environmentalists?

[Guest gopecon]

No, PETA is not inline with the prophets. They don't believe that animals should be used at all, to the point that many of their ilk equate human life to animal life. They don't like the term "pet owner" because in implies human superiority over the animals. In short, they are extremists. We are taught by prophets to respect life, but we are encouraged to use it wisely.

You seem to be saying that hunters should not enjoy what they do, or that they shouldn't do it if they don't need the food. We all need to eat - what is the difference if it comes from the woods or from a slaughterhouse? "Sport" is not what the brethren have objected to, waste and wanton killing is the problem they cited. The vast majority of hunters strive to have quick and clean kills, and to find and use the animals they have killed. Many hunters who don't need the meat will donate it to food banks to help the hungry. Hunting has also become an important part of population control for some species whose natural predadors are either gone or greatly diminished.

[cwald]

..."Sport" is not what the brethren have objected to,...

Really. I guess I interpet it differently because I thought it was stated very clearly?

“We should by every means in our power impress upon the rising generation the value of life and how dreadful a sin it is to take life. The lives of animals even should be held far more sacred than they are. Young people should be taught to be very merciful to the brute creation and not to take life wantonly or for sport. The practice of hunting and killing game merely for sport should be frowned upon and not encouraged among us. God has created the fowls and the beasts for man’s convenience and comfort and for his consumption at proper times and under proper circumstances; but he does not justify men in wantonly killing those creatures which He has made and with which He has supplied the earth” (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of

“I never could see why a man should be imbued with a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy animal life. I have known men-and they still exist among us-who enjoy what is, to them, the “sport” of hunting birds and slaying them by the hundreds, and who will come in after a day’s sport, boasting of how many harmless birds they have had the skill to slaughter, and day after day, during the season when it is lawful for men to hunt and kill (the birds having had a season of protection and not apprehending danger) go out by scores or hundreds, and you may hear their guns early in the morning on the day of the opening, as if great armies had met in battle; and the terrible work of slaughtering the innocent birds goes on” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol 4, p.45).

Yeah, I guess I just read it differently. It sounded pretty cut and dry that sport hunting should be discouraged. And I would argue that 99% of all hunting today is done more for sport than necessity to feed the family. That's just my opinion.

However - you make a good point about PETA. I suppose if they had their way, we would all be vegetarians. That's not good. Eating meat sparely is probably just pretty good words of wisdom I suppose.

[cwald]

You seem to be saying that hunters should not enjoy what they do, or that they shouldn't do it if they don't need the food.

Actually, I'm saying I don't get it. I don't get how one could feel "good" about going out and killing a part of nature. I mean, I enjoy seeing a five-point buck out in the wild. I do. I just can't see the joy that comes from seeing it, admiring it, respecting it, and than killing it with a high powered rifle.

So yeah, I just don't understand the whole concept. And I think there have been prophets who would understand my confusion.

[JudoMinja]

If you go and get a hunting license, you are going to be considered a participant in the "sport" of hunting. However, hunting isn't really a sport unless we make it into one. If you are going out specifically trying to find a ten-point buck you can kill to beat the "score" your friend got when he killed an eight-point, you are making hunting into a sport. If you are participating in a competition to hunt the most of any particular animal, you are participating in a sport. If you are hunting so that you can have trophies to mount on your wall and impress your visitors, you are hunting for sport. I would agree that this is something we should avoid. This is not the spirit or the purpose that hunting was meant to have.

In some ways, the competition of hunting can help people improve their skills so that they may better provide meat for their families through hunting, and mans naturally competitive nature is difficult to overcome. But I think that this competitive side of hunting is not in keeping with nature. Natural predators will pick off the sickly and weak members of a herd or flock, leaving behind a healthier and stronger gene pool for the next generation. When we hunt for the "big buck", we are taking down the strong and capable individuals, weakening the overall health of the herd. This is what is wrong about "sport" hunting. While it may not be in our best interest to take down sick animals for our food (other predators have stronger digestions designed to handle the possible diseases, but they still sometimes end up getting sick from this too), we should not be striving to kill the "best" of the herd.

I do not like PETA, because they do not recognize good, purposeful, natural killing. They think all killing is wrong, and equate anyone who kills an animal to a murderer. Many even go so far as to say that we should not even "use" animals, as doing so is equal to slavery. Yet, many of them are entirely hypocritical and will wear/eat/use items that required the very murder and slavery that they despise. Yes, we should strive to treat animals with respect. Yes, animals are far more intelligent, feeling, and understanding than many people realize. Yes, there are many many instances where animals are killed needlessly, just because they have either inconvenienced us or because their deaths help us in some way but may not have been necessary. But that does not mean everything is black and white- tha all killing or animal use is wrong.

We are to be wise and careful stewards of the earth and its living creatures. These animals are here for us, to fulfill their own purposes given them by God. To deny them the chance to fulfill that purpose simply because we cannot stomach killing would be wrong. We are to care for and utilize what has been given us, with respect and gratitude to these animals for giving us their lives and to God for providing them.

[Guest gopecon]

Cwald - in the George Q. Cannon quote he equates "wanton killing" with "sport". We might be having an argument over semantics. Hunting is pretty regulated these days, so killing hundreds of animals in a day cannot legally happen (with maybe a few exceptions). Today when we talk about "sport hunting" the category covers all licensed, non-professional (i.e. those paid by states to eradicate problem animals) hunters. There are bad apples in the bunch to be sure, but overall hunters are a very responsible lot.

"And I would argue that 99% of all hunting today is done more for sport than necessity to feed the family." - Cwald

I won't say that your estimate is wrong (who knows what the true percentage is), but I think you are looking at a false comparison. Few people "need" to hunt for food (outside of Alaska where shipping in meat is cost prohibitive), but we do need to eat. Is there a moral difference between eating farm raised cows and pigs vs. killing wild game to eat? Assuming that the hunter is not wasting his prey, what's the moral difference? I would submit that rather than 2 choices (killing for fun vs. hunting for need) there is a significant overlap between the two categories. Picture a venn diagram with two circles representing the two extremes. I think that the number of people who just kill for fun (no need or desire to eat, wasters) and the people who reluctantly kill out of need are quite small when compared to the people who fall into both categories (those who need/use the meat and who enjoy the hunting experience).

[Guest gopecon]

Judominja - I agree with much of your post, but I don't see anything wrong with wanting to get a big one and putting trophies on the wall as long as it is done ethically.

[cwald]

Sure, maybe it's all semantics. And I don't argue with what you're saying.

Morally, is there any difference between killing a deer and steer? I don't know. But my point is that folks who hunt, are not doing it for the food. They do it because they enjoy it. They enjoy walking the hills and they enjoy killing the five-point. It's a rush, a natural high. That is what I don't get. I'm not saying they are necessarily immoral for doing so - that is something they will have to work out with god. But, I don't get how one could feel good doing it.

Most people would just assume go to the supermarket and buy a steak. Yes, that food comes from an animal. But that animal was specifically raised for food and I don't have to kill it. I've killed livestock before. I didn't feel good about doing that either, but at least I knew it was raised for that purpose, and that folks wouldn't miss the great "spiritual" experience of watching that steer in the corral, like some folks would miss watching that buck on the mountain side.

So I'm not sure that it is fair to equate steers with deer and elk and moose and such. Wildlife is in a different category than livestock raised for consumption.

I've killed many many deer in my life. I just one day, out on the mountain, realized how sick it made me feel to kill when I didn't need to. Sure, I always ate the deer. I still love venison. I just don't feel right shooting the buck from 300 yards away with a high power rifle. I mean, if hunting is a sport - there not much "sport" in that kind of hunting.

[Dravin]

But that animal was specifically raised for food and I don't have to kill it.

And why does it matter that someone else is killing the animal? Or that the animal was specifically raised for food?

Wildlife is in a different category than livestock raised for consumption.

How so?

[Backroads]

...some people think a return to a hunter/gatherer civilization would be environmentally conscious, moreso than raising livestock...

[Dravin]

...some people think a return to a hunter/gatherer civilization would be environmentally conscious, moreso than raising livestock...

Well a return to a true hunter/gatherer civilization would include the abandonment of modern agriculture as well. I imagine reducing the population of the planet by billions will reduce the environmental impact of humanity by quite a bit...

[cwald]

...some people think a return to a hunter/gatherer civilization would be environmentally conscious, moreso than raising livestock...

Well, those people need to wake up to the fact that we have 7 billion people on the planet who need to eat. Wildlife will not sustain that kind of population. In fact, that is quite absurd to even take such a concept seriously.

[Backroads]

Well, those people need to wake up to the fact that we have 7 billion people on the planet who need to eat. Wildlife will not sustain that kind of population. In fact, that is quite absurd to even take such a concept seriously.

Indeed. My husband once found himself in a debate where a girl believed we seriously could support 7 billion.

As for me? I like the idea in theory, but it's terribly impractical. But a return to warring tribes could solve the population problem...

[NeuroTypical]

But my point is that folks who hunt, are not doing it for the food. They do it because they enjoy it. They enjoy walking the hills and they enjoy killing the five-point. It's a rush, a natural high.

What, all of us?

As I've already said on this thread, I wouldn't use the terms 'joy' or 'enjoyment' to describe my feelings about the matter. I am a folk who has hunted, and no, I get no rush, no natural high when doing it.

So I'm not sure that it is fair to equate steers with deer and elk and moose and such. Wildlife is in a different category than livestock raised for consumption.

I don't really see the importance in the distinction that you do. They both have beating hearts, caused to stop beating by man, before we shovel them into our mouths. Maybe not having to be there and witness the act helps folks "feel better" about eating it, but at the end of the day, something dies in order for us to eat meat.

If there's a distinction to be made, I'll mention veal pens. You don't get veal pens in nature.

[Blackmarch]

Well, I'm not promoting PETA or anything, and I'm not anit-hunting really. I just found it interesting that some folks were bashing on PETA, and teasing others about belonging to the group and such. And then other folks talked about how they were "avid hunters" almost like they were mocking and boasting about their right to kill animals.

I have no problem with the explanations given, though I think it is a stretch to say that most people are going out hunting for food and to feed their families. Most people are going hunting for sport, because of the thrill of the hunt. And I really don't get the concept that a person can go out and shoot a five-point buck or an elk with a high powered rifle, and then claim they are getting in touch with nature and that they have respect for nature. I don't get that. They just killed a part of nature - took it's life, a part of the earth. To each there own I guess - but I just don't get that. I don't see how that could make someone feel good. My understanding is that our prophets have discouraged us from this kind of activity. But that is just my interpretation of what Pres. Kimball was saying.

But yeah, if we are going to hunt and kill game, I'm glad that it at least gets used properly. I do respect that kind of attitude.

Now as far as PETA is concerned, PETA has some problems no doubt, and sometimes their methods are extreme, but it seems their agenda is pretty in line with what our prophets have left on record - I mean they are promoting folks have more respect and reverence for animal life. That's good, right?

Anything good can or will become not good when you take it too far. Now I can overlook a few things, but when they just go to inane amounts of mindnumbingly dumb or extreme things over and over and over again (which also makes them easy to bash on i suppose).. or at least all their antics that make the news, I really can't support them beyond the idea of "respecting animals". If you are really interested in finding groups that care about the environment (intelligently), as i've stated previously, the Nature Conservancy would be a good place to start.

Nor do I care for how often PETA's "the ends justify the means" attitude they use.

And yes i can see how someone would take pride in or get excited about bagging something thats unusual or rare for them whether its a really large fish, duck, deer, etc... especially when you have to put a lot of skill and effort into it. (trust me the way my Bro in law hunts it does) there is a rush or excitement from having all your hard work pay off, and especially if it results in a bigger return than usual for you.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Blackmarch

[sister_in_faith]

This is why I like to practice and promote catch and release style hunting.

CAMO Big Game toy bow and arrow set

When the arrows are tipped with suction cups you can still get the 'thrill' of a big game hunt, but when you catch up to your quarry you can easily remove the arrow, and no harm done!

[Blackmarch]

This is why I like to practice and promote catch and release style hunting.

CAMO Big Game toy bow and arrow set

When the arrows are tipped with suction cups you can still get the 'thrill' of a big game hunt, but when you catch up to your quarry you can easily remove the arrow, and no harm done!

aww but then we wouldnt be able to have that nice meat for dinner, breakfast and lunch for the next few days ^.^

.... dang those must be good suction cups, i can't get mine to stick to even windows