Should Hunting for Sport be Banned?

[Greater Cesnica]

Human beings and animals don't have the same level of dignity. It's fine to to farm, hunt, and eat animals. There are just ethical ways to farm and hunt.

Do you or do you not care if the animal suffers? If not, then what do you actually mean by dignity? It sounds like you’re using it as a buzzword that doesn’t actually mean anything for the animal.

I'd imagine it's some convoluted religious justification, which I find distasteful personally, myself being a religious person whose hunting is partially motivated by ensuring my meat is Halal.

Is it just as unsportsmanlike if the animal is killed in one shot?

Not if the kill was rightly earned.

isn't that the same as no chance at survival?

No, if a hunter is that good of a shot with no chance at losing then it would be dignified to retire.

It is not righteous to let an animal suffer after sustaining a bullet injury, what part of this is so difficult for you to understand???

[Grinning Dragon]

Is it just as unsportsmanlike if the animal is killed in one shot?

Not if the kill was rightly earned.

isn't that the same as no chance at survival?

No, if a hunter is that good of a shot with no chance at losing then it would be dignified to retire.

What is rightly earned?
Again, well intended shots can be affected down range before it impacts its intended target. It isn't the same as shooting at stationary targets.

[The Cazistan]

https://www.kare11.com/article/sports/outdoors/wisconsin-wolf-hunt-ends-early-hunters-trappers-exceed-kill-target/89-6f8059e4-ae02-47b3-97cb-1516e8c51a58

https://www.startribune.com/hunters-and ... 600026878/

The Wisconsin Wolf hunt ended after only two days due to hunters exceeding the kill target. The Department of Natural Resources closed the season after hunters and trappers had killed 178 wolves, which was 59 more than the state's target of 119. Hunters and trappers exceeded their target in all six of the state's management zones.

These animals were killed not for food or protecting people but for sheer ruthless fun and its utterly despicable.

Hunting for sport is morally and ethically wrong and there is no reason for it. Wolf cubs will now be left without parents and not be able to survive. Packs will be destroyed and whole ecosystems possibly disrupted. Hunting for sport should be outlawed as their is no justification for it. Getting a thrill out of killing a wild animal is disgusting.

Your Thoughts NSG?

If you think it's for "sheer ruthless fun" then you live in an urban metro in a shielded little bubble where you don't have to worry about wild animals massacring you livestock overnight. The fact is, wolves are predators and peaceful coexistence with them in the wild in not possible. If we get rid of them entirely though, the prey population (deer, rabbits, etc.) would explode and then we'd have another issue. Population control is a very real factor of Amercian life that most people overlook.

[Salus Maior]

I'd imagine it's some convoluted religious justification, which I find distasteful personally, myself being a religious person whose hunting is partially motivated by ensuring my meat is Halal.

It's pretty simple.

Animal life is not entitled to the same amount of respect and value as a human life. Something which most people believe anyway.

That being said, that does not mean animal life doesn't deserve respect all its own. I certainly believe making an animal suffer unnecessarily is morally wrong.

[Sundiata]

Human beings and animals don't have the same level of dignity. It's fine to to farm, hunt, and eat animals. There are just ethical ways to farm and hunt.

Do you or do you not care if the animal suffers? If not, then what do you actually mean by dignity? It sounds like you’re using it as a buzzword that doesn’t actually mean anything for the animal.

I care if an animal I hunt suffers unnecessarily. But for the sake of sport, some suffering for animals is permissible. Hunting wouldn't a be sport if I always got each kill. By dignity I mean that human beings should be treated better than animals. Animals do not have human dignity.

I'd imagine it's some convoluted religious justification, which I find distasteful personally, myself being a religious person whose hunting is partially motivated by ensuring my meat is Halal.

It's pretty simple.

Animal life is not entitled to the same amount of respect and value as a human life. Something which most people believe anyway.

That being said, that does not mean animal life doesn't deserve respect all its own. I certainly believe making an animal suffer unnecessarily is morally wrong.

Exactly.

[Greater Cesnica]

But for the sake of sport, some suffering for animals is permissible.

Not in my eyes. That's vile.

[Sundiata]

Not if the kill was rightly earned. No, if a hunter is that good of a shot with no chance at losing then it would be dignified to retire.

What is rightly earned?
Again, well intended shots can be affected down range before it impacts its intended target. It isn't the same as shooting at stationary targets.

It takes skill to kill a target at a distance, especially moving ones. If the target gets away, it gets away.

[Salus Maior]

But for the sake of sport, some suffering for animals is permissible.

Not in my eyes. That's vile.

Well, as a hunter you are inflicting some degree of suffering on animals.

It might be justified for a greater good, that being your own good, but it doesn't mean that there's zero suffering involved.

[Greater Cesnica]

What is rightly earned?
Again, well intended shots can be affected down range before it impacts its intended target. It isn't the same as shooting at stationary targets.

It takes skill to kill a target at a distance, especially moving ones. If the target gets away, it gets away.

Yeah, not my kind of sport. To inflict needless suffering upon an animal is a disgrace I regard worse than merely killing it.

[Greater Cesnica]

Not in my eyes. That's vile.

Well, as a hunter you are inflicting some degree of suffering on animals.

It might be justified for a greater good, that being your own good, but it doesn't mean that there's zero suffering involved.

Sure, but my goal is to kill with the first shot. If I am unable I will follow-up, and ensure the animal suffers for the least amount of time.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

But they keep saying they are environmentalists.

A lot of hunters I know are very environmentally conscious, I think it's a common sentiment among people who enjoy the wilderness to want to preserve the wilderness.

That being said, whether it was due to poor oversight or irresponsible hunters, this hunt went wrong. I don't think that's representative of hunting overall.

More likely the number of tags issued was because the wDNR thought wolves were still crafty big critters like a sort of super-fox...

Turns out they aren't too evasive to gunfire. Yet.

Next year will go better. Probably even requiring a more expensive and limited-access stamp on their back-tags.

[Sundiata]

But for the sake of sport, some suffering for animals is permissible.

Not in my eyes. That's vile.

It's not vile, we're literally better than them. If the targeted animal escapes then it's all in good fun.

[Agrotora]

I think in most cases, yes. No one really needs to hunt giraffes, lions, etc. for fun. Though, if there is a valid reason, such as conservation, that should maybe be an exception? I do understand that it can be part of local income, which makes this more complicated. I'm overall conflicted. On one hand, I think the natural environment should be left alone with no interference from humans. On the other, our effect on the environment is already present and we have done so much damage that it must be our responsibility to keep it in check. I would love to say yes but I don't think I'm informed enough to do so.

[Greater Cesnica]

Not in my eyes. That's vile.

It's not vile, we're literally better than them. If the targeted animal escapes then it's all in good fun.

I guess I'm more empathetic than you. I do not, and will not engage in sport where inflicting suffering without ending it is a viable conclusion for me.

[Grinning Dragon]

What is rightly earned?
Again, well intended shots can be affected down range before it impacts its intended target. It isn't the same as shooting at stationary targets.

It takes skill to kill a target at a distance, especially moving ones. If the target gets away, it gets away.

Again, shooting at an animal at a distance can have the shot affected down range and shooting at an animal at longer distances isn't all that different than shooting one at shorter distances.
I've taken game at 400yrds just as easily as at 40 yrds. The one thing that always concerns me is that there might be something down range when I send the shot that will affect it at such long distances.

[Sundiata]

It's not vile, we're literally better than them. If the targeted animal escapes then it's all in good fun.

I guess I'm more empathetic than you. I do not, and will not engage in sport where inflicting suffering without ending it is a viable conclusion for me.

It's good to have a heart but don't waste it or take it for granted. While they do have dignity you're better than an animal, everyone is.

[Greater Cesnica]

I guess I'm more empathetic than you. I do not, and will not engage in sport where inflicting suffering without ending it is a viable conclusion for me.

It's good to have a heart but don't waste it or take it for granted. While they do have dignity you're better than an animal, everyone is.

You're right, I'm better than an animal. That's why I care about suffering, whereas most of the time animals don't.

[Salus Maior]

Well, as a hunter you are inflicting some degree of suffering on animals.

It might be justified for a greater good, that being your own good, but it doesn't mean that there's zero suffering involved.

Sure, but my goal is to kill with the first shot. If I am unable I will follow-up, and ensure the animal suffers for the least amount of time.

Yes, I think we can all agree that's best.

But that's not really different from what Sun's saying.

[Ors Might]

Not in my eyes. That's vile.

It's not vile, we're literally better than them. If the targeted animal escapes then it's all in good fun.

The fact that we’re better means we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than rank barbarism.

[Greater Cesnica]

It's not vile, we're literally better than them. If the targeted animal escapes then it's all in good fun.

The fact that we’re better means we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than rank barbarism.

My thoughts precisely.

Sure, but my goal is to kill with the first shot. If I am unable I will follow-up, and ensure the animal suffers for the least amount of time.

Yes, I think we can all agree that's best.

But that's not really different from what Sun's saying.

No, Sun is fine with inflicting suffering upon animals for sport without following up to end that suffering.

[Sundiata]

It's good to have a heart but don't waste it or take it for granted. While they do have dignity you're better than an animal, everyone is.

You're right, I'm better than an animal. That's why I care about suffering, whereas most of the time animals don't.

That's also an important trait for any person.

[Krasny-Volny]

Wild hogs are especially bad. They reproduce like mad and they shrug off damage that would be fatal trauma in any other animal.

Javelinas are worse. They swarm attack. a friend hunts pig and went on a hunt for Javelina. He shot one long distance and was surprised to see 20+ running around looking for who did it. He said if he was close they probably would have killed him.

Interesting. I've encountered Javelina from time to time. They're usually pretty timid and take off running when I get close. How close they let me get before they scatter depends on the location, but the closest I've gotten to one in a pack was about ten feet (!) - this was in a designated wilderness area south of Tucson. I've always thought it would pretty easy to pick two or three off at that point when they're about to scatter. Especially with a semi-auto hunting rifle and a 10 to 30 round magazine...provided it's legal to hunt with that size of mag in your state.

[Sundiata]

The fact that we’re better means we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than rank barbarism.

My thoughts precisely.

Yes, I think we can all agree that's best.

But that's not really different from what Sun's saying.

No, Sun is fine with inflicting suffering upon animals for sport without following up to end that suffering.

Only if my shot doesn't kill the animal I am hunting at the first go.

[Greater Cesnica]

My thoughts precisely.


No, Sun is fine with inflicting suffering upon animals for sport without following up to end that suffering.

Only if my shot doesn't kill the animal I am hunting at the first go.

There's no reason to impose that restriction upon yourself besides this idea of "sportsmanship", which I find irrelevant if it causes needless suffering.

[Sundiata]

Only if my shot doesn't kill the animal I am hunting at the first go.

There's no reason to impose that restriction upon yourself besides this idea of "sportsmanship", which I find irrelevant if it causes needless suffering.

It's necessary suffering for the dignity of the animal, the hunter, and the sport.