NationStates

Ifreann wrote:

San Lumen wrote:We can ban hunting for sport and reform the farms to be more ethical.

So in one instance, killing animals for pleasure is unacceptable and to be banned entirely, but in another instance killing animals for pleasure is acceptable provided it is done in accordance with certain ethical standards.

"For pleasure" is an outrageous attribution of intent, for which you should be ashamed.

Wink Wonk We Like Stonks wrote:hunting, for sport or otherwise, is definitely more ethical than fucking factory farms.

Um, only if you consider what is done to the animals, without considering also what is done with their meat.

You seem to be saying the moral cost to the farmer/hunter is all that matters. And that just doesn't work for me. It's removing the context, and if we're going to do that then what about unlimited hunting the extinguishes every large species on the continent? The dodo attests to this, and the blue whale would too, if governments hadn't stepped in to defend 'the commons'. Buffalo in North America would be extinct, if government had not fully reversed itself from paying bounties to legally protecting the animals. I could go on. You must surely acknowledge extinction of species as an ethical cost.

I'm making no assumptions about you, but I eat meat from the shop. I buy "free range" etc where it's available, chicken and beef and fish, but I also eat pork which I know is from pigs raised in pens. There is an ethical cost to that, but I would only feel worse if I knew that for every pig I eat the meat from, government allowed hunters for a small fee, to kill a pig in the wild. And leave it to rot.

To avoid the Buddhist dilemma of harming no other life to remain alive, or the even less rigorous Vegan dilemma along the same lines, we have to consider the lives of animals other than our own species, less than ours. There is another consideration, of species, by which the rarer an animal is the more it should be protected, but it does not factor in to human meat-eating choices (unless you're a sicko).

I think it is more ethical to eat all the meat, from an abundant species shot in the wild, than to eat the meat of a farmed animal.

But you mentioned "sport shooting". That is, shooting an animal and assuming that because it is down, it is dead. I'm not so cool with that. The hunter really should make some use of the meat, and if they don't, I would consider it less ethical than farmers killing their animals.

I don't usually pivot to Australia so persistently, but on this subject I think our situation is unique. Most feral species are predators or scavengers, and the most obvious problems are cats, foxes and pigs: even a feral cat is larger than most native predators. All a hunter would need to know is "it's not a kangaroo or a wombat" and they'd be good to go. If it's big it's probably a feral ... or an emu, but it's well known that emus are bullet-proof. So I'd actually be OK with Australian gun-owners hunting "for sport" if they passed a few tests about what is definitely a pig, not a human doing something weird (as we do), where they're likely to see a wombat, and so on.

I would like to see wild pig meat brought to market (if that is safe), and I'd like to eat camel because they are impressive creatures who should not be shot just for sport. But the essential link I would like to make is between shooting for sport, and diminution of the feral species. I feel that's the one thing gun owners and myself, might come together on. Because shooting creatures only ever serves a social purpose, if someone besides the shooter benefits.

San Lumen wrote:

Wink Wonk We Like Stonks wrote:hunting, for sport or otherwise, is definitely more ethical than fucking factory farms.

We can ban hunting for sport and reform the farms to be more ethical.

Or ethically hunt for sport and ethically factory farm.

Sundiata wrote:

San Lumen wrote:We can ban hunting for sport and reform the farms to be more ethical.

Or ethically hunt for sport and ethically factory farm.

hmmm

A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:

Wink Wonk We Like Stonks wrote:hunting, for sport or otherwise, is definitely more ethical than fucking factory farms.

Um, only if you consider what is done to the animals, without considering also what is done with their meat.

You seem to be saying the moral cost to the farmer/hunter is all that matters. And that just doesn't work for me. It's removing the context, and if we're going to do that then what about unlimited hunting the extinguishes every large species on the continent? The dodo attests to this, and the blue whale would too, if governments hadn't stepped in to defend 'the commons'. Buffalo in North America would be extinct, if government had not fully reversed itself from paying bounties to legally protecting the animals. I could go on. You must surely acknowledge extinction of species as an ethical cost.

I'm making no assumptions about you, but I eat meat from the shop. I buy "free range" etc where it's available, chicken and beef and fish, but I also eat pork which I know is from pigs raised in pens. There is an ethical cost to that, but I would only feel worse if I knew that for every pig I eat the meat from, government allowed hunters for a small fee, to kill a pig in the wild. And leave it to rot.

To avoid the Buddhist dilemma of harming no other life to remain alive, or the even less rigorous Vegan dilemma along the same lines, we have to consider the lives of animals other than our own species, less than ours. There is another consideration, of species, by which the rarer an animal is the more it should be protected, but it does not factor in to human meat-eating choices (unless you're a sicko).

I think it is more ethical to eat all the meat, from an abundant species shot in the wild, than to eat the meat of a farmed animal.

But you mentioned "sport shooting". That is, shooting an animal and assuming that because it is down, it is dead. I'm not so cool with that. The hunter really should make some use of the meat, and if they don't, I would consider it less ethical than farmers killing their animals.

I don't usually pivot to Australia so persistently, but on this subject I think our situation is unique. Most feral species are predators or scavengers, and the most obvious problems are cats, foxes and pigs: even a feral cat is larger than most native predators. All a hunter would need to know is "it's not a kangaroo or a wombat" and they'd be good to go. If it's big it's probably a feral ... or an emu, but it's well known that emus are bullet-proof. So I'd actually be OK with Australian gun-owners hunting "for sport" if they passed a few tests about what is definitely a pig, not a human doing something weird (as we do), where they're likely to see a wombat, and so on.

I would like to see wild pig meat brought to market (if that is safe), and I'd like to eat camel because they are impressive creatures who should not be shot just for sport. But the essential link I would like to make is between shooting for sport, and diminution of the feral species. I feel that's the one thing gun owners and myself, might come together on. Because shooting creatures only ever serves a social purpose, if someone besides the shooter benefits.

i mean i also eat the shelf meat as most people do, and by hunting i mean going out w/ the comrades to shoot some deer not driving buffalo to extinction.

San Lumen wrote:

Wink Wonk We Like Stonks wrote:hunting, for sport or otherwise, is definitely more ethical than fucking factory farms.

We can ban hunting for sport and reform the farms to be more ethical.

Or, we can not ban hunting for sport and reform the farms.

Salus Maior wrote:

San Lumen wrote:We can ban hunting for sport and reform the farms to be more ethical.

Or, we can not ban hunting for sport and reform the farms.

Exactly, the best of both worlds.

Sundiata wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Or, we can not ban hunting for sport and reform the farms.

Exactly, the best of both worlds.

Hunting for sport does not pass the "what if everyone did it" test.

If anywhere, me as human would say I love to kill just to kill, everyone would be horrible and view me as a disgusting psychopath.
yet, there is not much different between running after an animal victim just to see their life end, so we can pose with their body as trophy. hunters do not perform any ecological missions, they are killing for pleasure

Sport Hunting must be banned, Its completely immoral.

Animals may kill each others, but rarely for pleasure.

Watchful Eyes wrote:

A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:
Um, only if you consider what is done to the animals, without considering also what is done with their meat.

You seem to be saying the moral cost to the farmer/hunter is all that matters. And that just doesn't work for me. It's removing the context, and if we're going to do that then what about unlimited hunting the extinguishes every large species on the continent? The dodo attests to this, and the blue whale would too, if governments hadn't stepped in to defend 'the commons'. Buffalo in North America would be extinct, if government had not fully reversed itself from paying bounties to legally protecting the animals. I could go on. You must surely acknowledge extinction of species as an ethical cost.

I'm making no assumptions about you, but I eat meat from the shop. I buy "free range" etc where it's available, chicken and beef and fish, but I also eat pork which I know is from pigs raised in pens. There is an ethical cost to that, but I would only feel worse if I knew that for every pig I eat the meat from, government allowed hunters for a small fee, to kill a pig in the wild. And leave it to rot.

To avoid the Buddhist dilemma of harming no other life to remain alive, or the even less rigorous Vegan dilemma along the same lines, we have to consider the lives of animals other than our own species, less than ours. There is another consideration, of species, by which the rarer an animal is the more it should be protected, but it does not factor in to human meat-eating choices (unless you're a sicko).

I think it is more ethical to eat all the meat, from an abundant species shot in the wild, than to eat the meat of a farmed animal.

But you mentioned "sport shooting". That is, shooting an animal and assuming that because it is down, it is dead. I'm not so cool with that. The hunter really should make some use of the meat, and if they don't, I would consider it less ethical than farmers killing their animals.

I don't usually pivot to Australia so persistently, but on this subject I think our situation is unique. Most feral species are predators or scavengers, and the most obvious problems are cats, foxes and pigs: even a feral cat is larger than most native predators. All a hunter would need to know is "it's not a kangaroo or a wombat" and they'd be good to go. If it's big it's probably a feral ... or an emu, but it's well known that emus are bullet-proof. So I'd actually be OK with Australian gun-owners hunting "for sport" if they passed a few tests about what is definitely a pig, not a human doing something weird (as we do), where they're likely to see a wombat, and so on.

I would like to see wild pig meat brought to market (if that is safe), and I'd like to eat camel because they are impressive creatures who should not be shot just for sport. But the essential link I would like to make is between shooting for sport, and diminution of the feral species. I feel that's the one thing gun owners and myself, might come together on. Because shooting creatures only ever serves a social purpose, if someone besides the shooter benefits

.

i mean i also eat the shelf meat as most people do, and by hunting i mean going out w/ the comrades to shoot some deer not driving buffalo to extinction.

If everyone did it, you would drive deer to extinction.

I'm OK with a few people doing it, but there needs to be licensing so government can say "wait up, only some of you can do it, pay money to enter the lottery please".

Fauzjhia wrote:If anywhere, me as human would say I love to kill just to kill, everyone would be horrible and view me as a disgusting psychopath.
yet, there is not much different between running after an animal victim just to see their life end, so we can pose with their body as trophy. hunters do not perform any ecological missions, they are killing for pleasure

Sport Hunting must be banned, Its completely immoral.

Animals may kill each others, but rarely for pleasure.

Again with the Australian perspective, we have a lot animals running around who are destroying the old ecosystem ... like cats and foxes ... and harnessing the desire to kill flighty game for no other reason than sport, to kill off some of our ferals, seems to me a win/win. Our park rangers do not enjoy the job, in fact they are constrained by budget to baiting the unwanted animals rather than shooting them. Why not let gun-owning volunteers (with training) do the killing?

That said, some volunteers would have an aversion to shooting a large and fluffy version of a house cat. They're a serious problem, they need to die. I think a bounty on cats might be appropriate.

A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:

Fauzjhia wrote:If anywhere, me as human would say I love to kill just to kill, everyone would be horrible and view me as a disgusting psychopath.
yet, there is not much different between running after an animal victim just to see their life end, so we can pose with their body as trophy. hunters do not perform any ecological missions, they are killing for pleasure

Sport Hunting must be banned, Its completely immoral.

Animals may kill each others, but rarely for pleasure.

Again with the Australian perspective, we have a lot animals running around who are destroying the old ecosystem ... like cats and foxes ... and harnessing the desire to kill flighty game for no other reason than sport, to kill off some of our ferals, seems to me a win/win. Our park rangers do not enjoy the job, in fact they are constrained by budget to baiting the unwanted animals rather than shooting them. Why not let gun-owning volunteers (with training) do the killing?

That said, some volunteers would have an aversion to shooting a large and fluffy version of a house cat. They're a serious problem, they need to die. I think a bounty on cats might be appropriate.

invasive species are not a problem that happen by itself in nature. it happen because humans bring a species from one continent to another. So we humans are responsible for the destruction caused by invasive species.

the cats did not appear by magic.

Fauzjhia wrote:

A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:
Again with the Australian perspective, we have a lot animals running around who are destroying the old ecosystem ... like cats and foxes ... and harnessing the desire to kill flighty game for no other reason than sport, to kill off some of our ferals, seems to me a win/win. Our park rangers do not enjoy the job, in fact they are constrained by budget to baiting the unwanted animals rather than shooting them. Why not let gun-owning volunteers (with training) do the killing?

That said, some volunteers would have an aversion to shooting a large and fluffy version of a house cat. They're a serious problem, they need to die. I think a bounty on cats might be appropriate.

invasive species are not a problem that happen by itself in nature. it happen because humans bring a species from one continent to another. So we humans are responsible for the destruction caused by invasive species.

the cats did not appear by magic.

Thank you captain obvious.

Thing is stating the obvious doesn’t actually solve the problem.

A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:

Fauzjhia wrote:If anywhere, me as human would say I love to kill just to kill, everyone would be horrible and view me as a disgusting psychopath.
yet, there is not much different between running after an animal victim just to see their life end, so we can pose with their body as trophy. hunters do not perform any ecological missions, they are killing for pleasure

Sport Hunting must be banned, Its completely immoral.

Animals may kill each others, but rarely for pleasure.

Again with the Australian perspective, we have a lot animals running around who are destroying the old ecosystem ... like cats and foxes ... and harnessing the desire to kill flighty game for no other reason than sport, to kill off some of our ferals, seems to me a win/win. Our park rangers do not enjoy the job, in fact they are constrained by budget to baiting the unwanted animals rather than shooting them. Why not let gun-owning volunteers (with training) do the killing?

That said, some volunteers would have an aversion to shooting a large and fluffy version of a house cat. They're a serious problem, they need to die. I think a bounty on cats might be appropriate.

Ever heard the tale of the British cobra bounty in India?

A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:

Fauzjhia wrote:If anywhere, me as human would say I love to kill just to kill, everyone would be horrible and view me as a disgusting psychopath.
yet, there is not much different between running after an animal victim just to see their life end, so we can pose with their body as trophy. hunters do not perform any ecological missions, they are killing for pleasure

Sport Hunting must be banned, Its completely immoral.

Animals may kill each others, but rarely for pleasure.

Again with the Australian perspective, we have a lot animals running around who are destroying the old ecosystem ... like cats and foxes ... and harnessing the desire to kill flighty game for no other reason than sport, to kill off some of our ferals, seems to me a win/win. Our park rangers do not enjoy the job, in fact they are constrained by budget to baiting the unwanted animals rather than shooting them. Why not let gun-owning volunteers (with training) do the killing?

That said, some volunteers would have an aversion to shooting a large and fluffy version of a house cat. They're a serious problem, they need to die. I think a bounty on cats might be appropriate.

And if you do it like we do in America, the government can sell hunting permits to those volunteers and use the money to help maintain the parks.

Sundiata wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Yeah. So why do you want us to kill our prey slowly like they do?

Not too slowly, not too quickly. While we don't want to enjoy unnecessary pain we also want to savor the experience without being too gruesome.

One time while talking to my brother in law about hunting, he told me that when he shoots a deer, he wants it DRT (Dead Right There). Not only did he say he wants to minimize the animal's suffering by ensuring the quickest and most humane kill possible, he also doesn't want to break his back tracking and hauling the deer carcass further than necessary.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Not too slowly, not too quickly. While we don't want to enjoy unnecessary pain we also want to savor the experience without being too gruesome.

One time while talking to my brother in law about hunting, he told me that when he shoots a deer, he wants it DRT (Dead Right There). Not only did he say he wants to minimize the animal's suffering by ensuring the quickest and most humane kill possible, he also doesn't want to break his back tracking and hauling the deer carcass further than necessary.

Your brother is right to have such mercy.

A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Exactly, the best of both worlds.

Hunting for sport does not pass the "what if everyone did it" test.

Not everyone does it in reality.

Wink Wonk We Like Stonks wrote:hunting, for sport or otherwise, is definitely more ethical than fucking factory farms.

Then a little later:

Salus Maior wrote:

A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:
Hunting for sport does not pass the "what if everyone did it" test.

Not everyone does it in reality.

If A and B are alternatives, and A is "definitely more ethical" than B, it follows that more people should A so that less people have to do B.

But only up to a point. When the meat animals become rare in the wild, the situation is reversed and killing more of them is less ethical than paying a farmer to manage a boring and probably childless life for a very common animal.

I suggest that there's a point where so many people are doing A, that it becomes unethical just by stressing the ecosystem, and that point comes before the target animal is listed as Endangered.

Hunting helps keep animal species at a level so there populations don't overpopulate and destroy the ecosystem. While I do agree that poaching is wrong I am completely fine with hunting as long as your doing it legally. Hunting is not morally wrong nor is it cruel to animals. Let me take you back to the overpopulation would you rather have the animals die a slow death from starvation or be killed quickly. Personally I enjoy hunting and while yes poaching is illegal you shouldn’t punish legal hunters by banning hunting all together

Sundiata wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:
One time while talking to my brother in law about hunting, he told me that when he shoots a deer, he wants it DRT (Dead Right There). Not only did he say he wants to minimize the animal's suffering by ensuring the quickest and most humane kill possible, he also doesn't want to break his back tracking and hauling the deer carcass further than necessary.

Your brother is right to have such mercy.

Sure, let me tell me, that the animal do not care ir a killer want to not make them suffer, or just want to torture them. Pretty the animals just do not want to die.

The Military State of the Galapagos wrote:Hunting helps keep animal species at a level so there populations don't overpopulate and destroy the ecosystem. While I do agree that poaching is wrong I am completely fine with hunting as long as your doing it legally. Hunting is not morally wrong nor is it cruel to animals. Let me take you back to the overpopulation would you rather have the animals die a slow death from starvation or be killed quickly. Personally I enjoy hunting and while yes poaching is illegal you shouldn’t punish legal hunters by banning hunting all together

Naw, Hunting is Morally wrong, the very reason why ecosystem are unbalanced, is because we destroyed them.
small exemple. we destroy the Wolf by hunting, and now we have a deer over population, so we think its fine to kill deers, because it (regulate) the overpopulation.

Also. This is pure fantasy... let's say, an alien came around and began exterminating humans to (regulate the overpopulation), I,m pretty sure we are going to label that aliens as (thy great evil) and rally people for a counter attack. Despite the fact the aliens is doing, what humans are doing to animals.

That we kill to feed ourselves. I understand, animals do it too. that we kill for trophies, that I can't understand and never will,. its morally wrong.

Fauzjhia wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Your brother is right to have such mercy.

Sure, let me tell me, that the animal do not care ir a killer want to not make them suffer, or just want to torture them. Pretty the animals just do not want to die.

The Military State of the Galapagos wrote:Hunting helps keep animal species at a level so there populations don't overpopulate and destroy the ecosystem. While I do agree that poaching is wrong I am completely fine with hunting as long as your doing it legally. Hunting is not morally wrong nor is it cruel to animals. Let me take you back to the overpopulation would you rather have the animals die a slow death from starvation or be killed quickly. Personally I enjoy hunting and while yes poaching is illegal you shouldn’t punish legal hunters by banning hunting all together

Naw, Hunting is Morally wrong, the very reason why ecosystem are unbalanced, is because we destroyed them.
small exemple. we destroy the Wolf by hunting, and now we have a deer over population, so we think its fine to kill deers, because it (regulate) the overpopulation.

Also. This is pure fantasy... let's say, an alien came around and began exterminating humans to (regulate the overpopulation), I,m pretty sure we are going to label that aliens as (thy great evil) and rally people for a counter attack. Despite the fact the aliens is doing, what humans are doing to animals.

That we kill to feed ourselves. I understand, animals do it too. that we kill for trophies, that I can't understand and never will,. its morally wrong.

People who kill for trophies also either keep the meat or donate it. I'm not familiar with any hunter who wants trophies and just abandons the meat for terrestrial game.

Kernen wrote:

Fauzjhia wrote:

Sure, let me tell me, that the animal do not care ir a killer want to not make them suffer, or just want to torture them. Pretty the animals just do not want to die.



Naw, Hunting is Morally wrong, the very reason why ecosystem are unbalanced, is because we destroyed them.
small exemple. we destroy the Wolf by hunting, and now we have a deer over population, so we think its fine to kill deers, because it (regulate) the overpopulation.

Also. This is pure fantasy... let's say, an alien came around and began exterminating humans to (regulate the overpopulation), I,m pretty sure we are going to label that aliens as (thy great evil) and rally people for a counter attack. Despite the fact the aliens is doing, what humans are doing to animals.

That we kill to feed ourselves. I understand, animals do it too. that we kill for trophies, that I can't understand and never will,. its morally wrong.

People who kill for trophies also either keep the meat or donate it. I'm not familiar with any hunter who wants trophies and just abandons the meat for terrestrial game.

Yea me to

The Military State of the Galapagos wrote:

Kernen wrote:People who kill for trophies also either keep the meat or donate it. I'm not familiar with any hunter who wants trophies and just abandons the meat for terrestrial game.

Yea me to

Does not them better person, as they decided to kill a living just for pleasure.
the very idea of being comfortable with a living trophy is something I find to be very wrong morally, if not just sick.

its really just a left over, of how, we humans, think we have the right to do what ever we want with other live forms, and that's just wrong to me. Atropocentrism is the problem, not thy solution.

Fauzjhia wrote:

The Military State of the Galapagos wrote:Yea me to

Does not them better person, as they decided to kill a living just for pleasure.
the very idea of being comfortable with a living trophy is something I find to be very wrong morally, if not just sick.

its really just a left over, of how, we humans, think we have the right to do what ever we want with other live forms, and that's just wrong to me. Atropocentrism is the problem, not thy solution.

Morally wrong but legal acts carry no penalty of note. Its odd that somebody else's revulsion would govern one's action.

Fauzjhia wrote:If anywhere, me as human would say I love to kill just to kill, everyone would be horrible and view me as a disgusting psychopath.
yet, there is not much different between running after an animal victim just to see their life end, so we can pose with their body as trophy. hunters do not perform any ecological missions, they are killing for pleasure

Sport Hunting must be banned, Its completely immoral.

Animals may kill each others, but rarely for pleasure.

You may want to do a search on killer whales, they fuck with their prey all the time.