Sport Hunting

[BurkeFan]

Y'all might want to check out what Fr. Ted Vitali, S.J. has written on the topic. He's the head of the philosophy department [at Saint Louis University] and one of the philosophers of note in questions about hunting. Sadly, I don't have any links at the moment.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]The fact of the matter is, that the Church has condemned needless killing of and cruelty to animals[/quote]


First lets make a few things clear animals have no rights, none at all, zilch, nada none, it is not a sin to kill animals needlessly because of a violation of the rights of the animal but because it is a violation of the position of stewertship that God gave us over the animals. It is an important distinction, particularly for this debate... what is needless is what should be debated. Terriers where brought up terriers in this country right now engauge in a field test known as "earth dogging " the dog is sent down a hole after a rat ( the hole is an artifical conduit) the rat is kept in a cage at the other end of the path, the terrier finds the rat and attacks it since it is in a cage and the path is restricted the terrier is not normally able to hurt the rat physically however it does terrorize the rat and I have heard( although not seen) of rats literally being scared to death. This competition is done for several reasons but mainly to encourage the survival of the origional purpose of the terrier continues to be breed for, fierceness fearlessness and a distinct hatred for vermin( there are also some physical trends of breeding which such structural test keep check on). Is this needless, fox hunting started as pest control into the 19th century it was done entirely with wild uncaptured foxes, some huunts i am sure take place as they do in the movies but I am equally sure that wild fox hunts still occur, are these unneccessary what makes them so?

Even the canned hunts might be needed to keep the dogs noses in good shape insure good breeding ( both for type, nose, and endurance) and so on. Practical test are a necessity to insure that ones breeding program is continued effectively as is the practice at horsemenship, so that when the hounds are called upon to chase down a varment who is a pest they are capable. In Texas packs of fox houonds have been used to hunt cougars including some who have attacked people, they are also used to chase coyotes who have been acting as very aggressive predetors ( attacking pets in peoples yards and even attacking people{ even full sized men } ) Had the instinct not been kept alive through use this would not be possible. So what makes something " needless" I think that Fox hunting has been needed through out the centuries and our continued use of fox hoounds to persue dangerous predetors here in Texas show that it still is.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 30 2004, 01:18 AM'] No, what has happened is that what you are condemning is finally getting more narrow and specific. [/quote]
Wrong bucko, go back and read what was written.



[quote]My point from the beginning has been that you cannot condemn all fox hunting.[/quote]

I never did, if you would go back and read what I wrote you would see that.


Please pay attention.

Edited November 30, 2004 by ironmonk

[vianney]

No Iron, Cmon said herself along w/ many others that hunting for sport is wrong. A person can have more than one intention at any given time. My intentions for hunting are for FOOD yes so I see what you are saying but also for PLEASURE. Some here say that this is wrong. I am saying it is not. You can hunt for pleasure and for food both.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='vianney' date='Nov 30 2004, 11:34 AM'] No Iron, Cmon said herself along w/ many others that hunting for sport is wrong. A person can have more than one intention at any given time. My intentions for hunting are for FOOD yes so I see what you are saying but also for PLEASURE. Some here say that this is wrong. I am saying it is not. You can hunt for pleasure and for food both. [/quote]
I believe she meant for sport only.

Sport only hunting is wrong. If there is an overpopulation of something, then it's not just hunting for sport - provided the hunter knows this. To hunt for the sole purpose of killing is what I believe most here are meaning as "sport hunting"

Hunting for food, and making sport of it is not wrong.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='BurkeFan' date='Nov 30 2004, 01:01 AM'] Y'all might want to check out what Fr. Ted Vitali, S.J. has written on the topic. [/quote]
I did just that. He has some very inetersting insights. I'll get back to this later, I have to go for now.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 30 2004, 12:29 PM'] I did just that. He has some very inetersting insights. I'll get back to this later, I have to go for now. [/quote]
Bump, PSPX, anything to add?

[Don John of Austria]

I am curous as to why none of my points were never answered, what quality is it that makes something " needless" ho is to say what is needless, I have shown fox hunting is in fact not needless, can anyone answer that or do you concede that in fact fox hunting serves a purpose and is thereore not sinful?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 12:03 PM'] Bump, PSPX, anything to add? [/quote]
I'm still discussing the matter with Fr. Vitali. I'll let everyone know what we conclude.

Edited December 2, 2004 by popestpiusx

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 1 2004, 03:13 PM'] I am curous as to why none of my points were never answered, what quality is it that makes something " needless" ho is to say what is needless, I have shown fox hunting is in fact not needless, can anyone answer that or do you concede that in fact fox hunting serves a purpose and is thereore not sinful? [/quote]
Please reread my posts above your points have been answered.

What we are defining as fox hunting....

When a fox is already caught, only to release it to have dogs run it down and kill it... is a sin.

Think of what "need" means bro.

Needs:
Christ, Mass, air, water, food, shelter.


Entertainment is not a need.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Don John of Austria]

Well Iron monk you must of read my post because I explicitly adress why there could be and cetrtianly has been a "need" for just such an activity. and none of that has been adressed.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 2 2004, 10:44 AM'] Well Iron monk you must of read my post because I explicitly adress why there could be and cetrtianly has been a "need" for just such an activity. and none of that has been adressed. [/quote]
I read your post and there it is illogical to think that there is a need to release the fox to have dogs chase it down to kill it.

Please explain to me why someone needs to release the fox to be killed by dogs after a chase.

If there was a need for such activity, i.e. to destroy the fox, then they could have destroyed it while they had it.

[popestpiusx]

IM,
To answer your question I'll simply quote you "Hunting for food, and making sport of it is not wrong." In other words, you acknowledge that is ok for something to be "sport-like" if it also has a reason. So why release the Fox? For the chase, perhaps. At least then it has a fighting chance. If we already have justified the death of the fox (for some useful purpose) why not "make sport of it", which according to your quote would not be wrong. Plus, as Fr. Vitali has pointed out to me, there are all sorts of other virtues associated with hunting that may also justify it. But I'll save that for when our discussion is finished.

[Don John of Austria]

It is not illogical, you couldn't have read my post because I said quite directly it very well mightbe needed in order to keep the instincts of the breed up to par so that when they are called on to hunt actual problem foxes/ cougars/ coyotes they are able to do it, lack of practical work in the field quickly( from a generational point of view) causes dogs to lose thier hunting abilities. If those are lost then when there is a problem animal there will not be dogs capable of hunting it. Practice is needed if one is to keep dogs hunting abilities at there optimum level.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

I need some venison. Don John's hunting license cost $23 last night. I think it's good for what, two, three deer? That's what, a couple hundred pounds of meat for what, about $130 counting the license, gas to get up to the land and back, snacky-snacks for the hunter, non-smelly stuff for said hunter (what cool new things will they think of next?) and processing costs for stuff we can't process.

Wow. Try going to your Kroger or Sam's or HEB or Mejier or Target or even, Walmart, and getting a couple hundred pounds of good, lean, tasty MEAT for that kinda coin.

We NEED to save money. We NEED this. If Don John is entertained by being outside on a chilly autumn morn SO WHAT. As long as my investment pays off.

This thread is really ridiculous by the way.

How many of you have gone and adopted an endangered animal? No really. I mean it. How many of you have paid money to help endangered wildlife to keep them safe from the evil hunters?

Am I using some of the pro-choice groups arguments here, well kinda.

The whole thing is ridiculous. Surely there is something more important than arguing about fox hunting when I'm willing to bet NONE of you do it. NONE. No a one.

Therefore, if it's a sin, it's someone else's sin. And don't we have rules about keeping tabs on other peoples sins?

Have a nice day.

Now I'm hungry.