Politics The Politics, Economics, and Ethics of Hunting

I don't hunt. It's more a matter of opportunity and skill/markesmenship rather than politics, economics, or ethics. I wouldn't take a shot at an animal unless I was very sure of killing it cleanly.

Hunting can be good for population control, namely when the number of animals exceeds the food sources. The state parks here will on occassion allow hunting, and the same thinking applies to privately owned land. It's necessary to reduce the animal population before they do serious harm to the ecosystem. Example--When deer start eating the plants that provides the leaves that the deer normally eat because there are too many deer eating the leaves, there won't be enough healthy plants left to provide the leaves. Which can lead to sickly, undersized deer.

I can understand the basic instinct of hunting, and have no problem with those who actually hunt, rather than just shoot, animals. I'm don't like the idea of a feeder being used with a stand built exactly/very nearly 100 yards away (IIRC that's the standard 'sighting in' used for most rifles scopes, I could be wrong) so that some fatass can sit there and shoot deer with no effort other than being still & quiet. OTOH, this could be good for population control, a double-edged sword so to say.

People who can afford meat who hunt don't bother me (see the above paragraph).

Politics & economics. Here in Texas hunting is huge, it generates a lot of $$$. Politicians trying to limit hunting would most like not get re-elected, which seems to be what they live for. Invitations to hunt on prime leases are coveted by the movers & shakers, mostly for the prestige. Where one hunts, with whom one hunts, etc. are status symbols, and a ranking system. "Oh, you didn't get invited? The hunt with Gov. Perry went very well."

Let's not forget bribery and influence purchasing & peddling. Hunting trips are used like currency. Many of the ethics violation inquiries turn-up "free" hunting trips for politicians, paid for by lobbyist, business leaders, etc. Be it politics and/o business, if you want something from someone important, and an outright bribe isn't a wise move, invite them to go hunting with some other important people. Just keep an eye on Dick "Dick" Cheney.

 

It's too bad animals can't speak. Has anyone considered how rich, since we know animals don't want to die, it is for us humans to say things like "I have no problem with hunting," especially since many here are defending it on the behalf of others?

"Ah... chocolate, vanilla... doesn't matter to me!!"

 

I was stunned they turned me away, taking only a couple of many, many boxes. I noticed when taking in tomatoes, peppers and zucchini through the summer that the ladies working there were all the local "high society," if there is such a thing in Clatsop Co. they seemed more interested in having folks know they volunteered then actually doing any work. I mean how could they not be in contact with other banks near by? I would have driven it into Longview or even Portland but time was an issue... elk season was starting soon.

People, many people anyway, do not realize how much work goes into making sure you have a successful season. I've run into other "hunters" who have no idea where they are because their GPS would not work under the forest canopy. If you're hunting an area and do not know it very well your chances of getting bull elk in late November is more or less nil.

 

In general, I'm fine with hunting. Bambi isn't exactly endangered in CO. Her and her brothers are constantly jumping in front of cars. I'm comfortable with where my hamburger comes from, hunting seems no less humane. To my sensibility, trophy hunting seems like killing for killing's sake.

For what it's worth, Colorado food banks will accept venison with some restrictions. There are also non-profits that will match hunters with families in need.

 

These folks are not hunters in my opinion, at best they're sportsmen or hobbyist. They pay big money to walk across a field someone else has place several ground birds, pheasant, quail etc.. in just prior to their arrival and shoot whatever flies up in the air. That's not hunting. It's shooting things placed there for you.

 

I think you have to be coming from a very particular point of view to think it is rich. We are not the only predators on the planet.
We're just the only ones who think about it.

 

Oregon does this, least the counties I lived in did/do. I gave away my last two deer. I stopped when the family I took my second one to asked "what are we suppose to do with this?" I'd cut, wrapped and labeled each package and had sausage made of what wasn't "burger grade." I overheard the mother tell her son "just trow it out, it's no good" as I got in my truck. I thought about going and getting it back but I was so hot I thought "no good will come from this and I need my job."

 

And hopefully by thinking about it, we can arrive at particular points of view that are helpful.

I know it's not much help for me to poke my cryptically contrarian head in here just to poke at this topic, but...too busy with other things to get in a statistic/pulling up studies war and all that.

Just... if this is about the ethics of hunting, it's sad not to acknowledge that killing is bad and just brush past it. Doesn't anyone wish there were alternatives (*ahem* for some of us there are)?

 

But, you see, I would have a lot of difficulty putting war and hunting animals for food into a common ethical context.

 

I've been at the veganism game too long to expect or even want the world to change instantly. I just like to point out that almost everyone I've ever heard defending hunting as a practice does not actually do it themselves or is even engaged in a community that needs to do it. Obviously that's because I don't live in that community so am not meeting these people. Long story short, I wonder why urbanites (which includes most on this board) would rather defend hunting as "necessary" instead of examining their complicity in the genocide of billions of animals (make no mistake... my Blundstones and leather belt puts me in the club too).

I find Tully Mars's position way more compelling and honest than most I've heard. I would just like to see more of "oh yeah hunting is necessary for some but it's too bad we are killing these innocent creatures..." than "hunting... whatever, yeah it's cool." Just as we all ought to shop less, save more water, be kinder to fellow humans and all-in-all just advance as a species, can't we include "kill less creatures" as an aspiration?

 

Well, here's something I would support. More hunting, less animal agriculture. I think that would result in killing fewer creatures and it would be more humane.

 

Somebody help me with my math:

Factory farming ( ? ) Hunting

 

I completely agree with this.

There's also an argument to be made that shooting an animal is more ethical than paying money to Starbucks to employ cheap coffee pickers overseas. Actually I'm not gonna argue against that even. So... no argument. In my eyes, my cheap coffee is less ethical than shooting an animal.
--- merged: Nov 14, 2013 at 1:04 PM ---

<

Where "less than" = we are lesser humans for supporting it.

 

If you choose not to eat meat, great. Hell I'm mostly vegan these days. I haven't had any meat, fish or even eggs in nearly a month. But that was a decision I made for health reasons after a fairly bad year. I don't plan on eating like this forever but it's not horrible. Beans, rice and peppers are cheap here as are nearly all fruits. About he most expensive thing I'm currently eating are red apples from the PNW. Costco stocks them from a farm I know and I've always loved apples. A cold crisp apple on a hot day isn't quite a beer but it's not bad either.

But when I get back in shape I'll probably go back to a steak once and a while, maybe not I'm feeling pretty good eating this way. But if I do I'm not going to mourn the poor bull that supplied me with my steak any more then I mourn the tomatoes in my salads. They are both are both living things, yes? I see people all the time that condemn beef, pork and chicken eaters while having no qualms at all about selecting a lobster from the tank at the local lobster house. Almost everything you eat was alive... so where do you draw a line? "Oh my this poor, poor carrot. It gave its life so I might go on another day"... give me a break.

 

I draw the line at things with pain receptors and a central nervous system. I didn't even need a science degree to figure that one out.

Even without that fact, I know that a cow is closer to a human than a carrot. I can't believe I just had to say that.

 

I have had people stop at car/deer crashes to take the dead deer for food. They just have to get a road kill tag from the department of wildlife.
As far as veganism, I'm not going to argue with my basic biological needs of being an omnivore.

 

The human body processes animal protein too readily and efficiently for it not be a natural food source for us. Our problem, of course, (and this leads back to our giant, oddball brains) is that we eat entirely too much of it.

 

Oh... what species are you? Because I'm human last time I checked. But of course the "appeal to nature" fallacy could be another thread that lies outside of ethics of hunting.

 

Is that directed at me? I'm confused. And I have to get to work. Quick time, what the hell does that mean?