A very touchy subject

[Troppo Sticks]

I don't have a problem with shooting horses when they are ferel and I have shot a lot with the rifle ,its Just my opinion that they shouldn't be shown in hunting magazines as horses are an animal that most persons are attached to. In respect to pain inflicted from an arrow we will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

[Stickbow Hunter]

There has been several countries over the past 20 years that have scientifically examined opening up bowhunting. In every case they have found no reason to ban bowhunting. The only exception would be South Africa on elephants/rhino and hippos where bows just do not generate enough energy to penetrate enough to do the job everytime. Very thick and solid bones and skin being the reasons for this.

Vegie forgot to mention one very important country, or more correctly State IMO, that despite being presented with sientific evidence regarding the humaneness of Bowhunting decided to still ban bowhunting. Sadly that state was Tasmania where there is still a ban against hunting deer with a bow and arra.

Jeff

[The Gnome!]

Jeff, Don't that just suck!

Troppo Sticks wrote;

I don't have a problem with shooting horses when they are ferel and I have shot a lot with the rifle ,its Just my opinion that they shouldn't be shown in hunting magazines as horses are an animal that most persons are attached to.

While I'm attached to horses, I'd also be happy to take one or a hundred with the bow either on horse back or not.

Joel wrote;
[/quote]However I dare say I think Garden Gnome takes the cake in this instance (by the way good luck in the upcoming case mate).

Thanks mate I'd almost forgotten about that

Gnome!

[Paul]

its Just my opinion that they shouldn't be shown in hunting magazines as horses are an animal that most persons are attached to.

I believe that Troppo brings up a good point regarding horses, they have been a friend and partner to man for such a long time that it is ingrained in our psyche, but I guess the same thing can be said for cats and dogs.
If we leave pictures of horses out of magazines, will pictures of cats and dogs follow? Where will it end?
It is a legal and environmentally responsable act to hunt horses and I don't think that it would accomplish much by leaving pictures of dead horses out of our magazines.

Back on the topic: If I don't know the person very well and they have very strong views against hunting or killing animals period, then like the others have said already, I don't even waste my breath trying.

If however they are my friends from work and they ask me and are serious about listening to my point of view, then I'll take the effort.

I like Clinglish's logic, I'll have to use that in the future.

[gt1cm2]

I'm not into hunting and have never been hunting, for me it would be a waste of an animal just because I wouldn't be able to use the body as best as I could, but I am not against hunting at all.

From what I understand if it is in a herd the other animals around one that is shot (be it gun or bow) don't react much?? Correct me if I'm wrong. So for the animal that is killed and the rest of the herd don't suffer from as much stress compared to an animal that has been sent to the meat works? This would be my arguement for how much more humane it is.

If they eat meat then they are more than likely eating flesh from an animal that has been transported in a cramped truck along with other terrifled animals, put into yards at the meat works where they can smell death and have little to eat. The stress on their system would be huge when you compare it to an animal that has been grazing, possiblely in a herd, then killed by either bullet or arrow. At least the one that has been killed by a hunter has been killed in its natural environment without the stress of the meatworks.

[adam]

If they eat meat then they are more than likely eating flesh from an animal that has been transported in a cramped truck along with other terrifled animals, put into yards at the meat works where they can smell death and have little to eat. The stress on their system would be huge when you compare it to an animal that has been grazing, possiblely in a herd, then killed by either bullet or arrow. At least the one that has been killed by a hunter has been killed in its natural environment without the stress of the meatworks.

Well put, I worked at the meat works some time back, and I can tell everyone that will listen that hunting is far more respectful and humane.

Adam

[Dennis La Varenne]

Joel,

The material to which Vegie refers was used by myself and others in the Victorian Bowhunting Defence Committee years ago in trying to combat efforts by various of the animal rights groups to get rid of bowhunting in Victoria and Tasmania. We didn't stop them completely and they didn't stop us either.

The arguments from anti-hunting people which you faced were common and often misunderstood by we hunters. The argument about the relevance of eating meat and how it is killed is not germaine to the animal rights world view.

The rifle vs bow argument is a side-issue which divides hunters. I know. I have always hunted with both and will not sacrifice one for the other. I hunt with a rifle because I like rifles and I hunt with what I like to shoot with.

The moral obligations to the animal we intend to kill are the same -
1. That we kill it humanely so that suffering is negligible or absent;
2. That we do not hunt species which are threatened;
3. That we do not take more than we can immediately use;
4. That we hunt consistent with the carrying capacity of the land for all species, and lastly,
5. That we are morally obliged to kill humanely those species whose numbers have increased to the levels where their continued increase jeopardises other animal and plant species dependent upon that habitat.

None of us will ever understand the animal rights position or be able to effectively argue against it until you understand that their basic ethical position is that it is immoral for humans to involve themselves in the lives of any 'sentient' animal specie unless it is for the specific benefit of that animal. Once you understand that, you can see where they and their arguments are coming from.

Their commonest argument about animal cruelty stems from this view. It is NOT the foundation of that view. Animal cruelty from their perspective is adverse human involvement in the lives of animals.

Our argument must derive from a rational and well reasoned belief in the continuing necessity of the life and death involvement of humans and animals, AND we must seriously consider the morality of our stand.

These people are winning the public debate on purely moral and ethical grounds and we, as a community, are not really challenging the basis of their moral position.

The anti-cruelty argument is seen as a moral absolute when in practice, it is far from it. Their position only applies to the human/animal relationship but not to the animal/animal where death is far more cruel and 'inhumane' than anything we do to them. Nature is not cruel. It is indifferent and completely utilitarian. The end always justifies the means.

Our adopted moral position should be that it is both moral and proper that humans kill animals for food or pest animal control, but that we at all times do everything in our reasonable power to ensure that any animal we kill does not suffer unnecessarily or that we do not take any shots at animals where the outcome of that shot is doubtful.

If the animal rights argument was followed through to its conclusion, all the remaining hunter gatherer peoples of this world would be forcibly made to abjure from all hunting and abide to a moral code which was not of their making or their understanding. The cultures of most of these races would disappear within a generation and an ancient connection to the land and its bounty would have been lost, and with them, our connection to our past as well.

I do not consider the loss of that connection to be of any lasting benefit to human kind or to our human dignity. Involvement with the deaths of many animals over my life has done nothing to make me any less sensitive to the issue of the dignity of the animal which I kill. Doing all I can to avoid unreasonalble and avoidable suffering is my obligation to the dignity of the animal I kill.

If you think about it for any length of time, imagine a world where all hunting was abolished. What would have been achieved for the benefit of the animals themselves? Absolutly nothing at all!!

What would have been achieved by us - again absolutely nothing of benefit to the animals or to ourselves or our basic morality of living with the world.

The only benefit would accrue to the greater sanctimony of the animal rights advocates who would be able to collectively congratulate themselves that their version of 'the faith' has triumphed. The animals would die just the same and in the same old painful ways of predation, starvation and thirst, and they would not feel any better that their deaths was not mediated by human hand.

So, what is this argument really about? It seems to me to be about the spread of the animal rights faith by their ayatollahs by any means, including more recently, terrorism against their own kind. It is a quasi-religious belief system and, like all such belief systems, its own continued survival is its first concern, and its 'theology' is centred around self-sustainment - not unlike nor any better certainly than our own - and with no genuine benefit to the planet that I have ever perceived

(I listen to Peter Singer who wrote the book 'Animal Liberation' whenever he is on radio or television because I believe it is my duty to understand those with whom I disagree from their own point of view).

If any person questions why I would shoot and kill an animal with a bow, and how would I like to be shot and killed by arrow, my inevitable response is always that if it became my time to die and it was to be by arrow, I hope the bowhunter would do it as carefully as I have always tried to do it to any animal.

If you cannot say that with conviction, you should re-assess why you bowhunt, because in your heart of hearts, you really do believe that the arrow is less than the humane killer you claim it to be.

All of us hunters believe in animal rights, but in a different fashion and for different reasons to the AR people. And why? . . . every one of us believes it is morally wrong to deliberately and maliciously wound any animal so as to cause it to suffer.

Dennis La Varenne

[jindydiver]

Just this last couple of weeks I have been involved in a long and very argumentative discussion with an animal liberationist (and a couple of less vocal supporters) in a thread on an environmental website I moderate on, and I will give you a brief rundown so you can all see what we are up against. It was certainly very much as you say Dennis, the mindset is very much quasi-religious, that is we don’t have a right to involve ourselves in any way with the rest of the animals on the planet, because to treat the other animals as anything but absolute equals (as we would other humans) is what they call speciesism (me, I am not even sure that is a word). The hypocrisy of their argument is plain to see though when you suggest that we are omnivores and thus the taking of meat for our sustenance is no different to the activities of other omnivores (dogs, pigs, etc’). AL proponents tell us that we should be above all that because we have the ability to reason, thus putting us in a class all of our own (speciesism by their own definition). They will argue this even while in the same breath almost telling us that other animals are sentient and possess the power to reason (elephants, dolphins, etc’).
The AL proponent I was engaged in discussion with held Peter Singer up as a great thinker and a role model for us all to follow. I asked was this the same Peter Singer who proposed that we kill all human children at childbirth if they were less than perfect and was told that “he is a great philosopher and a great thinker and he was just putting that out there to show us our own hypocrisy when it comes to animals, as we shoot deformed farm animals”. When it was pointed out that you can’t argue a position without believing it, thus meaning that if Singer (or any other AL supporter) is truly all about removing “speciesism” then they must actually be lobbying for the suffering of deformed farm animals or the killing of children the AL supporter reverted to type and accused me of just wanting to be cruel to animals and cause them to suffer (by hunting them) and called hunting “murder” (thus by implication calling me and other hunters “murderers”). The more radical AL supporters consider ALL meat eaters as murderers as simply by eating meat you have caused the death of an animal. Strangely enough they don’t use this sort of language when describing animals like lions and crocodiles, which is a good example of the weakness of their “meat eaters are speciesist“ argument.
The thread was closed not long after and we deleted the thread as it was mostly off topic and contained way too much acrimony from both sides of the argument. Our website is about PROACTIVE conservation and the hunting of pest species (either for food or for management) is supported by a majority of our active members. This AL person is still a member, it is good to have people there to remind us of their arguments from time to time.


If you are interested in learning some counter arguments to the AL peoples religion you could visit these websites

http://www.jamesswan.com/paper.html

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

And much less serious
http://www.vegetablecruelty.com/

[Dennis La Varenne]

Mick,

It seems you have had similar run-ins to me on the same issues. Unfortunately for us hunters, our own level of understanding of our own motivations for what we do and why, and the moral underpinning to it is very badly thought through by the majority of us. And this is why it is so very difficult for the average hunter to engage in sensible debate with these people.

They on the other hand have a very well considered and critically examined argument for their beliefs. This does not mean by any means that they are correct in absolute terms when extended to the rest of humankind and across cultures.

What makes their beliefs so difficult to argue with is that they are premised upon that most fundamental and intrinsic - almost instinctual - belief of humans that one should only do unto others that which one would have other do unto themselves, aka 'the golden rule', taken to an unintended extreme.

All of us believe in it, even across cultures, and it has been the instinctual underpinning of all human community through time. But histoically, I contend, none of us really ever meant it to extend across species in quite the same way as the AR/AL people have distorted it.

That is why they can so successfully require us to answer - how would you like it if you were shot with an arrow/gun? - and how poorly the majority of hunters can defend against it.

And when the majority of us live lives devoid of any serious involvement with animals, this line of AL argument can be so persuasive. Intellectually, it is very difficult to argue against on the surface of the argument. It seems that we as hunters are being asked to deny the validity of the golden rule when it really has nothing much to do with it.

The AL distortion of the 'rule' has it that because humans have an aversion to death, it is immoral to cause it, and that because humans have an aversion to pain or suffering, it is immoral to cause it.

Taking it to its conclusion, it should also apply across species as well, but it doesn't and cannot, because 'sentient' animals have no appreciation of the consequences of their actions upon other species, and even if they did, it is clearly of no concern to them.

I have always taken the golden rule as fundmentally having a socially cohesive function as its first intention and the lesser interpersonal interpretations a means to that principal purpose. Othewise, it makes no sense to me. No animal contributes or is able to contribute to the maintenance to this most human of values, and no amount of extending of this principle 'improves' animal behaviour among themselves or to us.

Indeed, outside of the human brain, the golden rule is non-existent in nature and has no practical role to play. Its only purpose is to create some kind of mutually beneficial interaction between humans. It is only we who feel better for following it and it is only we who benefit from it because animals do not extend it among themselves.

So, in the end, if it only benefits humans directly, what is its purpose other than to make us behave among ourselves and feel good about it? No animal is capable of it.

If then, the direct benefit (emotionally, spiritually, morally) accrues to humans alone, then its extension to animals is purely an extension of the emotional payback to us in an additional direction. No animal appreciates the fact of that extension and cannot, nor as I have said above, is capable of extending the principle among its kind or back to us. Its extension by humans to animals is purely from human self-centredness.

It is not reciprocal across or between species.

The term 'speciesism' was devised by Peter Singer in his book 'Animal Liberation' I believe I heard him say once - I think on Phillip Adams radio program on the ABC.

Like all cults and religions which believe themselves to have found the only true way, they all devise terms which exclude unbelievers. The only way in which one can avoid the taint of unbeliever is to believe. By design, that makes their basic precepts unarguable.

The AL accusation of murder against hunters and meat eaters generally is their emotive and deliberate redefining of the ancient human crime against the unlawfull killing of another human and a misuse of one of the ten commandments of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions. The original Hebrew word 'RAKHAT' was used only in the sense of killing another human.

It did not have the sense of the very generalised modern English word 'kill'. Indeed, the god of Moses exhorted the ancient Israelites to do a great deal of killing of both animals and people in his name as allowed by his laws (and therefore, lawful).

So, the AL people cannot lay claim to a valid use of the term of killing as murder. But, they can and do deliberately redefine and misuse it from its historical meaning in support of their beliefs.

Dennis La Varenne

[jindydiver]

What was particularly galling was the AL supporters argument centred not around the general philosophy of AL but around trying to make an environmental case for us all to embrace veganism and thus save the planet (a total crock by the way). She totally misread the members of the forum when she started down that road but it didn’t stop her from becoming more strident in her assertions as the thread progressed. We also saw the usual claims that the killing of animals changes our psyche so that we are likely to become homicidal in our nature, backed up by ZERO evidence simply because there is none but obscured by references to the works of F. Ascione (who’s studies show kids who torture cats often grow up to be sociopaths).

You are right Dennis, we must be careful in engaging in argument with these people. Their philosophy is simple and the points they use to tear down counter arguments are well thought out (in the main) and anybody who spends any time arguing with them has to be able to express their view with rock solid logic and ignore the emotional arguments put forward. You cannot win an argument on the internet. The other side can ignore your logic, your probing questions, in fact anything you have to say, and they can just carry on writing in support of their case until you get bored with it and then they can just carry on without you. You can only hope that if your arguments are made logically and that you are seen as someone who knows a bit about your subject (or can supply many references in support of your points) that others reading the thread can see you have the stronger case. A bit like politicians and the media really.

Thanks Dennis for taking the time to post on this subject. I know that I find it a bit trying at times and I bet you are well over it by now

[jindydiver]

I wanted to also say something in relation to the term “murder”.
When I made a point to tell the poster that calling someone a murderer was clearly against the rules set out in the forum I was told that I should not take such an anthropomorphic view on its use. This of course flies in the face of the logic put forward to date as it would also make every meat eating animal on the planet a “murderer” and so the obvious attempt at insulting me just lumps me in with all the other meat eaters Of course that would mean that if I was wrong to kill to eat, then so were all the other meat eaters

[Dennis La Varenne]

Mick (and Joel),

For that woman to berate you with the 'anthropomorphic' (I think she meant anthropocentric) thing is to infer that among animals there is an equivalent moral viewpoint which is clearly nonsense.

Only humans can have a viewpoint on any issue, including the nature of murder. No animal has ever been shown to exhibit any moral imperatives in its behaviour against murder or any ability to conceive of it. By default, any viewpoint on any issue is human and therefore anthropocentric, including so called animal rights views.

This woman is doing the quasi-religious thing of redefining common terminology to fit a specific meaning consistent with that view. It becomes part of the jargon of that viewpoint which its followers believe should apply to all others. They then believe that they have a moral right to judge all others according to those precepts. That is all there is to it - just common everyday fundamentalism - either you are with me or against me.

She was very deliberately and cleverly misusing the term 'murderer' to evoke in you feelings of guilt and being a social outcast. She knew very well that the term had a very specific meaning for you and the rest of society not shared by her view. But, what she was doing was playing mindgames by trying to force you to try to defend against an accusation of murder - a phychological trick which is calculated to create a feelings of guilt, confusion and self questioning which makes you vulnerable to their propaganda and more able to be manipulated.

Many fundamentalist religious cults use this technique, and it works very well, and its harm is very difficult to undo. Remember some of the wacko religious cults of the 1970s and 80s and the damage they did to adherents. But you must be aware of what is happening and its effect when it occurs.

Don't be insulted when she calls hunters murderers. We aren't. There is nothing to defend. It is not part of the moral imperative under which we or our society operates. Murder is a specific crime against another human being whether she likes it or not. She is just trying to make you think it is. Don't let her try to get you to defend against the accusation on her terms.

Her very phoney version of murder is not ours and never has been.



Dennis La Varenne

[jindydiver]

Thanks Dennis

[perry]

I simply ask the anti if they have considered how many animals , plants , insects , and any other thing that could be described as alive that there existence has been responsible for killing and is it acceptable to them to pay for the products they use everyday that require that a life be taken and the morals of that . Never struck one yet that was comfortable answering this question . regards Perry

[jindydiver]

I simply ask the anti if they have considered how many animals , plants , insects , and any other thing that could be described as alive that there existence has been responsible for killing and is it acceptable to them to pay for the products they use everyday that require that a life be taken and the morals of that . Never struck one yet that was comfortable answering this question . regards Perry

Yep, I have used that tack before and invariably the AL person will justify their own existance by claiming that they balance the ledger by fighting to make others aware of the rights of animals. As crap and self serving as any answer they have for that question.

[Dennis La Varenne]

Mick, Joel and Perry,

Perry has a very good point there. I realise that they spout the reply which you relate, Mick, but that can never be a defence to being an active agent in the deaths of living creatures if their definition of murder is sincere. It is the fundamental hypocrisy of their philosophy.

The really genuine AL advocate is morally obligated to suicide to remove the adverse impact of their continuing existence on other 'equally valuable' creatures. No argument about trying to persuade others to their cause can circumvent their absolute responsibility for the harm their existence brings to the other species they believe have an equal claim upon existence. This is the moral corner into which they have painted themselves.

By this argument, they are in fact saying that they are quite prepared to sacrifice the lives of other creatures in pursuance of their belief system, since the act of trying to persuade other humans to their cause is justification for their version of murder.

This kind of reasoning is remarkabley two-faced and completely self-serving. It is saying that the end always justifies the means, even if the effort of their continuing campaign lasts until the last human being is an AL believer and all other species have become extinct.

It is always proper to require these people to say at what stage are they prepared to remove the influence of their lives on other species if they really believe that the existence of humans is adverse to other species.

But, they never do, do they?? They always fall back on the line which Perry explained and the whole argument becomes circular. We can see where the gate closes but they try to sneak their foot into it to stop it closing. Their own arguments defeat themselves.

As a hunter, I believe, on the ecological evidence which is available to me that all species have a place and a role, and too many of any one is detrimental to the others - and that includes us. But, we can control our numbers voluntarily and very slowly, we are doing just that.

And while we are doing that and trying to minimise the worst impacts of our kind on other species, we have the game-keepers responsibility to keep those other species which benefit greatly from our society from over-breeding to the detriment of both ourselves and other species.

We are responsible for bringing the natural world back into balance, since our recent forebears lacked the ability to foresee the effects of what they were doing.

We are also trying to limit our individual ecologial 'footprint' as the modern jargon has it so that our individual demand upon the resources of the planet does not eat into the core generator of those resources - and they are resources. This modern concept is called sustainability, and hunting is all about sustainability if it is nothing else.

Animal Liberation is about species apartheid, anthropomorphism and hatred of one's own kind.

This discussion has become very long and involved and perhaps a bit boring to many on this site, but hunting is an issue which is bound up in morality.

Some wince at this idea, thinking that morality is a religious thing. It is not at all. Morality only became part of religion with the advent of Christianity. Prior to this, religion world-wide was principally about observing the ceremonies in propitiation of the various gods. How you behaved toward your neighbour was of little interest to the ancient gods.

Good behaviour among community members was principally a matter of good order in a civil society and a matter of the laws.

Morality as we understand it now was largely due to the influence of an ancient philosopher in Alexandria named Xeno. Morality was about righteous living, duty to the state, society and family and had little to do with gods well into Roman times. The early Christians were greatly influenced by the Stoic philosophers like Xeno and his followers.

At any rate, morality is still about righteous living today, but with a largely Christian slant in our society, and the AL people have suceeded very well in making the issue of the human/animal involvement one of great moral importance, and we in the hunting community have failed to address the moral perspectives of hunting and continue to do so to our detriment.

I know this, as do you all most probably, because very many non-partisan people consider hunting to be immoral and should be abolished BECAUSE IT IS IMMORAL, not because it has any genuine adverse ecological impact. Ecology is not part of the argument.

MORALITY IS EVERYTHING in this debate and we are losing it because we often defend it with the tired old economic argument. To our opponents, this is like saying evil is good if it brings a profit, and that is how they depict us to the general public.


Dennis La Varenne

[Griffo]

Thanks for taking the time Dennis.

Your posts, while long are certainly not boring to anyone with a sincere concern for debunking (sp?) the arguments of the antihunting/AL factions.

thanks for taking the time

[ed]

Heartily agree with Dennis' sentiments here. Unfortunately we are dealing with a society that tries to avoid thinking and tends to paint issues in black and whites (so much so that the colors themselves have "meanings").
I have not met an intlelligent AL yet -and that includes my mother-in-law hehe. Some have high IQ's admittedly but I feel some of the synapses are experiencing road blocks.

[clinglish]

If AL's weren't so full of manure hot wind and self righteouness , I would eat them instead of animals ,simply due to their high numbers and the damage they do to the environment. All herbivoures have large numbers of bacteria in there gut wich create methane from plant matter ,termites are actually resposible for 4% of the methane created on the planet.Humans breaking wind has to be more than that.So to reverse global warming we should increase meat consumption and decrease AL vegans.

[Joel]

Nature is not cruel. It is indifferent and completely utilitarian

Brilliant point. It is.
In line with this thread I was walking to the local takeaway the other night and walked past a truck parked on the side of the road. It was off to the abattoirs. Seeing all those cows wide eyed and **** scared made me feel sick. Thats just in transporting. The poor things were standing in their own feces, the smell was terrible, the kept banging into each other trying to move, they were calling in terror. It was horrible. However, I have seen animals taken down by rifle and I have seen footage of animals taken down by bow. Those killed by hunter are in pain for a matter of seconds, compared to hours of transport on the back of trucks. If only these people who are so against hunting saw what the animals go through.
In fact, I would have to say I respect a vegetarian's anti-hunting viewpoint a whole lot more than meat eating hunting critics. It is hypocrisy in the utmost. At least a vegetarian practices what they preach.
Food for thought...

[adam]

Those killed by hunter are in pain for a matter of seconds

If your arrows are razor, and shot placement is right, there shouldn't be any pain on the animal at all. I have video footage to back this statement.

Feral Game shot, arrow exits, the animal lifts its head then goes back to feeding and falls over dead seconds latter. This has happened on quiet a few animals my crew has arrowed.Other examples are of animals continueing to fight after the shot, mating etc etc. Would you go about your business if you were in pain.

Have you ever cut yourself with something sharp and not notice till your seen blood.

No pain here.

Adam