Appropriate punishment for animal cruelty

[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!