In response to a thread over in the marker gallery, im just being curious as to what you all think about deer hunting.

Personaly ive never been, but i know peole who do. And when they do get a deer, they dont just do it for sport, they eat what they shot. and to me, that is fine. As for just shooting them to say you shot one bigger then someone else, and not eat it, thats just wrong.

EDIT: also explain your reasoning.

How does it matter whether you eat the deer or not?

woodsballer87 wrote: cause if you just shoot it and then do nothing with it... thats moraly wrong.

So you said - but why?

woodsballer87 wrote: because then its just straight murder.

Ok...

So if I kill my neighbor's dog (or my neighbor), it's ok so long as I eat my killing?  That doesn't make sense.

How does eating my kill relate to the morality of the kill?

Clark Kent wrote: woodsballer87 wrote: because then its just straight murder. Ok... So if I kill my neighbor's dog (or my neighbor), it's ok so long as I eat my killing?  That doesn't make sense. How does eating my kill relate to the morality of the kill?

The deer has a natural right to live, just like you. killing someone for absoulutly no reason is moraly wrong to you, right? now as for a deer, killing due to over population can be acceptible only when given permission to do so. also, if you kill but then donate and somehow make use of what you have killed.

Let me try a different approach.

Nobody hunts deer for food (in the US, anyway).  People hunt deer for fun, and then stop for a burger on the way home.  Whether or not they eat the deer, the reason they went hunting in the first place had nothing to do with food.

If we were talking about starving people who needed to hunt to eat, then your point would have some merit.  But hunters are sportsmen.  For the money they spend on their weapons, licenses, trucks, gear and beer, they could buy enough food to feed their families for weeks.

These are not "injuns" stalking the deer to feed their tribes. 

So - I will clarify my question:  If I am going hunting for fun anyway, what difference does it make whether I eat the deer or not?

You missed my point.  I am not saying most people don't eat their kill.

By "sportsmen" I mean "hunt for fun."

American hunters hunt for the heck of it, not for food.  They may eat the deer, but they didn't go hunting to feed the family.  Food was just an accidental byproduct of their fun hobby.

So, my point - if I hunt for fun (which all American hunters do), how does eating my kill change the moral value of hunting?

I only disrupt foolishness, flawed reasoning, and unsupported conclusions.  As soon as these stop, I will shut up.

I do not have any reason to doubt your statement that your relatives hunt for food, tippy, so I will admit my error and amend my statement:

99% of American hunters, including all hunters in the Northern states, hunt for fun, with food as an accidental byproduct. 

This does not affect my overall question as to the morality of sport hunting.

tippy_182 wrote: And also what happens when nobody hunts and deer eat all the farmers crops. And to bring the point up about the neighbors dog. The dog belonged to someone and had personal value.  Unless you shoot someones pet deer, you not killing anyones personal belonging.

I do believe you are fully and completely missing my point...

:/

tippy_182 wrote: Alot of people hunt to save money on hamburger, which i said earlier. And eventually they would over populate and be killed off for destroying vegetation if they weren't hunted.  Sometimes, if the deer population gets to high around here the game warden will give us "tags" which allow you to kill a certain number deer above your normal legal amount in order to control population.

"A lot" would be substantially overstating your case, I believe...

But in any case, your entire post is completely irrelevant to my question.  Were you looking for a response of some sort from me?

Hades wrote: My hero.

Remember to wear your tighty-whities to bed tonight...    ;)

tippy_182 wrote: No I understand your point, but you points dont compare. Its like comparing Meat to a fruit, a personal pet and a deer are two different fields.

Good god, you missed my point even more than I thought.

Alrighty Mr. Kent...

in all senses, hunting w/o the purpose to use what you have killed in any manner is moraly wrong. as long as somewhere down the road it is being used ie. using skin for clothes, and or meat for you, or ditribution to others, then there is no problem. also as tippy182 has said, when allowed by the proper authorites, the killing of an animal with no intent of use is then accepted. such as needing to control the population. also think of saccrafices to gods that other cultures view as religious reasons and are totaly ethical.

my point, when "hunting", wether the initial intention is for fun or for purpopse, as long as somewhere down the line the killed object is used in a manor of good (see reasons above) then it shouldnt be considered moraly or ethicly wrong.

Ok.

My point:

[background]The moral value of killing can come from a variety of sources - the nature of the killee, the nature of the killer, the intent of the killer, the circumstances surrounding the killing, and so forth.[/background]

The original poster (and others) appeared to claim that the moral value of a killing (deer hunting) was also affected by what was done with the killee following the kill.

I dispute that.

My view is that killing something is or is not wrong for a variety of reasons, but that whether or not you eat your victim is not one of those reasons.

Whether or not you killed to feed yourself may affect the morality of the kill, but that is an intent issue.

Whether or not you actually eat your kill is irrelevant.

How about this:  One of your hungry relatives kills a deer to feed his family, but his freezer is broken and the meat goes to waste (and is not eaten).  Does that change the morality of his kill?  Of course not - his INTENT was still to feed his family, even though that did not come to pass.

Similarly, the sport hunter is hunting with the INTENT of having a good time with his buddies and a six-pack.  That is his intent.  His intent to not to hunt for food - he just bought a $1,000 rifle with custom anodizing.  The food is just bonus.  Whether or not he gets around to eating the deer he kills does not change his intent.

Similarly, killing my neighbor or his dog may or may not be morally wrong, depending on a variety of circumstances.  Whether or not I eat my kill is not one of those circumstances.

To summarize:  INTENT can affect the moral value of a kill - eating the victim cannot.  Eating the victim may be circumstantial evidence of intent, but the eating itself is irrelevant as to morality.

The only moral difference between a sport hunter who eats his kill and one who does not is that one is a wastrel.

mutt98 wrote: hey clark kent, have you ever been to michigan? pretty much everyone here eats their venison. it is like gold up here. edible gold.

Ok...  And your question is?

I see your ponit yet you dont understand what i have still said. i know intent is a major part and thats my basic arguement. i will admit i was not clear with my initial arguement.

just answer me this, my final arguement.

following my last post; with the intent to use the animal in any manner other then to just leave it for dead, is hunting ethicly or moraly wrong? not nessecarily to eat, but maybe for use in clothing or spiritual reasons wrong?

EDIT: Mods, what are your views? just curious as to what ya'll think.

I personally think hunting is dreadfully boring (at least deer hunting), but I have absolutely no moral problem with hunting.  I don't care if you plan to use the carcass as food, as a sex toy, or just leave it to rot.  Actually, I don't want you to stink up my forest, so please clean up your mess.

EDIT - Why do you care what the Mods think?  They're no smarter than us...

I guess I thought that was a rhetorical question...

But yes, I have been to Michigan.  Used to live there.

Clark Kent wrote: I personally think hunting is dreadfully boring (at least deer hunting), but I have absolutely no moral problem with hunting.  I don't care if you plan to use the carcass as food, as a sex toy, or just leave it to rot.  Actually, I don't want you to stink up my forest, so please clean up your mess. EDIT - Why do you care what the Mods think?  They're no smarter than us...

As for the Mods, I just thought it would be nice to see if they were actually alive and see what they thought.

As far as stinking up your forest, dont be a friggin jackass. you obviously had no solid point for argueing what i said, and was a total waste of air, that coudlve been saved for someone worth speaking.

Bah - I can buy venison in my grocery store.  During hunting season, everybody is giving me venison (I also love venison).

Besides, your love for venison is also morally irrelevant.  At best, you are then killing for flavor instead of for fun.  That is completely different than killing to feed yourself. 

Clark Kent wrote: Bah - I can buy venison in my grocery store.  During hunting season, everybody is giving me venison (I also love venison). Besides, your love for venison is also morally irrelevant.  At best, you are then killing for flavor instead of for fun.  That is completely different than killing to feed yourself.

your a moron...

^^^^^   Excellent argument...

mutt98 wrote: Clark Kent wrote: I guess I thought that was a rhetorical question... But yes, I have been to Michigan.  Used to live there. ever been to da u.p.?

Yep - and I talk to Upers all the time.

woodsballer87 wrote: As far as stinking up your forest, dont be a friggin jackass. you obviously had no solid point for argueing what i said, and was a total waste of air, that coudlve been saved for someone worth speaking.

So much for trying a humor infusion...

Allow me to restate in more deliberate form:  I do not care whether a hunter eats his kill or not.  I do care that hunters remove their kills, because dead deer make the forest unpleasant. 

Better?

Clark Kent wrote: ^^^^^   Excellent argument...

tell me the difference between killing for taste and killing to feed yourself... cause i see it as being one in the same. if someone likes the taste of a deer, is one then not killing it to feed ones self?

Clark Kent wrote: woodsballer87 wrote: As far as stinking up your forest, dont be a friggin jackass. you obviously had no solid point for argueing what i said, and was a total waste of air, that coudlve been saved for someone worth speaking. So much for trying a humor infusion... Allow me to restate in more deliberate form:  I do not care whether a hunter eats his kill or not.  I do care that hunters remove their kills, because dead deer make the forest unpleasant.  Better?

*sigh* yes thats better, and i will apologize for the name calling.

just so we can end this... in the sense that someone shoots and kills an animal with the intent to do absolutly nothing with it, is that not moraly wrong?

Solipsism wrote: Uhm, I never said I was killing to feed myself, nor did I mention anything about morals. I simply replied to your obviously incorrent generalization of people hunting purely for fun.

In that case I apologize for my generalization, although in my rather extensive experience with hunters, I have found that most of the "I hunt for venison" crowd is really the "I hunt for fun and I like venison" crowd.

And where I live, as I said, that is doubly true given the ready availability of venison in the store, at a cheaper cost than a hunting license.

That said, I do take offense at the unnecessary ad hominem attack.

In fact, I am a bit surprised at this thread in general.  We have had abortion discussions with less rancor than this hunting thread.

mutt98 wrote: well im live up there in the copper country where its pretty much just plain woods and deer. kids be always bringing it to school and trading it for someone to do their paper or something. if you have ever been to calumet you know you've seen a deer by the road or something.

Yep, I know that - what's your point?

woodsballer87 wrote: tell me the difference between killing for taste and killing to feed yourself... cause i see it as being one in the same. if someone likes the taste of a deer, is one then not killing it to feed ones self?

Killing to feed oneself is, in my book, killing because you have nothing to eat.  This would be the moral equivalent of the guy who steals drugs he cannot afford, to save his sick wife.

Killing for flavor is killing because you want venison and all you have in the fridge is beef, chicken, pork, and pizza.  There is no life emergency or anything close to it, there is only a mild preference.

People die for the lack of food - nobody ever died for the lack of venison.

woodsballer87 wrote: *sigh* yes thats better, and i will apologize for the name calling.

np - it happens.

just so we can end this... in the sense that someone shoots and kills an animal with the intent to do absolutly nothing with it, is that not moraly wrong?

To me, that killing is only morally wrong if the killing was morally wrong for some other reason (like it was somebody's pet deer).  It was also morally to leave the deer to rot in the forest, but that is only a very minor wrong.

You do not state what the intent of the killing was.  Nobody kills because they want to do nothing with the carcass.  There was some other intent - fun, flavor, hunger, or w/e.

But to cut to the end - generally, speaking, I find no moral problem with hunting deer for fun, regardless of whether there is an intent to eat the deer.  I find it immorally wasteful not to use a perfectly good carcass, but that is a separate concern.

mutt98 wrote: before you said that nobody eats their deer meat and im trying to tell you that a lot of people do. i dont know if you changed your answer or wha.

Nono - that's not what I said.  Most hunters I know eat their meat, or give it to somebody who does.  What I said was that most people (IMO) don't hunt for the meat - they hunt because they like hunting, and then they eat the meat.  Most hunters, and certainly most Uper hunters, don't hunt because they are starving, but because it's a good time.

Clark Kent wrote: I find it immorally wasteful not to use a perfectly good carcass, but that is a separate concern.

that was the primary point i was arguing.....

People

Eating

Tasty

Animals?

Clark Kent wrote: You wish to debate the merits of vegitarianism, new?

Wow, you completely missed my point & changed the subject.

You asked, "how does eating my kill change the moral value of hunting".

Clark Kent wrote: You wish to debate the merits of vegitarianism, new?

That'd be the shortest discusssion ever.

There is another reason to hunt. Sporting and food reasons aside, there's another more practical reason.

In my area, as well as many areas across the state of NY, and probably elsewhere in the US, the deer population has exploded to the point where it's out of control. They're being hit be cars, and worse yet, are endanger of starvation in their areas because there's so many of them that the competition for food gets out of hand.

Alot of hunting is ecologically based, as well as being motivated by sport.

I don't hunt because I need to put food on the table. I hunt because it's alot of fun. It's a hobby, and I enjoy it. I also hunt because I know the the regulations that are placed on me when I hunt are imposed for the protection of the species. You know, like needing a doe permit, and having a max you can put on the tags....They're in place so that if I DO take a deer, it fits with the ecological well being of the deer herd in general.

Would you rather that hunters take out a handful of deer from an area and protect the rest....or would you rather that an entire deer population suffer through the winter starving?

Gah - who knew hunters were such a prickly lot.

Believe it or not, I know a lot about hunting and hunters.  I have spent most of my life in places where the town shuts down for deer gun season, and then again for deer bow season.

Yes, I made a few generalizations for the convenience of argument, but none of which were injurious (I thought) to a hunter with a sense of humor.  No, most hunters I know don't take beer into the stand (but some do), but most hunters I know do have plenty of beer at the lodge at the end of the day.

I have had this same discussion with dozens of hunters over the years, and nobody has been offended yet - until now.

As I said earlier, I have had abortion debates - and I'll throw in political and religious debates as well - with fewer people getting offended than in this thread.

Lighten up already, people.  Jeez.

mutt98 wrote: by the way, it is yooper just so ya know. im calling it a night.  later.

My bad - I've never seen it spelled, so I made up a spelling...   :)

even if you dont eat it then you should at least (and this is just logical) sell it to somebody  or the place where you hav it cleaned and they can sell the meat or give it to the poor or ne thing along those lines

Reb Cpl wrote: Would you rather that hunters take out a handful of deer from an area and protect the rest....or would you rather that an entire deer population suffer through the winter starving?

Good point Reb Cpl.  That clearly shows the moral values of hunters as a lot who genuinely are concerned for the animals.  (Not being sarcastic, I know most hunters really do care about the welfare of animals).

As to Clark Kent, relax. Just joking around with you a bit. 

You meat eater.

Glassjaw wrote: woodsballer87 wrote: In response to a thread over in the marker gallery, im just being curious as to what you all think about deer hunting. Personaly ive never been, but i know peole who do. And when they do get a deer, they dont just do it for sport, they eat what they shot. and to me, that is fine. As for just shooting them to say you shot one bigger then someone else, and not eat it, thats just wrong. EDIT: also explain your reasoning. I believe that you do not have to eat them.  It is just like any other sport, it can be competative while at the same time a side bar hobby.  I do not see what is wrong about shooting a deer than not eating it.  Thats like saying if you shoot a crow you have to eat it.

well while i always eat what i kill i dont see anything wrong with not eating it.  after all hunters (even the ones who dont eat the deer) still help population control and while all the so-called conservationists  parade around and give speeches (therefore wasting oxygen), deer hunters are the original conservationists.  they have to be careful about the way they treat nature or they wont be able to hunt in the future. 

DracoPlasm wrote: As long as you eat it or it gets put to use if you only want the antlers/head give the meat away you personally dont have to eat it but dont let it go to waste

THANK YOU! SOMEONE GETS WHAT IM TRYING TO SAY!!!