Appropriate punishment for animal cruelty

[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.

[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.....

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

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.....

another good point...since there is a program here that encourages hunters to donate extra meat to the local food shelf and many of them do. I actually haven't eaten red meat since I was a kid and only eat chicken/turkey/duck on rare occasions (and then from local farms whenever possible)...and I while I never liked seafood much I gave it up entirely after working in a fish market...

I did call the game warden and we are on the list for a decoy next fall...should be fun

[somerfrost]

"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"

Again...same thing! So if serial killers donated the bodies of their victims to feed the hungry, that would make what they do morally correct?

[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.

[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 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.