On Hunting . . .

[The Lone Ranger]

Poor livius’s Horse Question (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1841) thread eventually became a discussion regarding the merits of hunting. I thought it might be interesting to consider that topic separately. I’ll let Dragoon and any others who’re interested tackle the esthetics of hunting, and the morality of it, if anyone feels up to it. I have relatively little to say on those issues.

Still, I should perhaps lay my cards on the table right off the bat. I grew up on a farm, and we killed the occasional chicken, pig, or cow for food. I eat meat, and don’t feel ashamed of doing so. I do feel very strongly that we have a moral obligation to ensure that the animals who die to provide our food are treated with respect. Part of that means that we have an obligation to ensure that they die as quickly and painlessly as possible – “no suffering” should be the ultimate goal, in my opinion.

I think there’s something fundamentally hypocritical about someone who refuses to kill, yet eats meat and/or wears animal products. Whether you kill it yourself or pay someone to do it for you, you’re ultimately responsible for the animal’s death. I’m reminded of something P. F. McManus once wrote: he told of how he was attending a party at which the guests were dining on veal; someone brought up the subject of hunting, and McManus volunteered that he was an avid hunter. People began to speak of how he must be a terribly “cruel” person to hunt and kill “innocent animals” – as they were dining on veal. As McManus pointed out, they were being incredibly hypocritical, since the wild animals he hunted certainly led better lives than had the calves that they were eating by any measure, and suffered far less.

My suspicion is that a great many people would never again eat meat that wasn’t “free range” if they had ever seen the appalling conditions on a typical “factory farm.”



I’ve hunted rabbits and mourning doves, and I used to fish quite a lot when I was younger. Most of my friends and relatives hunt and fish. I enjoy the venison, duck, and pheasant that they occasionally provide me. Despite all that, I don’t enjoy hunting or fishing for its own sake, and I only hunt or fish for food. I haven’t shot or hooked an animal in years. Heck, I don’t even own any guns or fishing gear. I thoroughly enjoy a good walk in the woods, and it is in no way improved by blasting away at the local wildlife, in my opinion. So I stalk game with a camera, instead.

So, I have nothing at all against people who hunt for food. I do think “trophy hunting” is barbaric, however. People who hunt simply because they like killing things aren’t people with whom I like to associate.



***

It is my contention that we’ve created a situation in which it is necessary to hunt some species.

Consider White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) here in the United States. First of all, we have altered their habitats drastically. White-tails are primarily an “edge” species; that is, they do best not in large patches of forest, but at forest boundaries. By fragmenting large forest patches into woodlots, we’ve greatly increased the amount of “edge” space available, and white-tail populations have exploded as a consequence. Second, we have all but eliminated their natural predators, further contributing to their skyrocketing populations. So, why is this bad?

For one thing, white-tail populations are so high in many areas that they strip the vegetation and do incredible damage to their local environment. Where deer populations are this high, they gobble up young trees as soon as they sprout and so prevent forest regeneration.

When populations are this dense, the animals can eat up all their food, and then starvation sets in. I think most of us would agree that it’s better that predators and/or hunters keep the populations at sustainable levels than for the animals to succumb to starvation. Ironically, some well-meaning people set out food for hungry deer, but this only makes the problem worse, since this just allows the populations to grow even larger – so next year you’ll have even more hungry deer wandering around.

Dense populations make the spread of disease and parasites much easier, so animals living in very dense populations tend to have much higher incidences of disease and parasite, and so are much less healthy than animals living in less-dense populations. “Social stress” also affects animals living in very high densities, causing all sorts of physical and behavioral problems.

“Unnaturally” dense populations of one species can have detrimental effects upon other species. This is something I see fairly close-up. White-tails aren’t really native to the forests of the Pacific Northwest – until recent times these large swatches of forest weren’t particularly good white-tail habitat. But as people have cut the trees and transformed large swaths of forest into small fragments with lots of edge, white-tails have moved in. In doing so, they’ve brought with them two things that are very bad for the native deer: bluetongue and cougars.

The local deer species, Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus), Elk (Cervus elaphus), Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus-caribou), and Moose (Alces alces) have suffered considerably since white-tails have invaded. First of all, the white-tails compete with them for food, which is bad enough. But the white-tails also bring with them the viral disease bluetongue, which can be quite detrimental to mule deer, elk, and moose populations.

Since the large forest tracts of the Pacific Northwest supported relatively low population densities of such animals as mule deer and elk, populations of their predators – notably Cougars (Felis concolor) – were also low. But the fragmented forest tracts of today support very high populations of white-tailed deer, and these dense deer populations in turn support much denser cougar populations than was historically the case. That would be fine if the cougars restricted their diets to white-tails, but they go after other deer as well. For the critically endangered Woodland Caribou, the combination of competition for food with white-tails, infection from diseases brought in by white-tails, and increased predation rates from the high cougar populations is proving too much, and the local populations will almost certainly be driven to extinction in the next few decades unless drastic measures are undertaken to protect them.



So, what can be done about the very high population densities of such species as white-tailed deer? Well, we could restore habitats to what they were like before we sliced up all the forest tracts into woodlots, but that’s hardly likely to happen. We could reintroduce the wolves and bears and cougars and other predators and let them bring down the deer populations, but this isn’t likely to happen either. People get upset when they see grizzlies and cougars strolling through their back yards. (Nor do grizzlies seem to find suburbia to be especially inviting habitat.)

That leaves the hunters. Like it or not, hunters are doing the deer a service by reducing their populations. If the hunters don’t do it, disease and starvation will.

This isn’t to say that hunting is an ideal way to do it, by the way. Predators do prey populations a great service, because they tend to go after the weak and the sick. They don’t do this out of any sense of altruism, of course; they do it because the weak and the sick are easiest to catch. By weeding out weak and the sick animals, predators not only keep prey populations from growing too high, but they also help keep the prey animals healthy and (relatively) disease-free.

Human hunters, alas, tend to do the opposite. Human hunters tend to want to kill the biggest, strongest, and most healthy animals – precisely the ones that predators are least likely to kill. In so doing, human hunters – ironically – make it more likely that smaller, weaker, and sicker animals will reproduce than bigger, stronger, and healthier animals. In some species, this has had a measurable effect: a recent study in North Carolina showed that the average weight of white-tail bucks taken by hunters over the past 100 years has decreased by 50 pounds – presumably because hunters are selectively eliminating the largest and strongest animals from the gene pool.



So, discussion?


Cheers,

Michael

[viscousmemories]

Thanks for the excellent OP, Michael.

I think there’s something fundamentally hypocritical about someone who refuses to kill, yet eats meat and/or wears animal products. Whether you kill it yourself or pay someone to do it for you, you’re ultimately responsible for the animal’s death.

I was completely opposed to hunting until relatively recently, yet I have never ceased eating meat or wearing animal products. On a couple of occassions I have been accused of being hypocritical for the same reason you explain above, but to this day I disagree that I was.

The fact is I was never opposed to the killing of animals for food and clothing per se, but to killing animals unnecessarily (whether for sport or for food/clothing already available on the market). In other words it has always seemed to me that faced with the choice between killing animals and shopping, some people prefer to kill animals whereas I prefer shopping. So I really don't think cognitive dissonance* is at play here.

I've heard the claims that hunting your own food is more economical, but I have a hard time believing it when I consider the amount of money hunters spend on safety clothing, weapons and ammo, hunting licenses, gas to carry their pick-up truck or SUV to the wooded area, beer, etc. Besides, this argument seems to hinge on the assumption that meat is a necessary part of a healthy diet and/or less expensive than the alternatives, and unless I'm mistaken that isn't the case.

Having said all that, at this point in my life my position very closely resembles your own. I am not at all opposed to breeding and killing animals for food and/or clothing, provided they are not made to experience physical suffering while they live. (I confess I don't care all that much if they spend their life on a range or in a box. My assumption being that they couldn't possibly know the difference and hence can't really be disappointed.)

After reading a thread here or somewhere else in the last year I distinctly remember wondering what would happen if we just stopped killing animals for food, and it occurred to me that the planet would quickly be completely overrun by non-human animals, probably severely impinging on the human way of life. I might be fine with that if I thought all 'life' was sacred, but since I don't I can't really see any reason to go that route.

You make a really good point about hunting being less than ideal because they go after the strong and healthy animals, though. But I can't imagine people would have much incentive to hunt if there were legislation requiring hunters to target only weak and sick animals. Can you think of any viable alternatives?



* Ironically I looked up the definition of cognitive dissonance to make sure I was using it right, and found this definition at dictionary.com: "A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat."

[Dragar]

Excellent OP, Michael.

So, I have nothing at all against people who hunt for food.

Even though I'm attempting to be a vegetarian (which is proving extremely difficult on a student budget), I do eat meat occassionally, when I have no vegetarian alternative (ever try getting cheap quorn/soya pizzas? Does a vegetarian fish substitute even exist?) or it proves too expensive for me to buy a meat substitute.

Another huge problem for me is that I really enjoy the taste of meat. I think it's got a fantastic taste to it. And I hope that, one day, I can have an income that makes it possible for me to only eat free-range meat (under the assumption they suffer far less - you've seen pictures of hens bred for slaughter in batteries, or whatever they're called, right?), if I eat any at all.

The worst part is, people always seem to think you're looking down on them when they eat meat and you order a vegetarian option.

I do think “trophy hunting” is barbaric, however. People who hunt simply because they like killing things aren’t people with whom I like to associate.

Me neither. I really don't like the idea of enjoying causing suffering. :(

[LadyShea]

I grew up in Colorado, hunting and beef ranches, and smaller farms were commonplace. I myself do not like to hunt, nor do I enjoy the taste of most game meat, but I have no problem with hunting. For one thing it's a good way to supplement tight food budgets. vm, you buy a gun once, you get a license once a year, a pound of hamburger is 3.00 and most families eat, what, a pound or more a week...that's 150-300/year? That's just hamburger. Steaks, chops, sausage, etc all add up. Once good size buck can fill a freezer for the year. Frankie has his dads guns, and they are still in great condition.

For another it culls the herds which can become ecomenaces (the herd on the USAFA range got out of control). I have seen a pig and a cow slaughtered, so I know where my meat comes from. I do try to buy free range meats and I always buy cage free eggs. I am opposed to trophy hunting; killing animals one will not eat or wear, but simply stuff like cougars, tigers, jaguars, etc.

I have a similar problem with those same people who eat meat and wear leather but are totally aghast at fur wearing. If they studied the fur industry for 10 minutes, rather than believing PETAs propaganda, they would know it is much more humane than the meat/egg industries and fur is a renewable, resusable resource (all my furs happen to be vintage). The carcasses are used in dog food and the minks, especially, eat much of the offal from the meat industries, making it a big part of the whole cycle. The UK recently banned fur farming, putting hundreds of generations old farms out of business and doing who knows what to their garbage situation (millions of pounds of poultry guts have to go somewhere).

[copiae]

I was completely opposed to hunting until relatively recently, yet I have never ceased eating meat or wearing animal products. On a couple of occassions I have been accused of being hypocritical for the same reason you explain above, but to this day I disagree that I was.

The fact is I was never opposed to the killing of animals for food and clothing per se, but to killing animals unnecessarily (whether for sport or for food/clothing already available on the market). In other words it has always seemed to me that faced with the choice between killing animals and shopping, some people prefer to kill animals whereas I prefer shopping. So I really don't think cognitive dissonance* is at play here.

* Ironically I looked up the definition of cognitive dissonance to make sure I was using it right, and found this definition at dictionary.com: "A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat."


Hey vm,

Based on a vague memory from a psychology subject I took a few semesters ago (i.e. there is every likelihood that I am wrong), Cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) is often expanded to include the result of the conflict between two cognitions, namely the drive to remove or alleviate said conflict... e.g. " I think killing animals is wrong - I enjoy eating meat - If I am not the one to kill the animals..." In this case, the conflict between the two statements above is resolved by the third one, so I would say that cognitive dissonance is at work here. This is not to say that in your case cognitive dissonance is applicable, incidentally, just a general note.



I've heard the claims that hunting your own food is more economical, but I have a hard time believing it when I consider the amount of money hunters spend on safety clothing, weapons and ammo, hunting licenses, gas to carry their pick-up truck or SUV to the wooded area, beer, etc. Besides, this argument seems to hinge on the assumption that meat is a necessary part of a healthy diet and/or less expensive than the alternatives, and unless I'm mistaken that isn't the case.


Hehe... Beer + firearms + secluded wooded area doesnt sound like a particularly safe combination either (then again, I suppose the "safest" place to be when drunk is behind a weapon in a secluded area, although this may result in a criminal charge or two :D).

A vegetarian diet can certainly be a healthy, inexpensive, diet. My father has been vegetarian for over 30 years now, and recently got a bloodworks test done. Everything was top-notch, and in some cases, much much better than what was expected (his cholesterol levels, for instance, were spectacularly great).

There are certain vitamins (B12, i believe), minerals (iron) and a few amino acids that the body needs that are more abundant in meat and dairy sources, but having said that, I believe that if you have a balanced vegetarian diet (and vegemite), with dairy intake, or perhaps even some dairy substitute, its not a problem (wasnt there a thread on this a while ago?).



Having said all that, at this point in my life my position very closely resembles your own. I am not at all opposed to breeding and killing animals for food and/or clothing, provided they are not made to experience physical suffering while they live. (I confess I don't care all that much if they spend their life on a range or in a box. My assumption being that they couldn't possibly know the difference and hence can't really be disappointed.)


Theres a cartoon (http://www.themeatrix.com/) I recall that showcases the 'living' conditions of caged animals. It is worthy to recall that it is a propoganda film, but still... The one thing that they don't mention is that in many cases, the livestock are fed with ground up remnants of thier fallen brethren, along with many other things. It is due to practices like this that diseases such as Mad Cows Disease could spread with such speed.

Theres also an interesting argument I heard a while back for free ranged animals. Basically, as caged animals don't have to move much, thier muscles atrophy quite substantially, so, per pound, caged animal food is both not as tasty as free range, and much more fatty. I dunno how true it is, though.

Finally, even if they do not know the difference, we can. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather eat an animal that has led a life where it is free to move around and eat what it wants, even if I have to kill it myself, rather than an animal stuck in a cage and fed bits of cow brain, all to increase the profits of some corporation by some tiny fraction.



After reading a thread here or somewhere else in the last year I distinctly remember wondering what would happen if we just stopped killing animals for food, and it occurred to me that the planet would quickly be completely overrun by non-human animals, probably severely impinging on the human way of life. I might be fine with that if I thought all 'life' was sacred, but since I don't I can't really see any reason to go that route.


Hrm. Point, but reducing our dependency on livestock can help reduce our dependency on caged livestock, which is not such a bad thing, imo.

[Ensign Steve]

* Ironically I looked up the definition of cognitive dissonance to make sure I was using it right, and found this definition at dictionary.com: "A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat."

I don't think that is irony. :roflmao: Kidding!

[Dingfod]

I was a hunter. I still believe hunting is necessary for the reasons stated in the OP. Hunting, when done right, is quite challenging and can be quite an experience. If one lives in the midst of prime hunting country it probably is marginally cheaper to kill your own meat. If you live in Houston and drive to Colorado in your big old Dodge 1-ton dually (that you don't really need otherwise) loaded to the max with 4-wheelers, lawn chairs and a big old BBQ grill made out of scrap pipe, getting 8 mpg while pulling a travel trailer 1300 miles each way, you'd probably be better off hopping down to the Sam's Club because it isn't going to be cheap. The average success rate for hunters is less than 50%, meaning over half of them will be out all that money for nothing. It was the trailer-toting, beer-swilling Texans that came up to Colorado with their gas-hogging SUVs and pickup trucks shooting just about anything that moved and many things that don't move (signs, etc) that contributed to me not wanting to hunt or be associated with hunting or hunters. The other was people I went hunting with that were not very damn responsible when it came to ensuring the animals didn't suffer or go to waste.

One time, a hunting partner took a long 450 yard shot at dusk at a doe he said was a buck. He hit it in the hind quarter, it limped off into the brush. Once he realized it wasn't a buck, he immediately shifted mental gears into looking for a buck and to his delight there were a couple of them about a thousand yards away. While he and his pal went off to stalk the bucks in that Wyoming hayfield, I tried my best to find the doe he shot in order to put it out of it's misery. It was probably going to die anyway, but I thought it would be best to track it down. It got dark before I could find it. I never went hunting with anyone else again. It wasn't too many years before I just soured on the whole experience. The fun was in the stalking, getting close enough for a decent shot; the fun was over and the work began once that shot was made. I decided I could afford to buy meat at the store even if it cost more.

Personally, I like the idea of the guided elk hunts in Oklahoma's Wichita Mountains better. There, the wildlife management rangers take people out and point out the animal they want them to shoot and if they don't do it right then the rangers will shoot it for them. They are culling the old, sick and the weak, trying to maintain a healthy herd.

Or, the bison hunting in Utah's Henry Mountains, where they only allow archery or muzzleloading black powder rifles. The success rate is low, but I'll bet the hunt is challenging. I read a funny article about it one time, the hunters left camp early in the morning tracking the herd they had seen the evening before. They eventually tracked it back to their own camp. The bison herd had completely trampled their entire campsite, ruining most of their gear. Now, that sounds like fun.

These days though, the challenge all gone from big game hunting, I only hunt the most dangerous game on my island stronghold in the mouth of the Amazon. Or was that only in a movie?

[Dragoon]

:popcorn:
While you all are talking one of my favorite subjects, I really haven't found anything controversial (IMHO) to take issue with. Everything written I find almost total agreement with.

With regard to saving money by hunting your own food, for some people living in very rural places, that may be true. However, in the vast, vast majority of cases, it is way cheaper to buy factory farmed meats.

I love blackpowder shooting and think that all hunting should be done that way - fat chance that will ever happen though. In addition to being more technically challenging, the (dare I use the expression?) "Caliber" of the people engaged in BP is directly proportional to the increased size of their rifle's bore.

Speaking of boar, we bagged one last weekend. It was a rather aggressive male that took some pretty mean slashes at a couple of our horses. After it was brought to bay, it was dispatched instantly and without any suffering with a single shot through its CNS with a .44 magnum pistol. It fell to me to do the prep before transporting it to a shop and that's the part I think every meat eating human should have to experience so they have a fuller appreciation of what it means to be carnivorous.

By the way, this was not the biggest and smartest pig in the herd, they all got away.

As mentioned in the other thread, in my group, the killing of the animal is certainly not something joyous although there is a certain satisfaction when everything in the hunt goes well. In a sense, the killing of the game is a very small and unpleasant part of the many, many reasons we are out there, but, in another sense, it is the ultimate reason we are out there. Without the possibility of a successful hunt, the whole complex of activities associated with hunting would be meaningless.

BTW, an excellent observation regarding furs, LadyShea. Problem with furs is that the poor little furry critter was so cute!! We don't care about cruelty to ugly critters like veal calves but, somehow we care about cruelty to pretty creatures, like mink - why is that?

[Godless Dave]

The fact is I was never opposed to the killing of animals for food and clothing per se, but to killing animals unnecessarily (whether for sport or for food/clothing already available on the market).

I don't understand what you mean by "already on the market". Are you saying killing wild animals for food is unnecessary because there are already professional farmers and slaughterhouses killing domestic animals for food? That doesn't strike me as "unnecessary". That's like saying it's unnecessary for me to brew my own beer because I can buy commercially brewed beer at a liquor store. Why does a buying a professionally produced product take precedence over producing it yourself?

Have you ever seen a modern farm or slaughterhouse? Shooting a wild animal with a rifle is far, far more humane than what goes on in farms and meat-packing plants.

[JoeP]

I eat meat, and don’t feel ashamed of doing so. I do feel very strongly that we have a moral obligation to ensure that the animals who die to provide our food are treated with respect. Part of that means that we have an obligation to ensure that they die as quickly and painlessly as possible – “no suffering” should be the ultimate goal, in my opinion.

...

My suspicion is that a great many people would never again eat meat that wasn’t “free range” if they had ever seen the appalling conditions on a typical “factory farm.”You set out my basic position clearly and well!

I’ve hunted rabbits and mourning doves,
I assume from this you've hunted them to eat? I'm strongly tempted to control the local dove population. Are they good eatin'?

[LadyShea]

We don't care about cruelty to ugly critters like veal calves but, somehow we care about cruelty to pretty creatures, like mink - why is that?

It's not even all that cruel. Fur animals only grow nice, luxurious fur under very specific conditions, certain amount of sunlight per day, specific temperature fluctuations, a good diet. There is no chemical or hormone that really triggers it, so the fur farmers have to treat them very well. Then, they slaughter with canistered CO2, which is completely painless...they simply fall asleep and die.

[Dragoon]

Exactly, LadyShea, but it's the sentimental folks out there that see only the "cuteness" of the creature and get all dewy eyed. That's human nature, I guess. Still, I'd like them to watch what happens to a little bunny or new born lamb and then ask them if they think mink and foxes are so cute.

BTW, I think women in firs are HOT. :suave:

GodlessDave sez:
"Have you ever seen a modern farm or slaughterhouse? Shooting a wild animal with a rifle is far, far more humane than what goes on in farms and meat-packing plants."

So true!! Not only that, if you've never been to (what we call out here) a gathering, I'll tell you about it: All the young bull calves are separated from the cows, roped and tied up one at a time. One guy uses an emasculator to neuter the calf while another guy takes a white hot iron and burns a brand into the skin while a third guy takes a pair of cutters and lops off the horns then another guy comes by with a white hot iron rod and burns out the horn buds. Of course, this is all done without any thought to prevent pain to the young animal.

Gatherings are a great social event out at the ranches around here, but there's no pleasure taken in the pain inflicted to the animals, that's not part of it at all. When thought about at all (which is almost never - except by me), it's just considered the grim price humanity exacts from our domestic animals so we can produce animal protein we humans have always coveted.

By contrast, a wild animal grows up according to Nature and meets its end relatively swiftly and without pain at the hands of a hunter who, again, is not interested in killing, but in the satisfaction of a successful outcome to a complex ritual which is hunting.

[viscousmemories]

Based on a vague memory from a psychology subject I took a few semesters ago (i.e. there is every likelihood that I am wrong), Cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) is often expanded to include the result of the conflict between two cognitions, namely the drive to remove or alleviate said conflict... e.g. " I think killing animals is wrong - I enjoy eating meat - If I am not the one to kill the animals..." In this case, the conflict between the two statements above is resolved by the third one, so I would say that cognitive dissonance is at work here. This is not to say that in your case cognitive dissonance is applicable, incidentally, just a general note.
Thanks for the link, copiae. I understand the theory better now after reading that entry and one of the external links they provided at the bottom. So apparently the dictionary definition wasn’t exactly right. As you said, cognitive dissonance isn’t a psychological conflict between belief and action, but between two beliefs (or other cognitions). And this page (http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/stephens/cdback.html) calls the resolution you describe “adding cognitions”, while pointing out that other methods of alleviating the conflict are “changing cognitions” and “altering importance [of the various cognitions]”.

It’s fascinating stuff. Now that I know what it means though I don’t really get why some people appear to raise it as a criticism. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that anyone who gives much thought to their beliefs is going to occasionally find themselves in a state of dissonance between two of them and seek to resolve that conflict somehow. :chin:


Hehe... Beer + firearms + secluded wooded area doesnt sound like a particularly safe combination either (then again, I suppose the "safest" place to be when drunk is behind a weapon in a secluded area, although this may result in a criminal charge or two :D).
Yeah I was being a bit sardonic there. I can’t think of anything more stupid than mixing alcohol and firearms, yet drinking and hunting seems to be a favorite pastime of many.

A vegetarian diet can certainly be a healthy, inexpensive, diet. <snip> (wasnt there a thread on this a while ago?).
That’s what I thought. There were two threads that I can think of. The Food and Drink thread Is being a vegetarian really feasible (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1111) and the Philo thread I started last summer, Vegetarianism (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90).


Theres a cartoon (http://www.themeatrix.com/) I recall that showcases the 'living' conditions of caged animals. It is worthy to recall that it is a propoganda film, but still... The one thing that they don't mention is that in many cases, the livestock are fed with ground up remnants of thier fallen brethren, along with many other things. It is due to practices like this that diseases such as Mad Cows Disease could spread with such speed.
That’s a really cute video. I learned all that stuff by reading Fast Food Nation, but that’s an amusing and informative presentation to introduce people to the subject.

Theres also an interesting argument I heard a while back for free ranged animals. Basically, as caged animals don't have to move much, thier muscles atrophy quite substantially, so, per pound, caged animal food is both not as tasty as free range, and much more fatty. I dunno how true it is, though.
That explains why livius insists that free range chicken tastes much better. I’ve never really been able to notice a difference m’self, but then I don’t have a very sensitive palate.

Finally, even if they do not know the difference, we can. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather eat an animal that has led a life where it is free to move around and eat what it wants, even if I have to kill it myself, rather than an animal stuck in a cage and fed bits of cow brain, all to increase the profits of some corporation by some tiny fraction.
I largely agree, but I think this is where anthropomorphizing gets a bit sketchy. I mean, just because we humans would find life in a cage intolerable doesn’t mean a chicken does. Do chickens even experience what we call ‘happiness’? If so, is their happiness severely impinged by living in a cage? I honestly don’t know, but I suspect not.


Hrm. Point, but reducing our dependency on livestock can help reduce our dependency on caged livestock, which is not such a bad thing, imo.
I definitely agree that Americans over-consume meat, no doubt. I remember reading many years ago about how economically inefficient raising cattle is. Eg. The fact that many times the number of people could be fed on the grain it takes to fatten a cow, which in turn will only provide X quantity of food. Or something like that.

[viscousmemories]

The fact is I was never opposed to the killing of animals for food and clothing per se, but to killing animals unnecessarily (whether for sport or for food/clothing already available on the market).
I don't understand what you mean by "already on the market". Are you saying killing wild animals for food is unnecessary because there are already professional farmers and slaughterhouses killing domestic animals for food? That doesn't strike me as "unnecessary". That's like saying it's unnecessary for me to brew my own beer because I can buy commercially brewed beer at a liquor store. Why does a buying a professionally produced product take precedence over producing it yourself?
I don't understand. Are you suggesting that for you to have beer, it's necessary for you to brew your own?

Have you ever seen a modern farm or slaughterhouse? Shooting a wild animal with a rifle is far, far more humane than what goes on in farms and meat-packing plants.
I don't see that inhumane factory farms and hunting your own animals are the only two options. The current conditions at typical factory farms and slaughterhouses are in my opinion a better argument for tighter legislation of those places than an argument for why people should hunt their own food.

[Dragoon]

... ... ...
The current conditions at typical factory farms and slaughterhouses are in my opinion a better argument for tighter legislation of those places than an argument for why people should hunt their own food.

With regard to humane treatment of domestic animals raised commercially for slaughter, you are unlikely to be seeing much improvement from legislation within your lifetime. For economic and political reasons, things are as good as they are going to get, IMO.

If you enjoy and know that you will continue to be eating animal protein, but you are seriously and morally concerned that the animals you consume are raised and killed in the most natural and humane manner possible, you have no choice but to hunt. That way you know that the animal you are eating had a free and natural life and you were there to insure that its death was as swift and painless as it is possible.

If you leave the responsibility of raising and killing your food to others for you, you may accurately assume that at least some of the animals you are eating were terribly abused and you are guilty of supporting this hellish system. Every bite you take, you will have to assume, could be from some inhumanly treated critter and it will sour it in your mouth. There is only one way to know for sure - “If you want it done right, you must do it yourself.”

I therefore propose; the only flesh eaters among us that have any right to claim the title "moral" are the ones who hunt.

[The Lone Ranger]

I’ve hunted rabbits and mourning doves,
I assume from this you've hunted them to eat? I'm strongly tempted to control the local dove population. Are they good eatin'?

They are. There's not much meat on one, but they are tasty, or I thought so, anyway.

To me, dove tastes rather like chicken -- much more than does pheasant. Ironically, since pheasant is supposed to be a delicacy, I don't find it as appealing as good old chicken -- it's a little "gamy" for my taste.

Cheers,

Michael

[viscousmemories]

If you enjoy and know that you will continue to be eating animal protein, but you are seriously and morally concerned that the animals you consume are raised and killed in the most natural and humane manner possible, you have no choice but to hunt.
I see a few flaws in this reasoning. For one, what makes hunting and shooting animals yourself more 'natural' than raising them on a factory farm and slaughtering them? I don't think guns or bows are found in nature. Do you have to fight and kill animals with your bare hands before you can call it 'natural'?

Secondly, I personally trust a factory slaughterhouse to kill animals more quickly and painlessly (on average) than amateur hunters. And I'm pretty sure farmed animals get to eat more often than animals in the wild and are generally protected from predators throughout their life. And while none of those things are 'natural' really, they are in my opinion more humane.

I therefore propose; the only flesh eaters among us that have any right to claim the title "moral" are the ones who hunt.
Given the problems with the argument that I mentioned above, I don't think that claim holds much water. Even granting that the above flaws were somehow negated, though, I still think it would be silly to say that anyone who eats meat they don't personally kill is immoral. So the only moral meat-eaters never eat meat at restaurants, neighborhood potlucks, friends houses, etc.? Is that truly what you believe? I'd have to make some pretty significant changes to my conception of morality to accept that for myself.

[Dragoon]

:bait1:
Well, you know my post was meant to be a little (OK - - way) over the top. But still, there are elements of truth in it I think.

First of all, I never meant to imply that the ultra swift death that comes out of the barrel of a rifle is "Natural." Oh my god, NO!! Real predators strangle and slowly rip their prey to death and many times start feeding while the thing is still trying to get away. You ever heard the expression "tear them a new asshole" - ever wonder where it came from? Well, that's one of the favorite ways some predators kill, by attacking the anus or vagina and allow the prey to bleed to death. Yes, the swift, merciful death by gunshot is certainly not natural, no siree it sure ain't. Humane, but not natural.

With regard to amateur hunters, even a poorly placed shot with a magnum caliber handgun or a large caliber black powder rifle or a smokeless high velocity expanding slug will kill a deer or a pig nearly anywhere it hits and it's rare (in my experience anyway) when you have to go looking for it.

What is natural and what makes me feel good, is the way wild animals live the life that their species evolved, over the eons of time, to live until such time they must die. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that animals that are fed regularly and protected from predators can not be any less happy than wild ones. Indeed, you seem to think they are incapable of feeling anything akin to happiness. I strongly disagree. You could use (and many have used) the very same argument in support of human slavery.

I think there is no question that other mammals share many of the basic brain stem structures we do and that they also feel the same basic emotions. for a rich emotional life, a degree of freedom to perform natural animal functions - including running from danger, finding food, mating rituals, Etc., are necessary. Even animals belonging to species that have been domesticated for thousands of years will "fly the coop" and say "to hell with your food and protection" if given the chance.

I invite you to read what I wrote regarding what is done to calfs before they are separated from the cows and put out on the range. Once on the range those lucky steers get to live a normal, if sexless, life, but then comes the feedlot.

You say that you trust abattoirs - I don't and I've been inside. There are many instances of botched up killings and instances where animals get badly hurt before they are killed. The way they are treated on the way to slaughter can be appalling. Let me just say this, I would never send an old horse to the slaughterhouse, I always have it killed in my presence so I know it was done right.

What I wrote previously was over the top, but so are people who say hunters are less moral than other meat eaters.

[Godless Dave]

The fact is I was never opposed to the killing of animals for food and clothing per se, but to killing animals unnecessarily (whether for sport or for food/clothing already available on the market).
I don't understand what you mean by "already on the market". Are you saying killing wild animals for food is unnecessary because there are already professional farmers and slaughterhouses killing domestic animals for food? That doesn't strike me as "unnecessary". That's like saying it's unnecessary for me to brew my own beer because I can buy commercially brewed beer at a liquor store. Why does a buying a professionally produced product take precedence over producing it yourself?
I don't understand. Are you suggesting that for you to have beer, it's necessary for you to brew your own?

Not at all. To have beer, I can either brew my own or buy it from someone else. That is, do the labor myself or pay someone else for the finished product. You seemed to be implying, with regards to killing animals for food, that it is somehow preferable to pay someone else to do the labor.

[Godless Dave]

I don't see that inhumane factory farms and hunting your own animals are the only two options. The current conditions at typical factory farms and slaughterhouses are in my opinion a better argument for tighter legislation of those places than an argument for why people should hunt their own food.

I'm not arguing that people should hunt their own food. I'm arguing that people should be able to hunt their own food, and that a moral objection to hunting from someone who eats meat is hogwash.

Regarding slaughterhouses, no legislation is going to change the fact that a slaughterhouse is an assembly line of animals being offloaded from trucks and train cars and systematically killed. Many slaughterhouses do have procedures in place to make this as humane as possible. But it is qualitatively different from the experience of a wild animal that roams free in the wild until the moment a bullet hits its body.

Regarding factory farming, I would love to see free range practices mandated by law (not only would it be more humane for the stock, it would also reduce production and potentially increase the price per head, helping the farmers). But farm animals are not wild animals and they never will be.

[JoeP]

BTW, I think women in firs are HOT. :suave:

In firs? What, like skiing? Do they have to wear any clothes?

[Dragoon]

:D furs, F-U-R-S. Like in the fuzzy skins of pathetic little critters. :D

But now that you mention it, during my college days I'd always see the gals in furs framed by firs (went to UN, Reno). I mean, white snow, evergreen trees and young women with fur trimmed coats is a pretty mental image I retain to this day. The trees were mostly Ponderosa Pines, but the firs and those in the furs were the most beautiful.

Hey, here's something for a science group to analyze, why do we sometimes hit the wrong keys when we type? I mean, I seem to see the the same mistakes made time and again. I think they get through because we are trained to recognize words that are patently misspelled, but tend to subconsciously ignore correctly spelled words even though they are not the correct word. Running the text through a spell-checker makes the matter worse because it gives us a false sense that everything is OK. Still, that doesn't explain why we hit the wrong key in the first place.

Could it be that part of our brains are not fully alert and we just hit the first key that phonetically sounds right? Does it make any difference that they are spatially related or do we make as many mistakes when the keys are at vastly different parts of a keyboard?

[godfry n. glad]

I grew up a hunter. My father was the organizer of the annual hunt and even became a state-approved gun safety instructor. Our prey was mule deer...does, not bucks. My father much preferred the meat of does over that of the bucks and meat, along with time in the woods and being away from female company, was the objective. It was a huge male bonding experience.

I started toting a rifle when I was 13. I shot my first (and only) deer when I was 15. That was the last year I went hunting. I enjoyed everything right up until I had to gut my prey. I didn't care for that, but it wasn't the real reason I quit going. That was fuelled by family dissention and the realization that I was not safe out in the woods during hunting season. During my forays through the woods in search of the elusive mule deer, I ran into a lot of other hunters, far too many of them who were plowed, gin-soaked (or whiskey, vodka, beer or other alchoholic beverage) and staggering in the woods with high powered rifles. I don't think it mattered whether one was wearing a flashing neon orange jumpsuit, some of those idiots would shoot at you. I thought I'd stick to purchasing my meat at the local market.

I think duck-hunting must be reserved for those either feeble-minded or already numb from the waist down. Standing in freezing cold water up to your nads at dawn waiting for a duck to fly within range is absurd, particularly when one does not care for the taste of duck. Pheasant or chukkar hunting is much more fun, but I've never managed to shoot one and I just don't see what all the fooferah is all about. I'd much rather buy a box of clay pidgeons and go bust some airborne clay.

And, yes... Anyone who tells you that hunting saves money has not done the careful calculations into what it costs to go hunting. My father kept exacting books on all costs and figured that the full freezer and the summer sausage was at least 1.5 to 2 times the cost of equivalent meats at the supermarket, but it was male bonding that tipped the scales and justified the whole annual excapade.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

BTW, I think women in firs are HOT. :suave:

In firs? What, like skiing? Do they have to wear any clothes?

Hey!

Some women in firs are hot. Particularly on a midsummer day. Take it from me, here in fir country.

And, around here, women in furs would be hot....incredibly hot. It's usually too warm around here to justify wearing fur.

[Dragoon]

You say it's USUALLY too warm for women to wear furs where you live. I'm trying to think of a place where firs are abundant, yet the temperatures are tropical or sub-tropical??

Anyway, on those rare occasions when you have the happy combination of cool weather, firs and young women in furs, what a time to savor. :lecher:

[godfry n. glad]

You say it's USUALLY too warm for women to wear furs where you live. I'm trying to think of a place where firs are abundant, yet the temperatures are tropical or sub-tropical??

Anyway, on those rare occasions when you have the happy combination of cool weather, firs and young women in furs, what a time to savor. :lecher:

Try north of you by about 800 miles.

When it's cool, it's wet. Not the best environment for wearing furs or down. Most of the women I see in furs are older and at the symphony, rather than in the firs.

(p.s. - Thanks for your late winter weather this year, it's really appreciated that you switched with us. Do you like ours?)

[viscousmemories]

Well, you know my post was meant to be a little (OK - - way) over the top. But still, there are elements of truth in it I think.
Oh, whew. I thought you were completely serious.

First of all, I never meant to imply that the ultra swift death that comes out of the barrel of a rifle is "Natural." Oh my god, NO!! Real predators strangle and slowly rip their prey to death and many times start feeding while the thing is still trying to get away. You ever heard the expression "tear them a new asshole" - ever wonder where it came from? Well, that's one of the favorite ways some predators kill, by attacking the anus or vagina and allow the prey to bleed to death. Yes, the swift, merciful death by gunshot is certainly not natural, no siree it sure ain't. Humane, but not natural.
That's an image I didn't need. :yuck:

With regard to amateur hunters, even a poorly placed shot with a magnum caliber handgun or a large caliber black powder rifle or a smokeless high velocity expanding slug will kill a deer or a pig nearly anywhere it hits and it's rare (in my experience anyway) when you have to go looking for it.
Fair enough, but of course a lot of people hunt with weaker guns, bow and arrow, etc. so there's a lot of room for non-fatal wounding.

What is natural and what makes me feel good, is the way wild animals live the life that their species evolved, over the eons of time, to live until such time they must die. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that animals that are fed regularly and protected from predators can not be any less happy than wild ones.
I didn't say they couldn't be any less happy than wild ones, I just said regular feeding and protection from predators seems more humane than leaving them to fend for themselves.

Indeed, you seem to think they are incapable of feeling anything akin to happiness. I strongly disagree. You could use (and many have used) the very same argument in support of human slavery.

I think there is no question that other mammals share many of the basic brain stem structures we do and that they also feel the same basic emotions. for a rich emotional life, a degree of freedom to perform natural animal functions - including running from danger, finding food, mating rituals, Etc., are necessary. Even animals belonging to species that have been domesticated for thousands of years will "fly the coop" and say "to hell with your food and protection" if given the chance.
There's no question that non-human animals share many of the basic brain stem structures, feel the same basic emotions as humans and require a degree of freedom for a rich emotional life? I admit I haven't reasearched this topic much at all, but this is the first time I've ever heard these things. I'll probably have to do some Googling on the subject.

I invite you to read what I wrote regarding what is done to calfs before they are separated from the cows and put out on the range. Once on the range those lucky steers get to live a normal, if sexless, life, but then comes the feedlot.

You say that you trust abattoirs - I don't and I've been inside. There are many instances of botched up killings and instances where animals get badly hurt before they are killed. The way they are treated on the way to slaughter can be appalling. Let me just say this, I would never send an old horse to the slaughterhouse, I always have it killed in my presence so I know it was done right.
I didn't mean to imply that I completely trust slaughterhouses and as I said earlier I think they engage in a lot of practices that I'd like to see reformed. I was just pointing out that it seems likely that a slaughterhouse on average is going to kill more quickly and painlessly than a bunch of amateur hunters. I have no idea if that's true or not, though.

What I wrote previously was over the top, but so are people who say hunters are less moral than other meat eaters.
Probably true.

[viscousmemories]

Not at all. To have beer, I can either brew my own or buy it from someone else. That is, do the labor myself or pay someone else for the finished product. You seemed to be implying, with regards to killing animals for food, that it is somehow preferable to pay someone else to do the labor.
I think it's preferrable for various reasons to have as few people killing animals for food consumption as necessary. It seems to me that the more centralized and efficient the process the more safe, economical and humane it can be. So yeah, I think if there's a butcher shop nearby and a person has money, hunting their own food is unnecessary and it would be better if they didn't do it.

[Godless Dave]

I guess I don't understand that point of view at all.

[Dragoon]

Hi, I'm back. Went hunting with my club today.

... ... ...
That's an image I didn't need. :yuck:

Sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it, but when you take the time to observe Nature, you soon discover how wasteful of life and how "cruel" wild animals are.

... ... ...
Fair enough, but of course a lot of people hunt with weaker guns, bow and arrow, etc. so there's a lot of room for non-fatal wounding.
There are minimum calibers and cartridges that, by law, must be used for hunting. I have never met anybody that would hunt boar or deer with a .22 rimfire. Older military rifles (Mausers and Russian) are quite powerful enough (especially with expanding bullets) to quickly kill and they are cheap.

Arrows are another matter and I, for one, am not at all in favor of their use in hunting. The circulatory system shock, tissue damage and massive hemorrhaging caused by a high speed blunt projectile striking an organism is extremely effective in either killing the animal instantly or causing immobility until a second shot can quickly finish it off. An arrow kills in a completely different way. The sharp arrowhead causes internal hemorrhaging as it cuts through vital organs, but with very little associated tissue damage, circulatory system shock or other bleeding. Many times, even if fatally wounded, the animal can run off and has to be tracked. No, I really don't like the idea of using arrows for hunting, however I will not go so far as to say they are inhumane.

... ... ...
I didn't say they couldn't be any less happy than wild ones, I just said regular feeding and protection from predators seems more humane than leaving them to fend for themselves.
Leave the stall gate open for just one second and let the animal tell you if it would be happier free or not. They have no way of understanding the concept of regular feeding and predator protection, but they do understand the instinct for freedom.

... ... ...
There's no question that non-human animals share many of the basic brain stem structures, feel the same basic emotions as humans and require a degree of freedom for a rich emotional life? I admit I haven't researched this topic much at all, but this is the first time I've ever heard these things. I'll probably have to do some Googling on the subject.
The mammalian brain is a fascinating subject, you will really enjoy what you learn. I would suggest you start by researching the cingulate gyrus.

I make no claim to be a "horse whisperer" - far from it, but in my own small way, I think I sometimes sense the emotional states of horses and I know they sense mine. Through many cues, that I am mostly unaware of, I seem to sense when a horse is upset about something and when it is scared and sometimes I can sense what it is that's upsetting them. The old time cowboys say that a true horseman "knows" what a horse is thinking and I know damn well they know what you are feeling.

Why is that and how can that be? We are primates and horses are perissodactyls. You have to go clear back to the mid Cretaceous to find us a common ancestor, but somehow we can sense each others emotions. They have tiny brains and we have a huge brain, but deep within we have homologous structures within our brains that are almost identical and those are the very structures that are responsible for emotions.

I'm sure you have felt the same way with dogs and you probably know which cats to touch and which ones to leave alone.

... ... ...
I was just pointing out that it seems likely that a slaughterhouse on average is going to kill more quickly and painlessly than a bunch of amateur hunters. I have no idea if that's true or not, though.
Neither do I. I'm only going on my own experiences and observations. In either case, all but the most boched jobs are done so quickly that it's a toss-up which is better and both are acceptably humane, IMO.

... ... ...
Probably true.
Thanks.


One last thing. In your response to GodlessDave, you said:

I think it's preferable for various reasons to have as few people killing animals for food consumption as necessary. It seems to me that the more centralized and efficient the process the more safe, economical and humane it can be...
I don't agree with that at all. There are many small operations that are owned and run by people that rely on a good reputation. Many of these guys go directly to ranches and do their jobs under the observation of the rancher. I would trust them to "do it right" way before I'd trust some huge factory operation where the killers are likely to be poorly trained and poorly paid and where the guys are in a big hurry.

Then there's this: The scenes of "automated death" where the guy goes from steer to steer and puts the thumper on the head one after another as quickly as he can, leaves me a little cold. I'd rather see it done one at a time with perhaps time to reflect on what's being done. But that's just me.

Edited to add:
Oh yeah, forgot to mention that most of the really egregious abuse of stock occurs during transport. If you have a huge operation in one state that slaughters for all the surrounding states, those animals have to be transported those long distances, sometimes in misery.