OT: For those who are opposed to hunting.

[cj]

I haven't killed any animals for sport, but my whistling has likely hurt some neighbors' dogs' ears! Which is fine since they've been known to keep me awake barking half the night

Seriously, though, hunting is big down here in the south. I'm not a guy so didn't do a lot of it, but most folks I know eat their kills. Deer-hunting is the favorite here, and many guys have a recipe for venison. A coworker of mine makes awesome deer sausage, wonderful on biscuits. I agree with others that hunting is OK, but torture is not, though PETA's a bit out there for me. I probably wouldn't enjoy hunting and have often wondered how I would eat if I weren't able to buy my meat in the store wrapped in plastic wrap, rather than having to kill and process it myself . . .

[WyoBadger]

Hello,

I heard on the news yesterday that Prince William, whilst in Africa, killed a Bambi-like animal with a spear. As an animal rights activist, I was outraged, and quite surprised as I had always credited Prince William with having a greater amount of compassion as opposed to others in the Royal family.
http://www.peta.org/alert/automation/Al ... asp?id=825

Hi, Sara (and others).

I appreciate your sincere concern, but I would like to point out, first of all, that there is no such thing as a "Bambi-like animal." I think that movie, classic though it is, has done more to harm people's understanding of the natural environment than any other. Ungulates such as dikdiks don't laugh, cry. have close relationships, or talk (mule deer grunt and use scent limited body language to express displeasure, alarm, and sexual desire, but that's about it). Even wolves and apes, which are comparitively intelligent, are a far cry from people. That isn't to say they don't deserve our respect and kindness, but as I said, nature isn't Bambi.

From the things Jim posted, it sounds as if PETA is at least consistant. (I hear otherwise around here, but this IS Wyoming, after all) We shouldn't value animals more or less because they resemble Bambi. If what PETA believes is true, a mosquito is just as valuable as a deer or a human. But I still swat them mosquitos, spray yellowjackets with RAID when they move into my woodwork, and kill my own food, as humanely as possible and with great respect for the animal and for what it gives me. I don't believe that humans are just another animal.

The Bible (which I mention only because PETA misrepresents it) says that only man is made in the image of God, and while the law of Moses does lay out some principles for prevention of animal cruelty, we are also given permission to use them for food. (Genesis 9:1-4, among many many other places) Even Jesus ate fish and lamb.

Wild animals are not helpless (trust me on this--I hunt) and William must be skilled indeed to kill a dikdik with a SPEAR, of all things. A dikdik (as well as any other member of the deer/antelope kin) is a walking radar instalation with built-in stealth technology. You don't just stroll up and toast one with a sharp stick. I'm guessing he spent the better part of a day just stalking it, not to mention all of the training involved, and a very hefty dose of luck.

I don't know (or really care) why William did this, but the fact that he donated his kill to the Massai, who don't really have the option of being vegans, makes me respect him all the more.

Finally, I realize this thread is for those who are opposed to hunting, which I obviously am not. I hope I have not offended or hijacked the thread by posting this; if so email me and I will cheerfully delete my post with my appologies.

Tom

[IDAwHOa]

What do you think of PETA's response to
your version of the biblical argument?
It's in the quotation from PETA, above.

I did not say abuse, I said use. If you read my other post you would see that I have a tempered view of this. My argument was this, eating of animal flesh is justified whether you are religeous or not. Religeous: they are here for our use, to include the consumption of said animals. Non-religeous: We are just animals and if a mountain lion can eat a deer, so can humans. Plain and simple. PETA seems to want us to be "just animals", to be on their same level and deny the right of those human animals to do what comes naturally at the same time. That is flawed as far as I am concerned. Their premise just does not make sense to me.

I work in the medical field as well. We use animals to determine the safety of medical devices prior to approval for use in humans. The federal government requires this procedure. I believe this to be a valid procedure. I have observed these procedures. The animals have been cared for and treated in a respectful manner, at least in the cases my company has been involved with.

[Redwolf]

Ever watch a cat "play" with a mouse or a bird?

I guess this all means that we have to either regulate or outlaw cats and dogs then. They are well known for their killing and/or maiming for the fun of it.

If you are a religeous person that believes in the Bible then there should be no question about this issue. Animals are here for our use.

If you are not, then you will have to agree that our natural instincts should allow for the hunting of other creatures for survival regardless of the method used.

PETA's effort to come across as a righter than you organization is BC, not PC! Their illegal breaking in and releasing animals goes completely against what was stated above. Their attemps to circumvent the constitution of this country (USA) totally violates my constitutional rights as well.

As a "religious person who believes in the Bible," I must respectfully disagree with you. Animals were put here because it pleased God to put them here...not for "our use." Our relationship with all of Creation changed radically after the Fall, but to say that God put animals here for us to use is to read something into the scriptures that simply isn't there. Humans were granted permission to kill for food after the Flood, but only under fairly strict guidelines.

FWIW, yes, I do believe that cats and dogs should be "regulated"...not because of their instincts, but because of the danger to them and to the enviroment when they're allowed to roam unchecked. I also don't see how cats and dogs pertain to this discussion, since they ARE entirely driven by instinct in this regard, whereas we are not. We are free to choose.

Our "instincts" may allow for the hunting of other creatures for survival (or may not...if you see a deer, do you have to fight to suppress an instinct to run it down and kill it with your bare hands and teeth? I haven't noticed that particular instinct in myself, but that is how the prey response normally works in hunting animals, such as cats and dogs), but how many hunters in our modern world actually MUST hunt to survive? Human beings are fully capable of living healthily and well on a meat-free diet, so unless one is driven by environmental circumstances or extreme poverty, it's hard to argue that we need to kill animals for our survival.

Again, it comes down to a basic moral question...is it right for us to deprive another creature of its life to satisfy our pleasures? I'm not talking about the Inuit in the Arctic, who may have little choice, or the cat, who has none at all, but when faced with the real choice of killing for our own pleasure or allowing another creature to keep its life, is it perfectly OK to decide that our desire to eat its flesh overrides its right to its own life? That's the question before us...what is right for us, collectively and as individuals, not what is proper behavior for a cat or dog.

Redwolf

[glauber]

FWIW, yes, I do believe that cats and dogs should be "regulated"...not because of their instincts, but because of the danger to them and to the enviroment when they're allowed to roam unchecked.

I shouldn't touch this discussion with a ten-foot pole, but for what it's worth, cats and dogs (pets) are part of the human context and are our responsibility, since we (hairless monkeys) are responsible for their shapes, behaviour and numbers, by selective breeding according to our purposes.

g

[Colin]

Well, we've now heard the prey Willy offed was called a dikdik.
How coincidental - that's one of my pet names for Willy, the rest of the Brit Royals and their lackeys.
Also, someone noted .."(mule deer grunt and use scent limited body language to express displeasure, alarm, and sexual desire, but that's about it)". Another wonderful coincidence as this could easily apply to moi and many of my friends, but that's to be expected as I'm one of the peasant classes.

...he doffs his hat respectfully and disappears off stage ...

I play the whistle (and stating that makes MY posting much more relevant
to this message board than most of yours).

Hibs for the cup,

Cheers.

[daveboling]

A bit of PETA confusion from a cloth-bound, silkscreened, wearable message recently viewed:

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

You may fire when ready, Gridley

dave boling

[jim stone]

Here's PETA on hunting.

Without hunting, deer and other animals would overpopulate and die of starvation."
Starvation and disease are unfortunate, but they are nature's way of ensuring that the strong survive. Natural predators help keep prey species strong by killing only the sick and weak. Hunters, however, kill any animal they come across or any animal whose head they think would look good mounted above the fireplace—often the large, healthy animals needed to keep the population strong. And hunting creates the ideal conditions for overpopulation. After hunting season, the abrupt drop in population leads to less competition among survivors, resulting in a higher birth rate.

If we were really concerned about keeping animals from starving, we would not hunt but instead take steps to reduce the animals’ fertility. We would also preserve wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, and other natural predators. Ironically, many deer herds and duck populations are purposely manipulated to produce more and more animals for hunters to kill.

"Hunting fees are a major source of revenue for wildlife management and habitat restoration."
The relatively small fee each hunter pays does not cover the cost of hunting programs or game warden salaries. Hunting fees pay for hunter programs that benefit only hunters, like manipulating animal populations to increase the number of animals available to kill. The public lands that many hunters use are supported by taxpayers, and funds benefiting "nongame" species are scarce.

"Isn’t hunting okay as long as I eat what I kill?"
Did the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer ate his victims justify his crimes? What is done with a corpse after its murder doesn’t lessen the victim’s suffering.

Furthermore, hunters are harming animals other than the ones they kill and take home. Those who don't die outright often suffer disabling injuries. Additionally, the stress that hunting inflicts on animals—the noise, the fear, and the constant chase—severely restricts their ability to eat adequately and store the fat and energy they need to survive the winter.

Hunting also disrupts migration and hibernation. For animals like wolves, who mate for life and have close-knit families, hunting can severely harm entire communities.

"What about people who have to hunt to survive?"
We have no quarrel with subsistence hunters and fishers who truly have no choice in order to survive. However, in this day and age, meat, fur, and leather are not a necessary part of survival for the vast majority of us.

Unfortunately, many "sport" hunters have borrowed from aboriginal tradition and manipulated it into a justification for killing animals for recreation or profit.

[jim stone]

Here;s PETA on the Biblical argument:

"God put animals here for us to use; the Bible gives us dominion over animals."
Dominion is not the same as tyranny. The Queen of England has "dominion" over her subjects, but that doesn't mean she can eat them, wear them, or experiment on them. If we have dominion over animals, surely it is to protect them, not to use them for our own ends. There is nothing in the Bible that would justify our modern-day policies and programs that desecrate the environment, destroy entire species of wildlife, and inflict torment and death on billions of animals every year. The Bible imparts a reverence for life; a loving God could not help but be appalled at the way animals are being treated.


If I may add something, PETA is tying animal rights
to the capacity for suffering. As Bentham said,
'The queston isn't Can it reason, Can it speak, or
Can it read, but Can it suffer?' Nothing in this entails
that we can't defend ourselves against animals,
doubly so when the creature has a very doubtful
capacity for suffering, e.g. mosquitoes. Best

[lilymaid]

If you are a religious person that believes in the Bible then there should be no question about this issue. Animals are here for our use.

I think under our protection is also an appropriate interpretation of it. What that would mean is very subject to interpretation. The Old Testament contains rules about the treatment of animals. Animals killed in accordance with kosher laws are killed in a much less painful manner, from what I’ve been told. However, the very fact that the Bible prescribes a manner in which to kill livestock one intends to eat suggests that it may be alright if one chooses to eat meat.

I, personally, see eating meat as in harmony with nature and therefore, have little issue with others doing it. If a lion killed a "deer-like animal" and ate it, would we think it incredibly immoral of the lion? I think our main obligation is to strive to be in harmony with nature. That is one of the reasons I think trophy hunting is wrong. As a child I was told, “You kill it, you eat it.” That is the natural order, and though we may grow to find it rather repulsive, it is still the way things are. As a child, I could watch the lions kill and gobble up the zebra on a nature show and not be at all horrified. However, adults expressed their discomfort at watching such things in my presence, and over time, I grew to share it. I think my attitude as a child was much healthier than the attitude society taught me.

Here's PETA on hunting.

Without hunting, deer and other animals would overpopulate and die of starvation."
Starvation and disease are unfortunate, but they are nature's way of ensuring that the strong survive. Natural predators help keep prey species strong by killing only the sick and weak. Hunters, however, kill any animal they come across or any animal whose head they think would look good mounted above the fireplace—often the large, healthy animals needed to keep the population strong. And hunting creates the ideal conditions for overpopulation. After hunting season, the abrupt drop in population leads to less competition among survivors, resulting in a higher birth rate.

Who is to say that people aren't a perfectly natural predator?

[Jerry Freeman]

I was a vegetarian for 23 years. Although I had to abandon vegetarianism for health reasons about nine years ago, I continue to be sympathetic to the idea.

However, I don't believe it's appropriate to criticize people for eating meat. Humans have been meat eaters for hundreds of thousands of years. I agree with Lilymaid that it is in accordance with nature for us to do so. I also am convinced that hunting is instinctive for humans. Rabbits don't hunt, but hunting has always been part of every human culture.

I do, very definitely, feel it's appropriate to criticize the way animals raised commercially for meat are treated.

Recently, I learned that a man who works for me raises pigs for their meat. (Last year's three pigs, incidentally were named, "Breakfast," "Lunch" and "Dinner.") Anyway, I've contracted with him for half a pig.

I much prefer this scenario than the commercial route. I know these pigs. I've been to see them, and I can see they have a good life. And, especially, I know they won't suffer. Mark has found a butcher who takes the pigs to his farm and lets them get comfortable and used to their surroundings before slaughtering them. He says you get a better product if you don't "stress the meat" by subjecting the pigs to fear and pain. I'm less concerned about the quality of the product than the pigs' wellfare. Except for the fact that it's pork, this seems more in accordance with the Biblical instructions about how animals should be treated.

As for hunting; around here, if someone has a deer head on his wall, you can be sure he and his family ate the deer. This is rural, economically depressed, upstate New York. Just about everyone hunts, and there are plenty of deer to go around.

We have venison in our freezer all the time, given to us by my wife's patients. It's a much healthier form of meat than the artifically fattened beef from the grocery. Range-fed beef, incidentally, has a completely different, much healthier fatty acid profile than conventionally raised and fattened beef.

I believe in reincarnation. I believe that, ultimately, it's impossible to kill or be killed, even if the body is slain. I also believe that to inflict suffering is a grave sin. Because of my belief, I may have an easier time with the ethical questions concerning killing for food than someone who believes a soul only lives one lifetime and that's all. However, I take care to catch bees and wasps that get in the house and release them without harm. And you all know, I refuse to kill a mouse.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Flyingcursor]

Hairless monkeys indeed!!!
I have lots of hair except on my head.
And I lost my prehensile tale awhile back in a tree swinging accident. Plust I don't eat my lice. I let the kids have them.

[nickt]

"God put animals here for us to use; the Bible gives us dominion over animals."
Dominion is not the same as tyranny. The Queen of England has "dominion" over her subjects, but that doesn't mean she can eat them, wear them, or experiment on them.

Couple of things Jim. We go barking over here every time we hear "Queen of England" - that's a bit like saying "George W Bush, President of Texas". Hopelessly picky and pedantic I know, but it's "Queen of the UK" (wherein England is a part of the UK).

The other point is the biblical quote "...dominion over the animals". This has caused more stress over the centuries to the animal life on this planet as christians have used it for countless occasions to justify hunting. The fact is, the bible was written in Hebrew and the original Hebrew word has no English equivalent - the best way to describe the feeling-meaning of the word is to say "lordship-custodianship-care [over the animals]" which has a very different meaning, and certainly does NOT condone hunting for pleasure.

[Parcour25]

Out west, the deer and elk populations are infested with Chronic Wasting Disease.

The Department of Natural Resources are destroying 10's of thousands of them. Wherever the disease is identified and confirmed, the Department converges and inilates the population. This disease has spread to Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho.... and isolated instances have been found as far North as Michigan.

They obatin so many carcasses from these regional clensings that the animals are piles in huge pits and incinerated.... burned, by the hundreds, they show this on the news. A huge mountain of wild animals, deer and elk, in a bond fire.

There is no indication that this disease, this Chronic Wasting Syndrome is coming under control, just the opposite. The more they test, the more they find! There are preliminary indications that this disease may have spread to the human population in the form of barin spongiforms... Similar, but not identical to Britian's Mad Cow Disease. Several studies have been published that imply that in the worst case scenario, eventually, all wild deer and elk may need to be destroyed in entire multi-state areas and be replaced with healthy animals.

This is not without precident. Also out west, we have suffered Whirling Disease in out trout populations in the natural streams. 10's of millions of trout, both wild and in hatcheries have also been destroyed..... 10's of millions over the last decade. Were you aware of that? The disease s just now coming under control. Just in time for the Wildlife Managers to now stary worrying about Chronic Wasting Disease....

Why am I posting this. I am not supoporting or detracting from hunting. I know both sides of the arguement intimately from many years involvement in the western conservation movement.

What I am thinking is that PITA has a case of misplaced priorities in their concern for wildlife. Wouldn't you think they could focus their efforts on fundraising research for the control and eradication of Chronic Wasting and Whirling?

The effort should be equivalent to AIDS or Cancer, in the wild kingdom.

Instead, they organize disruptions to public hunting areas. For them, I have no respect.

[peeplj]

The world is full of irony.

Deer, which we tend to think of as possessing good mothering skills and some sort of caring relationship with other deer, are actually quite ruthless toward each other. Rather than share food, a strong deer will starve a weak one every time.

Wolves, on the other hand, are a quite different story. They have excellent mothering skills, they hunt and share food as a pack, they pick primarily the old and sick from their prey to bring down for food, they care for each other, and they all grieve when a pack member dies.

Our place in nature is that of a predator: closer to the wolf's role than the deer--however, we often act more like the deer. While it's true that mankind's relationship to the natural world--at least that of Western civilization--hasn't been one to be very proud of, a far worse problem is man's inhumanity toward his own kind.

--James