Is killing really sport?

[neutron619]

I obviously annoyed a few people with what I posted yesterday, so I thought I'd add a few more thoughts today to clarify my thinking.

 

The distinction I was appreciating in the OP was that between killing for entertainment and killing with a purpose.

 

I'm not against killing animals in principle - I'll perfectly happily shoot a deer or a pigeon or a crow - but I do feel that there needs to be some reason other than pure entertainment for that killing to be ethical.

 

Personally, I almost always shoot for the table. I've been grateful to have the opportunity to hunt pigeons with members of this site and have had some very enjoyable days, even if the birds have been few in number at times. That said, when we do have one of those marvellous days where 300 birds present themselves over the decoys, am I going to enjoy shooting 300 birds? No - probably not. There's a point, for me, at which it becomes gratuitous. If I eat two birds a month on average, do I need to kill enough to feed me for the next 12½ years all in one trip? Absolutely not. Let me take 10 or 20 birds and keep the meat - I don't need to break bag records or obliterate the species within a mile radius when one bird is enough to make me feel I've had a successful hunt.

 

Ah, you say, but what about my shooting partner, whose job is to keep the pigeons off his landowner's crops? Fair enough I say - he has a reason to shoot 300 birds and not feel there is a question of morality there. Even if he doesn't eat them, he's still achieved his aim, kept his "employer" happy and had a good day's shooting - but for him - 300 birds isn't gratuitous because his reason for being there is different to mine, even though he's 30 ft away from me in the next hide. Morality is satisfied and he too feels he's had a good hunt.

 

On the other hand, which of us, when playing with a magnifying glass near the ants' nest in our childhood gardens was not killing gratuitously? Had our parents resorted to incineration because ant powder of the 1980's was so much less effective, or were we, in our childish way, simply burning them for the sake of it? Did we really have any other purpose in killing them except for our own entertainment? It is this approach to shooting which cannot be right; the derivation of pleasure from inflicting suffering and death on animals for no good purpose must always be abhorrent.

 

I do not mean to imply that killing animals should not be enjoyable, only that it should not be enjoyable if to kill is our only reason and the only part from which we derive pleasure. It pleases me to kill deer because I will eat well from the animal and the stalk is a challenging, exciting thing at which I can only hope to improve with greater experience. Indeed, I hope to kill more effectively and pursue my quarry with greater skill every time I hunt.

 

But is the pleasure I derive from hunting because I have killed something? No - I too feel a tinge of regret at taking a life, but I satisfy myself that I hunted effectively, ethically and that - often unlike mass-produced meat - the animal died without any great degree of suffering. I make use of as much of its remains as possible and I usually share my experience of with somebody, so that the animals I kill are recognised by more than myself. That is my way - others have other ways - hunting is a personal thing.

 

However, provided that our killing is not gratuitous - that it is not simply for entertainment - all parts of the experience can be and should be enjoyed. Even the tinge of regret that some of us feel when we kill can be a positive thing - it reminds us that we have conscience, that we have respected our prey and that we have considered hunting deeply enough that we do not simply ignore the more unpalatable aspects.

 

The kill is the mark of success and can be enjoyed, but even if it is the reason we shoot, it must not become the only object of our pleasure.

Edited September 20, 2013 by neutron619

[CharlieT]

 

The distinction I was appreciating in the OP was that between killing for entertainment and killing with a purpose.

 

I'm not against killing animals in principle - I'll perfectly happily shoot a deer or a pigeon or a crow - but I do feel that there needs to be some reason other than pure entertainment for that killing to be ethical.

 

Ah, you say, but what about my shooting partner, whose job is to keep the pigeons off his landowner's crops? Fair enough I say - he has a reason to shoot 300 birds and not feel there is a question of morality there. Even if he doesn't eat them, he's still achieved his aim, kept his "employer" happy and had a good day's shooting - but for him - 300 birds isn't gratuitous because his reason for being there is different to mine, even though he's 30 ft away from me in the next hide. Morality is satisfied and he too feels he's had a good hunt.

 

I do not mean to imply that killing animals should not be enjoyable, only that it should not be enjoyable if to kill is our only reason and the only part from which we derive pleasure. It pleases me to kill deer because I will eat well from the animal and the stalk is a challenging, exciting thing at which I can only hope to improve with greater experience. Indeed, I hope to kill more effectively and pursue my quarry with greater skill every time I hunt.

 

However, provided that our killing is not gratuitous - that it is not simply for entertainment - all parts of the experience can be and should be enjoyed. Even the tinge of regret that some of us feel when we kill can be a positive thing - it reminds us that we have conscience, that we have respected our prey and that we have considered hunting deeply enough that we do not simply ignore the more unpalatable aspects.

 

Whilst I appreciate what you are saying I feel you are overemphasizing the use of the word kill.

 

It is a cold fact, that the act of shooting something kills it and therefore I think we must not get bogged down with trying to define the difference between different peoples terminology when they say I enjoy shooting or I enjoy killing. They are actually saying the same thing if not using the same words.

 

What I can't get to grips with is your suggestion that one should not shoot for entertainment and that doing so is unethical. Surely, the only reason we all shoot is for our own entertainment. After all, if we did not enjoy doing it to entertain ourselves why on earth are we pulling the trigger, we might as well take a camera instead of a gun. Something I often do I must add.

 

I am also unable to reconcile your logic as to how you are able to justify your pal shooting 300 pigeons. Just because he is killing them for a farmer you feel that doing so is not gratuitous but if I was to kill that number for enjoyment you would presumably think it is. I am minded to ask, Is your pal forced to kill them by the farmer or did he knock on the farmers door and ask to shoot on his land for the simple fact he enjoys shooting.

 

I really am fed up with people trying to justify shooting and therefore killing by implying they don't enjoy it, they do it for the farmers' sake. I should add that this last sentence is not directed at you in particular but at all those who use this argument.

 

Charlie.

[karpman]

Whilst I appreciate what you are saying I feel you are overemphasizing the use of the word kill.

 

It is a cold fact, that the act of shooting something kills it and therefore I think we must not get bogged down with trying to define the difference between different peoples terminology when they say I enjoy shooting or I enjoy killing. They are actually saying the same thing if not using the same words.

 

What I can't get to grips with is your suggestion that one should not shoot for entertainment and that doing so is unethical. Surely, the only reason we all shoot is for our own entertainment. After all, if we did not enjoy doing it to entertain ourselves why on earth are we pulling the trigger, we might as well take a camera instead of a gun. Something I often do I must add.

 

I am also unable to reconcile your logic as to how you are able to justify your pal shooting 300 pigeons. Just because he is killing them for a farmer you feel that doing so is not gratuitous but if I was to kill that number for enjoyment you would presumably think it is. I am minded to ask, Is your pal forced to kill them by the farmer or did he knock on the farmers door and ask to shoot on his land for the simple fact he enjoys shooting.

 

I really am fed up with people trying to justify shooting and therefore killing by implying they don't enjoy it, they do it for the farmers' sake. I should add that this last sentence is not directed at you in particular but at all those who use this argument.

 

Charlie.

Very well said and couldn't agree more.

 

Karpman

[colin lad]

If people kill for the table and don't enjoy it then come to our farm shop we sell all what you shoot that way you don't feel bad

 

Colin

[neutron619]

What I can't get to grips with is your suggestion that one should not shoot for entertainment and that doing so is unethical. Surely, the only reason we all shoot is for our own entertainment. After all, if we did not enjoy doing it to entertain ourselves why on earth are we pulling the trigger, we might as well take a camera instead of a gun. Something I often do I must add.

 

I am also unable to reconcile your logic as to how you are able to justify your pal shooting 300 pigeons. Just because he is killing them for a farmer you feel that doing so is not gratuitous but if I was to kill that number for enjoyment you would presumably think it is. I am minded to ask, Is your pal forced to kill them by the farmer or did he knock on the farmers door and ask to shoot on his land for the simple fact he enjoys shooting.

 

I think you misunderstand me then. I didn't say shooting for entertainment was unethical. I said I find it unethical when the only reason one does it is to kill things - i.e. killing for killing's sake. Or put another way, killing where there is no other appreciable benefit (i.e. crops protected, food to eat obtained, etc. etc.).

 

I find killing for food immensely satisfying and usually - for what it's worth - entertaining. What I have a problem with is people going out and shooting a whole load of animals without any appreciable benefit. There are some people - we probably both know of some of them - who go out and shoot birds and animals without any consideration as to why it's helpful, or any thought of taking the remains and using them for food (where appropriate). They are just people with a gun who want something living to shoot - we all know them when we come across them.

 

For argument's sake, a clear-cut example of what I'm talking about would be shooting songbirds in your back garden with your air rifle when you're a kid. It serves no purpose - there are no crops to protect and the meat on a songbird won't make a meal - it's killing for entertainment, purely and simply. The closer any of us get to that (i.e. killing without a purpose) the less ethical we are.

 

Fundamentally, this discussion has nothing to do with killing things - we all do that and derive enjoyment from it, at least indirectly. Rather it has everything to do with one's approach to shooting / killing / hunting / whatever you want to call it. Whether one likes it or not, there is a moral dimension to killing animals and hunting is diminished as a sport by those who say there isn't.

 

Indeed, the very first religions were animistic - veneration of the spirits of the animals which were killed to sustain human tribes and populations. Whether or not you personally agree that we should pay attention to the moral element (or even admit it exists), there is ample clear evidence that humans - and particularly those who have hunted - have generally felt that that moral element was important and worth recognising in our behaviour.

 

I would think that there are only a handful of (probably sociopathic) people here or in the shooting community, who shoot because they have a genuine love of killing animals without regard to why they are doing it - crop protection, food, etc. That said, the OP was right - it is worth looking at the way we express ourselves. If we're seen to take joy only in killing a record number of birds or simply in the kill itself, we do ourselves no favours in non-shooters' eyes.

[BRNDL]

 

I think you misunderstand me then. I didn't say shooting for entertainment was unethical. I said I find it unethical when the only reason one does it is to kill things - i.e. killing for killing's sake. Or put another way, killing where there is no other appreciable benefit (i.e. crops protected, food to eat obtained, etc. etc.).

 

I find killing for food immensely satisfying and usually - for what it's worth - entertaining. What I have a problem with is people going out and shooting a whole load of animals without any appreciable benefit. There are some people - we probably both know of some of them - who go out and shoot birds and animals without any consideration as to why it's helpful, or any thought of taking the remains and using them for food (where appropriate). They are just people with a gun who want something living to shoot - we all know them when we come across them.

 

For argument's sake, a clear-cut example of what I'm talking about would be shooting songbirds in your back garden with your air rifle when you're a kid. It serves no purpose - there are no crops to protect and the meat on a songbird won't make a meal - it's killing for entertainment, purely and simply. The closer any of us get to that (i.e. killing without a purpose) the less ethical we are.

 

Fundamentally, this discussion has nothing to do with killing things - we all do that and derive enjoyment from it, at least indirectly. Rather it has everything to do with one's approach to shooting / killing / hunting / whatever you want to call it. Whether one likes it or not, there is a moral dimension to killing animals and hunting is diminished as a sport by those who say there isn't.

 

Indeed, the very first religions were animistic - veneration of the spirits of the animals which were killed to sustain human tribes and populations. Whether or not you personally agree that we should pay attention to the moral element (or even admit it exists), there is ample clear evidence that humans - and particularly those who have hunted - have generally felt that that moral element was important and worth recognising in our behaviour.

 

I would think that there are only a handful of (probably sociopathic) people here or in the shooting community, who shoot because they have a genuine love of killing animals without regard to why they are doing it - crop protection, food, etc. That said, the OP was right - it is worth looking at the way we express ourselves. If we're seen to take joy only in killing a record number of birds or simply in the kill itself, we do ourselves no favours in non-shooters' eyes.

 

I also think your post was misunderstood.

[dadioles]

I obviously annoyed a few people with what I posted yesterday, so I thought I'd add a few more thoughts today to clarify my thinking.

 

The distinction I was appreciating in the OP was that between killing for entertainment and killing with a purpose.

 

I'm not against killing animals in principle - I'll perfectly happily shoot a deer or a pigeon or a crow - but I do feel that there needs to be some reason other than pure entertainment for that killing to be ethical.

 

Personally, I almost always shoot for the table. I've been grateful to have the opportunity to hunt pigeons with members of this site and have had some very enjoyable days, even if the birds have been few in number at times. That said, when we do have one of those marvellous days where 300 birds present themselves over the decoys, am I going to enjoy shooting 300 birds? No - probably not. There's a point, for me, at which it becomes gratuitous. If I eat two birds a month on average, do I need to kill enough to feed me for the next 12½ years all in one trip? Absolutely not. Let me take 10 or 20 birds and keep the meat - I don't need to break bag records or obliterate the species within a mile radius when one bird is enough to make me feel I've had a successful hunt.

 

Ah, you say, but what about my shooting partner, whose job is to keep the pigeons off his landowner's crops? Fair enough I say - he has a reason to shoot 300 birds and not feel there is a question of morality there. Even if he doesn't eat them, he's still achieved his aim, kept his "employer" happy and had a good day's shooting - but for him - 300 birds isn't gratuitous because his reason for being there is different to mine, even though he's 30 ft away from me in the next hide. Morality is satisfied and he too feels he's had a good hunt.

 

On the other hand, which of us, when playing with a magnifying glass near the ants' nest in our childhood gardens was not killing gratuitously? Had our parents resorted to incineration because ant powder of the 1980's was so much less effective, or were we, in our childish way, simply burning them for the sake of it? Did we really have any other purpose in killing them except for our own entertainment? It is this approach to shooting which cannot be right; the derivation of pleasure from inflicting suffering and death on animals for no good purpose must always be abhorrent.

 

I do not mean to imply that killing animals should not be enjoyable, only that it should not be enjoyable if to kill is our only reason and the only part from which we derive pleasure. It pleases me to kill deer because I will eat well from the animal and the stalk is a challenging, exciting thing at which I can only hope to improve with greater experience. Indeed, I hope to kill more effectively and pursue my quarry with greater skill every time I hunt.

 

But is the pleasure I derive from hunting because I have killed something? No - I too feel a tinge of regret at taking a life, but I satisfy myself that I hunted effectively, ethically and that - often unlike mass-produced meat - the animal died without any great degree of suffering. I make use of as much of its remains as possible and I usually share my experience of with somebody, so that the animals I kill are recognised by more than myself. That is my way - others have other ways - hunting is a personal thing.

 

However, provided that our killing is not gratuitous - that it is not simply for entertainment - all parts of the experience can be and should be enjoyed. Even the tinge of regret that some of us feel when we kill can be a positive thing - it reminds us that we have conscience, that we have respected our prey and that we have considered hunting deeply enough that we do not simply ignore the more unpalatable aspects.

 

The kill is the mark of success and can be enjoyed, but even if it is the reason we shoot, it must not become the only object of our pleasure.

 

Very well put Neutron969, spot on and my feelings entirely.

 

I just don't understand why people such as Charlie T (no offence meant Charlie) seem to miss the point.

 

Charlie wrote "What I can't get to grips with is your suggestion that one should not shoot for entertainment and that doing so is unethical. Surely, the only reason we all shoot is for our own entertainment."

 

I can only think that it comes down to our understanding and use of language, and possible age and life experience.

 

Logically from Charlie's post I have to conclude that he and a lot of people do feel that it is acceptable to kill animals for entertainment. I do not. In fact that would be illegal if it was the true motive.

 

"we might as well take a camera instead of a gun"

 

That does suit some people, but you cannot eat a photograph and a photograph of a pigeon does not stop it destroying crops. If your motivation is to shoot a few pigeons for the table, no problem, if it is to shoot 300 to protect the crops, no problem. Enjoy it, it is fun, a great day out and entirely ethical. If there is no pigeon problem and you are not going to eat them but just shoot them for personal entertainment, that is both illegal and unethical.

[bostonmick]

I guess that killing animals cannot be a sport as sport is two teams or individuals starting on a level playing field with neither having any advantage and it is the skill of one side that comes through.clay pigeons are sport where you compete against others on the same terms.football and tennis.however where one side has a distinct advantage at the outset no it cant be described as a sport.it is hunting plain and simple.

[Piebob]

I just don't understand why people such as Charlie T (no offence meant Charlie) seem to miss the point.

 

I don't think he is missing the point at all. I'm with him, neutron's post confuses me, and many points in your post do as well.

 

I think of these things as from primarily a game shooters point of view. It so happens that everything my syndicate shoots gets eaten, but we don't shoot to put food on the table. Justifying your shooting that way is kidding yourself. No, the reason I shoot game is ultimately for my own entertainment. Sure there are knock on benefits, and it's the whole thing that is enjoyable - the work parties, the banter, working the dogs, the wildlife, the scenery - but ultimately I do this because I enjoy it.

[Gordon R]

There are two posters on this thread who appear to be very similar in their writing style. Both seem very patronising and unlike any shooter I have ever come across.

 

It seems to me that some people are very selective in writing about shooting wild life. They concentrate on some birds, Basil Brush, Mr Badger and Bugs Bunny.

 

Where do the two concerned stand on shooting rats?

[dadioles]

There are two posters on this thread who appear to be very similar in their writing style. Both seem very patronising and unlike any shooter I have ever come across.

 

It seems to me that some people are very selective in writing about shooting wild life. They concentrate on some birds, Basil Brush, Mr Badger and Bugs Bunny.

 

Where do the two concerned stand on shooting rats?

 

Names would be helpful....

[Gordon R]

Take the hat that fits.

[Traztaz]

I think the point that is missed here is the difference between sport, past time and way of life, nothing more to say.

[Gordon R]

The logic of the odd post does confuse me.

 

Two friends go out shooting.

 

One is doing it for food for his table and obviously stops at 10 or 20, as shooting more would be gratuitous.

 

His friend - stationed 30 feet away - who is shooting for control purposes, on behalf of the farmer - shoots 300. If the first shooter has qualms about the ethics of shooting too many birds, why doesn't he sit and watch his friend shoot 300 and then take 10 to 20 home, to eat.

 

No - he shoots his 10 to 20 then starts casting doubt on others by implying that they enjoy killing.

 

Another person thinks the logic is fine and goes on a Forum to support the first shooter. Nothing odd at all.

 

Hypocrite springs to mind.

[JDog]

Considering that this forum first and foremost is about shooting there are certainly some odd posts and therefore odd posters. So odd that I do not think for a minute that I would enjoy their company.

[oakland rob]

Take the hat that fits.

 

Most sensible answer yet..!

 

Some of the posts on here are unbelievable.

[neutron619]

No - he shoots his 10 to 20 then starts casting doubt on others by implying that they enjoy killing.

 

Not at all. He merely (and repeatedly, at length) tries to highlight the fact that having different reasons for shooting the birds leads to two entirely different sets of moral considerations. That appears to be a point not well understood.

 

Neither action is unethical in the terms in which it is undertaken, even if both actions occur concurrently.

 

However, shooting 300 birds when one only has the ability to deal with and store 20 is unethical, since 280 birds go to waste.

 

Shooting 20 birds when one is requested to deal with 300 plaguing a farm (and thus preserve the ability of many people to eat sufficiently and affordably) is an omission at best, and could be argued to be unethical since it potentially impoverishes those who rely on the farmers crops.

 

It really is very simple: morality is satisfied when one's behaviour in the field matches one's reason for shooting, whatever the underlying reason.

 

On the contrary, I personally find it unethical to shoot a creature dead without having a reason for doing so - it's no more complicated than that. I happen to believe that a simple wish to kill something is not a sufficient reason for doing so - there must be some other reason for the interruption of a free, wild creature's existence.

 

It would appear that there are folk here who don't care whether they have a reason for taking another life or not - they'll do it anyway because it pleases them. I find that unethical.

 

However, one's ethics are a personal thing and are subjective. We can state that we feel that a behaviour is unethical, but that judgement is relevant only to ourselves.

 

Why on earth something so simple as to be effectively an opinion should be too complicated to understand, I have no idea.

 

Why on earth anyone should feel that an opinion is threatening to themselves or to others, I have no idea.

 

Are we all so lacking in confidence that if I say "you shoot because you love to take away a creature's life" and you say "you are a weak man because you must justify your killing with a reason" that we cannot stand here and accept that without being compelled to respond with accusations of "incorrectness"?

 

I think killing for it's own sake is wrong, but that it can be justified with reason. I see nothing wrong, flawed or controversial in that statement, because it is based upon a feeling which is no more relevant to those who agree with me as those who disagree. I have been given a public forum in which to air my views however and I have done so without reference to the opinions of others. Honesty is therefore satisfied and I can think of nothing further to say which serves any purpose bar one:

 

We are all killers of innocent creatures - we shoot, we kill. We will all be judged by others on the way we approach that killing and the reasons we give for doing so, and it will be in others' responses that we find the correctness of our own moral judgements.

Edited September 20, 2013 by neutron619

[Gordon R]

You have a singular talent for writing drivel - at great length.

[Scully]

 

 

Logically from Charlie's post I have to conclude that he and a lot of people do feel that it is acceptable to kill animals for entertainment. I do not. In fact that would be illegal if it was the true motive.

 

 

The problem though dadioles,with the above,is that there are many people who do shoot for nothing more than the entertainment value,and even pay large amounts of money to do so.

The hotels in my home town are filled with game shooters come the season,some of whom are seasoned shooters but who don't take any further part in shooting from the end of one season to the start of the next,and some bring guests who are purely there for the enjoyment,who have no idea of the year long processes involved to make the day,nor possibly care.I'm not knocking it,I'm a keen game shooter also albeit with a much more hands on approach and throughout the year.

If and when I get the money,a few mates and myself intend to visit South America for the dove shooting,for no other reason than because we want to.I love shooting but as I said previously,that doesn't mean the death by my hands of many creatures doesn't go unfelt.

How many of us have shot rabbits one day and then the next day swerved while driving to avoid one in the road?

Killing for entertainment is no more illegal here than it is in Spain (bullfighting),Croatia (wild boar) Africa (big and small game) Canada (Salmon fishing,which a mate is always telling me about cos he knows I want to go) Saudi Arabia (hunting with raptors) and many other countries.

[JDog]

I must say that this forum is very accommodating to alternative (and clashing to the majority) views.

[colin lad]

The logic of the odd post does confuse me.

 

Two friends go out shooting.

 

One is doing it for food for his table and obviously stops at 10 or 20, as shooting more would be gratuitous.

 

His friend - stationed 30 feet away - who is shooting for control purposes, on behalf of the farmer - shoots 300. If the first shooter has qualms about the ethics of shooting too many birds, why doesn't he sit and watch his friend shoot 300 and then take 10 to 20 home, to eat.

 

No - he shoots his 10 to 20 then starts casting doubt on others by implying that they enjoy killing.

 

Another person thinks the logic is fine and goes on a Forum to support the first shooter. Nothing odd at all.

 

Hypocrite springs to mind.

spot on

 

colin

[Mungler]

I think this thread is being over thought.

 

There is no difference between killing 20 rabbits for fun, 20 rabbits for pest control or if you kill 20 rabbits, light some scented candles and give thanks to the rabbit god for the bounty and then you set about making rabbit gloves and eating every bit of the rabbit.

 

It's still 20 dead rabbits and I'm sure the rabbits (if they could speak) wouldn't give a ****.

 

The rest is in your mind and self deluding BS

 

There's a big whiff of anti about this thread alright

Edited September 20, 2013 by Mungler

[Cranfield]

I guess that killing animals cannot be a sport as sport is two teams or individuals starting on a level playing field with neither having any advantage and it is the skill of one side that comes through.clay pigeons are sport where you compete against others on the same terms.football and tennis.however where one side has a distinct advantage at the outset no it cant be described as a sport.it is hunting plain and simple.

What you are describing there as "sport" , a lot of people would describe as "games".

[Imperfection]

I dont own any of the land i shoot various vermin species over-i shoot because i enjoy shooting.This really is my truth.

 

When rabbits are eating a farmers OSR for example, this does not affect me financially in any shape or form so really i should have zero intrest in culling them,but i do it because i enjoy it.Does that make me a bad person? I dont think so-just honest.

[Dekers]

There are some interesting comments here, following an OP that I'm still struggling to understand.

 

Don't you just love forums!

Edited September 20, 2013 by Dekers