Good point.

For example, I would easily kill a fly that bothered me, but not a cat or dog.

The concept of sport aside, if you are going to hunt an animal, it doesn't make any difference what type of weapon you use, as long as it kills quickly. I have no problem with a hunter using a .50 BMG semi-auto rifle to kill deer if he's going to use the meat. Actually, I consider a powerful rifle much more humane than a crossbow or longbow, but as long as the shot placement is on target, it doesn't really matter. The animal should die instantly or as close to that as possible.

There are those who enjoy the hunt for its own sake, but in those cases, I agree with you guys. At least see that the meat gets to someone who will use it. Ted Nugent's Hunters for the Hungry program does just that. Ted even uses a bow much of the time.

Sport Hunting is a misnomer. Shooting at an animal with anything too big or automatic is not a sport. It is killing to kill...and as such, a waste.

If you want to make it a sport...use a compound bow. Make it sporting!

I feel that, whatever you kill on a hunt, you eat. Use as much of it as possible. The Native Americans had the right idea...they used just about everything.

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

My personal moral view on hunting is that we have every right to hunt and kill animals for useful purposes, such as food.  We are, after all, at the top of the food chain.  We also have the right to battle pests or to eliminate wild animals which humans have introduced where they don't belong.  As long as sport hunting falls within these confines, I don't have a problem with it.  I do have a moral problem with, for example, killing a deer for sport and then leaving it to rot.  If you kill it, you should use as much of it as possible.

Heather H.

What about sport hunting? Do you think we have the right to kill wild animals just for the sport and joy of killing?
Just a thought.

                                kelly

Ricka:

AMEN!!!

Preach it, sister--and pass me some of those Hot Wings while you are at it. ;D Score: Carnivores 7, Herbavores, 0.

While I love my cats, and consider them companions, I don't see that they care to register to vote, or to own real property. (Liberty is something else; they are indoor cats and occasionally like to sneak out.) They care about d@mn little outside of their food, water, box, a few toys and a warm place to snooze, usually in the middle of whatever it is that I am working on.

Rights come with responsibilites. Cats do not understand that kind of abstract thought. (Neither do some of my fellow citizens of the US, but that is another story.)  

Anyone who abuses an animal deserves swift, full, and complete punishment. And when the animal gets done, then the law should step in.

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"
(and owned by four cats: Sydney, Twinkie, Shadow, and Cali)

There have been a few recent cases where I live of animal abuse associated with child abuse.  This does not surprise me; someone who cares so little about the pain and suffering of other creatures is likely to inflict pain upon other people.

I keep animals as pets (currently, two snakes and two turtles).  I do not regard them as property; I regard them as companions - other living things which are in my care and are my responsibility.  I regard house plants the same way.  They are in my care, so I am responsible to keep them alive.  I will not kill an animal or throw away a plant just because keeping it is inconvenient.  People who are irresponsible should not have pets.

Heather H.

Animal abuse seems to be getting worse, and usually the abusers graduate to abusing their spouses and children.

Non-human animals should have rights, but not equal to humans.  We eat them, keep them as pets, and depend on them for research - those things should not necessarily change.  But they should have some basic degree of rights to protect them from needless cruelty.

Heather H.

I'm all for the protection of animals against cruelty, but assigning rights to non-humans is going too far for my tastes. I don't care how cute a kitty is, it shouldn't be considered my equal under the law. However, those who mistreat animals should have to pay a price.

Should animals have actual rights, as opposed to just being protected by law?


Yes, of course, you silly!
No way! Animals? Are you crazy?

kellyleigh wrote: What about sport hunting? Do you think we have the right to kill wild animals just for the sport and joy of killing?<br>Just a thought.<br><br>                                 kelly

i live in the coutryside i ride in the countryside, i feel no need to use my animals in the pursuit of other animals to maim and kill them savagely, i am fairly young so people do not listen to me,some animals are put on earth to give us joy by seeing them, not just for the food chain, i love to see wild animals enjoying their freedom. i also enjoy eating meat, and see no problems in doing so,

stevie wrote: <br>Should animals have actual rights, as opposed to just being protected by law

I'm interested in the distinction you make.

In my view there is no such thing as "human rights", inalienable or not. Such rights as we give to ourselves are probably better called Social Rights because they derive from the society we live in and are protected only by the law.

Lucy

When people don't listen to you it isn't always because you are young. It's much more likely that they don't want to listen to any arguments. That happens whether you are 15 or 50.

Sarah

Sarah, assuming I'm interpreting your statement correctly, I think we agree on that point. However, you also seem to be implying a contradiction in my position. Other animals can't claim rights in the sense that we can, and we do claim and assign rights to ourselves as humans. However, I don't see how that creates a contradiction. Other animals are not part of our society. They don't vote, they don't pull jury duty, they don't recognize morals or ethics, etc. Some species have their own social constructs, but they aren't based on the concept of rights.

I do want to protect kitties and puppies, but I do not want to assign them an equal value to humans. Call me species-biased if you want, but that's the way things are in the world.

If I've misinterpreted your statement, I apologize.

Stevie

I hate to admit it but we might just agree. I thought you were saying that there were "rights" that existed outside of any legal framework. that's the point I disagree with.

Sarah

Animals should not be abused, or allowed to suffer. I personally don't have a problem with sport hunting, as long as the kill is "quick and clean", and the animal is consumed.

I feel that the folks at PETA have gone over the top, right along with the ACLU.

Pepole
Eating
Tasty
Animals

If God had not meant for us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat.

[I'm sorry, but I just couldn't help myself]
K

There is another version of your statement floating around on bumper stickers:

"If God had not meant for us to eat humans, He wouldn't have made them out of meat."

Maybe we should start eating each other; that would solve the population problem.

Heather H.

Sarah, as much as I would like to think we are somehow born with rights, independent of culture or society, I just don't see that concept supported anywhere in history. Even if it's just a general unwritten agreement among the members of a group, rights do have to be identified and agreed upon by the members of any group.

In the USA, we do recognize that we had pre-existing rights at the time of the creation of our Constitution. Long before there was a nation here called the USA, there was a culture, and we had already assumed certain rights for ourselves. The way the Constitution is worded, it often recognizes those pre-existing rights (free speech, the right to arms, etc.) rather than assigning new rights. Typically, amendments to the Constitution assign new rights.

Most of the founders of our nation considered those pre-existing rights as God-given rights, but they were coming from a more religion-oriented frame of mind. History tells me that whoever carries the largest club decides what the rights are and who has them. Theoretically, "we the people" have control of that figurative club (brute force) now, so we decide for ourselves what rights members of our society will have. In practice, we still have control of that club, but there has been a scary tendency among our citizens to hand over control of that club, slowly, but steadily, to a central government, and if we continue down that path, rights might become a thing of the past.

Anyway, Sarah, it looks like we agree on much of this.