All Creatures Great and Small

[Ekklesian]

Is sport hunting consistent with a Christian attitude toward nature?

In another thread where matadoras were presented, I quipped that despite the physical beauty and very becoming apparel of the performers of whose images with which we were, to our great delight, treated, animal cruelty—referring to Spanish style bullfighting—seemed somewhat 'unladylike.'

Surprisingly—or maybe not—I was verbally crucified for suggesting that tormenting and torturing and ultimately killing a captive animal for the sake of spectacle might be less than conforming to the purposes for which we were given dominion over God's creatures.

That's God's creatures.

Consider this account from Elisabeth Elliot's biography of Amy Carmichael. Most of you, I'm sure, are aware of Carmichael's mission to care for the children rescued from temple servitude* in India.

“I am reminded of how she suffered for her dear children in pointing out Nature as the Second Bible,” wrote one of them. “I remember her rushing out of her house when she heard that someone was killing a beetle with a stone. She got hold of my tiny hand and hit me with the same stone, stating that the beetle had all freedom to live unless it came inside the house. I was only ten then, so I remember crying, but the lesson learnt was forever to be kind to any creature.”​

​

Elliot, Elisabeth. A Chance to Die (p. 214). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.​

Also consider the words of the Holy Spirit:

A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. - Proverbs 12:10​

​

How is a proper Christian attitude toward nature and the wild animals manifest? And does trophy hunting conform to that attitude?


*The children were sex slaves.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

I think we first need to define “sport hunting” before proceeding further with the discussion.

I don’t fish or hunt for the sole purpose of mounting a “trophy.” If I want a trophy mount, I can take measurements, snap a photo, and order an exact replica from King Sailfish (https://www.kingsailfishmounts.com). The longevity of the replica mount is much better and longer than getting a taxidermist to stuff an actual fish. The old timers used to get the biggest fish mounted. Times have changed. We now know to catch & release those big fish because those are the breeders, plus the older/bigger fish are poor in taste.

Some people have an ethical problem with me fishing just for fun. I am 90% catch & release because I’m the only one in the family who really loves eating fish. As I’ve explained before, when my wife occasionally gets the urge for fresh fish tacos or whatever, I’ll keep a couple and clean them, otherwise it’s just too much work to clean and cook fish just for me. My success rate for a healthy catch & release is about 99%. Unfortunately, maybe once or twice a year I release a fish that gets gut hooked and can’t live due to bleeding. I’ll usually keep it and cook it, even if just for the dog. Yes, I will feed my dog freshly cooked fish if it’s a non-desirable fish meat.

I enjoy duck hunting and thoroughly explained my position on the other thread. Again, I hunt for enjoyment, but I do clean and cook the meat, whether for me or even the dog. I’ve also given fresh fish and duck meat to family and friends when I have excess.

As to the bull fighting discussion, I understand that the bull is processed and sold in restaurants after its death, so therefore I’m fine with it. If they were killing the bull for fun and then dumping its body in a dumpster, I’d feel differently. Remember that culture plays a part in these activities as well, and maybe you’re not in a good position to judge that culture.

 

[subllibrm]

If God didn't want us to animals He wouldn't have made them out of meat.

To answer the OP I don't have a problem with harvesting animals for food regardless of the method. When I hunt or fish it is my intention to eat whatever I am blessed to capture. If it is something I wouldn't eat I won't kill it (vermin/pests excepted).

On the subject of bull fighting, it is beyond my comprehension as a form of entertainment. This would extend to dog fighting and cock fighting. Truth is I don't understand the draw of boxing and MMA type events.

That said I am fine with other events that involve animals such as rodeos, dog or horse racing. Some see those as cruel exploitation. The same can be said for the Westminster Dog Show if exploitation is the point of contention.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

If God didn't want us to animals He wouldn't have made them out of meat.

To answer the OP I don't have a problem with harvesting animals for food regardless of the method. When I hunt or fish it is my intention to eat whatever I am blessed to capture. If it is something I wouldn't eat I won't kill it (vermin/pests excepted).

If we’re going to take your logic to its natural conclusion, we really shouldn’t exempt “vermin/pests.” After all, rats, mice, snakes and such are God’s creatures just like deer, fish and chicken.

 

[Ransom]

I came into my particular opinions on environmentalism (for lack of a better term) after reading Francis Schaeffer's Pollution and the Death of Man.

Biblically, we're permitted to eat animals and to protect our property. So I have no moral qualms about hunting/fishing for food, killing vermin, or protecting myself from vicious animals, for example.

But bloodsports like bullfighting, dogfighting or trophy hunting? Those animals are part of God's good creation and shouldn't be destroyed without reason. I don't even want to stomp on bugs if they're not bothering me. It's fine that a bull is used for meat after being killed in the bullring, but that sidesteps the issue that it was killed for entertainment first, not for food.

 

[aleshanee]

I came into my particular opinions on environmentalism (for lack of a better term) after reading Francis Schaeffer's Pollution and the Death of Man.

Biblically, we're permitted to eat animals and to protect our property. So I have no moral qualms about hunting/fishing for food, killing vermin, or protecting myself from vicious animals, for example.

But bloodsports like bullfighting, dogfighting or trophy hunting? Those animals are part of God's good creation and shouldn't be destroyed without reason. I don't even want to stomp on bugs if they're not bothering me. It's fine that a bull is used for meat after being killed in the bullring, but that sidesteps the issue that it was killed for entertainment first, not for food.

and that;s a viewpoint - personal belief, i can respect... even though i don;t agree with it.... . .. i have several close friends here in hawaii who feel the same way...

what bothered me about the comments ekkllesian made was that first he said the female bullfighter was "hot".. then he declared her participation in an activity that he saw as cruel to animals (bullfighting) "unladylike" .. then he began making lewd and innappropriate comments about her body .. and also of the other female matadoras.... expressing his perverted opinions of why he thinks a woman would want to become a matadora - like he always does on this forum with virtually every picture or video of a woman or girl he sees... . . . .. he even did it in the o.p. of this same thread here where he is trying to exhonerate himself and paint himself a victim - claiming he was "crucified"....

 

[Ekklesian]

and that;s a viewpoint - personal belief, i can respect... even though i don;t agree with it.... . .. i have several close friends here in hawaii who feel the same way...

Lol. Funny. That's the very case I've been making.

But whose view conforms more to a Christian and Scriptural approach to our relationship with nature?

Yours or Ransom's?

 

[Ekklesian]

If God didn't want us to animals He wouldn't have made them out of meat.

I didn't ask about foraging or animal husbandry or conservation.

The question was about sport or trophy hunting.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

But bloodsports like bullfighting, dogfighting or trophy hunting? Those animals are part of God's good creation and shouldn't be destroyed without reason. I don't even want to stomp on bugs if they're not bothering me. It's fine that a bull is used for meat after being killed in the bullring, but that sidesteps the issue that it was killed for entertainment first, not for food.

I mostly agree with your opinion. I don’t support dog fighting under any circumstances. I’m also not a fan of bull fighting, although I allow a little wiggle room due to the fact that the bull is at least consumed, and there’s a cultural component at hand.

The main distinction I make with this topic is the outcome of the animal. If the objective is to kill an animal just to have it hang on a wall, I’m not a supporter. However, if the outcome is to eat it, or use it for clothing, then I don’t object. The “entertainment” aspect is a lesser issue for me. I get satisfaction (entertainment/enjoyment) from shooting ducks. It’s not the actual killing of it, but the process and environment in which it happens. I sometimes have a buddy along for the hunt who is strictly an observer due to no hunting license, or just curiosity. It’s a form of entertainment for him then as well. Just because we’re not sitting in an arena seat with popcorn doesn’t mean there’s not an entertainment aspect to normal hunting.

 

[subllibrm]

If we’re going to take your logic to its natural conclusion, we really shouldn’t exempt “vermin/pests.” After all, rats, mice, snakes and such are God’s creatures just like deer, fish and chicken.

You might as well add roaches and flies.

Your turn.

 

[Ransom]

If we’re going to take your logic to its natural conclusion, we really shouldn’t exempt “vermin/pests.” After all, rats, mice, snakes and such are God’s creatures just like deer, fish and chicken.

But protecting your own health, safety and property are also valid and lawful objectives. Vermin contaminate food, spread disease, and damage property. Killing vermin is an act of self-defence, not sport.

I trap and kill the mice and ants that get into my house. I don't kill the ones that live in the park nearby and aren't being pests by damaging my food.

 

[Ransom]

However, if the outcome is to eat it, or use it for clothing, then I don’t object. The “entertainment” aspect is a lesser issue for me. I get satisfaction (entertainment/enjoyment) from shooting ducks. It’s not the actual killing of it, but the process and environment in which it happens.

Your objective is to get food. If you enjoy the hunting, that's fine. No one would say you can't get pleasure from working for your dinner.

The objective of, say, bullfighting is to entertain a crowd by enraging and killing a bull. The meat that comes from the bull isn't the objective; it's a by-product. If the meat was the point, you could just butcher the bull. The end doesn't justify the means.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

But protecting your own health, safety and property are also valid and lawful objectives. Vermin contaminate food, spread disease, and damage property. Killing vermin is an act of self-defence, not sport.

I trap and kill the mice and ants that get into my house. I don't kill the ones that live in the park nearby and aren't being pests by damaging my food.

I completely agree. My point to Sub is that we end up deep in a “rabbit hole” (no pun intended) with the deontological argument of animal ethics. I’m not sure that what we judge as wrong today would have been thought of as wrong a century or two ago, and fast forward a century from now, and my name might be erased from the family tree for engaging in duck hunting and fishing. Ultimately, with the exception of what the Bible clearly spells out as right versus wrong, I think this topic is a moving target.

The vast majority of people in my community find fishing (particularly catch & release) perfectly acceptable. However, my neighbor’s ex-fiancé (thank God she’s an ex) once excoriated me for standing in my backyard and fishing in the lake. Even after I explained that I only keep 1% of what I catch, she claimed she didn’t find it fun to trick an animal with a hook that’s just trying to get a meal for its survival. I guess it wouldn’t surprise you that she’s also an environmental attorney for the county we live in. What’s scary is that she got bored being an attorney and attempted to become a wildlife officer for the state. Thankfully, the law enforcement screeners must’ve seen through her and she didn’t make the cut, so she’s still practicing law for the county.

 

[subllibrm]

I didn't ask about foraging or animal husbandry or conservation.

The question was about sport or trophy hunting.

I don't participate in either. Really not interested and I am well below the income threshold needed to support such endeavors.

I'm not sure if you are using the two words to describe the same thing or if you mean two different activities. For the sake of brevity I will treat them as one and the same.

When the local owner of the hardware store or electrical contractor or retiring factory manager retires and buys that lifelong dream safari I have no problem with that decision. The most common trip is to somewhere in Africa. Most hunting concessions are heavily regulated and the owners and guides are ethical and professional. One of the first things that will be expected of you is to prove that you are capable with the firearm(s) that you bring along. You will pay a number of different fees that will add up quickly.

The hunt itself will take place in an area known well by the PH, trackers and others who are part of the group, all of whom get paid and receive generous gratuities. Did I mention that it's a very expensive occasion. Anyway you will be assisting in finding, stalking and shooting the game being pursued. Once the animal has been killed and photos taken, the skinners will get to work processing the animal carcass. Word will go out to the residents in the area and they will show up to accept a share of the meat. None of the edible parts will go to waste. The hunters are not allowed to sell or export the meat nor import it home. Depending on the country, prey and rules you may or may not be allowed to take horns, antlers and the like home with you. In many cases the photos are the full extent of the trophy.

Necessary? Not that I can see. Ethical? As long as you follow the rules and pay the licensing fees I don't see a problem. Sinful? The act itself, no. The underlying motives could very well be. Ostentatious? Absolutely. But so is a luxury car, fancy boat or a new wife younger than your own children.

As for me, the only part of the above that I can qualify for is that I can hit what I aim at. And I am perfectly happy catching a mess of bluegills and having a fish fry. Faster, cheaper and closer to home.

 

[subllibrm]

I completely agree. My point to Sub is that we end up deep in a “rabbit hole” (no pun intended) with the deontological argument of animal ethics. I’m not sure that what we judge as wrong today would have been thought of as wrong a century or two ago, and fast forward a century from now, and my name might be erased from the family tree for engaging in duck hunting and fishing. Ultimately, with the exception of what the Bible clearly spells out as right versus wrong, I think this topic is a moving target.

I'm not sure what I said that resembles a rabbit hole. Honestly I thought I was pretty clear. I hunt for meat. I fish for meat. I don't eat mice so I don't hunt for them. If I do kill them it's because they have invaded my home. For the bigger outdoor pests I am a fan of live trap traps and a drive to the countryside. Again, I don't eat possums or raccoons so I don't hunt them.

As to your point about cultural differences I believe that you and I are in agreement generally. Other countries and cultures eat from different protein sources than we do. While I'm not interested in trying monkey brains, I don't have a problem with people enjoying it where it is legal to do so.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

On a side note, where particularly in Florida this is more common, I’m very much against “canned hunts.” However, even the ethics of this can be a bit questionable. For example, on ranches that specialize in the canned hunts of invasive wild boar, is it more acceptable than that of native deer? Personally, I don’t want to shoot any animal, invasive or not, that is contained within a few acres of fenced yard, but that’s just me. Some people say it’s not much different, however, than hunting pigs or deer that aren’t caged but are drawn by a deer feeder. Anyway, here’s a short article against canned hunts by a very pro-hunting website: https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/big-game/canned-hunts

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

I'm not sure what I said that resembles a rabbit hole. Honestly I thought I was pretty clear.

Sure, but the entire topic itself is a rabbit hole. That’s my point. We agree that killing vermin is acceptable, but trust me there are those who don’t. If you don’t, check out some PETA articles like this one: https://www.peta.org/faq/what-about-insects-and-other-pests/

 

[Ekklesian]

I think we first need to define “sport hunting” before proceeding further with the discussion.

I'm not sure if you are using the two words to describe the same thing or if you mean two different activities. For the sake of brevity I will treat them as one and the same.

Sport hunting would be that kind of hunting where the primary motivation is to get a kill, regardless of the method of disposal of said kill.

Trophy hunting is sport hunting coupled with ambition, competiveness, and boasting.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

Sport hunting would be that kind of hunting where the primary motivation is to get a kill, regardless of the method of disposal of said kill.

Trophy hunting is sport hunting coupled with ambition, competiveness, and boasting.

I think you’re making it more complicated than needed. To me, trophy hunting is hunting for the sole purpose of hanging an animal on the wall. I think it’s unethical and I won’t do it. On the other hand, sport hunting is the opposite of what you said: it’s hunting with a defined set of rules and regulations in place for the enjoyment of it, which nearly always includes the consumption of the animal. https://www.nrahlf.org/articles/2019/1/6/sport-hunting-defined/

 

[aleshanee]

Lol. Funny. That's the very case I've been making.

But whose view conforms more to a Christian and Scriptural approach to our relationship with nature?

Yours or Ransom's?

and you are a liar... .. if the case ransom made was all you said - then you would have a point....... but you brought far more into the argument than that... . you always do.... ...from the very start you offered irrelevant opinions and made lurid observations about the women that did nothing more than reveal the corrupt and putrid nature of what you really are...... ... and if you think i;m going to take lectures of what is or isn;t ladylike from an unregenerated creep who talks about the bodies of women and girls the way you do - then you are way out of your mind.......

and for the record... . i disagree with your interpretations of proverbs 12-10 ... especially in light of the fact that you - as a calvinist - believe the word "all" in john 3-16 does not really mean everybody in the world... but only those who God has elected...

so how are we supposed to believe that a scripture in proverbs that talks about a righteous man having regard for the life of "his" beast to mean he has that same regard for every beast in the world when it doesn;t even say "every" beast?.......even without being a calvinist i see it as referring to the beast that belongs only to him... (or her... ).. ... ...and also for the record the rejoneadoras i have followed the careers of since they were teenagers.. all take very good care of the horses and other animals they raise and train........

do you want to take it further?...... then explain how you seem to be perfectly ok with the idea of non-elect babies burning in hell but you have gone on a total tear jerking freak out campaign over the life and discomfort of an over grown spanish fighting bull?....... ....

and i am assuming you know the only reason those bulls even live as long as they do - and build the kind of muscle they have - is so they can fight in the arena ...... where - as i said before - they are are least given a fighting chance for life ..and even a chance for payback against the matadoras who aim to kill them?........ ....

if not for that fact then those bulls would have been unceremoniously marched into the slaughter house long ago and smashed in the head with a hammer - where... contrary to popular myth... a bull does not die right away... but rather falls to the ground and suffers a seizure until the lack of oxygen from inability to breathe causes him to die..... ...... that is the kind of "humanely killed" animal you are eating in your hamburger and frying on the grill for your steak...... but as long as it allows you to have sweet dreams at night then i guess it;s ok.... right?......