HUNTING: The Cruel Sport of Depravity

[strongvoicesforward]

By contrast according to Vegetarian Times there are roughly 12 million vegetarians in the US. At a growth rate of one million per year. That means there are about 300 million carnivores.

I`ve heard that number before. I`ve seen different numbers as well. I am not going to argue over totals. The important thing is that the numbers are growing in percentage. That will only increase as communication gets better and better.

You know, the internet has done an awful lot in getting large amounts of info to people on animals, AR/AW issues. Flash animations created by average people, more and more documentaries, more publishing etc... has also had a great impact in making awareness and getting people against cruelty to animals and actually doing something about it -- not just feeling sorry for animals.

Look at entertainment and computers. What do you think the impact will be when if ever people are actually able to enter into some sort of 3 dimensional entertainment system with sensory perception to the image and story and be able to choose to be any character? If that technology ever developes, you can be sure Jewish groups will create a virtual Holocaust Concentration camp so that empathy for the Jewish experience could be maximized. And, you can be sure an AR group will create a slaughterhouse, hunting, and animal experimentation construct to enter into. If people can choose to experience what other people or animals experience by visiting their world through entertainment from their perspective, believe me, there will be many impressed people who will convert much more quickly and at larger rates than they have now.

Of course, this kind of entertainment may never appear, but it doesn`t seem too far fetched. If it does, then vegetarianism and AR activities will increase tenfold, if it doesn`t then, we will just slug our ways through as we have been doing. One is shorter, one is longer. Either way, AR will eventually win on many fronts for animals.

 

[No-name]

And my motivation for going to either the VR concentration camp or slaughter house would be...? I don't think it would make good entertainment.

The IAFWA is an animal rights/ anti hunting group.

 

[No-name]

I don't hunt and all your arguments have done is to persuade me that I should go hunting before I criticize it. I find fault in the foundation of your argument- that animals and people should have the same basic rights and that we should break down "the species barrier." I would be much more apt to support a hunting ban on logical and scientific reasons than what amounts to me to anthropomorphising and projecting humanity onto animals.

(Signature back...italics back...go figure.)

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Sabro, Peta is the largest AR org in the world. They enjoy large direct formal support. They have 850,000 paying members. Many more, not formal paying members, also assist them. Even more are sympathetic and informally support them through just their personal opinion of what they do to help animals.

ALF and ELF are separate from them. Yes, there have been some links in the past with them, and believe me, the FBI has combed through those links to see if their tax exempt status should be rescinded because of those links. In every case Peta has been cleared. They continue to grow.

Yes, fringe groups within groups exist. No large org can keep control of everybody. I don`t condemn Christianity because fringe groups within it assasinate doctors at abortion clinics.

Sabro, I don`t mind either of us touching on other subjects within this subject of "hunting," but I would prefer that the whole topic isn't pulled away into a debate on PETA. And you seem to be wanting to paint ALF's and ELF's actions onto PETA. This will blow up into a whole different debate then.

As for your other comment about PETA killing approx 12,000 animals etc...

That is a story I am well aware of and have commented on ad nausium.

Quickly: Peta admitted some wrongs in a specific case which brought this info to light. Peta has never said they are a "no-kill" org in respects to abandoned pets. This story attacking Peta is orchestrated by the CCF (Center for Consumer Freedom), which is a front group for industry interests in ranching, fast food, tobacco, Alchohol, NRA, animal testing facilities, etc... -- all foes of Peta which only banded together because they finally woke up and admitted to the threat they were beginning to realize existed from the AR people. The CCF is even against Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD). I think they were also against the Brady Bill and many other acts that are meant to protect the consumer. Probably against labeling on cigerrette packs.

I do know that the 7 Dwarfs tobacco execs, in the 90s perjured themselves in front of congress when they raised their hands in unison and testified that they didn`t think smoking caused health risks. Yes, that was funny! wasn`t it? Thus, the media and late night commedians dubbed them the "7 Dwarfs."

Now, if you want to keep surfing sites that quote them or use them as a source, then please do so, but those are the people who have done the most in hurting the public`s health with their products. I don`t think even ALF has killed one person yet in their almost 20 years of existence, have they? -- let alone PETA. But, those products from the CCF have.

The CCF won`t even open up all their research records on their products so that we consumers can exercise our "freedom" of choice to purchase a product on knowledge gained from their research. I guess "freedom" in their name is just a word -- not really something they want you to believe they support.

As for the 12,000 cats and dogs PETA put to sleep during those years, that is a mole hill standing next to 10 Mt. Everests stacked on top of one another in comparison to what the CCF kills for profit. That number came to light when PETA was attacked after having been invited by a county sherrif to help PTS some animals that he saw were being killed in shelters via crude gas boxes and being shot by bullets.

Peta never said they were perfect. Mistakes are made. I don`t hold any org up to perfection -- a standard none of us can attain. But, I do know that when they put an animal out of its misery, they have not commodified that life and profited from it. When a lab forces monkeys to smoke until their lungs are black and then vivisect it, or when a slaughterhouse drowns a pig by scalding water, too concerned with line speeds for profits and not want to put the pig to death before the vat of hot water fills its lungs, -- well, I, and we, if honest guides our thoughts, can clearly say the CCF industries are the monsters that make blood money for their bank accounts -- not Peta.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

And my motivation for going to either the VR concentration camp or slaughter house would be...? I don't think it would make good entertainment.

Oh, perhaps you may have no motivation to do so. Many would do so out of curiosity. Many may do so just because a friend or acquaintance asked them to. I usually read for entertainment, but I also read to satisfy curiosity or to read something an friend has asked me to read so that we could discuss it. There are many reasons for going to such a place and many people would have different motivations. I, particularly do not have any motivation to go see a slasher film, but many do. I am sure many would go see these if they were to come available.

The IAFWA is an animal rights/ anti hunting group.[/QUOTE]

lol. Fine. That makes me more prone to believeing their numbers.

 

[No-name]

I have often visited the Japanese American Heritage Museum in Los Angeles and I usually stop by the Manzanar center when I drive 395. I also want to visit the museum of tolerance in Los Angeles. I don't watch slasher films. I will leave PETA alone for the moment. Our Humane society up in the mountain does not euthanize unless the animal is sick or injured beyond hope. This creates a problem since city folks for some reason like to abandon pets up here. (Go figure.) So it takes us time to find homes for all of them. (I have ended up with four cats already.)

This is from US fish and Wildlife http://www.fws.gov/hunting/huntstat.html
Heres the Iafwa website: http://www.iafwa.org/

The only other thing I could add or ask is what do you think about the hunting of feral animals that threaten other native species and habitats such as cats and pigs in the Galapagos islands and goats at Santa Cruz Island?

 

[No-name]

Did I quote the CCF website?

 

[Mycernius]

You really see the whole hunting/animal rights in pure black and white don't you strongvoicesforward. There are no grey areas for you, unfortunately the issues of hunting does have some very grey areas.

Starvation is the result of the problems brought about by hunters who have destroyed the natural predators. Starvation in and of itself is not so bad for creating healthy numbers for what a land area can support. A population crash would allow for the species to come into balance with the fauna. Animals also have a self regulatory mechanism of fetal abortion and uterus absorption when food is not enough to support them in.

I agree that the actions of the past have created areas where there are no predators to take care of the natural population of animals such as deer. What you seem to advocate by your crash principle is to have the animals suffer starvation and death by letting their number reach unsustainable numbers. Animals will have self abortions and uterus absorbtion, but only after the population has achieved stravation numbers. So you advocate a painful death by starvation and the local ecology damaged by overeating, taking years to regain its healthy balance. Dead animals everywhere that can cause disease within their own species is good? Maybe even driving the population towards virtual extinction? Hunting might be bad, but the ecology is mantained and regulated by man taking place of the predators that would have regulated the populations of deer and elk. We have created this problem and we must take responsiblity for it. This means trapping and killing animals to maintain the balance.

That is one of the reasons why these businesses and agencies don`t really want to see an introduction of predators to do the job they want to keep on doing. I mean, if wolves controlled the deer, the hunters would have no reason to kill deer. Well, they would, but then they would have to admit their main reason is that they just enjoy killing things. But, that would unmask them. With the predators gone, they can smugly assert they are loving nature by helping nature by killing off parts of her. It is an absurd lie.

One reason that some areas do not want to see the reintroduction of wolves and other predators is the damaged the can do to livestock. In your wonderful black and white world wolves would eat the deer and man would live in peace with the wolf. The problem is a wolf is not going to go to all the trouble of tracking down a deer when man convienently puts sheep and cattle in big field where they cannot escape from the predators. Predators, like man, prefer easy prey. Foxes in chicken coups come to mind. The fox is just doing what it does, but the chicken farmer has lost his livelyhood. Prevention of this costs a lot. The dingo fence in Australia is an example of the expense that man will go to to stop the predators from damaging his livestock. In remote areas the reintroduction is sound, but near man it isn't. Farmers will always hate predators.
There is another good argument for hunting in regards to pest species. In the UK we have a problem with grey squirrels. They are not a native species and are major reason for the decline of our native red squirrel. The same has happened in Australia with rabbits and wild pigs. Hoofed animals are not native to Australia and cause no end of environmental damged. The only way to control these pest species is by hunting trapping and killing them, as there are no natural predators in their new environment. Or would you rather let them destroy the native fauna and flora? We are cruel, yes, but nature is worse.

Originally Posted by sabro
Human life is more valuable than animal life.

Oh, this old argument being brought out and shakened off -- ad nausium.

It might be an old argument, but animal right activists seem to think that animals lives are more important that peoples. Bombing people is illegal, threatening people is illegal. If they want to make peole support them than they should stick to within the law.

Extremists threaten care scheme
Firms linked to Huntingdon Life Sciences have been targeted
A child care voucher scheme for employees of an animal testing laboratory has been withdrawn after threats by animal rights extremists.
Leapfrog Day Nurseries have confirmed their directors received a threatening letter because they run a child care scheme for Huntingdon Life Sciences.
The firm said threats are unacceptable but the care of children and their staff was of paramount concern.
The company has now withdrawn the scheme for Huntingdon Life Sciences.

BRITISH UNION FOR THE ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION
We welcome the fact that Newchurch Guinea Pig Farm is to close but this is no "victory for animal rights", as the closure seems to have been mainly due to the violent actions and harassment done by a minority rather than a realisation that animal experiments should stop.
The farm's owners announced the closure on Tuesday
In this case, there has been no fundamental shift in attitude and so guinea pigs and other animals will continue to be bred for the unethical and unscientific vivisection industry and continue to suffer in the hands of other suppliers.
We would prefer if the government reviewed its attitude of blind support to animal experiments and for the media to stop confusing a few violent people with the peaceful millions who reject all violence - and therefore oppose all animal experiments.
BUAV is opposed to violence of any kind, whether that be the violence of vivisection itself or the harassment and intimidation that some people use as a means of protest.
We hope to see all the farms breeding animals for experiments closing down for good, and will continue to campaign in a peaceful way, as we've always done, until this goal is achieved.

There are plenty of articles like this. Threatening people and putting them in fear of their lives does not work for them. There article above says it all. Which are you, peaceful or violent?
As for PETA. They rate the same as a dangerous religious cult in their actions IMHO. Releasing cows into the wild. Stupid idea. modern cows need man to look after them. We have bred them into milk machines. They need milking at a regular interval because if they weren't they would die. Releasing cows into the wild just ensured that the animals would die in pain as they no longer have a natural way of getting rid of the overproduction of milk. Animal rights released mink from fur farms into the UK countryside. No consideration for the fact that it is not a native animal to the UK and can cause destruction to the countryside and wild animals. Instead of trying to get the farm to shut down they have caused more suffering for animals than the hunters and farmers could ever have done via their own inconsiderate actions. Black and white thinking leads to such simple ideas, but these actions actually lead to more death and destruction than what they are trying to prevent. A more thoughtful action is needed and pros and cons weighed up. Unfortunately this seem to be too complex, not just for animal rights, but also for hunters. Balance is the key.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

... I should go hunting before I criticize it.

That does not hold the ring of logic to it.

Here:
I should take cocaine before I criticize it.
I should try drinking and driving before I criticize it.
I should try exploitning vulnerable people like women, children, and old people before I critcize it.

Logic exists for a reason. Applying it arbitrarily in large scale sweeping manners has lead to horrible events in the world.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I find fault in the foundation of your argument- that animals and people should have the same basic rights and that we should break down "the species barrier."

Sabro, I asked you what you base the "right" you think we have to visit misery upon an animal when it is not necessary. I don`t think you have told me what you get your belief/justification from. Is it "might makes right?" or is it something else? What is it?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Our Humane society up in the mountain does not euthanize unless the animal is sick or injured beyond hope. This creates a problem since city folks for some reason like to abandon pets up here. (Go figure.) So it takes us time to find homes for all of them. (I have ended up with four cats already.)

I, too, wish most places could be non-kill shelters. That is great that the one near yours is. I hope that they aren`t in a situation where they have to refuse animals.

Glad to hear you have opened your home to helping those unfortunate ones in need of a home. -- Good on you.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The only other thing I could add or ask is what do you think about the hunting of feral animals that threaten other native species and habitats such as cats and pigs in the Galapagos islands and goats at Santa Cruz Island?

First, I will ask: What caused those animals to be in an environment they are not native to?

If humans are responsible for them being there, then humans should take responsibility to pay the costs of fixing it. That would mean paying the large sums it would take to trap those animals alive and then relocate them.

I don`t think an animal should pay with its blood for a mistake by us, and therefore we should "put back right" what we have "made wrong." Isn`t that what we try to teach our children? I don`t think we should be inconsistant with our actions when our rhettoric tells us something else.

Now, if those invasive species seem to be reaching a point of stability in those eco-systems, which some do after many years, then we should have to decide if just leaving the new balance is the better choice.

However, we don`t need to kill them. We just need to spend more money to trap them.

Our screw up. Our responsibility to pay for it. We should rightfully feel the sting of financial loss when we have broken something. It is a good lesson for us which should cause us to take more care in order to avoid future actions that cost us.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Did I quote the CCF website?

I don`t know, did you?

You may not have, but it sounded as if what you were quoting was either coming from the CCF or a source that was quoting the CCF. Sometimes the link is 3 or 4 back, but whenever I see those figures that you stated, I can almost always find the CCF somewhere in the string of sources, if the reporter or site lists their sources.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

You really see the whole hunting/animal rights in pure black and white don't you strongvoicesforward. There are no grey areas for you, unfortunately the issues of hunting does have some very grey areas.

Mycernius, of course I see grey areas in many areas. However, hunting falls under the area of "exploitation at the expense of pain and suffering," and therefore, I do see no compromise in that area.

You know, sometimes things are not so difficult and are rather quite easy. You refer to that as "black and white" and then act as if there always is a grey area. Well, I don`t see any grey area in slavery, rape, child abuse, etc...

Those who profit from a particular exploitation of there target by all means want to see grey areas. It is in those grey areas that they make their money.

 

[Mycernius]

First, I will ask: What caused those animals to be in an environment they are not native to?

If humans are responsible for them being there, then humans should take responsibility to pay the costs of fixing it. That would mean paying the large sums it would take to trap those animals alive and then relocate them.

I don`t think an animal should pay with its blood for a mistake by us, and therefore we should "put back right" what we have "made wrong." Isn`t that what we try to teach our children? I don`t think we should be inconsistant with our actions when our rhettoric tells us something else.

Now, if those invasive species seem to be reaching a point of stability in those eco-systems, which some do after many years, then we should have to decide if just leaving the new balance is the better choice.

However, we don`t need to kill them. We just need to spend more money to trap them.

Our screw up. Our responsibility to pay for it. We should rightfully feel the sting of financial loss when we have broken something. It is a good lesson for us which should cause us to take more care in order to avoid future actions that cost us.

Humans are fixing the problem, and in some cases the reason these invasive species are there is because animal rights have released them into that eco-system. Like to create a problem, but are unwilling to solve it. I'm really sure they would want to part with their own money, not.
Trap them yes. And then what. Release them into a stable eco-system that they are not used to? Transports all the grey squirrels from the UK back to North America?
1. Costs would be prohibative.
2. De-stablize the eco-system they would be re-released into. Result overpopulation and starvation and a slower death
You want to have animals not suffer, but your own solutions would cause more suffering than a man putting a bullet through its head. Yes, it our screw up, or rather past generations screw-up, but your way of solving it is short sighted and does nopt take in its own problems. As I said in my previous post, and very black and white view of the problem. There is not a simple solution to this and unfortunately it will cause the death of animals, but I'm afraid that is the truth of the matter. If you do not like it then stop with the easy ideas and look at the long term problems and how to solve them in a sensible way.kashii:

 

[Mycernius]

Just a quick note. All game birds, rabbits and pigeon are hunted in the UK and sold onto the meat market. I think that is somewhat better than farming these animals in pens and cruel practices. At least this way they get to live a natural life; free and wild.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I agree that the actions of the past have created areas where there are no predators to take care of the natural population of animals such as deer.

Great, I am glad we agree.

What you seem to advocate by your crash principle is to have the animals suffer starvation and death by letting their number reach unsustainable numbers. Animals will have self abortions and uterus absorbtion, but only after the population has achieved starvation numbers. So you advocate a painful death by starvation and the local ecology damaged by overeating, taking years to regain its healthy balance.

Mycernius, hunting to control populations has not been successful. Every year we hear how the deer are just over running every thing and eating the fauna up as if they were monsters -- as if they were populating the countryside like people in Manhatten, as if every car that passes a nearby road is targeted by a deer intent on causing an accident. Well, if hunting is the answer, then why haven`t the animals been brought under control? They simply haven`t.

Now, I don't know about you, but I would rather take a chance at starving to death than take a chance at being shot. I guess if I were lucky someone would get me with a clean shot, but if not, well then, I guess I have my paineful gangreene to attend to as it reeks with infection to spread throughout my body. I think that is pretty painful. And, if it just is the worse day of my life, I guess I will have been shot in the gut with an arrow and die an even more agonizing death. Yes, I would rather starve to death.

Your argument however, is a baseless one, because it isn`t likely that all the animals would border on experiencing starvation. It may be just enough for the environment. At any rate, their carcasses would be a boon for other animals such as coyotes, foxes, buzzards, racoons etc... Let those animals have their bounty from nature. In turn, that decomposing biomass will be good for the land just as bear scat is.

Deer are fast breeders -- not like pandas -- their numbers would rebound.

Dead animals everywhere that can cause disease within their own species is good? Maybe even driving the population towards virtual extinction?

What disease are you talking about? Do you have a case study of dead animals in the forest (particulary deer) causing disease to spread amongst them and causing their widespread deaths pushing them toward "virtual extinction?" I have never heard of a situation like that. Please direct me to something like that which satisfies the gloom and doom scenario you have painted. I would be interested to read it.

Funny though, I think one animal comes to my mind that may fit your description -- humans. But, I don`t think you would think of issueing tags to hunt them in the streets of Calcutta where they are starving and a host of diseases are spread.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hunting might be bad,...

Great. We agree again.

... but the ecology is mantained and regulated by man taking place of the predators that would have regulated the populations of deer and elk.

No, the ecology is exploited and even without predators, the ecology could still come into balance. In addition, predator animals can be reintroduced in many places.

We have created this problem and we must take responsiblity for it. This means trapping and killing animals to maintain the balance.

No, it does not mean that. That is what the status quo has just decided to maintain. Taking responsibility for our mistakes is not putting bandaids on a problem that need to be reapplied every year during hunting season, when in fact we can restore many areas where fast rate populating species are by reintroducing predators or creating corridors so that species do not become pocketed.

Of course hunters don`T want predators to be reintroduced. It could mean the end of the joy of killing for them. Their blood hobby would just dissappear.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

One reason that some areas do not want to see the reintroduction of wolves and other predators is the damage they can do to livestock.

Well, gee, Mycernius, all businesses have their liabilities naturally occurring costs that are a part of a business. A bank needs lights to light up the office and will have to see that as a fixed cost. A farmer/rancher by virtue of his profession will just have to see some predation as a fixed cost. (Note: I am not saying he can`t shoot a wolf he catches in the act of attacking one of his animals.) But, wolf predation on livestock in areas where they have been re-introduced have no where near approached a number that indicated wolves have decided to target livestock as their main staple of food source. Can you show me a study that shows that? Also, can you show me a study of a wolf causing a ranch to go out of business, that their profits were so destroyed that it sent them reeling into the red and destroyed their way of life.

I am sure ranchers are more than cushioned with profit margins to handle some predation.

In your wonderful black and white world wolves would eat the deer and man would live in peace with the wolf.

I never said there would not be any conflict, did I? Like I said above, shooting a wolf as they are caught attacking livestock is justifiable. Hunting them however, is just an endeavor at exploitation.

The problem is a wolf is not going to go to all the trouble of tracking down a deer when man convienently puts sheep and cattle in big field where they cannot escape from the predators.

Sorry, but you are wrong. While some wolves do target ranch animals, many choose to target their traditional prey.

Predators, like man, prefer easy prey.

Most predators prefer their traditional prey. Wolves for the most part are timid of human activity and while they do from time to time hunt ranch animals, they mostly stick to wild animals as a source of food. Can you show me something, like a study or report that says, "wolves prefer to hunt cows and sheep because they are easy"?

But you are right about man -- he does prefer to exploit something that is easy.

Foxes in chicken coups come to mind. The fox is just doing what it does, but the chicken farmer has lost his livelyhood. Prevention of this costs a lot.

Most chickens are raised on factory farms now,where foxes just do not have access to them. The very few small family farms that are left around with chickens scratching in the yard are a rarity -- and those farmers do not "live or die" by what comes out of the rear end of hen. How many farmers have ever gone belly up financially because of continuous fox raids on their coops? Occassional farm losses from predation is just a fixed cost of the business, no different than electrical costs for stores. Minimizing those costs at the point where they occur is fine, however going out to hunt animals indiscriminately, not knowing which is the addicted animal to chicken coops is wrong.

The dingo fence in Australia is an example of the expense that man will go to to stop the predators from damaging his livestock. In remote areas the reintroduction is sound, but near man it isn't. Farmers will always hate predators.

And those costs of the fence are rightly so incurred by man. That is more appropriate than having a poisoning or hunting cull against dingos.

In places where reintroduction is not permissable because of large populations, then if deer exist in pockets of forest, then those populations should be permitted to crash and let the scavengers benefit from them rather than man going in to upset the balance that could be achieved without his interference.

Coyotes for instance are quite capable of mixing in very close to humans and they very seldom (however there are a few incidences) ever killed man. They are weary of his animals and most farms have dogs that are more than adequate to keep coyotes at bay. Coyote have no problem in culling the young or very weak and old deer.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The only way to control these pest species is by hunting trapping and killing them, as there are no natural predators in their new environment. Or would you rather let them destroy the native fauna and flora? We are cruel, yes, but nature is worse.

Live trapping and sterilization -- Yes. Killing is not. What the former is -- is more expensive. However, it is not cost prohibitive. Costly -- Yes.

Nature is not cruel -- nature is just natural.

Man, carpet bombing population centers is cruel. Nothing natural in that. Man forcing a chimpanzee to smoke to death is cruel. Nothing natural in that.

I don`t know, Mycernius, I think you have stood the definition of cruelty on its head. I would rather have the natural death of a lion ambushing me and eating me within seconds, rather than fall into the grips of a government intent on torturing me for months in order to abstract some information they think I may have that could by chance be helpful to them and then snuff out my life in the most horrible manner they could imagine -- like throwing me from a helicopter into the ocean like Pinochet's henchmen in Chile did.

Do you still think nature is more cruel? If it is not death via starvation or cold, nature will deliver death to you pretty quickly. Man has devised thousands of ways, and in fact have put them to use, to visit undescribable misery upon each other for long periods of time with the intent to cause as much severe pain as possible.

YOu had better examine what the possibilities are and then you may come to a different opionion on the cruelty of man versus nature.