Hunting Animals Just For Sport (not for food): Depraved?

[FidelCashflow]

In the puppy-marine thread the argument kept coming up that we kill other animals, but people don't care as much, since they're not dogs, and the response was we're killing cows, chickens, etc. for food, not just fun, which is twisted. But there are hunters who hunt animals like zebra, rhinos, bears, foxes, etc. for no other reason other than to prove they can and mount their head on a wall, or skin them and turn them into a rug. Is this also depraved and disgusting, and the sign of a serial killer in the making, or just good old fashioned fun? If someone shoots and kills non-domesticated dogs for fun, is it still a different level of offensive, or just another type of prey for a hunter to entertain himself with? I want to get to the bottom of why there is this taboo in western culture about questioning the value of dogs, which seems to have a status above any other animal. Even in the Michael Vick case, I think half the backlash against him was because he was caught fighting dogs, if he was caught fighting, electrocuting, drowning, and shooting hens in cockfights, I doubt people would feel quite as strongly.

 

[LabelKing]

Since I have a fair amount of items made from animals--some possibly protected--I will opine on this. Frankly, hunting and purposefully throwing a puppy into a ravine are quite different things. There are fundamental differences between taking a small creature and throwing it off a cliff and hunting a large and dangerous animal like a lion or leopard.

Also, controlled hunting helps the environment, believe it or not.

 

[FidelCashflow]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Also, controlled hunting helps the environment, believe it or not.
I'm sure killing a stray wild dog in a country with too many of them also helps the environment. I don't think Iraqis have taken to the idea of domesticated dogs as pets as they have in the west. Besides, the population control is coincidental for most hunters. I'm reasonably sure most hunters have other motives behind picking up a gun and wandering into the bush and looking for something to kill than population control.

 

[texas_jack]

When my dad was young he used to drink beer in the back of a pickup and shoot armadillos. This is what passed for fun in Texas in the early 60s. That was before he discovered LSD.

 

[skalogre]

Actually it is inane and cruel, maybe even wasteful, to kill for no reason other than the "sport" of it. I know there are hunters on this forum that would agree with me. Culling due to overpopulation of invasive species, like with the hares in Australia, is a different matter.

Originally Posted by FidelCashflow

...Besides, the population control is coincidental for most hunters. I'm reasonably sure most hunters have other motives behind picking up a gun and wandering into the bush and looking for something to kill than population control.
Probably right.

 

[FidelCashflow]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

There are fundamental differences between taking a small creature and throwing it off a cliff and hunting a large and dangerous animal like a lion or leopard.

Why is it so darn different? If the dog isn't domesticated, isn't it just another wild animal? Is it any different than shooting at other smaller animals for sport like Armadillos? Is throwing an animal off a cliff somehow worse than shooting it? Either way it's going to result in a painful death.

Apparently everyone here is fine with killing turkeys repeatedly.

 

[skalogre]

Originally Posted by FidelCashflow

Why is it so darn different? If the dog isn't domesticated, isn't it just another wild animal? Is it any different than shooting at other smaller animals for sport like Armadillos? Is throwing an animal off a cliff somehow worse than shooting it? Either way it's going to result in a painful death.

Apparently everyone here is fine with killing turkeys repeatedly.

But turkeys taste like fowl-flavoured corrugated cardboard. And to quote Robot Chicken, God hates freaks (like turkeys)

 

[Quirk]

Originally Posted by FidelCashflow

Apparently everyone here is fine with killing turkeys repeatedly.

Only the pedantic ones. J has them for lunch.

 

[hahnb]

Unless you actually need to hunt in order to eat, does it really matter if you eat the animal after killing it? How is that anymore justifiable than sport hunting? There's no difference between "sport" hunting and hunting an animal you plan on eating unless this is your only means of survival. I grew up in a conservative household, I hunted up until age 17 or so when I lost interest in it. Basically, I realized that the only reason I, and everyone else, goes hunting-is because you want to kill something. I think there's something inherently wrong with that. I realized it was immoral of me to take another animals life simply for my own pleasure-which is what all hunters do. I still shoot, and am much more actively involved in firearms than when I hunted-but I no longer have the desire to go hunting.

 

[SoCal2NYC]

Originally Posted by FidelCashflow

I

Besides, the population control is coincidental for most hunters. I'm reasonably sure most hunters have other motives behind picking up a gun and wandering into the bush and looking for something to kill than population control.

Yah...to have fun.

It's the people who have never gone hunting that are against it or don't understand it.

 

[Huntsman]

Originally Posted by hahnb

Unless you actually need to hunt in order to eat, does it really matter if you eat the animal after killing it? How is that anymore justifiable than sport hunting? There's no difference between "sport" hunting and hunting an animal you plan on eating unless this is your only means of survival.

I grew up in a conservative household, I hunted up until age 17 or so when I lost interest in it. Basically, I realized that the only reason I, and everyone else, goes hunting-is because you want to kill something. I think there's something inherently wrong with that.

I realized it was immoral of me to take another animals life simply for my own pleasure-which is what all hunters do. I still shoot, and am much more actively involved in firearms than when I hunted-but I no longer have the desire to go hunting.

None of this is really true. It deserves better discussion than I am able to give it right now, but I'm commenting now to force me to write on it tomorrow evening. I'll also cross quote myself:

Continuing generally, many of you may know that I am a hunter, not an effete yuppie, and I've shot, killed, dressed, and cooked a variety of game, once I even physically broke the neck of a quail I winged. I don't enjoy the killing, I'm really not sure I know any hunters who do, as that would be rather disturbing, and it had always seemed to me that hunters were taught that sense of the value of life. It's part of the tradition, that we do this thing, we kill for sustenance, and in taking it upon ourselves we acknowledge that violent truth and of the grave responsibility of killing. We learn that life matters, and that lesson is what we translate into our interactions with our fellow man. It's not a matter of anthropomorphizing, which is applying standards downwards, it's a matter of using a fundamental to build our higher standard of human interaction upon.

 

[crazyquik]

Originally Posted by FidelCashflow

If someone shoots and kills non-domesticated dogs for fun, is it still a different level of offensive, or just another type of prey for a hunter to entertain himself with?

Foxes, wolves, and coyotes here.

Jackels and dingos elsewhere.

I know a lot of people who are dog lovers, and none of them have ever had a problem with hunters who kill coyotes for fun/sport/challenge/livestock protection.

 

[poelow]

I think an important issue here is waste/ "overkill".

Killing for the sake of sport is ok, but killing for the sake of killing is not. Where that line is drawn is somewhat ambiguous, and I feel is a moral issue left to the "killer", who hopefully has some judgement. Often times ideologies or misconceptions influence that judgement, as in the mass slaugter of a certain species will be beneficial to the enviroment/other species.

Either way, I would not consider killing an endangered species or similarly threatened animal appropriate and unsportsmanlike in the same way that killing 100 gazells between 4 people would be innapropriate. There are certain moral standards associated with hunting animals for sport that are often twisted or broken.

An interesting debate is the value of one animals life over the other depending on the species. Are we supposed to view a ferrel horse any differently from a ground hog, or a red-tailed hawk different than a swallow? I think a lot of us would view the former mentioned animals (horse and hawk) as more valuable, but why? Scarcity? Size? What is it?

 

[marlinspike]

I'm not anti-hunting (in fact, perhaps some would say pro-hunting), but I do think hunting for "sport" alone is a depraved act.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by marlinspike

I'm not anti-hunting (in fact, perhaps some would say pro-hunting), but I do think hunting for "sport" alone is a depraved act.
I say old chap, that's just not right!