Joined
·
5,708 Posts
Public Says: Poaching Deer is Morally Acceptable Absolutely not!
Very well said.I'm with Bruce on this one. For those of you who say it's OK to kill a deer illegally for food (to fed your family), my question is where do you draw the line? I hope everyone loves and cares for their family, but if it's OK to kill a deer illegally for the family, it should be OK to steal money, shoplift, embezzle, etc. for that purpose. It seems to me that becomes an excuse, especially when a person can legally kill quite a bit of game to eat, and as one of the respondants in the poll said, there are lots of places where really needy families can get assistance, including the Hunters Against Hunger type programs. Years ago, when hunting was more of a necessary sustainence activity and there were no places a hungry family could get help, poaching migh have been seen as being tolerable - even necessary, but today that just isn't the case.
As for killing a deer. or any animal just for the trophy, that doesn't cut it in my book. Most states have laws against wasting the meat from game animals, and if the hunter doesn't want to eat it, he or she should get the meat to someone who will enjoy it.
here's where this question is a loaded question. it says "you will completely consume" to me as long as someone, friend, neighbor, food for the hungry, uses the meat then its not a problem to kill a deer if all you want is the antlers. i shot a bear and all i wanted was the hide but before i did i had a home for the meat. is this immoral?True or false?
You believe that to kill a deer legally for the antlers and not eat it is a worse moral crime than poaching a deer you will completely consume.
That 74% thinks trophy hunters are bigger scum bags than poachers is interesting. Somehow it is more palatable to the public to engage in illegal activity as long as you eat the deer than to engage in the legal activity of antler hunting and not eat it.
But when not asked to choose which is worse 85% said that it is not alright to poach to feed the family.
I see it as the public agrees with the tradition of hunting for food but strongly disagrees with the thought of killing for sport.
Wait a minute, you cant say that years ago it was ok, and now it is not. thats hypocrisy. breaking the law is breaking the law.I'm with Bruce on this one. For those of you who say it's OK to kill a deer illegally for food (to fed your family), my question is where do you draw the line? I hope everyone loves and cares for their family, but if it's OK to kill a deer illegally for the family, it should be OK to steal money, shoplift, embezzle, etc. for that purpose. It seems to me that becomes an excuse, especially when a person can legally kill quite a bit of game to eat, and as one of the respondants in the poll said, there are lots of places where really needy families can get assistance, including the Hunters Against Hunger type programs. Years ago, when hunting was more of a necessary sustainence activity and there were no places a hungry family could get help, poaching migh have been seen as being tolerable - even necessary, but today that just isn't the case.
As for killing a deer. or any animal just for the trophy, that doesn't cut it in my book. Most states have laws against wasting the meat from game animals, and if the hunter doesn't want to eat it, he or she should get the meat to someone who will enjoy it.
I dont understand that logic at all. sell a gun for a meal or two, when with it you can provide indefinitlyi don't understand this "i'll hunt if my family is starving" thing. if things/I got that down right destitute i wouldn't have a gun to hunt with that would have gone to feed the family long ago.
first of all it would be more than a meal or two more like a week or two. i suppose the logic comes for the old argument is hunting a right or privilege. i said its a privilege afforded us by other hunters, our peers. so one must follow the law even if we disagree with it. if one doesn't like the law work to get it changed. if one doesn't follow the law it says a lot about their morals/ethics.I dont understand that logic at all. sell a gun for a meal or two, when with it you can provide indefinitly
This senerio would only happen in a total collapse of sociaty as we know it. Pretty far out there, maybe. I would keep 1 firearm to carry out basic needs/protection. QUOTE]
exactly what I have been trying to get across, when you give answers to questions such as this poll, consideration must be given to as many scenarios as posible. even the far out ones.