Poll: Is recreational hunting immoral?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
12
0%
0 0%
36
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Recreational hunting
#1
Why or why not?
Reply
#2
I used to care about the poor little animals and thought that hunting was cruel.

Then I moved to a very liberal area that actually had a ban on hunting.

Well, let me tell you....those deer will kill you and everyone that you love if you don't kill them first.  I am not kidding those deer were all over the place...always jumping in front of cars (especially MY CAR!). 

So...without hunting...the deer will take over. 

It's us or them. 

Really....
Reply
#3
Deer are tiny compared to moose. Try living in Newfoundland where moose were introduced a century ago with no natural predators on the Rock. They average one to two moose/auto collisions a day with injuries in almost all of them and death in more cases than I like to think about. Besides, if you're going to eat what you kill, I think it's a lot more moral than the factory-farming that raises the animals that the non-vegetarian anti-hunters are buying in the grocery store. I can respect a vegetarian anti-hunter. Anti-hunters that eat meat are hypocrotical arseholes!
Reply
#4
No it's not a sin.

Don't let the liberal animal and tree-hugging crowd persuade you that is either.
Reply
#5
Recreational hunting, that's good. You eat what you kill.

Sport fishing, that's bad. You throw back what you catch.

Reply
#6
Certainly not intrinsically.  I could see it being immoral on a case by case, if a person really has hatred in his heart for God's creation.  I'm not a hunter, but I know quite a few and even the recreational one's don't hunt out of hatred.

Voted no, with the availability of exception.  Just like everything else.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#7
I think it's immoral to kill anything solely for the sake of entertainment, fun, enjoyment, etc. That's just taking pleasure in killing. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the 'thrill of the hunt' if you're hunting for food, though. Hunting is a morally legitimate way of acquiring food. Considering how some meat corporations treat their livestock, hunting might actually be a far more morally sound means of acquiring food, rather than supporting a company which treats animals inhumanely. The way pigs in particular are treated in the commercial meat industry is just appaling. I'd rather shoot an animal myself than hand over money to a company like Agriprocessors.

Reply
#8
(07-20-2011, 11:42 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Deer are tiny compared to moose. Try living in Newfoundland where moose were introduced a century ago with no natural predators on the Rock. They average one to two moose/auto collisions a day with injuries in almost all of them and death in more cases than I like to think about. Besides, if you're going to eat what you kill, I think it's a lot more moral than the factory-farming that raises the animals that the non-vegetarian anti-hunters are buying in the grocery store. I can respect a vegetarian anti-hunter. Anti-hunters that eat meat are hypocrotical arseholes!

Maybe I should have clarified. By "recreational hunting" I mean hunting purely for a sport. If the animal is being culled or is later eaten then that would not fall under "recreational" for the purpose of this question.
Reply
#9
(07-21-2011, 07:37 AM)Aragon Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 11:42 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Deer are tiny compared to moose. Try living in Newfoundland where moose were introduced a century ago with no natural predators on the Rock. They average one to two moose/auto collisions a day with injuries in almost all of them and death in more cases than I like to think about. Besides, if you're going to eat what you kill, I think it's a lot more moral than the factory-farming that raises the animals that the non-vegetarian anti-hunters are buying in the grocery store. I can respect a vegetarian anti-hunter. Anti-hunters that eat meat are hypocrotical arseholes!

Maybe I should have clarified. By "recreational hunting" I mean hunting purely for a sport. If the animal is being culled or is later eaten then that would not fall under "recreational" for the purpose of this question.

I voted yes, for the same reason you gave here.  I understood recreational hunting as killing solely for the pleasure of killing.  I don't consider hunting for food or for local population control to be doing it for fun.  In the case of population control, if they can capture and return further to the wild, that'd be best, but sometimes financially, or in the case of deer, practically, that isn't a feasible option.
Reply
#10
As someone who hunts the idea of trophy hunting makes me rage. Making an animal suffer or die for the food,and not entirely necessary food at that, is bad enough for me.I'm no tree hugger (though I love trees) but talking an animals life for fun is f-ed up.

Hunting humanely for the purposes of managing populations is an entirely different matter.

I know seasoned hunters who,at times just can't the shot because the animal has impressed them too much and when they do make a kill all good hunters have a tiny pang of regret.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)