The ethics of hunting

[JimC]

Following the thread about the demise of Cecil the lion, I thought it might be useful to have a discussion about the ethics of hunting in general. First, it might be useful to define hunting. I suggests that this involves a deliberate and conscious attempt to kill an animal in its natural environment. This rules out the killing of cattle in an abattoir, but allows the inclusion of both fishing, and trapping game.
A personal note; in the past, I actively hunted rabbits and foxes with a rifle in Australian farmland. They are both introduced species, which cause environmental and agricultural problems. The rabbits were fed to the farm dogs, and the one fox I killed was just left for the scavengers. I enjoyed every moment, and only stopped because of eyesight issues. I also did a lot of fishing, both with rod and spear-gun, and generally ate my catch.
As background, I also assert that all available evidence shows that Homo sapiens and its ancestors are and were omnivores, and that this evolutionary history is reflected in both physical (digestive system) and cognitive adaptations. If one eats meat bought at a butcher, one cannot sensibly protest against ethically sound hunting for food. In the past, most hunting was for food, and was a necessity. I suggest that it makes evolutionary sense for such a vital activity to be perceived as pleasurable.
Clearly, hunting at present is done for a wide variety of reasons; my argument will be that much of the ethical questions centre on the reason or reasons for hunting, as well as the ecological status of the species being hunted and the possible suffering of the animal being hunted. Certainly, any given situation may well involve multiple reasons.
Here is a possible list of reasons for hunting; other posters may well suggest further reasons.

* food for oneself or one’s animals
* food to be sold to others
* non-food animal products such as leather or fur
* reducing the population of an introduced species to limit environmental damage
* culling the population of a native species for ecologically sound reasons
* to kill a dangerous rogue predator who is endangering humans or their livestock
* to kill animals causing damage to crops
* to gain a dead specimen for biological research purposes (these days, often tightly regulated)
* simply for pleasure
* slightly different to the last reason, to gain a displayable trophy

Before looking at the ethical issues relating to human reasons, we need to consider the other possible areas of concern.
1. The ecological situation of the species.
I would say that a species considered rare or endangered should clearly be outside the boundaries of permissible hunting, with very rare exceptions (e.g. self defence). An introduced pest species may involve a positive ethical reason for hunting (although this needs to be part of a rational, ecologically based management program). Also, hunting needs to consider issues such as the breeding status and age of the target, and any regulations governing the hunt such as permissible seasons. In general, hunting should only occur where the prey is a definitely renewable resource.

2. The question of suffering
Wherever possible, it should mean that we are aiming to as close to an instant death as possible, with minimum suffering, for example by a clean head-shot. This makes problematic some forms of trapping, and bow hunting that regularly results in the slow death of the target animal. There could be exceptions for very good reasons, as long as the intent is always to minimise the suffering as far as possible.

When considering reasons, it will clearly be on a case-by-case basis. As a broad generalisation, the greater the number of rational reasons, the greater the ethical justification for a given hunt. For example, hunting introduced deer in Australian forests (where they do considerable damage), and eating one’s kill would be ethically sound, in my eyes at least. I would also suggest that it would be very hard to justify hunting where the only reason is personal pleasure or trophy taking. This doesn’t make it necessarily illegal; consider the example of someone hunting red kangaroos in inland Australia (I’ll assume with legal permits and in an area where hunting is allowed). They are plentiful (in fact white settlement has lead to a population increase), so there ecological status is not an issue. If the person was purely hunting for pleasure (but with care to get single shot kills), and left the carcasses to rot rather than using them in some constructive way, I would consider it wasteful and ethically dubious, but would concede that they have a right to hunt in that way.

[JimC]

Another interesting example is "big game fishing", typically for Swordfish and Marlin. Previously, they would take the catch on board and kill it (and possibly eat some of it). Stocks were shrinking, so most of the industry now involves catch and release, which at least does not kill any more of these magnificent creatures, although it must be somewhat distressing for them. There is a minor plus, in that they typically tag the catch in such a way that if it is caught later, there is some data on range and possibly growth rates. A definite ethical improvement, although still some negatives.

[rainbow]

Would you do to a dentist who enjoys inflicting pain and suffering?

[mistermack]

I used to like fishing and hunting when I was a kid.

I have no objection to hunting invasive species, in fact it's a good thing. So getting pleasure from hunting wild pigs and rabbits etc in Oz is acceptable, and laudable, as far as I'm concerned. I would do it myself tomorrow.

White American dentists in Zimbabwe are an equally invasive species, and it's a good thing to exterminate them, unless they've only got cameras.

What really disgusts me is this whole trophy thing.
Fishermen put marlin back these days. They don't tend to get them stuffed any more.
If they can do it, then these so-called sportsmen can do the same with Lion or Leopard.

Make do with a photo, you wankers. Or video, if you want better proof for your wanking buddies.

By the way, hunting for non-food products is as bad as trophy hunting.
The Bison was hunted nearly to extinction, not for food, but for the hides, which were in demand for conveyor and drive belts in industrial America.
And hunting beaver to make hats was even more disgusting.
Now it's Tiger Bone, for the Chinese medicine market.

[JimC]

mistermack wrote:

By the way, hunting for non-food products is as bad as trophy hunting.
The Bison was hunted nearly to extinction, not for food, but for the hides, which were in demand for conveyor and drive belts in industrial America.
And hunting beaver to make hats was even more disgusting.
Now it's Tiger Bone, for the Chinese medicine market.

If it were an abundant, non-threatened species, would that make a difference if the hunting was for fur etc. ?

[mistermack]

mistermack wrote:

By the way, hunting for non-food products is as bad as trophy hunting.
The Bison was hunted nearly to extinction, not for food, but for the hides, which were in demand for conveyor and drive belts in industrial America.
And hunting beaver to make hats was even more disgusting.
Now it's Tiger Bone, for the Chinese medicine market.

If it were an abundant, non-threatened species, would that make a difference if the hunting was for fur etc. ?

Not necessarily. The the bison was incredibly abundant to start with, and nearly exterminated in the blink of an eye. The Passenger Pigeon was thought to be possibly the most abundant bird on Earth at one point.

Find a use for Mosquitoes or Midges and I might think differently.

[Hermit]

There were about 15 million Bison roaming the US in 1865. By 1888 there were 300. Their extermination was deliberate government policy. It was meant to and succeeded in starving the American Indians to death or into reservations. Canada pursued a similar policy.

And hunting for pleasure has always been happening wherever there was a privileged or wealthy social stratum. Kings had their own woods exclusively reserved to them for that purpose. They certainly did not kill because they were hungry or needed a new pair of shoes. In baroque times peasants were used to drive deer, sometimes up to 200 of them at a time, into enclosed arenas where they could be shot with muskets by aristocrats from the comfort of cushioned chairs. There is nothing new about trophy hunting.

[mistermack]

That was highly organised. There's a former Deer Course not all that far from me.

They built a huge grandstand, overlooking the killing area, for the lords and ladies comfort and amusement as they watched the slaughter :



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodge_Par ... rne_Estate

It looks like dentists can afford a bargain basement version of the same thing these days.
And of course, the Romans did it all on an industrial scale in the Colosseum.

[Tero]

It's all the same if you plan to eat it. In fact, do eat it. Better than raising chickens in cages.

[mistermack]

It's all the same if you plan to eat it. In fact, do eat it. Better than raising chickens in cages.

I wouldn't agree.
Chickens are replaceable. They're not going to go extinct.

[rainbow]

It's all the same if you plan to eat it. In fact, do eat it. Better than raising chickens in cages.

Better than raising pigs in New Jersey:

[Strontium Dog]

I don't consider any reason for any unecessary killing of a non-endangered animal to be morally superior or inferior to any other.

I'm quite certain a pig or cow or giraffe or lion does not care why it's being killed, any more than the victims of Jeffrey Dahmer would have been consoled by knowing they would end up on the menu.

Similarly, it's not for me to tell a person that the enjoyment they get from tracking and shooting an animal is morally inferior to the enjoyment others get from the taste of a Philly cheesesteak.

Hunt away, for all I care.

[JimC]

I don't consider any reason for any unecessary killing of a non-endangered animal to be morally superior or inferior to any other.

I'm quite certain a pig or cow or giraffe or lion does not care why it's being killed, any more than the victims of Jeffrey Dahmer would have been consoled by knowing they would end up on the menu.

Similarly, it's not for me to tell a person that the enjoyment they get from tracking and shooting an animal is morally inferior to the enjoyment others get from the taste of a Philly cheesesteak.

Hunt away, for all I care.

The key word here is "unnecessary killing". Earlier, I attempted to list a variety of reasons for killing an animal. A vegan might argue that killing for food can be categorised as "unnecessary", but most of us would not. I would argue that killing solely for pleasure, without making any use of the product or it being of ecological value (killing rabbits in Oz, for example) is clearly in a worse ethical position than killing for a reason with some practical purpose. If all you meant was, given the same reason, and the same non-endangered status, the species does not matter, it all depends. If you are comparing the killing of 2 different non-endangered species of mammals, all other things being equal, you may have a point. (An exception, perhaps, for apes, but they are all endangered anyway). However, compare the killing of a mammal to a crab (both humanely), and most people would see the death of the crab, for whatever the reason, as less ethically problematic.
Additionally, it is not, IMO, "the enjoyment they get from tracking and shooting an animal" that is ethically wrong, but whether it is done with or without a purpose. There is no ethical difference between someone mechanically killing a rabbit to eat, with no personal pleasure, and someone killing the same rabbit, for the same purpose, but enjoying every moment of it.

[mistermack]

Ethics are in the eye of the beholder.

I'm full of contempt for the trophy hunters, but I don't think my own ethics are particularly superior.
They are to me, that's all.

I don't see much wrong with getting pleasure from hunting, if the hunting is in some way a good thing.
Killing feral cats is no worse than killing feral pigs or dogs or introduced species like foxes and rabbits.
If you enjoy it, so what? It needs doing.

Even though I think trophy hunters are pathetic wankers, if their antics actually preserved wild spaces, by giving them financial value, then I would promote the activity to the pathetic wankers.
That's not usually what happens though. The money goes to exploiters, and does little good to anything else.

[Strontium Dog]

A vegan might argue that killing for food can be categorised as "unnecessary", but most of us would not.

Since it is possible to survive without eating meat, I'd suggest it's difficult to categorise killing animals for food as necessary.