[Jeff_850]

hey i would like to know all of your opinions on the ethics of long ranged shots
some hunters were giving me a hard time about some 600m yotes that i had gotten
they were all quick kills and i didnt take a shot unless i knew i could hit the target and kill it instantly
a modern tactical rifle in .308 with the right shooter in the right conditions i know i can take a yote 600m and way byond

 

[muzzleblast]

Hey, if the shooter can judge the conditions accurately enough, or has tried targets at that range before hand, and is sure he can do it, then I don't see why not. For the average hunter, the range where he becomes less than totally sure of himself is shorter than it is for you guys. As long as we all know ourselves, and our skills, we know which shots to attempt and which to pass on.

Pacing out or ranging a field, and pratice with a paper plate is something I like to do for deer hunting.

 

[Zaitsev]

i agree wih muzzleblas 100%

 

[Kiwi]

i agree wih muzzleblas 100%

"Ditto".............

 

[Jeff_850]

yea just cause they cant take the shots doesnt mean that other people cant
i know what ranges i can and can not shoot at
i saw a perfect opportunity at > 800m to take a shot and have done so though the more recent ones were 550-600m, and ive held fire at 100m because i didnt have a good shot

 

[spade]

i pretty much agree, if you can make the kill then do it. Hell i held fire at 12 yards one time because i couldnt see the kill zone, nothing but the deers ass sticking out from behind a bush. Ive held fire at 20 yards before because i was afraid of the exiting bullet flying towards a house or other hunter.

 

[muzzleblast]

thats something I had forgot to even think of when I posted...Presentation of the game and thats something different hunters need to decide for themselves too.

 

[Scatch Maroo]

1) Killing animals (other than humans) is morally wrong, always, and Jesus hates you all for doing it.

2) I am confused as to why animals (excluding human beings) deserve moral respect if they are also to be categorized as 'fair game.' We all are in agreement that the deprivation of life of a coyote, deer, cow or pig is not immoral. Why then, is the method or procedure used in depriving the animal of life subjected to ethical scrutiny?

Personally, I don't like to see animals hurt/killed unless I feel it was provoked (i.e., they contemplate me to be food, which I must show them that humans are superior), however, I see nothing wrong with either the hunting (quick killing) of animals, nor the hurting (slow death) of animals.

some hunters were giving me a hard time about some 600m yotes that i had gotten

If Jeff's objective is to end the life of a deer, on what grounds do these hunters stand upon to dictate to Jeff what methods he can use to achieve this objective? I fail to see the lack of morality involved in achieving an objective that affects only those (the deer) who the hunters themselves do not grant moral respect to to begin with. Why are they trying to prevent pain and suffering to the deer?

There is much utility in animal cruelty laws, and I support them whole-heartedly, but not because I think animals should not endure pain and suffering. Society functions better when it is not filled with humans who desire pain and suffering for animals, as it often leads them to other acts which affect those we do give moral respect to (humans). However, this basis for protection of animals is not based on morality, but pragmaticism, and therefore, Jeff's scenario does not fall into this group as he has not testified to desiring to cause the deer pain, but only death, which we've already agreed a) is not morally incongruent with society, and b) is not pragmatically incongruent with society.

Judging by the replies, it seems that an efficient kill is considered very important: I am not a hunter, so perhaps I am deprived from understanding why it is morally acceptable to kill the animal, but immoral to let it suffer (even when your motivation is not to cause it pain)?

Sorry if this seems a little confrontational, I do not mean it to be to any extent, just curious. Trying to apply my readings of Descartes (animals as machines) and Theoretical Ethics. :lol:

Scatch "Uber-Nerd" Maroo

 

[spade]

1) Killing animals is morally wrong? So is killing people... things die,**** happens. This is a sniper website. As much as we would like to skirt that fact, snipers kill people sometimes.

2) Descartes was an idiot.

3) If your not a hunter why are you responding? You obviously have no frame of refrence.

4) Im not the kind of guy who likes to debate, nor am I good at it. So, that being said, we'll just leave it at that. You can feel free to help yourself to steaming, mountain grown cup of shut the **** up.

 

[muzzleblast]

I hear where you're coming from, Scatch, and it sounds like honest questions to me, so I'll reply.

First and foremost, I do hope Jesus doesn't hate us

Second, Descartes was a weird dude. Anyone who vivisects dogs while they are concious and pinned to a board...ehhhh....

Without trying to speak for all hunters here, I will tell ya what I think. We're meat eaters. I like meat. Granted, if I had to visit a slaughterhouse where my T bones and Pork chops come from, it might be a lil while before I forgot what it was like there. For me, I can handle doing my own killing. I think its more sanitary, and that the animal led a good life, one of freedom and not one of living in a pen knee deep in dung. BUT, I know the animal is a feeling, living thing, and a concious being...Therefore I feel it deserves my respect, and as clean a death as I can provide for it. Thats something I strive for because I don't want to think about the animals undue suffering. I respect the challenge of hunting it, its elusiveness, and its taste in the frying pan.

Also, hunting has done a great deal of good for animals, controlling populations and managing their food, as the deer population has exploded and more and more are starving to death each year. Granted, cars "harvest" MUCH more game than all hunters combined. Also, the ammo and rifles I buy pay into funds for protecting game animals.

Since I won't stop eating meat, I'll continue to hunt, even though I technically don't need to. But, animals are dying on my behalf one way or another. Picking the tool for the job, the cleanest shot I can, and tracking like a mofo just help me to not let deer or any other animal die alone and scared in the woods with a bullet in it. Its a risk one takes when shooting an animal, but one we can all take steps to minimize.

I am sure Christ would agree lol.

 

[subThermal]

I used to hunt, but I do not anymore. I have about 800lbs. of venison in my deep freezer that I feel bad for never eating. (That stuff, is beyond old)

Nowdays, I am of the mind all life is precious (those with children understand), and I will do my best to never take life away. As far as hunters controlling populations of said game, that is only "needed" because we entroach on thier land, not ours.

Some say it is survival of the fittest, top of the food chain, etc. If that is true, why can't I just go kill my neighbor and be the alpha male of two families? Because people tend to all agree you shouldn't kill other people. Which is kinda handy if you think about it.

As far as religions go, suffice to say, I personally believe in God, a higher being. I thank him, I talk to him when I can and he helps me out. Why would I go out and ruin our friendship by killing a deer that he created? Why doesn't a deer deserve life as much as I do? He was created from the same God I talk to- the same entity.

I do not try and talk hunters out of doing what they are doing, or the like. I can honestly say I have had a great time hunting with friends and family. I just take my life, and every other life more seriously nowdays. The outdoors are to be enjoyed, if someone enjoys hunting, let them hunt.

But for me, looking at a pretty 10 point whitetail 100 meters away with my ziess bino's is just as fullfilling. I'll sit back and watch while he lives his life, and it brings joy to mine.

 

[Zaitsev]

alrighty here is my $ 0.02. I am and will be a pro hunter all of my life. I dont kill animals i harvest them. I only take my share. i just dont go out to kill, i go out to feed my family. Im not one of these rambo gunners who has to fill all of his tags. If i do i like to do the program called share the harvest. I give some to people i know have a hard time getting things like venison.

As for Religion i am not a believer in god or christ. I believe in many gods and godess, two of them being the god of the hunt and the god of the harvest. If they think ive taken my share i will be unsuccessful at the harvest. to me a hunt is more of a memorible thing than anything else. good times weither or not meat is put on the table.

RM

 

[muzzleblast]

Well said, and I can respect your point of view 100%

I just don't see the difference between eating store bought meat and obtaining it myself. Either way, one of Gods creatures has died to provide it for me.

As long as one is respectful to what he is taking, and takes as much as he needs, and uses as much of the animal as he can. Etc, etc.

Edit...that was to subThermal as well as Zaitsev

 

[Jeff_850]

yea i dont see the differnce between store bought and hunting meat (deer)... no if your wondering i DONT eat the coyotes i kill since this was what the post was origionally aobut
i didnt expect a philosiphical debate on religion and morals only hunting ethics
animals have rights or no rights doesnt matter bottom line is if you can avoid suffering do so... clean kill means better meat and you will need 1 shot so its more efficient in addition you will also be more humain twards the animal and why not do that when its helping you?

deer can be justified for food and over-population so i dont see anything wrong with those who take more than they can eat either
ever almost hit them??? those damn morons see you and then decide to dart out in the middle of the road
every day i see a road kill deers

coyotes cause plenty of problems and here are way over populated
they kill small pets and have even attacked small kids

 

[subThermal]

I don't have anything against hunters or hunting if someone else does it. I just gave my opinion on hunting in general. If you eat what you shoot, great, especially with meat prices nowdays. Venison does taste good.

But on topic: If you can kill the animal, first shot, as instantly as possible. It doesn't matter the range. I always hunted in the east texas "Woods" and my shots were always under 75m, so I have no personal expirence with long range hunting.

 

[Scatch Maroo]

PLEASE READ MY POSTS IN THEIR ENTIRITY AS TO ENSURE YOU DO NOT EMBARASS YOURSELF LATER.

1) Killing animals is morally wrong? So is killing people... things die,**** happens. This is a sniper website. As much as we would like to skirt that fact, snipers kill people sometimes.

2) Descartes was an idiot.

3) If your not a hunter why are you responding? You obviously have no frame of refrence.

4) Im not the kind of guy who likes to debate, nor am I good at it. So, that being said, we'll just leave it at that. You can feel free to help yourself to steaming, mountain grown cup of shut the **** up.

You totally and outrageously misread my post, if you bothered to read (as opposed to skim) it at all.

My first remark re: animals and Jesus was obviously a joke: why would I say Jesus would become offended by the death of an animal, but NOT a human?

Second, I specifically stated I have NO problem with the death, regardless of means, of an animal, so why are you lecturing me on the occurences of death?

Third, me not being a hunter is the reason why I'm asking why you give animals any degree of moral respect,

Fourth, why the hostility? I haven't questioned the morality of hunting at all, but rather, merely asked why hunters refrain from using certain methods of take.

Muzzleblast, I appreciate the attention you've devoted to my question, but I fear your argument for hunting goes wasted as I did not find one necessary to begin with: I see nothing wrong with hunting, irregardless of why you choose to do it.

Since I won't stop eating meat, I'll continue to hunt, even though I technically don't need to. But, animals are dying on my behalf one way or another. Picking the tool for the job, the cleanest shot I can, and tracking like a mofo just help me to not let deer or any other animal die alone and scared in the woods with a bullet in it. Its a risk one takes when shooting an animal, but one we can all take steps to minimize.

My question was why do you bother to have concern for the animal's emotional state--why should anyone care how an animal feels prior to its death?

SubThermal answers this question, to his extent possible: he sees all hunting as immoral. However, I am interested to know why those who see hunting as moral still find it immoral to go about certain methods.

animals have rights or no rights doesnt matter bottom line is if you can avoid suffering do so... clean kill means better meat and you will need 1 shot so its more efficient..

This is a utilitarian reason, which I understand completely, but the question is:

be more humain twards the animal and why not do that when its helping you?

Why should I be humane to something I do not intend to eat? If I'm varminting, I'm killing animals purely for the pleasure of hitting a moving target--so although it is giving me entertainment, I do not plan to eat it, so why should I be efficient with my kills if it will limit my enjoyment?

I do not mean to sound like a broken record, but no one has really answered my question, and some have somehow read something completely different. I am NOT anti-hunting. I am simply curious as to why some people think it is objectively wrong to not grant deer and coyotes a degree of moral respect. Please, please, please read what I write before you make outrageous comments like telling me to sip on cups of bull ****.

Scatch "Misunderstood" Maroo

P.S. I'm a strong believer that Jesus loves everyone, regardless of how horrible a person we might think they are, and as weird as Descartes may have been, to call one of history's most brilliant minds (this is an objective fact) an 'idiot' is a sign of ignorance of the man's greatest accomplishments.

 

[muzzleblast]

Philosophy Central.

FWIW, I can see how I read ya wrong, Scatch. I'm given to long rambling posts at 2 am, thats all.

As simply as I can put it, it is wrong NOT to have concern for the animals emotional and mental state because I belive animals have feeling and are capable of emotion. At the very least they do feel pain.

If I read you right this time...what I don't really understand is

Personally, I don't like to see animals hurt/killed unless I feel it was provoked (i.e., they contemplate me to be food, which I must show them that humans are superior), however, I see nothing wrong with either the hunting (quick killing) of animals, nor the hurting (slow death) of animals.

I can understand it being provoked. If something tries to snack on me, and it ends up running off with a bullet in it, thats how the cookie crumbled. But if you see nothing wrong with a slow death, why do you care wether it was provoked or not? It shouldn't make a difference.

I don't like to see animals hurt either. Thats exactly why I try for the quick clean kill

Edited because of my horrific spelling.

 

[spade]

****, do we really have to do this?

1) If your comment about jesus was obviously a joke then i would have treated it as such.

2) Lectured because of the first statement. Its not my fault your were unclear and contridicted yourself in the entirety of your post.

3) The part about you not being a hunter was pointed out, to show that this is not the place for a debate on the morality of hunting in its entirety, I am quite tired of you and yimmy and others derivating from a post's subject to berate or question something that someone said. Instead of fufilling a posts initial purpose, all it does is cause a big ass fight and make people mad because you all feel the need to debate. I am sure that there are forums for this on other parts of the web.

4) I am quite aware of what descartes did. The man was a sadist and an idiot. These fools who choose to skirt all sense of morality under the guise of being "free" are the lowest forms of life. Everything deserves respect. Every living being deserves respect. Just because an animal is taken for food does not mean it doesnt deserve respect. Take the animal, use it for food. Get it out of the population so that it may not hurt yourself or others. For whatever reason you do it, make it quick and clean. IF you feel the need to hurt animals simply to watch things suffer, then you have issues and should seek counseling.

5) The comment about you sipping on a hot cup of bullshit, it wasnt outrageous. It was honest.

Edited to make a section clearer.

 

[Dead Roman]

that first part threw me off to scatch(maybe im just an idiot) i thought it was apretty hard read.

 

[Scatch Maroo]

****, do we really have to do this?

1) If your comment about jesus was obviously a joke then i would have treated it as such.

2) Lectured because of the first statement. Its not my fault your were unclear and contridicted yourself in the entirety of your post.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have attempted the joke at all considering the sensitive subject of animal rights and hunting.

3) The part about you not being a hunter was pointed out, to show that this is not the place for a debate on the morality of hunting in its entirety, I am quite tired of you and yimmy and others derivating from a post's subject to berate or question something that someone said. Instead of fufilling a posts initial purpose, all it does is cause a big ass fight and make people mad because you all feel the need to debate. I am sure that there are forums for this on other parts of the web.

Please do not lump me into categories with other people: I ask questions because I am ignorant of the answer, and truly desire knowledge, where others make statements as facts and form judgments on those statements.

I have not berated anyone, nor have I maliciously or insultingly 'questioned' anyone's post. I posed what I saw as a contradiction, and inquired as to why it was not a contradiction. I did not mean to establish that I knew it to be a contradiction, but only thought it was a contradiction, and had hoped someone much more enlightened than myself could explain to me why it was not, in fact, a contradiction.

4) I am quite aware of what descartes did. The man was a sadist and an idiot.

I agree that history tells us he was quite the ass, but that does not blemish his achievements in mathematics and geometry, for which credit is due and should be given.

For whatever reason you do it, make it quick and clean. IF you feel the need to hurt animals simply to watch things suffer, then you have issues and should seek counseling.

What I don't understand is why should we abstain from the kill if we cannot make it quick and clean? Whether I'm really hungry, or just hunting for the pleasure of the sport, if I cannot get a clean shot (but still a lethal one), why should I not take any shot at all?

5) The comment about you sipping on a hot cup of bullshit, it wasnt outrageous. It was honest.

To answer your question re: my feelings toward killing an animal, it's an odd emotional disfunction, I suppose. When an animal attacks a person (or even another animal), I see the animal as ruthless and chaotic, a threat to the well-being of things. When I see an animal in this measure, I do not feel a discomfort in seeing it put down because I no longer see the animal as 'innocent.' Animals which I do not see/know of to be a ruthless predator I take to be cute and fuzzy, and therefore, feel emotional discomfort at the thought of it being hurt. This emotional state is obviously void of reason as I completely disregard the cycle of the ecosystem, and it is because I recognize this emotional state to be void of reason that I disregard it as a founded opinion... it's just how I feel inside.

As simply as I can put it, it is wrong NOT to have concern for the animals emotional and mental state because I belive animals have feeling and are capable of emotion. At the very least they do feel pain.

I do not intend to put words into your mouth, but tell me if this is a proper interpretation of your thinking:

Animals' (other than humans) lives, their existence itself, has no moral worth and thus, nothing is lost if you deprive an animal of its life because it was worth nothing to begin with. However, the animal's state of mind does have value, and the disruption of this state of mind is immoral; this disruption of the mind can be caused by both physical and mental pain.

Does this make sense, and if so, is this what you mean to any degree?

Thank you MuzzleBlast for your continued efforts to help me understand, and entertaining me with a discipline I thoroughly enjoy... and Jeff, I hope you don't find this off topic, but rather, a mere deeper investigation into your original question.

Scatch Maroo