Hunting on Sundays

[packsaddle 753]

In this region I've actually observed heated arguments over who gets a fresh roadkill.

 

But this thread has two elements to it. Johnponz has expressed, in non-rigorous terms, his system by which he makes ethical judgments regarding food. I think he is not alone although I don't share his thinking. I do want to try to understand it.

 

I'm not sure I agree with setting us apart from 'nature', whatever 'nature' is. I get the 'nature' thing from students as well as colleagues who ought to know better. It's really difficult to avoid. We are ALL part of nature. I think a way to reconcile my view with Beavah's is to note that in many ways, man has altered the world in ways that, through our intimate dependence on technology, makes us part of a man-made machine. We have long passed the point of going back, we are so dependent on it. In this sense, domesticated animals are now strongly co-evolved with man, so much so that if man was removed, most of them would quickly perish leaving only those that manage to quickly adapt (evolve) to some 'wild type'. But no matter what WE do, there is no aspect of our actions or technologies that do not conform to 'natural' laws. Unless someone can point me to an exception...in which case I'd really like to know about it.

 

I don't agree with Johnponz's arbitrary values placed on animals which 'seem' closer to man. I see elements of this irrational approach in the idiotic regulations which apply to aquarium fish in my lab but not to other organisms which also have highly-developed nervous systems and behaviors - but are not vertebrates.

 

So I guess I'm inclined to be mean to everyone on this. We are a jumbled morass of ethical confusion, a mixture of sentiment and ignorance and lack of understanding. And I don't see resolution to this any time soon. I am reminded of V'ger's response when Captain Kirk was objecting to having Lieutenant Uhura's mind erased. Kirk noted that Uhura was not a defective unit, she was a woman. V'ger merely responded that she was a "mass of conflicting impulses". Couldn't have said it better myself (that's more sexist claptrap just for you, Vicki).

No, I'll just sit back and and watch and enjoy my steak (as well as those poor, neglected carrots).(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

Gee,

 

I like meat but don't like hunting. I am a homo sapien and we get to eat the rest, destroy the planet, just grind it up into hamburger and I am happy. So I get things have to die so I can live.

 

I have had bambi-burgers; pretty good.

 

I just want to walk in the woods in designated "no hunting" areas without being shot.

[packsaddle 753]

Wear orange and duck, in case there's a follow-up shot.

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

I should be more positive! Casualties are problemtunities for practicing First Aid. Emergency Prep scenario: rescue the downed Patrol. Kudo's 1/4 mile separation saves lives --don't bunch up boys! Lashing has meaning when you need build a litter to carry out the fat SM.

 

I gotta a couple boys I would be more than happy making them take point. "Thats right son, just gobble like a turkey".

 

Downside: shot scouts = paperwork and new GSS revisions.

[johnponz 14]

I do not know if I expressed it properly, but I am more concerned about what happens to the human because of the recreational killing than I am what happens to the animal. I cannot cite them, but I believe studies have shown that recrational killing will desensitize humans to the act of killing, and that is really my concern. I worry that people who do this kind of thing end up losing respect for life in general and eventually human life in particular. As I said it bothers me when I hear about people throwing frogs into campfires and the like as well as hunting for fun. I believe hunting for recreation is close to the same thing as throwing those frogs into the fire. (killing to have fun).

 

I understand that we have to eat, and I am not prepared to be a vegatarian. However in modern society, there are animals raised for this purpose, and the people killing them are doing it as a job (and I hope not for fun-that is why it is called work). Now if you live in the back woods and do not have money to go to the grocery store, and hunt to survive, this is a whole different story.

 

It is the act of killing for fun that really bothers me and I believe is not good for the phyche of the individual or for society as a whole. In the end it is about human motivation not the anthropomorphism of the animal.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

[qwazse 4345]

jp's line of reasoning is not new, and if abstaining from certain meats helps him march through life with his head held high, more power to him.

 

However, my upbringing was closer to EA's. In SW PA, cattle and bean-crops (your protein substitutes) were for paying bills. Wild game was for feeding the family -- God's blessing to your community for setting aside lands from farming or mining. We knew hunters who were in it just for sport (and to keep their corn fields from being ravaged), and knowing Dad was disabled and Mom had a knack for finding folk who would need some help to make it through the winter, they would bring their kills at our house for us to butcher. I loved skinning deer (a lot cleaner than snapping turtle), and the pelts would go to some poor farmers kid who could sell them.

 

And all the expense for guns and gear for stalking and time spent tracking? Well, we'd all be doing that anyway to prepare for when the Soviets invaded!

 

Like EA, I'm no hunter. But would never turn down fresh game. Moreover, when it comes to knowing local trails for my crew to hike, it's the hunters who can give me the details I need.

 

I'm just trying to figure out how important it is for my state to set aside Sunday for a rest from the sport.

 

P.S. - Oh and EA, if you're ever inclined to share that venison, drop me a PM!

[Beavah 205]

Wear orange and duck

 

Yah, hmmmm... I'm not sure that wearing duck is goin' to improve your chances. Especially not if Dick Cheney is around.

 

johnponz, you're correct that there is a correlation between sociopathic behaviors and torturing animals. Usually pets. Correlation, mind you, not causal connection. Da causal connection is probably that sociopaths like hurting everything and everyone, not that hurting pets leads to bein' a sociopath.

 

There's no association between mental health issues, not valuing life, etc. etc. and working as a butcher, or hunting, or any other sort of killing as part of path to table, nuisance control, sport, etc. None. So I think yeh have no need to be concerned.

 

Just as there's no reason to believe that people enslaving animals for recreation or labor leads people to believe that enslaving people is an OK thing. Our brains are happily well-developed enough to make those distinctions with virtually no effort. In fact, our brains seem to be hard-wired to evaluate things in each context separately, eh? It's very very hard for us to "transfer" skills or thought processes from one context to another, if yeh believe all the psychologists.

 

Besides, I think you're misunderstanding hunters. No one finds the act of killing per se "fun". They find da challenge of hunting successfully fulfilling. They enjoy spendin' time in the woods with like-minded friends and achieving a goal. You're projectin' assumed motives on other folks that just aren't there.

 

Most hunters would be furious with a person who deliberately tortured animals, eh? It's not the same thing.

 

Beavah

 

[johnponz 14]

I actually have some knowlege on this and have read a couple of scholarly articles. The seminal book on this topic is "The Link Between Animal Abuse and Human Violence" edited by Andrew Linzey. The last Chapter of this compilation explains very well how hunting falls into the general category of "Animal Abuse." That is the philosophical view that I take. He argues and I agree that abuse and hunting for sport are indeed the same thing.

 

You can say that they are not, but that does not make it so, and certainly arguments can be made the other way and have by smarter people than me.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

[JoeBob 606]

Good luck getting an objective scientific opinion from this guy:

 

"Andrew Linzey is an Anglican priest, theologian, author, and prominent figure in the Christian vegetarian movement. He is a member of the Faculty of Theology in the University of Oxford and held the worlds first academic post in Ethics, Theology and Animal Welfare"

 

johnponz: I'm curious, where do you stand on the abortion issue? Just poking the fire, here. But since a human sperm hovering in the aqueous outside of a female egg is much closer to 'being human' than a beef cow, where would a human zygote fit on your 'value of life' scale?

 

I know, I'm a trouble maker...

[johnponz 14]

I am pretty consistent in my thinking.

 

I believe that abortion is wrong and should not be performed out of convenience. I do make exceptions because of rape, the mother's life being in danger and the like. I will go further to say that I believe that abortions would occur more frequently in a society that encourages hunting (I have no numbers to back this up-it is just an extrapulation based on my thesis that hunting leads to a de-valueing of life).

 

By the way since you brought it up. I do find it strange that the same political party that talks about the sanctity of "life" also tends to be the one that encourages hunting. This seems a little inconsistent to me.

 

Finally, I would not make abortion illegal though as I believe everyone has the right to make their own choices. By the way, I would not make hunting illegal either. However that does not stop me from trying to convince others to come over to my way of thinking. These days though people (including me) do not change their minds very often.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

[CalicoPenn 729]

And you can say (as Andrew Linzey apparently says) that animal abuse and hunting are the same thing, but that doesn't make it true either.

 

Heck, if hunting animals leads to violence against people, then surely military service, where people are trained to kill other people, leads to violence against people. There are far more people who have served in the military than hunt so we may be in real danger now.

 

 

[johnponz 14]

To clarify, I never said (like Beavah did) that it made it so. I was just using Linzey's work to show that my way of thinking was legitimate and well thought out. You can argue against my philosophy, but it is legitimate and justifiable.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

[Scoutfish 16]

" I was just using Linzey's work to show that my way of thinking was legitimate and well thought out "

 

No more well thought out or legitimate than any other person's arguement that defends their own opinion, right?

 

Here's what I know from personal observation over the years. No, I haven't been taking notes, but just from experience s and knowledge gained over the years from many friends who hunt, and also trhose who fish ( as I do).

 

There are a few hunters who thrill over seeing a wounded deer limp and fall to the grond. There are some who could care less how much pain they have caused. There are a few who will shoot a deer/fox/trurkey/ bear/ elk/ ewtc... just to get a head monted on their wall at home and not use a single piece of meat for themselves or to even donate to those who could use it.

 

But they are the very, very small minority of the hunters I know.

 

On the other hand, muders, drive by shootings, gang killings and beatings, murder and rape are up.

Every day I either read or hear on the radio or evening news that somebody has been killed in my state due to a robbery, gang related, marritial issues ( affairs? ) or even the absolute stupidest stuff like somebody being "Dissed over my score on the vieo game" and having to shoot anotrher person to get their respect back.

 

MOst ( but not all) are city folks. Straight up urban dwelling , city folks who are no more hunters than I am the Russian Premier.

 

Go into the most gang infested and hi crime areas of america and conduct a poll to see how many are hunters or who hunt animals.

 

Go to our prisons and see how many convicted murderes were hunters.

 

No group is 100% perfect, but I suspect that a vegetarian who has "proof" of the connectuion between hunting and animal abuse is only pushing his own agenda with only "facts" that support his opinion, and none that are even remotely contrary.

 

Of course, I guess I am also biased since I am the son of a 22 year military dad who was also an MP . Most non violent and confrontation avoiding guy I ever knew.

 

Yeah, opinion and nothing more.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, hmmmm....

 

Linzey is a philosopher, eh? And da book yeh mention is published by his own university press, presumably as a philosophical work.

 

I think yeh have to be a bit discerning about scholarship. One can certainly understand and make a case for a philosophy that precludes killing of many living organisms (though that frequently breaks down at least when yeh get to bacterial and parasitic infections). Many forms of Hinduism espouse such a philosophy, and with it a mandate of vegetarianism (killing only plant life, but still killing in many cases).

 

It's a different thing to make a claim that there's a connection to other sorts of sociopathic behavior, or "desensitization" to such behavior. That isn't a philosophical claim, it's a scientific one, which is properly addressed not by philosophy, but by psychology. And da fellow Linzey is not a psychologist. In fact, da psychological research in the area as close as I can tell doesn't show what you're claiming.

 

I reckon we all have to be careful about not mixin' up our beliefs with da relevant science. Me included! Thanks, though, for bein' a good sport and allowin' us to engage in da philosophical discussion.

 

Along those lines, I'm wonderin' how yeh justify not being a vegetarian? Or perhaps limiting your diet to artificial protein concoctions. Is it somehow better if yeh pay other people to do your killing for you? Have yeh ever seen da conditions in a factory farm, where animals are just raised to be slaughtered? How is that sort of mass cruelty and slaughter not worse than hunting? Philosophically speakin'. Doesn't it just teach us that life is a thing, a commercial object to be bought or sold? Wouldn't that be just as "desensitizing" or worse?

 

And I'm still wonderin' why keeping pets or draft animals is OK. If, philosophically, hunting is related to murder, then why isn't keepin' pets or draft animals related to slavery? Why isn't animal breeding a philosophical stepping stone to eugenics?

 

Yah, I think this is all mostly a city-folk thing. Milk comes from a jug, meat comes in shrink wrap, and da fellows who never got to learn about life and hunting through nature seem to need to express that lack through human-on-human violence in da asphalt jungle.

 

Beavah

 

 

[BartHumphries 10]

Speaking of bacteria and parasitic forms of life, back around 1000 AD (or CE, if you prefer) the people of England, under thelred were pro-parasite for the most part. Worms (tapeworms and other such organisms) were seen as an example of how people were able to be more Christ-like -- when people donated their bodies these "harmless" creatures who would otherwise perish were offered the chance to live. Flies, on the other hand, were universally derided. Maggots were believed to spontaneously generate from "dead" meat and were seen as direct evidence of Lucifer's ability to touch the world. Hosting a parasite offered a chance to personally fight Lucifer's influence. This really has little bearing on current discussion, I was just trotting it out as an example of how much cultural/societal views on such forms of life can change over time.

 

I would argue that the mere act of killing an animal for food is a far cry from abuse. It is true that a large number of commercial slaughterhouses today do engage in what I personally view as abuse. That being said, not all commercial food is raised in abusive environments. Abuse is separate from killing.

 

Take Tyson chicken, for instance: http://www.tyson.com/ It's usually raised by Hmong people in the US somewhere who view the chicken as somewhat sacred -- chickens feature in a number of their cultural ceremonies and Hmong people are thus more likely to be excited to be able to be a chicken farmer (which doesn't mean they don't eat chicken -- for instance, a traditional post-pregnancy diet calls for the woman to eat nothing but chicken for some time). I think you would be hard pressed to go to these people and tell them that they're committing animal abuse.

 

Chickens are routinely killed in these modern times by extremely humane methods. They're basically put through an "electric chair" -- although since a chicken head/brain is so small you don't run into all the problems that you do trying to electrocute a human to death -- no need for wet sponges, for instance, there's no fire, no smell, because the required voltage is far smaller. We're talking car batteries that would just give you or me a slight shock. Go watch and see how it's done. There's no bones broken, the chickens aren't "distressed", they're just alive one moment and then suddenly they're dead. One guy will drive around with his little trailer and run through a flock, perhaps 5-10 at a time.

 

Chicken killing isn't like it was in my dad's time, when their heads were chopped off and the chickens (who have very basic nervous systems and often take a while to realize they're dead because they don't need regular signals from their brain to keep their body alive and functioning like we do) would be spraying blood all over while they ran around occasionally clucking (if their head was taken off above their voice box).

 

Humans, on the other hand, cannot survive having their head cut off -- even if everything is surgically cut off and immediately reattached and a pacemaker is installed for the heart, the brain won't be able to regulate the endocrine system and a person will quickly become basically diabetic and all sorts of other things will happen to a human being, who has a much more advanced (meaning complicated) body than a chicken.