Trophy/Big Game Hunting. Killing animals for fun.

[Conrod]

I disagree with that. I can happily judge a man that enjoys bloodsport. I don't see it as morally equivalent to eating meat.

 

We try, although somewhat unsuccesfully, to make an animal's life pleasant enough in farming to justify its death. To create suffering just for our own entertainment is wrong. Dog fighting, hunting, captive bears who are beaten into dancing for crowds; they are all acts of severe cruelty.

As most hunters would agree, but what makes you think that anybody is seeking to inflict suffering when they hunt?

[Chris_Sleeps]

but what makes you think that anybody is seeking to inflict suffering when they hunt?

It depends on context, mostly. Fox hunting is a prime example, in that it creates suffering. This is especially true if the fox goes under ground and terriers do "groundwork", as it is euphemistically called.

 

In the context of shooting an elephant for sport then I can't say the elephant suffered, but the morality of killing it is still wrong. In the context of the wild boar in France that L00b mentioned, then if there is a reason to cull then the morality is different.

[Conrod]

It depends on context, mostly. Fox hunting is a prime example, in that it creates suffering. This is especially true if the fox goes under ground and terriers do "groundwork", as it is euphemistically called.

 

In the context of shooting an elephant for sport then I can't say the elephant suffered, but the morality of killing it is still wrong. In the context of the wild boar in France that L00b mentioned, then if there is a reason to cull then the morality is different.

I was under the impression that all elephant shooting in Africa was limited to culling anyway - in some areas culls are still (sadly) required, and when that's the case it makes sense for the region to profit from fee-paying trophy hunters being involved.

[MrSmith]

It depends on context, mostly. Fox hunting is a prime example, in that it creates suffering. This is especially true if the fox goes under ground and terriers do "groundwork", as it is euphemistically called.

 

In the context of shooting an elephant for sport then I can't say the elephant suffered, but the morality of killing it is still wrong. In the context of the wild boar in France that L00b mentioned, then if there is a reason to cull then the morality is different.

 

The shooting of elephants is for those individual that are poor shots; they don't want the challenge of shooting a rat from a thousand meters, so they pick on something really big so as not to miss.

[Murphy Jnr]

As most hunters would agree, but what makes you think that anybody is seeking to inflict suffering when they hunt?

 

Hunting conjours up visions of the Punjab where the sole purpose was to kill the biggest 'anything' in order to display it on a wall. Hunting for food is more socially acceptable but still stirs the emotions.

Bloodsports are abhorrent to most people and rightly so in my eyes.

We all have different opinions on what is and what is not acceptable and different ideas on what sport is also.

I eat meat which calls for animals to be killed though I try to be careful and read labels before purchasing though I'm still not convinced that the animal has not suffered.

If someone is out shooting with the intention of eating the kill i see no difference, I couldn't do it though.

I see big game hunting as serving no useful purpose other than to boost an ego.

 

edit: so in short I agree with what you have said here

[Chris_Sleeps]

I was under the impression that all elephant shooting in Africa was limited to culling anyway

I was under the opposite impression, in that the illegal ivory trade has left elephants in a very precarious position, and killing them for sport would be immoral if that were so.

 

I'm too busy at the minute to research it properly though.

[mj.scuba]

Often the animals being hunted are part of a quota for culling to control the populations. If they need to kill a set number of elephants etc in order to further protect the habitat, they might as well exploit some wealthy people and relieve them of some cash which will benefit the local economy.

[Chris_Sleeps]

If they need to kill a set number of elephants etc in order to further protect the habitat, they might as well exploit some wealthy people and relieve them of some cash which will benefit the local economy.

So you're not arguing from merit? The people who should be culling elephants should be the people who can pay the most, and not the people who are most qualified to cull?

[Murphy Jnr]

A lot of the culls take place or did take place on National Parks, as large as they are they can only support a certain number of anyone species. Movement through Africa for example is restricted which creates an imbalance. At one time they were looking into allowing migration across a series of Parks and allow nature to decrease numbers.

[L00b]

I was under the opposite impression, in that the illegal ivory trade has left elephants in a very precarious position, and killing them for sport would be immoral if that were so.

 

I'm too busy at the minute to research it properly though.

One of the articles I linked earlier clearly explains this. Save as to (eminently reprehensible) instances of illegal poaching, elephants are only killed for culling, mostly in the southern regions of the African continent.

 

So you're not arguing from merit? The people who should be culling elephants should be the people who can pay the most, and not the people who are most qualified to cull?

The end result will be the same - dead surplus elephants. Only the locals just might improve their ordinary lives/diets/etc. from it, so what's the problem?

 

Elephants/any other big game, whether they need culling or just ambling around for photo safaris, are a resource for locals, amongst others. And, when in surplus, just as much a hindrance to the locals as surplus wild boars in north eastern France.

 

Until and unless you've killed something living and breathing yourself (for utilitarian purposes or sport, regardless), and/or if you only form your opinion from documentaries, WWF materials and suchlike, I can understand how you may not be able to accept this pragmatist (not partisan) point of view.

Edited November 7, 2011 by L00b