Animal Cruelty? - Page 2

ninjatoth · October 21, 2009, 05:30 PM

The thing that bothers me the most is when someone donates a huge amount to the humane society,but if you mention "feed the children",they don't know what you are talking about.Cruelty is bad,everyone can agree on that,but the definition of cruelty is going to be so far different between different people.To me,cruelty is intentionally beating an animal,or starving one,to someone else,cruelty might be as slight as not letting the dog in when it's 40 degrees outside.

hogdogs · October 21, 2009, 05:42 PM

HSUS??? You mean the ones that employ felon terrorists? The illegal use of explosives by their employees is enuff to keep me from fallin' for their hype. Not to mention the killing of animals and jumping them in grocery store dumpsters illegally.

They do not have rescue shelters, they do not have a way to help pets. Their agenda is strictly trying to ban all things animal. No pets, no hunting, no meat farming.... humaniacs pure and simple.
I have had run ins with one of their top goons... John JP Goodwin...
Brent

Playboypenguin · October 21, 2009, 06:11 PM

Quote:

The thing that bothers me the most is when someone donates a huge amount to the humane society,but if you mention "feed the children",they don't know what you are talking about.

Why would those things be mutually exclusive? Also, by your logic if someone donated money to hurricane relief in Mississippi they are bad people for not also donating money to flood relief in Kansas. One right does not equal a wrong.

ninjatoth · October 21, 2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Why would those things be mutually exclusive? Also, by your logic if someone donated money to hurricane relief in Mississippi they are bad people for not also donating money to flood relief in Kansas. One right does not equal a wrong.

Absolutely ridiculous!I stand by what I say because people are more important than animals,so yes,it absolutely bothers me when someone helps animals more than their fellow man.

**JohnKSa** · October 21, 2009, 07:40 PM

By that logic the only moral way to donate to anything would be to find all the charities in the world and then only donate to the one that was the most deserving.

If you gave any money to a less-deserving charity before all the needs of the most deserving charity were fulfilled you would be open to criticism by people who point out that you're donating to something that's less important than the most deserving charity out there.

No one would be able to contribute anything at all to help animals until there were absolutely no needy/suffering persons in the entire world...

Kreyzhorse · October 21, 2009, 07:43 PM

I am a hunter. I've killed a lot of animals. I am also an animal lover and dog owner and cannot stand to see any animal, pet or wild critter mistreated in any way.

To me, real hunters strive to kill quickly and painlessly. People who hurt animals for their own enjoyment (Vick) are simple monsters.

2DaMtns · October 21, 2009, 08:52 PM

Good topic. I got a couple things I'd like to speak on.

Quote:

Is shooting a dog or clubbing a cat a bad thing? To them it is. But in reality, it's no different than putting them down with a syringe. It may even be quicker and better.

I beg to differ here in one regard. I am a veterinarian and in the job I keep, I have euthanized countless animals. It is truly humane, and there are a very small percentage of cases where the animal does not expire peacefully. I know that it is much more reliable than clubbing and (in most cases) gunshots, because I see animals that have been subjected to both of these injuries in my line of work. The reaction to euthanasia solution is much more predictable and repeatable. That being said, I am not going to argue that a properly executed gunshot or "clubbing" isn't effective, it's just that it's much easier to properly perform a humane euthanasia via injection. However, last I heard, a gunshot to the head was still a completely accepted form of humane euthanasia for horses and cows, and if it works for them, of course it will work for cats and dogs. Again, it all goes back to the proper application. Now, I am not a proponent of shooting an animal or clubbing it to death when controlled, humane euthanasia is available, but if a person can quickly and humanely dispatch a suffering animal when veterinary care is not available in an acceptable time manner, I am all for it.

The second thing that it brings to mind is that I have not hunted since I became licensed. I have not killed a deer since before I started veterinary school, I don't believe. I fully intend to get back into hunting this fall, and I have wondered how differently it will feel this time out. I know there are people who think I am a hypocrite because I am a veterinarian who hunts (or at least used to and soon will again). I have many arguments for these people. Firstly, and this is not a knock against other hunters, but people should rest more assured that a veterinarian will only take ethical shots and will go the extra mile to track an animal if it is only wounded rather than quickly killed. Also, the anti's don't want to consider it, but what is the alternative for these game animals? They can fall quickly due to my bullet, or they can starve, freeze to death, be killed and eaten by a large cat, bear, wolves, coyotes, or other predators, or they can be hit by a car, semi, bus, or some other motor vehicle. Once all those things are considered, a quick death from a bullet doesn't seem so bad.

Secondly, the people who have accused me of being a hypocrite in my situation, but who are non-hunting meat-eaters themselves, are the ones that really tick me off. Somehow, it is better to them to eat a piece of beef that someone else killed for them, and that came from an animal that was raised for the sole purpose of feeding someone. At least the deer, squirrels, bear, rabbits, and any other game animal have a chance, and at least they get to live until they die, rather than "live" in the concentration camps that are livestock yards. Finally, I don't know why they think it is acceptable for me to euthanize a dog to prevent suffering, yet it's so wrong for me to kill a deer humanely to prevent it suffering by the aforementioned ways of certain, painful death.

I think it's part ignorance, part denial. The ignorance is that they don't understand there is such a thing as a quick, humane kill via gunshot when performed appropriately. The denial is that they never stop to think about what happens to those animals that are not taken humanely, and they don't see the horror in starvation, freezing, falling prey to lower predators, or dying from some infectious disease they catch due to overcrowding. What really kills me is when they cuss about all the #$*@&* deer when they hit one with their car.

shortwave · October 21, 2009, 10:13 PM

Killing just for the sake of killing or torturing an animal just does not compute. Since I was old enough to remember, we always had dogs,cats, pets in general. Was raised hunting and was dared by my father to take less than the most ethical shot possible. I`ve had to let some massive bucks walk simply cause they wouldn`t present themselves for a clean shot. Sometimes very hard to do but if you`ve ever lost many nights sleep cause you couldn`t find an 'ill-shot' deer, it makes it easier to let one walk if you don`t get that good shot. Laying at night thinking how that animal is suffering at the hands of what I did, to say the least, is not a comfortable feeling. Living in the country has also taught me that certain animals are raised/ hunted for the table and certain ones are for other purposes. Herding, protecting lifestock or mousing in the barns. Problem is ,the country is also a dumping ground for many unwanted dogs/cats that will eventually pack-up and create havoc for a livestock farmer and wildlife. Not much left to do with these animals but to exterminate them but they, as with anything that has to be exterminated, should be killed as humanely as possible.

Farmland · October 21, 2009, 10:44 PM

First off there is no reason to doubt anything about animal cruelty. It is wrong. Just don't blur the lines between hunting and what I do raising beef cows and hogs.

I don't think any reasonable person regardless of being a hunter or not likes to see animal cruelty. However be careful how you define it because those that define it broadly include hunters and farmers.

I have enjoyed hunting and even the thrill of the kill. I have never enjoyed dispatching a farm animal even though it is done on a regular basis. It is just part of what I do but I have never found pleasure in it. That is the difference in hunting where your intent is to kill a game animal and then killing a farm animal getting beef and pork ready for the market.

JustKev55 · October 22, 2009, 05:11 AM

Quote: "I can't stand to see those lobsters, sitting confined in that tank and looking at the people who are going to eat them, sometimes for weeks.
That is torture.

If it doesn't bother you, then fine, go buy a big fresh lobster for dinner tonight."

Lobsters are not very intelligent, if at all. They're on the same level as bugs. Tasty bugs, but bugs just the same.

wpcexpert · October 22, 2009, 06:01 AM

Quote:

would just as soon punch anyone in the face as speak to them that supports trophy hunting of large game such as bears, lions, etc

Quote:

hunting in regards to population control (although I would rather just see predators reintroduced).

PBP, now your crossing lines of why do you hold a few animals lives over those of humans? Not hunting lions, I'm sure there are many folks in Cali that would be glad several Mt lions aren't there to attack their kids. Reintroduction of predators? Nah, we are to much of a society that like to expand and live right next to nature, but have a cow when nature crosses those lines. With hunting bears, they are already comming into neighborhoods and tearing stuff up.

If you really want a cause to persue, or get so viloent over, prevent the over expansion into to nature. Every new 400+ acre subdivison, house, and city is taking up land and homes that used to house critters. Bears and large cats have a vast ranging territories. With humans taking their homes, they have no choice but to become a nuisance. Then folks like you go up in arms and punch people in the face when we are capable of doing something about it. And have to fix the problem that the un-humane society, other animal rights activist, and society creates.

If the OP is looking for hipocracy...that is it.

DRice.72 · October 22, 2009, 06:39 AM

I agree that cruelty is very wrong and it makes me blood boil to see cases of it. Either human or animal, its just wrong. Any person who willfully inflicts harm against a weaker subject is just plain ol' sick in my book. Two drunks in a bar beating the hell out of each other is one thing, but take a man who beats his animals, wife or children and that is a whole different story.

Hunting is completely different. Not only is a properly executed shot humane as far as the particular animal being shot is concerned, the taking of game in itself is humane. As cities and farm land and logging have squeezed the natural ranges of game animals, it has put double the pressure on their natural predators. We tend to reduce the population of big predators more as we find them a threat to livestock and our pets and our selves. This population reduction results in an overpopulation of deer and other game. The ONLY humane way to keep that population in check is hunting. I remember a few years ago in Florida and Virgina there was an over population of deer, so the state wildlife management decided the best way to reduce the population was to poison the animals in large numbers. This absolutely burned my hide! I know for a fact there are large numbers of hunters in both states that would have been happy to apply for additional tags, and removed those animals for FREE! Not to mention a bullet through the heart or head is much much more humane than an animal dying of poison.

2DaMtns · October 22, 2009, 08:46 AM

Farmland,

I was not directing anything towards farmers. Most of my little rant was directed at people who think it's fine to eat their steak that they never had to lift a finger to get, yet think that I am a hypocritical barbarian because I like a little venison here and there. Oddly, I have never had to have this conversation about fishing. Anyway, I didn't mean to offend, and I think that anything I said that could be misconstrued as offensive was directed more at the huge feedlots. A few head of cattle out in the back field is totally different, and I hope to have a couple myself one day soon.

tyrajam · October 22, 2009, 11:34 AM

I do agree with ninjatoth. Animals are not humans, and our laws are blurring those lines. While animal cruelty is wrong, is it as wrong as abusing a child? Of course not. I remember the story of the gradeschooler stepping on a mouse and killing it. It was a felony. Torturing animals is definitely wrong, but Ihave a problem with cops tracking down someone who shot a cat and throwing him in jail. To me it is hypocritical that Vick is looked at like pond scum for wrongly killing dogs while there are other convicted murderers and rapists playing in the NFL.

I guess my point is being cruel to animals is wrong, but should it be a felony? Some posters said that those sick kids who lit a cat on fire should be set on fire themselves. Their actions were sick and wrong and make my stomach turn, but come on guys, we can't equate animals with people!

Playboypenguin · October 22, 2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

I guess my point is being cruel to animals is wrong, but should it be a felony? Some posters said that those sick kids who lit a cat on fire should be set on fire themselves. Their actions were sick and wrong and make my stomach turn, but come on guys, we can't equate animals with people!

People are animals...just a little smarter. Nothing more nothing less. Of course it is wrong to abuse a child, but that does not lessen the fact that it is wrong to abuse an animal. That is weak and backwards logic. That is like saying it is not so bad to break an innocent strangers arm because it is much worse to break their leg.

And as for the person that referred to animals as tools...tools do not have feeling or emotions. Animals do. In fact, that statement would make many people say that anyone who would actually say it is more of a "tool" than any animal.

hogdogs · October 22, 2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

People are animals...just a little smarter. Nothing more nothing less.

I can agree 100% on the above... rare for me to agree with Ol' PBP...
But Animals other than humans are not people.

I also feel to a great degree that domesticated animals are the property of the owner and can be treated or used however the owner feels comfortable doing so...
Brent

Farmland · October 22, 2009, 02:00 PM

I didn't take anything personal 2D. I was just trying to point out some of the blurring between animal cruelty and how far it can be pushed. I in fact feel differently when it comes to killing a wild animal and one that I have raised. That is the human side of me.

However I realize that people are different than animals.We have a conscious and I do not believe animals do. I believe we have a sole and animals do not. People and animals are mammals but we are not the same.

Everybody wants to define animal cruelty to their own point of view and the only problem is that some people want to extend that beyond just the senseless beating or torture of an animal.

People and hunters even start to split and fracture on this issue. One may not have a problem with killing a deer but does if they kill a Lion. I don't get this because I see no difference. They are both dead and in some culture I'm am sure both can be eaten. Another sees it as torture to have life lobster in a grocery store. If they were dead and frozen would there be a real big difference?

I can't pass judgment on how others think. Because I have a conscious it does come into play when you get to close to a farm animal like you would a pet. That is dangerous and I have warned my daughters not to treat them as pets. It is dangerous because it makes the killing of that animal more emotional.

But the plain truth is that animals have been harvested for food long as long as man has walked the earth. Others have been killed because they damage crops or prove to be dangerous to man. We are no different than the animal who will kill for the same things.

I will never pick on the sportsman for doing something he loves and I certainly will not look down on a grocery store of the fisherman who provides the live lobster to them. However I will do anything to prosecute a person if they treat any animal with cruelty. But that is the problem what do we define as cruelty?

I may define it as the senseless slaughter of an animal that involves some type of torture for no purpose. Another may define it as hunting for sport and not meat. Many more will define it as farmers raising their livestock.

The topic is complicated and widely divided which in the end makes me a mass murder in some peoples eyes. In any event I am a hunter and see nothing wrong with the killing of animals. I am a hunter and if you torture animals for pleasure then I'm against it. I am a hunter and I don't blur the issue of animal cruelty to include what most animal rights people include. I am a hunter and I support others who may hunt the larger game animal for trophy. I will note that is not what I like to do but I see nothing wrong with those that like to do it.

orangello · October 22, 2009, 02:05 PM

"I also feel to a great degree that domesticated animals are the property of the owner and can be treated or used however the owner feels comfortable doing so..." HD

I don't disagree about the domesticated animals being the property of the owner, and would agree with the second part except for the many examples of people lacking in the common sense needed to own/manage/care for their animals (animal hoarders, dog fighting, etc).

edit*
I am hesitant to point this out, because i don't want to insult the earlier poster. However, i can't help but notice that your statement is reportedly an accurate reflection of a commonly-held attitude toward slavery in the early 1800's (& many other times in human history). Not many people hold with that opinion any longer; i wonder if their opinion toward animals as property will change too?
No offense to the poster; i've seen many wonderful and helpful threads by HD & i doubt he considered the analogy.

tyrajam · October 22, 2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

People are animals...just a little smarter. Nothing more nothing less.

I couldn't disagree more. If you really believe that, then what is the difference between killing an animal and an idiot? My 15 month old son is not as smart as my lab, my mentally handicapped younger sister is probably not as smart as some chimps. But people are different, people have a fundamental right to live and to be free. Animals cannot and do not. We would live in a very scary world if people really believed what you said.

ZeroJunk · October 22, 2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

But people are different, people have a fundamental right to live and to be free. Animals cannot and do not.

Only because they are advanced enough to force their dominion over dumber animals, or a religious belief.

If I have to save my dog and somebody I don't know from some catastrophe they had better hope I still have time after I get my dog out. I would expect the same from them.

Playboypenguin · October 22, 2009, 05:06 PM

Quote:

I also feel to a great degree that domesticated animals are the property of the owner and can be treated or used however the owner feels comfortable doing so...

I disagree completely. If I saw someone abusing an animal they own simply because the feel they have some right to do so I would very clearly and quickly pointing out the error of their ways.

Quote:

Only because they are advanced enough to force their dominion over dumber animals, or a religious belief.

Yup. Biologically speaking the only thing that sets us aside is a higher intellect that has allowed us to force our desires onto the other animals. It is a simple case of might makes right. People have no rights they do not imbue upon themselves. People that live in this country seem t forget that.

James R. Burke · October 22, 2009, 06:24 PM

I pretty much agree with you. I hate to see any animal miss treated. Hunting is a whole other ball game. It is not done to be cruel. When a animal does happen to get wounded most of us fee real bad about it, and try very hard for clean kills etc. You sound like your a good sportperson, and I wish more were like that.

L_Killkenny · October 22, 2009, 07:18 PM

PBP, you're so far off base it's not even funny. We are not just animals. If we were "only" smart critters it wouldn't make a difference if we were cruel or not.

Quote:

Yup. Biologically speaking the only thing that sets us aside is a higher intellect that has allowed us to force our desires onto the other animals. It is a simple case of might makes right. People have no rights they do not imbue upon themselves. People that live in this country seem t forget that.

Doesn't a wolf just force itself on a caribou? Doesn't the fox do it to a rabbit? By your reasoning we are only doing the same thing that nature intended. Only for some BS reason we have decided that it's wrong to be mean about it. Heck, at least we don't start munching down before the critter is dead like every other animal on this earth.

I've never known you to be a troll but you're trolling. What the heck are you coming onto the Hunting forum and spewing this crap for anyway?

LK

wpcexpert · October 22, 2009, 08:10 PM

PBP, you are one of the Premier folks to come to for handgun related topics, and I have. You knowledge of firearms is a huge additive to this forum. But you blurred the lines in your first post from agreeing with the OP about hating animal cruelty, to hunting bashing, and your opinion that animals should have more rights than humans.

I don't think any right minded person would agree that being overly cruel to an animal is OK. In any sense, but to bring up the other stuff is just asking for an off topic discussion that will never get anywhere. I went way off topic in my last post only in response, but that wasn't right. And I didn't mean to attack you like that.

But everyone can agree with you, the OP, and just about anyone that animal cruelty is wrong. But I don't feel that most "Animal Rights Activists" have the slightest inclination of how the natural order of things run in the Wild animal world...what-so-ever. Save the all puppies and little kitties but leave the wild outdoors to those who are willing to understand, do the research, and to fix the problem. If they're not willing to fix the problem, then they shouldn't have a say so in the solution.

Art Eatman · October 22, 2009, 08:19 PM

I was raised in a mix of farming/ranching as well as city living. One of my chores as a youngun of sevenish-eight or thereabouts was catching the chicken for Sunday dinner. My grandmother showed me how to wring its neck. My grandfather wasn't a vet, but he showed me how to doctor screwworms in a calf's navel. About the same age range...

But nobody ever beat on a plow horse, and the dogs and cats got fed and petted.

I don't know how much a vet charges to euthanize an animal. I do know that a poor man's .22 bullet into the brain does in a dog as quickly as one did in Bobby Kennedy.

Hunting? I don't care if an animal is wild or domestic. If you're gonna kill it, do it quick and clean. That's why I worked pretty busily to create a package to enable me to bust Bambi in the white spot. My skill, my rifle's reliability, all that stuff. And why I'm picky about choosing my shots...

I've never seen many folks ever turn down a really good steak or roast. Folks seem to enjoy that meat. Okay, I guarantee you that the meat didn't come from a bull. So: Is using a sharp knife or a pair of Burdizzos cruelty?

(There's a really non-PC joke about "cowboy psychology" and this particular action.)

When I was a kid, my grandmother made money from selling eggs. To keep varmint populations down, she'd leave piece of bread where the pets wouldn't get to it, but varmints could. Back in the WW II era, you could go to the drugstore and buy a toothpaste-size tube of strychnine poison--of which she'd put some on the bread. Was that cruel?

Ever seen a hawksbill shrike eating on a not-yet-dead bird? I have. Is the shrike cruel?

Leaving hunting out of it, I sorta figure that if you don't cause some sort of pain and grief to any animal, you're doing okay. Similarly in the other direction: If you're taking care of food, water, sanitation and providing a friendly atmosphere, you're doing okay.

Politically, the SPCA and animal-shelter folks do a bunch of unappreciated good. PETA and HSUS, well, bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.

October 21, 2009, 07:40 PM	#30
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,972	By that logic the only moral way to donate to anything would be to find all the charities in the world and then only donate to the one that was the most deserving. If you gave any money to a less-deserving charity before all the needs of the most deserving charity were fulfilled you would be open to criticism by people who point out that you're donating to something that's less important than the most deserving charity out there. No one would be able to contribute anything at all to help animals until there were absolutely no needy/suffering persons in the entire world... __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

October 21, 2009, 07:43 PM	#31
Kreyzhorse Senior Member Join Date: April 12, 2006 Location: NKY Posts: 12,463	I am a hunter. I've killed a lot of animals. I am also an animal lover and dog owner and cannot stand to see any animal, pet or wild critter mistreated in any way. To me, real hunters strive to kill quickly and painlessly. People who hurt animals for their own enjoyment (Vick) are simple monsters. __________________ "He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson

October 22, 2009, 05:11 AM	#35
JustKev55 Member Join Date: January 8, 2009 Posts: 66	Lobster Quote: "I can't stand to see those lobsters, sitting confined in that tank and looking at the people who are going to eat them, sometimes for weeks. That is torture. If it doesn't bother you, then fine, go buy a big fresh lobster for dinner tonight." Lobsters are not very intelligent, if at all. They're on the same level as bugs. Tasty bugs, but bugs just the same.

October 22, 2009, 06:39 AM	#37
DRice.72 Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2009 Location: Western North Carolina Posts: 451	I agree that cruelty is very wrong and it makes me blood boil to see cases of it. Either human or animal, its just wrong. Any person who willfully inflicts harm against a weaker subject is just plain ol' sick in my book. Two drunks in a bar beating the hell out of each other is one thing, but take a man who beats his animals, wife or children and that is a whole different story. Hunting is completely different. Not only is a properly executed shot humane as far as the particular animal being shot is concerned, the taking of game in itself is humane. As cities and farm land and logging have squeezed the natural ranges of game animals, it has put double the pressure on their natural predators. We tend to reduce the population of big predators more as we find them a threat to livestock and our pets and our selves. This population reduction results in an overpopulation of deer and other game. The ONLY humane way to keep that population in check is hunting. I remember a few years ago in Florida and Virgina there was an over population of deer, so the state wildlife management decided the best way to reduce the population was to poison the animals in large numbers. This absolutely burned my hide! I know for a fact there are large numbers of hunters in both states that would have been happy to apply for additional tags, and removed those animals for FREE! Not to mention a bullet through the heart or head is much much more humane than an animal dying of poison. __________________ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin Light is faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright unitl you hear them speak! They should have stopped with "Congress shall make no Law...

October 22, 2009, 02:05 PM	#43
orangello Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2009 Posts: 566	"I also feel to a great degree that domesticated animals are the property of the owner and can be treated or used however the owner feels comfortable doing so..." HD I don't disagree about the domesticated animals being the property of the owner, and would agree with the second part except for the many examples of people lacking in the common sense needed to own/manage/care for their animals (animal hoarders, dog fighting, etc). edit* I am hesitant to point this out, because i don't want to insult the earlier poster. However, i can't help but notice that your statement is reportedly an accurate reflection of a commonly-held attitude toward slavery in the early 1800's (& many other times in human history). Not many people hold with that opinion any longer; i wonder if their opinion toward animals as property will change too? No offense to the poster; i've seen many wonderful and helpful threads by HD & i doubt he considered the analogy. Last edited by orangello; October 22, 2009 at 02:11 PM.

October 21, 2009, 05:30 PM	#26
ninjatoth Junior member Join Date: March 21, 2009 Location: sanford,mi Posts: 590	The thing that bothers me the most is when someone donates a huge amount to the humane society,but if you mention "feed the children",they don't know what you are talking about.Cruelty is bad,everyone can agree on that,but the definition of cruelty is going to be so far different between different people.To me,cruelty is intentionally beating an animal,or starving one,to someone else,cruelty might be as slight as not letting the dog in when it's 40 degrees outside.

October 21, 2009, 05:42 PM	#27
hogdogs Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 31, 2007 Location: Western Florida panhandle Posts: 11,069	HSUS??? You mean the ones that employ felon terrorists? The illegal use of explosives by their employees is enuff to keep me from fallin' for their hype. Not to mention the killing of animals and jumping them in grocery store dumpsters illegally. They do not have rescue shelters, they do not have a way to help pets. Their agenda is strictly trying to ban all things animal. No pets, no hunting, no meat farming.... humaniacs pure and simple. I have had run ins with one of their top goons... John JP Goodwin... Brent

October 21, 2009, 10:13 PM	#33
shortwave Senior Member Join Date: December 17, 2007 Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO Posts: 5,970	Killing just for the sake of killing or torturing an animal just does not compute. Since I was old enough to remember, we always had dogs,cats, pets in general. Was raised hunting and was dared by my father to take less than the most ethical shot possible. I`ve had to let some massive bucks walk simply cause they wouldn`t present themselves for a clean shot. Sometimes very hard to do but if you`ve ever lost many nights sleep cause you couldn`t find an 'ill-shot' deer, it makes it easier to let one walk if you don`t get that good shot. Laying at night thinking how that animal is suffering at the hands of what I did, to say the least, is not a comfortable feeling. Living in the country has also taught me that certain animals are raised/ hunted for the table and certain ones are for other purposes. Herding, protecting lifestock or mousing in the barns. Problem is ,the country is also a dumping ground for many unwanted dogs/cats that will eventually pack-up and create havoc for a livestock farmer and wildlife. Not much left to do with these animals but to exterminate them but they, as with anything that has to be exterminated, should be killed as humanely as possible.

October 21, 2009, 10:44 PM	#34
Farmland Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2009 Posts: 869	First off there is no reason to doubt anything about animal cruelty. It is wrong. Just don't blur the lines between hunting and what I do raising beef cows and hogs. I don't think any reasonable person regardless of being a hunter or not likes to see animal cruelty. However be careful how you define it because those that define it broadly include hunters and farmers. I have enjoyed hunting and even the thrill of the kill. I have never enjoyed dispatching a farm animal even though it is done on a regular basis. It is just part of what I do but I have never found pleasure in it. That is the difference in hunting where your intent is to kill a game animal and then killing a farm animal getting beef and pork ready for the market.

October 22, 2009, 08:46 AM	#38
2DaMtns Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 2008 Posts: 457	Farmland, I was not directing anything towards farmers. Most of my little rant was directed at people who think it's fine to eat their steak that they never had to lift a finger to get, yet think that I am a hypocritical barbarian because I like a little venison here and there. Oddly, I have never had to have this conversation about fishing. Anyway, I didn't mean to offend, and I think that anything I said that could be misconstrued as offensive was directed more at the huge feedlots. A few head of cattle out in the back field is totally different, and I hope to have a couple myself one day soon.

October 22, 2009, 11:34 AM	#39
tyrajam Senior Member Join Date: July 24, 2007 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 467	I do agree with ninjatoth. Animals are not humans, and our laws are blurring those lines. While animal cruelty is wrong, is it as wrong as abusing a child? Of course not. I remember the story of the gradeschooler stepping on a mouse and killing it. It was a felony. Torturing animals is definitely wrong, but Ihave a problem with cops tracking down someone who shot a cat and throwing him in jail. To me it is hypocritical that Vick is looked at like pond scum for wrongly killing dogs while there are other convicted murderers and rapists playing in the NFL. I guess my point is being cruel to animals is wrong, but should it be a felony? Some posters said that those sick kids who lit a cat on fire should be set on fire themselves. Their actions were sick and wrong and make my stomach turn, but come on guys, we can't equate animals with people!

October 22, 2009, 02:00 PM	#42
Farmland Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2009 Posts: 869	I didn't take anything personal 2D. I was just trying to point out some of the blurring between animal cruelty and how far it can be pushed. I in fact feel differently when it comes to killing a wild animal and one that I have raised. That is the human side of me. However I realize that people are different than animals.We have a conscious and I do not believe animals do. I believe we have a sole and animals do not. People and animals are mammals but we are not the same. Everybody wants to define animal cruelty to their own point of view and the only problem is that some people want to extend that beyond just the senseless beating or torture of an animal. People and hunters even start to split and fracture on this issue. One may not have a problem with killing a deer but does if they kill a Lion. I don't get this because I see no difference. They are both dead and in some culture I'm am sure both can be eaten. Another sees it as torture to have life lobster in a grocery store. If they were dead and frozen would there be a real big difference? I can't pass judgment on how others think. Because I have a conscious it does come into play when you get to close to a farm animal like you would a pet. That is dangerous and I have warned my daughters not to treat them as pets. It is dangerous because it makes the killing of that animal more emotional. But the plain truth is that animals have been harvested for food long as long as man has walked the earth. Others have been killed because they damage crops or prove to be dangerous to man. We are no different than the animal who will kill for the same things. I will never pick on the sportsman for doing something he loves and I certainly will not look down on a grocery store of the fisherman who provides the live lobster to them. However I will do anything to prosecute a person if they treat any animal with cruelty. But that is the problem what do we define as cruelty? I may define it as the senseless slaughter of an animal that involves some type of torture for no purpose. Another may define it as hunting for sport and not meat. Many more will define it as farmers raising their livestock. The topic is complicated and widely divided which in the end makes me a mass murder in some peoples eyes. In any event I am a hunter and see nothing wrong with the killing of animals. I am a hunter and if you torture animals for pleasure then I'm against it. I am a hunter and I don't blur the issue of animal cruelty to include what most animal rights people include. I am a hunter and I support others who may hunt the larger game animal for trophy. I will note that is not what I like to do but I see nothing wrong with those that like to do it.

October 22, 2009, 06:24 PM	#47
James R. Burke Senior Member Join Date: January 3, 2009 Location: U.P. of Mich/Quinnesec Posts: 1,897	I pretty much agree with you. I hate to see any animal miss treated. Hunting is a whole other ball game. It is not done to be cruel. When a animal does happen to get wounded most of us fee real bad about it, and try very hard for clean kills etc. You sound like your a good sportperson, and I wish more were like that.

October 22, 2009, 08:10 PM	#49
wpcexpert Senior Member Join Date: February 28, 2008 Location: Central Arkansas Posts: 791	PBP, you are one of the Premier folks to come to for handgun related topics, and I have. You knowledge of firearms is a huge additive to this forum. But you blurred the lines in your first post from agreeing with the OP about hating animal cruelty, to hunting bashing, and your opinion that animals should have more rights than humans. I don't think any right minded person would agree that being overly cruel to an animal is OK. In any sense, but to bring up the other stuff is just asking for an off topic discussion that will never get anywhere. I went way off topic in my last post only in response, but that wasn't right. And I didn't mean to attack you like that. But everyone can agree with you, the OP, and just about anyone that animal cruelty is wrong. But I don't feel that most "Animal Rights Activists" have the slightest inclination of how the natural order of things run in the Wild animal world...what-so-ever. Save the all puppies and little kitties but leave the wild outdoors to those who are willing to understand, do the research, and to fix the problem. If they're not willing to fix the problem, then they shouldn't have a say so in the solution. __________________ When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil. - Thomas Jefferson

October 22, 2009, 08:19 PM	#50
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	I was raised in a mix of farming/ranching as well as city living. One of my chores as a youngun of sevenish-eight or thereabouts was catching the chicken for Sunday dinner. My grandmother showed me how to wring its neck. My grandfather wasn't a vet, but he showed me how to doctor screwworms in a calf's navel. About the same age range... But nobody ever beat on a plow horse, and the dogs and cats got fed and petted. I don't know how much a vet charges to euthanize an animal. I do know that a poor man's .22 bullet into the brain does in a dog as quickly as one did in Bobby Kennedy. Hunting? I don't care if an animal is wild or domestic. If you're gonna kill it, do it quick and clean. That's why I worked pretty busily to create a package to enable me to bust Bambi in the white spot. My skill, my rifle's reliability, all that stuff. And why I'm picky about choosing my shots... I've never seen many folks ever turn down a really good steak or roast. Folks seem to enjoy that meat. Okay, I guarantee you that the meat didn't come from a bull. So: Is using a sharp knife or a pair of Burdizzos cruelty? (There's a really non-PC joke about "cowboy psychology" and this particular action.) When I was a kid, my grandmother made money from selling eggs. To keep varmint populations down, she'd leave piece of bread where the pets wouldn't get to it, but varmints could. Back in the WW II era, you could go to the drugstore and buy a toothpaste-size tube of strychnine poison--of which she'd put some on the bread. Was that cruel? Ever seen a hawksbill shrike eating on a not-yet-dead bird? I have. Is the shrike cruel? Leaving hunting out of it, I sorta figure that if you don't cause some sort of pain and grief to any animal, you're doing okay. Similarly in the other direction: If you're taking care of food, water, sanitation and providing a friendly atmosphere, you're doing okay. Politically, the SPCA and animal-shelter folks do a bunch of unappreciated good. PETA and HSUS, well, bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.