Ethics of Hunting...
- Thread starter ChrisAHF
- Start date
- Status
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Yes. We are cavemen in essence. Cavemen hunt. It's pretty axiomatic that naturally, we are hunters.
No, but it definitely affects ecosystems - read this article, for one of many examples.
http://www.deerandforests.org/resources/4.pdf
It IS "ok" to kill humans in certain circumstances, just as it is ok to kill animals in certain circumstances. The law specifically allows one to kill humans in justified self-defense. You can kill an animal during its season, with a valid license and tags, using authorized equipment, pursuant to specific guidelines set in place by wildlife departments based on scientific wildlife management plans, to further healthy and balanced ecosystems. Time, place, and manner for everything. Some people "need killin" and the law recognizes that. Arguably the circumstances where deadly force is authorized against humans should be expanded some.
No, it affects both that species and others - see that article above and this one:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1016/is_n11-12_v99/ai_14795507/pg_1
That's a good question, and I'm not sure, I believe that MOST EVERYTHING which is natural is also right, but not everything. It's natural to steal, but that doesn't make it right. So the implication which you are heading toward is that just because because hunting is natural, do NOT indeed necessarily make it right. It's still "right" though.
cjanak
Member
1) Yes, I think it is natural to hunt.
2) I doubt the ecosystem would collapse because I believe Mother Nature is much more resilient than we give her credit for. For example, the speed of wildlife recovery in the zone impacted by Mt. Saint Helens has absolutely shocked scientists. That being said, I certainly expect that we might see some changes to the ecosystem.
3) Species overpopulation may impact other species. For example, if animal X and animal Y compete for similar food, an increase in the population of X may have a detrimental impact on animal Y. Of course, an increase in animal X might benefit predators of animal X. So I think the impacts can be both positive and negative and also quite complex.
4) I'm glad you asked this as it's an important question. Something is NOT morally right just because it is natural. Lying, cheating, stealing and murdering are surely natural activities... yet most of us agree these are not morally acceptable activities in most circumstances.
Though there is wide agreement with respect to certain moral values, I think hunting is an area with quite a bit of gray.
People have all kinds of reasons why they think hunting is ethical. Frankly, I’ve yet to read one that I find very convincing. Sure we need to eat, but we certainly don’t need to hunt to eat. Sure it’s natural to hunt, but that doesn’t mean it’s morally right to hunt. Sure hunting helps control animal population, but it’s not necessarily the most humane way of doing so. Etc.
I think self-defense is probably a pretty widely accepted ethical reason for killing an animal, but that’s not hunting. By definition, hunting is actively seeking to kill game, not protecting your self from an unexpected attack.
In my opinion, my personal choice to hunt is nothing more than one of many somewhat arbitrary decisions in my life. I choose to hunt because the pleasure I gain exceeds the moral concerns I have with taking an animal’s life. I don’t believe that I have the moral or natural right to kill an animal, I just do it because I want to do it. Now I do believe that I should try to harvest animals in certain ways to limit the suffering of the animal, but again the rules I adopt for myself , where I draw the line so to speak, are/is somewhat arbitrary.
So I have plenty of respect for somebody that chooses not to eat meat because they don’t like the idea of inflicting pain and suffering on an animal. I don’t think my decision to hunt is any more moral or right then their decision not to eat meat.
Some people of faith argue that hunting is condoned by their religious tradition. Of course, matters of faith are open to interpretation. Certainly, there are those that feel being a good steward to God’s earth means not killing animals. Again, I respect those that disagree with me on this issue. It seems unreasonable for to assume that everybody ought to agree with me on this issue.
So in summary, I don’t think hunting is clearly morally wrong or morally right. Like many aspects of life, it’s a grey area open to many perspectives.
2) I doubt the ecosystem would collapse because I believe Mother Nature is much more resilient than we give her credit for. For example, the speed of wildlife recovery in the zone impacted by Mt. Saint Helens has absolutely shocked scientists. That being said, I certainly expect that we might see some changes to the ecosystem.
3) Species overpopulation may impact other species. For example, if animal X and animal Y compete for similar food, an increase in the population of X may have a detrimental impact on animal Y. Of course, an increase in animal X might benefit predators of animal X. So I think the impacts can be both positive and negative and also quite complex.
4) I'm glad you asked this as it's an important question. Something is NOT morally right just because it is natural. Lying, cheating, stealing and murdering are surely natural activities... yet most of us agree these are not morally acceptable activities in most circumstances.
Though there is wide agreement with respect to certain moral values, I think hunting is an area with quite a bit of gray.
People have all kinds of reasons why they think hunting is ethical. Frankly, I’ve yet to read one that I find very convincing. Sure we need to eat, but we certainly don’t need to hunt to eat. Sure it’s natural to hunt, but that doesn’t mean it’s morally right to hunt. Sure hunting helps control animal population, but it’s not necessarily the most humane way of doing so. Etc.
I think self-defense is probably a pretty widely accepted ethical reason for killing an animal, but that’s not hunting. By definition, hunting is actively seeking to kill game, not protecting your self from an unexpected attack.
In my opinion, my personal choice to hunt is nothing more than one of many somewhat arbitrary decisions in my life. I choose to hunt because the pleasure I gain exceeds the moral concerns I have with taking an animal’s life. I don’t believe that I have the moral or natural right to kill an animal, I just do it because I want to do it. Now I do believe that I should try to harvest animals in certain ways to limit the suffering of the animal, but again the rules I adopt for myself , where I draw the line so to speak, are/is somewhat arbitrary.
So I have plenty of respect for somebody that chooses not to eat meat because they don’t like the idea of inflicting pain and suffering on an animal. I don’t think my decision to hunt is any more moral or right then their decision not to eat meat.
Some people of faith argue that hunting is condoned by their religious tradition. Of course, matters of faith are open to interpretation. Certainly, there are those that feel being a good steward to God’s earth means not killing animals. Again, I respect those that disagree with me on this issue. It seems unreasonable for to assume that everybody ought to agree with me on this issue.
So in summary, I don’t think hunting is clearly morally wrong or morally right. Like many aspects of life, it’s a grey area open to many perspectives.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
A bit of thread drift, but Kim duToit found this little tidbit and posted it at his website:
"So the next time a vegan tells you how healthy it is to “go veggie”, smash them in the mouth. Hard.
A girl of 12 brought up by her parents on a strict vegan diet has been admitted to hospital with a degenerative bone condition said to have left her with the spine of an 80-year-old.
Doctors are under pressure to report the couple, from Glasgow, to police and social workers amid concerns her health and welfare may have been neglected in pursuit of their beliefs.
The youngster, fed on a strict meat- and dairy-free diet from birth, is being treated at the city’s Royal Hospital for Sick Children. She is said to have a severe form of rickets and to have suffered a number of fractured bones. The condition is caused by a lack of vitamin D, which is needed to absorb calcium and is found in liver, oily fish and dairy produce."
"So the next time a vegan tells you how healthy it is to “go veggie”, smash them in the mouth. Hard.
A girl of 12 brought up by her parents on a strict vegan diet has been admitted to hospital with a degenerative bone condition said to have left her with the spine of an 80-year-old.
Doctors are under pressure to report the couple, from Glasgow, to police and social workers amid concerns her health and welfare may have been neglected in pursuit of their beliefs.
The youngster, fed on a strict meat- and dairy-free diet from birth, is being treated at the city’s Royal Hospital for Sick Children. She is said to have a severe form of rickets and to have suffered a number of fractured bones. The condition is caused by a lack of vitamin D, which is needed to absorb calcium and is found in liver, oily fish and dairy produce."
Shawnee
member
If all people stopped hunting would the ecosystem collapse? evidence?
There would be a lot of damage from overpopulation of assorted species. But think about it. If everyone stopped hunting that would mean the government would stop receiving all the dollars hunters send the government via licenses and stamps. That would mean all the non-hunting stuff our money pays for would have to stop and all, or most, of the people on the Game Dept. payroll would be out of work. OR, the money the government takes from us for "allowing" us to hunt would have to be replaced by raising everyone's taxes. I think I know which option the government would choose.
But then there is Cabela's and BassPro and similar folks. If everyone stopped hunting there would be some major problems - for everyone.
If a species became opverpolulate3d would only the excess population die? would it affect other species? Yes, the "excess would die - but the doomed "excess" would be a continually rising number percentage. When overpopulation happens in a given area the animals damage the range, thus making it able to support fewer and fewer animals - and that goes on and on until it can't support ANY of them.
There would be a lot of damage from overpopulation of assorted species. But think about it. If everyone stopped hunting that would mean the government would stop receiving all the dollars hunters send the government via licenses and stamps. That would mean all the non-hunting stuff our money pays for would have to stop and all, or most, of the people on the Game Dept. payroll would be out of work. OR, the money the government takes from us for "allowing" us to hunt would have to be replaced by raising everyone's taxes. I think I know which option the government would choose.
But then there is Cabela's and BassPro and similar folks. If everyone stopped hunting there would be some major problems - for everyone.
If a species became opverpolulate3d would only the excess population die? would it affect other species? Yes, the "excess would die - but the doomed "excess" would be a continually rising number percentage. When overpopulation happens in a given area the animals damage the range, thus making it able to support fewer and fewer animals - and that goes on and on until it can't support ANY of them.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
A helluva lot of hunter money goes into habitat protection and enhancement. Forget the "why" of no more hunting. Think about how much less effort there would be from such as Ducks Unlimited. Or, figure how much effort and money would be spent on things like guzzlers for water supply augmentation for desert bighorn. The absence of the cash flow from hunters would mean less habitat protection for deer by a rancher, and more effort at improving the range for cattle via brush eradication.
I could go on, but I think that's a fair start.
At any rate, there would be a net decline in the stable, overall-average populations...
And if there were no efforts to control feral cats, dogs and hogs...
Art
I could go on, but I think that's a fair start.
At any rate, there would be a net decline in the stable, overall-average populations...
And if there were no efforts to control feral cats, dogs and hogs...
Art
Shawnee
member
Heck! Ask any midwestern farmer how much deer feeding on his soy beans and corn costs him every year. I know of one four acre field that was planted in beans last year, had 20 deer shot out of it last Summer, and the crop still never got high enough to produce anything. Remove hunting and it's entirely possible that agriculture here would revert to Third World production levels.
And something else non-farmers don't think of - a deer antler can wreck a tractor tire in a wink and most of the farmers I know think they're lucky if they lose only one tire per year to a discarded antler. And add the cost of the lost time to the cost of the tire.
And then there are the collisions. During the Fall the Sheriff's report every week in my rural county is mostly deer/car collisions and there are usually 6 to 10 of them per week. Nobody would want that count to double or triple.
And something else non-farmers don't think of - a deer antler can wreck a tractor tire in a wink and most of the farmers I know think they're lucky if they lose only one tire per year to a discarded antler. And add the cost of the lost time to the cost of the tire.
And then there are the collisions. During the Fall the Sheriff's report every week in my rural county is mostly deer/car collisions and there are usually 6 to 10 of them per week. Nobody would want that count to double or triple.
TCB in TN
Member
Those are YOUR morals, and while I do partly agree, I don't see fit to FORCE those morals on all others!
Sorry I don't agree with this. Humans MAY be at the top of the food chain but your custodians of the earth idea gives us FAR more credit than is due.
Once again you have a right to your "feelings" but forcing your "feelings" is just as wrong as you "feel" it is to kill for pleasure!
That is a very interesting theory and sure seems to be completely at odds with what most research on the subject says. If killing pests resulted in such imbalances then we would certainly have seen the extinction of the racoon, opossum, coyote, rat, prarie dog, etc. BTW while I can almost understand your imbalances comment but global warming?
Well actually if you happen to be Darwinist, then you would say that our actions are merely "survival of the fit and best suited to prosper"!
Well if you look at countries where sport hunting is given a chance you will see that conservation is alive and well. It is only in those countries where there is NO financial incentive to protect wildlife, and the environment that is needed that you have a real issue.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
cjanak, to sorta sum it up: No place on earth where European/US/Canada hunting systems and rules are in place and enforced will you find any game species in any danger, generally, and certainly not at all from hunters' efforts.
Always remember that hunters can only hunt if there is some amount of surplus. Hunters take "the interest on the principal" as it were. A birder can be joyously thrilled by seeing one of the last remaining few of some species. A hunter can only view such with extreme regret.
The rules and regulations of "sport" hunting were created by hunters. The entire code of hunting ethics was created by hunters. We are inherently a self-policing group in that regard.
No group of any sort has a stronger vested interest in ecosystem health than hunters (and fishermen). That many hunters may not know this nor be able to articulate that point is irrelevant.
Always remember that hunters can only hunt if there is some amount of surplus. Hunters take "the interest on the principal" as it were. A birder can be joyously thrilled by seeing one of the last remaining few of some species. A hunter can only view such with extreme regret.
The rules and regulations of "sport" hunting were created by hunters. The entire code of hunting ethics was created by hunters. We are inherently a self-policing group in that regard.
No group of any sort has a stronger vested interest in ecosystem health than hunters (and fishermen). That many hunters may not know this nor be able to articulate that point is irrelevant.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Except for polar bears. Thanks to the courts and the Interior Department, they are endangered, despite the fact that they've doubled their numbers in the last 30 years.
cjanak
Member
Mr. Eatman,
I agree that modern hunting for sport (as opposed to commercial hunting for profit) has a sterling record with respect to conservation. I also agree that the managed hunting that occurs in most developed countries is sustainable, and indeed can be an effective tool for managing wildlife populations. Lastly, I agree that Sportsman have made very, very positive contributions with respect to the conservation of wildlife and wild areas.
With all do respect, I’m puzzled as to why you directed your latest comments towards me?
I agree that modern hunting for sport (as opposed to commercial hunting for profit) has a sterling record with respect to conservation. I also agree that the managed hunting that occurs in most developed countries is sustainable, and indeed can be an effective tool for managing wildlife populations. Lastly, I agree that Sportsman have made very, very positive contributions with respect to the conservation of wildlife and wild areas.
With all do respect, I’m puzzled as to why you directed your latest comments towards me?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
cjanak: Because I had a sudden attack of the terminal stoopids.
Vern, I'm a tad dubious that more "subsistence" or "traditional" hunting will amount to all that much endangerment. You're certainly correct about the source of any endangerment, of course.
Vern, I'm a tad dubious that more "subsistence" or "traditional" hunting will amount to all that much endangerment.
You're certainly correct about the source of any endangerment, of course.Vern Humphrey
Member
The point being, since their numbers have doubled in the last 30 years, whatever hunting pressure they're under isn't hurting them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
