Appropriate punishment for animal cruelty

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Agreed and honestly I didn't see the name calling. You are right we all should be able to have a discussion without name calling. I didn't call anyone anything did I? I did a little drunk posting last night, maybe I should go back and read some things.

I know I don't personalize arguments....my issues aren't with hunters but with the mindset. In the past hunting was necessary, hell...even Wiccans pay homage to the hunt...our Lord/God often depicted with horns to signify the male role of provider (ie: hunter)...but today, the vast majority of folks don't have to hunt to avoid starving. As I've said before, you hunt to put food on your family's table....that's not only your right but your responsibility, but hunting as a sport??? Sorry, nothing spiritual about it unless you practice animal sacrifice as part of your religion.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Agreed and honestly I didn't see the name calling. You are right we all should be able to have a discussion without name calling. I didn't call anyone anything did I? I did a little drunk posting last night, maybe I should go back and read some things.

no, i don't think you called anyone anything. i'm willing to discuss just about anything, i just don't like when people slap labels.

but then, i really wish this thread hadn't got into all this. not sure the connection between abuse and hunting. they don't go together. plenty of abusers out there who wouldn't know one end of a gun from the other.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I know I don't personalize arguments....my issues aren't with hunters but with the mindset. In the past hunting was necessary, hell...even Wiccans pay homage to the hunt...our Lord/God often depicted with horns to signify the male role of provider (ie: hunter)...but today, the vast majority of folks don't have to hunt to avoid starving. As I've said before, you hunt to put food on your family's table....that's not only your right but your responsibility, but hunting as a sport??? Sorry, nothing spiritual about it unless you practice animal sacrifice as part of your religion.

ever grow a garden? raise chickens? pigs? go fishing? none of them are 'necessary'. personally, i think the fact that stores and all the goodies inside sanitized things too much. people see 'hamburger', not dead cow..or brisket, tenderloin, boneless breast instead of the chicken....neatly wrapped packages on display...all the dirty work done for you.

[Gander]

Big difference between putting tomato plants in the ground versus putting a 2 inch hole in bambi.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Gander

Big difference between putting tomato plants in the ground versus putting a 2 inch hole in bambi.

not really. it's all a part of being self-reliant, being part of nature.

hey, i'm not trying to convert anyone. just trying to put things in context a bit, and trying to let others know i'm not morally corrupt or lacking respect for life, which are some of the things i've read in this thread.

and bambi is a cartoon character. the proper term would be virginia whitetail...or Odocoileus virginianus.

[Danzig]

and does this help at all??? please read it.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba377/

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

and does this help at all??? please read it.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba377/

In Mussolini's Italy, the trains ran on time! Again, hunters aren't the problem...hunting for sport is!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

In Mussolini's Italy, the trains ran on time! Again, hunters aren't the problem...hunting for sport is!

are we even talking about the same thing?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

are we even talking about the same thing?

Sure we are....lots of folks who hunt are wonderful people, they do (and have done) many worthwhile things...no argument. My issue is with hunting and the mindset that somehow killing innocent animals with high powered weapons is sport. When you post a link that lists all the great things hunters have done, that's the same thing as saying "the trains run on time" giving the ruthless fascist dictatorship of Mussolini credit for doing something positive while ignoring the evil perpetrated.

[Danzig]

so what is more detrimental, the hunter--who funds 90% of conservation efforts in this country?

or ban the hunter, and lose that funding? who will replace it? what would happen then? who would be the stewards then? the taxpayer?

what state would wildlife be if it hadn't been for those efforts? how many deer would there be? or turkey? would we have all the habitats, all the wetlands if hunters hadn't done so much over the last century? you did see the vast improvements made to the herds, right? elk were re-introduced to arkansas a few years ago, who paid for that? you didn't. i did.

and keep in mind, hunters have a book full of rules to follow, set forth by each states game and fish commission, and they change every year. herd #'s, overall health are constantly monitored. tags are limited each year. duck hunters are allowed so many shells on their person at a time(i believe its 15-doesn't last very long), and have to follow strict guidelines of how many of each species and sex allowed. they have to have a plug in their gun to limit how many shells it will hold.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

so what is more detrimental, the hunter--who funds 90% of conservation efforts in this country?

or ban the hunter, and lose that funding? who will replace it? what would happen then? who would be the stewards then? the taxpayer?

what state would wildlife be if it hadn't been for those efforts? how many deer would there be? or turkey? would we have all the habitats, all the wetlands if hunters hadn't done so much over the last century? you did see the vast improvements made to the herds, right? elk were re-introduced to arkansas a few years ago, who paid for that? you didn't. i did.

and keep in mind, hunters have a book full of rules to follow, set forth by each states game and fish commission, and they change every year. herd #'s, overall health are constantly monitored. tags are limited each year. duck hunters are allowed so many shells on their person at a time(i believe its 15-doesn't last very long), and have to follow strict guidelines of how many of each species and sex allowed. they have to have a plug in their gun to limit how many shells it will hold.

So...if serial killers contributed millions to charity, we should allow them to go on killing?

[Danzig]

not quite sure where you're going with the above.


which is more detrimental to our ecological system, to our conservation attempts?
-hunters and fisherman, who fund most of the above, or

- ban hunting and fishing-and lose 9/10ths of the funding, and lose most of those who take the lead on protecting our habitats, fisheries, and wetlands?

unless you have a better plan--other than to compare hunters to charitable serial killers--btw, serial killing IS illegal. hunting isn't.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

not quite sure where you're going with the above.


which is more detrimental to our ecological system, to our conservation attempts?
-hunters and fisherman, who fund most of the above, or

- ban hunting and fishing-and lose 9/10ths of the funding, and lose most of those who take the lead on protecting our habitats, fisheries, and wetlands?

unless you have a better plan--other than to compare hunters to charitable serial killers--btw, serial killing IS illegal. hunting isn't.

Legality does not equate to morally right...the analogy is accurate if you believe that hunting for sport is morally wrong (as I and others do). The burden does not fall on me to come up with another source of funding to replace killing animals, this is not a discussion about economics but about morality. You can take the position that hunting is morally Ok, but using economics to support a moral position doesn't work. If, as I believe, killing animals for sport is morally wrong, then all the money in the world doesn't change that!

[Danzig]

it's not just economics somer. herd health, well being...

but i would love to hear a solution if you have one.

[Danzig]

another question just occurred to me.

so, all the good a hunter does-all those good morals he exhibits by retrieving and replacing lost wetlands, replanting trees, replacing habitat, retrieving species from extinction that he didn't force to the brink--that doesn't outweigh whatever morals you feel he doesn't have because he hunts? seems to me that maybe a hunter represents a dichotomy. saving, restoring, growing, improving-he takes back a small part of the larger whole he created, doesn't he?

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

it's not just economics somer. herd health, well being...

but i would love to hear a solution if you have one.

i've stayed out of this because I have very mixed feelings on hunting...on the one hand i understand the history and the necessity that gave rise to hunting...on the other I refuse to look at killing as a sport...
but Danzig is absolutely right about it being important to herd health...lets face it we have removed all of the big predators save one...man...and for that reason hunting becomes an actual necessity IMO...

but that doesn't excuse, in my opinion, the irresponsible and immoral hunters like the @sshole who poached a deer off my farm this fall...we have a large coyote pack to keep our herd in check...we don't need guys like that who can't read the posted and no tresspassing signs.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

it's not just economics somer. herd health, well being...

but i would love to hear a solution if you have one.

Again, you are saying that the ends justify the means...I disagree. First, there have to be better solutions to overpopulation than killing and secondly, you just can't get past the free will issue...if I kill a deer, that's my responsibility...if it's wrong then all the excuses ie: it's the humane thing, I donate money to conservation, someone else will do it if I don't etc etc simply doesn't cut it! Again, my point...my only point is that killing for sport is morally wrong; we can debate that, the morality of that, but you can't bring economics or for that matter other issues into the debate and stay on point. Evil cannot be justified by pointing out good that may result, I believe hunting for sport is immoral therefore evil...we can debate that but please, enough with the smoke screens!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

i've stayed out of this because I have very mixed feelings on hunting...on the one hand i understand the history and the necessity that gave rise to hunting...on the other I refuse to look at killing as a sport...
but Danzig is absolutely right about it being important to herd health...lets face it we have removed all of the big predator save one...man...and for that reason hunting becomes an actual necessity IMO...

but that doesn't excuse in my opinion the irresponsible and immoral hunters like the @sshole who poached a deer off my farm this fall...we have a large coyote pack to keep out herd in check...we don't need guys like that who can't read the posted and no tresspassing signs.

i have no use for those who refuse to follow game laws. it puts the rest of us in a bad light. i will not hunt with and refuse to associate with anyone who doesn't follow the rules. i hope you called your game and fish!

deer in many areas are considered a nuisance. some places have even had to call in sharpshooters because deer populations have gotten so out of control. deer are incredibly adaptable animals. they can live in a very small space, and can be very, very dangerous. especially a rutting buck, who can severely injure or kill a man. birth control has been attempted, but with limited success, and at a very high price.

also, i wonder if people realize how many hungry people are fed every year by hunters who donate the meat-after they clean and dress the animal of course. i don't know, i just think if you eat meat, you really can't argue about hunting.....

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

i've stayed out of this because I have very mixed feelings on hunting...on the one hand i understand the history and the necessity that gave rise to hunting...on the other I refuse to look at killing as a sport...
but Danzig is absolutely right about it being important to herd health...lets face it we have removed all of the big predators save one...man...and for that reason hunting becomes an actual necessity IMO...

but that doesn't excuse, in my opinion, the irresponsible and immoral hunters like the @sshole who poached a deer off my farm this fall...we have a large coyote pack to keep our herd in check...we don't need guys like that who can't read the posted and no tresspassing signs.

Again, I don't debate herd health etc, I simply refuse to allow pro-sport hunting arguments that try and channel the debate about the morality of such hunting into other topics to go unchallenged.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Again, you are saying that the ends justify the means...I disagree. First, there have to be better solutions to overpopulation than killing and secondly, you just can't get past the free will issue...if I kill a deer, that's my responsibility...if it's wrong then all the excuses ie: it's the humane thing, I donate money to conservation, someone else will do it if I don't etc etc simply doesn't cut it! Again, my point...my only point is that killing for sport is morally wrong; we can debate that, the morality of that, but you can't bring economics or for that matter other issues into the debate and stay on point. Evil cannot be justified by pointing out good that may result, I believe hunting for sport is immoral therefore evil...we can debate that but please, enough with the smoke screens!

well, i don't feel it's wrong, morally or otherwise to hunt. i can't discuss hunting for sport, as i don't do it and wouldn't be able to say what the motivation would be.