Trophy Hunting Good?!

[Aroura]

What?

So, if I cause something to exist, then anything I do to it at that point is acceptable??

Or if not, what exactly is your point because I'm not getting it.

(also note I used subjective wrong.  Yes, I think he is saying, and I know I am saying that it is subjectively immoral, because it depends on the circumstances. We are not stating it objectively).

---

Another side note:
I ate meat.  I've made all these argument myself in the past.
We raise them for this purpose.
We are omnivorous by nature.
I've killed my own meat.  I grew up on a farm.  We slaughtered our own chickens and turkeys, and had our pigs and rabbits slaughtered.

None of these arguments stand up to any scrutiny once you actually look at them.

Well , not everything , cruelty against animals is just plane wrong and irational. But for the pourpouse of getting food it gets more complicated.

1. As you sayed , we are omnivourous by nature soo than imorality is questioned again. Of course we are counciouss beeings but that just lets us decide for ourselfs if we want to eat meat or not, it can't be imoral because of that .

2 As for the unnecesary suffering there are ways to kill an animal without makeing him suffer, many people don't do that but that isn't the point.

3 Every life form on this planet has a pourpouse, soo how can we be sure that some animals aren't ment just for our nourishment ?

1. Humans also naturally commit all sorts of harm.  That does not mean we get to write it all off as natural, and therefore acceptable.
2. It isn't just about killing them, it is about their lives being fully suffering, too.  So, if I kill a person but they do not suffer, is it no longer immoral?
Think about why we call anything immoral.  Is taking the life of another being with feelings and a life of it's own why murder is wrong, or is it simply the suffering of death itself?
3. Meant by whom? What do you meant it all has a purpose? How can we be sure women aren't here just to pleasure men, then?

[The Grand Nudger]

There wouldn't be any elk where I'm at if they weren't managed as game.   They were hunted and driven out by the 1880s.  

The state reestablished a herd 20 years ago, releasing seven elk.  They released about 1.5k more over the next few years.....the program was so successful, and the elk took to their range so well, that there are an estimated 10k now, and no more releases will be necessary.  It's the largest herd of free ranging elk anywhere outside of Montana, and we have more elk than any state east of the miss.  Nine out of ten calves survive to adulthood.  About 40k people enter the tag lottery a year, $10 bucks a pop (much more for out of staters).  94 cents of every dollar goes to herd and habitat management...and the program doesn't receive any cash from the state general fund.  It's bankrolled, in addition to the tags, by hunting and fishing permits, and boat registrations.  There is federal funding in the form of grants...and that comes from a surcharge on guns and ammo and entrance fees to state parks (some of which are part of the elks range).   Of those 40k people, 1k permits are awarded.   

We're their only predator.  As much as I'd love to see wolves reestablished here..it will never happen.  Too many cattle, too many thoroughbred horses.  A few years ago somebody popped a grey wolf, right in the elk area, and they haven't been seen here for about as long as the elk were gone.  As far a anyone can tell it's the first wolf to be seen in the state in over a century and probably the last.  Now, the elk are at the maximum sustainable pop for their range, already...and because they're doing very well the only way to keep their numbers right will be to award more permits, and hopefully that will get more people into the lottery...and then we can purchase more land for more elk.  The rivers and streams and lakes in range are managed as well, for the health of the elk..primarily.  Side effect is great fishing and a little bit of duck hunting....or, you know, just walking around in the woods.

Ultimately, the ethics of trophy hunting turn on what any applicable fees are being used for.  It was mentioned half in jest above that one day, all that would be left were cats and dogs.  That's really not that far fetched.  There isn't exactly alot of wildlife left anywhere human beings are.   Only whats useful to us, or what can survive on our waste stream...but if that future dystopia ever comes about all that will be left in kentucky are dogs and cats.......and elk.

(I've done the whole sticks an stones thing, btw, Pool..traps too...the latter is illegal, the former is alot of fun. I'd go so far as to say that it's more fun to make the gear in both cases than it is to use it. If it were legal to hunt with an atlatl in Kentucky I'd be all in on an elk tag for it - but it's not legal at all...for anything. I used to spear hunt boar in Florida, fish too.)

[notimportant1234]

1. Humans also naturally commit all sorts of harm.  That does not mean we get to write it all off as natural, and therefore acceptable.
2. It isn't just about killing them, it is about their lives being fully suffering, too.  So, if I kill a person but they do not suffer, is it no longer immoral?
Think about why we call anything immoral.  Is taking the life of another being with feelings and a life of it's own why murder is wrong, or is it simply the suffering of death itself?
3. Meant by whom? What do you meant it all has a purpose? How can we be sure women aren't here just to pleasure men, then?

1. I was sure that you will bring the human comparision in this argument , it won't provide you a win , I'm trying to get objective reasons like " Killing people endanger our species survival " witch you aren't offering.
2. Look at 1.
3. Don't strawman me , I didn't bring up religion in this topic "by whom?" , if you don't like purpouse I'll use role or part like how trees sustain oxygen on the planet. Woman or men , part of the same species , humans. How can we be sure that men aren't here to please women ?

[The Grand Nudger]

Wait...wait...aren"t they?  What else could explain those ridiculous chests? 

[Aroura]

1. Humans also naturally commit all sorts of harm.  That does not mean we get to write it all off as natural, and therefore acceptable.
2. It isn't just about killing them, it is about their lives being fully suffering, too.  So, if I kill a person but they do not suffer, is it no longer immoral?
Think about why we call anything immoral.  Is taking the life of another being with feelings and a life of it's own why murder is wrong, or is it simply the suffering of death itself?
3. Meant by whom? What do you meant it all has a purpose? How can we be sure women aren't here just to pleasure men, then?

1. I was sure that you will bring the human comparision in this argument , it won't provide you a win , I'm trying to get objective reasons like " Killing people endanger our species survival " witch you aren't offering.
2. Look at 1.
3. Don't strawman me , I didn't bring up religion in this topic "by whom?" , if you don't like purpouse I'll use role or part like how trees sustain oxygen on the planet. Woman or men , part of the same species , humans. How can we be sure that men aren't here to please women ?

1. YOU brought up the human comparison, initially.  There are no "objective" reasons for morality.  Everything is subjective. What sort of Objective reason do you think might exist?
2. This isn't an argument.  It doesn't even address point #2
3. I didn't bring up religion.  You said "Every life form on this planet has a pourpouse, soo how can we be sure that some animals aren't ment just for our nourishment". I simply asked what you meant with the words and phrases you used about meant for our nourishment and has a purpose.  How can things have a purpose and who gives them that purpose?

Seems you aren't used to having discussions.  I'm not being rude, I'm just asking questions and trying to further the discussion.  

---

Wait...wait...aren"t they?  What else could explain those ridiculous chests? 

Btw, game management is absolutely necessary.  So, not part of what I'm arguing against.

[The Grand Nudger]

Trophy hunting -is- game management, and were it not for the trophy hunting..there would be no game to manage. Consider the cost of tranqing and euthanizing 1k elk a year. Then ask yourself who would pay for it, just for that..forget all the habitat and herd management, and keep in mind that the way it's done at present nets the management group more than $400k a year just in the tags.

---

As a semi-related aside....increasingly stringent hunting regulations combined with a declining interest in hunting over the past few years led to an absolute bumper crop of deer in N. America.  However, along with the greater population density came an explosion of chronic wasting disease.  The harsh reality, at least as far as the elk I was discussing are concerned..is this.  Unless hunters kill a -shitload- more deer, it will inevitably make it's way into the elk, and because the elk don't live solo or in isolated groups like deer do...once it's in, they're done for.  

Fatal in 100% of cases.  Pretty shitty way to go. It;s difficult to imagine that anything other than the best of intentions are behind people not getting into hunting...and closing the door to people who do get into it..so to speak, and it;s unfortunate that this has contributed to even greater suffering than the type they'd hoped to reduce. Increased trophy taking, and getting rid of captive cervid operations, are the solution to the problem. More hunting, less farming.

[notimportant1234]

1. YOU brought up the human comparison, initially.  There are no "objective" reasons for morality.  Everything is subjective. What sort of Objective reason do you think might exist?
2. This isn't an argument.  It doesn't even address point #2
3. I didn't bring up religion.  You said "Every life form on this planet has a pourpouse, soo how can we be sure that some animals aren't ment just for our nourishment". I simply asked what you meant with the words and phrases you used about meant for our nourishment and has a purpose.  How can things have a purpose and who gives them that purpose?

Seems you aren't used to having discussions.  I'm not being rude, I'm just asking questions and trying to further the 

1. I brought up human comparision in the way that if a tiger kills an antilope isn't more natural that a human killing a pig , it is the same reason , food . You comparing killing animals with killing other humans is just not related to the topic. I meant objective morality that comes from facts not feelings or independent of your feelings towards the topic. And I give you an example of a morality based on facts.

2. Now we are talking here about a man killing an animal for food , not mass killing for food , I'm saying that a man can raise a pig for example , witch won't be a suffering life and kill it without him suffering.

3. Almost everything plays a role in nature , maybe I missused the word pourpouse.

I tend to get deffensive sometimes.

[The Grand Nudger]

Generally speaking, trophy hunting isn't something you do for the meat.  Take the elephant example in the OP.  People aren't flying to africa to shoot an elephant and then checking a ton of meat in their luggage on the return flight.  Bear, as a domestic example, not hunted for the meat.

[Aroura]

1. Giant bold font means you've lost rationality.
I am talking about facts, not feelings. The fact is, morality is subjective. Another fact is that humans base a great deal of their morality on what causes unnecessary suffering. Morality is all about human feelings. Give me an example of a moral that exists completely independent of human feelings, please?
You have not given me any example of a morality based on facts alone.

2. Uh, humans mass kill animals for food. That's literally a fact. You are talking about some idealized version of farming, that's nice and all. I'm talking about the reality we live in. The one were humans raise and slaughter hundreds of thousands of animals in inhumane conditions, and kill them in terribly inhumane ways.

3. I'm still not sure what your point here is. I'll let this one go.

---

Trophy hunting -is- game management, and were it not for the trophy hunting..there would be no game to manage.  Consider the cost of tranqing and euthanizing 1k elk a year.  Then ask yourself who would pay for it, just for that..forget all the habitat and herd management, and keep in mind that the way it's done at present nets the management group more than $400k a year just in the tags.

---

As a semi-related aside....increasingly stringent hunting regulations combined with a declining interest in hunting over the past few years led to an absolute bumper crop of deer in N. America.  However, along with the greater population density came an explosion of chronic wasting disease.  The harsh reality, at least as far as the elk I was discussing are concerned..is this.  Unless hunters kill a -shitload- more deer, it will inevitably make it's way into the elk, and because the elk don't live solo or in isolated groups like deer do...once it's in, they're done for.  

Fatal in 100% of cases.  Pretty shitty way to go.  It;s difficult to imagine that anything other than the best of intentions are behind people not getting into hunting...and closing the door to people who do get into it..so to speak, and it;s unfortunate that this has contributed to even greater suffering than the type they'd hoped to reduce.  Increased trophy taking, and getting rid of captive cervid operations, are the solution to the problem.  More hunting, less farming.

I completely agree.  If you look at my posts in this thread, I defend game hunting to the extent that it is a necessity, in the current system at least, in order to save the lives and habitats of other animals.

This isn't a black and white issue, and I amnot the one attempting to paint it as such.  I am not saying, all killing of animals = bad.  Go hug a bunny.  I'm talking about the distinctions of each action, and each having a good reason behind it.

It is specifically factory farming animals for meat in places where it is not necessary in order to feed the population of local humans that I was objecting to. And pointing out that it is hypocritical to object to trophy hunting, but be A-OK eating that McDonalds chicken sandwich.

[notimportant1234]

1. Killing is imoral. Why? Because it leads to out extinction. Tell me where are my emotions in to that one . Morality is indeed subjective to us but it can be objective to our feelings , at least a part of it . I feel like I'm in the need to steal something , it will please me but does it make it moral ? No. It is about consequnces , then you put feelings into it.

2. And we were talking about morality , the fact is that people still rape , kill , steal and do drugs altough this actions have bad consequences. It's not like they woke up one night and sayed " from today I'll start mass killing animals" , it is what the population wants.