The Killing of Animals: Drawing a Line

later12

I'd like to hear posters' views on something that I find a little challenging, concerning the killing, and especially the hunting, of animals.

To pronounce my own bias, I admit that I eat all kinds of meat without enduring any moral hardship, and engage in hunting of both the mounted and foot varieties, with slightly more discomfort, yet evidently not enough to stop doing so.

However, there are some forms of hunting which I just abhor. In this country, the shooting of deer would be top of the list. Usually you can turn a blind eye to this, but what with the likes of facebook, images of acquaintances deer hunting are recently appearing in my news feed.

I'm going to post one such picture below, one which I find particularly offensive, of a really beautiful stag shot in Spain. Don't look if this sort of thing really bothers you.
http://i50.tinypic.com/20gfudh.png

Now you probably find this a little hypocritical - so do I. But I think it's a hypocrisy most of us could probably be accused of. Why, for example, do many people feel it is acceptable to eat some forms of domestic animals, but not others? I mean - lamb vs veal? Or goose vs. swan?

Why do some people find it less acceptable to shoot a fox than say, lay rat poison?

Why do some people, like me, find it less acceptable to shoot a deer than to shoot, say, a jack snipe or wood pigeon?

How can we devise a logical system to divide up when, or how the elimination of an animal's life is ethically acceptable?

Surely perception of its 'beauty', although instinctive, is an entirely invalid methodology. Not least because it's so subjective, but also because it is based purely on emotion and not logic.

How,and where, would you draw the line?

Why is it O.K. to kill X by not kill Y? Tradition. As you say, it's O.K to kill and eat a goose but not a swan, and O.K. (but perhaps less widespread) to kill and eat a lamb but not a calf. It's purely down to tradition, I'd guess; I can see no other basis for it.

What formed that tradition, though? Perhaps, as you point to, the beauty of the animal (evident in swan vs. goose), or maybe the animal's "closeness" with man (dogs, cats, etc.). I'm sure there are many reasons why it became O.K. to kill and eat one but not another; it's likely highly dependent on culture, region, religion, mythology, and a multitude of other factors.

I'm not sure you'll have any luck building a logical basis for the killing of one but not another. What would your premises be? That an animal can only be killed if it's dangerous? Or an animal can only be killed if it's too abundant? Or only killed if it's tasty? It's all, as you say, a little subjective, so I think logic goes out the window. Perhaps you can justify it to yourself logically using your own premises, but that argument will likely have no validity for others -- what's dangerous to one might not be to another, or tasty to one disgusting to another, etc.

For me, personally, I find the killing of any animal for sport or fun to be unethical -- this is coming from somebody who used to hunt and owned guns -- because I take as my premise the taking of any life to be wrong. Part of me finds the killing of any animal -- for any reason other than self defence -- to be unethical, yet I still eat meat; an uncomfortable ethical hypocrisy for a lot of people.

Gurgle

I've been through the same line of thought.
For me it comes down to the quality of life the animal had, and the pain experienced in killing it. On the whole, I'd feel better eating a wild deer that died of a single bullet to the head than battery farmed chicken.

later12 wrote: »

How,and where, would you draw the line?

If you kill it, kill it fast.
And eat it, no trophy hunting.

later12

gvn wrote: »

I'm not sure you'll have any luck building a logical basis for the killing of one but not another. What would your premises be? That an animal can only be killed if it's dangerous? Or an animal can only be killed if it's too abundant? Or only killed if it's tasty? It's all, as you say, a little subjective, so I think logic goes out the window.

That's the same conclusion I've been coming to, I'm afraid.

So where does that leave us?

Should it be acceptable to go on committing acts of dubious ethical legitimacy using only one's emotional faculties?

Is it even possible to behave ethically using emotional instincts devoid of rational thought?

Gurgle wrote: »

I've been through the same line of thought.
For me it comes down to the quality of life the animal had, and the pain experienced in killing it. On the whole, I'd feel better eating a wild deer that died of a single bullet to the head than battery farmed chicken.

This is also something that I find appealing on its face value, but that justification must have some rational foundation (or must it?).

So why is it considered preferable for the animal to have had a strong quality of life prior to its destruction? What purpose does that serve?

I suppose we could propose that it discourages irresponsible practices like battery chicken farming, or keeping calves in metal cages for veal production. And we can all agree that such practices cause undue stress on animals, which is an outcome that should always be avoided.

This sounds quite good. However, if anything this just broadens the range of animals which ought to be up for grabs. Anything which has had a nice quality of life prior to its destruction (save, perhaps, for endangered animals, which we presumably want to protect - although there's another debate in that) is considered fair game? This would include a range of animals whose destruction I think a lot of people would still find morally repugnant.

The Corinthian

Blame Disney.

As humans we build up emotional attachments often for irrational reasons. Intellectually, we may know that a chicken has been slaughtered, but many have less empathy for them than with Bambi, who actually never suffered factory farming and died in far more natural circumstances (animals hunt and eat animals, after all).

My other half cannot face eating rabbits, because she had some as a child as pets, yet she has no such compunction for any other animal.

We develop emotional responses as children that become engrained by adulthood, and then proceed to rationalize why we have those responses. Infrequently, people, such as the OP, will question these rationalizations and realize that they're full of holes.

At that point we'll either realize the true nature of our neurosis or expand our rationalizations until we're eventually vegans.

Personally, I am rather partial to venison (I have some in the fridge) and have no problem with hunting. Given this I also believe that we do eat too much meat nowadays and cruelty (be it factory farming or blood sports) are indulgences that serve no positive purpose in society.

later12

later12 wrote: »

That's the same conclusion I've been coming to, I'm afraid.

So where does that leave us?

Should it be acceptable to go on committing acts of dubious ethical legitimacy using only one's emotional faculties?

Is it even possible to behave ethically using emotional instincts devoid of rational thought?

I would say so, yes. Depending on your ethical framework, you can be compelled towards some action by your emotions that would, according to that framework, be considered "good" and ethical; rational thought isn't required to commit a good act.

Unless you're willing to advocate some universal, objective morality then you'll find it difficult (impossible?) to establish a means to distinguish one animal as killable and edible, and another as unfit for the same purposes; that is, of course, if you can't build a logical argument with some objective (or at least universally agreed upon) premises.

It seems like an impossible task.

This sounds quite good. However, if anything this just broadens the range of animals which ought to be up for grabs. Anything which has had a nice quality of life prior to its destruction (save, perhaps, for endangered animals, which we presumably want to protect - although there's another debate in that) is considered fair game? This would include a range of animals whose destruction I think a lot of people would still find morally repugnant.

A very good point. I hadn't considered that argument before.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Blame Disney.

That's a good point. Humans tend to anthropomorphise certain animals -- especially as kids -- and some animals lend themselves to that practice more than others.

Valmont

I don't understand why trophy hunting is frowned upon but not 'if you eat it'. It misses the point entirely: the animal is dead and (most likely) you killed it. Who cares if one totemically imbibes the flesh? It's essentially a spiritual stamp of approval from the ghost of Mufasa and the circle of life--an irrational justification if you will. The animal is dead either way and any subtle differences in the motivations for the hunt can't retroactively confer legitimacy upon the act.

I would like to hear an argument against the right of a person to hunt or trap, presuming they are consistent and don't eat meat or use animal products. I haven't come across one that isn't based on emotion or at least hypocritical.

Fundamentally I think this comes down to tolerating different ways of life. Some people hunt and trap, some don't--fine, why take it any further?

The Corinthian

Valmont wrote: »

I don't understand why trophy hunting is frowned upon but not 'if you eat it'. It misses the point entirely: the animal is dead and (most likely) you killed it. Who cares if one totemically imbibes the flesh? It's essentially a spiritual stamp of approval from the ghost of Mufasa and the circle of life--an irrational justification if you will. The animal is dead either way and any subtle differences in the motivations for the hunt can't retroactively confer legitimacy upon the act.

I'd 'frown' upon it largely because it's wasteful. Hunting for the meat, fur, population control, etc tend to have tangible reasons and benefits. For sport alone or trophies, I consider a bit of an indulgence as the benefits tend to be intangible - more often than not ego.

Valmont

Valmont wrote: »

I don't understand why trophy hunting is frowned upon but not 'if you eat it'. It misses the point entirely: the animal is dead and (most likely) you killed it. Who cares if one totemically imbibes the flesh? It's essentially a spiritual stamp of approval from the ghost of Mufasa and the circle of life--an irrational justification if you will. The animal is dead either way and any subtle differences in the motivations for the hunt can't retroactively confer legitimacy upon the act.

I think the objection arises from the motivation for killing the animal in the first place. Is a person killing an animal to survive himself — by using fur for clothing or housing, meat for food, and so on? Then there's no objection from most (except the PETA types). Is he killing the animal with the intention of eating its meat, despite not needing its meat? There's more of an objection to this, but it's hypocritical: if the individual can get his meat elsewhere without killing that particular animal, doesn't another animal have to die? Where the largest objection lies is when an animal is killed for no other reason than sport, for it to be mounted as a trophy and a symbol of the hunter's brilliance. It's viewed as wasteful and, to which I would agree, a waste of an animal's life for no other reason than the pleasure of an individual.

Ziphius

later12 wrote: »

However, there are some forms of hunting which I just abhor. In this country, the shooting of deer would be top of the list. Usually you can turn a blind eye to this, but what with the likes of facebook, images of acquaintances deer hunting are recently appearing in my news feed.

How would you feel about culling of deer and stag due to overpopulation? A lack of predators in Ireland means it is necessary for humans to step in and keep deer populations in check.

My own opinion is that no animal (with the exception of the great apes) has an explicit right to life. They do however have a right of freedom against avoidable human induced suffering.

Loss of habitat is a greater threat to wildlife than poaching and hunting and I believe it is our responsibility to conserve, protect, maintain, and restore the remaining wilderness and not-so-wild ecosystems.

I do eat meat (both farmed and game), am in favor of medical testing on animals, and am opposed to blood sports. Having said that the idea of people getting pleasure from the killing or suffering of another animal is something I am not comfortable with.

Valmont

I think this case has been misrepresented somewhat. I used to live in Alaska, and partook in a couple of Moose hunts (I just went along). No 'trophy hunter' simply leaves the rotting corpse of the animal to decay--there is a lot of valuable and tasty meat to be had in addition to the trophy. This dichotomy of hunting for meat or trophies doesn't even reflect the reality of the situation.

Basically what's being said is hunting is ok, as long as people don't have fun. Can I torture cats if don't enjoy it?

Ziphius

Ziphius wrote: »

My own opinion is that no animal (with the exception of the great apes) has an explicit right to life. They do however have a right of freedom against avoidable human induced suffering.

I think that skips over the main point of the original question. Why, according to your opinion, does a great ape have an inherent right to life? Is it because humans are great apes, and as such other great apes should have similar rights? Does a lesser ape (such as a gibbon or siamang) have no intrinsic, inherent right to life, like its "cousins" the chimpanzee and orangutan? It seems like an arbitrarily defined system of granting rights; you just happen to believe that great apes ought to have an inherent right to life. Beyond what you believe, there's no objective basis for your distinction.

The Corinthian

Valmont wrote: »

Basically what's being said is hunting is ok, as long as people don't have fun. Can I torture cats if don't enjoy it?

No, I don't think anyone has said that and have actually been clear about what's been said; hunting is OK, as long as it is not only for fun.

Gurgle

Valmont wrote: »

Basically what's being said is hunting is ok, as long as people don't have fun. Can I torture cats if don't enjoy it?

For fun != Just for fun
Does this clarify it?

Valmont

Valmont wrote: »

Basically what's being said is hunting is ok, as long as people don't have fun. Can I torture cats if don't enjoy it?

I think it's more a case of whether an animal's right to life has a higher value than a human's right to kill that animal just for entertainment. If the human is getting meat out of the kill, then that's different than one who kills just for entertainment — which happens with fox hunts, for example.

Ziphius

gvn wrote: »

I think that skips over the main point of the original question. Why, according to your opinion, does a great ape have an inherent right to life? Is it because humans are great apes, and as such other great apes should have similar rights? Does a lesser ape (such as a gibbon or siamang) have no intrinsic, inherent right to life, like its "cousins" the chimpanzee and orangutan? It seems like an arbitrarily defined system of granting rights; you just happen to believe that great apes ought to have an inherent right to life. Beyond what you believe, there's no objective basis for your distinction.

It does skip over the point you're right. I was aware of this while writing and perhaps should have qualified that this is an arbitrary line based only on my personal feelings.

Ziphius

gvn wrote: »

I think that skips over the main point of the original question. Why, according to your opinion, does a great ape have an inherent right to life? Is it because humans are great apes, and as such other great apes should have similar rights? Does a lesser ape (such as a gibbon or siamang) have no intrinsic, inherent right to life, like its "cousins" the chimpanzee and orangutan? It seems like an arbitrarily defined system of granting rights; you just happen to believe that great apes ought to have an inherent right to life. Beyond what you believe, there's no objective basis for your distinction.

Actually I'm going to tentatively remove my support of rights for other great apes. Unless I can think of a real objective reason for it it merely creates ambiguity. Thanks for pointing this out gvn.

The Corinthian

Ziphius wrote: »

Actually I'm going to tentatively remove my support of rights for other great apes. Unless I can think of a real objective reason for it it merely creates ambiguity. Thanks for pointing this out gvn.

Sapience perhaps. One could argue that any member of a species capable of sapience should qualify for what we might call 'basic' human rights. If so, some species of primate, in addition to us, and other animals, such as dolphins, could arguably qualify.

It's still an arbitrary qualification, but being a simple one does play in its favour, in my mind.

Ziphius

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sapience perhaps. One could argue that any member of a species capable of sapience should qualify for what we might call 'basic' human rights. If so, some species of primate, in addition to us, and other animals, such as dolphins, could arguably qualify.

It's still an arbitrary qualification, but being a simple one does play in its favour, in my mind.

Perhaps. I do think we can have degrees of rights. It doesn't have to be a black/white cut off. To some extent we have this already. Endangered species are protected from hunting for example, and vertebrates have more "rights" than invertebrates in experimental contexts.

The Corinthian

Ziphius wrote: »

I do think we can have degrees of rights.

Let's not drag the thread down that endless discussion :pac:

Valmont

gvn wrote: »

I think it's more a case of whether an animal's right to life has a higher value than a human's right to kill that animal just for entertainment. If the human is getting meat out of the kill, then that's different than one who kills just for entertainment — which happens with fox hunts, for example.

I would say animal's right to life is 'worth' less than a human being's right to hunt them for 'fun'. Simplistic dichotomies aside, the implication of supporting this is that one will defend an animals right to live over a human's right to hunt them along with what--in reality--would be an entirely subjective judgement on how much 'fun' someone is having while hunting.

However, this all paints a caricatured picture of 'trophy hunters' as exclusively hunting for 'fun'. I don't personally know a hunter who would willingly leave an entire corpse without using as much of it as it as he can. I'm sure many would argue that they're having fun as such but perhaps treat it more as a way of life for themselves? This seems to complicate the 'fun' debate even further.

Gurgle

Valmont wrote: »

I don't personally know a hunter who would willingly leave an entire corpse without using as much of it as it as he can.

Good, that's a sign of progress.

Valmont

Gurgle wrote: »

Good, that's a sign of progress.

Progress towards what?

Gurgle

Valmont wrote: »

Progress towards what?

Towards not killing animals just for fun / a trophy.

Valmont

Gurgle wrote: »

Towards not killing animals just for fun / a trophy.

Why is this an admirable aim? Why is cutting just the back-straps off a deer ok but not the antlers?

.

Valmont

Valmont wrote: »

I would say animal's right to life is 'worth' less than a human being's right to hunt them for 'fun'. Simplistic dichotomies aside, the implication of supporting this is that one will defend an animals right to live over a human's right to hunt them along with what--in reality--would be an entirely subjective judgement on how much 'fun' someone is having while hunting.

I'm not sure it's all that subjective — at least not to the degree where it would cause great issue. If the purpose of a hunt is solely entertainment then the determination of how much "fun" it's granting the participants is irrelevant. Here I'm mainly referencing activities such as fox-hunting, or big-game hunting of the past, or indeed those who kill deer or stag for no reason other than creating a trophy (rare, but it does happen).

However, this all paints a caricatured picture of 'trophy hunters' as exclusively hunting for 'fun'. I don't personally know a hunter who would willingly leave an entire corpse without using as much of it as it as he can. I'm sure many would argue that they're having fun as such but perhaps treat it more as a way of life for themselves? This seems to complicate the 'fun' debate even further.

I'd have little objection to that. I know of many hunters who gain great enjoyment from their hunting; aside from enjoyment, they also gain meat and skin, and treat the animal as more than a simple kill. I also know of several hunters who hunt solely for the enjoyment and entertainment it provides; they hunt rabbits and foxes and, once killed, do nothing with a carcase other than dispose of it. I have a fundamental disagreement with this.

I do see where you're coming from. Everything gets a little hazy and diffuse when the determination of whether an animal was "justifiably" killed resides upon not only the motivations for its killing, but on how much entertainment or fun the person who killed it received. It's not a clear-cut situation, or a situation that's easily argued for or against.

The Corinthian

Valmont wrote: »

Why is this an admirable aim? Why is cutting just the back-straps off a deer ok but not the antlers?

We're going around in circles here, or at least you are as you already made this point and several people pointed out that you were misrepresenting the argument and clarified it for you:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80882664&postcount=13
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80882665&postcount=14
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80882694&postcount=15

Is there a reason you're repeating this point? Perhaps you've not explained what you meant clearly enough?

Valmont

Corinthian, if you could actually answer the question posed, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. If all you can do is link me to three statements essentially reiterating your so far unexplained maxim of 'hunting just for fun = bad' with no rational elaboration or justification of how you arrived at that position, then I can legitimately consider my issue unresolved.

Why you want me to reflexively accept that cutting the back-straps off a deer and eating them somehow endows the whole process of killing an animal with a legitimacy it would otherwise lack, is at present, beyond me.

But, at this point (without further info), my contention is that your reasons for arguing in favour of killing animals in some circumstances but not others as based on perceptions of 'fun' as experienced by the hunter are irrational, subjective, and characteristic of religious ceremony. The logic behind your rules for a 'moral' kill has more in common with the religous argument behind Shechita, for example. However, don't take that as a criticism of that approach but we have to consider the original post:

Later12 wrote:

"How can we devise a logical system to divide up when, or how the elimination of an animal's life is ethically acceptable?"

It is with respect to this point I have been questioning your position but until you discuss the origins of or logic behind the idea that having fun while hunting is an inherently bad thing, we are going to go around in circles--just don't blame me if we do.

The Corinthian

Valmont wrote: »

Corinthian, if you could actually answer the question posed, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. If all you can do is link me to three statements essentially reiterating your so far unexplained maxim of 'hunting just for fun = bad' with no rational elaboration or justification of how you arrived at that position, then I can legitimately consider my issue unresolved.

Actually, you did get an explanation, twice:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80881607&postcount=8
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80881663&postcount=9

As you never addressed these, I presume you never read them.

lesserspottedchloe

If you kill it-kill it to eat, not for pleasure or some form of trophy. Kill it quickly and humanely. I consider those that needlessly hurt and kill animals of any size to be mentally lacking.

Valmont

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, you did get an explanation, twice:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80881607&postcount=8
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80881663&postcount=9

As you never addressed these, I presume you never read them.

Gvn simply reiterated the popularity of your belief in ritualistic consumption of the animal to 'justify' its death, there was no exposition of the logic or rationality behind the stance itself:

gvn wrote:

Where the largest objection lies is when an animal is killed for no other reason than sport, for it to be mounted as a trophy and a symbol of the hunter's brilliance. It's viewed as wasteful and, to which I would agree, a waste of an animal's life for no other reason than the pleasure of an individual.

I'll ask again: why should this be seen as an immoral act when the animal is just as dead? How does the ritualistic consumption or use of the parts of an animal justify its killing? How much of the animal counts? 50%? What of the waste from population control? Does that not contradict your own position, based as it is on waste?

It wasn't me!

In my own, personal view, I don't object to any hunting in which the animal is killed with due dilligence to the prevention of suffering. That means a method of dispatch which is as quick and high-percentage as possible. That means no shots beyond the skill of the shooter, good equipment with enough power to be consistently efficacious, or in terms of traps or the likes of dogs or falcons, anything which means as quick and efficient an end as is realistic.

I like to see that an animal which is suitable for food is used, but that's an aesthetic thing for me. I don't mind if the proceeds of a rabbit cull feed the dogs or are used for fox or crow bait. I would probably lose the rag (and have done) upon finding big game animals which were killed and not recovered or where antlers were sawn off the skull. Whether the hunter in question uses the meat of the animal is immaterial to me, only that waste is avoided, as I do consider it disrespectful in the extreme, both to the animal and to a long tradition of good hunting practices. I don't object to big game hunting, because all of the animals will be used, even if not by the person who kills it.

I like to see hunting trophies. I have warthog tusks shot by a friend of mine mounted, and when I see them, they remind me of deer-stalking with him in Wicklow, sitting in snow passing a Thermos back and forth while taking a break at the top of a stunning valley. From a management point of view, trophies represent the culmination of successful management over a long period of time. Trophies don't get to be trophy animals without people ensuring that there's adequate food to support populations and controlling the pool of breeding animals year on year. Mostly, they're just memories of good times. I like the look of them, but any time I see one of my friends', I want to know the story, and it's a way to visit good times and remember good people and places, many of which may not be around anymore. I have a trout caught by my great-uncle, who I never met, since he died a long time before I was born, but it reminds me of entries from his diaries and stories he would have told me had I met him, and a different sort of era.

We don't hunt for food. I've never met a single person in my era who hunted for food. My father did, growing up in Northern Ireland after the last war, the only way to get meat for your diet was to hunt birds and rabbits, and he enjoyed the hell out of it too. Nowadays however, it's a very expensive way to supply yourself with protein. Far more expensive than just buying it. However, I firmly believe that there's no meat like wild game. I consider that preparing and eating meat from a hunt is part of the celebration of the animal and I love doing it. In addition, I'm comfortable that I've confronted how I feel about killing and eating animals, and have arrived at a position which leaves me no feelings of hypocrisy or ethical dilemmas.

In Germany, at the conclusion of a successful day's hunting, the animals are lined up, their wounds are covered, each one has a green sprig in its mouth (the last bite), bonfires are lit at the corners of the formation and the hunting horns are sounded in thanks, and as a salute. It's a very touching sign of their appreciation, and all animals are used for food. Fundamentally, we hunt because we want to. It's not about the killing, or the blood, or any pleasure in such things, but the sights, sounds and smells, the thrill and shaking hands, the moments of silence and things nobody else can feel or see. Lastly, we hunt, not to kill, but in order not to have played golf.

Einhard

The argument that killing for meat is somehow a lesser evil than killing for pleasure through hunting, seems to me to miss the fact that eating meat is not a necessity for the majority of people. I'm fairly confident in stating that those omnivores in this thread partake of meat because they like the taste, and not from dietary necessity. They, like me, enjoy the taste. We derive pleasure from the taste of meat. And so, animals are killed for our pleasure. How exactly is this so much more ethically correct than the hunters who derive pleasure from the kill? Both instincts lead to the same result, and both originate in a need to satiate our desires- one for the taste of meat, and the other for the thrill of the hunt. So, I'm curious as to how people distinguish between the two, and assign seemingly arbitrary moral weights to both.

It wasn't me!

Einhard wrote: »

The argument that killing for meat is somehow a lesser evil than killing for pleasure through hunting, seems to me to miss the fact that eating meat is not a necessity for the majority of people. I'm fairly confident in stating that those omnivores in this thread partake of meat because they like the taste, and not from dietary necessity. They, like me, enjoy the taste. We derive pleasure from the taste of meat. And so, animals are killed for our pleasure. How exactly is this so much more ethically correct than the hunters who derive pleasure from the kill? Both instincts lead to the same result, and both originate in a need to satiate our desires- one for the taste of meat, and the other for the thrill of the hunt. So, I'm curious as to how people distinguish between the two, and assign seemingly arbitrary moral weights to both.

This is something I spent some time thinking about a long while back, and to be honest, I pretty much arrived at the same conclusion. What I do, I do because I enjoy it. Not the killing, but the hunting. Some of my favourite hunts I never killed a single thing, but the experiences were fantastic. In the end I decided that, for whatever reason we come to killing an animal, the only thing that matters is that it's done with due diligence. Hypothetically, if the animal were capable of debating its own fate, the reason we want to kill it would be completely immaterial; the fact that we want to would be the only significant issue. As such, I can't see that my killing a deer, pheasant or rabbit is any different to anyone else killing a fox or a rat or an impala or a cape buffalo or an elephant in terms of the ethics of killing it in the first place.

Galwayguy35

I was watching a programme last night about the native people who live in the Canadian Artic, at first I thought it was sad to hear they were hunting a polar bear but it turns out that they are allowed tohunt a small quota every year and they make use of every part of the bear.

They have been doing this for thousands of years and only select males and females without cubs to sustain the population.

Sadly rich Americans are exploiting a loophole in the law and offer $25,000 to some of these people so they can shoot a bear from the bear quota that the natives are allowed to kill.