might read "Bloodties" by Ted Kerasote. I found it very interesting and it may help you find answers you are looking for. At the very least it will get you thinking.

 

[woof]

One of the best arguments I have heard regarding hunting as a means of thinning the herd is this: Generally hunters are seeking the best and strongest males of the species. Trophies. This exactly counter to the way nature thins a herd, by eliminating the weak, leaving the strong and strengthening the herd. If hunting were directed somehow toward the weaker members of the herd it would be more viable as a substitute for natural mechanisms.

 

[XDKingslayer]

Is it natural to hunt? if so why?

Of course it is. We were hunters and gatherers from the start. Why should that change? Simply because we can have meat carted to our tables by someone else or bought in a grocery store?

If all people stopped hunting would the ecosystem collapse? evidence?

No. The entire ecosystem would not collapse. Some specific ecosystems might that would have negligable damage to the entire ecosystem. Some animals that we hunt and don't have natural predators will over-populate and can then start dieing from disease like Chronic Wasting disease.

Why is ok to kill an animal but not a human? after all we are all reduced to just animals.

Honestly? Because we're the top of the food chain and have opposing thumbs. And some humans do hunt humans. There are still tribes that still eat humans.

No different than the shark in the ocean. He's the top predator in the ocean and they still eat each other if they have to.

It's not about morals and religions and laws like people think it's ingrained in everything that is the top predator in it's environment not to kill it's own. But it still happens.

If a species became opverpolulate3d would only the excess population die? would it affect other species?

Depends on the species. Some will control their own population. Some won't. Either one will have an effect on another species if that species is inhabiting the same environment or is prey/predator to the main species.

Is what is natural always right? wrong? either?

What is natural? Is controlling an animals population because we have encroached onto it's domain for our use natural? Is killing a rodent who's holes break livestock's legs natural?

The problem is there is a million different definitions of what is normal. It's based on your upbringing, if you hunt or not. Are you the next PETA president? Are you the next Ducks Unlimited President? Each has it's own definition of what is natural. Is our building and growth natural? Again, depends on where you stand.

Natural is moot.

I got into a small debate over animal rights. It got me thinking and I wanted to bounce some ideas. So what do you think?

Animal rights people are usually just like anti-gun people. Uninformed, manipulated and running off emotion.

 

[XDKingslayer]

One of the best arguments I have heard regarding hunting as a means of thinning the herd is this: Generally hunters are seeking the best and strongest males of the species. Trophies. This exactly counter to the way nature thins a herd, by eliminating the weak, leaving the strong and strengthening the herd. If hunting were directed somehow toward the weaker members of the herd it would be more viable as a substitute for natural mechanisms.

The problem with that theory is that it's comparing apples to oranges.

Let's take deer for example.

The apple is nature thinning off the weak the orange is the hunter killing the stronger male.

In the U.S. there aren't enough natural predators for deer to maintain their herds in healthy numbers, the deer will overpopulate. If there was, then this would work. The predators will prey on the young, weak, lame and lazy. This is how it works in a perfect world.

The world is no longer perfect. There aren't enough predators anymore because we've killed them all off or driven them all out with our settlement of the U.S. in the past couple hundred years.

Now, in this day and age, the best way to control the popultion is to kill that strong male animal. You're preventing him from mating any longer and by doing so 1 hunter can replace dozens of predators.

Instead of the predators killing the sick lame and lazy offspring of the strong male to control the popultion the hunter is killing the strong male preventing those sick lame and lazy.

Same end, different means.

If any animal right people had half a brain they would see that arguement doesn't support their cause.

 

[eliphalet]

Simple for me, it came natural and needs no explaining to others. As many of the rights our forefathers wrote of in the "Bill of Rights" I feel it is a natural god given right.
In our modern world it is and should be regulated by sportsmen for sportsmen. Ethics has nothing to do with hunting except when misunderstood or misrepresented or misused.

 

[MakAttak]

One of the best arguments I have heard regarding hunting as a means of thinning the herd is this: Generally hunters are seeking the best and strongest males of the species. Trophies. This exactly counter to the way nature thins a herd, by eliminating the weak, leaving the strong and strengthening the herd. If hunting were directed somehow toward the weaker members of the herd it would be more viable as a substitute for natural mechanisms.

Generally the hunter does not kill or even seek to kill the strongest male.

He does at times, but most often he kills the oldest male... who may be strongest currently, but will be getting weaker as time goes on.

Secondly, hunters tend to kill the stupid. As a result, we also have natural selection towards smarter animals.

Other predators kill the weak and infirm, yes. They will often kill the stupid, too. However, they have also kill the young at a very high rate.

Killing the young before they can become strong and breed is FAR inferior to killing off a male after he has already bred and passed on his genes.

Thus, man as predator kills the old and the strongest. Nature will tend to kill the weak and the infirm without aid from a predator. This leaves the young to grow up and breed, strengthening the herd and the species. (It also encourages genetic diversity which is very important to a species survival).

I would say your argument ignores the survival of the young and the increased genetic diversity.

 

[buck460XVR]

we hunt because up until a coupla hundred years ago we had to in order survive. Up until then we didn't care how we killed or how humane we were, just as long as we killed and could eat. The drive to pursue game animals was ingrained into our biology by the good maker above, just as he ingrained this same instinct into all the other meat eaters he created. It's only since the advent of sport hunting and becoming civilized in very recent history that the subject of ethics has come about.......


.........and just because it's legal, it don't make it ethical.

 

[qwert65]

Killing for food like in the 1600s was a different way of life I would give those people a lot of leeway when in the jungle it's eat or be eaten thats the way it is.

Now as we progress in tech. I think we as humans the superior species use the most humane methods possible not just in hunting but in all facets of animals. As for animal rights people 99% have never been in the wild or even say worked with a herd of beef cows to them animals are pets

I'm not bashing pets and I completly understand their value and how people consider them part of the family( I do) now is that natural? thats for each indivual to decide according to their beliefs.

If your debating you can point out that if you were on your own animals would eithier try to eat your crops or you it's nothing personal same if you ate them. now if you had a dog which protected your property/you for many years is shooting him ok if you get a hankering for some dog?

IMO if the answer is yes please stay away from me.

I hope I made some sense in my ramble-Joe

 

[koja48]

Couldn't say it better than H&H already has . . .

 

[Grizfire]

animals, as such, are just not as intelegent as humans, also GOD gave us (certain) animals to eat as food. he also gave us athourity over all living things. it is in the bible. also GOD comanded us NOT to kill each other, that is one of the ten comandments.

Not my cup of tea, but I realize this belief holds true to many people. However, I think it is a form of anthropocentrism. Yes we are smarter than the animals, but we can't see as good as some animals. We can't run, smell, hear, or swim better than some animals. So are we really better than the animals? If so, you need to substantiate by other means than saying we are smarter.

My belief is to swallow your pride and not to make a hierarchal arrangement with the earth's species. We are all just trying to survive (hunting is needed here). I have more respect for some humans over some animals, but I also have more respect for many animals, over many humans.

he (GOD) also gave us athourity over all living things.

all i really know is we (humans) screw up the world in so many ways that is not even funny. and usually, we dont even know it until its to late. we, are the most destructive animal on the planet.

Read your own words moooose, the second statement is why I have problems with the first statement.

 

[leadcounsel]

All animals kill SOMETHING for food; that's just nature.

As intelligent creatures, humans have a GREATER MORAL AND ETHICAL RESPONSILITY to kill only when NECESSESARY and to do so HUMANELY.

Humans are the custodians for the earth, environment, and all living creatures.

I despise sport killings and animal abuse and would persue ALL legal remedies to ensure the person got my message loud and clear. I feel that a person suffers from some personality disorder at gaining pleasure through the suffering of another animal, and studies support my theory that animal abuse is a gateway to human abuse.

The ecosystem is fragile and killing "pests" often results in an imbalance and the starvation of other animals in the food chain. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. Irresponsible human behavior - on this and similar topics - has resulted in the extinction or threat of extinction of many animals, plants, global warming, etc.

Human growth and overpopulation has moved us into regions where animals no longer have a place to retreat - so out of apathy, selfishness and laziness we justify killing them. This is an ignorant perspective and a weak solution.

I don't want to be the one responsible to answer to my grandchildren that I was part of the cause of the extinction of the wolf, bear, polar bear, elephant, cheetah, linx, red fox, etc.

 

[308win]

If you look at the history of species conservation/preservation, ethical hunters at the individual and organized levels have done more to promote the thriving and continuation of species than have the various animal rights groups. So, good on us.

Hunting is a natural act (H&H hit it on the nose) and is necessary for the natural order to work. The dominant predator can take many forms - some more positive than others - and is necessary to maintain balance.

 

[redneckrepairs]

I eat the animals i kill with few exceptions ( i even like fried rattlesnake ) . I kill prairie dogs because they make the ground i have worthless if left un checked . As a note i also put out what amounts to " rat poison " which makes a lot more of the " dogs "

 

[Art Eatman]

Always remember that today's game laws concerning seasons, bag limits and all the regulations came about as a result of hunters' efforts. We started the various wildlife agency efforts, decades ago.

We lobbied in favor of such legislation as the Pitman/Robinson and Dingell/Johnson bills, to get money for state wildlife agencies. The 11% excise tax on firearms and fishing tackle came about from our efforts; the money goes to the states, pro-rated by the numbers of hunting licenses.

Then you have the private-sector efforts of such as Ducks Unlimited, with their hundreds of millions of dollars spent to acquire or protect nesting and flyway habitat. Yeah, it's oriented toward ducks, but other birds use those areas.

The birders and non-hunters who do "non-consumptive use" of any wildlife areas are getting a free ride on our backs.

As far as the deer herd and big bucks, most of the larger bucks don't get shot until late in the rut. Their genes are already in the pool...

 

[Cosmoline]

leadcounsel, sport hunting has almost never been the cause of extinction. Indeed it requires a healthy population in order to exist. Loss of habitat and extermination are the lead causes of extinction. The griz in the American west didn't just "vanish" or get hunted to death, they were exterminated. There was a bounty on their heads, just like the wolves.

Up here, where sport and subsistence hunting have generally outweighed the ranchers and farmers, the predators are doing fine. Even though most of us have killed and the state has the highest percentage of licensed hunters. There were some instances of lower 48 style extermination programs. The Kenai Wolves for example were poisoned out of existence, and the Kodiak bear came close to extermination when some ranching interests thought they could turn the island into cow pasture. But Alaska has a way of sending such crazy dreams packing.

The bear, wolf and other predators would all do better in the lower 48 if there was legal and viable sport hunting of them. Look at Africa. In nations where hunting has been outlawed or highly restricted, poachers have simply taken over and the game is doing worse than ever.

Human growth and overpopulation has moved us into regions where animals no longer have a place to retreat - so out of apathy, selfishness and laziness we justify killing them. This is an ignorant perspective and a weak solution.

There are ways--in many cases absurdly simply ways--in which wildlife and civilization can co-exist. We have a healthier, larger population of brown bears in the Municipality of Anchorage and south central AK than they do in Yellowstone, even though 300,000+ people live here. The bear come right into the city, along with moose, beaver and other wildlife. There are greenbelts running down from the hills and they just follow them. There's no reason cities in the lower 48 couldn't have the same resources. It's just a question of accepting new neighbors. And packing something powerful enough to kill them if they get out of hand.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Is it natural to hunt? if so why?

The earliest human populations were hunter-gatherers. That's how the species survived. In addition, there is evidence that many human traits -- like language -- are related to the complexity of cooperative hunting.

If all people stopped hunting would the ecosystem collapse? evidence?

Go to New Jersey, where they had to initiate a black bear hunt to prevent bears from over-populating and spilling into human inhabited areas. Go to Northern Virginia, where bow hunting was encouraged in suburbs because of the deer overpopulation. Go to Yellowstone Park and watch the rangers slaughter elk and other animals to prevent overpopulation.

Why is ok to kill an animal but not a human? after all we are all reduced to just animals.

Then people who eat meat are cannibals, aren't they?

We kill many animals -- including mosquitos, ticks, and microbes that invade out bodies. Should we take immuno-suppressants if we get a cold, so as not to kill the critters infecting our bodies?

If a species became opverpolulate3d would only the excess population die? would it affect other species?

No. The population will "crash" -- animals don't have systems of rationing, so all the animals will eat until nothing is left to eat, and then die.

In the process, they will eat food other species need, and strip the vegetation so that un-wanted plant species (like Jimson Weed) take over.

Is what is natural always right? wrong? either?

Meaningless question. It could refer to something like antibiotics, blood transfusions and so on -- since these things are not "natural," we'd have to let sick people die if we agree "what is natural is always right."

 

[buck460XVR]

As far as the deer herd and big bucks, most of the larger bucks don't get shot until late in the rut. Their genes are already in the pool...

.......plus, in the real world before agriculture, food plots and supplemental feeding most of the dominate bucks spent the fall chasing does and fighting/defending their territory instead of building their fat reserves on the dwindling food supply....come winter when the forage was gone and without any fat reserve they were the first to die. Like Art said, their genes had already been placed where they needed to be. The good lord planned it like this so that in hard times, the replacements and the fawn factories would live....and the bucks, who had no real purpose anymore, would perish.

 

[Art Eatman]

In the US, about the only danger to any species is residential and commercial development. Habitat reduction. Other than that, game species have been on the rise since the end of WW II. We've had the disposable capital to invest in wildlife enhancement programs via both the public and private sectors.

What it amounts to is that the bunny-huggers worry about individual animals and commonly know little about "the good of the species". The hunter spends a lot of time and money for the good of the species with small regard for the individual animal. The individual animal is gonna die from something, anyway. Just like all of us typing this stuff on the Inet.

No game animal with a market value and for which there is a vested interest on the part of the local populace is in danger except from politics, politicians and institutionalized poaching. Worldwide, that's the case.

And deer and quail are among my favorites. I'm a natural food freak.