Thread: Hunters Vs PETA

Originally Posted by conservative

I agree totally. What really pisses me off are those hunting ranches that are so stocked with animals you could shoot in any direction and kill something...not much "sport" there...

Unless of course, you're aiming for the other hunters....

There is no question that the hunters in this country, with the money they spend on hunting license's and the like, do more for wildlife and habitat conservation than PETA could ever hope to.

Evolve..........

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

There is no question that the hunters in this country, with the money they spend on hunting license's and the like, do more for wildlife and habitat conservation than PETA could ever hope to.

This is probably true- but that doesn't make hunting morally right. To extend this to an extreme for the purpose of illustration only, child prostitution provides much needed income to the Bangkok economy and supports many other businesses, such as hotels and bars. Therefore child prositution is morally justified. Anyone got a problem with that?

Originally Posted by Ausinus

I dont give a shit what PETA says or does, to be frank. However, I do still hold by my opinion that killing animals for sport is unethical.

That is not to say I cant shoot a gun

Don't let this goober get ya over excited Aus... he's only here to ruffle the feathers (while showing his ignorance at the same time.)

My Dad is him... he's a gunsmith and a great hunter. But he does shit like sets up a bird feeder in his back yard so he can pick off birds with a .22 with a $600 scope on it. Then when the neighborhood cats come for the birds, he takes them out too. Sick. I consider him a good parent though considering I used reverse psychology to learn from him.

Originally Posted by Inkslinger

Don't let this goober get ya over excited Aus... he's only here to ruffle the feathers (while showing his ignorance at the same time.)

My Dad is him... he's a gunsmith and a great hunter. But he does shit like sets up a bird feeder in his back yard so he can pick off birds with a .22 with a $600 scope on it. Then when the neighborhood cats come for the birds, he takes them out too. Sick. I consider him a good parent though considering I used reverse psychology to learn from him.

Thats wierd. Plain wierd. Sorry dude, your dad is wierd.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Latherty

This is probably true- but that doesn't make hunting morally right.

Not its not probably true, its truth is blatently obvious to anyone who cares to open their eyes. Virtually every State Wildlife and Fisheries dept recieves a bulk of their funding through the sale of licenses, area permits, tags, and a number of other fees paid exclusively by hunters. These are the professionals in the field assessing the health of various wildlife populations and habitats and taking the necessary steps to maintain them. This is also not to mention the additional taxes in some states on numerous other hunting related products such as ammunition that go directly to conservation.

PETA is out to protect the civil rights of any one particular bambi. They really do jack shit as far as preserving the health of wildlife habitats and populations, the hunters do most of that.

As far as whether its morally right or not thats your opinion and if you feel that way I suggest you not hunt but don't try and shove your morals down other peoples throats especially when, if followed, would prove disasterous to the thing you were trying to protect or save in the first place (wildlife).

To extend this to an extreme for the purpose of illustration only, child prostitution provides much needed income to the Bangkok economy and supports many other businesses, such as hotels and bars. Therefore child prositution is morally justified. Anyone got a problem with that?

You are right using the word extreme. I don't think the subject of child prostitution in Bankok has much to do with the morality of hunting.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

I call bullshit. This isnt true, hunting provides very little consumer meat products.

Anyway it is unethical to kill animals for sport. Just read Peter Singer's "Practical Ethics".

You do not know what you are talking about. Go to northern Wisconsin or Upper Penninsula Michigan. You will find most households eating lots of venison. You are correct for San Fransico, but you do not know about all of American society.

Originally Posted by Louisiana Oilman

Since I am a avid hunter of Alligator,Ducks, Deer, Doves, Quail, Woodcock and Snipe with a fondness for freshwater and saltwater fishing that our state The Sportsman Paradise has to offer, I feel that PETA needs to be disbanded and outlawed. They are a threat to the conservation of wildlife that hunters provide with their taxdollars and fees paid through hunting liscenses, etc. PETA has done nothing to help accept harass hunters and disrupt hunting lands with almost terrorist tactics by destroying property that landowners spend thousands on. If they had it their way we would have over populations of deer running wild and dying of disease and nothing but vegetables in our grocery stores. That goes for Ducks and Geese as well. Hunters are needed for the management of these creatures to keep populations in check as well as teaching the youth of America how to hunt and fish and learn the preservation of land is a wonderous thing. It is a quality that all youths should be instilled with. What do you think. PETA is bad.

Right to Hunt vs. Animal Rights - A Daily Reckoning Special Position Paper

I would prefer to look at it like PETA and hunters contribute to animal welfare, albeit in much different ways.

Without a doubt, an animal that dies at the end of my scope lived a good life up to that point, a real, natural life as an animal should. A horrible existance (IMO) would be a cow that can not move, pumped full of drugs (Which you will consume), serving no purpose but to die after a useless life. Have you ever seen the inside of slaughterhouses? Horrible stuff, no way for a life to live. Of course, this assumes you arent one of the idiots who hunts for sport, cut the antlers off and leave the meat. If you hunt for meat and use as much of the animal as possible, you have much more descency than a grocery shopping non-hunter.

Just so you are aware of the big picture though, the reason deer would be overpopulated and diseased is because we overhunted all their predators a long time ago, so dont be so smug.:whistling:

Originally Posted by Ausinus

I call bullshit. This isnt true, hunting provides very little consumer meat products.

Anyway it is unethical to kill animals for sport. Just read Peter Singer's "Practical Ethics".

I agree that hunting is unethical, however, I just wanted to say that Peter Singer is a philosophical dwarf. The man's reasoning powers are completely restrained by his ideology. The best philosophers, even the ones I hate, are the ones with a complete philosophical system. Guys like Hume, Aristotle, and Kant. Singer is nothing more than a self-righteous pretender.