Is hunting wrong?

dlofnep

Involved in dialogue over on the hunting forum. However, it's obvious what their stance is going to be. Over here, the folks on AH are known for their broad array of opinions!

What is your opinion on the subject? I personally find people who hunt for fun to be extremely sadistic & cruel. I can appreciate people hunting for food, or defending their lifestock - But not all are that way.

I am referring to those who go out and butcher animals for cheap thrills. What say you? Is dlofnep too much of a tree hugging hippy, or is their method to his madness?

20goto10

I agree with you completely. Hunting is OK if you are going to eat the animal. In fact it is a hell of a lot better than how most of us get our meat from mass slaughter and breeding animals as food.

But hunting for sport is pathetic, regardless of whether or not you eat the animal.

javaboy

dlofnep wrote: »

What is your opinion on the subject? I personally find people who hunt for fun to be extremely sadistic & cruel. I can appreciate people hunting for food, or defending their lifestock - But not all are that way.

I am referring to those who go out and butcher animals for cheap thrills. What say you? Is dlofnep too much of a tree hugging hippy, or is their method to his madness?

It should be pointed out that many forms of hunting are no more cruel or painful to the animal than traditional methods of killing in a slaughterhouse.

Some methods are brutally cruel and painful alright but not all.

Voted for option 2 btw.

dlofnep

javaboy wrote: »

It should be pointed out that many forms of hunting are no more cruel or painful to the animal than traditional methods of killing in a slaughterhouse.

Some methods are brutally cruel and painful alright but not all.

Voted for option 2 btw.

Perhaps, but does it take away from the fact that the animal loses it's life in the sake of a bit of fun?

rollie

its a god given right....thats why i keep a vile of anthrax, for duck huntin' :pac:

biko

Killing for food is ok in my book.
Killing for "sport" is bad m'kay?

Ruu_Old

Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a <insert animal here> ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about! Number 2 though.

dlofnep

Ruu wrote: »

Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a <insert animal here> ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about! Number 2 though.

Not the Whale Shark. He is friendly and eats Plankton. But I guess, Plankton are people too, right?

José Alaninho

I am a hunter myself, and I guess you could say that I do it as a 'hobby', but that said, I always eat what I kill, and / or do it to protect livestock. In my opinion hunting for trophies / 'sport' and not making any use of an animal other than killing it not only shows a blatant disrespect for the said animal, but also must be seen as some kind of underlying love of inflicting death for laughs. This I cannot stand, and yet I am for all intents and purposes a hunter. Am I being hypocritical? Just my two cents.

Cianos

Hunting for food is completely fine, as other posters have said, I think it is a much more humane way to get food rather than contributing to meat factories. So I would have a lot of respect for someone who hunts for their food.

But those who hunt just for fun have something wrong with them if you ask me. Pointless killing for the sake of killing, not far removed from going in to the park with a rifle and picking off a couple of joggers.

dlofnep

José Alaninho wrote: »

I am a hunter myself, and I guess you could say that I do it as a 'hobby', but that said, I always eat what I kill, and / or do it to protect livestock. In my opinion hunting for trophies / 'sport' and not making any use of an animal other than killing it not only shows a blatant disrespect for the said animal, but also must be seen as some kind of underlying love of inflicting death for laughs. This I cannot stand, and yet I am for all intents and purposes a hunter. Am I being hypocritical? Just my two cents.

It depends. Do you hunt solely for food, or hunt because it's fun? I'm not trying to be Doctor Moral here or anything, but it all depends.

javaboy

dlofnep wrote: »

Perhaps, but does it take away from the fact that the animal loses it's life in the sake of a bit of fun?

Em well as I said, I voted for option 2. So I'm against hunting for sport anyway. I was just pointing out that hunting isn't all about inflicting pain and suffering.

For most hunting disciplines, it's about skill I think.

togster

Well i don't see why we can't hunt for sport. I fox hunt or used to and will again next month. So i gues i'm a bad human being. I hunt for the thrill of it. I'd be lying if i said it was for conservation. But control of numbers is a by product of it whether you want to admit it or not.

tallaght01

Hunting really makes me sick. It's really depraved. But any people I've ever spoken to who've been involved in hunting, have justified it to themselves with all kinds of silly reasons. There's just no point in arguing with them. They know it's wrong, but they still like doing it, so it's a circular argument.

g'em

tallaght01 wrote: »

Hunting really makes me sick. It's really depraved. But any people I've ever spoken to who've been involved in hunting, have justified it to themselves with all kinds of silly reasons. There's just no point in arguing with them. They know it's wrong, but they still like doing it, so it's a circular argument.

Who says it's wrong though? You?

I've hunted for food in the past and would have no problem doing it again. Food finding aside there are other very valid reasons to hunt (controlled culls for example). Sure, there's going to be a few extremists eejits who neglect to abide by the hunting code and make all hunters look like arses, but those people are very much in the minority and most hunters I know have more respect for the countryside and its flora and fauna than the average Joe.

Peared

g'em wrote: »

Who says it's wrong though? You?

I've hunted for food in the past and would have no problem doing it again. Food finding aside there are other very valid reasons to hunt (controlled culls for example). Sure, there's going to be a few extremists eejits who neglect to abide by the hunting code and make all hunters look like arses, but those people are very much in the minority and most hunters I know have more respect for the countryside and its flora and fauna than the average Joe.

Who says it's right though, you?

Works both ways.

Mr. Incognito

I don't know whay a modern society needs guns period.

Killing anything for the thrill of it is inheriently sick.

tallaght01

g'em wrote: »

Who says it's wrong though? You?

I've hunted for food in the past and would have no problem doing it again. Food finding aside there are other very valid reasons to hunt (controlled culls for example). Sure, there's going to be a few extremists eejits who neglect to abide by the hunting code and make all hunters look like arses, but those people are very much in the minority and most hunters I know have more respect for the countryside and its flora and fauna than the average Joe.

Yea I say it's wrong!! I thought that was obvious from my post.

Controlled culls is one of those rubbish reasons that I spoke about.

And how do you equate, say, a pack of dogs biting the balls off a fox til he dies with "respecting" the flora and fauna???

BroomBurner

Hunting in some places is required because the idiot hunters before them got rid of the predators of certain animals (e.g. deer) and these animals are now breeding rapidly and detroying the environment for other living beings that may depend on it.

Hunting for food is grand, providing you are not eating endangered animals.

Hunting for fun is sick though, and shows a blatant disregard and lack of respect for other living beings.

dlofnep

I often hear arguments like - "Oh as a result of what we do, we keep the population curbed".

The result of your actions doesn't change the intent of your actions, and that is to kill an animal for thrills. (And once again, I am referring to those who hunt for sport)

g'em

Peared wrote: »

Who says it's right though, you?

Works both ways.

Absolutely, hence the reason I said it. I'm not a fan of the "it's wrong because I say so but I can't give any valid reasons" argument. I've already said why I personally thing it's ok.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Controlled culls is one of those rubbish reasons that I spoke about.

Controlled culls are rubbish? Uh-huh. Deer culls are absolutely vital across the country on an annual basis. Without them trees get badly damaged, land is destroyed and without any other natural predators and acres upon acres of predator-free land the population can run wild.

tallaght01 wrote:

And how do you equate, say, a pack of dogs biting the balls off a fox til he dies with "respecting" the flora and fauna???

I don't equate them, by hunting I mean shooting, horse and hound hunting is a different story and one that I wouldn't agree with.

KnifeWRENCH

Hunting for sport is pointless. If someone shoots a fox or a deer just for the "thrill" or so they can show off it's a bit pathetic.
Like is it meant to be impressive? "Wow, you managed to conquer nature by firing bullets into an unsuspecting creature. Aren't you just fantastic?" :rolleyes:

Hunting for sport or protection of livestock is a different matter, but I fear that many who use those excuses are just doing it for the thrill.

tallaght01

I thought proper culls were suposed to be carried out by trained marksmen, so they've a better chance of killing them straight off.

The hunters I've met ain't no trained marksmen, Neither are their mental dogs.

javaboy

square_igloo wrote: »

Hunting for sport is pointless. If someone shoots a fox or a deer just for the "thrill" or so they can show off it's a bit pathetic.
Like is it meant to be impressive? "Wow, you managed to conquer nature by firing bullets into an unsuspecting creature. Aren't you just fantastic?" :rolleyes:

+1

Hunting for sport or protection of livestock is a different matter, but I fear that many who use those excuses are just doing it for the thrill.

Completely agree with this. For every 5 people claiming they are hunting for population control or that they eat everything they catch, there is probably only 1 telling the truth. Culls can be legitimate but I'd say it's definitely being used as an excuse by some.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

we are animals

alot of animals kill other animals.

get used to it.

the end.

tallaght01

Mordeth wrote: »

we are animals

alot of animals kill other animals.

get used to it.

the end.

Nice.....so I could pop another human, no questions asked then?

raido9

BroomBurner wrote: »

Hunting for food is grand, providing you are not eating endangered animals.

Hunting for fun is sick though, and shows a blatant disregard and lack of respect for other living beings.

Do you have a problem with people who go fishing for the fun of it?

Do you have a problem with killing annoying bugs/insects/rodents in your house?

g'em

tallaght01 wrote: »

I thought proper culls were suposed to be carried out by trained marksmen, so they've a better chance of killing them straight off.

It depends on the area/ animal/ involvement of the Irish Wildlife Service (and it's a few years since I was involved with anything like this, so things may have changed and I'm open to correction). Deer culls in large National Parks for e.g. are generally carried out by National Parks and Wildlife Service. Then there's also private deer hunting licenses awarded each year by the NPWS.

Shooting other animals will also require a license and it's fairly strictly controlled and managed with defined seasons and regulations.

dlofnep

Mordeth wrote: »

we are animals

alot of animals kill other animals.

get used to it.

the end.

Not for fun they don't.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it depends on where you are, if you're in america you can shoot a black guy and probably get away with it. if you're in iran you can probably kill a jew and get away with it and if you're in africa you can kill a woman who names a teacher mohhamed.

It's a bit like hindus and cows, and westerners and kittens.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

dlofnep wrote: »

Not for fun they don't.

yes they do, chimpanzee's murder and have great fun doing so.

BroomBurner

raido9 wrote: »

Do you have a problem with people who go fishing for the fun of it?

Do you have a problem with killing annoying bugs/insects/rodents in your house?

People that fish for fun put the fish back (generally)

People that fish for food, eat what they catch.

Do I have a problem with mass fishing? Yes, I do. Large trawler nets and massive fishing boats catch all without even considering whether they can sell it. If something unsaleble, such as a turtle, gets caught in the net, they just leave it to die.

As for bugs, insects, etc that come in to my home, I would either try to put them out, or kill them. I don't, however, kill them when I am in their home, which is The Outdoors.

I think, Radio9, you have FAILED to understand the difference between killing an insect in your home (for the very excellent reason of protecting food, etc.) and killing insects for sport. Which, again, seeing as I am against hunting for sport, I would be against this.

Nehaxak

If I lived "down the country" type of place rather than here in Ballymun, I'd sure as hell take up hunting and enjoy it too.
Not even allowed throw bottles at cops here anymore

BroomBurner

Mordeth wrote: »

yes they do, chimpanzee's murder and have great fun doing so.

For a start, you can not possibly say that for definite, as specialist biologist and behavioural scientists wouldn't even say that for definite. In fact, the thinking on it is that they possibly murder other chimps to ensure they have breeding rights, etc. I'd suggest you read up more on the topic before deciding that you know what animals do for kicks.

mountain

Killing for the sake of killing is wrong,
boasting about it, and taking photos of it is even worse.

I dont believe that on the hunting forum there is a thread that allows people to do this.

thelordofcheese

dlofnep wrote: »

Not for fun they don't.

I'd like to introduce you to an animal that does just that. It's called a cat.


We murdered our way to the top of the evolutionary ladder, the only reason we invent justifications for doing it now is because we're trying to pretend we're civilised.

WindSock

I hunted before. I wasn't hunting because I needed food or clothing. I hunted an animal that was not native and seen as a pest. Nevertheless, culling the animal was not my primary reason for shooting it. I did it for the thrill. I had never shot and killed something before. I have now, and I don't expect I will do it again. I think I had more fun actually walking around at night time in a forest with a gun than the actual killing bit.

Ross_Mahon

Hunting has be done for hundreds of years, its alright once its an animal you will eat and its not going extinct.

BroomBurner

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'd like to introduce you to an animal that does just that. It's called a cat.


We murdered our way to the top of the evolutionary ladder, the only reason we invent justifications for doing it now is because we're trying to pretend we're civilised.

Cats, like humans I suppose, hunted for food before they became domesticated. The instinct is still there though, so even though it appears to us that the cat is hunting for fun, it is actually just acting out it's instincts.

Before any pro-hunting-for-fun people use this as a reason why hunting for entertainment is a good thing, cats brains are infinitely smaller than ours and do not have the same grasp of life as humans, i.e. empathy for others, ideas of time and what time is, etc. Humans that hunt for sport are shamefull, self-centred, short-minded sociopaths.

thelordofcheese

BroomBurner wrote: »

Cats, like humans I suppose, hunted for food before they became domesticated. The instinct is still there though, so even though it appears to us that the cat is hunting for fun, it is actually just acting out it's instincts.

Before any pro-hunting-for-fun people use this as a reason why hunting for entertainment is a good thing, cats brains are infinitely smaller than ours and do not have the same grasp of life as humans, i.e. empathy for others, ideas of time and what time is, etc. Humans that hunt for sport are shamefull, self-centred, short-minded sociopaths.

I think i'm going to go hunting today; my prey shall be the common or garden High Horse.

I hope you brought a helmet and the appropriate safety gear before you saddled up.

biko

Hunting for food has become so much easier with the introduction of

supermarkets

.

staker

I've nothing against hunting,even go coursing myself now and again.
Once it's on a level playing field i.e the hare,fish,deer etc is in his own natural habitat open to his own means of escape it's fine by me..

raido9

BroomBurner wrote: »

People that fish for fun put the fish back (generally)

So its ok to stick a hook into a fish as long as you throw it back?

BroomBurner wrote: »

As for bugs, insects, etc that come in to my home, I would either try to put them out, or kill them. I don't, however, kill them when I am in their home, which is The Outdoors.

So now you are using location as justification for killing an animal?

BroomBurner wrote: »

I think, Radio9, you have FAILED to understand the difference between killing an insect in your home (for the very excellent reason of protecting food, etc.) and killing insects for sport. Which, again, seeing as I am against hunting for sport, I would be against this.

No, BroomBurner, I did not fail to understand the difference. I just find it interesting about your very excellent reasons for when it is ok or not to kill animals.

javaboy

biko wrote: »

Hunting for food has become so much easier with the introduction of

supermarkets

.

Not when they keep changing the aisles around like in Dunnes. I know it's all psychology to get you to see different products and make you go deeper into the shop just for bread and milk but it's still annoying. :mad:

javaboy

staker wrote: »

I've nothing against hunting,even go coursing myself now and again.
Once it's on a level playing field i.e the hare,fish,deer etc is in his own natural habitat open to his own means of escape it's fine by me..

Level playing field? That's just ridiculous. How is it a level playing field? Unless you're hunting with Dick Cheney, you're never actually in any danger of death unlike the animal.

Also I think you can decide not to partake in the hunt. Can the animal?

I'm not even rabidly anti-hunting but that kind of rubbish just irks me. Level playing field. :rolleyes:

stevoman

tallaght01 wrote: »

Hunting really makes me sick. It's really depraved. But any people I've ever spoken to who've been involved in hunting, have justified it to themselves with all kinds of silly reasons. There's just no point in arguing with them. They know it's wrong, but they still like doing it, so it's a circular argument.

Keyboard POO POO.

Hunting is fine once the quarry is eaten or if there is a genuine reason to kill vermin such as they are causing havoc to your livestock.

I hunt and fish and eat everything i shoot and catch. How is that curel or disgusting. its been that way for himans for thousands of years.

i have to lauph at some of the responses i get off some people. "Hunting? God your so cruel? I'l have a steak please, medium to rare"

javaboy

stevoman wrote: »

Keyboard POO POO.

Hunting is fine once the quarry is eaten or if there is a genuine reason to kill vermin such as they are causing havoc to your livestock.

I hunt and fish and eat everything i shoot and catch. How is that curel or disgusting. its been that way for himans for thousands of years.

i have to lauph at some of the responses i get off some people. "Hunting? God your so cruel? I'l have a steak please, medium to rare"

Have you never come across a fellow hunter who doesn't eat everything they catch or have some valid reason for hunting?

I'm not even remotely involved in hunting and don't move in the same circles but even I've come across people who will openly admit that they don't just hunt for food or for genuine population control purposes.

I don't think anyone sensible who eats meat will really argue against someone hunting for food using methods designed to kill quickly.

BroomBurner

raido9 wrote: »

No, BroomBurner, I did not fail to understand the difference. I just find it interesting about your very excellent reasons for when it is ok or not to kill animals.

Are you a vegetarian/vegan? Have you ever killed an insect that happened to hit your windsheild? Have you ever used insect repellent on holiday? Do you use cleanser/moisturiser/etc. that include fish oils? Do you eat out in restaurants? Do you eat sweets?

You're living in a dream world if you think you can live your life not killing one single animal, whatever the cause.

javaboy

BroomBurner wrote: »

Have you ever killed an insect that happened to hit your windsheild?

Ah but you might be doing the animal kingdom a favour in the long term:
http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/splat_science.html

Apparently they want people to count the number of dead insects on their windshield as a means of auditing insect populations. They believe it might be affecting bird populations.

I'm going out for a drive to help save the environment!

stevoman

javaboy wrote: »

Have you never come across a fellow hunter who doesn't eat everything they catch or have some valid reason for hunting?

I'm not even remotely involved in hunting and don't move in the same circles but even I've come across people who will openly admit that they don't just hunt for food or for genuine population control purposes.

I don't think anyone sensible who eats meat will really argue against someone hunting for food using methods designed to kill quickly.

To be honest in any cirle of people that i know hunt or hunt with i can safely say that i do not know anyone that just goes out and kills for pure pleasure. Anyone i know who hunts game eats it and if they have have a little extra it will be given to somewhon who will eat it and anyone i know who hunts vermin does so for a reason or is asked to hunt the vermin by a landowner.

I do think the term "hunting" is too broad a topic to be deabted as hunting is in so many different shapes and forms and to be debated reasonably it should be broken into certain aspects and taken from there.

anti-venom

Hunting for food is fine as long as there is a need to hunt for food. However, there is no need to hunt for food in this country or any western country. If you can afford a box of cartridges you can afford to eat. This nonsense of hunting for food is just a weak attempt to justify an entirely unneccessary and barbaric practise.

I certainly don't see that hunters have more respect for the countryside than any other people. Blasting pellets into harmless birds, rabbits etc is no means of 'respecting' the countryside.