From: gun-smoke@cup.portal.com (Thomas Alan Swenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Moral judgements
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 20:19:56 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

David Caruso II writes >

>  	When I, and probably most animal rights activists, claim that sport
>hunting is wrong, we do not do so blindly and without thought or facts.  But
>since animals rights activists do not hunt, it is feasible to assume that we
>do not know every detail, law, and statistic related to hunting as some
>hunters do. 
>	When it comes to sport hunting, I do not base my decision that it is
>wrong on statistics.  I do so, because quite simply, I believe that killing 
>an animal for any other reason besides survival is *morally* wrong. 
>	Sport hunters can create all the justifications for their action they
>choose to.  However, they cannot argue that what they do is morally acceptable.
>	Claiming that they are actually putting the animals out of their misery
>(and in doing so, are morally justified) is not truly valid.  

For me hunting is morally acceptable because the judeo-christian teachings I 
learned as a child tells me that eating animals is acceptable.  However, I 
have a big problem with the very concept of "animal rights".  Upon what tenet 
of God or man do you base this concept of "animal rights"?  Furthermore, what 
gives you the right to pass judgment on me?  Morally speaking, what is the 
difference if I buy my meat at the supermarket or kill it myself?  If animals 
have rights, why not plants and vegetables?  How about rocks?  

The ultimate goal of the animal rights movement is to outlaw all consumptive 
uses of animals including meat.  For now, the animal rights movement is using 
hunting,  medical research, and the fur industry to win sympathy to their 
cause.  In a few years when they have increased their numbers they will go 
after the consumption of meat.  Isn't it true that most hard core animal 
rights advocates are vegetarians?    

>There are other ways to combat habitat destruction and the suffering of 
>animals at the hands of human beings.  

Let's hear them.  I'm sure thousands of professional wildlife biologists would
like to know.

>I find it hard to believe that a sport hunter would specifically go to regions where the 
>animals are being overcrowded, then shoot the ones that look weak or are dying.  This 
>is unrealistic.  And it's not a good excuse.  Sure, I don't have all the 
>answers to these problems, but I can simply say that the hunters' "solutin" 
>is NOT a solution.

As others have stated hunters are attracted to the areas with the highest 
wildlife populations. As for shooting the ones that look weak or dying, you 
obviously have no concept of what wildlife management is all about.  In a 
nutshell the biologists figure out what the carrying capacity of the land is 
and then set the limits and seasons accordingly.  If the populations are not  
controlled in the fall when populations are at their peak the starvation will 
occur during the middle of winter after hunting seasons have closed.

Do you know what a deer yard is?  I suggest you visit one during a severe 
winter.

>	I would truly respect someone who contributed to the preservation of
>the environment as some hunters do, but who did not kill a deer or bear or any
>other animal. 

Why don't you be that person and leave the rest of us alone?     

>	The above is my opinion.  If you disagree, fine.  I'm very willing to
>entertain a rational debate.  But may I be spared all the insults and 
>degrading remarks?  That's mostly what I've been experiencing with hunters who 
>choose to respond to my viewpoints. 

If you refrain from insults (to wit: "scum"),  I promise to do the same.

Tom Swenson

Freedom of the press is great if YOU own the press.
 
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals