Is sport hunting and fishing inhumane?

[Tominator]

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?

Not who, what! Wildlife of all kinds are fed with humans expansion into their environment. Our crops and trees that we plant feed them in the summer with an abundant food supply. Once that supply is diminished by weather are you inmumane for not feeding them? Using your reasoning, you indeed are since you eat food grown by farmers and that has increased the population. Lack of food leads to starvation. Isn't that cruel when you have the means to influence their survival by something as simple as a bird feeder?

Although because of technology humans have the largest influence on wildlife and the environment in general, it does not mean we are an outside influence. We are as much a part of nature as any other species.


Killing is as much a part of nature as eating. Not all species kill just for food so don't lay that old argument on me.

If you want to judge others here you best be prepared to judge yourself against those the same arguments. If you get food from a store you are as guilty as any hunter and in fact I'd argue more so.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Tominator

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?

Not who, what! Wildlife of all kinds are fed with humans expansion into their environment. Our crops and trees that we plant feed them in the summer with an abundant food supply. Once that supply is diminished by weather are you inmumane for not feeding them? Using your reasoning, you indeed are since you eat food grown by farmers and that has increased the population. Lack of food leads to starvation. Isn't that cruel when you have the means to influence their survival by something as simple as a bird feeder?

Although because of technology humans have the largest influence on wildlife and the environment in general, it does not mean we are an outside influence. We are as much a part of nature as any other species.


Killing is as much a part of nature as eating. Not all species kill just for food so don't lay that old argument on me.

If you want to judge others here you best be prepared to judge yourself against those the same arguments. If you get food from a store you are as guilty as any hunter and in fact I'd argue more so.

I specifically noted (or more implied) above that the killing is not inhumane. I don't put animals on the same level as humans. (I voted "no" on the poll above)

My argument doesn't revolve around hurt or the actual animals lives... I am a meat eater and thus would be hypocritical to say that killing animals is "inhumane."

What I am saying is the byproduct, this being waste and uselessness, of a uneccesary killing is wrong in some fashion.

Perhaps you misunderstood me?

Birds can fend for themselves in the winter. If they die, they die. Things die, people should get over it 🙂

 

[B00ne]

ok, first I wanted to vote No - off course its not inhumane to do, but after I read your statement specifying the question in the poll I have to vote YES. This type of killing is sensless, unhumane and environmentally ignorant.


as for your "friend" - what a sicko

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: B00ne
ok, first I wanted to vote No - off course its not inhumane to do, but after I read your statement specifying the question in the poll I have to vote YES. This type of killing is sensless, unhumane and environmentally ignorant.


as for your "friend" - what a sicko

I would say the the original question was environmentally ignorant!

 

[Bulk Beef]

I would say the the original question was environmentally ignorant!

ok, what if the original question were "killing for it's own sake", which I think would include trophy hunting?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: axiom
Besides man, do any other animals hunt for sport?

Sharks? Tigers? Bears?

As I said, it's a very humane thing to do, only humans kill for pleasure. But then, we are created in God's image, so God condones meaningless killing.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: axiom
Besides man, do any other animals hunt for sport?

Sharks? Tigers? Bears?

Cats? Yes and that includes tigers.

Chimpanzees kill needlessly. Kidnaping and even torture has been attributed to them.

There are many others, but I'm off to the grind....
😎

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: axiom
No. God made man superior to every other living creature on this planet, but they all have a purpose. The bounty of the wildlife is the fruit of life. Abusing the resources given to man is wrong, but I would not say it is inhumane.

The statement "God made man superior to every other living creature on this planet" is not a fact, but a belief; one that requires a certain amount of faith, faith in God, faith in the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. Not everyone shares that faith or those beliefs. Even if we remove God from the statement, morphing it to "Man is superior to every other living creature on this planet", we still do not have a statement of fact because we have not defined the term "superior" clearly. We need to specify the manner in which Man is "superior".

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Yes. If I ever you see killing a living creature just for fun, I will pee on you while you line up the shot. Literally. Then I'll just say I couldn't see you through your camoflauge (sp?).
EDIT: Population control doesn't count as killing for fun in my eyes.

 

[squirrel dog]

I dont hunt much anymore,but when I did it was for the meat.Same wid fishin.

 

[MacBaine]

The whole "population control" argument is a crock... By that argument, it'd be perfectly moral for me to go to China and start firing off some rounds.

 

[FoBoT]

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

inhumane is the wrong word, they aren't "human" , they are animals

the situation you describe though it totally messed up, killing stuff just to kill is sick and wrong and VERY wasteful

and as far as catch and release, i think that is kind of silly as well. if you are going to spend all that time catching a nice fish, fry it up and eat it!

being wasteful/killing without cause/reason is just stupid

 

[CraigRT]

Sport hunting is retarded... I don't see the fun in killing animals. fishing is just plain boring.

 

[Kalvin00]

It's fun to shoot foxes or coyotes for fun. Most all big game my family shoots they eat. Same with fishing.

 

[StageLeft]

Sport fishing is about the gheyest thing ever. Even worse than bowling. If you eat the fish go for it. But catching a fish with a comparitive IQ of 4 and then going "Oh yeah!" and then throwing it back? Man, that's sad.

 

[bigdog1218]

The whole "population control" argument is a crock... By that argument, it'd be perfectly moral for me to go to China and start firing off some rounds.

Don't say anything if you have no idea what you're talking about. The deer population would be near extinction if it wasn't for the interference of hunters. In the majority of the US deer have no natural predators and are able to reproduce as much as they want. Hunters, whether they hunt for sport or for food, control this population and are a vital part of the survival of deer in this country. The current 2002-2003 hunting season in New York has about 600,000 big game hunters. The state of New York introduced new bagging limits based on seasons to control the amount of bucks taken in any season, and throughout the year. Most states have similiar techniques used to balance the amount of hunters, and deer taken every year in order to control the deer population. Every year there are slight changes, if needed, in order to control the deer population from overrunning the ever decreasing amount of land they have.

And your logic is horrible. Your logic puts deer on the same level as humans. So your basically saying that if you kill my dog with your car, I can kill you, because animal=human. Also, you say population control is a crock, but yet you believe that China is over-populated and in need of population control. So you believe that we should find another way to control deer population without killing them?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: axiom

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: axiom
No. God made man superior to every other living creature on this planet, but they all have a purpose. The bounty of the wildlife is the fruit of life. Abusing the resources given to man is wrong, but I would not say it is inhumane.

The statement "God made man superior to every other living creature on this planet" is not a fact, but a belief; one that requires a certain amount of faith, faith in God, faith in the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. Not everyone shares that faith or those beliefs. Even if we remove God from the statement, morphing it to "Man is superior to every other living creature on this planet", we still do not have a statement of fact because we have not defined the term "superior" clearly. We need to specify the manner in which Man is "superior".

STFU Humanist. Find an animal that styles their hair. Find an animal that creates computers. Find an animal that invented the wheel. Find an animal that made it to space on its own. Find an animal that can live with every other kind of animal peacefully. Find an animal that can abstain from casual sex. Now try and find an animal that does all the above. There's one. It's called man.

Take your humanist propaganda elsewhere. Mankind is of design.

Wow, you've managed to somehow pigeonhole me into your belief structure as a "Humanist", a label that to you has negative connotation. What's a Humanist?

From dictionary.com:

1. A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
2. Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans: ?the newest flower on the vine of corporate humanism? (Savvy).
3. Medicine. The concept that concern for human interests, values, and dignity is of the utmost importance to the care of the sick.
4. The study of the humanities; learning in the liberal arts.
5. Humanism A cultural and intellectual movement of the Renaissance that emphasized secular concerns as a result of the rediscovery and study of the literature, art, and civilization of ancient Greece and Rome.

How are any of the above definitions bad?

Back to the subject at hand, you've defined a number of qualities that humans can or have achieved, but you still haven't explained why those make us "superior", nor what "superior" actually means. Why does the "ability to abstain from casual sex" make us "superior" to anything else? From your point of view, because Man has evolved / been given by God the opposable thumb and the intelligence to use it to invent culture, writing, agriculture, spoken language, and the wheel, that that makes us superior. However, from a different point of view, place a human naked in the ocean and he's just food to the great white shark (an animal clearly superior in its environment than we are).

Life's purpose, if there is one, is not to serve Man.

 

[BDawg]

I think it's wrong to kill for sport even if you do eat the meat. I'm not against killing animals, but taking pleasure in it is just sick.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218

The whole "population control" argument is a crock... By that argument, it'd be perfectly moral for me to go to China and start firing off some rounds.

Don't say anything if you have no idea what you're talking about. The deer population would be near extinction if it wasn't for the interference of hunters. In the majority of the US deer have no natural predators and are able to reproduce as much as they want.

B.S. That's not the way natural population control works. If a species has few natural predators, it doesn't procreate until the entire species dies. If there are too many of a species, some survive and some die. It's the fittest who are able to best compete for the limited resources, the rest die.

 

[Dufman]

Originally posted by: 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.

that is exactally what i think too

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

your friend is a sociopath

 

[CPA]

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!

Good points. Many areas of the country have to use sport hunting to keep animal populations under control. In fact, there was recently a news segment on Bison populations becoming too large for the parks out west. Sooner or later, population control will have to take place.

The question that should be asked is: Is it more inhumane to let over-populated animals die through starvation or from sport hunting? You need to pick, because you can't have the best of both worlds.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: axiom
No. God made man superior to every other living creature on this planet, but they all have a purpose. The bounty of the wildlife is the fruit of life. Abusing the resources given to man is wrong, but I would not say it is inhumane.

The statement "God made man superior to every other living creature on this planet" is not a fact, but a belief; one that requires a certain amount of faith, faith in God, faith in the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. Not everyone shares that faith or those beliefs. Even if we remove God from the statement, morphing it to "Man is superior to every other living creature on this planet", we still do not have a statement of fact because we have not defined the term "superior" clearly. We need to specify the manner in which Man is "superior".

I do not believe in God, but man is most definitely superior to all animals. I would think you could easily argue that man is on top of the good chain, thus making them superior at the lowest level. I'd like to know what realms would you consider an animal to be superior to man.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: axiom

Originally posted by: BDawg
I think it's wrong to kill for sport even if you do eat the meat. I'm not against killing animals, but taking pleasure in it is just sick.

So don't call it sport. It's still hunting.

Call it whatever you want. If your purpose is pleasure or sport, you're a sick individual.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: MacBaine
The whole "population control" argument is a crock... By that argument, it'd be perfectly moral for me to go to China and start firing off some rounds.

Except for that small distinction between humans and animals. Oh, and the fact that in America, after we drove out the wolves and cougar and bears (for the most part), the deer have no natural predators besides humans. Unless you want to see them starve, you've got to control their population somehow. Then hippies around where I live want us to start sterilizing the deer with darts full of contraceptives. It works for a year. However, the cost is $600 per doe per year. Rather than allow people to hunt the deer, they want to spend sh!tloads of cash to sterilize them... its assine. But really, if you dont want large population swings ending with starving deer and a lot of sick deer, your choices are either sterilize them or kill them.

However, from a different point of view, place a human naked in the ocean and he's just food to the great white shark (an animal clearly superior in its environment than we are).

Hey, and if you place a great white shark in the middle of a corn field, its crow bait!