Jump to content

Morality of Hunting and Sport Fishing


Recommended Posts

So non-American citizens aren't allowed to have an opinion? So much for "freedom", eh?

Jeez...

In my experience, right-wingers of any nationality only care about their freedom to impose their attitudes and will upon others. Unfortunately, many of my fellow left-wingers feel the same. sad.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technicaly we of North, South, and Central America are Americans! I am a U.S. citizen AND also

an American as are Canadians, Mexicans,Panamanians, Bolivians, Columbians, etc.---John

While technically true, the term "American", without any modifier, has universally and practically used to describe the nationality of a person from what are now the United States of America since decades before the Declaration of Independence was signed. Unless someone is trying to make a point of some sort, North, South, Central etc. is added in front of "American" to specify someone who isn't from the USA. Words only mean what people accept them to mean, picking nits won't change anybody's usage, otherwise 'decimate', 'massive', 'literally', 'ultimate' wouldn't be used as they commonly are - that is, in a manner other than their literal meaning.

By the way, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, directly. Its intent is to try to make it impossible for a government to rule in the US without citizen consent. If the government gets bad enough, the populace has the means to remove it. (well, at least make them think long and hard before starting something like arbitrary, wide spread confiscation of property)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Na lingua portugesa, nos falamos que as pessoas dos Estados Unidos sao "Norte Americanos."

In the Portuguese language, we say that the people of the United States are North Americans.

Hell, we can't even be sure of where the Name America came from; was is from a Western European mercheant of the 16th century or was it from a South European explorer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, directly. Its intent is to try to make it impossible for a government to rule in the US without citizen consent. If the government gets bad enough, the populace has the means to remove it.

As we saw in 1963 I suppose.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're ever able to clone a wooly mammoth, saber tooth tiger, or heaven forbid a dinosaur....it'll be hunters that sustain the large herds on private lands. Just look at what's being done in Texas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to go back to the original question of whether hunting and fishing for "sport" is immoral. The question can't help but make you think about how you feel about certain aspects of hunting and fishing. It also raises the question, What is "sport?"

You won't find "sport" on the definitions page of the hunting and fishing regulations. Questions of morality, we have to decide for ourselves. And I think most of us would prefer that the government stay out of legislating morality.

I've found that, even though I get great self-pleasure in doing some things, I've noticed that my doing these things sometimes deprives or agitates others in some way. Take back-yard target shooting. If your nearest neighbor lives a mile away, and if you have a safe backstop, you can probably safely shoot without offending anyone. However, if you have neighbors living close enough that the noise of you shooting, and the fear you generate by doing so, makes shooting a moral issue. Shooting loud fireworks is another. Even if it's legal, maybe you shouldn't be doing it.

When you get into the "blood sports," which include both hunting and fishing, no end of moral questions arise. Some involve how you treat others. On those, applying the "Golden Rule" usually is enough. But others might involve something to do with fish, wildlife or their habitat. Fishing or hunting in complete ignorance about the fish, wildlife or its habitat is something that should never be done, but it happens. This is why virtually all states now require hunter education before issuing a hunting license. Most people don't kill things just because they can, but it happens.

One reason I quit hunting is that I couldn't find a hunting partner who shared my views of what was right and what wasn't. Trouble is, the older I get, the more views I seem to have. :rolleyes:

When people were thin upon the ground, there were fewer moral issues. The more people there are, the more moral issues we'll have to decide. I don't envy my grandchildren.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Na lingua portugesa, nos falamos que as pessoas dos Estados Unidos sao "Norte Americanos."

In the Portuguese language, we say that the people of the United States are North Americans.

Hell, we can't even be sure of where the Name America came from; was is from a Western European mercheant of the 16th century or was it from a South European explorer?

Amerigo Vespucci

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing that complicates it is the issue of 'animal rights'. The concept of rights is an entirely human construct that exists nowhere in nature, and never has. To illustrate that point: does a mother cheetah have a 'right' to hunt down and kill a gazelle to feed its family, or does the gazelle have a 'right' to escape uneaten? As we sit here, all around the world predator/prey relationships are being played out, and many are far more brutal than anything human hunters do. The cape hunting dog of Africa uses a pack strategy to injure something like a wildebeest, to prevent it from escaping, and then starts ripping it open and consuming it while it is still alive. It suffers a lingering and horrific death. Not many ducks or deer are put through that by a rifle or shotgun.

As we are a democratic society (I hope), we can discuss the issue, and if a majority wishes to extend rights to species other than Homo sapiens, then we may. I am certainly in favour of extending rights to the environment as a whole: the right to not be destroyed, over-exploited, polluted, etc. By protecting the environment we are protecting ourselves, because we cannot survive without it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

elephant herds are culled twelve months a year by local governments. Somebody figured out that they could sell a permit for a huge sum of money years back, and let somebody else do the dirty work. When they do this, 98% of the elephant is harvested and used in the local populations. Otherwise they would eat themselves out of food in no time. I would pay very little attention to what some outside group has to say about the situation as they tend to have their own agenda. The money from an elephant hunt goes strait back in the elephant conservation (about 95% right now). Nobody really knows how many wild Asian elephant ever existed. Never was a huge amount in the first place.

gary

Therein is a perplexing question. Why would anybody actually want to kill an elephant in the first place? "Conservation" aside (which I am highly skeptical of), some people actually enjoy killing for killing sake. There's no real sport if you're shooting a high powered rifle at an animal the size of a Mack truck. That is not hunting. That is just killing things.

BTW, I have been a hunter for 45 years, so I'm not a tree hugger. I used to hunt ducks and geese, but now just upland birds, because I no longer enjoy duck or goose meat. I have never hunted deer, but I have no problem with others doing so, because there are way too many deer around where I live and deer hunters usually eat all the meat they harvest. Going to Africa and shooting all sorts of beautiful animals for "sport" is just plain gross in my books. Please don't tell me that all the meat is saved and enjoyed by local tribesmen, etc., so this "hunting" is OK. If you shoot a Zebra, for instance, you are just a killer.

:soapbox:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Therein is a perplexing question. Why would anybody actually want to kill an elephant in the first place? "Conservation" aside (which I am highly skeptical of), some people actually enjoy killing for killing sake. There's no real sport if you're shooting a high powered rifle at an animal the size of a Mack truck. That is not hunting. That is just killing things.

BTW, I have been a hunter for 45 years, so I'm not a tree hugger. I used to hunt ducks and geese, but now just upland birds, because I no longer enjoy duck or goose meat. I have never hunted deer, but I have no problem with others doing so, because there are way too many deer around where I live and deer hunters usually eat all the meat they harvest. Going to Africa and shooting all sorts of beautiful animals for "sport" is just plain gross in my books. Please don't tell me that all the meat is saved and enjoyed by local tribesmen, etc., so this "hunting" is OK. If you shoot a Zebra, for instance, you are just a killer.

:soapbox:/>

In areas where they have banned the hunting of elephants the herd population has decreased dramatically. Kenya went from 167,000 to 27,000 in 40 years and that population is expected to become extinct within the next two decades. Where as in Botswana where they regulated hunting the population grew from 8,000 to over 154,000 in the same time frame. Other countries that regulate hunting of elephants have seen about the same percentage of growth. The only thing sustaining these species in mass is the millions poured in by hunters and the local industry built around it. Some people enjoy the thrill of the hunt and kill, more power to them, it's only an animal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to go back to the original question of whether hunting and fishing for "sport" is immoral. The question can't help but make you think about how you feel about certain aspects of hunting and fishing. It also raises the question, What is "sport?"

You won't find "sport" on the definitions page of the hunting and fishing regulations. Questions of morality, we have to decide for ourselves. And I think most of us would prefer that the government stay out of legislating morality.

Also, what is "immoral"? I'm not sure what this means in the context of hunting.

I hunt pheasants mostly because they are an introduced bird that is not endangered (and never will be), they are VERY hard to flush and kill and they are delicious. A pheasant flushed around me has at least a 50% chance of survival and I'm a pretty good shot. A pheasant has a far better life than the chicken I eat at KFC before they expire and the only reason they even exist in North America is that they were introduced specifically for hunting. What is "immoral" about that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In areas where they have banned the hunting of elephants the herd population has decreased dramatically. Kenya went from 167,000 to 27,000 in 40 years and that population is expected to become extinct within the next two decades. Where as in Botswana where they regulated hunting the population grew from 8,000 to over 154,000 in the same time frame. Other countries that regulate hunting of elephants have seen about the same percentage of growth. The only thing sustaining these species in mass is the millions poured in by hunters and the local industry built around it. Some people enjoy the thrill of the hunt and kill, more power to them, it's only an animal.

Wow, "it's only an animal". Again, why would anybody enjoy killing an elephant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, "it's only an animal". Again, why would anybody enjoy killing an elephant?

I don't know, it's not my cup of tea because of the expense, but if someone enjoys it then why not? Hemmingway and Roosevelt wrote and loved the thrill of the hunt...might want to start off with those two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While technically true, the term "American", without any modifier, has universally and practically used to describe the nationality of a person from what are now the United States of America since decades before the Declaration of Independence was signed. Unless someone is trying to make a point of some sort, North, South, Central etc. is added in front of "American" to specify someone who isn't from the USA. Words only mean what people accept them to mean, picking nits won't change anybody's usage, otherwise 'decimate', 'massive', 'literally', 'ultimate' wouldn't be used as they commonly are - that is, in a manner other than their literal meaning.

By the way, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, directly. Its intent is to try to make it impossible for a government to rule in the US without citizen consent. If the government gets bad enough, the populace has the means to remove it. (well, at least make them think long and hard before starting something like arbitrary, wide spread confiscation of property)

You are correct Sir. This was inspired by the shedding of the monarchial form of government with the the Declaration of Independence. The founders of our nation wanted there to be no possibility that the people of the country be ever again be unjustly controlled due to not having any means to resist. I might add that the 2nd Amendment also applies to the formation of militias so that regular citizens can help defend the country if attacked by a foreign power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, right-wingers of any nationality only care about their freedom to impose their attitudes and will upon others. Unfortunately, many of my fellow left-wingers feel the same. sad.gif

Might want to rethink that except that the left wingers are doing it and the folks on the right are mostly not. People on the right are generally not imposing anything. The are defending already established individual freedoms, private assets, and liberties, as well as protecting traditional values that are proven conventional wisdoms. The intolerence is on the left and it is the left that wants to do all of the imposing....high taxation to support Obamacare, welfare, and other income redistribution programs, changing the definition of marriage whose basic meaning has been understood by most cultures across the entire planet for thousands of years, insisting that any harmless religious icon (like the ten commandments) be removed from state buildings, removing Confederate battle flags from places of southern honor (slavery existed for much longer under the American flag than it ever did under the Confederacy...want to ban Old Glory too?), outlawing (in effect) Christmas in schools by calling it "Winter Break" and a "Holiday Tree," opening up our borders to all comers without a proper vetting in order to increase liberal Democratic voter bases. When it was convenient, the Democrats defended slavery and fought tooth and nail against its abolition, promoted segregation throughout society, and argued against allowing minorities to vote. They introduced and to this day still champion moral relativism and so called "social justice" policies that are underachievement enabling, promote so called "white guilt" and reverse discrimination despite it being unconstitutional to do so, and completely reject any notion of personal accountability or individual, generational, or cultural Darwinism. They largely view capitalism as a grave, exploitive, unjust evil.

The left dislikes most of what made America great and culturally defines us. They are doing their best to tear it all down and rebuild it as a socialist nation, with a permanent, government dependent class. Frankly, they are succeeding. If that is what you want, vote Democrat in 2016

There are some on the right who are short sighted as well, specifically with regards to immigration (cheap undocumented labor) and overseas trade opportunism (again, cheap labor). They aren't any friends of mine, either.

Edited by DutyCat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, it's not my cup of tea because of the expense, but if someone enjoys it then why not? Hemmingway and Roosevelt wrote and loved the thrill of the hunt...might want to start off with those two.

Sorry to be so redundant, but why would somebody "enjoy it" in this day and age? We used to drive around with no seat belts and smoking was no big deal in the Hemmingway era, but that is now frowned on with good reason. I stand by my assertion, if you want to kill a Zebra for no good reason other than for "sport", you do it because you must like to kill things. How am I wrong?

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to be so redundant, but why would somebody "enjoy it" in this day and age? We used to drive around with no seat belts and smoking was no big deal in the Hemmingway era, but that is now frowned on with good reason. I stand by my assertion, if you want to kill a Zebra for no good reason other than for "sport", you do it because you must like to kill things. How am I wrong?

I'm sure some do like to kill, but most like to hunt. I suggested both Hemingway and Roosevelt because they both wrote about the thrill of the hunt. The kill was the culminating event, what led up to the trigger being squeezed is why people spend billions on this sport.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure some do like to kill, but most like to hunt. I suggested both Hemingway and Roosevelt because they both wrote about the thrill of the hunt. The kill was the culminating event, what led up to the trigger being squeezed is why people spend billions on this sport.

One of the many essays I wrote in university (a million years ago) was about cougars and how they were hunted. Roosevelt killed a LOT of them and there are many photos of him standing over these cats with blood wounds all over the place. As an American President, I'm guessing the "thrill of the hunt" wasn't all that much, because the ultimate conclusion was almost guaranteed before Roosevelt even thought about loading his gun. Hunting dogs did all the work and the cougars were shot out of the sky after they were treed. No running shots, no long range shots, just a shot from maybe 20 yards away with dogs barking at the base of a tree. I get that this behaviour was OK and likely even thought of as a positive event during these ancient times. However, a cougar hunter today is both rare and not reverred for good reason.

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I have to agree. Killing anything you're not going to eat is just pointless. It's the ultimate in short Johnson syndrome. I mean "Why?" no one has actually answered that. Killing just because you can is bordering on moronic, correction, it is moronic. The thrill of the hunt? You can get that killing a duck or deer that our going to eat. Killing lions, tigers etc is just wrong.

Edited by Crazy Snap Captain
Link to post
Share on other sites

In areas where they have banned the hunting of elephants the herd population has decreased dramatically. Kenya went from 167,000 to 27,000 in 40 years and that population is expected to become extinct within the next two decades. Where as in Botswana where they regulated hunting the population grew from 8,000 to over 154,000 in the same time frame. Other countries that regulate hunting of elephants have seen about the same percentage of growth. The only thing sustaining these species in mass is the millions poured in by hunters and the local industry built around it. Some people enjoy the thrill of the hunt and kill, more power to them, it's only an animal.

The decline in elephant numbers, and in fact most types of animals in Africa, has been dominated by the effects of poaching, and to a smaller but still very significant extent, encroachment of human development into their natural habitat. In countries where the animals are protected and where anti-poaching is taken seriously, such as South Africa and Botswana, the numbers generally tend to stabilise.

Professional hunting is one way in which to make conservation profitable, especially for smaller game farms, but it is only one such mechanism. One of my friends own a game farm in the Northern part of South Africa, against the border with Zimbabwe, and he does not allow hunting on the farm except very occasionally for some of our company clients and some of his close friends. And then only certain animals are allowed to be hunted: Certainly not the small number of leopards who live there, nor the elephants that occasionally move through the area. He makes no money out of the game. The game part of the farm is sustained by a second part where he grows lucern - he simply keeps the game part as his own personal bush retreat and a place to take our more valuable clients. There are many game farms around South Africa like that and their existence is clearly not driven by trophy hunting.

In the case of elephants, the main economical driver to their conservation is not hunting but tourism, and because of the size of the animals and the amount that they eat, the majority of the conservation is happening in the large national parks and not private game farms where hunting takes place. Those parks do not allow hunting, but culling is unfortunately unavoidable in most of them. Culling is not hunting, by the way - usually entire heards are slaughtered to control the numbers, but it is done scientifically and as rarely as possible. In places like Botswana and Namibia it is also mostly in the large conservation areas where the numbers are improving, regardless of whether or not hunting is allowed.

Back to Botswana specifically, if you want to know why elephant numbers there are so high, here is an overview:

http://www.botswana.co.za/Botswana_Wildlife_Behaviour-travel/elephants-of-botswana.html

As you can see, it is mostly due to their tough stance against poaching.

Here is a quote from that article about one particular area:

"The Linyanti area of Botswana was once a hunting concession but in the past 10 years, with only photographic tourism been offered there, the elephants are starting to return en masse to the region and Linyanti today is being touted as equal to Chobe when it comes to elephant experience.

I am not against hunting at all. Although I don't enjoy shooting the animals myself, I have been along on hunts many times to help with tracking or simply to just enjoy the African bush. However, I wouldn't overstate the value of hunting in conservation: It is one tool and one incentive that drives conservation, but it is not the only one and it is not the biggest one, especially now in more modern times. In countries that are more developed and stable, such as South Africa, Botswana or Namibia, for each visitor that comes to hunt, there are thousands of tourists that come simply to see the animals in their natural habitat and to experience the bush.

The biggest threat to the animal populations in Africa is still poaching. At the moment we have a very serious problem in South Africa with Rhino poachers. Apparently, some people from the Far East believe the horns have all sorts of medicinal properties, and they pay massive amounts of money to obtain powdered Rhino horns. They then hire poor locals or often people from neighbouring countries like Zimbabwe and Mosambique to do their poaching for them, and they poach anywhere, including in the national parks. At the moment the policy is pretty much to shoot the poachers on sight, and we have even based special forces in the larger game parks to capture or kill the poachers. We also use manned aircraft, UAVs and various other methods to try and stop it, but it is a difficult war to win as it seems the poor people hired to do the poaching don't think twice about risking their lives for a quick buck, and the people who hire them see them as pretty much expendable.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/11/rhino-poaching-in-south-africa-at-record-levels-following-18-rise-in-killings

Link to post
Share on other sites

My background - I grew up as a Graziers son, so for me killing animals is work, not pleasure. I currently hunt feral animals on my family property, and help out friends when they have need to destroy pests. I'll dress the odd pig, goat or a few rabbits for dog food, and the occasional deer (only a problem at one friends property), but most of the cats, pigs, goats and dogs I shoot end up as fertiliser. I've fished all my life, for food and sport, from chasing small (but legal) fish, to catching an estimated 300Kg Black Marlin.

I have no problem with people hunting, as long as it's done sensibly, and within reason. I abhor the drunken idiots who go out only to kill, racking up large numbers of dead animals and empty cans.

Personally I have no desire to go big game hunting in Africa, but have accompanied a friend on one of his trips. He was hunting a bull giraffe. We where given a week to get to SA and then spent 10 days tracking the Giraffe before my friend killed it.

The giraffe was old, beyond breeding age and was at the stage of life where death was imminent.

The costs involved where about $350 per day for the hunter, $150 per day each for myself, my wife and his wife as observers. The licence fee for the giraffe was $3000, so in total about $15,000 was injected into the community in a bit under a fortnight. There where other costs involved in dressing the animal, which again went straight back to the community, as did the meat from the giraffe. My friend took home the pelt, which was treated locally.

As I mentioned, we spent about 10 days stalking the giraffe, seeing many other animals, and the only trigger fired was that on our cameras intil the 2 shots fired into the giraffe.

Now, why did I mention the money? Well, it gives a great incentive to the locals to actively fight poaching, and to manage the animals that are native to the area. Without that incentive there would be far fewer animals alive today. My only issue was that by killing and removing the Giraffe it denied predators an easy kill, but as a guide mentioned, removing 1 or 2 of the weakest animals per week has very little impact, there are more than enough natural deaths amongst the herds to feed the thriving lion, leopard and Hyena population.

Now I understand and empathise with people who feel that killing any animal is wrong, but on balance I see that the death of one will help the survival of not only one species, but numerous others, so whilst I have no desire to kill any native species, I can reconcile why it happens, and applaud those who manage the ecosystem as efficiently as they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you be sure it wasn't the Welshman known as Richard Ameryk?

I don't.....and neither do you. And your point is?---John

Edited by john53
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...