HUNTING: The Cruel Sport of Depravity

[No-name]

Mycernius- thank you for your input. I find your reasoning clear and uncluttered.

straightforward- your criticism of hunting was that it is cruel and depraved. You went on to maintain that it required little skill and that the enjoyment was only derived from the act of killing itself. You also implied that it had no value beyond the purient impulses you mentioned. Therfore it is logical to test these statements- to investigate, to research to see if what you say is actually true. As a non hunter- before I defend the sport- I have to either confirm or refute what you are saying. It is not as illogical as saying "I should try cocaine before I criticize it." (Which would endanger my health) If you said instead Merlot taste better than Port- wine drinking might be in order. You made specific statements about skill and enjoyment that now need to be tested.

I do on rare occasion fish. (I used to go a few times a year, but it has been years since I went even once.) Albacore on the ocean, or trout from rivers. I do not do it because I enjoy inflicting pain on an animal, nor do I do it to kill the animal... I eat fish and they are difficult to eat when alive and swimming in the ocean or river- so it is necessary to hook, kill and clean these beautiful wonderful (and delicious) animals. I enjoy being on the water or beside a river- outdoors in the fresh air, and I am never disappointed if I catch nothing. There must be some skill involved because some fishermen, and it seems like most others...always catch more than I do. There is some satisfaction also in cleaning, preparing and eating something that you did not buy in some market.

As to what gave me the right? I do not know. It is not illegal- so the government has not abridged that right... It is not against my religious code, so I could say it is a God given right...it is a tradition that I learned from my Uncle, and he learned from his father, and he from his in Japan- and so on back many generations- it is a connection to my past and culture- (the Japanese are a fishing people) I could say this gives me the right. I could say I do a traditional offering to the fish, but that would be a lie...although I did go to a water blessing- so by Native American ceremony I have the right to trout fish in those waters for as long as the medicine holds.

What gives me the "right" to eat a carrot? or the "right" to kill the pathogens in my blood that could kill me? (After all aren't their lives as important as mine?) What gives me the right to drive my squirrel killing car and pollute our shared resources? Or the right to keep my pets, to neuter them, and when they become old and sick- to euthanize them? What gives me the right to decide that mice don't belong in my pantry, or coyotes shouldn't eat my cats? Or that I should live on a mountain that is their natural territory? I don't know what gives me the right.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

It might be an old argument, but animal right activists seem to think that animals lives are more important that peoples.

Well, thanks for caustiously qualifying your remark with "seems," Mycernius -- it allows you some immunity from being outright wrong. Why not be a little bolder than hedging?

Show me where any ARists have stated or hinted that animals are more important than humans. The fact is, ARists view humans as animals, too. But, they view no animal as having more value in a universal sense. Value/importance is something that is affixed from the vantage point of a vested interest -- not any universal truth.

Bombing people is illegal, threatening people is illegal. If they want to make peole support them than they should stick to within the law.

Sure, those things are illegal. But the point, which you don`t want to put forward, is that direct action has been employed by many throughout history which historians and the general populace after many years have justified as righteous disobedience of the law. ARists are merely taking a page from the playbook of history which whose members have utilized tactics which have proven successful for the changes they had championed.

Why do you fail to notice that and put it forward?

 

[No-name]

Also about the boy kicking the immobilized but not dead rabbit down the street... A hunter would probably not stand for this type of abuse. It would damage the meat and fur. He would shoot it with a small caliber weapon and dispatch him quickly so that both the meat and fur would be undamaged. (Although I wouldn't recommend eating a zombie bunny.)

Nature can be quite cruel (although I agree that man is far more creative in the application of cruelty). Starvation is not quick, neither is freezing to death or a hemmoragic feaver, cancer, or some parasitic infestations. There are several perfectly natural illnesses and injuries that animals and people encounter that are neither painless, nor quick. (Arthritis comes to mind.) Nature is not beyond slaughter that seems wholesale and unnatural, nor does nature give special protection to the old, helpless or innocent. Nature is also not beyond mass extinctions.

Trapping ferral animals that are damaging habitats and endangered species has proven impractical. There are programs to trap and move horses, asses, pigs, cats, rabbits and rats and other feral creatures, but in some places it has proven too slow and utterly impractical. One of the problems with these unnatural invaders is that the habitat has provided them with an unnatural advantage. I would say that at this point the endangered animals have significantly higher value than the ferral creature- and that a less effective trapping program puts these animals and their habitats at an unacceptable risk. Hunting may offer the best and fastest solution for the native animals. Trapping also presents the added problem of what to do with the animals after you catch them. Many animals die in the traps and others in transport- and some are euthanized because they have no place to go and no one to care for them.

I was sad to learn that a good number of the bears and almost all the mountain lions tranquilized and transported for getting into contact with humans- usually down in our foothills... die in transit. Last year a mountain lion attacked two mountain bikers, killing one. The lion was killed. It is sad, but the kind of thing you have to expect when we encroach on their habitat.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Threatening people and putting them in fear of their lives does not work for them. .... Which are you, peaceful or violent?

I don`t mind talking about the issues. However, making myself the issue is not the issue.

Now, I don`t mind taking the role of defending a point of view or action to forward the discussion, so that as long as we understand I am doing so as a "devil's advocate", giving a voice to the argument that you are interested in persuing.

Are you ok with that?

I think most people would be ok with that. After all, I think you are more interested in how "direct action" people reason through their actions, rather than what the personal beliefs of "strongvoicesforward" are on "direct action."

Now, I know you are referring to ALF, ELF, and SHAC -- that isn`t lost on me. But let me say right now -- I am not a member of either of those orgs and do not carry out any actions which they do. But, I am familiar with thier philosophy and think I can argue from a devil`s advocate point of view putting their side forward in the face of yours.

So, on that note, if you could offer me this one little request I would appreciate it: when I do argue their point of view, and when you reply to me, please refrain from using the pronoun "you" or "your" -- please refer to comments directed in this vein as "their" or "them." Is that fair enough?

Ok, as much as some may want to believe about the tactics of "Direct Action" not working, that is categorically false. It does work. It has in the Animal Liberation Movement and it has in all past social struggles.

Is it a violent srtuggle like you ask? Well, if you consider action against property violent, then it is. Personally, I consider action against property violence if it has the potential or goal to cause physical injury.

To say that coercion hasn`t worked, though, is being hopefully idealistic. It has. HLS has been devastated and even they admit SHAC has been instrumental in hindering their operations.

Look at the Hunt Sabateures of the U.K. Their direct action has been very instrumental over the years in beating down fox hunting.

Many people turn down offers from animal labs, or don`t even bother applying for those research positions, noting that the flak from ARists is not worth the disruption to their personal/family lives. All that makes it more costly and harder for these businesses to operate. It slows down their pace of experiments and efficiency of the work place as the "siege mentality" takes over.

You say that this tactic has not been working -- but clearly, it has had an impact and has caused insurance companies to refuse to insure places that are targeted or for banks to refuse accounts from such places that are targeted. Of course, victory has not been achieved, but that is expected to take years.

Now, this thread is really about hunting, so I don`t want to get bogged down in this other topic here in this post. So, I hope that this comment above has been sufficient for the moment on this issue to show you that direct action does indeed work.

And, if you are still wondering, Iceland`s whole whaling fleet was destroyed due to direct action and it was not rebuilt because of the costs it would have incurred.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

Yes, that is your very "humble" opinion on the matter. We agree.

Please show me where Peta, in its formal position as an org, released cows into the wild. I am very interested in seeing this and to see that their intention was that these cows go wild and live in nature.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

Yes, let`s do talk about mink not being natural in the UK. They aren`t, are they? So, why even have them there in the first place other than to exploit them by raising them in horrible conditions and then having them suffocated or anally electrocuted. Nothing natural about all that, huh?

Had they not been there their presence would have never triggered the action that saw them released.

... these actions actually lead to more death and destruction than what they are trying to prevent.

Well, I do agree that having a non native animal imported into an area sure can lead to a lot of destruction. That tells me that it shouldn`t be permitted or allowed to continue, noting that the cultural or political environment could see them being released. If the environment were of concern to the government, then that threat would have been noted and actions to close the places would have been prompt. Obviously, the government or the mink owners were more concerned with the possible revenue from profits that could be had instead of the threat to the ecology of the surrounding area.

I think the government has more of a responsibility to prevent ecological damage when they can identify the risks, rather than activists who are calling for change -- first peacefully and then later when their calls have been ignored more directly.

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.

It is not too complex. It is just a matter of the status quo not wanting to relinquish their profit making from exploitation.

Usually, when this word "balance" is used, it is meant to mean "let us keep exploiting misery for profit in some manner that doesn`t upset the applecart too much (i.e. let us keep getting rich and having fun at the expense of another animal`s pain and suffering)."

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

What do you mean "instead of trying to get the farm to shut down"? -- that is exactly what they did/do and their goals are.

Have they through their actions caused more harm? Surely, some other animals such as birds or squirels were killed by released minks. But, to say a net total in increase of animals were killed due to their release were killed, well -- that could be up for debate -- most definitely something that can`t be decided by just declaring it so.

In the end though, the animals were only possibly able to be released there was due to the fact that they were there in the first place.

I do know that others who may have entertained thoughts in the UK of opening fur farms have probably had to think long and hard on that in the current climate. How can all that potential of future lives be calculated? I don`t think it can. But, what can be known is that the campaign against fur production in the UK has been successful. And, it wasn`t won with just all polite letter writing.

Has that production just been transferred to another location. Sure, most probably. But, the point is, the range where it is permissable has been pushed back. The world is like a chessboard -- always best to limit the number of spaces your opponent has the choice to operate on.

 

[No-name]

Don't most of the furs used in clothing come from PRC?

 

[Mycernius]

Show me where any ARists have stated or hinted that animals are more important than humans. The fact is, ARists view humans as animals, too. But, they view no animal as having more value in a universal sense. Value/importance is something that is affixed from the vantage point of a vested interest -- not any universal truth.

Hinted! how about attacks on people for working in the medical industry, Threatening violence, not just to them, but their families as well. There is a case in the UK when one group stole a body of one family and still have not returned it,despite the company closing. Where are their moral codes? To them human rights mean less than animals.

Sure, those things are illegal. But the point, which you don`t want to put forward, is that direct action has been employed by many throughout history which historians and the general populace after many years have justified as righteous disobedience of the law. ARists are merely taking a page from the playbook of history which whose members have utilized tactics which have proven successful for the changes they had championed.

Why do you fail to notice that and put it forward?

So you advocate this sort of action do you? I think you have revealed your true thoughts. You dislike violence against animals, but not against humans. Nuff said

 

[No-name]

I bumped the "Seven thing you should Know about PETA" thread on the American Issues subforum. Someone brought up some important concerns about the organization. My problem is that they share members with and have financially supported ALF and ELF. They do seem to regard animal life as either more important or of equal value to human life. And they seem to concentrate a disproportionate amount of effort to cute mammal type animals at the expense of slimier or insectlike life.

I still think any human life is more valuable than any given animal life. If it took the lives of a million fluffy house cats to cure one form of cancer that kills 10,000 people every year, I would consider that worthwhile. If it costs some animals lives to ensure that my human food supply is safe- I am willing to allow that to happen. I believe animal research to still be necessary. This is a "species barrier" I believe ought not to be crossed.

Now we originally began discussing hunting. Hunting is recreational- and entirely unnecessary. It is a billion dollar industry that millions of Americans enjoy and most Americans ignore. Some claim some population control necessity- which can be accomplished by less lethal, but more expensive means. Thusfar, I believe the arguments on both sides to be rather unconvincing.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Tsuyoiko, you have to remember when the campaigns agains fox hunting and vivisections were begun, victories in those campaigns was not viewed by the general public as being something that could be accomplished. It took long term dogged determination to get that victory and as for fox hunting it went against a very long tradition. Of course you know this. Saying that was not idealistic now is doing so with the benefit of hindsite.

You could be right about that, I'm not sure. My parents were very active in anti-vivisection campaigning in the early 80s, and even back then it was something that was well supported by ordinary people - the hard work was in taking on the corporations, not convincing the average man on the street. The same seems to have always been true of fox hunting, which in my experience has mostly been frowned upon by ordinary working class people. Now if you tried to ban fishing, that would be a different story.

 

[No-name]

Burning SUV's in Pasadena or ski resorts in Aspen do not convince me that animals should have the same rights as me. Ruining years of medical research or smokebombing an expensive bistro do not advance anyone's political agendas. These are not acts of protest, they are crimes and the criminals belong in prison.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

Again, you are stuck in the gutter of "seemism" -- show me where ARists purposely sacrificed a human life in lieu of an animal life. Show me where that is the norm. Don`t show me some anomaly of a fringe group. Show me something that definitively points to ARists, the majority of AR groups stating that animals are more important than people.

Direct Action which may involve breaking laws, is meant to hurt the system -- it is not meant to recruit supporters. Keep in mind, the U.S., and many countries came about due to direct action through breaking laws. And, that does not only include the birth of new countries -- it has involved many civil movements that were fighting their view of unjust systems which were or may not have been considered unjust by the majority of people at that time.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

No, Mycernius, the reason these animals are anywhere near that region is because they were imported into there. The exploitation is what set into motion the chain of events that saw them released into the wild.

Why don`t you think solving it lies at the source of the problem -- the importation of them? That is where the criticism justly belongs. Obviously the government, knowing the thread of them being released didn`t value the risk of what was facing the evironment by not shutting down the risks.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

Wow! Where do I start with this?

Whatever the solution, besides killing them and forcing them to live in a cramped wire cage exposed to the elements, -- it is definitely not cost prohibitive. That is just a hyperbolic statement so that the industry or government that let it happen would not have to own up to the responsibility of paying for doing something humane to let the animals live.

I am sure, solutions -- even those not requiring re-introduction, could be formed that would not cause paine to more animals. It sure isn`t rocket scientry or trying to teleport things across distances.

No, killing them, is the easy and short sighted aproach to trying to make the problem disappear. Putting the vase back together is the hard, brave, responsible approach that respects life. That is the long term approach. The short term approach is accomplished with a bullet or just letting the industries continue on with impunity.

Yes, it is our race's screw up -- and therefore our race's responsibility to rectify the wrongs we have committed. And it isn`t past generations. Many fur farms are operating right now. You are just hinting at shrugging shoulders and shirking responsibilities.

You are wrong in that liberationists and ARists have been puttting forth easy solutions. Letting the industries continue and killing are the easy solutions. Why do you value money and commodifying life over life itself?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

Factory farms and slaughterhouses are indeed the worst of the two. However, there is no need to hunt anymore in most places of the world. All our nutritional requirements can be fully met through a vegetarian diet.

There is no necessity in our modern era to have to take an animal`s life to obtain our nutritional needs to survive.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I have to either confirm or refute what you are saying. It is not as illogical as saying "I should try cocaine before I criticize it." (Which would endanger my health)

Sabro, you are assuming that hunting is not an activity with dangers involved in it? Sure it is. People are out there trudging in sometimes bad weather with weapons, not always smart enough to put the safety on, sometimes screwing around, sometimes drinking, sometimes slipping, sometimes taking aim at moving objects which are not quite clear, etc... Anytime you have a firearm as a part of an activity, there is danger.

I would bet there are some cocaine users who do so sparingly and take caution in their dosage and usage. The point of the analogy is that both are activities done for enjoyment -- to say one has to/should try one before one is able to criticise it is ludicrous.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

As to what gave me the right? I do not know.

Yes, Sabro, that is right. You do not know.

It is not illegal- so the government has not abridged that right...

That is an old worn out argument and is not based on reasoned thought. Just because something is not illegal, does not mean it is right to do. At one time it was legal to beat a slave or even rape your slave. The law is not a blanket litmus test for what is ethical. Do you think it is?

It is not against my religious code, so I could say it is a God given right...

And, which God would that be, and which book or scripture do you use that you have proof is actually the word of God granting you that right? I suspect your right from your God, when looked deeply enough, is one that comes from faith, and not from any entity that has empiracle evidence for its existence or one based on reason without contradictions. Why would you think causing suffering should be left in the hands of dogma that is all muddied up?

it is a tradition that I learned from my Uncle, and he learned from his father, and he from his in Japan- and so on back many generations- it is a connection to my past and culture- (the Japanese are a fishing people) I could say this gives me the right.

Do you think citing traditions warrants causing pain and death? Why would you cling to that logic? That logic leads cultural groups to scream that clitoral circumcision connects them to their past and culture. That logic doesn`t have the ring of truth to me. Why does it you? Please address the logic -- not the values inserted into the equations.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Also about the boy kicking the immobilized but not dead rabbit down the street... A hunter would probably not stand for this type of abuse. It would damage the meat and fur. He would shoot it with a small caliber weapon and dispatch him quickly so that both the meat and fur would be undamaged. (Although I wouldn't recommend eating a zombie bunny.)

Sabro, the analogy was one to show you that animals have an interest in not being victims of enjoyment that causes pain and suffering (i.e. exploitation). It was to highlight the Golden Rule, which even a mother seeing such an act performed would perhaps say to a chile, "Don`t do that. How would you like it if someone did that to you?"

Why do you think the analogy was about the boy being justified in his enjoyment if he just gave it a hard injuring blow, and then follow it up with a blow to put it out of its misery? You have jumped tracks.

Or, were you purposely attempting to cloud the issue?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Nature can be quite cruel (although I agree that man is far more creative in the application of cruelty). Starvation is not quick, neither is freezing to death or a hemmoragic feaver, cancer, or some parasitic infestations. There are several perfectly natural illnesses and injuries that animals and people encounter that are neither painless, nor quick. (Arthritis comes to mind.) Nature is not beyond slaughter that seems wholesale and unnatural, nor does nature give special protection to the old, helpless or innocent. Nature is also not beyond mass extinctions.

We agree.

However, at least nature does not perform its cruelty with the intent to cause pain. Pain is merely a bi-product of the tool of death.

Humans on the other hand, seeking to cause death via pain, search out for the tools that will bring the most intense pain and terror as they can purposely with concious and malicious intent to instill. With humans in the case of seeking to be cruel, death is the bi-product of the pain and suffering that preceeds it.