Is hunting morally acceptable?

I think that killing animals is ok for sporting puposes. I am an avid hunter and think that it is fun. In my family, we practice all hunting laws and laws of conservation. In my experience, I have never gone over the limit on any kind of hunting. I think it is also important to keep the population down for most animals such as the white-tailed deer. It keeps them from running rampant and getting killed on the roads. This way, hit-and-run accidents won't be as common. Think about a deer being hit, laying on the side of the road. It would be wrong to give it a slow painful death. It would have to wait on someone to ease its suffering.

I personnaly agree with you about hunting for fun but i hope you at least eat the meat or its just a waist of an animal.

I agree with Chris. When I was a young child, I hunted and killed for the sake of killing and left the animals to waste. As a child, I knew it was wrong, but due to lack of morales continued doing it. That eventually turned me away from hunting for many years. A few years ago as i turned middle aged, I found a renewed interest in hunting primarily by the memory of fun and thrill that I used to have and wanting to pass that on to my children. With the responsibility of raising my children as good people and finding my morality along the way, I have taught my children that you must eat what you kill. I truly feel that all hunted animals deserve the respect that if they are killed as nature has intented for them then they must be eaten as well.

With that said, the question of humane killing comes to the foreground. This is a bit more complicated for no matter how cautious a hunter is to make sure the shot is within range or that they are expereinced enough with there bow or firearm, there will always be the situation where an animal is not killed cleanly and quickly. I believe it comes back to individual values and the mindset to do all you can possibly do to ensure a clean and humane kill.

Okay, i agree partially with saying it's important to keep some animal populations down, but aren't you kinda being biased about that? If it's important to hunt White-tailed deer to keep their population under control, then shouldn't it also be important to keep the human population down by the same means? Hunt the deer to keep them from running rampant. But what about hunting humans to keep them from ruining the entire planet? Besides, the earth only has so much space. What happens when humans have occupied all there is? If you say hunting should be okay to keep populations under control, then you should also be okay with the genocide of jews, and mass slaughter of Jim Jones' camp. While their intentions might have been wrong, the result is the same. Plus, you also have to look at it through the animals' eyes. How would they feel to be killed by a predator they can't even see or do anything to stop?

if no one took out the deer population then they would certainly run free. But they would also die from hunger and overpopulation. if no one manages the deer then they will eventually become deseased and start to kill humans. this is why i believe that the population should be managed.

i totally agree!

what about hunting for fur? is that ok? if we didn't over do it maybe. how do you feel about the breeding farms that just raise and kill animals, that aren't killed for population control. its still hunting, but with no effort. is that form of hunting ok to you?

that shouldn't be considered hunting but hunting where  you give the animal a fair chance to get away is morally sound to me if you dont controll the population the animals will die of starvation which can lead to the loss of other animals in which could cause a huge domino effect on certain wildlife areas. I am also a hunter and follow all hunting laws and conservation laws

do you really think killing innocent animals for no reason is right? Suree. it gives us food and keeps the popualation down but you shouldnt kill animals that arent diseased.

so what are we suppost to eat the desiesed animals so we get sick. ohh good idea geneous. either way every thing has to hunt. owls have to hunt mice and foxes hunt chicken. coyote's hunt foxes. and we hunt deer and phesent and bear and elk what the difference. and if it wasn't captive animals that we eat then what would we eat.

We all hunt.

if people are killing animals for food then obviously there is a reason. everybody hunts. people arent going to eat dieased animals. good thinking.

if the animals are diseased we can't eat them...idiots....i dont know about you but diseased meat doesn't really get my tongue watering. God didn't give us game animals to kill only when diseased he gave them to us to USE but NOT ABUSE

Using animals in a natural thing. Dated for about 300 B.C.

hunting is a legal sport to kill animals

 

 

The animals would end up starving to death or something like that if we didn't hunt them. In the food chain they are the prey and we are the predators. If you want killing of innocent animals then check out where your grocery meat comes from.

i think hunting is not okay cause you are killing the animals

so im assuming your a vegitarian other wies were do you think deli meat comes from or beef or hamburgers or steak.

killing animals is ok if you need the food but if you kill it and leave it then its totally wrong!

this is great,   im doing a paper on this topic and you guys give some strong points....thanks

yeah me too.

YOU NEED MEAT!!!!!

i'm also doing a paper on this subject.
I honestly am an animal lover. The only type of hunting I've done would be fishing, I guess. And I admit that I'm guilty of keeping some a little too long before cleaning and had to throw them away or been careless and thought he might be a keeper and found out he wasn't after he was already dead. And I know thats cruel but it happens when you fish. However we I don't know if I really like the idea of sport hunting. The idea of killing an animal purely for prize bothers me. Hunting in the since that you take the meat and eat it I am all for. I believe it is much more humane than the acts that are committed to make commercial grade meat. Rather than being pent up and possibly fed steroid and killed mercilessly, the animal is free to roam the wild and feed naturally and when it is killed its usually gone before it knows it. But any other type of hunting, even though I guess I am a little guilty myself, I think are cruel and immoral.

I think if you obey the hunting and conservation laws it is perfectly acceptable.

First off, there is no wrong in killing an animal for food. Anti-hunters should get the facts straight and actually talk to the hunters. We have no killing attitude or any attitude at that, we simply feed our family. And if im not mistaken hunters provide the most money for public land. It's proven in 2008 hunters made the most contribution to land and parks than anyother group. So what is that attitude we have again? When your a hunter you learn more responsiblity than many others. Hunting is a game from way back when and always will be. It's also proven that the responisiblity, respect, and attitude is what hunting helps. Granit there are the few poachers and few that shoot and don't worry about finding the animal. Those are the people you should attack because they are not hunters, they are poachers. So anti-hunters, if it wasn't for us providing meat for shelters, who would be feeding them because stats prove it wouldnt be you guys?

Taking life is not sport.
The human species has evolved ethics as a way to guide us and protect us from making mistakes whose unforeseen consequences bring doom.
Look out into the universe and tell me how much life you see.
Life is a minority.
Were someone to take the life of your family, you would get it right now.
We humans have evolved into understanding more than our own immediate needs.
A mature comprehension of the rights and the responsibilities of our absolute dominion reflects complex duties.
We are responsible for everything here on Earth-- everything in our life-support system.
Just because ancient technology dictated lead bullets doesn't mean spewing lead around is a good idea.
Likewise "sport" hunting.
Cousteau's experiments with spearguns showed that previously abundant life vanished when hunting pressures from spearguns drove life away and stripped habitat of life.
Humans have the power of life and death as well as the responsibility.
If only to secure our own future we must use our power wisely.
Life is precious to us, but there are billions of light-years of death.
The old habits must die if we are to live.
Killing an ant for sport, much less a coyote, is abdicating our aegis as human beings.

Sport hunting is a complete myth. It is not done for hunger or survival or game management. The prome motive of the sport hunter is his own pleasure, though most hunters will not admit this. There are, sad to say, millions of cruel and thoughtless people who enjoy shooting animals. There's nothing moral or even ethical about it. It's a way to murder legally. The "over-population" of deer is actually cased by hunting. It's called "compensatory reproductive rebound" and brings in huge revenues for the hunting industry. The closer you look at hunting, the closer you get to the ugly truth.

Subsistence hunting is both. Sport hunting is neither.

But. Simply because you eat the animal does not automatically make "subsistence" your prime motive for killing it. For many many hunters, and probably most, eating the meat is secondary to the pleasure they derive from the kill. Does a sport hunter suddenly become moral if instead of not eating the animal he decides he might as well consume some of it? Is that all it takes to be moral? If you didn't HAVE to kill, then you did it because you FELT like it, and there's absolutely nothing moral about that.

What is to be said about the morality of the person that killed the cow that is in the hamburger you are eating? Is killing for money morale?

Camo-flaws

Ankle deep in fragile ecosystems
crushed beneath ignorant boot-heels
arrogance oozes from a sorely disguised
hulk of humanity
dressed in ridiculous, blotchy
synthetic, imitations of nature

I wonder out loud
asking only the obvious
WHY??
with full bellies and a life
smeared with the fat of the land
Is this necessary, is this your way

Hands on hips
sneer breaking a wide gash
beer sotted, blood thirsty visage
“it’s my f-ing, god given right!”
comes the all too familiar
mind boggling refrain

A 24” extension of
a “sportsman’s” essential manhood
something to hold and croon to
raised and ready to deliver
a killing blow to the ultimate
female…Earth

Making love to the violence stifled
shots ring out
steel satisfies the longing
lighting one up in the afterglow
he smiles
possessing his prize

Ah, sweet release
into a bloody, flailing
mass of flesh and bone
 oozing life
drowning in life’s giving waters
with dying, hopeless eyes



The trophy retrieved
the glassy eyes condemn
for generations lost
the cycle selfishly disrupted
by smug ego gratification
to obliteration’s end

Just like Starman
oh to enlighten
for killer to feel cold entering
as precious life retreats
the fear, pain and confusion
as cruel steel rips and tears

Tell me
does the camo hide you
from knowing eyes
a god called upon, a violated earth
a species obliterated
and humanity denied?

Mandy, with all due respect, and considering we're on the same side of the issue and you an obviously gentle and compassionate person, a poem like this falls on deaf ears. It would have no effect on the mind of a hunter. In fact, a hunter reading it will scoff it off as fluff and probably become more convinced he's right about hunting. The only way to expose the myths, lies and injustices of hunting is to address and challenge them DIRECTLY. And that means having the hard FACTS that refute and disprove the hunter's assertions and propaganda. Hunters are hardcore killers and are not impressed by poetry, unless it's about the joys of murdering animals.

I think hunting is actually morally preferable to most of the meat you buy at the market. The animals we raise for food production are not treated very well and because it keeps prices low, those practices are almost universally accepted. The deer and elk (and birds and rabbits) I chase live free, and if I am lucky enough to take one it is because I have put in the effort to represent the true cost of extending my life by taking in the animal's energy. As far as "sport" hunting goes, if you want to target animals with decorations that is your perogative, as long as the meat is taken and used as well. People need to stop lumping hunters together with poachers as the two categories could not be more different.

so much for camo.
The world in which subsistence hunting existed is gone for those who have gas and electric.
The whole nature thing is hopelessly compromised. Mostly by polluting industry.
But roads, climate changes all pressure wild critters into death. Killing is not sport.
It is pretending our eco system is still viable, but it is not.
When I went down the Mississippi, I could not drink the water, the fish were laden with PCB's and heavy metals and herbicides. It looks pretty but it is a whited sepulchre.And this is our life support, people.

Hunting laws should be structured to allow for sustainable subsistence hunting. The same laws should be structured to prohibit trophy hunting. Wild predators should be reintroduced or protected if they are already present. Hunting laws that protect the balance between species, including humans, are OK with me.

I find it odd that no one so far has responded that it's wrong to purchase meat from a store, which seems the strongest argument against hunting. If a person does hold this view, it's easy to include expand such a moral view to hunting animals. To me, the argument against taking animal life seems weakest if bolstered by animal rights (is it then wrong to kill pests in your home, or bacteria infecting a wound?) and strongest if bolstered by land-use efficiency (it takes less energy and fewer other resources to produce a vegetarian's diet).

If a person finds it acceptable to purchase meat from a store, doesn't it become harder to declare hunting morally wrong? In what way is it better to pay to have an animal killed for you than to do it yourself? Clearly there's no distinction in the killing, and in fact, farmed animals have a lower quality of life and shorter life span than wild animals. Shoppers are often encouraged to purchase organic meats because it's healthier or because the animal had a better quality of life. These are both even more true with wild meat. The only satisfactory argument becomes that it's unacceptable to enjoy the killing, and that's kind of an odd one. If you purchased meat from a store, how do you know the meat processing plant workers did not enjoy their jobs? If they did, is it wrong to purchase meat from them?

Many people against hunting opposite it because they consider the animals endangered. American society as a whole has determined that this concern is a valid one, so we protect endangered animals by enacting laws. Thus, in America, legal hunting does not raise the question of endangerment, except to the extent that a dissenter objects to the way society has categorized a species. But that is no longer a disagreement on the validity of hunting; rather, it is a disagreement on a categorization by society.

Other people oppose hunting because the animals are beautiful. Perhaps the wildness is beautiful, precious because our modern culture has made wildness too scarce. This may be the most powerful emotional reason for people to be opposed to hunting. But this is actually not an argument against the moral acceptability of taking an animal's life. Indeed, this point of view would accept hunting in epochs and locations where wildlife is abundant.

Where do we get our values? From religion? Religions worldwide accept hunting. From laws? Legal codes worldwide accept killing of wild animals. From cultures? Throughout human history, most cultures have engaged in killing wild animals. Or do we see our values coming from our own hearts and minds, as implied in this discussion? If so, what about diversity of thought? Generally, liberals will rise in defense of a myriad of cultures against the unifying effects of globalism and multinational corporations. Yet for a relatively recent few to determine for all society – and all societies – that hunting is wrong would be a radical imposition of their values onto others.

For these reasons, the burden of proof falls heavily on those who find it unacceptable to hunt wild, non-endangered meat for food.

The point is that "sport" hunting (though in no way a sport) is not a matter of the hunter's survival. Most of them hunt and kill for pleasure. That is their prime motive, whether they decide to eat the meat or not. They kill many millions of animals they do NOT eat. Open your eyes! If you kill and don't NEED to, then you're killing NEEDLESSLY. That's what makes it IMMORAL.

PS. In your fallacious argument you say "Religions worldwide accept hunting." Buddhism doesn't. Neither do many others. As for Christianity, it was founded by a man who spent his life preaching against killing on every level. Anyone who thinks they're a Christian and also hunts, is also a hypocrite. Do you think if Jesus were alive today he'd pick up a gun or bow and go into the woods to shoot animals? He wouldn't do it even if you put a gun to his head! Hunting exists because it's big business and brings in enormous revenues for itself & company. And since when is big business an icon of morality? Hunting is now legal as slavery once was. In Nazi Germany it was legal to exterminate people. Does legal make it right? Sooner or later, when enough people get a good look at how cruel, destructive and needless hunting is, justice will finally catch up with the laws that permit it.

Would Jesus hunt? He ran with a crowd of fishermen and ate and served meat. I think he would hunt. I kind of see him with a bow. But he spoke in farmer parables (you know -- kill the fatted calf fr the prodigal son and all that) and was a man of the people - a populist figure. So he'd probably hunt with rifles and shotguns as well.

You're onto something. All that stuff he preached about mercy and compassion - just farmer talk. He probably would've loved to turn in those dirty robes for a fresh camo oufit. Or maybe buckskins. And for his birthday wouldn't a new rifle or shotgun be the perfect gift for the "Prince of Peace"? Jeez, you sure do know what you're talking about.

Steve you have know idea of what you are talking about. God gave us animals for our own use not to let just run around. Tell me would you like to see a bunch of dead animals on the road or not even know that an animal died