Should Hunting for Sport be Banned?

[Greater Cesnica]

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.

What dignity? There is no dignity in needlessly suffering over a sport. None, whatsoever. Dignity is maintained when suffering is minimized or eliminated. Not by prolonging it.

[Ors Might]

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.

This dignity you speak of sounds more and more like sadism.

[Greater Cesnica]

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

This dignity you speak of sounds more and more like sadism.

It is sadism, I'm afraid.

[Katganistan]

Nothing comparable to what any human being goes through.

????

Complete non sequitur.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

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.

That's fucked up bro.

[Grinning Dragon]

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.

Just so I am getting this. You take a shot, it hits, the animal runs off and you are ok with that?
I may not be the most compassionate or empathic towards game, at least I'm of mind to make sure the animal wouldn't suffer, with either a quick follow up shot, or track it down and put it out of it's misery.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Why does the opportunity to escape make hunting less cruel? By that metric, farmed meat is the height of cruelty, as it provides no opportunity to escape.

Hunting is primarily a question of utility. A semi automatic rifle limits animal suffering by allowing rapid adjustment for a bad shot.

Hunting for sport is not a question of utility. It's fine if an animal suffers as long as it lives. If one's shot is bad, practice the shot.

No it is not okay for an animal to suffer. What the actual fuck Sundiata, in what world is animal suffering fucking alright?

[Greater Cesnica]

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

Just so I am getting this. You take a shot, it hits, the animal runs off and you are ok with that?
I may not be the most compassionate or empathic towards game, at least I'm of mind to make sure the animal wouldn't suffer, with either a quick follow up shot, or track it down and put it out of it's misery.

That's exactly what he's okay with. It's fucking depraved.

[Sundiata]

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

What dignity? There is no dignity in suffering. None, whatsoever. Dignity is maintained when suffering is minimized or eliminated. Not by prolonging it.

There is dignity in suffering. It's a necessary part of life for all creatures. Dignity is not maintained in eliminating suffering but persevering through it.

The poorest way to face life is to face it with disgust. There is nothing honorable about cynicism. If an animal can persist at life limping about with a bullet in its side then I must give it credit. I give it credit for persisting. That's a high achievement for any animal, to know victory, and if it dies, defeat.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

What dignity? There is no dignity in suffering. None, whatsoever. Dignity is maintained when suffering is minimized or eliminated. Not by prolonging it.

There is dignity in suffering. It's a necessary part of life for all creatures. Dignity is not maintained in eliminating suffering but persevering through it.

The poorest way to face life is to face it with disgust. There is nothing honorable about cynicism. If an animal can persist at life limping about with a bullet in its side then I must give it credit. I give it credit for persisting. That's a high achievement for any animal, to know victory, and if it dies, defeat.

Wow sundiata. You're really admitting to supporting animal cruelty.

[Katganistan]

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.

It is, though, in that Sundiata is suggesting that a wounded animal NOT be put out of its misery in the name of it being more sporting that way.

[Greater Cesnica]

What dignity? There is no dignity in suffering. None, whatsoever. Dignity is maintained when suffering is minimized or eliminated. Not by prolonging it.

There is dignity in suffering. It's a necessary part of life for all creatures. Dignity is not maintained in eliminating suffering but persevering through it.

The poorest way to face life is to face it with disgust. There is nothing honorable about cynicism. If an animal can persist at life limping about with a bullet in its side then I must give it credit. I give it credit for persisting. That's a high achievement for any animal, to know victory, and if it dies, defeat.

Nope, nope, and nope. You've succeeded in stunning both thrill hunters and sustenance hunters with your takes here.

[Sundiata]

There is dignity in suffering. It's a necessary part of life for all creatures. Dignity is not maintained in eliminating suffering but persevering through it.

The poorest way to face life is to face it with disgust. There is nothing honorable about cynicism. If an animal can persist at life limping about with a bullet in its side then I must give it credit. I give it credit for persisting. That's a high achievement for any animal, to know victory, and if it dies, defeat.

Wow sundiata. You're really admitting to supporting animal cruelty.

It's not cruel to let the creature live if I fail to kill it. It's mercy.

[Krasny-Volny]

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.

Give me a break. It's hunters like you that give the rest of us a bad name. I bet you're the kind of guy who spotlights deer, too, because that's all in good fun.

It's a sport. That means there are rules. Play by the rules and don't cheat. Part of those rules is that if you shoot some critter and it gets away, you have an obligation to pursue and finish it off rather than let the meat go to waste.

If you shoot animals without taking the time to ensure they are properly dealt with you aren't hunting any more, you're just shooting.

[Greater Cesnica]

Wow sundiata. You're really admitting to supporting animal cruelty.

It's not cruel to let the creature live if I fail to kill it. It's mercy.

No, mercy is killing the animal to put it out of suffering that it did not do anything to deserve

[Krasny-Volny]

Wow sundiata. You're really admitting to supporting animal cruelty.

It's not cruel to let the creature live if I fail to kill it. It's mercy.

The creature usually bleeds out and dies anyway later on. It's not like they can dress their wound or somehow staunch the bleeding.

If death is truly inevitable, prolonging the suffering involved in that death is not mercy.

[Grinning Dragon]

Wow sundiata. You're really admitting to supporting animal cruelty.

It's not cruel to let the creature live if I fail to kill it. It's mercy.

The thing is you don't know if it's going to live once it's gone from your view and depending on the shot placement, it could run off 200-300yrds and expire. IMO, I'd track that shit down as that's a kill and food for the table.

[Sundiata]

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

Give me a break. It's hunters like you that give the rest of us a bad name. I bet you're the kind of guy who spotlights deer, too, because that's all in good fun.

It's a sport. That means there are rules. Play by the rules and don't cheat. Part of those rules is that if you shoot some critter and it gets away, you have an obligation to pursue and finish it off rather than let the meat go to waste.

If you shoot animals without taking the time to ensure they are properly dealt with you aren't hunting any more, you're just shooting.

If you can't kill the target after pursuing it, then it's morally okay. It got away and it deserves credit for escaping. I'm not saying that anyone should enjoy losing.

[Krasny-Volny]

Give me a break. It's hunters like you that give the rest of us a bad name. I bet you're the kind of guy who spotlights deer, too, because that's all in good fun.

It's a sport. That means there are rules. Play by the rules and don't cheat. Part of those rules is that if you shoot some critter and it gets away, you have an obligation to pursue and finish it off rather than let the meat go to waste.

If you shoot animals without taking the time to ensure they are properly dealt with you aren't hunting any more, you're just shooting.

If you can't kill the target after pursuing it, then it's morally okay. It got away and it deserves credit for escaping.

The creature usually bleeds out and dies anyway later on. It's not like they can dress their wound or somehow staunch the bleeding.

If death is truly inevitable, prolonging the suffering involved in that death is not mercy.

[Ithalian Empire]

Seeing as the OP mentions the recent wolf hunt in Wisconsin and I happen to live in Wisconsin, this isn't our first wolf hunt. The DNR has them happen every once and a while to kull the wolf population before it gets to large and does to much harm to the state deer population. Our deer population is important because a large chunk of revenue is generated by the deer hunts. The fact of the matter is the wolves might have been reintroduced but they are no longer the only thing fulfilling the same niche within the environment.

I personally support the idea of hunting for sport. In the United States its regulated by the states, it helps keep the populations of these animals form getting out of control which is dangerous for both people and the animals themselves as they wonder into towns and cities in search of food. Oh, and overpopulation is a bitch to begin with.

[Ors Might]

Give me a break. It's hunters like you that give the rest of us a bad name. I bet you're the kind of guy who spotlights deer, too, because that's all in good fun.

It's a sport. That means there are rules. Play by the rules and don't cheat. Part of those rules is that if you shoot some critter and it gets away, you have an obligation to pursue and finish it off rather than let the meat go to waste.

If you shoot animals without taking the time to ensure they are properly dealt with you aren't hunting any more, you're just shooting.

If you can't kill the target after pursuing it, then it's morally okay. It got away and it deserves credit for escaping. I'm not saying that anyone should enjoy losing.

I don’t think you understand why hunters strive for quick kills. If you shoot an animal and it doesn’t die, then you need to hunt it down and swiftly end its life. Because the odds of it actually living are slim to none. And every moment it does live will be painful. Letting it run off isn’t being merciful, it’s being heartless.

[Sundiata]

It's not cruel to let the creature live if I fail to kill it. It's mercy.

The thing is you don't know if it's going to live once it's gone from your view and depending on the shot placement, it could run off 200-300yrds and expire. IMO, I'd track that shit down as that's a kill and food for the table.

Sure, but it you fail to track it down after that first failed shot (assuming it was way off) it's morally okay to let the creature live and find a new target.

[Greater Cesnica]

The thing is you don't know if it's going to live once it's gone from your view and depending on the shot placement, it could run off 200-300yrds and expire. IMO, I'd track that shit down as that's a kill and food for the table.

Sure, but it you fail to track it down after that first failed shot (assuming it was way off) it's morally okay to let the creature live and find a new target.

Incorrect. You have a moral obligation to track it until it's no longer feasible to do.

[Sundiata]

Sure, but it you fail to track it down after that first failed shot (assuming it was way off) it's morally okay to let the creature live and find a new target.

Incorrect. You have a moral obligation to track it until it's no longer feasible to do.

Yes, until it's no longer feasible to do so, if it escapes that's fine. It suffered enough.

[Ors Might]

The thing is you don't know if it's going to live once it's gone from your view and depending on the shot placement, it could run off 200-300yrds and expire. IMO, I'd track that shit down as that's a kill and food for the table.

Sure, but it you fail to track it down after that first failed shot (assuming it was way off) it's morally okay to let the creature live and find a new target.

No it isn’t.

Unnecessary suffering is morally bad. I don’t get why you need me to explain this, your religion doesn’t glorify in senseless pain or negligence.