Is sport hunting and fishing inhumane?

[Jugernot]

I personally can't say that I've ever had a desire to shoot an animal for sport, unless of course I was going to eat it. I used to like fishing until I learned how many died after you put them back in the water... if I remember correctly there was an article in Bass Pro Shops saying something like 65% of fish caught and put back died because of incorrect handling and or just plain having their bodies ripped apart by lures.

As for hunting, I had a friend who bragged about going out every weekend to shoot as many animals as he could (moose, rabbits, and caribou in his case). He would laugh about watching them die and them gasping for air and making all kinds of screaming sounds.... needless to say, I haven't talked to him since.

Is it inhumane to shoot game (or other animals) just for the fun of it and leave them without taking the meat? Or I'll even take it a step further, is it inhumane to kill an animal just for it's antlers?

Whadya think?

 

[notfred]

Yeah, you shouldn't kill things without reason. If you need to eat it, or it's killing your chickens or something, go ahead, but there's no reason to jsut shoot as many animals as you can for target practice.

 

[gentobu]

Is hunting/fishing inhumane if you don't eat the meat?

I think its a waste. I've never gone hunting/fishing without taking the meat.

 

[KK]

I used to shoot groundhogs for fun. The farmers didn't care for them as they could tear up their tractors. That was probably the only animal I have shot for the fun of it, other than birds with my bb gun. Killing caribou and meeses for fun sounds pretty wasteful to me though.

KK

 

[datalink7]

Well, I don't know about "inhumane," but it is totally wasteful which I believe is immoral on some level.

 

[Occifer]

I don't hunt but I don't have a problem with it. When I fish I usually just throw em back, unless it's a big tasty salmon or something. A properly hooked fish will be fine when you put it back.

 

[WalMart1564]

i dont kill it unless its a menace (ie vermin) or im going to eat it

ok ok i killed a cat once but i can make a case for it being a menace 😛

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: datalink7
Well, I don't know about "inhumane," but it is totally wasteful which I believe is immoral on some level.

This is the best answer so far in the thread, given that Jugernot has not defined what he meant by "inhumane". The dictionary.com definition is "lacking pity or compassion". By this definition, I'd say (and I voted) that sport hunting and fishing is not inhumane (though fishing is iffy).

 

[Bulk Beef]

I'd have to agree w/datalink. It's not necessarily inhumane, but definitely immoral. OTOH,

He would laugh about watching them die and them gasping for air and making all kinds of screaming sounds

is absolutely inhumane. Your "friend" is a sadistic a-hole.

 

[Mandrill]

People kill kittens but don't eat them. does that make them inhumane?

 

[Tominator]

Without deer hunters millions of deer would die from disease brought on by over population. Many use the meat and many do not. Hunting deer is the best way to keep control of the population.

I've fished for some species of sport fish and caught them by the hundreds. All were thrown onto the bamk. Over population.


Taxes from hunting and fishing fees and excise taxes on equipment fund nearly all the efforts to save species who might otherwise become extinct in the US.

Inhumane? Immoral? Hardly!

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

It's quite human to want to cause pain and death. We like suffering in others.
Hunting humans is the most fun still, as animals don't grovel and beg to be spared before you torture them to death.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Tominator
Without deer hunters millions of deer would die from disease brought on by over population. Many use the meat and many do not. Hunting deer is the best way to keep control of the population.

I've fished for some species of sport fish and caught them by the hundreds. All were thrown onto the bamk. Over population.


Taxes from hunting and fishing fees and excise taxes on equipment fund nearly all the efforts to save species who might otherwise become extinct in the US.

Inhumane? Immoral? Hardly!

But therein lies the distinction. Hunting deer for population control has a purpose. Hunting deer just to kill it does not.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Tominator
Without deer hunters millions of deer would die from disease brought on by over population. Many use the meat and many do not. Hunting deer is the best way to keep control of the population.

I've fished for some species of sport fish and caught them by the hundreds. All were thrown onto the bamk. Over population.


Taxes from hunting and fishing fees and excise taxes on equipment fund nearly all the efforts to save species who might otherwise become extinct in the US.

Inhumane? Immoral? Hardly!

But therein lies the distinction. Hunting deer for population control has a purpose. Hunting deer just to kill it does not.

Wow then would you make that distinction? In times past many hunters donated the meat to old folks homes and soup kitchens. Fear of sanitation problems have lead to state laws banning the practice.

If you kill a deer many miles out in the boonies and it would nearly be impossible to get the meat out, your idea of morality fades in the face of practicality.

Maybe this group should ask itself in the winter do you put out bird feaders and if not are you immoral? I'd bet all those voting yes to the posted question do very little if anything to actually help their fewllow creatures except deride the ones that indeed do something!

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Tominator
Without deer hunters millions of deer would die from disease brought on by over population. Many use the meat and many do not. Hunting deer is the best way to keep control of the population.

I've fished for some species of sport fish and caught them by the hundreds. All were thrown onto the bamk. Over population.


Taxes from hunting and fishing fees and excise taxes on equipment fund nearly all the efforts to save species who might otherwise become extinct in the US.

Inhumane? Immoral? Hardly!

But therein lies the distinction. Hunting deer for population control has a purpose. Hunting deer just to kill it does not.

Wow then would you make that distinction? In times past many hunters donated the meat to old folks homes and soup kitchens. Fear of sanitation problems have lead to state laws banning the practice.

If you kill a deer many miles out in the boonies and it would nearly be impossible to get the meat out, your idea of morality fades in the face of practicality.

Maybe this group should ask itself in the winter do you put out bird feaders and if not are you immoral? I'd bet all those voting yes to the posted question do very little if anything to actually help their fewllow creatures except deride the ones that indeed do something!

I hold that killing a deer with no purpose other than the killing itself is immoral (and not that I'm not talking about a huge trangression here or something. If I meet someone who hunts I'm not going to go "you are a bastard who should be in jail.") If you can't get the meat out, or aren't doing it for population control, then why are you killing a deer "out in the boonies"?

And there is a difference between going out and shooting something, and not putting out a bird feeder. One is actively killing, the other is not interfereing with the natural cource of events. I don't really see the connection.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Tominator
Without deer hunters millions of deer would die from disease brought on by over population. Many use the meat and many do not. Hunting deer is the best way to keep control of the population.

I've fished for some species of sport fish and caught them by the hundreds. All were thrown onto the bamk. Over population.


Taxes from hunting and fishing fees and excise taxes on equipment fund nearly all the efforts to save species who might otherwise become extinct in the US.

Inhumane? Immoral? Hardly!

But therein lies the distinction. Hunting deer for population control has a purpose. Hunting deer just to kill it does not.

Wow then would you make that distinction? In times past many hunters donated the meat to old folks homes and soup kitchens. Fear of sanitation problems have lead to state laws banning the practice.

If you kill a deer many miles out in the boonies and it would nearly be impossible to get the meat out, your idea of morality fades in the face of practicality.

Maybe this group should ask itself in the winter do you put out bird feaders and if not are you immoral? I'd bet all those voting yes to the posted question do very little if anything to actually help their fewllow creatures except deride the ones that indeed do something!

I don't bring food to all other humans. I guess that means I am guilty of killing 6 billion human beings?
I don't plan on feeding you, so the law should allow me to kill you without getting punished? I'd love to see a law like that, would quickly take care of human overpopulation.

 

[Tominator]

And there is a difference between going out and shooting something, and not putting out a bird feeder. One is actively killing, the other is not interfereing with the natural cource of events. I don't really see the connection.

I see a tremendous connection!

If you see someone killing another and do nothing but watch are you any different than the killer?

You've opened a rather large can-o-worms!

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Tominator
Without deer hunters millions of deer would die from disease brought on by over population. Many use the meat and many do not. Hunting deer is the best way to keep control of the population.

I've fished for some species of sport fish and caught them by the hundreds. All were thrown onto the bamk. Over population.


Taxes from hunting and fishing fees and excise taxes on equipment fund nearly all the efforts to save species who might otherwise become extinct in the US.

Inhumane? Immoral? Hardly!

But therein lies the distinction. Hunting deer for population control has a purpose. Hunting deer just to kill it does not.

You are incorrect. The purpose then is to experience killing a deer. To you, that purpose may be immoral, but it is still purpose.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Tominator
Without deer hunters millions of deer would die from disease brought on by over population. Many use the meat and many do not. Hunting deer is the best way to keep control of the population.

I've fished for some species of sport fish and caught them by the hundreds. All were thrown onto the bamk. Over population.


Taxes from hunting and fishing fees and excise taxes on equipment fund nearly all the efforts to save species who might otherwise become extinct in the US.

Inhumane? Immoral? Hardly!

But therein lies the distinction. Hunting deer for population control has a purpose. Hunting deer just to kill it does not.

You are incorrect. The purpose then is to experience killing a deer. To you, that purpose may be immoral, but it is still purpose.

Well, I wasn't entirely clear perhaps. I was meaning a "global" or "worldly" purpose, as opposed to a personal purpose.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Tominator

And there is a difference between going out and shooting something, and not putting out a bird feeder. One is actively killing, the other is not interfereing with the natural cource of events. I don't really see the connection.

I see a tremendous connection!

If you see someone killing another and do nothing but watch are you any different than the killer?

You've opened a rather large can-o-worms!

But who is killing the birds?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Tominator

And there is a difference between going out and shooting something, and not putting out a bird feeder. One is actively killing, the other is not interfereing with the natural cource of events. I don't really see the connection.

I see a tremendous connection!

If you see someone killing another and do nothing but watch are you any different than the killer?

You've opened a rather large can-o-worms!

But who is killing the birds?

He thinks bird cannot live without the food from birdfeeders. Didn't you know they sprung into existance when someone invented the bird feeder? And that there are no birds in places without humans?

 

[datalink7]

If you see someone killing another and do nothing but watch are you any different than the killer?

btw... I agree with this statement [that you are just as culpable as the killer if you don't do anything]. Probably the best reason for the war with Iraq IMO.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Tominator
Without deer hunters millions of deer would die from disease brought on by over population. Many use the meat and many do not. Hunting deer is the best way to keep control of the population.

I've fished for some species of sport fish and caught them by the hundreds. All were thrown onto the bamk. Over population.


Taxes from hunting and fishing fees and excise taxes on equipment fund nearly all the efforts to save species who might otherwise become extinct in the US.

Inhumane? Immoral? Hardly!

But therein lies the distinction. Hunting deer for population control has a purpose. Hunting deer just to kill it does not.

You are incorrect. The purpose then is to experience killing a deer. To you, that purpose may be immoral, but it is still purpose.

Well, I wasn't entirely clear perhaps. I was meaning a "global" or "worldly" purpose, as opposed to a personal purpose.

The question then would be why someone would want or need to experience killing a deer. It can have global purpose if it is done for a cause (some kind of sniper training, perhaps); there may be some great need for that person to experience what it is like to kill something in that fashion.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Tominator
Without deer hunters millions of deer would die from disease brought on by over population. Many use the meat and many do not. Hunting deer is the best way to keep control of the population.

I've fished for some species of sport fish and caught them by the hundreds. All were thrown onto the bamk. Over population.


Taxes from hunting and fishing fees and excise taxes on equipment fund nearly all the efforts to save species who might otherwise become extinct in the US.

Inhumane? Immoral? Hardly!

But therein lies the distinction. Hunting deer for population control has a purpose. Hunting deer just to kill it does not.

You are incorrect. The purpose then is to experience killing a deer. To you, that purpose may be immoral, but it is still purpose.

Well, I wasn't entirely clear perhaps. I was meaning a "global" or "worldly" purpose, as opposed to a personal purpose.

The question then would be why someone would want or need to experience killing a deer. It can have global purpose if it is done for a cause (some kind of sniper training, perhaps); there may be some great need for that person to experience what it is like to kill something in that fashion.

Perhaps I can concede a bit of this point as to my poor word choice, and rephrase.

Hunting deer with no other reason than to kill for personal pleasure shows irresponsibility and wastefulness, and thus exibts some sort of immorality (according to my standards) on some level.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

I'd like to see a TV show where people would be placed in an area a few square miles with weapons of their choice, and that the last one standing would get a substantial amount of cash. Those playing would be volunteers of course, and would have to sign an agreement that they'd take full responsibility for their lives and deeds, so no one could get sued.

Hell, I'd sign up for the show too.