Make Hunting a Sport

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
This essay argues that hunting animals purely for sport, as generally conducted, is unsportsmanlike and morally and philosophically indefensible.

Target shooting is a lifelong hobby of mine. I enjoy the intellectual aspects of the Constitutional law of the Second Amendment, as well as the practical, fun aspects of the exercise of that guarantee -- shooting pistols, rifles and shotguns.

I am not addressing here the issue of animal “rights” from a legal or a philosophical perspective.* I stipulate that animals have no formal “rights.”

It is a classic Libertarian view that people should be free to do what they want to do as long as what they do does not injure anyone else or create a negative externality. Without wading into the issue of whether or not animals have rights Libertarians can agree that people should never knowingly cause unnecessary or gratuitous suffering -- whether to other humans or to non-human animals -- unless such suffering may be justified on some utilitarian basis to aid or to protect humans.

Animals in the wild are subject to predation and violent death by other non-human animals trying to survive. Hunting to control animal populations which have become unbalanced due to human intrusion upon, or disruption of, wildlife habitats or ecology also does not trouble me. (There we are simply trying to restore the original, natural ecological balance.) If someone hunts for food and skins the animal and eats the meat that is perfectly consistent with Darwinian survival along the food chain. But each of these reasons for hunting involves more than killing just for fun and challenge.

Animals of all varieties and sizes, other than humans, spend their lives foraging for food, sleeping, taking care of their offspring, playing and relaxing. Animals are (with certain particular species excepted) innocent.

While dolphins, elephants and monkeys are self-aware,** other non-human animals may not be self-aware, but, as we know from our pets, they have things to do, toys to play with and places to go. They search for food; they play; they manifest concern about their relatives; they give and receive attention and affection; they show emotion; they communicate. Day by day they go about their lives. There is much formal evidence and innumerable anecdotes of dogs taking deliberate action to assist or defend their owners. While dogs are not self-aware, they certainly are sentient.*** Dolphins, monkeys, pigs, elephants and dogs also display some of the elements of reason.****

What is the analytically principled rationale for making animals suffer and die purely for hunters’ fun? On utilitarian grounds one can argue reasonably that medical and product testing is better conducted on animals than on people. But what is the basis for believing that a human’s enjoyment of hunting for fun justifies the physical pain and suffering visited upon the target animals?

Not infrequently a wounded animal escapes the hunter’s scope reticle and is left to die a slow, torturous death. How can the balance of equities between hunting for fun versus extreme suffering by innocent animals be decided in favor of hunting on moral or on utilitarian or on Libertarian grounds?

If outer space aliens invaded the Earth and hunted humans for sport would you not be upset if your wife or daughter or mother were shot dead on the front lawn of your house because an alien wanted to challenge himself for fun to see if he could make the shot from his hovering spacecraft? Is Mike Tyson engaged in the sport of boxing if he punches an unsuspecting man in an alleyway? Is the driver of a Lamborghini beating you in a automobile race on the highway if he is speeds by your Porsche at 150 mph while you are on your way to meet your in-laws for dinner?

Any hunter hunting at night with a rifle and aiming with an infrared or thermal imaging scope should be ashamed of himself, I think. Is it possible to imagine a more cowardly or unsportsmanlike strategy?

We should reform hunting for sport by requiring the hunter to exhibit at lease an iota of sportsmanlike behavior. To afford the activity of hunting any semblance of being a sport the hunter, at the very least, should be obliged to alert his intended prey that the prey is about to participate in a game. The hunter should fire two unsuppressed warning shots in close proximity to the target animal. If the target animal does not take evasive action in response to the warning shots then the hunter should feel in reasonable conscience that he or she may proceed. Hunting would remain, in my opinion, a morally and philosophically indefensible activity, but let us cloak it with at least the thinnest veil of sportsmanship.

It isn't a sport if the other guy doesn't know he's playing a game.



* The Argument from Marginal Cases is a philosophical argument within animal rights theory regarding the moral status of non-human animals. Its proponents hold that if human infants, the senile, the comatose, and the cognitively disabled have direct moral status, animals must have a similar status, since there is no known morally relevant ability that those marginal-case humans have that animals lack. (“Direct moral status” here means the possession of some basic right, such as the right not to be killed or the right not to be made to suffer.) This must be more true, proponents argue, for non-human animals manifesting greater intelligence and decision-making capacity than marginal case humans.

A counter-argument is the Argument from Species Normality. Proponents of this view hold that if most of a species' members have direct moral status then any member has the same rights and protections as the species, even if that particular member is mentally disabled or comatose or less intelligent than some non-human animals. The moral status of an individual depends on what is normal for that individual's species. So the fact that some dogs are more intelligent than some humans does not endow all dogs with direct moral status because most humans are much more intelligent and capable than most dogs.



** Self-awareness is the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals. Studies testing the self-awareness of non-human animals have been done mainly on primates. Apes, monkeys, elephants, and dolphins have been studied most frequently.

Self-awareness in animals is tested through mirror self recognition. Animals who show mirror self recognition go through four stages 1) social response, 2) physical mirror inspection, 3) repetitive mirror testing behavior, and 4) the mark test -- which involves the animals spontaneously touching a mark on their body which would have been difficult to see without the mirror.



*** Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively.



**** Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.



(All footnotes are from Wikipedia.)
 

ddk

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2013
6,261
4,040
995
Utah
As a fellow Libertarian agree with all your points Ron, totally against trophy and so called sport hunting! This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment which I'm a firm believer of. Unfortunately human cruelty towards other species extends beyond what you described in your essay, currently in Japan meeting with a couple of anti-whaling activist friends who've been fighting this battle in courts for over two decades and they're telling me that nothing has changed.

david


This essay argues that hunting animals purely for sport, as generally conducted, is unsportsmanlike and morally and philosophically indefensible.

Target shooting is a lifelong hobby of mine. I enjoy the intellectual aspects of the Constitutional law of the Second Amendment, as well as the practical, fun aspects of the exercise of that guarantee -- shooting pistols, rifles and shotguns.

I am not addressing here the issue of animal “rights” from a legal or philosophical perspective.* I stipulate that animals have no formal “rights.”

It is a classic Libertarian view that people should be free to do what they want to do as long as what they do does not injure anyone else or create a negative externality. Without wading into the issue of whether or not animals have rights Libertarians can agree that people should never knowingly cause unnecessary or gratuitous suffering -- whether to other humans or to non-human animals -- unless such suffering may be justified on some utilitarian basis to aid or to protect humans.

Animals in the wild are subject to predation and violent death by other non-human animals trying to survive. Hunting to control animal populations which have become unbalanced due to human intrusion upon, or disruption of, wildlife habitats or ecology also does not trouble me. (There we are simply trying to restore the original, natural ecological balance.) If someone hunts for food and skins the animal and eats the meat that is perfectly consistent with Darwinian survival along the food chain. But each of these reasons for hunting involves more than killing just for fun and challenge.

Animals of all varieties and sizes, other than humans, spend their lives foraging for food, sleeping, taking care of their offspring, playing and relaxing. Animals are (with certain particular species excepted) innocent.

While only dolphins and monkeys are self-aware, other non-human animals, as we know from our pets, have things to do, toys to play with and places to go. They search for food; they play; they manifest concern about their relatives; they give and receive attention and affection; they show emotion; they communicate. Day by day they go about their lives. There is much formal evidence and innumerable anecdotes of dogs taking deliberate action to assist or defend their owners. While dogs are not self-aware, they certainly are sentient.** Dolphins, monkeys, pigs, elephants and dogs also have many of the elements of reason.***

What is the analytically principled rationale for making animals suffer and die purely for hunters’ fun? On utilitarian grounds one can argue reasonably that medical and product testing is better conducted on animals than on people. But what is the basis for believing that a human’s enjoyment of hunting for fun justifies the physical pain and suffering visited upon the target animals?

Not infrequently a wounded animal escapes the hunter’s scope reticle and is left to die a slow, torturous death. How can the balance of equities between hunting for fun versus extreme suffering by innocent animals be decided in favor of hunting on moral or on utilitarian or on Libertarian grounds?

If aliens invaded the Earth and hunted humans for sport would you not be upset if your wife or daughter or mother were shot dead on the front lawn of your house because an alien wanted to challenge himself for fun to see if he could make the shot from his hovering spacecraft? Is Mike Tyson engaged in the sport of boxing if he punches an unsuspecting man in an alleyway? Is the driver of a Lamborghini beating you in a automobile race on the highway if he is speeds by your Porsche at 150 mph while you are on your way to meet your in-laws for dinner?

Any hunter hunting at night with a rifle and aiming with an infrared or thermal imaging scope should be ashamed of himself, I think. Is it possible to imagine a more cowardly or unsportsmanlike strategy?

We should reform hunting for sport by requiring the hunter to exhibit at lease an iota of sportsmanlike behavior. To afford the activity of hunting any semblance of being a sport the hunter, at the very least, should be obliged to alert his intended prey that the prey is about to participate in a game. The hunter should fire two unsuppressed warning shots in close proximity to the target animal. If the target animal does not take evasive action in response to the warning shots then the hunter should feel in reasonable conscience that he or she may proceed. Hunting would remain, in my opinion, a morally and philosophically indefensible activity, but let us cloak it with at least the thinnest veil of sportsmanship.

It isn't a sport if the other guy doesn't know he's playing a game.



* The Argument from Marginal Cases is a philosophical argument within animal rights theory regarding the moral status of non-human animals. Its proponents hold that if human infants, the senile, the comatose, and the cognitively disabled have direct moral status, animals must have a similar status, since there is no known morally relevant ability that those marginal-case humans have that animals lack. (“Direct moral status” here means the possession of some basic right, such as the right not to be killed or the right not to be made to suffer.) This must be more true, proponents argue, for non-human animals manifesting greater intelligence and decision-making capacity than marginal case humans.

A counter-argument is the Argument from Species Normality. Proponents of this view hold that if most of a species' members have direct moral status then any member has the same rights and protections as the species, even if that particular member is mentally disabled or comatose or less intelligent than some non-human animals. The moral status of an individual depends on what is normal for that individual's species. So the fact that some dogs are more intelligent than some humans does not endow all dogs with direct moral status because most humans are much more intelligent and capable than most dogs.



** Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively.



*** Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.
 

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
7,097
412
1,210
Northern NY
Well said David. I enjoy target shooting. I ditest trophy hunting. Hunt for food within wildlife management guidelines....some species populations need to be controlled/managed at times. Deer come to mind.
 

Joe Whip

Well-Known Member
Feb 8, 2014
1,735
557
405
Wayne, PA
Dolphins and monkeys are the only animals that are self aware, I think not. I think all animals are self aware. In response, I point to a finch in the Galapagos, that is shown using a tool to pull worms out if a stump. He can be seen selecting a twig and then making it just the right size to accomplish his goal. If a human were seen doing the same thing, no one would question the rational thought that went into it. This type of reasoning requires self awareness. To steal a lyric from Cole Porter, birds do it, bees do it..... all self aware. Time to get off my soapbox.
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
I have been a target shooter since I was a youngster. Many of my friends are hunters and are excellent game cooks. I see nothing wrong with trophy game hunting provided it is done legally and the species is not endangered. Most game that is scored is older specimens. The biggest problem is illegal poaching and game taken without proper licenses.
 

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
C'est un suject qui tiens a coeur beaucoup de monde celui-la. I killed only one animal in the last twenty years; a rat who destroyed my headphones, wiring, clothing, ...
Before that few mouses in the basement with traps. It's very rare that I kill spiders, outside, because they clean the little bugs with their webs. :b
The flies inside the house, yes, few of them. Wasps inside the house, I put them outside, alive in the wild (they lost their way when they entered the door or the window).

I love way too much wildlife to even hunt for food. Hunting as strictly a sport/trophy is for total ******.
And many animals don't even want two warning shots, leave them alone...day and night. Unless they come to attack you to death in Alaska in your tent; grizzlies. Just don't put your tent in their territory, sleep high in a tree with a fence. :b

Ron, it's a good post above, interesting you picked this subject, very. It goes for miles in all directions, including men, another animal species of our planet.
And aliens? They are unkillable, like ghosts, like angels. Only man's hunters are predators. ...Like in the movie, with Arnold. :b

My Dad went to hunting moose, for food when we were kids, five of us. None of us followed in his footstep. Not even a squirrel.
We all love National Geographic...world's animal kingdoms. ...Planet Earth documentaries. Animals behave better than many humans (bad animals).

I never owned a gun of any kind in my entire life.
 
Last edited:

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
As a person that eats and enjoys meat I will not be hypocritical about animal suffering. If you ask me about "sports" however, to me that requires an even playing field. That means both participants have "sporting" chances. Want to use an Elephant gun on an Elephant? Sure. Do it from 30 meters. Want to go bear hunting? Use a spear. A spear gun? Do it while free diving. Fishing? Challenge yourself with appropriate line. Stuff like that.

As for me, I'll leave my shooting on the range. In a 100m range I'll go iron sights, Red dot at 150m a scope at 200 when shooting plates. When I want to play sniper I do something fun. I use a .177 air gun off a bench with a bi-pod. Try 50 meters on a windy day with that! It's quiet, very safe and just as challenging as .223 at 200. I have no qualms with vermin except that we hardly have any. I would air gun them for sport. Again safer and won't bust up the farm.
 

BlueFox

Member Sponsor
Nov 8, 2013
1,709
406
405
Have to agree with the 'hunting' sentiments expressed. A bow and arrow should be the most powerful weapon allowed for any hunting, and that includes lions, elephants, etc.
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
IIRC in Most African countries where dangerous game hunting is allowed the minimum cartridge allowed is a 375 H&H magnum. I don't think bow hunting is legal for DG hunting. They don't call it dangerous game for nothing. I have friends who bow hunt for deer,but for anything larger they use a adequate size scoped rifle. There has been debate for generations of what is considered adequate for humane killing of game. States have restrictions on what the minimums are for deer hunting.
Elmer Keith and Roy Weatherby were leaders in high powered magnums for more humane killing of game. Bottom line is a lot depends on the ability of the hunter.
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
I enjoy the intellectual aspects of the Constitutional law of the Second Amendment, as well as the practical, fun aspects of the exercise of that guarantee -- shooting pistols, rifles and shotguns.

F*ck the 2nd amendment - how's that for liberal. BTW, this is how my exit from the martinloganowners.com site started, when this issue came up. Apparently it's time I made some real enemies again, and it had to be this site, didn't it. You have no idea how I feel about the issue of guns, but you can probably guess. I don't trust anyone driving next to me, much less so hanging out with gun owners.

See ya all - talking about fireworks on the 4th
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveyF

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
F*ck the 2nd amendment - how's that for liberal. BTW, this is how my exit from the martinloganowners.com site started, when this issue came up. Apparently it's time I made some real enemies again, and it had to be this site, didn't it. You have no idea how I feel about the issue of guns, but you can probably guess. I don't trust anyone driving next to me, much less so hanging out with gun owners.

See ya all - talking about fireworks on the 4th

Out of respect for ack...not going to touch it.
 

BlueFox

Member Sponsor
Nov 8, 2013
1,709
406
405
IIRC in Most African countries where dangerous game hunting is allowed the minimum cartridge allowed is a 375 H&H magnum. I don't think bow hunting is legal for DG hunting. They don't call it dangerous game for nothing. I have friends who bow hunt for deer,but for anything larger they use a adequate size scoped rifle. There has been debate for generations of what is considered adequate for humane killing of game. States have restrictions on what the minimums are for deer hunting.
Elmer Keith and Roy Weatherby were leaders in high powered magnums for more humane killing of game. Bottom line is a lot depends on the ability of the hunter.

My suggestion for limiting hunting to the bow and arrow is to level the playing field. Somebody wants to kill a lion then give the lion a chance to kill you.
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
F*ck the 2nd amendment - how's that for liberal. BTW, this is how my exit from the martinloganowners.com site started, when this issue came up. Apparently it's time I made some real enemies again, and it had to be this site, didn't it. You have no idea how I feel about the issue of guns, but you can probably guess. I don't trust anyone driving next to me, much less so hanging out with gun owners.

See ya all - talking about fireworks on the 4th

No problem, ack. Take a deep breath. We are all friends here.

I totally respect your point of view.

As you see from reading this post it is primarily about a sport and the philosophy of that sport. This is not a discussion about the Second Amendment. It is not going to become a discussion about the Second Amendment, so please relax.
 

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
F*ck the 2nd amendment - how's that for liberal. BTW, this is how my exit from the martinloganowners.com site started, when this issue came up. Apparently it's time I made some real enemies again, and it had to be this site, didn't it. You have no idea how I feel about the issue of guns, but you can probably guess. I don't trust anyone driving next to me, much less so hanging out with gun owners.

See ya all - talking about fireworks on the 4th

Ack
I totally agree with you. When this site was launched there was a thought of starting a subforum on guns and ammunition. This was immediately vetoed by the admin staff for the very reasons that you suggest here

I'm afraid for the sake of the integrity of this forum we declared politics religion and fire arms as topics that will not be discussed here. This was well before Ron joined WBF so I know he wasnt aware of this.


I am just back from a 2 week 15,000 mile trip so I'd like to wish everyone a happy and safe 4th of July and I am respectfully going to close this thread.
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Welcome back, Steve!

Steve, please see my reply to ack above your post.

Please read my entire opening essay, not just ack's comment. I know well the prohibition on discussing religion, politics and firearms. I agree wholeheartedly with this prohibition.

This thread is not a discussion about firearms (unless people make it a discussion about firearms, in which cases their posts alone should be deleted).

This is a discussion about a sport and the philosophy thereof as it relates to non-human animals.
 

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Hi Ron

I truly understand and in my PM to you I suggested that as long as the thread doesn't deviate I'm all in. But guys, we know how threads can stray and my only request is that posts be civil and on topic. We are all adults but we have been down this path before. Let's be respectful of Ron's intent because it is an interesting subject.

My apologies to Ron and others
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Thank you for reconsidering, Steve! No apology is needed. :)

Happy July 4 to everyone!
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
FWIW


 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing