# Ethics and morality of hunting.



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

Ok Atheists and agnostics.  Show how to make an argument about the ethics and morality of hunting and fishing.

Lets structure this in categories.

1. The ethics and morality (E&M) of hunting and fishing in general.

2. The E&M of sport hunting/fishing (Killing for fun: pigeon shoots, catch and release)

3. Animal suffering.

4. As a possible segue: fighting animals/trapping.

5. As an aside to a thread in the Deer Hunting section: Do you kill a deer out of season that has its jaw blown off or is trailing its guts etc?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

Eating meat is natural for humans but that alone isn't reason enough to do something.  

I like meat and I like hunting.  I like the meat that I get from hunting better than the meat I buy.

I don't like the fact that when I arrow a deer that it usually suffers for longer than when I shoot it with a gun.

I don't like sport fishing or hunting.

I think different animals suffer differently and that it's a function of how complex their brains are.  Pulling a fish around by the mouth results in less suffering/pain than pulling a deer or a dolphin around by the mouth.

Fighting roosters is different than fighting dogs or chimpanzees.

As for killing a suffering deer.  I defer to the letter of law.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

I think there should be laws that take into account the suffering of the animals in regards to how they're raised for food.  I don't think it should only be a "bottom line" consideration.

Oh, 6. Zoos, aquariums and circuses. 

As long as it can be determined that the animals aren't suffering emotional or psychological trauma I don't see a problem with it especially in cases where the animals are endangered and are safer in captivity.

If an elephant or a parakeet were able to articulate in no uncertain terms, meaning that what it communicates is clear, that it didn't want to be captive anymore it should be set free.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

It would be cool if the "other A's" would participate and for the sake of discussion, let's allow that humans have souls and animals do not and that man has been granted dominion over the animals as steward.

The questions still stand even under those conditions.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

People seem to appreciate the fact that I hunt as though it were noble, even vegans.  But would they appreciate it if they knew that at it's core I do it for entertainment?

Yes, it invigorates a primal impulse.  Yes, it connects me to humankind's origins blah, blah, blah.....All that is kind of true but I think it's mostly over romanticized apologist rhetoric.  For me, It's entertainment and that's been a moral hurdle since I started hunting.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 24, 2015)

Still thinking about these questions, but I do have an answer for one. If I see an animal suffering beyond repair, I will do what I can to end it regardless of hunting season. However, I do have a sense of self preservation. If people are watching, I probably wouldn't.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Still thinking about these questions, but I do have an answer for one. If I see an animal suffering beyond repair, I will do what I can to end it regardless of hunting season. However, I do have a sense of self preservation. If people are watching, I probably wouldn't.



If you were sitting in your stand and saw a deer being eaten alive by coyotes from its rectum up would you try to shoot it and put it out of its misery?  How about a seal being tossed around by a whale "just for fun"?  The music in this video sucks.



Does this kind of cruelty (what's up with that belly flop) go hand in hand with intelligence?  By the way, the whale that killed that trainer belly flopped on him like that.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 24, 2015)

I rescued a frog from a garter snake last week. I've been know to save chipmunks and baby rabbits from my cat. I've also watched my cat kill without my interference. I might watch the coyotes kill the deer. I might shoot the coyotes and then shoot the deer for myself. Each situation is different. 
Wouldn't mess with the whale.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> If you were sitting in your stand and saw a deer being eaten alive by coyotes from its rectum up would you try to shoot it and put it out of its misery?  How about a seal being tossed around by a whale "just for fun"?  The music in this video sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this kind of cruelty (what's up with that belly flop) go hand in hand with intelligence?  By the way, the whale that killed that trainer belly flopped on him like that.




I wouldn`t interfere with the coyotes pulling down the deer. Predators have to eat too, and perform a valuable service.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I rescued a frog from a garter snake last week. I've been know to save chipmunks and baby rabbits from my cat. I've also watched my cat kill without my interference. I might watch the coyotes kill the deer. I might shoot the coyotes and then shoot the deer for myself. Each situation is different.
> Wouldn't mess with the whale.



Now that's interesting stuff to talk about.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> I wouldn`t interfere with the coyotes pulling down the deer. Predators have to eat too, and perform a valuable service.




They sure do.  But I don't have to kill a deer to survive.  That makes it tricky for me. 

Are there different degrees of suffering that require specific action?  If you shoot the deer getting eaten by coyotes you end its misery and the coyotes still get to eat.  

I came upon a squirrel that had been run over.  Its back half was plastered to the pavement and it was trying to pull itself loose by its front legs.  I stepped on its head.  I was sad but it felt right and I knew the instant I did it that it was right.  

I suppose there's an element of empathy to it.  What would I like to have done to me under the same circumstances?  But that's not exactly the right way to think about it either.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 24, 2015)

The only time I ever remember interfering with Nature was when a big spreadin` adder (hognose snake) got the old toad frog that always hung around the back door here at home. I worked old Chester out of the snake`s mouth, but it was too late. He had done been punctured and the venom was doing its job. I turned the snake loose out in the field.

Like you, if I was in that position, I would hope someone would end my suffering. I think?


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 24, 2015)

How much of this is really us acting on our selfish nature?  Hunting IS fun. We don't NEED to hunt. We can absolutely live without meat, dairy, or fish. So at the end of the day we are self serving. We WANT to hunt. We WANT to eat meat. We gloss it over with rationizations, but we do these things because it is fun.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> I wouldn`t interfere with the coyotes pulling down the deer. Predators have to eat too, and perform a valuable service.


Agreed. Nature seems cruel but each animal serves a purpose and that purpose gets done in certain ways.

That being said.....I might try to whack at least one coyote  
I am part of the process too.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> How much of this is really us acting on our selfish nature?  Hunting IS fun. We don't NEED to hunt. We can absolutely live without meat, dairy, or fish. So at the end of the day we are self serving. We WANT to hunt. We WANT to eat meat. We gloss it over with rationizations, but we do these things because it is fun.


On one hand I can see your point.
On the other hand WE are part of the process too.
I'll be honest. I feel at times that I NEED to hunt. As much as a coyote could eat veggies to survive sometimes they would rather something else.
The whole process is a mix of want,need, and opportunity.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 24, 2015)

The first coyote I ever saw in the wild walked 12 feet from me. I was fascinated. I could have shot him 10 times over, but he was too interesting to me. The next one I shot from my back porch. I rationalized it might eat my pets. I think really I woke up itching to shoot something and the coyote was in the wrong place at the wrong time(for him).

I've had great joy feeding a 12 point buck saltines at yellow river game ranch.  In the woods I'd kill it.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 24, 2015)

bullethead said:


> On one hand I can see your point.
> On the other hand WE are part of the process too.
> I'll be honest. I feel at times that I NEED to hunt. As much as a coyote could eat veggies to survive sometimes they would rather something else.
> The whole process is a mix of want,need, and opportunity.



I feel the need as well. I agree we are part of the process. But it is not nesessary any more. 

I do not agree coyotes could survive on plants. They wouldn't rather eat meat, they must eat meat.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I feel the need as well. I agree we are part of the process. But it is not nesessary any more.
> 
> I do not agree coyotes could survive on plants. They wouldn't rather eat meat, they must eat meat.



While I agree they wouldn't survive solely on a veggie diet they could survive on insects,lizards,frogs, snakes and small rodents. They do not have to eat deer just the same as we do not have to eat deer. There are instances where coyotes and bear have survived on garden veggies in areas where game was scarce. It got them through times where other animals would have starved to death long before.
 But animals are opportunists and animals hunt both for survival and sport. Cats will "play" with their catch and then kill it without ever eating it. Many times laying it on the porch to show off their trophy.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> The only time I ever remember interfering with Nature was when a big spreadin` adder (hognose snake) got the old toad frog that always hung around the back door here at home. I worked old Chester out of the snake`s mouth, but it was too late. He had done been punctured and the venom was doing its job. I turned the snake loose out in the field.
> 
> Like you, if I was in that position, I would hope someone would end my suffering. I think?



That deer in your avatar, was it a pet?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> How much of this is really us acting on our selfish nature?  Hunting IS fun. We don't NEED to hunt. We can absolutely live without meat, dairy, or fish. So at the end of the day we are self serving. We WANT to hunt. We WANT to eat meat. We gloss it over with rationizations, but we do these things because it is fun.



Why do you think it's OK to kill for fun?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

bullethead said:


> While I agree they wouldn't survive solely on a veggie diet they could survive on insects,lizards,frogs, snakes and small rodents. They do not have to eat deer just the same as we do not have to eat deer. There are instances where coyotes and bear have survived on garden veggies in areas where game was scarce. It got them through times where other animals would have starved to death long before.
> But animals are opportunists and animals hunt both for survival and sport. Cats will "play" with their catch and then kill it without ever eating it. Many times laying it on the porch to show off their trophy.



How does this relate to how you view your relationship to animals?


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> That deer in your avatar, was it a pet?




The doe was hit by a car, and the fawn was taken to some friends of mine who are licensed to raise orphaned wildlife. At the time of the picture she was living on her own and doing fine. This was at the Parks At Chehaw in Albany at our Frontier Festival. I was doing shooting demos and she wandered between me and the targets. When i went to shoo her away, she wanted to play. Newspaper photographer happened to be there and he got the shot.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

Lots of kids burn ants with a magnifying glass.  I did.  I think at first it's for discovery.  I don't think it would be as exciting now.

I threw a bait minnow in the campfire once.  It felt a little yucky.  How about a frog?  How about a bird?  How about a mouse?  turtle?  armadillo? Why should there be different reactions to the different animals?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> The doe was hit by a car, and the fawn was taken to some friends of mine who are licensed to raise orphaned wildlife. At the time of the picture she was living on her own and doing fine. This was at the Parks At Chehaw in Albany at our Frontier Festival. I was doing shooting demos and she wandered between me and the targets. When i went to shoo her away, she wanted to play. Newspaper photographer happened to be there and he got the shot.



Would it be Ok if someone shot her during hunting season?  

I have friends that have chickens for pets and chickens to eat.  Is that weird?

In the Philippines they have dogs for pets and dogs for eating.  Is that weird?


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Would it be Ok if someone shot her during hunting season?
> 
> I have friends that have chickens for pets and chickens to eat.  Is that weird?
> 
> In the Philippines they have dogs for pets and dogs for eating.  Is that weird?





If she wasn`t in a park where hunting is prohibited, yes, I`d say she would be fair game.  

Not really weird, all folks and cultures have different ways.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> If she wasn`t in a park where hunting is prohibited, yes, I`d say she would be fair game.
> 
> Not really weird, all folks and cultures have different ways.



I think if a deer walked up to me and licked my hand or even just bounced around me playfully I might have a hard time shooting it.

If it followed me to the truck it might be a different story.

What's the rule about shooting a deer next to vehicle or in it if I could get it to jump onto the bed?


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I think if a deer walked up to me and licked my hand or even just bounced around me playfully I might have a hard time shooting it.
> 
> If it followed me to the truck it might be a different story.
> 
> What's the rule about shooting a deer next to vehicle?





I couldn`t shoot a tame one, especially if I knew it was tame.

Don`t shoot through the deer and hit your truck.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Why do you think it's OK to kill for fun?



I didn't say it's ok. I don't say it's not ok. It just is.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> How does this relate to how you view your relationship to animals?


Basically,I am one of them and at times I am doing what I am ingrained to do.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 24, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Basically,I am one of them and at times I am doing what I am ingrained to do.




I agree.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Why do you think it's OK to kill for fun?



Do you have fun when you hunt and kill a deer?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Ok Atheists and agnostics.



Ill jump in from the apologetics "A"......



ambush80 said:


> Show how to make an argument about the ethics and morality of hunting and fishing.



My view of nature is from a believer's worldview, so I see "nature" as creation.  One thing I have mentioned many times is how everything works together, energy, mass, etc all trickles down to life being interconnected.......life requires life to sustain itself, or, for something to live, something has to die (the bean plant, the deer, and so on).  For the time being, I am bypassing the "bad" natural things.

As far as playing an active role in the process, I view it as nothing more than that, being in the cycle.  Why one man notices the color of the sky change in late August, and that makes him want to hunt, and another man never notices nature's subtle "clues" is beyond me.  But, I have 2 brothers, all three of us grew up hunting.  I am the only one that hunts now that we are grown.

I see it as being a natural part of who I am.  I am playing my part, the deer plays it's part, the fish plays his.  Why that's ok........because that's how it was created, or evolved.

I gotta go work with my boy on something, will pick up the rest later.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Basically,I am one of them and at times I am doing what I am ingrained to do.



You're ingrained to do alot of things that you don't because of societal forces or you just made the decision for yourself that you shouldn't do them.

Your a human being with the capacity and ability to make choices that other animals can't. 

You can abstain from all sorts of natural impulses.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Do you have fun when you hunt and kill a deer?



I do.  Doesn't make it right.  I can think of alot of things like that.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Ill jump in from the apologetics "A"......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Bible definitely says you should hunt.  So that's an easy question to answer for you.  I would even say that it implies that veganism is unrighteous.  

http://www.openbible.info/topics/hunting

What does it say about zoos?  Dog or cock fighting?  Trapping for fur?  Pigeon shoots? It really doesn't say much about animal suffering.  Maybe it's not something to be concerned with.  This is all I could find on the subject:

_Leviticus 22:28 ESV 

But you shall not kill an ox or a sheep and her young in one day. _

Doesn't really say anything about mercy or suffering, though.....


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> The Bible definitely says you should hunt.  So that's an easy question to answer for you.  I would even say that it implies that veganism is unrighteous.
> 
> http://www.openbible.info/topics/hunting
> 
> What does it say about zoos?  Dog or cock fighting?  Trapping for fur?  Pigeon shoots?




Zoos are responsible for the upkeep and bringing back from the brink of extinction a number of species. I think they are a good thing. 

I wouldn`t be fond of dog fights but have no opinion of cockfights.

Pigeon shoots are fine as long as the birds are not wasted.

Trapping fur is an old time honored profession on a renewable resource. I did a lot of it in my younger days.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I do.  Doesn't make it right.  I can think of alot of things like that.



So where do we go from here?  Is there a "right" with this subject? We hunt to be a part of nature, we hunt because we like the meat, we hunt as a tradition, we hunt for the joy of it.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You're ingrained to do alot of things that you don't because of societal forces or you just made the decision for yourself that you shouldn't do them.
> 
> Your a human being with the capacity and ability to make choices that other animals can't.
> 
> You can abstain from all sorts of natural impulses.


Or can I ? MOOOHAHAHAHAH

But seriously, hunting and killing is something that was necessary to humans since their existence. It is still something that is legal to do.
In some odd way for whatever reason and for some people that just like the sporting aspect of it, it could be a primal urge that is fulfilled through a legal means. Basically it is a legal way to kill something without punishment.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2015)

I can say this with all honesty.
When I was young I would hunt from sun up to sun down and I had a real attitude if I didn't kill something.
For the last few years I am satisfied just being able to spend the time in the woods.
I still squeeze the trigger or release at times when the mood strikes but the majority of times I am content having a deer walk by me at a few yards and while never raising the bow I "kill" it a half dozen times in my mind.
I am satisfied that on THAT day at THAT time I picked the right spot,sat still enough, didn't stink,and was able to beat the deer on their home turf. But every now and again I get the urge to kill something and I really do enjoy the entire process of the hunt,the kill,the processing and the eats.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Doesn't really say anything about mercy or suffering, though.....



Where we will differ is the source of our empathy. I believe it is in our soul, you may think it is an evolutionary impulse which makes us better at living.  I think most of us don't like killing things for fun, even though that generally doesn't extend to mosquitos when there is a bug zapper and a 6 pack around.  Maybe we don't relate to the mosquito as being alive 

Empathy for these animals comes from how we relate to them.  We don't like seeing an animal suffer, because we don't like suffering, and even though we would kill the deer and eat it, we have nothing to gain from it's pain.  We don't know what it's like to be a deer, but we know what it's like to be alive, and in pain, and we don't wan't a living thing to experience any more than necessary to accomplish the whole "circle of life" thing.

Maybe the failure to relate to other life can also be a source of evil?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 24, 2015)

Bullet, I can relate, maybe not to the extent you are saying.  But, I have certain spots I can hunt where I "know" I have a shot at a deer.  But, I have grown to appreciate the process more than the results.  So, I will rarely hunt the same place twice in a season.

I had a "perfect" setup on a lease I used to have.  A very narrow pinch-point between a crp field and swamp.  I spent a month looking forward to hunting that spot.  Then I did.  I watched deer all morning in that stand, never fired a shot, climbed down, and never hunted it again.  There was a time when I would have been draggin a lot of deer out that morning, and gone back until they quit showing up, but those days are done.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> Zoos are responsible for the upkeep and bringing back from the brink of extinction a number of species. I think they are a good thing.
> 
> I wouldn`t be fond of dog fights but have no opinion of cockfights.
> 
> ...




That pacing that some animals do in enclosures as well as repeated "manic" behaviors, that's a sign that they're not mentally well.  Whales and other cetaceans do similar things.  Protecting endangered species is good, though.

It's interesting where, species wise, people find animal fighting not to their particular tastes.

I appreciate the rich tradition of trapping fur, though I've never done it myself.  It seems fun.  

When you trapped, did you ever think about what that night might have been like for an animal caught in a leg trap?  I think I might still be able to trap even if I knew how much the animal might have suffered.  Again, is it Ok to get fun from something like that?

Shooting pigeons released from a box sounds fun, too.  How far away should you be from the box to make it sporting?  Maybe try it left handed or over your shoulder with a mirror.  Maybe see if you can hit one with a .22.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> So where do we go from here?  Is there a "right" with this subject? We hunt to be a part of nature, we hunt because we like the meat, we hunt as a tradition, we hunt for the joy of it.



For me, I keep "soul searching".  I keep asking questions from all kinds of folks but particularly from fellow hunters.

I think we should be able to think of a "right" with enough diligence.

Is there a way to connect with nature and be a part of it without killing?  Obviously many here don't need to kill all the time but its part of the experience.  In James Swan's _In Defense of Hunting_ he said something like ["Just watching the animals or photographing them isn't really engaging them in a natural way"].  Steven Rinella said a similar thing at one of his book signings.

I'm the first hunter in my family so tradition doesn't factor much in my thought process.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Where we will differ is the source of our empathy. I believe it is in our soul, you may think it is an evolutionary impulse which makes us better at living.  I think most of us don't like killing things for fun, even though that generally doesn't extend to mosquitos when there is a bug zapper and a 6 pack around.  Maybe we don't relate to the mosquito as being alive
> 
> Empathy for these animals comes from how we relate to them.  We don't like seeing an animal suffer, because we don't like suffering, and even though we would kill the deer and eat it, we have nothing to gain from it's pain.  We don't know what it's like to be a deer, but we know what it's like to be alive, and in pain, and we don't wan't a living thing to experience any more than necessary to accomplish the whole "circle of life" thing.
> 
> Maybe the failure to relate to other life can also be a source of evil?



Being that we can't prove a soul or know anyone that can speak knowledgeably about its nature, lets just say that empathy exists, from whatever source.  Your task seems to be to understand why God would give you empathy and figure out how He wants you to use it.  When it comes to treatment of animals, I don't think you'll find much guidance in the Bible.  I might be wrong.  You take the lead on that front.

I've killed thing for fun before.  We used to hit fireflies with badminton rackets to watch them "sparkle".  We would catch them and smear them on the sidewalk, too.  I almost wanted to show my daughter but I didn't.  WWJD?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I rescued a frog from a garter snake last week. I've been know to save chipmunks and baby rabbits from my cat. I've also watched my cat kill without my interference. I might watch the coyotes kill the deer. I might shoot the coyotes and then shoot the deer for myself. Each situation is different.
> Wouldn't mess with the whale.



I never got around to this one.  Why did you save those particular animals?


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I never got around to this one.  Why did you save those particular animals?



Many of the times my girls alerted me to the situation. In the case of the frog, the silly garter snake had no chance of swallowing it. I tapped the snake and it vomited up the legs. The frog hopped off. I know my cats kill for killing sake and hardly ever eat the kill. If I get to the animal fast enough I'll let it go. If the rodent is hurt too bad I let the cat keep it. I explain to my daughters there is no chance of survival. Of course the cats kill probably hundreds of times I don't see or interfere. 

Here is another angle...... I killed hundreds of animals when I was a kid. No bird was safe, no snake, no rodent. If I had BB's something was dying. Maybe I am repenting for a small fraction of the life I took as a kid.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Here is another angle...... I killed hundreds of animals when I was a kid. No bird was safe, no snake, no rodent. If I had BB's something was dying. Maybe I am repenting for a small fraction of the life I took as a kid.



Same here. I think I developed empathy at a later point in life than I probably should have.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 25, 2015)

I think hunting helps me get in touch with my roots. Predator being one of my roots. We have binocular vision for a reason. 
Now, one of the hardest parts for me is when I walk up on an animal I just shot. I am sometimes overwhelmed with sadness. I don't take taking a life lightly. However, up to that point, I feel the most alive and the most part of nature than I ever do. 

How do I justify hunting? I am helping with the balance of nature. I am helping maintain the habitat. Has to be done and, being a predator, I'll(we'll) do it. Might as well have some fun sitting around the campfire.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Being that we can't prove a soul or know anyone that can speak knowledgeably about its nature, lets just say that empathy exists, from whatever source.  Your task seems to be to understand why God would give you empathy and figure out how He wants you to use it.  When it comes to treatment of animals, I don't think you'll find much guidance in the Bible.  I might be wrong.  You take the lead on that front.



There isn't, unless an animal is "others," in which case hunting and killing them would be wrong as such would violate the golden rule (case against animal souls, btw).

I don't think everybody has empathy, that's pretty clear when you consider some of the awful things some people do.  But, I do think empathy is the reason why we would be more than happy to shoot a deer, but would refuse to torture it.   I killed a bunch of stuff for fun when I was a kid, at the time I valued my entertainment over the animal's life.  I like to think I have matured beyond that.

Another sticking point with hunting will always be trophy hunting.  For instance, a fella I know goes to Canada every spring to shoot a bear.  The bear does not get eaten.  He flies the cape to a taxidermist and the carcass gets dumped in the woods.  There is nothing inherently wrong with what he's doing, he kills the bear for a reason, but I can't kill a bear if I'm not going to eat it.  And, I have never accepted an invite to join him on the hunt for those reasons.  I don't think he's wrong for doing this, I just don't think I could kill a bear knowing it's just going to rot in the woods.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

Ive sat down to answer Ambush's questions a couple times now. My responses were so full of contradictions I would have to type at least 3 pages to even try to explain it


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

Interesting thing about empathy, my wife has two cats.  I hate these cats, and all cats.  Just think they make awful pets compared to dogs, plus, they are tempermental critters.  Anyway, these cats are old, and one is really on his last legs........I find myself feeling very sorry for it instead of happy it's about to be gone.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive sat down to answer Ambush's questions a couple times now. My responses were so full of contradictions I would have to type at least 3 pages to even try to explain it



What are the contradictions?


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> What are the contradictions?



One has already been discussed. If a deer came up to me in my back yard and ate out of my hand, I would do everything I could to mark it as a pet to keep others from killing it. Showing tameness instantly gives it value as a living creature. Make sense? I don't know. But it's true.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 25, 2015)

I grew up holding onto my grandfathers every word. Crows and bluejays were fair game because they ate his pecans. Most of my life I have shot every crow I could. A few years ago I shot one in my backyard. Why?  Cause it was fair game. My granddaddy passed in 1992. I went over to the crow and examined it. I realized it is quite pretty when examined closely.  Soon after I saw a program that profiled the intelligence of crows. Haven't shot another one since.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> One has already been discussed. If a deer came up to me in my back yard and ate out of my hand, I would do everything I could to mark it as a pet to keep others from killing it. Showing tameness instantly gives it value as a living creature. Make sense? I don't know. But it's true.



Maybe we relate to it different once it demonstrates pet qualities.  Not sure how this works for folks who buy a cow, name it Bessie, bottle feed it, raise it to a certain age, then eat it.   

When I was a teenager, I lived in PA for a year.  My cousins had two cows.  We did just that.  Bottle fed em, "walked" em, hung out and petted em.  I was the only one who couldn't eat those cows.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> That pacing that some animals do in enclosures as well as repeated "manic" behaviors, that's a sign that they're not mentally well.  Whales and other cetaceans do similar things.  Protecting endangered species is good, though.
> 
> It's interesting where, species wise, people find animal fighting not to their particular tastes.
> 
> ...





I never thought about what the caught animal went through but I don`t think they were in as much pain as people think. Having caught my own fingers in a trap before, other than the initial pain of the trap snapping on your fingers, soon after numbness sets in. Also, my targets were mainly coon, otter, beaver, and the occasional mink, I made water sets and most of my critters were drowned before I got there. As for fun, the anticipation of checking those traps the nest morning made it hard to go to sleep that night.

If fur prices were to go up again, I might take it up again.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 25, 2015)

Beavers and muskrats fell into the same category, but I can rationalize them better. We had beavers show up in one of the ponds on the property. They started killing the shade trees we had around the pond. They had to go. I like beaver. I think they are cool animals, but we liked our shade trees better. Same with muskrats. They would dig holes through the dam and cause leaks.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> One has already been discussed. If a deer came up to me in my back yard and ate out of my hand, I would do everything I could to mark it as a pet to keep others from killing it. Showing tameness instantly gives it value as a living creature. Make sense? I don't know. But it's true.


Humans tend to give human like qualities to animals that they have a personal relationship with. As children one of our best friends is a stuffed bear and it is easy to carry that over to live animals. A tame deer easily reminds us of a pet we all have had or have. Does the deer want to be buddies or is it looking for a handout? 
Any deer that walks up to a person almost has to have spent time around people.

And if it is a hunting situation,the deer would be killed at the first shot opportunity long before the deer ever got a chance to come up and lick a hand.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 25, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Humans tend to give human like qualities to animals that they have a personal relationship with. As children one of our best friends is a stuffed bear and it is easy to carry that over to live animals. A tame deer easily reminds us of a pet we all have had or have. Does the deer want to be buddies or is it looking for a handout?
> Any deer that walks up to a person almost has to have spent time around people.
> 
> And if it is a hunting situation,the deer would be killed at the first shot opportunity long before the deer ever got a chance to come up and lick a hand.



Folks near us years ago raised an orphaned fawn. It stayed with them and would even come in the house to eat next to the dogs. During deer season they would paint PET on the side of the deer in big white letters. It worked for several seasons. One day the deer and two dogs did not show up. They found all three dead on the side of the road, hit by a car.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 25, 2015)

Another thing that seems to be a strong point to a lot of folks. You don`t kill it if you`re not gonna eat it. Thankfully, I was not brought up with that foolishment. In trapping, very few target animals other than coons would have been eaten, and nobody stockpiles coons for food. The occasional young one now and then would be about it. Keeping varmints out of the garden could rack up some impressive kills too. You leaned right quick that there is a very thin, but pronounced line between a critter, and a varmint. You learned too, that a critter today can become a varmint tonight. And when a critter became a varmint, it became a target. The purplehulls, blackeyes, stringbeans, and white acre peas were more valuable than rabbits. 

Such was life on a South Georgia farm.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive sat down to answer Ambush's questions a couple times now. My responses were so full of contradictions I would have to type at least 3 pages to even try to explain it



Do it!!!!

It's a difficult subject that requires alot of thought.  Killing is a serious business (to me as well as most of you all).  We should do it knowing full well how we REALLY feel about it.  We should know deep down why we do it and why we enjoy it.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> Another thing that seems to be a strong point to a lot of folks. You don`t kill it if you`re not gonna eat it. Thankfully, I was not brought up with that foolishment. In trapping, very few target animals other than coons would have been eaten, and nobody stockpiles coons for food. The occasional young one now and then would be about it. Keeping varmints out of the garden could rack up some impressive kills too. You leaned right quick that there is a very thin, but pronounced line between a critter, and a varmint. You learned too, that a critter today can become a varmint tonight. And when a critter became a varmint, it became a target. The purplehulls, blackeyes, stringbeans, and white acre peas were more valuable than rabbits.
> 
> Such was life on a South Georgia farm.


Very true.
I look forward to knocking crows out of the sky and annihilating groundhogs without ever feeling bad I didn't  eat one.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> I never thought about what the caught animal went through but I don`t think they were in as much pain as people think. Having caught my own fingers in a trap before, other than the initial pain of the trap snapping on your fingers, soon after numbness sets in. Also, my targets were mainly coon, otter, beaver, and the occasional mink, I made water sets and most of my critters were drowned before I got there. As for fun, the anticipation of checking those traps the nest morning made it hard to go to sleep that night.
> 
> If fur prices were to go up again, I might take it up again.



Maybe not physical pain; I don't think they feel pain the same way as we do anyways, but if an animal can be scared, which i think some can, that night or couple of days must really suck.  I think of coyotes.  They're probably as smart as a house pet, maybe smarter in some ways.  If I were to think of my dog caught in a trap, making a crater in the ground all around it trying to get loose it makes me sad.  I'm not saying that trapping coyotes is never necessary.  I'm just trying to be real about it.

This is my little buddy.  I think she's a coyote-dingo mix.  A dingoyote.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 25, 2015)

She looks like a pariah dog. And they generally make the best companion dogs. They bond with one person most of the time.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> Another thing that seems to be a strong point to a lot of folks. You don`t kill it if you`re not gonna eat it. Thankfully, I was not brought up with that foolishment. In trapping, very few target animals other than coons would have been eaten, and nobody stockpiles coons for food. The occasional young one now and then would be about it. Keeping varmints out of the garden could rack up some impressive kills too. You leaned right quick that there is a very thin, but pronounced line between a critter, and a varmint. You learned too, that a critter today can become a varmint tonight. And when a critter became a varmint, it became a target. The purplehulls, blackeyes, stringbeans, and white acre peas were more valuable than rabbits.
> 
> Such was life on a South Georgia farm.



Those are good, solid reasons to kill.  I guess my problem is that I do it for fun and I don't want to stop.  I better get it figured out, huh?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> She looks like a pariah dog. And they generally make the best companion dogs. They bond with one person most of the time.



I never heard that term.  Thanks for making me smarter today.  

She was born under a house.  A friend brought 5 or 6 of the puppies over and ours sat on my wife's foot.  I wanted the goofy black one that got in the planter and fell over but decided that Carmela would be a better addition to our pack.  She's "my" dog but only because I think she thinks that I'm the boss.

That's a pariah dog picture from Wiki:


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 25, 2015)

Kinda resembles the Carolina wild dog


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> What are the contradictions?


To be super "in general" about it there are reasons for hunting I approve of and reasons for hunting I dont.
To complicate it further there are types of animals I approve of hunting and types of animals I dont.
However the end result is all the same - a dead critter.
I will say though I only apply these things to myself and my own actions/what I will hunt and what I wont.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

I'm the first hunter in my family so I didn't learn to "just do it".  We fished, so I never really thought about it morally. It's just something we do.  Now my daughter has seen a deer hanging in the backyard.  She's seen me filet bass that weren't dead yet.  I unwittingly normalized killing for her.  I don't think it's a bad thing.  

She likes to fish but said she doesn't want to hunt.  I wonder what the calculus was in her head that made her feel that way?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> To be super "in general" about it there are reasons for hunting I approve of and reasons for hunting I dont.
> To complicate it further there are types of animals I approve of hunting and types of animals I dont.
> However the end result is all the same - a dead critter.
> I will say though I only apply these things to myself and my own actions/what I will hunt and what I wont.



It's the "whys" that are interesting and the "whys" that make the post long.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I'm the first hunter in my family so I didn't learn to "just do it".  We fished, so I never really thought about it morally. It's just something we do.  Now my daughter has seen a deer hanging in the backyard.  She's seen me filet bass that weren't dead yet.  I unwittingly normalized killing for her.  I don't think it's a bad thing.
> 
> She likes to fish but said she doesn't want to hunt.  I wonder what the calculus was in her head that made her feel that way?


She can relate a deer etc to your dog/pet that has "feelings", like to be petted, plays fetch etc etc.
A fish probably not so much.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> She can relate a deer etc to your dog/pet that has "feelings", like to be petted, plays fetch etc etc.
> A fish probably not so much.



Completely sensible.

When I see a fish "gasping" on the bank I get a little uneasy.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> To be super "in general" about it there are reasons for hunting I approve of and reasons for hunting I dont.
> To complicate it further there are types of animals I approve of hunting and types of animals I dont.
> However the end result is all the same - a dead critter.
> I will say though I only apply these things to myself and my own actions/what I will hunt and what I wont.



I think most hunters have these contradictions. I have no desire to hunt African Lions, leopards, or Crocs.
Now, if there is a man-eater on the loose, (Peter Capstick style), I would like to help. 
Hunting them for fun...not so much. However, I don't have bad feelings for folks that do. 
I struggle with hunting mountain lions too. Unless they are "Coming right at me!" I don't think it should be outlawed though.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

My daughter has asked me when Im gonna take her hunting again.  She has seen them dead in my truck, and strung up in the garage, but I seriously don't think she is going to enjoy the killing part.........but Im going to take her because she asked


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It's the "whys" that are interesting and the "whys" that make the post long.


And its the "whys" that create the contradictions for me 
For example -
In my mind deer hunting is fine. Why? The population of deer is strong. Me shooting a couple of deer a year is going to have basically a zero negative impact.
Does that justify it morally?
On the flip side I dont buy into the "we dont have to shoot a deer we can just go the store". 
Yeah and buy a couple pounds of hamburger which was also an animal.
So do the vegans have it right?
Well if everyone was a vegan you would have to cut the forests down to turn everything into farmland thereby removing all the animal habitat.
Yes I tend to over think things


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

660griz said:


> I think most hunters have these contradictions. I have no desire to hunt African Lions, leopards, or Crocs.
> Now, if there is a man-eater on the loose, (Peter Capstick style), I would like to help.
> Hunting them for fun...not so much. However, I don't have bad feelings for folks that do.
> I struggle with hunting mountain lions too. Unless they are "Coming right at me!" I don't think it should be outlawed though.



I have the same issues.  No desire to kill a bear, except maybe a polar bear on a bow hunt when I'm very close to death anyways (legends of the fall "good death" sorta thing), no desire to go hunt Africa, or kill "exotic" critters.  Same for mountain lions.  But, a moose is on my bucket list........I have always heard they are excellent to eat.

I guess I relate hunting/killing to food more than those who relate it to other things, and this causes my issue.  Like Walt, I don't judge another man's motivations where the act is legal.

Id also kill any critter to protect my garden, family, etc.  That's just survival instincts, though.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> And its the "whys" that create the contradictions for me
> For example -
> In my mind deer hunting is fine. Why? The population of deer is strong. Me shooting a couple of deer a year is going to have basically a zero negative impact.
> Does that justify it morally?
> ...



All I need to know is that we're the top of the food chain, that alone gives us the moral authority to eat anything below us in order to survive. 

I won't eat a dog or a cat, knowingly, but that's more about how I personally view them than how anyone else should.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Do it!!!!
> 
> It's a difficult subject that requires alot of thought.  Killing is a serious business (to me as well as most of you all).  We should do it knowing full well how we REALLY feel about it.  We should know deep down why we do it and why we enjoy it.





I always looked forward to and enjoyed hog killing time in the late fall after a couple of frosts. I learned early on that the stock was not pets, and there was no need to name them (the early mountain men and trappers didn`t name their horses and mules either). You don`t name something you might kill and eat later.

Being raised like that you learn about killing and death at an early age. You also learn to respect it, if that makes any sense? I can`t explain it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

660griz said:


> I think most hunters have these contradictions. I have no desire to hunt African Lions, leopards, or Crocs.
> Now, if there is a man-eater on the loose, (Peter Capstick style), I would like to help.
> Hunting them for fun...not so much. However, I don't have bad feelings for folks that do.
> I struggle with hunting mountain lions too. Unless they are "Coming right at me!" I don't think it should be outlawed though.


I agree. Like you say most hunters I think would fall into this same category.
However bottom line is we are just justifying what we find it to be ok to kill and what we dont.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> All I need to know is that we're the top of the food chain, that alone gives us the moral authority to eat anything below us in order to survive.
> I won't eat a dog or a cat, knowingly, but that's more about how I personally view them than how anyone else should.


If you were to put your weapon of choice down today and stopped hunting, about how long you figure it would be until your survival was in jeopardy for that reason?


----------



## 660griz (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I agree. Like you say most hunters I think would fall into this same category.
> However bottom line is we are just justifying what we find it to be ok to kill and what we dont.



Yes we do. 
Now, if mountain lions became a huge nuisance in Georgia and children and livestock were in danger unless the population was reduced and/or wiped out...well, I would be out there slaughtering lions with everybody else...With tears in my eyes. Just kidding about the tears...I think.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 25, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> I always looked forward to and enjoyed hog killing time in the late fall after a couple of frosts. I learned early on that the stock was not pets, and there was no need to name them (the early mountain men and trappers didn`t name their horses and mules either). You don`t name something you might kill and eat later.
> 
> Being raised like that you learn about killing and death at an early age. You also learn to respect it, if that makes any sense? I can`t explain it.



I learned early not to get attached to anything at my house. My pet 'possum, my pet tortoise, chickens, pigs, etc. 
They were all eaten. However, when the possum went missing, I became a vegetarian for a short while.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> And its the "whys" that create the contradictions for me
> For example -
> In my mind deer hunting is fine. Why? The population of deer is strong. Me shooting a couple of deer a year is going to have basically a zero negative impact.
> Does that justify it morally?
> ...




I think you're doing a bang up job and helping others sort things out as well.

For me, the issue isn't whether or not its moral to kill a deer.  It's more whether or not it's moral to kill a deer for _FUN_.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If you were to put your weapon of choice down today and stopped hunting, about how long you figure it would be until your survival was in jeopardy for that reason?



Survival; measured on glacial timescales. You can go the vegan route and survive just fine. But since a plant is a living thing as well, we're just passing the moral buck off to something else that we can't observe feeling pain or any overt signs of life and calling it clean.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> I always looked forward to and enjoyed hog killing time in the late fall after a couple of frosts. I learned early on that the stock was not pets, and there was no need to name them (the early mountain men and trappers didn`t name their horses and mules either). You don`t name something you might kill and eat later.
> 
> Being raised like that you learn about killing and death at an early age. You also learn to respect it, if that makes any sense? I can`t explain it.



I had a friend who was gonna raise a pig for slaughter.  They named it Bacon.  I think it died of tuberculosis and they couldn't/didn't want to eat it.

It is very hard to explain, but I'd like to understand it as best I can.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Survival; measured on glacial timescales. You can go the vegan route and survive just fine. But since a plant is a living thing as well, we're just passing the moral buck off to something else that we can't observe feeling pain or any overt signs of life and calling it clean.



Maybe killing isn't as big an issue as suffering?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I think you're doing a bang up job and helping others sort things out as well.
> 
> For me, the issue isn't whether or not its moral to kill a deer.  It's more whether or not it's moral to kill a deer for _FUN_.


Based on what I know of you I dont think you shoot a deer just for FUN.
Or you would kill it and leave it laying there.
Do you have fun hunting? Yes. Are you specifically doing it ONLY for fun?
Unless Im wrong I dont think so.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

660griz said:


> I learned early not to get attached to anything at my house. My pet 'possum, my pet tortoise, chickens, pigs, etc.
> They were all eaten. However, when the possum went missing, I became a vegetarian for a short while.




that's funny


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yes we do.
> Now, if mountain lions became a huge nuisance in Georgia and children and livestock were in danger unless the population was reduced and/or wiped out...well, I would be out there slaughtering lions with everybody else...With tears in my eyes. Just kidding about the tears...I think.




I understand the meat to be tasty.  When I asked an old Montana guide what mountain lion tastes like he said "A little like (another word for kitty)".


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 25, 2015)

Bobcat tastes like veal. I know, I`ve tried it. Mountain lion was a preferred food for men who had plenty of access to elk and buffalo. I`m sure the two would be close to the same.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Based on what I know of you I dont think you shoot a deer just for FUN.
> Or you would kill it and leave it laying there.
> Do you have fun hunting? Yes. Are you specifically doing it ONLY for fun?
> Unless Im wrong I dont think so.



Thanks, Walt.  I take that as a compliment.  Unfortunately, at its essence I think I hunt for amusement.  I use the meat and there's all the camaraderie and the "getting in touch with Nature" aspect, but I could have all those things without the killing.  I think there's a bloodlust aspect that I better come to terms with.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

It's weird.  I'm entertaining notions that it's better to domesticate and raise animals for slaughter than to hunt them for amusement....


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

Has anybody else noticed the interesting dichotomy of "As long as it's legal, I don't mind if people sport hunt and waste the meat" juxtaposed by "Even if it's illegal, I'll kill an animal to end it's suffering"?

Oh, look.  A rabbit hole.....


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It's weird.  I'm entertaining notions that it's better to domesticate and raise animals for slaughter than to hunt them for amusement....


Thats where we are going to differ.
Im assuming your thoughts are that you arent killing something "wild". You are basically farming a renewable resource.
But its still a "life" and your raised for slaughter animal has zero chance at keeping his/hers.
At least a wild animal can sneak by while you are taking a nap in the tree stand.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I understand the meat to be tasty.  When I asked an old Montana guide what mountain lion tastes like he said "A little like (another word for kitty)".





When the judge let me off for killing the mountain lion that was protected because I was lost and hungry, he asked what it taste like. I told him it tasted like a cross between a spotted owl and a bald eagle.

Old joke.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Has anybody else noticed the interesting dichotomy of "As long as it's legal, I don't mind if people sport hunt and waste the meat" juxtaposed by "Even if it's illegal, I'll kill an animal to end it's suffering"?
> 
> Oh, look.  A rabbit hole.....



Ingrained morality.  The law makes it tough to judge another man's actions.  But does not always prohibit my actions when my personal morality determines I should act otherwise.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Thanks, Walt.  I take that as a compliment.  Unfortunately, at its essence I think I hunt for amusement.  I use the meat and there's all the camaraderie and the "getting in touch with Nature" aspect, but I could have all those things without the killing.  I think there's a bloodlust aspect that I better come to terms with.


Theres no getting around that.
We are human and we seem to have a penchant for killing.
It may have started out as a survival trait but not so much any more.
We invent lots of reasons/justifications for doing it.
Its part of who/what we are.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Theres no getting around that.
> We are human and we seem to have a penchant for killing.
> It may have started out as a survival trait but not so much any more.
> We invent lots of reasons/justifications for doing it.
> Its part of who/what we are.





Yea, it seems that us and the cat family are the only species that really kills just for fun at times.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Thats where we are going to differ.
> Im assuming your thoughts are that you arent killing something "wild". You are basically farming a renewable resource.
> But its still a "life" and your raised for slaughter animal has zero chance at keeping his/hers.
> At least a wild animal can sneak by while you are taking a nap in the tree stand.



See, that's what I'm talking about.  Even vegans I know are less adverse to me hunting because the animal has a "sporting chance".  They romanticize it.  

Seems like on a farm, you don't raise the animals for fun, which is entirely different than the satisfaction.  You raise them for killing and eating.  I just seems clearer to me.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> See, that's what I'm talking about.  Even vegans I know are less adverse to me hunting because the animal has a "sporting chance".  They romanticize it.
> 
> Seems like on a farm, you don't raise the animals for fun, which is entirely different than the satisfaction.  You raise them for killing and eating.  I just seems clearer to me.


Sure but again its what makes you feel better about it.
And really thats what this entire subject boils down to.
The animal still dies at our hand.
Its all in how we justify it to ourselves.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

660griz said:


> When the judge let me off for killing the mountain lion that was protected because I was lost and hungry, he asked what it taste like. I told him it tasted like a cross between a spotted owl and a bald eagle.
> 
> Old joke.



Ol' Judge Parker saw Billy Bob with a cooler full of fish.  Parker said "Hoooey, Billy Bob!! That's alot of fishes.  What kind of bait you use?".  Billy Bob said "Judge Parker, meet me at the dock at midnight and I'll show you."  

That night at midnight they got in Billy Bob's jon boat and paddled out into the middle of the river.  Billy Bob took out a stick of dynamite, lit it and handed it to Judge Parker.  "Billy Bob!!!  Why this is all kinds of illegal!! Do you know what the penalty is for fishing with dynamite!?!"  Billy Bob replied "Fuse is getting short.  You gonna talk or fish?"

That ones even older I think.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> Yea, it seems that us and the cat family are the only species that really kills just for fun at times.


Funny you mention that. There is a semi wild cat that hangs around here. I watched  him this summer catching grass hoppers, batting them around, pulling their wings off and when tired of it a quick crunch and it was over. Left the grasshopper carcass there and moved on to other more fun things.
Was purely entertainment to the cat.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> Yea, it seems that us and the cat family are the only species that really kills just for fun at times.




I think cats do it instinctively, like practice.  I used to say that about my catch and release bass fishing.  But It's not the same.  I think it's different for animals that are capable of complex thoughts.

There's footage of killer whale tossing a seal around and then bringing it back to shore alive.  

That's pretty complex.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure but again its what makes you feel better about it.
> And really thats what this entire subject boils down to.
> The animal still dies at our hand.
> Its all in how we justify it to ourselves.



...and that we have the capacity to think about things that way.  When it came to fishing, we just did it; without a second thought.  This conversation is what happens when you give it a second thought.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Ingrained morality.  The law makes it tough to judge another man's actions.  But does not always prohibit my actions when my personal morality determines I should act otherwise.




I thought the law and the justice system was made to do exactly that.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 25, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> Yea, it seems that us and the cat family are the only species that really kills just for fun at times.



Not sure why they kill but, we just know it was not for food. Dolphins, elephants, chimps, and wolves have been known to kill for reasons other than protection and food.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 25, 2015)

660griz said:


> Not sure why they kill but, we just know it was not for food. Dolphins, elephants, chimps, and wolves have been known to kill for reasons other than protection and food.





Does it seem like that the smarter the species, the more they kill for fun? Sure seems that way.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 25, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> Does it seem like that the smarter the species, the more they kill for fun? Sure seems that way.



It does.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Funny you mention that. There is a semi wild cat that hangs around here. I watched  him this summer catching grass hoppers, batting them around, pulling their wings off and when tired of it a quick crunch and it was over. Left the grasshopper carcass there and moved on to other more fun things.
> Was purely entertainment to the cat.



Ive seen Mrs JB's cats do similar things to moles.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I thought the law and the justice system was made to do exactly that.



Sure.  So, when the law and justice systems gives it a green light, is it now morally correct?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

Take the example of my friend who kills the bear every spring.  He has now gotten to where he looks for certain color phases, since any ol bear won't do these days.  At no point does he ever intend for the bear to be eaten.  It becomes a rug or a life-sized mount (he has 3 whole bears mounted, and plethora of rugs at this point).  The meat always gets dumped.  Very legal.  I just couldn't do it...........particularly when the video shows the bear at the bait pile staring at him, knowing he's there, and not being afraid (they associate people with food at this particular hunting lodge).


----------



## 660griz (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Sure.  So, when the law and justice systems gives it a green light, is it now morally correct?



If it was morally correct for you before it was legal, it still is. 
Moral can be individual, legal is for us all.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Sure.  So, when the law and justice systems gives it a green light, is it now morally correct?



They should align with the current morality.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

For some reason, this thread has me dreaming of a moose hunt........can you imagine how much meat a fella would get from a moose?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

660griz said:


> If it was morally correct for you before it was legal, it still is.
> Moral can be individual, legal is for us all.



Morals change.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> They should align with the current morality.



I disagree.  I think they should only exist to the extent they protect individual rights, life, property (to me, game laws fall under property, as it is communal).  Not enforce morality.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Take the example of my friend who kills the bear every spring.  He has now gotten to where he looks for certain color phases, since any ol bear won't do these days.  At no point does he ever intend for the bear to be eaten.  It becomes a rug or a life-sized mount (he has 3 whole bears mounted, and plethora of rugs at this point).  The meat always gets dumped.  Very legal.  I just couldn't do it...........particularly when the video shows the bear at the bait pile staring at him, knowing he's there, and not being afraid (they associate people with food at this particular hunting lodge).





> I just couldn't do it


I'm with you.
I would have zero interest in doing that.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Morals change.



So do laws. 
Your point?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> For some reason, this thread has me dreaming of a moose hunt........can you imagine how much meat a fella would get from a moose?



I know, right?  The more I talk about it the more I wanna take up my bow.

I think there's some sublime psychology at work.

Maybe the closer I get to talking myself out of doing it the more I wanna do it.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I would have zero interest in doing that.



Over the years I have turned down many offers to tag along.  If I ever go up there, it will only be for the pike and walleye fishing.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> For some reason, this thread has me dreaming of a moose hunt........can you imagine how much meat a fella would get from a moose?



Alaskan hunt for moose and caribou are on my bucket list. Probably never be able to afford either.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

660griz said:


> So do laws.
> Your point?



Not sure....


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Over the years I have turned down many offers to tag along.  If I ever go up there, it will only be for the pike and walleye fishing.




I bet bears fed on stale donuts taste delicious.  You take his meat home and share it with us.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I bet bears fed on stale donuts taste delicious.  You take his meat home and share it with us.





The few times I`ve had bear, it was good. They had fattened up on swamp palmetto berries and acorns.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 25, 2015)

Anyone heard a bear's death moan? Heart breaking.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I disagree.  I think they should only exist to the extent they protect individual rights, life, property (to me, game laws fall under property, as it is communal).  Not enforce morality.




Can you think of a situation, say, apocalyptic, where laws might need to restrict individual rights for the sake of society?  Just asking questions.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

660griz said:


> Anyone heard a bear's death moan? Heart breaking.



I shot the top of a does head off.  She bleated and gurgled for what seemed like 10 minutes.  I have rarely felt so yucky in my life.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

How about that.  All these atheists and agnostics weighing in on moral and ethical questions.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

660griz said:


> Alaskan hunt for moose and caribou are on my bucket list. Probably never be able to afford either.



I am fascinated by the idea of hunting moose in New England.  Vermont, New Hampshire, or someplace up there.  Prolly because Alaska will always be out of reach for me too


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> How about that.  All these atheists and agnostics weighing in on moral and ethical questions.





I`m a Christian, intruding in on ya`ll.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Can you think of a situation, say, apocalyptic, where laws might need to restrict individual rights for the sake of society?  Just asking questions.



Even then, I think protecting life, rights, and property covers it.  Unless we are discussing food rations in a "everybody's starving" scenario........at which point anarchy might be more tolerable.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> I`m a Christian, intruding in on ya`ll.



Same here, but they know my position........I mentioned "apologetic" in my first post so non regulars/posters reading along understood where I was coming from.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Over the years I have turned down many offers to tag along.  If I ever go up there, it will only be for the pike and walleye fishing.


Here's a question and for me it shows some of the contradiction I mentioned -
What if they were to set you up on the bear's travel route say a 1/2 mile from the bait buffet station.
Make a difference?
For me I start to look at it in a different light under those circumstances.
And for me just dumping the meat is not an option. If SOMEONE isnt going to eat it Im not going to shoot it.
But does the location make any difference to you?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I shot the top of a does head off.  She bleated and gurgled for what seemed like 10 minutes.  I have rarely felt so yucky in my life.



I once shot a yearling doe that let out the most pitiful bleat I had ever heard.  That bleat eliminated any joy I may have felt for my success.  That's empathy at work.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I am fascinated by the idea of hunting moose in New England.  Vermont, New Hampshire, or someplace up there.  Prolly because Alaska will always be out of reach for me too



There was a 50inch moose that liked to lay down in the flower bed where the sign to my apartment complex in Montana was.  I'll try to dig up a picture.  

My brother came to visit me once and he woke me up saying "There's moose in the parking lot!"  I said "Shut up. They're probably just mule deer."  I got up and saw he was right.  A cow and two calves.  We went out there, me in my underware, and tried to chase them down.  Until we realized how incredibly stupid we were.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Here's a question and for me it shows some of the contradiction I mentioned -
> What if they were to set you up on the bear's travel route say a 1/2 mile from the bait buffet station.
> Make a difference?
> For me I start to look at it in a different light under those circumstances.
> ...



As far as location goes, it would make a difference if the bear didn't look up as if to say "hi" on the way to the bait. IF there was some kind of pursuit, as being a half mile away means the bear could take alternate routes. Seriously, this guy's videos show the bear just staring as they mosey over to the pile........making it seem tame.  And, yes, I do see the contradiction in that perspective, it's just where Im at, I guess.

The deal killer for me is dumping the meat.  They say you can't eat a spring bear.  And, if I ever kill a bear I want to turn it into sausage.  Plus, I really have no desire to have a bear rug, so the only purpose I would have in killing it is the meat.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> I`m a Christian, intruding in on ya`ll.



So glad to have you, friend.

I was just commenting on how some people think that atheists and agnostics can't have morals.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Even then, I think protecting life, rights, and property covers it.  Unless we are discussing food rations in a "everybody's starving" scenario........at which point anarchy might be more tolerable.




Oooooh.  That would be uuuuuugly.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> We went out there, me in my underware, and tried to chase them down.  Until we realized how incredibly stupid we were.



I have heard they are dumb, and watch folks hunt them on t.v. and they don't seem to bright (I know tv hunting ain't the real thing, but some of those moose act blind or dumb).  But, the idea of all that MEAT!!!  YEa, count me in.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Oooooh.  That would be uuuuuugly.



So is telling grandma and grandpa they're too old to waste food rations on.  

Which is uglier?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I have heard they are dumb, and watch folks hunt them on t.v. and they don't seem to bright (I know tv hunting ain't the real thing, but some of those moose act blind or dumb).  But, the idea of all that MEAT!!!  YEa, count me in.


If Im not mistaken, moose kill more people than bears yearly. They may be dumb but dont catch one when they are in a bad mood or some other mood


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I once shot a yearling doe that let out the most pitiful bleat I had ever heard.  That bleat eliminated any joy I may have felt for my success.  That's empathy at work.



Every time I arrow a deer the first thing I feel is triumph.  Even when I see them stumbling and scrambling.  The only remorse I ever felt for arrowed deer are the ones that I didn't recover.

It's weird.  I think of bow hunting as crueler than gun hunting.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I have heard they are dumb, and watch folks hunt them on t.v. and they don't seem to bright (I know tv hunting ain't the real thing, but some of those moose act blind or dumb).  But, the idea of all that MEAT!!!  YEa, count me in.



A cow could kill you easily.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It's weird.  I think of bow hunting as crueler than gun hunting.



IT goes back to empathy.  Most folks aren't near as efficient with a bow when it comes to killin'.  In fact, most folks I know lose more than they recover while bowhunting.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> So is telling grandma and grandpa they're too old to waste food rations on.
> 
> Which is uglier?



If grandma is rational, which she is (my daughters grandma), she will forgo her ration willingly.  I know for a fact she would do this.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> So glad to have you, friend.
> 
> I was just commenting on how some people think that atheists and agnostics can't have morals.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> IT goes back to empathy.  Most folks aren't near as efficient with a bow when it comes to killin'.  In fact, most folks I know lose more than they recover while bowhunting.



Even the best possible shot with a bow rarely ever results in instant death.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If Im not mistaken, moose kill more people than bears yearly. They may be dumb but dont catch one when they are in a bad mood or some other mood



Added sense of danger?  Now I really wanna go


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> If grandma is rational, which she is (my daughters grandma), she will forgo her ration willingly.  I know for a fact she would do this.



Sure, but we are discussing hypotheticals where laws may need to be instituted that do not always protect life, rights, and property.  Food rations are one scenario I can think of..........and forcefully starving granma doesn't seem tolerable.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Added sense of danger?  Now I really wanna go



They're so big.  Soooo big......


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Added sense of danger?  Now I really wanna go


Maybe its moose attack more people than bears do as opposed to killing more people.
Either way I think they are classified as more "dangerous" based on number of people attacked.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

Just kidding on the danger comment, btw.  I just always heard it's the best wild game to eat........and killing one would prolly feed a family for a whole year.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Sure, but we are discussing hypotheticals where laws may need to be instituted that do not always protect life, rights, and property.  Food rations are one scenario I can think of..........and forcefully starving granma doesn't seem tolerable.



If she does it willingly then its not force.  If the law is rational and the people that it's applied to are rational, then you shouldn't have to force them.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

Moose chili, moose steaks, moose roast, moose tacos, moose burgers, moose nachos, moose sausage...........for a year!


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Just kidding on the danger comment, btw.  I just always heard it's the best wild game to eat........and killing one would prolly feed a family for a whole year.


Have never had moose.
I dont know how it could beat a fat cow elk steak but if it does I want some!


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> If she does it willingly then its not force.  If the law is rational and the people that it's applied to are rational, then you shouldn't have to force them.



If people were universally rational, we wouldn't need laws.  Somebody's grandpa is going to steal rations.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Have never had moose.
> I dont know how it could beat a fat cow elk steak but if it does I want some!





You got that right!


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

I have never had moose either, but always heard glowing reviews.  I have had elk, and it is very good!

Now I am perusing moose outfitter websites


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I have never had moose either, but always heard glowing reviews.  I have had elk, and it is very good!
> 
> Now I am perusing moose outfitter websites


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> If people were universally rational, we wouldn't need laws.  Somebody's grandpa is going to steal rations.



Turns out 90% of the people on the planet have higher aspirations.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

Lols


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB's gonna stroke out


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

I could make a political case against trusting grandma and granpa to do the right thing........but this ain't the forum for that


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> You got that right!


Best meat Ive ever eaten in my life.
Give those big horns and taxidermy bill to the other guys I'll take those cow elk steaks !


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I could make a political case against trusting grandma and granpa to do the right thing........but this ain't the forum for that



G'head witchur bad self.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Best meat Ive ever eaten in my life.
> Give those big horns and taxidermy bill to the other guys I'll take those cow elk steaks !




I`d rather have cow elk steaks than any other red meat I`ve eaten. And a cow elk hide is easier to braintan than a bull. Plus even the cow has ivories you can get. 

In addition to moose, I`ve heard tell that caribou is also very good.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> I`d rather have cow elk steaks than any other red meat I`ve eaten. And a cow elk hide is easier to braintan than a bull. Plus even the cow has ivories you can get.
> 
> In addition to moose, I`ve heard tell that caribou is also very good.



You're reminding me of why its OK to hunt.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You're reminding me of why its OK to hunt.





We are predators, after all.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> G'head witchur bad self.



Starting with the new deal, people have viewed the gov't as a problem fixer, instead of a protector of rights.  Since then, each generation has used legislation to improve their position regardless of the detriment the legislation will bring future generations.  Ultimately, the new deal, and the mindset that was introduced with it, is going to be what sinks the republic (#'s don't lie).  Grandma and Grandpa saved Europe from a psychotic socialist, but, they also borrowed from the future to make things better for themselves, and each subsequent generation ahs continued to do the same.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 25, 2015)

Nicodemus said:


> We are predators, after all.



And we shouldn't ask others to do what we are not willing to do. 
Except pumping out septic tanks. I ask others to do that.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 25, 2015)

660griz said:


> And we shouldn't ask others to do what we are not willing to do.
> Except pumping out septic tanks. I ask others to do that.




And pay good money for the service too!!


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Starting with the new deal, people have viewed the gov't as a problem fixer, instead of a protector of rights.  Since then, each generation has used legislation to improve their position regardless of the detriment the legislation will bring future generations.  Ultimately, the new deal, and the mindset that was introduced with it, is going to be what sinks the republic (#'s don't lie).  Grandma and Grandpa saved Europe from a psychotic socialist, but, they also borrowed from the future to make things better for themselves, and each subsequent generation ahs continued to do the same.




Very interesting...

And if it is what you say it is, very irrational.  That's why there should be a PREMIUM on rationality.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

I just had a revelation from the deer hunting forum.

A deer in agony doesn't "off itself".  It doesn't just lay down and wait for the coyotes.  It just lives, lives, lives....that's what its programmed to do.  Could it be said that THAT is its desire?  Should we deny it its desire for our own sake and at the same time break the law?  How about the putting the game warden in an awkward ethical position?  Does that factor?

Wow.  That was hard earned revelation. It took all morning.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I just had a revelation from the deer hunting forum.
> 
> A deer in agony doesn't "off itself".  It doesn't just lay down and wait for the coyotes.  It just lives, lives, lives....that's what its programmed to do.  Could it be said that THAT is its desire?  Should we deny it its desire for our own sake?
> 
> Wow.  That was hard earned revelation.



Yes, as predators we consume critters beneath us on the food chain. It's the way of things. 

As far as ethics and morality, the only ones that should enter are to respect your prey enough to kill it as efficiently and quickly as possible, and to consume every aspect of if that you harvest. Our last obligation is to not overharvest any natural resource so that it stays in equilibrium with the environment. 

Basically, take what the native Americans were doing, apply modern science to get more accurate harvest records and projections, and practice self-control.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

660griz said:


> And we shouldn't ask others to do what we are not willing to do.
> Except pumping out septic tanks. I ask others to do that.



But you can have others do what are willing to but are incapable of doing.  Should everyone that eats meat have to kill something first?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yes, as predators we consume critters beneath us on the food chain. It's the way of things.
> 
> As far as ethics and morality, the only ones that should enter are to respect your prey enough to kill it as efficiently and quickly as possible, and to consume every aspect of if that you harvest. Our last obligation is to not overharvest any natural resource so that it stays in equilibrium with the environment.
> 
> Basically, take what the native Americans were doing, apply modern science to get more accurate harvest records and projections, and practice self-control.



No, no.  

I was referring to the the "Do you kill a deer out of season if its jaw is shot off" question.

And by the way I added to my post that wasn't included on your quote.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yes, as predators we consume critters beneath us on the food chain. It's the way of things.
> 
> As far as ethics and morality, the only ones that should enter are to respect your prey enough to kill it as efficiently and quickly as possible, and to consume every aspect of if that you harvest. Our last obligation is to not overharvest any natural resource so that it stays in equilibrium with the environment.
> 
> Basically, take what the native Americans were doing, apply modern science to get more accurate harvest records and projections, and practice self-control.



Gun hunt only?  Minimum caliber?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I just had a revelation from the deer hunting forum.
> 
> A deer in agony doesn't "off itself".  It doesn't just lay down and wait for the coyotes.  It just lives, lives, lives....that's what its programmed to do.  Could it be said that THAT is its desire?  Should we deny it its desire for our own sake and at the same time break the law?  How about the putting the game warden in an awkward ethical position?  Does that factor?
> 
> Wow.  That was hard earned revelation. It took all morning.



Does the deer know there is an alternative to make a reasoned decision?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Very interesting...
> 
> And if it is what you say it is, very irrational.  That's why there should be a PREMIUM on rationality.



Right, but laws exist because people are not always rational.  They are a framework to operate inside of to preserve life, rights, and property.  I only see anarchy as a better solution if the gov't has to decide who lives and who dies for "the greater good."  The primary reason is that gov't is made up of irrational people.  Every man for himself seems better than surrendering my fate to somebody who is easily persuaded, bought, or sold otherwise.

Add into that, the new deal happened.  So have many other horrible pieces of legislation which have zero concern for future generations.  I just cant see a system which relies on granpa to do the right thing, and starve himself if there is not enough food for everybody.............and who's to say that is the "right thing?"  I may have an opinion, and granpa may see it differently.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Does the deer know there is an alternative to make a reasoned decision?



I would guess, no.  So why interfere?

I'm starting to think it might be as much for ourselves, if not more, than for the deer.  But that's really imposing your idea of what is best for the deer upon it.

From you point of view that's perfectly rational, having God given stewardship and dominion upon it and so forth.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Right, but laws exist because people are not always rational.  They are a framework to operate inside of to preserve life, rights, and property.  I only see anarchy as a better solution if the gov't has to decide who lives and who dies for "the greater good."  The primary reason is that gov't is made up of irrational people.  Every man for himself seems better than surrendering my fate to somebody who is easily persuaded, bought, or sold otherwise.
> 
> Add into that, the new deal happened.  So have many other horrible pieces of legislation which have zero concern for future generations.  I just cant see a system which relies on granpa to do the right thing, and starve himself if there is not enough food for everybody.............and who's to say that is the "right thing?"  I may have an opinion, and granpa may see it differently.



What would the world be like if rationality was the highest aspiration?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I'm starting to think it might as much for ourselves as for the deer.  But that's really imposing your idea of what is best for the deer upon it.



Perhaps we have a high degree of certainty the choice it would make given all alternatives.

If left to starve to death with a horribly injured face zero chance of survival, or a quick blind side death, I think most humans will make the same choice.  Maybe our empathy makes us project that on the deer..........


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What would the world be like if rationality was the aspiration?



A John Lennon song......


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Perhaps we have a high degree of certainty the choice it would make given all alternatives.



...If it had a brain capable of that kind of thought, which it probably doesn't.



JB0704 said:


> If left to starve to death with a horribly injured face zero chance of survival, or a quick blind side death, I think most humans will make the same choice.  Maybe our empathy makes us project that on the deer..........



But is that right?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> A John Lennon song......



he never mentions rationality.  He doesn't offer a plan to get where he's going.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Perhaps we have a high degree of certainty the choice it would make given all alternatives.



Also, laying down and waiting for the coyotes is an alternative for the deer.  But it doesn't do that. It fights to live until its last.  That's what it wants to do.

Did you see Huntingfools two cents upstairs?  That's what made the light go off for me.  He said "what would you do if you came across a fatally wounded hunter that _ASKED YOU TO KILL HIM_"?

The deer isn't asking for you to interfere.  In fact it would run from you if it still could.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> But you can have others do what are willing to but are incapable of doing.


 Sorry. I read this a few times and still can't grasp the meaning. No offense. It is Friday. 


> Should everyone that eats meat have to kill something first?



My statement was purely from my feelings. Just like other contradictions in hunting. They are my feelings and everyone else can have different ones and I don't think they are wrong.



> Should everyone that eats meat have to kill something first?


If I had my way...yea. I certainly don't think it would hurt. I chopped my first chicken head off when I was in the second grade. My Dad thought it was important that I know where the fried chicken came from. 

Or, maybe not have to kill something but, at least know where it comes from. Anti hunters that eat meat probably think cows are born in foam trays wrapped in plastic.
Educated on the role of predator and prey and what makes us predators.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> he never mentions rationality.  He doesn't offer a plan to get where he's going.



He seems to have a high degree of certainty as to what it looks like when he gets there........


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> That's what it wants to do.



Does it now have free will in order to "want" anything?  Or are it's actions a programmed response to external stimulus?



ambush80 said:


> Did you see Huntingfools two cents upstairs?  That's what made the light go off for me.  He said "what would you do if you came across a fatally wounded hunter that _ASKED YOU TO KILL HIM_"?
> 
> The deer isn't asking for you to interfere.  In fact it would run from you if it still could.



I did see it.  Again, that's where our empathy comes in, and, to the deer's advantage, our higher ability to reason.  He doesn't know the coyotes or starvation are coming.  We do.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> he never mentions rationality.  He doesn't offer a plan to get where he's going.



The song assumes the things imagined are the result of reason, I do believe.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Does it now have free will in order to "want" anything?  Or are it's actions a programmed response to external stimulus?



I meant "want" more like compelled/programmed, but I suppose it makes choices.  Laying down and dying is an option, but it doesn't do it.  



JB0704 said:


> I did see it.  Again, that's where our empathy comes in, and, to the deer's advantage, our higher ability to reason.  He doesn't know the coyotes or starvation are coming.  We do.



I think he knows "something" of coyotes.  He knows to avoid them.  That's all.  

Makes me think of that squirrel whose head I stomped on.  I'm certain he was squirming because he saw me coming.  In a sense I filled his last moments with fear or at very least stress.  Maybe if I just let him expire without intervention he would have been calm.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> The song assumes the things imagined are the result of reason, I do believe.



I don't think "no possessions" is necessarily rational or that not having them leads to "nothing to kill or die for".


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2015)

Do a search for: 
Three Types of Hunters and
The Five Stages of a Sport Hunter
 by Denny L Vasquez


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Do a search for:
> Three Types of Hunters and
> The Five Stages of a Sport Hunter
> by Denny L Vasquez




Yeah, I've seen that.

It makes sense to me.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

660griz said:


> Sorry. I read this a few times and still can't grasp the meaning. No offense. It is Friday.
> 
> 
> My statement was purely from my feelings. Just like other contradictions in hunting. They are my feelings and everyone else can have different ones and I don't think they are wrong.
> ...



An extreme example is the Dalai Lama.  He eats meat but he can't kill it himself, but he's governed by an irrational belief system.

My wife eats meat but she doesn't want to kill it herself.  She doesn't care to though I'm sure she could if need be.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

Did anybody see the post upstairs about not shooting three legged deer?  What did you think of it?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2015)

My wife hunts turkeys. Does not hunt anything else. She said deer are too pretty to shoot but she can blast a turkey because they are ugly.
Go Figure....

But she will eat venison and all wild game. At first she wouldn't saying it was because I butchered it. When I explained that by me butchering it that I am able to know exactly where every ounce of meat has been and how it has been taken care of from the time the trigger is pulled until the time it reaches the plate.  I told her that if we take it to a butcher that the meat is out of our hands and most likely will be mixed with other venison while making sausage etc. I have no idea if that other venison was gut shot, dressed properly, cooled properly, or driven around for 3 days in the bed of a pickup truck.That made her think twice about it.
Being that I am beyond meticulous to not have any hair,silver skin,fat or gristle in the meat her dining experience has been exceptional and while she still won't kill a deer herself she looks forward to the Boys and me to fill a few tags.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Right, but laws exist because people are not always rational.



They aren't trained very vigorously to be.  Certain irrational beliefs are accepted and revered and very rarely properly criticized. 




JB0704 said:


> They are a framework to operate inside of to preserve life, rights, and property.  I only see anarchy as a better solution if the gov't has to decide who lives and who dies for "the greater good."  The primary reason is that gov't is made up of irrational people.  Every man for himself seems better than surrendering my fate to somebody who is easily persuaded, bought, or sold otherwise.



Those that try to maintain a society or even a large clan might find value in that concept.  Those that don't want to participate can leave.  Just like it is now.





JB0704 said:


> Add into that, the new deal happened.  So have many other horrible pieces of legislation which have zero concern for future generations.  I just cant see a system which relies on granpa to do the right thing, and starve himself if there is not enough food for everybody.............and who's to say that is the "right thing?"  I may have an opinion, and granpa may see it differently.



It places alot of trust in the hope that people will think rationally.  As of now, people are ill trained to do that.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

bullethead said:


> My wife hunts turkeys. Does not hunt anything else. She said deer are too pretty to shoot but she can blast a turkey because they are ugly.
> Go Figure....
> 
> But she will eat venison and all wild game. At first she wouldn't saying it was because I butchered it. When I explained that by me butchering it that I am able to know exactly where every ounce of meat has been and how it has been taken care of from the time the trigger is pulled until the time it reaches the plate.  I told her that if we take it to a butcher that the meat is out of our hands and most likely will be mixed with other venison while making sausage etc. I have no idea if that other venison was gut shot, dressed properly, cooled properly, or driven around for 3 days in the bed of a pickup truck.That made her think twice about it.
> Being that I am beyond meticulous to not have any hair,silver skin,fat or gristle in the meat her dining experience has been exceptional and while she still won't kill a deer herself she looks forward to the Boys and me to fill a few tags.



But not too pretty to eat.  It's weird.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2015)

Sometimes I will let deer pass without a thought of killing them and my Son will ask me if I saw the deer. I say yeah they passed within yards of me and he just shakes his head. I tell him that I was once where he was and if ida shot they may have never made it over to him. Yet the next day the same deer may pass by and all I can envision is some Snack Stix with ears and a white tail coming through the lane and do my best to put a bullet or broadhead through the vitals.
It is hard to explain to someone who has never hunted because they can't understand it.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Sometimes I will let deer pass without a thought of killing them and my Son will ask me if I saw the deer. I say yeah they passed within yards of me and he just shakes his head. I tell him that I was once where he was and if ida shot they may have never made it over to him. Yet the next day the same deer may pass by and all I can envision is some Snack Stix with ears and a white tail coming through the lane and do my best to put a bullet or broadhead through the vitals.
> It is hard to explain to someone who has never hunted because they can't understand it.



When I had private land to hunt on I was more picky.  Now....


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> But not too pretty to eat.  It's weird.


Exactly
I guess as long as they are in food form the personal relationship is our of the mix.

For years I begged her try snapping turtle soup. She declined. 6 or 7 years later she got the urge to try a spoonful and I am positive she would dig a pond in our yard just to stock snapping turtles now.
Weird it is.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> When I had private land to hunt on I was more picky.  Now....



I can appreciate that. There really are many factors that can be a part of hunting or killing. They probably vary as much as the individuals themselves.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> He seems to have a high degree of certainty as to what it looks like when he gets there........



He thinks "the world will live as one".


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I can appreciate that. There really are many factors that can be a part of hunting or killing. They probably vary as much as the individuals themselves.



But are they always well thought out?  I'm not so sure.

Without spending the better part of the morning talking to you guys about it I might never have come to the conclusion I did about "mercy killing".


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Exactly
> I guess as long as they are in food form the personal relationship is out of the mix.
> 
> For years I begged her try snapping turtle soup. She declined. 6 or 7 years later she got the urge to try a spoonful and I am positive she would dig a pond in our yard just to stock snapping turtles now.
> Weird it is.



That implies that there's gravity to killing animals for food.  I don't think there is.  Killing for amusement is the big hurdle for me.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> But are they always well thought out?  I'm not so sure.
> 
> Without spending the better part of the morning talking to you guys about it I might never have come to the conclusion I did about "mercy killing".


Some are most likely not well thought out and range to some people losing sleep because they think about it. Thats what makes it all unique to the individual.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Some are most likely not well thought out and range to some people losing sleep because they think about it. Thats what makes it all unique to the individual.



"I just don't want to think about it" seems lame as heck to me.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2015)

I am positive that putting a bad shot on an animal has made me a better more patient hunter. Whether it was my own fault by rushing a shot or having a limb deflect an arrow it really had me losing sleep twice. The animal suffering was a huge part of it because I have always felt that if I am going to take somethings life I have to do my best to make it as quick and hopefully painless as possible.  But I have also realized that bad shots will happen and if a person has not experienced it then they may not have spent a lot of time hunting.
In both cases I looked for the deer until I found one dead a day later and one alive a week later. Both,I think, have made me a better hunter.
I have found in many aspects of life that I have learned more by screwing up rather than doing things right all the time.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> "I just don't want to think about it" seems lame as heck to me.


yeah i agree but we know many people have that attitude with hunting and many other things in life.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 25, 2015)

Is this the first AAA driveler??


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Is this the first AAA driveler??



Really?


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 25, 2015)

Sure, why not?  I like conversations that take tangents. Usually around here there are a few "on topic" nazis trying to keep things in line.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Sure, why not?  I like conversations that take tangents. Usually around here there are a few "on topic" nazis trying to keep things in line.




Yeah. we're just goofing around.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

bullethead said:


> yeah i agree but we know many people have that attitude with hunting and many other things in life.




It can be so much more than that.  Imagine if you had a good reason for everything that you do.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 26, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> He thinks "the world will live as one".



I'm sure it all seemed very rational when he wrote it.  There may have been some external stimulus, though.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 26, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Yeah. we're just goofing around.



Not goofing. Maybe I misunderstand the point of the driveler threads. I just mean letting the conversation go where it will. Anyway, it's not important.  Nevermind. Carry on.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Not goofing. Maybe I misunderstand the point of the driveler threads. I just mean letting the conversation go where it will. Anyway, it's not important.  Nevermind. Carry on.



No worries.  The drivelers seem to be nonsensical ramblings for fun.  

I thought you were suggesting that that's what's going on here.  (I started drinking early.  It's Saturday.)


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I'm sure it all seemed very rational when he wrote it.  There may have been some external stimulus, though.



He wasn't great example of rationality....he married Yoko.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2015)

So I tried to walk my wife through the process I went through to get to my new position on mercy killing:  "I will let the jaw shot deer walk."  This is why.

1. Deer don't experience pain or think the same way we do.

  - This is from direct observation as well as based on the fact that they have different brain structures than we do.  They don't have as much cognitive brain structure as other animals.  You can't be emotional if you don't have the structures that allow for emotion. Therefor "suffering" can't apply the same way to a deer as it does to humans.

2. A deer's main goal is to live.

  - If anything can be inferred about what a deer might want or is       programmed to do it's by observing that they flee from that which might kill them even when mortally injured.  A mortally injured deer still runs from predators until it can't anymore.  They don't just lay down and die.  They try to go about their business.  

3. It's illegal.

  - Euthanizing a wounder deer out of season would put a game warden in a tough position.  You've forced him into an ethical dilemma unnecessarily.


I think that the desire to put an animal out of its misery is ultimately more for the person than for the deer.  I think it's imposing what we think we would want done for us on the deer.  It's imposing how we think we would feel if we were in the deer's place.   It's assuming that the deer suffers the same way we would.  It's assuming that the deer would rather be dead, than live in whatever degree of pain that it's in, and it's assuming that it's even capable of that kind of thinking.  

My wife couldn't get passed point number 1.  She thinks the deer would rather be dead than in pain and refused to even discuss it further.  She thinks for some baseless reason that a deer is capable of a thought like "I wish I were dead".   She would rather go with how she feels than think it through.  I'm very disappointed.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2015)

Update:

I  thought about what I would do if I saw a jawless deer and a healthy deer together and they were both legal.  If my goal in killing a deer is good, healthy meat, I would kill the healthy doe.  I wouldn't want to risk the prospect that the jawless deer might have sepsis.


Also, I realized that I might be placing more emphasis on the what the deer wants/needs (point 2 above).  What about what I need?  If I have empathy, however misplaced, shouldn't that be considered?   Not when breaking the law, certainly, but empathy is natural for humans. Maybe shutting it off isn't rational either.  Regardless of the reality of the deer's experience, I have an experience, too.  Empathy and feelings in general may lead to irrational action but they're part of who we are.  I think that they need to be respected and considered but used appropriately.   Are some people more sensitive to the _idea_ of suffering?  Maybe that's where it becomes an individual's issue.

It's still a hard question....


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 26, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Update:
> 
> I  thought about what I would do if I saw a jawless deer and a healthy deer together and they were both legal.  If my goal in killing a deer is good, healthy meat, I would kill the healthy doe.  I wouldn't want to risk the prospect that the jawless deer might have sepsis.
> 
> ...





> but empathy is natural for humans.


I might be a little off topic and Im not really sure where Im going with this but....
I think empathy is natural in humans _when its convenient_.
Go to a strictly survival situation and watch how selective empathy can get.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I might be a little off topic and Im not really sure where Im going with this but....
> I think empathy is natural in humans _when its convenient_.
> Go to a strictly survival situation and watch how selective empathy can get.




....then there's that.

So, applying it to the mercy killing problem makes it seem like a luxury item.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2015)

It is amazing how animals not only recover from what seem to be horrific injuries but also adapt and thrive.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2015)

bullethead said:


> It is amazing how animals not only recover from what seem to be horrific injuries but also adapt and thrive.



I saw a National Geographic where a baboon got its hand bit off by a crocodile.  It licked it for a minute and then went to go find something to eat.  They obviously have a different experience of pain than we do and they're way more like us than a deer.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I saw a National Geographic where a baboon got its hand bit off by a crocodile.  It licked it for a minute and then went to go find something to eat.  They obviously have a different experience of pain than we do and they're way more like us than a deer.


True.
Locally many people get upset at the game wardens for not allowing them to put animals out of their misery or when the wardens won't do it themselves. More often than not the animal makes a recovery that allows them to carry on quite well.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 27, 2015)

bullethead said:


> True.
> Locally many people get upset at the game wardens for not allowing them to put animals out of their misery or when the wardens won't do it themselves. More often than not the animal makes a recovery that allows them to carry on quite well.



I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts on this, too.

What would you do, Bullet?  Would you shoot a jaw shot deer out of season?  Would you burn a tag to put a deer out of its "misery" (misery in quotes because I don't think it's the right word to use with deer anymore) if you weren't gonna eat the meat?


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What would you do, Bullet?  Would you shoot a jaw shot deer out of season?  Would you burn a tag to put a deer out of its "misery" (misery in quotes because I don't think it's the right word to use with deer anymore) if you weren't gonna eat the meat?



I know this is for bullet, but I want to weigh in. Each situation is going to be different in the woods. If the example is the deer without a lower jaw, I very probably would shoot it. I am not concerned with season or tags. That deer is going to starve to death. Now, I am coming from a back ground where I had hundreds of acres to hunt with no one else around. If I were from a hunt club background, I might think differently. Self preservation and all...


----------



## bullethead (Sep 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What would you do, Bullet?  Would you shoot a jaw shot deer out of season?  Would you burn a tag to put a deer out of its "misery" (misery in quotes because I don't think it's the right word to use with deer anymore) if you weren't gonna eat the meat?



No I would not shoot any injured deer,jaw-shot or otherwise,  out of season.

In season I think I would have to make the call at the time.
I WOULD use my tag if I had put a bad shot on a deer and then didn't find it until days later and either it was already dead or I had to finish it. In both cases even if the meat was spoiled I would use my tag because that was my chance and I should have made a better shot.
If a noticeably injured deer came by me in season I would try to get a killing shot on it. Since I do eat the meat if the injury was fresh and the rest of the meat was not spoiled I would eat it. If it turned out the deer was injured a week earlier and gangrene set in all over, PA allows for a replacement tag to be issued if the Warden determines the meat is inedible.

That being said I have shot a doe that was missing front leg from elbow down and I didn't even realize it until she was down. Bottom of leg was fully healed and had a tough leather like pad that was perfectly healed.
Also I killed a buck in rifle season that had a 12" piece of carbon arrow in it's one backstrap. Whoever initially shot it had NO broadhead on the arrow and this deer showed no signs of an injury and when butchered there was silver skin around the arrow shaft and only about a half inch of discolored meat around the length of the shaft outside of that silver skin. No arrow stuck outside of the deer. It was fully buried under the skin. The rest outside I am guessing snapped of.
I used to have a pic of that until my hard drive crashed last year.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 27, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I know this is for bullet, but I want to weigh in. Each situation is going to be different in the woods. If the example is the deer without a lower jaw, I very probably would shoot it. I am not concerned with season or tags. That deer is going to starve to death. Now, I am coming from a back ground where I had hundreds of acres to hunt with no one else around. If I were from a hunt club background, I might think differently. Self preservation and all...



Can you walk me through the reasons why you would kill that deer?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 27, 2015)

bullethead said:


> No I would not shoot any injured deer,jaw-shot or otherwise,  out of season.
> 
> In season I think I would have to make the call at the time.
> I WOULD use my tag if I had put a bad shot on a deer and then didn't find it until days later and either it was already dead or I had to finish it. In both cases even if the meat was spoiled I would use my tag because that was my chance and I should have made a better shot.
> ...



Yeah, I shot a doe that had a broadhead and 5 inches of aluminum shaft along its spine right through the backstrap.  The broadhead was just behind the shoulder blade.  About 2 inches of the shaft was sticking out.  Imagine how that deer was standing when that person took the shot.

I took a new hunter with me one time.  He arrowed a deer in the right ham as it was going away. The arrow penetrated to the fletching and went all the way through to the vitals. The deer died within sight.  I didn't know what to say except "Don't do that again". He said "But it was getting away".  

I haven't hunted with him since.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Can you walk me through the reasons why you would kill that deer?



It is going to starve to death. I don't need laws to tell me what I should do. Yes, the survival instinct will make that deer walk around until it can't, but why should we let that happen?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> It is going to starve to death. I don't need laws to tell me what I should do. Yes, the survival instinct will make that deer walk around until it can't, but why should we let that happen?



This is why:



ambush80 said:


> So I tried to walk my wife through the process I went through to get to my new position on mercy killing:  "I will let the jaw shot deer walk."  This is why.
> 
> 1. Deer don't experience pain or think the same way we do.
> 
> ...



Which parts of this argument fail?


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 28, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> This is why:
> 
> 
> 
> Which parts of this argument fail?



The augment doesn't fail.  On a conversational level, it is a sound position.  

Should I let a mortally wounded dear walk because ambush80 had an epiphany? I'm not faced with the same conundrums as you. 

That being said, I've never had a mortally wounded deer in my sights, so all this is hypathetical.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> The augment doesn't fail.  On a conversational level, it is a sound position.
> 
> Should I let a mortally wounded dear walk because ambush80 had an epiphany? I'm not faced with the same conundrums as you.
> 
> That being said, I've never had a mortally wounded deer in my sights, so all this is hypathetical.



No need to make it personal.  It's not about me. It's "math".

I made a line of argument.  You agree with it but you won't subscribe to it.  That's your business.  I was just asking why.  If you don't care to know the deeper reasons why you do things that's also your own business.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Sep 28, 2015)

When I was younger I was a sport hunter and anything legal was game. Even stupid things like WMA hogs with .22lr rifles. At 20 I just didn't have much empathy going on I suppose. 

As I've gotten older I've gotten much softer and more empathetic towards all animals and I don't big game hunt at all anymore. For whatever reason I don't see fowl on the same level as a deer, hog, bear, etc. I enjoy bird hunting and don't have an issue with sport hunting them as long as they're eaten. I would have no issue humanely shooting a deer in a survival situation but my lifestyle doesn't require it so I don't do it anymore.

I've even gotten softer and more conscious about the animals that I eat. I eat as much grass fed, free range meat as I can and avoid feedlot commercial meat if possible. 

The last deer I shot was an 8 point that I gut shot at dusk and recovered the next morning finding that he had been half eaten by coyotes; hopefully not while he was still alive. That was a needless killing to me but I keep the bleached skull over my fireplace as a way to honor an animal that I basically wasted and made suffer just for my own fun.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 29, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> No need to make it personal.  It's not about me. It's "math".
> 
> I made a line of argument.  You agree with it but you won't subscribe to it.  That's your business.  I was just asking why.  If you don't care to know the deeper reasons why you do things that's also your own business.



I already know why I do things. I killed my first deer when I was 12. It was a sloppy process. By the time that sucker quit breathing I had shot it 3 times and awkwardly stabbed it twice. With the first shot I experienced empathy. I hit it in the spinal cord and it was on the ground balling. Horrible. But I knew I had to finish the job so I did. I grew up in a family that hunted for meat, so I always pushed the empathy back. 
You may remember I went through a spell for a few years recently or being a vegan(Health reasons, not tree hugger reasons). At the time I was still hunting steadily and continued after I quit eating meat. Funny thing happened. I lost every ounce of desire to hunt. For a while I told myself I would just give the meat away, but I realized I couldn't do it if I wasn't going to eat it. Well, I went back to eating meat with the last year and am thinking of hunting again. 
Point is, I have always been an inward thinking individual. I constantly examine why I do things. Maybe that deer missing the jaw will walk by and I'll be put to the test.

All I know is, we are fickle people. Trying to nail down why we do things seems pointless most days. What we do one day, we might not do the next. 

So would you have shot that deer before you created this thread?


----------



## fireman32 (Sep 29, 2015)

I'd shoot it, regardless of surrounding circumstance.
I think the individual thoughts on killing are directly related to your ego.  You are imposing your will on something else. And the decision you make is eternal, death is eternal.  Some find that power hard to handle.
  My wife is starting to hunt this year, she doesn't want a doe, read momma deer, she wants a daddy deer.  Her reasoning, perceived innocence of the female.
  We are stewards.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2015)

grizzlyblake said:


> When I was younger I was a sport hunter and anything legal was game. Even stupid things like WMA hogs with .22lr rifles. At 20 I just didn't have much empathy going on I suppose.
> 
> As I've gotten older I've gotten much softer and more empathetic towards all animals and I don't big game hunt at all anymore. For whatever reason I don't see fowl on the same level as a deer, hog, bear, etc. I enjoy bird hunting and don't have an issue with sport hunting them as long as they're eaten. I would have no issue humanely shooting a deer in a survival situation but my lifestyle doesn't require it so I don't do it anymore.
> 
> ...




I'm impressed by how self aware you are.  You know what you believe and why.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 29, 2015)

fireman32 said:


> We are stewards.



This is the truth. Violation of this truth is what resulted in harvesting laws in the first place.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I already know why I do things. I killed my first deer when I was 12. It was a sloppy process. By the time that sucker quit breathing I had shot it 3 times and awkwardly stabbed it twice. With the first shot I experienced empathy. I hit it in the spinal cord and it was on the ground balling. Horrible. But I knew I had to finish the job so I did. I grew up in a family that hunted for meat, so I always pushed the empathy back.
> You may remember I went through a spell for a few years recently or being a vegan(Health reasons, not tree hugger reasons). At the time I was still hunting steadily and continued after I quit eating meat. Funny thing happened. I lost every ounce of desire to hunt. For a while I told myself I would just give the meat away, but I realized I couldn't do it if I wasn't going to eat it. Well, I went back to eating meat with the last year and am thinking of hunting again.
> Point is, I have always been an inward thinking individual. I constantly examine why I do things. Maybe that deer missing the jaw will walk by and I'll be put to the test.
> 
> ...



I was a vegetarian in college.  It ended when I started hunting.  The first animal I killed was a rabbit.  For a long time I would only eat meat that I killed.  

Pushing the empathy back is a hard one.  When I see fish flopping on the bank or gasping I turn my head.  I have to figure that one out.

I agree with you that we are fickle, but I'm trying to be less so. I believe that I've become more thoughtful over the years.  I also think that I process ideas better than when I was younger.  I appreciate everyone's comments because they give me new ways to think about things.  I would have never gotten to where I am on the subject of mercy killing if not for a post that Huntinfool made in the Deer Hunting section.  This particular subject alone has made me think of other things in life dealing with compassion, kindness, suffering, lawfulness.

I would have shot that deer and probably tried to salvage the meat.  And I would have reported myself.  

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2015)

fireman32 said:


> I'd shoot it, regardless of surrounding circumstance.
> I think the individual thoughts on killing are directly related to your ego.  You are imposing your will on something else. And the decision you make is eternal, death is eternal.  Some find that power hard to handle.
> My wife is starting to hunt this year, she doesn't want a doe, read momma deer, she wants a daddy deer.  Her reasoning, perceived innocence of the female.
> We are stewards.




Understanding this is the key to knowing which side one falls on this issue.  

Thanks for your insight.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2015)

When it comes to fishing, isn't interesting that the fun part is how hard the fish fights for it's life?  It is for me, anyway.

I never thought of it that way before.  I used the term "fighting a fish" as if we were boxing or something.

Come to think of it.  I have said things in the past like" Dang!! look how hard it wants to live!",   Laughing all the while....


----------



## JimD (Sep 29, 2015)

I was much like grizzleyblake when I was younger. I killed everything I could. I remember my dad telling me I better not shoot birds with my pellet gun and thinking he was nuts. As I've gotten older I don't like killing stuff much anymore. I love to hunt and love killing big bucks, but that's about it. I havent shot a doe in 15 years or so. It isn't about EGO, but about the challenge of figuring out a mature deer. I really need to start carrying a camera and take pictures as I usually only shoot once or twice a year. I saw a rattle snake and cottonmouth this weekend and could see no reason to kill them, they weren't bothering me so I didn't bother them. My buddy thought I was nuts so I told him to kill it. He said no he wasn't going near them. I told him I don't have a problem if someone wants to kill snakes but unless I have a reason they deserve to live just as much as I do. Now when I see them in my yard I do kill them as I have dogs that I love more than the snake. I know its a dichotomy but that is my reasoning. As this thread has pointed out we all have different reasons why we do what we do. Mans mind is very complex and different and many times contradictory. Those of us who believe in a higher power believe God knows us individually and can reach us each in a different way.

On the original question,  I will do whatever I think is morally right to me regardless of a law. Laws do not make things morally right, they are made by men with sometimes alterior motives. If an animal is suffering I will put it out of its misery and probably would not report anything. If the meat was OK I would use the meat. If it was a buck I would mark it on my license. A buck or doe out of season I would kill it and use the meat and would not report it. I know if I do what I feel is right I don't need a man to justify it to me. If I get fined so be it I will do what I feel is right for me. Here is something you guys may find weird. The closer I've gotten to God the less I want to kill an animal, but the more I know I can kill an evil human doing harm to someone and not feel bad about it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 29, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> When it comes to fishing, isn't interesting that the fun part is how hard the fish fights for it's life?  It is for me, anyway.
> 
> I never thought of it that way before.  I used the term "fighting a fish" as if we were boxing or something.
> 
> Come to think of it.  I have said things in the past like" Dang!! look how hard it wants to live!",   Laughing all the while....



Yeah, I love a good vicious fight from a fish, but I'm okay with that because I also know that I'm going to be releasing it when it's done. 

Even if it doesn't survive then they become food for other critters in the lake. The same could be said about letting a jaw shot deer walk and die later, or killing it yourself out of season to save it from suffering, but in the grand scheme of things I place deer higher on the list of potentially conscious animals than I do a fish since deer will care for their young where a fish won't.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2015)

JimD said:


> I was much like grizzleyblake when I was younger. I killed everything I could. I remember my dad telling me I better not shoot birds with my pellet gun and thinking he was nuts. As I've gotten older I don't like killing stuff much anymore. I love to hunt and love killing big bucks, but that's about it. I havent shot a doe in 15 years or so. It isn't about EGO, but about the challenge of figuring out a mature deer. I really need to start carrying a camera and take pictures as I usually only shoot once or twice a year. I saw a rattle snake and cottonmouth this weekend and could see no reason to kill them, they weren't bothering me so I didn't bother them. My buddy thought I was nuts so I told him to kill it. He said no he wasn't going near them. I told him I don't have a problem if someone wants to kill snakes but unless I have a reason they deserve to live just as much as I do. Now when I see them in my yard I do kill them as I have dogs that I love more than the snake. I know its a dichotomy but that is my reasoning. As this thread has pointed out we all have different reasons why we do what we do. Mans mind is very complex and different and many times contradictory. Those of us who believe in a higher power believe God knows us individually and can reach us each in a different way.
> 
> On the original question,  I will do whatever I think is morally right to me regardless of a law. Laws do not make things morally right, they are made by men with sometimes alterior motives. If an animal is suffering I will put it out of its misery and probably would not report anything. If the meat was OK I would use the meat. If it was a buck I would mark it on my license. A buck or doe out of season I would kill it and use the meat and would not report it. I know if I do what I feel is right I don't need a man to justify it to me. If I get fined so be it I will do what I feel is right for me. Here is something you guys may find weird. The closer I've gotten to God the less I want to kill an animal, but the more I know I can kill an evil human doing harm to someone and not feel bad about it.




Wow. That's deep. Thanks for sharing.

To the part in blue:  That's absolutely true.  For a Christian, believing that you have the God given mandate to exercise dominion and stewardship over the animals, you can do what feels right.  You can even pray about it and hope to get an answer.  As to the part about not reporting it, how do you square that with "Render unto Ceasar......"?

Atheists and Agnostics only have reason and logic with which to answer complicated questions.  It's a tough row to hoe.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 29, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Wow. That's deep. Thanks for sharing.
> 
> To the part in blue:  That's absolutely true.  For a Christian, believing that you have the God given mandate to exercise dominion and stewardship over the animals, you can do what feels right.  You can even pray about it and hope to get an answer.  As to the part about not reporting it, how do you square that with "Render unto Ceasar......"?
> 
> Atheists and Agnostics only have reason and logic with which to answer complicated questions.  It's a tough row to hoe.



Ours is a simple responsibility to generations that succeed us and a respect for living creatures.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 29, 2015)

My answer to the 'jaw shot off deer' question remains...it just depends. Too many variables to list but, I could go through them in my head pretty quick. If it is deer season, yes. Because the jaw was shot off probably wouldn't factor into the decision.


----------



## JimD (Sep 29, 2015)

The render unto Caesar is something that would require another thread! As you guys point out so many times, religion has been twisted and used to control man kind for ever and there are many different interpretations. Personally I think Jesus answered that the way he did because it was a trick question. I believe if "Caesar" is looking out for the good of "us" then some minimal taxation is ok. The world we are in now, "Caesar" is evil and wants to "spread the wealth" to those who are not deserving. I would do all I could in this day and age to NOT render unto Caesar as he is evil and is not looking out for yours and my well being. When Caesar views himself as a monarch and treats us as stupid slaves Caesar needs to go.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ours is a simple responsibility to generations that succeed us and a respect for living creatures.




This appears to have different meanings to different people.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2015)

JimD said:


> The render unto Caesar is something that would require another thread! As you guys point out so many times, religion has been twisted and used to control man kind for ever and there are many different interpretations. Personally I think Jesus answered that the way he did because it was a trick question. I believe if "Caesar" is looking out for the good of "us" then some minimal taxation is ok. The world we are in now, "Caesar" is evil and wants to "spread the wealth" to those who are not deserving. I would do all I could in this day and age to NOT render unto Caesar as he is evil and is not looking out for yours and my well being. When Caesar views himself as a monarch and treats us as stupid slaves Caesar needs to go.



I agree with you that scripture is VERY open to interpretation.  Jesus feeding the masses could be interpreted as an example of socialism or welfare.  Then there's that notion that all the leaders are chosen by God for His purpose.

Sounds like it was a trick answer, too.

So, when you said "God knows He can reach us in different ways." does that mean that the right moral thing to do might be different for everyone?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 29, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> This appears to have different meanings to different people.



It does. That's why the notion of an absolute morality is specious.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2015)

The Biologist called me back.  He said he would euthanize an illegal deer and that most rangers he knows would give you a pass.  Or maybe not....

Then I went through my 3 point argument with him and he agreed that "suffering" is the wrong term to use for cervids.  He said "Boy, that makes it tough."


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, I love a good vicious fight from a fish, but I'm okay with that because I also know that I'm going to be releasing it when it's done.
> 
> Even if it doesn't survive then they become food for other critters in the lake. The same could be said about letting a jaw shot deer walk and die later, or killing it yourself out of season to save it from suffering, but in the grand scheme of things I place deer higher on the list of potentially conscious animals than I do a fish since deer will care for their young where a fish won't.




Yeah, the degree to which an animal can think is absolutely germane to the question of what constitutes ethical behavior towards it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 29, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Yeah, the degree to which an animal can think is absolutely germane to the question of what constitutes ethical behavior towards it.



I think they can all think. They can prioritize food over water, or know how to locate food that's not directly in sight. Like striper setting up an ambush point on the downstream of a hump, or a deer deciding to go left towards food right now instead of right towards water. 

For me it's the degree to which an animal can convey deeper emotion that determines the degree of empathy they get from me. Fish, other than being moved against their will, show know ill effect by being hooked, but a deer can cry out when wounded. I therefore put deer on a higher plane of treatment than I do a fish. 

It was asked earlier, but I am prepared to, though haven't yet, bow hunt. I don't restrict myself to a rifle. The reason is one of giving a more level playing field. Yes, it's a weaker shot than a rifle or shotgun, but I have to be good enough to let the animal get within 60-90 feet of me, as opposed to 270-300 feet on average with a rifle. That's much more opportunity for the deer to use their tuned senses to detect me and make their escape. If they don't, or if I outsmart them, then it was an honorable encounter. 

You wait for the good, clean shot that will give you the absolute best odds for the kill, and don't take the potshot because you're afraid of the animal walking off on you without presenting a better opportunity. If they do that, you just deal with it. 

The relative difference in morality between a bullet and an arrow is negligible, IMO. You're still inflicting harm and killing, at the end of the day. If you can't square one with your conscience, maybe you shouldn't do the other. Infinitive you used there.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think they can all think. They can prioritize food over water, or know how to locate food that's not directly in sight. Like striper setting up an ambush point on the downstream of a hump, or a deer deciding to go left towards food right now instead of right towards water.
> 
> For me it's the degree to which an animal can convey deeper emotion that determines the degree of empathy they get from me. Fish, other than being moved against their will, show know ill effect by being hooked, but a deer can cry out when wounded. I therefore put deer on a higher plane of treatment than I do a fish.
> 
> ...



I don't know, I'm not sure shrimp think.   Anyway, by "think" I meant the degree to which and animal engages in higher thought as opposed to just being subject to instinct.  That should factor in to how we treat them.  If it's capable of sentience, like some cetaceans,  it's likely capable of empathy and complex feelings.  That's not an animal that I would pull around by it's mouth for fun.

Killing a deer with a bow is certainly more challenging and thus more satisfying.  I almost gave it up when I didn't recover two deer in a row.  Even with the best shot (double lung pass through) they still run.  The only one I ever "anchored" was hit in the spine.  It was a a steep downward angle shot.  The arrow went through the spine and out the off side lung. I heard the air hissing out of its side and then the gurgling as the lung filled with blood. It went down but when I whispered "YES!!!" it looked up at me and scrambled on its front legs about 30 yards, dragging its paralyzed back half.  I tried to knock another arrow but by the time I had come to draw it had layed down.

That experience doesn't bother me at all.  But I am bothered by the doe whose top of her head I shot off.  She thrashed and bawled and gurgled on the ground for what seemed like ten minutes.  It was the sound it made that affected me most though I know it was no longer feeling a thing.  I remember thinking "God.  Just shut up."

You're absolutely right.  If one can't accept those kinds of things one shouldn't hunt.  Do you think that person should quit eating meat?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 29, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't know, I'm not sure shrimp think.   Anyway, by "think" I meant the degree to which and animal engages in higher thought as opposed to just being subject to instinct.  That should factor in to how we treat them.  If it's capable of sentience, like some cetaceans,  it's likely capable of empathy and complex feelings.  That's not an animal that I would pull around by it's mouth for fun.
> 
> Killing a deer with a bow is certainly more challenging.  I almost gave it up when I didn't recover two deer in a row.  Even with the best shot (double lung pass through) they still run.  The only one I ever "anchored" was hit in the spine.  It was a a steep downward angle shot.  The arrow went through the spine and out the off side lung. I heard the air hissing out of its side and then the gurgling as the lung filled with blood. It went down but when I whispered "YES!!!" it looked up at me and scrambled on its front legs about 30 yards, dragging its paralyzed back half.  I tried to knock another arrow but by the time I had come to draw it had layed down.
> 
> ...



Well, with a communication barrier it's nigh on impossible to determine anything accurately. I would say a shrimp thinks, just that its thoughts are limited in scope. Eat now, pooh now, reproduce now. Don't get eaten now. It makes a choice to retreat one way or the other, even if it's too fast to call it a plan. 

I don't think one has to quit eating meat if they can't stomach the kill. Division of labor is a human trait that allows us do all that we do. Some people can't stomach air travel, that doesn't mean we should stop exploring space.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Well, with a communication barrier it's nigh on impossible to determine anything accurately. I would say a shrimp thinks, just that its thoughts are limited in scope. Eat now, pooh now, reproduce now. Don't get eaten now. It makes a choice to retreat one way or the other, even if it's too fast to call it a plan.
> 
> I don't think one has to quit eating meat if they can't stomach the kill. Division of labor is a human trait that allows us do all that we do. Some people can't stomach air travel, that doesn't mean we should stop exploring space.



Does the shrimp think or does it just do?

We won't ever really know what an animal thinks until we can ask one. But a comparison of the physical structures of animal brains can help us completely eliminate the possibility of certain types of thoughts from certain animals.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 29, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Does the shrimp think or does it just do?
> 
> We won't ever really know what an animal thinks until we can ask one. But a comparison of the physical structures of animal brains can help us completely eliminate the possibility of certain types of thoughts from certain animals.



Seeing as how we're not 100% sure on how our own brain works, I don't really trust the inferences made about how others work. 

Imagine a shrimp on the bottom of the ocean. A fish comes to eat it. On one side is a wall, on the other is open ocean. The shrimp goes for the open water. The instinct is to move, not which direction to go.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Seeing as how we're not 100% sure on how our own brain works, I don't really trust the inferences made about how others work.
> 
> Imagine a shrimp on the bottom of the ocean. A fish comes to eat it. On one side is a wall, on the other is open ocean. The shrimp goes for the open water. The instinct is to move, not which direction to go.



You don't think that brain mapping works?  You don't think that certain structures perform certain activities like smelling or remembering and that we know where they're located?

Is the part in blue what you meant to say? Does it think or does it just go?  Perhaps scoot up the wall?


----------



## JimD (Sep 29, 2015)

I believe animals can think to a point. For instance, a big, old buck learns where hunters are not and lives to 6-7 years old. He hears 4 wheelers in the late summer, that he hasnt heard all year and knows something is up. Also, deer do learn from other deer. A good friend of mine was hunting in Alabama years ago. He was in his stand and heard some dog hunters running deer. He sees some deer coming and it was 4 bucks running together. One good buck, a decent buck and two smaller bucks. They are all standing around and my friend is ready to shoot and all of a sudden something made him stop. The older buck starts running in circles from small to large, and then blasts out and takes off like a shot. The other bucks watched him while he was doing this and then they ran off. When the dogs got up to him they were totally confused and could not follow the bucks after that. Now that older buck somehow learned to do that and he "taught" the other bucks to do it as well. That is pretty amazing.

Now what I dont believe animals can do is introspective thinking or worry about things. Most of our problems as humans come from our brain.....worrying about crap that we cannot change, or worrying about future problems that never happen. Animals dont have this problem, so really are better off than we are. Also, look at a special ed. child or adult (I work with special ed kids). They do not worry about anything and are usually very happy. I think fear and worry are one of the biggest sins someone who believes in God can commit. If we truly had faith in and trusted God, we could not possibly worry. Thats a hard pill to swallow when you really think about that and realize the how tough that can be at times.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 29, 2015)

I've seen dogs worry.  To the point of having anxiety attacks.
One Pit we had many years ago was used to someone always being home. My mother bought a restaurant and in no time hardly anyone was home. That pit would worry,whine,howl and literally run room to room to check to see if anyone was home. Then she would pull all of the furniture cushions off and get all of the couch pillows and stack them in the center of the room in a crude pile and lay near or actually under/in the pile.
The way we found out was to leave some blinds open enough that we could sneak back and watch her. We had to drive blocks away because she knew the sound of our different vehicles and would not act that way until she heard the last one leave and also knew no one was left in the house. She knew the sound of my Camaro blocks away and would immediately leave the pile and sit next to the door. If someone did not enter in a few minutes she would check the back door then the front, back to front,  run upstairs and look out a window and as soon as someone entered she was so excited but submissive because of the pile of cushions she made. This happened after she was 5yrs old and she had a good...REAL good life. When we observed her a few times you could see her trying to figure things out.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I've seen dogs worry.  To the point of having anxiety attacks.
> One Pit we had many years ago was used to someone always being home. My mother bought a restaurant and in no time hardly anyone was home. That pit would worry,whine,howl and literally run room to room to check to see if anyone was home. Then she would pull all of the furniture cushions off and get all of the couch pillows and stack them in the center of the room in a crude pile and lay near or actually under/in the pile.
> The way we found out was to leave some blinds open enough that we could sneak back and watch her. We had to drive blocks away because she knew the sound of our different vehicles and would not act that way until she heard the last one leave and also knew no one was left in the house. She knew the sound of my Camaro blocks away and would immediately leave the pile and sit next to the door. If someone did not enter in a few minutes she would check the back door then the front, back to front,  run upstairs and look out a window and as soon as someone entered she was so excited but submissive because of the pile of cushions she made. This happened after she was 5yrs old and she had a good...REAL good life. When we observed her a few times you could see her trying to figure things out.



Yeah dogs and other pack animals have pretty sophisticated wiring upstairs.


----------



## gemcgrew (Sep 29, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> We won't ever really know what an animal thinks until we can ask one.


I just asked one and I still don't know. 

Cool thread BTW.


----------



## JimD (Sep 30, 2015)

Bullet that is very interesting.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I just asked one and I still don't know.
> 
> Cool thread BTW.



Weigh in, Gem.  Would you break the law to euthanize a deer?

We haven't talked about the ethics of zoos, aquariums and circuses very much yet.


----------



## gemcgrew (Sep 30, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Weigh in, Gem.  Would you break the law to euthanize a deer?


Yes, but it would depend upon the situation. 

I was feeding my hounds one evening when one of them darted out of the kennel. She ran down the driveway and was hit by a car. The driver was visibly shaken and very apologetic. I told him not to give it another thought, as it was just an animal. The hound was a bloody mess and still kicking. I grabbed her tail and carried her to the edge of the road. I then stood on her chest, much to his dismay and objection. I then buried her in the backyard. I never gave thought as to how many laws that I may be breaking.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes, but it would depend upon the situation.
> 
> I was feeding my hounds one evening when one of them darted out of the kennel. She ran down the driveway and was hit by a car. The driver was visibly shaken and very apologetic. I told him not to give it another thought, as it was just an animal. The hound was a bloody mess and still kicking. I grabbed her tail and carried her to the edge of the road. I then stood on her chest, much to his dismay and objection. I then buried her in the backyard. I never gave thought as to how many laws that I may be breaking.




Thanks for sharing that story.  It's very telling.

As a houndsman, I assume that you have a different relationship with your hounds than most people do with their family pets.  

I'm fascinated by the equation "Go to the house and get something 'whacky' or 'pokey' vs. stand on its chest".   Was that a matter of expedience?


----------



## gemcgrew (Sep 30, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> As a houndsman, I assume that you have a different relationship with your hounds than most people do with their family pets.


I do. Not sure that would be the case with most houndsmen though. 



ambush80 said:


> I'm fascinated by the equation "Go to the house and get something 'whacky' or 'pokey' vs. stand on its chest".   Was that a matter of expedience?


It was more a matter of experience. It is a very effective method. I use to trap and the fir buyer would deduct $2.00 for a bullet hole. I avoided the deduction.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 30, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes, but it would depend upon the situation.
> 
> I was feeding my hounds one evening when one of them darted out of the kennel. She ran down the driveway and was hit by a car. The driver was visibly shaken and very apologetic. I told him not to give it another thought, as it was just an animal. The hound was a bloody mess and still kicking. I grabbed her tail and carried her to the edge of the road. I then stood on her chest, much to his dismay and objection. I then buried her in the backyard. I never gave thought as to how many laws that I may be breaking.



Mr Vick would be proud.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 30, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Weigh in, Gem.  Would you break the law to euthanize a deer?
> 
> We haven't talked about the ethics of zoos, aquariums and circuses very much yet.



Have you watched the doc. Blackfish yet?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Have you watched the doc. Blackfish yet?



I did.  I don't think animals like that should be in enclosures.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Mr Vick would be proud.



Michael Vick would have shot it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Sep 30, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think animals like that should be in enclosures.


Like an ocean? Where would you rather they live?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Like an ocean? Where would you rather they live?



You got me...


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 30, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I did.  I don't think animals like that should be in enclosures.



I agree. I think the rebuttal commercials from Sea World are telling.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 1, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think animals like that should be in enclosures.





drippin' rock said:


> I agree.


What about rehabilitation, study, etc.?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 1, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> What about rehabilitation, study, etc.?



Yes, yes, and to save them from extinction.

I think the goal should be re-release, not sell popcorn.

It should be established that confining them doesn't hurt them more than it helps them.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 1, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Yes, yes, and to save them from extinction.
> 
> I think the goal should be re-release, not sell popcorn.


And I am apathetic in regard to extinction, release and selling popcorn.


ambush80 said:


> It should be established that confining them doesn't hurt them more than it helps them.


Why?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> And I am apathetic in regard to extinction, release and selling popcorn.
> 
> Why?



I haven't forgotten you, Gem.  I didn't want to throw out intuitive reasons that weren't completely thought out yet.

I'm thinking it has something to do with sentience and suffering but I have to think about it some more.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 6, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> And I am apathetic in regard to extinction, release and selling popcorn.
> 
> Why?



If what we know about the confinement of killer whales tells us that they show serious mental illness and distress being confined, then they should be let go.  What do we gain from confinement besides selling tickets to Sea World?

If you are apathetic to this line of reasoning, or Killer Whales in general, what is your interest in this topic?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> If what we know about the confinement of killer whales tells us that they show serious mental illness and distress being confined, then they should be let go.  What do we gain from confinement besides selling tickets to Sea World?
> 
> If you are apathetic to this line of reasoning, or Killer Whales in general, what is your interest in this topic?



I'm curious about how Christians align their God given mandate to lord over all the animals and be stewards of them (in the Biblical sense) and keeping animals like whales in captivity.  

There's certainly some Biblical guidelines to lordship.  How do they apply to ethical treatment of animals?  Is there anything Biblically wrong with setting rabbits on fire for fun?


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 6, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I'm curious about how Christians align their God given mandate to lord over all the animals and be stewards of them (in the Biblical sense) and keeping animals like whales in captivity.
> 
> There's certainly some Biblical guidelines to lordship.  How do they apply to ethical treatment of animals?  Is there anything Biblically wrong with setting rabbits on fire for fun?



I certainly don't have all the answers to these hard moral questions. Like most folks I react then come up with reasons why I think I am right. When I went to Sea World as a kid, I loved the Killer Whale shows. I did not notice that the dorsal fin was turned down and if I had I would have not understood what it meant.  Now we have an understanding. We can see what the stress being in such a confined space does to these animals.  Now we need to move to the next phase whatever that might be. Larger aquariums? No confinement at all?  

Christian or not, setting bunnies on fire for fun should probably be addressed in a padded room.


----------



## welderguy (Oct 6, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I'm curious about how Christians align their God given mandate to lord over all the animals and be stewards of them (in the Biblical sense) and keeping animals like whales in captivity.
> 
> There's certainly some Biblical guidelines to lordship.  How do they apply to ethical treatment of animals?  Is there anything Biblically wrong with setting rabbits on fire for fun?



I think that would fall under "superfluity of naughtiness".Not to mention "wanton waste."


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I think that would fall under "superfluity of naughtiness".Not to mention "wanton waste."




Why is it naughty?  Why would it be wasteful if it were fun to you?

Your use of scripture will be welcomed


----------



## welderguy (Oct 6, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Why is it naughty?  Why would it be wasteful if it were fun to you?
> 
> Your use of scripture will be welcomed



Never thought I'd hear you say that.I think you might be getting soft in your old age.....Naa

James1:21
Prov.11:27
Prov.12:27


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Never thought I'd hear you say that.I think you might be getting soft in your old age.....Naa
> 
> James1:21
> Prov.11:27
> Prov.12:27



The first two say "don't be evil".  My friend.  I implore you.  Why is burning rabbits evil?  Show me a scripture that deals with TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, not just evil in general.


To the second one:

_Proverbs 12:27New International Version (NIV)

27 
The lazy do not roast[a] any game,
    but the diligent feed on the riches of the hunt.  _

I'm at a loss.  Carefully and meticulously choose your words and explain to me what happened in your brain that made you think this has anything to do with burning rabbits for fun.


----------



## welderguy (Oct 6, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> The first two say "don't be evil".  My friend.  I implore you.  Why is burning rabbits evil?  Show me a scripture that deals with TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, not just evil in general.
> 
> 
> To the second one:
> ...



I'm assuming you're not going to eat the burnt rabbits.
The parallel is the lazy hunter just killed for fun and wasted what he killed.The rabbit torturer killed the rabbits without eating them,therefore wasting them as well...wanton waste.
Furthermore,his motive was evil because he got pleasure from the rabbit's torture....superfluity of nautiness.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I'm assuming you're not going to eat the burnt rabbits.
> The parallel is the lazy hunter just killed for fun and wasted what he killed.The rabbit torturer killed the rabbits without eating them,therefore wasting them as well...wanton waste.
> Furthermore,his motive was evil because he got pleasure from the rabbit's torture....superfluity of nautiness.




What if you eat the rabbits?  Is it OK then?

Define naughtiness.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 7, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> If what we know about the confinement of killer whales tells us that they show serious mental illness and distress being confined, then they should be let go.


I am not opposed to letting them go, even if the opposite of what we know is actually the case.


drippin' rock said:


> What do we gain from confinement besides selling tickets to Sea World?


 More sea turtles, seals, penguins, etc.


drippin' rock said:


> If you are apathetic to this line of reasoning, or Killer Whales in general, what is your interest in this topic?


I am interested in the reasoning. If a prisoner "shows serious mental illness and distress being confined", should he be let go as well?

I am also interested in your inconsistencies. My position is that man is not an animal. I do not get my standard of behavior from them.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 7, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I am not opposed to letting them go, even if the opposite of what we know is actually the case.
> More sea turtles, seals, penguins, etc.
> 
> I am interested in the reasoning. If a prisoner "shows serious mental illness and distress being confined", should he be let go as well?
> ...



Killer whales, despite the name, aren't in captivity because they committed a crime.  

I am inconsistent because I am human. I realize that my desire to see ocean mammals released is not consistent with my position on regular fish in aquariums. I place higher mental capacity in sea mammals. Is that rational?  Can't say. 


Free Willy!!


----------



## welderguy (Oct 7, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What if you eat the rabbits?  Is it OK then?
> 
> Define naughtiness.



From Strongs:
Naughtiness-evil,wickedness,viscious disposition,malice,spite

If you can burn the rabbits without any evil motives in your heart,for the purpose of using them ,I believe youd be justified in doing so.

Paul said though all things are lawful for me,all things are not expedient .

We must always keep a careful check on our motives for everything we dften that will override the definition of whether something is OK or not.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> From Strongs:
> Naughtiness-evil,wickedness,viscious disposition,malice,spite
> 
> If you can burn the rabbits without any evil motives in your heart,for the purpose of using them ,I believe youd be justified in doing so.
> ...



Would you consider burning them for fun evil and if so why?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Killer whales, despite the name, aren't in captivity because they committed a crime.
> 
> I am inconsistent because I am human. I realize that my desire to see ocean mammals released is not consistent with my position on regular fish in aquariums. I place higher mental capacity in sea mammals. Is that rational?  Can't say.
> 
> ...



You can categorize fish and cetaceans (whales and little whales:dolphins) differently by their brain structures and project what kinds of experiences they're capable of.  (Theoretically, for any sticklers).  Then you can make ethical decisions based on that.


----------



## welderguy (Oct 7, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Would you consider burning them for fun evil and if so why?



Yes.
See post #288 for explaination....again.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Yes.
> See post #288 for explaination....again.



Why is burning rabbits, enjoying it and then eating them:

_From Strongs:
Naughtiness-evil,wickedness,viscious disposition,malice,spite_

?

Again, use your Bible.


----------



## welderguy (Oct 7, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Why is burning rabbits, enjoying it and then eating them:
> 
> _From Strongs:
> Naughtiness-evil,wickedness,viscious disposition,malice,spite_
> ...



This is all hypothetical,of course,so no one knows the motive for the rabbit torching.But if indeed said rabbit torcher had no other possible means of killing the rabbits that he wanted to eat,I see no problem with lighting them on fire.I mean,why take the time to skin them when you can just cook em up and eat em that much quicker,right?
I've been that hungry before.I've made the statement "I could eat the south end of a northbound horse"

But...if there were other more humane ways to kill the rabbits and then eat them,I'd have to say that it's wrong to burn them alive.Even though it may be lawful to do so,I don't believe it's expedient.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> This is all hypothetical,of course,so no one knows the motive for the rabbit torching.



Would "for fun" be un-Biblical, if they were to be eaten afterwards?



welderguy said:


> But if indeed said rabbit torcher had no other possible means of killing the rabbits that he wanted to eat,I see no problem with lighting them on fire.I mean,why take the time to skin them when you can just cook em up and eat em that much quicker,right?
> I've been that hungry before.I've made the statement "I could eat the south end of a northbound horse"
> 
> But...if there were other more humane ways to kill the rabbits and then eat them,I'd have to say that it's wrong to burn them alive.Even though it may be lawful to do so,I don't believe it's expedient.




What's the Biblical support of this?


----------



## welderguy (Oct 7, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Would "for fun" be un-Biblical, if they were to be eaten afterwards?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Eccl.3:3 pretty much covers it .


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Eccl.3:3 pretty much covers it .



Man......

You are way out there.  

Just for fun, interpret that verse for me and show me how it has ANYTHING to do with what I asked.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2015)

I'll give you a hand:


_Proverbs 12:10 tells us, "A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel."_

This is the closest thing I could find and it still doesn't directly address my question.  It's more about feeding them properly and not overworking them.

And then there's this idiotic part:

_"but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel."_


----------



## welderguy (Oct 7, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Man......
> 
> You are way out there.
> 
> Just for fun, interpret that verse for me and show me how it has ANYTHING to do with what I asked.






It simply means there's a time when it's appropriate to kill and there's also a time when it is not appropriate.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It simply means there's a time when it's appropriate to kill and there's also a time when it is not appropriate.



We were talking about HOW you kill them, at least I thought we were.  I may be starting to think you're being purposely dense.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 7, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You can categorize fish and cetaceans (whales and little whales:dolphins) differently by their brain structures and project what kinds of experiences they're capable of.  (Theoretically, for any sticklers).  Then you can make ethical decisions based on that.


Projection is a powerful influence. Just yesterday, a woman said that "People who think that an animal is just an animal, don't deserve them".

How awesome is that?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Projection is a powerful influence. Just yesterday, a woman said that "People who think that an animal is just an animal, don't deserve them".
> 
> How awesome is that?



Sounds like she doesn't know anything about brain mapping or cognitive science.  

You do.  How does it square with your faith?


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 7, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Sounds like she doesn't know anything about brain mapping or cognitive science.
> 
> You do.  How does it square with your faith?


As a nonessential thing.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> As a nonessential thing.



I understand.  Don't you think that's limiting?  I get it that the only thing that matters is the Lord, but don't you think that while one is here on this wretched plane that one could do something to make it better (in addition to surrendering oneself to Christ) like doing brain research to alleviate suffering?


----------



## Israel (Oct 8, 2015)

Cosmic dissonance.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 8, 2015)

Israel said:


> Cosmic dissonance.



You should rub that with a crystal.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 8, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I understand.  Don't you think that's limiting?


At times. I also think it is liberating.


ambush80 said:


> I get it that the only thing that matters is the Lord, but don't you think that while one is here on this wretched plane that one could do something to make it better (in addition to surrendering oneself to Christ) like doing brain research to alleviate suffering?


Of course. I am thankful for those who can't do anything else but research. As far as alleviating suffering is concerned, animals and inanimate objects are also useful.


----------



## hobbs27 (Oct 8, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I'm curious about how Christians align their God given mandate to lord over all the animals and be stewards of them (in the Biblical sense) and keeping animals like whales in captivity.
> 
> There's certainly some Biblical guidelines to lordship.  How do they apply to ethical treatment of animals?  Is there anything Biblically wrong with setting rabbits on fire for fun?



Straw man argument. Christians are not lord of anything, but servants of Christ.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 9, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Straw man argument. Christians are not lord of anything, but servants of Christ.


I think his usage of the word is proper within the context.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 9, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Straw man argument. Christians are not lord of anything,



Debatable. God gave us dominion over the animals.


----------



## Israel (Oct 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You should rub that with a crystal.



You say "wretched plane"...on what do you base this?
What it "could be"? Should be? What sense of good to you have to judge it wretched?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 9, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> At times. I also think it is liberating.
> 
> Of course. I am thankful for those who can't do anything else but research. As far as alleviating suffering is concerned, animals and inanimate objects are also useful.



Like animal research?  I think that's sensible.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 9, 2015)

Israel said:


> You say "wretched plane"...on what do you base this?
> What it "could be"? Should be? What sense of good do you have to judge it wretched?



I don't think it's wretched.  I quite like it here. I was discussing it from the perspective of a believer.  

To the extent that I can affect things, I try to make what I believe "could be" into "what is".


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 9, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I think his usage of the word is proper within the context.



Burning rabbits for fun?


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Burning rabbits for fun?


Pouring salt on a slug?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 9, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Pouring salt on a slug?



...burning ants with a magnifying glass?  

I think one can make a reasonable argument solely based on brain structure and cognitive abilities that would put all those acts of cruelty in a ranking.  

Is there even a need for such a thing in the believer's world?


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> ...burning ants with a magnifying glass?
> 
> I think one can make a reasonable argument solely based on brain structure and cognitive abilities that would put all those acts of cruelty in a ranking.
> 
> Is there even a need for such a thing in the believer's world?


A need for guidelines? Sure.

Genesis 9:4 instructs us not to eat an animal while it is living.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 9, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> A need for guidelines? Sure.
> 
> Genesis 9:4 instructs us not to eat an animal while it is living.



That sucks.  This is fun and delicious:

_Filipino Jumping Shrimp

"The sweet, tiny freshwater river-caught shrimp served still alive and leaping in the popular Filipino dish jumping salad was Abad's poke inspiration here. "The shrimp was dumped on the table. We'd have a bowl of spicy vinegar, calamansi and salt."_

I've heard that there are sushi restaurants that carve a slice of a fish off and return it to the tank to swim around.  Is that flesh still living?

So what would be the Biblical guidelines about burning rabbits?


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> So what would be the Biblical guidelines about burning rabbits?


Burn them to death before you eat them.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 9, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Burn them to death before you eat them.




Fair enough.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 9, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Burn them to death before you eat them.



Leviticus 11:6

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 9, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Leviticus 11:6
> 
> And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.


Acts 10:13-15

And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 10, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Acts 10:13-15
> 
> And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.



Yes, I'm familiar. 

Yet another conflict between old and new. 
Every word is from God- therefore true, or the New nullifies the Old. 

I can understand the Old. They might have been mistaken about rabbits and cud chewing, but with these food laws they were trying to minimize sickness. 

Peter hearing a voice tell him it's ok to go against those laws- he was either high(my choice), or was just trying to justify eating whatever he could get because he was hungry(my second choice).


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 16, 2015)

I think that people tend to see themselves as being apart from the rest of "nature," but we are just as much a part of it as anything else. It is just as natural for me to hunt as it is for the coyote to. And pretty much the only way that humans can survive without meat is in an artificially-structured agricultural society with transportation of goods provided for. We can, however, completely live on animal life. 

As for ethics, life is life. No difference really in killing a deer, an ant, an armadillo, or a cabbage. We are predatory by nature, so we are designed to kill other animals. Many today just tend to not even realize or even actively deny our real place in nature, because they never set foot outside their artificial city environment, and would likely die as soon as the tractor-trailers stopped running and the canned goods expired.

And what could be more moral than getting your food the way you are supposed to, instead of hiring a hitman to procure your food for you?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 16, 2015)

NCHillbilly said:


> I think that people tend to see themselves as being apart from the rest of "nature," but we are just as much a part of it as anything else. It is just as natural for me to hunt as it is for the coyote to. And pretty much the only way that humans can survive without meat is in an artificially-structured agricultural society with transportation of goods provided for. We can, however, completely live on animal life.
> 
> As for ethics, life is life. No difference really in killing a deer, an ant, an armadillo, or a cabbage. We are predatory by nature, so we are designed to kill other animals. Many today just tend to not even realize or even actively deny our real place in nature, because they never set foot outside their artificial city environment, and would likely die as soon as the tractor-trailers stopped running and the canned goods expired.
> 
> And what could be more moral than getting your food the way you are supposed to, instead of hiring a hitman to procure your food for you?



I agree, even if we are to be over all of the plants and animals, we are still a part of nature. There is no way to see around this considering all that we have in common with plants and animals physically and mentally, especially mammals.
I'm amazed at the people who are OK with eating meat that someone else has kill yet they couldn't kill the same animal. It's like being for gun control and hiring a body guard.
I agree about the cabbage. Why is it ok to eat the cabbage and not the deer? The deer at least has a chance to escape, the cabbage can't. The cabbage has  something representative of a brain spread out within it's cell walls. Something beyond it's physical being is controlling what it does, how it grows, and how it reproduces.
Why will someone catch and eat a fish but not a deer? Why is it ok for the lion to kill a wildebeest but not a cute little bunny rabbit? 
Nature is nature and we are just a tiny little part of it in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 16, 2015)

Lets not forget that we are in fact animals. Which is what makes this true -


> It is just as natural for me to hunt as it is for the coyote to.





> We are predatory by nature, so we are designed to kill other animals





> Nature is nature and we are just a tiny little part of it in the grand scheme of things.


Its only our higher thought capabilities that complicates the whole thing.
If it wasnt for that our pets wouldnt be called pets, they would be called dinner.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 17, 2015)

I too believe it is natural for us to hunt. However, I don't think enough credit is given to the gathering side of the equation.  I believe pre agriculture societies ate more leaves, roots, fruits, and nuts than they did meat. Starches provided the Prolonged energy needed to sustain during the hunt. Especially when they came back empty handed. History should be amended to call them Gatherer-Hunters instead of Hunter-Gatherers.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 17, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I too believe it is natural for us to hunt. However, I don't think enough credit is given to the gathering side of the equation.  I believe pre agriculture societies ate more leaves, roots, fruits, and nuts than they did meat. Starches provided the Prolonged energy needed to sustain during the hunt. Especially when they came back empty handed. History should be amended to call them Gatherer-Hunters instead of Hunter-Gatherers.



True, but also remember that fruits, nuts and such are very seasonal, and at some times of the year, you can expend more calories gathering plant foods than you gain by eating them. Animals are there all year. Then, there are some groups like the Inuit who almost completely lived off meat. They got the trace minerals and nutrients you would normally get from plants by eating all the organ meats from the animals.


----------



## Israel (Oct 17, 2015)

Funny how many are willing to eat meat for the life it gives the eater in its death and consumption.
How easily design is embraced...when it comes to the natural life.
I do regard all the reasons and reasonings, one could even surmise by their abundance, reason is acknowledged to exist in the universe.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 26, 2015)

I'm not a hunter or fisher really, although I have done quite a bit of both because most of my family is into it. So I approach the subject fairly impartially. I'm of the opinion that it is ok to kill animals for consumption, largely because although we are ethical creatures, we are still omnivores and are designed to enjoy eating meat. However it is important to make sure that we cause as little suffering as reasonably possible in the process of killing animals, if only to protect ourselves from losing empathy in the process of taking life. I'm a big fan of the concept put forth in many hunter gatherer traditions where great respect and thanks were given to animals who gave their lives for our consumption. 

On the issue of 'sport' hunting and fishing or forcing animals to fight for entertainment, I think it is unethical to kill or otherwise cause animals to suffer without good reason. On the other hand if killing is needed to keep an animal population in check, I do not think it is wrong to cull the population to prevent it from causing problems, as this would ultimately probably lead to more suffering. I have no problem with zoos for similar reasons, although I think we are responsible for treating captive animals well. I have no problem with putting a suffering animal down. Even though killing a maimed deer out of season may be illegal, what is legal and what is ethical are sometimes not the same.

Although these are the ethics that I hold to, there are several very compelling arguments for ethical vegetarianism:

1) Eating animals is much less efficient than eating plant matter for 'feeding the world' purposes. It takes roughly 10x as many calories to fatten the cow (or deer) and eat it than we could get directly from the food they ate.

2) Peter Singer's philosophies on how the ability of animals to suffer means that we as ethical beings should do what we can to prevent suffering. He holds many controvertial views, but uses good logic to back them up.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I'm not a hunter or fisher really, although I have done quite a bit of both because most of my family is into it. So I approach the subject fairly impartially. I'm of the opinion that it is ok to kill animals for consumption, largely because although we are ethical creatures, we are still omnivores and are designed to enjoy eating meat. However it is important to make sure that we cause as little suffering as reasonably possible in the process of killing animals, if only to protect ourselves from losing empathy in the process of taking life. I'm a big fan of the concept put forth in many hunter gatherer traditions where great respect and thanks were given to animals who gave their lives for our consumption.
> 
> On the issue of 'sport' hunting and fishing or forcing animals to fight for entertainment, I think it is unethical to kill or otherwise cause animals to suffer without good reason. On the other hand if killing is needed to keep an animal population in check, I do not think it is wrong to cull the population to prevent it from causing problems, as this would ultimately probably lead to more suffering. I have no problem with zoos for similar reasons, although I think we are responsible for treating captive animals well. I have no problem with putting a suffering animal down. Even though killing a maimed deer out of season may be illegal, what is legal and what is ethical are sometimes not the same.
> 
> ...



Do you think that suffering has anything to do with physiology of the brain?  If so, do you think that animals with different brain structure might experience suffering differently from each other?  

On the subject of Veganism as it would affect the whole world there are many conflicting studies.  This article seems to be fairly centered:

https://gpfarmblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/can-the-world-go-vegan-a-studied-viewpoint-re/

One interesting point from the article is that the grain that is commonly used to fatten livestock is nutritionally useless to humans.  I've never heard that fact brought up by vegetarians.

Where do your ideas about "treating animals well" come from?  The notion of causing "as little suffering as reasonably possible" is interesting.  Do chickens suffer more than cows?  Shrimp more than frogs?  Wouldn't "reasonable discomfort" be different for each?

Do you think it ethical to put a law enforcer in a potentially difficult position? (I'm assuming you read my argument about euthanizing a deer out of season).


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think that suffering has anything to do with physiology of the brain?  If so, do you think that animals with different brain structure might experience suffering differently from each other?



Yes. I also think this should be a consideration when we consider the ethics of a situation. An extreme example is yeast and other microorganisms are every bit as alive as we are, but that doesn't mean it is unethical for us to kill yeast while manufacturing bread and beer, their suffering is not on the same level as advanced mammals. A less extreme example, I am okay with us testing products on rats, even though this inevitably leads to suffering of the animal, it prevents the suffering of humans.



> On the subject of Veganism as it would affect the whole world there are many conflicting studies.  This article seems to be fairly centered:
> 
> https://gpfarmblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/can-the-world-go-vegan-a-studied-viewpoint-re/



He has fairly well thought out points, but I do disagree with the point he makes on the usability of less than ideal (but still arable) land. While we cannot eat grass directly, either there are crops that could survive these conditions and still be directly edible by humans, or we could create them if the will was there. Furthermore more nutrition could be used for human consumption from the same quantity of land than if it were used to feed livestock and then feed humans.

I am not a vegan or vegetarian, and while I certainly don't eat as much meat as some I definitely have my share. My point on an ethical level is more that if our global population continues growing we will eventually need to cut back on our meat consumption in favor of more efficient food sources or allow chunks of people to simply die from starvation. Of course if we don't get our population in check this will occur anyway, but at such a juncture its a choice between our personal preference for eating meat and the ethical choice of being conservative with our food as possible.



> One interesting point from the article is that the grain that is commonly used to fatten livestock is nutritionally useless to humans.  I've never heard that fact brought up by vegetarians.



First while I'm not extremely familiar with what mixture of foods each type of livestock uses, many of the crops used in that mixture ARE edible by humans. For example we can eat wheat, corn, and oats. There are some others that we cannot eat such as grass, however without livestock to feed, there is no reason that we couldn't utilize this land to grow foods that are edible by humans. Although as mentioned in the article it is difficult to grow many of our traditional crops on lower-quality land, when it comes to crops if there is a will there is a way. We have genetically engineered and selected for too many advantageous traits in crops for me to be convinced that we could not find a way to use grasslands to grow food if we were pressed to.



> Where do your ideas about "treating animals well" come from?  The notion of causing "as little suffering as reasonably possible" is interesting.  Do chickens suffer more than cows?  Shrimp more than frogs?  Wouldn't "reasonable discomfort" be different for each?



Yes. This metric mostly comes from Peter Singer whose ideas on animal rights I studied in a philosophy class in college. It has been too long for me to remember the specifics without going into it. Obviously I fall quite short of his ethical goal of not being speciesist because I'm a pretty big fan of beef.



> Do you think it ethical to put a law enforcer in a potentially difficult position? (I'm assuming you read my argument about euthanizing a deer out of season).



I did, and I disagree with your assessment of the ability of deer to feel emotions. While almost certainly not as complex as ours, deer are mammals like we are, and are much more similar to us in the big picture than they are different. I don't think there is a good reason to believe their emotions are radically different from ours.

The deer probably doesn't think "my jaw is blown off, now im going to die and my babies and parents are going to have to come to terms with my death and its going to hurt, etc." as a human might, but it would certainly be extremely distressed at its injury, and doomed to die an agonizing death to either complications of its injury or starvation, putting it down is the right thing to do.

The game warden's suffering at having to deal with an ethically challenging situation is not equivalent to the suffering of the deer. My thoughts.. if doing the right thing is against the law, don't get caught.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I did, and I disagree with your assessment of the ability of deer to feel emotions. While almost certainly not as complex as ours, deer are mammals like we are, and are much more similar to us in the big picture than they are different. I don't think there is a good reason to believe their emotions are radically different from ours.
> 
> The deer probably doesn't think "my jaw is blown off, now im going to die and my babies and parents are going to have to come to terms with my death and its going to hurt, etc." as a human might, but it would certainly be extremely distressed at its injury, and doomed to die an agonizing death to either complications of its injury or starvation, putting it down is the right thing to do.
> 
> The game warden's suffering at having to deal with an ethically challenging situation is not equivalent to the suffering of the deer. My thoughts.. if doing the right thing is against the law, don't get caught.



Have you ever seen a deer suffering first hand? I have seen them in various states of injury some most certainly fatal.

Many will attest to having killed a deer only to find out that it had a length of arrow imbedded in part of it's body  or it had a festering bullet wound or even a gaping hole in it's side.  I've seen deer in those states and the deer seemed like any other prior to me shooting it.  They walked around, they ate, they looked around, they trotted.  I've seen them look sickly and weak as well. I've seen where they limp, favoring an injured limb but they definitely don't experience pain the way that dogs do nor do dogs seem to experience pain the way people do.  

I guess since neither of us have probably done neurological or cognitive studies on ungulates, we are probably speaking mostly out of ignorance.  I'll have to maintain what knowledge I have of deer suffering I have only from direct observation.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Have you ever seen a deer suffering first hand? I have seen them in various states of injury some most certainly fatal.
> 
> Many will attest to having killed a deer only to find out that it had a length of arrow imbedded in part of it's body  or it had a festering bullet wound or even a gaping hole in it's side.  I've seen deer in those states and the deer seemed like any other prior to me shooting it.  They walked around, they ate, they looked around, they trotted.  I've seen them look sickly and weak as well. I've seen where they limp, favoring an injured limb but they definitely don't experience pain the way that dogs do nor do dogs seem to experience pain the way people do.
> 
> I guess since neither of us have probably done neurological or cognitive studies on ungulates that we are probably speaking mostly out of ignorance.  I'll have to maintain what knowledge I have of deer suffering I have only from direct obeservation.



I certainly have seen deer suffering firsthand. Most of my family are avid hunters and I have hunted as well on a few occasions. In the example you give of a deer with its jaw blown off, there will be no recovery as they cannot eat. That is the circumstance that I addressed. Of course you are right that we aren't deer and cannot speak with authority on what a deer might experience, but I do know that their physiology is more or less very similar to ours, and have no reason to expect that they would experience pain or suffering in a radically different way from us.

I stand by my position that I would consider it ethical to put down a critically wounded animal provided it didn't seem likely that it would recover.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I certainly have seen deer suffering firsthand. Most of my family are avid hunters and I have hunted as well on a few occasions. In the example you give of a deer with its jaw blown off, there will be no recovery as they cannot eat. That is the circumstance that I addressed. Of course you are right that we aren't deer and cannot speak with authority on what a deer might experience, but I do know that their physiology is more or less very similar to ours, and have no reason to expect that they would experience pain or suffering in a radically different way from us.
> 
> I stand by my position that I would consider it ethical to put down a critically wounded animal provided it didn't seem likely that it would recover.




We'll just disagree on this point.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> We'll just disagree on this point.


----------

